Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-04/06/2017 Hearing TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Southold Town Annex Second Floor Conference Room Southold, New York April 6, 2017 9:53 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN -Chairperson/Member ERIC DANTES— Member GERARD GOEHRINGER— Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO— Member PATRICIA ACAMPORA— Member(Absent) KIM FUENTES— Board Assistant WILLIAM DUFFY—Town Attorney April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Shelley and Lindsey Scoggin #7040 3 -4 Lauren McCall #7044 4- 8 Paul Pawlowski #7042 8 - 11 Michael and Sara Colodner#7043 11 - 15 John Fischetti and Deborah Deaver#7045 15 - 25 Mattebella Vineyards#7041 26 -44 April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting HEARING #7040—SHELLEY and LINDSEY SCOGGIN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for Shelley and Lindsey Scoggin #7040. This is a request for variance under Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's November 14, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet at 2220 Pine Tree Rd. in Cutchogue. So you want to add an addition to your house. You have two front yards and therein lies the problem. The front yard setback of the existing dwelling on the side road which is not Pine Tree Bittersweet is 9 feet and the code requires a 35 foot front yard setback so you're here to maintain that 9 feet and to add on an addition. I think the addition includes a bathroom, a sitting room and a large upstairs bedroom on a two story house to accommodate an elderly family member to move in. Is there anything else that you would like us to know? SHELLY SCOGGIN : Any questions that you have I would answer. We're keeping within the character of the neighborhood. All the houses are kind of being enlarged. We'll still be one of the smaller houses on the street. I need a place for my dad. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if there are any questions or comments from anybody on the Board. We've all been out to see the property just so you know we do that for every application. Eric is there anything you want to ask? MEMBER DANTES : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay Gerry anything? MEMBER GOEHRINGER Other than the fact that we've had many applications down there based upon the non-conformity of the width of many of these lots there's no question about it okay I have said the majority more across the street on the water but it's still in the same neighborhood and it's still in the same situation so I can understand your request. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I will say this I do have one question, you have an area there's a hot tub there now and you're probably going to be removing that I would imagine for the addition? SHELLEY SCOGGIN : Yes. April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Unless you're planning to use that for the bathroom and there's a fence in that area that's about five or six feet I'm not it's certainly over four feet which is what is allowed in a front yard, is that staying or are you removing that? UNNAMED PERSON : That will go away. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's all I need to know because that's you would need a variance for a six foot high fence on a front yard which is not impossible. Bittersweet is a dirt right of way basically. SHELLEY SCOGGIN : Right, well we would probably just landscape it because it would be where my dad's sitting room would come out to so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, that's fine then that's all I needed to know. Yeah in looking around there's a large wooded area right across from where you're proposing the addition. It's part of a residential lot, there's no visual impact to anyone and certainly it's in keeping with the scale of a lot of the other houses there so I don't have any further questions or comments. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the application? Hearing no further questions of 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 GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We will have a decision for you two weeks from today. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7044— LAUREN MCCALL CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Lauren McCall #7044. This is a request for variances under Article III Section 280-14 and Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's January 27, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a single family dwelling and an accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) proposed April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting single family dwelling located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 60 feet, 2) proposed construction places in-ground swimming pool in other than the code required rear yard, 3) proposed construction places existing accessory garage in other than the code required rear yard at 10643 New Suffolk Ave. in Cutchogue. Good morning Gail. We have a front yard setback proposed at 44 feet where the code requires 60 feet and after the construction of the new dwelling. The existing accessory garage will be in a side yard where the code requires a rear yard or front yard on waterfront properties and a proposed pool will be in a side yard instead of a code required rear yard. Now we did get your updated survey but that's basically the same thing with some more stuff on it. GAIL WICKHAM : It just has drainage calculations. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you get that in your mailbox. Yeah it's the same thing as we were looking at in terms of the placement of the structures. So Gail, I just have one question that occurred to me. I actually don't know if it's in here I have to look again. The accessory garage that's on the subject property and probably does that have a C.O. because it's unusual to have an accessory structure without principle use on a property. I know it's a family compound and so they may have taken some liberty with where they put various things since they all sort of own it but tell me if we have a C.O. and if not we're going to need to get one as soon as there's a principal use on the property. GAIL WICKHAM : Well, I think in your packet there was a pre-existing C.O. for a two car wood framed garage and metal storage shed dated in 1998 by Mr. Fish. How he got that I don't know. Other than the fact that it is a pre-existing. So maybe that was the theory that as a pre-existing structure it didn't need a principal use. That's the only explanation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, I wanted to clarify it because it's easy to fix you know particularly since a principal structure is going to go on the property and then a C.O. would have been easy to obtain if there weren't one but if there's a pre that's all we need. So what else would you like us to know? GAIL WICKHAM : Just so that we have it on the record I'd just like to explain that this parcel is part of what is really the McCall family preserve much of which was created when Mr. McCall and Peconic Land Trust worked with the town to create the (inaudible) preservation ever. The 15 foot residential parcel to the north of this has a covenant in favor of Peconic Land Trust that restricts it to one property, I'm sorry, one house and the farm on the east is preserved. The creek was recently Mr. McCall got a permit to get the creek dredged at its mouth to restore the ebon flow of that creek because it was basically silting in and he's done an awful lot with his family to preserve it the whole area so Lauren's been very conscious of that in designing this property. The first thing she's going to do is bring in a modular home which is called a passive April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting house which has very, very high energy efficiency. It apparently uses eighty percent less energy for heating and cooling than a conventional residence. That's just by way of background but to address the and I also want to mention that the structures are all in the FEMA X-Zone and we will be getting New York D.E.C. and Town Trustees permits following this application. The reason for the front yard setback reduction is because we want to move the house as far away from the wetlands as possible. There was as I believe I put on the application a permit issued years ago for a house further north. She wanted to move it further south to preserve those woods up north. There are some nice trees and this location to put the house sixty feet back from the right of way which as I mentioned only services this lot and the north lot with one house potential would move the house way towards the wetlands and we thought in terms of a very small woodsy lane which isn't even visible from the public road that it would be on a balancing test more beneficial to be closer to the private road with an insufficient front yard setback than to be too close to the wetlands. It's not a large house and her brother Rusty who owns the property opposite the right of way on New Suffolk Ave. has access there and has plenty of room so that he can build his building should he ever develop the property far enough away that it's not going to have structures very close together because hers is closer to the right of way. I think that's all I really wanted to go over with you. If you have any questions I'll see if I can answer them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's go around and see if there are any questions, Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I actually do for clarification. The survey illustrates the right of way or I guess the lot to the north that you were discussing with the applicant's access there I had a very hard time finding the location. I think we all did we had to cross over the land of McCall to the south is there any intent to use that as a right of way and just leave the access point as illustrated on the survey in its natural state?There isn't any curb cut or anything at this point? I clearly know that it's sort of in the works but GAIL WICKHAM : Well she may have to do a little clearing to get through there but basically it would go as I recall along the long strip on the western edge of the Robert McCall property. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And one other question; there were all these sort of cement (inaudible) a rainy day like today what is I understand that there was a tin shed that was removed but is there any history of development or of a house being there previously or anything? GAIL WICKHAM : No. Her father's vineyard operation used that metal shed to house some of its equipment and it may have been on a slab. That's been removed and they're going to have to remove the slab as well and you might of seen some other things around, equipment around that's going to have to be removed. That was all part of the vineyard operation. He has since April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting built a building barn in another location in order to accommodate that and that will all cease but no there was never a house here that I'm aware of. I don't think so I think it was just those two the existing garage and the shed because the rest of the property was all wooded and undeveloped. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Who owns the right of way, is it just an easement across? GAIL WICKHAM : The right of way is owned by a trust for the benefit of Lauren's brother John Brewster McCall. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's that northerly lot. GAIL WICKHAM : Yeah that's the northerly; it's actually 15.4 acres and that actually has access on New Suffolk Road so I don't even know if he would use this right of way but he owns the feed to that thirty foot strip. She has a deeded right of way over it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright then we get it. Gerry anything any questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Just a point of reference Gail, is there a conventional foundation going to be used on this house or are they going to put a flow through in case of flooding? GAIL WICKHAM :There's going to be a full basement. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : So it'll be built up relatively high? GAIL WICKHAM : A little bit yeah. It's going to be a full basement and they've looked at the ground water level to be sure they're above that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric any questions? MEMBER DANTES : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 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 PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7042— PAUL PAWLOWSKI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Paul Pawlowski #7042. This is a request for variance under Article XXII Section 280-105 and the Building Inspector's January 19, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to erect an eight (8) foot fence surrounding a tennis court in the front yard at 1) more than the code required maximum four (4) feet in height when located in the front yard at 100 Park Ave. (adj. to Great Peconic Bay) in Mattituck. So we've visited the site although we couldn't access it because the gate is closed. PAUL PAWLOWKSI : It's an automatic gate. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : You just have to wait about fifteen seconds. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was going to say it's automatic. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that screwed me then. I was not patient enough but I was actually able to see it I mean its right there. I just stood on the side and said oh there it is its right there. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : It's really only up for because of the airport safety reasons those two gates so that people can't pull in and on the runway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we're often used to gates that require codes and I didn't even see a touch pad or anything. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yeah no it's just automatic you gotta be within four feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I guess I didn't get my vehicle close I stood there but that didn't work. Anyway, so let's look at the survey and see what we have here. We certainly in past done you know things that granted higher fences around a tennis court and one of the questions we'd typically ask six foot eight foot you need eight feet for a tennis court but six feet is allowed in side yards and so on. Sometimes people have been able to suppress the court a little lower so that from the grade of the court surface and the grade of the land is slightly different so the fence doesn't look quite as high. Is there any possibility there? April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting PAUL PAWLOWSKI : The main reason is all the water from the runway which is a half a mile drains towards my property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh lucky you. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : So we put in dry wells to accommodate for that already. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see it. I see right there. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : However we couldn't the court would become a bowl. What my plan is for aesthetics is eight foot is really the minimum for a tennis court fence or you might as well not even have one so we're going to you won't even see the fence because it's going to be lined with privet immediately. You know I don't even want to see the fence let alone for our neighbors so it's going to be black chain linked with no top rail and then eight foot privet immediately if approved or even green giant arborvitaes something where you won't even see the fence from no neighbor would be able to see the fence aesthetically. From the inside the court you will but I would love to lower it we just couldn't because of drainage issues from the whole runway. And you couldn't put enough drainage in to accommodate that massive volume. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I had to ask. Let's see if anyone else has any comments or questions Eric you want to start? MEMBER DANTES : The only thing I don't really get is I mean on a waterfront property you can have an accessory structure in the front yard. Why is a chain link fence considered part of the tennis court making it one single structure? Why are they considering a chain link fence as a different structure? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The fence code. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : I think it's more I think the tennis court is not even an issue. You can put a tennis court with no fence it's the fence. MEMBER DANTES : I'm just trying to figure out how to write and then what's the principal setback for that front yard? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I honestly don't know but it is an accessory structure and so it would it's fifty feet from the property line. I'm sure that that exceeds whatever the setback is. Fifty feet is probably a setback for a principal structure. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : It is. MEMBER DANTES : And is Park Avenue a public road then? April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting PAUL PAWLOWSKI : You know it was but no longer. When we did the title search we called the Town and then that's why they you know because the Wickham's always had the gate up and always maintained from the gate west so when we called for the title search the town told them it's private but I don't really MEMBER DANTES : Can you give that whatever PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yeah I don't know though like it's we maintain it they don't you know even when they did the water lines like every PSE&G, Suffolk County Water wouldn't go past the gate even though technically it was public but no longer since it's been so long the town deems it private. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's maintained by what is it you and two other properties? PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yes. MEMBER DANTES : Maybe give us a letter saying that you maintain it as your own private PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Absolutely. MEMBER DANTES : and then maybe just even if it's hand written on the survey just right the privet on there and then that's all I'm interested in. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Do you want me to do it on your surveys now? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah you can do it. Nick do you have any questions? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I was going to inquire about the screening of the fence. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry anything? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yeah my question is, is there any lighting involved? PAUL PAWLOWSKI : No. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : None at all? PAUL PAWLOWSKI : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So no night lighting? PAUL PAWLOWSKI : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's a good question. April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting PAUL PAWLOWSKI : We'd have planes landing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Especially if you had red lights that would have been good. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Do you want me to write just privately maintained here? MEMBER DANTES : That's what we'll keep as our record. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what do we have one in our file? What I'm going to do is give you the one Paul's writing on and I'll take a blank and never mind I'll take this thank you. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : I'll just write privately maintained from gate heading west. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anybody, anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7043— MICHAEL and SARA COLODNER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Michael and Sara Colodner# 7043. This is a request for variances under Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's December 16, 2016 amended January 4, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool and accessory raised patio at 1) both accessory structures located in other than the code required rear yard at 130 Willis Creek Drive (adj. to the Willis Creek, branch of Deep Hole Creek) in Mattituck. So this is a side yard proposal for this patio and as you know we've been out to inspect the site. Did you receive a copy of correspondence from the neighbor? PAT MOORE : No. April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have I think we should give this to you so you can address it. I mean they're objecting to the side yard location. They are the adjacent neighbor and we might as well make sure you have a copy of that. Kim can you maybe have an extra it's an email. They couldn't be here so they wanted us to do you have an extra just make copies for Gerry too. I'll just give you a couple of quick comments so you can address. The plans would set a precedent in our community that is of concern. A number of properties have changed hands in Harbor Farm in over the past three years to individuals that are using their properties as second vacation homes. They go on with the history that it was full time year round and they don't want to become a community of homes that have pools placed on the side of homes as opposed to the back of their properties. They are saying that it would be too close to their property and their bedroom and so on. So please go ahead and tell us what you'd like. PAT MOORE : Well let me start off by explaining that we actually pursued locating this pool in the rear yard. We went to the Trustees because our goal was not to have to go get a variance so we started this process oh last year and what occurred is when we were at the Trustees LWRP recommendation came back with the fact that a when the house was built the Trustees imposed a 50 foot non-disturbance buffer but the survey that went with the permit showed the non-disturbance buffer and I'll give you a copy of you'll see and I'll have it highlighted but I know it's part of your file already but I'll just point it out. It showed the non-disturbance buffer being what is truly the natural area of the property and it's going to the ten foot contour. So there was a discrepancy that we weren't aware of and when the Trustees came out to do our inspection for the placement of the pool in the rear yard they pointed out that because of the non-disturbance buffer there were some very large trees, evergreens that had been planted years ago and now had been had grown so large that they were blocking all the sun so putting a pool in the rear yard where the non-disturbance wouldn't allow you to touch those trees even though they were really non-native evergreens it was creating just a logistical problem there as well as the Trustees were trying to maintain the non-disturbance if at all possible with as little disturbance as possible. So their recommendation it came from the Trustees we know it's going to be an extra process but we really would suggest that you put this pool in the side yard. My clients and I spoke about it. We certainly it wasn't their first choice but when it was pointed out that all the evergreens that we wanted to remove to have sunlight were going to be an issue, some would be okay some would not be okay and just the placement of it really created a shady spot all the time. So they decided okay we'll put the pool in the side yard and that's when we submitted this application. The pool in the side yard we knew of the that variance, the patio is actually at grade and the pool and the patio are being placed at the appropriate side yard setback but because of the way the slight grade of the property kind of as you can see it's elevated by the house so right where the house and the grade meet it then sloped slightly down and then so the slope of the pool where it would be closest to the property line is lower April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting there is a relatively small retaining wall which we purposely tried to keep away from the property line. You can see it on the landscape plan which is this very small retaining wall because it doesn't the whole area doesn't need a retaining wall only a certain parts to level off yeah sure it's on the plans but this retaining wall here so we were very conscientious and careful about maintaining our side yard setbacks so I'm surprised that the neighbor well it's his right to object but he doesn't realize we're actually meeting the side yard setbacks. It's due to the fact CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is it thirty inches sorry, a thirty inch high retaining wall? PAT MOORE : Yes thirty inches which is less depends on where you're measuring so the thirty inches from the grade of where the retaining wall would be but if as you go to the property on more than half the pool it's at grade so it's just leveling out the grade. So that is the plan we actually tried to do it as a conforming got obstacles along the way due to some discrepancies on prior permits and we think that we're creating you know a very nice project that the family has to young children we're not talking about a party you know of college kids here it's just the family and as you can see there is significant vegetation between the two properties the neighbor and ourselves. Plus we're also adding the evergreen buffer that is showing on the they're putting in green giants on the neighbors side of the retaining wall so that it's creating even greater screening so I think they've tried very hard to provide for a very nice plan. As I said it's a technical variance. I'm putting the pool in the side yard but on a waterfront piece of property you see this very often because of the environmental regulations and the buffers that had been imposed years ago. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm looking to see if you've located the pool equipment anywhere. PAT MOORE : We have a dry well on the north side and the pool equipment is right there pool utilities. It's next to the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here? PAT MOORE : Yeah that's it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that is on the far side of the pool from the neighbors, any objection to a sound proof container? PAT MOORE : Well we have the evergreens surrounding it, no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where's the dry well? PAT MOORE :The dry well is to the north. April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There it is yep got it thank you. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : How big is this pool? PAT MOORE : 18 by 40. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : 20 by 40 is 27,000 gallons so this is probably around 24, 25. One of my concerns Pat has always been this close to the water people put in dry wells for discharging pool water and so on and so forth but they're never large enough to accommodate sometimes the necessity of dropping the pool below the skimmers okay for the (inaudible) of time so I always put in the pump outs dry well has got to be large enough to accommodate that type of situation. PAT MOORE :That's a condition? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the engineer (inaudible) really they'll be looking at the whole thing anyway at some PAT MOORE : Well we do have the patio is 90 feet to the wetlands and 124 actually on the east side so we're by putting the pool in the side yard we're actually increasing setbacks to outside of the Trustees jurisdiction. MEMER GOEHRINGER : I understand that but you got major slopes on this piece property actually it's very beautiful. PAT MOORE : It is beautiful property. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yes, but major slopes all over the place. PAT MOORE : Well what I mean we have to conform with the 236 so would it differ to the Building Department? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They'll automatically check. PAT MOORE : It's your call. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Well that's only basically for drainage off the roof. PAT MOORE : You don't think they review for pool? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it's full on site drainage. MEMBER DANTES : We can write it in. PAT MOORE : You can write it in I mean and have a sufficient it's not it is what it is it's fine. April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : (inaudible) a little bit deeper(inaudible) the situation. PAT MOORE : Right I think yeah we'll probably go deeper because the cesspool is in the front yard so we have to maintain a certain distance from the cesspool. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I just have to say for the record it's a very unique piece of property. PAT MOORE : It is. It's absolutely not visible from the street. In fact the first time I was there I past it and kept driving around the neighborhood because it's a curving CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's a curving long driveway. PAT MOORE : Right, right it's a flagged lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Typically side yards often can be seen from other properties and from the street but in this instance I don't see how you would. It's a very irregularly shaped piece of property so you know that in fact mitigates any well I think I did not back out of there. PAT MOORE : No I just parked in the front so it was nice and easy. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright anything from anybody? Anybody have any questions, anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make motion to close reserve decision. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7045—JOHN FISCHETTI and DEBORAH DEAVER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for John Fischetti and Deborah Deaver #7045. This is a request for a variance under Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's January 23, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting to construct an accessory pool house at 1) located in other than the code required rear yard at 2615 Wells Road (adj. to Richmond Creek) in Peconic. We need you a little bit closer because the microphone to hear whatever you have to say so you would like to build a JAMES LUBIN : No I actually liked to talk after the proposal. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What would you like us to know? JAMES LUBIN : I own the property abutting the Fischetti property 2765 Wells Rd. MEMBER DANTES : Are you the applicant? JAMES LUBIN : No this is my wife. MEMBER DANTES : So who's the applicant? JAMES LUBIN : Do I go first? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well Tom, do you want explain why this pool is being proposed in its current location? The code allows a rear yard or a front yard on waterfront properties. The applicant is proposing a side yard. Why don't you come just pull a chair up again because of this mic. That is the advantage I guess of being (inaudible). So we have a survey here of their property the neighbor's property and tell us why it's being proposed where it is. TOM SAMUELS : Originally the Fischetti's were interested in having their swimming pool the swimming pool we have a building permit for already. It's fundamentally attached to the house so the Building Department gave a permit for that. Originally we would have liked the pool on the water side of the house. We got a permit actually from the Trustees for that. They didn't send us to you guys at that point but the D.E.C. objected so we had to put it in a place within the 75 foot beyond 75 foot setback and obviously also respecting side yards. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :This is a 20 foot side yard which is code conforming. TOM SAMUELS : That's correct, that's right, so we were forced to put the pool on the side yard which was fine. It worked out fine but as a result space in the house that was intended to support that pool and the pool house so to speak bathroom etc. was no longer effective. It was all the way down the other end of the house and the house was already basically fully ready to go we had building permits so we decided to put the pool here and then the Building Department said well you can't fundamentally attach the pool house in the same manner attached via a slab above grade so we are now here to propose a pool house in the side yard. It could have been in the front yard but there's no room there either. You can see the sanitary April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting system it wouldn't of made sense anyway on the side yard and that's what we've come up with is to try to locate a pool house in the side yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because the pool is permitted where it is. As a result of being attached it's not considered as an accessory. TOM SAMUELS : That's correct it's not accessory. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we're only really looking at the pool house. TOM SAMUELS : At the pool house; that is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And have you explored putting a pool house here, for example? TOM SAMUELS : If you could see it would have the same objection that they did to the swimming pool which is that this is the 75 foot setback line they would not let us cross that line. I mean we tried to get a variance from them they ended up saying no. So pretty much that envelope that you see is the only permissible one well I mean we could of as I said gone to the front yard proper front yard cause it's a waterfront site but that didn't really make any sense in a lot of other ways. I mean everyone else is conforming to the front yard setback we need to conform to the front yard setback as well even if it's in the front yard you're allowed to put it in the front yard but it has to meet the front yard setback plus you have a sanitary system. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, yeah this whole thing is full of leaching pools. TOM SAMUELS : Correct I mean not that we're using that as a hardship but in fact it is and it wouldn't have made we didn't believe it really made sense anyway. We would have been here one way or another to you guys because it's within the required front yard setback which it would of needed to be CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :This is 51 what is it 57 or wait 57.6? TOM SAMUELS : We were into you already on this project to renovate the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I remember the house renovation. TOM SAMUELS : Correct and just it was a couple of feet the required front yard was 57 is what you said so we needed a three foot setback in the front which we were kind CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So to put this in the front yard you're going to need to conform to the principal setbacks so TOM SAMUELS : Correct. Right, we would have been here anyway. April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It can't be anywhere in here. TOM SAMUELS : Really that line that you see this heavy line is the envelope that's semi acceptable (inaudible) requires your approval. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you proposing any screening at all landscape screening? TOM SAMUELS : Yes there already is there is a berm there with landscape on it now and that was CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that on the subject property or TOM SAMUELS : It's on the Fischetti's property so I mean we would actually intend to enhance that when all construction is said and one because they're interest is to screen themselves from the neighbor and we understand that the neighbor would want the same. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Probably from the road as well. TOM SAMUELS : Of course, yes, well there'll need to be a fence that will grown in to either a hedge or(inaudible) but we need to have a full enclosure of course. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright let's see if there's any questions from the Board of the architect and then we'll get to your comments and concerns. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So Tom when I visited the site I did notice the berm that you just mentioned but what confused me about it is the tape marks at least as I discovered the pool house location was inside the berm. TOM SAMUELS : Right well behind that berm or on the house side of that berm because the pool is fundamental connected it's going to be about two feet up from the current grade so that berm you're going to go up and more or less level off MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It seemed like your almost putting the pool house into the berm (inaudible) TOM SAMUELS : I mean it's in the same close to the same place but that will be leveled out and the pool house will be raised up enough so that it can be part of almost the first floor of the house. Its two steps down fifteen inches down from the first floor of the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's the height of the pool house? TOM SAMUELS : I think it's on the drawing I think it's twelve feet somewhere in the neighborhood well below the maximum. 0 April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you have a half bath and outdoor shower. TOM SAMUELS : It's really just a intended to be a place to obviously have the bathroom and a wet bar and a place for storage for pool stuff etc. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So none of this can be in the rear yard because of D.E.C. regulations? TOM SAMUELS : That's correct. We already have Trustees permit for it because everything went smoothly sort of smoothly until we got back to the Building Department and they said no but we have Trustees and D.E.C. and Health Department. MEMBER DANTES : Do you have a letter or something from the D.E.C? TOM SAMUELS : I mean we have a permit that's stamped. MEMBER DANTES : No I mean from that tells you that you can't have the pool in the rear yard. TOM SAMUELS : Nope just the disapproval nothing from the D.E.C. on that subject. Oh you mean their original the original oh yea probably. MEMBER DANTES : I mean because it's some more supporting logic. TOM SAMUELS : It'll just take me a moment to find it. I probably did because it was so long ago when they said basically said no. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie, can I ask you a question? When we're talking about the 75 foot setback that would I understand could be this dotted line that runs through the renovated house (inaudible) there's like this little corner and I don't know if it's a leeching pool or something but couldn't the pool house would the pool house be considered in the side lawn if it's in that sort of what I (inaudible) southeast corner? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're talking about right here? MEMBER PLANAMENTO If it's here is that still be considered the side yard (inaudible) the facade of the house? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They go by the deck because the deck is attached so if you did that there's no room. This is still a side yard. TOM SAMUELS : But if that other (inaudible) I think we would have thought of that location if it were conforming. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Even if you flipped that that way it would still be in the side yard. April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting TOM SAMUELS : It's overlapping the deck which is a part of the (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah the lot is very burdened by awful lot of marsh and wetland. TOM SAMUELS : It's a huge amount of wetlands. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think all the properties along I remember this from the house renovation and it has a very irregular rear yard you know property line any other questions from anybody Eric or Nick, Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : They answered all of my questions. TOM SAMUELS : Do you guys have a specific objection or you just want to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let's have you state your name for the record. JAMES LUBIN : James and Pamela Lubin and our address is 2765 Wells Road. We are our property abuts the Fischetti property that's the thin line on the other side of the fence there so our principal concern is not the pool house itself but the location of the equipment for the pool house and where that's proposed because our house as you can see our bedroom windows, our living room windows our outdoor decking area will all abut where that pool equipment is being proposed. As you can see it's put behind the pool house closest to our property. Our preference would be to have that equipment located somewhere else so that we're not disturbed and the quality of our life is impacted by the running of that equipment particularly in the summer time when we're going to be outdoors, our windows will be opened and we're you know trying to enjoy the tranquility and quietness of the neighborhood so if there could be a solution that you know accomplishes both satisfactions whether that equipment could be put indoors perhaps with some type of sound proofing or moved to a different location where the noise and the disruption of the operation of that equipment wouldn't impact us. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay it's not at all uncommon for the Board to condition that all equipment be placed within a sound proof container for just the reasons you described. If we can do that we will do that but we can we also look at a possibility of moving that equipment? TOM SAMUELS : Yeah absolutely. Actually what we've ended up with and I'm not sure it's reflected on the drawings it's not on this one I can see that because the equipment is we realize and decided I guess I would say that the pool equipment really should be within the setbacks I mean outside within the allowable envelope. Even though it's the Building Department is unclear on this we decided that we should be within so we've decided to move that equipment to the what would be the west side not on the backside of the building facing the Lubin's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You mean here? April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting TOM SAMUELS : Correct. There's a shower there too but we've because there's a little bit of you can see that this little square area there where there's that's really where our shower is we decided we should really put that equipment so that it would be within the allowable envelope and not outside the envelope as it shows here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it wouldn't be in the side setback you're going to move it to here. TOM SAMUELS : Correct outside the side yard setback so we JAMES LUBIN : That's toward the front of the house? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah. It's going to be screened anyway no one is going to see it and it will be in a sound enclosed TOM SAMUELS : Some sort of a sound enclosure is absolutely fine the only thing I would draw attention to is that there's a heater involved and so I don't believe that could be inside. I think that needs to be in the open air because it's a heat producing thing. I don't maybe there's a way to put a chimney up through a roof or something I'm not sure but it's usually the pool people will say no that's outside equipment has to be outside but as far as sound proofing or sound attenuation of some sort I mean we don't want to affect the neighbors you know wake them up with the pool equipment of course so we're amenable to take steps that would eliminate that situation. JAMES LUBIN : So what exactly would be a sound proof container?That would be separate from the structure itself? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It just goes over it it's not just (inaudible) try to dampen the sound because we all have the same issues all of us and this is a good way to make sure that nobody is unduly inconvenienced by noise. Pools are always are noisy. My neighbor just put one in they got three little kids I'm doomed for life. I'm going to have three little boys screaming at the top of their lungs until I'm in Peconic Landing. TOM SAMUELS : In this case the Fischetti's do have children but they are grown more they're not little children they're older than that they're not screamers but we have a swimming pool, we have a fence around our swimming pool. The fence alone just the horizontal and the vertical structure around eliminates ninety percent of the sound of that pool. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is this the westerly end? TOM SAMUELS : I think I would say that's west yes. April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting JAMES LUBIN : This is a required that the pool equipment be next to the pool house? If it's going to be in a container why not put it on this side of the pool then we would be buffered by the pool house and the length of the pool? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Say that again I'm sorry. JAMES LUBIN : My question affectively just moving this around the corner right so but I'm wondering why it couldn't be just moved over to this side of the pool as well as far as distance wise and we're still within that envelope? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any reason? TOM SAMUELS : I think if it came to a matter of trying to attenuate the sound we would still rather have it on the south side but there isn't a fundamental reason why it couldn't go on the other side. I mean the pool equipment people of the pool builders want it to be relatively close to the pool of course but you know we have windows there and it might be awkward to position it in such a way but you know that's not affecting windows but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How far away is your house from this side yard? JAMES LUBIN : I think it's shown right there. TOM SAMUELS : Leslie that line is there is the edge of their house so it's probably twenty five feet or something like that from the property line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's about this is twenty feet so it's about forty five feet. TOM SAMUELS : It's about the length of the pool which is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know that's a fairly substantial distance especially if there's going to be evergreen screening here which is also definitely not only going to visually screen it but it will buffer a lot of the sound. Pool equipment is not nearly as noisy as it used to be. I mean the older stuff was horrible. It was on all day and all night. TOM SAMUELS : It's a pump, all night no because it's only on when the pool is running. I don't know what time it comes on in the morning that's when you set it to. Generally it wouldn't be before you use the pool maybe nine o'clock something like that and it would go off typically when the pool goes off I mean it has to be on for twelve hours a day. JAMES LUBIN : Right it's just interesting that the pool you know the equipment now is closer to my house than it is to the Fischetti's house and they're probably seeking the same quietness and tranquility as I am because they have the distance to the patio, the distance to the pool and April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting the distance of the patio to their house so I in fact end up being closer to the equipment than they do in wherever you move this in relationship to the pool house. TOM SAMUELS : For what it's worth I'm not sure but you know we have a permit for the pool. JAMES LUBIN I mean if this could go what about putting the equipment back within the envelope back in this area? This is now away from my house. It's away from my deck area you know away from my living space, away from their house right where this circle is back here putting it in that area. TOM SAMUELS : That's acceptable as well somewhere within the envelope. I'm wondering if it wouldn't affect you more considering I think you have a deck in front on that side. Wouldn't that JAMES LUBIN : The deck is here so I'm thinking that this distance here would be further than this distance here plus it's further from the living space of my house because this is my bedrooms, my living room, dining room all are windowed on this side so I have that disruption where if it was here this might end up being 75 feet from the corner of my deck if not more. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you seeing that Tom? TOM SAMUELS : Yes I understand what he is saying. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) so that would be on the easterly side of the pool house. Well that's fine what's really before us not that we're not willing and often in fact wherever we can we attempt to mitigate any issues with neighbors in granting variances. Really what's before us is the location of the pool house not the pool equipment. However if that's your only issue and you're willing to move it over to here and that's where you feel it would be farthest away then we'll ask them to do that. TOM SAMUELS : I would just say I would rather try to find a way to deaden the sound of that equipment in its current location just because CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You mean from here? TOM SAMUELS : Right from a plumbing standpoint we feel like that's probably better and for sake of(inaudible) not in the setback no, no, no CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're going to move it from the setback TOM SAMUELS : Yes definitely and find a way to deaden the sound and not affect the neighbor in that way. I would I think that my client would rather do that then move it to an area where it's you know within a natural buffer you know we're not in the you can see we're not exactly in April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting the Trustees buffer here which comes to the edge probably but still that's sort of within what we assumed CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Marshland. TOM SAMUELS : Right and assumed as their enclosure. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : May I make a statement? We use this phrase sound deadening equipment I've seen the equipment being used four different kinds the most easily made one is a pre-existing piece of ply glass dome that goes over it sprayed with Styrofoam inside. However the easiest way to do it is make it out of frame and just put more Styrofoam in, more Styrofoam in in case there's any it's not dead more Styrofoam okay yes the roof and sides all the way around okay and so that so you can actually guarantee to these people that it would be sound deadening okay no matter what happens. If a tree falls on it so we build another one with the same situation but you know I think that is a legitimate complaint and I think that you know all of this all of this magnificent stuff that you've done Tom I don't think that this is a difficult issue. TOM SAMUELS : No I think we can do that absolutely and along that line I would rather us leave the equipment where it is. We already have two walls which is the back of the shower and the back of the building, two more walls on the roof a shed roof of some sort and sound deadening or insulation and we can probably take the pipe of the heater through that roof and make it work (inaudible) doors in the front that's all enclosed. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : This all started with air-conditioning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah because you're not going to be walking around in this area anyway you know and I have we have had this happen frequently and in terms of hearings for a swimming pools in non-conforming yards and of course the pool is conforming where it is because it's attached so the only thing they were here for was this pool house but it does work. If it's done right and Tom knows how to do it a highly qualified architect. He'll figure out something that's not ugly and then we'll make sure that it's quiet as quiet as it could possibly be and it'll get it out of this side yard setback which is better. TOM SAMUELS : I think it's better outside the setbacks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anything else? JAMES LUBIN : Is there a recourse if we don't achieve the results I'm sorry is it Gerry that suggested or what happens if it's not within our satisfaction as opposed to putting it back here? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That becomes a civil matter. All the Board can do is grant a variance for the location of the pool house and condition that approval on ensuring that the pump April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting equipment is moved out of the side yard setback and that it is contained in a sound deadening enclosure that and also landscaping for visual privacy and so on. Those things we can do. Otherwise then if it's not to your satisfaction you got to talk to your neighbor and try to work something out. JAMES LUBIN : So that statement you said about sound deadening structure that will be part of your CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That will be part of the decision. It will be written down as a condition of approval which is pretty standard. TOM SAMUELS : Which means we have then prove it to the Building Department when we get to them back to them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right the Building Department will raise the issue if when they do a final inspection they're going to see there's a condition and they're going to try to ensure that that condition is met before they issue a certificate of occupancy on anything. TOM SAMUELS : Or even a building permit perhaps because of CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah so then becomes to their hands to enforce that condition. Is there anything else from anybody, anybody in the audience? 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 PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting HEARING #7041— MATTEBELLA VINEYARDS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Mattebella Vineyards #7041. This is a request for variances under Article III Section 280-14 and Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's November 16, 2016 amended January 27, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for permits to legalize seven (7) "as built" residential and agricultural related buildings and to allow both residential and winery uses upon a 134,246 sq. ft. development portion of a parcel at 1) building nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 14 are located less than the code required side yard minimum setback of 20 feet, 2) building no. 14 is located less than the rear yard minimum setback of 75 feet, 3) residential accessory structure, building no. 2 located less than the code required side yard minimum setback of 25 feet, 4) residential and winery uses upon a single parcel less than the minimum allowed 160,000 sq. ft. in total area at 46005 Main Rd. in Southold. So we have a bunch of various sized accessory structures which need either to be moved to a conforming or grant it a variance to remain where they are. The only thing I guess number 2 (inaudible) rear yard setback building 14 is 3.7 feet looks like and the other five buildings all have one is 10 foot, one is 2, one is 1 foot, one 6.2 feet, one 6.1 foot and what is this building 2 residential accessory needs code required side yard setback at 25 feet and it has a zero setback. Then the two uses on 134,246 sq. ft. the code required 160,000 sq. ft. that would be the residence and the proposed renovated garage turned into a winery processing building plus site plan approval by Planning Board's is required. I think that does it so now we can hear you. GAIL WICKHAM : Yes, and I have lots of cheat sheets here. Good morning, Abigail Wickham from Wickham, Bressler, Geisa Mattituck New York for the applicant Mattebella Vineyards. When I first looked at this with Mrs. Tobin the first thing I asked her was how many of these buildings can you move and how many are you know affixed to the ground and she gave me a (inaudible) reason for each of them that we are showing not to relocate and asking that you approve the variances. Two sheds will be relocated number 7 and 8 as well as 13 to conforming locations. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait let me get notes on that. GAIL WICKHAM : Seven, 8 and 13. 1 put an awful lot of information in my application. I don't intend to reiterate it today but if there are any questions I'd be glad to but I do just want to give you a brief overview. The objective of Mattebella Vineyards is to give their visitors what they consider a vineyard and wine experience and so they've designed it to have a not quite a semicircular but a continuum of places the visitors can go around and looking out northerly towards the vineyard. They manage the winery in a way to attract small groups not large crowds and both this parcel and the farm parcel of which it was originally a part and reserved in April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting 1986 when development rights were sold to the town both of those parcels are in the AG district. The house is fairly small. It is located way up towards the Main Rd. It's pre-existing and it doesn't really impact visually on any of the rest of the three and a half acre parcel where the winery and farm operation are conducted. The little framed shed #2 which is basically .2 feet east or right on the line is used as part of the residential storage and to move it would move it into the driveway access for the house as well as into the crush pad and wine operation that's being conducted in building #3. Building #3 the winery storage has been there for years prior to zoning it was the farm shop and office and a lot of things when John and (inaudible) had the farm and that is now where they do their production and storage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They're doing that now? GAIL WICKHAM : They're doing that now. They have production in that building and I gave you a floor plan that shows. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You mean processing? You know the words get used interchangeably and incorrectly. Production is the growing of crops in the code. Processing is the transformation of grapes into wine. Did I get that right Chris? At the moment that's how it's described. Yes it could be changed but right now we'll go with what we got. I don't know why they call the growing of crops production either. GAIL WICKHAM : My reference to production here is the producing of wine. I will try to clarify that and I have spent the past few days preparing for another hearing that's not going to happen today I can with authority tell you that production as I think a winery is defined in the code excuse me I have to find the right cheat sheet is the conversion of juice wine juice grape juice to wine incurring in tanks, barrels, bottles or other vehicles and by that I mean (inaudible) cartons or crates of whatever. That's what I refer to as production and I will call it processing if I can remember to do that. In building #3 they and outside it they have wine tanks and they have barrels and they also have a laboratory and case storage. To the east of building 3 are wine storage bins where they actually keep wine that has been grape juice which has been crushed and now put into storage bins. Those are in lieu of tanks. Those can serve as tanks and they do stay outside and they move them around on the they can move them around on the property. There are also several located to be located up on the northwest portion of the property. So that is all what I would say is wine production or processing that is undertaking because building #3 is very small because these outdoor facilities are useable but not always great in the winter. They're proposing a winery for processing production only up on building #23 and it's very small. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where is this now? April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting GAIL WICKHAM : That's up here. That's the proposed winery for which we will need site plan approval. It does not need a variance so it may not have come under your radar. We located it over here so that it wasn't near any particular neighbor's house and that will be a building that will be used in conjunction with building#3 to do the winery processing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :This is future. GAIL WICKHAM : Yes well we're applying for it now yes proposed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's proposed before Planning? GAIL WICKHAM : Yes and it will be part of the site plan application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Have you applied to Planning yet? GAIL WICKHAM : We have asked for a pre-submission conference. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you're just beginning okay. GAIL WICKHAM : Some time ago and I haven't gotten it yet but I thought it made sense to get to your Board first. So we know what will be on the site plan and where as far as the existing buildings go. MEMBER DANTES : Do any of these buildings qualify for a Pre C.O. or have you tried to get a Pre C.O. for any of these buildings? GAIL WICKHAM :The house has a Pre C.O., building#1 a number of them do that's in your file. MEMBER DANTES : Which ones so I can write it? GAIL WICKHAM : Some of them do not have had a Pre C.O. but now that for instance building #3 was pre-existing but now the use has changed so the pre-existing C.O. would no longer be appropriate. MEMBER DANTES : Right but it had a Pre C.O. for the structure itself. GAIL WICKHAM : It had a Pre C.O. yes so did if you look on the legend on the map where it says existing on last those are the Pre C.O.'ed buildings. Building #1 the house, building #3 the winery storage, building #5 the shed for the tasting room which is over towards the center part of the property, building #8 which is farm storage, building #9 which is the garage over towards the west side. The water tower area MEMBER DANTES : Where's that? April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting GAIL WICKHAM : That is 10 and #11 the farm shop office. Those were the buildings that were there previously. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : You don't have a C.O. on GAIL WICKHAM : I don't have a C.O. I have a Pre C.O. and because MEMBER GOEHRINGER : For all of those. GAIL WICKHAM : Right. So the house Pre C.O. is still valid. The winery storage Pre C.O. for#3 we have a change of use to winery so that would affect the Pre C.O., #5 as well the tasting room. But the others 8, 9, 10 and 11 are all farm structures so they don't need a variance and they would qualify as a Pre C.O. under the Pre C.O. MEMBER DANTES : So they didn't mention all those but they did mention 9 on the Notice of Disapproval. GAIL WICKHAM : He did and that's because I think I'll put it on the record I think VanTuyl made a mistake or the Building Department made a mistake because that building has clearly been there since prior to zoning I just have to look at it. It was part of the farm operation (inaudible) and for some reason it didn't go on the Pre C.O. It's not shown on the survey that goes with the Pre C.O. but it was pre-existing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well while we're looking at these various small structures #14 looks pretty new. It's a two story thing with a deck. GAIL WICKHAM : Number 14 is a new building. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And when was that built and what is it's use? GAIL WICKHAM : Okay that was built probably five or six year ago maybe about thoroughly recently in the scope of things. The use of that is an office. The first floor has some cabinets built in cabinets and a table and chairs. They use it for farm office and there is a second story loft that you can only get to by a ladder where they keep their boxes of storage paper storage and there is a deck off the east side of it a balcony which has no access except if you went through a window so it's decorative. That building is too close to Thomas Jerome's line and I've spoken to both Mr. Jerome and his son Gregory and they told me that he's in Florida now but he mailed a letter to me saying he had no objection to that remaining there. I'm hoping to have that since I don't have it today if we close the hearing today I'd like permission to submit that when it arrives hopefully in the next couple of days and Mr. Jerome has the property on the north and also on the west side where you will see his buildings are located very close to the line. April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you'll submit a letter? GAIL WICKHAM : Yeah I don't have it today so but he did tell me he signed it and mailed it and that building has no plumbing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is building#12? It looks like it's being used as a tasting room. GAIL WICKHAM : Building #12 is a covered deck and that is generally used for the service part of the winery. They have their service people in there getting things ready to go out and taken care of the service. On rainy days they allow small groups in there instead for tastings so that's only rainy days and it has to be by reservation. So that building #12 alternates between service for the winery and tasting for rainy days. Those groups that use it on rainy days are placed out in a picnic area which I don't know if that's shown here but that's basically out here by the patio. They're outside on a nice day but if it rains the reservation will be moved to the inside. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How long has this winery in the garage how long has the Mattebella been I thought they were actually making their wine at Premium? GAIL WICKHAM : They make some of their wine at Premium well I'm not sure it's Premium. They make it somewhere CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Off site. GAIL WICKHAM : Yeah but Mr. Tobin has been making wine here since he had grapes so quite some time and he bought a vineyard so I would say they bought the property in 2006 he's been using that for wine making for at least ten years because he does a lot of his own tasting laboratory work wine making. They do have a small bottling apparatus there as well but they found it's better to bottle it off site because the manual bottling isn't as sterile as the offsite. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good thing this is the last one today. You get gold start for trying to figure out what's going on here. GAIL WICKHAM : Well I tried to set it out in my chart which is with your application and that might help guide you through it. The reason that they don't want to move shed #4 which is where they keep their case storage is because it is right in proximity to the #3 winery where they also have case storage and wine production and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So#4 is case storage? GAIL WICKHAM : Number 4 is case storage. It is movable but they prefer to leave it there for two reasons. Number one to move anything further twenty five feet away from the line would end up in the middle of what is their they have a small vineyard area that's shown on the map April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting and a garden it would look it's much less obtrusive there and it doesn't impact the neighbor because what's going on on the Gorman property is not pleasant and this helps shield the view from CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well there's a stockade fence there anyway. GAIL WICKHAM :There's a stockade fence but it's not in good condition. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I noticed. Is it Mattebella's or is it GAIL WICKHAM : No. It's Gorman's fence I believe but it's not in good condition and they have had (inaudible) who had been in the Gorman property come through so they're very, very concerned about their security and that's when they moved building 7 and 8 they're going to have to bolster up the fence there but building 2 and building 4 do help fortify the fence as well as the tasting room #5. The shed is also higher than the fence and so it blocks the view of what seems to be some sort of auto body shop over there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now the (inaudible) did you want to GAIL WICKHAM : Well I wanted to continue, building 5 is really that's the biggest that would be the biggest problem to move that. That is an old farm building. It has a stone foundation. That cannot be moved and it's very small. It's where they have a tasting facility for maybe up to eleven people would be the most that you can comfortably get in there and I gave you a diagram of that as well and building 6 which is 6 % feet off the line again it helps shield the are from the property and it is used for service. They keep glassware and some of the other things they need for the winery operation tasting operation and to move it into the middle would be awkward and interrupt the flow of the open seating area that they try to maintain and as I said building 9 has been there a very long time and it's really less offset than a framed building on the Gorman property which is also a derelict building that people have periodically been living in and shouldn't have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's going on in that building in 9? GAIL WICKHAM : Framed building? It has storage in it mostly farm related storage because they do operate the farm out of this property too. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So is that for viticulture equipment that sort of thing? GAIL WICKHAM : Yeah it's got baskets it's got a lot of stuff in it. The other thing I'd like to say about the seating areas are that they do rotate according to where the sun is because seating area (inaudible) and then out here where the picnic tables are the slate patio when that gets into the sun people will then go into the gazebo's or the seating area A because it's shaded so April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting people aren't necessarily sitting in all these areas at the same time and 17, 18 and 19 are basically I think they're bocce courts so the little buildings there are just to shield people from the sun. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can I ask you a question Gail? I did not request this statement from this very nice lady that showed me this cute place here but she said they were looking to put up a large storage building but they wanted to talk to Mr. Jerome first before they did so because he's been very nice regarding the positioning of some of these buildings so on and so forth. Wouldn't that facilitate the movement of a lot of this stuff to the storage building? GAIL WICKHAM : A storage building over on the Jerome's side? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Someplace out here. GAIL WICKHAM : I wasn't aware of that. I know that building 4 they want to keep by winery, building 2 they want to keep by the house, building 5 you really can't move and 6 is integrated related to building 5 tasting room and 9 you can't move so it might be that they could relocate 13 and 7 and 8 which are going to be conforming anyway because those are let's see those are storage buildings. MEMBER DANTES : Those aren't on our list 13, 7 and 8. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : When you look at this they really don't have any place to put any of height of vehicular machinery anywhere right? It's going to be (inaudible) all the time so I mean I think it would just be helpful you know if they're going to do that you need to find out what's going to be moved (inaudible) you just mentioned so it would give us a better idea give me a better idea. GAIL WICKHAM : I'm not sure financially when they I mean that might be a plan of hers down the road. I don't know financially when they could do that but I will certainly I can get back to the Board about that and what their intention is in lieu of MEMBER DANTES : Do they have building plans drawn up for this building or any did they take any steps to build it? GAIL WICKHAM : He's talking about a different building I think. MEMBER DANTES : Yeah the one he's talking about but has any step been taken to actually put that building into construction? GAIL WICKHAM : Well he's talking about a different building I think the winery? MEMBER DANTES : The one that Gerry is talking about? April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting GAIL WICKHAM : No this is the first I've heard of it. That doesn't mean she's not thinking about it. MEMBER DANTES : No I know but I mean we really can't consider it if it's not if there isn't any steps made to build it right? GAIL WICKHAM : I'll have to clarify that for you. I'm not I don't have any information at all. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : As I said she just told me that before we pretty much parted and so I said a very similar I said the same thing it would certainly help the situation. GAIL WICKHAM : Well unfortunately she couldn't be here today because they had a trip educational trip with their son that she couldn't avoid. CHRIS BAIZ : May I say something? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well Chris you have to we're recording you have to come here state your name I mean it's informal because we're usually in the meeting hall but we're still having to record this yes it's right over there why don't you CHRIS BAIZ : If I may stand forjust a second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You could. CHRIS BAIZ : My name is Chris Baiz Town of Southold. My wife and I and our daughter operate the Old Field Vineyards. Sometime in the past after the Tobin's acquired this from the Silver I believe it was the Silver family the Silver family had had a complete set of plans drawn up for winery, wine processing, storage, tasting rooms, sales etc. and Mr. Tobin showed me those plans at some point far more elaborate than what you see here on paper and I didn't think there was ever any intention to pursue the designs that the previous owners had on the property but I mean it was a substantial set of plans and fully ready to go with all the septic and everything else in terms of the design so what they have here is far more basic and not as intense. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this there has been for some time since I guess the Tobin's owned this some wine processing going on on the site and tastings going on on the site and GAIL WICKHAM : Yeah I don't know how that happened but I think they thought because they had the prior approvals that they didn't need any further. They did go to the Building Department and got electrical permits and that type of thing and then when the current atmosphere started kicking up we started working on this maybe a year and a half ago realizing April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting we needed to get something done and then before we even got submitted everything started kicking up so we are unfortunately coming in in the middle of that (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah because again what's needed here in addition to all of the legalization of the locations of the variety of these small structures is the acknowledgment that there is in fact a winery on the premises and a wine tasting on premises and a dwelling on the premises and the bulk schedule now kicks in for the two uses which would require a variance for insufficient lot area for the two uses. GAIL WICKHAM : Yeah I've addressed that in my papers. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have you made a comparison with the Board's determination with Southold Farm and Cellar which we certainly all have read. It's about a 16% variance from the code. GAIL WICKHAM : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In terms of lot area to support the two uses. I believe it said somewhere that some of the farm labor is living in the dwelling now? GAIL WICKHAM : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So they rent the property from the owners of the property? GAIL WICKHAM : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They rent the dwelling from them. We have a Pre C.O. for that. You have a Pre on the but you're changing the use I guess it's called the garage winery and storage on #3 building 3. GAIL WICKHAM : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :This is just a challenge to just sort of keep the jigsaw pieces together. GAIL WICKHAM : Well that's why I had the surveyor do this. If you look at the legend on the map and also my chart which I included in the original application that shows what buildings are used for what purpose and where they are in relation to the code here this and then in addition that's entitled Schedule B the building chart and in addition it's so long ago that I did this oh there's a you could tell I'm not an architect there's a floor plan sketch for the buildings in question to give you a better idea what's inside and their height. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me look at this for the moment let's just see it for a second and let's get this into the record we have I'm sure you have a copy we have comments from the April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting Planning Board you're in the process of applying to them but our comments indicate that the they're addressing from the memo the two principle uses, a residence and winery unless in the required bulk schedule minimum 160,000 sq. ft. and fifteen as built residential wine related AG buildings of which eight require area variance and then they provide comments in a nut shell it says Planning Board recommends denial of the application because it does not meet the minimum bulk schedule requirement for two principle uses in the A-C Zone District where the code calls for 80,000 sq. ft. of lot area for each principle use 160,000 sq. ft. total required where only 3 acres or 131,809 sq. ft. exists which is 18% less area than required. As stated in previous letters the Planning Board has serious concerns over the long range effects and potential safety issues of allowing retail wineries on undersized parcels with multiple uses. The Planning Board has already experienced the difficulties in siting retail wineries on sites without enough space to safely accommodate more than one use especially in the absence of more guidance in the Town Code. Now we all know that Town Code needs to be updated with regard to winery uses. We are unfortunately as you said caught often in this transition period where our code does not necessarily reflect the range and scope of activities that wineries and other AG properties are currently engaged in. However, we need to state into the record that the Zoning Board has to proceed with great care and caution because we are not legislatures. We are we have the right and often called upon to interpret code that is not clear. However in this instance we have area variances before us right? GAIL WICKHAM : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : At least that we know better what to do with but we are aware that the Town Board who does do the legislation is pursuing for the creation of a committee that will hopefully take on the challenge of updating the code so that it reflects what this Town has decided it wants to be and needs to become but we're forever kind of being challenged with caught in between a code that is not fully updated and what our powers and jurisdiction really ought to be and I know Gail you know that and I'm sure everybody else does too. So, I just wanted to enter into the record that we're getting comments like this from Planning because they too are aware that the code is not utterly clear. Now we did clarify the bulk schedule the intent to the bulk schedule so far subject to change by the Town Board in future with regard to the bulk schedule and two uses. We see that this is an application for a variance in this case for about 16 to 18%. 1 haven't done the numbers. You said 16 they're saying 18%. It's easy to calculate so here we sit scratching our heads. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can I make a suggestion? I had spoken to someone from the Building Department regarding this and they said that they would really like to see sketch plan excuse me site plan approval from the Planning Board before any further information goes to see what the Planning Board is willing to recognize in this particular thing and I apologize to the Board for April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting not saying I forgot all about that discussion because it really baffled me in the beginning the whole situation that's the reason I asked to go over the entire piece of property and if you know it made it much easier to understand but if there are certain buildings that aren't going to be recognized in site plan you know I don't think we should be forced to issuing variances on those if that is the case. GAIL WICKHAM : But Gerry I don't think, with all due respect, the Planning Board has the right to recognize or not recognize buildings and I don't see how they can rule on a site plan until you as a Board decide that those buildings can or cannot stay where they are because we are just talking about on the one hand area variances. We are also talking about density in terms of the two uses, but in terms of area variances, that's really your call, and I don't think the Planning Board. They have the right to look at lay out of traffic and this that and the other thing but I don't think they have the right to say you can't have that building there because it's too close to the line; that's your job. Getting back to what Leslie just said previously about the Town Code provisions none of what the winery issues, the production and sales and tasting room really apply to this particular subject. I don't think there's any question there's production and sales shown and in terms of density I made my arguments and I also responded I don't know if you've seen the letter to the Planning in response to the Planning Board which I sent in last night in response to their comments and I can go over them in a minute if you don't have it in front of you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah, we did get it but it would be good for you to enter it into the record. GAIL WICKHAM : Well, I assume it's going to be in the record anyway but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It will because it's in writing. GAIL WICKHAM : But I think here what we're dealing with is a small winery and tasting room that hasn't had issues during its development that is replacing a very large scale winery that was already approved by the Board by the Planning Board with no reference in terms of the Building Department or the Planning Board about density. That density issue really came out during the Southold Farm and Cellars discussion and it was focused on it because that was such a very small parcel looking for many uses and big buildings. Bigger actually than these and so I think that here where you have 3 % acres that's spread out like this on a parcel that was actually reserved in the eighties from a development rights sale and clearly intentioned to be something more than just a residential parcel. I would ask you to adopt a variance for the 134,000 sq. ft. as opposed to 180. There's a lot of room for parking, there's a lot of room here. The buildings are spread out. If you don't like that and you can't grant those setback variances given the factors in the neighborhood, then they can be moved or consolidated and to the 3 April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting Planning Board submitted reflecting whatever decision you're going to have but I number one getting to the Planning Board letter just because it and I've said this before the Board just because it doesn't meet the bulk schedule is not a reason we don't have compelling reasons to ask to vary. So I don't think that's a legitimate reason for denial. They aren't specific about the concerns and difficulties they have with multiple use parcels. They don't even specify what they are. I can say I know that one concern you would have would be traffic and parking because that came up with Meador with the small area. We don't have that here. We have enough room for parking. It's on a major road. The facilities are set back off a major road. We don't have something right up on the highway. There's plenty of shoulder. There's a street line. You have much bigger wineries right down the street that I don't think have the problems either and this is not unlike many small wineries that are already operating so I would ask you to not defer on the decision to the Planning Board because the Planning Board obviously has bigger issues than you do in terms of what they're trying to figure out. Whether they should be or not, I don't know. That's going to have to come out in as we move along but whether these little structures can be left where they are around the perimeter like all the other little structures in the neighborhood is something I would ask you to make a decision on and they're only a few of them. They're very small and when you aggregate the size I think I put this in my last letter when you aggregate the size of all these buildings they're still only a couple of thousand square feet they're not very big. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not a lot coverage issue. GAIL WICKHAM : It's a small operation and they want to keep it that way. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not even close to a lot coverage issue it's more the two uses and a bunch of setbacks basically. GAIL WICKHAM : And the other thing if I could just mention. We don't you know we don't have any setback issues here because the properties are merged so you know it's not like we're encroaching on this whole neighborhood. This over here or this side because that's also the development rights portion a little bit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah that's why we have this little thing in the corner here to show where the vineyard actually is and where the boundaries are on the subject property and where it's adjacent to other property owners it's a very irregular shape. GAIL WICKHAM : Beyond that I'm sorry Eric I'm going to defer you, we have Pellegrini you know on the east sides so they've got property preserved. I mean this is a big block of preserved land up here which is great but you know that's what you have and then you have the Jerome parcel which is I don't believe that's preserved but that's big acreage. So there's 3 April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting really nothing going on up here that's going to be impacted by it. You do have two access points on the Main Road they prefer and this is a Planning consideration that we'll have to discuss with them. They prefer to keep the access over here so it's not bothering this house and Mr. Jerome he'd like not to see a lot of parking over there. This area over here is more used for if they have reservations they let their private guests park here, the farm operation comes in and out of here and they park there but most of the parking is concentrated on that side and they also don't want people to have to drive through here either to go in and out but there is room for the Planning Board to help us with coming up with proper access in and out on what is fortunately for this piece a straight section of road. I don't know if I answered Gerry's question but. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric had a question. MEMBER DANTES : My first one is how many acres are in agricultural production? GAIL WICKHAM : Nineteen or twenty I think. MEMBER DANTES : Okay and that's on the other piece of land owned by Mattebella Vineyards Holding Co? GAIL WICKHAM : Yes, which is part of this property for a subdivision purposes. The only reason it has a separate tax map number is because it has a development rights sold and an AG exemption, 15.1 and 15.2 are one single parcel it merged. MEMBER DANTES : So they can't be sold separately? GAIL WICKHAM : Not at this point no I mean not without a subdivision. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the reserved piece is part of the same lot. GAIL WICKHAM : Is part of the same lot, yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There's certainly no question about you know the number of acres in viticulture. GAIL WICKHAM : There are 18.4 acres of farm land a little over of 15 acres that are vineyard right now not 19 and again this is the piece that was reserved when way back in 1986 in the early part of the development rights program and it's really only been recently that this 80,000 per use when you have a winery has come in to play. MEMBER DANTES : Do they I'm looking through my packet here was one common deed is that what we're looking at here this deed dated September 25, 2003? 3 April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting GAIL WICKHAM : I think there were two deeds. MEMBER DANTES : I mean applications in the past, we asked past applicants to combine the parcels if they're GAIL WICKHAM : They're combined I mean we can stipulate that. There is no subdivision approval. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was just held out it was when the development rights were sold it was a portion of this the other side is reserved in order to accomplish these uses. GAIL WICKHAM : There were two deeds same date. I suppose that was because one was development rights and one was not and they had separate tax maps. I don't know why they took two deeds but I wasn't their lawyer then and the recording fees weren't what they are now. But we would stipulate that they are on MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Are you going to close this hearing? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I don't think so I'll tell you why. There's so much to digest I just want to be absolutely certain that everyone on the Board is fully informed and fully comfortable with everything you've just said today and everything that's in the packet. We got a little bit of new stuff today and yesterday from you and I just want to make sure there are no questions so I think the better way to go is to just adjourn to the Special Meeting in two weeks. That way if there are any questions we can continue to get answers and then we can close it. I don't see much reason for another public hearing particularly but I think you know that this just gives us the opportunity it was confusing because we had to move over her today. GAIL WICKHAM :There's a lot here I agree. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what I'm saying it's just a lot to digest that maybe people who've missed the opportunity to participate because the room got screwed up and it would be probably better for all parties concerned that we just hold it open for two weeks in case people want to come in and look at the file or have comments they want to submit and so on and if there are no further issues we'll just close it. ADAM SUPRENANT : I'd like to address the Board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Absolutely I was just going to ask that. GAIL WICKHAM : Adam before you do that, just to clarify, so on April 201h will there be testimony? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, the Special Meetings we don't do that. April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting GAIL WICKHAM : Yeah normally there isn't. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no, no it's not a public hearing it simply gives us time to either decide we won't have a decision of course because we're holding it over until then. It gives us time to accept more comments, ask more questions, and get more information if anybody has it. I don't anticipate doing anything other than closing it then but you never know what comes up. GAIL WICKHAM : And between now and then I could submit something in relation to this question storage building and I think there was something else that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I mean it gives you an opportunity also to stop and consider what was said here and to basically say is there anything else I want to clarify you know from your client's point of view. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : What I would like to see you know we were taking this information down in bits and pieces.. I don't want you to go through this entire pile again but it would be really helpful to give us the full synopsis of your presentation so that we know exactly where we are which basically means I'm asking you (inaudible) GAIL WICKHAM : Okay. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : And those particularly the ones that have that you think have the Pre C.O. or that you actually know have the Pre C.O. GAIL WICKHAM : So you want me to give you a blow by blow on the buildings? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Right. GAIL WICKHAM : Okay I'll just it's easy enough because I've got the chart I'll just expand it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Buildings numbers this this and this these will be moving to conforming locations these can't be moved because boom. GAIL WICKHAM : Yeah I'll do one through whatever okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, Adam. ADAM SUPRENANT : My name is Adam Suprenant. I am a resident at 425 South Harbor Rd. just around the corner from the Mattebella property so I'm literally about 150 yards away as the crow flies. So I just to refresh the Board's memory I am a wine producer but I buy my produce in the supermarket so if that clarifies anything April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not really well you got a deer fence. ADAM SUPRENANT : So anyway I'm a wine producer and I also have a small operation wine focus similar to that of the Mattebella's it's called Coffee Pot Cellars. I manage the production operations both at the farm and the winery of Osprey's Dominion and I've been doing that since 2001 and the reason why I'm here is as a fellow farmer as you know I am co-manager of Blossom Meadow Farm where I manage the plant life on the farm and we leave the animal kingdom to my wife especially the bees. So as a fellow farmer we often help each other out and I think this is just a good example here of I just want to come out as a neighbor just as personally as a neighbor to say that in the year almost two years that I've been living on South Harbor Rd. we've never had a problem with noise or traffic as a result of the operations at Mattebella Vineyard. I'm also was not aware of the Planning Board's letter but I think the proof for this Board is in the pudding and Mattebella has been an operation that's on going and I don't have an issue with their operation. They don't have loud music. I'm not kept up late at night by wedding events with loud music but they don't have a history of being the quote unquote bad actors that wineries have all been lumped together in our current I guess controversial environment regarding the Town and operations of wineries so they would be the kind of operation that I feel this Board should support and I also feel that the variance is very minor considering that it is a large property and I you know I understand rights sold means rights sold you can't develop the rights sold but it is a large property and when they originally when the wineries originally sold land they kept cut outs for wineries and the fact that the goal posts are moving from a three acre parcel being perfectly acceptable for a winery and wine operation to now a three and a half or four builder's acres which is 160,000 sq. ft. so the goal posts have been moved and I think to penalize an owner and I'm not saying it's a necessary penalty but to for people who make investments in property and in businesses to all of a sudden change the goal post because they walk into this investment with a certain set of expectations that this you know when they bought the property there were plans and I don't know how far along it got but this is a large investment. It's not a small investment and these people have put their own blood, sweat and tears in to that land and they're owner operators and I think their variance is very small and this Board hopefully will see it their way. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Adam. Let me ask you a question relative to what happens. This has been a pretty quiet operation it would appear. No weddings, no special events going on GAIL WICKHAM : That is not the basis of their business model. You know they've had a couple of birthday parties or small wedding but that's their business model is to sell high quality wine and to do it in a way that is compatible with a farming vineyard experience not a catering hall extravaganza and that's how they hope to continue to do it. They have a very active wine club April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting and so they people who belong to that apparently enjoy coming to the farm as opposed to a big, big catering facility and tasting wine those farm club wine club events occur whenever they have their new releases and they invite people by invitation. They have to RSVP so it's a controlled volume of people and it only occurs only maybe an hour and a half or two hours at a time and they do it on nonpeak periods. Those are really their biggest events. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, let me ask you then you know variance relief often involves conditions so let's explore that as a possibility or not. This isn't the smallest parcel by any means. It still will require a lot area variance for the two uses so short of saying we'll get rid of the house which would get rid of that big problem if they're not willing to consider doing that. GAIL WICKHAM : I don't think they would want to do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Fine okay I just have to ask it. How about eliminating special events or weddings you know because it's a smaller than what the code would normally permit. We can certainly say other than wine club members or events small events by invitation or whatever but certainly there are certain wineries that say no limos things like that. GAIL WICKHAM : I don't know about the word eliminate. I would want to talk to them about that and then get back to you in the two week period. Again you don't want to preclude someone from doing something that's otherwise allowed over years and years and I think we all envision the Town Code will be addressed at some point and these things will be probably addressed and restricted so I wouldn't want to agree to anything less than what the code eventually allows but let me think about that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, find out. This is another reason why to hold it open. There's a lot of questions being raised and it gives us time to reflect on them and to see what's what. If we grant a variance and generally a 16 or 18% variance is although that is certainly not the only reason to grant or deny substantiality is one of the many factors in variance relief we have to mitigate it and generally that amount of relief is considered substantial but that doesn't mean it can't be granted. You find a way to mitigate it. One of the ways to mitigate it would be by reducing potential traffic impacts and noise and things like that because it's a smaller property for the two uses. So if you would explore those kinds of thoughts with your client that would help us understand what might be work able. That's the only reason I bring it up because it might mitigate a variance relief. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And if I may in line with what you just said it didn't dawn on me and I heard your response but the residential unit if the Tobin's were to abandon that couldn't that be used in some beneficial way that might be a (inaudible) use for the vineyard operation? If they have workforce housing there it strikes me as April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting GAIL WICKHAM : Well, housing out here is pretty important. I'm not sure I would I mean I don't want to guess for them but I would say that's certainly not something they're going to want to give up is the residential use. It's not a very big house. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, that's what I'm saying. GAIL WICKHAM : And it doesn't have a pool and it doesn't have any of the amenities that many of us would like as a residence. It's basically MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's workforce housing. GAIL WICKHAM : Right now it is yea. It is now I don't know that they I don't know if they would want to limit it to that either but you know they might at some point be an owner who wants to live there but MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I can understand the problem that that would create to give it up but I didn't even think as an alternative that and clearly it sounds like that (inaudible) be acceptable resolution but GAIL WICKHAM : I don't know I would have to inquire. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well (inaudible) a Pre C.O. as a single family dwelling. They're just renting it right now. Farm workers housing is another category and in fact farm workers housing may at some point I hope become much more clearly identified and with an agricultural use so it's not considered a separate use. GAIL WICKHAM : It shouldn't be a separate use. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But it is right now. Okay, so we're stuck with that for the moment. I have said many a time that I think that if there's a dwelling on the premises that is farmer owner occupied and the farmer owner is engaged as a principal enterprise or business that active farming of the subject property and has a home office there to run the farm that that could logically be extended to suggest that it's an agricultural use it's a dual use but it's still very integral to the farming operation and in the old days it was a farmstead you know but we don't have that now so there are a number of ways that the Board, Town Board and whoever they get involved with this may decide to go but right now I'm just exploring with you the kind of remedy we might have in terms of relief for what you're currently proposing and what the code currently allows us to do. GAIL WICKHAM : Okay, well they will be back so I will be able to discuss with them before. April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good and what I guess we'll need because we can't take testimony at the Special Meeting is to something in writing from you. Sorry to burden you with that but if you feel it's important and you want them present we can adjourn it to another hearing we can do that. GAIL WICKHAM : No, I just mean I'll be able to discuss it with them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright anything from anybody else? I think we got a lot to chew over here. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : If there's anything that we need to really deal with in my opinion to have another hearing a quick hearing or something but I'm just throwing that out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we have that option. I mean if it comes up and there's something that needs to be discussed then by adjourning we have that option available for your benefit, for the Board's benefit. GAIL WICKHAM : Okay, I think that's a good plan. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, so I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the what's the date April 201h Special Meeting. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) April 6, 2017 Regular Meeting s 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 Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : 4E