Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-10/05/2017 HearingTOWN 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 October 5, 2017 9:36 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member PATRICIA ACAMPORA — Member ERIC DANTES — Member GERARD GOEHRINGER — Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO — Member KIM FUENTES — Board Assistant WILLIAM DUFFY —Town Attorney October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Roman Watroba — Country Car Wash #7082SE 3 - 6 Roman Watroba — Country Car Wash #7084 3 - 6 Anthony Pirozzi, Jr. #7089 6-23 Jeffrey S. MacDonald and Courtney MacDonald #7090 24-25 Frank McGinnis and Catherine McGinnis #7092 25-27 Arthur Gruneisel and Juliane Tomiser Gruneisel #7093 28-30 Brion Lewis #7086SE 30-43 Barry D. Barth #7095 43-45 Steven and Janine Racanelli #7096SE 46-54 Steven and Janine Racanelli #7097 46-54 N October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting HEARING #7082SE and 7084 ROMAN WATROBA — COUNTRY CAR WASH CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for Roman Watroba, Country Wash #7082SE and the second application is for Roman Watroba, Country Car Wash #7084. I'm going to open both at the same time. It's just simply easier to talk about them that way although they will be written up as separate decisions. So the first is request for special exception per town code Article, XI, Section 280-48 B (11). The applicant is requesting permission to legalize "as built" additions to an existing car was (automobile laundry) located at 6565 NYS Route 25 in Laurel and the second is a request for a variance under Article XI Section 280-49 and the Building Inspector's May 11, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize "as built" additions and alterations to an existing car wash (automobile laundry) at 1) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 25 feet same location of course. Is there someone here to represent the application? ANDREW WATROBA: My name is Andrew Watroba I'm Roman Watroba's son and I'm with my father as well Roman Watroba. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Welcome. So let's look at them one at a time. The variance actually is for a side yard setback of 16 feet where the code requires 25 feet. That was because you enclosed some of the equipment that you require to use for the car wash to protect. ANDREW WATROBA: Yes madam chairwoman for the recycle system to it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And we all were there as you probably know to inspect the property and see what everything looked like. This requires site plan approval from the Planning Board which I know you are aware of. Planning Board has determined that this is a Type II Actions so that's good. That's all ready to go and I think its 267 square feet this kind of shed enclosure? ANDREW WATROBA : I believe that it's in the maybe 200,square feet it's for the recycle system. MEMBER DANTES : What is a recycle system? ANDREW WATROBA : Since we adopted California's DEC and EPA laws in 2012 all car washes have to be zero discharge so we have tanks and we recycle the water and then every month we pump out so there's no discharge out in to the land. MEMBER DANTES : So the state of New York forced you to put the system in to conform with their environmental laws? ANDREW WATROBA: Yes. P October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : And is there another; is this the only location that the recycle system can go to work with the functioning of the car wash? ANDREW WATROBA : Most conveniently being that if it would be on the other side of the building then we would have to run pipes everywhere it's most conveniently located to where the tanks are. MEMBER DANTES : So you would have had to dig up all the concrete on the floor, re -pipe it, re - concrete the floor. ANDREW WATROBA: Right. MEMBER DANTES : And it would have added more cost. ANDREW WATROBA : Not only that it just the longer distance it has to travel from the tank to the recycle system those pipes get dirty and clogged and you know it's just more it's most inconvenient is what it is. MEMBER DANTES: So it wouldn't work as well? ANDREW WATROBA: No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The property received site plan approval in 1985 quite a long time ago and the Planning Board does support this application. It would appear that the Special Exception which is required for a car wash I think they call it automobile laundry in the code I don't believe that when this is established it was I think the Planning Board just approved it. It was approved without a special exception permit previously that may not have even existed in the code at the time that site plan was approved. The shed is actually a 200 square footprint which is less than .5 percent of the total area of the lot. ANDREW WATROBA: Yes that's what I believe. I believe it's 10 by 20. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh it's the roofed over enclosure on the other side that's 267 square feet. ANDREW WATROBA: Yes. October S, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, so you've made improvements.' There's a very, very large berm with heavy vegetative screening on the side yard where your equipment is located and to the rear is the railroad tracks. There really doesn't seem to be any impact on anybody. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Actually I had a question. The day that I was there for the site inspection there was in the northeast corner a trailer like a camper trailer is that something permanent, is that an office space? Is that something that you're cleaning? ANDREW WATROBA : We are detailing that for a customer. It's for sale too. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm not shopping. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from anybody else, anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments from the Board or the audience I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date on 7082SE. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. I make a motion to close the hearing on #7084 is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. A October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7089 —ANTHONY PIROZZI, JR. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Anthony Pirozzi #7089. This is a request for a variance under Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's May 24, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet at 1769 Smith Road (adj. to Hog Neck Bay) in Peconic. Good morning Mike, would you please state your name for the record please? MIKE KIMACK : Michael Kimack agent for the applicants who are present today. The applicants purchased this residence not that long ago but it's their desire to retire here. If you look at the property you will see that it's a pretty much a bowling alley approach so the construction is kind of spread out and elongated. Their intent is to be able to access the house more conveniently rather than park above, above the pool as you can see and then truck everything down. The intent is to have that level of convenience by having the garage attached to the existing home and extend the driveway down to it. They're not going any closer than the existing house presently because that's about six feet away on that one side. There's a little right angle cut out over there. The architect had come off of that and the garage is as wide as can be given that particular location and give it how it ties back into the house it's about an eighteen foot width which you would have seen if you had an opportunity to go to the site. That's the way it was staked. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we all did. MEMBER DANTES : I have a question for you. It says on one of the C.O.'s a state variance for the swimming pool what was that? MIKE KIMACK: I'm sorry. MEMBER DANTES : It says on one of the certificates of occupancy here they had a state variance for the swimming pool. MIKE KIMACK : I'm not sure I didn't look into that at all, a state variance? MEMBER DANTES : That's what it says yeah. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know why they would need a state variance. MEMBER DANTES : I don't either and I'm not that familiar with them. I know they exist. October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : I mean the pool doesn't fall into it wouldn't fall into D.E.C. regulations. The D.E.C. really is more interested in the first hundred feet. MEMBER DANTES : Yeah I know but MIKE KIMACK : Even though jurisdiction extends three they'll stick with the hundred. As a note as you notice on the survey you got there it says relocate existing shed come to find out that we really don't that shed was in existence when my clients purchased the property. Unbeknownst to them it's an illegal location and we thought about perhaps including it in the variance but it's such a difficult spot it's too close. It would need a front variance and maybe perhaps a side yard variance so the prudent thing is to not interfere with the main thing we're simply going to remove it. I wanted to note that for the record. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this shed that's very close to the right of way? MIKE KIMACK : It would have to be setback Leslie 40 feet (inaudible, away from mic) ten feet off the side. Conceivably (inaudible) could not match the forty I mean I don't you know MEMBER DANTES : I'm just kind of curious what the variance was for that's all. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Eric you're speaking about the state variance. MEMBER DANTES : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly I had the same question regarding that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mike let me ask you something, do you know is it on here what the current lot coverage is on this property? It's got an area but I don't see where it says it's not broken down on the survey. MIKE KIMACK : I can get you I think on the bottom the lower right, lot coverage calculation. ICs about 9% a little under 10%. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Maybe I'm looking at the wrong one. It's not on the survey it's on the site plan. Okay I'll get the site plan. The lot coverage is existing in 7.6% and proposed is 9.6%. What's the square footage of the proposed addition? MIKE KIMACK : That should also be on there as a calculation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 567 and a covered porch is also being added? No that's there. MIKE KIMACK : That's already there. That's existing. It's just the 567. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We were just talking about 567 square feet? 0 October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK: Yes correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And what is a bonus room? MIKE KIMACK : A bonus room is it's an unusually shaped house basically and when they're making their attachment that little kick out over there is really a staircase that goes all the way up basically and the second floor room basically call it a recreation room or a work out room or etc. like that. It's tied back so they can access it not only from the garage but they can access it from the second floor bedroom and get there. Yes, we're adding an extra an additional bathroom but basically it works for them because they're both; one uses one bathroom, one uses the other. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not necessarily proposed as another bedroom? MIKE KIMACK: No it's not proposed as a bedroom. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One other question, in your opinion is it possible since you don't have a lot coverage issue at all to propose a detached accessory garage that would be conforming and as of right in the front yard? MIKE KIMACK: You mean in place of what We are proposing? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah. MIKE KIMACK : No it wouldn't work. What they want to do is be able to access the house Leslie. The distance is fairly great and you're talking about putting up where the parking area is now above the pool between there and the road? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah it would be between the house and the pool probably or between yeah it could be closer to the road but I'm asking whether or not there is a conforming location that as of right a garage could be constructed. MIKE KIMACK : There's an awful lot in there with the walkways and the trees etc. like that. I mean to put the garage as a detached get out of the garage and walk back to the house. I mean the purpose of this is to be able to access the house from the garage without going back outside. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right I understand what their goal is, I'm just asking whether or not they could do a garage as an accessory as of right and without a variance. MIKE KIMACK : Look conceivably I can't ,say no. I mean you know architecturally you'd be able to probably looking at that spot between the pool and the house you'd lose the brick walkway p October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting basically that would you know basically take you back there. You'd be able to swing into it but you'd still be detached away from the (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay,let's see whose got questions, Pat any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Not at this moment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric? MEMBER DANTES : No, I'd just like to know what that state variance is at some point. MIKE KIMACK : Me too. I have no idea. Maybe the good news is they've got a state variance. The question is why and what is it basically and why basically did they need to go for it. MEMBER DANTES : It's all just maybe give us an email later on. MIKE KIMACK : You know what I'm curious, I will just to find out because I've never seen it before in that situation but whatever it was it was done and it was attached to the C of 0's so the pool is legal both from the town and the "state's perspective" so but you're right I'm curious to find out Eric exactly why that particular pool in that location required (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have to talk into the mic so that we can make sure you're recorded. MIKE KIMACK: (inaudible) that I've seen or dealt with. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah, beats me. It's important to put into the record here that you've received a prior variance for a 6.2 foot side yard setback for an addition a second story addition. You are now proposing this garage one and a half story garage at a 10.4 foot side yard setback. MIKE KIMACK : That is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why can you not push that over and make it a conforming 15 foot side yard setback? MIKE KIMACK : Because the way it works now in order to get egress and ingress into the house with the existing staircase, you see that little kick out behind it that's attached to it that little nub that sticks out from the house that little square nub it's roughly ten foot by seven foot eight or something like that it sticks into the garage that's a staircase and, that staircase is intended to be able to access from the garage to the house so it ties perfectly into that. So the location was chosen by the architect and by the homeowner to be able to put the garage in a location that ties back to the existing house in a manner with which you can get access to the El October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting house using the existing staircase and you got that in the architectural drawings if you take a peek. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But Mike to that point then why couldn't you place the garage in the alcove where you're adding on to the existing bedroom. You'd still have access it would appear. You're taking down a wall where there's an existing exterior window. MIKE KIMACK : Well that one little section next to it is extending that little square area that's marked off that's next to that little staircase alcove basically extends the bedroom basically it adds to the bedroom right there. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right, but couldn't you push the garage I guess in this case east to make it into a conforming location with access to that stairwell? MIKE KIMACK: No that would be, oh I see pull it back and be jagged off basically? MEMBER PLANAMENTO: Well pushed in closer to the house structure. MIKE KIMACK : You'd have to pull it almost the full width of that particular staircase and then you would not have that connection in the back. It would be rather than square on you'd be offset and you wouldn't really be able to make the connection back to that staircase reasonably well. MEMBER PLANAMENTO: I'm just playing off of what MIKE KIMACK : The other thing too is it's architecturally I mean the house basically right now when you look at it, it really looks big and stands up strong and especially with that staircase that was out in the back that little area that's 10 by 7 to make the connections if you look at the architectural rendering of the elevation you'll see by adding this and connecting it to the house it really brings the whole house down because it takes away from that vertical section coming out the back and that's on the last page. It really breaks it and really adds ties really nicely into the A -lines of the house from an architectural aesthetic point of view. Offsetting it would make it very difficult to make a connection back to that staircase as opposed to the way it is now and then also architecturally it would break the line the proposed line of the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry, any questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I'm just trying to figure out how you get out of the garage. MIKE KIMACK : Upstairs. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No, no I mean how to you get the car out of the garage? You have to back up all the way down? FTA October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : I had noted that basically too, Gerry basically, you pull down in there I suspect that we got a couple of drywells in that particular location. I suspect that there should be a turn around that comes out of that garage and goes back toward the east. You need in order to do that you need about the distance just short of that walkway path to make the reasonable turn. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I have to honest with you when I was over there and saw the applicant we're not permitted basically to question the applicant or applicants, okay that's the purpose of the hearing, but I just look at the whole effect and I can understand it is a relatively a long way, it gets dark fairly early now and so on and so forth but in reality I think a perfect place for it would be where the shed is and to put the walkway in on that side to the house or at least some sort of walkway that you could even put a golf cart if you wanted to and ride that over to the house with a little shanty and then you'd have your own access in and out of that area. MIKE KIMACK : We'd still have to come back because an accessory building still requires a primary building setback from the road. We don't have the forty feet. That's what the code says. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Not necessarily because it's a waterfront piece of property. MIKE KIMACK: Pardon. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : It's a waterfront piece of property. MIKE KIMACK : It still has to meet the front yard code. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : We understand that but I mean you have some room to get into those setbacks. MIKE KIMACK : Yeah but we're going from one variance request to another variance request. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I'm just mentioning it's very difficult to get it's very tight back there. MIKE KIMACK : Yeah it's the nature of the lot unfortunately. It's just long and narrow. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from the Board at the moment? MEMBER ACAMPORA : So the shed is going to go and we did receive a letter from a neighbor and I'm kind of wondering on the side property thereon the east side are there plantings or trees so that the neighbor this is you know this is not going to bother them as much as they say it's going to bother them•you know is there something that's going to be done there? ANTHONY PIROZZI : Anthony Pirozzi. The side yard between that neighbor and I, has been landscaped already last week with seven foot bushes. October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : I was going to ask how high. ANTHONY PIROZZI : Yeah seven foot the width of it extends north I guess and south of the porch so it's greater than the distance of both porches. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm sorry Pat's question though it would appear at least when I was at the site the patio area which is on your east side there's like a split rail fence by memory I don't recall seeing any plantings there. ANTHONY PIROZZI : They were done last:week. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right, but I'm` trying to think of the day I was there I can check my calendar. What I'm getting after is if there are trees there that's wonderful and maybe some evidence would be helpful but the neighbor had all these cedar trees that were actually trimmed up they were mature cedar trees that are probably twenty or thirty years old that were just trimmed up where it was clearly open between the two. ANTHONY PIROZZI : Yes, that's exactly where the skip laurels were planted. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So there were skip laurels planted at some point let's say Thursday or Friday. ANTHONY PIROZZI : I would say they were planted last Tuesday. MEMBER DANTES : Could you just take a picture for us and email it. MIKE KIMACK : We'll get you a physical picture and make it as part of the application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience wanting to address the application? Would you come and state your name and talk into the mic please. KLARI NEUWELT : Good morning my name is Klari Neuwelt I'm here with my husband Richard (inaudible) and we are the neighbors to the east. We welcome our new neighbors, we wish them well. It's not with pleasure that we are here to object to their application but we feel strongly about it and that's why we're .here. We submitted earlier this week a letter with a number of colored pictures outlining our objection in case any member of the Board had not been able to print it in color I submitted this morning a set of color copies so you'll all see the color. We bought our house twenty four years ago and have enjoyed it ever since. It is as the Pirozzi property it's on it's a narrow lot. These houses are part of a series of five houses of charming typical Southold bayside vernacular architecture that were built around the time of WWI a hundred years ago. These five houses always have formed a suite together of consistent feel and scope that was important to us. Also important to us then and now is knowing that the FN October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting zoning code is there for a reason. It's there to provide predictability, uniformity and assurance to owners that they would be able to enjoy their homes and their neighborhoods. So a zoning variance, an area variance such as this one should not be and is not a retained matter. It is an exception. Important to us as I said I believe was the unity and of size and style of the architecture which has for the most part except for changes made already to the Pirozzi residence has continued for a hundred years. In our letter that I hope and trust that each member of the Board will read carefully we discuss each of the five factors that the Board may consider although as you know the Board need not make a finding on all five or even most of them as it weighs this application. Two of them are very easy and just strongly mitigate against this variance. The first is that the owner bought this house last year knowing that it didn't have a garage, knowing that it was the size of lot that it was. Certainly on notice of the zoning laws of the town of Southold as any purchaser is as we were when we bought our house. So it is clearly a condition that was created a situation created by the owner buying a house that didn't have a garage and didn't have an extra yet another sleep able room and bathroom above. Second it's a very large variance. The owner is looking for a variance that is almost five feet out of the required fifteen foot setback so that's almost a thirty three percent variance. That's a large variance. The other two factors under the statute that under the town law statute that we talk about in our objection and again I urge you to read it to some extent overlap each other but in general they deal with the unity, the size, the scope and the effects on the neighborhood. The Pirozzi house as you'll see from the photos when it was originally built as one of the suite of five houses was a one story house. It was the smallest but it was ten years ago expanded by its prior owners to be two stories. It's now larger than any of the others that are all in except for one far in the end it has a very low rise set of changes to it that don't are not in your face. It was expanded to two stories. It appears to be larger now than any of its neighbors. I believe that Mr. Kimack said something and actually my husband is sitting' there with the note I took something about its big now something like that. Unlike the others our house the one on the other side are in their basically rectangular solids with gambrel roofs that set them back. The Pirozzi house already has a whole bunch of dormers and other sort of things that jut out so it is prominent already but it's still roughly within the size and shape of the existing suite of historic houses although I believe larger and more prominent and somewhat in your face right now. So, what this would do would be a very, very substantial addition that would make it way out of scale in size, in appearance, in architecture, in feel from this historic suite of houses that is what defines our very special beach side neighborhood. So under those other two sections of the statute that argues strongly against this very large addition'. Additionally as we said in our objection we are concerned that this very large addition added to the house would create shadows on our yard and although the other neighbors are not here to speak and we don't know if they take a position that other times of day on their yard as well the other immediate neighbors but we speak for ourselves and are concerned about our own yard. Additionally as M] October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting you'll see although the additional room above the garage is described as a bonus room in fact there's a new bath. It's got a window, it can be used as a sleeping room and we have to assume have some impact on the cesspool system. Again these houses were built a hundred years ago. The cesspool system sooner or later has an effect on the bay you know how those things work probably better than we know how these things work. So in terms on the effect on the neighborhood, the negative impact on the neighbors for all the reasons I've talked about including the additional cesspool impact whatever it might be but it can't be zero those all argue against having this great big addition that would change the whole character of the place. There's one fifth element in the statute that we did not talk about in our submission but I want to address briefly now and that's the one about whether the owners objectives could be achieved in a different way. As you'll see on the plans in terms of the bonus room and bathroom the entire existing second story of the house is one large bedroom and bath and so if the aim and it's a pretty big footprint so if the aim is in part to create another room with a bath to have a more flexible internal layout for living purposes that could readily be accomplished without creating a non -conforming room above the garage. There's been a lot of discussion today and it was actually interesting to us and helpful to us to hear what Mr. Kimack had to say about wanting the garage to be attached to the house and wanting to be able to access it in that way. I will say number one that we park our car and vehicles of our guests are parked not in a garage, they're parked outside. There's plenty of room now and indeed the applicant parks cars numerous several of them actually at various times on the grounds not enclosed. Lots of people do that in Southold town. We do that. One is not entitled to an enclosed garage as a matter of right if it is not conforming that is attached to one's house. Second, the plans also show that they regardless apparently of whether they get this variance or not show that their driveway would be extended, paved up to what they show is the entrance to the garage. I think it was a very interesting question about how do you back out of there but in any event it showed that the driveway would be extended up to the entrance to the garage. So in terms of ready access into the house, drive right up as close as you can get which is very close. You don't have to be way back there although there's plenty of room to park cars near the right of way as they do now. So, while as I said we wish our neighbors well. We're sorry to be here. We appreciate your attention and we hope you'll read our submission carefully. Every one of the factors although you need not reach or even consider every one of the factors, every one of the factors set out in the statute argues fairly strongly against granting this variance. Does anybody have any questions for me? Oh I just want to I'm so sorry one thing, the plantings that were planted this last week the skip laurel they're on the bay side. We're talking about what we call the road side as you can (inaudible) front and back not useful terms but this addition would be on the road side it's not on the bay side. We do have some somewhat scrawny trees over there that are very old and as somebody pointed out that there's not a lot to them until you (inaudible) but the skip laurels we believe are irrelevant here as any kind of screening because M1 October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting they are on the bay side they're not on the road side and in terms of the shadows that would be cast we believe that certain times of day on our lawn and we are not looking for additional shade on that lawn from this large structure that would be added to the north side of the house those plantings are we think irrelevant. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If there were screening, you know evergreen screening located parallel along the property line to where the proposed garage is and the garage was only one story without any room above it reducing its height considerably, what would your reaction be? KLARI NEUWELT : You know the plantings I think and it's a good question and I appreciate it. I think that's probably irrelevant. There are already plantings. It's our trees that are on the road side and we've tried over the years to maintain a row of plantings there that do provide some visual privacy. They're not perfect; they're not great as you can imagine the lower parts get eaten by deer all the time. It's impossible to have anything at that location that really provides a firm screen as a healthy hedge would do. I don't think the planting is irrelevant whatever they are and whoever puts them in. With regard to a one story garage, obviously better than a two story garage. The presumably the increase I mean obviously the increased volume of the house and the degree of increased of new non -conformity in design and size in character (inaudible) the other four houses would be reduced if it's one story rather than two. Quite possibly the amount of light intrusion that I'm sorry of creating shade where we don't want it into our yard and perhaps that of the neighbor at certain times of day and times of year would presumably be reduced if not eliminated. I can't speak to the specifics, there's no shadows (inaudible) time of year. I've seen many of those but not here and we don't have (inaudible) neither do they on this particular project so would it be better presumably yes. Would it completely address the question of the change of character to make this house out of style, out of character, out of size, out of scope with the historic group of which it's a member it wouldn't solve that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that ship has sailed. KLARI NEUWELT: Pardon me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's out of scale now with the rest of the other, that's already a done deal. KLARI NEUWELT : But it's an ample two story house now that is very different from the one story house that was there till about ten years ago but it is still while somewhat larger and certainly more the various dormers and protuberances are different and more visible and more prominent than any of the architectural features of the adjoining houses. Nevertheless one story, two stories this would be a very substantial addition to the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me ask Mike the same question. ER October S, 2017 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK: Which was? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Which was what would the impact be if it turned out to be a one story attached garage without a second floor? MIKE KIMACK : You wouldn't be able to make the connection back because the walkway is in the back the staircase is in the back of that garage to get access and you need a headroom in order to get up to that second floor to get access to the bedroom. If you cut it down you wouldn't have that access. You'd cut out the access to the garage to the house because there isn't CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Should it not be reconfigured to have access to the house at the ground level? Why does' it have to have access on the second story? MIKE KIMACK : Well the ground level basically is the staircase there at the ground level it's going up primarily and the on the ground level CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not for us to design the project. MIKE KIMACK : I know that, I'm trying to accommodate looking at it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Given the space that's available in the front and at the you know and bringing something that's an attached garage onto the front elevation of this house I can see a number of ways where it would be possible to reconfigure things so that you can enter in to the house from the ground level and not have a second story. I'm not suggesting that's an answer, I'm exploring it because we need to to see what kinds of options are available. MIKE KIMACK : Architecturally, I'm looking at the drawing with the staircase in the back of the garage right now as it goes up to the second floor, what you're suggesting is go up to that intermediate landing which is next to the existing bedroom. I'm not quite sure I'm guessing it may be feasible. I'm not quite sure of the height variations. MEMBER DANTES : Can you talk about the shadows first? How much higher is the existing ridge than the proposed garage? MIKE KIMACK : Less, the existing house, is 31 feet the proposed ridge is 24. To bring another point up you see where the north arrow is? The sun comes up over their property and this is away from them and then it swings over the bay and that's behind the house so they're really by the time it gets to the west there it's still behind the house. There's going to be no shadows cast over their house. It's just not possible given the location plus the proposed garage even with the second floor is less than the overall house less in size and there were I had put together prior findings and etc. like that other decisions you've made in the area with approved October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting construction of ZBA file 5758 approved construction of a new two story addition with less than the 9.3 from the side property line although that may be is that me let me see the tax maps drive me crazy no that's another neighbor. The second one is the one you approved to allow the second floor to go up closer than what we're asking for now so there is already precedent on the existing (inaudible) for an addition that is not going to be anywhere closer to the addition you already approved. KLARI NEUWELT : I'd like to address that at a moment when you MIKE KIMACK : There's also ZBA file 6439 approved a proposed addition less than the code required setback of 15 feet and a combined setback of 35 feet and that was tax map 98-4-23. This is in your file and also the cases are there too. I downloaded that for you also. -So on this existing site there was an approval for a variance six feet away for second floor. We're asking for 10 which is greater than that obviously. We don't have a shadow issue with the neighbor to that side simply because the way the sun comes up and then swings around through there and aesthetically it's our contention when you look at the existing house and how high vertical it is from an architectural point of view you will see that that's going to bring the house down and make it much more assimilative perhaps is a good word to use in terms of making it not so vertical and so box like as it is now especially with that little section in the back. By putting this garage against it and by the A-line roof etc. like that it's going to make the house much more in conformance with a more pleasing style of a house than it is now but architecturally that's a choice for the owners and that's something that had already been approved with all of the dormers etc. like that with the second floor addition. And also for the walkway for the staircase going up was part of that approval too and I do agree and I think my owners agree that by putting this garage where it is not only achieves their purpose which is to have the ability to get into the house but also to cover a car. It's one thing to say we can walk down to the house, it's another thing to say it's a distance and you're carrying groceries and you're walking in the rain and the snow and they're getting older like I am and it's their choice to have a house connect with that level of convenience. Yes it does require a variance but a variance for a lesser setback that's already been set on the same house and we don't have a shade issue. We would consider additional plantings along that side over there for the garage for the neighbor if that is the desire of the Board and extend CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The only thing I want- to point out to you is that the only way to access the house- is from a second story right is that what you're saying? You're going out of the garage proposed -garage stairs and into this bonus room. MIKE KIMACK : Yeah, and I think it's fine because CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And why would you be carrying groceries upstairs? EN October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : Well you're getting in there basically into the garage. It's the only way to get from the garage to the house in that situation it's on the second story. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN ` It's the only covered way. You could also have a door and walk right straight out to the patio and through the front door that's not completely covered. I'm just trying to explore the options and I can I ask you Mr. Pirozzi for one second, your neighbor asked if she could speak next and then would you please go afterwards. KLARI NEUWELT : I don't care whether I'm next or after but I appreciate the chance. Three things now, one is with regard to the prior variance that you folks granted. It was about ten years ago. It was an application by the sellers to the Pirozzi family and it was not at the first floor. The most radical change that was being done in that renovation was to add the second floor and all of it was apparently as of right except for this small imposition at the second floor facing us we chose in that context not to object. We don't love it. We wish it weren't there but in context it is a very, very small incursion into the required setback compared to what this very large new structure would be that's number one. Number two what I wanted to point out about the plantings because the Chairperson had asked about that and I don't think I gave a full answer. Regardless of what the plantings would be on the border between our property and the applicant's property as they said they are substantial now they are largely our the trees and they've got some stuff over there too that doesn't address at all the impact on the rest of our immediate neighborhood. If you have a'chance to take a look at page eight of our submission we have a photo there that's taken from Smith Rd. Smith Rd. is a small private road our road association, you could walk down to the beach all the time sometimes we get bicycles but everybody has a view as they go by the house on the west down through there expansive driveway right towards this property so all of our neighbors many, many of them I mean there are many more of them than are my husband and me and our visitors would have a direct view even if it were just one story I think of this structure whether it's one story or two and the photo on page eight of our submission shows that. Finally just really quickly I am not an expert in shadow studies. I doubt that council for the applicant is an expert but the existing houses already create some shadows. There are times of day until the sun is more in the south in the winter it comes more northerly in the summer. There are times of day when our own house shadows our own yard. There are times of day when their house shadows their yard and vice versa and all the way across but I find it hard to believe of (inaudible) so far that there would be no shadow impact on our yard and that of the neighbors on the other side by adding this structure in between because the structures themselves depending on where the sun is any particular moment they create shadows. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you; whenever you're ready. October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PIROZZI : So one of the issues when we faced when we designed this was, the house is raised and the garage would be at grade level so where the two structures meet you can't get into the house from the garage. You can get under the house. The second thing that we did is that we wanted to tie it into the house in a way that didn't look like a box sticking off the house. So we tried to line it up so that it tied into the existing dormer and balcony on the second floor so that when you looked at the house it would be an "L" version of the current house rather than just a square straight up version. The staircase issue is from the garage you would go up a half of flight of stairs to get in to the house or a full flight of stairs to get to the second floor which is really only one and a half floors. The second floor is a half a story lower than the rest of the house which may not show in these elevation diagrams because you walk out of the garage, you go up a few steps you're at the landing level in the current house between the first and second floors and then you go up from there if you go up another couple of steps you're in the bonus room level which is the floor of that is like six feet lower than the floor of the current bedroom which is on the second floor. Part of the design was to tie it in to the house. The other part of the design was to get a garage that was attached to the house because we're going to be here in the winter and the bonus room was really more well if we have the garage and it has a roof that's not flat we would be able to utilize the space for storage, for a gym for anything. We have no basement and that was the whole purpose of it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think; well we don't have a site section; I mean a building section. We have just the garage section that would have explained the various distributions of levels and so on. I don't think the question is architectural style per say. I mean I can certainly understand the rationale behind all of the decisions both functionally and aesthetically that were made. What the Board here is trying to do is to question every possible angle to see whether or not you have alternatives or you don't and that's part of what ANTHONY PIROZZI : Yes, we looked at the alternative of putting it in the called the street side front I guess yard and there was an issue there because of the proximity to the pool. Then we looked at putting it in to the back up against the house but more centered so it would be splitting the actually moving it closer to my neighbors on the east side further away to pick up that four and a half to five feet that would make it non-compliant. The problem with that is then the driveway itself would have to be on such an angle to get in because now the garage is behind the pool which the pool was existing, if the pool wasn't there we wouldn't have this problem. KLARI NEUWELT : If I might just say one oh I'm so sorry. CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : Nick did you want to ask the applicant? W October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah, I was curious Mike, Mr. Pirozzi you had talked about the prior ZBA decision and I was just curious in the approval of the relief requested in item three it says that the effect of the change would be mitigated by that fact that the footprint of the house in hence the distance of the house from the neighboring houses will remain the same ... so while it is not a condition it's a discussion about I believe and I was not on this Board when this variance was granted they were working off of an existing footprint. MIKE KIMACK: That was the 6.2 correct? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right the 6.2 for distance so as I read town law section well the bulleted item three how do you interpret that or what is your discussion to that point? MIKE KIMACK : You mean the bulleted item three that I put together here? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, no on the variance for the second story addition for the side yard setback it indicates that the footprint will remain the same and it was listed as a condition. MIKE KIMACK : Well, the footprint of the existing house will remain the same. What we're asking for is a variance which really is an addition to that one in separate and part. You got your footprint of the house, you build a second floor on it and as a result of that you fell within the non -conformity setback on that one side. The interesting thing about the way and 1'd throw this in; if you wanted to basically is we are required in that particular non -conforming size lot to have a 15 foot setback and a 10 foot setback primarily. The disapproval when the Building Department did it happened to choose 15 feet on that side. They could have easily of chosen 15 feet on the other side and made 10 feet on that side. Now I'm not quite sure whether the prior decision locked it in or so but I don't know where in the code it says that somehow if you.make the decision which side is 15 and which side is 10. 1 noted it when they wrote the disapproval. I noted it. I thought because of the fact that you already approved an existing building with a second floor on it with six feet that this in itself would not be certainly any closer and be further back and it's not part of that decision. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well and it's noted here that there is not a; that the combined side yard setbacks are conforming. In other words they were not sited as being non -conforming because you have ten on one side as proposed and you have sixteen it looks like. MIKE KIMACK : Now you've only got six or seven feet. MEMBER PLANAMENTO: East is 7.6. MIKE KIMACK: It's only 7.6 correct. M October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 7.6 so yeah why were I don't know why I guess there's an at grade patio. MIKE KIMACK: That's an on grade patio. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well than that's why then that's not included if it's at grade. MIKE KIMACK : It's not included but my point is, is that the house the existing house, the existing house itself is set six foot two on one side and seven foot six on the other so choose your poison. Where do you want to put the fifteen feet? I mean I can ask now that you know we could amend and I can ask for the fifteen feet to be put on or the ten foot to be put on that side and the fifteen on the other side and then we are in conformance with the garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Well that's one way to do it go back and ask the Building Department to reexamine the existing MIKE KIMACK : I think they made a choice simply because I'm not quite sure they thought it through I mean generally CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm not seeing where you're talking about where the fifteen feet would be applied. MIKE KIMACK : Well it could be applied to either side because you have to have twenty five total in order to be in conformance. The building as exists it's in non-conformance on both sides so the question that I was raising is does it matter which side we put the fifteen foot on in order to argue the non-conformance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The reason they did this is because you're applying for the addition. MIKE KIMACK : If they wrote it up where it was ten feet on that side. CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah but then you'd have a non -conformity on the other side so MIKE KIMACK : Well no because the other side oh I see what you mean because basically your tying to the house okay. MEMBER DANTES : I think we have enough information. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah.I agree nothing's going to be gained by going back to MIKE KIMACK : You know me; I'll argue all the points down to the last nibble guys, but I just want to point out it's a bit of an anomaly basically but you're right I mean if you take a position October S, 2017 Regular Meeting you're adding the garage to the existing house therefore the other comes into play then it doesn't matter which side the fifteen's on. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well your explanation to Nick was accurate. When the Board writes up something say with footprint won't be expanded all that means is that an addition is not being proposed to change the existing setback. In other words the first floor is staying the way it is, the second floor is going right on top of the way it is. It's not poking out further for example or the bottom floor, the original first floor is not being expanded. It's staying the way it is and something is being put on top of it. That's What that language actually refers to. It doesn't suggest unless it's so conditioned that no further expansion is possible. Everybody always has the right to apply. It doesn't mean they get it but they have the right to apply unless they have a lot coverage issue in which case they have to get a variance for that which is why in the beginning I asked what the lot coverage was to see what you're permitted and you are permitted by law 20% maximum as of right so it's just one of these long skinny lots like we have all over town and it limits property owners but they limit them for a reason. MIKE KIMACK : It does fall into you're right with the size and the conformance of that particular lot, anything would be difficult. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah. I mean especially since it's skewed. I mean it isn't even a straight lot you know it make things more MIKE KIMACK: More like a left hook. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyway is there anything else from anyone because we do need to move on. KLARI NEUWELT : Might I just say a couple of really quick things. With regard, oh of course, I'm so sorry. MEMBER ACAMPORA : I just wanted to ask, do you know when the last time the cesspool system was upgraded? MIKE KIMACK : I don't but I will suggest this basically if there is an issue. ANTHONY PIROZZI : The cesspool or septic system was upgraded when the second floor addition was done and there's four systems or whatever. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rings. MIKE KIMACK : If that is the case it would be upgraded and it would meet for a four bedroom at least as minimum requirement. m October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from the Board? MEMBER DANTES : I'd just like to get the picture and the State variance information and KLARI NEUWELT : If I might just really quickly, with regard to the lot coverage and it may be irrelevant; however, there is a lot of discussion of it in the mandate about the figure I don't mean mentioned I think mentioned earlier seven, eight percent we've received a couple successive versions of a site plan which consistently show existing coverage 11.6 and proposed coverage is 13.5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That probably includes the swimming pool. KLARI NEUWELT : It does. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because this is not down here on this MIKE KIMACK : It may well be but thankfully we are still under twenty. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh yeah; but it's true the swimming pool is not listed down here as existing. So I'll tell you what anyone else in the audience? MIKE KIMACK : We'll get you a photo of the plantings. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of a photograph of'the existing plantings, information on the state variance and an update on lot area'calculations. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) up October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting HEARING # 7090—JEFFREY S. MACDONALD and COURTNEY MACDONALD CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Jeffrey MacDonald and Courtney MacDonald #7090. This is a request for variances under Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's May 15, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to reconstruct an existing deck and pergola attached to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% at 324 Avenue B in Fishers Island. STEVE HAM : Good morning Steven Ham 38 Nugent Street Southampton for the applicants. I have the original sign posting and a memorandum. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, Steve. I should just start out by telling you we are pleased to report that this is one of the sites we were actually able to inspect at least some of us that's very helpful. STEVE HAM : Well I don't know how much you know. My clients purchased the property about ten or twelve years ago. At the time it had a deck on it. There was a subject of a C.O. The deck had been there at least twenty years I think at that time even. And of course over the years it fell into disrepair and so last November they hired a contractor who just removed it thinking he can put it back without a problem. Then they realized that they needed a variance for the front yard setback which is shown on the survey and in connection with that application I had a new surveyor to survey of the property updated and it turned out that lot coverage was also exceeded so we added that we originally had a Notice of Disapproval just for the setback and now covers the lot coverage which with the reinstitution of the deck to the property would indicate a seven percent increase over the twenty percent maximum. I've given you a memorandum which addresses the statutory criteria so I won't go into everything. I just want to emphasize the obvious point; the neighborhood has had a deck here on this property in the same footprint for at least thirty years. So the character of the neighborhood is not impacted at all. Secondly the one property that would have any conceivable impact would be the one adjoining on the west which is Donald and Viola Mayer and as you can see from the survey submitted with the application and I confirmed with a surveyor and mentioned in my memorandum that deck is about twelve feet off the street line whereas the closest the reconstruction of my client's deck would be 26.5 feet. Furthermore as shown on the photos and on the survey and you've been to the site there is a hedgerow between these two properties so overall I don't think it will create any shadow issues either'to put this deck back in its location. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat any questions, Eric? This is the quickest history M] October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting STEVE HAM : Thank you it's been so long since I've been here you've got two new members now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep, absolutely and thank you for your memorandum as always. That's always very helpful. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PALANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7092 — FRANK MCGINNIS and CATHERINE MCGINNIS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Frank McGinnis and Catherine McGinnis #7092. This is a request for variance under Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's June 7, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize "as built" additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet at 490 Windy Point Lane in Southold. EILEEN SANTORA : Good morning my name is Eileen Santora. I live at 650 Vanston Rd. Cutchogue New York. I'm here representing Frank and Catherine McGinnis who live at 490 Windy Point Lane Southold. Mr. and Mrs. McGinnis, Catherine is 78 and Frank is 84. They have decided even though they don't like to think about it that they are getting older and that they had to get their paperwork in order and they did find out that they had this eight foot addition onto the utility room that they had added on.a number of years ago when their oil tank was getting all rusty outside and they were afraid that would you know hurt the environment so they added eight feet onto their utility room because they have no basement to put the oil burner. Not the oil burner just the oil tank because the burner had already been there and ER October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting then low and behold they found out when I went to file for the permit that it was overstepping a front yard which to them that's their side yard anyway. It's on a private little dirt road that winds around the house. This is why I'm here. All the neighbors have seen this and have no problem with it and I'm just asking for permission to keep this eight by fourteen eight feet out of the existing four feet wide utility room. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric? MEMBER DANTES : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well just for the record the enclosure is on a right of way a small right of way that services just another few houses perhaps and it appears to be in a side yard. It wouldn't be an issue if in fact it were a side yard but that right of way is a second front yard and the house actually fronts on the other entrance Windy Point Lane which is even actually off of that so Gerry do you have any questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No I don't. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have just one. It's not related to what you're applying for Eileen but there appears to be an outdoor shower, does the outdoor shower have or does it need a C. of 0.? EILEEN SANTORA : Yea that's a part of the plan that's attached to it and that's part of the plan that went in to the Building Department for permits and C.O.'s. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually we got comments from the Town Engineer who say this in and of itself does not require storm water management controls however because it's so close to Corey Creek he is recommending to us that we condition the approval on the basis that the entire site complies with Chapter 236. 1 suspect it does already. There's gutters and leaders certainly on the house. EILEEN SANTORA : Yes I got that email I read it this morning -but I got it yesterday and it disturbed me because everybody else in the whole neighborhood in that little area was built the same time. The house was built in 1972 and they all have leaders and gutters but we do not, have anything else. M October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think any of the storm water controls would be necessary on the site. I mean I think it's basically okay but his job is to make sure that all run off is contained on site so that the creek is not adversely impacted. EILEEN SANTORA : I saw as I was reading the letter it said review consider so I said okay because at this age they really they maintain the property as you can see when you went to see it was beautifully maintained but they don't have any extra money to start doing anything else to it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from the Board? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yeah I do, is the oil tank raised in that building? EILEEN SANTORA: Yes. MEMBER ACAMPORA : How high up is it raised? EILEEN SANTORA : I would say like sixteen inches off the concrete well there's the concrete which is four inches the grade and then the legs of the tank. The tank I would say it's over a foot so I would say like sixteen inches and it's a new tank now so it should be okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in the audience wishing to address the application? I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) f October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting HEARING #7093 —ARTHUR GRUNEISEL and JULIANE TOMISER GRUNEISEL CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Arthur Gruneisel and Juliane Tomiser Gruneisel #7093. This is a request for variances under Article III Section 280-15, Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's June 7, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling and an existing accessory garage at 1) proposed additions less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet and 2) existing accessory garage located in other than the code required rear yard at 2875 Pine Tree Road in Cutchogue. PAT MOORE : Good morning Patricia Moore on behalf of Juliane Gruneisel. I've submitted in writing the applicable provisions. You have a copy of the survey that pretty much shows how this proposal is designed. It's a very modest application in that it is a second story to the existing house, the existing house as you can see was quite old and in need of renovations. This lot is relatively narrow lot that is about ninety feet in width and the location of the house is more towards the north. The house is as far as setbacks go the additions will be conforming. Where we are non -conforming is a second floor deck and staircase going down. My client has numerous family members that are fire fighters and she has .a particular desire to maintain clear access from the second floor so that was a design a very intentional design. It is the minimal patio inclusive of stairs or decking inclusive of stairs that could be designed to give it clear access down to the first floor. The garage ends up being in a side yard, the garage is existing. It had received a variance at some point many years ago. When the house is being expanded towards the front places the garage partly in the side yard so that's one of the variances just as a matter of location and again the additions are relatively minor in nature but due to the existing location of the house and the width of the property results in the need for a variance. The setback required is 15 and we are proposing 10.6 to the second floor deck. The staircase the Building Department considered that to be just an egress staircase so they did not site it as a variance. We'll address any questions you might have. As you can see we have a new sanitary system being designed here as well. So the house the sanitary, everything is being upgraded. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we also have a LWRP consistency determination which is good. You didn't get a copy? PAT MOORE : No I didn't get a copy but if it's a consistent that's good. We were having some issues with our email. I talked to your IT and I don't know it doesn't want to talk to me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the garage in the side yard is only a consequence of the proposed bump out in the front of the October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Correct, it's actually more conforming CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A very small portion of the existing garage will be in the side yard it's more of a technical variance than anything else. Let's see if anyone has questions, Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You know I visited the site and I was impressed with the landscaping, the orientation of well certainly from the front I think that the improvements desired are not detrimental to neighbor in a sense that there will be any impact but the question I sort or had relative to I saw a fill I think for an oil tank, is there a buried oil tank on site? Is that being abated or you'll continue the use of that? ARTHUR GRUNEISEL : My name is Arthur Gruneisel and we've purchased an oil tank and we were planning it's in the basement of the house now it's not hooked up but as soon as the renovation is to begin we plan to have that tank removed or filled and use one that's inside the basement rather than having it in the ground because I believe that when it's in the ground we've had it checked it's not leaking but it's original and I think the house was built in the thirties so it's very old (inaudible). I think the oil tank was put in in the sixties when they renovated the house and put a kitchen on it but still it's been in there a long time it has to be or at least you know (inaudible) we'll have that done you know they're putting in the cesspool (talking very low inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay Gerry anything? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : That proposed second story addition is only over half of the house? PAT MOORE : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric? MEMBER DANTES : No, no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? W October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7086SE — BRION LEWIS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Brion Lewis #7086SE. The applicant requests a special exception under Article III Section 280-13B(14). The applicant is the owner requesting authorization to establish an accessory bed and breakfast accessory and incidental to the residential occupancy in this single family dwelling with three (3) bedrooms for lodging and serving of breakfast to the B&B casual transient roomers located at 315 Maple Lane in Southold. Good morning please state your name for the record please. BRION LEWIS : Good morning Brion Lewis. I live at 315 Maple Lane Southold. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As you know we've all inspected the property. Let's begin with the plans that you have, Mr. Lewis would you tell us a little bit about your residential status in that dwelling. BRION LEWIS : This is my permanent residence. I'm retired now from Brooklyn originally and we bought the house in 2014 and that's what else can I say. So the idea is now that I'm semi- retired I would say is just to provide a little supplemental income so that I can stay here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you aware that as I read into the record that the accessory bed and breakfast is accessory to the principal residence which means that any time a guest is present BRION LEWIS : That I need to be there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You must be in BRION LEWIS : Yes I'm well aware of that yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright. Do you have any other residence at the moment? October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting BRION LEWIS : Yes. My wife still works. She's in Manhattan and we have an apartment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's look at the parking. You're proposing three bedrooms upstairs which would need three parking spaces and then you have to have two parking spaces for the principal dwelling. Can you describe to us where five parking spaces on.site will be located? BRION LEWIS : I think that was you guys all saw them I think when you made the inspections but there's room there's a secondary surfaced parking area which is on the other side of the house not where the driveway is which could house I though four cars but perhaps three and then in the driveway itself there is a two car garage which I could use for myself and in addition to that there is space for two or three additional cars not blocking the driveway off to the side. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The bedroom that you're proposing for yourself with bathroom BRION LEWIS : Correct on the first floor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You will have to indicate somewhere since it's not en suite it's not the bathroom is not in the bedroom. BRION LEWIS : Correct it's on the plan. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes you'll have to put private or something. BRION LEWIS : Oh sure a signage you mean? I need to put signage up for that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah. Alright let's continue. Let's see if there's anybody else, Eric any questions at the moment? MEMBER DANTES : I do not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat any questions you might have at the moment? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Not at the moment. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see what the audience has because I presume a number of you are here for that reason. If anyone would like to speak to this application please come up to the podium and state your name and tell us what you'd like us to know. 31 October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting JOHN ROONEY : Good morning my name is John Rooney and I live at 425 Maple Lane which is right next door to Brion's property and we oppose the granting of this exception for the following reasons and I want to know if (inaudible) beginning by the way the following objections imply nothing at all personal against Brion or his wife. There is no underlying problem on a personal nature but the fact that Brion's idea requires a special exception indicates that it goes against the very nature of Maple Lane. The need for an exception illustrates the very reason that Southold has zoning laws in the first place. Maple Lane is a quiet private road as indicated by the sign at its entrance erected at residence expense over a decade ago. There is not even mail delivery on. Maple Lane in other words the sign says private road no outlet okay and we all put that up together. If you were going to drive down Maple Lane at night you'll see the absence of artificial lighting which all of us treasure. It's always been that way and it still is. When my wife and Lbought our home in 1998 we were told that Maple Lane was one of the best streets in town and we were immediately impressed by the truth of that claim and this has never changed in nineteen years. Maple Lane is exclusively residential with no commercial activities. The only exceptions actually front on Main Rd. There was a former law office of Mr. Bruer and then there is the Historical Society and a place like Bruer's former law office would actually be appropriate for what Brion wants to do because it's on the Main Rd. on a busy commercial thoroughfare. Maple Lane is maintained exclusively at resident's actual physical effort and or expense. That is paving, patching, plowing. In fact my wife and I for ten years we were the coordinators of the group effort to maintain the street. We actually did physical patching for several years as did other residents who preceded us as the coordinators and we now have a different coordinator and we all went in on repaving the street. We pay for the plowing and so forth it's a totally private thing in fact there is no mail delivery on Maple Lane and Brion's idea would suddenly be inviting transient public use on this private road at any hour, any day for his financial benefit. His idea has been a progression from the time of his purchase when after doing extensive renovation work he used the property more as a transient rental asset on such on line sites as AirBNB, My New Place and so forth. In fact I have only spoken with Brion I think maybe a half dozen times in the roughly three years that he's owned the property and I've only spoken to his wife once and in fact I could not tell you her first name right now. There are several families with young children and a similar number with young grandchildren including my wife and I who use the quiet who enjoy and can safely enjoy the present quiet nature of Maple Lane. Real estate values, finally on Maple Lane will absolutely suffer for the first time with a change in its very nature and attraction that this would bring with such commercialization but 315 Maple Lane sales potential will likely be enhanced where it to have a precedent setting B&B rezoning so for all of the above reasons I oppose the granting of the special exception. , CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you anyone else? 32 October S, 2017 Regular Meeting DOROTHY PHILLIPS : Hi good morning my name is Dorothy Phillips and I would like to submit my opposition to the variance application also. Initially, I would like to say I have no personal qualms against my neighbor Brion who've I've only seen a handful of times and his wife who I only met the day they closed on the house and have not seen her since. I do object to the variance though. Maple Lane is a private street maintained and run jointly by the homeowners along this street. If you grant a variance for transients you are not just permitting Brion to rent his house you're permitting Brion to rent out our private lane. We maintain Maple Lane for us the homeowners not for Brion's commercial operation. People live on Maple Lane because we want a quiet, private street. We don't want our street opened up to a commercial premises and I don't want transients coming and going and wandering up and down our streets. Who is going to indemnify the residents of Maple Lane if one of Brion's commercially invited guests falls on a pothole or slips on the ice on Maple Lane. If the town grants Brion a variance thus creating this potential situation is Town going to indemnify the owners of Maple Lane from potential personal liability? Brion has been violating the building code since he bought the house, renting it out on weekends to transients and most of the time Brion isn't even home when the guests arrive. This year we've had various people coming and going on weekends. We had a couple form England with their baby. We had two brothers a wife and another baby wandering up and down our street all weekend long and of course we had one older gentleman who sat partially in his underwear and partially in his pajamas sunning himself on the front porch and wandering up and down the street. My granddaughter was present that weekend and it made me very nervous to have transients there. Also as recently as a few weeks ago during the pendency of Brion's variance application a couple pulled up with a younger couple and a baby in the car and asked my husband and asked where is the B&B? I told my husband he should of told them there is no B&B on Maple Lane but my husband said you must be referring to this house and they said oh yes and they said don't worry we will be very quiet. Again, my belief was Brion was not even home when that couple arrived and when they stayed the weekend and Brion did not come at all during the course of that weekend. Last year he rented to a group of young adults perhaps a post prom party. They were partying all weekend and then he had a group of guests one time that were all unrelated. There were cars all over the place and people all over the place. It's not what Maple Lane is. Maple Lane is a private lane. I object to the proposed parking plan. The plan proposes a commercial style parking lot along Maple Lane with two cars next to each other and then two cars next to each other behind that. That commercial parking lot is going to be a wall of cars next to my home. If you grant Brion a variance you'll be granting him permission to do exactly what he's been doing for the past several years illegally. How is the town going to ensure that Brion is present in the house when it is rented when he's not present now for a lot of his guests? Brion does not live on Maple Lane as a primary residence. My belief is he lives in Brooklyn, his business is in Brooklyn and that makes enforcement very difficult. Finally, if you grant Brion a variance you'll be diminishing the value of our property while KK October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting enhancing the value of Brion's business property. No one wants to buy a house next to a commercial residence on a private street or a B&B. We're small lots on Maple Lane. Ours is only seventy feet wide. It's not as if we have this huge acre where we're separated from our own neighbor's home. We are not zoned for B&B and there is a reason we're not zoned for B&B. Brion is not a reason to change that code. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else? EMILY FRANCHINA : Hi good morning my name is Emily Franchina and I reside at 320 Maple Lane directly across from Brion at 315. 1 want to thank you all for taking the time to meet with us today to review the application for the special use permit. I'm the newest homeowner on Maple Lane purchasing my house with my husband on November 30, 2016. We looked for a residence for some time and we were delighted to find our home. We like the fact that it was a dead end, private road with just a few other houses. We bought the house because the neighborhood was quiet, seemed to be divided between year round and part timers. I quickly met the residents on the street as they welcomed us as their new neighbors. I didn't meet Brion until late spring of this year when I was weeding which I needed a lot of. It seemed like he was a nice man. He told me he owned the house across the street and that he and his wife lived in Park Slope. He said he owned a construction business in Brooklyn and his wife was affiliated with photographers. I told him how glad I was to know this as my husband is in the arts and I hoped to meet her soon. I haven't seen Brion in the neighborhood again until most recently but I have seen lots of different people in cars coming and going primarily from Thursday to Sunday. It must have been rather obvious as one of my friends remarked that our neighbor seems to be running a hotel. As you can see or maybe not I had foot surgery in July so I like to say I feel a little bit like Jimmy Stewart in Rear Window because it's my right foot, I can't move and I've been sitting a lot so after my friend you know I had friends coming in to visit me back and forth and that comment got me thinking that perhaps this was the case so I checked AirBNB and I saw that Brion and Leslie were running a business not only from 315 Maple but also an apartment in France. AirBNB had bookings for 315 Maple in to October 2017. Past reviews beginning from before the house was renovated and following the interior renovations. The bookings were for short durations under fourteen days. In addition I saw the residence on Mynewplace.com another rental site and I have the screenshot and also Zillow for sale by owner. I'm aware that the Town of Southold had a code change for a minimum stay of fourteen days. I looked at the code once I received notice of this hearing. I also read an article in the Hamptons Magazine where our Town Supervisor Scot Russell stated that the code change was created because of illegal AirBNB and. the commercialization of our residential communities. He said in that article landlords aren't just renting out their house they're renting out their community. I had an opportunity to review the application for the B&B pursuant to a FOIL request. The proposed parking lot for tandem parking of four cars across the street from me is M October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting most unappealing and would commercialize our neighborhood. I would not have bought my house with a parking lot across the street or a B&B across the street. The application for the B&B was to take place on September 7, 2017 based on emails I saw in the file dated early August I believe it was August 2"d. Brion asked for a deferral until October because he was away until September 6, 2017. Although he might have been away there were rentals each weekend in August including a young man strolling down the street in his pajamas one morning and I believe my neighbor referenced that. Brion produced three pieces of evidence that Maple Lane is his principal residence and that he lives here. I asked about this because I wasn't sure why a PSEG, a driver's license and a copy of his voters registration was in the file and the woman who works for the Zoning Board indicated that that was a way of proving his residence in Maple Lane but as my neighbor had already testified every homeowner on Maple Lane is given a free mailbox because US Post office does not service our private road and of course each one of us has a PSEG bill whether we live in the house full time or not. I believe that Brion's license also shows his primary residence as Brooklyn and then finally and I think significantly Brion produced a voter's registration and I'm guessing he did that to show he lives there. However I printed out his active voter registration in Kings County with his principal place of residence as 606A Third St. in Brooklyn for the Board members review and I have that if you'd like to look at it. I don't again I don't bear Brion any ill will. I met him once. I've never met his wife but after almost a year in residence I do know most of my neighbors, I know their children; I know the names of their dogs and cats. It's a small residential community and I ask that you do not legitimize any commercial activity on Maple Lane. Thank you very much. May I give you copies of this or is this something I should submit separately? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, please provide that. EMILY FRANCHINA : I'm sorry; I only made two copies. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's fine we can make copies. Thanks so much. LINDA KESSLER : Morning my name is Linda Kessler. I reside at 235 Maple Lane in Southold. I've been a resident on the block since 1984 to our small community at that time we were the kids on the block and we bought on Maple Lane due to its privacy and the fact that it was a close knit community. I again state as what my neighbors have stated this is no ill will towards Brion. I know Brion by speaking with him and watching him do his renovation but I must say that the experience of having people come and go from the house has been difficult at times especially when they were there for long weekends or for a week having a business in Greenport sometimes coming home late at night and exhausted I had to experience loud music or frolicking at the pool, people being inebriated in the driveway which is parallel to the south side of my house and you know the loud voices and the carrying on it has been a disturbance. My 35 October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting daughter who's bedroom is on that side has many times she's had to have her air conditioner just to drown out some of the conversations it seems that the side door is used as the main door. We view the change as a quality of life issue and to have such a wonderful block and then to know there will be strangers. We're one of the houses now that does have a grandchild. Our children grew up by (inaudible) and had the freedom to do, whatever they wanted, to visit the neighbor's houses we never had a problem there. So in essence I have to say that I would like this to be denied and as far as trying to maintain our block as a nice block that is what I'm in favor of. I also our neighbor Kelly Bruer who couldn't be here this morning said to put on record that he's in favor of the B&B being denied and would like it not to be on our block and that is what I have to say from my household and (inaudible). MIKE DOMINO : Good morning, first thank you for the opportunity to speak and thank you for your services to the town. I want to make it clear that I'm speaking as a private individual in favor of my friends the Kessler family and the Rooney family. I've known them for years. I'd like to read into the record and submit it if it's your pleasure this letter from Dr. Kessler. To the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals re: Brion Lewis 315 Maple Lane subject: B&B. Let me f begin by saying I hold no ill feeling towards Brion but I am against the making of his house located at 315 Maple Lane Southold into a B&B for several reasons. Firstly, I bought my home which is directly next door to Brion's house at 235 Maple Lane Southold New York in 1984 because it was on a private residential street, a street that my children and now my grandchildren can safely walk and play on without the concern for traffic, noise or strangers. Secondly, I'm against allowing a property in this quiet private residential street to turn into a commercial enterprise where there is no control over who how many or what can take place on the block. Thirdly, we as a block of neighbors maintain the street as we pay for plowing and repairing of Maple Lane. What if a B&B tenant of Brion's slips on ice and sues us for the mishap? Why would I or my neighbors want to accept that type of risk? Fourthly, assuming Brion would be the ideal B&B manager and an excellent neighbor what happens when he sells the business? What control would there ever be as to the next business to take up residence on our block? Lastly, what is the upside for us the neighbors? Brion gets the benefit of starting a new business and we get no positive gain. For us the neighbors there is only risk and a loss of our quiet private residential street and the probable loss of value to our home should we decide to try and sell our house located next door to a B&B. Why would I say yes to Brion's project and give up all the reasons we chose this private quiet residential street to live on so that a B&B could open. My vote is a definite and strong no. Respectfully submitted Dr. George Kessler P. 0. Box 140 Maple, Lane Southold. I'd like to add some additional remarks on my own. I'm going to reference a famous economic paper written by Garrett Harden in 1968 and it's called The Tragedy of the Commons and I strongly recommend it. I first came upon this paper in an engineering course at Stony Brook University. It's an economic theory of a situation we're in October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting a shared resource and here the shared resource the neighborhood. We're an individual users acting independently according to their own self-interest behaves contrary to the common good thereby spoiling that resource. This paper has been globally respected. It has wide applications from the internet use to satellite photographs showing grazing areas communal grazing areas in Africa. Individuals and or corporations working their own self -interests which you expect they're going to do and the fact they should do but in a shared resource system always results in the destruction of that system. This is relevant to this application and in a large respect to this Town of Southold as we deal with quality of life issues. It has accumulative impact of many (inaudible) zoning changes such as this B&B application in a quiet residential neighborhood. Ultimately degrades our shared resource that is our quality of life. Thank you again for your time. MEMBER DANTES: Mr. Lewis who actually owns Maple Lane? BRION LEWIS: I do. MEMBER DANTES : So is it an association or BRION LEWIS : No, no, no it's my wife and I are owners. We own this it's not a corporation it's not an association. MEMBER DANTES : No, no, no the road. BRION LEWIS : Oh you know honestly it's a private road. I don't know MEMBER DANTES : But someone must own it or some entity. BRION LEWIS : I couldn't answer that. Do you guys know how the ownership of Maple Lane is designated? I know it's just called a private road. I know we don't receive any plowing from the city or mail service and in fact we do all share in the maintenance of it, I do as well. First of all I'd like to apologize to my neighbors for really any aggravation or irritation this may have created and it certainly was not my intention to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm sorry Mr. Lewis but you have to address the Board. BRION LEWIS : I'm sorry. No that's all I wanted to say it was not my intention as a matter of fact I thought I was trying in my own way to provide more oversight and more hands on control that's all to what I want to do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anything you heard from any of your neighbors that you would like to address? m October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting BRION LEWIS : I no longer have a business in Brooklyn. We still own an apartment there, never made any issues about that however I am now retired and this is my primary residence and what else can I say. The company that I have is I've retired from it so it no longer exists. It's still in my name on my check book but that's the only there's no business that I run other than that. From an accounting point of view I pay for expenses just for tax purposes of the house and the maintenance of it through my company so that I can declare the appropriate deductions but in terms of still having a business in Brooklyn that's not the case. I haven't worked there for over two and a half years. The address ,changes are legitimate. I do vote here. It's not just a convenience. (inaudible) well it is my primary residence. It's an unusual situation because my wife still works and I choose not to be in Manhattan, I choose to be out here that much is true. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : May I ask if we could have clarification just when I looked at the public records that you submitted or the records that you submitted to illustrate your residency it illustrates a P. 0. Box not the physical site. BRION LEWIS : There's no physical there is no mail delivery service. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well I don't know if one needs mail delivery to have a document to illustrate where you live and then to that point clarification regarding a voter registration card I believe where one has multiple residences in a state you are allowed to choose a location to vote from. BRION LEWIS : As far as I know this is my current if there is any record of me being registered in Brooklyn it's an old record. I haven't voted there in several years. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do you have a driving license, something that would illustrate Maple Lane BRION LEWIS : I have my driver's license and I changed the address with the DMV but they won't they said they're not going to change it on the actual license itself until it comes up for renewal which is next year so I've been to the DMV, I've talked with them and they said just put it on the back that's all you can do that's the legal procedure which is what I did. I understand the what can I say this is my I've retired. This is my primary residence. I do not spend all my time here. I am the first to admit that however it is moving forward that's the plan. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me clarify for everyone's sake what a B&B what part of the code a B&B falls under. It's not a variance. Special exception permits are uses that are permitted in a particular zone district and in this instance a residential zone district upon approval of the Board of Appeals. Now there is a series of criteria that you have to meet. It's part of the application and so on. Residency is imperative. A B&B is not considered by code for commercial use even though people make money on it. It is considered incidental to the principal October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting residential use of the owner occupant. It used to be a boarding house kind of idea. We have seen a number of people when the rental law took effect who had previously been renting out their properties on a short term basis come before us requesting a B&B. When there is a legitimate applicant before us we have to entertain it. By legitimate I mean people who intend to really operate a responsible bed and breakfast. You would not have the code assumes the same sort of adverse impact when guest were there in your home and you were present to monitor them which is one of the reasons why it's considered okay. There's nothing in the code that restricts private roads you know that says you can't have it on a private road. Perhaps in future the code should be changed to say only on a main road can you have a B&B where the impact may be less than on a small residential lane but that is not the case at the moment. Moreover B&B permits do not run with the land. If this was granted to this owner and he moved it's extinguished. Another thing you need to know and that is that if in fact the terms of what a B&B is supposed to be operated by are in any way violated this Board has the right through a public hearing process to revoke that permit. That however puts the neighbors to a difficult position. Neighbors tend to want to be good neighbors and you know not to cause trouble for each other but that would mean you know if the neighbors saw some people there and you weren't there or whoever else was applying if they weren't there they have the right to call the code enforcement and investigate it and so on. I mean so the point is I'm not saying yes or no to this application, I'm just trying to explain nor would I. 1 mean this is a vote of the Board but I'm just trying to explain some of the things that were brought up that people were mentioning. Now it is true we would consider the maintenance of the road. We have granted in past on a private road a B&B and there was a covenant and restriction on it that the owner applicant of the B&B was responsible for the maintenance of the road because there would be increased traffic and potential damage to the road and potential financial hardship for the homeowners on the road. There are a range of things that can be done here. The most important thing is occupancy. You cannot have a B&B unless you are really prepared to run it and to be present. We have denied some of these that have come in because we had concerns about the occupancy that's the story. Generally special exception permits are the kind of things that if you meet these standards you're fine. That's why we have to look at the standards carefully and the standards include things like the use is in harmony with the zone in which it's located. It's in harmony with adjacent use districts. It has adequate on-site parking. You have to have one per bedroom and two for the principal residents. You cannot have any sleeping rooms above a second story because of fire concern. You have to have at least two exists and a window to code to provide emergency egress on second story. There should be no exterior signage identifying the B&B in a residential area. No accessory apartment is authorized. In other words if you have a B&B you can't have an apartment anywhere on the premises. There's a whole range of things. The owner of the premises shall occupy the existing single family dwelling as the owner's principal residence that's number one. Smoke alarms it's a long list. It's MI October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting in the code it's on the town's website. So I just wanted to clarify that. If anyone has any other further questions or comments, let me see if the Board at this point has any questions Eric or Pat do you have any? Yes John you have to come to the mic though. JOHN ROONEY : Bill Nick who lives across the street they said that they had emailed a letter to you a commentary I just wanted to make sure that the Board has received that. I think it was sent to Ms. Fuentes I think it was addressed to. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we did get it. Yep Bill Nick it's in the record. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If I may I sort of have two questions or requests maybe of the applicant or members of the audience may be able to answer. One how many houses or residents are serviced by Maple Lane? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sorry John you have to go back to the mic. Proceedings by law are recorded and transcribed. The reason being this is being recorded and we transcribe the minutes. JOHN ROONEY : There are its sixteen properties but two of those one is again I don't know who the new owner is but Rudy Bruer's law offices was one of them and then the Historical Society is one and then besides those there are fourteen residences. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So fourteen dwellings on Maple. JOHN ROONEY: Yes right all one family. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And approximately seven people not including rather including but not physically here Rudy Bruer are in opposition so it's basically fifty percent? JOHN ROONEY : Yeah because I know I can speak for Sheila Tomes who could not be here who is in opposition. I don't know if she wrote to you or not. So you have Tomes, Bruer, Nick, Kessler, Franchina, Rooney, Hoist who also live across the street I have spoken again you'd have to take my word for that on that but MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Clearly six people have spoken against it at minimum seven if you include JOHN ROONEY : Yeah there's at least two more not here who have expressed, three including Kelly who are not present who have expressed their opposition. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So is that a total of nine about? Well it's here say but it's testimony it's in the record. r;z October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would say it's certainly six. And then the other question that I had or point of order just for clarification as part of the application file I reviewed there's a certificate of occupancy for the applicant dated 1970 where the house which is proposed to be a bed and breakfast was actually granted a C. of 0. as a private one family dwelling with attached medical office so can someone speak to the use prior and that may explain also why the existing sort of parking pad is there. JOHN ROONEY: I don't know. LINDA KESSLER : Linda Kessler. At the time we moved in Lou Edson was living in the house prior to Lou Edson I think it was a doctor Heller who had sold it to Lou Edson. I never met Dr. Heller but I do know that for a short period of time in those days a lot of physicians had an office in their home. MEMBER PLANAMENTO: So is that C. of 0. still valid? MEMBER DANTES : No that would be extinguished. MEMBER PLANAMENTO: Extinguished. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If a use if a permitted use is discontinued for two years it is considered extinguished and someone would have to reapply for a permitted use permit for a permitted use. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't know if this is correct but I've heard or seen I'm trying to remember the exact scenario but where .there is a C. of 0. on something for example if you have a swimming pool but you've gotten rid of the pool you still need to close it with the Building Department so I don't know if this is something does need attention or not. MEMBER DANTES : Technically you should a demolition permit for something like that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO: So I don't know if that's applicable for a medical office use. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I think that's historic what is most before us now is the proposed B&B which falls under a different section in the code anyway, would you like to say anything else sir, anyone else, anything else from the Board? John if you want to make a final comment go up to the JOHN ROONEY : There were seven if you counted the people who I mentioned. The Hoist and Tomes and then there was nobody the problem is when we first got this I didn't understand we didn't I'm not the spokesman for the folks but we thought that we had no idea who got this notice alright and we realized as time went on oh it's only three or four of us who actually go W October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting the notice the contiguous properties. We thought because it was private that everybody would have gotten it so I think there are probably a few people who are not aware of this and nobody that I had spoken to has been in favor of it who is not here so just some perspective on that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No yea there's no the obligation is to post the public hearing notice which the applicant did and to do mailings to adjacent properties and back on the side across the street which he did do. LINDA KESSLER : And just to address what John was just saying, when I spoke to Kelly Bruer I said you know did you receive the letters and so forth and he didn't so apparently maybe it was just the adjacent homes and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what the code requires. They don't notify everybody down the block. LINDA KESSLER : Yeah okay so that's why there may be a discrepancy you know we've reached out to as many people as we you know that we've spoken to but there are only a handful that did receive the notice. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The assumption is the notice of hearing the yellow card that's out in front is to notify everybody else. You put a big sign on the front of the property and it is there, he has put it there. LINDA KESSLER : Yeah I know but realistically when you're driving by and there are hedges that are blocking you know let's say if the sign is here and you're driving this way and you have a hedge here unless you're coming and see it from this angle across the parking lot there could be people that have missed it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just ask you something. Would it be helpful if we adjourned this to the Special Meeting in two weeks and then closed it at that time? That would then give any interested party including you Mr. Lewis if you wish to submit any additional information. If you want to look at what was sent in, if you have any response it'll give you time to think through and do that. We can just adjourn this to the Special Meeting, you can do more outreach to your neighbors if you wish and we'll take in by doing that it means we can take in additional written no more verbal there's not going to be another hearing but we can take in anymore additional written information that the applicant or any of the neighbors wish to submit. LINDA KESSLER : Can this be done by petition or does everybody have to do an individual letter? riv October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It can be done any way you wish as long as those signature and an address so that we are aware of who has what point of view that's fine. How does that seem to the Board? Alright, hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting on Thursday October 19th and you may therefore submit whatever you wish in writing up until that time and it will be closed then and then a decision will be made. It will not be made that night because we may have new information that we have to read and think about but it would be made by the following meeting which would be two weeks after. We meet twice a month. Is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEBMER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7095 — BARRY D. BARTH CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Barry D. Barth #7095. This is a request for a variance under Article XXII Section 280-116 and the Building Inspector's June 1, 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 2040 Central Drive (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Mattituck. Just state your name for the record please. BARRY BARTH : My name is Barry Barth. I live at 2040 Central Drive in Mattituck and this -is my wife Judy. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you and welcome. 'You would like to do an addition that is 89.4 foot from the top of the bluff where the code requires a minimum of 100 feet. We have let's see this is one corner of an area of the asphalt driveway. It's a little deck addition right filling in between your house and an existing deck over a grassy area is that correct? B] October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting JUDY BARTH : There is a slope that comes down to meet where the proposed addition is and either we would have to build a higher retaining wall or build a deck over it to meet ground level there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Soil and Water indicates that the bluff is stable and in excellent condition, that's Suffolk County who did an inspection. They do recommend no heavy construction equipment within twenty five feet from the top of the bluff though a deck doesn't require tractors. They don't look at what you're actually proposing just the setback. There is a prior ZBA decision #5625 December 2, 2004 for rebuilding the old deck at a 76.5 foot bluff setback. So what you are proposing is more landward than the variance you received for that prior deck. BARRY BARTH : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We also have a letter from the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program coordinator saying that the proposed action is consistent. Did you have to get Trustees approval and so on on those decks and steps that are going down to BARRY BARTH : Yes. JUDY BARTH : Those were grandfathered in. They've been there since 1983 1 believe and then when we had redone them to make them safe we had to come in for approval also. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : From the Trustees, right. And do you have C.O.'s on the existing decks? JUDY BARTH : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : You were kind enough to show me the entire piece of property when I was over I just missed Mr. Barth and uniquely we look at a lot of property all over the years but this is really interesting because the house actually sits on a parapet overlooking everything and you kindly pointed out to me the sheer angles that occur or are present on that piece of property and I have to tell you that I have never seen as much foliage around on any of the sound front properties as you have and that's of course one of the reasons that Soil and Water Conservation said it was a very stable bluff. Your request is something that we don't normally see but it's something that you know it certainly probably could be done very easily and all I could say that I don't have any further questions regarding the inspection of the property and I thank you again for showing me all the October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting JUDY BARTH : One of the reasons why the extension is where it is is because last year we tried to put a studio out on other places on the property and you can see by the survey in front of you that it's a long narrow piece. However what it doesn't show is the contour like what you had just told us that there actually is no other place. Where we had set where we could fit perhaps a shed or a studio this is for studio work. This is not a bedroom or another bath this is for my I'm a weaver and this is primarily for to house all my looms is what it's for. We tried to put an outdoor studio but that was also denied by the Building Department because we didn't have the setbacks. It's a long narrow piece so we needed a piece that was not only fifteen from the side line but also one that was on a straight and narrow which we don't have which you pointed out where the house is almost of the parapet. So this was to come up with an idea that would be the least obtrusive to any of the surrounding natural contours of the land. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the proposed one story addition is 96.6 feet and the small deck is at 89.4 feet at the closest point correct? JUDY BARTH : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from the Board, Pat any questions, Nick, Gerry? There is no one else in the audience to address the application lucky you. When neighbors show up you never know what happens. It could be a good thing or a bad thing depending on your point of view. Well hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) Em October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting HEARING # 7096SE & #7097 — STEVEN and JANINE RACANELLI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Steven and Janine Racanelli # 7096SE. This is a request for Special Exception per Town Code pursuant to Article VIII Section 280-38 B (3) the applicant is requesting permission to convert an existing two story single family dwelling into a professional office with second floor apartments located at 870 Love Lane in Mattituck. I'm also going to open up the second application which is for a variance so we can talk about them simultaneously which is application #7097. This is a request for variance under Article VIII Section 280-39 and the Building Inspector's June 29, 2017 amended June 30, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to convert a single family dwelling into a professional office with residential apartments above and to convert an open porch into conditioned space at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 50 feet at 870 Love Lane in Mattituck. Would you like to come to the podium and state your name for the record please? DON FEILER : Good afternoon my name is Don Feiler. I am the architect for the project and agent. Mr. Racanelli is here the owner. The project is about a residential office zone. The owner is proposing a residence and an office for the site. The site plan is scheduled for hearing for the Planning Board October 16th so that is all under way. The site plan is might have a copy of that but it includes the only additions to the building would be an accessory ramp wood ramp to the northern part north western corner of the building which would be a new stoop and steps new entry to the building to the first floor the proposed professional office and parking would be on the north side of the building. You've got nine stalls for office space, two apartment stalls for designated for the apartment and the land as you saw the other day has a fair amount of land there to expand if needed. The proposed apartment would be a one bedroom apartment. The entrance would be in the back corner there's an existing entrance there now. The only interior changes or small changes but the only major ones is changing the stair around inside to accommodate the apartment the private entry. There will be a sprinkler system to code for that second floor apartment and other than that I think it meets all the requirements of the residential office guidelines. It's in harmony with the general purposes of this part of the code. It's very compatible with and again there's the only additions is the ramp, the parking, exterior wouldn't change much at all. The upgrade I mean the finishes upgraded the cedar shingles, new windows will be installed, new roof so very little changes aesthetic changes to the exterior and I don't think it would be more appropriate with what the code calls for. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The front yard setback is for the existing structure which is 29.9 feet the code requiring a minimum of 50. ` October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting DON FEILER : Yes that's the existing it's an enclosed porch. There's a high solid wall two corners are open, it's roofed over which will all remain the same except there'll be those two walls will be enclosed, windows on the street side and solid wall on the south side and that would be converted into habitable space for the office use. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As you know we were there and did an interior inspection. Thank you for allowing us to do that so I think the Board has seen the inside and outside. It does require site plan approval from the Planning Board. Planning Board does in a memorandum support the application because it is in keeping with the goals with the Comprehensive Plan to supply affordable rentals and it is in keeping with the residential RO zoned district. Okay let's see, Nick any questions? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well partially it's really more of a statement than a question but first I think I want to go on record for saying I think it's something nice to see an adaptive reuse of an older home. For many years I was a merchant on Love Lane and also President of the Historical Society so it's nice to see things preserved and I hoped that it would be preserved. My question is two -fold; one the declination indicates apartments versus apartment. The application as I understand it is for one apartment, is there any reason it's such a large amount of space why wouldn't you create you know perhaps more whether at a later point a dormer would be added or something to the back of the building where you got that attic area? It's just it's a huge amount of space which is great but it would seem then almost underutilized. DON FEILER : We can move a little we can expand it out a little bit I believe forty percent we're under the forty percent now. We could expand it a little bit to get a little more in there more space but it is fairly limited but you're right the space within there certainly can add more. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah I thought the code said you're allowed up to fifty percent. It's forty? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What are you talking about lot coverage? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No regarding the apartment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh apartment size. MEMBER PLANAMENTO: Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know that the size of the apartment is an issue here one way or the other. It's not spelled'out in the code as to what size an apartment needs to be. There's a minimum based on state code habitable space. DON FEILER : Yeah a minimum but I thought maximum was forty percent of the overall building M October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO: Structure. DON FEILER : Yeah. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right and I thought it was fifty percent but it might be my mistake. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is the code for an accessory apartment in a principal dwelling. I'm not sure MEMBER DANTES : Forty percent is in the I think I know it's for hamlet business is forty percent I'm not sure about residential office. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Depends totally on what zone district you're in. If you have a house and you want to create an accessory,apartment in it, it cannot be greater than forty percent of the overall square footage of the existing dwelling. In"an RO zone in a hamlet business zone the size of the apartment must vary I don't know can you get the code to see what's what. I mean it is to code the point is what you're proposing is to code oh here we go so apartments may be permitted over business and professional offices as regulated by 280 -45B(4) -F inclusive restaurants except for fast foods so we have to go to that section of the code to see if it's got anything it's 280-45B. DON FEILER : We really didn't even explore that. Mr. Racanelli expressed early on he was primarily concerned with keeping it a professional office with an apartment above there is fair amount of space up there for more bedrooms more family space but he's concerned to keep the professional office professional and it's rather than a home office type of situation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah understood the apartment is proposed as a sort of accessory but it's two uses. It's all permitted there's nothing here that isn't permitted. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But I think that it might change the nature then if you have two families living above a professional office below or even a larger number of bedrooms which would accommodate a larger family unit or something versus what would appear to be more of like a studio space. STEVE RACANELLI : My intent was just to have it for a single person maybe a young couple so they wouldn't interfere with the professional office down stairs. And again my intent was not to make that a beacon in the middle of the night. I want it low key. I want it to remain in keeping with the neighborhood. That was my intent all along. I mean obviously I could have put an extension on I could have done a few things but in consideration of my neighbors,and the neighborhood because I'm vested in Mattituck I wanted to keep it low key. all October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's a nice sized apartment but it's not huge either. I mean it's a nice sized apartment. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well obviously it looks bigger without walls. So the other component of the conversation I had was just regarding any landscaping plan. Is there anything proposed to DON FEILER : There was presented to the Planning Department and without comment we are screening mostly screening the parking area from mostly from Love Lane and low plantings in front of the building on Love Lane. STEVE RACANELLI : I'm sorry, in consideration of my neighbors once again I want to have a nice screen on their side on the south side of the building so we don't interfere with their we want a nice screening there planting some common trees from the area and making a nice screening so that we don't interfere with their basically their quality of life. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well those issues will also be taken up with site plan that's the proper place for that sort of consideration as is lighting and so on. Gerry any questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Are you going to screen the parking lot at all from Love Lane at all? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what he just said. DON FEILER : Yeah landscaped screening there. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : You didn't indicate but again a site plan DON FEILER : And street trees along Love Lane that's pretty substantial now already on North Rd. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric any questions? MEMBER DANTES : No I think it's a nice plan. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Are you planning to do anything with the barn that's on the property? STEVE RACANELLI : I just want to take care of the main house and then as we clean up the landscaping I'll get to the barn. I took down the old garage because it was falling over and then I'll get to the barn. I'll make the barn nice when the time comes I'm sure we'll submit plans for it also if necessary. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Don did you have something else you wanted to say? W October S, 2017 Regular Meeting DON FEILER : I don't think so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone want to address the application? Please come and state your name. MARGARET ASHTON : Margaret Ashton and I'm directly across from the property. I have a couple of questions to ask and that is the size of this residence will it be enlarged to accommodate this 19 to 13 parking places that have been allocated in the future? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No the only enlargement is going to be a ramp along the side just for access. MARGARET ASHTON : And we'll guarantee that that it won't CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If we approve something that's what we're approving. In other words that's what's before us now and there is no expected enlargement of the building at all other than the ramp addition and the porch that's there in the front that's facing you it's just going to be enclosed. It's already there, it's roofed over and so on they're just going to make it useable interior space. MARGARET ASHTON : The other thing that I have and I don't know if this belongs with the Planning Committee or with you, all of the properties on Love Lane now are in a very precarious situation. Love Lane I don't believe has ever, ever been studied by the police as to how dangerous it is abutting Route 48. Route 48 is a very, very busy highway now and it's dangerous. People are coming in and off of Love Lane at speeds you would not believe. When they pass my house and I'm only about maybe a hundred feet from the intersection they're coming of speeds of thirty and sometimes forty miles per hour especially if they're coming off the back highway. Now we have a change of driveway from a fairly safe location getting in and out over to directly across from our front door and it's going to guarantee an accident especially when people are not familiar with Love Lane. Just the whole location of making this commercial in any way is inviting an accident. I recommend not only to you but to the Planning Board that the driveway remain in place to the right of the house extend around and use the highway as it's exit not Love Lane having it be the entrance and exit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I tell, you those comments would be very welcomes I'm sure by the Planning Board. They pretty much do the layout of parking and ingress and egress. This Board looks at the use the building is going to be proposed for which the office on the bottom and apartment on the top. So there you said Don it was October 16th is when the Planning Board is going to be meeting in this room it will probably be on the Town's website also and will be discussing their proposal for parking and screening and all that sort of thing. All are welcome to attend that meeting. RE October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting MARGARET ASHTON : But you can guarantee the inhabitants of this residential street it was all rezoned a residential from semi -commercial that we will not see some sort of a building go up to accommodate all of this parking spaces? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No the proposed is straightforward. It's using the existing building keeping it looking just like it does, adding a ramp and closing the porch and then putting on whatever required parking spaces are necessary which they have more than ample room for but you're comments are well taken about how it might best work with regard to safety and you know that is what is before us. There is no anticipated change in the way the house looks or how big it's going to be. It is a permitted use the office it's a residential office area. MEMBER DANTES : Wait as far as what he does five years from now or two years from now we have no idea and there's no way for us to give any sort of guarantee of anything whatsoever if that's your question. SOMEONE SPEAKING: (away from microphone) MEMBER DANTES : I'm just saying we can't guarantee what the applicant will or will not do down in the future that's not our place that's not something we have the power to do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No all we can do is tell you what they're planning now what we're looking at for an approval at their request. Whatever rights they might have in the future they would have to go to the Building Department and they would have to you know if they could do it as of right then they get a building permit if they couldn't they would have to come back here and neighbors would be notified again and so on and there would have to be another hearing but that is not what's really anticipated at this time. We don't know what would happen in the future but for now what I've described to you is what is being proposed, anything from anyone else? BOB HARTS : My name is Bob Harts and I live at 730 Love Lane, just the point about the traffic situation. It has gotten increasingly bad over the past couple of years. One of the things that I think should be paid attention to are the weight restriction signs on trucks that just are not enforced. Constantly throughout the day there are semi's, giant oil trucks using Love Lane because it's a short connection point between the North Rd. and Main Rd. and there are motorcyclists and a couple of guys with cars like cobras that just seem to use the little strip between the tracks and the North Rd. as an excuse to rev those things. They're loud, they're fast and it's dangerous right now just because of that going on. I think it would be a good idea to try to get on the police to enforce the big truck restriction particularly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think those comments are all so very well you know would be very well received by the Planning Board who you know could look into whether or not they can do M October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting anything if not you do have the option of going to the Town Board because the Town Board has the jurisdiction over the roads. It's a public road and if there is a problem there maybe they really ought to hear from you or go to the Mattituck Laurel Civic Association you know they're doing the traffic impact studies traffic coming study on the corner there with Route 25 which is a terribly complicated intersection and BOB HARTS : I almost hit a pedestrian there six months ago who was crossing the street behind an SUV. The point is the weight restriction signs are clearly posted on either end of Love Lane and when you're trying to drive it in the opposite direction of a big truck its inches of clearance. Anyway that's all I have to say. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know. I think there's been quite a bit of talk about Love Lane recently through the Mattituck Laurel Civic Association and their traffic studies and it's an issue, we're aware of it. PAT ACAMPORA : There is actually the town along with state assembly representative have all kicked in money to do this kind of study to see what can be done. You're right about the signs with the weight restrictions but these big trucks are using GPS and unfortunately GPS is sending them down Love Lane. You know many of them are not from the area they don't know where the heck they are and we see they don't read the street signs. I mean honestly if you go around that whole curve you see there's theater signs, there's mile per hour signs there's so many signs I don't think anybody wants to look at the signs anymore because it's too much. It's sign pollution so no one is paying attention to anything anymore and that's why this traffic study is really important because it's probably one of the most dangerous areas on the whole Northfork. BOB HARTS : I agree. MEMBER ACAMPORA : And Love Lane isn't the Love Lane most of us knew. Today most of us I mean you live on Love Lane. I try and hide from Love Lane because of the traffic that's going on. People making u turns on Love Lane. Who's heard of such things? I mean this is what is going on and we've been discovered and I think that you know the Town is trying to make some kind of headway with the traffic study but it's really years ago the state's responsibility they shirked their responsibility. They should have done some good engineering to try and straighten that road out because it's just not good. It's a bad situation and I don't know what it's going to take but your point is very well taken and you really should go down to the meeting and they may even tell you to come before the Town Board and bring that up so that it is on the record and that the Town Supervisor and the Town Board is aware of the fact that if you're going to have a sign that says the weight limit restrictions why aren't they being enforced. RU October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting SOMEONE FROM AUDIENCE: (away from mic inaudible) MEMBER ACAMPORA : Well yeah you make a very good point and that's why I think you should go and have a discussion. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : May I ask for a clarification from both speaker? Are you speaking in favor or opposition of the application because both of you sort of spoke about things that were more directed towards Planning versus front yard setback and the variance request. BOB HARTS : My personal feeling is that what's proposed is in line with the street. It's going to look good. I'm perfectly okay with a professional office with an apartment above. I personally don't care. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And I heard also your complaints about Love Lane and I think you know I'm an advocate for the same sort of thing that Pat was just speaking of. It's a heavily trafficked road so but thank you for clarifying the point for me. MARGARET ASHTON : Margaret Ashton. I reserve any thoughts on whether I'm for or against this particular use of the property simply because it's wide open to make this step of okay get in there and then start asking to expand and make a bigger operation on that corner and I don't think that it stays within the realm of the residential. That's what I'm concerned about. So I'm not if favor and I'm not against it. It's just that I'm waiting to see how this plays out. It's a very, very valuable piece of property. I can understand that and I can understand the person buying it and wanting to make the most of it but on the other hand it is zoned residential and I recall when it was semi commercial the zoning was taken away and Ray Nine had to pay an exorbitant amount to get a lawyer to continue his business off of Love Lane. So again we were zoned residential. I went along with it. I did not object to it. I could understand the importance of keeping a flavor to the Northfork but it's by okaying this you could be okaying something much bigger. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we wouldn't be okaying it. We're only okaying what's being proposed. If anything else were to happen that would be a whole other process okay. This is not carte blanche to do anything. This is only to keep the house the way it is. Put in an apartment above, put some offices below that's it. Just so you're aware we are not endorsing anything other than what is in front of us which is to keep it as an apartment and an office which is permitted in the RO zone, anything from anyone else? Hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close both hearings reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER PLANAMENTO: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? 53 October 5, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) m October 5, 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 : "14: Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : October 12, 2017 W