Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-08/03/2017 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 August 3, 2017 9:25 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member ERIC DANTES—Member GERARD GOEHRINGER— Member (Absent) NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO— Member KIM FUENTES— Board Assistant WILLIAM DUFFY—Town Attorney (Arrived 12 noon) August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Dimitrios Antoniadis#7068 3—5 & 10- 11 Lou Pagnutti #7069 6- 10 Despina Gianopulos Landers/Landers Family Trust, LLC#7072 11 - 19 Thomas Pileski #7073 19 - 22 Jennifer Place#7074 22 - 23 Serenity in Paradise#7077 23 - 33 John Heeg and Gia Fischetti Heeg#7075SE 34-40 John Heeg and Gia Fischetti Heeg#7076 34-40 Sports East Private Membership Club-Paul Pawlowski #7091 40 - 59 2 August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting HEARING #7068— DIMITRIOS ANTONIADIS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for Dimitrios Antoniadis #7068. This is a request for a variance under Article XXII Section 280-116 and the Building Inspector's March 15, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff at 3300 North Sea Drive (Adj. to Long Island Sound) in Orient. Good morning Pat. PAT MOORE : Good morning Patricia Moore on behalf of the applicant. I have Brett Kehl also here. He's the design professional so he can go over the drawings if you have any questions. This is a relatively straightforward application. It's expanding over an existing the existing first floor a second floor. There is a small encroachment into the waterfront side of the house because of the staircase and landing otherwise it's primarily all over the existing or front yard alterations. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see what we have here, so we have a 62 foot bluff setback, the code requiring a 100 feet. Soil and Water indicates the bluff is pretty stable recommending the installation of dry wells for gutters and leaders which the code requires anyway. PAT MOORE : Yes and I believe that the existing house already has drywells and gutters and leaders so it would just be a continuation of the existing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So no heavy equipment within twenty five feet of the top of the bluff, LWRP consistent so it's just over the existing footprint the first floor except for the covered porch walkway that is reducing the side yard setback slightly? PAT MOORE : Yes for the amount of the walkway but it's access to get from the is it the second floor down access from the second floor CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Come to the mic please and state your name. PAT MOORE :Just for clarification. BRETT KEHL : I'm Brett Kehl. The second floor is cantilevered CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you say that again please? BRETT KEHL : Brett Kehl. The second floor is cantilevered out over the covered walkway on the first floor so you have access from the front of the house to the back of the house and there's approximately I think like a four foot by four foot piece of decking that is added to the existing deck so you can walk from the side of the house around onto the rear deck and other than that August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting and there's no real it's not necessary for any large equipment on the property because it's only footings that can be dug with a small piece of equipment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So let me point out something that we just sort of discovered. In our packets we have a survey that has lot coverage data on it but the original survey that was submitted to this was submitted with the packets but the one that the office got didn't have that data on it. Now it's possible that the building inspector looked at the one without the data also the bigger one because I think Pat what we're going to need here is an amended Notice because the existing total lot coverage is 27.6 and the total existing and proposed is 28.2 on here. So assuming that's an accurate survey they probably didn't catch the lot coverage for the Notice because they probably got the same big full size survey that the office got. So let's see if the Board has any questions about anything else and what we'll need is just to get an amended Notice of Disapproval so that we can address the lot coverage issue. PAT MOORE : Sure. Would you like me to address the lot coverage here today or how do you want me to address the lot coverage? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well probably we're going to have to wait and see what the Notice deals with so I think probably we should just adjourn to the Special, get the updated Notice then we can put it back on and finish it up so we can do it all properly and in sequence. Does the Board agree with that or yea? Let me see if they have any questions about anything else. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have no questions other than the lot coverage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody else, Pat anything or MEMBER DANTES : What's the expanded on the house off the original footprint? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The walkway that little walkway on the side yard. MEMBER DANTES : And that little walkway is going to expand lot coverage by 4%? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it's 27.6 now and it's proposed at 28.2. Your existing lot coverage is way over. PAT MOORE : Right. MEMBER DANTES : They're not C.O.'d for that? PAT MOORE : I'm sorry what? MEMBER DANTES : There's no C.O. for or no variance for the existing lot coverage? August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Oh because at the time this house was built it was before the a quarter of the land was eliminated from buildable area so the house is pre-existing. When you look at the survey it's really surprising we have a lot coverage issue because there's not a lot of house here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That all makes sense. If the Board actually has no further questions then Pat what I'm going to do is make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting to give you time to just go back with the survey with the lot coverage data on it and obtain an amended Notice of Disapproval so we can act on the entire thing at once. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Oh I'm sorry I forgot I should have asked if there were any comments of questions from the audience. That's my mistake but there weren't any questions otherwise I would of have to reopen the hearing. Well it was adjourned so it doesn't matter really. Pat what we're going to do is adjourn at the Special when we get the amended Notice we'll just adjourn to September so I'm going to stick it in it's going to be a quick hearing. What we're really looking for is the Notice that allows us to act upon a code enforcement official's determination. PAT MOORE : It had me confused only because the surveyor never put in a revision date so I was like (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They make mistakes too. PAT MOORE : Or they just throw it on and they say well I didn't revise the surveys. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So once we get that then you will be able to simply tell us what you almost finished telling us here which was you know which has to do with the fact that the buildable land was reduced and the increase was a very small percentage that's all. (See Minutes for Resolution) August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting HEARING #7069— LOU PAGNUTTI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Lou Pagnutti #7069. This is a request for variances under Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's March 30, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet, and 2) located less than the code required total side yard setback of 35 feet at 57475 CR 48 (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Greenport. Good morning, would you please state your name and spell it please? TODD O'CONNELL : Absolutely good morning. My name is Todd O'Connell. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we have before us additions and alterations proposed to an existing single family dwelling with a garage and it's a side yard setback of 9.84 feet where the code requires 15. TODD O'CONNELL : That's correct. We're maintaining existing side yard setback of 9.84 feet on the side of the house. The additions consist of a vertical addition. We're building on top of the existing footprint of the home itself. So although the addition portions are not diminishing the setbacks there is a portion of the work that we're doing that will diminish the aggregate side yard setback and the portion that diminishes the aggregate side yard setback is an open porch to the rear of the residence. This existing residence is kind of skewed on the property so as I extend to the back with this open porch it encroaches a little bit more into the side yard aggregate. The minimum doesn't get diminished any greater but the aggregate does get diminished for an open structure. The structure itself you know the house sits 140 feet back from the road so we don't feel it's going to have a huge impact on the surrounding area. It's quite far back. We're only 50 feet is required so the porch itself it's you can't really see if from the road once it's constructed so my client was looking for something that was you know that looked like it was built with the house something that you know wasn't kind of off to one side because being on the water there they like to entertain outside and they wanted something that was a little more uniformed with the structure itself and being that it's an open structure we felt that it was a reasonable request. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The survey is really small. We have a big one in the office file but it's very small and hard to read. The accessory garage what is the existing side yard setback at its closest point? TODD O'CONNELL : 9.84 August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and that's what you propose to maintain? TODD O'CONNELL : Yes that's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The code requires 15 feet. TODD O'CONNELL : That is correct yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the combined side yard is 27.77 feet the code requiring 35 foot minimum. TODD O'CONNELL : That is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You are reducing the existing combined side yard setback well one is 32.3 feet to 27.77 is that correct? TODD O'CONNELL : That is correct and the difference from the 32.13 is (inaudible) to 27.77 is solely for the open porch at the back of the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick let's see what questions you might have. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have a couple if Mr. O'Connell first do you know the distance to the neighbor on the west side?There's a small ranch house on the other side of the stockade fence what is the distance of that house to the property line? TODD O'CONNELL : I don't know if I have it but let me see if it's on the survey. The distance is not on the survey let me just check one more spot. I don't have that information but that is a great suggestion I can pull up on my phone google earth and probably estimate based on the distance of the existing structure. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah I'd like to better understand that because right now obviously the applicant has a garage structure which is really one story and you know the addition of a second story it seems as if the application is actually for almost a five bedroom house it's a substantial home that I kind of feel that that might intrude upon the neighbor to the west enjoyment. Could you perhaps elaborate more on actually the proposed application as far as what it is that you're doing? Is this actually a renovation or is this a demolition? TODD O'CONNELL : This is a renovation. The first floor of the residence is going to remain intact and we're just opening up the existing ranch that's there now and there is an existing connection between the residence and the garage which is going to be utilized for my access to the new second floor. So we are not going to be taking neither the garage, nor the residence down. We're going to be leaving the first floor walls and building a second floor on top of the structure. August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And with regard to the garage it almost seems as if you're putting a cellar in or a full basement. Did I misunderstand that? TODD O'CONNELL : No, there is no basement under the garage at all. The connection between the garage and the residence we are putting a basement in there basically just to have a stair access to the basement which is a code requirement. Some of the goal on the main portion of the house is to have this nice open area so we didn't want to have a staircase intruding on their you know open area so we used this connecting area and are digging out a basement there so we could access the existing basement under the home. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : From the interior. TODD O'CONNELL : From the interior. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see about any more questions, Eric? Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : I have a question. Again going back to the cellar I see you have like a bilco door out there TODD O'CONNELL : Correct. MEMBER ACAMPORA : But on the drawings for the front of the house it doesn't show when you show the south elevation it doesn't show the cellar door there are you going to move it or what are you going TODD O'CONNELL : To be honest we can eliminate it. It has no purpose you know and if anything it's just an eyesore to the front of the residence. I did not discuss that with my client but we would have no objection to eliminating it and most probably he will. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yeah I'm just wondering because it's there and when you look at the very nice drawing you submitted it's not there. TODD O'CONNELL : That little ugly bilco is not there. I'm sorry I didn't forget your question, I'm trying to load up google earth but for some reason it's just not loading. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't have any reception in here. Google doesn't know we're here. I don't have any questions. TODD O'CONNELL : I would like to elaborate though as you mentioned on the second floor if you recall part of my comments were that this house was skewed on the property so as I state that the 9.84 feet to the property it's at the closest point so it gets greater and greater and greater as you move towards the to the back of the home itself. August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have any idea what that would be? Could you scale that out? TODD O'CONNELL : Yes I can, approximately 16 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that would be conforming. TODD O'CONNELL : At that back end yes. So it's just a slight you know unfortunately the house is skewed. If it wasn't skewed we most likely won't even be before this Board. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So actually a question relative to the deck on the north side the water side of the house, what is the present deck depth versus the proposed which I read as being 15 feet? TODD O'CONNELL : Yes the proposed is 15 feet and the existing I do have that information for you the existing deck is 9.2. MEMBER PALANAMENTO : On the survey that I was looking at the original survey there seems to be a larger deck than what's obviously there. TOOD O'CONNELL : Yes the my client had just purchased this house back in December so the you know the survey which is you know dates 2005 I guess at some point it was another structure at that point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we have a survey TODD O'CONNELL : A new one from 2016 I apologize. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah December 21s' TODD O'CONNELL : I have two surveys here so which also shows the deck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah last updated December 21s' yeah. TODD O'CONNELL : That's probably when he purchased it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from the Board, 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 reserve decision to a later date subject to receipt of information on the setback side yard setback of the residence to the west. So just call the office with that information, shoot off an email and let us know what you've discovered and then we're good. TODD O'CONNELL : Absolutely, I will have that to you later today thank you very much for your time. August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7068 - DIMITRIOS ANTONIADIS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm just going to simply say that we're going to continue the conversation and I can't reopen it again but I will ask the vote to accept a continuance of today's hearing at this time rather than an adjournment to the Special Meeting is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) So now would you please formally enter into the record what you've discovered about the issue of lot coverage? I'm going to refer back one second Pat to application #7068. This is Dimitrios Antoniadis and this is Pat Moore replying to the request for an amended Notice of Disapproval to address what appeared to be excessive lot coverage on the application. PAT MOORE : Thank you. I did go over to the Building Department. As I was filling out the application I looked carefully at the lot coverage schedule and as it turns out the surveyor had included into the lot coverage the driveway which is not considered lot coverage in the Town of Southold. So the bottom the total existing and proposed of 28.2 is actually subtracted by 11.1 August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting so that comes to about 17.1 in lot coverage which is conforming to the 20% lot coverage so there is no issue of lot coverage and I believe you have an accurate Notice of Disapproval and the application does not need to be revised as submitted. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any questions or comments from anyone? So based on that information I'm now going to make a motion to rescind the adjournment and to vote to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. HEARING #7072— DESPINA GIANOPULOS LANDERS/LANDERS FAMILY TRUST, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Despina Gianopulos Landers/Landers Family Trust, LLC #7072. This is a request for variances under Article XXII Section 280-116B and the Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's April 10, 2017 Amended June 9, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations and to legalize an "as built" deck addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet, 3) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, 4) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% at 5705 Stillwater Avenue (adj. to Eugene's Creek) in Cutchogue. Good morning please state your name for the record. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Good morning Madam Chairwoman and members of the Board my name is Nigel Robert Williamson and I am here to represent the applicant Landers Family Trust and my client Mrs. Landers is present in case there are any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well first let's enter into the record what the variances are all about. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : The applicant seeks relief from Article XXIII Section 280-124 which governs the proposed second story alteration, the proposed covered porch addition and an "as August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting built" deck addition including lot coverage. The subject property is located in an R-40 zoning district. The subject property is 8,079.98 square feet and part of lot 16 and 17 are not the property of Nova Realty Corp filed July 1, 1938. It is not located within the coastal hazard area. The existing one and a half story dwelling has an existing 22.5 front yard setback and an existing 26.5 rear yard setback. The existing zoning requirements require a minimum 35 foot front yard and rear yard setback. Therefore we are requesting a 12.5 variance CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nigel, excuse me, can you do me a favor and just lift the mic a little bit? We're trying to you know the recording is very sensitive and we need to speak into the mic as you can see I'm leaning myself in NIGEL WILLIAMSON : I'm trying. I was already warned by someone. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that on? It doesn't appear that we're getting satisfactory audition here. Let me just do this sir in order to just reiterate what you were saying I'm just going to enter what the actual relief requested is and you can confirm that I'm correct on this please. We're looking at you said the existing front yard setback is 22.5 feet is that correct? NIGEL WILLIAMSON :That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're proposing a front yard setback of 18.2 feet. The code requires a minimum of 35 feet. The rear yard setback is proposed at 16.8 feet the code requires a minimum of 35 feet. You're requesting a single side yard setback of 9.3 feet the code requires NIGEL WILLIAMSON :That is incorrect. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay tell me what you're NIGEL WILLIAMSON : The side yard setback should actually read 6.8 feet because the side yard setback is for the deck and not the pool. The pool already has a ZBA determination from 1984 1 believe. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so the Notice of Disapproval is not correct. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : And I onlyjust discovered that last night when I CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so it's the deck that's 6.8 from the side yard? NIGEL WILLIAMSON :That is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the code requires a minimum of 10 feet. Thank you for the correction. Lot coverage is 29.7% the code permits a maximum of 20%. The existing lot coverage is that the existing lot coverage 29.7%? August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There's no proposed increase in that lot coverage? NIGEL WILLIAMSON :There is no proposed increase that is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright now we do have a prior #3283 October 25, 1984 granting a side yard location for the pool and for the excessive lot coverage and the pool has a C.O. #Z15424 November 25, 1986. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Correct and that was also for a shed I believe that was listed on there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So now having entered some of the details what would you like us to know about this application? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : I guess if I may start with the deck please. The deck was already built. I cannot find an exact date. It came up when we went to apply for the second story addition and the covered porch that the rear of the deck is on posts. The side of the deck and the front of the deck has a retaining wall and that's the reason the deck came up in this discussion that it did not have a permit and it was above grade even though on one survey from which was 2004 someone had a handwritten note that the deck was at grade and so I don't know where the confusion was or who did what but we're applying for we're applying to make good on this deck as it stands right now. The deck has I think MEMBER DANTES : The handwritten note was that a town official? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : I mean I can't make it up because it's just someone who got a pen and wrote yes I cannot determine that. There was an actual deck which I found out from the Assessors just this morning and back in 1980 that deck is on the portion behind the house and to the east of the sunroom. It forms that little square there so there was a deck at one stage and again there was nothing ever in the permits that said there was a deck there but it's shown on the building permit request. MEMBER DANTES : And as far as is this the deck the Trustees approval March 23, 2011 is this the same deck that (inaudible)Trustees approval? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Correct. MEMBER DANTES : So they've already reviewed it? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Correct and again this is like we're playing back and forth here because the Trustees as you know come after the Building before the building but the building permit (inaudible) become an actual permit the permit application so the deck itself which I did August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting (inaudible) and again I think I took a little more. It's roughly 8.97% of lot coverage and again I would make the argument it's reasonably at grade I think the retaining wall on one side is approximately two and half feet maybe three feet. It's got arborvitaes which cover it. It's non- viewable from the property owners to the east and from the west you can't see it and from the north you can't see it because it's covered by landscaping as well. So, I mean taking that into effect that the lot coverage is not I don't believe is excessive given that the deck is at grade for the most part on both sides and just open on one side in the back and it's two feet from grade to top of deck on the creek side and with reference to the second story addition I do not believe that the request is excessive either. We have an existing as built house. We cannot move it anywhere. The lot is what it is from the filed subdivision map and the (inaudible) of the house is the roof is still the same I mean the roof is roughly two feet or two foot six below what we're requesting the new ridge line to be and the covered porch the stoop is already included in lot coverage. We're just looking for a front yard setback for the porch itself. The property owner to the west of this which is on a ranch and they actually have their property raised up I don't know when or where. They actually have a porch which appears to come roughly in line plus or minus maybe six inches with my clients request for a covered porch. The cost to remove the deck and to install something at grade I believe is cost prohibitive. It would be I think also detrimental more detrimental if there's to the environment. At least with the deck we have somewhat recharge or rainwater and everything else as opposed to having a patio and having runoff and then we get to storm water runoff and containment and everything else. Again it never mentions in the initial Zoning Board variance when they did apply for this about what the determination of the swimming pool was. It says in-ground pool so there's never any mention about what grade differences there were or are at that point. There is reference at some point that there was a retaining wall in a building permit. Where or when that was located I cannot tell you if it was referenced to the retaining wall I mean in the bulkhead or if there was an actual retaining wall on the property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you tell me did you say that have you been before the Trustees for this proposed second story or not yet? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : No I cannot go before them until I have the determination from the ZBA. I have made my application and the application is administrative. All it is it's for the covered porch. However we're backtracking there as well that they would like me to do a new property description so we actually write everything as it is on the subject property right now whether it needed approval or not or had prior approval they just want to tidy up the file at this stage. I do have two reduced plans which I did if I may submit them into the record please. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes please certainly. August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting NIGEL WILLIAMSON : I just shaded in the area of the required front yard and rear yard setback requirements that we're asking for and as you can see from the elevations side elevations to me it's not an excessive request and again we have the existing footprint of the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are the Trustees going to have to look at this for bulkhead setback? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : No they are not because why was I told that. All I was told from the Trustees was that it was an administrative permit just for the covered porch. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it would appear that the only addition outside of the existing footprint is that landward addition. The roof is changed but the actual footprint of the walls; placement of any other structure on the site is not changing, correct? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Correct and the covered porch is proposed the front breaking concrete stool is part of lot coverage and that is existing and it's been permitted. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The record should also show that what we're talking about is not a front yard setback that extends along the entirety of the front elevation along Stillwater but rather it's for an eight foot four inch by four foot five inch covered open porch roofed open porch with stoop and landing. The stoop doesn't count but the landing does. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : I'm sorry madam chairwoman just the 4.5 inch it's 4.5 feet so that would be 4.6 inches. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 4.6 inches it says on here 4. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Well it's 4.5 feet it's half a foot, we're talking surveyor terms so maybe just for the record we'll enter 8.4 feet and 4.5 feet so that there's no CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right that's fine. It looks as though that the front elevation is actually 24 feet 9 inches? NIGEL WILLIAMSON :That is correct. No, no, no that's not it's the front elevation is 24.7 correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let's see if the Board has any questions. Want to start with you Pat. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No, no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric? MEMBER DANTES : Do you have to go the County to get a new septic permit. August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting NIGEL WILLIAMSON : No the three bedroom's existing and three bedrooms as you will see on the plan that are being maintained so there's no upgrade in septic system there's no increase in bedrooms. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think just for the record I want to remark on the actual lot coverage. There's a lot going on here and from a site inspection, while I hear what you say about elevation clearly the 1982 ZBA approval indicated that if a wood deck or any sort of deck be applied for or rather installed there should be a new hearing so we've got almost a thirty year period or thirty year plus period of a lack of clarity but also the retaining walls. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : It does state that there should be MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Agreed so I'm just sort of reiterating the information that I've read. When I look at the deck clearly on the Eugene's Creek side you can see again there's that two foot elevation where you can see that the deck is raised. On the Stillwater Ave. side of course there's this retaining wall, the gas meter, the pool equipment etc. are all sunken and it's clear that people have built it up over the years and it's just one of these things that you know I don't quite understand the deck is in relatively poor condition and perhaps an alternative to an actual structure you know some sort of tile or other surface may be desirable. I don't know how the other members of the ZBA feel but it just seems it's just a whole lot of coverage and there's a lot going on. So I just wanted to share that. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : What sense when you say tile, you're talking about the hardened structure? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well no I'm not suggesting poured concrete but many people have you know a simple lawn leading up to a stone coping or there are other materials used around a pool. I don't it's not our place to discuss alternatives but it just seems that it's a substantial amount of decking and it is in what I would arguably say in poor condition. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Okay I point taken however if we go to install something else and if you go back to ZBA determination about an in-ground pool if you take that deck down two feet you know have the pool exposed all the way around on four sides above grade. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But exposed to what? NIGEL WILLIAMSON :To the elements. The pool is up here the deck is here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He'd have to bring in fill substantial fill. August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But it seems that the coping I mean the pool was closed during my inspection so there was a cover but it seems that between the deck and the actual coping it looks like about a six inch differential already. NIGEL WILLIAMSON :That may have been because the water level and the cover MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Oh I don't know it's hard to see because the pool (inaudible) NIGEL WILLIAMSON : I believe the coping is at deck grade but again there's either you're playing devil's advocate I think with this and I think we have the lesser of two evils here. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And it's already there I get that but it's NIGEL WILLIAMSON : No I'm not saying the fact that it's already there but we have the lesser of the two evils I think with a deck where you at least have the rainwater running through it and it's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Excuse me I have to interrupt this, unfortunately we have an arraignment before a judge in this room and we will have to recess until such time as that arraignment is concluded. It probably won't take very long they don't usually take long but I'm going to make a motion to recess the hearing until the arraignment is concluded is there a second. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) To be continued.....motion to reconvene. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) Let's just proceed for the moment, the application that was before the Board has been pretty much heard. I think Nigel is there anything else you'd like to tell us about the application? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : I'd like to just maybe answer Mr. Planamento's question if I didn't answer it substantially before. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : About the deck? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : About the deck and doing something else creates more of an issue because of the level the deck is at now. If we put that deck or put tiling or whatever suggestion maybe out there and we have to put it on grade then you have to step down from the house into the sunroom, step down from the sunroom onto grade and your pool is still above the existing grade. So then you would have to pour a foundation wall around the retaining wall whatever you want to call it around the pool. I believe it just causes too many hazards to do that. I don't know if that answers your question. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think you might have. I mean it's hard to judge what's going on with the pool because the pool of course is winterized it's covered. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : And as you said if you look at the retaining wall from the front and the side on the neighbor's property you can tell there's a grade difference between that and the back of the deck on the creek side. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Agreed. So as I said it was more or less just a point of description from my standpoint. I'm apologetic to you that we had to break for the arraignment because I think we're literally about ready to potentially close the hearing just as it happened, so again apologies to you Mr. Williamson and your applicant. NIGEL WILLILAMSON :That was the luck of the Irish or (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we may have a transcript or we may not. Does the Board have any other question on this application? Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date? Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. 0 August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7073 THOMAS PILESKI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Thomas Pileski #7073. This is a request for a variance under Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's April 13, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory garage at 1) proposed accessory garage exceeding the code permitted maximum 750 square feet in total size at 1250 Elijah's Lane in Mattituck. Just state your name for the record please. THOMAS PILESKI :Thomas Pileski. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. You are proposing an accessory garage which is 864 sq. ft. the code permits a maximum of 750 sq. ft. This is on a 60,000 square foot lots. Your lot is conforming at 40,240 sq. ft. This is a 36 foot by 24 foot proposed accessory garage and a conforming rear yard. What else would you like to tell us about the application? THOMAS PILESKI : Well I actually need the space. I have stuff you stopped at my house the other day you saw the stuff I have out in the back. It's an eyesore and I have some stuff, some equipment that I'd like to keep under cover. I have two boats that I would like to put one away for the winter time, the other one (inaudible) in the water. I have a son who is in the Navy who just went down to Georgia and he's going to get deployed so I need some place to store his car. He's going to be gone for a year and I have lawn mowers. I have no building stuff I work in the jail in Riverhead but it's just stuff I've acquired through the years. My tools and stuff like that. I don't know I've also I have a sewer system put in through the County. My property was like a trial run with the phosphorus and all that stuff like that. I don't know if that's listed in there but you know that's been going good and I just I like to keep the place nice. Keep things under cover and I've measured the things I have, the boats, the tractors, the lawn mower, my son's car my other son has a jeep that has a hard top that sits outside. I need that extra room to fit everything. And it's going to be red same color as my house so it's going to match right in. I believe it's only well its square footage but its six feet longer than what's allowed I believe. And I spoke with all my neighbors and no problem with anything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You don't have a lot coverage problem at all on your property so just for your knowledge the Board is only permitted to grant non-conformance variance relief when August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting there are no other alternatives and when it's justified on a set of standards which you read about in the application packet that you filled out. In this instance you have options for building more than one building. If you need tools stored or other things you have plenty of room in a conforming rear yard to put in a conforming garage and a conforming additional storage facility. I'm just pointing that out to you so you can address that if you wish to. THOMAS PILESKI : I understand that because Bill Kelly he was supposed to be here but he's tied up in Southampton they're doing a Morton Building. He told me I can put three of those 24 x 30's up. It costs me more, the cost is a problem. I don't want three buildings. I would like to have one and I'd be done with it. MEMBER DANTES : What about attaching the building to your house because an attached garage wouldn't have limitations. THOMAS PILESKI : I'm sorry. MEMBER DANTES : If you attach the garage to your house an attached garage then it wouldn't be subject to the limitation. THOMAS PILESKI : I would like to put this out back and it's kind of out of the way and you know I really hadn't thought about an attached garage. I have a garage on my house now but I have a lawn mower in there, I have my log splitter because I burn firewood all winter long and stuff I have no room in there. I've just run out of room. I really don't want an attached garage to the house. I think it's my house is fine. I'm pretty much almost an empty nest so you know I would really like this building out back and I'd have room for everything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One other thing that I'll just inform you of, the Zoning Board does not personalize variance relief. Many people do things obviously out of desire personal desire to do something that the code doesn't allow. However these variances run with the land once they're encoded and someone may not need near the storage that you need. We don't know so I just point that out because if you're primary arguments are that you just need storage and you want it and you don't want to attach it and you want don't want to build two buildings and you just want one bigger one that's personal desire and that isn't really a basis for granting relief. THOMAS PILESKI : Okay then let me say I need the building this size for the stuff I've acquired throughout the years. I think it would look foolish to have two buildings out there instead of just one and again it's only six feet more you know. Like I said it's a need it's not desire. I mean it keeps the neighborhood looking better. I got all my stuff out back right now you know it's an eyesore. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from the Board, Pat any questions? August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Are you building any kind of a driveway or anything? So when you store you're just going to go over the grass? THOMAS PILESKI :That's all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEMBER DANTES : I do not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This garage, do you intend to do anything other than electric in it? Will it be finished? Will it have plumbing? THOMAS PILESKI : I don't even plan to put electric in it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No utilities alright. Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. THOMAS PILESKI : The only thing I'm going to put a cement floor and an overhead garage door that's MEMBER DANTES : You don't need a light by code? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think you do. THOMAS PILESKI : Oh I need lights by code. MEMBER DANTES : I think in the door you need a light on the door. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It could possibly be an exterior light I'm not to tell you the truth I'm not sure. I don't really know for sure you might but. Well electric if you need it is not a problem. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7074 JENNIFER PLACE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Jennifer Place #7074. This is a request for a variance under Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's March 1, 2017 amended March 17, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet at 750 Liberty Lane in Southold. Good afternoon would you state your name for the record please. JENNIFER PLACE :Jennifer Place. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jennifer Place welcome. You want to do some additions and alterations to your dwelling with a rear yard setback of 9.3 feet where the code permits requires rather a minimum of 35 feet and you're proposing to maintain the existing non- conforming setback and this is an existing porch being removed and replaced with interior space to enlarge the master bedroom and bathroom. JENNIFER PLACE : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there something else you would like to tell the Board about your application? JENNIFER PLACE : I mean it's a pretty straightforward request I think. We bought the house in February of this year. Two of the biggest issues I had with the house was that the back of it needs new siding and the deck is in very bad shape. The covered porch is not finished I mean you can see all the nails sticking through the ceiling and the master bedroom is so small that I wouldn't even be able to fit my bed in it. It also already has a gutted bathroom so knowing that we already need to redo the exterior, fix the deck, fix the porch we said well if we're going to do all that work why not and also finish the bathroom why not make the bedroom a little bit bigger so you know we couldn't actually fit the bedroom furniture in it and that's all we really want to do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the proposal is pretty much to enclose rebuild and enclose what's there as an extension of what's existing. MEMBER DANTES : So you're not changing the footprint of the house? August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting JENNIFER PLACE : Not at all. MEMBER ACAMPORA : You're just dropping two walls. JENNIFER PLACE : Correct. MEMBER DANTES : I have no further questions. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We are not giving these slight you know short shrift it's these fortunately are very simple and so we can move quickly and try and get caught up. Anything from anybody else on the Board, is there anyone in the audience who wished to address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7077—SERENITY IN PARADISE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is Serenity in Paradise #7077. This is a request for variances under Article III Section 280-15, Article XXII Section 280-116 A & B and the Building Inspector's February 17, 2017 Amended April 3, 2017, April 20, 2017 and June 23, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling and to construct an in-ground swimming pool at 1) proposed accessory structure is located in other than the code required rear yard 2) proposed construction located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff located at 4800 Paradise Point Rd. in Southold. August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Patricia Moore on behalf of the applicants. Mr. and Mrs. Theodopoulos are here for the hearing. I also have Tom Fox from Diehl Architects. He's here as well to discuss the design should you have any questions. I've given you through the application process the history of this property the fact that the house was originally constructed in 1971. The garage addition in connection was done later in '93. The house really needs renovation. You could see from the outside the architectural style is doesn't match the character of the neighborhood. It's quite a different architectural style than most of the homes in Paradise Point. The owners purchased the property and the plan was to renovate. The architect was brought in and the proposed addition is taking the existing footprint and leaving the first floor and adding a second floor to the existing house with some small modifications to the decking that 1) connect the deck from the back of the house to the side of the house. You could see that if you went in through the front door or went up design wise as the house is designed presently you go in through the left hand side there's this front door that's somewhat or a side door there is a ramp that brings you in but that ramp and decking doesn't connect to the back yard to the back decking so it's somewhat of an unusual design so this plan brings the whole house into an architectural style and use that makes most sense. There were so many notices of disapproval because we were trying to create conformity to the extent we could. Then there were changes in the code occurring throughout the last six months that finally we had a final version of the code that we could work with. The house and it's placement as I said predates all the changes to the code with respect to setbacks from the top of the bank. Here we have a very protected bank. We have a bulkhead that was replaced in 2006 and I have a copy of the permits from 2006 for you. If you don't have that I will present it to the Board at the end of my hearing. In that application I want to point out there were photographs that were submitted and part of the Trustees records that show a very vegetated bank. What happened is when that bulkhead was replaced the vegetation was replaced with native grasses so there is a photograph a current photograph as well as a photograph I have for the record that shows what the condition of the bank is just last was it in winter time when you took this? I think we were all taking pictures in the winter when the application was being submitted so one of the issues LWRP raised was that there was a concern that there had been a loss of vegetation to the bank but I believe that what he was seeing as aerial photographs of the grasses which may not have come out as clearly as the prior vegetation because what you see in the 2006 pre replacement of the bulkhead was greenery somewhat perennial vegetation but after the bulkhead it's native grasses and they would appear very different by aerial photographs. So I'll give that to the Board. I only have the photographs for the file but I think my photographs also included the grasses. This is the walking and presenting to the Board the 2006 Trustees permit that is also part of the record the Town's record so you can see. What I wanted to do is address some of the LWRP comments. We did get the comments, thank you very much for forwarding them to me. As I said one of the issues that the LWRP made was inconsistency certainly because it's pre- August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting existing but also there was concern about whether or not this was subject to flooding and erosion. It does not appear that even through Sandy there was in fact any damage to the property as far as the bulkhead because the bulkhead was relatively new. They did not experience any damage to the bulkhead. At most you may have had some burning of the vegetation above the bulkhead. But as I said the photographs show a very stable a very vegetated bank. In addition to the bulkhead there is also a retaining wall that is between the bulkhead and the top of the bank. So you also have the protection there as well. And then finally you have the top of the bank which has the vegetation that is mature and in place and stable. So I would dispute some of the conclusions that the LWRP made with respect to the susceptibility to flooding and erosion. We also I asked the architect to provide some testimony with respect to one of the issues that I know often times comes up with bank with construction adjacent to a bank and I asked him to provide a cross section and an analysis of impact of the pool on the bank. I don't think we have very many issues with respect to the second floor of the house. We have an existing structure and we could certainly address any issues you might have with that. It is building over an existing structure. The issues by LWRP seem to be addressing the pool in the side yard. As you know a pool in the side yard is the only reasonable alternative in a situation like this where you have a changing regulation where the setbacks used to be from the bulkhead and now are from the top of the bank. We don't want to encroach into that area any further because one of the original thoughts here were possibly putting the pool in the area where the brick patio is since it's a disturbed area but the applicants realize that we want to keep everything as far away from the top of the bank so therefore placing the pool in the side yard seemed to be a reasonable alternative. I also have here a photograph of the patio and the retaining walls that take from the walkout lower floor and then the grade of the let's call it the first floor and where the pool is located. It's all at the first floor level and it shows the stability also the protection of the banks and the side yard with respect to retaining wall. So I'll provide that as well to the Board. TOM FOX : Tom Fox from CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please speak up so the mic can pick it up. We're recording TOM FOX : Tom Fox from Fox Steel Architects. As Pat had said we were very cognizant that we try not to do any disturbance towards the water so the house stays on its existing footprint. The pool is really the only addition that is affecting the surrounding areas so we tried to keep the pool back from the bank and in terms of its weightage it is not bearing in any way on the bulkhead or any seawall. A section that I did very quickly the height from the lowest point to where the pool is; is 19 feet vertically and the pool is set back 44 feet from the seawall so any weight transferred down will stay completely within the embankment and wouldn't be affecting a large area towards the water. August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Excuse me Mr. Fox do you indicate which the orientation of the pool. Where is the shallow end versus the deep end? TOM FOX : The shallow end is towards the house and the deeper end would be towards the water. Most people getting in to the pool would be at the MEMBER ACAMPORA : What is the dimensions of the pool? TOM FOX : The dimensions are 20 by 35. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The survey shows 20 by 38. PAT MOORE : There was actually there were a couple of revisions and we reduced the size of the pool to a 20 by 35. What he's talking about is even before this one. TOM FOX : Yes we also pulled the deck in a couple of feet so it is actually we're proposing five feet farther back from the water side than previously. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And how is that you've reduced the length of the pool? TOM FOX : The length of the pool went from 38 to 35 and the deck went from 17 to 15. PAT MOORE : I have a new plan for you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :This doesn't make sense. PAT MOORE : No it doesn't they don't know about this one that's fine. Let me give you MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And I'm confused what deck you're talking about also. PAT MOORE : Let me give you this plan. MEMBER DANTES : So if you bring the pool in does that make that whole (inaudible) so when you look at it on the survey is the (inaudible) TOM FOX : Well the deck is filling in between the end of the pool and the house so that's just (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is showing 20 feet from the top of the embankment. Is that what you are now, there's 9.3 according to the survey we have in the Notice of Disapproval so PAT MOORE : What happened is when we received the LWRP I went back I sent it to the clients and to Tom and I said is there anything we can do as additional mitigation and what was redesigned here because anticipating a question or a concern the Board might have in trying to follow LWRP more consistency. The project was modified to increase the setback from the top August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting of the bank by 5 feet. By reducing the length of the pool to 35 and also pushing it back additional pushing back from the top of the bank they also reduced the decking which was not a variance. The decking in front of the garage is far away from the top of the bank and was not an issue because it is much further landward of the existing but that was reduced as well in order to provide for a greater distance and more conformity with LWRP to a 20.1 foot setback to the top of the bank. So that's why it all was getting a little confusing because you didn't have this plan. We were waiting for any comments the Board might have and provide this as mitigation but we're providing it to you right off the bat that we've been able to redesign and address LWRP. Does that help clarify a bit? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes it does. So we'll have to stamp this as an amended site plan basically. The house exists at the moment at 26 feet 25 inches 26.25 feet from the top of the bank from the PAT MOORE : Correct. With the let's call it the first floor upper level deck that is encroaching over like horizontally so that the deck is actually 20.4 from the top of the bank as you can see right above that 26.25 there's existing 20.4 that's the deck. The house foundation is at 26.25 but there's upper level deck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's explore some possibilities. Have you considered rotating the pool so that it is parallel to the top of the bank thereby potentially increasing the setback from that bank setback? PAT MOORE : We did but that might necessitate a variance from side yard setbacks. Right now we have conformity with the side yard so that would ultimately require a different variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let's see what the Board has to you want to start Nick, any questions? MEMBER PLANAMENTO Well I guess you sort of pre-empted the first thought just by (inaudible) the pool, I'm still a little bit confused about the distances that were discussed. I get 26.25 feet from the structure facade to the top of the bank. I see that very clearly. I understand that there is on the primary residential floor a cantilevered porch for lack of a better description or deck which projects the number that you had said now I'm seeing it's 20 feet 4 inches I was reading above it I'm sorry. So you're trying to keep the profile of the pool in line with that cantilevered porch I guess? TOM FOX : Yes we were trying to keep it so that nothing is we have it not farther forward towards the water than the house is. August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And do you have the possibility of pushing the pool further back in so that it's in line with the facade of the house? TOM FOX : As it does that it becomes very close to the existing garage so I think we want to maintain the distance from the foundation of the existing two (inaudible) PAT MOORE : We keep a 15 foot setback from the existing foundation to the pool. The deck is 4 feet in that area. It's been reduced in order to push the pool towards the garage but much more than that it's just not advisable. There's not enough clearance comfortable clearance between the pool and the house and garage. TOM FOX : We don't want the weight of the pool in any way bearing on the foundation of the existing. There's a distance that we would like to keep between the pool and the existing foundation so that the foundation of the current garage isn't supporting any of the weight of the new pool. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And what would that minimum distance be? TOM FOX : Well the weight of the pool would be transferred out from it at about a 45 degree angle so PAT MOORE : It's actually the cross section gives you the distance if you let me look TOM FOX : That's at the other end. The same principal would apply if MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Does the garage have a cellar? It's a slab. TOM FOX : It's a slab but it has a full foundation going down below. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : A full foundation in a cellar or just TOM FOX : To below frost. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : To below frost so it's four and a half feet or so. PAT MOORE : If the cross section actually does provide some information at a forty five degree angle it's about 23 feet that it shows the bottom more or less TOM FOX : They're talking about the other end. PAT MOORE : Oh no, no I know but if you use the same principal don't you am I correct? TOM FOX : Yes. August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Using the same principal as we described towards the bank you have the same distances in the pressure so you want to keep some distance between the end of the pool and the foundation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And just because I have to ask this, have you explored the possibility of putting the swimming pool in a conforming front yard? PAT MOORE : That just Paradise Point as a community I believe would not welcome that very much aesthetically but also our sanitary system is going in that area. A new sanitary system is being designed for the house. It's going to need expansion pools and an area that will eat up a great deal of the front yard plus you also have the driveway so the Health Department generally does not want to see sanitary systems under a driveway so it would create problems in another agency. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And how about reducing the length of the pool to increase the setback? It's now at 35 feet. PAT MOORE : That's what we did by changing the plan in anticipation of increasing that setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I'm asking about increasing it even more. We still only have 20 feet from the top of the bank, the code requires 100 feet. It's a very small area on that side yard. Just so you're aware we've all been to the property and inspected it so we're familiar with what it looks like and what the neighborhood looks like and so on. PAT MOORE : Is this a standard size? TOM FOX : I usually think a 20 by 40 is a standard size swimming pool so I think we're already trying to take away from that. PAT MOORE : Keeping in mind that again the we understand numerically it's a big variance because 100 is the new rule but given the circumstances of this property and the slope and the vegetation and the number and the bulkhead as well as a retaining wall it's the intention behind the 100 foot setback was to protect the bank and protect structures that is not an issue here. It's a very stable very it's not a steep it's not a bluff. It's a bank and it is protected by other marine structures and the retaining wall. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The house obviously sits on the bay. We all I think enjoy swimming there. What is the purpose of the pool? Is it for enjoyment, is there another reason why there's a pool medical or? TOM FOX : It's for enjoyment of the owners children and the owners themselves. August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : It's becoming a more and more common amenity. It's yes people there's a bay as well but the family wants to enjoy a pool. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you aware of any other variances for swimming pools in a side yard with setbacks that are non-conforming to the top of the bank in that area along Paradise Point? PAT MOORE : Well given the fact that it's a brand new law there wouldn't be any at this point other than setbacks 75 feet from a bulkhead that was the old rule so I would have to look to see if there were variances for I know that Paradise Point has numerous variances for setbacks from the 75 feet because additions that law has been on the books for quite a while and any addition, renovation in that area has required variances but the 100 feet is something that has just been adopted so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Even so though variances from the code at the time they were sought would be helpful. In other words if there are other variances for non-conforming setbacks from the top of the bank for swimming pools along Paradise Point Rd. that would speak to character of the neighborhood. PAT MOORE : I can do that research. I can provide that for you. I know I pulled variances but I just don't recall pool variances particularly. I don't know again it wasn't the law so the most I would get is variances in the side yard because that's been common for waterfront properties to keep them away from the water but I'll have to check. I can't tell you off the top of my head. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well both kinds of information would be helpful. PAT MOORE : I can do that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And I would add to that if you could also illustrate any pool from driving around the neighborhood and I don't know if there's restrictions. You mentioned that Paradise Point the homeowners association may not like a pool in the front yard. I'm not aware of anyone in the neighborhood with a pool if you could illustrate that. PAT MOORE : We could provide a google earth that will give you the most I can do is get you building permits for those particular pools or I can give you google earth. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think google earth just to illustrate would be sufficient. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's fine, anything else, Eric, Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : What are the plans to put a deck or stone or whatever around the pool, how far out would that go on the short side? August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : It's on grade grass or patio I don't recall. Did we have that design plan yet? TOM FOX : We didn't really discuss what the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Do you want to come to the mic sir, just state your name for the record. ILIAS THEODOROPOULOS : Ilias Theordoropoulos one of the home owners with my wife. PAT MOORE : Nothing beyond the pool on the water side. ILIAS THEODOROPOULOS : With regards to the deck we were just thinking to have MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just a moment while Kim is checking. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Just to make sure she got your name correctly. ILIAS THEODOROPOULOS : So with regards to the deck the question was where the deck we're going to potentially put a deck between the pool and the house and the pool and the garage and then facing the water it would be just the grass. PAT MOORE : Deck being wood or deck being stone, patio? Well we can't deck wood without a permit so it would have to be stone. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Something at grade. PAT MOORE : At grade. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : At grade, pavers pervious. PAT MOORE : Pervious pavers yes. We hadn't talked about it very much so I would advise you that it would have to stay to be a pervious pavers similar to the brick I mean I don't know your (inaudible) with the brick but similar pervious anywhere in that area. I mean if you want to make that as a condition ILIAS THEODOROPOULOS : We were just leaving grass and over here we were leaving grass. PAT MOORE : What he's showing to me is that to the on the side of the pool the ten feet that's all grass and on the 20 feet from the top of the bank that's all grass so any patio area would between the garage area connecting like the living space between the pool and the house. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Basically the west side. PAT MOORE :This doesn't give me north, south, east, west but yes southwest. August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from anybody else on the Board. MEMBER ACAMPORA : I would assume also that you would be putting up a different fence. PAT MOORE : Oh yea you have to have a four foot fence. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So two additional questions, one there's a beautiful sort of tree there, where does the tree sit in all of this or is the tree to be removed? PAT MOORE : Where was the tree? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Sort of on the waterside I guess the sort of southeast corner. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No it was behind the garage right? MEMBER DANTES : Yeah I don't think the tree is going to go. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think the tree is going but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's going to have to go. MEMBER PLANAMENTO And then the other question I wanted to ask I'm sorry Eric, you indicated the orientation of the pool with the deep end the waterside was there any given I guess Mr. Fox's commentary about any pressure against the garage slab which is obviously in my opinion not as sensitive as the bank, would you consider flip flopping the deep end for the shallow end? And I don't know if that would have any benefit for the bank but it would seem that there would be less pressure on that side versus the deep side. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well no matter what you do you're going to have land disturbance. PAT MOORE : Right exactly. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's a good point. PAT MOORE : Well we have a distance to the tow of the slope which is really their concern because 45 feet or so more than 45 feet on the waterfront side whereas on the garage side you only have 15 so it would make more sense to keep the deep end on the waterfront side since you do have more distance but we're not talking very deep, five feet? ILIAS THEODOROPOULOS : We haven't really discussed at this time. PAT MOORE : We have a cross section but the cross section is MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Eight feet it illustrates. August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Still to be I mean that's what the standard is, eight feet it could be a little less. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So part of the concern and I'm only working off the information we were provided with the water depth on the deep end is eight feet on the waterside the bayside of the bank and it illustrates a pool drain which would in effect drain into the bank. PAT MOORE : No, no, no. We still have to go to the Trustees and MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, no data I'm just working off what I can see here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I'm going to wrap this up. PAT MOORE : We'll make sure that the drains are that there's no disturbance on that side. It doesn't make sense to put the drain on that side. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : On the bayside. PAT MOORE : Absolutely yeah. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You also have to noticed where the pump equipment is going to be and where the drywell for pool de-watering is going to be and that's not on here. PAT MOORE : That would all be on the next to the garage. It generally we didn't provide that kind of detail because of the variance but if you as a condition is you say don't put anything on the waterfront side we won't. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else, anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting HEARING # 7075SE JOHN HEEG and GIA FISCHETTI HEEG & # 7076 JOHN HEEG and GIA FISCHETTI HEEG CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for John Heeg and Gia Fischetti Heeg and we have two applications here. I'm going to open them both up at the same time. It just makes sense to do that. It is #7075SE, applicant requests a Special Exception under Article III Section 280-13B(13). The applicants are owners of subject property requesting a permit to make additions and alterations to and convert an existing accessory barn into an accessory apartment that exceeds the maximum 750 sq. ft. in livable floor area and contains more than one permitted bathroom at 1945 Westphalia Rd. in Mattituck and #7076 which is a request for variances under Article III Section 280-15, Article IV Section 280-19 and the Building Inspector's December 28, 2016 amended January 3, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to make additions and alterations to and convert an existing accessory barn into an accessory apartment located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet and proposed accessory structure exceeding the code permitted maximum 750 square feet in total size again at 1945 Westphalia Rd. in Mattituck. Joe would you just state your name for the record. JOE FISCHETTI : Good afternoon Joseph Fischetti. I am the design professional and the father of the applicant. I take question of the Building Department's calculation of the square footage. The code reads livable square floor area. The calculation of the livable floor area is the interior of the walls not the exterior gross area of the walls. The code reads all spaces within and this is livable floor area the code all spaces within the exterior walls of a dwelling unit so you don't do the outside walls. If you do the size in the plans that I gave you was 20 by 40 is 800 sq. ft. When you do the calculation in the interior walls you're saying four inch walls so it's it becomes 39 foot 4 inches times 19 foot 4 inches that's 760.4 sq. ft. The code also says livable areas deducted are (inaudible) unheated porches, cellars, heating rooms so I deducted the heating room in that space and it becomes below 750 sq. ft. I was very CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You mean the utility room? JOE FISCHETTI : Well it says specifically heating room. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And what is a heating room? JOE FISCHETTI : Well where you put heating equipment. Understand it's not a utility room. A utility room with (inaudible). A boiler is someplace you can't use so we have an area in the floor plans that I marked as the heater room. That would be where the furnace for the heater would be and it's 17 it's about 17 % sq. ft. So when I take those spaces I made every effort to meet the code in my design. I didn't want to not do that so my design was always to code so I'm just August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Is this town code or State code here? JOE FISCHETTI : Your code. MEMBER DANTES : And did you go over this with Michael Verity? JOE FISCHETTI : No. I didn't go over it with him. I'm just telling you it's in the code. Just do the calculations. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we can't. The Building Department has to do that for us. JOE FISCHETTI : Well I'd be glad to if you want to use that much we're talking about a small amount. Livable area is you can very easily look at this anyone can do that. It's a very easy calculation. If you do the outside area 40 by 20 is 800 sq. ft. MEMBER DANTES : No what I'm saying is if you go over it with Michael Verity and he confirms it we can just remove the variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No just a minute JOE FISCHETTI : I don't want to delay the variance I'm just trying to tell you I've made every effort in the original design and when this came back to me I said I'm just not going to complain. We're talking about a few square feet. If you guys just want to give me the variance on that amount fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we can resolve this one way or the other. You can go and duke it out with Mike and then say you don't need a variance or you can say you need 50 feet more than what JOE FISCHETTI : That's fine. I'd be glad to ask for the 50 feet square foot variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright well one thing we have to make clear to you is that the code does not permit more than one bathroom. JOE FISCHETTI : Okay so let's talk about that. When you get into your seventh decade you start thinking about medical conditions. My wife and I have discussed this. My wife we have in our house two electric stairs because we live in a two story home. Thinking about the future and possible medical conditions my daughter recommended that we could use the barn as a possible use if it was required. When I evaluated the possible use of it I realized that if we needed it we wouldn't be able to have it. It's taken me one year to get to this point and now the next stage is another six months to get Health Department approval. Then after that there's construction so it takes about two years to try to get from to get an accessory apartment for a family that might need this at the time it takes two years so you might even be dead by that August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting time if you needed the apartment so at this point in time we need the idea is to use this apartment in case for medical conditions that we need it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is it intended to remain empty? JOE FISCHETTI : The point is we may not start this for a while. I need to get these this is very complicated submissions you understand that I may not be able to do this in a few years. I wanted to get all the submissions done, I wanted all the architecture done, and I wanted the Health Department approval done which doesn't expire. Health Department doesn't expire. Those all would be ready if I needed them in the future. The reason again that goes to the point of the second bathroom, anyone who has taken care of a family member who's in a wheelchair realizes that in the morning the toilet in the morning and that bathroom is used for at least a few hours. So we have in the plans that I designed was a one was a handicapped bathroom but if that bathroom is used for two hours the second spouse can't get in there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well Joe the only thing that I can tell you which you probably already know but the record needs to reflect it. Variances for these accessory apartments are not personalized. JOE FISCHETTI : I'm not personalizing it I'm CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The specific individual JOE FISCHETTI : I need that second bathroom and it's not a bathroom. What it is, is a shower in a lavatory because. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's considered a bathroom. JOE FISCHETTI : I'm just making the point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Accessory structures and accessory apartments clearly in the code indicate one floor JOE FISCHETTI : Tell me the reason for that maybe CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because they were not meant to be fully developed elaborate dwellings. They are apartments; they are to be accessory to the principal use of a principal dwelling. For two purposes only a family member without concern for medical condition. A family member at any age, could be a kid, could be a grandparent and for someone who is on the affordable housing registry. They're very limited reasons and they have to be enacted fairly quickly because they are specific would be specific to you and your family; they have to be 3 August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting living on the premises right. It would only apply to you and not to any other rental whether it was built now or later right so I just want to be very, very clear JOE FISCHETTI : And I'm pretty clear that that second shower in the lavatory is important and it is important for the usability of that room and for this Board to say we don't want it for medical reasons people get old and they need that. So I'm making my point specifically that that's needed and if it's not approved by this Board the lavatory is going to be built anyway because there's no the lavatory is not allowed only a bathroom is allowed so that second lavatory is allowed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not it's not. JOE FISCHETTI : It is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not in the code accessory apartments in accessory buildings. JOE FISCHETTI : No the code talks about bathrooms and a bathroom is very specific not a lavatory. A bathroom is a three piece room not a lavatory. A lavatory is a toilet and a sink. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know. JOE FISCHETTI : So it's not a bathroom it's very specific. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know I'm just telling you what the code that refers to Special Exception permits for accessory apartments in accessory structures spells out. JOE FISCHETTI : It spells out one bathroom. It doesn't say bathroom or lavatory. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Joe your mincing words. We know what the code says and we've approved it many, many times. I simply want to make you aware of the fact that this we have wiggle room on the variance for the size. We've done it before. We've never done it with one that was applied for. We've don't it with those that were already built and we're coming in to be legalized because they were there already and it was like on top of the garage was in fact I think it was 800 sq. ft. exactly 50 feet over. That we cannot vary the date that the accessory structure needed to be built before. We can't vary that it's all on one floor. We can't vary who is to occupy it. It's not a variance. It's a Special Exception Permit and you meet the standards or you don't. So I just wanted to be very clear about that. Is there any does oh we wanted to question you about the stairs the exterior stairs. Pat do you want to ask? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yeah. After looking and inspecting the property I had asked your daughter why wouldn't you consider putting the stairs on the other side of the barn because you're so close to that property line and she explained to me that there's an agreement with 3 August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting the neighbor about utilizing that space in between their house and the driveway there but if the neighbor sells the house and someone else comes in and this agreement goes out the window would you consider putting the stairs on the other side? JOE FISCHETTI : We originally considered putting it on the other side but there's landscaped areas on that side so we moved it to the other side. That was the reason it was done that way and she's been in discussion with the neighbors also. I have no problem moving it to the other side if this Board CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah because it clarifies who's property it's on and you know and who's plus you need to have at least some opening on that side yard. It really closes it off a lot if you put the stairs that close to the property line on the side you're proposing. If it's on the other side it's totally different. JOE FISCHETTI : I have no problem changing that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So where are we with this? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Well let me ask another question. Let's go back to the lavatory bathroom situation. Is there another way to design a bigger one type of bathroom that two people could use? JOE FISCHETTI : If this Board is really adamant about not having that second bathroom which I'm very upset about I would have to do that because it's unusable. Again I've had family members were ill and in wheelchairs and they were in those bathrooms for two hours in the morning. And again we have a disagreement here but it happens to be legal and I'm an engineer I look at things engineering wise so I find it to be a problem why I can't have a second bathroom but if that maybe a solution but it changes the whole design. It's really very tight in that space. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yeah you have to change the design but I'm just saying if that's the way it has to be I'm sure you could come up with a design that could accommodate two people in a larger space. JOE FISCHETTI : That's not a problem as to the number of fixtures or how (inaudible) it's just happens to be two bathrooms. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would really have to look at the code again. It really says one bathroom. The intent being a shower and or tub, you know sink and a toilet. JOE FISCHETTI : The bathroom is three pieces. 3 August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If I may just a clarification for me that's needed, you said a lavatory is just a sink and a toilet. JOE FISCHETTI : Yes it's not a bathroom. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But then in your handicap lavatory there's a walk in shower. JOE FISCHETTI : Yea a shower. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well isn't the shower the third piece? JOE FISCHETTI : Yes. I'm saying that what I'm CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He's got a bathroom in one, he's got a tub in one JOE FISCHETTI : And a shower in the other. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And a shower in the other. So they're both bathrooms. JOE FISCHETTI : So what I would say is take the shower out of that second room and it becomes a lavatory but you're saying a lavatory is a bathroom. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I will have to check on that because I'm concerned with JOE FISCHETTI : If I could just have a toilet and a sink in a second room which is a lavatory and not a bathroom I could live with that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's a code interpretation because according to then we'd have to do a code interpretation and that's a kind of a precedent that I'm not sure I want to set because it's based upon personal desire and medical necessity and while I completely agree that people with disabilities spend a lot of time toileting it's a requirement I understand that the code was not written to anticipate creating housing for people with special needs. It just wasn't. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to adjourn this. MEMBER DANTES : I've never read this section of the code JOE FISCHETTI : It says bathroom it doesn't say two rooms with toilet fixtures and a lavatory is not a bathroom there's no precedent there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what, we're not we need to see something with the stairs on the other side. We need to see you redesign that two bathrooms or bathroom/lavatory JOE FISCHETTI : I would prefer you looking at the code and me keeping the lavatory. August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know you would but I'm not sure what you want is technically possible. JOE FISCHETTI : Technically possible. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, legally possible. That's what we have to do. We have to go by the code. Special Exceptions are not the same as variances. Their standards are spelled out. The intent is clear and I will have to investigate it with the Town Attorney and the Building Department. I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this to the Special Meeting and actually you know what no let's not do that. I'm not going to be at the Special Meeting I think we're going to adjourn this to September and because you're not in that big a rush anyway and I want to get this right. JOE FISCHETTI : I appreciate that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we will check in the meantime and then perhaps you can redraw this so the stairs are on the other side meanwhile I'll look at the interior. I don't think that the extra square footage is unreasonable. We have a precedent for it. We can vary that. With regard to that second toilet facility I don't know. We will look into that. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Adjourning it to what time, alright 1:15 Joe September 7t" at 1:15 both will be on at the same time. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7091—SPORTS EAST PRIVATE MEMBERSHIP CLUB— PAUL PAWLOWSKI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Sports East Private Membership Club/Paul Pawlowski #7091. This is a request for an interpretation pursuant to Article XXVI Sec 280-146D of the Town Code in response to the Building Inspector's April 26, 2017 Notice of Disapproval that the proposed use as applied for is not a permitted use in the August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting R80 Zoning District pursuant to the Zoning Board of Appeals Code Interpretation #6976 located at 9300 NYS Route 25 in Mattituck. So let me explain what that means specifically. We are not here today to decide whether or not a Special Exception Permit should be granted. We are here at the request of the applicant's attorney to overturn or uphold the Building Department's Notice of Disapproval indicating that the application which has been changed from the initial application is still not a private membership club. Do you understand what I'm saying? So that's the purpose of today. The applicant has standing before the Board of Appeals because an official action has been taken by a code enforcement official. The Building Department has made a determination. Our jurisdiction allows us to uphold or overturn the Building Department's jurisdiction to make that interpretation. That's what's before us. Mr. Cuddy would you like to come forward. MR. CUDDY : I'm Charles Cuddy. I'm here on behalf of Sports East. I have an office in Riverhead New York. 445 Griffing Ave. I would like to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you speak up a little Mr. Cuddy we're having trouble with the recording. MR. CUDDY : Can you hear me now? I was just identifying myself and my office. I'd like to hand up a copy of the 280-4 which is the Town Code definition just so that everybody has it in front of them because I'm going to go through that. Can everybody hear me? We recognize that this is an interpretation but it's an interpretation of a definition which I think needs to be read very carefully and that's why I handed it up to you. The interpretation also needs to be addressed as you pointed out based on your decision of December 1, 2016. In that decision you stated that Sports East had the option of amending its application. It's now done that that's now before you. You also noted that there's really no history of this particular definition and so I think we should go through it and make sure that we have the same understanding as to what this definition means and its relatively short. It's no more than 40 words in this definition. Many of them are at the end which has really no meaning irrelevant to what we're talking about. So the definition is not long but it states in the very beginning club membership or country or golf club and I'd like the Board to recognize that's disjunctive. In other words each one of those is separate. It says membership or country or golf and the reason I ask you to take that notation is because membership is not defined any place. A membership club is not defined in the dictionary. Country club is and golf club is. So I'm telling you that I think membership is a distinct type of entity and I would like you to consider that it is because I think it's important for what we want to do. I think it's also important to note that the wording here talks about sports it says engaging in outdoor sports plural. So it's not just a sport but its sports and I think that's also important and I think that every part of this has to be given your attention because that's the rules of construction. The rules of construction say that you must give meaning to every August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting part of a definition and I want you to look a little bit further because I think if you look at this definition it says you can have golf, tennis, swimming, fishing and hunting and I think that hunting has got to be unique and it makes the whole definition much more expansive. If I had a hunting club or you had a hunting club you would anticipate having some sort of building. Now you're not going to be shooting anything in the R80 district so you're not going to be using it necessarily outdoors right at that spot but undoubtedly a hunting club would have people who want to have a shooting range. If you had a shooting range which I anticipate that any hunting club would like it would certainly be in the building very similar in size. It would probably be 100 by 600 or 700 feet long. So you could have at least a 100 or 200 yard shooting. So you would have a building in the R80 district where you have people inside using it who are going to hunt outside but not going to hunt right there but probably in Canada, Maine, Upstate New York. So there would be a building that would be similar to this building. There would be one use and I think that would be a membership club and I don't know how you can deny that membership club. So I'd like you to have that in mind because I think it's important as to the type of uses that we have. So I think based on the language you can have more than one sport and that's what we propose and Mr. Pawlowski is going to speak about that in a little while. We propose basically to have a tennis and swimming club with some additional outdoor activities but basically golf practice range. So we have very limited type uses that we're going to make. It's remarkable because if you look at the first three terms in the definition it says golf, tennis and swimming and that's exactly what we're doing. In your December 151 determination you reviewed this Sports East application and found it lacking in two respects and this is page five and six of your determination. You said first that the ratio of outdoor indoor was improper, that it was too much indoor too little outdoor. That's been fixed significantly so it's going to be changed at this point and again Mr. Pawlowski will address that but I can tell you there are going to be nine tennis courts, there's going to be two swimming pools, there's going to be a golf practice area outside and the outside area is double the inside area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Excuse me did you say two swimming pools? MR. CUDDY : Yes right now Mr. Pawlowski will address that as I said. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Then we don't have the proper plans in front of us. MR. CUDDY : It shows one I understand that. You were concerned with the number of uses and we think that multiple uses maybe not acceptable but certainly the language here says you can have more than one use and the uses we have I just pointed out to you are narrow. They're not expansive. They're the type of uses that are referred to in the definition. It's hard to talk about a membership club because as I say there's no definition but I think I was part of the membership club when I was growing up. I wanted to learn how to swim so my parents sent me August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting to a membership club that had swimming, it had track, that had some outdoor sports but they were all inside. It was called the YMCA and YMCA is a membership club. We're going to have basically the same type of thing that that club had except we're doing it outdoors as well as indoors in order to comply with this requirement. I think you're going to find out that when you look at what the applicant proposes it meets the definition and complies with all the standards in your decision of December 151 and so I'd like you to consider that. I'd like you to approve the application in the sense that this interpretation is that it's a membership club and he can go forward with a special permit. Thank you. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Paul Pawlowski 100 Park Ave on behalf of Sports East. Board thanks for your time today I appreciate it. We are here appealing the denial by the Building Department based off our new application. The only thing that is confusing is that the Building Department issued a denial in referenced an old application and your denial on the previous application which I've never seen before because we've submitted an entirely new application and the normal process is submit to the Building Department for a denial to move forward to the ZBA. They outright denied our new application and it only referenced your late December you know in 2016 ZBA denial for Sports East on use. An analogy of what they did in essence was denying a building permit based off an old house plan that was 5000 square feet even though our new application and our new house is based on a 3000 square feet house. It doesn't add up. How can you bring up an older house plan for a new building permit? I bring this up to you because I asked you to review this without prejudice and please know we have put forth a big effort to reduce the scale of this project and align exactly with the code. We realize you base your decisions on the code and we want to give you the ingredients needed to approve this application. As the code reads we are permitted to have a membership club as defined and as Charles read. The code just to repeat an entity established for the principal in engaging in outdoor sports such as golf, tennis, swimming, fishing, hunting or similar activities but not including aviation, outdoor traps, skeet or target shooting or motor boat racing. Charles read the code to you because we've worked hard to match that definition. Even though the definition the code is vague and when they wrote it they couldn't assume every sport or application to the point this code is mainly to our point we are proposing a private membership club. I want to talk to you about use and that is why we are here today. The best way I can describe what the use will be at Sports East is to bring you through a day at Sports East as a member and exactly what the property will be used for and I will compare Sports East to the most recent Special Exception private club sports club in Southold town and that's Laurel Links. They're on R80 property and received a Special Exception. I'm fortunate to be a member of Laurel Links. I pay my annual dues and Laurel Links provides its members in a given day with the following activities: play golf on the golf course, use the golf practice areas which consist of short game practice area, putting green, driving range. Once done you can use the locker August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting rooms, purchase items in the pro shop then take a swim in the pool or play some tennis. After that we can eat at the restaurant and if we have time use the gym lounge or aerobics room. Laurel Links in the bullet point fashion has the following amenities: golf course, golf practice areas, swimming pool, pro shop, locker rooms, restaurant, gym, tennis courts aerobics area. At Sports East with your support we would like to offer our members and community similar uses and amenities. At Sports East you can use the golf practice area which consists of a short game practice area putting green. Once done with golf you can use the locker rooms, purchase items in the pro shop then take a swim or play tennis and if you want use the small cafe and the gym. Sports East will also have a multi-sport indoor field for stretching and exercise. Sports East has the following amenities: golf practice area, swimming pool as you see now indoors but we would like to do an outdoor swimming pool as well, pro shop, locker rooms, food cafe, gym, tennis courts and multi field exercise. If you compare the amenities and the uses between the clubs you will see the main difference is simply the name. We offer the same amenities. The other difference is we have a multi-sport indoor field that is roughly 20,000 sq. ft. and Laurel has a large golf course that is 4.3 million square feet. Their footprint dwarfs ours. It's not even comparable if we add up the total square footage of buildings not even comparable if you see the footprint they got. If you do add up the total square footage of buildings that Laurel has to what we're proposing they're very close. If Laurel Links was to put a building over its tennis court and pool would it not be considered a private membership club? The main difference between the last application and this one is that we mirror the code by primarily outdoor sports and use. We have a higher percentage of outdoor than indoor use. We took away the batting cages, the rock wall, reduced the size of the gym and restaurant and removed the outdoor soccer field. Sports East went from a 144,000 sq. ft. with a second floor mezzanine to 82,000 sq. ft. single floor building. I bring these points up because there's precedent here for you to approve Sports East and it compares extremely well to Laurel Links. We will have annual dues just like them. They are on the Main Rd. bordering residential properties. They're on R80 land and received a Special Exception. They add a healthy alternative to our community and we'd like to do this as well. We will not even be 2% of the footprint that Laurel Links takes up. Where we are now? We have Suffolk Planning Commission endorsement. We have ARB's approval. The Planning Board and I have our group have meted the site plan and are ready to continue that process. The D.O.T. and Health Department are ready to sign off on the application. We need your support. This entire application is in your hands. You are in control of this application and this private health club. I ask you to improve our quality of life. To the people against this please trust that this application is in the best interest of our community at large and the positives outweigh the negatives. Please trust that we are doing this for our community only and not for personal gain and we have developed a site plan that will be beneficial to the surrounding neighbors. I ask you to keep an open mind and I ask you for your support. Thank you. August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Before we hear from other people I just want to make sure that we have the information in front of us in its most recent iteration because when we first got the plan there was an outdoor synthetic court. That is no longer on the plan that we have our site plan. You have just mentioned that you want to add another swimming pool. We don't have that information. I want to be sure that everyone here and certainly the Board understands precisely what you're intent is. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : To define the site plan we added a golf practice area to the south of the building that's roughly 90,000 sq. ft. with exercise trails that are a little more than that. We currently have eight tennis courts on the plan and we did remove the synthetic multi-sport soccer field on the north side from the original site plan. The only thing that's not on there is the if we were to do an outdoor pool. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What we have on our plan is nine outdoor tennis courts. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : I'm sorry nine outdoor tennis courts yes. That's very accurate and the only thing that's not on there is the outdoor pool. So mathematically speaking it's still a much greater percentage of outdoor sports use areas than indoor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I'm just going to go over what I in reading the floor plan just going to go over what's included in that just so that we're very clear about what it is you're proposing. The Board generally doesn't like to respond to things that are not in front of it so if you intend to add a second swimming pool in your proposed plan or project then we need to know about that and where it's going to be but in the meantime what I'm reading from this plan and please correct me if there are changes or anything that's not correct. We have an 82,500 sq. ft. building with 3,500 sq. ft. adult gym, a 16 by 46.5 feet kid's gym, one pickle ball court at 3,500 sq. ft., one kitchen with a 32 seat food service area, a pro-shop, five offices, a reception at the entry, a multi-use sports court which is 66 by 90 ft. 6 % inches, a woman's and men's locker rooms and showers and bathrooms, a 41 by 75 foot swimming pool that's all indoors now, four indoor tennis courts approximately 135 by 150 ft. multi-use synthetic field and storage areas. Outdoors on our plan is an 87,500 sq. ft. golf practice area in the rear, an exercise trail in the rear, 9 tennis courts in the front I can't tell because of the scale how many parking spaces you're proposing. Do you know that offhand Paul? PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Roughly it's exactly what the code would ask for I believe it's 235 spots. I think Laurel Links has 275 parking spots. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : With regard to the multi-use synthetic field on the interior, what happens there, what activities? August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Multiple activities, however our goal is to allow our members to you know if their kids are coming whether they're taking a tennis lesson or they're swimming in the pool they can just have indoor rec in bad winter months basically whether they're running around, throwing a football, kicking a soccer ball whatever the kids would like to do and the adults would like to do just to give them some space to have recreation and sports activity. What you described is exactly what we are proposing and we would like you to even base your decision based off what is exactly in front of you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the synthetic field could be for soccer, football you said running around. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Running around mainly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Multi-use sport court what's that? PAUL PAWLOWSKI : That's basically an extension for pickle ball we have the pickle ball court there. It's just a different surface for tennis or pickle ball for our members. There's no specific use of it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Basketball? PAUL PAWLOWSKI : It could be yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright it just wasn't clear because it's PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yea it's just a different surface for tennis and racquet sports mainly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright I just wanted to make sure that what I'm looking at is PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yeah that's very accurate. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Can you find out where the swimming is going the outdoor pool? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright why don't you show us on the site plan where you propose to include an outdoor swimming pool. You have an amended site plan or is this something you wa nt? PAUL PAWLOWSKI : If that's something you're going to take into consideration for your decision it would be on the south side of the building around the golf practice area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Towards the rear. August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yes just basically our goal is to offer the same exact sports that are outdoor throughout the summer and then if the weather doesn't cooperate to bring them indoors. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's not site specific yet it's just an option you'd like to pursue. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yeah. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : At this point does anyone have any questions or should we hear from everyone? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Only question regarding the outdoor pool the size. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : It would be half the size of the indoor roughly the indoor the one that we're proposing is so roughly 30 by 50 the exact same size as the one at Laurel Links. To answer your question we have 242 stalls which is what's required and provided. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Parking okay 242. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yep. With that parking you wouldn't see it from the Main Rd. It's on the side and rear and on the front of the building but there's over 500 feet of tree buffers. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay who would like to speak? Alright just come to either one of these and speak into the mic, please start by stating your name and by spelling your name also so we can record it accurately. JOY ELLINGHAUS : Joy Ellinghaus. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you. What would you like us to know? JOY ELLINGHAUS : First I just have a couple of questions just for confirmation. The Building Department has already determined that this is not a private membership club and we're here today for the ZBA to either approve that or overturn that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, either to uphold that determination or to overturn it. JOY ELLINGHAUS : Mr. Pawlowski has made references to house square footage but from what I understand there will be no homes built. Why is it important for house square footage in determining whether it's a membership club or not? Does anyone know the answer to that? MEMBER DANTES : It's a private conversation you can have with Mr. Pawlowski. JOY ELLINGHAUS So there's no public interpretation of that? Mr. Cuddy stated that membership is not defined anywhere but that you must give when you said you must give August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting meaning to every part of the definition he meant the ZBA must give meaning to every part of the definition? So he meant that you can determine what the definition of membership is? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, that's what a code interpretation is. It's essentially looking at what the wording is and interpreting what it means. JOY ELLINGHAUS : We ask then that you uphold a denial based on that. Moving forward, I continue to watch Mr. Pawlowski defend his persistent and relentless pursuit of this project with a sense of dread. Year after year, meeting after meeting the ZBA asks him to reformulate his grand plan for what's essentially the transformation of a residential lot into a commercial business venture and yet with every meeting I wonder at what point his purchase would be rewarded. Why should it be rewarded? His plan does not include a library, schoolhouse, hospital or any of the other neighborhood essentials that benefit a community. This is a want desired only by those who would choose to join it and the primary beneficiary would be the developers. Make no mistake about that. Nevertheless this is not a merit based argument. If it were we would be here all day listening to those who would like to swim and play tennis in a convenient location but knowing he never intended to build eight to ten houses that would be in keeping with not only the zoning but with what that lot could bear in terms of traffic, congestion, pollution, water capacity, ecology etc. seems exploited and should not be rewarded. Anyone traveling that road can see that it has been degraded to such an extent that any further development beyond the eight to ten residential houses that it was zoned for would be bordering on reckless and ultimately regrettable but he couches this pursuit in the agreed upon terms that meet the definitions that would allow him to proceed with this manipulation such as a special exception variance membership club or whatever turns it needs to advance. Will he succeed? Each year many residents voice their approval for this project but their acquiescence and yours will come at a cost in the future. The future will demand that the North Fork preserve the little that is left of it and the only question then will be what is left and then of course the next question sadly will be why is so little left. That answer will lay in past decisions and in the decisions made today and in the coming years. It will be because of projects like this that took advantage of zoning manipulations because the Boards did not ask enough of developers and allowed them to dictate what the parameters were instead of simply saying the answer is no the zoning does not allow for that. If this Board allows this square peg to fit in to the round hole, others will simply ask the same of you or other Boards for their projects. This is the problem and frankly the danger. He is comparing it to the most recent R80 zoning that has already been granted. It's a domino effect for developers. They have been granted so he should be granted. He is siting the precedent. They've been given a Special Exception so he should be granted one. This is the logic other developers will use if Mr. Pawlowski is granted his Special Exception. If we allow this domino effect to continue where will it end? But again this is not a merit based argument. Mr. Pawlowski is a developer. Of all August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting people he should be able to find a commercial vehicle to adapt in a different location with acceptable zoning. This Sport Club may be a (inaudible) and in that purview I ask you to ask your future selves if you could of demanded more of this developer or in this case less much much less. Your decision will be a statement to developers that they should not purchase residential acreage with the express goal of commercialization through Special Exceptions because this is what we will be greeted with. For the land trust preservation the green mottes that lay before you are vulnerable to extreme exploitation as we are seeing here. Mr. Pawlowski has extolled his status as a North Fork native and it is a virtue so at this point I am beseeching him to redefine his definition of value when applied to a twenty acre treed lot on the Main Rd. not as a developer but as a resident. His definition of the term value needs a new and profound understanding beyond business and beyond what this business would bring to the community. Nothing we have here already or could ever build here is of more value than our pastoral beauty. Once it is devalued and gone there is no getting it back. Even allowing for some years success as a sports club he needs the pragmatism to understand that small businesses become bygone. A (inaudible) to deconstruct this building brick by brick and an effort to replace the acreage that has been disrupted if it does not have the altruism to act on the wisdom that should come with protectionism and I continue to implore the Board to act on his behalf. The goal should be to raise the bar for all developers so the Board and all future Boards are not manipulated for profit sake or for the short term values of developers transient projects that in the scheme of things brings no inherit long term value to the beauty or the landscape of the area. So what are we to ask of Mr. Pawlowski's now? He is perpetually trying to adapt to what you are asking of him but are you asking enough of him? As the citizens that would be the most affected by this project and trust me neighboring nine outdoor tennis courts (inaudible) day and evening is beyond frightening. We insist that you rightfully ask developers to stay true to the zoning they've acquired or that they employ adaptive reuse with imaginative planning and design with what has already been erected. We are not looking twenty years down the line. We are asking for a long term view of the Fork and its enduring beauty. It has not escaped me nor should it be lost on this Board that Mr. Pawlowski has recently purchased the building across the street from this lot. It is a commercial building. Who knows what it could be in another life if some planning and design went into it. It seems that it could function as a gym without having to contort itself so drastically as to have mainly outdoor sports functions. Nevertheless if our working Boards won't define the parameters for developers now we will have determined our future landscape and it is not hard to imagine. It already lays twenty miles east of us in Riverhead. Thank you. MAUREEN BRISOTTI : Maureen Brisotti. I'd like to address some of the points that were brought up by the earlier speaker respectfully. I think that when you talk about value I know that value is not something that a Zoning Board can actually define in a sense but the value when I hear August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting this club described the value of thinking of children, older residents, a whole span of people being able to use this club year round, I've lived out here for thirty years which means I've been out here for thirty winters, thirty dark cold winters I don't go to Florida and I would just be so happy if there was a place to exercise where young people could get together and play basketball it would give you know students in the high school maybe an opportunity to have a swim team. I see so many positive aspects of this. I don't understand why you would compare the use that is being suggested here for Sports East to it would be okay to put seven or ten houses up. I don't think we need seven or ten more houses. I think that would be a huge mistake. We have a very large community going in in Cutchogue right now. That's said and done. That's happening right now. This is an opportunity for people in the community to come together in the middle of the winter and do something healthy. I see this as such a positive impact on the community and it has such value and I think that we should think about positive change as opposed to negative change. There's always going to be change and I think that there's so many things to be gained from this. It would be a mistake to not do it. Thank you. JOSEPH TOWNSEND : My name is Joseph Townsend and I've been involved in town business for many, many years and while I'm not that familiar with this specific application I am aware of the zoning which is R80 and in that zoning you know the two primary uses are either residential and farming but there's a group of special exception uses which you've discussed that include country clubs, hospitals, schools and that sort of thing. The only uses that tend to benefit a community that probably won't have a huge impact in the same way a shopping center would or something like that. It was my misfortune to be involved in a couple of applications while I was on the Town Board where YMCA had decided they wanted to come in and at that point this was not an issue, the use was not an issue. It was determined that in both locations one on Peconic Land and one on the Main Rd. in Laurel the use was appropriate to the zoning at that time which was similar and the town as I say I'm not that familiar with the specifics of this application the Planning Board I'm sure has gone over it and protected the community to the best of our code but I am familiar with the needs of the Town and we have needed something like this for the year round residents at least forty years and basically that's all I will say. So, since it does comply in my opinion with the spirit of other Special Exceptions the reason they are allowed I understand that it's sort of unique application in some respects but since it does comply with the spirit of the Special Exceptions in the code I think it should be favorably looked at. Thank you. JULIE DOONEY : Hi my name is Julie Dooney. I'm a recreational and very competitive athlete and would love to see a facility of this nature but I think we just need to adhere to the zoning and the rulings that we have in place. I'm also very concerned about land preservation and it just breaks my heart that we're starting to look like the South Fork and we're taking open land and just putting buildings there. August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting STEVE MARSH : I'm Steve Marsh and I think there are a couple of things that need to be clarified here. I don't have prepared remarks but Paul Pawlowski has taken a lot of the heat from those opposed to this project suggesting that maybe he's in this for profit or to somehow violate the landscape or the character of the community and that couldn't be farther from the truth. In reality Paul, myself and Joe (inaudible) enough profit from this endeavor. This is not about making money. If we wanted to make money off of this there are far better uses for the land. We could put up a residential housing development. What that housing development would not include is a preservation of seventy percent of the land, the trees, the wildlife and the landscape that is there. From the beginning everything that we have proposed has been with the intent to preserve the property to the fullest extent while delivering an amenity that this town needs. The idea for this started back when the three of us got together to talk about how there's nothing for our children to do out here in the winter and as adults there's nowhere to go play tennis. There's nowhere to go play basketball. My children can only go see so many movies at the Mattituck theaters you know and then to come home and want to sit on screens. It's a bad enough problem as it is. So, the intent was never to profit and as a business man with many other businesses I can tell you that this will probably be the least successful. This is effectively a gift to the community and it's not going to be on the table forever. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'd like to ask everyone please to refrain from clapping. It's not appropriate at a public hearing. We understand that many of you support a facility of this type in our community. What is before the Zoning Board is whether or not the type of facility being proposed is permitted in the zoned district that it's being proposed in that's all. Right now that's all we're looking at okay. Not whether or not it's useful and beneficial to the community. We're not judging the project. We're just trying to figure out if that project as applied for fits the zoning, is permitted in the zoning. That's the simple question before us. LINDA MULE : Well I would ask the Board to uphold their decision denying this as a Special Exception. I own two homes on Sigsbee Rd. The majority of the people here that I recognize who are against this project are residents of Sigsbee Rd. We bought property in an area zoned residential. We did not buy property in an area zoned commercial. We like the residential area which is why we live there. We would like this area to be residential because that's how it's zoned. If he built whatever amount of houses were allowed to be built we would have nothing to say because it's zoned residential. We might not like it but we certainly could not argue with it. However to put in a facility of this magnitude of this when I heard the amount of parking spaces my head almost exploded. Two hundred and seventy five cars there are seventy homes on Sigsbee Rd. If half of those two hundred and seventy five parking spaces are filled day and night people will be zipping up and down Sigsbee Rd. which they already do. This will only make it more dangerous. I have a six year old who loves to play tennis. I would not want her in a facility where people are zooming in and out and around every single day. Who knows what the August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting hours are. And a gift to the community, a membership club where you have to pay dues is not a gift to the community. It is only for those who can pay. Do you want to give a gift, then build a public facility on public property and allow the public to use it. You cannot call a membership club a gift because you can't afford the dues then you can't go there. So that's a smoke screen to hide the fact that this is a not permitted use in residential property and beg you, implore you my other fear is if you did go down the slippery slope of allowing this use and it doesn't make money which the other gentleman who's name I didn't get says that it's not going to make money well what happens if it doesn't make money? Is the town going to take it over and run it as a public space or is it going to be abandoned like the Capital One building. And when it's abandoned what's going to go on behind the homes on Sigsbee Rd. drugs, sex, rock and roll, and parties whatever. Are the police going to come and police it? I very much doubt it. We have a drug problem on Long Island. President Trump was here not far away talking about that. Do you think that an abandoned property is going to be immune to those kinds of problems in a neighborhood in an area where people have nothing to do? I ask if anybody is for this, lives on Sigsbee Rd., lives in Mattituck MEMBER DANTES : Ma'am you have to address the Board. LINDA MULE : Well I'm curious. My fear is that this is really going to be abandoned. You're going to ruin the property the property will be cleared, the trees will be gone, the wildlife will be gone, the watershed will be gone and you'll end up with an abandoned eyesore that will be a bigger headache than ever. Thank you. SUSAN TOMAN : Good afternoon I'm Susan Toman and I wasn't prepared to speak but when you mention the drug use problem on Long Island I am a New York State certified alcohol substance abuse counselor for over twenty years. I've been involved with way back when Governor Pataki was here for drug prevention on the east end and from my perspective our youth on the North Fork have very little to do very little to keep them busy and a facility like this who Paul Pawlowski has made mention that he would work with the non for profit groups. It was not just a membership only facility so I understand that we're not making a judgement regarding the use but when I heard that, one of the most dearest things to my heart is that our children grow up drug free and we've been working very hard on the North Fork and have one of the better numbers of our children being substance abuse free comparatively. We're in a very rough place in the United States all together but comparatively we've done a fairly decent job with all the community members assisting and working in prevention and supporting it but a facility like this to bring to our community my child travels all the way to Southampton to play in a travel team basketball and the amount of gas and time we have to take to travel to bring him to play sports it's incredible. To have this around the corner August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm sorry ma'am I just have to put to stop this because with all due respect again we are not evaluating the merits of the project and whether or not it will benefit people in our community. We are only evaluating whether or not it's permitted as a facility on the property that it's being proposed to be built on which is a residentially zoned property that's all. SUSAN TOMAN : And with exceptions available and I hope you will take that up that it is necessary. Thank you. MR. CUDDY : Charles Cuddy again. I applaud the chairperson for indicating that because this is not a special permit here and I recognize and my clients recognize that it's about the definition but I would like factually since a lot of people have tried to color the hearing emotionally who (inaudible) for them to understand something about the development of this site because I was involved in it. This site the Planning Board rejected more than fifteen years ago a subdivision of ten houses. It was rejected. Mr. Pawlowski tried to place on this site affordable housing. It was rejected again. So I think we should have the facts and not somebodies emotional pleading. Thank you. MEMBER DANTES : I don't think the Planning Board ever officially ever rejected the affordable housing. MR. CUDDY : Yes we were told to withdraw the application. It was rejected. BRUCE CARLETON : Good afternoon Bruce Carleton. I'm a resident of Sigsbee Rd. and I ask the Board to uphold their original ruling and to not allow this project to go through. I've been listening today to everyone speak. The fact that we've got a similar facility a couple of thousand feet away which is a membership club offering the same exact amenities makes no sense for the Board to consider the use of this land for the same purpose. I don't see how two facilities like that can be supported by one community and that's all I need to say thank you. JOE SLOVAK : Joe Slovak I didn't expect to speak today but I need to correct the record. With all due respect to Ms. Ellinghaus this was not Paul's idea. This was my idea. After his affordable housing was taken off the table I brought Steve and Paul together. This has been a dream of mine for over a decade. I'm an educator for twenty years and this is a need and I'm sorry if I'm going off a little bit off what we're talking about, a number of people did. This is a need. It's also a want. It's a need about wellness and you've heard a couple of people speak about why this is important. So this is just not some frivolous thing that people do. This is engaging our health, our wellbeing, our youth's health we've had seniors, young people, teachers, athletic directors, superintendents all tell me personally how important it is for my community and so I really want to make look I live next to Laurel Links okay and I have no problem and I can't afford to August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting join Laurel Links. I work at Laurel Links. I know what Laurel Links does every day. People are happy. They come together. Its health, its wellness and everybody has a like mind. So what this does and what Mr. Marsh said about a gift let me explain. This is private money no tax dollars. I'm going to leave my teaching job if this goes through. I'm doing it from my heart. Paul is and so is Mr. Marsh. I just needed to collect the record. I started a Facebook page Sports East to try to mitigate the disinformation, the half-truths and the flat out lies and I use social media for good and unfortunately these days it's not used for that too often and that's all I wanted to say thank you very much. CHRIS REHM : Hi I'm Chris Rehm Mattituck. It seems to me the last time I was at the meeting here you're here for a very specific reason and it seems to me you have a precedent set with Laurel Links and this should be a fairly easy decision to make. If he meets all your criteria that's it. Thank you. JERRY DIFFLEY : Hi my name is Jerry Diff ley I reside in Mattituck and I just wanted to say it to the Chairperson as well as to the other Board members, I certainly as a member of the Mattituck Cutchogue school board for twenty years and President for over ten I certainly can appreciate what you have to do in interpreting the regulation and code before you and the emotions that the public brings to it but in that interpretation I would implore you to look at the definition of the R80 code and if there is any ambiguity which in the code and regulation there always is I would ask that you just air on the side of the use of the permit and allowing the application to go forward. There is a need for the community. I know you can't consider that when you're interpreting the code but again if there is ambiguity there I would ask you to keep an open mind. Thank you. MINDY RYAN : My name is Mindy Ryan. I have a question; the Building Department rejected their last application or the new revised application? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The new one. MINDY RYAN : The new application okay and you have the ability to overturn that denial? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We do. MINDY RYAN : That's what I'd like to talk about. This administration the six of you you're not the first to face this challenge of having an indoor pool on the North Fork. It's gone from Riverhead Town has dealt with it with their Calverton and Aquebogue locations, Greenport village has had the same thing when Dave Kappell in 1996 tried to bring a pool in there and back to Southold Town when Mr. Townsend pointed out the Peconic Lane and the Laurel Lakes facility, all those opportunities are gone and now the bowl is in your court. I tell people I've been campaigning for an indoor pool for twenty five years and they look at me and say oh I've August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting been doing this for sixty years waiting for a pool. There are people that have lived here their entire lives and they have had no place to swim. It's about the pool; it's about an indoor pool. Laurel Links has a pool but that's only three months of the year. It's not the same thing. We need an indoor pool, you're Southold 2020. From 2011 Southold Town apparently did a study and they took a poll, what's the top five survey responses regarding recreational facilities the needs: indoor swimming pool number one. As Joe mentioned he's got a Facebook page for Sports East has almost 700 likes. There was also a petition circulated around by parents and that has almost 700 signatures. This is not a want this is a need. This is something we need and it is a gift. They are giving it to you no charge and its tax revenue. That's what you're getting. There is no charge to the Town and so all that being said I implore you to turn the rejection thank you. PEGGY TONER : My name is Peggy Toner I live on Sigsbee Rd. in Mattituck. I am not opposed to the facility. I am opposed to the location of the facility. I know there are many here that are very passionate about having such a facility but as I see it there are many other spots that would be suitable for such a facility and to lose the beauty of the acreage that's present there now would be a very sad thing and I implore you to uphold your decision. Thank you. FRED MARKHAM : Fred Markham. I'm a real estate agent here on the North Fork along with one of your Board members and I pretty assuredly can tell members of the audience and the Board that there are zero numbers of tracks of commercially zoned property that would accommodate this facility. Unless the Town would turn over some of their preserved land there isn't anything, there isn't anything. Zoning as it exists right now you can't take and create something that doesn't there's no place for it to exist. There are smaller tracks of commercial property but nothing this size. Thank you. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Paul Pawlowski Sports East. I just want to reiterate we are here because we redid our application based on the denial. Our outdoor use is double the indoor use. This shares the same amenities as Laurel Links which is on R80 property that's the bottom line. We're here for one purpose and that is for you to have the ability to say you know what Building Department you got it wrong and the Building Department never issued a denial on any other private club on the entire North Fork nor would any club exist on the North Fork if there wasn't R80 property. We're not here trying to take advantage of a piece of property R80 especially. Bottom line, if we wanted to do that I wouldn't need to be before the Board. Our partners and I could level the place and keep ten percent of the property up within three weeks and build one house. Forget a subdivision. We could build one house and have a fifteen foot side setback and twenty and a thirty. You would lose eighteen of the twenty one acres in three weeks. We are here because we do want what's best for that property and there is not one commercial piece of property on the North Fork available not even on the market even in existence that would August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting accommodate this without a Special Exception. Every single club on the North Fork received a Special Exception and our amenities and what we're providing for our members is exactly what they have day in and day out and have been enjoying for over a hundred years. MARIA SCHULKEN : Hi there my name is Maria Schulken, I'm also a resident of Sigsbee Rd. My husband we our property kind of is on Sigsbee but overlooks Peconic Bay Blvd. We bought our property back in 1983 and we've seen so much change and actually on Peconic Bay Blvd. there was a time that the cars came down there very slowly and what have you now it is a nightmare along there. I cannot imagine a facility that is going to provide two hundred and some odd more cars in the area and what it is going to be like. I support what they're trying to do for the community. I think it's a great idea I really do. I just don't think that this is the appropriate place for it. There has been too much building going on in this area and their taking a beautiful piece of property and ruining it. DINA FINORA : Hi again, Dina Finora 165 Orchard St. in New Suffolk. I live here in the summer and I love it. I'm an avid tennis player. Sitting here listening to what these guys are trying to do it's called a rec center. We have them in our community up the island. It's a residential area. We have about two hundred and fifty parking spots. There is no problem because two hundred and fifty people aren't there at one time. What it is is it's a wonderful place and we actually we pay for it through our taxes. Rockville Center taxes are far higher than they are here in the Town of Southold I'm sorry I'm shaking but you're paying for it. You're paying for it through your taxes and we also pay a membership fee to do the things that are at our rec center. We play soccer we don't have a pool I wish we did. Tennis to rent the courts we have to pay so these exist everywhere. This isn't a new idea no offense to Sports East but it's a recreation center and a community as we said I don't need to repeat it needs and will one hundred percent benefit from it. But I will say to the people of Sigsbee twenty percent usage we don't even have that in Rockville Center that is a gift and I think what this really is as far as zoning goes you live off of Route 25 like that is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) is addressing the Board please do not interrupt her. DINA FINORA : I just wanted to this is just a perfect example of the private sector coming in where the public sector has failed okay. There isn't a recreation center here. If there was these guys wouldn't have to do it. There's not a recreation center so you're going to get one without higher taxes and without you know giving up the other seventy percent of your land that these guys are going to preserve so I just wanted to give that comparison. Thanks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please refrain from applauding. August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting JOE PFAFF : Good afternoon, my name is Joe Pfaff I live in Cutchogue. I was a manager of North Fork Country Club from 1988 to 1998 and I was a member of Laurel Links from 1998 until recently. I'm an honorary member there now. When I joined Laurel Links in 1998 1 worked very closely with Laurel Links Ltd. who was the developer involved and we opened for the members when we finally got everything opened in 2005 so during that seven year period I worked very closely with them coming to all the meetings with the various agencies here at the town including the Planning Board, Zoning Board, Building Department and I just don't understand. We applied for the Special Exception as a membership club with limited uses golf, swimming, tennis, a clubhouse, pool and it seems to me that this is the exact same situation and I feel there's a huge need for this in the community. As I said I'm a member still a member at Laurel Links. I'm familiar with the principals. They're fine, fine people. I met Joe Slovak. He became the tennis pro at North Fork with me and then at Laurel. I can attest to his integrity all these three people are very of the highest integrity and I'm just saying to you that I feel this exception is the same as what we got when I worked with Laurel Links and all the town agencies here limited use same setup of circumstances and I'm for you to overturn the Building Department's decision thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to get out my gavel. Just in case you know I have one anyone else, any questions from the Board?Alright come up I'll take one more comment. JIM FOGARTY : Jim Fogarty, Cutchogue. I'd just like to speak on behalf of the project with Mr. Pawlowski and his team, I think we are lucky to have this team present this project to the town. It's a very exciting beneficial project to us and if Laurel Links is the precedent then which could (inaudible) Laurel Links for getting their project but that benefits a small percentage of people. This project will benefit a wide range a large percentage of people of all age groups and I hope the exception is granted to these gentlemen. Also I've had the privilege of going to the Southampton facility SYS, Southampton Youth Services and my children have played sports there over the years and what a beautiful facility that is. Southampton Town recognized the need for this for their people and I think Southold Town should recognize that also and hopefully this project will go through. Thank you. MR. CUDDY : I'd like to ask the Board a question. Would you like us to present a plan showing exactly where the swimming pool is because you don't have that before you? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I think what we're doing is interpreting our own interpretation basically. MR. CUDDY : But I just want to make sure that you're satisfied that you understand that it's going to be there because basically this is a swimming pool tennis club with some additional items. That's what our position is. August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I think it would be it's a matter of adjusting your site plan so probably that would be useful information. Yes sir? GEORGE LEMARGA : George Lemarga. You asked for questions, I think we're winding down now. What troubles me I thought your public officials and this is the public so when you don't allow people to express themselves we express ourselves with votes. So what I'm saying to you I'm appalled when people are reacting and are trying to tell you what they feel. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You want to applaud now? In a courtroom you can express yourself anyway you wish. This is the meeting hall, this is an appellate court. The Zoning Board of Appeals has an appellate jurisdiction to hear appeals okay and what is appropriate is for you to speak your mind. That is how you express yourself. Applause can intimidate others who may not agree in either way you know so that's why I ask people to refrain from applause plus it takes up time. We've spent a good deal of time listening to everyone's comments with respect and with an open mind. Are there any questions the Board has at this point? Mr. Cuddy could you come forward for a minute? It may be useful for the Board to know whether or not there are other Special Exception Permits that have been granted for recreational facilities in this town that are not golf courses with accessory uses accessory amenities provided. I don't know the answer. I do know about Cedars, I know about Laurel Links and I'm just wondering whether or not any other recreational facilities in residential zones have been granted in the history of this town that were not golf courses with additional amenities permitted as accessory uses. MR. CUDDY : I don't know the answer to that but we can certainly find out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that makes sense. It can be beneficial to know that information. Alright what I'm going to do is in case any of you out in the audience who wanted to think through what you just heard and make additional comments I'm going to suggest to the Board that we adjourn this to the Special Meeting which gives anyone here and anyone who couldn't be here an additional two weeks to provide written submissions of anything you wish. We'll give the applicant an opportunity to add the outdoor swimming pool. To provide the information I've just requested of their attorney and any other information they wish to provide based on what they heard. We understand that this is an important determination and it will have a wide sweeping impact on this community one way or the other so we take it very seriously and we want to make sure that we've left no stone unturned in considering all the facts and all of the opinions in front of us. Okay with the Board, yes? So I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting in two weeks on September 171h Between now and then I'm sorry August 17th I jumped. That is not a public hearing, no decision will be made, no testimony will be taken. What is most likely to happen will be that the Board will at that point close this hearing and whatever is then in the public record is what we will use August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting to make our determination and to deliberate upon. You're welcome to attend but there won't be any comments accepted or received. The Special Meeting is not a public hearing. It's not recorded and we don't take testimony. Do you have a question? UNNAMED SPEAKER : You mentioned putting things in writing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you wish to. UNNAMED SPEAKER : And we would get that to you in advance? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just send it to the office yup anything that you feel is relevant you know upon reflection or if someone wasn't here and they want to submit something. Holding this open gives people an opportunity to do that, anything else? Okay there's a motion before the Board is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting CERTIFICATION I Elizabeth Sakarellos, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment and is a true and accurate record of Hearings. Signature av-�A CS Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE :August 15, 2017 r� d ti,r � August 3, 2017 Regular Meeting