Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-02/02/2017 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 February 2, 2017 9:36 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member ERIC DANTES – Member GERARD GOEHRINGER – Member (Absent) GEORGE HORNING – Member (left at 2:16 P.M.) KENNETH SCHNEIDER – Member KIM FUENTES – Board Assistant WILLIAM DUFFY – Town Attorney ? February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Dorie and Ari Paparo # 7020 3 - 5 James Huettenmoser # 7024 5 - 7 Kenneth Zahler # 7011 7 - 10 Bruce and Leona Goodheart # 7019 11 - 12 Susannah McDowell # 7021 13 - 16 Albert Leutwyler # 7022 16 - 19 MGH Enterprises, Inc., Verizon Wireless # 7023 19 - 22 William Gremler Jr. and Michael Murphy # 7025 22 - 32 Captain Red’s Marine Sales, Inc. # 7014 32 - 40 Areti LaValle # 7026 40 - 43 Town of Southold Planning Board/Surrey Lane Vineyards # 7039 43 - 44 ? February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting HEARING # 7020 – DORIE and ARI PAPARO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for Dorie and Ari Paparo #7020. This is a request for variance under Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector’s November 1, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) located in other than the code required rear yard located at 6182 Soundview Ave in Peconic. Would you spell your name please? CJ DELVAGIO : Spells name. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This looks like the pool which is required to be located in a rear yard is in a side yard right? CJ DELVAGIO : Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s an at grade pool and what would you like us to know about the application? CJ DELVAGIO : Just the way the topography of the yard is such that where the pool is being placed is the highest part of the yard where the back part of the yard kind of slopes down and goes away into the woods and (inaudible) the back yard would cause a problem because of the drainage it would be draining towards the pool and you need the side yard variance because I’m trying not build a retaining wall on the side of the pool. We are also trying to keep a major huge old tree and not you know affect that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : By the way just so you know we’ve all been out and visited the site so we’re familiar with it and looked at the topography and so on. Let’s see if there are any questions from the Board, George? MEMBER HORNING : Is there a deck with the pool is that at grade also? CJ DELVAGIO : Right now there’s no proposed deck or patio. I would imagine if they were doing one it would be on grade. MEMBER HORNING : I’m a little bit confused. Is it a steel liner pool or is it vinyl? One place says vinyl and another place says steel. CJ DELVAGIO : It’s a steel wall pool and then it’s vinyl liners on the inside of that. MEMBER HORNING : And the pool equipment? CJ DELVAGIO : There’s a pool equipment pad a 3X3 concrete pad that we’re going to pour and that’s basically for a pump and filter. ? February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : Okay and you’re proposing the pool equipment pad to be 2 feet setback from the right of way and the pool proposed to be 73 foot setback from the right of way? CJ DELVAGIO : Right. MEMBER HORNING : How many neighbors are on that how many houses? CJ DELVAGIO : It’s a private road so all I know there’s only one neighbor in front of towards Soundview Ave. MEMBER HORNING : And what’s across the street what is that? CJ DELVAGIO : I think that’s a there’s a piece of an agricultural lot directly across and then there’s no residents across the street on that private road. MEMBER HORNING : And that lot runs the entire length of the right of way up to at least your occupants property? CJ DELVAGIO : Which lot? MEMBER HORNING : The lot across the right of way. CJ DELVAGIO : There’s a there’s two lots that connect no there’s one whole lot across there sorry. MEMBER HORNING : And probably would not be developed in the near future would you say? CJ DELVAGIO : I would imagine not. MEMBER HORNING : Okay thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken any questions? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEMBER DANTES : I do not have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When we were out at the site it’s clear that there’s undeveloped area then there’s a very large sloping area that you know looks out back on to the North Rd. I guess. The only other property is the one that’s shares the a property line and is also on that right of way and that would be the only one impacted there’s a house in between the proposed location of the pool and that residence so from that point of view it has no impact on the existing dwelling. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application? ? February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting Hearing no further questions or comments I’ll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. Is there a second? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 7024 – JAMES HUETTENMOSER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for James Huettenmoser #7024. This is a request for a variance under Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s November 9, 2016 Amended November 23, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet located at 65 Bayview Drive in East Marion New York good morning Joan. Please state your name for the record please. JOAN CHAMBERS : Joan Chambers I’m representing the owners who are here if you have any questions for them. CHAIRPESON WEISMAN : Let me just enter into the record here that we’re looking at a front yard setback of 22.8 feet where the code requires 35. The addition is 101.6 square feet and it’s for basically for a second bathroom and its following sort of filling in an existing corner of the house. What is the current setback for the dwelling? JOAN CHAMBERS : The current setback on the existing dwelling are 30 feet to that north west corner. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There’s a fence and all of that you’re talking about the part that’s not the fence you’re talking about the wall of the dwelling. ? February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting JOAN CHAMBERS : I’m talking about the wall of the dwelling to the fence is 30 feet according to Stanley Isakson’s survey okay? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. JOAN CHAMBERS : And then what we have is we have 22.8 it’s going to go from the new addition from the existing wall of the house to the property line let me see if I can find it I don’t think they actually put that on the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You got 22.8 at the closest point and JOAN CHAMBERS : At the closest point of the new addition. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What’s the 27 feet? JOAN CHAMBERS : The 27 feet is from the corner of the house to basically the curve of the road. This is what caused the letter of disapproval to be reviewed and they said in the letter of disapproval they had that the addition was 27 feet from the property line and I went back and pointed out to them that that isn’t the property line that was the line the curve of the property and he had to be revised to be 22.8 cause we didn’t want to apply for a variance for 27 feet (inaudible) and really the way the house is laid out there really isn’t anywhere else to put this bathroom in the house. We tried to keep it minimal and as you know from going out we tried to just fill in that corner so we could run the roof along from the porch and just you know do the minimal amount to get a second bathroom in this little house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let’s see what the Board has George? MEMBER HORNING : The existing lot coverage? JOAN CHAMBERS : The existing lot coverage. MEMBER HORNING : You’re proposing 10.9 for the lot coverage (inaudible) JOAN CHAMBERS : No I don’t (inaudible) it’s on the application I don’t have it on the top of my head. MEMBER HORNING : You’re filling in the corner to make a bathroom. JOAN CHAMBERS : Correct. MEMBER HORNING : And you’re reducing the setback to a proposed 22.8 feet. JOAN CHAMBERS : 22.8 feet. ? February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : Right thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I’ll just make the observation that when we were inspecting when I was inspecting the site the subject dwelling is sitting quite high on a hill which certainly creates a different impact in a setback than if it were parallel to the road and flat. It’s perceived to be farther away than what it actually is in terms of the math. Let’s see if Eric you have any questions on this one? Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No not really. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They’re sleeping today lucky for you. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : It’s pretty straightforward. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah it is. You’re not really increasing the non-conformance by anything significant. Alright, is there anyone in the audience who wants to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserved decision to later date. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second. CHAIRPESON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 7011 – KENNETH ZAHLER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Kenneth Zahler #7011. This is a request for a variance under Article XXII Section 280-105 and the Building Inspector’s October 14, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to legalize an “as built” fence at 1) more than the code required maximum four feet in height when located in the front yard, located at 63735 Suffolk County Route 48 (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Greenport. Good morning would you just state your name please not that we don’t know it but. ? February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting KENNETH ZAHLER : Kenneth Zahler I have my surveys here would you like me to bring them up? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure, let’s see we need one for the office and I guess one two three four. We have this which is your KENNETH ZAHLER : This is the as built which I think it’s what I was required. What did you say five? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Five yes thank you so much. Just so you’re aware if you’re not already informed but the Board has done site inspection so we’ve seen what it is what you actually built and KENNETH ZAHLER : Do you like it? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think it looks very nice to tell you the truth. KENNETH ZAHLER : I want you to know that the flag on the side of the garage was made from driftwood that I collected on the beach. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No kidding is that was that horse also made from driftwood on the beach? MEMBER HORNING : I thought it was a deer. KENNETH ZAHLER : Well actually I bought that at a store. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that a deer or MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Is that where you got the idea for the flag from the horse? KENNETH ZAHLER : No I just had the idea in my mind. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea I noticed that it was nice. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyway the property is very improved since the last variance so what we’re looking at here is the change from the prior grant was really quite substantial. It was perimeter fencing and you have reduced that down to deer fencing primarily around the pool. The setbacks are the same, the rights of way are clear, the meter is accessible. All the things that I recall from the last variance the only difference and I don’t think it’s significant is instead of deer fencing along the property line it’s a solid wood fence for privacy mainly from the residence that’s adjacent and you’re back here because it was a substantial change and also because the pool only requires a four foot height. Is there anything else you would like us to know about this application? ? February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting KENNETH ZAHLER : I just wanted to say that since I had the previous variance granted to do all that I didn’t think that I needed to come in and ask for anything since I was doing less. I was doing essentially nothing outside of the area granted just a small area and yes it’s around the pool but I just thought that that (inaudible) and I apologize for that it was my misinterpretation but in any event after we did all that and I started getting prices for gates that would close and open (inaudible) I’m not going to go down that road we’ll just stop at this point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let’s see if the Board has any questions, George? MEMBER HORNING : Not at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric? MEMBER DANTES : You’re talking about prices for an auto gate or something like that? KENNETH ZAHLER : Right for a gate that you can push a button or get a remote control and the gate would open and when I started adding up all the dollars for that as well as the fence I was like oaky never mind. MEMBER DANTES : How much was the auto gate? KENNETH ZAHLER : Depending on what you wanted the gate to look like were starting at twenty five thousand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see your point. KENNETH ZAHLER : I was also told that I could instead of the gate I could dig a trench and lay pipes which are a deterrent to deer. MEMBER DANTES : Those don’t always work though sometimes they jump over them. KENNETH ZAHLER : That’s exactly what I anticipated so I just scrapped the whole idea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yes I have a couple of questions, now you’re not applying for a deer fence you’re applying for a fence that doesn’t conform to the height correct cause I don’t think you’re the fence is not constructed per code as a deer fence. It may act as one but it is not a deer fence. KENNETH ZAHLER : Yeah that was the whole purpose the reason why we did that as opposed to a four foot fence was simply because it was the one part of the piece of property that we could actually put shrubbery that deer would eat and we could stop them. ? February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : What is the height of this fence? KENNETH ZAHLER : The fence that’s there is six feet. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Six feet. KENNETH ZAHLER : We felt that the combination of the height of six feet coupled with the changing terrain would be enough of a deterrent for deer and so far it has. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well especially since they have so much of the rest of your property available. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : But I just want to be clear on that that it’s not CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s a six foot high fence. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Six foot high fence not it acts like a deer fence that’s fine but it’s not as per code a deer fence cause of the post spacing and the mesh and all that. KENNETH ZAHLER : Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We should also enter into the record that we received comments from the LWRP coordinator Local Waterfront Revitalization Program and it’s determined to be consistent with the policy, anything else from anybody, anyone else in the audience wishing to address the application? Well good hearing no further questions or comments I’m going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. MEMBER HORNING : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by George, all in favor? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) ?? February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting HEARING # 7019 – BRUCE and LEONA GOODHEART CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Bruce and Leona Goodheart #7019. This is a request for a variance under Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s September 29, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) the proposed additions and alteration is less than the code required side yard minimum setback of 10 feet located at 350 Second Avenue in Peconic. Just state your name please for the record. MIKE KIMACK : Michael Kimack for the applicants. It’s pretty straightforward. There’s an existing screen porch one side which is the non-conforming side (inaudible) the walls off of there and then do an A-line roof extension over a portion of the deck on that one side. None of the lines are encroach any further into the side yard (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This addition is it’s a 7 foot side yard setback correct? MIKE KIMACK : I believe so yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The code requires 10. MIKE KIMACK : It has been I mean the house basically has been at that particular location from permitted as such. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let’s see if the Board has any further questions. I’ll start with Ken down there, Ken anything? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No I understand it it’s pretty straightforward you want to cover a portion of the deck. MIKE KIMACK : Exactly right Ken nothing further into the 7 foot just taking out the two walls of the existing porch and just (inaudible) A-line over the existing deck with that portion and it would be open porch. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Open porch and serve as entrance covered entrance as well. MIKE KIMACK : Yea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric? MEMBER DANTES : No I don’t have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George? Somebody ask something or we’ll be too for the next one. MEMBER HORNING : I’ll ask a question existing lot coverage 27.3? ?? February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : Yea that hasn’t changed that was the original permission given. MEMBER HORNING : And that will not change? MIKE KIMACK : That will not change. MEMBER HORNING : And utilities any extension of utilities? MIKE KIMACK : No, no not on this at all it’s just a deck situation none of the utilities need be extended or interior house changing (inaudible) no bathrooms, no additional bedrooms or anything like that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What’s I’m looking at the floor plan what’s it proposed to be used for? MIKE KIMACK : Just an open deck with an open deck underneath a A-line roof line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I’m looking at the elevation now it’s clear. MIKE KIMACK : (inaudible) basically it would be this sheet here the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea that’s what I’m looking at alright anything from anybody else, anyone else in the audience wishing to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I’ll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date is there a second? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) ?? February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting HEARING # 7021 – SUSANNAH MCDOWELL CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Susannah McDowell #7021. This is a request for a variance under Article III Section 280-15, Article XXIII Section 280- 124 and the Building Inspector’s October 26, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish and reconstruct an existing non-conforming accessory garage at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet, 2) less than the code required side yard setback of 10 feet located at 180 Strohson Road (adj. to the Sheep Pen Channel) in Cutchogue. Would you state your name for the record please? JOSEPH WALKER : My name is Joseph Walker for the applicant. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This would appear that this is an existing three car garage. We’ve all inspected the property so we see what’s there. You want to replace it on the existing foundation is that correct? JOSEPH WALKER : The foundation will require some work because some of the footing work is below the grade which has contributed to the demise of the silts so some of we’re going to have to underpin some of the foundation actually has no footing so we’re going to have to underpin that and then put block on it but the to raise the sill out of the ground but the height will remain the same it would be consistent with the you know detached structure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the setbacks which currently are five foot eight inches for the front yard and where the code requires 40 and five foot two inches for the side yard where the code requiring ten. It looks like it’s 9.1 feet at the far end of the garage. They’re going to remain the same? JOSEPH WALKER : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let’s see about Ken questions? MEMBER SHCNEIDER : Yea do you know when the garage was built? JOSEPH WALKER : I can only guesstimate to that because the garage is I’m going to say it was built some time shortly after the original structure was built because if you look at the framing (inaudible) it’s two by fours or ceiling beams and it’s really very old. I think the first time that it appeared on the town housing report was in 1979 so I can attest to the fact that it’s been there since 1979 and prior to that just be you know a guesstimate but it’s really very old and that’s part of the problem that at the time that they built it there’s really no footings under certain parts of that slab. ?? February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Oh really okay. I’m looking at the C.O. the PreC.O. that is issued June 27, 1979 for the one family dwelling and it didn’t say anything about the garage but looking back at some GIS phots it appears that there was something there but has any improvements been done to the dwelling? I think they did get a variance for some improvements. JOSEPH WALKER : Yes there have been improvements to the dwelling previously in fact this house or this property was before this Board somewhere around 1999 for a request which was granted. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I don’t know why the garage wasn’t added to the PreC.O. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don’t know either. JOSEPH WALKER : I got a copy of the Town of Southold housing code inspection report that’s it’s dated June 26 th of ’79 and it refers to a three car wood frame garage. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Oh it does? JOSEPH WALKER : At that time yes however it was not put on the C.O. which was subsequently dated June 27 th of 1979. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yes that’s what I just speaking to. JOSEPH WALKER : There’s definitely some inconsistency there. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well okay if that’s in the report then that’s the proof that it was there. JOSEPH WALKER : It’s been there a long time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The application says probably fifty years that’s what it says on the application that was probably filled out by the owners. JOSEPH WALKER : I’m going to say minimum. If you look at if you guys went inside and looked. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We didn’t go inside the garage no I don’t think anybody did. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay we have something in the file you said about the report. BOARD SECRETARY : In 1979 there’s this housing code inspection report it talks about a three car garage. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Good I have no further questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric? ?? February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : No I don’t have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it certainly appears based upon the location of the property that there’s wetlands on the seaward side and that makes it impossible to have a garage there also with the driveway and landscaping so and to move it any closer to the front of the house and farther from the street or to move the side you know increase the side yard would in fact block the house. It would either block the entry to the house or block one of the big windows that are in the house and so on so it’s pretty much where if you’re going to have a garage it needs to be it seems to me and it looks as though there’s some other structures along Strohson that also have non-conforming side yards and front yards. George? MEMBER HORNING : Did you consider attaching the garage to the house? JOSEPH WALKER : The owner of the house didn’t consider that. It really wasn’t a priority or a (inaudible) consideration. They wanted just to really (inaudible) of the code structurally because it’s weak in that regard and the other concern would be if it’s attached to the house that the setback requirements would be actually more severe than it would be for a detached structure. So we’re trying to I mean you know the owners her parents live on Strohson up the road on Strohson so you know it is in terms of the degree of relaxation we know that it’s a lot we’re just trying not to encroach on to inflict anymore relaxation on any structure that’s all. MEMBER HORNING : Are there any other detached garages on that street amongst the neighborhood? I think I observed at least one. JOSEPH WALKER : I can’t speak to that. I didn’t look at that and the only reason that I didn’t is that when I looked inside the thing has been there forever. It’s just so old that I’m sure it was built shortly after the original house was built. MEMBER HORNING : Could you verify for us then whether or not let’s say the neighbor to the west has a detached garage in the front yard or any other neighbors on the street? JOSEPH WALKER : I can’t recall I don’t know. CHAIREPRSON WEISMAN : Well I know there are at least three other houses on Strohson that have attached garages with non-conforming setbacks. They’re almost as close to the front yard. JOSEPH WALKER : That’s what I was trying to get at before if this was to become attached I think that the you know we would have to be talking about more relaxation for setbacks than a detached structure so that’s why one reason that wasn’t considered and one reason we don’t want to move it you know closer one way to the front or to the side. MEMBER HORNING : Any proposed living space inside that proposed garage? ?? February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting JOSEPH WALKER : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else, anyone in the audience wishing to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close this hearing reserve decision to later date all I favor? Oh wait I didn’t get a second sorry. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 7022 – ALBERT LEUTWYLER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Albert Leutwyler #7022. This is a request for a variance under Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s November 21, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing 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 4573 Wickham Ave. (adj. to Long Creek) in Mattituck. Good morning thank you for your patience, would you please state your name for the record please. ALBERT LEUTWYLER : My name is Albert Leutwyler. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is a second story addition that you want to put on your existing dwelling. It’s 277 square feet and the front yard setback is 30 feet 7 inches from the right of way where the code requires 35 feet and the rear yard setback is 30 feet 10 inches where the code requires 35 feet. You want to put the bedrooms up on the second floor I take it and you got a prior variance I remember it well on August 18, 2009 for the front yard and rear yard setbacks. ALBERT LEUTWYLER : For the addition of the deck. ?? February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : For the deck correct and we have inspected the property. I see that the buffer along the wetlands is in place. The house is at a dead end on the creek and the nearby homes are setback considerable distances from your property. We did get an LWRP recommendation and it says that it’s consistent with the policy so that’s good then. Let’s see if the Board has any questions on this application. Ken do you want to start? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : (inaudible) a second story. It’s going straight up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea, Eric? MEMBER DANTES : Yea no second story and then an outdoor shower that does have a code conforming setback so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so there will be no change in the setbacks to what exists currently? ALBERT LEUTWYLER : No there won’t be as a matter of fact when this house was built in 1967 at which point there were no legal setback requirements and every time I do something to the house I’m coming up against a variance because of the law that is now attributed to my property as well so (inaudible) MEMBER DANTES : Did you say ’57 or ’67? ALBERT LEUTWYLER : not really increasing any dimensions in terms of proximity to the front or the rear yard setbacks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right. The only thing that I think Eric was about to correct you on is the code came into place in ’57 not ’67. George questions? MEMBER HORNING : Yea, not to labor this too much but the reasons for the appeal I presume you hand wrote these yourself sir? ALBERT LEUTWYLER : Yes I did. MEMBER HORNING : I was having a little difficulty reading your answers. ALBERT LEUTWYLER : Reading my handwriting. MEMBER HORNING : So do you have a copy of it there? ALBERT LEUTWYLER : No but I’m very familiar with it. MEMBER HORNING : Well reason number 4 variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on physical or environmental condition in the neighborhood in this district because and I think ?? February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting you wrote the neighbors will be inconvenienced during the construction adding a second floor. The wetland area has doubles or more since I received the prior variance so how did the wetlands double? ALBERT LEUTWYLER : Because I added a lot of native species native plantings to the wetland area once prior to the deck approval and in that period between the deck approval and now all of the material that I planted has increased and actually changed the wetland boundary considerably closer to the house than it was in 2009. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that was because there was a condition to establish a buffer a non-disturbance buffer of native species in order to mitigate the impact of the deck against the existing wetlands at the time so I think he’s really George referring to the buffer that he planted when he got the deck. MEMBER HORNING : Okay. ALBERT LEUTWYLER : I was trying to make a positive statement there. MEMBER HORNING : Alright statement number one undesirable change will not be produced in the character of the neighborhood and your answer the house could you read that to us please. ALBERTY LEUTWYLER : Yea as it is the house as it is now will not change in look only the height see plans of house. (inaudible) and look forward to the osprey returning to my tree. MEMBER HORNING : And statement number two benefit cannot be achieved by some other method would you read that also. ALBERT LEUTWYLER : The option was (inaudible) to the footprint by plus or minus two hundred square feet or add an addition out to the east side yard enlarging doubling the footprint so we tried to figure out is are we better going up or better off pushing back and our choice was to raise the house up also to conform to FEMA which is another next hurdle to overcome. MEMBER HORNING : And statement three the amount of relief requested is not substantial you say because ALBERT LEUTWYLER : The increased additional space in terms of encroaching on the rear or the front or the side yard is minimal we’re going up not really pushing out the house to the side yard. MEMBER HORNING : Okay thank you. ?? February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from the Board, anyone else in the audience wishing to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments you know what I’m going to say I’m going to close the hearing reserve decision for a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 7023 – MGH ENTERPRISES, INC. VERIZON WIRELESS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for MGH Enterprises, Inc. Verizon Wireless #7023 . This is a request for a variance under Article XIII Section 280-56 and the Building Inspector’s October 18, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to co-locate a wireless communications facility on subject property at 1) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 25 feet located at 40200 NYS Route 25 (adj. to Gardeners Bay) in Orient. Good morning would you state your name for the record please. DENISE VISTA : Denise Vista with the Amato Law Group 666 Old Country Rd. Suite 901 Garden City New York. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. So this is a co-location on an existing wireless facility and you’re creating a new compound for the equipment with a side yard setback at 7.3 feet the code requires 25 feet. I want to just enter into the record a couple of things before we hear what you’d like us to know and that is that the Planning Board supports this application. I know you need site plan approval. They do so with the caveat well or recommendation is a better way to put it that we include in our determination that the proposed location and height must be conforming confirmed rather by the Planning Board and their technical consultants as per town code which of course will be part of the site plan approval anyway. Secondly we have here a recommendation from the LWRP coordinator which says that that is is that an exemption, I ?? February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting think it’s exempt yea it’s exempt okay and lastly we did receive an email that was sent to me that I forwarded it to the Board and the office from the Chief of Police and that’s Chief Martin Flatley and I would like to read that into the record and then turn it over to you. As you are most likely aware two he was basically told that Verizon was before us today and he wanted to make some comments and then he says as you are most likely aware two of the critical infrastructures as designated by the counter terrorism community that we are a part of for our township lie in Orient Point, Plum Island Animal Disease Research Center and the Cross Sound Ferry system. We participate with various agencies and drill at these two locations and have responded several actual criminal incidences at these two locations with our county, state and federal partners. A recurring issue has always been communications from Orient Point and Plum Island both by radios and by cell phones. If your meeting today addresses an approval process for Verizon Wireless I would fully support the improvement of a Verizon wireless telephone signal at this location as it would have a direct positive affect on our department’s communication between Orient Point, Plum Island and our headquarters and points beyond especially our marine units that patrol this area by boat. Let’s see if there’s anything else just to again reiterate that the Zoning Board granted a side yard setback for another compound #6533 on February 15, 2012 which granted the same side yard setback of 7.1 feet that you are proposing. DENISE VISTA : As you have indicated we are here today to seek a side yard variance for the requested actually setback 7 feet 3 inches as opposed to the 7.1 but you know give or take a few inches. So we will be consistent with the existing AT&T compound both visually and setback the same distance. The compound will be enclosed fully enclosed with a 13 foot high fence and then 14 foot high trees on two sides. So essentially what you see there today will just be extended. We’re also proposing to extend the existing monopole with a 20 foot (inaudible) extension. As you had indicated there is lack of service in the area which we hope to resolve which we will resolve with this proposed extension to the monopole. We had also submitted previously into the record a letter from the Suffolk County Police Department also supporting this application. So what I would like to do is I do have a number of reports I know you appreciate written testimony so I would really like to submit the reports into the record at this time and I do have the authors of those reports with me today make it known on the record what I’m going to be submitting. I do have one for each of you if I may approach a packet for each. Enclosed in your packet is correspondence from the Suffolk County Police Department attesting to their expressing their support of the application and second is the Engineering Report prepared by Daniel Falasco who is also with me today. Planning zoning and visual impact analysis prepared by VHB Engineering Surveying Landscape Architecture (inaudible) to testify if you have any questions. I have an RF Report prepared by C 2 Systems and I have Martin Lavin with me here today. An Antenna Site FCC Compliance Assessment and Report which ?? February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting demonstrates compliance with the FCC regulations and last but not least the Real Estate Consulting Report prepared by Michael Lynch who I also have with me here today. So if you have any specific questions regarding any of those items I do have those experts with me if you would like to open up for questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I just want to say one thing part of the reason for the previous side yard setback was that the adjacent parcel is zoned R400 and is not sub dividable and therefore has no impact that side yard setback variance has no impact on the adjacent property and also it has already been screened with the same kind of screening evergreen screening that you’re proposing along that side yard. Let’s see if anyone has any questions we’ll start with Ken. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric? George? MEMBER HORNING : You’re going to expand twenty feet above the existing tower? DENISE VISTA : Yes it’s a twenty foot extension so essentially the pole will look visually similar although it will be twenty feet taller. MEMBER HORNING : So it’s going to be enclosed the way it is now? DENISE VISTA : Yes the antennas will be concealed within. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well previously the code required the Zoning Board to grant Special Exception permits and height variances and so on for cell towers now the Planning Board has that jurisdiction and so many of any unresolved issues will be discussed before them and taken care of through the site plan process. I have no further questions I think our community welcomes additional capacity for good communication. We rely all of us particularly the police, the ability to use digital medias, cell phones and so on for not only security purposes and life safety purposes but for all of us to be able to communicate with our cell phones so the way it is until satellites are up in the sky I guess and the towers become obsolete. DENISE VISTA : Well we appreciate hearing that because a lot of Boards don’t share your thoughts. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well look if something is in a historic district and the scale has a huge impact that’s one thing. We have had those. When it’s sitting where it’s sitting now and has existed for a number of years without any adverse impact the Board recognizes all of those things. I’m sure you’re familiar with the state statutes that we have to follow and the balancing tests that we have to impose in our decisions and we take those very seriously and I don’t have any further questions. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application? ?? February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting Well thank you all experts for being here. We’re going to have a lot to read but I suspect I know what the reading is going to include. Nevertheless we appreciate your time and your being here and I’m going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. We will have a decision in two weeks. MEMBER HORNING : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 7025 – WILLIAM GREMLER, JR. and MICHAEL MURPHY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for William Gremler Jr. and Michael Murphy #7025. This is a request for a waiver of merger petition under Article II Section 280-10A to unmerge land identified as SCTM#1000-41-1-30 which was merged with SCTM#1000-41-1-24 based on the Building Inspector’s September 29, 2016 Notice of Disapproval which states that a non-conforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or non-conforming lot held in common ownership with the first lot at any time after July 1, 1983 and that non-conforming lots shall merge until the total lot size conforms to the current bulk schedule requirements (minimum 40,000 sq. ft. in the R-40 Residential Zoning District) located at 980 Washington Ave. in Greenport. Would you state your name for the record please? ANTHONY PALUMBO : Certainly good afternoon Anthony Palumbo on behalf of the applicant from the law firm of Palumbo and Associates. I actually have if you’d like maybe a quick presentation I do have some packets that I’d like to provide the Board so it’ll be easy to follow along. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mr. Palumbo before you get started I just want to enter into the record what is involved here. We have two lots that the Building Department has determined have merged. These lots were not were actually sold outside of the family okay is that correct? ?? February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PALUMBO : Subsequent to the application being filed and the Notice of Disapproval but yes it is now owned by someone other than the family but we made the application prior to the deed being filed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright then let me hear what you have to say and we’ll carry on. ANTHONY PALUMBO : Certainly thank you. In the packets I provided the Board as you can see in the center of the front page is the tax map and 24 and 30 are the two lots in question. They are still separate lots on this particular map and as you can see being familiar with the area as well as I’m sure you all are they’re all similarly situated. It’s essentially the entire character of the community and one of the lots has a house on it and the second one is vacant and 30 the one on Washington is the one that actually has the building on it. Then I provided I didn’t staple them together so you could spill them out is that I heard some grumblings from the audience did I confuse that? I think the Wilmarth one that’s correct that’s correct I apologize the Wilmarth building has a building on it which was an older building and then we have the vacant lot on Washington and the subsequent photos are the neighboring homes just to give you folks an idea of the character of the community. The first two pages this is on the Washington side then this is the house to the east and then a picture of the lot where you can see the posted sign and the house to the west and then across the street as well as subsequent photos representing the Wilmarth side that has the building. You can again see the posted sign and the neighboring homes. All these lots are similar to the lots as they were prior to the merger and the last two pages are the separate tax map bills that are still in two separate names or considered two separate lots just for the purposes. So the nature of our waiver is essentially these are lots that under the Tillinghast by way of the life estate were transferred to the same individuals and then that individual sold them to my clients and as I indicated our application was made prior to the actual transfer but those neighboring people and the folks that have been notified and noticed pursuant to this hearing we have spoken with a few of them. My office spoke with Mr. Melanaki’s son across the street on Walmarth who indicated that they were happy that it was bought and I guess if I can just briefly suggest that the intent of that being of the transfer being within the same family is that the logic behind that statute is that you don’t want someone who intentionally merges some properties to maybe make it an estate of some kind or a larger property and then subsequently someone else buys it and tries to split it up and build a few mcmansions or whatever it may be that this is the situation where in fact the building was in total disrepair so all the neighbors we’ve spoken with in fact my office my partner spoke with two of the neighbors Mrs. Harris and Mr. and Mrs. Melanakis’s son. I spoke with Rose Denado who is working in the city and they all have they have no opposition they are thrilled that it’s been bought and being is currently being renovated and in the intention this application is granted the intention of the new applicant is to the owner is to ultimately just build a second home and keep it of course well maintained and put a new building on it so ?? February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting that’s really the gist of it being the character of the community is certainly consistent in fact this is a buildable lot according to the Health Department on the 1983 map is it Tracey ’81 or ’83? The ’81 map that this is still considered as far as they are concerned a buildable lot and a pre- existing non-conforming as far as the ultimate issue being that you can’t do anything without a Health Department approval so it’s otherwise compliant but for the estate plan that Mrs. Tillinghast had ultimately engaged in these would still be separate lots and this wouldn’t even be an issue. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is no relationship between the applicant and the estate is that correct? ANTHONY PALUMBO : Not between the applicant and the Tillinghast’s no but as I indicated the at the time of this Notice of Disapproval as you can see in the packet it was still owed by the Tililnghast’s so I don’t know if it would be appropriate and I’m sure they would be willing to cooperate they knew this was coming we could substitute them as the applicant. We just figured the timing of it being the deed wasn’t filed until the end of October so it hadn’t transferred ownership at that point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So let me get this straight application say that again an application by the estate was filed. Why would they do that if the lots had not had the lots merged already according to the Building Department? ANTHONY PALUMBO : I don’t believe so. I don’t believe they’ve even merged at this point because they still are getting separate tax map bills. We’re looking for a waiver so we can proceed with and the one house has been cleaned up and as that was Mrs. Harris had indicated she was thrilled that it was finally taken out of disrepair because it was an eyesore in town. I don’t believe the Tililnghast’s son who ultimately is the owner based upon the operation of law and the way that that estate plan had worked that it had gone from Mrs. Tillinghast to her son when she passed that he was really it was not using the home. There were animals living in it I mean it was really in bad shape so the fact that they didn’t really have the (inaudible) or the will to make the application. They could have and I think it would have been easily granted but quite frankly they wanted to just move the house and sell it and my client’s had come in and immediately had workers there and cleaned it out and basically gutted it and then have gotten it to the point that it’s at least livable and they intend to do a lot more in the near future. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All merged properties receive separate tax maps. Unfortunately it has been a point of confusion you know since the time that this waiver this merger law went into effect so that’s not necessarily an argument for the fact that it merged or didn’t. We don’t have much wiggle room when it comes to either qualifying or not and the fact that it was transferred to an owner that was not related to the original owners since disqualifies the ?? February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting waiver of merger but there are some other options. If you read the code which is section 280- 10A you will see that it says a non-conforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or non-conforming lot which has been held in common ownership with the first lot at any time after July 1, 1983 so we know that happened. An adjacent lot is one which abuts with the parcel for a common course of fifty feet or more in distance. Non-conforming lot shall merge until the total lot size conforms to the current bulk schedule requirements. What is the width of both of those lots? ANTHONY PALUMBO : It’s really tough to see on here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we got the survey right here. ANTHONY PALUMBO : The larger survey in my application that’s what I looked at. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you like me to tell you or do you want to enter it into the record? I can save you the time. ANTHONY PALUMBO : 44 and 41 is that what I have? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s correct. Lot 50 is 41 feet wide lot 41 is 47.86 feet wide. Now a strict interpretation of this code would suggest that lots that do not share fifty feet or more in width are exempt from merger. ANTHONY PALUMBO : Understood and I would certainly would ask that the Board consider under those grounds the nature of this community and as you can see from those photographs you can see that they’re all very well kept adorable cottages. They’re really nicely done so I think it would certainly fit with not only the consent of the people as they’ve indicated to me already but it would certainly fit the character of the community to build that lot and develop it and make it consistent with the rest of the street and area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well of course we all have inspected the site. We know the property well. We’re your neighbors we live here. We know where the property is and we’ve looked at the neighborhood. It’s basically a built out neighborhood. The only lot that I could see that was undeveloped was across from the vacant parcel which is still wooded but all the other properties are and have been developed with dwellings for a long time. So that’s one issue to explore cause that’s a very strict interpretation. The Building Department obviously did not interpret the merger law to look at the fifty foot width. They looked at the fact that it shares a continuous common boundary rather than a small piece of the boundary because there’s a little confusion part of the exemption could be that instead of them really being adjacent all the way across maybe ten fifteen feet of a forty, fifty, sixty foot lot is shared so in that sense the intent of the code was to exempt those properties from merger but the strict interpretation of ?? February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting this code would suggest that it’s referenced to a common course of fifty feet and width and these two properties do not have fifty feet of width. ANTHONY PALUMBO : Understood and thank you for pointing that out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let’s see what questions or comments the Board might have at this point and then we’ll see what the audience has to say about it, George anything? MEMBER HORNING : No I’d like to hear from the neighborhood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You want to hold off questions until we hear from MEMBER DANTES : I don’t really have any the code’s pretty plain. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea okay alright so who would like to address this application? PETER HARRIS : Peter Harris I live at 212 Knapp Place Greenport but I’m here with my parents who happen to live on the eastern side of the former Tillinghast dwelling. To the best of my knowledge when the Tillinghast’s went to build their house they were told that in order for them to be able to build they would have to purchase both lots and combine them as one. It wasn’t a buildable lot on the south end at the time because it narrows and it widens out as you go towards Wilmarth and originally that piece of property from street to street Washington and Wilmarth was a right of way which had been given to the Town of Southold by the Tasker family which in turn the town decided that they didn’t want to continue to put a road between Washington because just to doors down on Booth there was a cross street between Washington and 25 and it didn’t intersect with Madison so it would have been offset street which would actually would serve no purpose so the Tillinghast’s purchased both lots and to our understanding those lots were combined because they had to have access to for the building lot on Wilmarth. Just to set the record straight as far as I’ve heard my mother’s Mrs. Harris said yes they were very happy when they heard that the house had been bought because the house had fallen in such disrepair from the former tenants who were related to the owners and they actually trashed that house and the house they he finally got them evicted and the house was in such disrepair that the owners Mr. Murphy and Mr. Gremler they did they basically had to go into that house and gut it because it was a total disgrace in there. Another thing that I will say there was a side porch that was added on after the original dwelling was built I don’t even know if they ever had a building permit for that. It’s two feet originally it was right was actually the cement patio actually was on my parents property. They ended up cutting it back two feet off the property line and they built an enclosed porch. I don’t know if it was even a building permit gotten on that. On the opposite side of the house cause there’s only two feet on my parents side and I believe I’m not a hundred percent sure but either ten or twelve feet to the property line on the west side and there is also a deck on there, which was built I ?? February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting don’t know if they even had a building permit for that and that has nothing to do with either one of the gentlemen that currently own it. It was there when they bought it. Another thing every single home in that whole surrounding Wilmarth, Washington, Madison, Booth, Middleton every single home has driveways. If in fact there is allowed to split these lots and they build another dwelling on the southern lot where’s all the cars going to park? I don’t think that the residents of the area should have to look at cars parked out on the road because it doesn’t fall in with the I forgot what Mr. Palumbo said the character of the neighborhood cause that certainly wouldn’t fit the character of the neighborhood. MEMBER DANTES : Sir there is a code that when they apply for a permit to build a house that will require parking so that will be addressed. PETER HARRIS : So what’s going to happen on the north end? There’s no driveway on the north end. They use they come in off of Washington right now. MEMBER DANTES : They’re going to have to build one so that’ll be addressed when the building permit is filed with the Building Department. PETER HARRIS : Okay listen I’m here asking questions. You asked for someone to speak and I speak what I have to say I’m saying what I got to say. The other gentleman’s name that Mr. Palumbo said I believe he’s a new home owner. He bought the house basically directly across the street. Again what they have done to this point with the dwelling it’s a hundred and ten percent better than what it was but the fact of the matter is that you know you people know the law. I’m not a lawyer I don’t claim to be a lawyer but as far as what our family was under the interpretation from what was told to us by the Tillinghast family that those lots had to be merged before he could build the original dwelling and that it was never you know it was a right of way for him to come in. He gets his water; he gets his electricity from the village of Greenport. It comes off of Washington. They’re not hooked up to PSE&G so that’s all I have to say right now thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Pete. Anyone else? GREG HALLOCK : Greg Hallock I live on Wilmarth Ave. I live on I own the house next door to the existing structure. My conversations with Mr. Tillinghast were that he had to in the ‘70’s when he built put that house up the town and you might want to look at the records the town made him do all kinds of covenants and things to he had to buy that second lot, he had to merge it and he couldn’t build anything on it. If there’s another house put there, there would be no way to do any maintenance to the back yard. There’s only two feet on both sides of the house my side and Harris side. There’s no way you can get down there. They had a rescue for Mrs. Tillinghast and they had to bring the ambulance around to the back side cause they couldn’t get ?? February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting her out of the house on the side with the fences. So that presents a problem with firefighting and the cesspools as far as I know are right on the line for the right on the property line. The water main like Pete says the water main comes from across that lot to feed the house. There’s a utility pole that provides the electricity for that house. You can see it on their survey that utility pole is on the other lot alright. The I suggest that you look at the records, you have records back from the seventies at least when he put that house up because it was a right of way and it was so narrow he had the way before this 1983 merger he had merged that back in the seventies. That’s what I was told by him too. To quote Mr. Tillinghast he said he had to get everybody but the pope to sign off on it that’s what he told me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright thank you so much anybody else I think you wanted to say something. LINDA BEDERMAN : Hi my name is Linda Bederman. I live in the house adjacent to the lot, lot 50 and I can understand why he wants to get you know get this lot cleared out here once the whole problem clears but I don’t know is he going to have enough room to really build a house? I don’t want to be living in a trailer park and right now next to me I mean to the west to the east of me there’s a (inaudible) trailer and then across on Wimarth which adjacent to that lot 50 the house is a prefab or double wide. That’s my only complaint I mean if Billy wants to build a nice house next door to me fine but I just don’t want it to look like a trailer park any more than it looks like it right now. That’s all I really have to say. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you anyone else, questions from the Board? MEMBER DANTES : My only question is based on the comments are there any covenants and restrictions in the deed that are recorded against the property? ANTHONY PALUMBO : There were none in the title report that we saw, no C&R’s and as far as the representations of the Tillinghast’s I’m sure that they’re recalling these facts accurately but they purchased this in 1973. I don’t believe this merger stature was even in existence in 1973 so. ANTHONY PALUMBO : (inaudible) it looks as though the last (inaudible) that I pulled was 1995 so in any event any if it’s granted the application of course it would be subject to all of the approvals necessary regarding setbacks and driveways and so forth so hopefully that does put some of the neighbor’s minds at ease that in the event they’re going to do that it would certainly be in conformity with the Building Department and if there are any violations I’m sure that there will be some subsequent questions and the applicant’s will clear that up right away. I mean they haven’t again this is just a they’ve only had this property for a very short period of ?? February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting time but they obviously they’re obligated to do so and they certainly will. Actually my client would like to address the Board if that’s okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Certainly. BILL GREMLER : I’m Bill Gremler one of the partners in the property. I’m in the trades and as far as the lean to next to Mr. Harris’s house we don’t want it we’ll take it away we don’t need that lean to. As far as the deck too close I spoke to his daughter and said I’d like to cut down this tree she said Billy cut down the tree do whatever you’d like to do. I’ll shorten the deck. I can put a front door on 59 and Walmarth this afternoon. I can put a driveway in 59 and Wilmarth tomorrow morning. I’m a builder. We’re just going to keep to the conformity of the property. The piece of property across from mine is an eyesore, it’s an eyesore. People throw their debris there. Michael and I brought in two forty yard containers the afternoon we bought the property. We have a regular maintenance company maintaining the properties. We’re not going to be taking away from the neighborhood. We’re going to conform to the sidelines, the driveways I do have a driveway at 110 Ave. Pete. We will put a driveway at 112 Washington Ave. So we’re only there to make the neighborhood look better. I feel a maintained home on a lot looks a lot better than a lot that gets muddy in the spring and dried out and blowing dust all summer and it could look like the one across the street from us with the debris. We don’t intend on parking cars all over the street. The street is littered with cars and we will maintain everything right to the inch of what we need to do on this piece of property. ANTHONY PALUMBO : Thank you any further questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I’ll make some comments. It’s too small to see on this plat but one of the you don’t really let’s get this clear you may have had this merged as a consequence of the history of the property okay as two people have testified that there was some things the town asked the former owners to do because of the width probably of the lot. It’s a very narrow lot so that may well have been accurate but regardless it became one lot. The question is it’s on this plat as two separate lots the question is do you qualify for the recreation of those two lots the answer is no because it was sold outside of the family and we don’t have as we do with variance relief the ability to change those standards. You either meet them or you don’t and in this case you don’t. There are two ways to go about this though either deny the waiver of merger because it doesn’t qualify, look at the strictest interpretation of the code which had to do with the fifty feet of distance or suggest that you apply for variance relief for insufficient lot are in the zone district and if that’s granted then you go to the Planning Board to get a lot line change a subdivision. So you apply to us for a lot line change those are the options. ANTHONY PALUMBO : Just so I’m clear then the Board’s taking the position that even though the application was filed prior to the subsequent transfer after the application is satisfying or is ?? February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting in contravention to 280-11 under the waiver the Section A that it’s a third party so that still doesn’t cover that for those purposes and then secondly I would just again ask if that is in fact the case an alternatively as we’ve discussed it it appears from Section A of the merger statute of 280 subdivision 10 or 280-10 subdivision A that the forty foot it doesn’t meet the forty foot compliance requirement and as such it would be exempt so even though it may in fact have been one lot because we haven’t seen any actual mergered documents from the Building Department is there any findings that it has merged? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No that’s true of all properties. The only time that it becomes apparent is when someone goes in for building permit to the Building Department or to the sell lots then it becomes apparent that the lots have merged by force of law based upon the law that was determined and I believe it was 1985 the merger law. So it kinds of blind sides people but that’s been the case since the law was passed. Action has to be taken in order to discover that in facts lots have been merged. It sounds as though this may have predated the merger law by virtue of the fact that it was historically a right of way and what I’m trying to find out is whether or not this lot is considerably narrow in width and street frontage then the other lots that are going along Washington and Wilmarth it looks like it’s a little bit smaller I mean there are two other lots on both streets that are quite large much larger and then the other lots between Booth and I don’t know it was the next one over Middleton I guess I have to look and see if the print is so tiny on this plat my aging eyes will not I need a great big magnifying glass to see what those lot widths are unless you guys can see it. ANTHONY PALUMBO : It looks like they’re all around fifty so they would necessarily be exempt lots until we get further down to 38 looks to be less than fifty and maybe even of course and I can provide a better detailed map but I’m obviously you folks have them as well but I’ll do the leg work for you if you’d like to just get a better blow up of this map. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I believe there’s a gentleman in the back that wants to speak again. Did you have your hand up? You have to come to the mic please and restate wait wait till you get to the mic cause it’s being recorded thank you. GREG HALLOCK : My name is Greg Hallock the average lot size there is about a hundred a hundred and twenty. My lot is a hundred by a hundred and twenty and I’m pretty sure Stanley Harris is and Linda Bederman’s is the only small lots are the one with this trailer on it and this right of way. Everything else is about a hundred by a hundred and twenty. I have my survey here if you want to look at it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. Go back to the mic if you have something you want to say. Sure. ?? February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting LINDA BEDERMAN : I’m just thinking out loud Linda Bederman. Billy also owns lot 49 next door. Now if he wanted to have the merge if he wanted to unmerge himself from that other piece of property and he merged with 49 he’s have a big enough piece of property to put something there. Right now he has a trailer there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that’s any property owner who owns adjacent lots has the option of voluntarily going to the assessor’s office and merging the properties for whatever reasons but that’s really not what’s before us now. We’re only here to look at whether or not the applicant qualifies for a waiver of merger and that will in part we know that based on the strict standards the applicant does not okay but we need to do an we really need to look at the code very carefully to see whether or not other standards would be applicable and whether or not that fifty foot width what the intent of the town code was when they described that fifty foot width common boundary. Ken do you have anything you want to ask or add or? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No, no I don’t thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric? MEMBER DANTES : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George? MEMBER HORNING : Should we adjourn until next month? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you’re lot how far down is your lot no I see what it is it’s 97.99 feet wide however what I’m asking you is where ANTHONY PALUMBO : He’s lot 25 just to the east of ours on the map I gave you he’s the larger almost square lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh yea that’s the bigger one. There are several others all the way down the street that are more in keeping with the size of the other lots you know. PETER HARRIS : But the map that he’s showing you isn’t representative cause the lot next door Mrs. Bederman’s he’s got that split down the middle that’s it’s one lot that’s the same width as mine across the back. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we’ll looking at this okay you see what that is that is the plat out of the plat book for the Town of Southold showing all the lots along those both Washington and Wilmarth. It’s the Suffolk County Tax Map we have those books to identify tax maps PETER HARRIS : It shows my lot the dotted lines don’t count so those are double width lots there. ?? February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Yea the dotted lines don’t count. PETER HARRIS : Yea see he’s not showing you what the representation CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The dotted lines don’t count that’s correct. Alright well if you’d come up here you’d see what we’re talking about it’s just that there are some lots that have frontage that have a dotted line going between Washington and Walmarth and that is not a separate lot that’s all I’m saying. That’s what Eric was pointing out. Why don’t I give you your surveys back sir. Is there anything else from the Board or anyone in the audience who wishes to say anything further about this application? Mr. Palumbo do you have anything to close with or ANTHONY PALUMBO : No thank you I really have made the representation that we’d like we would just like if the Board alternatively feels that this does not meet the waiver requirements to recognize that this is an exempt lot is it doesn’t meet the fifty foot frontage but thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no further questions or comments I’m going to make a motion to close this hearing reserve decision to later date. Is there a second? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : 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. This is adjourned from a prior hearing so I don’t need to read the legal notice but I will just reiterate the fact that this is a proposal on a split zoned property to have a front yard for a large boat storage facility with boat parking on the rear of the property which is zoned residential and we’re looking at a front yard setback of 95.5 feet for this proposed storage building where the code requires 100 feet and a side yard setback of 5 feet where the code requires 25 feet. Thank you for the updated survey. ?? February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting KAREN HOEG : Karen Hoeg from Tuomey, Latham, Shea. I just have an additional green card. I just wanted to give the Board some background. The applicant purchased the subject property on March 10, 1999. The prior owners of this property included Bergen Oil Company that owned and operated the property in the mid 1980’s. The property is roughly eight hundred feet deep from Main Rd. to the Long Island Railroad and is a hundred feet wide. It is a unique parcel in that it’s one of the few properties in the town in a split zone with the northerly half zoned R40 and the southerly half that is on Main Rd. being in the B zone. The B zone is approximately 100 by 441 feet and the R40 zone is slightly smaller at 374.66 feet. The applicant had submitted a site plan application back in 2001 and it was advised by Planning to address the issues of the parking of boats on the R40 portion of the property with the Zoning Board as an accessory use to the business and the boat parking in the front of the property in the B zone. The application never progressed to completion in part because the application was unfamiliar with the regulatory processes in the town so here we are years later trying to work with the Planning Department and Zoning Board to bring this site more in line with the town’s goals also achieving the owner’s goals of erecting a storage building and seeking to maintain boat storage in the R40 zone as an accessory use to his business. The applicant has the business use consisting of the display storage, sale and service of boats in the B zone. Over the course of the past few years we’ve had many meetings with various town departments and explored the option of a zone change to convert the R40 portion to a B zone. It was decided and recommended by town staff to reapply for a site plan and to include the request for the proposed storage building and boat parking/storage in the R40 zone as an accessory use to the business. However in order for us to move forward with the site plan application before Planning we need to address these issues with this Board. We are in receipt of the Planning Board memo dated December 21, 2016 regarding this application and the issues pointed out by the Planning Board are issues we are willing to address. These issues include screening; parking, buffering and we can address those in the site plan process. Over the years the applicant has been cleaning up the site and it is a vast improvement from what it once was. The applicant is a respected business man in the community and provides services to locals and summer residents alike. The proposed 5,520 square foot storage building which is proposed at 120 by 46 is necessary and essential for the orderly storage of boats and to aid and maintain the front street scape of the property. It is proposed at 18 feet high and 21 feet at its peak. The proposed building will have concrete flooring no heat no water and its proposed to be located tucked behind the existing office building in line with the Dickerson structure on the adjoining lot to the east. It will not be higher than the Dickerson structure. The existing office building is roughly 1,104 square feet and is situated 59.5 feet from the front line and 42.1 feet from the west side line. The front yard setback is 100 feet and we are proposing the building 5 feet short of being in compliance. The side yard setback is 25 feet and we are proposing a setback of 5 feet. The existing building on the property is 6.9 feet from the east side line. The location was ?? February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting selected is really the only suitable location as it is tucked behind the existing office building and situated it adjacent to business zoned properties. If we moved it 5 feet further back from the Main Rd. in order to comply with the front yard setback we would be pushing it further adjacent to the residentially zoned properties to the east. It was also recommended by Planning staff that the proposed location on the easterly side of the property was more suitable as it wasn’t adjacent to the residentially zoned parcels to the west even though the application owns the parcels to the west. Another reason for the building to not be pushed further back is there is a slope in the rear of the property pretty close to where the zones splits which would make the construction and use of the building difficult. Any existing temporary sheds and structures will be removed to create a neat appearance and accommodate the proposed structure. The proposed building will not extend northerly beyond the existing building on the Dickerson’s property. I have brought some photos of the Dickerson property facing from Factory Ave. to the west so you can get an idea. The concept of boat storage in the R40 zoned portion owned by the applicant came as a result of discussions with the chief building inspector as an accessory use to the applicant’s business. The proposed boat storage in the R40 portion is basically seasonal. During winter months on the R40 portion there are roughly fifty boats stored and come April 1 st most if not all of those boats are removed. The required screening and buffering of the R40 area will be addressed with Planning staff during the site plan process and we will work with them to comply with the town code requirements on the screening and the landscaping in that area. We have had preliminary discussions with the Planning staff in regard to that. Turning to the variance standards the grant of the variance will not cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. To the east of the property towards Factory Ave. is Dickerson’s Marine Sales, Tony’s Automotive, a cellular company and Magic Fountain. Access and parking for these businesses is along Main Rd. and many times in the State right of way. A large shopping center is across the street from Factory Ave. Directly across the street from the property are also businesses including a retail pool service store, a Chinese restaurant and vacant land. Directly to the west are residential lots that are owned by Michael Hughes and his wife that they had acquired in 2006 and 2007. Mr. Hughes is the principal of the applicant. In the rear of the R40 portion of the property are adjacent residential lots and the tracks of the Long Island Railroad. It should be noted that the Dickerson property is one of the other few parcels in town also in a split zone with a southerly half being in a B zone and the northerly half is in a R40 zone. That’s site consists of a wood frame commercial business including a building for service repair, maintenance and storage with an attached two car garage. This business hub is unique in that several types of businesses have operated in this area. The range of businesses since the 1940’s including trucking companies, Bergen Oil, Auto body shops, boat storage service and repair shops. Although this property does abut residential properties so do many other retail marine businesses in town including Strong’s Marine near Camp Mineola and New Suffolk Ship yard. For the foregoing reason there won’t be an ?? February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting undesirable in the character of the neighborhood. Again this area variance is necessary so that a building can be erected as storage to erect a building for the storage of boats. There is no other optimal place on the property to put such a building. It’s only the property is only a hundred feet wide and at a midway point roughly near the R40 section the property slopes towards the railroad. The width of the building was selected to accommodate trailers and boats and also to align with the width and location of the existing office building that is 46.7 feet. The side yard was selected to be close to the adjoining business parcel and existing office building. The variance relief is not substantial cause the front yard setback is only five feet short of compliance and in between the front yard setback and the proposed building is the pre-existing office building. The side yard setback although setback five feet from the property line is in line with the existing building and adjacent to neighboring businesses including the Dickerson Marine property. Granting the area variance will not have an adverse impact on the environmental or physical conditions of the neighborhood because the variance that’s being requested is minimal. There will be no adverse impacts to the town. On the westerly side of the properties are owned by the applicant. The easterly side consists of a business of a split zone and residences. The proposed storage building will enhance the appearance of the site and we will work with the Planning Board in addressing the concerns raised in their December 21 st memo. We can only get to the site plan process with ZBA approval for the building and accessory use of storage in the R40 portion of the property. We want to work with the Planning Board in the site plan process so that we can bring the property more in line with the town’s goals. The storage of boats in the R40 portion will not have an adverse impact and as we said we will address the concerns of buffering and screening during the site plan process with the planning staff. The split zone of the property creates an undue hardship to the applicant. The width and length of the property taken together with the needs of the applicant’s business leave no other area to erect a storage building but where it is being proposed. If the Board has any questions I’d be more than happy to address them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’ll start with a question. The five foot side yard setback that’s being proposed I’ve looked at the elevations on this building at first I thought perhaps it was because you needed the rest of the width of the lot which is pretty narrow for a commercial of this sort in order to get equipment in and out for hoisting boats up and so but I see that actually the bay is on the end wall it’s on the east elevation not east north elevation and so my point is if you can get the boats passed without having to do like a turn around on the side in order to make the turn and get boats in and out from that end wall cause the other the long walls are solid walls there’s no bays there to show boats you know going in and out of them, could you not move the side yard somewhat to increase it so that it’s a little bit more conforming to the code? KAREN HOEG : I think that the proposed opening for the proposed storage building would be on the west side of that building on the long portion which is 120 feet ?? February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well then these are the drawings that we got for this Morton building and there’s nothing showing those bays on the long sides you see what I’m saying? KAREN HOEG : Yes I see what you’re saying and I know that those drawings are not the actual building it’s a type of the building that they’re going to that they want to erect. In order to get the plans for the actual size and where the door frames are was pretty expensive so we had told the applicant if we can get the dimensions we can kind of figure out where we can locate the doors and put the bays in but I think we can probably move it a little bit further off so that they can get trailers and trucks and boats in and out of that side entrance. We would just try to hug it as tight as we could trying to keep in line with the existing office building and not push it too far back where it would extend beyond the R40 portion of the Albertson’s property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well the survey is showing a canopy to be removed so that’s overlapping with the site for the proposed building is and those other small storage buildings were being removed. KAREN HOEG : Yes those will all be removed and I think in the application there was a photograph of the green canopy that you know which would be the location just so the Board can get a sense of what that looks like. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I would like to have a better understanding of what the equipment maneuverability requires in the way of width because obviously we were misled in characterizing a generic building type with what’s actually what’s being proposed which is to load boats in and out of the east actually it’s the west elevation but I want to know how much maneuverability is required because I think it would be better if that side yard was increased to the maximum extent practicable which is what the law requires us to do to grant the least variance justifiably grantable by this Board. KAREN HOEG : Okay is it something where you want to see maybe on a survey the location of where a proposed entranceway and exit way into that building would be or do you want to see plans that would show that I mean I have the applicant here who could talk probably about the mechanics of what he needs in order to get in and out of that building. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it’s not even we could figure it out based on the width of the building and the five yard setback what’s left you know the space between the other property line and the side elevation the long elevation the building is but it’s not called out on the survey so we would just have to calculate that by adding up five 5 feet and 46 feet and then subtracting that from the 100 foot width of the lot to see what space is left and what we would then need is to understand why that side yard cannot be increased or yes it can be increased by x number of feet. ?? February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting KAREN HOEG : Right okay. MEMBER DANTES : Leslie I’m just thinking maybe a survey showing some doors would be nice and then just the average length of a boat and trailer. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would work. MEMBER DANTES : I don’t know that off the top of my head. KAREN HOEG : We can certainly do that showing doors. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There’s so many different sized boats but let’s say that the typical boat size that you would be storing there the largest boat maybe that you would be storing. Yea that makes sense I mean just a little more and I don’t understand the mechanics of a lift that would you know I’ve seen them in action where boats have been picked up and lifted but what we would need to do would be to see precisely what is involved in the mechanics of running this business. At first I thought well if you’re loading from the short end in and out then you certainly have a lot more flexibility with moving that over so the front yard setback is not a substantial difference from what the code requires and you know that gives you maximum storage behind it but KAREN HOEG : Right we can revise the survey to show doors, access areas you know what the typical you know maybe even put together some kind of protocol on how this all will operate in terms of getting a lift in there what size lift just so that the Board has a better understanding of the operations of the business. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is not part of this application but I’m assuming maybe rightly or wrongly since you have a gate across the front building you know parallel in line with it that the front would be customer parking? KAREN HOEG : Yes well we had talked to Planning about that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s going to wind up through site plan obviously. KAREN HOEG : Yes and we did speak to them about that because they also in addition wanted more landscaping and if there was going to be customer parking you know it would obviously have to comply with the handicap and the amount of parking allowable per square footage of the storage building as well as the office space so all that information we will put on here. You know we wanted to come to the Board first prior to doing that just to get a sense of the location of the proposed storage building to see if that was something that the Board would consider prior to doing the site plan application and include all of the detailed information that we need. ?? February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well much of this will happen through site plan but should the Board be inclined to grant the use of boat storage on the residential portion as an accessory to the business use on the front portion of the building certainly it would be tied to the current applicant and would be conditioned as an approval that would be actually expired should the business change business type or ownership. In other words what boat storage the kind of space that boat storage requires would be very different than some other use. No one is expecting to have a house put back there obviously but still it would be accessory to this current business and fencing would also be some sort of an obligation at least minimum six foot fencing perimeter fencing would be required. KAREN HOEG : Right I believe that there is fencing along the well I guess the northerly and the easterly side property and I know in talking to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It does show that here. Well currently boat storage is taking place on to the west on residential parcels that we understand the applicant owns however that has nothing to do with what we’re looking at. KAREN HOEG : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We would only be granting the right to park boats, boat storage on this subject lot nowhere else. KAREN HOEG : Right on the R40 portion. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And fencing along that property line would be something that would be necessary in order to separate the business use from residential property. Let’s see what else George anything? MEMBER HORNING : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The boat storage would just be done on boat trailers and then boats I guess just jacked up or something? KAREN HOEG : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright well we would have to leave this to Planning. I know certainly boats have been put in the space adjacent to Route 25 for display and all of that and also on Route 25 right of way shoulder that is no longer going to be permissible. ?? February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting KAREN HOEG : Yes we did speak to Planning about that and they had talked to us about the display and you know it was something that you know as we said will come up and be discussed further in detail in the site plan process. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We do have some comments from Planning and they are not generally supportive of this application. KAREN HOEG : Right I did see those and those are they’re comments that we had talked about previously and in meeting with Planning staff as well as the chief building inspector it was determined that the best course of action would be to come here first seek the relief that we needed and then address the issues with Planning once we get before them and the site plan process. I know the concerns had to do with complying with buffering and landscaping provisions of the town code. They understand the owner’s objectives as well cleaning up the front right of way in terms of displays so that those were all items that we’ve discussed with them many times. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where are these residentially zoned properties to the east in relationship to the proposed location of the boat storage building? KAREN HOEG : If you look if I may just approach you can see where the split zone comes in. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay this is better. KAREN HOEG : Right so here’s the Main Rd., there’s Magic Fountain, there’s the business portion of Albertson and then everything from Albertson’s north is residential. There’s a church and some residential homes. It’s very crazy how this all CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea right. So my question is we probably need to see perhaps what would be useful since you’re doing the survey is to locate along these areas well KAREN HOEG : Different zonings. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well yea you could do that but also with regard particularly with regard to these properties where the boat storage is this is Magic Fountain I take it and this is Dickerson or is this Dickerson? KAREN HOEG : This is Dickerson (inaudible) holding, this is Magic Fountain and this is Tony’s Automotive in here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep oaky so the point is the proposed footprint of this building is not paralleling or is not behind a residential property. KAREN HOEG : We’ll show ?? February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s what I’m asking you know where this is because we’re looking on impacts on residential properties of a commercial use so these are commercial uses retail right or whatever and this is butting up against those properties and from here over is residential that will make a difference. KAREN HOEG : Okay we can overlay the zoning map onto the survey. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That helps. Is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to address this application, anything else from the Board? What I think we should do is adjourn this to the Special Meeting to give you time to amend the survey to provide the additional information and the dimensions about the maneuverability of equipment and so on and so forth. If the Board has no further questions having receive that information we will close the hearing at the Special Meeting two weeks from today in the evening. If we have additional questions we will carry this over to next month’s regular meeting to ask those questions. So I’m going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting on February 16 th. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 7026 – ARETI LAVALLE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : By the way member Horning lives on Fishers Island and he wants to stay as long as he can but he may have to leave in ten minutes or so but he wants to hear the beginning of this hearing. He’s got to catch two ferries to get home tonight so. The next application before the Board is for Areti LaValle # 7026. This is a request for variance under Article XXII Section 280-116A and the Building Inspector’s November 16, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an ?? February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting existing single family dwelling at 1) proposed additions and alterations located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff located at 555 Soundview Avenue (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Orient. Would you please state your name? CHUCK THOMAS : Sure my name is Chuck Thomas I am the architect for the project. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Welcome. CHUCK THOMAS : If I could just give these to Kim. These are tracking memos. I only received one green card back but I tracked it and have the tracking information. This application is for a second story addition above an existing residence. The proposed addition is going to be 67.5 feet from the top of the bluff which is the same setback that currently exists on the site to the existing porch so we’re not looking to go any closer than a non-conforming setback. The properties to the east I have an aerial google map showing the average setback line houses to the east are fifty feet plus or minus fifty one so we’re not looking to create a situation where we would be the closest one. We would be conforming it would be more than what is consistent with the neighborhood. The existing house the setbacks are defined as I said this is a second story addition. We really don’t have any other place on the property to go. This property received a variance for a front yard setback and that’s in your paperwork I gave to you so we’re kind of boxed in. It’s a nice sized piece of property but due to the restrictions of the bluff and the setbacks so we’re not expanding the footprint other than a second story balcony. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We do have a recommendation from the LWRP coordinator of consistency with code always helpful. What is the existing bluff setback? CHUCK THOMAS : The existing bluff setback to the porch is 67.5. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and you are not proposing to decrease that setback? CHUCK THOMAS : That is correct. If the line there’s the bluff line is on an angle to the house so basically we step back our porch to conform to the existing setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let’s see what questions the Board the additions second story enclosing existing porch relocating two car garage and balcony. CHUCK THOMAS : And the second floor bedroom above the existing garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you’re really kind of going over and filling in parts of the existing house. CHUCK THOMAS : That is correct. I enclosed the architectural plans with the application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have them. Alright let’s see what Eric questions? ?? February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : No I really don’t. MEMBER HORNING : I could ask a question. Do you have anything to show us about bluff stability in that area? CHUCK THOMAS : That bluff it’s a low bluff and it is very stable so we haven’t addressed it. We have no plans to do anything to it so the answer no we haven’t addressed bluff stability and we don’t see a need to do at this point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George actually we have the office has asked for Soil and Water an analysis but they’re so darned delayed we just haven’t gotten it yet but there’s no this does not require excavation this is a second floor addition so the land disturbance will be minimal to nothing and no setback decrease is being proposed. MEMBER HORNING : May I be excused? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You certainly may nothing from anybody here? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea I just have a quick question. The elevations let’s see what sheet is this A-5 I think showing the existing you got that one? CHUCK THOMAS : The existing elevations yea. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The bottom one is the rear? CHUCK THOMAS : The bottom one faces the north so the rear or MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So we’re saying the north faces okay it just got confusing cause it said two fronts. CHUCK THOMAS : I’m sorry it is two fronts it’s waterfront property. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So the bottom elevation of existing is the north elevation? CHUCK THOMAS : That is correct. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And that’s what you’re calling the rear elevation? CHUCK THOMAS : Correct. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And I see where the deck is going to go second story little balcony there okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I believe you testified that bluff setbacks along there are consistent with the subject property? ?? February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting CHUCK THOMAS : That is true. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I’m going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date is there a second? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 7039 – TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PLANNING BOARD/SURREY LANE VINEYARDS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is Town of Southold Planning Board/Surrey Lane Vineyards #7039. We have in our file a request to adjourn the hearing. Let me see and I will read that into the record. Ladies and gentlemen we are the attorneys for Surrey Lane LLC. We write pursuant to our discussion with and at the direction of the Town Attorney’s office to ask and confirm that the hearing scheduled for tomorrow (this is dated February 1 st ) February 2, 2017 at 1:45 be adjourned to April 6, 2017 which we understand is your next available date and that no hearing testimony will be taken today. Please confirm by return email. We appreciate the Board attempting to schedule the meeting so quickly however neither our client or it’s agent were notified of the hearing date and discovered it inadvertently only two days ago leaving insufficient time to prepare. Further our client’s principal Mr. Shanks is out of state and unable to return for the hearing or to prepare for it. I am also unavailable tomorrow due to a long scheduled prior engagement in western Suffolk County at 2 p.m. We’ve previously expressed our opinion to the Planning Board that the referral to your Board for an interpretation is not appropriate under the town code and the town law and that your Board is being asked to decide matters beyond its jurisdiction. This letter is written without prejudice so that position and any remedies our client may have with respect hereto. Thank you for your consideration Abigail Wickham. So I have a motion on the agenda to adjourn this hearing to April and that is a request for adjournment from attorney and letter dated February 1, 2017. Is ?? February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting there any comment from the Board or do you want to just vote or Mr. Bressler are you here just to observe? MR. BRESSLER : (speaking from the audience not from the microphone) No thank you just to say that if they didn’t know about the time and date of the hearing it’s a little off I think. There have been notices outside both entrances to the vineyard for a month since the last hearing indicating the date and the time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well what generally happens is the applicant’s do have the right to request adjournments and the Board is generally willing to support them. I’ve stated in the record the reasons they have written to us about but frankly an applicant doesn’t really even have to have a compelling reason other than the fact that they are unable to do the specific date they were given. T.A. DUFFY : To clarify they’re not the applicant but they are obviously an interested party. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh that’s right thank you Bill yea the Planning Board is the applicant Surrey Lane is the subject. It’s like a noun and a verb and a whatever. So I’m going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing per request of Abigail Wickham Attorney and a letter dated February 1 to the April regular meeting. Is there a second? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Second. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Second. (See Minutes for Resolution) ??