Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-07/06/2017 Hearing TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Southold Town Hall Southold, New York July 6, 2017 9:35 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member PATRICIA ACAMPORA – Member ERIC DANTES – Member GERARD GOEHRINGER – Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO – Member KIM FUENTES – Board Assistant WILLIAM DUFFY – Town Attorney ? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Rose M. Wells #7058 3 – 7 Orioli & Son Rental East, LLC #7059 7 - 14 Patrick and Diane Severson #7062 14 - 21 Robert Ragona #7060 21 - 38 Eve MacSweeney and Veronica Gonzalez #7063 38 - 44 Theodora Tsatsos #7067 44 - 53 Karras Upstate, LLC #7070 54 - 58 Louis Bonetti #7071 58 - 60 ? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting HEARING # 7058 – ROSE M. WELLS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for Rose M. Wells #7058. This is a request for a waiver of merger petition under Article II Section 280-10A to unmerge land identified as SCTM #1000-88-3-9 which has merged with SCTM #1000-88-3-8.1 based on the Building Inspector’s February 17, 2017 Notice of Disapproval which states that a non- conforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or non-conforming lot held in common ownership with the first lot at any time after July 1, 1983 and that non-conforming lots shall merge until the total lot size conforms to the current bulk schedule requirements which is a minimum 40,000 sq. ft. in the R-40 Residential Zoning District located at 700 Gin Lane in Southold, New York. Would you like to come to the podium and state your name for the record as the representative? KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN : Good morning my name is Kevin McLaughlin. I’m here as the attorney for Rose Wells on this application for a waiver of merger. I’d like to give you a brief history of the lots in question. In 1955 Arthur and Rose Wells obtained title to what is lot 3 Bay Haven at Southold map from William Wells. In 1958 a house was built on that lot. In 1966 Arthur and Rose Wells purchased lot number 4 in Bay Haven subdivision from William Wells. It was a vacant lot of .334 acres. In 1979 Arthur and Rose purchased the southern half of lot number 2 Bay Haven from Ruth Wells who was William Well’s wife. In 1982 at the Well’s request lot number 3 with the house on it and the southern half of lot number 2 were combined to become tax map lot number 1000-88-3-8.1 and in 1989 a side facing garage was built on to the house and a driveway to access that garage was built and that was the reason why they asked for the two lots to be combined so they would have room for that driveway to go up and access the garage. They intentionally did not ask to combine the vacant lot number 4. They wanted to keep that as a separate lot and the reasons that they wanted to keep that as a separate lot was for either the possible use by one of their children as a building lot to build a house on or if that didn’t come to fruition use that lot as a potential future sale for retirement. Pursuant to section 280-11 of the Town Code this Board can waive the merger upon the finding first that the lot has not been transferred to an unrelated person or entity. Clearly that’s true here. The Well’s, Arthur and Rose owned both the combined house lot and the vacant lot. Unfortunately, Arthur passed away about a year ago and Rose is now the sole owner of both lots. In addition there’s a balancing of whether the proposed lot is comparable in size to other lots in the neighborhood. I’ve provided you with copies of the tax map with a copy of the subdivision map for Bay Haven, with copies of a google earth photograph showing houses in this neighborhood. All of the lots on the same side of Gin Lane with the proposed lot to be unmerged are the same size which is basically a third of an acre. They’re all the same. The lots on the other side of Gin Lane are just slightly larger. They’re .357 acres, basically again about a third of an acre. Almost all of these lots have been built upon with houses. They’re all basically the same size so I believe we ? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting checked that box as well. The second criterion that you’re supposed to take into consideration is whether this lot is vacant and has historically been treated and maintained as a separate and independent residential lot. The property card will show you that it’s vacant and has always been vacant and it was again always the intention of the Wells to keep it as a separate lot for the purposed I’ve indicated before so I believe that criteria has been filled and the third is that there would not create an adverse impact on the neighborhood. Again, all of these, almost all of these lots in the neighborhood have already been built upon with relatively modest sized houses and that’s what this lot would become simply another lot upon which one additional house in a neighborhood of small houses on small lots would be recreated and would give the Well’s the right to sell off that particular lot. The Well’s never knew as most people don’t that by holding property in an identical ownership that were adjoining lots and are smaller in size that they would be deemed merged by operation of law. They continued to get a separate tax bill for this lot and taxes were based on this being a single and separate lot not part of a larger lot combined with a house lot so there would be no reason for them to ever understand that this lot was deemed to have been merged. Again, as I said Arthur Wells passed away last July. His widow Rose is now living in an assisted living facility in Westchester County and the real reason why we need to be able to separate this lot and sell it is the cost of that is overwhelming. Her daughter Christine is here to address the Board more particularly about her mother’s circumstances so I’d like to have her come up now and speak unless you have any questions of me first? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The merger took place prior to the death of the KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN : I’m sorry what? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The merger of the lot of lot 4 with the voluntarily merged lot 3 and 2 took place when they were both alive and co-owned the lot. KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN : That’s correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay because I just want to make sure that the record reflects it was not merger upon death which there’s an exemption for KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN : No. MEMBER DANTES : Can I just you said two of the lots were combined (inaudible)? KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN : Yea back in MEMBER DANTES : How were they combined by deed or were they combined (inaudible) ? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN : According to the property card they went to the assessor’s office and requested that the house lot and the southerly one half of the adjacent lot on which there’s a pond be merged into or combined into one tax map lot which was done and again that was for the purpose of building the side garage and having the driveway access to it. MEMBER DANTES : And that was the procedure back then right? KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN : I’m sorry. MEMBER DANTES : That was the procedure back then? KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN : Yea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Merged voluntarily so they have a double lot basically. Mr. McLaughlin while we may sympathize personally with the individual circumstances and the need for some financial assistance for the sale of this lot I think you’ve really effectively addressed the code that’s before the Board I mean personal circumstances are really not part of the waiver of merger law. So, while I appreciate you being here I don’t know that testimony is relevant from the applicant’s daughter about the personal circumstances or hardships they may be undergoing unless you have compelling reason to suggest otherwise. You know we can ask some additional questions and move on but I will hear it if you feel that it’s relevant to KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN : I just think it goes to show that the reason why they didn’t request that this be merged have come to fruition they thought that either the separate lot number 4 would be used by one of their children to build upon or they might need this money in their retirement and that’s in fact exactly what’s happened. She needs this money in order to pay for her assisted living. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay as I said we can’t personalize these determinations but you have addressed the four standards in the code with regard to character of the neighborhood and other lot sizes with regard to the comparable size as I said with regard to not transferring this to an unrelated individual these lots and that it’s been vacant you know and that there’s no adverse impacts unless there’s someone in the neighborhood who wants to state that there are adverse impacts which we’ll find out about but if we don’t hear any testimony to that effect we’ll assume what you said is accurately addressing the code. KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN : Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does anybody else have any comments or questions that they would like to make. ? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just if I may? Mr. McLaughlin on the short environmental assessment form on page two question thirteen you answer in the negative regarding any land adjoining or including the application regarding wetlands, what is on the home lot 8.1 which is also referred on well your two merged lots where the residence is what looks like a pond. KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN : There is a pond on the what was the southerly half of lot #2 that has been merged with the house lot to become 8.1. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Agreed and what about what is the land to the west? There’s a large what I’ve always called is Takaposha Shores. KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN : I’m sorry I can’t hear you. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The property to the west immediately behind. KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN : I’m not aware. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Sort of like an estuary wetlands so I’m just curious on question thirteen you indicated that there are no wetlands so I didn’t know if it was an error. KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN : There is the pond on that on the house lot the combined house lot now. I’m not aware of any wetlands to the west personally and that’s why it was answered that way. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application, anything from anyone else here? ANGELA SAVINO : My name is Angela Savino I’m the adjoining property on (inaudible) Lane 790 and while I can sympathize that they may need funding for Rose Wells’ care that property sold undivided you know we get a significant amount of money and Rose is probably in her nineties so I don’t really think it’s really necessary to subdivide it to get funding for that. I’m not saying I know the circumstances and Bay Haven is a crowded community I mean at this point. It’s got a little beach at the end of the block because all the houses have deeded beach rights and when you look at the rest of Southold this little two blocks of houses is more crowded then most of the rest of Southold and I don’t know that I really need like another house next to me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you the homeowner that’s adjacent to the lot they’re proposing to ANGLEA SAVINO : Yes, so that’s all that I wanted to say. I mean if either I have to live next to Rose and Rose and Artie for a long time I mean I bought my house in 1977 they’re really good neighbors and if they were still living there I would let them do what they wanted to do but neither of them are living there anymore and I sympathize with the need to take care of Rose ? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting but I think that that property sold undivided would get a sufficient amount of funds she’s probably in her nineties that’s all I have to say. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your testimony. Kevin did you want to say something? KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN : Just a couple of things, one if obviously we’re not asking for a subdivision here we’re asking for a waiver of merger. The second thing is that the Savino lot Mrs. Savino’s lot identical in size to the lot that we propose here .337 acres and on her lot there’s a house and a garage and I believe that between the two of them it’s about a fifteen hundred square foot which would be something probably similar to what could be built upon the proposed unmerged lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you anyone else, 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 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 # 7059 – ORIOLI & SON RENTAL EAST, LLC. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Orioli & Son Rental East, LLC #7059. This is a request for variances under Article X Section 280-45 and the Building Inspector’s December 22, 2016 amended January 12, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing commercial building at 1) proposed additions to provide four (4) separate uses upon a single parcel less than the minimum allowed 80,000 sq. ft. in total area or 20,000 sq. ft. in area per permitted use located at 13175 Route 25 Mattituck. ? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting JOAN CHAMBERS : Good morning; my name is Joan Chambers. I live at 50620 Main Rd. in Southold. I’m here to represent James Orioli the owner and occupier of the property who’s also here today to answer any further questions. Mr. Orioli bought the property in 2009 and at the time it had a party rental store or access and La Tienda a convenience store at the time and since then he has converted it to be a beverage outlet and he has kept the party store and in 2012 he added a yogurt store which the Building Department inspected at the time. Now he would like to put a second floor on the building to put some offices in for himself. As the owner and occupier of all of these businesses he’s not renting it out it’s for his own use these offices that he wants to put on the second floor and we feel it’s in keeping with the immediate adjacent buildings which have anywhere to five to seven to eight uses in residential business professional offices right in that immediate area. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can I ask a question? Can we just go over these uses again? You said it was a beverage store, a yogurt store. JOAN CHAMBERS : and a party rental outlet and those are all contained in the warehouse in the back and the main floor and on the second floor the proposed second floor he wants to build just a professional offices for the use of himself, his wife you know to run the business that they own the businesses. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : The Building Department calls for four uses. What would be the other one? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Office. JOAN CHAMBERS : You know there was a lot of back and forth with the Zoning Board and the Building Department that I did trying to define uses. In other words when I looked at the adjacent buildings which to my count had seven lawyers offices in there is that seven uses or is that one use. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s one use. JOAN CHAMBERS : Exactly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not the number of people it’s the type of activity that’s JOAN CHAMBERS : Type of activity well that’s sort of how we wound up interpreting it for ourselves because so that’s the four uses that the Building Department said. It’s the party store, the yogurt store, the beverage store and now professional offices are being proposed as the fourth. ? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There are five striped parking spaces on this property. When we were there doing an interior inspection, looking around I observed large trucks in the side yards, some cars in the back. I observed people parking every which way you can imagine not in the striped spaces because so many people were coming and going out of the beverage store, the yogurt place and it was late at night so it was like 5:30 so people probably wouldn’t be going into the party rental thing in the back because those hours were not operational. The Planning Board points out that there is not enough adequate parking for the three existing uses how do you address the fact that a fourth use is being proposed on a lot that is that substandard for the bulk schedule? JOAN CHAMBERS : Well I was under the understanding that the architect had provided us site plan that showed adequate parking. If I’m incorrect in that I’ll be happy to go back to him and get him to revise the site plan. but I thought on the plans that he prepared for the project he had shown adequate parking. Let me see if I can find which page it is. His site plan A101 on the left hand side he’s got parking calculation per Town of Southold and I’m sorry if maybe I haven’t discussed this enough with him. I just assumed that site plan was adequate to that. If not we’ll certainly make changes to produce as to how many parking spaces as we are required to have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I believe what’s happened is that the applicant is or the site plan and the Planning Board is pointing out that some of the spaces are being proposed to be used through municipal parking in an existing lot? JOAN CHAMBERS : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Which planning studies from the Planning Board have already determined to be insufficient for the existing uses in the hamlet business zoned district and they in fact denied an application on Pike Street I believe it was as a result of that serious situation with inadequate parking. JOAN CHAMBERS : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The other thing is that you have also pointed out that the applicant intends to use those offices for their own purpose? JOAN CHAMBERS : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The plans show four offices, a conference room, file storage room, toilet and lobby upstairs. JOAN CHAMBERS : Yes. ? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is absolutely no way should this kind of enormously substantial variance be granted that we could prohibit the applicant from renting those office spaces to anybody. JOAN CHAMBERS : Oh I understand alright. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Which would certainly generate additional parking problems. I mean I understand the logic use saying I’m using it myself, I only have the same car I’m always bringing to the site, there won’t be any increased traffic, there won’t be any but that this would be permanent and you could sell the property we have to make sure that there’s adequate parking available for permitted uses. All the uses are permitted there’s nothing wrong with any of the uses but we have to really look at the consequences for the bulk schedule and for the parking. MEMBER DANTES : Leslie I’m looking at the plan and he shows a parking area but it only has five (inaudible) spaces. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Exactly which is what’s there now. MEMBER DANTES : Right so yeah, I don’t know why the architect didn’t put more labeled spaces. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There’s not enough room for any more. You have to have legal you know and the parking yield is already insufficient for the three existing uses. JOAN CHAMBERS : Okay. Well we’ll have to remedy that. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Where do the employees park? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I have to tell you that this is not a derogatory statement, when I was looking at the operation in general there is a huge ice cube production situation going on the right hand side of the building on the east side of the building and I consider that a use in itself. I realize it’s used in conjunction with the soda and beer store okay, but I mean that’s a huge operation in itself and that’s the reason why I was considering that particular one as that’s why I asked the question what’s the uses and the question I have is, is there any anticipation of purchasing any other property that maybe contiguous to this property that would give some additional square footage? JOAN CHAMBERS : Not that I’m aware of. Maybe (inaudible) but I’m not aware of him planning to purchase any adjacent property at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat, I think you had a question. ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : I’d like to know how many employees are already there and where do they park? JOAN CHAMBERS : James, how many employees do you have? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don’t you come and state your name sir? JAMES ORIOLI : James Orioli 495 Halls Creek Drive Mattituck New York 11952. So I guess the way we just going back to the parking space situation. Yeah, obviously I think you mentioned that the party rental store is not open after five o’clock where the yogurt store is generating the in and out which is mostly after hours since we only open up the yogurt store at one o’clock in the afternoon so again you don’t have you have a very small overlap of parking but and it’s again the beverage store is also closed at six o’clock during the week, seven o’clock on Friday so there’s very little bit of overlap. Most of the people do park in the municipal parking lot because we have the walk through gate in the back just as the neighbor to the east of me uses the municipal parking lot and he has a I guess a walkway to service his I guess his clients that come in there. So, I guess back to your original question when I walked up here the total employees are two well one in the yogurt, two in the beverage no that’s two total for the beverage and the yogurt and three so there’s about seven total employees. As I said the employees for the party rental would be you know long gone by the time really the other two stores really did any kind of substantial business. How’s that I mean most of the yogurt store business is probably I’ll bore you to death but it’s probably from after dinner till about ten o’clock at night whereas the other store is already closed so that’s I don’t know if that’s CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where do the employees park? JAMES ORIOLI : In the municipal parking lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else? JAMES ORIOLI : And again the way it was striped it’s the way it’s always been striped. I mean I was told that I could put more striping and so forth. Actually I was told since I have a designated handicapped spot striped off that I had to stripe the entire parking lot. If I didn’t have a handicap parking space striped off that I didn’t have to stripe the parking lot at all. This is what I was told when I was going I guess seal coat it but I felt that if we remove any of the striping you’d be surprised how people park already when there are stripes you’d be really surprised. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No we wouldn’t; we saw it. ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting JAMES ORIOLI : Well yeah people just don’t know how to pull in square to a line but that’s okay so we left the striping there we haven’t sealed coated it or anything. We were going to hopefully do that MEMBER ACAMPORA : Do you always keep the large trucks parked on the sides of the building? JAMES ORIOLI : They’re parked in the back. MEMBER ACAMPORA : On the side of the building. JAMES ORIOLI : Depends if they MEMBER ACAMPORA : When I was there, there was three large trucks one on one side and JAMES ORIOLI : If you were there during the day if they were loading in the back the trucks might be parked on the alleyway on the west side if they were loading trucks in the back and so forth but as I said after hours at five o’clock at night the trucks would be parked in the back. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody else any questions. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : They’re going to give us the new site plan for parking is that what they’re going to do? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I don’t know what they’re, Joan said she would try and remedy it but I don’t know how they’re going to remedy it. JOAN CHAMBERS : I’ll speak to the architect today and we’ll work on it. We’ll see how many more spaces we can you know reconfigure the lot to contain and get a new site plan to you in a couple of days and you know take a look at that. If that’s the major issue let’s deal with it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it’s one of the major issues. The other major issue is the substantiality of the deficient lot area for four uses. JOAN CHAMBERS : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And I don’t think there’s anything much you can do about that. It is what it is. The lot size is the lot size but I’ll tell you what, is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the application? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just one question, Joan would you clarify are there any storage containers on the property and if so how many? JOAN CHAMBERS : I’m not aware of any storage containers on the property. ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting JAMES ORIOLI : I have one storage container in the back. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It’s one not two? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I saw a shed. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I’m confused because Pat brought forward the concept of the trucks which I don’t remember seeing the trucks but I remember paying attention to seeing storage containers which were open MEMBER GOEHRINGER : There were trucks on the west side. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don’t doubt that I don’t remember seeing them but the storage containers were storing I think the party rental equipment. JAMES ORIOLI : Yeah I guess one’s more of a shed so I guess there would be two containers that are in the back MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Two containers. JAMES ORIOLI : that are basically used for slow moving items I guess stuff that’s hardly rented that’s not inside the warehouse. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And are those twenty or forty foot containers? JAMES ORIOLI : Twenty. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Twenty foot. JAMES ORIOLI : Yeah. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay here’s what I’m going to suggest. Joan we’ll give you an opportunity to address that parking just so you have a chance to do that. I’ll adjourn this to the Special Meeting and that’s in two weeks and then if there is whatever we receive we’ll welcome and if there are no further questions we’ll close the hearing at that time and then we’ll deliberate you know at the next meeting. If there are questions we’ll carry it over for another public hearing. If we don’t have any questions we’ll just close it. How’s that? So I’m going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting on July 13 th to receive we’ll just say a parking plan, site plan revised parking/site plan. Is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? Correction, adjourn to the Special on July 20 th. ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 7062 – PATRICK and DIANE SEVERSON CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Patrick and Diane Severson #7062. This is a request for variances under Article III Section 280-15F and Article XXII Section 280-116A and the Building Inspector’s March 3, 2017 amended March 13, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling and to legalize an “as built” shed at 1) “as built” shed located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 50 feet, 2) “as built” shed located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff, 3) additions to the single family dwelling located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff at 9202 Bridge Lane (adj. to the Long Island Sound) in Cutchogue. We’re looking at additions and alterations to a single family dwelling with a bluff setback of 31 feet where the code requires 100 feet, to legalize an “as built” shed which is an 8 foot by 14 foot shed in the code permitted front yard with a 14.5 foot front yard setback where the code requires 50 feet. Also the shed is 84.7 feet from the top of the bluff and the principal setback (inaudible) 100 feet. There’s a prior ZBA variance #6275 June 16, 2009 granted a 42 foot bluff setback. State your name please. NANCY STEELMAN : Nancy Steelman of Samuels and Steelman Architects representing the owner. I just want to let you know that part of the issue with this project; it’s been a fairly complicated project for us to be involved in. A substantial portion of the property, approximately forty four percent, consists of the bluff and beach area at the are on the sound. It allows for you know a relatively small area in which to locate any structures. We have tried to add on to the property so that we are not exceeding not getting closer to the bluff except for the thirty one feet that you mentioned which is right at the corner of the deck. So we’re adding to the deck, maintaining the same line as the existing deck, and that is the thirty one feet. The addition is in the same line if you run a line parallel to the bluff line it’s in the same location as the existing residence. We’re adding about eight and a half feet onto that side and that is ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting basically it maintains that same dimension. The house itself is rather unusual. It’s built probably in the seventies, early seventies. It’s very modern. I don’t know if you were able to go out and see the house so that was somewhat of a challenge of what to do. My clients wants to be a little more traditional something that’s not quite that seventies look with some interesting (inaudible) windows and some strange things going on, flat roofs and so we’ve tried to work something relatively sensitive to the area. The shed is pre-existing that was built prior to my owners purchase of the property and you know through our Notice of Disapproval it was acknowledged that did not have a C.O. and it did meet the current setbacks. So if I can answer any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What percentage of the existing dwelling are you maintaining, are you preserving? NANCY STEELMAN : Well on your site plan up on the top section percent of demolition you see that? We worked that out in terms of what was existing and what was to remain and what was going to be removed so we are removing approximately fifty nine, sixty percent of the existing building, maintaining forty percent of the existing house and adding to it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the reason that I am asking this question is because when I looked at those numbers you know previously the code for a demolition was twenty five percent of the structure, that has been changed and it is now based on a FEMA formula which has to do with evaluation of the existing property how much you’re maintaining of its value and how much you’re removing of its value and I couldn’t presume to know how to calculate any of that. The Building Department however should know how to calculate that. NANCY STEELMAN : Well at the time this application was submitted that had not gone in to effect. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see. NANCY STEELMAN : So our calculations are based on that previous twenty five percent maintaining the existing structure as non-demolition but this calculation is based on that previous code so we CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The notice was written on the old code. NANCY STEELMAN : Correct. T. A. DUFFY : I think they need a new notice. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You’re saying that they need to update the Notice of Disapproval? ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting T. A. DUFFY : I think you have to update your notice (inaudible) in the old code because you got your disapproval then. NANCY STEELMAN : Well we were already into the ZBA you know two months before that code change. T. A. DUFFY : (inaudible) prior zoning once you have a building permit you haven’t vested yet in that old code. NANCY STEELMAN : Correct but with the ZBA we did everything we needed to do which is our due diligence to make sure that we are following the code at the time and it was not notified to us that we needed to change the Notice of Disapproval when the code changed within this process. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I bring it up because it’s anything in transition always gets complicated and I just want the record to reflect how we need to deal with this because, as you know, a demolition is a different set of conditions than you know trying to retain something that’s “as built” that is not deemed to be a demolition. You’re actually proposing to construct landward of what is existing which is a good thing, so maybe Bill and I will have to look into that Nancy and see what exactly is going T. A. DUFFY : Let me just suggest, it’s only for your benefit. The ZBA can act on what’s before it now but when you go back to apply for your building permit they may retake a new look at it under the new code. NANCY STEELMAN : And theoretically they will. I think that most likely will happen. When we saw that there was a change we were somewhat concerned but we really said this process is started and this was how we had originally designed this building was based on that previous code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don’t you do this Nancy, go back and talk to Mike and just say we brought it up at the hearing and we just want to make sure we’re all on the same page proceeding and just let us know what he has to say. NANCY STEELMAN : Okay we can do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don’t know if you’ll need a different Notice of Disapproval or not, probably not but for now let’s just find out so that you don’t it doesn’t backfire later on. The next question is ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : When you designed, were you designing it just to conform with the demolition code? Would you like to demolish more I mean is it easier and cheaper for your client to demolish (inaudible) NANCY STEELMAN : No, because this portion of the house has value in itself so no I don’t think it was that we were looking to demo the entire house and do a brand new house in this location. They have value in this section of the house that we’re maintaining. MEMBER DANTES : And then the decks have value? NANCY STEELMAN : And the deck have value yes they’re relatively new. MEMBER DANTES : So you do want to keep I mean no I know people do that if there’s nothing wrong with it. So you do want to keep the decks, you do want to keep that part of the house? NANCY STEELMAN : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And why is it that you need to extend that deck which therefore decreases the setback from the bluff? NANCY STEELMAN : Well this was the last you know there’s an existing set of stairs there that you can see and there was a small little section that we thought well to have a little extra deck. That is not important if my client said at the very last minute let’s see if we can maybe also give us that as part of this variance but we’re willing to let that go if that’s a concern. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So they’re willing to maintain existing deck setback from the bluff. NANCY STEELMAN : You know I also went through the file and got some of the comments and recommendations from the Town Engineer, also from Suffolk County technicians who had looked at the bluff. They’ve made several recommendations each of these different agencies including the LWRP and you know I think any of what they’ve talked about and if we look at those more specifically they’re talking about with Suffolk County suggesting that we maintain 25 feet off the bluff line for any heavy equipment or any storage materials. We have absolutely no problem with that. They also suggested that we remove some of the sprinkler system along the bluff line that’s absolutely no problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You’ll need Trustees approval as well. NANCY STEELMAN : And we will need Trustees yes. The LWRP suggested non-turf buffer and I think Trustees would definitely be recommending that also so I think that’s understood and I don’t think we have a problem with that. ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you’re okay with the Engineers obviously you’re going to put gutters and leaders on and a drywell. NANCY STEELMAN : We will need to comply anyway with storm water runoff for drywells and any pervious surfaces. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What about the shed? How come that can’t be moved to a conforming location? NANCY STEELMAN : You know we possibly can. You know I think this was this really came up at the point when they were doing the Notice of Disapproval that this was non-conforming. I don’t think it’s an issue. We could possibly relocate it. I don’t know if there’s any conforming location for it. We’re relatively tight on our front yard setbacks and we have two right of ways which are acting as two front yards so it’s really sort of a corner property but that would be an option that we could potentially relocate it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I’ll say this much for speaking only for myself. When we did you know we each do as you know site inspections before the hearing, it’s absolutely not visible from this you know very private area anyway and it’s set back farther than what the principle structure is from the bluff and then certainly with a sufficient side yard and you know it just it’s really off of a right of way. It’s not really a road it’s a right of way that’s privately used and I don’t feel it has really any adverse impacts but I have to ask the question because if it’s possible to make it conforming then you know I was looking to see where you might put it that was conforming and frankly I’d be hard pressed to figure out a conforming location. NANCY STEELMAN : I mean the pool is existing and if you can see where the fifty foot setback lines are from both right of ways there’s a relatively small area where we’re in conformance between a hundred foot back and the front yard setback. There’s retaining wall, there’s a change in level between the pool and driveway are. I think it’s it would be extremely difficult but give it a try. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can I make a statement. A friend of mine owned this house probably three or four owners ago and those sheds were existing maybe not in the same I mean maybe they did some facial work or whatever the case might be I think the name was Kaufer and that was ’85 okay. So I don’t foresee as the chairperson is saying there’s any big issue there. I very rarely do this but having been to the site many, many times both by boat without sinking the boat having four people on the deck making sure we didn’t hit any rocks going in and that was I think one of the reasons why you saw (inaudible) going to be able to bring in a boat so that’s the story. ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So let me see if anybody else has questions, Pat do you have any further questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No, I inspected the property and honestly that shed you kind of have to look for it because the trees are you know growing and the shed is green and honestly to move it I think it would probably fall apart. I mean it’s really old. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. Eric? MEMBER DANTES : I do not have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry and Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Should I just adjourn to the Special Meeting so you can find out more and you let us know what the Building Department has to say in case we have to address an issue we haven’t? NANCY STEELMAN : Yes I guess that’s the best approach or you know CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well if I close it then we’re kind of barred from doing any adjustments if we need to. Hopefully we won’t need to. NANCY STEELMAN : I guess maybe the question would be in a situation like this once we’re in that Notice of Disapproval process you know at any point any of the codes can change so even as for future projects for us if we’ve done a full design project based on a certain understanding in the code and we’re in that Notice of Disapproval process you know we can be submitting for a building permit at a certain point well as in this case potentially and we’ve gone through a process, we’ve done everything as according to the code at the time and now the whole project could be not meeting code based on a code that’s changed two weeks prior so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand what you’re saying but if you’ve got variances then the variances are going to run with the land so it’s going to be based on what you applied for at the time. NANCY STEELMAN : Correct for the variance but even at any point is there a grandfather period in which you know there’s T. A. DUFFY : Unless it’s specified in the code that’s adopted it’s you vest when you have a building permit. NANCY STEELMAN : When it’s adopted okay. ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting T. A. DUFFY : I’m saying unless at the time when they adopt the code they say they’re grandfathering in any prior applications, in this case that didn’t happen so you only vest once you have your building permit. NANCY STEELMAN : Okay. So Leslie do you want me to speak with Mike directly or is it something that’s internal to the town? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What do you think Bill? T. A. DUFFY : It’s your application if you want to speak to him. NANCY STEELMAN : I need to either get back to you formerly with Mike’s response or CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I just want to be sure that we’re proceeding the way we’re supposed to I think we are. I think in fairness to property owners if you’ve gotten a Notice of Disapproval based on a particular code and proceeded to design the project accordingly that’s probably what should apply at the time of the hearing but I don’t want to see it undone by the Building Department later on because they’re applying a different code. NANCY STEELMAN : But I think this is a bigger question that it’s not just this application. It could be a variety of things that are down the road. I’m surprised it hasn’t come up in other situations not so much on demolition but any code that has changed and you’re now making a ZBA interpretation on a previous code. T. A. DUFFY : Well we actually did have another demolition application where the code changed in the middle of it and they totally changed their project. They had to withdraw so NANCY STEELMAN : Well I have to say I did advise my client of this. I told them that most likely we would still needed to meet the code at the time we submit for a building permit application that we’d probably would need to do an appraisal and if you want to know how that is done it’s you need an appraisal, we write a letter based on the construction costs of the project. It is only the cost of the projects that is only the structure that they’re looking at they’re not looking at the property so you know we’ve done that multiple times with FEMA so we’re aware of how that process works. We assumed that we would need that appraisal done for that building permit application so just so you’re aware. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well why don’t you just tell Mike what we were talking about and just let Kim know or she can you can have the conversation with me. She can let me know and I don’t know I don’t think we’re going to have to hold this over what do you, I don’t know what do you think I’ll ask the Board. You want to hold it open to the Special or? ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Well you figure (inaudible) appraisal anyway why don’t we just look at it and (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s a thought, you want to do that? NANCY STEELMAN : I can supply that that would be fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That works. So I’ll just adjourn this to the Special Meeting and work with the Building Department, submit that information and we’re good to go. NANCY STEELMAN : Alright sounds good. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience, I think I asked that. Hearing no further questions or comments I’m going to make a motion to adjourn this application to the Special Meeting on July 20 th. 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 # 7060 – ROBERT RAGONA CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Robert Ragona # 7060. This is a request for an interpretation pursuant to Article II Section 280-10A and the Building Inspector’s March 8, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a waiver of merger. The applicant requests 1) that the applicant be exempt from the Town of Southold Waiver of Merger Law, 2) that the Board amend Appeal #3827 dated October 4, 1989 to remove the reference of subdivision located at 350 Wood Lane in Greenport. This is a complicated and quite unusual application so let me let you proceed Pat I guess (inaudible) circumstances have changed. It’s our understanding that Mr. Ragona does not own that house. ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Correct yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That property has been sold. PAT MOORE : Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the question that I would automatically ask you before you get into whatever you want to say is since at this point and time the lot that is not developed is still technically a part of the residentially developed lot unless you can prove otherwise. We now have a new owner of the lot and doesn’t that whether they assumed that was the case or not the fact that they purchased the house seems to me the undeveloped portion of that lot stays with the house lot until it is technically divided off from it one way or another. PAT MOORE : Well that’s what we’re here to discuss because I believe that all the circumstances in the law itself makes that a separate lot. It is not part of the house parcel. So if you allow me to go through the process then we can discuss that issue at the end based on what I give you if that’s agreeable. The neighbor did get noticed as they would on and it’s been posted so they certainly have an opportunity are you here oh good well they’re here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I’ll tell you what. Let’s just so we’re up to date let’s let them speak and then we’ll turn it over to you. PAT MOORE : Them first? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I just want to hear what they have to say. PAT MOORE : Alright. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Their understanding and circumstances are. PAT MOORE : Okay I’ll sit and I’ll listen. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning, welcome to the Town of Southold, would you please raise that mic because we record this and you’re a tall guy and if we’re going to hear you. MR. NEFF : Hi I’m Mr. Neff and this is Genevieve Neff. We purchased the property in 2015 and we’ve had it now for two years and we were out on Sunday and we came home and we found on the adjacent property a posting on a tree about this hearing. We didn’t receive mailing. The individual who lives behind us on the eastern edge of our property she didn’t receive a mailing regarding the hearing. She was the former owner of the property prior to the Ragona’s purchasing the two parcels and the property in question abuts our property. We would have liked to have been notified by mail of what the hearing and what was going on with the property. We were under the assumption that it was just the vacant land a buffer between us ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting and the next house. It was unbuilt overgrown. We’ve been trying to maintain the dividing line between it because their stakes are still present. It was staked out at one point so we just wanted to know what was going on. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you purchased the property in 2015 from Mr. Ragona? MR. NEFF : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Was it your assumption that he owned this vacant lot and you were buying the house lot or something else? MR. NEFF : We purchased the home. We questioned the adjacent lot and the previous owner to Mr. Ragona we were told by that individual that the daughter owned the house and the adjacent lot was merged with that and that’s and she wanted to do work I guess or build or something and she got to the point where she just sold it off, sold the house and the land as one parcel. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And she sold it to whom. MR. NEFF : Mr. Ragona. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So she sold the house and lot as one MR. NEFF : To Mr. Ragona and when we purchased the home there was an elderly woman living in the house she was renting the house, she passed away and then it was advertised for sale. We purchased the home it was 350 Wood Lane and when we went to pay the taxes and get the paperwork the house number changed to 410 so we didn’t question it we just have our own tax lot that we pay now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you getting two bills? Are you getting billed for MR. NEFF : We’re getting one bill for our parcel which is 29. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you’re not getting any bill for the undeveloped portion of that? MR. NEFF : No we’re not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh boy. MR. NEFF : My wife would like to say something. MRS. NEFF : We understood that was an unbuildable lot and that lot should have been sold together as one. ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting MR. NEFF : And then the house that we live in has a C.O. and the lot size so the merger brought the smaller parcel I guess it merged in to our house and never unseparated so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Back in the day there was a variance granted to subdivide that merged parcel but it was never taken to the Planning Board where it had to go in order to be codified. That variance is still runs with the land because it was under the old system so it’s still there but nothing was done about it so I don’t see how it was technically separated legally from the building the part of the lot that is built on. MRS. NEFF : Well I guess we just wanted to state our opposition to the whole thing and the fact that you know we feel and all the neighbors feel that you know it’ll have a negative impact on the community because it’s supposed to be an undersized lot. T. A. DUFFY : I have received a letter I believe from you saying you wanted an adjournment to seek counsel. MRS. NEFF : Yes because we got no notice. T. A. DUFFY : Can I finish my question, and that you hadn’t received written notice of this is that still your request? MR. NEFF : It was not us and it was not the individual that had originally owned the entire parcels. She never received notice as well and she’s right now she had an operation so she’s house bound. She would be here today but she was willing to MEMBER DANTES : His question though is, would you like us to delay the hearing until you had an opportunity to consult with an attorney? MR. NEFF : If we need to get counsel yes we’d like to have a delay because we were never notified at all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Didn’t we get where are the green cards on this? Just a second we did get some mailings back so let’s see what we have. You’re absolutely right you should have received you know a notice in the mail with a return receipt and all that. We get the return receipts to see who actually got the mailings. MR. NEFF : And the adjacent owner like I said the elderly woman she MRS. NEFF : That’s his mom. MR. NEFF : That’s his mom? MRS. NEFF : Yes, Eleanor. ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have green cards returned for Gus Koutsabelis, MRS. NEFF : I don’t even know who that is, I think that’s the person that we never see. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They live in Whitestone, Laura Held and Laurie Cohen who are next door. MRS. NEFF : Yes they were supposed to be here today I don’t know what happened. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Edwin Kinscherf, Maria Zervos and Dennis Zervos. MRS. NEFF : Yes they are not present either. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The reason you apparently didn’t get one is because it is the subject lot and at the time we assumed Ragona was the owner and was the applicant to the Zoning Board so you’re not going to mail it to yourself that’s why you didn’t get it. We were not aware that the property had already been purchased by someone other than Ragona. MR. NEFF : Two years ago. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright that’s the reason. Now the question is you’d like to retain legal counsel, we can adjourn but the question is do we want to hear any do you want to hear anything from what Ms. Moore has to say? MR. NEFF : I would like to hear CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can do that and then we can adjourn based if an adjournment is needed we can carry on after that. MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Absolutely we’ll do that in fact they decide they need counsel after we hear no Eric was correctly saying that if in fact this continues after your testimony and they want to hire counsel we will need you to give them a complete copy of the entire application to take to their attorney for review. So would you like to speak now Pat? PAT MOORE : So let me start off with what I gave you I gave you a handwritten outline because I realized that in my application A, B, C may have been incorrectly identified. I was going back to the original Zoning Board variance and that variance had identified the lots as A, B, C and I think I turned it around so I just wanted to be sure that I had the accurate identified parcel with the description. I’m going back to the adoption of the waiver of merger. You’re correct in that the well let me start off by saying that these lots were created back in ’52. “A” was created in ’52 ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting when it was (inaudible) to Edwin and Doris Kinscherf. Lot “B” had a house or has a house and that was with MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pat can I interrupt, I’m sorry. Looking at you’re A, B, and C are you and you labeled “A” as being lot 35, would “B” be lot 29? PAT MOORE : Correct. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you, so it’s turned on its side. PAT MOORE : Yeah that’s what happened is the way the map was described in your records it had me turned around so I wanted to be sure I was following it correctly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So “B” would be fronting on Inlet? PAT MOORE : Yes that’s the house is the people that just spoke that’s their property. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No “B” would be on Wood Lane. PAT MOORE : Oh no “A” is on Wood Lane. I’m sorry let me just make sure I got the right street. I spoke too quickly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : “A” is Neff. PAT MOORE : “A” is the larger piece. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no, no you have the lot that is your does your house lot is it a through lot? PAT MOORE : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay it faces it’s fronting on Wood Lane? PAT MOORE : Correct that’s the large CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And is that what you’ve drawn up at “A”? PAT MOORE : That’s the piece that was sold many years ago and Mr. Ragona did not acquire it. That was actually I take it back not sold off. That was retained by the Kinscherf family “A”, that’s in the title it’s in six children and the life estate in Eleanor. That’s parcel “A” that’s tax lot 35. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And is that now owned by Neff or not? PAT MOORE : No, it’s owned by Kischerf. ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Leslie I’m looking at the survey and “A” doesn’t have fifty feet of common boundary with “C” so I believe it can’t merge right? PAT MOORE : What’s the question I don’t understand. MEMBER DANTES : Well I don’t understand why “A” is part of the discussion because it doesn’t PAT MOORE : Oh no I went back to the Zoning Board decision so the Zoning Board decision was dealing with parcel “A”, parcel “B” and parcel “C”. So that I wanted to be sure that I had it identified in accordance with the Zoning Board decision. MEMBER DANTES : But the Zoning Board decision wasn’t a waiver of merger decision. PAT MOORE : It was an area variance. These were area variances yes back in ’89 the Zoning Board granted area variances for all three parcels. MEMBER DANTES : Right but it doesn’t have anything to do with a waiver of merger. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct. PAT MOORE : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It wasn’t even in effect at the time. PAT MOORE : There was no waiver of merger process. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There was no waiver of merger process that’s why it was subdivided. PAT MOORE : So let me start and maybe clarify for you. I gave you the title history below just to try to clarify because you have in your records a single and separate and you have the Zoning Board hearing all of that information was part of the submission to you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you still representing Ragona? PAT MOORE : Yes they’re right here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright just checking. PAT MOORE : I was brought in after the Building Department issued the Notice of Disapproval. So parcel “A” back to the original it was the main house. There was a house on “A”, there was a house on “B” that’s the house that the neighbors own the Neff’s own currently and that is lot 30 tax lot 30 which is the lot that Ragona owns and that’s the subject of this application. MEMBER DANTES : Pat can you put the mic up a little bit. ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : So in looking back at when the Ragona’s purchased the property you’re correct in that there was a variance area variance that was granted in 1989. Thereafter in 1995 the town adopted the first version of the wavier of merger law and that first version created exceptions in the code that said if you met one or two or three or four different standards the lot the parcels the otherwise merged parcels was exempt from merger. So I’m giving you all you ever wanted to know about merger but was afraid to ask as they say. So, well thanks somebody thought it was funny. So, the exception to; has been in the books since 1995 and that has continued in the books of waiver of merger process and lot recognition section to today and the exception is the non-conforming lot obtained lot size variance from the Zoning Board. No conditions to that just that language, simple clear and that is what the law the legal practitioners out in the community and common people would be able to read in the section of the code of 100-25 so what occurred is when Mr. Ragona came along and bought the property the due diligence was done and they automatically saw that that section applied and Mr. and Mrs. Ragona purchased the property in two separate names. So that is the exception that I believe applies and therefore the lot is a separate lot. It is not as the Neff’s believe. It is not adjacent or it’s not attached by merger to the adjacent piece. It is by virtue of the 1989 ZBA decision automatically excluded from the merging. There had been another provision but this is the one Mike wasn’t sure could be applied or not which is if the merger occurred due to death and what happened is that the Kinscherf family purposely checker boarded this property and back in 1989 there was no waiver of merger process so the Zoning Board granted the area variances. Most importantly in light of the fact that it was a merger due to the death of the co- owner, that was Doris Kinscherf. She the wife now I see a family member here is Eleanor a sister or a wife a second wife? SOMEONE FROM THE AUDIENCE PAT MOORE : Alright that was my guess and I think all of us believed it was a daughter but when I went back and I looked at the title of parcel “A” that’s the house it listed all the children, six children and it listed a life estate in Eleanor and usually you do that as a practitioner you do that you give a life estate to a wife or a caretaking child. In this case they listed all the six children so Eleanor being the second wife. So what happened is Eleanor is living with a life estate on the main house in the back and the six children are the title owners of parcel “A”. The Ragona’s when Eleanor took title well what happened is going back Edwin passes away in 1998 and there’s an estate proceeding and I have the deeds from when Eleanor obtained the title and both deeds refer to by devise under a will. So, she being a second wife was the beneficiary under a will presumably because that’s what the deeds refer and it was cleaning up of the title because there had to be some form of title a chain of title that reflected how the prior owners died. So I have it here for your records. I only have one set. It’s I want to say (inaudible) related but just to give you a little bit of context of who’s who and who’s living where today. But the ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting bottom line is that the zoning code itself is pretty is absolutely clear not pretty clear absolutely clear that the variance itself created the exemption to the merger. The secondary request I made to the Board is alright if for some reason and this is what Mike thought would be practical if the Board just took the language of the 1989 ZBA decision with reference to a subdivision from that decision Mike would have had no issue with it as well. So in either case I think as a matter of law is exempt because the language couldn’t be clearer and secondly because as a condition of the ZBA the interesting thing is that to go to the Planning Board today is just it makes no sense in that the lots are separate. They’re already in separate title, they have received separate tax bills, they are reflective of the deeds that were created in the ‘50’s so it’s a process that just adds expense and time but it’s already as of the way the parcels have been created since the ‘50’s, it’s unnecessary. When the ZBA created that decision in ’89 we didn’t have a waiver of merger law so that was the only process available. The interesting thing is even if you had to go to the Planning Board even in ’89 what application were you making, because the merger occurs of a matter of law due to zoning. The subdivision it’s already three separate lots since the ‘50’s so I could see that there might have been some question of whether or not there had to actually be a subdivision process because you weren’t creating new lots. The Zoning Board had technically split the lots by giving the area variances and at that point it’s a defacto subdivision. It’s going back to its original. So, cleaning up that decision by way of removing that condition would clarify it or simplify it as well so we have two very distinctive and simple ways of resolving this, one by statute itself and two by updating in a sense the 1989 decision by taking that subdivision condition out of the language. I know as a matter of precedent we’ve done this before. Gerry when you were Chair I remember coming to the Board and getting a condition removed from prior decisions at least twice if not three times over the time the thirty years. It’s not I mean you only find conditions sometimes that we can’t meet and then we come back to the Board to remove that condition so it’s a very it’s not precedent setting it is something that we’ve done over the last thirty years when the situation warrant it. While it seems like a very complicated application it’s actually very simple in its if you look at it both technically and going back to the ’89 decision. I hope that that helps. I also included a memo I gave to Bill Duffy, Town Attorney because he and I were talking and he’s like well what was the intent of the waiver of merger law at the time it was adopted so I said you know what I remember because I’ve lived through it and I gave the enactments of the law. I also provided the transcripts of the hearings and I would actually point out right from the start the first let me make sure which date it is it’s actually appears very early it’s maybe the fourth page in this packet. It’s the hearing of the waiver of merger law when Councilman Wickham and Councilman Ross were on the Board and Pat Finnegan was the Town Attorney and it was the first time that it was adopting a waiver of merger where there’s death. It really a unintended consequence obviously none of us we can’t avoid death at some point or another and one of the adoptions right off the bat because and it actually dealt with this situation like in ’89 when ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting the Zoning Board granted the variance it was really looking at the fairness situation where you have in the fifties lots being created and they were all being checker boarded intentionally very advanced for the fifties because you don’t see the fifties people thinking that far ahead. They were well represented at the time and the adoption of the code and there is specific language in the transcript that says you don’t have to go through any special process if the merger occurs due to death you just go to the Building Department. There’s no process even on decisions that the ZBA may have denied in the past you don’t have to go back to the Zoning Board you just go to the Building Department. It is a recognition that that is a specific intention here in our code to prevent. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just ask, I am not aware of a subdivision of a single lot that was merged that was subdivided by this Board through an area variance for lot size that was not legalized through being codified by the Planning Board. I do not know of any. PAT MOORE : Well actually Gerry you were around a long time in fact the Zoning Board when Bob Tasker was the Town Attorney so in the eighties. The interpretation that Bob Tasker as Town Attorney gave to the Zoning Board and the Planning Board was that the Zoning Board had the authority to subdivide. So many subdivisions I don’t want to say major they were minor subdivisions because the Planning Board was dealing with major subdivision you had to go the state law provided you had to go through the Planning Board process. The town code defined what a minor was and for many variances were granted creating the subdivision approval. In this case CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I have to have samples because honestly Pat the bottom line is you well know when people don’t qualify for a waiver of merger because it’s been sold outside of the family or something like that the applicant can come before this Board to ask that based upon prior deeds, existence of prior lots were then merged they can request that we do area variances for a lot line change but the Planning Board really does a subdivision. The subdivision is what Planning Board can create so I mean I don’t understand why you just didn’t take the variance which runs with the land and go to the Planning Board. It would have been absolutely simple and clean. It ran with the land, they just had to codify it and that’s the end of it. This is a twenty eight year old decision. The town has developed subsequently in the past twenty eight years. We’re concerned about sanitary systems and nitrogen loading and water pollution. The things that were being thought about twenty eight years ago are not what we’re thinking about today. I don’t see how going back to a variance that was granted twenty eight years ago is reasonable in my opinion and I won’t speak for the rest of the Board because we haven’t made a decision and you know as far as the other thing that you’re proposing which is that there’s an exemption to the waiver of merger the Planning Department certainly didn’t see that. ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : I haven’t seen the Planning Department. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m sorry the Building Department didn’t see that MEMBER DANTES : Can I ask a question Leslie, something I don’t know if we have an answer to, if the decision was for lot 29, 30 and 35 so can the owner of just one lot finish the subdivision without having some sort of consent from the make an application to the Planning Board without the consent of the other two lots that were part of that decision? PAT MOORE : I have had to do that in the past due to selling off of parcels because again it’s a cleanup. I guess alternatively we’d have to sue the neighbors and bring them in and do a partition action and that seems to me a very onerous litigation process for what is a simple I think a very simple issue here. I still I’m pointing to statutory section of the exemption provision that seems to apply here right on the T. A. DUFFY : Well can I ask you a question about that? So you’re relying on 280-10C which is exceptions and has a list of six or seven exceptions I believe PAT MOORE : Yes. T. A. DUFFY : Before you get the exceptions that section starts out it says lots which are recognized under 280-9 and meet the following category shall be exempt from the merging provision so then when you go PAT MOORE : Oh I’m sorry I’m looking at the old code. Okay go ahead I know I have it here. T. A. DUFFY : It’s also on page 5 of your handout so it says lots which are recognized under 280- 9 and meet any of the following category shall be exempt. So before we get to the exemptions you have to qualify under 280-9 so now when you go up to 280-9 it says a lot created by deed for town approval shall be recognized by the town if any of the following standards apply and the lots have not merged. So there’s no question that at some point these lots merged so I don’t see how you qualify for the exemptions because you’re not recognized under 280-9. PAT MOORE : But you have here yes because lot recognition we have the lots in question approved or recognized by formal action of the Board of Appeals prior to June ’83 okay so we have ‘89 T. A. DUFFY : Go back to A and it says if they have not merged and they meet one of these standards so they’ve merged so it’s not they merged in the eighties so I don’t see how you can apply the exception criteria and that’s what I (inaudible) to research. When I say we’ve had this argument back and forth and I’m saying how do you qualify under 280-9 when these lots merged in the eighties and we have this code today. ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : But the lots were created by deeds in the fifties. T. A. DUFFY : Right and they merged. PAT MOORE : The merger did not occur until well T. A. DUFFY : But it occurred. PAT MOORE : Yeah but it occurred due to death right but that was an exception. Remember the T. A. DUFFY : And then it was transferred to a non-family member. PAT MOORE : No it was well the non-family member had it checker boarded. Ragona has it in single and separate ownership. T. A. DUFFY : It merged before. PAT MOORE : No but the merger Eleanor Kinchief took title from the deed due to the death. She got it by will okay and both cases she got it by the will so it was due to the death of Eleanor got title that way. She was cleaning up her title. So in all circumstances here the title was merged due to the death of family members. T. A. DUFFY : When did the exemption for death go into effect? PAT MOORE : I’m sorry what? T. A. DUFFY : When did the exemption for death go into effect? PAT MOORE : Oh the original that was the first waiver of merger provision from the nineties. That was the first one that I want to say relief valve that was ever implemented. T. A. DUFFY : So when did the person acquire the property by will? PAT MOORE : Well it would have been the death of let’s see Edwin dies in ’98 after that after the adoption of that section. As I said it was checker boarded, it was intentionally kept separate by the Kinchief family but there was no waiver of merger process in ’89 when the Zoning Board had to grant it by way of an area variance that was the only method. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well what you perceive to be simple is not quite so simple. PAT MOORE : I guess for a zoning nerd I’m a zoning nerd I made it simple. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would like to ask Mr. and Mrs. Neff having heard what you’ve just heard what you would like to do, do you want to obtain counsel, do you want us to adjourn? ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting There’s a lot of information to absorb. We want to be fair to all parties concerned. Just speak into the mic sir. MR. NEFF : Yes I think we have to seek counsel and also I would Eleanor her son is here so we’d like to have him speak as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure absolutely. So how about you do that Mr. Kinchief please come to the mic and state your name. EDWIN KINSCHERF : My name is Edwin Kinscherf I’m one of the owners of 395 Inlet Lane Greenport. Our property abuts the rear of this empty lot in question. My father owned all three parcels since the late fifties. Now when the Southold Town deemed that fifty by a hundred lot was not a buildable lot anymore the town merged the two lots together on Wood Lane. My father didn’t and when my father questioned it he was told it’s not a legal buildable lot anymore and you know if you wanted to sell it you would sell the house plus the empty lot and at the time my father felt it was fine because it is getting very built up around there and people are building oversized houses on these tiny little pieces of plot and they don’t even have enough parking for the cars once they build these big houses. So, the property being merged never had anything to do with my father’s death. The property was already merged before you know my father passed away and he was fine with that because he was against all the building and then when my father passed away in ’98 the empty lot and the house on Wood Lane was willed to my stepmother Eleanor and his six children got the house in the front on Inlet Lane. So now where our two back yards are backing up according to the plans here for this house it says it’s zoned for R40 and you’re supposed to have a thirty five foot buffer on the front and a thirty five foot buffer on the back and he’s already encroaching there’s only going to be a twenty two foot buffer on the back yard and all the houses all around that area they’re one story ranches possibly with two bedrooms. They’re small houses. He wants to build this two story four bedroom monster. I mean it’s going to be so out of place in the neighborhood. It’s really too big for the area and I don’t even know how we all thought that because it was deemed back in the eighties that the fifty by a hundred was not a buildable plot that even when my stepmother sold that house with the lot sold it together as one that you know fine if somebody wanted to put a garage or if they wanted to expand sideways that would be fine but to come here and then tell me they want to build a two story monster I just don’t think it’s right and I think the Town of Southold felt the same way when they you know made the zoning laws saying that fifty by a hundred is too small of a lot and now to say to go back and change it after twenty eight years I don’t think it’s fair to the people in the community and if this happens probably every fifty by a hundred lot everybody is going to be running in here and saying hey we want you know go back thirty years and change the rules and we all want to build these big monsters. ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : May I ask you a question? The appeal #3827 to the Zoning Board that was granted this three lot subdivision October 4, 1989 that was I believe your father’s application. EDWIN KINSCHERF : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So at some point after these merged he applied to have these lots separated into three lots. Can you address that? EDWIN KINSCHERF : Yes, he was going to give me the lot to build a house on and when we went down and talked to the Board you know they said you know you would have to go through the appeals and everything. By the time we figured you’d take twenty feet from the width of fifty feet you’re literally only have thirty feet left to try and build a house on and I felt it was going to be too small so we never really you know after that we didn’t approach it anymore. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So is that why you never followed up with the Planning Board to codify that the variances? EDWIN KINSCHERF : Yeah he was fine if it was just going to be lumped in you know with the Wood Lane house because that’s how the taxes were paid. It wasn’t like a separate lot and a house. They just you know used the Wood Lane address for both lots. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. That helps clarify some of the history. Let me ask a question at this point, since the Neff’s want to obtain legal counsel we’ve had a lot of testimony I’d like to get it typed up this is this transcript if anyone wants to speak now certainly can but what I’m going to suggest is that we do adjourn this so everybody can take a deep breath and think through what all of the information is and then we can continue when you’ve had a chance to think through how you would like to proceed with your testimony with legal counsel. Let me do this. Would you; do you have anything else you’d like to tell the Board? EDWIN KINSCHERF : Nothing that I’m you know. I’m against them building that size house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and would you like to speak Mr. Ragona? MR. RAGONA : Hi my name is Bob Ragona I own that lot. I thought I’ve been listening to all this and when I got all this paperwork I understand how complicated this whole thing is. I wasn’t even aware of that when I purchased the house so let me tell you how I got to where we are because it kind of sheds a light on what is equitable and what might not be equitable, what’s good for the community and what’s not good for the community. I’m an employee of Eastern Long Island Hospital. I relocated here over a decade ago to work at the hospital. My wife is a nurse over at Peconic Landing. About five or six years ago we started planning for retirement ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting and my wife said I don’t trust the stock market five or six years ago that’s a reasonable assumption now to trust the stock market. She said let’s acquire property in Greenport that’s where we should retire. It’s a great place to live, wonderful town, nice people and that’s what we did. We bought this plot with the idea of renovating the house and when I retired when it was supposed to be this year now it’s going to be next year moving here. It didn’t seem like a very complicated thing at the time. We went to close on the house the real estate said to us you know these lots can be separated and if you could build a house you could probably modernize the other house if you sell the side plot depending upon and it sounded like a good idea to me at the time so we did that. That’s why one’s in my name and one’s in both our names. MEMBER DANTES : So you knew that the lots were merged when you purchased the property? MR. RAGONA : They told me that they could they would file and they gave us a it was I thought it was some sort of environmental permit saying the size of the house and offsets and it could be the real estate said you put it in separate names because the rules of merger and non- merger in death of a spouse that we could do that and what happened was there was a tenant living there. Very nice lady she was a (inaudible) there was some confusion about the addresses I think she kind of changed the addresses around because she was a post mistress and we agreed that she could she said I just want to stay until I retire. Her retirement was perfectly around with our retirement it seemed like win win for everybody. She stayed there, we didn’t increase her rent you know that’s why we didn’t make any changes to the house once we acquired it because she was actually living there. The poor woman went into the hospital three days before she retired, never came out. Not my hospital Stony Brook and passed away. At that point we were faced with the decision what are we going to do, we’re going to build, sell and the real estate said you will need to change now that you’re retiring. Why don’t you buy something closer to town and sell both pieces and that’s what we did. We put them up for sale the house sold first and we put the lot up for sale. The first time we got a buyer on the lot my wife said no I want to build on the lot. I know you inspected the place. It doesn’t look like much from the road but if you walk the property in the back its wonderful views of the water. It would be a great place to build a little home. I don’t know anything about four room houses. I didn’t submit any plans to build anything there. In the end I convinced her let’s sell it and just take the money and buy something when I retire. That’s how we got to where we are. This thing about building a gigantic mansion on a little lot maybe someone has that in mind. We put it up for sale another buyer (inaudible) as soon as we saw those water views and wanted for the same thing that’s how we got here. I mean I don’t know now that the house is sold half the property what I would do I mean I don’t know when I looked at the documents they were pretty confusing (inaudible) a little confusing to me what’s best for the community well if you leave the lot vacant I think I pay four or five hundred dollars in taxes a year on that vacant lot ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting it’s kind of overgrown. If you build a small house there tax revenue to the town would be substantially better probably twenty times that not to mention having a residence there actually provides revenue income to the whole community. My being able to buy a house out here also provides downstream revenue to this community. I think it’s a win for the community. I understand neighbors get nervous when they see oh the lots going down they’re going to build some monster. I don’t think it blocks anyone’s view. I mean you can’t see the water with all that crazy tree growth there anyway. It actually it’ll probably improve everyone’s view of the water building a small well maintained pristine house on that property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well our first concern is to make sure the property is a building lot and then the town will MR. RAGONA : They gave me that thing with where the septic should go and what the front back and setbacks the real estate said see this has been approved by whoever does the environmental permits. I thought that was done. I actually had paid him to do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was Health Department approval. MR. RAGONA : So I didn’t think there was an environmental consequence in putting a home there. As I said the first time someone actually made us an offer we turned it down because we were going to build a small house there t o retire. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well here’s what I think MR. RAGONA : (inaudible) local people looking to stay local. We’re not investors from Manhattan trying to make a quick buck (inaudible) property values CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sir if it’s a dividable parcel then it will be based upon the law that’s before us not the person who’s applying. These are not personalized and there are codes and laws and so on that we have to follow and the waiver of merger is a complicated procedure for anybody including the Zoning Board and they’re almost always vary from application to application but there’s very clear standards spelled out. Yours is especially convoluted kind of background because it fell between a lot of cracks in terms of when the law was adopted, when it was modified and so on so much to think about. I think there’s other compelling testimony we’re running quite late now. We’re going to have an opportunity to say more. We have I’ve just been informed that we have three arraignments in this court room at noon so we got to try and get as much done before then as we can. MR. RAGONA : Thank you for the time you gave me. ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : My pleasure. So what I’m going to do is find out when our next available hearing date is going to be, I’m suspecting October we are completely closed up all the way through October. We have like twelve applications scheduled for October already and certainly September is equally its crazy. We’re going to have to do November I’m sorry that it’s so long but there’s no alternative when this is a complicated thing. We want to get it right and we want to make sure that everybody gets heard and all opinions are respected and that we understand the laws involved so we’ll do some additional research too in the history. We’ll read everything you’ve submitted you know very carefully and PAT MOORE : Do you have a date for November? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah it gives everybody plenty of time to put their information together so I’m going PAT MOORE : I would just ask if they do get attorneys that the attorney contact me that way I can email the attorney CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure that makes sense then. Ms. Moore will provide your attorney with a complete package of information that we’ve got so PAT MOORE : It might already be scanned by the time November comes around. When do you transcribe usually. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the transcription of this hearing will be within a few weeks but we still need the application and all of your information, all your written stuff. So I’m going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to November 2 nd let’s say 10 a.m. Is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. MRS. NEFF : Yes I just wanted to thank the court and I wanted to say thank you for paying such close attention and taking care of our residents of Greenport for us and hopefully doing the right thing by everybody. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s what we’re trying to do. All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 7063 – EVE MACSWEENEY and VERONICA GONZALEZ CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Eve MacSweeney and Veronica Gonzalez #7063. This is a request for Variances under Article III Section 280-14 and the Building Inspector’s January 17, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a two lot residential subdivision at proposed two residential lots having less than the code required minimum lot width of 175 feet at 2050 Platt Road in Orient. Hi Mr. Cuddy how are you? MR. CUDDY : Good morning Charles Cuddy (inaudible) Griffin Ave Riverhead New York for Eve MacSweeney and Veronica Gonzales. As the chairperson said this is a two lot division and we lack twenty five feet on each lot, (inaudible) both lots exceed two acres. The Planning Board initially found a problem because they didn’t think this (inaudible) correctly. It does yield correctly (inaudible) flag lots. When I spoke to Allie Sabatino who was the planner at that time (inaudible) to have parallel lines. My clients would like parallel lots (inaudible) as far as emergency exists go so we’re looking to have two parallel lots. The lots will each be 150 feet across and each would be 2.1 acres. The character of the neighborhood will not going to be changed by having two more lots that are equal to the zoning of R80. Certainly the variance is not substantial; it’s fifteen percent. The alternative would be again to have back to back lots and that’s not desirable from a planning point of view and from my client’s point of view. Environmentally we have two lots in accordance with the zoning. I don’t believe there is any adverse effect environmentally. We have by the way approvals for the water from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. We have indicated that and I’ve delivered those documents to the Board. I also have a tax map which I would like to hand up to show the other lots on Platt Rd. (inaudible bad recording) I’m aware of the Planning Board’s memo. I think that’s not relevant the way it’s written because it has to do with the (inaudible) which is approval from the Health Department. So don’t think that that really (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess they had two concerns. One was the fact that it was an insufficient lot width that they denied and the other was sanitary. MR. CUDDY : (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you saying this map is supposed to show us other comparably wide lots? ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting MR. CUDDY : I’m showing you that the lots immediately to the north are also divided (inaudible) and actually have smaller frontage than this (inaudible) and basically the lots on this street there are a number of residences. It’s a residential area. There is also farming across the street but I think CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what’s the objection of having I guess the widths would be acceptable if there was a flag lot. In other words back to front lots is what they were say would be conforming in size as well as lot width and they want to have parallel lots. Lots that are parallel to each other and front on the street rather than a flag lot. MR. CUDDY : That’s correct and the planner had indicated that was preferable from a planning point of view also. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Which planner was that? MR. CUDDY : That was Allie Sabatino. She’s not there. MEMBER DANTES : It looks like the memo was written while they were looking at the flag lot plan, right? So they wrote the memo in response to your submitting the plan for the flag lots? MR. CUDDY : Yes. MEMBER DANTES : And then do I have a copy of the Department of Health submission? MR. CUDDY : I put it in the (inaudible) MEMBER DANTES : So you’re saying that will mitigate the Planning Board’s concerns? MR. CUDDY : Yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Kim was that included for us or the Board of Health approval? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m looking to see if it’s in the application I don’t know if we have it. It would be good if we have it. If we don’t have it we should get a copy. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don’t have it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I remember you did submit something to the office. I think she emailed it out. MR. CUDDY : What happens with the Board of Health (inaudible) file a covenant (inaudible bad recording) stamp on that. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Could you say that again. ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting MR. CUDDY : (bad recording) last process then we will hook up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess just one question, can you explain to the Board when you have the option of creating two conforming lots why we should consider granting a variance for what would be two non-conforming lots, not size wise but width wise. MR. CUDDY : I think that what is being said is that the value of two lots are equal. These are two people that own them they would like to own them separately. They own them together right now. They would each have the same value. They would each be in the situation where (inaudible). The preference I think from a Planning point of view is it’s very (inaudible) and one of the reason certainly is because of emergency service and it’s very difficult to say who gets the back lot who gets the front lot and so what they were trying to do is to have parallel lots and the only thing that they needed was an additional twenty five feet and again the lots on that street are very similar and they don’t have a hundred and fifty feet they have less than that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, I just wanted to have it in the record. Questions anyone? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was just going to ask and I’m confused. I found the document that Kim circulated regarding the Board of Health the subdivision, I’m not understanding, is this actually an approval? MR. CUDDY : No. It’s saying that we have done everything we have to and the only thing left that we have submit to them is the SEQRA determination by the town. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And it said something also about a test well. MR. CUDDY : No what it’s saying is it just wants the professional who’s doing that to note on the map so when they stamp the map it will show where the well is; that’s all. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The location. MR. CUDDY : That’s right just the location. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience, please come to the mic. STEPHEN FEUERABENDT : Hi, Stephen Feuerabendt. My wife and I own the property 405 Halyoke Ave which is immediately adjacent to the property we’re talking about. A couple of things, one is I literally MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I’m sorry Mr. Feuerabendt which property do you own? ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting STEPHEN FEUERABENDT : 405 Halyoke Ave. It’s the property that was previously owned by Doris Morgan. (Spells his last name) MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So I’m sorry I’m just confused. The location on the map you said it’s immediately adjacent yet it’s on Halyoke. I thought that was at the end of Platt Rd. STEPHEN FEUERABENDT : No, he’s on, he’s not on the end of Platt Rd. he’s on Platt Rd. a little bit north of Halyoke and our property is adjacent to the back part of our property is adjacent to the lot that he’s talking about. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So do you own the farm lot? STEPHEN FEUERABENDT : It’s not a farm lot; no there’s a residence on the lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you yeah it must be right here. Can you just come here and mark this; are you talking about this one? STEPHEN FEUERABENDT : We’re this property right here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh I see yeah. STEPHEN FEUERABENDT : My neighbors are here too and they own this property. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : The cops are here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have three arraignments. If that’s the case we have to vacate. I’m sorry I’m going to recess this hearing until the arraignments are completed. If you could all just wait in the lobby we are going to go to the conference room. You can wait in here if you want to its all public but we’re going to go to the conference room down the hall and we will check and as soon as these arraignments are done we’ll come back. Okay so we were in the middle of MacSweeney and Gonzalez and you were about to speak. So would you please restate your name? STEPHEN FEUERABENDT : Sure, Stephen Feuerabendt. My wife and I reside at 405 Halyoke Ave. in Orient which is adjacent to the subject property. So we’ve just as a side I have talked to Planning Department many of times about various properties in our area including the orchards and then this property so I have spoken to Allie in the past. She’s no longer there. My recollection I’m not disputing he had a conversation saying that she supported it my recollection of my conversation with her was that you know the Planning Department was not in favor of it and that was consistent with the letter I think they submitted in 2015 that they would support a flagged lot and a road side lot as opposed to the (inaudible) so that’s my recollection of the conversations. I also spoke to Jessica in the Planning Department. I didn’t ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting catch her last name literally just before the prior hearing to ask what is the Planning Department’s position with respect to this and she told me I was not aware of this because I didn’t look on line unfortunately beforehand but they submitted an additional letter I think on June 27 th saying that reasserting I think their position from the 2015 I haven’t read the letter so she described it for me but that’s my understanding that they are not supportive of splitting down the middle, they’re supportive of the flag lot which is inconsistent with what the attorney said but that’s my understanding of what their position is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have that letter and you are correct it was dated June 27 th. STEPHEN FEUERABENDT : Yeah, so anyway from our perspective we don’t see a need for narrower lots at this time. We would I think the neighbors they said some of the other neighbors are here and then (inaudible) I think she may have submitted a letter with respect to this. You know would like to have a conversation with the owners of the property to try to figure out exactly what they’re intending to do. We don’t see a need for them to split it down the middle like that. I’m in the fire department by the way and I can tell you in Orient there are a lot of narrow roads that the fire department goes down and I’m familiar with that property that’s right behind us and it’s a very open property and a flagged lot there from my personal perspective I’m not going to speak for the fire department I don’t see how that’s a safety issue and I’m an interior fire fighter and I would be concerned about that. Anyway we don’t understand why they need the variances. I think you asked the question and the answer I heard did not seem satisfactory to me. So we are objecting to this variance being approved. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When you say we are you, who are you speaking of? STEPHEN FEUERABENDT : My wife and myself and I think you have on behalf of my neighbors here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think they should just come to the (inaudible) STEPHEN FEUERABENDT : Yeah and I haven’t read (inaudible) Burke’s I think she wrote a letter also and had some concerns CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don’t know if we have that. STEPHEN FEUERABENDT : I was under the impression that she had written a letter. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did anybody see a letter? I don’t I know who she is, I don’t think we have a letter. STEPHEN FEUERABENDT : Maybe she didn’t do that. She’s having a tough time getting around but I think if there’s another hearing we’ll try to make sure she’s available to be here. ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And would you like to come and state you have to go to the please just state your name. BARBARA FRIEDMAN : My name is Barbara Friedman and we live at 835 Halyoke is the property it’s actually on Platt and Halyoke on the corner and I think I 3hate to see a precedent set for the street of having narrower lots. I think the fact that the two lots to the north are smaller than the requirements. I don’t know how much smaller maybe it says on the map that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It does but I need a magnifying glass to see it. BARBARA FRIEDMAN : I think having just becomes more suburban looking and having these narrow lots and there are other properties on Platt Rd. that could be divided in the future and I would hate to see a precedent set for narrower lots. It’s a question of two people bought a property and expected to be able to divide it equally it’s just not you know I don’t see it as a reason for a variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in the audience, did you want to have the last word? MR. CUDDY : I think it’s not unusual for people to expect that their lot will face the road in its entirety. In fact, that’s how at least ninety percent of the lots in the town are set up and so when you say it’s unusual for people to do this it’s not so unusual to do it. That’s how subdivisions are done. That’s how most of the roads and most of the lots on all of the roads in the town are. To say that you should have essentially a flagged lot situation is to me not a desirable thing as I said before value wise. It’s not necessarily the community is gaining anything by that and I don’t understand the objection that says we would prefer not to have narrow lots when the lots around this are narrow and to talk about narrowness it doesn’t seem to the question we have a hundred and fifty feet across. We should have a hundred and seventy five by virtue of the code but a hundred and fifty feet and a hundred and seventy five feet there’s not a substantial difference. It’s fifteen percent which is not substantial and so I would ask that you consider this variance and grant the variance. Thank you. STEPHEN FEUERABENDT : I think we would I would characterize fifteen percent as not insubstantial. Fifteen percent is quite substantial from my perspective and with respect to the splitting the value of the property the history of this property was the buyers purchased this as I understand it and the counsel can tell me if I’m wrong expecting to subdivide it so that they would have two separate properties and they understood when they purchased it what the requirements were or they should of understood what the code says with respect to width of the lots and they should have understood that that meant that that needed to be a flag lot and a non-flag lot according to the what the Planning Department had to say. So, the fact that they’re having issues figuring out the economics around, how they subdivide the lot as my ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting neighbor stated is not a reason for a variance. That’s an issue they should try to resolve and it seems to me on their own and there are certainly ways to do it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from the Board, any other questions or comments, anyone else in the audience? MEMBER DANTES : I’m looking at the tax map and the vast majority of lots on this tax map are less than one hundred and seventy five feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you say that louder into the mic? MEMBER DANTES : I’m looking at the tax map that the applicant submitted and the vast majority of lots on this tax map are less than the code required one hundred and seventy five feet. (UNAMED SPEAKER) : If you’re looking at that for example our property which is directly adjacent is divided in two lots so it appears that their tiny but in fact it’s one you know one big. MEMBER DANTES : Do you have two separate deeds? (UNAMED SPEAKER) : One deed but two tax lots and I can show you where that is as an example but I think there’s a lot of history that goes back that maybe the zoning didn’t exist before the properties were subdivided. That’s what the zoning is now so I think it should be observed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting HEARING # 7067 – THEODORA TSATSOS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is Theodora Tsatsos # 7067. This is a request for variances under Article IV Section 280-18 and the Building Inspector’s March 22, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a subdivision to create two residential lots at 1) proposed residential lots having less than the code required minimum lot width of 150 feet, 2) proposed residential lots having less than the minimum lot depth of 175 feet, 3) proposed residential lots having less than the required 40,000 sq. ft. in area at 1565 Greenhill Lane in Greenport. The proposed subdivision to create two lots would be at 17,000 sq. ft. per lot where the code requires 40,000. The lot width would be 100 ft. the code requires 150 and the lot depth would be 170 where the code requires 175. Now there is something that I want to perhaps ask you Pat or look into further. The Notice of Disapproval does not site the need for Planning Board approval which is pretty standard and I’m not sure why that’s the case. We’ll have to look into that. PAT MOORE : We can look into it. It is part of a subdivision so it is returning the lots to the original subdivision Eastern Shores subdivision but we will investigate where we’re going from here. With this application I did give you a great deal of information right from the initial application stage. In the variance application itself I point out I guess I should start Ms. Tsatsos the owner is here. She traveled from Chicago to come and be with the Board so hopefully we can. I will defer to her with whatever questions the Board might have that I can’t answer obviously. This property as I mentioned are two lots 133 and 134 or the map of Eastern Shores section five. The Tsatsos family her father purchased the property from the original developers and the family has owned the parcels since the sixties when the subdivision was created. They were one of the first purchasers of parcels in this subdivision. The applicant did Mr. Tsatsos when he was alive, hired Mr. Fitzgerald I’m sorry I just had a blank who sought a waiver of merger application and that was denied, so we are here before the Board for an area variance which is the alternative to the waiver of merger obviously being the shortcut process. So with respect to the area variance we have to show you that the sizes of these lots are in conformity with the character of the neighborhood. You can see that, I provided the tax map that shows the at least fifty, sixty maybe a hundred lots here in the subdivision. This is Eastern Shores subdivision was a subdivision one through five and these lots were created more or less of the same size. When section this particular Eastern Shores section five was created the lots that are being proposed were actually larger than the average or the code required in that these lots were a hundred by a hundred and seventy and the code only required ten thousand sq. ft. lots. These were actually oversized at the time. Certainly they are not they are undersized they would be non-conforming and that’s certainly recognized here. ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Can I ask you a question Pat? I’m reading the tax card here. It says that the lots were combined in 1981 how PAT MOORE : What happened is when they took title to the property from the original developer the way that the deed described this parcel was by the lots on a filed map and then the perimeter deed of the two parcels. What happened is when the zoning was implemented in ’81 the town just automatically merged it so that as far as the tax records were concerned they considered this a merged parcel. When Mr. Tsatsos discovered it he pursued it as a waiver of merger which as I said was denied. Mr. Tsatsos the father developed Alzheimer’s later in his at that time and passed away and Ms. Tsatsos is the owner of the property. She we’re here before this Board for area variances in that we believe that we meet all of the criteria for area variances and it is returning the two lots to their original approved subdivision lot sizes and parcels sizes. If I’m sure you’ve done a drive through the neighborhood. It’s a well-established community. The homes are centrally placed on the parcels. They are modest sized homes. This is not this has always been I want to say the middle class neighborhood and the homes are modest. They’re generous in that they are standard three, four bedroom homes but they are it’s a modest neighborhood. So returning this parcel to their original lot sizes will just continue the pattern of development of modest sized homes on these properties. The homes would not need variances. They can be built on each parcel even as a corner lot they would be able to meet front yard setbacks. You’re not going to have Mcmansions built on either one of these lots. They would be comparable to the rest of the community. Some of the larger homes are on the Long Island Sound just for value purposes. They are the more valuable homes. I did get a phone call from Mr. Stamos across the way who is an attorney and he said oh they got merged oh yes that’s a shame and he’s very familiar with the process and had no objections and did not just wanted to clarify what the question was. We also my client actually got support from the homeowner’s association president of the homeowner’s association. That was sent to you. You should have it in your file. Can we just confirm? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We do. PAT MOORE : Okay good. She, the Tsatsos family as I said, is an original owner here and the subdivision has been a supportive proper paying dues member and would continue certainly whether it’s you know as the two lots that are being proposed. The Health Department would not be an issue because again these are lots in a subdivision that was approved by the Health Department. It was a major subdivision that was approved so there would be no impediment there. The one issue that I happen to be at the Planning Board meeting where they make their recommendation, I’ve never seen the Planning Board give a recommendation on a variance as far as favorable. That’s just their position is the variances are a decision, they don’t favor variances. They did make an issue of the sanitary system. I don’t believe that’s an accurate ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting depiction of the impact however we would certainly covenant on the subdivision and covenant as to these lots whether you create it as a condition or it would be through the Planning Board. We would impose a covenant that when the houses were built they’d place nitrate limiting sanitary system so it would be a compliant most the most compliant environmentally appropriate sanitary system. That would address their one and only issue the Planning Board issue with respect to the sanitary and its proximity to Long Island Sound. It is actually more than three hundred more than four hundred maybe five hundred feet from the Long Island Sound nevertheless we eliminate the issue altogether. We will address whatever other questions you have. I think that the paperwork I gave you supports the standards of an area variance. I also provided for you all of the variances that have been granted and waivers of mergers that have been granted in this neighborhood. I’ve given you also a color coded; it gives you the difference between the area variances in yellow that were granted and then the waiver of mergers that were granted. Arrigo is one where I recall Arrigo was denied originally was originally denied but when the code changed they came back in, got the variances that they did not variance waiver of merger that they were entitled to. So that on a second round and a code revision because at the time the hardship economic hardship issue was in dispute as to the intent so when that got resolved through code revision they came back in and got the final waivers. So I’ve given you similar area variances with lots that have been created that are identical if not some smaller than the one that’s being proposed and MEMBER DANTES : I have a question for you Pat. After the merger according to the old decision when we denied the waiver of merger this is long before I was on the Board it says the property remains as deeded in 1973 without changing the description, ownership or lot numbers so was the property merged in 1973 before prior to your clients purchasing of it? PAT MOORE : No. What happened is that the lots were on exempt maps. They bought in the sixties right from the developer. It was a conforming lot when they bought it. In fact it was oversized when they bought it. As zoning was adopted and additional zoning was places and one acre zoning was put in there was an exempt subdivision list, Eastern Shores subdivision was exempt from up zoning. That exemption was in the books until the nineties and in the nineties the waiver of until I guess there was a period I think there was a grandfathered period in ’97 if I’m remembering correctly and at that point Mr. Tsatsos was already suffering from Alzheimer’s. It was impossible at that point to he wouldn’t have known about it so that never got cleaned up and the description describes it as from the original developer he described it as the two lots in the subdivision. Not very eloquent but at the time it wasn’t a concern because as I said it was in the sixties it predated zoning and since they bought it so early on they never had the need to address it with a lawyer to advise him well you know you should clean this deed up because the developer described it this way and it would have been easily cleaned up at the ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting time it just they had no reason to think that the two lots they bought would be any different than how they were originally purchased. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat you submitted a lot of information about the subdivision and so on how may I’m looking at the tax map and the it doesn’t look like there’s a lot of lots that are about 17,000 sq. ft. PAT MOORE : Actually I think there are. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you well you know that’s what I’m trying to look for that’s a fifty seven percent variance (inaudible) that’s required now I know then it was different but now it’s 40,000 so the variance would be substantial so I guess the only way to mitigate that substantiality would be by saying it’s characteristic of the neighborhood to have lots that size and I don’t see just visually you know I’m just eyeballing it a lot of them that are that small. The lot depth is pretty minor I mean it’s a five foot difference and I don’t think that’s an issue. The width is you know fifty feet less than required so PAT MOORE : Well, no if you look at all of the for the most part the lots that were developed in Eastern Shores are all I would say a hundred feet in width that’s what we have let me just double check here yes I want to make sure I’m accurate all of the lots have road frontage of a hundred feet. That’s what it appears, they either are a hundred by a hundred and fifty with a hundred and fifty is the depth anywhere from a hundred and fifty to a hundred and seventy. It depended on whether you were section one, two, three, four or five and if we were to pull out the Eastern Shores subdivision it’s an interesting puzzle of development and each development does a section. When this section was done it looks like most of the lots are a hundred feet if you see across the way the waterfront you’ve got some that are seventy five by then they’re very deep down to the Long Island Sound. So on average they are similar they’re just they can either be a hundred by a hundred and fifty or there are some that are this one is a hundred by a hundred and seventy which is if you go one by one they’re identical to all the others on Sound Drive of the same it’s by block so between Green Hill and Westwood you have the lots that were developed all comparable it’s a matter of where the lines were drawn at the time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are they in section two? I’m looking at this and trying to figure out PAT MOORE : I know it’s let’s see the survey should say it. Yeah, they are Eastern Shores section two no pardon me at the top of the subdivision the surveyor tells me next door is Eastern Shores section two. At the top of the survey he identifies lot numbers referred to map of Eastern Shores section five that was filed December 1968. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So they’re in section five. ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : They’re in section five. So they were the latter subdivision the latest subdivision and what would have happened at that time is that the Planning Board would of done an average acreage of each of the lots so that yield wise they would yield the appropriate number but the adjustment between a hundred generally they all had a hundred foot on the road because that was the requirement at the time if you recall the code up through the seventies early seventies you had to have a hundred feet on the road. That was the conformity. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Could you if we gave you a little bit of time identify which lots in section five which you would certainly consider to be the proximate neighborhood not the entire subdivision because lot sizes clearly do vary I mean you can see that by PAT MOORE : Oh, they do they’re off by they deviate by maybe five thousand square feet one way or the other if I’m calculating correctly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, it would be helpful to know how many of the lots in section five are seventeen thousand square feet or less or maybe eighteen thousand square feet. PAT MOORE : I can give you all five sections. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I need a microscope in order to figure it out. PAT MOORE : Yes I can appreciate that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can do a blow up on a computer or something. Let’s see if anyone else has comments or questions Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Along with that situation could you give us an idea of how many lots are built out in section five? PAT MOORE : Yeah I mean I can give you a map and put yeah no problem. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Because that would really I say three quarters is built out I think. PAT MOORE : I think you’re probably correct. That’s a pretty well established neighborhood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So build out information, square feet of lots in section five. Pat anything? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric? MEMBER DANTES : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? PAT MOORE : I know my client did. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please come forward and state your name for the record. THEODORA TSATSOS : Thank you good afternoon. I’m Theodora Tsatsos. I’m the current owner of the 1565 Green Hill Lane. Thank you for this hearing. I want to give you a little bit of a background how all this came about because it’s very important, this is very important to me, my daughter and my family. I’m a native New Yorker born and raised and grew up in New York. My parents I’m Greek of Greek descent. My parents came to this country like everybody else for a better life and a better life for their kids and I went to school in New York the city university CUNY system. My parents were middle class people. My mom was a stay at home mom. My dad took care of everything and every summer we would come out to long island. We would go to Sunken Meadows State Park, Wildwood, I don’t know if the Miller Ridge is still you know I have these memories and we would come out to Greenport and we loved it out here and always come out to the beach here and go horseback riding and my parents wanted a better life for their children as I want for my children so they bought some lots in the Greenport area and there were two lots and was hoping that we would live in a good community and have a good life here. As life takes us to different ways my brother and I both were accepted to schools in Chicago and that’s how we ended up in Chicago and so but it seems like from the time that we went to Chicago there are a lot of tragedies that started happening and one of things was that my father started not being himself you know we really couldn’t tell what was going on. Alzheimer’s is a very innocuous disease. There’s no disease that’s a good disease but it’s a particularly cruel one and it’s very innocuous so when we were communicating we could see that things weren’t right you know we couldn’t quite figure out what but in any case my parents came to Chicago in the nineties essentially for us to take care of them and you know that’s what we do and so my parents came and lived with me and I was taking care of them and that’s when we started looking through the affairs to kind of see what was going on and were discovering a lot of things in disarray and that’s how we ended up discovering that the lot was one. I was looking for two tax bills or you know two surveys and two different lots and ended up realizing the lot ended up merging. My dad was clueless about it so the only correction that I have Ms. Moore that it was when we were taking over the affairs that we started recognizing this and because I wanted to be in New York we wanted to fix this and see what needed to be done and ended up discovering that the reason this happened was because at the time the two adjacent lots need to be in separate title and that was the only reason and when he didn’t do ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting that they ended up merging but he wasn’t aware. So, here I am here now long distance in Chicago starting to fly out a couple of times and somehow we came across an expediter by the name of James Fitzgerald I don’t remember how we came across him but I was the one that ended up retaining him. My dad really didn’t have his faculties and put it in his hands and you know sadly and I have a letter here and I don’t know if you have it but he received a letter of the Board’s decision we discovered that the application was not sufficient but then he did not inform us for like a full year after that and I could show you this CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Bring it up to here hold on because you have to speak in to the mic because we’re recording it. THEODORA TSATSOS : So sorry. So here I’m in a different state and starting to go through other troubles. I had gotten married and then started going through a divorce and I have an elderly parent living with me and trying to figure out also what to do with my father as his mental state and physical state was demising so in any case for a little while we really didn’t know what to do with this you know calling different people long distance and as I said I was going through a divorce and had some hardship. I’m a single mom now with a little girl whose father is not involved and sadly Illinois doesn’t enforce very well child support. It’s like a hundred and twenty three thousand dollars in arrears you know he evades so I’m it I’m everything. In any case it was a little bit difficult to do travel because my child was young at the time and I had all these things going on. Later on as she started to get a little bit older I was unable to start traveling to come back here personally to start talking to people and figure out what needed to be done and also as I was coming here with my daughter she really likes it here and you know Chicago the school systems have been demising I don’t know if you’ve been reading the paper there’s a lot of crime a lot of shootings and it’s becoming very, very challenging to stay there and we’ve been trying to find our way to get back here and so I ended up trying to find how to essentially get the lots back to their original ways because our family was meant I’m hoping I want to move back here and you know build one and we’re modest people. We don’t have a large family and want to have one to build a house for myself and then hopefully also for my daughter which was the initial intention. I’ve also been in touch with the community you know reaching out been communicating also with the Eastern Shores and Alexandrou and you know I’ve been staying in touch with the community coming here every summer and again my goal is to come back here and give a better life for myself and for my daughter and unfortunately my mom can’t be here. She’s now 94 but just to give (inaudible) of who we are this is who we are. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Again you have to speak into the microphone. THEODORA TSATSOS : brought some pictures because it’s very hard to relate a story like this out of (inaudible) we’ve had a lot of tragedies and a lot of mishaps and a lot of misdirection on ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting this and it all happened because my father was ill and just wasn’t aware to just change a name on the title for those two adjacent lots to stay separate so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We do appreciate your personal story. I’ve allowed you to pursue it because you’ve come a long way to be here. The Board has standards in the code that we have to address in order to make a determination and while we may feel sympathetic one way or the other toward an applicant again the applications are not personalized. They really have to do with the kinds of laws that are before us so we will do our very best to look into every aspect of this application. Would you like your original letters back of course you want your photographs. Would you like your original letters back? We’ll make copies of them from Jim Fitzgerald and we’ll put it in our file. THEODORA TSATSOS : I just wanted to show that it wasn’t a negligence on our part. It was just you know unfortunate tragedies that brought us to this point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We appreciate it very much, thank you. We’ll make copies and give you the originals back. Pat is there anything else you’d like to say? PAT MOORE : No I will get you the additional information you requested that’s not a problem. I will also give you so you can see the different sections, sections one through five that are in the Planning Board’s the subdivisions that make up this Eastern Shores development so you have it in your records. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in the audience wishing to address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I’ll make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of additional information from the applicant’s attorney referring to the square footage of lots in section five and the width of lots in that section. Gerry what else did you ask for? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : A build out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A built out, which lots are undeveloped what are the undeveloped lots in that section. PAT MOORE : Okay so I have here which lots are built out, the sections I’ll give you one through five and then the square foot and width of the lots particularly in section five. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah, because they are the most proximal to the subject lot so PAT MOORE : Actually section one is the most proximate because it’s adjacent. That’s why it’s a little confusing because ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well why don’t you just submit anything you think is relevant. How’s that? PAT MOORE : Yes that’s a good idea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We’ll accept whatever you think is right. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie can I ask a question? Is there homeowner’s association dues paid in Eastern Shores? PAT MOORE : Oh yes and she they’ve been paid throughout and MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do you pay on one or on two lots? PAT MOORE : No you pay based on whatever THEODORA TSATSOS : On one. PAT MOORE : Right because right now they’re undeveloped so your fee is less. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But wouldn’t be there two bills if there’s two lots? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Not necessarily. PAT MOORE : No because sometimes they don’t charge at all if you’ve got if you’re not using the services but they’ve been paying throughout because they’re good homeowners. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so the motion is to close subject to receipt, was there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting HEARING # 7070 – KARRAS UPSTATE, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Karras Upstate, LLC #7070. This is a request for a variance under Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector’s April 7, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an “as built” accessory building (pool house) at 1) located in other than the code required rear yard located at 11920 Bayview Road in Southold. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Madam chairman may I submit the affidavit of posting please so you have jurisdiction thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : State your name for the record please. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Good afternoon madam chairwoman and members of the Zoning Board my name is Nigel Robert Williamson and I am here to represent the applicant Karras Upstate, LLC. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is to legalize an as built accessory building which is being used as a pool house is that correct? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Which is I guess changed somewhere in its detail from a covered gazebo with knee walls around to now being enclosed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And it’s in the side yard as opposed to the code required rear yard. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There’s an above ground pool, six to five foot high fence it varies. That’s code conforming because it’s not in a front yard and the pool house is fourteen by sixteen feet is that correct with an attached deck? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : That is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The deck was constructed with permit #40501 and it’s legal and does this pool house have any plumbing in it? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : No it does not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Electric? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : No it does not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Heat? ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting NIGEL WILLIAMSON : No it does not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it’s basically storage. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : It’s basically storage we call it a pool house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric any questions? MEMBER DANTES : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m just taking notes here. No plumbing, storage. Gerry any questions? We’ve all been to the site and inspected it so we’ve seen it. Just so you’re aware we’ve looked at the neighborhood, we’ve walked around, and we’ve seen the play structure in the back yard and the circular driveway. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : And the properties to the south and east and to the north are open spaces. There are two adjoining residences on Rambler Rd. which are in 1000-88-5-27 and 1000-88-5-29 and if I may submit two additional photographs for record please. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : May I ask a question? When was it built Mr. Williamson? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : When was the pool house, the pool house was started last year. It was permitted as the deck the above ground pool the gazebo covered gazebo on the deck and there were alterations and additions which were done on the house which and the alterations and additions were part of a stop work order. The garage was converted and then when we applied for a building permit to negate the stop work order we also applied for the deck and the tree house which was actually in the middle of the property at the time because my client and (inaudible) these split post fence that were in the ground which have aged well and he thought that was his property line so that was that and then the town said no you’re on the open space property behind you, you have to get an updated survey and that’s when we applied for the deck, the covered gazebo and the in-ground pool as well. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Did he tell you why he put it in that position? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Well there’s really no alternative. When he put there as a gazebo he wanted it and so that the back of the yard was open and that he did not have to encroach or do anything to his circular driveway that’s in the back and the pool is really where it’s placed is the only position that it can be in unless you want to cut down I believe it’s a maple tree or sycamore tree where he has his pool or his tree house attached to it and coming through it so I ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting mean there is no it was basically no other position to put it in without putting it on the south side and then you’re encroaching on your deck and then you’re encroaching on possibly creating a shadow on to your pool from where the sun is going to come down and I guess you’re going to be inhibiting more than what the tree is doing already. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : The question is how much needs to be done for it to be completed? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Well as you can see from it’s all been enclosed. Originally the if I say the street side the fence continue along the back and on the interior the deck there was three knee walls which were approximately three feet high, three foot six and the last I made an inspection when this got brought up again he had well he’s assumed responsibility for even though the builder did it and enclosed the wall all the way to the top of the girder. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Did he have the building permit to build this? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Correct he had a building permit and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : For the deck. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : For the deck but not for the house not for the pool house. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Not for the pool house for the gazebo covered deck which is basically the structure as it stands the fourteen by sixteen. On the one wall it had a I believe a six foot high depending on how you’re going to see the fence to match the existing fence that runs around so roughly two feet I think or two foot six (inaudible) the opening around there and on the interior walls meaning the pool side there were knee walls running around and he enclosed those what (inaudible) feet high. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : The last question that I have, you are an architect, could it be moved? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : It would be cost prohibitive at this point and I mean the footings for the decks and everything else and for what the gazebo was going to be yes it will be cost prohibitive and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The deck is attached to the dwelling. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : The deck is attached to the dwelling; no it’s not. No it’s not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s then considered a structure because it’s raised. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : The sono tubes which were all around they on the house if you remember there’s a covered porch (inaudible) where the decking originally was on the house anything ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting from that point and from that point east is all on sono tubes so it’s not technically connected with (inaudible) or anything else which would make it a connected structure and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from the audience, anything else? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Just one more thing, the two photographs that I did submit are basically looking northwest and southwest with (inaudible) residences on Ramble Rd. and I mean their view of this is blocked with their house and vegetation on their property and from the roadside it’s blocked by a lot of evergreen vegetation as well which were on previously submitted photographs. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no further questions or comments MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can it be screened from the road? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is screened from the road. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I don’t mean screened I mean through the height of the unit itself. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : May I approach again please? (Inaudible talking at the dais) MEMBER GOEHRINGER : When I mean screen, I mean screened you know. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : On the bottom photograph the northeast one I think it is I mean he’s got that screening there right now. He installed those conifers. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Okay I don’t want to hold the hearing up. Thank you. I mean the day that I was there to be perfectly honest with you the construction is very nice, the whole thing is very nice except that it does stand out like a sore thumb when you go by and it’s not and I’m not criticizing the construction I’m just it’s just in the wrong spot that’s all. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Right well I guess when these other trees grow he’s going to be fully screened from the road totally because right now his house is screened by those larger I don’t know blue spruce or whatever. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright I’m going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All if favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 7071 – LOUIS BONETTI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Louis Bonetti #7071. This is a request for a variance under Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s March 29, 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 at 170 Silver Lane in Greenport. Is someone here to represent the application? Please state your name. ROBERT WILSON : Robert Wilson for Louis Bonetti. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : These are additions and alterations to a single family dwelling with a proposed 23 foot front yard setback where the code requires 35 feet and 22.11 inches what is that. The existing front yard setback is 25 feet. This is a proposed 151 sq. ft. addition to a small one story cottage. So the existing setback is 25 feet? ROBERT WILSON : Yes that’s what it looks like to me. Actually I think its 24 feet. The addition is an extra 2.1 feet no it is 25 feet you’re right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is a very small addition in the front and my question would be you’re just filling in really a little bump out but you’re also then bringing it forward a couple of what two feet? ROBERT WILSON : Two fee one inch. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And why can’t you maintain the 25 feet that’s there already? ROBERT WILSON : I think it had to do yeah the where the it was because it’s such a small lot and such a small house the whole purpose of the addition was to add a second bathroom to the house and to keep the bathroom really the minimum size you need to get a sink and toilet in there you needed that extra two feet otherwise there wasn’t room you know there wasn’t ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting room for a front door and the kitchen became too small and it just sort of six inches at a time added up along the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that’s what I was looking to find the answer for. Alright Nick let me start with you. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Basically it was the same kind of conversation whether extending the why they’re not continuing to extend the current setback. Additionally I would just remark although I believe it’s really sort of out of our purview the aesthetic of the four homes on Wood Lane they’re all really you know quite nice it’s a charming setup. Are there any covenants or restrictions that limit any ROBERT WILSON : You know we looked into it when we first got this I don’t think there are any covenants in that area no. They were all built together in the early sixties but I don’t think that there’s any MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It appears so exactly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay what else besides a bathroom is going in there, were you enlarging the kitchen you were saying? ROBERT WILSON : The kitchen is getting a little bigger. Actually I think the kitchen is sort of getting reoriented. It’s getting slightly larger but the living room is getting a little bit bigger and sort of turning the kitchen. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry any questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Not particularly. The owner was there at the time and he showed me what they were doing and it was very easy to get along with very nice man. ROBERT WILSON : I agree. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : When I was there also, although, I didn’t meet the owner a neighbor came out who was who spoke supporting the application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good okay. It’s a very, very tiny little private street. It’s still very much in keeping with the scale of what’s already there and it’s also at the end of the private road so it won’t have a huge impact visually on anything and let’s see Eric do you have any comments or questions, Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : I would just say when construction begins in order to be a good neighbor I’d be kind of careful where the trucks are going to be parked. ?? July 6, 2017 Regular Meeting ROBERT WILSON : Yeah, there’s actually access to that property from the street behind them so if there are a lot of trucks there I think they’ll probably be able to access the property without disturbing the neighbors. MEMBER ACAMPORA : It’s tough to get in and out of there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I’ll close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. 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) ??