Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/05/2017 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 January 5, 2017 9:38 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN -Chairperson/Member ERIC DANTES— Member (Absent) GERARD GOEHRINGER— Member GEORGE HORNING — Member (Absent) KENNETH SCHNElDER— Mem ber KIM FUENTES— Board Assistant WILLIAM DUFFY—Town Attorney January 5, 2017 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Colin Cashel and Kristen Cashel #7016 3-7 R. Bradford Burnham III #7015 7 - 12 Richard and Scheherazade Madigan #7009 12 - 15 Elizabeth Branch #7010 15 - 23 Maria Zachariadis, Anthony Zachariadis and Zachariadis Zachariadis#7012 23 - 25 Croteaux Vineyards#7013 26 - 27 Captain Red's Marine Sales, Inc. #7014 27 Allen Ovsianik#7017 28 - 34 Tony and Suzanne Oliva #7018 34 - 39 January 5, 2017 Regular Meeting HEARING #7016—COLIN CASHEL and KRISTEN CASHEL CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The first application before the Board is for Colin Cashel and Kristen Cashel #7016. This is a request for variance under Article XIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's October 6, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to alter an existing porch attached to a pre-existing single family dwelling at 1) the proposed alteration is less than the code required front yard minimum setback of 35 feet, 2) the proposed porch alteration is contrary to a prior appeal condition (#6880, dated September 17, 2015) that the porch remain as unconditioned space located at 162 Lower Shingle Hill Road (AKA Fox Ave.) on Fishers Island. RICHARD LARK : Good morning Richard Lark Main Rd. Cutchogue New York for the applicant. As to this application the little history is in order. The prior owner of this property filed an area variance application among other things was to legalize 110 square foot non-conforming as built covered porch which was four feet from the property line the front property line. This property has two front properties fronting on two streets. The Board in a detailed and thoughtful opinion ZBA file 6880 on September 17, 2015 granted a four foot front yard area variance for this as built porch. At the time of the variance as is now the porch is open so that the Zoning Board imposed a condition that it must remain unconditioned space. Further the Board reserved the right to substitute a similar design providing it was minimal in nature and providing it did not increase any degree on non-conformity. The property was purchased by your applicants Colin Cashel and Kristen Cashel on October 29, 2015. Apparently the house from what I understand was in need of extensive remodeling and modernization bringing it up to date with the energy codes and what not and during the planning process the architect came up with the idea of eliminating the above ground all tank which was in the porch area putting in a proper foundation as a post holding up the roof and the open porch was sinking and eliminating the existing stockade fence and enclose the porch by completely enclosing the walls by installing windows and doors in effect making it conditioned living space. The architect provided that this would be utilized as a mud room laundry room and a side an enclosed side entrance to the kitchen of the house. In hence, the application now for the variance to request to enclose this space and make it a conditioned space. In reviewing the entire nature of the application as I did in the record of the property I submit that the balancing of the benefit to Mr. and Mrs. Cashel in granting their application to enclose this porch open porch as against any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood ways in favor of granting the application as it is supported by the substantial evidence presented in the application. It's clear that the variance if granted there will be neither any change in the residential character of the neighborhood nor will there be any increase in the front yard non-conformity of 4 feet if January 5, 2017 Regular Meeting the porch is enclosed. Neither will there be any change in the adverse effect on the residential nature of this neighborhood. The overall view of this variance application in applying the balancing test as required by the NYS town law 267-8 in weighing what is intended to be accomplished by creating efficient use of this space and enclosing the open porch and improving the symmetry of the house in my opinion weighs heavily in favor of granting the variance application especially when you consider there will not be any detriment to the community. I believe the application in the record is complete in the interest of brevity at this time I will not dwell on each of the five factors which you must consider except to say that Mr. Fitzgerald the architect is here and he wants to show you the details of this application and how he intends to modernize this and enclose this space, Mr. Fitzgerald. SAM FITZGERALD: Good morning my name is Sam Fitzgerald of Greenwich Connecticut. I've been working very closely with the Cashel's on the improvements to their house. They feel strongly about cleaning up the eyesore that is this porch. The porch has always been used for decades as a de facto mudroom. There is no practical place in the house to put a mudroom and so what you do is really sort of kill two birds with one stone. One is to clean up the eyesore of the porch and the other is to provide a proper mudroom which would improve significantly the livability of the house. The Cashel's live in Florida and they'd love to be here today but they cannot. Instead they've written me letters outlining what they would say if they were here and I'd like to submit those to the Board if I could. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sam do we just have one copy? SAM FITZGERALD: Yea I'm sorry should I have made multiple copies? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No that's okay I'll have Kim do it. SAM FITZGERALD: I can make copies too if you'd like. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: She'll scan it and email to everybody. SAM FITZGERALD: So there will be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood with this project quite to the contrary it will be more of an improvement. Here you can see the existing porch on the top and in the proposed on the bottom the existing porch as I said was used as a de facto mudroom for decades. It's four feet from the street and so someone along the way put up a stockade fence for privacy so kids could change out of wet clothes. The porch is in really poor repair. The corner post there is settling due to a poor footing. The roof is sagging as a result. The roof members don't meet current code and the sidewall shingles are all in bad shape due to moisture. The floor is a gravel floor with wood decking so it's in bad shape. We're proposing to enclose the space make it conditioned space as a mudroom with laundry and with all the things that four kids need in the summer when they come back from sailing and January 5, 2017 Regular Meeting swimming and things. We are extending the same architectural expression from the existing house into this enclosure. I'd like to draw your attention to the aerial photo here the second house from the left is the Cashel's actually north is down sorry to have a different orientation there but you can first of all see how close the houses are to the street. The two houses to the west of the Cashel's which are in the panoramic view down here they both have low slung one story additions on the size of their houses just as the Cashel's do and their additions are all fully enclosed and what we're trying to do is just to extend that same architectural language that's already on the street to the Cashel's. The porch was built in the seventies at some time. It was unpermitted as you know so we had to get an as built permit for the previous owner and that required a zoning variance which was granted but with a stipulation that the porch remain as unconditioned space. I think that Mr. Lark can speak more to that point but let me just say that if this porch were left as an open porch or enclosed it would still function as a mud room. There is no practical space to put a mud room in the existing house. It was built in 1893. The original floor plan is still largely intact. It's a tight lot and there's no real a more feasible way to put a mudroom within the walls of the existing house. I think that it would have been done over the last a hundred and some years if it was possible. So if we were to actually use this porch as a mudroom what we would have to do is first of all make extensive repairs. We would have to first put a concrete slab down which will mean we would have to put a perimeter foundation around forty two inches deep. It would have to shore up the roof add roof rafters that meet the current structural code. It would have to re support the entire roof, replace the side wall shingles, come up with some sort of screening enclosure that would meet the zoning ordinance that would provide your privacy and then on top of that you would have to still deal with the moisture problem inside this space. So once we've done all that we're almost here and I say that I say all that because the relief that we're asking for is not significant. The existing porch is already included in the building coverage so we would not be increasing the building coverage. We would be following the exact footprint of the existing porch so that we would not be increasing the non-conformity of the setbacks. So I think in every respect with regards to regulations of the zoning ordinance there would be no change. There would be no adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood as I think I've already outlined and it is true that the improvements that we're trying to make to the porch is a self- created hardship however I think that with the benefits to the neighborhood and to the house that factor alone shouldn't be considered for the granting of the zoning variance. Let me finish by saying very quickly that there's been much discussion about this project amongst the neighbors and all three of the (inaudible) photo here I have emails of support from all three of those neighbors in addition I have a letter of support from the president of the Hay Harbor Properties Association which the Cashel's and the neighbors are part of and he gives a whole hearted support as well so I'd like to give those to the Board as well and I'm sorry it's just one copy I apologize. And we'll be happy to take questions. January 5, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let's see if there's anyone who has any questions. Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No I don't think I have any. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No it looks like it's about a hundred square feet and the other neighboring dwellings also are enclosed? SAM FITZGERALD:They are, they are. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Similar to what SAM FITZGERALD: Similar in fact this is the only one that's not fully enclosed of the neighbors. They all have similar conditions on their houses and they're all fully enclosed. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I can see these houses are like right on the road. SAM FITZGERALD:They are. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So would you say perhaps that it might be a safer situation? SAM FITZGERALD: Well I think so. I think that actually that you know just talking with the neighbors they're relieved because they just see it as just it's first of all an eyesore but second of all they see it as a safety issue. You know they would much rather have this space of fully enclosed and private and not sort of bleed out in the street as it's sort of it still feels like it's you know because it's open it's on the street. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I don't suppose it's a highly traveled road there anyway. SAM FITZGERALD: It's not. You know obviously in the summer time it's you know there's some more traffic here but it's not heavily traveled. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Do people usually walk to the beach from there or do they drive? SAM FITZGERALD : There's the Hay Harbor Club which is a stone's throw away and they walk and it's quite close to town too so they walk to town. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Pretty interesting job you did there. I thought at first it was going to be an as built when I looked at the photograph. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's an as fence. January 5, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the 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 GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNElDER : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7015— R. BRADFORD BURNHAM CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for R. Bradford Burnham #7015. This is a request for a variance under Article III Section 280-13 and the Building Inspector's August 2, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct a boathouse (storage building) on a vacant residential parcel at 1) the proposed boathouse (storage building) is not a permitted use, located at Peninsula Road (adj. to Darbie's Cove) on Fisher's Island. Is someone here to represent the application? MARY BURNHAM : Good morning my name is Mary Burnham one of the owners of this property and so I'm going to just talk to you for a few minutes about what let up to this project before we applied for this variance. The variance is essentially to provide a sort of boathouse storage across a private right of way from our primary residence which is across the road on the west harbor side of the Peninsula Road. It's a very thin part of the island there and what we're trying to do is create just a very, very small imbedded storage unit sort of imbedded into the ground with a carport rather than a garage above. I'm going to just talk for a minute about a project that (inaudible) this is a drawing that shows the current houses on this side of the peninsula. This is the section of land right there. This is the current proposal for the boat house here super imposed on this land is the FEMA line that was adjusted after Storm Sandy. Five years ago we proposed almost an exact replica of this project although we had a boat house storage in (inaudible) full garage above. On the same side of our property and that was January 5, 2017 Regular Meeting approved by the Trustees in 2011 and prior to Sandy (inaudible) FEMA line. Unfortunately the FEMA designation we think designated this area next to the house where we had originally proposed to do this project in error we believe there is an error in the FEMA designation because it has a zoned it's in a VE zone EL19 which is just much more extreme than anything around it and it's not in a very it's not anywhere nearly as exposed to the zone right next to it which is 11 so to do the project on this original location we would have had to raise it you know it had to be on stilts off the ground and just made absolute no sense and we did try to pursue a variance for that location but we're told by everybody including George Horning who he came out and looked at the site and talked with him and he just said that it's a very difficult thing to get the FEMA designation reversed or changed and so we were we had to amend in that approach so then we though what else could we do and in order to be in near proximity to this house we decided to pursue this idea of putting an accessory building across the road. It is not a public road. It's a private right of way and I know that normally only in commercial aspects do they commercial applications that normally granted to have sort of projects across the road from each other and this is not a commercial application obviously. We feel that it's environmentally a very sensitive project because instead of doing a garage (inaudible) to put our car and our bikes under (inaudible) not enclosing that upstairs and that lower level is really going to be dug into the hill to the grade it's almost going to be invisible and if anybody knows the conditions on Fishers Island if the whole the (inaudible) around it and on top of it so then it really disappears so that is the back story to this project. (inaudible) person is not speaking loudly into the microphone) We had also investigated other (inaudible) and because of the FEMA line it's (cannot hear clearly what speaker is saying over rustling papers) is environmentally sensitive very well protected (inaudible not speaking into the microphone) Also the property further down the Peninsula (inaudible) on a very similar lot like we're proposing with a small building I think it's sort or ironic that we're applying for a house we might actually get permission but because of the rule of not allowing a secondary structure on a lot that doesn't have a primary structure we're basically asking permission not to build the primary structure on that side of the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Two comments about that. As you clearly have just now stated you are aware of the fact that the Board cannot permit an accessory structure without a principal use on a subject property and so that's essentially what you're asking for. The Board otherwise you're applying for a use variance you know a use for a boathouse use on residential lot and obviously you're applying for an area variance. There's only one precedent that I'm aware of that the Board has done before. We did have a similar situation on Rabbit Lane in East Marion where there was a house on the water on the bay and there was a private right of way that went passed that house to a couple of other houses and on the other side on Marion Lake was an empty lot also owned by that party. The only way we could allow them to build an accessory January 5, 2017 Regular Meeting garage on the lot across the right of way or the private road actually was by merging the two lots voluntarily and placing a covenant on that lot in perpetuity that would allow access across that property to the other properties. MARY BURNHAM : We would be willing to do that we're absolutely prepared to do that and we're you know we had that as absolutely something that we would CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well then because you would have the one lot and so you would have a principal use do you own that road do you know? MARY BURNHAM : We don't own the road our neighbor owns it but it is a private way. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have to seek legal advices to see how that might work. T.A. DUFFY : If you can merge it technically that road would be a separate lot so MARY BURNHAM : So we would have to purchase that part of the road? T.A. DUFFY : That or the whole road itself I don't if you purchasing just that portion of the road then you'd need subdivision approval from the Planning Board as well kind of complicated. If you could purchase the whole road and then you'd merge the two lots into one and then get everybody access over the road that has access now that would probably be the easiest way to do it. As a legal point there is one problem with the use variance request is so tough because you would have to establish that there is no other use for that lot that there is no viable use for that lot which is very tough to prove. No other allowed use any the allowed use is for that lot none of them are viable and you have good reasons but that's not the standard. It has to be that there's absolutely no use for that lot where you want to put the boathouse. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's complicated. MARY BURNHAM : In the Marion situation did they own the road? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know I'm not sure. We'll have to check. I think it was collectively owned but I'm not sure. I think that they just provided an access across their property that was already there but I don't really know. I can't remember. T.A. DUFFY : We can research it but the way it's being explained right now I'd have to say that they did own it because otherwise it would be no way to merge the lots together if it was an independent lot in between the two. MARY BURNHAM : So it's a right of way doesn't that mean it's public? January 5, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well somebody owns the right of way; usually it's not no man's land in other words. MARY BURNHAM : Right but if I'm one of the people that has access to that doesn't that I'm an owner who uses that right of way. T.A. DUFFY : You're not necessarily the owner you could just have right to travel over it and owning it are two different things. We'd have to establish who actually owns the road and what your ownership interest is. Just passing the right to pass over it would not allow you to merge it with other lots. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The other thing we need to do we did put in a request for the Town Engineer to take a look the topography is very complex over there. There's a lot of slope and you're design is taking advantage of that slope however we need to take a look at what the drainage code might require and so on an so on so that request is in to the Town Engineer and we'll have to wait. Given what we just discussed and I'll see what other board members or anyone else might have to say about it maybe we should just consider adjourning this to give you some time to investigate what your options might be legally and you know we can rehear that. You can provide that information for us and you know consult perhaps with an attorney on Fishers Island or someone who could help you with that. T.A. DUFFY : And once you learn the history you can contact my office and we can tell you what we see as the what you have to do. MARY BURNHAM : Great. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea, well it's right on Rabbit Lane you know Cuddy handled the actual the application so we can check and see what precedent we have. We try to work with applicants as much as we can. A use variance as legal counsel as Bill has just pointed out to you is very very difficult to get and you know I understand you're applying for an area variance but we really can't stretch the code to allow an accessory use on a lot that is a residential lot without a residence. It's just an enormous stretch. T.A. DUFFY : It's not just the town code it's a state law that this board is obligated to follow and have you meet certain criteria that as much as they want, as much as your project may make sense to them, and they would want to grant it unless you can establish that first criteria which, again, is a heavy a very heavy burden. They don't have the ability to grant what you're looking for so; that's why we need to take the time to look into it and see what your options are. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea use variances require a financial hardship that none of the permitted uses can actually take place on the property so in a sense the property is useless but January 5, 2017 Regular Meeting of course you could build a house there so you can't make that argument so I think the way to proceed is to see what you can do with the merger possibility and covenant. Ken do you have any comments or Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I just want to ask Mrs. Burnham one thing, you're referring to this as a boathouse. It's really an open garage; is that correct open on three sides or four sides? MARY BURNHAM : Well, no that part is a carport so the piece of it at grade where the road ends (inaudible) We're not MEMBER GOEHRINGER : There is an upstairs? MARY BURNHAM : Well that's at grade. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : At grade. MARY BURNHAM : A lower level that's more at the level of the wetlands of the wetlands and that's just a storage unit (inaudible) MEMBER GOEHRINGER : So what would the energy source be just electricity? MARY BURNHAM : I think (inaudible) light bulb MEMBER GOEHRINGER : That would be it? MARY BURNHAM :That would be it. There's a spigot a cold water spigot and (inaudible) MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I become a little sensitive to the word boathouse because these boathouses have become flowering what we refer to second dwellings in some cases that's the reason why I ask the question. MARY BURNHAM : It's really just for our (inaudible) maybe we should call it as such but just in closing part are is your board aware of any way that we could build it in the original location if there's a FEMA issue is there any zoning CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that would have to be the you'd have to talk to the Building Department about that and MARY BURNHAM : We have they're the ones that (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see well then I presume that we can't act independently of without a Notice of Disapproval the first interpreter of the code is always the Building Department and they will tell you what's permitted and what's not and then we can grant relief from whatever they give us in a Notice of Disapproval. January 5, 2017 Regular Meeting MARY BURNHAM : (inaudible) T.A. DUFFY : No the Building Department is intermittently familiar with the FEMA requirements so I'd take their guidance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I've just checked with our Board Secretary and as I suspected February is completely filled with other applications so what we're going to have to do is adjourn this to March and that will certainly give you plenty of time. If you have questions or you want to speak to our legal counsel in between we're certainly you know welcome your inquiries in any way that we can be helpful but I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to March 2nd at 9:30 a.m. Is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNElDER : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMA : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7009— RICHARD and SCHEHERAZADE MADIGAN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Richard and Scheherazade Madigan # 7009. This is a request for variances under Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's September 22, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool and an accessory trellis at 1) the proposed in-ground swimming pool is located in other than the code required rear yard, 2) the proposed trellis located in other than the code required rear yard located at 856 Narrow River Road in Orient. NANCY STEELMAN : Nancy Steelman, Samuels and Steelman architects I'm here to answer any questions. January 5, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we've done site inspections. I guess this is technically in side yards. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Another pool in the side yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is a very large property and let's see; where are we? You know, well if you look at the right of way the entry okay. Well, why don't we take a look at let's just ask you a question, why are you unable to or choose not to locate the pool in a rear yard? NANCY STEELMAN : Okay now the rear yard in this case which is kind of an unusual situation is on non-waterfront property even though there are wetlands and D.E.C. and Trustees are kicked in to this so you can see now on my site plan there's a relatively a small area in the front of the house that we're out of D.E.C. and Trustees jurisdiction. Now it's sort of questionable that we are in the rear yard that the front yard is at the right of way because we have considering the Building Department has told us that we have non-waterfront property except we do have wetlands so it's a kind of an unusual situation as you can see. So that is why we're not locating closer to the wetlands cause of their jurisdictions. We had looked at locating it adjacent to the house even though it would be in the side yard but as you know we are allowed to connect the pool to the house and we can receive a building permit for that if we had brought it closer in but my clients felt that that was too tight for so much property they have they didn't want everything right there so they're wanting to push out away from the house into that area that's considered the sacred side yard. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The approximate distance of the proposed pool to the what's that the northern side yard the northerly side yard? NANCY STEELMAN : Is 145. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : A hundred and forty five feet okay and from the right of way approximately? NANCY STEELMAN :The right of way it's 160 feet from the right of way. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And it looks like it's basically centrally located within the parcel. NANCY STEELMAN : Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And so what you're saying is that this is your proposal is a more environmentally less environmentally sensitive area. NANCY STEELMAN : Correct we're 112 feet off the wetlands to the corner of the pool. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : A hundred and twelve feet. January 5, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the entire developed area is basically central to a fairly irregular shaped piece of property that is abutted by other properties on all sides and access through is that a private right of way or a shared just NANCY STEELMAN :That's a shared right of way. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Shared right. NANCY STEELMAN : There's another lot just to the south of this property that that right of way goes to. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : It's also owned by the applicant. NANCY STEELMAN : Correct. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Not that that makes a difference but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's I wouldn't call it a flagged lot as a result but it's fine. The point being that it really doesn't abut any street at all. NANCY STEELMAN : No it doesn't. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry any questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : There's no indication of enclosing this pool in any way is there? NANCY STEELMAN : Yea, there's a fence shown. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No I don't mean, I mean a total enclosure so it could be used twenty four seven in a building? NANCY STEELMAN : I'm missing MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Building a bubble over it or any type of enclosure. NANCY STEELMAN : No not at all. No it's only a seasonal use. There's no enclosure over the pool, no and there will not be. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Okay thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I don't have any more questions anyone 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 a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. January 5, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNElDER : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7010— ELIZABETH BRANCH CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Elizabeth Branch #7010. This is a request for variance under Article III Section 280-13C and the Building Inspector's September 19, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish an existing accessory cottage and a building permit to construct a new accessory cottage with an expansion at 1) the proposed construction is not a permitted accessory use at 5160 Indian Neck Lane (Adj. to Hog Neck Bay, Little Peconic Bay) in Peconic New York. Good morning Eileen. EILEEN POWERS : Good morning Eileen Powers 456 Griffin Ave Riverhead 11901 for the applicants Elizabeth and David Branch. The application is really an application for an expansion of a pre-existing non-conforming use under the code. The accessory cottage use which we're proposing to be renovated and expanded is pre-existing has been in use on the property for about fifty years. The proposed renovation or expansion is really to make it handicapped accessible for Mr. Branch who is suffering from dementia. He's in the early stages of dementia and they anticipate using limiting the use of the cottage at some point to Mr. Branch and a caregiver while the rest of the family comes out to visit. There's no increased impact on the neighbors. The building is already in existence and in use. The expansion is really limited to just enough room it's only going to be 906 square feet just enough for him to make it accessible. It'll have a single bedroom as it does now and a single bathroom but the bathroom will be somewhat larger. It has a small kitchen. It's on a flagged lot so even though there were sixteen neighbors notified most of them are not impacted by it. It's a very long driveway to the main property. The Branch's are willing to limit the use in the variance if that's something the Board wants. I'm happy to answer any questions. I did see that Mr. Terry objected to it based on what he says is a new residential use. We take issue with that because it is an existing residential use on the property. It has been there for a long time in use. January 5, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let me ask a couple of questions perhaps you can answer these. It appears this is used seasonally at the moment is that correct? EILEEN POWERS : For this year I believe at the very least because they had anticipated trying to get this project going they didn't use it for the winter and they turned off the water. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So has it been used year round in the past? EILEEN POWERS : In the past it has, yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And who has lived there? EILEEN POWERS : Tenants and sometimes family members, but sometimes tenants; usually one person. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now does this building have a C.O. or a Pre C.O? EILEEN POWERS : Yes it does. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It has a C.O. okay. EILEEN POWERS : It has a C.O. It's on the C.O.'s that I turned in as part of the application absolutely. It's been there and been in use. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right well I've heard two things. First I heard it's going to be demolished and a new one built. EILEEN POWERS : Because it's not really practical to expand it the way it is right now. They just want to make it a little bit bigger. It's 419 I think square feet plus a pretty significant size deck around it they're going to reduce the deck so that the floor print the footprint to the property is really not as big an increase cause they're going to reduce the size of the deck and use some of that area for the increase. And the increased size is going to be interior to the property so it's not going to change the rear setback in fact I think they removed the deck in the back already so that sort of reduces the side yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, are you aware that once a structure is demolished the C.O. goes away? That non-conforming use is extinguished once it's demolished. If you were doing a renovation in place and in kind that would be one thing. EILEEN POWERS : Well that's what they want to do. This was a recommendation of the Building Department to come here this way. They didn't seem to be any other practical way to expand it. 16 January 5, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well yea because the code doesn't permit an expansion of a non- conforming you know pre-existing non-conforming use. EILEEN POWERS : Well it does with a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals under New York State Law. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If it's a renovation; not if it's a demolition then EILEEN POWERS : We're talking about a use so not the actual building itself. We're talking about a use. Can there be an expansion of a pre-existing non-conforming use and I disagree with that. I think you can expand it its done all the time. People have you know whatever kind of use is on the comes up a lot in the commercial industry. You have a use on the property that's pre-existing non-conforming and they expand it. You can do it if you go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and get it approved the use itself so we're sort of caught in a quandary here because they want to expand the use just to make it a little bit larger. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have to think about that I know you can get variances for non- conformities but typically EILEEN POWERS : I completed the form like an area variance or a use variance I'm sorry cause that's what the staff at the Zoning Board and the Building Department advised me to do. There's really nothing in your code that speaks to how to there's no form from you for expansion of a pre-existing non-conforming use even though under state law you can do this. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Eileen what of course we're trying to do all the time is bring things to conforming use, okay. Twenty four by thirty six is a conforming use 850 square feet. EILEEN POWERS : I don't think I still don't think we would qualify; you're talking about for an accessory use? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No a dwelling, 850 square feet is the minimum square footage for a legal dwelling. EILEEN POWERS : Well that accomplishes that here. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : There's a heck of a lot of property here I mean they could actually EILEEN POWERS : Subdivide the property. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea. EILEEN POWERS : They could and that's one of the things they wanted me to express to the Board is you know we're not subdividing the property like our neighbors did. Neighbor's right January 5, 2017 Regular Meeting around them subdivided the property and put up a whole new dwelling and they are foregoing that they just want to expand this cottage so that they can use it for Mr. Branch. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I just want to get everything in the record that I can think of at the moment. One of the things the Board is not permitted to do is personalize variance relief because it's the application and the property and not the applicant. Many times we do have situations like that where ramps are proposed and other things based on age and infirmities and so on and there's nothing in the standards for variance relief that allows us to personalize the need to expand based upon wheelchair access. EILEEN POWERS : And even though I rarely take the position well it's done all the time and so that but it is done all the time in other municipalities when somebody wants to put a fence around a yard where it's not permitted but they have an autistic child the Zoning Board of Appeals will grant it and say you can have it and there's you know it's limited to the time that that child lives there. It's done that way and it's written right into the MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Into a covenant. EILEEN POWERS : Yea, as a covenant; it's written right into it it's done all the time. I'm sure Mr. Duffy has had that experience cause I know they've done it in Southampton also so Riverhead sorry. T.A. DUFFY : You're not going to the house back after it's no longer needed for the family relative it's going to stay expanded. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And rented. EILEEN POWERS : We can limit it to family use though and not let them rent it out to third parties. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We could but enforcement is going to be pretty difficult you know the Board generally doesn't like to try and condition things that are not enforceable. EILEEN POWERS : But they already have the use on the property and it's already in use. They're actually going to reduce the use by only having a family member there they can continue to rent the property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : My concern is not so much the expansion in size which is fairly small it is the fact that it is a new structure and once a certificate of occupancy really does expire when something is demolished it's gone. 0 January 5, 2017 Regular Meeting EILEEN POWERS : It's not demolished so we can work around it if you have another suggestion. They're not going to demolish it if they don't get an approval to expand it because they need the accessory and quite frankly they bought and paid for it and they own it that use. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And it will remain intact and run with the land so long it stays the way it is but any you know an expansion we could probably work with but a demolition and no C.O. as a result no structure is a really very different kind of beast. EILEEN POWERS : Yea, so I don't know what they would have to do to comply with your standard that it be a renovation but they could do that then if that's the only alternative the Board is willing to consider. They can renovate it and expand it. T.A. DUFFY : The code defines demolition so and the Building Department makes the determination if it's a demolition or not so then I think correct me if I'm wrong the chairwoman's point is that if you're going to demolish something you apply to the Building Department to demolish something you get a demolition permit. If they sign off that it's been demolished then technically the use is gone because you demolished the structure and then you're asking to put it back on. EILEEN POWERS : I think we said renovate and expand in the T.A. DUFFY : The denial talks the denial we got the disapproval says demolish and re-establish so if you can adjust your building permit application and reflect that you're going to keep the structure there and expand it. EILEEN POWERS : I did; I did adjust it. That was the whole point. T.A. DUFFY : With the Building Department or with us? I'm saying with the Building Department. EILEEN POWERS : With the Building Department I did do it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we you have a different Notice of Disapproval? We have one dated September 191h EILEEN POWERS : It's the way they write it I don't know what date is it? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : September 191h EILEEN POWER : He just insisted on reissuing even though I paid for a new one. I think they just reissued it. But if you read my application it specifically says renovation and expansion so. January 5, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well how about this, why don't we just adjourn this to the Special Meeting in two weeks and allow you to get to the Building Department and get that clarified with them cause right now what we have is permit to demolish an existing accessory cottage and construct a new accessory cottage and it says an accessory cottage is not a permitted accessory use. EILEEN POWERS : It isn't right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because it would be a second dwelling. EILEEN POWERS : It doesn't qualify under the code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you want to do that? EILEEN POWERS : Sure okay because you have to rely on that we can't rely on my application? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I can't well EILEEN POWERS : My application is for an expansion, renovation and expansion so yes you know what CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They looked at your plans no doubt and said this is not a renovation and it's a demolition that's probably what happened. T.A. DUFFY :That's a determination from the Building Department that's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right, which we can't do. We have to go by what they tell us. Now we do also have maybe you know while we are here would you kindly address the ZBA we have an application #6439 that was January 19, 2011 the Zoning Board made a determination on this property. It says the property is improved with a single family dwelling, a framed cottage accessory building, a cottage would probably not be 850 square feet cause it would then be considered they're using the term cottage I think rather loosely because 850 square feet or more would constitute a second dwelling. EILEEN POWERS : I'm sorry, okay, it's pre-existing though so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah. I'm just describing the property facts that are all I'm saying is it's there. This previous decision and it was for a permit to construct an addition at less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet. EILEEN POWERS : That's on the main dwelling. January 5, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, less than the code required combined of thirty five right. It's a hundred square foot addition to an existing and newly renovated reconstructed porch. EILEEN POWERS : That's right that's the property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that's one prior. EILEEN POWERS : I didn't represent them but I'm familiar with it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and then we have that was permitted as applied. Then we also have which one is this one this is I've got 1559 and 1875 a lot of priors on here I guess. EILEEN POWERS : One might be for the garage. The garage was renovated, repaired I'm not sure if it needed a permit or not a variance I mean. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One story addition alright well I think the first thing to do would be to find out from the Building Department if they are going to consider this a renovation and expansion of a pre-existing non-conforming use with a C.O. intact a Pre C.O. or whether or not it's considered to be a demolition. That would be the first thing. EILEEN POWERS : That's what I went through with them and that was the whole purpose of this. They recommended that I do it this way. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That you come before us with a demolition? EILEEN POWERS : No, for a pre-existing non-conforming use renovation and expansion. I honestly think it's a clerical error but I don't know I'll follow up and check with them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that would be helpful because at least then we can talk about the same situation. EILEEN POWERS : Right okay and when you say two weeks the Special Meeting what's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The Special Meeting is at 5 o'clock in the EILEEN POWERS : What date is that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Town Hall Annex January 191h you don't need to be there. All you need to do it submit the new if there is one we don't take testimony it's just where we deliberate we'll make a decision to close the hearing or we'll make a decision to adjourn it to the next regular meeting so we can talk to you some more because we don't take testimony at those, those are for making decisions and what we will do is when we receive it we'll make a determination as to whether or not we should close it or we should adjourn it to another January 5, 2017 Regular Meeting hearing so we can talk to you more about it. As a matter of fact come to think about it I think maybe it's beneficial to just adjourn it to another hearing. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Another hearing yeah. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah, because I think if we get another we're going to have to have it in the record that it was corrected and what exactly you're proposing so EILEEN POWERS : So not that date? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's not do it, what do you think shouldn't we just have another hearing on this? If that's the case then there's no point in doing that. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Wouldn't it make sense for us to inspect it also internally? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah we did see the outside you know when we do site inspections. You want to do a MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Either that or she can give us a laundry list of what's in there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well actually it was pretty easy to look through the window to see. EILEEN POWERS : I did submit color photographs that I no, I didn't take but I was present when they were taken so and they pretty much reflect exactly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually I able to see it all by walking around and looking through the windows to see what was on the inside and it was confirmed by the photographs. EILEEN POWERS : I'm also happy to get a key from Ms. Branch and we'll go take a look at it if you want. T.A. DUFFY : Ultimately you know the Building Department may amend their Notice of Disapproval to take out demolition or you may want to further challenge their determination that it's a demolition based on the code definition. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The demolition is the key. T.A. DUFFY : The Board has a problem with the expansion and the pre-existing use; it's a problem with the demolition. EILEEN POWERS : Okay I will talk to everybody about that maybe it is a matter of me having the plans amended or something because initially it was to demolish and replace and then they called me and I explained a lot to January 5, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, so I guess we'll try to put this in February or is it still going to be impossible? We have so many in February now it's we already adjourned a couple I think we might have to do this in March. So that date is March 2nd let's do that at 9:45. Motion to adjourn this hearing to March 2nd at 9:45 am. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER SCHNElDER : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 7012 — MARIA ZACHARIADIS, ANTHONLY ZACHARIADIS and ZACHARIADIS ZACHARIADIS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Maria, Anthony and Zachariadis #7012. This is a request for variance under Article III Section 280-14 and the Building Inspector's September 21, 2016 Notice of Disapproval to permit a lot line change (merger) at 1) the lot line change (merger) will result in a lot having less than the required 80,000 square ft. in area at 1775 Little Neck Rd in Cutchogue. MARIA ZACHARIADIS : My name is Maria Zachariadis I'm one of the owners at 1775 Little Neck Rd in Cutchogue and we are requesting a lot line merger today on the right of way. The right of way is currently owned by the farm right across the road and we are requesting that it be attached on to our property. It was actually at the request of the current owner that we purchase the right of way and he began the process with the Planning Board which at that time we discovered that our lot was going to be too small and we would need Zoning Board approval. We're not requesting any physical change to the lot. The only changes would be the size of our lot to the increase of the size of our lot and the decrease in the size of the lot of the farm that currently owns the right of way. The right of way is currently used mainly for residential purposes. There are two other homes on one side of the right of way that use the right of way to get access to their homes. The current owner is not using the right of way for January 5, 2017 Regular Meeting agricultural purposes therefore it's only being used for access to residential homes. We would like to purchase the right of way in order to maintain it ourselves. We are the ones that are using the right of way. It's not being used by the current owner. It would benefit us to have ownership and to be able to maintain the road on our own. I would not make any physical change on the neighborhoods. It would be no change aside from again the size of the lots and the ownership. I've sent out my notices to the owners both of lots that are adjoining to the right of way as well as a few across. I currently have not received any objections and we are just merely requesting that we can purchase the right of way and have it attached on to our property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Have you received the comments that the Planning Board gave us? Do you have a copy of it? MARIA ZACHARIADIS : I believe I may have a copy with me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They are in fact supporting the proposed merger of the right of way on to your property based upon the fact that it will not create additional density. It will decrease the non-conformance of your lot. The right of way serves two other residential parcels to the east and they want to make sure access rights are preserved through the creation of an access easement. It will also require Planning Board approval as you know. You started that process already. MARIA ZACHARIADIS : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's only because the size of your lot is deficient in terms of the zoning district it's in but it will be increased in size actually. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : But it will still remain non-conforming. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right and you're saying that the farmer would like to sell this to you. MARIA ZACHARIADIS : Yeah it was actually at his request that we purchase it. We already have a contract signed and we've been going to through the process. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And I presume you're going to suggest covenants and restrictions or an easement in perpetuity to access the other residential properties. MARIA ZACHARIADIS : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry questions anything else? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : In riding down the right of way I ended up in the we'll refer to the third lot his yard and then it dead ends there okay based upon what the chairperson just said January 5, 2017 Regular Meeting there in no time are you trying are you going to be selling any portion of this right of way to any of the other two parties, they're just going to have the same rights of going over it as they do now? MARIA ZACHARIADIS : Exactly the easements they currently have will continue yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : And any future benefit that you may be or enhancement of the right of way you'll be dealing with them based upon that situation? MARIA ZACHARIADIS : Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I don't think I have any other questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken do you have anything? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yeah I was just curious when I first looked at this why would you bother buying this but I guess it has to do with the upkeep of the road the legalities of that? MARIA ZACHARIADIS Exactly yea, it's just anything we want to do any upkeep we would always really have to go through the current owner and now it would be able to be done ourselves and we have relationships with everyone on those lots so we can all do it together. MEMBER SCHNEIDER This would expedite the maintenance of the right of way and now I understand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in the audience wishing to address the application? No, okay hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNElDER : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) January 5, 2017 Regular Meeting HEARING #7013—CROTEAUX VINEYARDS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Croteaux Vineyards # 7013 and we have a letter from Michael Croteaux's legal counsel Martin Finnegan requesting an adjournment without a date and that is what is before this Board at this moment. You are not Martin Finnegan. HARVEY ARNOFF : Good morning I'm Harvey Arnoff 206 Roanoke Ave Riverhead New York. I'm appearing for two neighbors Matilde Busana and Bronyn Gunthrie the neighbors immediately to the north of the four acre parcel which houses what purports to be a winery. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well at this moment we have the applicant has requested an adjournment without a date so we will not be taking any action until such time as it was re- calendared. HARVEY ARNOFF : Okay that's the problem. What's happening is and unfortunately I think it's a pervasive now in the community it's something I think this Board is going to have to deal with not only with this applicant but with others is that they're running a liquor store and a retail store in a residential or in an AC district which is not permitted under the code. Under no circumstances will they be able to establish under the current code that this is a winery. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand but HARVEY ARNOFF : So my problem is we have to put it to an end and an adjournment without a date leaves my clients with this illegal purportedly illegal use for an indefinite period of time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have two options then because it is unfair that they are not here and they are not represented so we have to do one of two things. Either we do a we honor their request to adjourn without a date knowing that that is not an unlimited amount of time by the way we have internal office procedures which put time limits on adjournments and we you know keep up to date on that and it will of course be publicly noticed and so on and at that time it would be most appropriate for all interested parties to appear and to testify. The other option is to adjourn it to a specific date so that we can at least allow both parties to be present. HARVEY ARNOFF : That would be my preference under the circumstances here and the rather untenable situation that my clients are faced with. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright Bill I'm going to need some legal advice on this. What we will have to do then is just notify them that we have received their request to adjourn without a January 5, 2017 Regular Meeting date but we I'm going to make a motion to adjourn to April and we will notify them that the hearing will take place then. HARVEY ARNOFF :There's no way of calendaring it before April? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Absolutely not. We are so full in their completely full in fact they're beyond full. Let me do this, what's the date in April? April 6t" let's do 9:30 a.m. since we haven't scheduled we have plenty of applications in April but we haven't put times on it so we'll do this first thing. We will have to have Kim notify them or T.A. DUFFY : I'll do it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I'm going to make a motion to adjourn the application #7013 Croteaux Vineyards to April 6t" at 9:30 am. Is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNElDER : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7014—CAPTAIN RED'S MARINE SALES, INC. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Captain Red's Marine Sales, Inc. # 7014. Since we do not have a quorum we will adjourn this hearing to the February 2nd Public Hearing at 1:15 p.m. January 5, 2017 Regular Meeting HEARING #7017—ALLEN OVSIANIK CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Allen Ovsianik # 7017. This is a request for a variance under Article III Section 280-14 and the Building Inspector's November 21, 2016 Amended December 22, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to permit a lot line change to create two non-conforming lots at 1) lots proposed at less than the code required minimum lot size of 80,000 sq. ft. located at 32930 Route 25 and 225 Eugene's Road in Cutchogue. BILL GOGGINS : William C. Goggins 13235 Main Rd. Mattituck, New York for the applicant. This is a matter we've been dealing with for I think more than five years. There was a C.O. was issued for the operation of a repair shop I believe and the building is on residential property and commercial property so we want to try and get the property in conformity with the town code and also to make it marketable because the place is really not marketable the way it was set up so we applied for a zone change. We went through Planning and now we're here. The planning process went for a while and then they decided we wouldn't have to go through a full site plan but we would at least have to go through a variance process with the Planning Board information in the back of our mind. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Bill I believe you got a copy of the memorandum we got from the Planning Board. BILL GOGGINS : I did. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Kim just gave us these surveys that we already have I think we have them in our file the one you just did he just give you this? BOARD SECRETARY : Yes he updated there's a more current date to it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright the date is updated but it's the same BILL GOGGINS : The Planning Board had required additional distance markings on the maps so the one we have submitted to the as of June 10, 2015 and the one that we just submitted is as of December 8, 2016 and the only difference is a couple of distance indicators. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay right so you've had an opportunity to realize that what the Building Department is doing is applying the residential zone district to the split zoned lot in terms of the square footage of the proposed lot 1 and then proposed lot 2 also which is zoned residential R80. Their memorandum seems to generally support the application with site plan January 5, 2017 Regular Meeting approval however what they're proposing is a 70 foot buffer rather than a 50 foot buffer from the property line to the start of the parking. BILL GOGGINS : Yes, I see that and I read the memorandum. A little history initially because it has been lot 2 is residential we were looking for just a 15 foot width the Planning Board said they wanted at least 30 so we did 30 this is over a course of a couple of years and then most recently they said they wanted 50 so with that 50 in mind we did this map and then we they directed us to go ahead and file with the Building Department so we come here and now they're asking for another 20 feet 70 feet and I just don't think that's prudent because if you look at the parking of the site plan it shows 22 parking spaces. The bulk schedule for a repair shop like this is I looked it up before we got here you need four parking spaces per garage door and there are five I think there's six garage doors. I know there's five facing Eugene's Rd. I think there's another one facing the Main Rd. I'm not sure but I know there's five facing according to the parking schedule section 280-78 each garage door requires four parking spaces so we have five garage door openings on Eugene's Rd. that would require twenty parking spaces. The bulk schedule also requires one parking space per employee and it also I really didn't understand the part about customers coming there whether that requires more parking spaces as well so if we extend this 50 foot width area to 70 foot it's going to take away the thirteen spaces on the south side of that proposed parking lot so we're setting us up for failure by doing this and eliminating those parking spaces and I also went there before I came here today and the parking is a mess. There's three cars parked on the other side of the road parallel. There are cars I think it was like eight cars parked perpendicular which are really they're not on the traveled roadway but you know they're definitely back up on to the roadway. It's a mess. So, then to push that 20 feet to make it 70 feet it would eliminate spaces and I think it wouldn't correct the problem that's there now and I have a feeling that when whoever whenever the Planning Board put this together they didn't understand the site as well as we do. Also 50 feet is a lot of space I mean there's a residential house there and then there's 50 feet width is residential. I mean there's plenty enough space for screening 50 feet is a lot I mean it's residential lot they would need about a ten foot driveway so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you go over that again Bill for me. So the code says four parking spaces per garage door times five garage doors is twenty spaces and then you need one parking space per employee? BILL GOGGINS : Per employee. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And how many employees are there? BILL GOGGINS : I don't know but I'm guessing there's three, it's a tire shop so I'm guessing. January 5, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Three. BILL GOGGINS : Again that's a pure guess. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that you're saying that by making it 70 rather than a 50 foot buffer the parking yield would not be realizable? BILL GOGGINS : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's something the Planning Board certainly should have taken note of you would think. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : It looks like these spaces are back to back so perhaps when you're backing up and backing out of a spot a certain amount of distance is required. BILL GOGGINS : There is it's I believe minimum parking spaces is nine feet wide eighteen feet long and then when you have them parallel it's got to be twenty feet between those two spaces in fact we were talking about sixty feet and when we put this parking schedule together which was like two years ago we've maximized the spaces that we could put in with a 50 foot wide space between you know the residential and the commercial and that's the best we can do with the space. T.A. DUFFY : I was at the Planning Board meeting and I don't think they were thinking site plan at the time because it does have a C.O. so I believe you're correct they didn't consider parking and I don't think they realized you would of lost the parking spots along the side so they may not have contemplated parking. BILL GOGGINS : Years ago they did when we sat with them we talked about it and we worked the whole thing out but because time has gone by you forget. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well their explanation in the memo is the commercial use of this property could likely expand if they're successful in pursuing a zone change and the house next door is located only twenty feet from the property line so if you're talking a proposed fifty foot buffer and an additional twenty feet I guess on the adjacent residential neighbor's property does that make sense?Then that's seventy right there. T.A. DUFFY : And I think you made the case that they couldn't expand they won't be able to make the parking BILL GOGGINS :They couldn't do it anyway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah alright well that's what I wanted to explore in the record to see what's going on here. They're asking for a condition that any new parking area should receive January 5, 2017 Regular Meeting the necessary review on approvals from us and then to use the residentially zoned land for commercial parking as an accessory to the business use and then the Planning Board site plan approval. BILL GOGGINS : Yea no objections. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well the major concern from the Planning Board also was to have a buffer between the business and the adjoining residential dwelling and what I see here is a proposed buffer vegetation I don't see the width of that. BILL GOGGINS : Yea that was I think it's, I'm guessing, I think it was ten foot but that's the buffer that they that the Planning Board had asked for. That buffer there and then also the vegetated buffer of on the east side but I'm sure there's no objection to put another screening of trees along the property line between the residential house and this residential property. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So just looking to the future for proposed lot #2 so then that fifty foot width on that stretch of R80 property that would possibly be used for maybe a driveway to this? BILL GOGGINS : Yea, I mean use is residential so it's going to be a house and I don't think you want to be pulling on and off on the Main Rd. so I think this is going to be the entrance for the residential property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : On proposed lot 2 you're talking. BILL GOGGINS : On proposed lot 2 off of Eugene's Rd. so maybe it would be helpful to put a ten foot vegetative buffer along the southern line of the property so there'll be two buffers. There'll be that and then a second buffer for the parking lot as indicated on the and then you know MEMBER SCHNEIDER : That would certainly be a lot of buffering. BILL GOGGINS : Yea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you proposed a ten foot vegetative buffer along the what is it southerly property line? BILL GOGGINS : Correct. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Proposed lot 2? BILL GOGGINS : Proposed lot 2. January 5, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the other buffer you're talking about is that a ten foot wide proposed buffer? BILL GOGGINS : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where you're showing parking. BILL GOGGINS : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But a distance from the property line that buffer of fifty feet is that correct? BILL GOGGINS : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is fifty feet from here to here. T.A. DUFFY :That's lot 2 though. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea. So that's already basically sixty feet and site plan approval so you just have to bring to their attention the parking yield here. BILL GOGGINS : So the ten foot buffer would be parallel with the buffer we have for the parking? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea along the MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The southern border. Well actually it would the southeasterly border. And how long would it be so we can BILL GOGGINS : I'm guessing about 145 feet because that's the distance of the commercial line which is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea 144.34 MEMBER SCHNEIDER : We need to put a distance to that so there are no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So 145 feet long. Gerry do you have any questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No I don't but it's a really great thing to take this situation and put it to bed because it's been something that's been really difficult in the past. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well these split zone parcels are tough. There are not that many in town but when they're there it's like now what do you do?Alright, anything else Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No the lot line change is requiring a square footage variance for the lot. January 5, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : For both lots. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : For both lots. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you know we can condition it with those buffers and site plan approval. T.A. DUFFY : I just that was my question the site plan approval because they do have C.O.'s for the buildings that are there now; we're only talking about site plan approval for any other future approvals is that your understanding Mr. Goggins? BILL GOGGINS : Yes that's the conclusion they came to. T.A. DUFFY : Because it's hard to do; they don't need site plan approval for what's there because they have C.O.'s for it. That's what we had discussed when I met with Building and Planning. So I think the site plan approval would be for future improvements. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Future improvements such as the parking that's proposed. T.A. DUFFY : Yea. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So then this variance if this variance is granted then the boundary line would be changed and no improvements could be made and everyday activities would just continue. T.A. DUFFY : Correct this is a variance the lot line adjustment go forward sot then eventually they could make the change of zone application (inaudible) zone B business. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Oh is that how it works? BILL GOGGINS : Yea that application is already in we're just waiting to get. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Then the eventual outcome would be what we're looking at T.A. DUFFY : Yea it would no longer be a split zone this would be the smaller lot bigger lot, lot 1 would be business it would be conforming, lot 2 would still be undersized but not as undersized and zoned residential. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ok so right now the way it would read it would be site plan approval for future improvements through the installation parking areas and the intent then I guess is to eventually get rid of that split zone make it all a B zone the other one is an R80. BILL GOGGINS : Yes it'll all be B correct. January 5, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that's in process did you say Bill? BILL GOGGINS : Yes that was filed in 2010? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay good enough. MEMBER SCHNIEDER : 2010? BILL GOGGINS : Yea 2010. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gee what's the rush. BILL GOGGINS : It's really frustrating sometimes. Part of it is it's the surveyors fault cause sometimes surveyor's take you know months and months and months but sometimes it's the attorney's fault but this one has taken a long time. But this one was mostly the surveyor off the record. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Not it's not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well there's nobody in the audience to address the application so anything from the Board, anything else? I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNElDER : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7018—TONY and SUZANNE OLIVA CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Tony and Suzanne Oliva #7018. This is a request for variance under Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's October 20, 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) January 5, 2017 Regular Meeting proposed addition less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet located at 500 Old Shipyard Lane in Southold. So you're proposing I guess a front porch that runs the width of the house with a depth of 8 feet which will create a front yard setback of 30 feet where the code requires 35. JOAN CHAMBERS : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks like the existing dwelling is at 37.9 feet. JOAN CHAMBERS : Right just about 38 and we're putting a second floor on the house and you know with that they wanted to you know spruce up the entry way to the house too. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well of course you know we all did site inspections. Everything else that's being proposed is conforming to the code so it's just this front yard setback. Can you tell us about other non-conforming front yard setbacks along Old Shipyard are there others that are there or prior variance relief for that? JOAN CHAMBERS : I don't think there's any right along Old Shipyard but there is one up I think I believe on Boisseau and another one sort of behind all of this where they've gotten within thirty feet of their front yard or yea front yard one of them is a corner lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's a really it's thirty five feet long it looks like the whole width of the house. JOAN CHAMBERS : It goes the width of the house correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And eight foot in depth. Site inspection showed that I think pretty much everybody there are other front porches of course but I think it looks as though the other houses on either side have conforming front yard setbacks. So I'm wondering whether or not it might be possible in order to reduce the degree on non-conformance to either not have it run the whole length of the house which means it would be a variance for just a partial of that thirty five feet or to make it six or you know I don't know if it's a decorative thing or they plan to sit out there or what because they have a back yard porch. JOAN CHAMBERS : They have a back yard porch. The front yard porch we left at eight feet because the six feet didn't really let the you know furniture or table or anything out there and still move around. They'd probably be amenable to making it not run the length of the house. That was just more or less done as a design of you know of what we wanted it to look like running the roof lines together. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I mean it just looks like it's going to be really big and pretty close to the street where their other setbacks appear to be substantially greater on the houses January 5, 2017 Regular Meeting nearby so I think perhaps as I said either a greater setback or at least not quite so long I mean Ken what do you think? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well the characteristic of the neighborhood is it looks like all along Shipyard Lane all these houses have the same front yard setback about thirty seven, thirty five they're all conforming. This would certainly be the first one on this street to not have a conforming front yard setback so that's the issue at hand so perhaps smaller. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : What's the at the request of the chairperson what's the width of the upstairs dormer? JOAN CHAMBERS : Oh I don't know I'd have to look at the plans. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think it runs the whole well wait a minute. JOAN CHAMBERS : So the length of the house is it runs parallel to the road is that the dimension you're looking for? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No I'm looking for the dimension of the second story that you're going to put on. JOAN CHAMBERS : The dimension of the second story we're putting on follows the walls of the first floor. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Oh it does. JOAN CHAMBERS : It does yea. We actually designed it before with the roof line going the but it just wasn't enough room upstairs and we didn't really want to kick the footprint of the house any bigger on the lot so it's thirty five feet left to right running parallel to the road and that just goes straight up to the second floor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I've got the elevation what I'm looking at Joan is you got the elevation there? It seems to me that they've attempted to show an entry portico over the front door but then extend the entire length of the house with a colonnade. JOAN CHAMBERS : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and I think it's reasonable to say a covered entry porch kind of thing of a small one you know might not be such an egregious thing perhaps just what's there just where that pediment is where the peak is and the two columns on either side of the door the section here I don't know exactly and the rest of it just let it be the elevation yeah. Just get rid of the porch so that this section here, so that let me see, if I can find it on the site, I mean this is in scale so we can figure out what that width of that thing is it would give you the same look. 3 January 5, 2017 Regular Meeting JOAN CHAMBERS : With the exception that (inaudible) using that roofline to hide this sort of ugliness not that I can't tell them that we can chop a couple of feet off their rooms to cause I hate that (inaudible) sticking out from the front wall of the house so this porch roof does camouflage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Run over it. I think this section in here; see, there's the columns, these two columns so it would be that and I'm looking to see if there is a call out from center to center there is its five four and five four so that's like ten almost eleven feet instead of thirty five feet column to column and on the elevation it's like that. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yeah, because it's open I don't know it's something to consider as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What you mean allow it the whole length? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Think about it some more. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It just reduces the degree of non-conformance where all the other front yards are conforming I always feel like this is an amenity to a house to have a covered front porch entry which is characteristic of many, many houses everywhere in the town so I think that justifies you know the variance and it just simply reduces the whole thing instead of it running all that way it's only going to run for eleven feet instead of thirty five feet which I think you know is a reasonable compromise I mean I'm sorry about the inconvenience of the design. I do understand what you're getting at but you know we're trying to get when justified the least variance we can possibly grant. JOAN CHAMBERS : I understand. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Is this a wood porch Joan? JOAN CHAMBERS : Yes a wood porch. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And it is open I mean it's just column width you know with a gable that's all. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I'm only thinking about rain cause if the rain comes down it's going to go to directly into that front porch. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well just gutter it of course. That's in the new drainage code I mean they're going to have to do that anyway. You probably have gutters on the sides you know. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I meant on both sides you know if you had cement you'd have to pitch it but wood is a little bit easier you just have to do a better job painting the foundation. I have a similar thing with a gambrel I won't tell you what comes off of that roof. 3 January 5, 2017 Regular Meeting JOAN CHAMBERS : Alright, if I go and revise the plans and we leave the front porch which is say we're talking roughly eleven feet by eight feet right with the reverse gable on it take two side wings off what if we left the roof and just get rid of the deck and just had a roof with those posts there and maybe stepped it back? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh, you mean just as like a trim almost. JOAN CHAMBERS : Just so that we'd have some of this roofline with a couple of more posts that just went down into the grass. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How many feet do you think you would need because you might be conforming. You're thirty seven something feet that roof may well be conforming. JOAN CHAMBERS : So if I can get it back so it's only coming out I think three feet the Building Department gives you so if we put the gable in the middle and then step back these two wings to three feet with a couple of columns we can probably stay within. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you're thirty five feet you're conforming. JOAN CHAMBERS : We're conforming and then we'd only be asking for the zoning for this piece here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct. JOAN CHAMBERS : Which as I said I don't have the exact dimensions with me but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well based on the plans because I'm looking from center to center on the column and it said five foot four and five foot four from center line to center line on the columns so it's going to be a little bit more of an overhang you know on either side of the column it's not just stopping at the column so twelve feet MEMBER GOEHRINGER : That's a great idea. JOAN CHAMBERS : That's a nice idea and that takes care of my cantilever issue and it covers up the front of the house there keeps the way it looks but we won't we don't have to (inaudible) so much of a variance across the front I think it's a good compromise. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so how about you get us revised plans and we'll close this subject to receipt of them to make sure that it's and just show us where you want that roof and that it's a conforming setback and then we can stamp those when we write a decision and we'll be alright. Why don't you do that as an amended application because you're going to redo it anyway so instead of us doing alternate relief we can see exactly what the width of that porch is it might be twelve feet. 3 January 5, 2017 Regular Meeting JOAN CHAMBERS : Okay so do the application again? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No just indicate that at the hearing we asked you to bring this into more conformity with the building code and the applicant's submitted an amended set of plans reducing the width of the proposed open porch and etc. so just describe it in the letter and attach the floor plan. JOAN CHAMBERS : You need that by your work session date of the 191h? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The sooner the better I mean if we get it right on that date we might not deliberate until next month. JOAN CHAMBERS : Oh no, no, no I'll try to get it to you tomorrow or Monday. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh then we'll have plenty of time to write the decision that's all. We just need to get in time to be able to describe it properly in the decision. JOAN CHAMBERS : Perfect I can do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No none at all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken? Okay alright then I'm going to make a motion to close wait adjourn this I'm going to close it subject to receipt of an amended application per our discussion at the hearing. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNElDER : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) January 5, 2017 Regular Meeting CERTIFICATION 1 I Elizabeth Sakarellos, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment and is a true and accurate record of Hearings. Signature Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : f 3 l 1 I - I i - I I i I