Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-05/04/2017 Hearing TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Southold Town Hall Southold, New York May 4, 2017 9:38 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member ERIC DANTES – Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO – Member PATRICIA ACAMPORA – Member GERARD GOEHRINGER – Member KIM FUENTES – Board Assistant WILLIAM DUFFY – Town Attorney ? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Suzanne S. Coleman #6688 3 – 11 Bonnie and Stephen Stretz #7048 11 - 13 Arthur Picchione #7052 13 - 24 Elizabeth Branch #7010 25 27A North LLC, Christopher Mohr #7047 25 - 28 Gary and Robin Ennis #7053 28 - 30 Sandra Pagano/27 Bay Ave., LLC #7057 30 - 35 Petros Kougentakis #7049SE 35 - 51 Croteaux Vineyards #7013 51 – 63 Mattebella Vineyards #7041 63 - 72 ? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting HEARING # 6688 – SUZANNE S. COLEMAN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for Suzanne S. Coleman #6688. This was adjourned from February 20, 2014. Well it was such a long adjournment I think I better read this. Pat do you have the affidavits of postings? Thank you. This is a request for variances from Article III Code Section 280-15 and March 8, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permits for the construction of an “as built” in-ground swimming pool and to legalize an “as built” gazebo at 1) “as built” in-ground swimming pool in a location other than the code required rear yard, 2) “as built” gazebo in a location other than the code required rear yard located at Montauk Ave. on Fisher’s Island. Pat do you want to enter your name into the record please? PAT MOORE : Yes, Patricia Moore on behalf of Suzanne Coleman who is the owner of the property. I have with me today Mr. Coleman or Mrs. Coleman’s son. He’s all the way via from New York, Fisher’s Island, New York City. Very kind of him to come I thought it would be important for someone from the Coleman family to be here in case there’s an issue. Since we really only have two Board members that are part of the original application very briefly the property was purchased by the Coleman’s in 1973 from the Fishers Island School District #4. The old school on Fishers Island was demolished but the tennis court remained and when my clients purchased the property it was vacant except for a tennis court. The Coleman’s built their house east of the tennis court on the property. You can see it from the survey the house, this is all being done in the 1970’s. Thereafter after the house was built they (inaudible) a building permit to put a pool on the property. At the time there was a pool, the pool house and the gazebo all construction occurring at the same time but the only issues before the Board today are the pool and the gazebo. In June of 1988 the contractor at the time obtained a building permit for the construction of the pool and fence and we have a permit #017158. That building permit showed the diagram of the pool and a little funky drawing of a connection to the existing house which is very possible that at the time in the 70’s for those of you that are more senior on the Board you can connect structures by an accessory trellis or some form of as simple as a 2x4. So it is very possible that in the 70’s at the time this pool was not considered in the side yard. It was considered as attached. It’s a little bit of speculation only because the client’s did get a building permit. Thereafter in well the pool was completed by 1989. Thereafter the Building Department was cleaning out their files looking at any old permits that may have been open and my client’s received a notice that there was an open permit so they began the process in the 90’s. Do you need something Leanne, two arraignments? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not till eleven. ? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Oh fine. I won’t be that long I hope. So anyway they were cleaning their files and my client’s received a notice that for some reason the pool had not been closed out. That was a surprise to my clients because they had obtained electrical certificates all the paperwork that would have been required to close out the pool. Nevertheless they began the process again to close out the pool permit. Again all of the efforts were made and we’re dealing with Fishers Island and as you know Fishers Island is physically separate from Southold. The paperwork sometimes is not as complete and we are talking about the 90’s where much more specific and particular now in keeping good track of paperwork. Nevertheless when we tried more in contemporary in the 2000 to try to close out the permit at that point the Building Department said well I’d love to close out the permit even though you got a building permit you need a variance because the pool is technically in a side yard. Certainly that was a little bit of a distress to the family because here you are thinking you’re just going to close out the permit and that was something that they were directed to do many times that they’ve tried they tried to do it and they we had records of going having electricians go there, the contractors that were on the on Fishers Island to do some tweaking in particular repair fences and things like that but for some reason that just paperwork never got completed. In any case we are here before the Board because a pool that was constructed in back in ’88 we’re finally trying to close it out now getting a permit or a variance to leave it where it is. The property has been used this way, has not is within the character of the neighborhood. It’s a seasonal community and a pool is a very common amenity on Fishers Island as it is in Southold and we’d like to close out the permit once and for all. The gazebo is right there. There’s a photograph in your file. The gazebo is right next to the pool. It is it was put there again about contemporaneously with the pool and that structure did not have a building permit it was there. The Building Department was there and inspecting all throughout the time and it for some reason the owners were not directed to get a building permit for the gazebo. Over the years you don’t need permits for accessory structures of a certain size but again because it is in the side yard it needs this variance. If I you know just pointing out that when you are building a house with a tennis court already on the property the house is on one side and the sanitary is behind the house there are neighbors to the east so the only logical place to put these accessory structures where all within the area of the pool of the tennis court. So as far as logically where one would put accessory structures they’re all in their logical location but unfortunately they appear technically in a side yard of the main house. I will answer whatever questions you’d like but this is a technical variance in the sense that the structures which have been there now for over twenty years need to be closed out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat let me just especially for the benefit of new board members who don’t have the background we have not of course we kept adjourning it and adjourning without a date one of the reasons being that originally the pool house itself was before us for a setback ? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting to the property line that was really let me see exactly 0.9 okay and it had to have been it was supposed to have been PAT MOORE : Three feet at the time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Three feet exactly and that took some time to negotiate but if you look at the survey you will see that there is a bump out. They were able to purchase property from the adjoining FIDCO the adjoining property owner and therefore remedy that setback issue. There were other issues with the pool house in that it was originally given a C.O. for a shell without habitable space and it was determined that the pool house was actually being inhabited as habitable space. It was fully finished with two and a half bathrooms and you know so on and so forth. We’ve asked since George isn’t here now our Fishers Island representative Mike Verity has gone over and done an inspection for us. He was there doing other inspections anyway. He says it’s primarily being used for storage now and there are two half baths. What I would like to point out is that accessory structures are permitted as of right to have a half bath one half bath not two half baths. So that needs to be remedied. If you want to ask a question you going to have to come to the mic and state your name that’s fine I’d be happy to entertain it. PAT MOORE : Well I would just again that pool house is not before the Board. The Building Department CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m sorry I just went to the Building Department. It is still open it is still open from 2014 PAT MOORE : No I’m sorry there was a revised Notice of Disapproval. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know I know but the other one according to Mike Verity still stands and we have something to say about the pool house. I also want to point out that there’s a shed in the front yard but that got variance relief. However the permit on it is not closed out either so according to the Building Department it was never closed out. I guess things were started and they just weren’t finished. PAT MOORE : Well, CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s just a technical. PAT MOORE : I guess so because these are new things it’s a shame that after twenty years or at least how long have I been at it fifteen that these things are coming up now at a hearing when in fact I dealt with directly with Damon Rallis regarding the pool house. There was ample evidence given to the Building Department that at the time the pool house permit was issued ? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting the building permit all of the finishes inside the pool house were all completed I mean I have records of Fisher’s invoices from Mr. Coleman the father of the materials coming over Fishers Island ferry so we were able to persuade I thought the Building Department that all the finishes were done. This was a little bit of a I think intentional bad faith by the original contractor not the building department, contractor Mr. Marshall who had a terrible reputation on the island for not finishing out permits, doing things without proper closed out permits or he was just notorious on the island. Unfortunately Fishers Island homeowners don’t know they rely on contractors on the island that they believe to be you know well respected certainly and there’s a limited number of contractors on the island and when you think you’re dealing with somebody on the island that’s been there a long time that you’ll get somebody with quality. In any case I think when Mr. Marshall who has since passed away Mr. Marshall was replaced because of the quality of his work he and a subcontractor finished the job who was off the island as they say he left behind a shell only when in fact the building permit and the structure was completed so we actually presented all that to the Building Department. We presented to the Building Department the floor plans of the bathroom. The bathroom had to be made half baths and we actually removed a shower to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector and I’m not sure what he’s remembering and what he isn’t but what he’s reporting to you is something he is not reported to me and Mr. Rallis rewrote the Notice of Disapproval stating that the pool house is no longer an issue. So I’m a little baffled by the presentation or the reporting being done today to me for the first time when we are here thinking we’re closing out finally after so many years of trying to get this resolved including paying Fishers Island Utility Company thirty thousand dollars for 750 sq. ft. of land. That was because the pool house that was built was at the time the Building Department didn’t require surveys, the surveyor identified the location as being eleven feet from the property line when in fact it was one foot from the property line and so this was a comedy of errors that unfortunately my client died in the middle from the stress of having to deal with this and we’re really it’s very distressing for me and I’m glad you’re here to witness it because we had a long conversation about how to finish this up. We’re finally finishing it up the only issue I’m aware of with pool houses that the staircase in the pool house because it was built as two story with all of the finishes that were there the staircase that was built again by the contractor was not done properly to code so we have risers and handrails that are inappropriately placed and that has I had to file with the state to get a variance for the existing conditions of the staircase so you can imagine the headache that my clients have been dealing with on this issue and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat let me just stop you for one second. It is precisely for those reasons that I want this to be all cleared up and completed for the benefit of the property owner. I just want to make absolutely certain this has been going on for a long time. I’m reviewing it now because it’s been a couple of years since we’ve you know started in 2014 so ? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting it’s important to just reflect upon the totality to make sure we don’t miss anything. That’s all I’m really trying to do to make sure that everything winds up completed as of today so that you can go forth and finish all this up with the Building Department. Now the fact that they didn’t necessarily inform you of the same thing they informed me is unfortunate but it is what it is and the bottom line is we need to just look at this so we can get it over with and do it properly and you can go ahead and get whatever permits you need. You have a variance for the shed. There’s no problem with that but you have an open permit. PAT MOORE : That’s the least of our issues. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The technicality. I bring it up so that it’s part of the record so that when I put it down as a condition of approval of the stuff in the side yard you’re going to know that’s all you gotta do is go to the Building Department and just close that out. PAT MOORE : Well the one item that has that you raise that is certainly a concern of mine is the fact that we have a finished pool house and now the issue of having a second half bath has become an issue. If that’s in fact the case then please include our variance for the existing conditions of the pool house in our variances because again we are not aware of any variances necessary on the pool house. That’s the whole reason we did the lot line change to eliminate the only variance we were aware of the pool house which was that it was too close to the property line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right it’s not a variance. It’s just simply the fact you are entitled in an accessory structure to have a half bath. PAT MOORE : Yes but if the Building Department is now claiming that our second half bath which is what on the first maybe clarify for me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes please do and please just state your name for the record we’re recording. KEVIN COLEMAN : Kevin Coleman. My father passed during this whole process obviously another reason why it’s taken (inaudible) I went out (inaudible) last inspection about a month ago I forget the exact he was there (inaudible) he went in to the pool house he walked around the pool house. I asked him specifically are there any issues? He mentioned the staircase. I spoke with Ms. Moore about the staircase. We have a variance filed with the State. He said that’s it. So to have this added afterwards is you know (inaudible) going on for over ten years. I just don’t understand why these things happen and why this has taken so long and having to go through this more than once to resolve this and that’s why I personally drove from New York City to meet Mike that day to just hopefully get an understanding and that’s another reason why I’m here today representing my family and try to get this resolved. ? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Appreciate your testimony thank you. Let’s see if the Board has any questions about the pool or the gazebo since that’s what we’re going to make a determination on. I do want to ask you one question just to verify it in the public record. Is there a fence around the tennis court? KEVIN COLEMAN : There is (inaudible) an enclosed fence (inaudible) there’s fence around two sides of the tennis court which is where the base lines are and a fence that goes between the tennis court and the pool (inaudible) PAT MOORE : It’s a four foot fence that one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does the Board let me see if the Board has any questions, Eric? MEMBER DANTES : I do not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick any questions about this, Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : What’s the size of the pool do you know? PAT MOORE : There’s a survey I’d have to. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks like a lap pool almost. KEVIN COLEMAN : It’s exactly that it’s a lap pool. It’s about five and a half feet (inaudible) MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can you just give us the size sometime you don’t have to do it now you know just someday so we know what the size of it is? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s not on the survey you can scale it from the survey but PAT MOORE : Right we can get that precise number that’s not a problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from the Board is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Let me just ask one more question. While we have Mr. Coleman here wouldn’t it make sense for the both of you to go over to the Building Department and try and resolve any of these issues and come back to us? I’m not taking this away from the Chairperson I’m just merely PAT MOORE : You mean reconvene this hearing at like maybe the end of the meeting or well when do you have to leave? KEVIN COLEMAN : I appreciate the suggestion I just this has been going on and on for years. ? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I thought it was thirteen years to be honest with you okay. KEVIN COLEMAN : I don’t know the exact number of years you know it has been (inaudible) my father and my mother and it’s again I just (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well guess what? Mike is not here today he is on Fishers Island. PAT MOORE : If I can just because I understand Mike Verity the Building Inspector is not at work today that’s why I would ask that if in fact there is an issue about having an extra half bath and my memory is that there’s only a half bath on the living area which is the second floor. Is there a little half bath on the first floor? Is that what it is? Why don’t you put it on the record by the laundry right? KEVIN COLEMAN : There’s a half bath on the first floor. There is a half bath on the second floor which is not being used for any purpose because there’s storage material on the second floor. It was pre-existing. There was a shower and tub that was on that second floor which was completely removed and there are storage boxes on the second floor. There’s no purpose PAT MOORE : Well that’s only because right now there was moving but not that you’re trying to abandon that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The use. PAT MOORE : the bathroom. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I was obligated to bring it up and but I don’t think you need to go back and talk with Mr. Verity. If that’s what he told you I will believe I have no reason to doubt your testimony and we’ll you know we’ll just take it from there. PAT MOORE : Let’s resolve it if we can. If for some reason he has an issue we’d ask the Board to allow the existing conditions of the pool house to be blessed by this Board so that we can move this along and subject to State whatever State variance we may need so if excuse me I have allergies if we have to do a modification to the staircase. We obviously don’t know the answer yet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah you’ll deal you’ll have to get a State building code variance. I do want to point out that the with regard to the subjects before us which is the pool and the gazebo in the side yard the adjacent property the dwelling is very very far away this is a Union Chapel Society, is that a church? PAT MOORE : It is the church and they have a chicken coop over there next to you I guess it’s their ? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting KEVIN COLEMAN : (inaudible) the house and then the chapel. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah okay so you know it’s been there for a long time and its impact is absolutely negligible it has no really effect on anybody. It’s setback very far from the road and I don’t think those are issues at all not for me anyway we’ll see what the rest of the Board thinks but I don’t think that’s it is going to be a significant issue. PAT MOORE : It just occurred to me that the shed in the front yard that had a variance my memory with Damon Rallis early on in this process was that sheds don’t require permit anymore so as long as the variance was authorize it’s placement. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As long as it’s in a conforming location. PAT MOORE : Well it was made conforming by the variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct. PAT MOORE : So now the location of the front yard is a permitted location well the code has changed now allows accessory structures in the front yard CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If it’s waterfront. PAT MOORE : Well this is kind of quasi waterfront. It’s always been a sore point for the Coleman’s because but that’s another long story in any case it has a variance so maybe that’s why at the time we didn’t have to deal with the shed in the front yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All I’m going to suggest is that you check with Building and if it’s required. PAT MOORE : If it’s required we obviously CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have an open permit so somebody started it maybe it’s that contractor you were referring to but the bottom line is it’s absolutely nothing to finish it you know it’s just I just want to make sure that you can go forward with everything legalized on the property so you can sleep at night and forget about it. KEVIN COLEMAN : (inaudible) on the record you will finish that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from the Board? 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 DANTES : Second. ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 7048 – BONNIE AND STEPHEN STRETZ CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Bonnie and Stephen Stretz # 7048. This is a request for a variance under Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s January 30, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to a single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum total combined side yard setback of 25 feet located at 2975 Minnehaha Blvd. in Southold. EILEEN SANTORA : My name is Eileen Santora I’m representing Bonnie and Stephen Stretz. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eileen do you have some green cards? EILEEN SANTORA : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you please bring them up for Kim. EILEEN SANTORA : My client’s father built this house and they are now they use it for summer and they’re planning on using it full time. Bonnie and her son both have medical issues and they like the son last summer had to go to Stony Brook for surgery and he’ll probably need another one in another year so it’s very important to them that this house has everything that they need to make it a full time residence. We’re asking for six inches on a side yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s a shame you couldn’t find those six inches that you require a variance for six inches. EILEEN SANTORA : I know but the master bedroom in the back rear of the house we’d like to enlarge and put in a separate master bathroom. We’d like to enlarge the kitchen and that’s ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting really all that we’re asking six inches and we’re not going to beyond the side of the house. We’re following the lines of the existing house and that’s all it is six inches. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well what it looks like from the survey is that the house the property line is slightly skewed it’s not totally parallel to the dwelling which is why it diminishes the setback is smaller as it goes toward the rear yard that’s thus the six inches to keep it parallel to the existing wall of the house is that correct? EILEEN SANTORA : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright let’s see if the Board has any questions. We’ve all been out to the sight as you know we’ve inspected it. Pat do you have any questions, Eric? MEMBER DANTES : I still don’t understand why not just conform to code? EILEEN SANTORA : Well then the master bedroom would have a six inch jog in it and you could not place you know any furniture on the wall and it was built as you know with very small rooms and we’re just enlarging it so much we’re only going out eleven feet. We’re still keeping seventy five feet in the back yard. So it’s six inches. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick any questions? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes there’s currently a retaining wall in the rear yard and I noticed that the proposed addition actually is extended into where that retaining wall is so how are you going to treat the sort of terrain the natural terrain? EILEEN SANTORA : We’re going to dig out to the foundation, put the building there and then we’ll just build another retaining wall. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So will the retaining wall be around in other words can you walk like right now if you walk out of the kitchen door at the back of the house you could walk around the house although the proposed addition illustrates it’s going over the wall would you be still able to walk around the house? Will there be a path so the retaining wall will be pushed back a couple of feet? EILEEN SANTORA : Yes the landscaping is all going to be you know revamped so to speak. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You’re going to have to take down that large tree that’s there? EILEEN SANTORA : Yes and we have the drywell for the runoff. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry questions? ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I find this somewhat of a de minimus application; however, I understand the nature of the variance. I know that Ms. Santora has explained to us the situation of the wall being extended around. I can see it for the purposes of the roof runoff. I suspect because there’s pretty good drainage back there in the back of the house, so you know I now in definitely support of the application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from the Board, anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I’ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 7052 – ARTHUR PICCHIONE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Arthur Picchione #7052. This is a request for variance under Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s February 14, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an “as built” deck addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet at 830 Eastwood Drive in Cutchogue. Would you please state your name for the record? ARTHUR PICCHIONE : Good morning, Arthur Picchione. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would appear that you built this deck addition onto the rear of your house along with an addition to your house. ARTHUR PICCHIONE : That is correct. ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And as a consequence the rear yard setback is now at 38.1 feet where the code requires a 50 foot rear yard setback. ARTHURE PICCHIONE : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You’re on a corner lot with two front yards. So how is it that this came to be that you built this without benefit of applying for variance relief? ARTHUR PICCHIONE : Well what happened was when we were doing the extension my house kept flooding in the basement with the rain runoff so we were putting a patio just a brick patio and because of the runoff we had to level the ground. it wouldn’t have worked so while my contractor was there after two days of rain and three inches of water in the basement he goes if I build a deck we can keep the contour of the land and if we put some trees up it’ll help the water flow. So instead of leveling it we left the contour to go out the way it was and I put in about fifteen large trees to try to stop the water from coming down the hill into my basement. So obviously I mean he was there he goes I’ll build it and we’ll get an amendment. We didn’t realize of the setbacks at that time because we were dealing with a flood and I have an insurance claim in for the flood water with mold and so that was the whole issue. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we’ve all done an inspection of the property. We do that on every application the Board goes out and takes a look at it and looks at the neighborhood and all of that and I have to say while I was out there, there was a carpenter out there finishing the deck. It probably would have been wise to have stopped until we found out what we were doing here but you continued. The neighbor has have you seen this letter? Did your neighbor give you a letter? ARTHUR PICCHIONE : I did get one letter. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay there is a neighbor let’s see what the name of the neighbor is, it’s Carol and Sean Courtney and they are I guess adjacent to your rear yard. You share that line. Primarily they’re concerned about privacy and noise and so on. I guess they were used to Father Murphy’s place before you took it over and a wooded lot and lots of privacy. Things do change over time. ARTHUR PICCHIONE : Yes so I’m putting trees and I’m going to add even more. If you saw the trees you know I’m going to put a couple more big hollies. I mean they won’t even be able to see the property and honestly I’d like to block they’re property it’s a little messy right now so we’re trying to clean up ours. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Evergreen screening makes for good neighbors. ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting ARTHUR PICCHIONE : Yes it does. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Should the Board be inclined to grant this we would probably condition it based upon the planting of evergreen screening that is to be maintained in perpetuity for purposes of noise abatement and visual privacy from neighbors and from the road too I’m sure you want. ARTHUR PICCHIONE : I did the whole roadside. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let’s see what the Board has to say Pat questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : I think he answered my concern was the rear of the yard and the privacy factor also and that’s really quite a slope there so I could certainly understand why you’d be having flooding but I’m not quite sure that the deck is going to stop that. ARTHUR PICCHIONE : Well because of the deck we were able to keep a flow going down. If we were to put a patio we would have to level it which would have let the water go to the house so if you go under the deck it flows. I had an excavator come in and actually contour the land to continue with the slope so that’s why the deck helped over a patio. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you do have to comply with Chapter 236 of the Town Storm Water Management. ARTHUR PICCHIONE : I have four drywells put in. I have pictures. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, you know if you had come here before this was built I believe the Board would have discussed with you the possibility of increasing that rear yard setback a little. It’s a very big deck and cutting it back. It puts us in a very difficult position when something is already built to tell a property owner to tear it out. ARTHUR PICCHIONE : I do apologize for that. It was like a last minute decision when we were cleaning the flood. He goes if I build a deck and that’s why we said as long as we don’t flood anymore. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Decks are typical I don’t have a problem with the deck but the size of the deck is substantial and it could have been a little smaller and you could have increased that setback a bit. Now the problem is to do we just say okay we have to bless this because you paid for it already or you know do we grapple with the fact that maybe it could be a little bit smaller that’s the challenge I guess. Let’s see Eric do you have any questions? ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Yes, do you use South Cross? you are inconvenienced or burdened by the fact that you have two front yards because you’re on a corner lot, so do you want to talk about the burden you have by having two front yards? ARTHUR PICCHIONE : Well obviously the setback rules for having a front yard Southern Cross I mean we were thinking about putting a driveway in but because of the hill we couldn’t so we did it on the other end and like I said we just put really nice big trees, I put a red maple a bunch of hollies and it kind of covers Southern Cross and it gives us privacy so that’s the only inconvenience. Other than that it doesn’t really affect us. MEMBER DANTES : So you’re burdened by the terrain and the fact that you have ARTHUR PICCHIONE : The terrain is what’s the problem with us. MEMBER DANTES : And then you have the second front yard setback to deal with (inaudible) property you wouldn’t have to deal with. ARTHUR PICCHIONE : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick any question? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes. The day that I was there I didn’t notice the hay bales but more importantly I did notice retaining walls. Did you build those retaining walls or were they pre- existing? ARTHUR PICCHIONE : The retaining wall on the left we had to build for the water runoff and we put a French drain in it. That was on the plan and with the Building Inspector with Mike there he said we didn’t need to get a permit for the retaining wall. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the question I would have then, if you took the effort to build the retaining walls with drywells why at the time that you made the decision to build a deck would you not have just leveled the property to that point that we discussed earlier. I don’t understand ARTHUR PICCHIONE : It was two different projects. It was a garage and we had to build the driveway up and then on the back end of the house we were putting I ordered nine thousand dollars’ worth of pavers and I actually lost three thousand because he couldn’t do the patio so they had to take all the pavers back but I lost delivery charges and the cost so it was a last minute decision. I wouldn’t have ordered the pavers and been going forward if we thought that we were going to build a deck or if it was possible. But because we had two rainstorms and I flooded twice within a week I had three inches of water in my basement. All our furniture from upstairs work was downstairs got moldy and the contractor was there in the rain we were ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting talking and he was like if I build a deck we can you know the flow the water the right way. We have the drywells in the back. I put two in the back and two in the front and he says then you won’t have an issue with water in the basement anymore because of the contour because if you saw obviously there’s a big hill at least an eight foot drop MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I agree but that’s where I’m confused because if you went to the effort of building a retaining wall to solve your flooding problem ARTHUR PICCHIONE : That was for the garage side for that side of the cause of the angle where we put the garage next to the house the retaining wall is totally on the opposite side of where I’m flooding inside the house two different entities. I’m flooding at the hill but the garage side wasn’t flooding we just built a retaining wall to level it so and we put a French drain in there. So it had nothing to do with the other I mean it was like I said we didn’t realize we were going to flood. I do have an insurance claim in. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : When you talk about the trees that you’re going to put in, one of the concerns in dealing with them is that the phrase continuously maintain has to be in there, the decision. I know these trees are expensive and I know that you know for any particular reason no one would really not let them go I mean they have to watered in the summertime until they really you know take root. ARTHUR PICCHIONE : I’m sorry if I could just stop you on the trees I have existing I put soaker hoses and I hired Owen Brothers I got the maintenance project they come in every week they trim, they groom and they take care of the trees and I did have the sprinkler guy’s there now finishing the soaker hoses for these trees and I’m not going to let them die. They were a lot of money so I will take care of them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from the Board, anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Please come to the mic and would you please state and spell your name for the record. SEAN COURTNEY : Sean Courtney with me is my wife Carol Courtney. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, thank you very much, what would you like us to know? SEAN COURTNEY : Thank you madam chairperson, members of the Board Mr. Duffy my wife and I have lived at 630 Southern Cross Rd. for the last nineteen years and it’s been our home on weekends for every summer for (inaudible) years. It’s our second home and in the very near future we expect it to be our primary residence. As you know from your visit the house sits on a ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting small lot about a third of an acre but it’s a beautiful environment. We share with that area in Fleets Neck in Cutchogue. Our home as you know from your inspection fronts Southern Cross Rd. (inaudible) its eastern border we have a 100 foot property line with the Picchione’s at 830 Eastwood Drive. Directly across from the front of our house and from our bedroom windows and from the patio where we spend most of our waking hours when we are at the property is the patio that is (inaudible) compliant with the town code. The patio is open, very visible with little buffering between us and the deck. Since both our lot and the Picchione’s lot are relatively small similar to properties in the area we particularly noticed since the construction has been going on at the Picchione’s house how valuable setbacks are in supporting the areas character especially for small lots that might otherwise be over built. For sixteen years with substantial setbacks not by code but just by the nature of how the properties were originally built we share property line with the Picchione’s predecessor Father Walter Murphy and we never had a single dispute with him. Both we and he enjoyed beautiful wooded hillside between our two properties. Now since the Picchione’s have arrived about two years ago they’ve renovated the house twice. They’ve more than doubled its size. The two rear decks alone are six hundred fifty square feet which is one half the size of our humble little home. The greatest increase in the size of the house was the rear facing us. The non-compliant deck nineteen feet deep is an extension of a newly added dining room which is sixteen feet deep and forty one feet wide. If the requested variance is granted by the Board they will advance a total of thirty five feet closer to our property with setback that is 12.3 feet too close to us. In this situation we believe a fifty foot setback is a reasonable compromise made by the town to allow for controlled development without undermining the character of Southold which makes Fleets Neck, Cutchogue in Southold such a great place to live. We urge the Zoning Board as a matter of public policy and this is something we didn’t highlight in our letter but as a matter of public policy to uphold the well-considered setback schedule with the town has so carefully crafted. It’s not just our two properties that are involved but many more in the immediate area of Fleets Neck and in other parts of Southold Town that could be subjected to this type of an application. We object to the deck being legalized not just this matter of public policy as we noted in our letter as a something that intrudes in our lives and our ability to enjoy our home. We ask for your help to protect our home. We’ve spoken with the Picchione’s, we’ve tried to understand their view and we hope they understand our view. They did not tell us any mitigating circumstances to explain how the deck came to be built in fact as we detail in our letter they’re actually aggravating circumstances behind the construction of the deck and the size of the deck intruding into the required setback. So in sum we urge the Board to object the request for a variance and to have the deck scaled back to no more than 6 ½ feet. With that scale back the deck will still be a from our point a view a substantial 156 square feet and that’s not considering the second deck at the rear of the property and an open porch that extends completely along ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting the front of the property. Thank you very much for considering our comments and we please ask you to consider the letter that we submitted earlier this week. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have thank you for your testimony. Anyone else in the audience would you like to say anything or anyone else in the audience? GAIL WICKHAM : My name is Gail Wickham the Courtney’s asked me to speak. They’ve described to you, in quite a bit of detail the adverse effects from a neighborhood perspective of the application but I would like to quickly review the factors that you need to consider from a legal standpoint. This application does present an undesirable change to the neighborhood for a number of reasons. First of all Fleets Neck is an older much older community a lot of small lots with a lot of small homes and as people improve their homes or sell to new people there are going to be and there has been a tremendous amount of building and renovation to much bigger homes. I think people have to understand that when they buy a small lot they have to live with a small building envelope and not just expect that they can push out as much as they would like. The benefit to the and it also excuse me it does set a tremendous precedent in this neighborhood because there are three vacant properties, one immediately next door, one diagonally across the street and one diagonally to the west which I’ve shown on a map that I’m going to give you that will be affected if this application is granted. Any of those lots can be built with a similar type of setback and every single other house in the immediate vicinity of this property has a big beautiful back yard with trees, grass and no decks encroaching on to the rear yard and no other structures and I have photographs of that so it will be a tremendous change and precedent setting decision impact on the neighborhood. The benefit can otherwise be obtained by the applicant. He just needs a smaller deck or I fail to understand how the size of a deck relates to a drainage problem. Certainly that can be engineered; certainly it can be dealt with in some other way. It doesn’t make sense to me how a deck versus a bigger deck has an issue with respect to drainage. It is a substantial variance. We received a map that said it was 37 feet off but I think it’s a 31 foot difference that’s about 38% variance. That is big. In addition you have to consider the accumulative effect of this variance application accumulative impact of this particular situation with the other factors that have affected this lot in the past. The first being that it is a smaller lot and the code therefore allows a 50 foot setback rather than the 75 that would otherwise employed in a larger lot so already this lot is enjoying a third reduction from what would otherwise would be employed by the code by that provision of the code. Further this Board gave the applicant’s lot a waiver of merger a number of years ago to enable it to exist even though it doesn’t comply with code so you now have three different impacts. The variance requested today, the waiver of merger and the code reduction of a smaller lot and that cumulative impact is something that the Board can consider beyond just whether it’s 31 feet versus 50 feet and that’s an important point I’d like you to consider. The adverse effect on the neighbors in terms of noise I think the Courtney’s have addressed and also the precedent ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting that I mentioned earlier and then oh the two front yards he still has a rear yard. He’s lost a side yard. I don’t see how there’s any burden there. This is a rear yard that would be there anyway or should be there anyway and when you look at the photograph you can see that the deck that I’m going to give you the deck does extend way, way (inaudible) that rear yard. It doesn’t look so close to the Courtney’s house because most of that is their property and that shouldn’t be something that should be considered and then we get to the self-created. First of all the applicant built this deck knowing that it was illegal. He submitted an application to you in February showing a partially completed deck and now as you mentioned and I have a photograph of he has gone ahead and completed the deck, completed the railings and now has furniture and grills and everything else on it. That is just arrogant and complete disregard of the law so I really think that that is inappropriate to be coming in now and saying he has some sort of hardship. So, in conclusion I think he can build a smaller deck. It can’t be a very expensive process to take part of the deck off. It’s not like a big structure where you have a roof and you have foundation and all that other thing. Let him comply. I’d like to submit a map that I have. I have a number of copies you don’t have to make them of a tax map showing several different things. X marks the subject property. We have the vacant lots in the vicinity, we have these three homes here and all these homes here can see the deck and it’s so it is visible and these properties that I’ve indicated in circles are all the homes in the area that don’t have things in their rear yard. This property indicates now and you can compare this to the photograph in your file as to what the deck looks now and the fairly limited rear yard that that creates. It also it’s very flat back there I can’t imagine they can’t engineer something and this is the picture of all the other beautiful back yards in the neighborhood without being clear cut and with maintaining that differential. So this is the original and then I have a number of copies for the Board and I’ll give the one, two, three, four, and five and then I’ll give the applicant a copy. Thank you. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Excuse me I have a question Ms. Wickham. Could I have the Courtney’s permission to walk on their property and observe the deck from their property? SEAN COURTNEY : Of course. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Thank you so much. It’ll probably be sometime over the weekend and if not if we don’t have another monsoon or something you know. Thank you so much. ARTHUR PICCHIONE : Can I just say something? My wife and I have put a lot of heart and soul. We plan on retiring here and we built the house and as Ms. Courtney on the phone said that you did a meticulous job it is beautiful so I’m not understanding where it’s coming from. If you look at our house I have pictures and I don’t have copies but I can show you. You look from their house to our house we did a beautiful job. Look from our house to their house they don’t ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting even clean their yard. I have pictures. I’m not making a big deal about it but we’re trying to make the house the value of the house nice, the area nice. I have a half an acre its 38 different plus he has 40 feet I can’t see this being a big obstruction to them. I’ll put a big holly tree; I’ll put big pine trees. I want to show you the view from both sides if you don’t mind? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure please come forward. ARTHUR PICCHIONE : This is looking down okay and I can add trees I just ran out of money they’re three thousand dollars a piece. This is looking from the deck to their property and this is a closer view of how they keep their property. So I’m just and here’s the side view with the big trees I’ve added. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay we saw those while we were out there. ARTHUR PICCHIONE : The contractor finished because he was working in the Hamptons CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can we have these? ARTHUR PICCHIONE : Yes you can and he needed to finish the property so if he had to leave then I would never get it done and I couldn’t leave it like that. MEMBER DANTES : Sir can I ask you a couple of questions? ARTHUR PICCHIONE : Sure. MEMBER DANTES : So what you’re saying is as a way to mitigate the non-conforming setback you’re willing to plant some evergreen screening along the property? ARTHUR PICCHIONE : Yes I am and I will continue the hollies and everything but they were like thirty five hundred dollars installed and I put in fifteen of them but I will continue and I told the Courtney’s I would add trees I would do whatever they would like it’s not an issue. MEMBER DANTES : My other question was when you went to the Building Department how come your deck is in the rear yard not a side yard? ARTHUR PICCHIONE : I cannot put it in the side yard because of my sixty foot setbacks. MEMBER DANTES : Pardon? ARTHUR PICCHIONE : Oh the side the other side? MEMBER DANTES : No, no how come South Cross Rd. isn’t considered how come they didn’t count that as a front yard which means your deck would be on the side yard? ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting ARTHUR PICCHIONE : It is counted as a front yard. I don’t understand the question I’m sorry. MEMBER DANTES : My question is why are they considering this deck in the rear yard and not the front yard and not the side yard? ARTHUR PICCHIONE : I don’t know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I can tell you because the law obligates them to find a rear yard somewhere on the property and they decided that the front elevation facing the Eastwood is a front yard and of course so is South Cross a front yard however they’re determining that the attached deck is in a rear yard. They have one side yard, one rear yard and two front yards according to the Building Department and they actually calculated based upon a kind of angle from the street so and based on the survey well it’s a little site plan that’s MEMBER DANTES : So in other words it’s not black and white based on this situation? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right. They make a determination. MEMBER DANTES : They make the determination where as a typical property ARTHUR PICCHIONE : Originally she was saying that I don’t know what this means but she was saying if you can’t go passed the front of the house or so I’m not sure if that meant side. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct. Yea what it means that if the deck had gone closer to South Cross then you would have had a front yard issue but because it’s parallel to the house it’s considered the same setback. These are technical things that the Building Department determines. I think Eric was going with the fact that if it was considered a side yard it would be a conforming side yard setback at 38 feet but it’s not it’s a rear yard and 50 is what’s required. GAIL WICKHAM : And it has to be a rear yard? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea there has to be some rear yard. Some people have rear yards that are like twelve feet you know deep or five feet deep for that matter but it’s still a rear yard. That’s often justification for allowing something located in other than a code required rear yard because the house may have been pre zoning and it could be very close to the rear property line so you can’t fit anything in there. MEMBER DANTES : I have one more question for the applicant. Are there any variances and this is a question we typically ask in this neighborhood where we’ve granted non-conforming rear yard setbacks? ARTHUR PICCHIONE : I don’t know. We didn’t get into that much detail. ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : I understand that but that’s something you can consult the office and talk to them about finding out and then you can submit a list for us? ARTHUR PICCHIONE : Okay. MEMBER DANTES : That’s a typical question that we ask and it’s something that at least gets typically provided. ARTHUR PICCHIONE : Just a quick thing, they asked me if I could take five feet off and it wouldn’t be possible because there sono tubes and the deck is twenty thousand, twenty three thousand dollars to be exact. For him to come back take out four concrete sono tubes move the deck and lose all the decking would be you know would cost me some money and we already spent a lot so (inaudible) it’s not an easy just cut off five feet type of thing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from the Board? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Well I think you should give us a figure of what you think it’s going to cost professionally from the contractor. ARTHUR PICCHIONE : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well look the bottom line is it’s what I started out this hearing with. We are being placed in a very difficult position because we don’t want to you know burden people financially, but the bottom line is it is a self-created situation. You went ahead and did it without benefit of applying for variance relief and so whatever burden financially is involved I mean you’re just basically saying well I did it so bless it. You know what I’m saying? Look we’re obligated by law to grant when justified the smallest variance possible. That is justified based on the statutes that we have to uphold and the balancing test. If there are ways to mitigate that variance like evergreen screening we generally condition things to do that so that the relief is in some way lessened the impact of that relief is lessened by the evergreens okay. This is not uncommon at all this happens pretty regularly with this Board so we just have to think this through. Is there anything else you’d like to say, you like to say or anything else from the audience? GAIL WICKHAM : I do have to say I think it’s disingenuous of the applicant to (inaudible) expense when he went ahead before all this could happen. I don’t know what a sono tube is but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I do it holds the thing up. ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting GAIL WICKHAM : And to the extent it’s relevant the Courtney yard not being cleaned I think means they have left it with a natural ground cover and the leaves that fall from many many trees on the property and it’s a natural setting. MEMBER DANTES : It’s irrelevant anyway. GAIL WICKHAM : It’s irrelevant yes but it was mentioned and I’m responding to it. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anyone? Is there any reason to hold this open I don’t think so. MEMBER DANTES : I just think the receipt of the if he can find variances in the neighborhood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can close subject okay alright what I’m going to do is perhaps our office can assist you instructing you as to how to go about doing this but we will have in laser fiche records of old prior decisions that this Board has made and what Eric was asking you to do was to see if you could find other variances for non-conforming rear yard setbacks in and around your neighborhood. We often ask that because it sets a precedence saying well there are some aspects of this neighborhood in which relief has been granted for non-conforming rear yard therefore this is not totally out of keeping. Again we still have to address the other standards too but that would help, help us evaluate the neighborhood a little bit better. So, having said that and hearing no further questions or comments from anyone I’m going to make a motion to close this hearing subject to receipt of additional information about non- conforming rear yard setbacks that have received variance relief in the neighborhood. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting HEARING # 7010 ELIZABETH BRANCH CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The application that is next scheduled on our agenda is for Elizabeth Branch #7010. This was adjourned from March 2 nd. We have had a request from the applicant’s agent for another adjournment which we will do and I’m going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to August 3 rd at 1:15. Is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 7047 -27A NORTH LLC, CHRISTOPHER MOHR CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for 27A North LLC, Christopher Mohr #7047. This is a request for a variance under Article XV, Section 280-64A and the Building Inspector’s January 30, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an “as built” shed addition and conversion of shed to office space at 1) located less than the code required 100 feet from the right of way at 22155 County Route 48 in Cutchogue. Is someone here to represent the applicant? Please come forward and Mr. Lark if you could state your name for the record please. MR. LARK : Richard Lark, Main Rd. Cutchogue New York. I represent the applicant 27A North LLC which is located at 22155 CR 48 in Cutchogue. I believe the jurisdiction is complete (inaudible) this hearing with all the notices and everything. The applicant is the owner of this property and some of the Board members might be familiar with where it is. It’s a home office, a contractor yard and display area of Chris Mohr lawn care and real estate office. Mr. Mohr is here today if there are any questions that the Board might have of him okay? As the Board is aware the area is on the northerly side of CR48 and is zoned light industrial. The property to the northeast is an industrial park containing many types of businesses and the property to the southwest is a large ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting metal building owned by Arthur Young. It used to be an auto and body repair shop. It’s now permanently rented by Chris Mohr landscaping storage and maintenance for his machinery. The cell tower which is sitting on the property is on Arthur Young’s property not on your applicant’s property (inaudible) as to where we are and of course the property to the north is owned by the Town of Southold and (inaudible) area. Your applicant is here today for an area variance for a front yard setback that’s why we’re here. The zoning code for light industrial requires a 100 foot front yard setback which would be off of CR48A. However, the code does provide where the adjoining parcels are developed which is this case. You can take the average setback of the buildings on the two adjacent parcels. When you do the average you get do the math it’s 69.05 feet. However, the applicant’s subject (inaudible) here today is small office building is only 65.7 feet and hence the variance application. The industrial park to the east is 63.3 feet off of the CR48 and Arthur Young’s building is 74.8 and the applicant’s building main building is 75 feet so that would give you the (inaudible) what is really the front yard setbacks in this area. So the background of the construction of the small office building which is used solely for the Chris Mohr landscaping business I’ll avoid repetition because I think the application before you is pretty complete but I just wanted to make a comment that Chris Mohr’s father Robert Mohr who was working with him in the business several years ago in the later part of 2012 converted this which is now what you see as this office building from what was there in that same location as a storage shed. He just added on to it and all without thinking he needed a building permit because everyone thought (inaudible) it was only site plan as approved by the Planning Board in 2004. As it turns out it was on the survey but it was not included in the site plan when the Planning Board approved it. The reason for converting it was to make it (inaudible) clean building under the OSHA rules because the office portion which the Planning Board had approved was not safe in the sense of it was not healthy in that there were fumes from when they were repairing it was in the same building where they were doing machinery (inaudible) and the noise in there and everything was not conducive to an office building. So hence the enlargement to a 13 x 20 foot structure in its present location. Mr. Robert Mohr is no longer in the business and when it came to Chris Mohr’s attention about a year or so ago that the building did not have a C.O. he applied for one and worked with the Building Department in bringing this building to complete compliance as far as the building code is considered with the proper foundations. The electrical systems have all been approved, there’s no plumbing in the building because the two office help the secretaries use the facilities in the adjacent buildings for that purpose. So, as the Board is aware in determining whether or not you can grant an area variance to the applicant you have to balance the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of this industrial neighborhood. In this application it is submitted that the benefit to the applicant is significant because there is no suitable place to locate an office building where the secretaries can meet customers and do the necessary book work required in a business like that that could meet OSHA requirements and be a healthy ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting environment place to work. So, the and it’s submitted that the zero detriment to the neighborhood when you consider the five mandated factors that are required under 267 via the town law. This office building provides no change to the property or the neighborhood. In fact when you expand on the industrial property to the northeast you can hardly if at all see this building and from Arthur Young’s property it completely blends in and I submit to you if you’re driving by on because there’s no parking there on the dual highway on CR48 you hardly notice if you notice it at all the building so it really blends insignificant from a site point of view. The second criteria for the area variance to grant relief is can the applicant do something different. Due to the practical difficulties and the location and the (inaudible) buildings and structures it’s not a huge piece of property on this property there’s really no other practical place to locate an office building that could serve the public. The third factor is whether or not this variance request is substantial. As I pointed out that the average area front yard distance the two adjacent properties is 69.05 feet so in essence the applicant is asking for a 3.35 foot variance which is really a 4.85% deviation from the code as it’s presently written. So I submit that to you I don’t believe it’s substantial in the sense that the prior this Board and (inaudible) view that substantiality. As I stated previously looking at the property just from a common sense point of view it’s pretty clear there’s no adverse effect on neither this property or the neighboring properties of the community of this industrial community in general and it obvious from what I’ve just told you and looking at the history that this problem for the applicant was self-created there’s just no question about that however it’s submitted that when you balance all five factors including the self-created hardship in relationship to the property in this industrial zoned area I respectfully submit there’s no impact on the neighborhood and when you put this versus the value in keeping the office in the present location would not only benefit the applicant and its customers I respectfully request that the variance request be granted. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you and thank you very much for your very complete and well-reasoned application and your summary. By applying the averaging setbacks on either side of the subject property you’ve managed to point out the reduction in the setback to almost a very insubstantial percentage so I appreciate that. MR. LARK : The Building Inspector also to finalize the C.O. application requires the Planning Board to sign off by amending that 2004 application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes I was going to say that any approval will be conditioned based upon the amendment of the site plan yes absolutely. Let’s see let’s start Gerry questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No none at all. ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick? Me either, we were there and I went inside and inspected it we all did you know that we go out and look at all of them anyway so no I have no questions. It’s exactly as you described it. Eric? MEMBER DANTES : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I’ll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 7053 – GARY AND ROBIN ENNIS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Gary and Robin Ennis #7053. This is a request for variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s February 7, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet located at 2450 Jackson Street (AKA 265 Second Street) in New Suffolk. Is there someone here to represent this? ROBIN ENNIS : Good morning; I’m Robin Ennis. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning. Let’s see you are proposing; you have two front yards and you’re proposing to enlarge your existing kitchen and living room is that right? ROBIN ENNIS : It’s not the existing kitchen (inaudible) add on a new kitchen and enlarge the living room. ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you want to maintain the existing non-conforming front yard setback of 10.8 feet along Jackson Street is that correct? The code requires 35 feet. We have been out to inspect the property so we’re familiar with the area and what you’re proposing to do. Let’s see if the Board has any questions. Nick do you want to start? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The one question I had was regarding the C of O or a Pre C.O. do you have a C of O? ROBIN ENNIS : The house there was no C.O. it was built in 1945. It’s been in my name since 1988. I don’t know we did look for one and was told by the Building Department that there isn’t one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What would be very beneficial in that instance thank you for pointing that out would be to when this determination is made and you have permits you need to get apply for a Pre C.O. to the Building Department. ROBIN ENNIS : Okay we’ll do that we’ll take care of that at the Building Department? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah you should have that, you want to have that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That was the only question I had. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Just that a caveat on that the Building Inspector will come over and inspect the property and then issue that hopefully issue that Pre C.O. I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric? MEMBER DANTES : No not at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Patty? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that was easy. ROBIN ENNIS : Regarding the two green cards that I have the tracking. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh great; Kim will take those. ROBIN ENNIS : One was delivered and one was picked up yesterday so I have that. MEMBER DANTES : Is there any reason Leslie you can’t just apply for the Pre C.O. now? ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You could. You could apply anytime you want the Pre C.O. It takes a little while. Why don’t you just go over to the Building Department? They have your records what you’re proposing and so on and they just need to get a copy of our decision so that they can start processing whatever they have to do with building permits and so on. You want to just go and say I don’t have it and I need to get one. They might want to wait until construction is complete so that they can issue it on the whole thing I don’t know but go and ask Mike Verity. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application, anything else from the Board? 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 PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 7057 – SANDRA PAGANO/27 BAY AVE., LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Sandra Pagano/27 Bay Ave. LLC #7057. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s January 8, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize “as built” additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet located at 7185 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard in Laurel. Would you state your name for the record please? SANDRA PAGANO : I’m Sandra Pagano the owner of 7185 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard in Laurel. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We’re looking here at a side yard setback of 3.1 feet the code requires 10 feet. You’re adjacent to a 25 foot wide right of way. There’s a chain link fence on the property and you’re proposing basically to change the roof pitch from flat to pitched? ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting SANDRA PAGANO : Exactly yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have a Pre C.O. #Z25943 that was issued in 1998 for a one family dwelling and accessory garage with storage. Is there anything else you’d like us to know? SANDRA PAGANO : Only that I’m improving the property and solving the problem with leaks that I have and that the setback it was a pre-existing building the setback that I’m asking relief from is does abut the right of way so it’s not like it’s on top of another house and it’s a roof. It will greatly help the situation with leaks and it will also improve the appearance of the house. I don’t see any adverse effect to any neighbors is what I’m saying. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did receive a letter of objection from a neighbor. They’re concerned that this pitched roof will dump more rain and snow on to the right of way which they use to access their property. I presume you are prepared to install the required gutters and leaders on the roof so that drainage will all be handled on site. SANDRA PAGANO : Most certainly yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That has to be in compliance with the storm water management chapter of the town code. Let’s see who has questions, Nick anything? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You just answered my one question. My concern when I reviewed the application there were no dry wells guttering on the structure etc. proposed so I was just curious to know where the water would go so I’m glad to hear that you’re going to follow our request. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry any questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : This house has not changed in any way the footprint of the house is the exact footprint of the house that was there before? SANDRA PAGANO : Yes it is. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : You just went from a one story to a (inaudible) two story or basically we’ll refer to a hip actually not a hip roof a gable (inaudible) SANDRA PAGANO : Yes exactly correct a gabled roof with a little attic space. MEMBER DANTES : Two story? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, it’s one story. They’re just changing the roof pitch that’s all new roof on the structure, Eric anything? ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : No I mean it’s seems like an improvement to me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Patty? MEMBER ACAMPORA : I just want to have a clarification. You had mentioned about leaders and gutters and Nick had mentioned about a dry well because there were no drawings to show that you put a dry well in, I’d like to know for the record will there be dry wells installed? SANDRA PAGANO : Yes I have a licensed contractor and an architect that did it and I’m not sure why they didn’t include it, but yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Please come to the podium and state your name for the record. BEVERLY NETTER : My name is Beverly Netter and my sister is Catherine Natale. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What would you like to tell us? BEVERLY NETTER : I would like to first ask if I may there’s three letters that were sent in and it sounds like you may have only gotten one from Kim (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think I only have one. BEVERLY NETTER : I brought copies of the other two just in case. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay why don’t you bring those forward and we’ll make Kim will make copies for the rest of the Board. Thank you. BEVERLY NETTER : I also Kathy and I own the property at 7219 which we use this access in order to get back to our house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that set back farther from Peconic Bay? BEVERLY NETTER : It’s at the end of a long drive and we don’t live there year round we visit. It was my mother’s home my mother and father’s home but we are the owners of that home now. Kim Caldwell the other letter that you did receive is adjacent, she’s her property gives us the easement and so she is adjacent to the fence and actual house. I also on my way here I didn’t know whether you would stop by the property or not I took a picture of the roof line and how close it is to there and when it rains heavily that water does come in and according to Kim and to my nephew who does permanently live in the house that we own when it snows heavily as the snow melts it just slides off that gable and right over the fence and so we do object because the road is not a blacktop paved it’s a gravel light gravel RCA mix it’s kind of a hard dirt packed but and we maintain that road. We were just out there in March to fill ruts and potholes ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting ourselves shoveling more mix in to these areas. It does present a problem that it’s coming in to our easement and we need that easement not just for ourselves but my parents when they were living in there I had emergency vehicles that need to get down there. These fire trucks don’t need to get stuck in the mud or emergency vehicles ambulances and whatever. They have to travel this road so we do have great concern over the pitch that currently exists now after the building. What was a flat roof or a flatter roof didn’t pitch into the road so the fact that that house was you know within three feet or so of the fence never really bothered us and I do agree that the changes will likely improve the property. It’s a mess so you’ve seen it so I don’t disagree with that; I just don’t want any of the impact. I don’t want it our problem. It wasn’t our problem before and I don’t want it to become our problem now regardless of what the future of the house is. I mean we are looking to potentially sell the house but if it doesn’t sell for what we want we’re going to use it as a summer home and we’re going to share it it’s a huge home it’s forty six hundred square feet at the end of that (inaudible) so it’s huge it’s easily shared as families can share so we just don’t want some other improvement becoming our problem and I’m concerned that it will. Without a drywell I mean the idea of a dry well directed not on the property line probably a good idea. Just leaders and gutters I don’t see so, I don’t see that. I have that on my house and I see the water coming down in a strong rain. I live in Connecticut I made an effort to come down here to be here for this hearing. I’m not around the corner and you know I’ve seen the water come tip right across my black top driveway and we had to install a drain just to keep from stepping in to Lake Michigan when we get out of the car okay so I can see that leaders and gutters will clearly not be enough. It would have to be directed across the property away from our thing if you should approve and we would greatly appreciate that type of consideration. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it is not only something we would do it is something the law obligates us to do. We have a chapter in the zoning code it’s not in the zoning code it’s a zone chapter storm water management. All drainage must by code be handled on site. We all live next to somebody and nobody wants to have runoff from a neighbor’s property damaging in anyway or having an adverse impact on your property so certainly that will be done and we’ve already heard testimony that a drywell is being planned to be installed and we’ll make sure that that happens. The Building Department will also make sure that that happens. The Town Engineer reviews plans in the Building Department for compliance with the drainage code and will require any adjustment if there is anything required that’s being overlooked. BEVERLY NETTER : Kim Caldwell had contacted me and has contacted me this morning. She did want to be here also but she is sick so she did not make the trip but she did want she sent her letter she said she does have concerns too because she her driveway is part of this easement too and her house is right there so she is very much adjacent to it and the pitch now I guess the little extra that comes over is even closer but okay and thank you. ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting CATHERINE NATALE : I’d like to add that there are actually two other owners that use the right of way and that although we have had to fill potholes through the years it’s never been muddy when I have been down that road. The miry muddy mess that occurs after the snow and rain from this newly pitched formerly flat roof is new and something that we don’t want to have to deal with and we shouldn’t have to deal with that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I suspect part of it is because it’s not finished. CATHERINE NATALE : We’re dealing with it now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s been sitting there and it doesn’t have the gutters and leaders and dry well. CATHERINE NATALE : Well I’m a little concerned that they don’t show up on the plan. You know it’s very nice to say oh we’ll do that but it would be nice to see that in some sort of official venue. MEMBER DANTES : We can write that in to our decision. CATHERINE NATALE : And it would be followed up I assume. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : She’s offering it anyway so. CATHERINE NATALE : Our only concern is the mud the water coming on to the right of way. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your testimony and thank you for coming all this way to tell us what you wanted us to consider. CATHERINE NATALE : And your response would be about in line with the other two that we listened to in about two weeks? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes two weeks I’m pretty sure. Anything else you’d like us to know? Anything else from the Board, does anybody have any questions, anyone else in the audience? Hearing no further questions or comments I’m going to make a motion to close this hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 7049SE - PETROS KOUGENTAKIS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Petros Kougentakis #7049SE. Applicants request a Special Exception under Article III Section 280-13B(14). The applicant is the owner requesting authorization to establish an accessory bed and breakfast accessory and incidental to the residential occupancy in this single family dwelling with four (4) bedrooms for lodging and serving of breakfast to the Bed and Breakfast casual transient roomers located at 590 Windward Rd. in Orient. We’ve all inspected the site as you now the property what would you like to tell us Pat? PATRICIA MOORE : Well I’ll give you a little bit of background here. My clients purchased the property in the vacant lot in 1991 and Mr. Kougentakis and his wife at the time built the house in 1992. Mr. and Mrs. Kougentakis, Mr. Kougentakis retired from work and they moved permanently to this property five years ago and they became permanent residents of Southold. The driver’s license which we gave you a copy of shows this address he votes in Southold and he retired from work. In 2012 Mrs. Kougentakis fell ill with cancer. She was ill and receiving treatments until her death February 14, 2014. I want to correct some of my dates were incorrect in my written submission so I want to make sure that I have accurate dates. So she passed away February of 2014. During that time Mr. Kougentakis was her full time 24/7 caretaker. Her treatments were in New York University Hospital so obviously they had to spend a lot more time in the city because of chemo treatments. They would have to be there. She would receive her chemo treatment usually it would be about a week of recovery and then they’d be back here so they spent more time in Brooklyn even though he was still retired still this being his principle residence. After her death he was certainly free to return and there were no obligations in the city with respect to medical treatments and he has been and continues to be a resident of the Town of Southold living in East Marion and his wife is buried at the East Marion Cemetery. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait would you repeat that? PATRIACIA MOORE : She was buried in the cemetery in East Marion. ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I know the cemetery are you saying he was a resident of East Marion? PATRICIA MOORE : He’s been a resident of East Marion I’m sorry Orient pardon me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes let’s make sure. PATRICIA MOORE : Thank you for some reason I put myself in East Marion pardon me, Orient. He’s been a resident of Orient this property is in Orient not East Marion. Thank you for correcting that. One is not the same as the other. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does Mr. Kougentakis or you could answer still maintain a residence in Brooklyn? PATRICIA MOORE : Do you still have a place in Brooklyn? No? It’s rented, he owns a house in Brooklyn but it’s been rented. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you carry on. PATRICIA MOORE : With respect to the obligations under the B&B law the first thing is obviously this has to be his principal residence which it is. He has proposed and you’ve been in the house he has presently four bedrooms upstairs on the second floor. The house is quite large and originally there was some my application had intended to have a new bedroom added so that the entire second floor the four bedrooms would be a B&B but we discussed it and the fact that there you know this is a new venture he’d certainly be willing to reduce it to a three bedroom similar to the house that the B&B that’s also on the same block. I think as a matter of neighborhood opposition on the other application last year the Board suggested three bedrooms rather than the four and Mr. Kougentakis the cost of adding the bedrooms and doing alterations to the house it just didn’t make sense at this point in his life so he’s more than happy to have three bedrooms. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I will just say one thing we do require of anyone who’s running a B&B that they have their own bedroom and bathroom so if that is the proposal now then the one bedroom that’s on the second floor that is ensuite that has a bathroom private bathroom attached to that bedroom that is what the owner occupant will have to have as their own bedroom. PATRICIA MOORE : Oh like in the master bedroom? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah we did it with O’Hagan you know we’ve done it as a matter of course with several you can’t be sharing a bathroom with guests if you’re the owner occupant. ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting PATRICIA MOORE : Well in this house there are other bathrooms so it wouldn’t be an issue but is there any objection to that? You have one of the bathrooms you can always modify your house later on and add a bathroom. That’s fine there’s no you know certainly if that doesn’t work out then he can always add bathrooms. That doesn’t require expansion of sanitary or anything just alterations. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Carry on. PATRICIA MOORE : There is no accessory apartment. I think there was some confusion because of the basement but the basement has a C of O as a rec room. If he wished to expand bedrooms for himself private use he could but at this time he’s not doing it so that was an issue somebody I don’t know why but anyway there is no accessory apartment here. It’s still a single family occupied by him. I do want to introduce Joanna who’s sitting next to him. Fortunately there is a hope when you have such a terrible loss with your wife he did find love again and I introduce her a very lovely lady that’s sitting next to him so he has company now which is nice. CHAIRPERSON WIESMAN : Who will be running this B&B? PATRICIA MOORE : He is; he will. Yeah he’s a very if you need his background he is a professional, he’s had a career. He’s now retired and this is a venture that will help subsidize the expenses of the house as well as give him some company when it’s a very, very quiet winter particularly out in Orient. I also want to have a correction of my paragraph 8 I may have had I don’t know maybe it was left over from a prior application a building permit was I wrote that a building permit filed and is pending for bedrooms relocated to a second floor and finished bathroom by a prior owner that was not right. I apologize for that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So just to summarize you’re saying that the basement level is off the table for now? PATRICIA MOORE : For now yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Whatever future plans you Mr. Kougentakis may have for that will be dealt with through the Building Department. PATRICIA MOORE : Yes. Well you have a C of O for the basement as is now so that’s fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That will not be part of the rent proposed rental facilities? PATRICIA MOORE : No for B&B use? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes. PATRICIA MOORE : No not at all never was no. ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well. PATRICIA MOORE : It would have been his own space not for B&B use. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well should we see if there’s any questions from the Board or anyone in the audience wishing to? SHARON KUEHN : My name is Sharon Kuehn and I live at 990 Windward Rd. in Orient Point. It is our second home and we spend every weekend there and some times during the week and we object to the application for bed and breakfast for Mr. Kougentakis. First point is he does not live there. We’re out there like I said almost every weekend barring maybe two or three during the winter and we also have surveillance cameras around our whole property and there is no activity in that home. It is our belief he does not live there. Secondly, he’s been sued actually and it’s a notorious party house. He has found a way to disregard all the rental laws and every weekend and on AirBNB he has rented his home. He has violated all rental laws and it’s a chronic problem. He has had party buses down, its private property with a private road. He has had party buses coming down the road. This is constant and again he does not live there. MEMBER DANTES : Do you have pictures of these buses? SHARON KUEHN : I do actually I have a I’ll look on my phone I have a video. I’m not sure if I still have it but we took a video of the party bus. The poor gentleman was lost and couldn’t believe that he was actually going someplace on the road because it’s private and he could barely turn around on the road without actually driving on someone else’s property. We now this is now second this would now be a second B&B on a private road with six homes. We’ve come to the end of the earth to have some peace and quiet and it doesn’t seem like that’s what it’s going to be and I thought that it was a requirement that you had to live in the home in order to run a B&B. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is correct. SHARON KUEHN : He does not live in that home and we believe it’s extremely inappropriate to have not just one but two B&B’s on a private road and I do believe as well as I’m sure you’ve received a couple of other letters that he is doing this as a way of trying to get around the law and I think he’s going to carry on renting it on a weekly basis. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There are what six houses on that altogether? SHARON KUEHN : Six. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Including Mr. Kougentaki’s house. ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting SHARON KUEHN : That would be two out of the six as a B&B on a private road that we keep not him not the other resident who has a B&B but the other owners have kept up the road as best we can putting down gravel because of the extra traffic with all the rentals and again it’s a notorious party house with about I think there were fifteen cars one time and whooping and hollering just it’s not what you think it is. It’s a notorious party house and I believe he’s in contempt of court as we speak for that State. MEMBER DANTES : What do you mean by you keep the private road and not him? SHARON KUEHN : We’ve put down gravel on our own. We’ve pitched in with some of the other neighbors and we’ve put it’s a dirt road and when it gets muddy it is a mess so in order for us not to have to constantly clean our cars so that we can even have access to our homes we have paid out of our own pocket to keep that road nice. He hasn’t participated and has no interest in participating I guess. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The entry that’s wooded you know before you get to the first of the six houses I noticed a couple of days ago when we were there there’s a sort of a big pothole there. Who maintains that piece because there’s no residence that’s directly in front of it, does anybody do anything with that? SHARON KUEHN : We’ve tried but you know as traffic we just went through the whole winter. We are going to have to put down more gravel to cover that up. There was an accident there someone knocked down a tree, knocked down the pole I guess that’s going to be remedied. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The homeowner’s association who’s going to do that or what? SHARON KUEHN : No we did that on our own. A couple of the neighbors have decided we wanted it to be a nice road. We didn’t want to do the black top but we do want to have a nice road to drive down so that was the best remedy we could think of was to do that. MEMBER DANTES : It was a voluntary association was that it? Don’t you guys have like a homeowners association that SHARON KUEHN : We do have a homeowners association but we decided not to participate with that because it was just kind of ridiculous. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We being? SHARON KUEHN : My husband and I. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let’s see before you either one of you go anywhere let’s see if the Board has any questions of you at this point. Pat did you have any? ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Are there children, small children on that road that live in those houses? SHARON KUEHN : Yes actually the first home or maybe the second home the Lapowski’s now have a grandchild who will be coming out. I have a sixteen year old and I have a twenty one year old. The people at the end of the road next to have two young children as well they have a fourteen year old and a ten year old. I believe those are their ages so yes there are young children on the road. MEMBER ACAMPORA : And I just have a question I think Bill I’ll address this to you as the Town Attorney, has there been any other homeowners association within the town that has two B&B’s in their area closely situated? T.A. DUFFY : Not that I’m aware of. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric any questions of Ms. Kuehn? MEMBER DANTES : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yep and I guess it’s better maybe to direct it to Pat Moore is there an actual homeowners association, I’m a little confused whether there is something or not or if it’s just an optional neighborly pass the hat around? JAMES O’HAGAN : Good afternoon everyone James O’Hagan 1125 Windward Rd. Orient NY. Yes there is a homeowners association in place. It was established I’m going to say 2010 maybe. It does establish contributing to the road within the members of the association. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I’m sorry if you don’t mind just backing up before you discuss what the homeowners association is, is this something that it’s an optional homeowners association or all six families are obligated by the deed to participate in it? JAMES O’HAGAN : The association was created by the upland members in addition to the waterfront owners as a means of guidance and rules of the road for the active occupied members of the street Windward Rd. and any additions to the development as additional property owners may enter into purchases and use of the facilities. The facilities are generally limited; they consist of the Long Island Sound stairwell beach access point. I actually spearheaded the a compromise with the former owners of the adjacent property to the Kougentakis’ that is presently owned by Eskander to have a sound access stairwell on twenty two foot height bluff with the construction and with environmental impact and you know official planning and approval by the Town of Southold. So in conjunction with that stairwell permit activity with the DEC and the Town of Southold Planning Board we conducted an ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting association membership and rules of the road that consisted of road maintenance, maintenance of the stairwell, maintenance to the stairwell in the event of a storm condition, insurance of the road, insurance of liability perspective and some general recreational items like use of fires on the beach and storing of boats etc., etc. some minor smaller components but essentially road use and maintaining the beach stairs so that it has the longevity and it adds value to this community. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are there any other stairs over the bluff? JAMES O’HAGAN : The Kuehn’s are not members of the association but Kougentakis is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are there any other stairs along the waterfront over the bluff down to the beach other than the one that’s on Eskander’s property? JAMES O’HAGAN : Petros has a stairwell beach, Eskander has a stairwell beach and the association owns and maintains the stairwell (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Which is on Eskander’s property? JAMES O’HAGAN : No, I take that back yes it is on an eight foot easement on Eskander’s property on a right of way that’s titled and deeded that runs through the eastern side of Windward Rd. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the association maintains those stairs but the easement is granted by Eskander for access to the stairs? JAMES O’HAGAN : No the association rules that are deeded within our lots gave control of the stairwell to all of the association and Eskander is also (inaudible) of the association. The association passes on the titles of those properties to the six houses so if Eskander sells the next successor has those association rights some of mine some to Mr. Kougentakis and another owner two other owners (inaudible) and Petros’s brother and sister-in-law. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : These are not all necessarily directly applicable to a B&B application however they’re certainly helping us to understand again to be reminded of the character of the area. PATRICIA MOORE : I do want to clarify because there is some kind of I don’t want any misunderstandings of the legal status of some of these association agreements let me back up by saying Mr. O’Hagan I think you operate the other B&B on the street or your wife does? JAMES O’HAGAN : Yes. ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting PATRICIA MOORE : If you go back to that hearing the O’Hagan application for the B&B and for disclosure I was brought in at the end of that hearing to defend or apply for the B&B in that case because the Kuehn’s were opposing that B&B more so because of the use of the B&B use would somehow or another impact their beach access and they were objecting to the beach access which is as Mr. O’Hagan correctly points out a right of way that is that the adjacent owner not Mr. Kougentakis the adjacent owner had a right of way a foot right of way that he was subject to the rights of others so that the road those that are landlocked not the waterfront property owners but the land owners that don’t have direct access to the sound would all have access via this eight foot path to a stairway and Mr. O’Hagan as he also stated he spearheaded an effort to coordinate the operations the maintenance the access and use of that beach stairs so that there would be somewhat peace a tranquility among the homeowners in that area. If I remember correctly because of conflicts that people didn’t want your guest to be using this beach access. SHARON KUEHN : They can’t. PATRICIA MOORE : Pardon. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold it, hold it. PATRICIA MOORE : That was his case it has nothing to do it’s irrelevant to this application. Mr. Kougentakis has his own beach access. In fact at the hearing there was some discussion that Mr. Kougentakis had always allowed your own guests to use his access as a (inaudible) all the neighbors to use whoever wished to use it could use his stairway to access the beach. As to the road let’s clarify some things. There were three subdivisions at least two subdivisions that were on that right of way. There was the original subdivision which your lot was a member of the northerly parcel the waterfront parcels and then there were some additional parcels the one that the three lots that are along that right of way that was a secondary subdivision. That was permitted to be subdivided with the use of that common roadway. There was agreements I think through the Planning Board process of sharing the common maintenance and use of that right of way so when you’re asking who maintains it by Planning Board covenants and approval it’s an obligation that each of the homeowners should participate in the maintenance of that road. Ms. Kuehn just testified that outside of this association that Mr. O’Hagan spearheaded Mrs. Kuehn and her husband choose to make improvements to the road because they want it of a certain caliber and certain improvements but nonetheless the access is one that is common to everybody on this road. It is not limited. It is not restricted and in fact of all with your knowledge of real estate and land use laws had there been any restrictions those three lots that are on that street would never have been developed because you can’t increase the degree of use of a road by subdivision, further subdivision. So the fact that more subdivisions were ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting approved on the use of this road means this road has no restrictions whatsoever with respect to its use. As far as this application Mr. Kougentakis was never made whether the (inaudible) in agreement includes everybody. Mr. Kougentakis tells me that he did not sign off or sign as part of this I don’t know I haven’t seen it but JAMES O’HAGAN : The deeded documents for the association Petros Kougentakis is a signer and a member for that. PATRICIA MOORE : Okay good so he is a member of the as far as maintenance of the road and use of this beach access he would have the same rules that everyone else has if he were to use the beach access which he doesn’t he has his own. JAMES O’HAGAN : He has one minor exception that the beach access is not a stipulation of the association membership because he has his own private PATRICIA MOORE : He has his own exactly. So as far as his own guests of the B&B he has direct access. You also saw the property is surrounded by open space he does have his one neighbor on the west side and we do have the Kuehn’s who are in front of the property and their property they have a pool in the back, there is a row of privacy screening. There’s also additional screening that you put in which is an attempt to maintain privacy. As far as Mrs. Kuehn’s conclusion that he does not live there I will put him right here and he will swear where he is a resident of the Town of Southold and this is his principal residence in Orient. We’ve given you proof of that by way of his own driver’s license and his ability to go here and so on but I will put him on the record with respect to his own sworn statement that where his residence his principal residence. He understands that for a B&B it has to be in a principal residence. With respect to law suits I don’t want to get distracted. Those are matters of court proceedings but to begin with just for clarification when the short term rental before the short term rental law was on the books it was not generally recognized out here that it was not a permitted use. That only became clear in the last two I guess one year with the Zoning Board’s interpretation on one of the cases that’s still pending a case in Greenport. The short term rental law itself. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I just want to correct you. The Zoning Board’s determination has been upheld. PATRICIA MOORE : Yes it has been upheld yes it is potentially a matter of I think there has been a notice of appealed filed but nonetheless it was just recently upheld I guess in the last six months, eight months. In any case I’m not disputing or arguing over the whether that law is correct or not I’m just saying that generally the out here there was no knowledge of a prohibition of short term rental. When the law was put in the books, the short term rental law ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting was put in the books there was a specific language in the code that stated that it was applicable to non-owner occupancy and that language caused a great deal of confusion out here because owner occupancy that short term rental law didn’t seem to apply if you were an owner occupant of your house and you were doing short term rental while you were there. There was some clarification down the line because both the Building Department and Town Attorney’s office that specific exception was in there so that people can do B&B applications that’s why they put it in there but it wasn’t clear when that code was being adopted or the public hearings were occurring there was specific testimony of the fact that it was for non-owner occupant homes. In fact when we were seeking to make an application for a B&B there was a long time that this was held up because the Building Department when I first tried to file it there is no such animal and I said no this is a B&B application and then there was a lot of confusion in the Building Department. So as far as the litigation when he was sued, he was not represented by counsel that case is out there and is being settled but really it has nothing to do with this. This is based on the use of the property as a short term rental. We are here for a B&B application and he has stipulated in the courts that any use of the property would be done in accordance with whatever the code allows. So B&B and short term rental allows for minimum two weeks so as long as we live by those rules there is no court action. The stipulation, the settlement is something that is being discussed at this point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat let me ask you a question. In our standards for B&B applicants Article III Section 280-13B(14) which permits the establishment of an accessory bed and breakfast is based upon the following kinds of requirements I’m not going to go over all of them some of them you’ve addressed in your application. There are two and four and five that refer to the proposed bed and breakfast as applied for is reasonable in relation to the district in which it’s located, adjacent use districts, and nearby and adjacent residential uses and it also says it’s accessory to the principal use and will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties. Would you please address that? PATRICIA MOORE : Sure, well to begin with by the fact that another B&B is on this block means that the use itself is generally a compatible use. To begin with a B&B use is a by special permit it means it’s a presumption that the use is permitted with certain reasonable conditions. The house as you compare to the other homes on this block is quite a large, very stately home on the water. It is surrounded by for the most part in the direction the views it faces the Long Island Sound so it has open views. Any activity on the east side is again completely open to views. When it comes to the design of the house its patio is facing the north and the east so that outdoor activities are all occurring in the area that is most private and open from view. The driveway is again is a circular driveway. The cars for a B&B use would be very comfortably located there on the driveway in the area. We showed potential for the homeowner’s cars plus five other vehicles. Again we were proposing a B&B for the maximum number of rooms and my ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting client at this point is willing to show the community that this B&B will not cause the sky to fall and will not cause any disruption to the community and therefore he’s certainly comfortable with a three bedroom B&B. Being the fact that it’s Orient demand for use in Orient is not as prolific as in other areas in Southold. It is isolated in Orient and people have to actually want to come out to Orient and stay in Orient. It’s beautiful but it’s not going to be a very intensified use here. With respect to the impact on neighbors as I said the house is oh what’s the width of it? It’s about a hundred feet the front door is about a hundred feet from the property line for the Kuehn’s. They have a house, they have a pool and they have their own activity and by the mere fact that they testify that they don’t he doesn’t live there brings me to the conclusion that his house is so isolated and so separated from the Kuehn’s that they didn’t even think he was there. So the fact that it will be occupied by at most three other couples is an indicator that there is no impact on the community or the neighbors. This house is for the most part it is one of the original homes that was built there. Built in 1992 so it’s the one house that’s been there consistently before all the others were built. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat, how about the traffic from the three other cars going back and forth on that right of way because he’s at the end not the beginning? PATRICIA MOORE : Yes I understand. Well I’ll remind the Board this is a large house that has four bedrooms so whether it’s guests coming for the B&B and that’s why it’s a use that’s considered a residential use or it’s his own personal guests they’re using the road. There is no prohibition, you’re allowed to he lives on this road and he’s allowed to have people coming to his property whether they’re B&B guests which again are mostly adults coming in and going down this driveway at very slow speed because you don’t go on this driveway very quickly it doesn’t matter whether it’s his own private individual, private guests or B&B guests it’s still the same number of bedrooms. We’re not building a new house to maximize the number of rooms. This is an existing house so I know that there were questions about are there young children, are there you know this is a concern on the access road well there are there’s no testimony of very young children there are grandchildren. Each of these homes again you have the B&B, the O’Hagan B&B which has young family there and others are grandchildren most of the time you don’t let infants run around without some supervision and most of the homes on this block if I recall your home certainly Mrs. Kuehn has a fence entire fence because of the pool but I believe the fence is also is in the front yard? SHARON KUEHN : It’s in the back yard not in the front yard where my kids roam. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait, you can’t talk to each other. Ms. Kuehn if you want to ask a question you have to come to the mic. ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting PATRICIA MOORE : Whether it’s a person driving down this block that’s a B&B guest or a just a person driving down this block that’s one of their guests they will drive cautiously carefully and probably more slowly than local teens because they are careful with you know driving slowly in a residential community. I’m sorry what’s the width of the road, yeah so it’s a relatively narrow road that you should not be speeding so it certainly gives the ability to carefully operate and cautiously operate and so if a sign has to be posted for speeding I’m sure you know for speed if there is an association that decides the speed here should be no more than five or ten miles an hour it certainly something that can be put up by the association or you can put it up as part of the condition of permit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I bring this up because one of the considerations in granting the O’Hagan B&B was that they were the very first dwelling in that subdivision so that any guests they may have were not going to be driving past their house and down that road where other home owners have their property. That’s why I’m asking you. PATRICIA MOORE : Well and again no. I understand that he’s one of the first houses that is built. He has direct waterfront access and the other issue that seemed to be a tremendous conflict to the other B&B was the fact that their guest might actually walk on this road and use the beach so in this case they can’t make a complaint about that because he is the waterfront homeowner. As far as again I’ll just point out that the number of bedrooms is there whether you know a car or he’s entitled to have cars come out to his home and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that’s absolutely true there is however a difference between a private residential extended family or guests or whoever and a business in which people are you know different people are going up and down regularly which could be in fact seven days a week because once it’s legalized there’s no restrictions. No one is saying how many guests other than the bedrooms the occupancy are the cars and the occupancy PATRICIA MOORE : Yes I think the maximum is ten under the code CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s for five bedrooms yes. PATRICIA MOORE : Five bedrooms so here we’re talking about a three bedroom so that means at most you’re talking about CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Six people. PATRICIA MOORE : Two people per car at most unless a family comes in. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The difference is generally when people go to a B&B they want to see the area. They want to go to the wineries; they want to go out to restaurants so they go in ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting and out quite a bit. That’s been our experience with granting B&B’s wherever they are located in a residential zone so I just want the record to reflect that distinction. PATRICIA MOORE : It is a very common complaint at every B&B application you get it seems that the neighbors always complain that the use of the road and the potential the perceived intensity of the driving that’s going to occur but similarly you have a waterfront house that the family could chose to instead of touring they may know the area and they may just stay put and enjoy the beach so yes we you know as long as we certainly will you know in fairness to the families to the neighborhood he has to participate or should participate in the maintenance of the road that’s something that he must do and if potholes need to be filled then they get filled. Whether again it’s each of these homes on this block are probably at least four bedrooms, four bedroom homes and you know if you have adult children that have cars or if you have your own family that has more than one car there’s going to be traffic on this road but I don’t believe you can conclude that because it’s a B&B that there will be additional traffic. The fact is that this house can accommodate so many people that whether it’s friends and family that come in for the weekend or a B&B guest there’s really no differentiation in the traffic and the road was designed for under the town code specifications for a certain number of houses and amount of traffic that’s anticipated so we have to rely on the construction of the road to not we’re not talking about a hotel we’re talking about a B&B. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let’s see we’ve taken a lot of testimony let me see if there’s anyone else who wants to is there anyone else in the audience who wants to address the application? PATRICIA MOORE : I do want to have Mr. Kougentakis state on the record where his principal residence is so that there is absolutely no CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You want me to swear him in under oath? PATRICIA MOORE : Yes please swear him in under oath. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please state your name and spell it. MR. KOUGENTAKIS : Petros Kougentakis. (spells name) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright Mr. Kougentakis will you raise your right hand please? Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God? MR. KOUGENTAKIS : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You do. Where is your full time principal residence? MR. KOUGENTAKIS : 590 Windward Rd Orient, New York. ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you ever occupy another residence throughout the year? MR. KOUGENTAKIS : No. PATRICIA MOORE : There’s a delay because he has to understand what you’re saying. That wasn’t a delay like oh my answer is MR. KOUGENTAKIS : And also by maintaining the road I own the house for twenty six years and I spent less than seven hundred dollars all these years for road, maybe a thousand dollars. It’s not (inaudible) anything there and only sometimes we altogether we pay a hundred dollars each and we do it’s any and also the road is maybe six, seven hundred feet and if you go fast a lot of dust so you have to go slow otherwise you have dust on your car. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you intend to operate this bed and breakfast yourself? MR. KOUGENTAKIS : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You do. Will you have any assistance with housekeeping, with preparation of breakfast, food and things like that? MR. KOUGENTAKIS : Yea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Will that individual be coming and going to the property or will they be in residence? MR. KOUGENTAKIS : Excuse me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The people who will be helping you with the B&B? MR. KOUGENTAKIS : Oh they have I have cleaning lady. PATRICIA MOORE : The same cleaning lady you have now? MR. KOUGENTAKIS : Yea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any other questions you’d like to ask him while he’s under oath? MR. KOUGENTAKIS : And also previously the previous owner that was next to me he had a family of three children and he and always we have four, five families in their house. They stayed nine years there very friendly, all the people that we for twenty five years change to and everybody we have lunch every weekend with them we very friendly neighbors and we like to have the same with all. Maybe that stopped like do differently I don’t know if he wants to continue in the future but that’s not what I like to have my neighbors and especially full time neighbor that I am there and weekdays most and especially when the weather is huge and bad ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting is always good somebody to watch the homes. So that’s why we had the previous owner that they watch our homes and we feel safe all of us because when I wasn’t there I was in the city I have there them to look after the house so we were a family and I like all of us to be again. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask you this, there has been testimony and we’ve all read about it and we have not only oral testimony but written confirmation of the fact that previously prior to the short term rental law there was a great deal of activity going on on your property and that you were not present at the time. MR. KOUGENTAKIS : I had my wife cancer and (inaudible) was previously sick for five, six years. I stopped my business, I made huge money and then I close my company and I work with her to survive till she died so the last let’s say year I was I have some tenants because to help in the income that was before the law but still whatever happened nobody complain for noise because I don’t allow music in the house and I don’t allow people staying the way that the house is they don’t live there, they don’t do parties there they sleep, they take sometimes most of the parties are bachelorette girls they go there and then because they in the wineries at night they take a car service not a bus. There is a car service that has a bus instead of like a limousine and I told them not to come back again so it’s not like huge parties. They have for twelve people they bring the big limousine because they probably have no other car instead to bring two or three. It’s not like people stay at the house and do parties and do noise and for twenty five years nobody complain about me and I won’t continue the same thing. CHAIRPESON WEISMAN : Are you still advertising for rental for fourteen days or more? MR. KOUGENTAKIS : For now yes because I on May 9 th is the last day of my (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of your contract with the is that Airbnb or someplace like that? MR. KOUGENTAKIS : Yeah I mean on the Home Away. CHAIRPERSON WEIMSAN : On Home Away thank you. MR. KOUGENTAKIS : But I advertise fourteen days. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and if someone wanted to rent your place now would you be there? MR. KOUGENTAKIS : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because you’re not living anywhere else? MR. KOUGENTAKIS : No my girlfriend is from Canada okay I go up to Canada but when I have nobody here. When I have ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your testimony. SHARON KUEHN : I’m sure you’re all aware of the Suffolk Times the articles about (inaudible) poster child up violation after violation after violation. Again I don’t wish you any harm, I don’t and I wish you all the luck in the world but you’re not doing the right thing. MR. KOUGENTAKIS : You create the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no, no and you should listen Mrs. Kuehn you cannot address Mr. Kougentakis you don’t talk to each other you talk to the Board. SHARON KUEHN : I’m sorry. It’s a notorious party house with reggae bands and music and bachelorette parties and bachelor parties. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Excuse me I want to get back to the homeowners association do you have a set amount of dues that you have to pay for the maintenance of the road? SHARON KUEHN : No we pay the insurance on the stairs. MEMBER ACAMPORA : That’ it. SHARON KUEHN : That’s it. We did not recognize it as a legitimate my husband is an attorney who did not recognize it as a legitimate homeowners association because of who it was run by. MEMBER ACAMPORA : And that property to the west where the grass is who maintains that? SHARON KUEHN : The farmer whoever farms that he does that. MEMBER ACAMPORA : And are there any perspective new buildings coming into that area? SHARON KUEHN : I hope not but I’m sure MEMBER ACAMPORA : I saw that other day that there were some orange flags up so I don’t know on the west side of the road as you’re going in. SHARON KUEHN : I think the piece of property is for sale as you first enter in. It’s been on it’s been off for many years but I don’t think there’s any activity and I’m not sure what’s going on with the farm. PATRICIA MOORE : Is that the Pappas property on the west? SHARON KUEHN : I don’t know their names. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Listen we have taken a great deal of testimony here and we’re just repeating ourselves and more or less the road is a civic matter. The only reason that we would ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting enter into a concern about it is the fact that it has to be maintained for emergency equipment. It has to have twelve foot width and fifteen foot vertical clearance for access by emergency equipment and that is what the Town Engineer has told us. I am a little concerned about the potholes we observed because that is one of the things that can cause havoc with an emergency vehicle. So I think all of you need to address that together but that is really not a matter that this Board has jurisdiction over other than as a right of way for emergency access. SHARON KUEHN : We’ve paid with our money and there’s been no interest in anyone else chipping in. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, anything else from the Board, do you want to close this? I don’t know what else we can possibly get in the way of information that would delay us from closing it unless anyone else can think of anything. I think our record is pretty clear. Is there anything else you wanted to say Pat before I close this? Alright 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 ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 7013 – CROTEAUX VINEYARDS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Croteaux Vineyards #7013. This was adjourned from April 6, 2017. It’s a request for variances under Article III Section 280-13A(4) and the Building Inspector’s October 7, 2016 Amended November 2, 2106 Notice of Disapproval to legalize an “as built” winery and tasting room at 1) winery and tasting room facilities located on a parcel less than the code required minimum of at least 10 acres devoted to vineyard or other agricultural purposes located at 1450 South Harbor Rd. in ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting Southold. Before we get started Member Planamento is recusing himself from this hearing. He will recess. Please state your name for the record. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good afternoon my name is Martin Finnegan. I’m with Twomey, Latham Shea, Kelly and Quartararo 56340 Main Rd. Southold for the applicant Croteaux Vineyards. I am here today on behalf of Croteaux in support of their application as Chairperson Weisman mentioned to legalize the as built tasting room on their property. I understand that the Board has previously visited the site. I assume that if you didn’t you have some familiarity with this agricultural operation that has been in existence in our Town for about a little over a decade. The Board’s jurisdiction as mentioned stems from a Notice of Disapproval from the Building Department last November that denied the Croteaux’s application for a building permit for their tasting room on the grounds that the facility is located on a parcel less than the code required minimum of ten acres. I’d like at this point if I many to just hand up a memorandum of law to the Board that I prepared that just essentially I will go over a lot of its content but it reviews the history of Croteaux Vineyards and the fourteen acres that comprise the vineyard operation and also sets forth the reasons why we believe variance relief is appropriate. At this point to save us a thousand words I just wanted to direct everybody’s attention to the survey of the property CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We’re recording so just come here or come closer and speak into that mic. MARTIN FINNEGAN : So the Notice of Disapproval is with respect to parcel A, I’m going to use parcel A and parcel B because that’s what’s on the survey which has been submitted with the application just so we can speak in the same language here but as mentioned these parcels collectively combined are Croteaux Vineyards. Parcel A is improved with this two story framed building which actually is the tasting room facility and wine storage. There are two historic framed barns that have been restored that are used for wine production, storage of wine, products and wine bottles and such as well as farm equipment tractor storage that is used for the operation of the vineyard. You can note to the southern portion of the property here is the historic farm house and other accessory residential structures along the property. Parcel B is a vineyard. It is a 9.4 acre vineyard entirely planted in Croteaux’s grapes and actually this is an aerial photograph which depicts Croteaux Vineyards from top to bottom. I did not mention that Parcel A also has 1.2 acres of grapes planted on the parcel that (inaudible) part together with Parcel B’s grapes. So that’s the visual of what we’re going to be talking about. (Away from microphone) and just a little history parcel A is comprised of 4.65 acres as mentioned approved with a farm house that was constructed in 1888. The two framed barn buildings have been there since the 1700’s and they are for storage as mentioned. This property was originally part of the Howell farm which is the property to the west here which initially was a large farm about ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting thirty six acres. In 1988 that property was subdivided and a large part of that about twenty two acres of that development rights were sold it’s still actively farmed. Just to the west of the Croteaux property and this parcel the 4.65 acres which originally was the homestead of the farm the farmhouse where all that was was set off and development rights for that piece are intact. The Croteux’s purchased the property in 1992 at which time the buildings on the property were in the state of neglect and disrepair. They set out to renovate them into back to their original condition not to expand them beyond they renovated in their historic condition all the structures on there were returned to their original condition and in 2003 the grapes were planted on the rear of the parcel. Parcel B as mentioned is a 9.4 acre vineyard. That acreage was originally part of the Stepnoski Farm which was a 17 ½ acre farm to the east. Almost at the same time that they purchased the parcel A parcel B came on the market because Mr. Stepnoski passed away and it was vulnerable to development. It was going to be purchased for the construction of approximately twenty eight houses. Michael Croteaux got involved and with a group of people go together with the Peconic Land Trust and was able to work out a limited development plan for a couple of parcels to the north but essentially to preserve 12 ½ acres of that Stepnoski Farm part of which is the parcel B vineyard that you see on the survey and in the attached photograph. I guess it was in the 90’s they converted that farm into a certified organic farm and eventually in the early 2000’s a cover crop was planted, the soil was prepared and at the same time that the other vineyard was planted on parcel A, parcel B was planted with grapes so what you have now and it’s also improved with a (inaudible) agricultural well for irrigation so it’s an active since 2003 there have been over 10 ½ acres of active vineyard on the Croteaux property. Of the total 14 acres we have in parcel A & B those 10 ½ acres are planted in Merlot, Cab, Cabernet Franc and Sauvignon Blanc. There are 1089 vines planted per acre on the property. Although a small portion of parcel A is improved with primary and accessory residential structures the vast majority of the acreage of the 14 acres is devoted to the production, processing and sale of wine made from grapes grown on both parcels. So even though they are legally separate parcels they’ve always been used by the Croteaux’s as a single farm operation and that’s really the crux of our argument to you here today. We are dealing with a code provision that says a winery can exist on a parcel that has a minimum of ten acres devoted to vineyard or other agricultural purposes. As we know this code provision has not been amended in many, many years since 1994 and I think the Town Board recognizes that there is a need to address that provision but we’re stuck with it as we sit here and talk about this today. I would suggest to you as we go through this that there is certainly room here to vary that provision and I think that this operation is the prime example of why it should be varied. So, just to underscore that we have 10 ½ acres planted in grapes okay Croteaux has well over the ten acre requirement okay is planted in grapes. It’s not ten acres with some grapes and (inaudible) we have almost all of the 14 acres but for the residential use is in agricultural production. These lots were bought at the same time. They were planted at the same time and ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting they are owned and managed by the same people. From the Croteaux’s perspective and we submit to you that these parcels are practically merged I’m going to make up my own term of art here but they comprise a single farm operation and but for the existence of South Harbor Rd. that bisects the vineyard they would be legally merged. If the Croteaux’s had their way they would merge these in to one parcel because if you look at it it’s one agricultural operation. It’s not they don’t have separate existing since the two parcels act and are used as one. I want to just note that parcel B is already part of the certified agricultural district in Suffolk County. The County’s agricultural and Farmland Production Board has reviewed Croteaux Vineyards application to have parcel A included as well into the AG district and had voted to recommend to the County legislature to include parcel A in the district. Upon recognition and principally on recognition of the fact that the parcels are part of a single farm operation so from the County, AG and Farm Board’s perspective this is one farm one single operation. If I may I’d like to submit a copy of the staff report from the Farmland Protection Board for the record? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes please. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Now just to be clear we’re not trying to play games here the property is not yet in the AG district. The process is under way. It is my understanding that in early June a resolution will be placed on the table before the legislature to take it to the next level to have it included and the process should conclude itself in late summer early fall. Based on the staff report and the hearing we attended before the Farmland Protection Board we don’t believe that there’s going to be any issue with it being included so again all that to say that we’re asking you to look at this as a single farm operation as one parcel because I think in your thinking about how to approach the relief requested that’s a critical mind set and you know the fundamental question we are left with is you know should Croteaux Vineyard’s be denied a tasting room for their wines that are made exclusively from long island grapes as the code requires, grown on over ten acres of land surrounding that tasting room that is situated in a conforming location as the code requires simply because there’s a town road bisecting the vineyard and so we respectfully submit that it should not and if you review the standards in the town law in light of the entire operation of Croteaux you will agree that a variance should be granted here and so I’m just going to briefly walk you through your favorite criteria under 267B and tell you why I think we meet each of those criteria. So, the grant of the variance will not cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or create a detriment to nearby properties. Croteaux is in a residential zoning district as most of our vineyards in town are. Parcel A is in the AC zoning district, Parcel B is in R80 who knows why but that’s what they are. Although parcel A and parcel B are bounded to the north by a residential uses parcel A is substantially surrounded by active farmland as you can see. This is all (inaudible away from mic) over here and up to the north there’s wineries all along the corridor in the neighborhood. The winery and tasting room operation of Croteaux have been under way since 2007 without ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting incident or significant impact on the surrounding neighborhood. There are four other active winery operations as mentioned within a mile radius of the site and as you know Croteaux is a boutique winery. They produce only Provence Rose wines. The tasting room facility only operates on weekends Friday to Monday. Buses and limos are not permitted. The farm winery structures on parcel A are all in conforming locations as I mentioned before and if variance relief is granted there are no changes contemplated. This is not an application to say we want to expand this and have a bigger use. Everything is as it is. So, Croteaux submits that if there are any possible adverse impacts on nearby residential properties they can all be addressed and mitigated through the site plan process that will be under way when we finish with this Board. Moving on to do we really need a variance or is there any option? Again I’m going to say it again and you’re going to get sick of me saying single farm operation but that’s our mantra here today. Parcel A and parcel B is a single farm operation. Had they their choice we’d merge them but we although practically merged cannot legally merge because of that town road in between so legal merger renders is impossible because of the road and we have no choice but to come here and ask for relief. Is it substantial? This is probably the biggest factor that we have to talk about here today. If we look at this in a vacuum, if we look at one parcel that has a residential use on it and a winery use on it which by the way there is sufficient acreage on that parcel to allow both uses if we need the two acres per use that exists but the variance relief as to parcel A may see substantial at first glance in the context of a ten acre requirement but we submit that the substantiality of the relief requested is mitigated by the fact that Croteaux operates not one but two adjacent parcels with over ten acres of grape planted. It’s not a situation where we’re just trying to get to ten acres we have more than ten acres plus the acreage for the agricultural structures and the operation. I mean the entire 14 really with a farm house and structures is largely in agricultural production. Again, conforming locations, we have sufficient size, adequate parking and buffering from neighboring properties through the site plan process. So, the benefit achieved from allowing this long standing respected agricultural operation to continue we believe far outweighs the substantiality of the variance relief requested. Adverse impacts on physical and environmental conditions we touched on some of this but we’re just asking you to simply allow what is there to continue. This is a vineyard that has been planted and actively farmed and operated since 2003 on property that has been in agriculture as part of historic farms in this town for years and years and generations. There’s no new buildings contemplated, no expansion. The vineyard as I said only operates on weekends. They are very limited. They don’t invite big groups, big events, limo and bus traffic is not invited even groups of eight people or more are not are frowned upon. They encourage smaller groups to come to their tasting room. So, we don’t believe there are any perceivable adverse impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood stemming from this use now or in the future but again if anything that we brought up, any concerns the neighbors have can certainly be dealt with through the site plan process and be mitigated but you know the ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting downside of not granting relief is to extinguish what is a viable vibrant and very successful agricultural operation in our town and I submit to you one that is a model for how wineries should be operated and granting a variance will ensure that this historic farm and buildings will remain active in our town. As to self-creation you know the apparent difficulty here I submit to you is the road that goes between the vineyard and the inability to merge these parcels to be compliant with this ten acre code requirement which you know for the life of me as I’ve reviewed the legislative history of this and where this ten acre rule came up because it doesn’t seem to match up with anything in state law it’s just it was apparently some arbitrary means of trying to control size, scope whatever but here it’s important to note that from day one from the day the grapes were planted by the Croteaux’s they have respected the spirit of the ten acre rule. They have always been over ten acres of grapes planted before any winery operation or tasting room operation was commenced on this property and if this was a farm road if parcel A and parcel B if there was farm road between them if there was something that could be done they would deal with it. There would be no difficulty but we have this practical problem and you know I don’t think it’s any different than having a farm road run between a vineyard but it’s a town road so legally we have an issue and that’s something we have to deal with so was it there when they bought it, yes but I really believe that if you look at the whole operation here the aggregate of what’s going on here we comply with the code. It’s not on one parcel it’s on two but for intense and purposes it’s there and so I think that on balance as you do the analysis, I think there’s ample justification for granting relief. So have you done this before? Well, the Board has granted relief for the construction of a winery on a parcel of less than ten acres before as you know in Sannino the applicant had two parcels totaling just over 7 acres and you determined there that the granting of a 30.6% variance from the ten acre requirement was the minimum necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of a residence and a winery while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and health, safety and welfare of the community. Well here Croteaux Vineyards has twice the acreage on its two lots nearly all of which is in agricultural production. Unlike Sannino the Croteaux’s don’t have the option to legally merge the two parcels but they’re nonetheless one farm operation and we submit that the reasoning this Board used in Sannino could be employed here to grant the relief requested. As I said Croteaux is an excellent example of what we want our local wineries to be. It’s not an operation that invites crowds and crazy events and limos and buses. It’s a boutique operation and the only winery in the United States of America that only produces Rose and they’re located in the area that is surrounded by vineyards. They’re not a fish out of water where they are. They fit right in there. It’s right within the character of this neighborhood of this community of the surrounding properties. As mentioned to the extent that you believe there’s any impacts from this we have a site plan process to address them. At this point I think I’ve said my peace. I would like to know whether the Board has any questions for either me or my client Michael Croteaux who is here and is ready, willing and able to answer ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting any questions you might have. I’d like to thank you for your time in consideration and I would like to request that if we do keep the record open because we would like the opportunity to address any questions and concerns that are raised here today and if need be to have further submissions to the Board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I do have a question I think you’ve pretty thoroughly addressed the issue of that fact that the parcels are not adjacent to each other and so on. We did as you know an interior inspection. Mr. Croteaux was kind enough to show us all around, every Board member did that. At that time it was there was no winery. There was no I was we were informed that wine was made at Premium and that on the subject property wine was not being processed other than an occasional small little very high end batch which wasn’t sold on the property. It was very high end in a barrel a couple of barrel storage. The problem is of course not only the acreage but the fact that a tasting room must be associated as an accessory to a winery a building in which wine is processed. Now despite the way the Notice of Disapproval was written we saw no evidence of a winery on the premises nor have you indicated that a winery is proposed so we need to address that somehow in this as well. There is no hardship in this following sense, the grapes are there, the product has great quality, they’re going to continue to make it at Premium and the real issue is whether or not a free standing tasting room without the benefit of a winery building a wine processing on site is permitted. I mean in a nut shell and I’d love to have you address that if you’d like to or you know. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I can have Michael say this directly but just to address that. Under the requirements that the State has for a farm winery license the processing requirements Croteaux has always produced that amount of wine that quantity of wine that is necessary for that threshold to have a farm winery license which they do and always have. To preserve the historic nature of these buildings and they have chosen to go out to produce most of their wine but they do have a level of production on site and I’m not aware of quantity of production on site and I’m not aware of a quantity of production required under our town code to have a tasting room. I think there has to be some processing so that’s certainly an issue that we can delve into and give you more clarity on but that’s the way they’ve operated. If need be they will pursue an expansion of that but they were trying to avoid that to keep the operation at the level it was at now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it may very well be in future when this winery code is finally addressed by the legislatures in our town and update it that free standing wineries tasting rooms under certain circumstances you know limited in scope and so on may be permitted. At the moment it’s not and the only issue that I want you to clarify if you can further is that I did you know we did see that no wine was really there’s no crushing pads, there is no fermentation vats none of the evidence of wine making on the premises. Storing some yes storing some wine ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting yes and would AG and Markets say that storing is part of processing, yes the code is silent on what percentage of anything you have to have and this Board is not going to write defacto code so that’s what’s before us. In addition to the acreage situation which I think you’ve you know developed you’ve addressed as thoroughly as you can with you know I don’t know let’s see if anybody else has questions, Eric? MEMBER DANTES : You said you have a State Farm Winery license do we have a copy of that in this packet? MARTIN FINNEGAN : You do not but I can get that for you and submit it for the record. MEMBER DANTES : Can you get us a copy of what the minimum threshold of production is for that license is and how much maybe an affidavit of some sort of how much Croteaux produces? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There’s no question that there is a considerable amount of production. I mean I’ve enjoyed the wine myself on many occasion but the threshold for us is not the quantity of production. The threshold for us is, is it produced on site to justify having an accessory use a tasting room. It has to be accessory to something and that something is a wine processing building whether you want to call it a winery or what. There’s no sense that says how big it has to be you know none of those things are clear at all in the code. MARTIN FINNEGAN : So the word tasting room doesn’t even exist in our code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it doesn’t. MARTIN FINNEGAN : So it’s kind of (inaudible) have a discussion what the standards are because they don’t exist. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They don’t exist and it’s not even in the dictionary. MARTIN FINNEGAN : So you know the standard of the relationship between them is another thing that doesn’t really bear out in our code and isn’t it’s kind of a fiction yea I think has been employed to by way of interpretation but we will certainly get you that information I just need a little time to put that together. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat do you have any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yea I do. ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting MARTIN FINNEGAN : Would you like to hear from Mr. Croteaux because he can answer some of these questions more specifically than I probably can about the processing and then we can follow up with those CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is your question Patty to Martin or to MEMBER ACAMPORA : No I think to Martin. I’m interested in you had said about having ample parking and how many spaces could you accommodate for this tasting room? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Well I really can’t answer that today because that’s something we were going to address in the site plan but maybe Michael, do you know how many cars you could have on site? MICHALE CROTEAUX : Michael Croteaux co-owner of Croteaux Vineyards. As far as parking we have a field to the north of the property that is probably can handle some fifty to sixty cars and we don’t often need that and then I realize like Martin said that a lot of the parking lot issues as far as buffering or where it’s located and all that is going to be part of the Planning site plan not part of what we’re trying to get over this ten acre threshold and just to go back on the production, New York State Farm Winery act is you need to produce sixty a minimum of sixty gallons on your property. We do have I know when you were there it was a snowy day we do have a small press there. We have a center area that we can bring tractors in. I bring in a portable bottling line. We bottle the barrels that we produce there on site and we sell it on site that is something that is coming out of the hundred a bottle. It’s a very small batch kind of wine that we’re delving into that we made there. We’ve done barrel aged wine before we’re now making that on site. Secondly the if I were to put a winery on the site I mean aside from really having to change the historic structure of the buildings the kind of wine that we make is made in a matter of four to five months other than barrel storage in the summer and ferment aging in the summer so I wouldn’t essentially have a winery on the site that would be vacant eight months of the year and this is why we make the wine at Premium Wine Group. It’s a different type of wine than most people are making around here. I don’t constantly have red wine in tanks in inventory there so that’s the reason that the Premium is used. I don’t really want to put in the infrastructure and the impact that a winery would take on the site and I realize that I’m compliant as far as the federal the government goes with my federal license, with my state license. The county has looked at the farm as a farm and the only hurdle that we have is Southold Town because of the vagueness of the code and because of our operation being a little different than maybe what the town has perceived as a winery over the decades. I hope that clarifies things and I’m sure we’ll back it up with what you need, my farm winery license and any other requirements that the state requires of us. ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask you a question sir if I may, there are of course a number of free standing tasting rooms throughout the town. They are mostly not all but they are mostly located in business zoned districts where retail sales are permitted. Why have you not taken advantage of opening a tasting room for your Rose in a legally zoned area of town? MICHAEL CROTEAUX : Well I think part of the success of our brand has been the fact that people want they would rather sit at a site in a vineyard. I have vines, I have a vineyard, I thought I was in more compliance than I was with the town code sure we can go open a retail place. I have every store on the North Fork and the South Fork and places that sell us in New York but for me if we can’t have a location on site it essentially takes away my primary retail operation and if that’s the case then we’ll increase our production even more and sell entirely wholesale but I think that it doesn’t really make sense for me to open up I can with my farm winery license open up four other satellites and that may be a possibility. I don’t think it’s going to have the effectiveness nor help the farm at all and in a farming entity because the economy (inaudible) is so different that’s why everyone has tasting rooms out here. It’s not cheap to grow grapes, it’s not cheap to plant a vineyard, it costs you know even our small vineyard of ten and half acres you know you put seventy five thousand dollars in to just farming and growing grapes every year before you put a penny in the bottle so I think that if you remove and you only had wine out here sold in retail stores on Love Lane or in business zoned areas we wouldn’t have a wine business out here so I’m just trying to fit into that model too. I think wine and grapes and vineyards kind of go together. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your answer. Gerry do you have any questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Not at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let’s see if there is anyone else in the audience who wants to address the application. Come to the podium please and speak into the mic and state and spell your name. DANIELLE TURTURO : Danielle Tururo I’m from the law offices of Harvey A. Arnoff, 206 Roanoke Ave. Riverhead New York. Our office represents Mrs. Busana and Ms. (inaudible) who are here today who are neighboring the parcel A the winery that’s at issue today. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and what would you like to tell us? DANIELLE TURTURO : Under Article III Section 280-13A(4) Croteaux vineyards has failed to meet all of the necessary requirements under (inaudible). Letter A requires a winery to be (inaudible) wine is produced and sold as has been brought up by this Board and observed by the Board. Wine is not substantially produced at this location and never has been. The wine is our understanding is produced at a nearby vineyard instead. In accordance with letter B this ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting requirement requires a winery to be on a parcel of at least ten acres. This again is simply not the case. The winery itself is located on only 4.65 acres, that’s the parcel A mentioned. Parcel B which is a little under 9.4 acres is located across the street. It is not practically merged. There is a two lane road that runs directly in between the two parcels. In accordance with letter D this requires that the winery obtain site plan approval and it is our understanding that this also was never obtained in fact for all intense and purposes Croteaux has been running something (inaudible) winery, tasting room and retail area in an area that is zoned for residential use only. It’s clear that Croteaux has failed to meet the requirements of this Article. To approve this variance would be in essence a modification of the code itself something that we believe is outside the Board’s purview. Not only that this would open up the flood gates for future residential owners to simply grow grapes in their back yard and have multiple parcels property of vines along the Northshore and combine them together in order to sell wine out of their homes. This has also had despite mentioned a negative impact on the neighborhood in question. There has been increased noise, traffic and a general hazard in light of the two lane residential street. The cars are parked on my client’s property at times and could create a general nuisance to neighborhood as a whole. I submit that this arbitrary ten acre requirement is not in fact arbitrary at all but was done to prevent what I previously mentioned the combining of multiple parcels along the Northshore to create to be able to obtain a variance. While there was prior decision by the Board regarding granting a variance to seven acres of one lot that is simply not the case before the Board now. The Croteaux seeks to have parcel A which is a little over four acres be declared the variance. It is unlike the prior decision reached by the Board. I thank the Board for listening to these objections. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any questions that anyone might have of her, anyone else in the audience who would like to address the application? State your name please. MATILDA BUSANA : My name is Matilda Busana. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have a letter from you in our record. MATILDA BUSANA : I would just like to support the case Mr. Croteaux has restored the historic buildings but so have we. We have two acres which is part of the historic John Howell Farm. We have the house the original John Howell house which is mentioned in the historic registry of Southold Town which we also have gone with great care and expense to renovate and preserve the historic value of that house which is adjacent to Mr. Croteaux property and unfortunately the tasting room is actually compromised our property, the use of our property (inaudible) of our property probably the historic value of it by the noise and the disruption that have been caused by the tasting room. We wish Mr. Croteaux well. We don’t want him to go out of ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting business but we do want to be able to preserve our lifestyle (inaudible) also at a great financial cost. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else? MARTIN FINNEGAN : If I may briefly just by way of response, first of all I would disagree that the property (inaudible) that are exclusively residential I think that wineries and tasting rooms are permitted uses within the AC and R80 zoning districts. As to the representations regarding the ten acre rule I would agree that perhaps the intent was to not have piece meal vineyards throughout town if parcel B were in Mattituck I would agree that this would be farfetched but it’s not. It’s directly across the street and I would just remind you of all my previous arguments and not to beat a dead horse here but it is one farm operation. I think you can look at the picture and it’s very clear. As to the issues with respects to impacts parking, noise those are all issues that we look forward to addressing in the site process. I’m not aware of any violations that were issued by the Southold Town Police Department with respect to any of that as for this site but they certainly can be addressed in the site plan process and there is never any situation that I believe that the Croteaux’s have ignored or allowed to have that type of impact on a neighboring property so again I think that for the issues that are before this Board I think we’ve addressed them and we are certainly ready to address any other issues that the Planning Board would have but we would need to get passed here before we go to the Planning Board to do so. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, anyone else out there, anything from the Board? Martin you wanted to have us keep this open for a bit? Do you want me to adjourn this to the Special Meeting in two weeks? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes at a minimum yes so we can get the documents that Eric requested and we may have some other additional submissions for you as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That will also give anyone else the opportunity to submit anything they wish to based upon what you’ve heard today or if someone wasn’t present and wants to submit something they have the right to do that. Alright so I’m going to make a motion to adjourn this to the Special Meeting on May 18 th. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 7041 – MATTEBELLA VINEYARDS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before us is for Mattebella Vineyards #7041. This is adjourned from you know previous two meetings so I don’t really need to read the Notice of Disapproval or the Legal Notice into the record. Gail we’ve subsequently received several summaries. If you don’t understand it this way I’ll do it that way and let’s see if is there anything else you want to tell us before I ask a couple of questions, or see if the Board has any further questions? GAIL WICKHAM : Well I did a summary which I just submitted yesterday which I hope was helpful not only to the Board (inaudible) prior two meetings but also to the new member trying to sum up but it is just a summary and certainly the background is important as well and I hope that the new chart that I did before the last meeting was helpful. I think Mr. Goehringer asked for that to give you a better understanding of all the variance moving parts here so I think maybe the best thing is if you do have questions that I will try to answer and I also have Mrs. Tobin here from Mattebella. She wasn’t able to make the prior meetings but is here now. So she has a few words to say and then can also help me answer questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure. Did you want to make a statement now or shall we talk to Gail first? GAIL WICKHAM : Sure why don’t you get up now, she’s a little nervous because she’s not a public speaker. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Don’t worry, look there’s nobody else in the room it’s just us. CHRISTINE TOBIN : Hi. My name is Christine Tobin. My husband and I own Mattebella Vineyards and (inaudible) here in Southold. We bought the property in 2005 and when we bought the property it was improved by a fairly substantial winery and tasting room with a lot of black top and concrete and very different than what we have there now. Although there is a lot of great bigger wineries we just knew at that time we didn’t want to be a big winery. We didn’t know exactly where our vision was and we also lived in Florida at the time (inaudible) up here so from ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting a logistical standpoint and a financial standpoint having a big huge operation was just not (inaudible) to us. As we started processing wine and selling wholesale and unfortunately that didn’t really work so as Michael Croteaux was saying the (inaudible) it’s quite expensive growing the grapes labor costs just you do need a retail component to survive. Short of that you’re just not going to make it at least as a vineyard operation. So we knew that that was something that we had to do if we wanted to survive so I moved up here in 2009 as a full time person up here to take over the operation and the vineyard completely and entirely and my husband who practices law in Florida commutes ever weekend to be up here so I hope that gives you some kind of idea to the commitment that we’ve made towards developing this property and carrying out our dream of a small winery operation. So, over the years we’ve just developed a very small intimate venue (inaudible) of music live music. We’ve just nothing against live music I like it we just don’t do it at the Mattebella. We don’t allow buses and we only accept limos with a reservation and in order to get a reservation at Mattebella you have to agree to do one of our tasting menus. We’re not looking for people who are coming and drinking enormous amounts of wine and leaving our property. We’re looking for people who are very much interested in the experience and we’re looking for people who are enjoying the property and (inaudible) what we do there. We’re certified sustainable and we just we believe in farming healthy and we just have a very intimate, quiet, low impact use. I don’t know if any of you have ever been there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have, we’ve all been there. CHRISTINE TOBIN : I hope you’ve enjoyed it. It’s just what it is it’s just a small little operation and I think we have to make some adjustments to that’s why we’re looking for some variances here. For the most part I think we’re fully compliant except for a lot of property line issues. We have with sheds and our existing winery right now we don’t make all our wine on premises but we make thirty to forty percent of our wine is made on premises. Almost all our red wine is made on premises. We don’t make our Rose and our whites here and so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that in the winery storage building 3? CHRISTINE TOBIN : I’m sorry I don’t know but Gail is saying yes. The area that the winery it’s wine storage and wine where we crush the wine. We press it off, we put it in barrels it’s all there. The barrel storage is there for the red wine and it’s small but it’s actually worked into this point. It’s something that we’d like to grow just a little bit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now are you up here now? CHRISTINE TOBIN : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Your husband is commuting but you’re staying ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting CHRISTINE TOBIN : I live in Westhampton. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Who’s making wine on the premises? CHRISTINE TOBIN : My husband he’s a weekend wino warrior. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you plan to change that as this develops? CHRISTINE TOBIN : No he asked me all the time when he could retire and I tell him he owns a vineyard he can’t so that’s the reality. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Who manages the wine tasting operation and CHRISTINE TOBIN : I do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You do okay. Are you open just mostly weekends? CHRISTINE TOBIN : It’s seasonal. Right now we’re only open four days a week. We open actually we’re in May so we’re five days a week now. In June we go to seven. We stay to seven through October and then we go back down to five. We are closed in January, February and March we open weather depending. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There’s a very small building that you proposed to use for indoor tastings but mostly they’re outside. CHRISTINE TOBIN : We’re primarily an outdoor vineyard yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There’s a proposed winery site here is that a hope for the future that you would actually build another building? CHRISTINE TOBIN : We would. We do as evidenced by all the sheds that surround this property we’re in need of consolidation. We’re in need of a building consolidating all our from our storage to our wine making and maybe into some maybe tasting but that’s you know that’s in development I would say. It’s for production. I mean the building itself is for production but if you would go to the property right now you would see that there are places for there’s lots of different places for CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Every one of us have visited the property. CHRISTINE TOBIN : It would be nice to have it contained in one place. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let’s address the maybe Gail needs to do this I’m not sure but I just want to put back in to the record Planning Board says 18% variance on the Bulk Schedule for ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting two uses and I think you said 16%, I just want to be clear exactly what percentage of deviation from the Bulk Schedule for the two for the dwelling and the winery are we talking about. GAIL WICKHAM : It’s 134,246 sq. ft. divided by 160 and I will do that on my phone. I came up with 15 point something and I rounded to 16% but I CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m sure your calculation will be accurate. I just want to make sure because we got one thing from a Notice of Disapproval and one thing from Planning so let’s just clarify exactly what that is. GAIL WICKHAM : To just clarify what she said about the consolidation. You will notice on the plan there are a number of wine storage bins throughout the property. They actually keep them out there with wine in it. That’s what needs to be consolidated and in to the new building and together with you know additional production space, production meaning the wine making portion. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And at the moment the dwelling is occupied by farm workers people who you employ? GAIL WICKHAM : That’s correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You’re renting that to them and are they living there year round or seasonally? CHRISTINE TOBIN : They’ve been there since I bought GAIL WICKHAM : They’ve been there since they bought the farm in 2005. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So they’re living there year round? GAIL WICKHAM : Yes. One thing I wanted to say that I wanted Mrs. Tobin to describe you know it is a very low key operation and we talked a little bit in the past about that. It’s primarily the way they vision their wine sales to occur and the most productive way to do it but when you start if you wanted to start imposing that wine business type on it then it affects the property so that’s why we’re having trouble figuring out you know any restrictions you might want to impose in terms of hours and what not. The best way to do it they’ve decided is to do it this way on a small scale with great concern for their neighbors and they do have a great concern for their neighbors and that’s how they intend to continue operating. One good thing about the fact that they’re a little bit shy of the four acre requirement is that does limit their ability to expand beyond what they have now. If we had a five acre parcel we wouldn’t be here in front of you and we could get much bigger and not be restricted at all. So I think that’s something I would like to ask you to consider. You have other questions before I sum up? ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well for me I mean each one of these small structures has their own character and their own purpose and their own issues and I’ve made my own chart. I’ve used yours and I made one that I could figure out structure by structure. However I think you’ve addressed all the issues. For me it was, is there really a winery on the premises? It’s the sort of same thing we were asking Croteaux earlier. GAIL WICKHAM : There’s a winery now. It’s in the building #3 and to some extent in building #4 where the keg storage is. It’s in the wine storage bins what do they call them CHRISTINE TOBIN : It’s not in the bins actually. You’re certainly welcomed to come to the property and see. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have done. CHRISTINE TOBIN : Yeah there is it’s not large but it holds a good amount of wine. We had 2016 wasn’t a great year for quantity or quality so it’s a little smaller right now but we’ve produced as much as like in 2015 was a very large year. We’ve produced as much as twenty barrels in there. That’s five hundred cases. We also produced our late harvest wine exclusively there because that’s something that we have to pick in a certain way and has to get pressed off numerous times it’s a little bit complicated. We do that there, we age it in oak, we bring it over to Lenz to be bottled but no it’s is it a full huge commercial winery? No it’s not but it does produce our best wines. Where I hand pick them, what I bring in, what I ask my husband to make. This is what we do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it doesn’t need to be a large commercial winery. We just need to know that the tasting room is okay to have because it’s accessory to something called a principal use which is wine processing. CHRISTINE TOBIN : We do. If you would come in October right in the harvest you’d see it’s a very, very busy place. You know we’re scrambling from rain, we have you know we put a little (inaudible) tent I mean we work there’s five of us and we’re working all day and all night and it’s just you know we have the equipment to do it. We have the press there, we have the crusher de-stemmer, and we have tons of barrels. We have our bins, some of them some things we ferment in bins, some we do barrel fermenting as well; we have tanks that are there two fairly large tanks actually they’re back over at Lenz now because they’re really we bring them over for our harvest so we really do make a good amount CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The whites are basically you do at Premium? CHRISTINE TOBIN : No we do those at Lenz. The white wines are somewhat red wines you might think it would be the opposite but white wines the fermentation stage is a little bit more ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting complicated and because my husband is not here during the week we need someone who’s actually for that two month period really involved in the process where here the guys can just go in they can do the pump overs, they could you know cap off, they could just do what needs to be done but it’s a little bit more complicated with the whites and the Rose’s and so we’re just not comfortable making. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay makes sense. Is there anything from the Board, Nick or Gerry or? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : You were so kind in showing me the entire operation (inaudible) it just baffles me to no end since I’ve spent a long time on this Board and to understand everything that’s ever come before us why you can’t move those sheds in to a conforming location? They can be literally picked up by a forklift and you can move everything out a little bit farther and make them more conforming? That’s half of the problem that I’m toying with over this whole project apart from the fact that we don’t have the 80,000 sq. ft. per use. I mean that’s something we have to deal with also. CHRISTINE TOBIN : We are moving some of them we are but I think if you we’ve talked about this when you were there remember? There is a property that is in front of me and it’s kind of an eyesore. It’s something I would of I would still entertain purchasing if we could. We were in negotiations or not really yes I want to sell okay let’s come up with a price, let’s do this, let’s do that. The couple was getting divorced who owned the property and we went through many gyrations, leasing the property so it carves off my property and there’s a burned out house that’s all boarded up. There’s another property that borders mine that’s got people in it, there’s another property. It’s not a very pleasant visual and when you walk in to my property and I’d like for people to say this is beautiful when they walk in. If you look to your left when you’re walking in in the absence of having two of those sheds there you’re going to see a very unsightly view that and there is a place there already, there’s a very high fence that you know was there when we bought the property and it’s still there and you can still see everything. You can see the ugly roof, you can see the carport, you can see the things that are infringing on my property too you know that are not exactly working nicely either and if you move those sheds that’s what you’re going to see. I try to create a very pretty enjoyable venue and there’s nothing I can do there. I can’t do anything there except kind of block it off. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well one of the things you can do there is I’m not saying one way or the other but one of the things you can do is plant evergreens. I mean if it’s the view that’s upsetting you CHRISTINE TOBIN : We did, we did but we also have a vineyard there and you have to have we have an organic test block there that was planted in 2011 and when you have the (inaudible) of ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting trees that are going higher you limit your sun it’s a totally contrary to what you should be having in a vineyard unfortunately so we did I did plant. I planted giant arborvitaes on one side and a couple of them died and there’s reasons for that (inaudible) and I don’t want to get into it you know I’m not against my neighbor I don’t want to say anything I just feel that I need to do what I need to do to protect my experience and my environment without demanding that they do things that you know do things themselves so we just cleared out the entire west side between the two properties. I’m putting up another fence there no sheds just a fence because it really there’s no you know it’s just for ride and play parking. Where I don’t have the need to put up things I don’t but the sheds started you know of course I needed the storage but it started really to preserve my property line to protect it because we you know our we had break-ins and we had problems and we had issues and it’s you know it’s a matter I’m not complaining I’m just saying it’s to me it’s the path of least resistance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that fence yours or is that the neighbors, the stockade fence? CHRISTINE TOBIN : It’s ours. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I’ll go back to my same question, I live in a wooded area and if I didn’t have stockade fence I would have all woods. The house would eventually become woods okay, in this particular case for twenty nine dollars a section you could put seven sections of fence up okay right where that old fence is CHRISTINE TOBIN : I have it. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : in back of those buildings CHRISTINE TOBIN : It’s not it’s as high as we’re allowed by code and it’s not high enough. You can’t MEMBER GOEHRINGER : You can go six foot six inches. CHRISTINGE TOBIN : It’s six foot six inches. It’s up to here. You still see, when you have a building that’s eighteen feet in the air and it’s four feet from your property line you see it and it’s not I have a boarded up building a burned out building right in my back yard that unfortunately on Sundays it still houses a bunch of people who are barbequing out there and having a good old time. It’s not pleasant. I need to have some definition between myself and the people behind us. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I understand but eventually that fence is going to fall in anyway but that’s not the point. The point is you grown something on top of the fence to stop that. ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait let me just summarize this. Let me just make sure I have all the information correct here. I’m just going to go by the building numbers. Building 3, 5 and 9 have predated zoning, is that correct? GAIL WICKHAM : Yes and I believe #8 too. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But #8 is proposed to be removed. GAIL WICKHAM : Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, shed #7 will also be removed. GAIL WICKHAM : Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Shed #13 will be moved to a conforming location? GAIL WICKHAM : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, #14 has a what is this building 14 is new and it’s got a 3.7 foot setback from your adjacent neighbor but we have a letter on record saying he has no objection it’s just farm property that’s being impacted. Number 6 is a 79.05 square foot tasting room supply storage with a 6.2 foot setback and it’s pretty much a part of your tasting room operation you need to have quick access to it in order to CHRISTINE TOBIN : Yes that’s correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 8, 9 10 and 11 all have Pre C.O.’s I already said that but 8 will be removed, 9 needs a variance, 10 and 11 don’t need variances. GAIL WICKHAM : Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And then the other variance for the winery and the dwelling on 3.20 acres is probably 16% have you figured that yet? GAIL WICKHAM : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let’s just decide if it’s Planning Board says 18 now you’ve made very compelling arguments that address the Planning Board’s concerns about insufficient lot area in many of the things you’ve submitted already Gail so I don’t think we need to go over that again. You’ve also reiterated Ms. Tobin about the scale of your operation about your business model about buses except by reservations so that’s all part of the record as well. I think what we really need to do is we’ve established that wine is processed on site and it will require site plan approval of course you know after we do our determination so then it’s just a ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting matter of taking a look at these various buildings and their setbacks and as well as the variance relief for the two uses and I think, I think I’ve got this all under control. Does anybody else have anything to say at this point? I think we just wrap it up. Do you have the percentage? GAIL WICKHAM : My calculator shows that we have .839% of what’s required which means .84% so that’s where I got the 16. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, that’s with the two uses? GAIL WICKHAM : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It doesn’t make it easy that one is in square feet and the other is in acreage you know the bulk schedule says 60,000 sq. ft. per use and then the surveys always calculate things on acreage so it’s GAIL WICKHAM : I think we have to do it on the square footage CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea you do apples to apples you have to convert the acreage in to square feet yea grapes to grapes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Gail give us your opinion on it in reference to converted to 43560 feet. GAIL WICKHAM : The code doesn’t speak to an acre of 43,560 (inaudible) MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yeah but the tax map does. Tax map is 43,560 GAIL WICKHAM : The tax maps are we’re not going by what the tax map says we’re going by what 40,000 square feet. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I don’t think that’s fair. GAIL WICKHAM : It may not be fair but you know if you look at 43,560 then I mean over and under that’s why (inaudible) MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yeah but the 43560 is GAIL WICKHAM : Either way it’s 16% (inaudible) it’s pretty close to what it is and what it should be particularly hearing the history of it and having (inaudible) and all the other reasons (inaudible) can I just sum up? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can. GAIL WICKHAM : I just want to put in the record that it is the small farm based wineries like this one that is really what’s kept our area in farmland and not in development and you know the ?? May 4, 2017 Regular Meeting concern of public water availability, alternate sewage systems available and the Southfork pressure I think subdivision development is a real problem so it’s important to keep these wineries that are farm based, family based and small viable and they need to do that through on-site production and tasting rooms. That’s very important. I’d like to just and I can send this to Kim or I can give it to you today it’s not very pretty but I have a statement Louisa Harvard was going to present to you on wine production and tasting for the Surrey Lane hearing which we will not be having but I think while it’s not a hundred percent relevant to this I think it does provide a good background that I would like to have in the record so I’d like to able to submit that if you close the hearing. I’ll email it over later, Christine do you have anything else you want to say? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think if we can just close the hearing reserve decision. I can’t possibly imagine a single additional thing that we could scrape together. GAIL WICKHAM : I want to see your chart. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What, you want to see my chart, you show me yours and I’ll show you mine. Alright, it’s the only way to do this. I don’t recall ever having a property having so many multiple variances. All small but you know it’s the nature of the property. GAIL WICKHAM : They are all small and even in the (inaudible) they’re still relatively small is what we argued and we are willing to move some of them to avoid (inaudible) and maintain that semicircular pattern. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no further questions or comments I’m going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date subject to receipt of whatever you want to submit from Louisa. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) ??