Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/02/2017 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 March 2, 2017 9:55 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN -Chairperson/Member ERIC DANTES— Member (left at 2:15 PM) GERARD GOEHRINGER— Member GEORGE HORNING — Member (left at 2:15 PM) KENNETH SCHNElDER— Mem ber KIM FUENTES— Board Assistant WILLIAM DUFFY—Town Attorney March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page R. Bradford Burnham III #7015 3 Elizabeth Branch #7010 3 -4 David Bofill #7028 4- 11 John E. McDonald and Catherine McDonald # 7036 11 - 13 John Murname#7027 14- 18 David and Judith Miller#7031 19 - 21 Marialice Doyle#7033 21 - 25 LeJon Enterprises, Inc. #7034 25 - 29 Ina and Lynette Crowley#7035 29 - 36 Town of Southold Planning Board/Ackermann Agricultural Barn #7037 37 - 64 March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting HEARING #7015 - R. BRADFORD BURNHAM III CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first matter on the hearing schedule is I know but we have to adjourn so we have a request from the agent for R. Bradford Burnham to adjourn this hearing. They're not prepared to continue with the information that we requested of them and they're requesting an adjournment to April 6t". The question is do we have room on our agenda for that? Alright that's looking okay. Alright so I'm going to make a motion to adjourn the Burnham application to the April 6, 2017 meeting what time do we want to put him on? Okay 9:35 is there a second? MEMBER HORNING : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7010— ELIZABETH BRANCH CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have another request for an adjournment on Elizabeth Branch. This was adjourned from the January 5t" hearing. The applicant's attorney has requested another adjournment but we are not going to be able to put them on for April. We're going to try and put them in May? Alright that date is May 4t" alright I'm going to make a motion per the request of the attorney for the applicant to adjourn today's hearing on Elizabeth Branch to the May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting time to be determined by office staff is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSONWEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7028— DAVID BOFILL CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for David Bofill # 7028. This is a request for variances under Article III Section 250-15, Article IV Section 280-19 and the Building Inspector's November 16, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize two "as built" accessory buildings and an "as built" accessory deck at 1) accessory structures located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet at 5785 Vanston Street (adj. to Wunneweta Pond) in Cutchogue. Good morning Pat would you state your name for the record please. PAT MOORE : Yes, Patricia Moore on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Bofill. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we're looking at two "as built" sheds. One that's closest to the water that has a zero side yard and the code requires ten. Then there's an "as built" deck right near the water on the pond that's a side yard setback of zero also and ten is required and then there's one shed closer to the house with a one foot side yard setback again requiring ten feet. So how did all this come about? PAT MOORE : Yes thank you. I've actually handed you an outline of how this came about. I stapled it so I wouldn't lose the exhibits so please feel free to un-staple it, it might be easier to look at the exhibits. So this property was subdivided back in 1971 by the Planning Board from it had been Samuel E. Darby Estate so it is within the area of the Paradise Point I'm sorry Nassau Point Club Properties subdivision but this was one of the larger estate parcels that was more than the minimum requirement. It just happened to be one of the oversized parcels in that subdivision. It begins with Mr. Clark who was the original developer of the three lots and I attached the subdivision. You can see that in 1975 what was on the property at the time was a garage, concrete wall; they call it a work house; I'm not really sure what that is. It's kind of an oversized shed and then it had a pathway a wood pathway that went from the garage porch down to the waterfront on Wunneweta Pond. It also contained at the time a large boathouse. When the property was subdivided the boathouse remained with lot 3. Lot 2 was ultimately developed by Mr. Clark and he built what would be the first house that it was on this property in 1975. We see that in when Mr. Clark sold the property to Mr. Higgins that's the next property owner he demolished the existing house built by Clark and built a new house. We see that from March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting the C.O. history. There is multiple C.O.'s for single family dwelling. When the subdivision was originally created you can see from this map that there was decking down at the bottom. There was it doesn't appear that there was a shed on this property at least where they are today at that time so in the '70's the deck excuse me the sheds were not there. Then Mr. Higgins the second document I give you is the Higgins survey when he purchased around '85 the survey looks to be July of'86 so thereabouts at that point he has his new home. There is a beach house and what we call the excuse me the surveyor calls it a beach house it's really a boathouse. That's the shed that is presently there today. We contacted or my client contacted Mr. Higgins. He admitted that he was the one who placed the shed down as the boathouse and Mr. Higgins sold to the Spicer's and the Spicer's then sold to my client so we're now two generations back from it's when well the one shed the boathouse down by water is first placed on the property. Mr. Higgins I stand corrected I'm sorry Higgins let's see I just want to make sure I have the lineage of these sheds correctly because with having two, okay, yes Higgins placed the I call it the larger shed the landward shed on the property when he after he had bought the house and he estimated that it was sometime mid to late '80's. We have a survey of the new house from '86 thereabouts you can see that there was still that walkway crossing the property line and when that walkway was relocated and it turned back to the O'Neal property that's the adjacent property owner to the south in that general area is where the shed the landward shed was located so with an area that was already somewhat disturbed it had flattish area even though you can see and I attached the photographs there really is no flat area on this property other than down by Wunneweta Pond and that's the first photograph I give you which was already part of your file but I thought it would be helpful to have with this packet. You can see that the shed that is the boathouse sits with a little deck area and what happened is when we went to the Trustees; so I'll speak specifically now of the boathouse my client was in the process of with the O'Neal property next door they have to repair, replace the bulkhead that sat along Wunneweta Pond. They're in need of replacement and it was at that time that was noticed that this boathouse was too close to the property line so we went back to the code at the time with these sheds were placed on the property and the setback was three feet. It was obviously done in error. Nobody had really followed the property lines very well here and the property lines were somewhat on an angle so everybody kind of eyeballed it. The boathouse is surrounded by the trees. You can see that there is a hill on the as you're facing the boathouse on the right hand side is the staircase up from the water up to the first landing of the house and then you go on some grass and you take a couple more steps and so on so you make your way up to the house and you see the house up on the top of the bank. There really is no other place to put this boathouse so what we propose to the Building Inspector is well we can move it to the compliant three feet which is what the code required at the time and he said that would work except for the fact that at the time you needed a setback from the bulkhead so either I would have to come to you for a zoning variance for setback to the bulkhead which is no longer in the March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting books or I'd have to come to you for a setback of the three feet. I can't ask for a variance for a law that's no longer on the books so here I am. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have some good news and I have some bad news. PAT MOORE : I can give you the three feet but I have a problem with the bulkheads. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well here's the technical dilemma at the moment though it's very temporary. I just met with Mike Verity yesterday and it would appear that when the bulkhead setback was removed from ZBA's jurisdiction it was not properly filed. As a consequence now it's being filed but as you know it takes a little while for it to come through so in the interim it would appear the ZBA is possibly going to have to look at a couple of bulkhead setback applications. PAT MOORE : Oh dear. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah, oh dear is right but that's the legal the only legal way we can deal with it. PAT MOORE : By the time you act on it usually the filing is within ten days so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It might be but I was just told that yesterday just so we didn't get confused if we suddenly saw a Notice of Disapproval that had a bulkhead setback on it but right now all that's before us is the side yard setback (inaudible) and the three structures and you are proposing to move them over three feet? PAT MOORE : Yes because practically that one has the ability to move to three feet from the property line. We can then make the deck a little bit three feet over and cut the deck back as well so that one practically can be corrected. It certainly can't be corrected ten feet which is what the code requires because that would place the boathouse potentially almost on top of the stairs or very close to the stairs. It just doesn't make sense. We'd be creating much more disturbance down what is pretty much a natural vegetated area just to get conformity so since we are here before you and ask for the relief the shimmying of that shed over is certainly a practical alternative that my client is willing to undertake. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now you mentioned that was doable for the deck and shed that's waterside but we also have a shed that's landward of that. PAT MOORE : Right let me turn you to the next couple of photographs that showed the shed that is placed on its piles and MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Pilings. March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Pardon me? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Pilings. PAT MOORE : Pilings, yes some form of pilings. It has some structure below it you can see that from the side. That shed as I said has been there since the '80's that's the shed that Mr. Higgins put on the property. I really I pushed my client and asked him really do we need to keep this shed I mean I obviously we always want to reduce the number of variances that we come to this Board with and he said surprisingly this shed is very sturdy, very useful. It houses the lawn equipment. It is just it's a very functional structure and if he were to remove it or relocate it he'd be facing again similar issues of finding a level area to place the shed as an alternate location and you can see again from your inspections that this property is naturally wooded. It's really a lovely property you know you have the flat area where the house is but then from that point on you have a nice gentle slope but you have a slope nonetheless so you'd have to dig it into the property somewhere to place the shed and realistically we don't know that if you pick this up to move it if it's going to fall apart at that point. It's sturdy just where it is but whether it would once detached if it all able to be detached from its pilings whether it would survive a movement. This shed as I said is not we have the O'Neal's next door they have been good neighbors I think there's been no objection. The staircase that had been again crossing the property from the subdivision was created is still within maybe a foot of the property line on the O'Neal side and you can see from the photographs that there's actually vines growing on the shed in the back so it's both in color and architectural and plantings somewhat camouflaged so much so that when the Building Department told me there was another shed I quite frankly did not recall seeing it so we had to go back to the property to go find it. It obviously shows up on the survey but just it's not a real prominent structure on this property so we hope to allow this shed to remain and if it's ever demolished at that point we can address it at that time. It's just it's a very functional structure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any questions George? MEMBER HORNING : Are we getting an LWRP or PAT MOORE : You got it already. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea she got a copy she can address the issues. MEMBER HORNING : Okay I got that today, please if you would. PAT MOORE : I can address LWRP; he I don't have it in front of me I printed it but unfortunately it didn't come in to my file but I recall if you have another copy I'd appreciate it if not I can remember what it said. Honestly the conclusion that the LWRP gives is well it's inconsistent March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting with community character, that I would strongly disagree. To begin with the LWRP was adopted primarily for marine uses, marine structures and it was not intended to deal with accessory structures particularly sheds that are under a hundred square feet and staircases beach stairs and those kinds of things. So there was a purpose to LWRP and this was certainly was not one of the purposes. MEMBER HORNING : How do you know that as state here the LWRP was not intended to address accessory structure which are less than a hundred square foot? PAT MOORE : By the adoption the language of the LWRP in its adoption. There were specific in fact originally it was not even supposed to deal with variances and somehow another I guess there was a review and variances dealing with waterfront structures were brought in. This shed that is well the boathouse we're making it as conforming as possible. This particular shed we're trying to keep just where it is and it's landward. Clearly landward of the water has no impact whatsoever on the water. Also I would point out that this shed both these sheds are pre- existing to the whole the neighborhood that they were there about the same time if not before some of these houses were built so they are really innocuous structures that I think he's coming to a conclusion that is really within the purview of this Board that's why we have a variance application and it's your determination whether or not it meets with the character of the neighborhood and I'm presenting the reasons why and meets with the character of the neighborhood and it's you know again under a hundred square feet of sheds these are sheds they're not they're really minimal accessory structures so much so that our legislative branch said if you comply with code you don't even need a building permit so they are minimal structures and I hope you will find that given it's lineage of these two structures that they don't impact the character of this neighborhood. We really are dealing with just two properties because the lot to the north is vacant and the only person who would be impacted by these sheds is O'Neal and as I said O'Neal is supportive. They're working together and the O'Neal property has a large boathouse from its original subdivision and the shed has been there even before O'Neal became the owner of the property so I will leave it to your discretion. Obviously that's your charge but I don't agree that it is a conclusion that LWRP has should be making. MEMBER HORNING : Okay continuing with your submission today which I'm just getting a chance to read I guess the second paragraph or whatever Clark place the upper shed on the property where it stands today so you're implying it was built after 1975 PAT MOORE : No it was let's see MEMBER HORNING : Is that the upper shed or the lower shed? PAT MOORE : No, no, no that let me see the lower shed the boathouse was Clark. March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : Right that's what I'm saying. PAT MOORE :The upper shed was Higgins. MEMBER HORNING : So the statement Clark placed the upper shed PAT MOORE : Did I say that wrong I'm sorry. MEMBER HORNING : Yea I think so. PAT MOORE : Okay yes. MEMBER HORNING : You're referring to the lower shed? PAT MOORE : I was referring to Clark placed the yes the lower shed pardon me. Yeah there was some confusion I tell you on which shed so MEMBER HORNING :Then five or six paragraphs down you PAT MOORE : Yes I clarify it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : When I went out there I was just wondering if the building permit covered I saw two existing decks okay one existing deck which was the upper deck on the house and I see the lower deck is by the survey it indicates it as a masonry I guess structure PAT MOORE : Let me hold on because I'm not seeing which one you're talking about MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Well we can't (inaudible) without a picture of it but PAT MOORE : No I just you need to point. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : We have this structure. PAT MOORE : Oh the masonry wall? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yeah. It shows a wood wall but its masonry okay now what is that going to be a lower deck? PAT MOORE : No that's nothing that is existing. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : It's filled with fill okay I suspect it's going to be a walkout deck from the basement of the house but the question is was that part of the building permit? PAT MOORE : I'd have to specifically look. I believe that all March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can you get back to us on that? PAT MOORE : Yeah are we talking about the it says brick patio with wood tie edging under deck? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Well that's all I can say right now there's dirt there. PAT MOORE : Oh alright; he may have been replacing it looks like maybe the stone was replacing it with MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Well the upper deck is wood okay that's the deck that comes out PAT MOORE : Oh there's like because it's two layers right two levels because of the house being kind of a walkout I see. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : The other one is a walkout CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry do you want to show Pat this photograph? PAT MOORE : Oh thank you. I've been there so many times I didn't look at it. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Here is the upper deck, here is see this right here it goes all the way out there are steps I suspect in between. I want to know what's going on with this if it was a part of the building permit. MEMBER HORNING :This was a closer up. PAT MOORE : Oh thank you. I will check with the client. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Okay because it appears that he's building a secondary deck on the lower half and I just didn't know if the building permit included that. Does he have a building permit on it? If he doesn't have the building permit on it is there any applications going to come before us regarding that? Because I have to tell you when I was down there the gentlemen that were down there were very nice they didn't speak English but they were very nice to me okay, I was very nice to them and so I asked them if the owner was going to be out and he said no and that was it. PAT MOORE : Can I have a copy of that or? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I'm going to give you the farthest one because PAT MOORE : That's fine. He's been doing a lot of landscaping over there so I will find out what this area is that's fine. I'll check with the client. March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright any other questions Eric? Ken? Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNElDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7036—JOHN E. MCDONALD and CATHERINE MCDONALD CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for John E. McDonald and Catherine McDonald #7036. Applicants request a Special Exception under Article III Section 280- 136(13). The applicants are owners of subject property requesting authorization to establish an accessory apartment in an accessory (garage) structure at 1235 Winneweta Rd. in Cutchogue. Would you come to microphone please sir and state your name. JOHN MCDONALD :John E. McDonald. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As you know we've inspected the property. We received information regarding it. The Building Department has confirmed that the square footage is six hundred square feet which conforms to the code requirement. It looks like you received a prior variance in 2002 for the accessory garage in a non-conforming front yard that was #5073. You have a C.O. from 2003 for the accessory garage now how is it that the apartment came to be and who do you plan to have staying there? JOHN MCDONALD : My son Thomas is going to be staying there. He comes every weekend or every other weekend and during the summer he comes with his children and this and that. He's divorced and he wants to stay in Long Island. In fact I wrote a letter to the people that I guess are affected by it and they returned it and whatever is (inaudible) and that's about it and the March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting only thing is it came to be. I went to the Zoning Board once in January 2008 and I spoke to a woman named Vicki who has since retired apparently and she said yes it conforms to whatever it is you qualify so she (inaudible) piece of you know and I had heat in there before because sometimes I'm in and out and the wife was storing some of her stuff in there in the bottom and stuff like that and the water was there because of a sink you know whatever but came to be and it sort of fits in to what the zoning housing charter originally I'm reading this 2005 charter and they seem to think that I thought it fit right into that. It talks about the price of housing has gone up and outpricing the people that live in this area and many households cannot afford the present thing the reason my son wants to stay on Long Island. I got five children and nine grandchildren and we're not moving off Long Island but a lot of my relatives have all moved and we like the area and when we built the house we thought it conforms to the area itself. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you live there year round in your home? JOHN MCDONALD : Yes I live here year round. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And we have in our record a rental lease for ten dollars a month by your son and his birth certificate to prove that he is in fact your son and you're only using that downstairs of the garage for what storage is that correct? JOHN MCDONALD : Storage and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Your cars don't go in there it's just JOHN MCDONALD : No, no CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nothing but storage. JOHN MCDONALD :Just storage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let's see what other questions, George any questions? MEMBER HORNING : I saw somewhere that the garage was listed as twenty by twenty. JOHN MCDONALD : Oh yea that was I think it's twenty by sixty. MEMBER HORNING : Well it's actually I believe thirty by twenty. JOHN MCDONALD :Thirty by yea thirty by yea that's the right size. MEMBER HORNING : Okay, so it is thirty by twenty? JOHN MCDONALD : Yea. March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : Okay thank you and again you got a C.O. for that accessory garage in 2003 would you say? JOHN MCDONALD : I believe so. I'd have to look at it. MEMBER HORNING : We have a certificate of occupancy here that's dated April 8, 2003 for the an accessory building I presume to be it says garage two car garage but you don't store cars in there? JOHN MCDONALD : No. MEMBER HORNING : And it says non-habitable but you've made it habitable now and you'd like to use an accessory apartment for your son. Is that correct? JOHN MCDONALD : Yes that's it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric, Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wishes 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. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNElDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting HEARING #7027—JOHN MURNAME CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for John Murname #7027. This is a request for variances under Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's October 31, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling and a new accessory garage 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, 3) accessory garage located in other than the code required rear yard located at 125 Bow Road in Southold. Would you state your name please for the record? MIKE KIMACK : Michael Kimack for the applicant. The existing house basically is confronted by three roads and had it actually be a circle it would have really been interesting to try and put this together. If you've taken a look at it on the side on the teepee side which is the driveway side to the existing house you'll see a one car garage there basically. If you look at your drawings you'll see that one car garage and next to it is a family room. What my client proposed to do is to remove that garage and make it a complete family room on the first floor staying within the perimeter that is already existing of the house and then above that build a second floor above that one story garage and that becomes the master bedroom which attaches to the second floor. So there isn't a change in the outline of the building. It stays within the existing perimeter the front yard will still be 34.8 on the back. On the backside which I'll point out I don't think it's within the variance he's removing those existing he has a screened porch and a deck. He's taking that off and adding a screened porch to it. In addition to that he wants to add a three car garage standalone which you can see the position of it and I hope that the stakes that I put out if anyone inspected they saw exactly where it was going when they looked at it and obviously no matter where he puts that on the property it's going to be a front yard cause he's got three front yards. That's pretty much it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the 34.8 foot for the proposed second story is really diminimus in my opinion but let me ask you about this other one. There's a rear yard setback of twenty two feet says the Notice of Disapproval. MIKE KIMACK : I'm not quite sure I'm trying to figure that one out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't see Kim says she thinks she knows where it is but I don't. MIKE KIMACK : Well the rear yard setback I think would be CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that has to be the rear yard has to be you know this is the rear yard. March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : I think it's the rear yard from Bow Rd. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it's from that shared property line. It's actually proposed I thought it was the additions and alterations. It's not 21.6 feet is from the corner of the proposed accessory garage to the side yard what would be the side property line. See it on the survey? MIKE KIMACK : I see. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that's for the they call it out as twenty two feet the survey shows 21.6 MIKE KIMACK :That's the twenty two their pointing to. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so that's accessory garage and then of course it's a location in a front yard. MIKE KIMACK : Yeah and there's a little existing structure on there that would be removed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I saw that shed. Let's see Gerry do you have any questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : The pictures of the existing deck you refer to it as the northeast side are going to be removed and it's going to be what? MIKE KIMACK : It's going to be a screened in porch. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : The entire piece? MIKE KIMACK : You see where that where the black line square is right there not the entire piece. It ends up being pretty much a little bit less square footage than what's being removed Gerry. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : So it's going to be a little less than what the screened in porch now is? MIKE KIMACK : Yes sir and it ties back to the house and they're going to walk out from there. Do you see the dotted lines on the existing porch and that? The other one I don't have the exact square footage differences but it looks it doesn't look any greater (inaudible) Gerry in terms of size. And it doesn't go any further back or doesn't go any closer to the road. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : So it's even with that house? MIKE KIMACK : Yes the setback is even less from Bow Rd. than the existing deck is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what we're mumbling about over here Michael is March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK :That's okay I mumble all the time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know I guess what the survey may be inaccurate because what the notice calls out twenty two feet for a rear yard setback from the additions and alterations as I previously mentioned and where it's called out as 26.1 on the survey we're thinking that's twenty two feet. MIKE KIMACK : I think that may be it because I think what they did is the drawing shows 26.1 to the building but if you look at that other side structure and take off that four feet over there I think CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :This is what we're thinking. T. A. DUFFY : With the stoop it's twenty two feet. MIKE KIMACK : Yeah with the stoop and I think that's probably what they picked up when they wrote CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah okay I'm going to correct my notes because I thought they called it out as additions and alterations and that would not be the garage. The garage is just a front yard. MIKE KIMACK :The garage does meet the requirements CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes it's just a front yard location. MIKE KIMACK : I was beginning to run those numbers in my head but I think when it was done by Mark and he put this together he basically just went to the building and not to the stoop and I think the Building Department went to the stoop but that's not changing none of that is being altered from what it already is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's the footprint the existing footprint. MIKE KIMACK :That's a good way of looking at it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just don't like having numbers that are not consistent. MIKE KIMACK : And if you do have an opportunity you can take a look I put together a list of other decisions that have been made in the are basically and as a matter of fact it was kind of (inaudible). You don't normally find as many that fall within the same category that you're trying to do and there was basically I did a map basically showing those lots with decisions of which five of them are for less than front yard, less than back yard within the same area and one of them is also for a garage in other than the rear yard or other than the front. March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're saying I have to take a look but you're saying that five lots in the area got variances for accessory structures in a non-conforming yard. MIKE KIMACK : Yes and if you look at it it's part of the application and I downloaded all the decisions and I also gave you a tax map indicating where each of those properties were located close to the property that is in question. They're all pretty much within the same area. I mean to give you ideas ZBA #2924 approval for construction of new dwelling with insufficient front and side and rear yard setbacks that's a new dwelling but the one for the garage is #2916 approval to construct a two car garage in the front yard this garage replaces recently removed garage in the same location. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have made a note in my notes about the November 3, 2011 ZBA decision #6502 which granted additions and alterations with a front yard setback of twenty two and a rear yard 30.3 that was for the enclosed porch and deck. Alright well I think you've established non-conformance priors. MIKE KIMACK : I try to give you as much information that would be helpful to you to recognize that the area has been it was interesting to note that mostly the changes occurred which are akin to what we're requesting too which is not normally the case. Normally it's outside the map which you never want me to go that far. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You got lucky this time. Well that begins to say who's neighborhood character are we looking at? MIKE KIMACK : You saw the property has got some mature trees on it and obviously some of them would be coming down for the garage and the driveway for the garage goes out to Bow Rd. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Questions from anyone? MEMBER DANTES : I do not. MEMBER HORNING : Did you folks explore the feasibility of attaching the garage and perhaps reducing or eliminating some of the variance? MIKE KIMACK : I did that would have been between Mark Schwartz the architect and the owner. I was simply given this indicating that that was the location that was desired by the owner that they put it in that location. To tell you the truth I mean it's got a bit of(inaudible) be it as it may for whatever reason he did want to separate it and have a stand-alone building. MEMBER HORNING : Single story garage? March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : Yeah it's got a second floor on it nothing in it there's no plumbing or anything like that it's a storage area above it. The drawings are there. It's got some dormers in it which are allowed. I think its twenty one feet the house is twenty five so it just falls below the twenty two foot requirement the max requirement for the accessory building and it falls within the same square footage that's required. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Does the garage have dormers or MIKE KIMACK :They do. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Will it have dormers on the second floor? MIKE KIMACK : Yes they do. You'll see that on the second floor they do which is allowed by the code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah it does not exceed the width. MIKE KIMACK : It doesn't exceed the width of it and I try to go through that when I get these drawings to make sure that what they're designing does fall because you're responsibility is to limit as many variances as you can then deal with the ones that are before you that are not necessarily needed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anything else you guys? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No I'm good. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone down there, anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNElDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) 0 March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting HEARING #7031— DAVID and JUDITH MILLER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for David and Judith Miller #7031. This is a request for a variance under Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's October 14, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to remove an existing swimming pool and to construct a new accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) located in other than the code required rear yard located at 370 South View Drive in Orient. Would you state your name please for the record? DAVID MILLER : David Miller. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now we're going to need some mailings from you the green cards. DAVID MILLER : I've got five of those and one email. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay if you can bring those up please. DAVID MILLER : And we've got the UPS acknowledgments of delivery. (talking away from the microphone) for some reason didn't get the green card. The only one we haven't gotten confirmation is the Constantino's our next door neighbors. They're in Panama for the winter. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Probably won't be responding yet. DAVID MILLER : We e-mailed but we didn't get anything back. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you Mr. Miller. So you want to replace in kind a swimming pool that is currently located in your front yard. DAVID MILLER : That's right they got a variance on it I guess the prior owners got a variance on that I think in 2002. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep and you got two front yards I mean DAVID MILLER : Between Northview and Southview there are no houses between us and the two roads so technically I guess the back yard is really a front yard but it's up a hill and it's all planted with grasses and can't be seen from the road. It's a back yard in fact even though technically it might not be. The photographs illustrate that best probably. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just so that you're aware all the Board members have inspected the property. We go out there on every application every month. DAVID MILLER : Oh okay good. March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that we make sure that what we see on the ground is what we got in our application and we understand what the character of the neighborhood looks like and where your yards are located and so on and yes it's very clear that where the pool is is highly elevated above the level of the road that it presumably fronts on. I think this is straightforward and clear enough. Is it going to be the same kind of in-ground pool as what you have now? DAVID MILLER : The one right now is a sort of a plastic liner thing; this is going to be gunite but it's and it's going to be a couple of feet closer to the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if there's any questions Gerry do you have any questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER No. You're going for a twenty by forty this time Mr. Miller is that correct? DAVID MILLER : Oh gosh. Twenty by; my expert witness says yes it's twenty by forty. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : They ordinarily use about they hold about twenty seven thousand gallons of water. Because of the height that you have there and the nature of the property itself of which is absolutely gorgeous is the drainage we'll use the word cesspool it's not a cesspool it's a drainage pool for the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : the dry well. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : the dry well situation well it's more than a dry well because it's going to be is that going to be big enough if you had to dump that entire pool? DAVID MILLER : That's a question for the contractor. He tells us that it will be. I'm not an expert on that sort of thing but he says he's going to have sufficient drainage for it yeah its Patrick Kinney if you know him. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I mean you can literally flood out a neighbor okay if you had to I hate to use the colloquial terms of dump but I mean it's something you really should look into in reference to that, that particular situation because if you took it and you did it even in the forward portion of it (inaudible) the sound you'd kill all that vegetation that you have so nicely placed there and on the other side it would end up you know overflowing down your driveway and doing some damage to the neighbor. DAVID MILLER : Wouldn't want that to happen that's for sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well is see that your survey has the pump equipment located along the dry well and I'm sure that we will likely require that the pump equipment be placed in a March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting sound dampening container of some sort. We do that not only for the property owner so it doesn't bother you when it goes off but it won't bother your neighbors. DAVID MILLER : Obviously we'd have no problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They're very inexpensive and are useful for everybody really alright anything from anyone else on the Board? This is quite straightforward anything from anyone down there George or Gerry, anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNElDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7033— MARIALICE DOYLE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Marialice Doyle #7033. This is a request for variance under Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's October 24, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an addition (three season's room) to a single family dwelling at 1) addition located at less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet located at 3585 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard in Laurel. Good morning would you state your name for the record please? MARIALICE DOYLE : Marialice Doyle. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay Miss Doyle you have a proposed three seasons sun room on the rear of your house with a rear yard setback at 33.7 feet or I'm not sure is it 33.5 feet the code requires 50 feet. What we don't have is a C.O. for your swimming pool. We don't have that in our record. March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting MARIALICE DOYLE : Oh no? I believe it's still in the (inaudible) a permit for it but it hasn't been C.O.'d correct? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's going through the Building Department now is that what's happening? MARIALICE DOYLE : I think we found the permit for it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so you have a permit and you've applied for the C.O.? MARIALICE DOYLE : No I haven't applied for that yet I didn't think of that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh you do need to do that. So that's a technicality you can take care of. The house has a fifty foot 50.6 foot conforming rear yard so putting this sunroom on the back is going to reduce the for that portion it's going to reduce the rear yard setback now I don't know I have two numbers down here. I've got why is that maybe the survey is showing something different than the Notice of Disapproval. The rear yard setback at 33.7 then the Notice was corrected to 33.5 is that what's happening? I don't know why there's something in here written by hand. It's minimal it's not going to matter that much it's just a technicality I want to make sure there are no loose ends that's all. Just a few inches discrepancy but I want to know which the accurate one is. BOARD SECRETARY : Oh you know why? This is 35 feet 7 inches which converts to 33.583 feet you have to convert inches to feet okay that's what the difference is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh I see gottcha. So it's 33.5 and change. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : This is a cement slab where it's a three seasons what you call it's going to be placed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes that's correct. It's a very irregularly shaped lot I can see. MARIALICE DOYLE : Right there's a triangular in the back on the one corner. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The front yard setback is also fifty feet? Is that because of R40 got up zoned at some point like after the house was built? Fifty foot rear yard is that correct? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what it says here minimum rear yard setback of fifty feet is required but I don't the house has a conforming rear yard setback of 50.6 so maybe it was I don't know why in that zone district it should be such a substantial setback. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I thought maybe like thirty five or something. March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's typical. This is not that big a lot. MEMBER DANTES : It says R40 on the Notice so MARIALICE DOYLE : I think we're right on the edge between the break. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Oh okay between twenty and (inaudible) okay so you just it bumps MARIALICE DOYLE : We're just over the break yeah. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the Notice says lots measuring twenty thousand to 39,999 so the larger setback would apply to a lot that's almost twice the size but they're like a few feet over so you got walloped with a bigger setback. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : But otherwise it would be thirty five? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thirty five. MEMBER HORNING : What is the square footage of the parcel? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The parcel is 20,922 it says between 20,000 and what is virtually 39,999 needs fifty feet so they're 900 well yeah just 923 square feet MARIALICE DOYLE : overjust made the break. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The only thing is the C.O. for the pool we need to get that so we can move forward. MARIALICE DOYLE : I'll get that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What we can do is let's see if there's any other questions but we can once that's completed we can close the hearing subject to receipt of the C.O. for the pool and as soon as we receive that then we can render a decision but we won't have any more paperwork we just need to get that in our file and then we can go ahead and write a decision. MARIALICE DOYLE :That doesn't take long getting the C.O. for that pool right? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Honestly I don't think so but I can't honestly say because I've never applied. I don't know how long the Building Department is going to take but I think if you tell them or Kim tells them that we're waiting to make a decision based upon their issuance of that that they might just move it as quickly as possible. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Providing there's no other variances needed for the pool. There was a letter or opposition. March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah we did receive a letter from one of your neighbors Mrs. Joan Young on Peconic Bay Boulevard just simply saying that the sunroom is on the north side which leaves a rear yard setback between our properties of only 33.7 feet instead of the fifty required and so she MARIALICE DOYLE : She is the one in the back who would be CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Must be the one that's near your swimming pool of the house. Do you know if there are any other swimming pools in the area? I'm sorry it's recorded please come to the mic and just state your name. PATRICIA DOYLE : Hi I'm Patricia Doyle. There's pools on the bayside of the road but not on our side that we know of. I mean further down I think there are but you know further toward Riverhead, Jamesport. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I just thought I'd ask. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I just want to make another comment you have a six foot high vinyl fence surrounding all in a conforming location surrounding the pool and surrounding your property as well. So that's good screening. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What Ken's getting at one of the things we look at is the impact that a proposed addition might have on the neighbors and if it's already well screened from view by a six foot high fence that's certainly speaks to a lesser impact than if it was clearly on top of them and very visible. Sometimes we even require landscape screening to avoid that kind of thing is something is granted with a non-conforming setback we may say well in order to reduce its visible impact on your neighbor put in some evergreens but you already have a fence, George anything, Gerry, Eric, anyone else in the audience wishing to address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of a Certificate of Occupancy for the "as built" swimming pool. Is there a second on the motion? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNElDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7034— LEJON ENTERPRISES, INC. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for LeJon Enterprises, Inc. # 7034 (Contract Vendee). This is a request for a variance under Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's November 28, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a new single family dwelling at 1) proposed dwelling less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet located at 6125 CR 48 in Mattituck. Would you state your name for the record please? LEROY JOHN HOEFFNER : Leroy John Hoeffner. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is a situation where the rear yard setback is proposed at twenty five feet the code requires thirty five feet and we did inspect the property. We've looked at the survey and it would appear the property lines are not front and rear yard or not parallel to each other so that creates some awkward siting on the property. So what would you like to tell us about the application? LEROY JOHN HOEFFNER : A little history? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Up to you. LEROY JOHN HOEFFNER : Myself and my partner are building in Lake Grove and he gave me a call and said that this lot out in Mattituck is on the market and I said I don't know anything at all about Mattituck. I said do you he said no. So I said I'll take a ride out there and I'll look at it. When I came out here I fell in love with it. I thought it was a really nice area so then I said you know it's going to be a little difficult you know with setbacks so I got a copy of the setbacks and basically you know thirty five front yard, ten foot side yard, twenty five total side yards and then thirty five rear so I said we're going to have to build a narrow house in order to maintain those front and rear setbacks. Having worked for the village for twenty nine years with the Board of Appeals I know generally they do not like to give a front yard setback they rather give a rear yard setback so I found a house that was twenty eight feet deep and the only thing it had a one car front entry garage and I didn't like the idea of having to back up onto a Main Rd. I just thought let's make it into a side entry garage so I had the architect modify the plans to come up with a two car side entry garage and I guess that's it and the only variance we would need then would be the rear yard of twenty five feet any questions? March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you say you looked at building the survey is 22.8 feet in depth oh yeah we have everything. Each one of us has a whole set. Well I certainly think it was wise to have a conforming front yard especially on a road as heavily trafficked as 48 and I think because of the front and rear lines are not parallel to each other it makes it even more difficult to actually site this thing. LEROY JOHN HOEFFNER : There was an application I guess do you have it on the record there was filed about ten fifteen years ago by a previous owner he proposed a two family home and I think that was probably the main reason why it was denied but he had a crazy shaped house. I don't know if it's your file there. I mean I know it's in the Board of Appeals file I don't know if it's in your individual ones. I also have it probably it's a little similar to this house. I'm not exactly sure (inaudible) see what the real estate agent CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have to record this for our transcript of the public hearing look I just want to verify you're proposed width of the house is 22.8 feet is that correct? LEROY JOHN HOEFFNER : The actual living space you mean? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah the house from the front of it to the back of it. LEROY JOHN HOEFFNER : Right it's I think it's twenty eight total but it's twenty two something for I can't read it on that one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah well it's 22.8 plus 4.4. LEROY JOHN HOEFFNER : Yeah I think it is 22.8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's like twenty seven altogether. Yeah four foot four inches. LEROY JOHN HOEFFNER : It's 22.8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Plus 4 foot 4 inches. LEROY JOHN HOEFFNER : Right and then 4.4 for the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's not unreasonable at all. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : That's about minimum. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I would say so. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can I ask you a question? It's only basically my own curiosity; the only way you can get out of this piece of property is with a curb cut from the County. March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting LEROY JOHN HOEFFNER : Correct. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Do you anticipate a problem with getting a curb cut? LEROY JOHN HOEFFNER : I don't see how they can deny it. You wouldn't have access to the property. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Right I'm just you know I never heard I just wondered if you started the investigation in getting a curb cut. I'm not trying to muddy the waters in any way I'm only trying to ask you that question because and I think it's very smart of you to turn around so you're heading out there's no question about it so I have no specific objection to the application in any way but I just you know that tends to be an interesting situation. Just as people have difficulty to getting a curb cut on State Road 25 but I mean this is a County road. LEROY JOHN HOEFFNER : Yeah it's a County road so yeah I have to go to Suffolk County. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric do you have any questions? MEMBER DANTES : I do not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I don't have any question but I do have a comment to make that you're looking for a twenty five plus or minus foot rear yard setback the dwelling that is most affected by that rear yard would be the ones in the back obviously and according to the survey it looks like one of them in your rear yard neighbors is a hundred and sixty feet away and the other house is a hundred and forty feet away from your rear property line so I would call that a mitigating of(inaudible) MEMBER GOEHRINGER : That's a good point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No that's useful; good observation anything from anybody else, George? MEMBER HORNING : I have a question then too regarding the proposed rear yard. You're proposing in a one corner twenty feet four inches I guess roughly what is it on the westerly corner then? The house it not situated squarely on the property what would you say the setback is LEROY JOHN HOEFFNER : I would estimate between thirty and thirty five probably. MEMBER HORNING : Because that's I think a little bit significant also if it's a larger substantially larger than the 25.4 which is nine feet. March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting LEROY JOHN HOEFFNER : Oh sure. I would say it's somewhere between thirty and thirty five. MEMBER HORNING : Could you provide that an actual distance for us? LEROY JOHN HOEFFNER : Sure. The surveyor is Peconic Surveying they're right behind Town Hall Building Department. MEMBER HORNING : They got the house situated here so they should be able to provide distance rear yard setback that would be the westerly corner. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : It's nothing you have to this exact minute but we'd like to know he'd like to know. LEROY JOHN HOEFFNER : Okay the exact number? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea. LEROY JOHN HOEFFNER : I don't know does that mean the hearing is carried over or? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No, no as long as we get it in two weeks. MEMBER HORNING : It's to your advantage to provide that figure because it substantiates that it's a larger distance than the LEROY JOHN HOEFFNER : It may be the well let's see it's probably not the thirty five it's I'm looking at the front yard and trying to picture it moving up I don't have a scale or anything with me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what dimension exactly do you want? MEMBER HORNING : The westerly setback to the proposed rear yard westerly setback northwesterly. LEROY JOHN HOEFFNER : Actually I think it's going to be more than thirty five. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It will be just by eyeballing it. MEMBER HORNING : Well it's to your advantage to provide the figure. LEROY JOHN HOEFFNER : Yeah I mean I just marked off thirty five on a piece of paper and then I brought it to the back and it looks like it's probably around thirty eight or so. I'll have it done on a survey. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What the Board is trying to do is beef up the argument for granting it basically that's what George means when he says it's to your advantage because it means you March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting do have part of it is a conforming rear yard so it reduces its substantiality. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of information regarding the northwesterly rear yard setback. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNElDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7035— IAN AND LYNETTE CROWLEY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good afternoon everybody. The next application before the Board is for Ian and Lynette Crowley which is application #7035. This is a request for variances under Article III Section 280-15, Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's December 7, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for permits to legalize as "as built" deck addition attached to an existing single family dwelling and an "as built" accessory pergola at 1) "as built" deck addition less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 50 feet, 2) "as built" accessory pergola located in other than the code required rear yard located at 1315 Hillcrest Drive in Orient. State your name for the record please. JOAN CHAMBERS : Good afternoon I'm Joan Chambers. I'm here to represent Ian Crowley and Ian is also here if there's any questions that are pertinent to him. This is you know as you can tell you know a deck and a pergola built in what you would consider the back yard of this house but of course the property has three front yards so there really isn't a rear yard to this property and we have a side yard and three front yards. It's tucked in between the house and the garage as much as possible but the deck does protrude pass the line of the house and the pergola is in the front yard because of the three definitions of front yard on this property. March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks as though the deck has the front yard setback from Browns Hills I take it. JOAN CHAMBERS : No I don't think so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait a minute forty three wait there's a setback of 43.7 to Soundview which is an unopened wooded. JOAN CHAMBERS : Yeah an unopened wooded area exactly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As you know we all inspect the property so we've seen it. Then there's a JOAN CHAMBERS : The pergola. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The pergola is right over the deck pretty much. JOAN CHAMBERS : Correct; yeah it's beside and over the deck and it also protrudes it's only 43.7 off of the Soundview Drive but it was disallowed because it's technically in the front yard of the house and they are considering it an accessory structure even though it's an open unroofed pergola. The Building Department now seems to be if the pergola is a certain size they're calling it an accessory structure unless it's just a very small little (inaudible) arbor so that's technically in the front yard so having been out there then you understand that's the closest this property has to you know looking like a rear yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But why I'm trying to they said that the deck has a front yard setback of forty five feet where the code requires fifty and I'm looking on the survey to see where forty five feet is called out. Maybe it's the 43.7 which is not quite to the JOAN CHAMBERS : 46.1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah they just forty five. I don't like numbers that don't add up. I just want to know if this is correct or the Notice is correct so it would appear that we're looking at the deck is 46.1 and the pergola is 43.7 but they're not calling out a setback so it's a five foot variance. JOAN CHAMBERS : It's a five foot variance for the deck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : From what is essentially not a road at all. The only concern that I really want to mention is that there are two accessory sheds on this property. Did you manage they should be on the survey. March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting JOAN CHAMBERS : I have brand new surveys I just got from Peconic. In retrospect you know maybe we could of added these sheds in as part of this but I really think the sheds are going to be more problematic than the deck and the arbor because the sheds are just much more problematic. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Did your client build the sheds or were they on the property when (inaudible) IAN CROWLEY : Ian Crowley on behalf of myself I guess. I built them. I think we build them thirteen years ago and I'm not sure exactly when I built them year wise I'm sure I can figure that out but they were not there prior that was just wooded lot. We started with nothing there. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can I ask another question? They don't look like they're in very good condition or one doesn't look like it's in very good condition. IAN CROWLEY : Which one? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I think the one closest to the Brown Hill Rd. I mean I know that I mean I didn't think so but I didn't go over there and investigate them I just IAN CROWLEY : The shed doesn't look in good condition? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No I mean the question is are you going to are they going to remain? IAN CROWLEY : Well I spoke to Mike Verity who had raised the issue before and see what this all stems from is my ignorance and my lack of understanding. You know you hear that you're allowed two 10 x 10 sheds. I did not know that it was roof space like roof coverage so we built 10 x 10 shed and then with a lean to roof turns out that's not how it's done so Mike said you can either separate the roof and I think without the lean to for the firewood in the back complies with when it was built for the setback so if I ran a saw down the center of the roof it would be whether it's going to stay or not I don't know because I have aspirations I've had I got a lot of aspirations but I have aspirations putting getting a permit for a barn that would be straight up the driveway up in the right corner so I did not want that to be my one accessory 750 square foot structure so we just did that to cover the lawn mowers and whatever else life makes you cover and we are kind of biting our time and I was talking to Joan about how we can do that so are they going to stay? I mean for the foreseeable future they're not in disrepair. They may need a coat of paint but that would be the extent of it. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Don't take me literally. I looked at them very quickly driving up and down Brown Hills and that was it. IAN CROWLEY : I mean they got wood shingle roof that's got some moss on it. March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Why would you say your one accessory 750 square feet? IAN CROWLEY : I just that's my ignorance. I thought it was you were allowed 750 square foot accessory building without a variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You are allowed as many accessory buildings if you can find conformity locations however where you have to stop is where you become you exceed the lot coverage permitted. IAN CROWLEY : So it has nothing to do with square footage? I'm going to have an issue because it's going to be a front yard regardless. MEMBER DANTES : No, no you can have as many accessories 750 square feet is the total amount you can have in the building but you can have as many of those that fit within your lot coverage which is a percentage of your building lot. IAN CROWLEY : Okay. MEMBER DANTES : It's a little complicated. IAN CROWLEY : It's not that complicated I just don't do the research. I'm not in this business I'm in another business but I deal with the Trustees mostly and that's kind of trying what I'm trying to master. I don't know the zoning code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I guess the point we're making is what's before us today is the deck and the pergola and that seems to be you know really not very problematic and we can get that taken care of but you will have to do something about the sheds you're going to have to legalize them or remove them or whatever you decide you want to do and at the moment lot coverage is not called out on your survey because it probably wasn't an issue. IAN CROWLEY : What is the lot coverage if you don't mind me asking? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you're lot is 40,049 square feet so you're going to be permitted 20% of your lot to have structures over it. What a surveyor will do is tell you how much of that is already taken up by your house and deck and you know how much per accessory building and then it'll tell you what your total lot coverage is and if you're proposing a barn then it'll tell you based on the size of the barn how much over 20% you might be or if you're under 20% then you'll get a building permit but you will probably need a variance for the location because even if you disregard your so called unopened paper road you still have a through lot so you still have the two main streets. March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting IAN CROWLEY : Right, right and we were close on making that side road go away. We had a deal with the developer to buy it my neighbor and myself we got through Planning Board and this is many years ago eight, nine, ten years ago. We got all the way up to the Assessor's office and for whatever reason the assessor said that we weren't allowed the transaction couldn't occur. I don't know legally how that happened but the assessor is the one who put the kibosh we got the Fire Department okay, we got every okay that the lawyer told us we needed to get and the one person was CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How weird because it's useless property. IAN CROWLEY : I don't even think that the guy pays the taxes. He does not maintain the paved roads and I don't think he pays the taxes on them. So it was a small amount of money we were going to pay him but it made sense because he and I were going to relieve ourselves of he had a get a variance for his pool which is I guess in his front and side yard but that's not what we're here to talk about. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well alright our attorney just looked up the square footage on your application papers and based on that it would appear that on your lot you have 7.1% total lot coverage which is very small. You still have a lot, a lot IAN CROWLEY : Okay so we can get a variance if we could get a variance for that little shed and then still have building space building envelope. CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : Oh sure you would need a variance for the location but that's it. MEMBER SCHEIDER : I still have a question. This might speak a little bit more about Soundview Drive so that's a paper road and there's vegetation throughout and you do you know what the width of that is? IAN CROWLEY : I believe it's fifty feet. If you look on the survey there's like those little corners are dedicated. I think it was for cul de sac or I don't know what it was for. If you look in the back southwest corner there's like a little rectangle my neighbor on the other side has the same thing dedicated for future highway use. I don't know what it's so it's fifty feet and then I guess them two little rectangles that are adjacent but I think that's a fifty foot wide road. So each of us would of gained twenty five feet and you know I always wanted to; I was constrained the first lot we bought in my life, so I wasn't it wasn't a deal breaker that it had three front yards because I didn't know what that meant and I was just happy that we found something and we bought it but now it's going to you know March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHEIDER : I think the important point here is in the past you made an attempt to purchase that right of way (inaudible) Drive you and your neighbor were going to split it then you would of gained another twenty five feet of width. IAN CROWLEY : And what was more important in gaining the twenty five feet was just you know alleviating the MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The front yard location. IAN CROWLEY : Eliminating the front yard. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Now I just wanted to speak a little bit to Browns Hill Rd too while we're speaking of this. Do you have legal access to Browns Hill Rd? IAN CROWLEY : No. I don't believe so. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : In other words you don't have driveway that you could cut a driveway IAN CROWLEY : No I don't believe so. But when Pete Sep borrows something he comes through Browns Hills. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay and so there's something that Ms. Chambers if she's going to do something for you in the future about your sheds we had an appeal #6436 that was on Browns Hill Rd. where they were confronted with a front yard location as well and we found that that wasn't a front yard for them okay? JOAN CHAMBERS : For that particular road? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : For that particular road. So what the Board has done in the past if you don't have access to that right of way then we consider it not a front yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What Ken is pointing out is that the code only determines that something is a front yard if in fact the subject property has physical access to it. There are a lot of situations where a right of way or somebody else's subdivision is behind your house and you have no legal right of passage. IAN CROWLEY : I'm almost sure we don't have a legal right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : for an accessory structure use and that's what you're looking at here so it probably would of required a bit of research on the Building Department's behalf to see whether or not you have legal access to it but the Board has considered that certainly as mitigating circumstances when you have a situation like this. March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting IAN CROWLEY : Okay thank you very much. JOAN CHAMBERS : So I'd have to go to the Building Department and see if they would want to determine that as a side yard or a rear yard? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah you could point that out to them and then that might help with the situation with the existing sheds. JOAN CHAMBERS : It would make a difference when we do an application to clear up the matter with these sheds whether I'm dealing with rear yards (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct. JOAN CHAMBERS : I understand as I explained to Ian earlier ten feet off your front property line is asking for a huge variance. Ten feet off your side yard is not asking for such a huge variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's right. JOAN CHAMBERS : So my first step is the Building Department. We've already made steps Ian and I have been talking about this that's why I went and got these surveys done quickly because we're going to roll right into taking care of these sheds now okay? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That sounds fine that sounds good. Eric any questions, Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No not at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you George? MEMBER HORNING : No I had the same point that Ken was making about the Browns Hill Rd. that is a private road too and restricted access as to yeah you should consult with the Building Department because you probably don't have three front yards. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I'll give you my opinion right now why they didn't give it to you okay. I have a tendency to think that the Planning Board at the time constructing Hillcrest for the whole subdivision okay needed access to Browns Hill for Browns Hill okay for fire and emergency purposes. IAN CROWLEY : Exactly what how I didn't dig deep trying to find (away from mic) MEMBER GOEHRINGER : What they would do is they drop a truck right at the well and then another truck just before the edge of your paper street okay because they would have to take very small vehicles all the way up to fight a fire so I suspect that that was the reason. It's only a hypothesis on my part. March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting IAN CROWLEY : No I think you're a hundred percent right and that's why when we went to go buy it we went a got Fire Commissioners okay was one of our first stops. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : You have town water right? IAN CROWLEY : No sir. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : You don't have you have well water? IAN CROWLEY : Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I don't remember if I looked for hydrants or not. IAN CROWLEY : We have a like you know for firefighting my neighbor Rich who's on the other side of that road has the standpipe in front I don't know what the MEMBER GOEHRINGER : It's a submersible well with an electric hookup. IAN CROWLEY : Well I thought you're talking about for firefighters. There are holding tanks there's like one next to me and there's one in the front there's a few of them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from the Board, anything else 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 a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNElDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting HEARING # 7037 — TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PLANNING BOARD/ACKERMANN AGRICULTURAL BARN CHARIPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is the Town of Southold Planning Board/Ackermann Agricultural Barn #7037. The Southold Town Planning Board has requested that the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals pursuant to the Planning Board memorandum dated December 2, 2016 provide an interpretation as to whether agricultural equipment storage for a vineyard management operation qualifies as a permitted agricultural storage use relative to a proposed building located on the Legal Notice said eight acres we need to correct that to twenty two acres of land on which development rights are owned by the Town located at 1350 Alvahs Lane in Cutchogue. Is there someone here to represent the application? No, okay then what I'm going to do the Planning Board would have been the representative what I'm going to do is simply so that those of you who are out there are absolutely brought up to date on the details of the memorandum we got from the Planning Board so you can address it completely. I'm going to it's not that long so I'm going to read it into the record. The Planning Board is currently reviewing this is the one dated sorry December 2nd that they refer to in the Legal Notice. The Planning Board is currently reviewing a site plan application referenced above for an 8,162 square foot barn (7,142 square foot footprint and 1,020 square foot attic storage) proposed for agricultural equipment storage. The fact that the barn is located on land on which the town owns development rights for agricultural uses has raised the question of what qualifies as agricultural storage. In this case the applicant states that the large size of the barn is required to store their vineyard management equipment and that their business is to manage hundreds of acres of vineyard located elsewhere. They also state that the amount of equipment they need to store would be the same to manage only the eight acre vineyard on the subject property. In other words its twenty two acre property, eight acres are in production growing vines. The Planning Board is requesting an interpretation of the use of this barn as a base of operations for a business that manages vineyards in other locations in addition to the eight acres of vines on this property. During the public hearing it was questioned whether the use for this building is a commercial use or contractor's yard rather than an agricultural use given that the business model is based on managing vineyards that are not owned by the applicant. The applicant has provided information regarding the equipment they propose to store here and included a schematic to demonstrate the need for the size of the barn (see attached) and then they just go on to say all the other pertaining information is available on Laser Fiche. We also have in our file a lengthy response by Mr. William Ackermann and several other documents so let's see what we have here. I should also point out that we do have a letter from Land Preservation because the development rights were sold to the Town of Southold and that was through this Land Preservation Committee and basically they have indicated let me see if I can just find it where is it. Well, I could tell you what it says. See if you 3 March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting can find it exactly but basically it says that based upon the covenants and restrictions that are in the development rights contract that the town holds with this subject property an agricultural storage building is a permitted use and that's about all they said. So they deem it to be an agricultural building which is permitted on DRS development rights sold property. Let's see oh here's the letter; this letter is dated March 7, 2016 this is to Mr. Ackermann from the Department of Land Preservation and it says it goes over the materials that were presented to Land Preservation Committee and let's see just go to the conclusion. Land Preservation Committee members concluded that their review and found that the agricultural use as described above shown as located within the L-shaped barn building and the pump house are agriculturally use is consistent with the purposes and other terms and conditions of the recorded easement. That in a nut shell is what I think the most important part of that letter. Let's see I may have some questions of Mr. Ackermann is he here? Is someone here representing Mr. Ackermann? No, okay then I guess we're not going to be able to question him alright then let's see there are clearly people in the audience for this application so why don't I say who would like to address this application now? ABIGAIL WICKHAM : Good afternoon, Abigail Wickham of Cutchogue. I'm here. I hadn't planned to speak because I have very limited amount on time and I expected a rather protracted meeting. I do have a letter with multiple copies that I would like to submit to the Board if I could perhaps since we do have the time just go through it very quickly. I am an advocate of farming and the development rights program but I'm concerned that this project doesn't fit within that program. In addition to my general interest in the case I do own property in the vicinity of the property. First question I have is one of jurisdiction of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The deed of development rights affecting this property quotes verbatim Chapter XXV of the town code when it defines the development rights which required by the town and therefore an interpretation of this code provision is arguably the basis of the ZBA's jurisdiction. However I have questions that I think the Board might want to look at before they go further with any decision because as the matter concerns a development rights granted to the town should have perhaps be a Town Board matter perhaps with the aid of an opinion of town council in deciding this question. One could also argue that the Building Inspector is the one with authority as it is a usage question. It appears the Building Inspector and the application wasn't really given very much information about the details of where and how the equipment was to be stored and what it was to be used for. Therefore it may be that the matter should be sent back to the Building Inspector with the facts which have now been elicited at the Planning Board public hearing on the site plan as to whether the Notice of Disapproval should be amended. If the Notice of Disapproval is amended any party feeling aggrieved by that could come back to you the ZBA or perhaps the Town Board directly. So it's a really I think a thorny jurisdictional issue which you will have to address and adding to that which is not in my letter 3 March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting but given what you just referred to about the Land Preservation Committee I don't know how much information they were given in making their report to you. It merely talks about an agricultural storage building without any details as to what that equipment is used for and by whom for what and it's my understanding further that the Land Preservation Committee does not grant permits or make decisions they are a referral body under the land preservation program exclusively just a review body. My second point is that if the ZBA does accept jurisdiction and makes too broad an interpretation of the agricultural production it can be challenged not only on traditional lines but here on the basis that it constitutes an alienation of the development rights that were granted by the town and throws you into that whole remedy. We have seen this result in a disastrous form in the Suffolk County Chapter VIII code interpretation recently by the Supreme Court and I'm afraid that this would be an engraved invitation to Mr. Amper to come in and make this same type of arguments. As to the merits of the application I don't think Chapter XXV of the code as it was then written allows the proposed use. The deed specifically quotes former section XXV-40 as defining agricultural production which is now the only use permitted and it also gives the town the teeth to prohibit the use of the premises for any purpose other than agricultural production. While Chapter XXV did specifically allow equipment storage and structures used exclusively for agricultural purposes I don't think that structures containing equipment used in a commercial enterprise to service and support other people's vineyards was contemplated nor is it permitted. It's not going to be used exclusively for agricultural production. It will be used in connection with a contractor's business which happens to be related to agriculture. So you're really faced with a series of questions in making any decision. The first is, is providing support services to a farmer the same as being a farmer? One salient factor which distinguishes the applicant here from a farmer i.e.: a person who engages in agricultural production is that he is not economically in the position of a farmer. He does not have the risk of agricultural production. He has no skin in the game. If there's a crop failure he could get paid anyway he doesn't bear the risk of crop price fluctuation. This distinguishes him from a farmer who is engaged in agricultural production who suffers the ups and downs of the industry. He is a paid contractor not a producer. His statement that he needs this size building and I think it was over 8,000 square feet to house equipment that is necessary to tend an eight acre vineyard if that statement is true allies the fact that is highly unlikely that someone with that small a vineyard to tend would possibly justify the expense of a building of this size and type. The second question I raise and it's really a series of questions if he is considered a farmer engaged in agricultural production does he get to use that property with development rights sold to provide commercial services to other farmers even though those services are agricultural in nature or is it merely a commercial business that happens to have AG producers as customers? If he was exclusively a spraying company could he store all his spray and pesticides in this location and travel all over the North Fork and perhaps elsewhere to spray people's farms? Could he land his spray helicopter in the field, refill his March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting tanks and fly off to whichever farmer hired him to spray the crops? I think it opens up a lot of questions that we may or may not have answers to and I don't think that's what the program is about or what the deed allows. The third question, why should he get to keep all of his commercial equipment on preserved land when he is not using it for his agricultural production? If he uses the equipment for his farms whether he owns if or even if he rents it elsewhere and it's his crop I would say that's permitted and in line with the program but this building is admittedly intended to house equipment that travels elsewhere and a contractor vineyard. His website lists six vineyards that he works that was back in 2016 1 don't know how many he has now. It's not uncommon for a vineyard owner to hire a contractor to come in and tend their vineyards and that's a legitimate business out here. The production is taking place on the vineyard owner's farm. I don't think as far as the vineyard owner goes it matters who does the labor their still engaged in agricultural production. For instance One Woman is out there tending her vineyard everyday on her own land but there could be a vineyard owner who works in NYC in his office and hires someone to tend his vineyard that's agricultural production but this situation is the reverse. The contractor is the commercial contractor and his base of operations for that commercial business should not be on preserved land. Another consideration that I just want to touch on briefly and I'm sorry this is so long is code section 280-13 the zoning code which defines allowable uses on AC zoned land which I believe this is. That section does allow barns and storage buildings but these are listed under the umbrella of an agricultural use permitted on the property. A commercial business as this may apart from even apart from the development rights deed restrictions be precluded by the zoning ordinance. I would be remised that's basically my argument but I do think I want to mention although it may not be exactly pertinent to this application what a stupid location this is for the building and I don't think farmers need should be overly regulated by the town on where they could put their agricultural business buildings but it makes no sense to me why he would place it smack in the middle of the frontage orient to along the road rather than turn to run east west and tucked under the hillside on the northern portion of the property up close to Alvahs Lane. He's got the same kind of access he's not going to be tampering with one of the prime agricultural soils right in the middle of the property where he has proposed it and aside from that visual impact I'm quite sure from living in the area and maybe there are other people here that know that but there is a this proposed building location is directly over a swale or a water course that runs southerly it starts up north behind Michael Kolaski's property goes southwest through this property right in the area where he's proposing his building under Alvahs Lane further southwest behind Paul Kolaski's house on the west side of Alvahs Lane further southwest along the easterly side of the Macari Cutchogue property under the Main Rd. and connect to the headlands of Downs Creek. You can see that from the contours. It probably was part of Downs Creek at one time and I wouldn't think it's a sensible location for a building. There are several houses that were built in the path of this water course for instance Mary March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting Barren's house and they have documented drainage issues in their basements and crawl spaces. I don't know again that the ZBA can address this location issue but you should someone definitely should. So if you decide that you do have jurisdiction in this case I urge you to hold the hearing open for further input. If you feel it necessary, but in any event because it does have huge consequences to the land preservation program and the farming industry thank you and I have copies of this for you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Gail. Just so the record is as complete as possible and is balanced as possible since there is no one here including Mr. Ackermann to question with regard to the operation on the property or the proposed operation I'm going to read something from a letter that he submitted I guess to the Planning Board let me see we received this December 21, 2016 this was submitted originally to this is a copy and it was dated January 12, 2017. The Planning Board had access to the same information but I'm going to just read an excerpt this is from William Ackermann to summarize the proposed barn is to store equipment that I use to manage my own Alvahs Lane vineyard plus vineyards that I lease and manage. I do not own a separate set of equipment for each site because that would be prohibitively expensive. The equipment rotates around in season and sits in storage in the winter. All of the equipment is also used on site to manage my own vines and property. The equipment will be stored at Alvahs Lane regardless as I have purchased the property to be a working farm. I'm going to skip down a little bit so he is using this equipment to farm the twenty three acres on Alvahs Lane that he owns nine of which are currently planted in vines, ten more are proposed to be ten more acres are proposed to be planted in vines and then he goes on to say the following other vineyards he grows and sells fruit from his own vineyard plus grows and sells fruit from leased blocks in other vineyards and manages consults for non-leased areas of other vineyards and he's leasing an acre and managing six acres at Clovis Point Vineyard. He's leasing eleven acres at Jason's Vineyard; he's leasing and managing twenty acres at Anderson on the Bay Vineyard on South Harbor Lane in Southold. He leases and manages twenty seven acres at Hounds Tree Estate on Oregon Road. He is a consulting manager for two hundred and twenty three acres of Pindar Vineyard and Pindar uses its own equipment. He oversees and directs the vineyard management and then he is also a consulting manager for ninety acres of vineyard owned by Lieb Vineyards. He also is engaged in seasonal spraying services for their ninety acres. So that's kind of a summary of what he's entered T.A. DUFFY : Do you mind if I ask a question? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not at all. I just wanted to read some of that in so that we have a sense of what information our Board has at our disposal. March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting T. A. DUFFY : Putting aside what you said about referring it back to the Building Inspector but I do agree that if the Board has jurisdiction it would only be under 280-13 we wouldn't be looking at the deeded rights, that would be a Town Board. I agree that this Board should not be getting into what the deeded rights mean. With regard to 280-13 do you have an opinion as to where it said here he's using equipment for his own, which is now eight acres in production for that property but then they're also using it for you know his business of caring for other people's vineyards as well, do you think that's contemplated by 280-13 or could you address that? ABIGAIL WICKHAM : Well, I addressed it very briefly I think that that section of 280-13 which is 1 or A is about agricultural production on the particular parcel. That's what it says you can do on a parcel in that zone and that would be this parcel here this twenty three acres so I don't know how you get to that from there to saying the barn that is allowed on that parcel can be used as a commercial contractor's yard. That's what he is he's a commercial contractor. With respect to his self-serving statement about what he owns and leases I don't know if the Board has seen any of the leases how far they go I think they're a huge factual questions here. Yea you can easily skirt around this thing by putting together a lease on paper and maybe it says what it needs to or not but that's not what is happening here he's getting paid to manage these vineyards. He said that in his application he says it on his website so I think there has to be a lot more detail furnished and proof furnished to the Board before they can feel comfortable making a decision. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well while you're up there you know a lot about farming. You come from a long history with farming family and Southold Town. ABIGAIL WICKHAM : I've been told I'm not though. I can't repair a tractor that's for sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Neither can I but I can drive one though. What I've been told by people who do farm that it is not uncommon practice because farm equipment is so expensive to share that equipment among many farms. ABIGAIL WICKHAM : Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Someone will borrow something from somebody or ask them to come over with their tractor or whatever a harvester and that's the line of questioning I suppose is the intensity of the use that we would have questioned the applicant no it's not the applicant. Planning Board is the applicant. we would have questioned the Mr. Ackermann on the way in which he manages or proposes to manage his the subject property in relationship to other properties because we have had before us barns that you know were perfectly legitimate agricultural storage facilities in which it was clear that the farmer actually loaned equipment or March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting in some cases did something with the equipment on a neighbors farm or whatever and so we do understand that that does happen out here but we are also aware that we need to take a look at the intensity of use and you know I don't know the number of employees he has and the number of people that he might be employing to go and take that equipment and use it on other people's property. The code is not a hundred percent clear which I guess is where the interpretation has to come in as to whether or not the use of equipment farming equipment must be only used on the subject property in which the agricultural structure is located which clearly some of it is going to be. I mean it's a small area planted and is proposed to be increased in the number of acres of planting but I see the points you're making. I mean it's quite a challenge for us to have to ABIGAIL WICKHAM : It is a challenge. I don't think that a farmer who has equipment is precluded from contracting out to another farm you know when he's not using the equipment. The farming industry is actually one of the most cooperative industries I've seen particularly out here. They do not only lend equipment back and forth but they contract back and forth because you can't possibly buy all the equipment you need but that's different than what's happening here. First of all this is preserved land number one. I'm not going to name names but the farmers I know that may do that on when they're not using their own equipment house their equipment on non-development rights land it is in their barns but I think it's a legitimate purposed because they have legitimate farming operations of their own both on their land or land they lease so yea they may travel a bit away from their home farm base but they do it as part of their operation. That's always happened. It should always be allowed to happen but this is a very bigger project and I think you're right. It's very fact specific and it's his main business it's not just a side line when his tractor or his sprayer isn't being used on his vineyard you know he could probably hire it out to somebody that Macari next door let's say if they needed it but to say you know he's going to take that sprayer and make a business a running around all over the place and taking other farms that's what he's using his sprayer for. That's the primary use of it. It's not just to spray his stuff or other people's stuff in the off time. It's his primary business and he said that in the application so it's a fine line but it's an important distinction because you don't want to hamper farmers who need the extra income to be able to utilize their equipment productively in keeping with what their supposed to be doing in the overall program. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there other people who would like to address the application? NANCY SAWASTYNOWICZ : Good afternoon Nancy Sawastynowicz. I have a copy so you can get the spelling. My grandparents farmed on Alvahs Lane in Cutchogue beginning almost one hundred years ago. On February 5, 1999 my grandmother sold development rights of our ancestral farm land to Southold Town. By selling the development rights my grandmother took March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting a monetary loss to protect the family farm. Our family did not want the fertile land to become anything other than farmland. If my grandmother was still alive she would be traumatized by the way the farm is currently being used and she would feel like she was cheated by the proposed warehouse garage building. The deed of development rights permits owners of the property on and after the date of the deed forever to use the farm exclusively for a bona fide agricultural production and restricts them from using the farm for anything else. The deed defines agricultural production by referring to the definition in a 1999 Southold Town code and also refers to its present state of use in 1999. The definition of agricultural production in the code provides "agricultural production shall mean the production of for commercial purpose of crops, livestock and livestock products but not land or portions thereof use for processing or retail merchandizing of such crops, livestock or livestock products. Land used in agricultural production shall also include fences, equipment storage building, livestock barns, irrigation systems and any other structures used exclusively for agricultural purposes. Clearly this definition of equipment storage buildings for agricultural purposes refers to purposes of agricultural production on the farm not to purposes of agricultural production on other farms. In 1999 my grandparents were not in the business of storing and renting tractors, sprayers or other agricultural equipment. North Fork Viticulture Services (or NFVS) is a farm service company not a farming company. From Ackermann's statements submitted to the Planning Board it is clear that the farm was purchased to use as a building warehouse garage for NFVS farm management and service business. The farm was not purchased by Ackermann to use as a farm for agricultural production. Ackermann is growing grapes but his main business is growing grape growing equipment to use on other farms. Please do not let Ackermann build a warehouse garage on the farm on Alvahs Lane. The development rights of the farm belong to the people not to Ackermann. Town of Southold development rights acquired by the Town shall not therefore be alienated except upon 1) an affirmative vote of a majority of the Town Board after a public hearing and 2) approval of the electors of the town voting at an election. I do not believe that the people of Southold Town would vote to approve the proposed warehouse garage. Ackermann is already in violation of the deed of development rights. He is already using the protected farmland as a base of operations to store trucks, trailers, and tractors etc. for his commercial distribution of vineyard equipment and labor for hundreds of acres of all the vineyard of the North Fork all over the North Fork. NFVS farm workers park their cars on the property on Alvahs Lane while they work all over the North Fork and Ackermann has informed the town that his business is growing. What is to stop Ackermann from growing out of town? My mother's home is on the south side of the farm. Her residential property was once part of the farm. In the one year since Ackermann bought the farm he cut down half of every tree on the northern side of my mother's property that was overhanging the farm. Ackermann put in an eight and a half feet high big wire deer fence and sprayed herbicide onto my mother's property. Ackermann has cut down pockets of wooded areas on the farm and Ackermann destroyed the March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting red cedars that were planted as buffers to protect the farm and my mother's house without any notice Ackermann cut off the ends of my mother's clothesline trellis. Ackermann has already turned the farm from a beautiful healthy landscape into a barren toxic eyesore. If he is permitted to use the property as an industrial site his property value will be increased but my mother's property value will be further reduced and by market forces of supply and demand the values of all industrial zoned property in the town will be reduced. Alvahs Lane has already suffered many years of harmful impacts from the industrial Satur farms company. Ackermann's commercial building application is a way for him to get cheap agricultural farmland and to use it for industrial purposes. Please protect the integrity of the agricultural land preservation programs of the Town of Southold by identifying the proposed commercial building as a prohibited use on my family's ancestral farm. It was recently reported that Southold Town's liability insurance policy was not renewed because of the hazardous traffic accident was caused by Vineyard 48's limo. Ackermann's business model is making our town an even more dangerous place to live and in closing I have some pictures when my family split the little acre my mother has off of the farm they didn't want to go back into the farm so they went just a little bit and then behind the neighbor so she is like right up on that farm and the fence when you walk out her back door it's like twenty feet from the house and it's really sad and the trees were all butchered so I have a google earth picture of how her house is right smack in that and then I have a picture of my grandfather when he was plowing the field with a team of horses sorry. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you Nancy that's okay I know it's personal for you. MEMBER HORNING : Ma'am while you're here would you kindly just identify for our reference is that your grandmother's farm area there? NANCY SAWASTYNOWICZ : Should I say yes? MEMBER HORNING : No just a reference that's it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Take your time. Thank you for this we'll make sure everybody on the Board gets a copy of it your letter and of the photographs. Is there anyone else here who would like to address this? MARIL SAWASTYNOWICZ : Maril Sawastynowicz I'm Nancy's sister. I just before I read my letter I wanted to you had mentioned since Mr. Ackermann is not here that the Planning Board meeting have because you had mentioned he wrote recently that he would be adding more vineyard well I have from that hearing at the Planning Board he was asked about that land he said there's this is his quote "there's roughly eight acres of vineyard, the rest of the parcel is it's 22.8 it's not conducive to putting a vineyard on so it'll just be grass". March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Interesting; thank you. MARIL SAWASTYNOWICZ : So now I'm going to read my letter. Someone I know recently purchased agricultural conservation zoned land on Alvahs Lane with development rights intact for over $150,000 per acre. Mr. Ackermann purchased agricultural conservation land on Alvahs Lane with development rights sold for less than $25,000 an acre last year. Ackermann was able to purchase the land for so much less money because Southold Town taxpayers purchased the development rights. The issue before the ZBA is what did the taxpayers buy? What are the meanings of development rights and agricultural purposes? The language in the deed is broad and general. This hearing is an opportunity to discuss how the words in the deed were understood when it was granted and purchased and what those words mean now in application to the current business and proposed building. North Fork Viticulture Services is a consulting and contracting business managing and providing equipment and labor to hundreds of acres of vineyards all over the North Fork. Ackermann now wants to build a 7,140 square foot warehouse to store 48 large pieces of machinery I actually have a list of that too if you want me to read that equipment and tractors that he uses for his maintenance business. Ackermann actually wrote to the Planning Board quote "the equipment will be stored at Alvahs Lane regardless as I have purchased the property to be a working farm not as a public service to provide scenery for the neighbors". Ackermann has already permanently changed the character of the land and neighborhood by his singular focus on income and his callous disregard for nature and neighbors. He has carved out the whole perimeter, cut down almost every tree, he's cutting more down today as we speak actually and installed a ten foot deer fence around the whole property. Ackermann's business and proposed building would be out of character with the rural agricultural lane. The extra traffic resulting from the NFVS business model would make driving on Alvahs Lane even more dangerous. The noise and pollution would also impact our quality of life and lower the neighboring property values. My mother's property value has is much lower now after what it looks like now. I implore the Zoning Board to understand and explain to the Planning Board the difference between a barn for a real farm and a warehouse for a company providing equipment and services to other farms. The proposed large equipment warehouse should not be permitted on the small protected farm. Thank you I'm fourth generation descendant of the family that used to own that and farm that property and then they sold the development rights and I actually have a list of everything he wanted to store in that barn I don't know if you want me to read it? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don't you read it into the record. MARIL SAWASTYNOWICZ : Alright he wrote it I mean it was his paper he filled out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We probably have it but read it into the record anyway. March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting MARIL SAWASTYNOWICZ : Two GMC 3500 Denali heavy duty pickup trucks, 2 trailers (30 x8.6'), 4 utility trailers (17x8.6'), 1 Kubota L6060 tractor with loader and a plow (22x8.6'), 1 Kubota L4400 tractor with loader (17x8.6'), 2 Kubota L6040 tractors with rotary mowers (22x8.6'), 3 Kubota L7040 tractors with LIPCO sprayers (25x8.6'), 1 Kubota JD5500 tractor with CIMA sprayer (25x8.6'), 2 herbicide (8x6'), 2 Vicon spreaders (8x6'), 3 fail mowers (8x6'), 2 hedgers (8x6'), 1 leaf remover (8x6'), 1 PTO wood chipper (12x6'), 1 chipper and vac (18x8.6'), 2 post pounders (8x6'), 2 net masters (8x6'), 1 perfecta disc (8x6'), 2 bucket grapplers (8x6') and 2 clemens (8x6') whatever that is. That's quite a lot of equipment for one as he stated in his own words was only going to be eight acres farmed on that property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay would you submit that to us and then we'll make sure all the rest of the Board members receive copies anyone else? RICHARD MATTHEW : Madame chairwoman, members of the Board, counsel my name is Richard Matthew. I am the deep pockets that just bought the lot for over $150,000 an acre up the road from the subject property. I also am an attorney on the South Fork. I have served as counsel to the Zoning Board for the town of East Hampton. I've also served as chair on the Zoning Board of the Town of Southampton. My practice is limited to real estate and land use matters. You might I think I have some experience in zoning I hope that you won't think that I'm wrong. I think the very asking of the question that the Planning Board has sent to you is this a permitted use shows that it's not a permitted use, shows that it is not consistent with our agricultural practices as they were know in 1999 or as they're known today in 2017. Clearly as a barn built a house some forty eight pieces of equipment are not intended just for the purpose of farming on that eight acres or that eight acres of that twenty two and a half acre parcel. I think Ms. Wickham has pointed out very clearly and very appropriately that the business that the applicant or that the owner of the property has the person who's application is the subject of this hearing has another business which is using contracting labor and or equipment in other places. I think that he's made mention of that in his applications to the Planning Board. He's also said things about the tried to bootstrap his application to qualify as agricultural. He's talked about the potential for having livestock or other equipment or other production on this property. However there's been no attempt to do so notwithstanding his (inaudible) to the contrary. I think that the question before us is, is this consistent with agricultural practices. I think that the counsel has asked the question about 280-13 and looked at is a barn a necessary customary accessory use to a farm. Of course it is. You couldn't say that it isn't. However, when you had your farm and you have a barn for your tractor whether you use it on your farm alone or you're lending it to your neighbor or till your neighbor's field as a favor or for money is different from having a commercial agricultural warehouse garage where you have forty eight pieces of equipment that you're taking out specifically to other places. I think that the list of the equipment is very telling in this case. I have a couple of letters from Benja Schwartz, Nancy March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting Sawastynowicz's husband. They're quite pithy in their content and I'm not going to read them all. However, I think that it's very telling to note as Mr. Schwartz is pointing at if the NFVS only wanted to build a warehouse they would of bought a smaller property. This is a piece of property that was sold at a discount to market value because the development rights are stripped. He should of bought in LI or AC zones with the development rights intact so other as it stands now the taxpayers of the Town of Southold are going to be subsidizing Mr. Ackermann's operation there and I think that Ms. Wickham had a very good point about having the Town Board intervene in this application or in remanding this application to the Town Board for its consideration since they are the people who purchased the development rights. Mr. Schwartz letter speaks to that as well. Ms. Wickham again has pointed out the contradictory statements that are relative to the applicant or Mr. Ackermann's Prodi stations as to what his use on the property is relative to his statement to the Board concerning other properties that he has interests in whether those interests are ownership or merely the management of them. I think that I'll submit these to you for your file and ask (inaudible) any questions that you might have. MEMBER HORNING : Sir while you're here could I ask you to identify your parcel on right there perhaps oh you're on the other side? RICHARD MATTHEWS : On the other side number 1000-101-1-16.5. MEMBER HORNING : So you're not adjacent to the parcel? Yes okay thank you. T. A. DUFFY : Can I ask you a question I just want to clarify something you said. I thought I heard you say that he should have bought property either in LI or in AC with property rights intact. RICHARD MATTHEWS : With the development rights intact exactly so. T. A. DUFFY : So you're saying under our zoning code under AC that his proposed use would be allowed if the property rights were intact? Because Ms. Wickham RICHARD MATTHEWS : Ms. Wickham said the opposite to the contrary. I'm suggesting that it certainly isn't permitted on development rights stripped property. I don't know your code well enough to speak to whether it would be or not be. My gut is that it wouldn't be and I wouldn't disagree with her. T. A. DUFFY : That's why I want to clarify it. RICHARD MATTHEWS : I think that she's absolutely correct in that. I believe it wouldn't be but with the development rights stripped there's no way in God's green earth that it could be permitted. T. A. DUFFY : Okay thank you just want to clarify that. March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in the audience? DIANE CROSSER : Good afternoon my name is Diane Crosser. My husband Michael and I have lived on Alvahs Lane for twenty years. I guess what concerned me was about a year ago I came home from work and staked on our property was a landscape tie not a survey tie and it came out of nowhere so I went and pulled it out. A few minutes later Mr. Ackermann and his worker not a surveyor came back and hammered right back in. After that moment the land was cleared with such speed that you couldn't turn around before something else was cut down. I actually have a video because every day he was out there when I was off from work. I actually filmed it which was very un-nerving to him and then also took pictures of him coming out on our property trespassing on our property and no one in the neighborhood seemed to know about it so I introduced myself to Mr. Ackermann. I asked him if any of the neighbors were aware of what was going on and he said yes I spoke to the neighbors. I went and spoke to the neighbors and no one knew what was happening with the property. So I then called Town Hall and I spoke with Brian Cummings, Tracey in the Building Department, Mr. Keily in the Town Attorney's Office and Scott Russell and no one knew what was happening with the property. So all of that is just a preface of what I want to say because it speaks to what I'm going to call lack of integrity with this proposition. Zoning regulations I'm not a lawyer I'm I shouldn't be following you or Gail Wickham I'm just a registered nurse but in trying to really research this to really understand that agricultural conservation and light industrial use are pretty similar in their uses. The differences are a contractor's business or yards not including not limited to building, electrical, plumbing or landscapers are permitted only in industrial zones. They're permitted there a barn to house tractors, sprayers for a management consulting company. Mr. Ackermann's words not mine which requires two curb cut outs for safe tractor access from Alvahs Lane for the management of hundreds of acres of vines that's Mr. Ackermann's site plan that's a direct quote from that 8/24/16 that's a business. It belongs as other people have said in an industrial zoned property not on an agricultural property. A site that's used for chemical storage requiring for again a management company is a business. The email of the applicant himself is Bill@NFBS.biz that's a business. On October 3rd when Heather Lanza asked the applicant if he intended that the property was going to be used for business he didn't reply. Again she asked him and I quote "do you intend to run the business out of the building?" His response was "it's where I'm going to store tractors at" didn't answer the question. The Southold Town Comprehensive Plan says generally agriculture in residences can peacefully coexist. If the goal is to provide a balance between supporting agriculture and ensuring neighborhoods are protected from large adverse impact then we have to look at what's happening here. If the goal is the prevention and reduction of traffic congestion and I'm quoting this from the Comprehensive Plan "prevention and reduction of traffic congestion and promotes efficient and safe circulations of vehicles and pedestrians. A vine management March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting business does not belong on Alvahs Lane. Again two curb cuts, a fuel and pump station that would most certainly have a negative impact. We all have well water. There are three leech pools that's going into our well water. Page 22 out of 56 of the Comprehensive Plan calls for regulation of agricultural uses and is necessary to facilitate and encourage bona fide agricultural operations while providing for the health, safety, and welfare of town residents and visitors. We ask that you use the authority of your position of protect us from misuse of the property. Part of the problem is this application has changed. Every time it comes back to him it comes back with something different. When the Comprehensive Plan encourages bona fide agricultural operations what they mean are operations that are authentic, real, true this is a quote from Miriam Dictionary actual without intention to deceive. I've prepared for you at least six instances where Mr. Ackermann has erroneously reported information and then in another place contradicted himself including saying that there was an improved site plan. The only site plan that Brian Cummings had on file was for Belle River and that expired in 2015. There was not site plan. Mr. Ackermann's paperwork is referencing an amendment to an approved site plan. That is just absolutely not true. Mr. Ackermann stated that there are roughly eight acres of vineyard and the rest as someone said before is not conducive to putting a vineyard on so it'll just be grass. Again I go back to that meeting October 3rd Ackermann there are roughly eight acres of vineyard the rest of the parcel is not conducive to a vineyard it will just be grass that's a quote. Chairman Wilcenski so eight acres planted and twenty two acres of vines in total yes. Now in the new paperwork in the letter that you got it does speak to now suddenly he has thirty one twenty three acres I'm sorry that are now being farmed so in two months we went from eight acres to twenty one acres in the winter time I'm not really sure how you do that. Smoking mirrors are great but this building proposal keeps morphing into something else every time someone says Bill Ackermann no you can't do that. If I said to you these words widgeon, pilchard, Kaki Campbell, black scoter, Hawaiian Koloa you would probably have no idea what I'm talking about. They're all ducks all ducks forty different ducks. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck. A warehouse that's used for storage for a profit business is industrial business not agricultural. You can arbitrarily change wording in a site plan to suit the needs of the applicant so he gets the response that he wants but that's the information that all of you are trying to deal with and I would hope that you would assume that that would be truthful bona fide and accurate. Richard Amper executive director of the Pine Barrens Society responded to the site plan stating and I quote "it's clear that the proposed use does not constitute agricultural use. The applicant's use is intended to involve offsite business of a general service nature." Again I quote Mr. Amper, "especially concerning is the precedent that would be set where the usage to be permitted." While Mr. Amper's referring to possibly the destruction of the town purchasing anymore development rights because once people know that you can do this it's going to set off a whole flood gate of people looking to do other things. This is what I mean. If residential zoning is identical to agricultural zoning then I want to enlarge March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting my garage. I want to get a lift, my tools, equipment, parts and all the chemicals I need to work on my vehicles then people say Diane you have such a great garage here come to our house work on our vehicles. I'll bring my vehicle to my house. If you approve Ackermann doing that then why shouldn't I be able to I grow lavender roses, my husband has a vegetable garden now people come and they say wow how do I grow lavender well I have a business let me come to your house. I pop a landscaper sign on my truck and I travel to my customers. Now I come to you and say I need a shed for my equipment. It's for my equipment I need it for my business. We have large parties in the summer. People are impressed so now I come to you and say I need a storage unit. I need to store my tables, my tents, my chairs, my glassware now people say come plan my event. I needed it for my personal use but now I've turned it into a business. Approval of a site plan for a growing management company to store the company's equipment to maintain hundreds of acres when only eight are in use is a disservice to everyone on Alvahs Lane and not what the law originally intended. The Building Department did disapprove this and the Preservation Committee unfortunately did not have accurate facts because there are no accurate facts in this information. Additionally and I'm going to end on this if this is approved it'll invite a legal challenge because it represents a misuse of taxpayer money to pay for litigation when the tax payers themselves paid to preserve that land. It can't be used for personal benefit. When you talk Chairwoman is that the right word when you talk before about farmers loaning equipment, loaning equipment to each other makes sense. A bartering system but now when I'm paid to own the equipment and I use my own equipment to service your property that's something totally different. In just to wrap up just in terms of inconsistencies throughout the plan again CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just interrupt you for one second because I don't want people to misunderstand what's happening here these two members have got to leave. That doesn't mean you have to stop talking. DIANE CROSSER : I only have two more minutes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He's an attorney and he's got to get to a closing and he lives on Fishers Island and if he misses the ferry he's stuck here for a couple more days. I'm going to make sure that everyone has copies of everything it looks like you're reading so you can submit this can you? DIANE CROSSER : I do have four copies for all of you. By the way we will have this the entire transcript of this hearing will be transcribed pretty swiftly and given to all Board members so we can review everything very thoroughly but please carry on I just didn't want be rude and have you think that people were just getting bored. They're not bored they just required to leave so please carry on. March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting DIANE CROSSER : Again the inaccuracies eight acres or is it twenty two that are being used?The original application calls for a small bath but then when questioned by Mr. Wilcenski electric or water and he said no water and there was a question about that no water only for the pumps no bathroom again the inconsistencies just speak out over and over again. Again these pictures of someone coming on to everyone's property, taking advantage, trespassing and I did ask the Town Attorney's office about that and they said it was a civil matter that they would not be able to help me with that. Again, I ask you to look at this not only for the implication for this property. If you allow this Pandora's Box will be opened for anyone and everyone to say I can run a business from my home from my property. Satur farm will pale in comparison with what happens with this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. Member Horning who had to leave has asked that you just identify which your property is on this tax map. DIANE CROSSER : I have four copies you need four copies? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It saves us in making copies if you can so kind as to do it already because we have five board members. While all of this is being passed around and so on first I want to thank all of you for being here and for your testimony. Oh did you have something you wanted to add? Sorry I didn't mean to cut anyone off. GWEN GROOCOCK : Hi I'm sorry I've been running late I just came from Riverhead. My name is Gwen Groocock my partner Bill Ackermann is the owner of the property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait hold on I'm sorry wait one second because I can't hear while they're talking to each other, Gerry could you share that information with the rest of the Board? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Surely, I'm just trying to he's call it in Leslie. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay fine. Please proceed. GWEN GROOCOCK : Okay again hi I'm Gwen Groocock. My partner Bill Ackermann is the owner of the property. I'm happy to answer any questions or clarify some things. We had submitted a letter I think it should be in the file that which you probably have read by now stating our position and what we are trying to do so beyond that if there are any other issues that have come up we are as we stated in the letter in fact farming the whole of the property. The vineyard equipment is the same vineyard equipment that we're using on our own vineyard as we use elsewhere. It is not multiple sets of the same equipment at different places to be stored in a giant barn. So, even if we weren't servicing any other vineyards we would still have vineyard equipment and it would still want to go into a barn. As far as the pasture land and March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting everything else we are in fact wanting to put in cattle. That's going to we're not entirely sure yet how much room that's going to take in some form of a barn but that is part of that parcel. The way I guess the way I'm trying to understand it is that you have the twenty three acre piece and farming that occurs on that in this case its pasture plus vineyard. So, theoretically a barn that serves that use would be something acceptable in that situation. If for example it was the same piece of land and we were not farming it at all and we wanted to build a large barn to do other things elsewhere. I would imagine that would probably not be acceptable on preserved land. I feel that we are somewhere in between. It's kind of a hybrid because we're farming that property in two different ways. We also lease land and grown grapes which are similar to a lot of other farmers do sod farmers and some of the vineyards and everything else. Then we also have some clients where it's their land and their grapes and we service it in other words picking, spraying etc. So all these things are done the equipment that is owned is the same equipment and I'm not entirely sure how else to characterize the business. It does seem to fall into a kind of a new category as far as what agriculture is. I don't think it's unusual historically for farmers like the sod farmers provide seeding services for example for cover crops for any number of other farmers crop farmers and all the rest of it with their equipment that then goes into barns and if it's on preserved land there's a lot of people now have these days it would be the same situation. I feel that it would be putting a lot of people on the wrong side of the law really if you were not allowed to move your farm equipment off a piece of property and do things elsewhere you see so another thing I'd like to point out is that parcels of land like this this is a preserved piece with no building lot. We've actually purchased the one third of an acre next to it which is a small building lot to build a house our own house so we're certainly not planning on having some heaving mess going on right next door to our own selves but this piece by itself has no building lot on it. It's not really attractive as any kind of a I don't know somebody from out of town for example it's really only attractive to somebody who can farm it. In this case a vineyard manager. It's the ideal spot obviously for a barn that holds vineyard equipment. Now if the issue is that the barn is too big as presently proposed which is a completely separate issue as to whether the use is allowed or not and I understand but what size barn do you feel would serve that property and then that way be well within the intent of I guess AG only on development rights sold if that's what the issue is? So, I think there's a couple of questions it's not quite getting to the issue of it. Is this too big? If we show you which tractors are used only on that property can we have a barn that covers those? You see it's like there's got to be some way of approaching this question to provide an answer that ends up with that thing being farmed properly and the equipment being stored properly so I'm not sure what that is. As far as the use on it we've tried to say this a number of times, in season the equipment is wherever it is working okay this is not a like a mechanics place or anything like that. We're not tractor fixers we have other people fix the tractors when that has to happen. There's not any kind of intensive use going on there on a day to day basis. It's literally storage. March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting The very first barn plan actually that we had shown over to Land Preservation was in a different spot. It was in the northwest corner and that had on it a proposed garage not for this use not for this building plan now but a proposed workshop garage. That did show a bathroom in it okay. That is not the plan that is before us right now. That was kind of like a phase B that we're floating by them. The plan right now is literally and this quite frankly this thing can go in a different site we've got there's I don't know if you looked at the map closely but there's the north field which is empty, the vineyard block is all in the middle then there's kind of a south field down by the neighbors which would also be a great place for a barn actually. However, that would impact them a lot more. We chose the one by the road because it was easily accessible for the equipment and everything else and quite frankly because there's a vineyard buffer around it, it seemed the least obtrusive it's clearly not to their satisfaction in that way either so the size of it, the scope or the use of it, where it's located these things can be discussed. The Planning Board told us no we don't want to discuss it we want it to go to the ZBA we want them to look at it so then it becomes a question for you guys and I'm not entirely a hundred percent sure what the crucks of the matter is that you guys need to decide if you see what I mean. So I'm not really sure if I'm answering the right question. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well your testimony is helpful. We're glad that someone is here to speak on behalf of the applicant. Let me ask you how many people does your can I say your business how do I address you? GWEN GROOCOCK : Well that's a good question. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How many employees are there? GWEN GROOCOCK : Well there is the vineyard manager, Irwin who's year round full time and there's about four other guys who are year round full time and then in season there are pickers and pruners so it can be up to you know maybe fifteen or so in season but they don't come to the barn. If you know anything about how the vineyards work anybody who's pruning or picking drive their own cars to the site and you'll see their cars parked you know next to the vineyards and they get out and do their stuff and they go. It's not like we don't have like a minibus or something like Pindar used to have where they would collect all the workers and take them around to places. So, if five guys are needed over at Clovis or something the vineyard manager makes sure that they turn up that morning over at Clovis it's not at the barn. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So of the let's see the growing season you know can you give me a rough idea I don't know if you can answer this of what percentage of time is spent on the subject property engaged in agricultural production farming and what percentage of time are those employees elsewhere engaged in farming operations on other properties. March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting GWEN GROOCOCK : So if for example in the growing season starts and you have bud break one of the early things that needs to be doing is the first spraying okay that happens once the leaves are out and especially if you know damp and rainy and there's disease pressure all the vineyards including the Alvahs Lane will get sprayed with whatever they need to be sprayed with so that would mean the sprayer would go around so this is eight acres so that's you know (inaudible) some of the vineyards are eleven acres some are twenty so it would be if you put all spraying timed together it would be whatever unit this sprayer would be over at Alvahs Lane to spray for whatever unit of time it needs to be that could be long or short depending on what's getting sprayed elsewhere. Different grape varieties get sprayed with different things at different times so again it's I guess it's kind of hard to say. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are all of your grapes on the eight acres or GWEN GROOCOCK : No we also lease land and grow grapes that we sell at other places and then a further tier is that there are people that own their own grapes and their own land and we do like the spray service for them and even beyond that we're consultants as well where we tell people literally what to do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's say you're leasing land at Jason Vineyard I think that was one of the places it was mentioned. GWEN GROOCOCK : Yeah. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you growing grapes that you own but you're leasing the land from them. Do you also provide services on the rest of Jason's property to them? GWEN GROOCOCK : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so if you lease property elsewhere are you providing any service to anyone who owns the area that you're leasing? In other words is that strictly an arrangement where you're growing your own grapes on somebody else's land that you're leasing, you're farming that land for yourself as opposed to providing farming services spraying, picking you know pruning whatever it is on that property as well for the owner? GWEN GROOCOCK : Some of them are more black and white like that like Jason's we get the grapes and sell the grapes ourselves off that eleven acres. Other places like Anderson On the Bay in Southold that's a situation where we manage most of it but some of it we take to sell which offsets fees or it could be the grape variety that they don't want to use in a particular thing and quite frankly it depends on the weather. If it's going to be a really good year that can change what becomes our grapes and what becomes somebody else's grapes you see so in general I don't have the numbers. If Bill was here he would be able to say it off the top of his March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting head. I think it's roughly about fifty tons of grapes are ours last season that's how it worked out. So, whatever else beyond that would be owned by the land owners themselves? If you want the actual breakdown to say how much you know how much is like us farming and how much is us farming for somebody else I can get you those that breakdown for sure but we'd have to go into the computer and get the charts and you know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you give me a rough idea of the annual income for your agricultural businesses we'll pluralize it. GWEN GROOCOCK : It's just the one business. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so about what percentage are you actively engaged in farming the Alvahs Lane property? GWEN GROOCOCK : Yeah absolutely the eight acres of grapes plus the pasture land and as I said in the letter we've changed it to livestock fence. We've planted pasture grass and we are pretty much settled on cows. We were going to do sheep for a little bit but that's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well certainly you wouldn't need that amount of equipment for viticulture for eight acres if you were just doing your own eight acres particularly since the rest of the acreage is now being proposed for cattle which would require a different kind of situation so then most of that equipment is going to be used on other property whether you are leasing it or you're providing services for others. GWEN GROOCOCK : We tried to explain this to the Planning Board as well. We provided them with schematics showing how the equipment would fit in the barn. Now all the equipment that we own there's probably a couple of machines that you know a couple of the smaller tractors around the same size are used for the vineyards so if they need to tend to Alvahs Lane that's where they're going to be. We don't again we don't have multiple sets of these you know five hundred thousand dollars pieces of machinery at each of our sites. They move around so again if you want exactly for example the eight acres what precise machines were used this passed growing season and is that all of our own equipment or is that seventy five percent of it or whatever then that we can try to do that breakdown as well. It's just that a vineyard will take the same equipment it's just if it's larger it will take more time to go up and down the rows. You don't have like two giant three giant sprayers all going at once in a big vineyard unless you're not on the North Fork anyway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's think what else, did I hear you correctly that you said that no repair of equipment is done will be done in this proposed storage building? March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting GWEN GROOCOCK : Not major repairs like welding or if the engine breaks or anything like that no. It's not we don't have like a machine shop. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because a prior plan I guess indicated that there was some sort of workshop, there was a bathroom now it is just storage. GWEN GROOCOCK : Well that's because again that original proposal the workshop was not going to be part of this building permit. That was going to be like a phase two because the house is going to be next to it and the idea was Bill wanted to be able to walk there to his workshop where all his tools are and putts around basically and that was not going to be a big thing. The actual storage area is going to be mostly empty in season and then full in the winter. I mean obviously if there's minor repairs that can be done with what he's got he's going to do them like in any barn but if there's going to be if you need to like you know pull out an engine or weld or something there are other people that are paid to do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me see if Ken do you have any questions I'm sorry Gerry wanted to ask a question first. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Gwen how are you? GWEN GROOCOCK : Good how are you? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Good. I am of great difficulty in understanding how you move this equipment around so in the first question would be are you using any of the farmers equipment to do the spraying I mean you're telling me with all this stuff that you deal with you can't continuously move equipment around because it's a very involved process. GWEN GROOCOCK : There's a flatbed truck. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I know so all the equipment is basically yours? GWEN GROOCOCK : Yes except for the people that we consult for like Pindar and Duck Walk. They have all their own equipment. We don't use our equipment in their fields. We consult for them. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Okay so you're not spraying anything for them, you're not doing anything for them other than the consulting aspect of it? GWEN GROOCOCK : Yes exactly their machines area their machines. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Okay but all the other parcels you're moving equipment your own equipment to get to these? 5 March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting GWEN GROOCOCK : Yea pretty much again like a major spray is something that happens maybe four times in the season or five times. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea if it rains or whatever the case might be. GWEN GROOCOCK : So if you have the sprayer moving around and if it takes a week to get everywhere then that's what it does and then MEMBER GOEHRINGER : So it never comes off the trailer except when you're leaving them the project. GWEN GROOCOCK : Exactly and often it stays where it's got to it stays where it is to finish the next day or whatever. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Well the question is where is that equipment kept now? GWEN GROOCOCK : In begged and borrowed barns. We have some stuff over at Lieb, stuff in Anderson's barn. It's literally it's been in a few places and pretty much the whole point of buying our own piece was to have our own barn and have our stuff centrally in one place. The fact that this is a vineyard is just perfect and quite frankly it never occurred to us that there would be a question that this is true agriculture otherwise you know we could of easily bought one of the acreages like the two acre piece nearby or whatever and put the barn there because they're all AG zoned but not development rights sold so there's a number of parcels in that area that could we could of bought instead to put a barn on it if we realized that there's going to be a question as to whether what we're doing is true agriculture or not. We certainly didn't expect this so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me try and clarify and then I think Ken had some questions he wanted to ask. What we're trying to ascertain here is, the activities that you're engaged in are all farming activities that's not the question really. The question is, is this proposed barn and the equipment proposed to be stored within and intensification of use on development rights sold property which generally permits this kind of use to farm the subject property. When you go off to farm other properties using that equipment where's the line between what becomes a business a kind of commercial services farming services business and your right to farm as a farmer on your property. We know there's a history of people sharing equipment and loaning equipment and so on. You know I think in fairness there was a lot of testimony that happened before you arrived. You came very late to the hearing and GWEN GROOCOCK : I'm sure I've heard it before. March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Most of it was submitted in writing and I think you know you should at least have an opportunity to review that in case you have anything that you'd like to tell the Board in response. That's what the purpose of a hearing is it's fact finding and we want to remain open you know to all of the input from every concerned and interested party. Having said that let me see what Ken has in the way of questions. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yes hi, I'm just wondering do you make your own wine as well? GWEN GROOCOCK : No. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So what do you do with the grapes? GWEN GROOCOCK : They get sold. They're sold to people. Osprey's Dominion, some go up to the Hudson Valley, Wolffer buys some. Everything goes to Premium Wine Group which as you know is the custom crush place and once it hits them it becomes the property of the new owner because then it gets crushed to juice and all the rest of it and we have obviously no intention of making wine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you're a vineyard not a winery. GWEN GROOCOCK : Correct. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can I ask one more question? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let's see if Ken is done. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No I'm done. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : If you were to build a house on this parcel that you just purchased which belonged to a friend of mine GWEN GROOCOCK : Oh well they got a good price. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : What would be the maximum sized barn you would need okay for the facility that exists presently what you have on that eight or twenty one acres?You don't have to answer this question now okay but give us give me an idea give us an idea of what the maximum sized barn you require or requested so that we're talking about a barn that does not service anything other than that piece of property. GWEN GROOCOCK : Right what I would do for that then is ascertain every piece of equipment that we own that was used at Alvahs Lane which is the same equipment that's used elsewhere so it's pretty much we'll give you the equipment list. We already have a schematic of equipment fitting into a barn and we have not reached the stage of buying any cattle yet March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting because we're trying to he wants to decide between Belted Galloways and Red Devin's. We're getting input on that. I'm reluctant in getting into livestock a little bit. I think it's a lot more work than Bill might think it is but we have good friends that are livestock growers out here who are helping to you know help us understand the process so I guess then the next question would be how many head of cattle can we foresee maybe and it's a two year cycle so over the next three or four, five years so say it's half a dozen. So then I guess we'd have to find out what equipment and supplies are would pertain to that and add that to just the eight acre vineyard and that would be the size of the barn so I think yea I mean absolutely. Maybe we can just go look at somebody else who's got a comparable sized farm and see what their barn looks like. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Again site specific. GWEN GROOCOCK : Yea site specific. I mean I can tell you a thousand square feet is probably way too small you know is seven too big probably. That would you know that would be ideal but it is also large for sure so somewhere in there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess what the question the probative question here is if on development rights sold land you were farming whether it's agricultural, whether it's viticulture or livestock it's still farming according to our code what's the equipment and the scale you would need? I don't think the real question is about farming the subject property the question is using that scale and number of pieces of equipment elsewhere throughout the town on development rights sold property housing it there. So, that's kind of I think the essence of the question that the Planning Board has put before us whether we like it or not we have to grapple with it so is there anything else that's what I'm going to propose actually Ken and Gerry that we adjourn this to the Special Meeting. There's a lot of things that have been submitted to us in writing. We also I want to have a complete printout we have to give it to our transcriber. I want to be able to review the Planning Board's public hearing transcripts and our own and I think you should have an opportunity to see what's been submitted in writing in case you and Mr. Ackermann would like to respond in writing to any of them or that you would like to provide additional testimony. By adjourning to the Special Meeting in two weeks we all have some time to take a deep breath, look at everything and see where we need to go with this. If at the time we have no further questions or we have no further request from anyone we'll probably close it and then we will have from that point sixty two days in which to make a determination. We generally don't take that long you know but this is complicated and it has potential precedent setting you know component to it so we want to be extremely cautious and careful and thorough and open minded so we need to digest a lot of stuff. Yes please go ahead. GWEN GROOCOCK : I just want to say on that precedent setting aspect from looking at it it's quite it could cut both ways really. Setting a precedent that this is not agriculture could be very March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting discouraging to anybody coming into town that wants to start agriculture because development rights in tact land is extremely expensive. They're not likely to buy those pieces. On the other hand you don't want to go too far so that for example a different kind of agricultural thing just squats on a piece of development rights sold land and is very large so I see that precedent wise it can cut both ways. I mean we have talked with some of our friends over at the Farm Bureau and the Wine Counsel and decided not to try (inaudible) parade of them saying yes we consider this agriculture, yes we you know because I think they've made their stands obvious in other matters. I know that there was a mention I know the AG advisory committee was talking about expanding the actual well I say clarifying more the definition more of agriculture Chris Baiz and those guys and Dinizio was saying no it should be a case by case thing in his opinion so it is unfortunately we landed right in the middle of something that is a very active debate but it's a good debate and again back to the original law under what is allowed under development rights sold land the wording commercial agriculture is in there so if what we're doing counts as commercial agriculture then to my mind it does count but I know intimately what we do. I'm not looking from the outside trying to figure out who these people are and what they're really doing so anyway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I think you've summarized the kind of challenge that's put before us and you know we take it very seriously so we want to make sure that we look at every aspect of this and you're right it what the determination has potential of making a decision and it goes this way or that way and we want to make sure it's the right way. GWEN GROOCOCK : And if I could just say one more thing on the topic of the neighbors I do invite you to view the property. If you talk to the Dickerson's who saw how much crap we pulled out. Two owners ago as some of you are probably aware it was being used as a dumping site a fill site for construction. Then the lady who wanted to do the horse farm owned it. Metal crap, old pesticide cans from the farms just lots and lots of debris and rubble and stumps they are the ones that cut down all the big trees next to the Dickerson's where Benja's owls were living so we have done a lot to clean that up. We've graded it so that it can be planted to pasture nicely. The horse fence was extremely picturesque I would agree but it was falling down and it's not going to contain cattle so now there's a mesh wire and post fence instead. Any walking on anybody else's property was probably the surveyor and we have stuck extremely closely to our property lines. The deer fence already went around half the property and it was continued up the other half okay it's on our side of the property line. That is where Nat Corwin the surveyor put all the markers. Some people disagreed with the locations of the markers and took them away so he had to come back. So I would just like to say that we are trying very hard to make it nice and clean it up. We do want a deer fence there because deer eating the grapes is ridiculous and it should have been there in the first place. So quite frankly as I said at the Planning Board meeting we're intending to plant more buffer on the north side March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting anyway. On the other side of the Dickerson's the guys that started the chicken farm just clear cut every piece of tree off that property and now there's quite a wind that comes so we want to put a buffer there anyway and as far as buffering on the south side I mean we don't need that for our visibility but if a barn ends up there for example then we're certainly happy to talk buffers. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well because you haven't gone thoroughly through a site plan situation I don't know that we can say with absolute certainty that the proposed location that we have at the moment which is quite close to the road will be the final answer. That's really not what is before us and you know one of the great benefits of living in a small town is we all care. We are each other's neighbors and we have history here and it's a great privilege to be in a position to do something helpful to our community to be in this roll. So you can understand why people get very take these things very personally. They are personal but our job is to ground decisions based in law and understanding the law and understanding what the intent of those laws were. Sometimes we have to go back and look at public hearing transcripts from the Town Board where the legislation was passed in order to try and understand what the intent was, what comments were made to hear because as most of you know the code is constantly in need of update and it's a work in progress, it needs improvement it always needs updating and so when we're asked to interpret it's probably because it's unclear. So we're the Board that has the authority to try to do our best in doing that. GWEN GROOCOCK : That's good because I can remember personally sitting in on so much of the talk of the whole development rights sales program got underway back in the 90's and early 2000's and the intent absolutely was never meant to stifle agriculture obviously so to some there's two components there's promoting agriculture and there's also preserving open space but this is development rights sold not open space. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I mean I think the situation would have been different had the development rights been in tact but maybe not. GWEN GROOCOCK : We wouldn't of bought it then. Somebody would subdivide it would buy it and would turn it into five acre parcels and put six houses there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah well I understand but you know part of the development rights program the sales of development rights is that taxpayers invest in preservation for agriculture so GWEN GROOCOCK : Certainly what we're providing. March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well what I'm going to do is there anyone else I don't want to cut anyone off if they want to speak. You want to make another comment? Please just restate your name. DIANE CROSSER : Diane Crosser Alvahs Lane. What interests me with all of this is the hypothetical of well I present you with a plan but you know maybe I'll change it. Maybe I'll have sheep they'll go in the barn oh no maybe I'll have cattle or maybe we won't have cattle. When someone is coming to you and the town to rule on a proposal you have to know that that is my intent. You have to assume that I'm honest about what I'm intending to do or go back to what I said to the Planning Committee. We applied to the Building Department I guess in 2000. My mother was terminally ill. We wanted to put on an addition to bring her out from the city to live with us. The Building Department was phenomenal. They worked as quickly as they could but it took forever to get that done because there were inspections, there were codes. We couldn't say oh maybe we'll do this, no we changed our mind maybe we'll do this. We had to give a plan that was accurate. That plan had to be inspected. After that plan was constructed to show that we had done what we intended to do. We can't say oh maybe it would have been five houses on the lot or maybe we'll do this. You can't deal in maybes you have to deal with facts of what the intent of what that property is right now as it was a year ago of what was presented to you and again what I said before this has morphed into something with constant change. Again we're told now eight acres of vines. In the letter that you have from Mr. Ackermann it talks about actively farming twenty three acres of the property. What's true? Yes it looks very pretty right now I will definitely give them that but pretty and a business are not necessarily what the purpose of what that property is. The fact that it looks nice still doesn't mean that you can conduct a business of it when all of your trucks are going out on Alvahs Lane now in a flatbed truck up and down that block. Limos use Alvahs Lane as a thoroughfare. They're going from Pellegrini they're going up to Vineyard 48, Bourghese they're going back and forth on a weekend you don't leave Alvahs Lane because of all that limo bus traffic. During the school week all the kids getting on and off the bus you can look at how many kids in the area, people walking dogs, bike riders, joggers everyone using Alvahs Lane for that purpose so now we're going to have tractors coming and going from management company as per what Gwen said managing all these other vineyards. That is not the intended use of either agricultural property but specifically agricultural property with development rights intact. That wasn't the intention with this. Taxpayers paid for that land to keep it rural to keep the open space and now we're saying yea we're going to do that but it's going to house our business. It's not what the law intended it's certainly going to wreak havoc on the quality of life in that area but we have to deal with what's before you in an accurate presentation not something that changes every time the applicant doesn't get their way and again when you go through and I appreciate the fact that you said you would every step of the way from step one of what's happened you'll see all March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting the changes that have been made over time and we're still looking at the original proposal. It's different than what's proposed in front of you right now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you okay I think we hear from everyone in the audience at this point unless Bob you want to say something anything else from the Board at this point? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, so I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting in two weeks which is March 16th. That way we can accept additional information if anyone wishes to submit it. We can have anyone review anything in the file and we have the time to review everything in the file ourselves because we got a lot of stuff today and I do want to have this I'll ask Liz to transcribe this hearing first on the list so we get it soon and again we'll decide in two weeks whether we need another hearing or whether we can close it at that time and then make a decision. So it'll be based upon what's in our record and if we are pretty clear on what's in the record and have no further questions we'll close it. If we still have additional questions or require additional information we can subpoena anybody we wish by the way to appear that's not something we do very often but it is certainly within our rights to do so if we had questions of anybody that we needed answers from but we'll adjourn to another public hearing and we'll just keep going until we're satisfied that we have everything we need in order to make a thoughtful and useful decision. So having said that I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to March 16th is there a second? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNElDER : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) ';,y March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting CERTIFICATION I Elizabeth Sakarellos, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment and is a true and accurate record of Hearings. Signature q4l,4�— " r ` Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : 3I (p I