Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-12/01/2016 Hearing TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Southold Town Hall Southold, New York December 1, 2016 9:38 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member ERIC DANTES – Member GERARD GOEHRINGER – Member GEORGE HORNING – Member KENNETH SCHNEIDER – Member KIM FUENTES – Board Assistant WILLIAM DUFFY – Town Attorney ? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Doug Gerowski #6973 3 – 5 Donna and Fred Fragola #7004 6 - 12 Frank Zagarino #7008 12 - 23 Philip Wasilausky #7001 24 - 29 Adam Suprenant #7002 29 - 43 Jeff and Jaime Abrams #7003 43 - 52 John and Catherine Boyle #7005 52 - 58 Revco Lighting & Electrical Supply/Stodien Development #7006 58 - 61 Frank and Denise Dellaquilla #7007 61 - 66 ? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting HEARING # 6973 – DOUG GEROWSKI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for Doug Gerowski #6973. There is no need for me to read the Notice of Disapproval because it was adjourned from October 6 th and there was a prior adjournment as well so where are we with this it’s a just for the record 24.2% proposed lot coverage where the code permits a maximum 20% and we were looking at Trustees approving wetland line and so on so where are we with that? PAT MOORE : Yes well we had the hearing with the Trustees and the Trustees approved the application as it’s been proposed as far as the structure goes. They did ask us and I’ll give you a photograph to create an easier delineation of where the wetland the setbacks would be with respect to setbacks of the wetland and they suggested putting in a post and rail fence as a means of blocking off activity within the wetland area. Ultimately we’re going we’re preparing a landscape plan Pete Kasteo is in the process of preparing a landscape plan to revegetate the buffer area. That buffer area had been encroached by prior owners and while it was planted there is some vegetation that is non-native turf. In addition there was a small shed that was placed there again by prior owners that was removed from the buffer area so all of the prior permit conditions have been cleaned up here. All obviously occurring by prior owners and Mr. Gerowski and his family when they bought the house since there were no covenants these weren’t noted as violations. The Trustees did not issue a violation they just asked us to clean it up so we have cleaned up all of the existing conditions and I’m awaiting the decision of the Trustees because they want to see the landscape plan so we will incorporate the landscape plan I believe in the Trustees decision. I’m not sure how they are doing it since I haven’t seen it. The only thing being that we’re going to use my memory is we’re using the pool and patio as the area limit of clearing behind the house and then the Trustees asked if we could put the split rail fence on the sides of the property just to control some the access coming around the side of the house from the corners. So we’ll once I get the decision I’ll know exactly how they’ve interpreted or stated what they want. We’ll also file covenants of the wetland regulations so for the most part everything is being cleaned up. I have photographs of and I don’t know that I gave them to you the Trustees just wanted to make sure that before we put it back on their agenda that we had the fifty foot limit of clearing line established with a fence. This is a temporary fence. It was fencing he had available and it was put up. Ultimately the final structure the patio and you know will replace this area so it just shows the shed that was removed and where the wetland the fifty foot wetland line clearing area was established. Yea there was some confusion I guess at the last hearing exactly what the cross section or what the patio would look like and so I had the cross section done. ? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it’s about a four foot elevation of (inaudible) up against it. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea but because of the contour of the land at that point nictitates a in other words they couldn’t do a pool with a patio at grade which would reduce lot coverage. PAT MOORE : Correct yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Am I correct in that. BOARD MEMBERS : Agreed. PAT MOORE : As you can see the existing patio because again the grade of the property drops towards the creek in the photograph I just showed you the patio is a little bit of a step up and that’s not even at grade so the pool if we were starting we would dig into the ground you might end up hitting water and being affected by that. MEMBER DANTES : How are you going to handle storm, rain drainage? PAT MOORE : Dry wells are actually being proposed but those are landward. They’re I believe on the survey it’s being shown on the side more about I would say like 75 feet from the edge of wetlands. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well Pat where do we go from here? We don’t have any official final documentation about the flagging the wetland, the landscape plan or whatever. I don’t know that we need more testimony particularly. PAT MOORE : No I would say why don’t we just leave the hearing CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let the Trustees go first and we’ll leave the hearing open PAT MOORE : Or you give us we need the variance for the lot coverage so that in the sense is independent of the Trustees determination. Any conditions the Trustees impose we’ll place on a covenant so there’s really no need for you to incorporate the Trustees you know your lot coverage variance is somewhat independent so you could close it and give me a determination so that I can kind of move this process along or we leave it open and then you wait till the Trustees write the decision. It should be imminent Pete Kasteo was away during Thanksgiving and we actually have an email to him today saying hey, have you done the drawings yet? It should be this week we should get the drawings from him to give to the Trustees. It’s very it’s really wrapping up right? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well why don’t we just adjourn to the Special Meeting and then maybe we’ll have all the paperwork that’s two weeks. ? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : That’s fine we’re running them concurrently so that’s fine. CHAIRPERSON WIESMAN : I mean you need both you know to move ahead. PAT MOORE : It’s not necessary for me to come back CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Given all the conversation about something from the Trustees that shows the wetlands delineation the fact that either we all understand exactly what you’re proposing but the fact that we don’t have anything specific in our file yet suggests that we should wait until we do and then we can PAT MOORE : No problem. We appreciate the fact that this was put on the calendar just to be able to move this along so yea that’s not a problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright well we’ll adjourn is that alright with everybody? Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I’m going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting two weeks from today what’s that date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : the 15 th December 15 th and then hopefully PAT MOORE : It’s not for testimony it’s for decision and just give us the right to submit something in writing if we need to clarify something. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea, yea written documentation from the applicant and Trustees per wetland delineation. PAT MOORE : Okay that’s fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If we have it fine if not we’ll just adjourn it again until we do. I see no reason for anymore testimony. Gerry seconded it, all in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) ? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting HEARING # 7004 – DONNA and FRED FRAGOLA CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Donna and Fred Fragola #7004 also known as AKA ADF Ventures. This is a request for Variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s August 23, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct a new single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet located at 620 Corwin Street in Greenport. Is someone here to represent this application? BILL KELLY : Bill Kelly authorized agent for the owner. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nice to see again Bill. This is for a front yard setback for a new single family dwelling at 11.2 feet the code requiring 35 foot minimum and a rear yard setback at 10 feet, the code requiring 35 foot minimum. So what would you like to tell us about this application? BILL KELLY : As far as that particular piece of property goes it’s a pre-existing non-conforming lot and you know if you do the math on the setbacks 35 and 35 is 70 and you know they actually bypass each other if you go front to back and back to front so we need relief from that because of that situation and it’s a pre-existing non-conforming lot. However, it’s conforming in its non-conformity to the area so that’s the reason for our request. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you tell us a little bit about other typical front yard setbacks or rear yard setbacks in the neighborhood? BILL KELLY : I have a five hundred foot radius map that actually shows it’s not dimensioned is to scale but it’s not dimension. We just didn’t have time to get one and I have more than one copy so I’d like to present that to the Board at this time. If you look at that map and you look at Corwin you know the proposed property and you look at all the houses in that area in close proximity to it you can see that some of them are right on the front yard line, some of them extend from the front yard line all the way to the rear yard line, several are on the side yard line so it’s a case where if you’re going down 7 th Street most of the houses are less than ten feet off of the front yard. MEMBER HORNING : Sir who is Mr. Fragola? BILL KELLY : This is Fred Fragola. MEMBER HORNING : So you’re going to purchase the property from? ? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting BILL KELLY : He already owns the property. MEMBER HORNING : He owns the property? BILL KELLY : Yea. MEMBER HORNING : What is ADF roll in this? BILL KELLY : I don’t believe ADF’s role is no longer part of this. It’s under Donna and Fred Fragola. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold it you have to just state your name for the record. FRED FRAGOLA : Fred Fragola, ADF Ventures is just an LLC with my daughter, my wife and my name that’s it nothing else. We are the sole owner of the property (inaudible) ADF. MEMBER HORNING : The property didn’t change hands? FRED FRAGOLA : No sir. MEMBER HORNING : Right cause on the tax records there was no indication of any property changing hands from ADF to FRED FRAGOLA : It was just titled you know with the LLC to ADF but the principal of the property ADF Ventures is I my wife and my daughter. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I should also state for the record that the subject property was originally zoned light industrial and that the Town Board did change that zoning to residential which is the basis for this new application. BILL KELLY : That’s correct yes as per the request of the neighborhood. MEMBER HORNING : When was the zone change put into place? BILL KELLY : It was just recently I think it was the public meeting was July 12 th of this year 2016. MEMBER HORNING : Shortly after that? BILL KELLY : Yea they approved it at that meeting. MEMBER HORNING : Oh they approved it at that meeting? BILL KELLY : I’ll say yes to that. MEMBER HORNING : July 12 th? ? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting BILL KELLY : Yea July 12 th. So by the time they did the resolution T.A. DUFFY : It’s usually not approved the same day. It’s usually two weeks later. I can get you the date it was adopted. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from the Board? We are familiar with the neighborhood, of course. MEMBER DANTES : How does the size of this building compare to other sizes of non-conforming structures in the neighborhood? BILL KELLY : I would say it’s relatively the same it’s under 20% of the lot coverage so from that standpoint it’s code compliant. There are houses and there are large houses if you look at the radius map you can see that there’s some houses on the properties that actually spent front to back side to side so they’re well over 20% lot coverage. So we’re compliant in our lot coverage percentage. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Bill this is the only lot that was the zoning was change on just this BILL KELLY : That’s correct yes. It was an L.I. zone and we had it changed to residential R40 and going back through the records we can find that in the fifties in one point and time it was a residential zone and that’s kind of what lead the way MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Then it became an L.I. BILL KELLY : It became an L.I. and you know so that kind of made it an easy determination to put it back to a residential lot. MEMBER HORNING : Is it correct to say you said I think that you cannot meet the setback requirements front and rear because BILL KELLY : The depth of the property because of the depth of the property you know it’s a bit of a triangular shaped parcel and I think at the widest point it’s like well let me just rather than think let me at the widest point it’s 66.24 feet so like I said if you do the math you add 35 and 35 that’s 70 feet so those setback lines actually bypass each other so it would be physically impossible to do it. We’d have to do a negative structure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Bill I have a question. On the floor plan first floor plan you know that we have for the house under on the right hand side it says data first floor garage 1908 square feet, second floor apartment 1908 square feet. BILL KELLY : That’s correct. ? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We cannot approve an apartment in a garage that is a brand new building. BILL KELLY : That has to be restated that’s a residence. So it’s all in one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait a minute you’re saying BILL KELLY : It shouldn’t be CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s not an accessory? BILL KELLY : No it’s a single family dwelling with first floor garage and second floor living space. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is it a second dwelling unit or is it a house? BILL KELLY : No it’s the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You better have that corrected on this plan because I don’t want to be stamping a plan that suggests that there is a BILL KELLY : It’s connected by a stairwell meaning that there’s no separation where you can’t access one from the other and the intent is for it to be a single family dwelling. MEMBER DANTES : All she’s saying is take off first floor garage and second floor apartment and just write first floor square footage second floor square footage. BILL KELLY : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because it is a single family dwelling with an attached garage. BILL KELLY : That’s correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And habitable space above the garage. BILL KELLY : That is correct yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so that’s fine I just don’t want to be approving inadvertently a second dwelling on the property. T.A. DUFFY : You know it’s not lost the first application was for a commercial use to store vehicles for a business and now the way it’s worded make it seem like there’s going to be an intent to use the garage for a business and rent out the upstairs and have two uses. BILL KELLY : I understand that. That’s not the case. It’s a single family dwelling. ? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it’s a two story single family dwelling. BILL KELLY : That’s correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : With attached garage. MEMBER HORNING : The square footage the same. BILL KELLY : The square footage is the same and then code at this point and time as a residential zone code prohibited the use as a commercial. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So essentially the dwelling is above the garage it looks like. BILL KELLY : That is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s like the whole floor area in other words the whole bottom how many it’s a two car garage right? It looks like there’s space it’s quite deep. BILL KELLY : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there going to be some workshop or additional storage. BILL KELLY : The intent is to house a motor home and I believe a boat. FRED FRAGOLA : So the intent is not to use it commercially. It is exclusively for residential. The motor coach is not only 45 feet long it goes in one bay and the other bay my other personal we have a zodiac and we have jet skis and another car so believe it or not 53 feet is very, very tight with everything in it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How big is your coach? FRED FRAGOLA : Forty five is the one I’m looking at. Whether I can afford it or not after this will be determined. The present coach I have now is 25 to 26 feet long. The height of these motor coaches are normally 11 to 12 feet we learned out the hard way we pulled it into a garage and took the air conditioning off. So that’s why you have the 14 foot ceilings. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : But the house will not exceed the required 35 whatever it is? FRED FRAGOLA : The garage is integrated with the second floor. It’s all one rectangular CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well now I understand why you want such a big garage. I mean it’s not the width that’s so huge but it’s the depth that’s more than most depth sometimes people do that because they need storage if they don’t have a basement. ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting FRED FRAGOLA : Well you know the condition there we can’t dig in a basement and the height of the vehicle and for what it’s worth my commercial building is now in Southampton so we’re not even in this area. MEMBER DANTES : What’s the elevation like the height of the first floor? BILL KELLY : The height of the first floor is 15 feet to the underside of the ceiling then you have essentially a foot of thickness for the floor system and then you have 8 feet so 15 and 9 is 24 and then the pitch of the roof etc. etc. it’s actually is under 30 feet in height and peak height is actually on a residential they don’t go by peak height they go by the midpoint of the gable which is 32 or 35? So we’re well below that we’re well below that yea midpoint to our gable is probably 24 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I guess Eric (inaudible) your question was how does the square footage of this house compare to the average square footage in the neighborhood. BILL KELLY : It’s not the smallest house in the neighborhood and it would probably be in the realm of you know along the line of the larger houses in the neighborhood. I can take it to 500 you know the radius map and square foot everything out and you know my point is this is that compared to the other properties in the neighborhood it meets the lot coverage requirement. It’s less than 19.99% and 20% is allowed so if you look at the other lots that are in the neighborhood that are similar size you can see some of them are well beyond what the lot coverage percentage would be allowed under current conditions because they go front to back side to side and you’re assuming that most of the lots in the neighborhood are nine to ten thousand square feet so that means it’s not the largest house in the neighborhood. That’s without putting dimensions actual dimensions to it. Nor would it be the tallest house in the neighborhood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from anybody else? MEMBER HORNING : Do you feel you can have a narrower house and increase the setbacks? BILL KELLY : No and the reason is this because of the width of the motor coach which if you measure motor coaches mirror to mirror it’s roughly twelve feet wide and in this case with the overhead doors that we’re using you’d actually have to pull those mirrors in and to get access into the property off the street to back it into place you need a little bit of space on either side of the door you know so you could the motor coach mirror to mirror measures probably about 11 feet. If you pull the mirrors in you’re down to about 10 feet and so you need a little bit of room for maneuvering so we have two like kind doors on either side so twelve I’m sorry fourteen and fourteen is twenty eight so that’s just to the overhead doors it doesn’t count the space in between the doors or the space on either side of the doors so that’s the reason we ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting selected the size. That’s the smallest width we could go and meet the requirements of the motor coach and the other stuff that’s going and be able to back it in. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anybody, anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I’m going to close the hearing subject to receipt on an amended or corrected floor plan eliminating that label data reference to an apartment. Is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 7008 – FRANK ZAGARINO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Frank Zagarino #7008. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15 and Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s September 2, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to demolish an existing single family dwelling and rebuild a new single family dwelling at 1) proposed single family dwelling is less than the code required rear yard minimum setback of 35 feet, 2) proposed single family dwelling is less than the code required combined minimum side yard setback of 25 feet, 3) proposed construction places existing 100 sq. ft. accessory shed in other than the code required rear yard, 4) proposed construction places existing 164 sq. ft. accessory shed in other than the code required rear yard located at 200 South Oakwood Drive in Laurel. ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting JODI GIGLIO : Good morning madam chair and members of the Board. My name is Jodi Giglio of Bennet Enterprises with offices at 1101 Scott Ave. Calverton New York on behalf of the applicant, Frank Zagarino. The subject premises is located on the west side of Oakwood Drive 212 feet south of Peconic Bay Blvd. The application as you stated is for a rear yard variance 10 feet where 35 feet is required and total side yard variances of 20 feet where 25 feet is required. Also the sheds in the front yard oversized sheds in the front yard. There is an existing home on the property that according to the property card was built in 1960. Several additions over the years have taken place to both the family and the home and current rear yard setback at its closest point is 4 feet to the western property line and the existing stairway is 3 feet from the northern property line. The applicant did appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals back on May 19, 2009 as file #6257 where the applicant did request a 10 foot rear yard setback for a proposed new home and that application was approved. They also had requested a lot coverage variance of 23% where 20% is permitted and that was also approved. So I’d like to recall the minutes of that May 19 th hearing and make them a part of this record; if that’s acceptable to you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure. JODI GIGLIO : Okay great and I just wanted to say that the character of the neighborhood most of the homes on the block on Oakwood at least on the west side of Oakwood are very close to the rear yards. The setbacks are actually most of them are in line with what we’re proposing today and some of them are actually closer to the rear yard. By moving this house up the to another fifteen or twenty five feet as required by the code it would look out of character with the neighborhood because all of the houses are setback with these great front yards. Also the hardship being self-created the house was situated in this location in 1960 when it was built. The sheds that we’re discussing are a hardship to the applicant because he has had several back surgeries and it’s very difficult for him to store any equipment in the basement of the home which is why he has the two sheds proposed and is seeking variances for them but he’s here to speak on those sheds if the Board has any questions on the sheds. As far as the environmental impacts there will be a new sanitary system that’s being proposed with the home so that would actually improve the sanitary conditions and water quality in the area because the sanitary system the newly installed sanitary system would be up to date. We don’t believe that the demolition and construction of the new dwelling would be a detriment to surrounding properties or the values thereof because we’re going to be putting in a new home that is more in character with the homes that are currently in the area. If the Board has any questions I’d be more than happy to answer them or have Mr. Zagarino come up and answer any questions that you may have with regards to the shed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George you want to start. ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : Yes. The sheds in the front yard don’t seem to be characteristic of the neighborhood. JODI GIGLIO : You’re right. MEMBER HORNING : So what do you think what do you propose with that? JODI GIGLIO : Well seeing as the rear yard is minimal as I had stated in all of these scenarios up and down the street it would be very difficult to put a shed in the rear yard. I know that the one shed was on the application and in looking back through the prior Zoning Board case I don’t know why we were never denied for that or why it wasn’t a matter of the May 19, 2009 hearing but the one smaller shed did exist and has existed on the property for approximately fifteen years. The larger shed I think is the one that Mr. Zagarino is going to be asking you to allow him to keep. The smaller shed is currently used for yard equipment and the larger shed is used for his equipment that he can store for his business which is movies in the moonlight and I you know it’s very difficult as I said for Mr. Zagarino to get up and down the basement with the heavy equipment that he needs so if you’d like Mr. Zagarino to come up and address any questions that you have with regards to the shed and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea let’s do that first and then we can look at JODI GIGLIO : Great thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please state your name for the record. FRANK ZAGARINO : Frank Zagarino. CHAIRPERSON WEISMA : Thank you and tell us about the two sheds that are on this site plan that we have in front of us. It says two sheds, existing shed B to remain and existing shed C to remain. You’re proposing to keep both of those? FRANK ZAGARINO : I would like to keep both of them if possible. If not the bigger shed to the front is the most important one to me because I keep all my equipment in that shed and I had two back surgeries that sort of went wrong, I had staph infection. For six months I was in bed, I lost fifty pounds so to lift stuff level on the property line is one thing but to try and come up and I did try putting this equipment we have a small basement but I organized and try doing it but going up the stairs of a basement with this equipment it was you know pain killers and Advil the next day because it’s just I’m sure you guys know carrying something very heavy up the stairs so that’s where the front shed that is my most important one that houses my equipment and I did before I placed the shed cause I’ve lived we’ve had this house actually the original house was built in the ‘40’s and the only the record we have here is in the ‘60’s but it was built in like ’43 ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting and it’s been added on to several times when you look at the drawing it looks like a different house but before I had put that shed to the front the neighbors have lived there everybody around me has lived there a minimum of twenty, twenty five years. My neighbors and I went to all them and showed them where I was going to put it. We’re they happy with it, the look of it, the way I painted it with everything and I literally had them come over and I said I want to make sure that you’re all you know that what I’m doing and this is not an eyesore that you’re happy with it so that’s where I had placed the front shed. I had a very small side yard and obviously harder to get stuff to a car to the driveway having it pushed back and literally the new house trying to just couldn’t afford to have a full garage on this house on this property. There was a financial situation cause I’ve could of obviously put a full garage up towards the position where this shed is at near the driveway but it was just a financial situation I couldn’t afford to do the house with the garage. MEMBER DANTES : What’s your equipment? FRANK ZAGARINO : I have a company Movies in the Moonlight that I do outdoor movies. I do the ones from Southold, Riverhead and all over so I don’t that’s where I store my amps and speakers and this like that. MEMBER HORNING : Is that drive-ins or where to do FRANK ZAGARINO : Drive-ins and I did the ones at the Riverhead Raceway drive-ins and I know Southold does one and I do the ones in Riverhead. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You’re proposing to of course remove the existing hot tub and so on. FRANK ZAGARINO : Yes. CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : The existing side yard is much larger than what you are now proposing. FRANK ZAGARINO : Because the house when the architect had drawn it up the part to the north is much closer so he had centered it moved it over so the side yard is much larger but he had moved the house to center so there’d be 10 feet on either side. JODI GIGLIO : Right so the northern property line will increase from 5 ½ feet to 10 feet and the southern property line is the property line that’s closer cause the side yard is much greater on the south side of the property but if you look at the overall size of the house and for a family of three children and two adults it’s the size of the house is actually not that much bigger than what it is now but it’s reconfigured differently to where all the additions and taken away the house right now is not functional with all the additions that have been put on to it so the house ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting is narrower and longer as far as width is concerned so and it’s a prefabricated home so they come in certain lengths which is why he needed to maximized the square footage and why we’re here before you today asking for relief. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you’re saying that because it’s a pre-fab you don’t have any flexibility on the length of the house? You couldn’t make the side yards any larger? FRANK ZAGARINO : Yea I mean the configuration to fit the bedrooms for the children are actually how we got to the length of this house how we got to fifty feet and I think the house I have now is within two feet of this house if you measure end to end. It’s literally just shifting it on the property to the south to make the side yards both be equally ten feet on both sides. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If the if shed B which is the one closest to the house in the front yard were to be removed could you not bring the house more forward and have a slightly larger rear yard? FRANK ZAGARINO : I mean it would JODI GIGLIO : The variance that was approved in May 2009 was for a ten foot rear yard which is what we proposed because by bringing the house up further the neighbor to the north would be looking I think that he had concerns that it would obstruct his view so he wanted the house to be setback as far and in conformance with the other houses up and down the block. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I have to say that in driving up and down that street you have the largest front yard of anybody. FRANK ZAGARINO : The two well I know which way when you entered the houses from my house south are all back as far if not further than my house but the houses that you drive into from the front those three houses the first house does have a smaller setback cause they have a porch that you can’t see from the front that goes way to the back so they have a small front yard but it goes way to the back and coverts the lot. The next house is in the middle but all the houses from my end down the next three houses are pushed all the way back because literally when we were children and coming out here you know in the early ‘60’s everybody would walk behind that there would be a ten foot path behind everybody’s house and you’d walk behind the houses to go to the beach and everybody kept them open. Now they’ve all been fenced off and changed. JODI GIGLIO : I thought you had indicated that the neighbor to the north was ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting FRANK ZAGARINO : Yea the neighbor to the north has a view past my house and if I move up like where he has his porch built and if I move up the L of the house will block the front of him the L where the house comes up and turns. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jodi do you think you could look at Google Earth or something and scale out what the other front yard setbacks cause perfectly honest I didn’t drive past your house. FRANK ZAGARINO : No I know you drove to it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I entered and then I turned around and left. So I didn’t probably give a fair assessment to the whole length of the street in terms of other front yard setbacks and what is characteristic of the neighborhood. You can average within 200 feet or so 300 feet actually the front yard setbacks of the properties on either side and that would be very beneficial to this application because it appears you know that you could be a lot more flexible about a front yard variance I mean you don’t need about a rear yard variance. It was granted previously but I can’t remember can you refresh my memory was that a demolition also? JODI GIGLIO : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And new construction? JODI GIGLIO : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I’m going to have to read that decision again. We have it in our file. FRANK ZAGARINO : And not only just blocking his view but financially moving the house up and moving the septic would be moving the driveway and it would be a huge increase financially to move the house up cause where the circular driveway is already done which I plan on leaving. Obviously I’m doing this on a budget so I’m planning on leaving as much as I can but the new septic is inside the driveway and the driveway that circles all of it would have to be moved if I move the house up. The whole driveway the septic all would have to move. MEMBER HORNING : It’s already existing? FRANK ZAGARINO : Yes. MEMBER HORNING : The septic? FRANK ZAGARINO : No the septic’s not but the septic’s on the new drawings are in the new septic is inside the driveway but the driveway the circle driveway is existing so the yard would become so small if we move forward you’d step out of the house onto the driveway. ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : But the new septic does not exist. FRANK ZAGARINO : No it does not exist yet no. MEMBER DANTES : So you have to dig the driveway up to put the septic in? FRANK ZAGARINO : The way it’s proposed now I don’t have to dig the driveway up if we move forward I would and reconfigure the driveway cause the circular driveway would be right into you know you’d step right out of the house and be two steps onto the driveway if you moved it forward. MEMBER HORNING : Do you find it curious that the property card notes 1960 with a C.O. and you in fact you told me in person yesterday that the house was built in the ‘40’s? JODI GIGLIO : In 1960 is when the property split. I’m not sure where it split whether it was the property to the west but the property card shows that it was a split so there was probably already an existing house and it was subdivided so that a second house could be built probably to the west is what I’m assuming and so that’s why the rear yard setback was created at the time that split occurred in 1960. MEMBER HORNING : I mean sometimes it is important if you have a pre-existing dwelling with the setbacks you know that you could maintain them if it’s built prior to 1957. If it’s after 1957 it’s a different category of considerations. FRANK ZAGARINO : I was born in ’59 and my grandfather and my dad when he was in college and in high school had bought this house so the house it continue and that’s why it’s sort of unlivable with my kids right now because no matter how much we try with the heat there’s rooms that are freezing. The basement is a ten foot by ten foot basement and it’s having issues. I have flat roof issues so I’m trying to do this the most cost effective way but I can promise you when I came even with Kevin and looked at the drawing of the house my dad was coming out here when he was in college and the house was you know towards the late ‘40’s when they started and then everything else after that had been approved and add-ons and I think the town and the add-ons and the approval were in 1960 and that’s when Kevin even showed me the first time that he had the drawings were in the 60’s and I’m going wow we were there you know twenty years before that on this exact property line because the first base was there. The other things like adding a room on the top where there was a crawl you know what I’m saying where there’s a little attic adding a room on that, adding a porch it was all little add-ons but the basic square house was exactly where the property line is in the back now and that’s where the kitchen is (inaudible) right now too. ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting JODI GIGLIO : So we can look into that also to see that the rear yard setback was existing prior to 1957 and I will also look at the Google maps and do an average on the front yard setbacks and the rear yard setbacks. MEMBER HORNING : Without looking at the interior layout did you consider shifting the L shape so that the narrower portion of the L faced the front yard and then you had long and narrow FRANK ZAGARINO : I understand what you’re saying. I was trying to stay within the house configuration that we’ve been at I know what you’re talking about. MEMBER HORNING : If you shifted it just turned it ninety degrees around you would have this portion in the front yard and the rest of it going towards the back then you would dramatically increase your side yard setbacks I would think. FRANK ZAGARINO : I had looked at that when I first started this and talked to my surrounding neighbors and everything and everybody was very happy for me to stay where I’m at on the property with the space they have and the view they have and obviously turning the house would be that much more of an expense because if you’re going to the driveway and it would just you know cost wise to have this house demolished and dig where I’m at now was obviously the most cost effective and to stay with the property line that I had been on for as long as I’ve been alive anyhow. JODI GIGLIO : And he did discuss it with the neighbors and did show the layout to the neighbor which is why none of the neighbors are here today because they’re very happy with the setbacks as they are being proposed and any shift of that they probably would want to come out and have something to say about it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know I think that if we have information on character of the neighborhood and with regard to front and rear yards similar setbacks and also the fact that there was a prior variance relief granted for that setback which included a demo we’ll take a look at that prior but it speaks to the strength of the application. Ken questions? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No I’d like to see you know the other surrounding setbacks. MEMBER DANTES : Was the prior for ten feet as well? FRANK ZAGARINO : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I have it in here. We all have it in our applications. Well you know it runs with the land if it’s implemented but it wasn’t implemented. MEMBER DANTES : Oh right. ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting JODI GIGLIO : And now there’s a change. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So there are other changes so they’re just putting them all together. Here it is May 19, 2009 ten foot rear yard and 23.3 lot coverage. JODI GIGLIO : And his lot coverage now I believe is at 15.5 %. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well but the variance as applied for was denied and the alternative relief was granted for a rear yard setback of not less than 17 feet and lot coverage at a maximum of 22% without the need to reapply and without an increase in the height and with a reduction in the footprint for new dwelling to conform to this determination. That was so let’s see what was applied for I think you may have applied for 10 feet. You requested a 10 foot rear yard setback and 23.3% lot coverage and the prior granted you a through alternative relief a 17 foot rear yard and lot coverage maximum of 22%. JODI GIGLIO : Yea I apologize and we will look at the 1957 setback of 10 feet and we will also talk to the neighbors and do the calculations as you requested and come back. MEMBER HORNING : There is a bit of a concern with having two accessory structures in the front yard. FRANK ZAGARINO : I understand. MEMBER HORNING : Because it is not characteristic of the neighborhood. I drove the whole length of it I didn’t see any. JODI GIGLIO : Agreed. I believe that he would eliminate the one shed the smaller shed and keep the larger shed if that was pleasing to the Board and MEMBER HORNING : Well you would almost have to if it was a 17 foot setback. JODI GIGLIO : So based on the testimony today and the reason for wanting to maintain the 10 foot setback not moving the house up further to have to disturb the ground and rip up the driveway and install a new driveway and I don’t know whether or not there would have to be any adjustment to the sanitary system which that application is already did he get it it’s into the Suffolk County Health Services so we’ll look into the things madam chair that you have requested and appear back before you I guess two weeks from now. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No that’s the Special Meeting Jodi. That’s the meeting we make decisions at so it’ll be the monthly meeting. MEMBER DANTES : Do we need another hearing or do we just need ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don’t think we need another hearing I think what we need is just the information and what we’ll do is it is what it is you’ll get it to us. I think we should just close it subject to receipt of that information and then we can JODI GIGLIO : I apologize. We were both of the impression that we had gotten the ten foot variance. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : If you have a 17 foot rear yard setback on this appeal right would we have to go with that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we don’t have to. This is a new hearing and a new day and you know I think we can hear the application on its merits although I’m starting I was distracted for a second cause I was reading this prior decision. The prior decision is a little awkward JODI GIGLIO : I’m sorry the engineer we had all looked at the prior grant and we were all including the engineer who made the proposal of the assumption that we had gotten the ten foot variance I guess we just didn’t read further in to see that. FRANK ZAGARINO : And I want to personally apologize I would never absolutely wouldn’t do something that was misleading and this house and whether this is important or not as I have been on this project now for myself for about a year begging, borrowing and stealing from different people to help me out and get these plans done and get in to the Health Department because you know when you order the house it’s four months and when you get the house done you know it’s I mean I’m sure you get this all the time the processes of trying to get it done before summer because the prices are much better with them. I want everybody else to do in February and March then it is and if I can’t do it and stay where I’m at I’ll be off for at least another year because my business starts in the summer. I don’t have time to do it and all the people who have given me these prices to help me out have made it very clear that I can do this for you during the wintertime don’t ask me to do it in you know June, July and August. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is a very interesting way this one was written because when you read it carefully the character of the neighborhood indicates that the under Town Law 1 proposed ten foot rear yard setback for the replacement dwelling though still non-conforming will be greater than exists prior to demolition. I guess that’s that bump out in the back. FRANK ZAGARINO : There are two bump outs, yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And then the proposed increase in lot coverage given the location of neighborhood houses would not have any significant effect on this neighborhood of small lots. But then it goes on to look at the substantiality of those two variances and that’s where the Board suggests alternative relief. ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting JODI GIGLIO : Would it be helpful to get letters from the neighbors on the west side of Oakwood saying that they are happy with the ten foot setback and that they wouldn’t want to see a 17 foot setback because it would be out of character? MEMBER HORNING : Any letters from your neighbors of support are useful. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They can be quite useful it just (inaudible) the you know the verbal testimony that you just gave us that they prefer that but I think that most importantly is a reflection of what exists in non-conformity in the area. That would probably way in (inaudible) of a similar non-conformance but again the Board grants the smallest non-conformity that it feasibly can grant when it’s feasible to grant a variance. We’re kind of obligated by law to do that. JODI GIGLIO : So what because the houses that are the one house directly to the north maybe set up a little further into the front yard but the houses to the south are all at the ten foot setback so what houses would you like me to analyze and include in my report to you as far as average setback? Would that be all the way up to Peconic Bay Blvd. down south to the bay or would it be just from the one house north of Mr. Zagarino’s property down south to the bay? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well probably the whole it’s not that many houses. FRANK ZAGARINO : Two houses from Peconic Bay are set the first one is set in the middle and it goes way towards the back they have you know a medium front yard, the next one is in the middle which is my neighbor to the north. Then we’re set back at 10 feet, the next house is set back at 10 feet, the next house is set back at 10 feet which are the two south of me obviously I’ve been there my whole life and the house on the water is in the middle because he’s got a double lot. He has a lot you know I think he had a big double lot that’s in the middle of his property so just I mean I could obviously print it up on Google Earth but he’s in the middle of the bay the next two people are exactly my dimension from the back of the house 10 feet and as we go up there’s one in the middle and one CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I think what you really want to do is take a look at the street and give us information that speaks to what it looks like with regard to the typical front yard and typical rear yard setback. MEMBER HORNING : How about side yards also? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes if you can scale out the side yards that’s also helpful because it would appear that some of them are also non-conforming side yards. FRANK ZAGARINO : Many of them. ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you know and plus you have a fairly small lot even though you know it’s (inaudible) and you’re not here for lot coverage anyway you’re just here for the front and sides. I don’t see any lot coverage mentioned here. JODI GIGLIO : On the survey I believe it shows that the existing lot coverage is 14.66% and the proposed is 15.77%. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So they’re fine with that, alright anything else from the Board, anyone else in the audience wishing to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I’m going to make a motion actually based upon all we’ve discussed I was going to just close subject to receipt but I think it would probably be best to adjourn to the Special Meeting so that you could have an opportunity to think this all through. Look at what the prior said, look at what the neighborhood looks like and then in the event you wish to amend your application slightly you’ll let us know but if you don’t you don’t you’ll just provide the information but it gives you the option of thinking this through and gives us time to make sure that we have enough information. We can if we have everything we need we’ll just close it in two weeks and we may or may not deliberate it depends on how fast you get information to us but if we don’t deliberate in two weeks we will a month from now. We only meet twice a month so it’s either going to be the next two weeks or the following two weeks. FRANK ZAGARINO : Alright we’ll get that to you right away. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, does that make sense to the Board? That way if you decide to do anything your hands are not barred. We’re not if I close it subject to receipt then that’s all we can do is take that so we’ll just adjourn to the Special Meeting is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GEOHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting HEARING # 7001 – PHILIP WASILAUSKY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Philip Wasilausky #7001. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s July 18, 2016 Amended August 18, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) proposed additions and alterations less than the code required front yard minimum setback of 35 feet, 2) proposed additions more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 105 Private Rd. (AKA 575 Goose Creek Lane) in Southold. Would you state your name for the record please? PAT MOORE : Yes Patricia Moore on behalf of the applicant Mr. Wasilausky and Mrs. Wasilausky both are here. You have the application before you. The history of this property is quite interesting because it’s a very small lot with the access road that you went in to Goose Creek subdivision but then there is a twenty foot right of way behind that runs along the backside of the properties that front the Goose Creek Drive and are a right of way for properties to the north or let’s see wait east, east. So you have a twenty foot right of way behind the house which is a paper road it’s never been opened and in fact it’s blocked off as you go further towards North Bayview Rd. and we also have a right of way which is essentially a shared driveway on the south side of the road that’s the thirty foot right of way so very interesting way that these properties got developed many years ago has resulted in absolutely everything ever been constructed on this property to need a variance. There is a long history of variances here right from the beginning when the house was being proposed. Gertrude McClain needed a variance to build the house. It got a variance it also got 280-A. Windsway built the house and then unfortunately when they put the foundation there was an oops and they had to come back to the Zoning Board to modify the variance to allow for the setbacks that had previously been granted were now reduced so the house was ultimately built there. The Sirrico’s owned the property before the Wasilausky’s and they got a variance for an addition to the back of the house where the where some decking used to be and got a lot coverage variance which was increased to 22% and now my client who bought the property has retired and is this is their primary residence. They have re-shingled the house, they’ve done improvements but they are finding that the garage is just inadequate for their use as their full time residence so the proposal was to add bays to the garage. At that point because of the lot coverage issue and that was something that was not discovered right away they actually started the re-shingling and everything and left the portion of the side of the garage unfinished as you could see because of the proposed addition and that’s where it stands today. So I think the application pretty much speaks for itself. It’s a technical variance because of the fact that we’ve ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting got a relatively small piece of property the lot coverage and we’re exceeding the lot coverage not by too much but enough to require a variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we are looking at front yard setback of 30 feet off of one right of way and which is the paper road PAT MOORE : Yes the paper road in the back. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea we you know as you know we were all there we all visited the property PAT MOORE : Pardon me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just wanted to make sure your client understood that all the Board members individually go and do a site inspection so we’ve seen the fact that it’s really a driveway into your garage area but your burdened legally with I guess three front yards as a result of this configuration so it’s a 30 foot where the code requires 35, a 25 foot where the code requires 35 and you want to increase the lot coverage which is currently at 22.4 by virtue of a prior ZBA grant to 24.2%. PAT MOORE : Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken you want to start. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yes, there was something in the application about you were looking into possibly absorbing the right of ways into your lots or trying to make an agreement with the neighbors about doing something with the right of ways. PAT MOORE : Oh yea. Actually I had. The prior owner was Mr. Feinberg and I actually represented Feinberg when we were looking at the possibility of extinguishing the right of way in the very back the 20 foot right of way. That one would not be the one well it would I guess affect us on the 30 foot setback. We started that process. What we found it was a somewhat of a large undertaking because to extinguish it we have to get consent from everybody that had a right of way access over it even though they don’t use it and it had never been used in order to have it be properly extinguished and not create a title issue. It was just it was really a very large undertaking and the Feinberg’s then decided to sell and it never went any further. I think that the Sirico’s own a house in the back on the opposite side. They were interested in it but again it would have taken more than just those two individuals so there was some discussion. It was started but to even get started required a title search of reviewing everybody’s title that had any access over that right of way and then getting going from there so ultimately that’s costly for everybody to do. ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : What about the neighbor to the north? PAT MOORE : That is actually a shared driveway with well go ahead put it on the record. PHILIP WASILAUSKY : Philip Wasilausky, the applicants, thank you. I’ve spoken to the neighbors directly to the north and the next house beyond them and they I mentioned that I had spoken to Ms. Moore about extinguishing the right of way and they agreed that they would join in that if that’s something that can be done that’s feasible it would PAT MOORE : Yea to do it is possible but it would take a long time so it’s certainly beyond a time frame that a normal homeowner wants to do improvements to their property. That is something that is potentially in the future. It’s feasible but impractical at this point. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Are there any other parcels that have excessive lot coverage? PAT MOORE : I did incorporate into the application itself variances that were previously granted. I have Daniel West he got a variance for an addition to an existing dwelling and the other there’s a house MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yes I see those. PAT MOORE : and the other house away tax lot 21 those were setbacks issues mostly. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yes setback more focused on the lot coverage. PAT MOORE : Lot coverage I don’t know that I saw that because we have an existing pool. I don’t know that other homes here have pools on this block I don’t think they did. It was the swimming pool I believe that ended up creating the lot coverage issue many years ago. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well actually I don’t think that’s correct. The swimming pool got a C.O. back in 1990. PAT MOORE : Yea but Sirico got a lot coverage a variance for the swimming pool. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Back in that was after that. PAT MOORE : That was incorporated it was an addition to the house and pool back in ’97 that was decision 4477. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I don’t believe that needed a variance. That was a C.O. for a pool and addition and then later on came an addition that needed a variance. When his house was first proposed it needed a variance cause the foundation PAT MOORE : Yes it definitely needed that. ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Then they came along and built a pool PAT MOORE : So you know what they did; they built the pool and then when they wanted the addition. The pool was incorporated because it pushed the addition requiring a lot coverage. I know because I read I mean in the back of my mind I actually looked at it today and said did Sirico get a variance for the pool or not and it was somehow another incorporated because it caused the addition to go above. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well everything you know everything causes lot coverage not everything but we know what does and doesn’t. The concern I have is you’re looking for 24.2% you already have 22.4% which is a little over 10% of what is required or the maximum allowed. If you can show some evidence that other parcels in this neighborhood have 24% lot coverage I think that would be in favor of your appeal. PAT MOORE : Ok I will look again. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I mean the setbacks I understand the setbacks however the lot coverage is of main concern for me personally. PAT MOORE : I mean I will look and see what other homes have lot coverage variances I don’t let me look at the; I’ll go back and double check. It’s been a while since I submitted this so it’s I’ll go back and look. Many of the lots in this area are larger so I don’t think that they’ve required; I think this is relatively smaller I’ll have to look at the tax map; I don’t have a copy of the tax map here in my file, so I’ll double check. We’re slightly smaller than the lots in this neighborhood so as far as the house size goes it’s really comparable to the neighborhood. It’s not out of character. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I’m just looking at the actual proposed garage is pretty small and there isn’t anything else it’s not like a shed you could remove or anything else that you can take off. There’s a little small deck everything else like it’s at grade so it’s not covered I mean that’s not included unless it’s elevated. PAT MOORE : The patio no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So trying to see if there’s something they can do to reduce it. PAT MOORE : Yea I was looking too. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well sometimes you just can’t have everything. PAT MOORE : Well but a garage is I mean this is a garage that’s in the rear of the house so it’s not impacting any of the neighbors as far as it’s purely a technical lot coverage issue as far as ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting whether the lot coverage is reasonable or not anything under 25% on such a small lot is relatively reasonable. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Pat that is your opinion. PAT MOORE : Well, no historically the Board I think I’ve heard the Board members say well my rule of thumb; I think Gerry in the past in applications there’s been (inaudible) if you start getting into the 25% I don’t like you know that he thinks of this Board member has expressed that in the past on lot coverage variances that I’ve made over the past twenty something thirty years. So, given the circumstances of this property we’re not talking about habitable space we’re just talking about garage space so the alternative for us would be building or asking for sheds but that is more intrusive on a property particularly when you have such a small rear yard we need a variance for the placement of the shed which would be the alternative to enlarging the garage. If you and the rest of the Board want us to consider shrinking the garage a little bit that may be a possibility but the existing garage is an undersized one car garage the existing one so it’s barely usable as it is. This is a year round house so it’s tough to live without to live a garage and to live without storage so that’s the application before you. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : You are already at 22.4% which is 2.4% over and you want more so that’s if you could find evidence of other lots in the neighborhood that have excessive lot coverage that’ll help your case. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Let me just make a statement. The one advantage is that you’re on a private road and you’re contiguous to a huge subdivision next to it. There’s no reason why areas like that couldn’t be used also. I mean that subdivision it all private roads also directly the one in back I mean the contiguous nature of it is that right of way that exists. PAT MOORE : The only problem is that yes I think theoretically we have extra acreage exactly what you’re pointing out that in the rear the 20 feet is open space. That is occupied by is still wooded and natural and it’s occupied by both sides of the property but technically to meet the lot coverage I have to exclude right of ways so MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I’m not telling you to take the right of way I’m saying it’s contiguous to a major subdivision in the back which is also private roads okay meaning and the only thing that bridges those two is that subdivision is that right of way so there’s no reason why you couldn’t take lot coverage from that subdivision also. PAT MOORE : Oh, oh comparing lot coverage of the other properties. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I mean that’s my opinion. I don’t know what ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : I’ll look at my general research is usually with laser fiche I’ll take a look at that whole area tax lot. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Cause the first road I went down was Hickory before I went down to the other okay so and I said it’s got to be around here somewhere okay PAT MOORE : Yea I did that at least once or twice that’s why I sent the little map because it really is hard to find this road. I’ll take a look. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in the audience wishing to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I’m going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of information on lot coverage in the area. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 7002 – ADAM SUPRENANT CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Adam Suprenant #7002. This is a request for variances from Article XXII Section 280-105C (3) and the Building Inspector’s June 30, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to legalize an “as built” deer fence, at 1) proposed deer fence located in other than the code permitted side or rear yards located at 425 South Harbor Rd in Southold. Would you state your name please? ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting ADAM SUPRENANT : Good morning I’m Adam Suprenant. I’m the property owner at 425 South Harbor and I brought my lovely wife Laura who’s company Blossom Meadow Farm sponsored the building of the fence and I’m going to turn it over to her to give the background and then I’ll be available for questions since I filled out the application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well just for the record welcome both of you this deer fence is permitted in side and rear yards but it is not permitted on a residential lot in a front yard. Now you have a unique situation in that you not only have a front yard along South Harbor but you do have a right of way which is considered a second front yard. That’s the entry going from the road. ADAM SUPRENANT : We were told by the Building Department that there was no second front yard there. It was stated by Mr. Rallis cause when we had our CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me look at that again because quite typically a right of way is considered a front yard and this is not just your own driveway on your own lot this provides access to a couple of other houses right? ADAM SUPRENANT: But we were given approval for an accessory building which couldn’t be built in a front yard as well so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I’m just telling you what the code says. ADAM SUPRENANT: I know but so I mean the town has to make up its mind what a front yard is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have frequently seen fencing along rights of way that have deer fencing in particular that has been considered a front yard. Now technically a front a right of way if you do not have legal access to use it but it would appear you probably do LAURA KLAHRE : We do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because you use it to get into behind your house. LAURA KLAHRE : Right CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : To put your cars in so ADAM SUPRENANT : Actually part of that is an easement if you notice and that’s on our property okay so there’s an easement and the right of way is on the opposite side of the easement up until about a third of the way up the property. ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I see right where it is on your survey. Okay well I just wanted to clarify that. It’s pretty clear that the front yard along South Harbor is a front yard and you fenced in front of your dwelling. LAURA KLAHRE : Right so that’s what we thought we were coming to ZBA for was the deer fence in front along South Harbor Rd. I’ve been a bee keeper since 1997 and I incorporated my business in 2009 and my farm is pretty much been decentralized all these years until last in 2015 when we finally bought a place and so then in 2016 this year I received a grant from Peconic Land Trust through New York State to help offset the cost of our barn as well as buying a tractor and not only do I work with honey bees but I also work with mason bees, bumble bees and mining bees. In fact with my mason bees I have a pollination contract with both Surrey Lane or Turden farm and Breeze Hill apple farm to pollinate their apples and so it’s likely it is the first pollination contracts of its kind in the nation because nobody has really used them for apples or they’re just used on the west coast. So we’re adjacent to Catapano Farm as you see and other neighbors have living fences of eight foot or greater using lilac and privet. I actually co-chair the town deer committee because the deer everybody knows heavily browse everything and reduce the flowers that are available for my bees. In fact in some residential areas I found that some of my honey bee hives have actually become malnourished because there are not enough flowers for them to feed from and I haven’t been able to over winter them because they succumb to deformed wing virus and a lot of other things. So at our place this past year we planted sunflowers up front. Quite a few native plants and beach plums as well as also black raspberry and then in the back we put cover crops of more sunflowers, buckwheat, canola and my bees did very well which I was happy about. But what we found is that the deer eat everything. They come in there are some beach plums that are just not going to make it and our goal is to eventually get you know these bees to have healthier lives but also get the crops to market at our small store in Cutchogue so there’s no way for us to be viable if we don’t have this deer fence and it’s so that’s why we’re coming to you. ADAM SUPRENANT : And I’d just like to point out that my wife if a bona fide agricultural producer in the Town of Southold and she’s registered her corporation is registered at our address and so when we initially went to construct the deer fence I looked at the code and I noticed there was an exemption from permitting for bona fide ag for the construction of a fence and so that’s why we went ahead and erected the fence. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let’s see what the Board has in the way of questions. Who wants to start? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I’ll start. ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : My question is why not just I mean you’re only asking of a variance for a very small section of this fence so why not just make it code conforming. It looks like 90% of this fencing is permitted. LAURA KLAHRE : Because every inch matters. We have 1.84 acres and that front area we can grow sunflowers, beach plums and black raspberry. We’re in R80 zoning, ag is permitted. It just doesn’t make sense that we can’t. ADAM SUPRENANT : Yea and I think one of the issues is you know there’s a very I guess there’s not much definition in the code between when a parcel becomes a residence and you know when an empty parcel becomes a residence and whether you lose your right to farm on the acreage so I think the answer you know and I think that actually I know Bill is working on that with the AG committee you know expanding those definitions but we just assumed that that was within our right to farm our land. LAURA KLAHRE : And it’s good soil. ADAM SUPRENANT : And that in our right to farm involves allows us to construct fences on our land so that’s basically and I can tell you if you look on the north side of the house okay that’s almost probably about a quarter of an acre and so we can generate quite a bit of income we feel off that quarter acre leading up to you know up to the west side of the property. MEMBER HORNING : How does it come that you were cited with the deer fence? ADAM SUPRENANT : Yes there was a complaint by our neighbor to code enforcement one of our neighbors I believe although we don’t even know if it was one of our neighbors. MEMBER HORNING : Do you feel that they researched the ordinance zoning code properly then? ADAM SUPRENANT : In our opinion we feel that we’re justified because we’re bona fide ag for building a fence so we mentioned that to code enforcement and then we were told by code enforcement that we have to go that we were a residence and that we would have to go for a variance. T.A. DUFFY : Can I ask who you spoke with in code enforcement? ADAM SUPRENANT : Peter. MEMBER HORNING : And yet you have a bona fide agricultural operation on this property? ADAM SUPRENANT : Yea my wife does yes. ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that recorded with the assessor’s office? ADAM SUPRENANT : As far as it’s not we we’re just registered with the state division of corporations as a you know my wife’s company and we’re registered at that address but we’re I’m not aware of having to register with an assessor. We’re not really interested in taking you know in paying less property tax we’re not looking for the Ag rate on property taxes you know we just want to farm and so we didn’t even consider that. MEMBER DANTES : It does say on the property card Leslie in 2003 there was an Ag penalty I’m not really sure what an Ag penalty is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don’t know either. LAURA KLAHRE : It used to be the entire parcel used to be Catapano Farm and then it was subdivided. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ah so it was removed from the Ag exemption. LAURA KLAHRE : The soils are really good there. I mean it’s just doesn’t make sense to just have grass. My bees need flowers there’s just not enough anymore out here. I used to when I first started bee keeping you know and even before I did it and I was apprenticing with older bee keepers they would tell me that the problem wasn’t how to keep these alive it was what you do with all the honey right. We all know that’s not the case anymore. I have bees that are in more residential settings by Orient Point lighthouse. Off my bees I got first year hives off three of the hives I got 120 lbs. of honey off of the same number of hives same age and everything by the Orient Point lighthouse 20 lbs. of honey and I was only able to over winter one of those three and the reason is they are malnourished. There aren’t enough flowers. So yea we could have just said alright let’s just put the fence to the front of the house but it just doesn’t make sense. I mean these deer there are too many we all know it and the only way that we can protect our land now and flowers and hopefully let these bees and our crops thrive is by having this fence. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have any other agricultural property that you own or is this total. LAURA KLAHRE : No. ADAM SUPRENANT : She leases other parcels to put her bees on. LAURA KLAHRE : I have my bees as Sylvester Manor Farm on Shelter Island and places out east but this is finally the first place that we own. ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting ADAM SUPRENANT : And I’d like to also point out we have a planting plan proposed to submit for our grant and we’re going to plant apples, beach plums, blueberry in addition to veg crops strawberry so our intent is to farm this land. We’re not you know I’ve been in the Ag industry out here I’m a wine maker and I’ve managed 72 acres of grape land. I also have a degree from Cornell in fruit production and so Ag is what I do and that’s what we want to do with our property so we’re not just asking for a fence to keep the deer off our privet okay we’re really contending to farm this land and put it actually back in to agricultural production because that was its original use. MEMBER HORNING : Are you going to have a farm stand? ADAM SUPRENANT : We haven’t decided because we I opened up a I have my own wine brand it’s called Coffee Pot Cellars and Laura and I opened up our store in Cutchogue in a commercial zoned site. We’re right next to Antiques and Old Lace near the King Kellen and so we have retail area there so I doubt we would do anything more at our property than perhaps put up a 14 foot table and you know have some produce for sale but we’re actually with the apples I’m intending to make an alcoholic beverage out of that hard cider. LAURA KLAHRE : Which we did this past year with Breeze Hill apple farms apples because my mason bees pollinated them and we really (inaudible) national pollinator week and sold it at our store and our store it’s just me that works there that’s it. We don’t look to get big that’s just not us and so it’s fun just knowing the community and having a nice little life. ADAM SUPRENANT : And Ken we might make a couple jars of jam I hope that doesn’t affect the outcome. MEMBER DANTES : Do you think we can get a copy of the planting plan? ADAM SUPRENANT : Yes I can provide it for you. LAURA KLAHRE : We submitted it with our Peconic Land Trust grant. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’d like to see that grant and the planting plan and your license you know from the state whatever documentation of your Ag operation you can provide would be helpful. LAURA KLAHRE : So I have is my website enough it’s blossommeadow.com I mean. ADAM SUPRENANT : Do you want a financial statement or what would you like? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don’t think we need to go that far. LAURA KLAHRE : Schedule F for years so ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Basically we just need something in writing that just says this is a farm legitimate agricultural operation that’s what we’re asking so like planting plan things like that I don’t want to get into your taxes. ADAM SUPRENANT : Okay sure yea we can provide that. LAURA KLAHRE : So just a letter. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What can be helpful also is you said that you feel that the part in the front along South Harbor and that would be not only paralleling but perpendicular encloses about a quarter of an acre is that correct? ADAM SUPRENANT : I will have to get the exact measurements on it but it’s yea I would say it’s somewhere in the neighborhood of two tenths to a quarter of an acre. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It might be helpful to approximate what kind of economic loss the loss of that amount of property could represent in terms of hardship. ADAM SUPRENANT : Okay I’ll have to take a look I mean the part directly in front of the house I’m actually referring to kind of along the side of the house as well but I will have to take a look at what we can get off that but yea that’s fine. I mean keep in mind if you plant sunflower there and you get you know three dollars a stalk retail I can plant a thousand sunflowers in a very small area so it’s not you know so that would be the one foot spacing was one by two so it doesn’t take much land to generate what for us would be a significant amount of money. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well where I’m going with this is if in fact it is determined by this Board that you are a legitimate agricultural operation. Then in fact you don’t need a variance for deer fencing. That’s what we’re probing at this point. Residential properties and agricultural is permitted in an R80 zone so it can be both a residence and an agricultural property. We have plenty of wineries, for example in town that are exactly like that you know they grow grapes and they have a house there many, many farm stands (inaudible) throughout the town. So the question is if this is considered residential property and not an agricultural operation then you need a variance. If it’s an agricultural operation and has a residence on the property then you don’t need a variance we would have to do an interpretation. You see what I’m saying? ADAM SUPRENANT : Okay I think that’s doable I mean my wife’s been in business since 2009 so I don’t see that as being an issue. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let’s explore something else there’s a difference in terms of the visual impact of deer fencing especially yours is up on a rise (inaudible) it’s pretty apparent ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting along South Harbor we’re used to sort of seeing them even though they’re unsightly and we wish we didn’t have to have them but we all know economically we do in order to farm out here it’s no longer a luxury it’s a necessity do have deer fencing. There’s a difference between a side street or a right of way whether that’s considered a front yard or not that just a couple of houses might have access to including your own and a public street in terms of a visual appearance and you look like it looks like a residential neighborhood. So my question is ADAM SUPRENANT : I would add there is deer fencing on South Harbor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know Croteaux. ADAM SUPRENANT : Croteaux yes so there’s so we’re not the only property on South Harbor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right I understand and just so your aware in case you don’t already know this every Board member has visited your property. We’ve all been out there to see it. We do that for every application it’s just part of our job. You can’t really tell on paper what something looks like you got to drive around in the neighborhood and really have a look at it. Let’s see if anybody else has some comments. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can I just say something? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea oh wait I’m sorry I didn’t finish my point which was can you envision the possibility of reducing the visual impact of this deer fencing along South Harbor by perhaps planting something between the edge of your property and where the deer fencing is located that would obscure from view that deer fencing along that public road? ADAM SUPRENANT : Well we did I actually moved some shrubs along the I guess it would be the northwest portion they’re small right now but we have boxwood there we have spirea planted there I mean are you you’re talking about a twenty foot high privet hedge or lilac or CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well not right this second but I’m not suggesting bringing in bulldozers and bringing in eight foot high evergreens. ADAM SUPRENANT : And we actually wouldn’t mind our neighbor who lives across the street she’s here to testify that she actually enjoys our and has no issue with our fence. LAURA KLAHRE : It was actually interesting when we first moved in of course you meet all your neighbors and everything and they ask you what you plan to do. Once we planted the sunflowers it was really kind of cool to see how many people were so happy to see flowers you know so when you when there’s privet and lilac it almost becomes a raceway and so bicyclists have stopped to look at the flowers and you know the butterflies have been flying around I mean it was really kind of cool. ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting ADAM SUPRENANT : I’d also like to add if you look at one of the photos we supplied it’s the view from house east okay and you’ll see some beehives there okay right in front so to the right of the beehives that is a row of black raspberry which will be growing to about a height of four or five feet so we’ve covered that side and then if you look at also the view from house from southeast I put in landscaping in the front yard so it’s not just grass and those will be growing up those are I have spice bush, spice pepper bush and some other plants and then we also have on that front parcel there if you look at it a view from the southeast we have a beehive kind of in the center of the photo and to the right are our sunflowers which did obscure quite a bit of you know there was sunflowers so we felt that added to the view shed if it were of the neighborhood and so and we also have beach plums there which will be flowering in the spring so we’ve made improvements to an area that was just in our opinion useless green lawn which does not provide any nutrition to our bees and we improved it by putting in native plants you know to kind of I guess ameliorate somewhat those people that have a concern that deer fence is ugly in our opinion a twenty foot privet fence is ugly okay and actually I like my deer fence. I think it looks nice. MEMBER HORNING : Could you plant sunflowers on inside of that fence? ADAM SUPRENANT : Exactly so you barely see the fence because we have and we plan to make further improvements in the landscaping in the front and so you know we want to have a natural setting not like a walled off even though the fence is a wall but we want to have the landscaping be more natural than just a row of privet or whatever CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I had to ask the question we need to have it in the public record. Let me see if there’s anything else from the Board. MEMBER HORNING : I’d like to go over the history a little bit. Back in 2002 Catapano built a residence there is that about right? ADAM SUPRENANT : It’s our understanding that the property was if you can see on the I don’t know if you can see on the tax map there’s four lots actually five lots that were the original Catapano farm okay and that was subdivided among the children after Sal Catapano Sr. passed okay and then I know that Sal Catapano after he built, Jr. who owned our property before we bought it he was growing LAURA KLAHRE : Field mums. ADAM SUPRENANT : Field mums there behind his house. ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : I’m just trying to get a historical perspective. The dwelling was built in 2002 by Catapano. You bought the property in 2015 not too far back. When did you build the deer fence? ADAM SUPRENANT : We built it in March of this year. MEMBER HORNING : Okay, and so you had it up and running for this season that’s why you could grow ADAM SUPRENANT : No we did not complete it because we were building what in our mind is a barn but the what the town approved as an accessory garage so we didn’t want to enclose it so that the construction could proceed. MEMBER HORNING : How did you keep the deer from LAURA KLAHRE : We didn’t and so it really underscored even more why we need to come here. ADAM SUPRENANT : I have photos of lay down areas where the deer come in and lay down on our crops okay and on a grassland. We just planted a cover crop a winter cover crop in September and are eating that already. MEMBER HORNING : When you purchased the property in 2015 is it fair to say that you more or less immediately started to do some agricultural operations on the property? (RECORDING MACHINE STARTS WITH A VERY LOUD BUZZING SOUND AND MAKES IT VERY HARD TO HEAR THE PEOPLE TALKING INCLUDING THE BOARD, VERY DIFFICULT TO TRANSCRIBE FROM THIS POINT ON) LAURA KLAHRE : Yes I brought my bees there from other locations and yes started thinking about our farm plan and what we were going to do. ADAM SUPRENANT : Plus we also there was a kind of a rigged deer fence around where they planted the field mums and so we pulled out that fence because it was substandard in our opinion and then we tilled up the property and started renewing the soil by planting legumes which (inaudible) nitrogen from the air and we planted canola, (inaudible) we have turnip in there so MEMBER HORNING : Don’t deer eat those things too? ADAM SUPRENANT : Oh they certainly do and so we but it’s not economic because you know enough of the plants survive where as if we planted apple trees they can I mean they eat the shoots and basically strip the trees of leaves small trees. ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting LAURA KLAHRE : For cover crop you don’t it’s not as detrimental but we’re also keeping what a tenth of an acre it looks like kind of like a grassland fragment and 70% of native bees live in the ground and so we have a really good population of mining bees live in this one area so we are not touching that because they need a place to live and it’s kind of cool because mining bees and mason bees are really good at pollinating apples and so the current science is really looking at how to get those mining bees into orchards and that’s one of things I am focusing on in the near future so I’m pretty psyched and bumble bees are also very good pollinators of blueberries which honey bees (inaudible) blueberries so we’re working on how to bolster those populations as well. ADAM SUPRENANT : And we did harvest a honey crop last year. MEMBER HORNING : Incidental question, carpenter bees do they play any productive role? LAURA KLAHRE : Yes actually well carpenter bees are good pollinators anything that’s fuzzy that goes from flower to flower is a pollinator even yellow jackets and flies are actually good when it’s cold out in the early spring. MEMBER HORNING : Where to carpenter bees live? LAURA KLAHRE : They actually live in soft pieces of wood so you know the ones that come at your face you know like trying to scare you those are actually male carpenter bees and they can’t sting. They’re just all bark and no bite so because they’re trying to scare you away in case a female comes by. ADAM SUPRENANT : You can actually throw a little rock and the bee will chase the rock. But they can’t live off wood so they need flowers just like any other bee to live. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well I think we get the point and I think you do too. It’s clear that you’re farmers and I don’t (cannot hear too much buzzing) but we need to have on the record that you are farming this property as your business this is just not your house with a nice garden and that therefore we look at the code very differently. You can imagine if that deer fencing was permitted on all the public roads that had houses up and down because everybody hates to see their shrubs eaten up or the deer ticks upsetting their kids I mean we have to be very cautious about how we approach deer fencing in this town. Agriculture is one category residential is another so we need some information from you to bolster the agricultural aspect and see whether or not if that had been the case with the Building Department they should probably not have required a variance to begin with you know if that could be verified. ADAM SUPRENANT : I can tell you I was very outspoken on this. ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They decided to let us decide. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I have a question, Laura you said you’re on the deer management committee? LAURA KLAHRE : Correct. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : What has the committee come up with for keeping deer off the properties or culling the herds or anything like that? What’s the bottom line? What does the committee or management program is the best action to take? LAURA KLAHRE : We need to shoot more deer and also it’s not just culling the herd but it’s also creating more of a demand for venison. I was so happy that Arbees in I think in Pennsylvania or Ohio they now have venison burgers so it’s creating more of a demand. We need to legalize the sale of deer meat in New York State and across the United States so then creates more of a demand so then you’ll have more hunters and it’ll make the population go down. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well the whole hunting would be with I guess bow and arrow because of the close proximity of residents so it really isn’t there’s a lot great ideas but nothing moving forward that’s going to be productive because I see deer in my neighborhood. I see does having maybe one, two, three LAURA KLAHRE : Oh yea triplets it’s unbelievable. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : fawns and they’re all over the place and devastate everything and I would love to put a deer fence throughout legally I can put a deer fence in my rear yard and side yard LAURA KLAHRE : This is why I wanted to serve on the deer committee because I saw that it was decreasing my yields in honey and also MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I understand you two are very passionate about what you’re doing on your parcel I appreciate that wholeheartedly but everybody has a passion for their own properties and what they want to do on it. I would love to grown plants, flowers everything. I have a passion for that believe it or not and I can’t because the deer come in (inaudible) so what the chairperson had mentioned about proving your agricultural use of this parcel I think it’s the way that I can look at this positively then. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean what you know there’s a couple of things that could to be done here the most simple thing is if the Board has enough evidence and we agree and that remains to be seen but we can overturn the Building Department’s Notice of Disapproval. We ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting don’t have to grant a variance we just write up a determination (inaudible) jurisdiction to do that. ADAM SUPRENANT : WE can do that under this application because I know that there was a separate application for dispute with the code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There was a what? ADAM SUPRENANT : It seemed that there was a separate box to check if you had a (inaudible) with the code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh I see no, no when we get a request for a variance if we disagree with what’s in the Notice of Disapproval we have a legal authority to overturn that Notice of Disapproval or to change. ADAM SUPRENANT : I hope you do because this I think Ag is you know part of the fabric of Southold and you know it would I think would discourage a lot of startup farmers who can’t buy the one hundred acres to get started. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Your point is well taken. ADAM SUPRENANT : (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let’s see if there’s someone in the audience who wants to address the application sitting there very patiently, why don’t you come forward and state your name please in the mic. PAULINE FARR : Hello I’m Pauline Farr. I live directly across the street at 360 South Harbor. I have absolutely no objection to this deer fence on this what I consider always has been I’ve lived at my house for about forty years. A piece of agricultural property and I’ve seen it many states of disrepair, I’ve seen it one year it wasn’t planted and the wind came in March and covered my house with dirt that I had to have power washed off. I’ve never seen this house look as good as it does now nor this property is so well tended so passionately tended and I don’t even understand what an objection could be to the deer fence. And that’s what I wanted to say and I have lots of flowers because I also am a gardener and I love having the bees come over from across the road and you know I see the deer eat I see them kind of angle around the fence when that fence wasn’t there and it was open there were a lot more deer in my front yard then there are at the moment because of the side and back fencing so anyway I don’t know who objected and I think sometimes we get a little crazy about a visual field you know I don’t like the way this looks you know tough. People are trying to make a living here in Ag land ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting doing Ag and you know as we said Crotueaux has a fence that’s way longer than this tiny little fence and he needs it because his grapes would also be eaten up so that’s what I want to say. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you very much for your comments. Is there anything else from the Board? ADAM SUPRENANT : I just have one question on submitting our proof of Ag operation how do we go about doing that? CHAIRPESON WEISMAN : All you need to do is gather whatever material you could think of to put together we’ve had some discussion here so I’m sure you have some idea what we’re looking for and just take them into the office give it to Kim and she will make copies for the rest of the Board members and we’ll all get them that way. You don’t have to make a zillion copies we’ll do that because we requested it it’s on our nickel or dime or whatever the cost these days. Is there anything else from the Board? I think what we should do I don’t believe we’re going to need any more testimony but just in case what I’m going to do is adjourn this to the Special Meeting in two weeks. That gives you plenty of time to gather whatever you need. If we have everything we need which it’s likely to be the case we’ll just close it at that point. We meet twice a month so in two weeks we’ll meet than we’ll decide how to handle this and we’ll write up a determination and that will be written between well I guess it depends on part on how soon we get this whether we can also have a draft available in two weeks but at the latest it would be two weeks later. So, it would be a month from today. LAURA KLAHRE : So then do we come to your next meeting and have a CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No you don’t have to. The Special Meetings are not public hearings. There’s no testimony gathered. What we do and we don’t record it what we do is it’s open to the public if you want to sit in you certainly can but there’s no conversation going on you’re just observing and listening to the Board discuss various applications. The Board prepares drafts of each application, draft decisions about which way to go and then they get emailed out to everybody. We don’t talk about them together because we can only do that before the public in an open noticed meeting so we all see them in advance and then we think about them scribble them up if we have changes, we get together, we talk about them, we review them and we may or may not make changes and then we vote. So the public is welcomed to listen but you’re not required to be there it’s entirely up to you and you’re welcomed to. I’m not sure whether as I said it depends I don’t know whether we’ll have a draft ready to deliberate but we would certainly have one a month from today depending how fast we get what we need. Thank you all for your time and thank you for your good work. Motion is to adjourn to the Special Meeting. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 7003 – JEFF and JAIME ABARMS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Jeff and Jaime Abrams #7003. This is a request for variances from Article XXII, Section 280-116A(1) and the Building Inspector’s September 1, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to demolish an existing house and construct a new single family dwelling and a new detached accessory deck at 1) proposed dwelling is located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bank, 2) proposed accessory deck located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bank located at 7325 Nassau Point Rd. (adj. to Little Peconic Bay) in Cutchogue. I should just say that we did receive the survey that’s now showing adjacent properties. We received your memorandum also and you just brought up something else. These are what, priors setbacks and so on? PAT MOORE : Yes priors similar variances I didn’t include sheds and things like that you know or I would have had it bulked to this paperwork. The only case that is applicable as far as the current code because the current code of 100 feet from the top of the bank just got adopted so the only one that has more recently been reviewed under that provision is tax lot number 111- 15-11 that’s the bottom of the packet that I gave you. That’s the old Blangiardo property which is Stromski and Perez purchased from him and these were decks and accessory structures that were along the bank. They’re not really it’s not comparable as far as the application we have before you but it’s the first time it actually got reviewed so I included it but we have very little to go with since you know ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A work in progress. PAT MOORE : A work in progress you got it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just enter into the record here that this is a demolition of an existing single family dwelling and a new single family dwelling proposed at 34 feet from the top of the bluff bank where the code is suggesting 100 feet is required and an accessory deck at the top of the bank. Now before I go into anything further I want to make sure you got a copy of the LWRP and Soil and Water. PAT MOORE : The LWRP I did not get. Soil and Water I did get. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We just got them so I want to make sure. PAT MOORE : Yea Soil and Water I don’t need it because that was sent to us yesterday thank you but LWRP I did not get. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We just got it. It’s consistent. PAT MOORE : Oh well that’s good. I can never predict what is going to come up. I’ll take it and I’ll run with it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I think Soil and Water had some interesting comments. PAT MOORE : We will address those, Patricia Moore on behalf of the Abrams application. We have Mr. Abrams here today. I also have Tom Samuels the Architect and Joe Fischetti professional engineer whose assistance we’re going to get from both of them regarding the standards that we have to meet. As you know the 100 foot setback from the top of the bank is something that is brand new. For the last at least twenty five years we’ve been locating houses in this are in particular at 75 feet from a bulkhead. Many applications in Nassau Point because it’s a very early subdivision of the ‘30’s many of the old homes when they were either existing homes with additions or demolitions and reconstructions they were being placed on their properties at 75 feet or generally 75 feet or closer to the bulkhead. That has been the established character of the neighborhood. What we did is if you turn to page sheet number two from Tom Samuels of Samuels and Steelman the original packet to you has two houses to the north and to the south I asked Tom if he could just add one more since generally our code deals with average setbacks being around the 300 feet up and down so we just added the third house not really knowing what the end result would be those two houses are actually even closer. Our average that I gave you in my written presentation was at 21 feet as an average setback if you just use the two houses to the north and to the south when you use the three houses it doesn’t change that number. It’s still the 21 feet being the average setback. Again the ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting character of the neighborhood probably the most recent application that I recall is the Drews house it’s right next door. That one was an application that I actually did and that was a demolition and new dwelling unlike the other variances that I provided they were additions to existing homes, significant additions many cases they were almost completely new built houses but technically they were considered additions and renovations. The Drews house next door was an application for a demolition and new dwelling. In that instance the house was pushed back slightly which was from the original house about the same amount we’re proposing with the current house which was owned by Catapano. I had done some work for Catapano before. The Drews house was granted at 71.3 feet from the bulkhead which led to a 44 foot setback to the top of the bank. The topography of that property and I’ll have Tom talk about it more specifically but if you can see and again the overall sheet number two gives you a good overall picture of the way the topography in this area has was graded originally and you can see that the bulkheads in many instances depending on where the bulkhead is situated the top of the bank is either more or less protected based on the placement of the bulkhead so the Drews example the bulkhead pops out towards the water slightly and therefore the top of the bank is slightly protruding out towards the water and that’s why you end up with a 44 foot setback to the new residence the new house that was built by the Drews family in 2006. Similarly if you look up and down to the north and to the south you’ll see significant setbacks what would be a huge variance today with setbacks that are 14 feet from the top of the bank, 27 feet and so on and again an average being 21 and we’re proposing to push the house back to 35, 34.6. So let me deal with one issue at a time if that’s alright with the Board. So with respect with the character of the neighborhood Tom would you come up and just speak generally about how the house was designed and the character of the neighborhood and I’ll let you address. TOM SAMUELS : Tom Samuels of Samuels and Steelman Architects how are you all today? Staying with Pat’s sheet number two I would just draw your attention to the contour lines and what you see from the top of the sheet down towards the middle which is where our project site is that there are a lot of contour lines which are gradually diminishing as you move south so basically this represents a bank of land a contour of land which is getting lower as we come towards the south. We are towards the end of that bank before the property is pretty much level out at the top of the bank as they do further south of us but what you also notice is that it’s not just that the overall property is diminishing to the south but it’s a ridge of land which is between the waterfront and the road so there’s a kind of a high section between the road and the waterfront which means that the houses were located I mean for strategic reasons obviously on top of that so that they would have a view of the water. If they were behind that ridge of land (inaudible) five foot contours they would be looking at the back of this ridge of land as opposed to the water and that is the exact same situation that we face in that the original house which we’re proposing to replace was built into this ridge of land so that the ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting residents would walk out at grade on both sides of the house but they would be on different stories so on the water side you’re a floor up looking out at the bay, on the roadside you’re a floor down and you have access directly under the house for a garage and for other recreational spaces which my clients the Abrams were determined to have this kind of a situation where they could put a swimming pool at grade behind the house and this property which they just recently purchased made perfect sense for that so I’m basically saying that it’s not easy to slide this house back because we would be again looking at the back of the bluff or bank or a hill coming up in front of you and blocking your view and it would also prevent you from having a usable basement which is accessed at grade. So that’s the principal point I would make at the moment and I have additional ones but if you want to continue. That point is further illustrated on sheet number three where you see a site section with a dotted line a heavy dotted line, in this section the water Little Peconic Bay is to the right. You see a bulkhead line a relatively flat area, the bank in question goes up to a high point and then gradually goes down towards the road and you can see a section of our house the proposed house and how that first floor arrangement accessing at grade on both sides but different floors works and why this particular location which is the location of the existing house only we’re slightly back from it was so critical to this design so I’m drawing attention to that and to the fact that everyone else especially to the north of us has located their house for the exact same reason that they were 75 feet from the bulkhead put them at the top so they could look out at the water instead of looking at the back of a bluff and this is based entirely upon the existing contours of the site and our desire naturally not to propose to excavate out you know massive amount of fill which we would probably be prevented from doing anyway from the Trustees and others in order to have those views that we want and then finally on sheet number four you see elevations of the house. You can see what it looks like and how these arrangements were. The grade out areas this was calculated specifically to illustrate that we are not building a three story house. In order to be a two story house by code zoning code and also state building code a certain percentage of the basement must be below grade and they have a new calculation in the new code. I won’t get into the fine points of it but I will say that we passed that but if this house was pushed back and the ground by natural contour started to decrease in height the house would be more and more out of the ground and this whole approach of having a walk out basement which was important to my clients would be impossible. So that is in a nutshell I guess the reasoning behind our citing of this house and why we’re here today. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : So the question I have Tom is how do you protect the foundation? TOM SAMUELS : The foundation is protected primarily by the bulkhead and by the ground that’s there. Joe will speak more specifically to the issues of (inaudible) etc. We are in a very we think in a very good position relative to the bank that’s there. We have by engineering ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting standards and New York State code a lot of excess property on the waterside of our house which is protected in this foundation. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yeah but is it stable enough to protect the foundation? PAT MOORE : You know what since you’re asking that specific question Joe would you come up and why don’t we just jump right to that issue. JOE FISCHETTI : Good morning Joe Fischetti, engineer. I’m in Southold and Board certified in structural engineering. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can I just ask you one question before you start? In reference to protecting the foundation you’ve put spread footings in here? JOE FISCHETTI : No there’s no need to. The spread footings is only when the soil conditions as poor. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : OK, I’m just saying we’re looking at this situation from Soil and Water and I realized that I guess some of this demolition of this bank so to speak was put by storm Sandy okay because the bulkhead has been replaced right? JOE FISCHETTI : Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I mean there’s new bulkhead or relatively a new bulkhead. So I mean that’s just a reason why I’m asking that. JOE FISCHETTI : Let me continue and talk. I’ll start off to say I’ve reviewed Tom Samuel’s designs and site plans and it is my opinion that the construction of the proposed house will not affect the bank. On page three you’ll see we took out section I looked at New York State building code section 403 (inaudible) that section allows helps architects and engineers in placing houses next to descending slopes. Now a bluff is a descending slope and basically they give a formula and what that does is basically condense a lot of geotechnical information that I probably won’t go into except if you look at this plan you’ll see there’s a forty five degree angled line coming down from the footing and that’s the soil failure line. Every soil different soil conditions have different angles of soil failure. Now when you have something like hurricane Sandy where it erodes the bottom of the bank the bluff the upper bluff that’s not being supported by the bottom of the bank will fail at the angle at the soil failure angle so what I found over the years that that angle is probably something like thirty seven degrees. That same failure angle is used as the point of where a footing the impact of that footing would be on that failure angle. So as long as the intersection of the bluff and that soil failure angle don’t intersect you have no effect. So that formula that I’ve given you and that section by the building code try to condenses all that ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting information and makes it real easy so there really is not a problem till those two angles intersect. The building code does say further down in that code that there are additional considerations that a town or a municipality can put on and they require that an engineer be used to analyze additional considerations that would affect a bluff or stability of a bluff. One would be the height of the slope, the slope gradient which is the angle of repose. Now as I said to you when you have a failure, that bluff is at its angle of repose. So that bluff that’s there now is actually thirty five degrees so within the context of what we see on the North fork of thirty five to thirty seven degrees so it is at a stable angle and the third is erosion characteristics because you don’t want to put a house on a bluff or a slope if it has the ability to erode. I’ve told in this particular case I’ve told the client that he needs to protect the existing bluff face with vegetation using good practices. If you look at this section on page three what’s very interesting is the erosion of the bank back from the bulkhead actually has there’s a level spot there and I called that a splash back and I used that to dissipate wave action whenever waves overtop a bulkhead which happened in Sandy because the waves are much higher and what that does is the waves come over the top of the bulkhead and you need to dissipate that energy so I’ve recommended to my client that flat area be placed with six to eight inch stones twenty four inches deep which actually dissipate wave energy and helps protect that bluff that it doesn’t move. Again anything can happen but we try to do that. So having a setback of 34 foot 6 inches should have no effect on that bluff (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Joe let me ask you about specific recommendations that Soil and Water Authority mentioned that the bluff needs to be stabilized, to be vegetated and there’s some landscaping debris that needs to be cleaned out of there and they’re talking about here it would appear that the deck along the top of the bank or bluff is going to be reduced in size more to like a landing area it says the deck at top of the stairwell is going to be downsized. It does show on the plan I believe a reduction in size but what they’re saying is its not recommending that the original pilings be removed as this can create more issues for the bluff and also its not recommended that new pilings be put in until the bluff has been stabilized. JOE FISCHETTI : All good practices. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You’re okay with all that? TOM SAMUELS : I agree with all that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Last but not least just talking about staging construction equipment running machines within twenty five feet of the top of the bluff is not recommended. No heavy equipment you know should be stored there for long periods of time (inaudible) feet of bluff (inaudible). ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting JOE FISCHETTI : In these particular case in residential homes like this all the heavy equipment that you have is during is excavation and most of that excavation would happen further landward. The other heavy equipment that you need to be careful of is concrete trucks but again concrete trucks are not going to be on the water side just impossible to get trucks over there but I want you to understand that those are really very, very conservative. Having a truck about forty feet is just we used to over the years when contractors were building revetments especially John Costello he used to do this all the time he would bring fully loaded trucks with large boulders up to the edge of the slope and dump them down. They did it all the time. Those bluffs didn’t collapse from those trucks so you really need to do you really need to do major construction to do that so twenty five forty feet I would think is really if you’re going to be putting recommendations I agree with twenty five, forty is way out the park here it’s just really out of the way but again none of the construction all the construction is going to be happening on the land side the heavy equipment is the excavation, the concrete trucks and installation of the sanitary and actually I don’t even know whether they’re they’ll probably be doing a new sanitary so that’s also on the landside so any problems with that won’t happen. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) Trustees approval also I presume. PAT MOORE : (inaudible) talked about was that our Trustee approval based on the recommendations that Joe has made were actually going to add to the supplication we brought (inaudible) and then the vegetation of the bank. It doesn’t really involve this Board because we consistent with the Trustees review so all in the way to get the maximum protection (inaudible) the construction as Joe testified these things are not necessary (CANNOT HEAR PAT MOORE SPEAKING BEING DROWNED OUT BY THE BUZZING) our distance is sufficient but it is a good preventative prophylactic measure to protect any possible future erosion of storm damage another hurricane so it’s something that Mr. Abrams is certainly willing to do. It’s a very costly addition but it’s a long term investment (inaudible) as Joe mentioned good practices so we’re using this opportunity since we have to go to the Trustees anyway to incorporate that. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Joe are you putting fiber underneath that stone or your just JOE FISCHETTI : Yeah usually. I didn’t design it I made a comment but usually you (inaudible) under the stone. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Last question, I walked around the house to see if I can find any cracks in the house after storm Sandy, I didn’t see anything but of course that could have been done by water you know JOE FISCHETTI : You’re just not you’re too far back. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : You’re too far back. ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let’s see if the Board has questions. MEMBER DANTES : I know on the sound (inaudible) bluff setback (CANNOT DECIPHER DUE TO BUZZING NOISE) PAT MOORE : No you never had top of bluff that was a jurisdiction CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That was on Long Island Sound. We didn’t have jurisdiction over bluffs on bays until the 275, 280 (inaudible) JOE FISCHETTI : If we were on Long Island Sound and you had a hundred foot bluff which this is not this is a sixteen foot so you want to protect yourself because I always tell clients when we’re looking at stuff I said you’re not giving this to your grandchildren. PAT MOORE : On the sound. JOE FISCHETTI : On the sound side. I’m sorry we’re talking sound side with high bluff that’s what the code allows. MEMBER DANTES : Can you just tell us the difference between bluff and bay bluff? JOE FISCHETTI : I’m sorry say again. MEMBER DANTES : The sound bluff is the precedent we have to work with can you just tell us the difference between a sound bluff and bay bluff? JOE FISCHETTI : I don’t think there would be a difference. It’s just the heights on the sound that some of them are over a hundred feet high and that’s what I was trying to say and whether there’s a bulkhead or not. Now some of the problems we have on the sound are that the D.E.C. are not allowing us to do bulkheads anymore. They want revetments which I think are horrible. The last job I had that I designed a revetment for bulkheads he wanted a revetment and when I gave him a revetment he didn’t want it that high and I said why am I doing this at all? So I actually wrote on the design plan that this is designed by D.E.C. and not designed by me because they so there are problems on the sound side with D.E.C. really gets involved and they don’t want a lot of bulkheads they don’t want certain things happening. Bayside is different. After hurricane Sandy I did a number of bulkheads and retaining walls and depending on which way the wind is blowing there’s no difference. Depends on which way the wind is blowing and how the tides look at what happened with Sandy. Sandy came from the east and that tide came up high and over top many of the ones many of the bulkheads on Nassau Point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One of the reasons that the ZBA is not doing bulkheads setbacks is because bulkhead is a protection from a naturally regulated feature and the assumption would ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting be if the bulkhead is in place it doesn’t require duplicate reviews between Trustees and the Zoning Board whereas a bluff that’s unprotected requires (inaudible) that looks at the range of different standards that a Zoning Board looks at in comparison to the standards that Trustees look at. (inaudible) environmental (inaudible). We look at character of the neighborhood and a lot of other things that would in fact permit a variance from the code based upon non- conformity in the area (inaudible) in this application with regard to setback so that’s part (inaudible) Eric. This is a bulk headed property and we’re still working now on developing distinction between what is a bluff and what is a bank. That is a work in progress that we’re all looking forward to improving. In fact there’s a code committee meeting Tuesday. MEMBER HORNING : Could I ask Mr. Fischetti a direct question? The Notice of Disapproval refers to a bluff and the final sentence refers to the top of the bank. JOE FISCHETTI : It’s all the same it doesn’t matter a bluff and a bank. PAT MOORE : Well the way we define in our code JOE FISCHETTI : As an engineer I’m looking at it as the same it doesn’t matter to me. It’s a descending slope so whether it’s a slope or a bluff, a bluff though in the town code is specific. It has definitions of what a bluff is and how the top of the bluff is calculated so a bank could not have water next to it. We have it could be just a high slope so even the building code doesn’t define that there’s water anywhere but it just talks about and we’re only talking about the effects of the impact of a structure on a soil that has a slope to it. So whether it’s a bluff or a bank that’s what you and I are I’m talking about here. I’m not talking about anything that has to do with erosion which goes back to other sections that would be taken up by the Trustees or anyone else. MEMBER HORNING : In this Notice of Disapproval is there any difference in your mind between the bluff and a bank? Why did it refer to the bluff in one sentence and a bank in the next sentence? TOM SAMUELS : I can add to that a little bit in that the survey that we were working from which was prepared obviously by a licensed surveyor he uses both of those terms and it just sort of crept in there. They mention the bottom of the bluff the top of the bank and those two lines are on our survey and so we and the Building Department presumably saw that and adopted that language but I would say in this instance the difference between a bluff and a bank is that a bluff is an eroding face of earth which has been denuded of vegetation such as on Robins Island. A bank is a slope which might be quite low and might be retained. It might have vegetation on it so that’s my just off the top of my head but I also wanted to just address the issue of the difference between the sound and the bay. On the sound there’s also something ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting called a coastal erosion hazard line which was established by the federal government as far as I know to indicate that there was a serious risk of collapse of that bluff. We don’t have that on the bay. There is a coastal erosion hazard line and I think that indicates a very different approach to the way the town initially regulated those two conditions. Now we’ve sucked everything into that same definition but I think that was inappropriate and (inaudible) frankly because not only did it make everything non-conforming on Nassau Point but it suggested that there was a similar risk on the sound as it was on the bay and I don’t believe that’s the case because we have a continuous bulkhead line over a mile long on Nassau Point which is going to be scrupulously maintained by the property owners whose value of property depends on the integrity of those bulkheads and they are not going to skimp on that. That is those structures are fundamental to life on Long Island as we know (inaudible) so I just wanted to make those comments. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in the audience wishing to address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I’ll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 7005 –JOHN and CATHERINE BOYLE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for John and Catherine Boyle #7005. This is a request for variances from Article IV Section 280-15 and the Building ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting Inspector’s August 8, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to legalize an “as built” farm accessory barn at 1) at more than the maximum height of 22 feet located at 24435 Route 25 (Main Rd.) in Orient. Would you please state your name for the record? AGENA RIGDON : Good afternoon Agena, DKR Shores here to represent John and Catherine Boyle. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so we have an “as built” accessory barn with a 27 foot high peak to the ridge and the code permits a maximum of 22 feet. AGENA RIGDON : Twenty two correct. As you can see it was built without a permit. It’s a shirk pole barn. It’s a metal barn that is similar to the other barns on the site. It’s roughly a twenty two acre parcel on Sound Ave. 48 and we went through full site plan review by the way and then at the end it was determined that because the property isn’t being actively farmed even though it’s used for farming and there are horses on site and it’s zoned a horse farm because it’s not actively being farmed right now they had me come before you for Zoning Board because it’s technically residential if it’s not being actively farmed so I’m caught in a bit of a loop hole. The barn actually is being used to store farming equipment. Mr. Boyle has farms down the road and it’s a storage facility for the overflow farming equipment. MEMBER HORNING : Is it zoned R80? AGENA RIGDON : I have to look at that. I believe so. I have to look at the tax rolls. I believe it is yes. There’s a residence on the farm as well so it’s obviously being residentially used but there’s only a couple of horses there and we’re not farming it so I’m before the Board. It’s similar to all the other barns in the area. I have no neighborhood objection. It’s consistent with the neighborhood. It’s consistent with the character of the property. The property was historically farmed it’s just not being farmed at this moment. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Was is being farmed when the barn was built, the subject barn? AGENA RIGDON : It’s there’s horses so it’s not farmed. We’re not producing. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : You’re not producing crop but you’re a horse farm. AGENA RIGDON : There’s a horse farm. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : It was originally a horse farm? AGENA RIGDON : It’s zoned right now as a horse farm. I would have to research back to see exactly when it was converted from production of agricultural products to a horse farm but it’s ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting actively a horse farm right now and that’s what it’s being taxed and zoned on as per the assessor’s office. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay so a horse farm would be treated is being treated different than farm with respect to accessory structures? AGENA RIGDON : Correct. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : If this was a farm this accessory structure would be permitted at this height? T. A. DUFFY : I don’t see a difference between a horse farm and a production farm. I don’t really understand what the difference is. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I don’t either. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s part of agriculture. AGENA RIGDON : As per site plan they hemmed and hawed on this for about a year and they determined as per town code because we’re not producing something and it’s not being actively farmed and only used for an overflow of farming equipment that it still needed a variance from the Board because it exceeds the height for an accessory quote unquote. MEMBER HORNING : The buildings that are there there’s several of them. AGENA RIGDON : They all have C.O.’s and they’re all higher than twenty two feet. MEMBER HORNING : It was I drove back there it was hard to tell the Irish guy was there the caretaker and he directed me exactly to what to look at but the building on the left of that I mean AGENA RIGDON : It’s similar. MEMBER HORNING : Yea very similar and you say it’s higher than AGENA RIGDON : It’s higher than twenty two feet yeah. MEMBER HORNING : And when was that one built? AGEN RIGDON : I would have to check with the owner. It’s been there for quite a few years. I believe it was C.O.’d when he actually bought it. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I did a little research on that other barn. Three of them that are clustered in the center there the subject one of course doesn’t have a C.O. and then the smaller ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting one has a C.O. and then the larger one I did some GIS research and it didn’t show up in 2001 aerial but it showed up in 2004 aerial. Somewhere between 2001 and 2004 that was built. I didn’t see a C.O. for that in the file. Chairperson did you say that the code changed back then for accessory structures? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah but they were on mostly on residential properties. We didn’t change the code necessarily I don’t think for agricultural accessories. Right do you agree with that? We changed the height and the setbacks on accessory structures on residential properties so that they would MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And that’s what this is falling under right now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah and right now they’re looking at this apparently as a residential property and not an agricultural property because it’s not actively MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Being farmed but it’s a horse farm. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I think they just sent (inaudible) variance over to use because that’s what they do. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : From a visual inspection of the other barn the older one that was built sometime between 2001 and 2004 it appears to be the same height. It is the same width so assuming it might have been the same construction company or you know it has trusses and (inaudible) so I’m assuming it’s the same heights. Nevertheless it’s very similar to what already the barn in question the subject barn is very similar to what is already there. AGENA RIGDON : Correct. I did checking with the Building Inspector and he said that the other barns did have C.O.’s and then searched the property record card and I have there should be copies of the C.O.’s in the application packet they should be there. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I did go through those C.O.’s and I saw one C.O. 36646 for 2013 that was for the long skinny metal barn that’s within that three barn cluster and the other C.O.’s I thought were referencing the residential dwelling and the accessory structures in that area. AGENA RIGDON : I have the property card reference he’s being taxed for a barn on the last remark was April of ’11 and that barn is 25 by 95 so that one did MEMBER SCHNEIDER : That’s the long skinny one in that three barn cluster in the center because that’s 95 by 25. AGENA RIGDON : Right the Building Inspector didn’t flag anything else so I’m not really sure and the property record shows all the barns that are on site. ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : Did you ever see any cows there? AGENA RIGDON : I didn’t; I just saw a pony and a mini and I have cute pictures of them. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So I guess the point I’m trying to get at is that if the other one already the other large one that was built somewhere between 2001 and 2004 had a permit and C.O. and everything for that that was what this application (inaudible) AGENA RIGDON : Thank you. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : (inaudible) AGENA RIGDON : He’s being taxed on all of them so there’s pictures in the property record so somehow it got legal. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Somehow it got legal. AGENA RIGDON : It should have been in the application but I can copy. MEMBER DANTES : Leslie just because it’s being taxed doesn’t make it a legal structure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George had a question about livestock on the MEMBER HORNING : Not while I was there yesterday there wasn’t any (inaudible) but the question is if this gentleman can answer it are there other livestock besides horses that inhabit the place on occasion. UNNAMED SPEAKER : Not today I live in the house in front of this barn and the Main Rd. and I’ve lived there since 1969 so I can tell you that that (inaudible) has always been farmed but it hasn’t been actively farmed where they actually dig up the dirt in probably twenty years but they used to grow cabbage and cauliflower and stuff back there. The Tabors used to farm there. John has had Black Angus cattle there on a regular basis for years. He would raise them and then when winter came he didn’t want to feed them so he sent them to Yaphank the (inaudible) so MEMBER HORNING : I mean is that ag production is the question is that part of agricultural production? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I would say yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Sure it is definitely. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What are the barns being used for now? Clearly they’re not horse stables. There’s lots of heavy equipment in there and ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting AGENA RIGDON : Mr. Boyle owns farms down the road and it’s an overflow of farming equipment so as you can see in the photographs that I submitted it’s all farming equipment. There’s tractors there’s CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And is that equipment used in connection with property owned by the applicant or is it a business in which farm equipment is being leased to other people? AGENA RIGDON : Both I think. I know John has a couple of farms down the road that are being actively farmed and that’s his overflow for his farming and I think he lets other people use it as well. I’m not sure of the barter system going on. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : That’s not very uncommon in the farming industry. In specialized equipment you tend to share or CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we need to see if we can find a C.O. on the other barn that’s very similar in height to this one and it’s not even that big of a variance. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No it’s not I’m just confused with the respect that it’s not considered a farm I don’t know raising horses CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In other words the building is not being treated as an agricultural structure it’s being treated as an accessory to a residence. AGENA RIGDON : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Which is why the height restriction but I think the argument can be made that it is historically been farmed and that it is although not actively involved in farming it is still a household that is a residence that is there in connection with a farming activity. AGENA RIGDON : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Whether it’s on that property or on adjacent properties farming is taking place with the equipment stored in those buildings. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And there’s no living quarters in these barns? AGENA RIGDON : No you can walk right inside of them I did it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We’ve been out there we’ve seen it. AGENA RIGDON : It’s a beautiful site isn’t it? It’s a gorgeous piece of property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay anything from anybody else? ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I just want to make one more comment that this cluster of barns with the subject barn is about thousand feet from the Main Rd. MEMBER HORNING : That’s a very good point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Very good point, anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 7006 – REVCO LIGHTING & ELECTRICAL SUPPLY/STODIEN DEVELOPMENT CHAIRPERSON WIESMAN : The next application before the Board is for Revco Lighting & Electrical Supply #7006. This is a request for variances from Article XIX Section 280-85 D and the Building Inspector’s September 13, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a sign permit to erect a second freestanding sign at 1) more than the code required maximum number of freestanding signs allowed for each frontage I think it’s more than the code permitted rather than required but anyway this is on a public street or way located at 55765 Route 25 (Main Rd.) in Southold. Please state your name for the record. TONI REIDEL : Hello my name is Toni Ann Reidel and I’m the marketing and PR manager for Revco Lighting and Electrical Supply. ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIREPRSON WEISMAN : Well it looks like because there’s already one set there’s two buildings on one parcel three actually TONI REIDEL :There’s two we’re on this corner, there’s a parking lot and there’s two buildings here and the sign that you’re talking about is over there in the top of that one so far away. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we’re familiar. We’ve all been to the site; we all live here so we all drive by it all the time anyway but we’ve all. We all do site inspections individually so we’re familiar with the sign that’s there and it would probably make very little sense for you to add your sign to that sign when it’s way over on the other side of the parking lot. Are you proposing I believe on the plan to remove the sign that is on the building up on the roof? TONI REIDEL : Absolutely we don’t want two signs. That’s not permitted. We’re allowed one sign and from all the work in the wintertime you can see that sign on the building but in the summer with the trees you can’t see anything drive by and so many people don’t know that we’re there so we’ve designed the sign to be aesthetically pleasing to the building, to the community within the zoning guidelines of where it would fifteen feet from the sidewalk, the street and then each angle of where the sign would be placed we made sure that it doesn’t interfere with the viewing of any other business so we kind of were very careful to make sure from all angles some of the staff and I were outside making sure that you could see so it doesn’t disrupt and take away from anybody else. It would be a 4 by 6 within the guidelines of where it would be placed in the earth. I’ve sent out all the letters. I’ve met with the coffee roaster owner and she’s very supportive of very nice woman, Tom McCarthy called me and he’s very supportive of it. We have had no (inaudible) from anybody saying because it won’t interrupt them and that’s one of the things we want to add to the community economic development and we don’t want to infringe on anybody else’s privacy or their business. Just be more visible so we can do more business. CHAIRPERSON WIESMAN : One of our members is recusing himself from this deliberation because he does business with them. TONI REIDEL : That would be a conflict of interest. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So just letting that be known on the record. His family he has a family of builders so they TONI REIDEL : I appreciate that; we appreciate that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so let’s see if there’s anything ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I have a question the other sign or the first sign not the one on your building the other one it says the Luncheonette and North Fork Roasting Company Revco’s name is not on that sign TONI REIDEL : It was never (inaudible, buzzing louder than voice) originally I guess seven years ago the building was taken over Revco moved to Southold it was permitted sign on the building I wasn’t there so I can’t explain about the other sign. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The other two businesses are in separate buildings across the parking lot so Revco stands alone TONI REIDEL : CANNOT HEAR HER SPEAKING DUE TO BUZZING NOISE MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Far away from this existing sign. It looks like the site plan we have here this is the one that we’re going to work with right? It indicates that the proposed sign is 24 square feet, fifteen plus feet from the road meaning the Main Rd. I’m assuming. TONI REIDEL : Does everybody have a copy of this? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And 6 plus feet or so from the sidewalk. TONI REIDEL : Right. I looked at the guidelines and one of the staff members and I went outside and did physical measurements and I took another foot or so above that to make sure we were well within the guidelines so we took physical measurements. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is the sign proposed to be lit at night or not? TONI REIDEL : We have assigned a light, very thin light, down light that’s going to be on, it’s going to be turned off at a certain point but it’s (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s going to have to be dark skies compliant per code. TONI REIDEL : It is absolutely. We were very careful with the light that we chose the lumens to make sure that we meet the dark sky and all the guidelines according to the town. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well even though the subject parcel is one parcel it appears because of the parking lot as though there are two parcels. We know they are one property. I don’t think the sign in front of the coffee roasters would do Revco very much MEMBER SCHNEIDER : What’s the point of a sign but to advertise you know and it would be ineffective if it was (inaudible) ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting TONI REIDEL : It wouldn’t help us over there when they’re over there you’re right a hundred percent right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry anything, George? MEMBER HORNING : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in the audience wishing to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 7007 – FRANK and DENISE DELLAQUILLA CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just make a note that Member Schneider is recusing himself from the next application and is leaving the room. The next application before the Board is for Frank and Denise Dellaquilla # 7007. This is a request for variances from Article XIX Section 280- 13(A)6(P) and the Building Inspector’s September 14, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to legalize an “as built” accessory apartment in the basement of a single family dwelling for a proposed bed and breakfast at 1) bed and breakfast facilities shall not be permitted by Town Code in or on premises for which an accessory apartment is authorized or exists, located at 4725 New Suffolk Avenue in Mattituck. PAT MOORE : Right from the beginning we disagreed with the Building Inspector’s interpretation here. Some of you have been to the property and you can inside the room that is ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting proposed for the B&B use is finished space. It’s in the lower part it’s a walk out and the proposal is not to have an accessory apartment. It doesn’t have a kitchen it has a refrigerator but no kitchen excuse me no stove pardon me misspoke it does have a very nice cabinetry and counter. At the time when it was added in it was for their parents that they were elderly and they lived in that space. When Mr. Dellaquilla parents died, that space remained and is incorporated as part of the house. When the short term rental was available it was a very useful short term rental situation because it was private and it could people could come and go with of little without interfering with their privacy or the family’s privacy. With a short term rental legislation even though this is owner occupied situation the simpler application is as a B&B so the B&B we meet all of the criteria for a B&B use which is one room. There is no ,it’s up to three rooms and in this case we have one room. It provides the bed and as far as the breakfast it is continental service so it’s not no restaurant, no full meals being provided for in this space so it met all of the criteria for a B&B room. It’s just the configuration is a little, every B&B you’re going to find is a little unique and a little different particularly if it’s owner occupied (inaudible) because it’s not commercially used. In this case it’s just one room so it’s not a full time business. Some of the B&B’s applications that you’ve approved for a three or four rooms the family has chosen to make it part of their livelihood. In this case it’s supplementing the income to help pay taxes and carrying costs on the house. I’ll answer any questions you have but we are not proposing an apartment so I didn’t understand the Building Inspector rational. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I think having spoken to him the situation was an apartment exists. The removal of the stove technically I guess is okay there’s no kitchen. It’s a slide in slide out stove. It’s a full refrigerator, it’s a beautiful apartment it was used that way and it doesn’t have a C.O. It was not done with a permit. PAT MOORE : Correct it was not it was an owner occupied mother daughter so it was converted that way. The slide in slide out it actually is been permanently sealed. There is cabinetry in front of it and there is no electrical for an electric stove so the stove has been permanently removed and they don’t have a need for an apartment so as a just a short term rental B&B that’s the proposal before you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me just ask a question because you’re right; every application is different with a B&B, but typically B&B’s are such that bedrooms are accessible to the owner space. There’s some privacy sometimes separate from hallway or whatever but in this situation I’m not suggesting this disqualifies it I’m just simply saying the only access is through an unfinished basement with a workshop from the inside the rest is from the outside. PAT MOORE : Yeah I think it’s just an issue of design because if you look around I have personally so I can testify swear to personally that in Vermont we’ve stayed in B&B’s with my ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting kids where it was a there really was no connection to the families living space. It was a segregated portion of the building. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Vermont notwithstanding. I’m not saying it’s a disqualified thing I’m saying it does differ but the bottom line is why not if you want to supplement your income why not simply go to the Building Department and as of right obtain a C.O. for an accessory apartment in a principal dwelling which you can do without variance relief or anything else. It’s now permitted through the Building Department because that’s certainly not greater than 40% of the total square footage. PAT MOORE : No, no no it could meet the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you could rent it out to whoever you want. PAT MOORE : But I think and well it used to be for yourself; do you want an apartment? FRANK DELLAQUILLA : Frank Dellaquilla. You know my wife and I have been in the personal service business; my wife has been in business for thirty three years. We own a hair salon. So this also it kind of interacts with what we do. She loves to host people. We have a lot of holidays at our home. This was a great way to meet new people. We do interact with them when they come and when they leave as far as that goes it’s very private for them and they will enjoy that privacy. I’ve been to some B&B’s on my own as well. We were in a few that were separate and it was great that you didn’t have to not that we don’t want to meet new people but you know getting out of bed sometimes you’re sharing a bathroom this is totally private and I think the response we’re going to get is going to be fantastic. You’s guys saw it. It’s a beautiful apartment has a nice little patio for them. They come and go as they please. We supply bicycles if they need them. We’ve given people rides form the train station and back there which is necessary as well but you know supplementing our income is very helpful to be out here and to enjoy the community. That’s why you know we kept it separate and it was for my parents and they unfortunately passed. They were there less than two years combined. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let’s clear this one up then. There is also no building permit that was obtained for a second floor additions and alterations. Can you address that? PAT MOORE : That was the house it was built actually there was a building permit applied for now FRANK DELLAQUILLA : We were totally blindsided by that. I don’t know why it wasn’t caught when we purchased the house in 2001. When we walked into the house it was for sale by owner you know there were five bedrooms in the house and you see I made there were two bedrooms on the main floor has now been converted to a den and an office so there’s no ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting bedroom downstairs there’s three bedrooms upstairs. I had no clue that there wasn’t a C.O. for it. The bank came in they did their appraisal. I assume that the bank checks all these things but obviously they don’t. Gary also was our attorney never mentioned a word about it. We closed on the house we’ve been living there since 2001. PAT MOORE : It appears that when the house was originally built it was a two story cape so what they did is they had not finished the second floor. They had all the rough work all the plumbing everything was done they just didn’t finish the (inaudible) the finishes for the bedrooms. What they did is they relocated the bedrooms from the first floor to the second floor so from the outside everything stayed exactly the same. It was just a relocation of the bedrooms so that was done by a prior owner and as you said it was a surprise because people get C.O.’s for the house when you bought the property often times you don’t (inaudible) get construction drawings. When you have a C.O. for a house that’s built relatively in a recent (inaudible) so that when we were told that that was a problem I had to get them to have architectural drawings done and submit plans and that was a pain in the neck and delayed the whole process but it’s being corrected and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I just wanted to get that into the record. PAT MOORE : Yeah it was a surprise. FRANK DELLAQUILLA : Yeah the house the bedrooms upstairs were finished when we bought the house we didn’t finish them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so it’s a C.O. for a two story single family. This is an application for a one bedroom which is what’s there. There’s a large living room and eating area. You are aware of the fact that with a one bedroom B&B only two people may occupy that space at any given time. You can’t have kids sleeping on a pull out sofa okay. FRANK DELLAQUILLA : Believe me we I have two children we have a pool, we have no interest in any young children running around and having a possibility that someone’s not watching them and they get into my yard or they damage anything interior. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want you to know absolutely no cooking will be permitted. FRANK DELLAQUILLA : Absolutely not there’s no stove to do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No more than two occupants at any given time. You do have you still have this is not like a little accessory kitchenette thing with a small countertop microwave and a little under the counter refrigerator. This was used as a proper apartment so you have a big refrigerator, a big microwave. The only thing that is now removed is the stove so again not ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting necessarily disqualifying I’m not saying that but it certainly looks like it can be easily rented out as an apartment. PAT MOORE : Well the intent put it this way you can’t if just hypothetically because it’s not what they want let’s say that tomorrow they decide you know this B&B (inaudible) or one of the kids wants to come back and live in you know get a job out here and wants to live in the apartment. The B&B is closed up in the sense that it’s no longer rented and it could be converted back to an accessory apartment as you said that we have to do some modifications for the stove. Remember the house is a single family house it’s owner occupied so for the family the extra refrigerator particularly at holiday time and for entertaining the extra refrigerator is something that in many cases you have a refrigerator in your basement as an extra refrigerator. This just happens to be there because it is was used by his parents so again there’s no other B&B interior layout it really depends on what works for the families that and ultimately the (inaudible) prevails so if somebody comes in and says oh I don’t like this I rather be in an old Inn that has the bedrooms and the bathrooms and everybody sharing bedrooms and bathrooms so be it but we have a very it’s a single family dwelling so that’s the primary use so we’re keeping with that concept with that design. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let’s see who has questions, George? MEMBER HORNING : I don’t have questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No I went to the place the other night. It was very, very beautiful. Sorry I tracked some dirt in there at least wet whatever it was that was out there a bush. PAT MOORE : It was a lousy day. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yes. CONVERSATION GOING ON BETWEEN T.A. DUFFY AND CHAIRPERSON CANNOT HEAR DUE TO BUZZING AND LOW VOLUME CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEMBER DANTES : No I guess if they decide to (inaudible) FRANK DELLAQUILLA : Honestly we have no interest in being landlords for a full year I’ve seen people running into problems with people not paying their rent and then you’ve got to get you know the courts involved and the sheriff’s department. These people particularly B&B’s they pay on credit cards. Everything is done that way it’s all electronic transactions. I’m not worried ?? December 1, 2016 Regular Meeting about someone coming (inaudible) we have no interest in being full time landlords in an apartment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from anybody else? There is no one else in the audience so hearing no further questions or comments I’m going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) ??