Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-11/02/2017 Hearing TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Southold Town Hall Southold, New York November 2, 2017 9:30 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member ERIC DANTES—Member (Absent) GERARD GOEHRINGER— Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO— Member KIM FUENTES— Board Assistant WILLIAM DUFFY—Town Attorney 1 November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Mattituck 2012, LLC#7098 3 -9 Robert Ragona #7060 9 - 21 55500 Main Road, LLC— Eric and Susan Russell #7100 21 - 25 William Grella and Gary Osborn #7104 25 - 32 Paul Pawlowski —Capital One Bank#7102 32 - 37 Edward L. Daley and Diane L. Daley#7099 37 -40 Sebastian Heath and Sarah Burnes#7105 41 -46 John Wickham #7101 46 -48 November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting HEARING#7098— MATTITUCK 2012, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for Mattituck 2012, LLC #7098. This is a request for variances under Article IX Section 280-42A and the Building Inspector's January 11, 2016 Amended March 30, 2016 and June 19, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling with a business office at 1) less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 75 feet, 2) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 20 feet, 3) less than the code required total side yard setback of 45 feet at 36570 NYS Route 25 in Cutchogue. MIKE KIMACK : Good morning, I'm Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant. We're proposing to improve the existing structure in place with no changes to the perimeter of the building itself. As it exists obviously it's in violation of three of the codes as a non-conforming building on a non-conforming lot. The left hand side of the building is proposed to get a second floor on it and then the other side where the little business is going to be simply has an A-line roof and (inaudible) but other than having a bay window in the front which doesn't come anywhere closer to the front of the building the rest of the perimeter, the footings remain the same. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let's just enter into the record what the variances are specifically; single side yard setback of 11 feet where the code requires the minimum of 20 feet. A total side yard setback at 25.2 feet where the code requires a minimum of 45 feet and a rear yard setback of 60 feet where the code requires a minimum of 75 feet. My first question to you is how in the world is that not a demolition? We all inspected it and it looks in terrible, terrible shape it's like no back to it at all. MIKE KIMACK : In Mattituck this is going to be started in Mattituck 2012, we've been going through Planning and we've also went Health Department. As a matter of fact I just renewed Health Department the first three years expired and now I'm doing NYS D.O.T. primarily. When he bought the building it was a demolition we would lose our C. of 0. basically because the only reason if you remember this particular case Planning Commission sent you about a year and a half ago or two years ago requested to make a determination of whether the 1994 business law that allowed multiple uses within a particular in the business district applies to other business district the limitations etc. like that. That had to do with whether or not you needed the bulk schedule in terms of the acreage for the businesses. In this particular case we have two. We have an apartment and a building which has a C. of 0. on it. That's the only reason the building was able to get through Planning because of the C. of O.'s in place. So we can't take it down but when it went to Planning they raised the question of whether or not that particular 1994 law applied to the limited business etc. and the decision was by your Board no. Now I bring that to your attention because the genesis of that request was this case Mattituck and it held it back 3 November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting for another three or four months until we were able to get that determination but then again we have the C. of 0. If the building came down then we wouldn't be in a position we are now with asking for both an apartment and also the little business there and you're right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean I do understand it but it's going to be a gut rehab to put it MIKE KIMACK : It has to basically pretty much part of it has to stand so we don't get into the demo aspect of it, we understand that. As a matter of fact he's a nice guy; he's the flea and tick guy that goes around spraying all the time. The plan has been extensively reviewed by Planning. There's parking in the front parking in the rear. There's an extensive vegetation plan that goes along with it and you can see from the map itself. All of that has gone through six or seven Planning Commission hearings to date and pretty much has been approved. We're not waiting for the ZBA approval and also I'm working with New York State D.O.T. I have to do a perm 33 because it's a commercial driveway even though it's got two pickup trucks and I can't convince them otherwise. So I'm into stage three if anybody knows what dealing with NYS D.O.T. on that aspect would be it's a little bit of a daunting process. So the answer is, yes it's in bad shape but the invariable answer to that is it cannot come down because then it takes away everything that he's worked for for the last five years in order to have a he wants a satellite business there for his flea and tick so he can have a sign. He doesn't plan to have any customers out of that place. He's not doing any day traffic etc. like that. He's going to keep a truck so that the guys can go the business there and he wants a smaller (inaudible) but that's what it was already granted a C. of 0. for primarily. So yes it's a little when you look at the building you go how is it still standing only because the wind blows through and it doesn't do that so I hope that I at least gave you the background. I know this case has been CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The other board members the two MIKE KIMACK : Yea (inaudible) before you but it's spent a lot of time before Planning and Health Department. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well they don't object the variances because they're saying the footprint isn't changing. MIKE KIMACK : Well you know I always found that it's better to explain the genesis, the history of why we got to where we are primarily with this and you're right under normal circumstances it's something like that if it was other than the uses that he had proposed it would be a knock down except that a knock down in this situation then takes away what he already bought the building for which is to have a business presence on 25. 4 November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I'm just wondering how Mark Schwartz is going to actually maintain fifty percent of that structure as viable. He's going to have to do some very creative framing. MIKE KIMACK : Yea I've done about two hundred homes in Vermont. Well I started working up there I started rebuilding farm houses and it was a big learning curve taking an old farm house and turn it into a home so it can be done. It's not something that you do every day but it's certainly structurally feasible. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's going to have to have all new wiring, all new plumbing. MIKE KIMACK : Yea there's no question about that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Windows, everything roof, walls. I guess that's really between you and Building. I mean that's going to have to be worked out. MIKE KIMACK : One of the things is that the original driveway is on the right hand side and Planning basically asked us to switch it to the left hand side because there was more access)to the back of the building so that back even further which we did and I convinced Health Department I just recently got their permit because now the septic system wise underneath the parking area so we had to strengthen all of that up so that's all been done. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a new septic system I presume. MIKE KIMACK : Absolutely yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let's see what the Board has, Gerry. MEMBER GOEHRINGER Can we get any percentage from Mark Schwartz regarding what basically the Chairperson has alluded to? MIKE KIMACK : In terms of you mean the setbacks? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea, what's bad and what's good okay. I mean you know this is a normal situation that we usually ask for at certain times. MIKE KIMACK : Oh, you mean in terms of the structure Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : The structure itself yeah. I mean you know you can't grant something on a structure that may or may not be able to be rehabilitated. MIKE KIMACK : I'll get a letter from Mark basically on the structural integrity and what MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Is that alright with you Leslie? 5 November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : He has to basically I mean you got this if I remember and Bill can correct me on this one, you're working with I think if it's more than a fifty percent knock down or something like that now wait a minute I think you have to leave up twenty five percent or greater in order to not be considered a demolition. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That was the prior tear down code but that is no longer the case. The question would be whether or not since you started this application prior to that code, being updated to fifty percent which is where it used to be it's.-now based on FEMA standards of what constitutes it's the value of the structure. Since the structure has very little value it's probably going to be fairly simple to retain it but again that's something that I think you should MIKE KIMACK : Well again it's a question for the Building Department as to'how much can be saved and does that somehow interdict with their code in terms of what is a demolition definition and what is not. Look I've asked many times what the definition is and I've gotten several different answers based upon the conditions upon which the question was asked. So I've kind of walked lightly with that one because at times I'm not quite sure how to advise my client. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : To be perfectly honest with you I mean we need to know. You're telling me it can be rehabilitated. It's not that we're not I'm not questioning that situation. I just want to know what the percentage is as opposed to being what is it interior most of the older ones on post and beam. MIKE KIMACK : The one on the right hand side I'm not quite sure if this is post and beam it doesn't look like a post and beam building quite frankly. I think it's a straight structure up. In that situation it's a balloon construction which used to be done years and years I did work a lot of them up in Vermont a lot of balloon construction which you basically do in order to avoid the question from the town basically is you basically sister up everything. If there's not any kind of termite damage or so on he would know right away if there's not any termite damage or so you can't take it out you just sister everything up all the way through on your walls and your beams basically. It's a little bit more of work but it's been done and I've done it basically in order to avoid that percentage you just reconstruct you build a reinforced shell around the existing shell without removing the shell so that it doesn't become the supportive factor. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I understand that but as you're probably well aware and I'm not telling you tales out of school that termites normally MIKE KIMACK : Oh come on tell me tale out of school. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Mites don't normally eat old wood okay meaning that kind of old wood. November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : I think whatever damage has been done Gerry has been done whatever is in the building. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I understand that. MIKE KIMACK : I've never been inside frankly. I'm always in the perimeter outside but I will address this to Mark and we will take a look at the building and indicate exactly how it's going to be restructured. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Give us the percentage now as long as it doesn't fall down in between those two wishes. MIKE KIMACK : Well I said to the guy why don't you go out and throw some plywood up give me some sistering plywood inside in between the verticals in order to make sure we don't have any problems but I understand exactly what you're asking for and quite frankly that's something that Building would be asking for anyway so we might as well address it now. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Address it now. So I think we should hold this abeyance until we get it. Is that alright with you Leslie? MIKE KIMACK : Oh, I can get you that letter within the two weeks that's not a problem. I can get you that tomorrow. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let's see if there's any other questions, Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : As we're talking about the structure, my concern is, what kind of condition is the foundation in? MIKE KIMACK : The foundation is pretty good. Mark basically has not I mean he's the architect basically. We'll address the foundation also. I hadn't looked at it I think it's a block foundation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we could have that happen but I think MIKE KIMACK : You know I'm not quite sure, let me pull that back. I'm not quite sure whether we've got a full foundation a crawl space or a slab Pat. Quite frankly I mean it doesn't show on CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't have any building sections. MIKE KIMACK : We don't have any building sections that show that. That doesn't mean oh wait a minute here it is we do, it's a crawl space. Look on A-2, there's a full foundation on one part of it and a portion on the other and I'll have him address the foundation as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What kind of chemicals are going to be stored on the property? November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : Planning had the same issues that you had whether or not that garage in the back was going to be one of the requirements was no hazardous chemicals, it's just simply garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, my questions I think were answered by your question. I was just really taken back just driving by for many years it just looks like a beautiful historic structure but I was super surprised to find out that there was really just a fagade so I'm torn as far as what the percentages are. MIKE KIMACK : He bought it that way primarily with the intent to have a small satellite office there to be able to have a sign and to be able to market his business primarily I mean that's really what it is and with a small apartment. He bought it with a C. of 0. attached that allowed that to occur. A C. of 0. for apartment and then a business so I'm trying to remember what the building looked like five years ago when we started this but I'm not sure I don't think it's gotten any better. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : There's a particular statement between as is and as was. MIKE KIMACK : Yeah it puts a new definition to the statement as built. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? I think what I'm going to do is adjourn to the Special Meeting MIKE KIMACK : I'll get that letter. I know exactly what you're looking for. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : to get us some more information and then we'll probably just close it or either deliberate that night or MIKE KIMACK : I'm sorry for taking extra time but I thought with this one it would be good for me to bring up the historical background at what had been done and why we're here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I think it's very valid because clearly anybody who knows construction would simply if they could say that a lost cause (inaudible) MIKE KIMACK : (inaudible) residence and is always going to be basically you're right. It has that business component and it has a dual purpose on an existing lot that doesn't meet the bulk schedule except for the fact that the C. of 0. yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you understand why Nick, Pat? Alright, motion to adjourn to the Special Meeting which is November 16`h, is there a second? November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7060— ROBERT RAGONA CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Robert Ragona #7060 adjourned from July 6, 2017 and we've already read the Legal Notice into the record so I don't need to review that again. Pat, want to state your name for the record please? PAT MOORE : Yes, Patricia Moore on behalf of Mr. Ragona. I have Mrs. Ragona and Mr. Ragona both here today. I'm here primarily if you had questions because we had given you a lot of information last time and before I talk about anything else do you want me to answer any questions if not I'll just point out a couple of things that I don't know if they were pointed out before. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let's just review this briefly which is that this is a request an exemption or interpretation of the town code from the waiver of merger law and or to amend appeal #3827 October 4, 1989 to remove the reference to the subdivision which was granted and needs Planning Board approval. There was a lot size variance that was approved and Planning Board could have codified that through a subdivision so there's a couple of things before the Board that you're asking us to take a look at. PAT MOORE : Okay do you,want me to just_ then let me back up a little bit. As you pointed out this property got a variance back in 1998 it got a variance. I would like to go back to as far back as the fifties. What I have is that from the time that it was originally owned by Arnold L'Hommedieu in the fifties. Sorry, Arnold and his wife in the fifties; then it was then sold to let me back up; it was Frankie and then L'Hommedieu. When L'Hommedieu owned it in the fifties he was the first one to split the property. He split the lots just the way they are today the one with the house and the vacant lot and I have the deeds of those conveyances and I drew little pictures because the descriptions are not the greatest descriptions. The old time description November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting says starting from 200 hundred feet from Manhasset along Wood Lane and then you go along the named property owner, a certain number of feet and then you go down and so on so I did that. I took the perimeter and the interesting thing is that he and his wife got the whole property in let me go back in 1954. In 1954 he and his wife got the two parcels. Then in 1957 he split off the parcel the house parcel. We know it now as the house parcel and the vacant lot parcel. He split off the house from the vacant lot parcel that far back. So since the fifties these two lots have been two lots and what occurred is that when he split it there must have been there was a correction deed that he did in '59 to correct a description from '57 but nonetheless the intention was there. He was the first one to split it from the original developer The Fordham. So what I'm doing is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat excuse me one second, did he require a variance in order to do that or was that an as of right? PAT MOORE : No, this was done before zoning so he did it as of right. Now the interesting thing is if you look very carefully at the date and there was a little oops I think L'Hommedieu and if it's the same L'Hommedieu that was out here they were very knowledgeable they were paying attention, the correction deed corrects a description but the correction is April 16, 1957 and zoning comes in April I think 14, 1957 so I found that irregularity. I don't know if anybody ever noticed or they followed through because again when zoning codes were adopted there was some time from the time of its adoption to the time it's filed with the state so it doesn't really become effective until typically ten days later. So at this time he made a correction deed because there was a correction on a description and I couldn't quite tell what the problem was but nonetheless that was the original creation of these two lots. So I'm going back as far as the fifties that these two lots were in existence. So I'm going to give you those deeds just so you have them in your file and I put an arrow where the correction deed is referred to. I'm pretty much finished talking about this original deed unless you have a question but just to explain that these two lots have been in existence. This is not something new and have been in existence since prior to zoning. As you can see the description is not the most sophisticated one but it didn't have to be very sophisticated it was a hundred feet one way, a hundred feet down when it was first conveyed from L'Hommedieu excuse me from Fordham to L'Hommedieu and then L'Hommedieu splits it husband and wife a fifty foot portion of it the northerly fifty feet is conveyed out. So now the Mr. Kinscherf purchases, he was already the owner of the house parcel behind this piece and they acquired he and his wife Doris at the time in 1952 had already acquired that property and you can tell by the description on that deed that it refers to the Kinscherf property as one of the boundary lines of the description. Then what happens is that Doris passes; the Kinscherf family Mr. and Mrs. splits the property put in one in husband and one in the wife's name again intentionally trying to keep it separate. In 1967 Mrs. Kinscherf passes away. Unfortunately we did not have the code at the time that prevented the merger 10 November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting due to death, that was put in the first time in 1995 so the only option they had was to come to you for an area variance but the area variance was to essentially reestablish lots that had already been established by the original deed the deeds from L'Hommedieu. So every time this poor property has gone through so many applications or processes because of death. So finally Mr. Kinscherf gets the variances that he needs and he asks well you know do I really have to go to the Planning Board? This is silly. I have to go to the Planning Board and understandably so because the lots were already in existence but unfortunately that was the process. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Excuse me Pat, those variances run with the land. They were no time limits. PAT MOORE : Correct but the only reason that he which variance are we talking about, 1989 variance? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All of them. PAT MOORE : No the L'Hommedieu was by deed as of right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that was prior to zoning. PAT MOORE : Prior to zoning right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I'm just talking about the area variance in 1989 I'm going through all my notes here. PAT MOORE : I have a little outline that helps me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Kinscherf received lot area variances for subdivision which runs with the land. Two parcels were improved with houses, waiver of merger law did not apply till 1995 and in '97 it was amended to exclude merger of the improved parcels and parcels with area variances. PAT MOORE : Even before that in '95 the area variance exemption existed but in '97 is where the due to death became an automatic. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's correct that was an exclusion based upon merger by death. For improved parcels and parcels that already had area variances which these had but I don't understand why simply going to Planning to get the subdivision to codify the variances is not an option. PAT MOORE : Well I'm reading the law on the books and one of the questions you asked of the prior applicant was which law applies and in their case it was because they started the process so many years ago there is a justification for a vested rights of the investment that they made 9.i November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting at the start of the application. For us we're applying the law that applies today and if you look at what the law says is if a variance was granted you're exempt. The area variance that created these lots or recreated these lots because it was again the only process being an area variance it allows us to automatically have recognition of these lots and that's why we were here before you was to say listen under the exemption provision we don't have to go any further. We don't have to go to. Planning and the reason that Mike Verity was saying we'll go to Planning is because in that area variance there was some language about going that the proposed subdivision. Well yes because that was the only process at the time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah well that's (inaudible) when you grant the lot area variance you need to codify that lot line change with a subdivision from Planning and that never happened. The variance is intact; however, when they were merged the property; but now you don't qualify for a waiver of merger because they were sold outside of the family. PAT MOORE : Yes, except that it was bought as two separate properties. So I had given Bill Duffy I don't know if I had ended up giving it to all of you the transcript of the hearing of the waiver of merger and the transcript of the hearing for the I think it was '95 or'97 when the due to death was added. There was specific transcripts hearing that at the hearing and Kevin McClaughlin because I participated in that hearing and went through the reasoning why that was a good law that they were putting on the books and asking them actually to go beyond that but they were just taking a little bites at a time. The first bite being due to death and Kevin McClaughlin specifically asked the Board and says if it's a merger due to death do I have to do anything more?The Board said no that's it. We recognize the lot that if it had been split when it was intended to be split or separated we'll recognize the separation and in this particular case you have L'Hommedieu who tried to keep it separate, then you have Kinscherf that tried to keep it separate that unfortunately had to go for a variance because the law for separation didn't exist and here we are back again and it's one more process to go to the Planning Board. Now at this point I have a different owner it's really a re-division because it's not really a subdivision. The tax map, the Health Department everybody recognizes these lots as they are. This lot has Health Department approval. I gave you the Health Department in your file. It's ready to go. The only thing that we're missing is either a consideration by the Board saying yes the exemption says you don't have to go any further; and I say that because if you look at the other language of being at least an acre in size it's in that same section, at least an acre in size you don't go any further. You're done. It's like monopoly you got the green card you can move ahead. So that's exactly what we're trying to do. In the alternative what I've asked is okay take out our condition about going to for a subdivision because the law now doesn't require us to go to the subdivision. It says that once we got the area variance, the area variance re-created the lots or authorizing the format of a waiver of merger at the time the lots were already split they just needed to be recognized and that's what the Zoning Board did in '89. They recognized what 12 November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting was already there. Mr. Kinscherf owned one piece, Mrs. Kinscherf owned the other and unfortunately she passed away and he ended up with both, didn't change anything. In fact there was a house on one and there was a house on the other so now the law is or when the waiver of merger was put in the books it was like well we recognize we don't want to merge two properties that have houses on it that's really stupid because you're creating a non- conformity so we're just trying to move on and what I think is we don't have to go any further. We're ready to go to the Building Department and get a building permit particularly if I have a neighbor who says oh no I know I didn't buy the lot but it should be mine anyway or you can't build on it. So what am I going to go to the Planning Board and say well I've got this neighbor who doesn't own it who wants to block our re-division of it so it's creating procedural obstacles that really don't need to be there and what we thought would be the simplest way is one either saying yeah it was a lot that was created by Zoning Board so therefore it's exempt or take the condition of subdivision out because it's still an area variance and the lots were previously existing they got merged. I'm trying to make it as simple as possible. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, let me do this; you've just reiterated the prior testimony. We also have some testimony from Neff who and Kinscherf who explained that apparently I'm just going to make sure you in the audience correct me. I want to make sure that my comments are correct that Edwin Kinscherf 395 Inlet Lane the father owned all three parcels since the fifties. The town merged the lot in '85. Kinscherf was told it was not a buildable lot anymore and he was fine with that property merged before. His father passed away in '98. He requested a subdivision to provide a building lot for his son but realized it would be too small so never pursued required Planning Board approval. Now we gave the neighbors the current owner Neff the opportunity to seek legal counsel to be able to respond to your testimony so before we go any further I would like to give them an opportunity to come and tell us what they've learned. Is there someone here who represents the Neff or state your name please. GENEVIEVE NEFF : Genevieve Neff. Let me just say we did seek some legal consultations and after discussing everything and going over through everything that's involved we have decided at this point to let me say we're confident that you will make the right decision for the community and we're just going to go with whatever that is. So I leave it in your hands and hope that this matter can be put behind us for the best of our community so that's where we are. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We do have to look at impacts on community but we also have to look at what this rather complex series of legal maneuvers that's most unorthodox historically given the way it all unfolded. sS we've just got a ton of complicated this all should of come out in a title search basically but apparently it didn't. Alright so was your assumption that when you purchased the property from Ragona who at that point owned the subject lots let's call them 13 November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting with the adjacent lots the developed and undeveloped one with the house and the undeveloped one next to it, was it your assumption that you were buying that entire parcel both of them? GENEVIEVE NEFF : We knew that it was separate at that point but they were supposed to retire on that lot so the plans for the home that were to be put on that lot were far different from anything that we thought was going to be there when we purchased our home. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In what way? GENEVIEVE NEFF : It's huge. We thought it would be in conformation with the rest of the area the surrounding area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a very small lot you can't put too huge a house on it because then you have setback GENEVIEVE NEFF : Yes and they're looking to overstate. ADAM NEFF : I'm Mr. Neff yes I'm sorry good morning. When we purchased we spoke with their realtor told us that it was a total separate lot which was unsure at the time. We found out later that it was still merged. We were directed that it was separate lot which it has not been so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand that this is very confusing. GENEVIEVE NEFF : And technically it should have been sold as one lot. ADAM NEFF : After we purchased the home after a year you know we got to know the neighbors. We were informed that it was one parcel. I said no that's a separate lot and they said no it's still merged and that's where we're at now and the property that's merged to our property is in dire need of maintenance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on if you want to say something that's fine but you have to come to the mic and state your name. We record these so we have to have you speaking at the podium. GENEVIEVE NEFF : I just want to thank you guys for doing your work and the community and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me see if the Board has any questions, Gerry or Nick anything. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. 14 November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone else in the audience who wants to address this application? Please come forward and state your name for the record. EDWIN KINSCHERF : My name is Edwin Kinscherf and I represent 395 Inlet Lane as one of the owners. All the properties in question my father owned and back in the eighties when they deemed the fifty by a hundred lot as not buildable my father did go down and question it and he decided that if another house was put on there it was going just get too crowded so he said you know what it's a good idea the town's looking out for overbuilding and that's the way it should be. Now for somebody to come thirty some years later and say hey I want a do over if you allow this to happen you're setting a precedent for anybody in the town of Southold that's got a fifty by a hundred lot to come in and say I want to build too and before you know it you know the town of Southold is going to look like New York City. Everybody is going to be on these small plots. The water is going to be contaminated and the air quality is going to go down. I mean somebody's going to have to step up and say we've got to preserve what we've got because we're running out of land everybody knows that and I'm just hoping that everybody is going to do the right thing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mr. Kinscherf do you live in the house that fronts on Inlet? EDWIN KINSCHERF : My stepmother lives there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Your stepmother that's right I remember from July I think it was. Now let me see if I want to ask you something, so you recall that those lots were split through an area variance but not codified based on the condition to go to the Planning Board and get subdivision approval. EDWIN KINSCHERF : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And am I correct that you told us just told the Board that it was because was it your father EDWIN KINSCHERF : My father. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : believed that it was not wise to split them because it would make a very small lot? EDWIN KINSCHERF : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that lot however is the same size as the lot that the Neff's now live on. EDWIN KINSCHERF : Correct. 15 November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay just so we're clear because we have to look at a number of legal standards in addressing this application some is the character of the neighborhood although it doesn't apply so much to waiver of merger but it does we do have to look at impacts. Waiver of merger is a whole other story. The complicated sales and innuendos of what happened and what dates we have to wind our way through but the bottom line is those lots were separated at some point and they were both building lots at some point. EDWIN KINSCHERF : Yes whenever they made the new law the fifty by a hundred was not a legal buildable lot you know my father just said we're going to let it go and you know we honored whatever the new ruling was. Like I said now When they bought the property they were told it was not a legal buildable lot. That was in case if someone wanted to knock the little house down and they wanted to put a nice house on a hundred by a hundred plot they could do that or if they wanted to add a garage or extension but now they want to put a four bedroom monstrosity and they want to encroach on my buffer by thirteen feet according to the building plans that they sent me so you know this isn't somebody that wants to build this little retirement cottage that's not what this is about here. This is about looking for a payday. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you feel the same way if a proposal for a dwelling on that undeveloped lot was of the same size as the other smaller houses in the area that required no variance and was conforming to the code. EDWIN KINSCHERF : If that would have been a legal buildable lot when my stepmother sold it she would have asked a lot more money for it. She sold it as it's an empty lot you know if you want to expand the house out from Wood Lane but I mean to put in this day and age everybody naturally expensive as property so they want to put the biggest house on the smallest piece of property they can find. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So your stepmother sold this assuming it was one piece of property? EDWIN KINSCHERF : No she told them it was two separate lots but she you know she made it clear that it wasn't by town law it was not a buildable lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And was that because of the law that requires a hundred foot of frontage? EDWIN KINSCHERF : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : On a street? $6 November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting EDWIN KINSCHERF : I don't know which law pertained to but somewhere back in the eighties the town of Southold deemed that fifty by a hundred was not a legal buildable lot. I don't know what all their requirements are. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in the audience? PAT MOORE : I just have to respond to several of those things. To begin with the Neff comments, the application or the plans that they saw were for the Health Department so to go to the Health Department they just pulled out plans some standard plans I think they came from Tom McCarthy actually just pulling out from his drawers a two story house with a certain number of bedrooms. I have to look and see on this Health Department it would say on the Health Department application the number of bedrooms. Nonetheless that's not the house that would ultimately be built. That's what the Health Department needed for purposes of getting the sanitary approval. I have Mrs. Ragona here and she can talk specifically about their ideas. The second issue is and a lot of the other issues Mr. Kinscherf raised and I'll point out that his stepmother has a life estate. The stepmother presented two deeds I believe David Olsen was his attorney. David is a very good attorney, he knows oh he was your attorney I'm sorry and two deeds were obtained and there was a record of the Zoning Board hearings and there was documentary evidence so what was said you can certainly consider any testimony that's given but most of the testimony that was just given is here say and he was not at the closing. His stepmother is the one who sold the property and sold the property for a fair value. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The property both lots were sold to Ragona? PAT MOORE : Well one was to Mr. Ragona and one to Mrs. Ragona yes. So they were there at the closing but he was not and the seller was his stepmother who had the life estate and the children, he and his brothers and sisters are the beneficiaries after the life estate and she's still alive so his interest is a residuary,interest. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the Ragona's subsequently sold the developed lot PAT MOORE : The house, yes the house to the Neff's correct. Obviously if they thought that there was going to be an issue they would have not sold the house because you don't want to leave yourself a sterilized piece of property. So as far as everyone knew or at least the Ragona's believed based on the documents and what the code says the house the lot can then be developed and that's why they proceeded;to get Health Department and here we are. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do they have Health Department approval? PAT MOORE : Oh yes there's a Health Department approval and that's why the only plans that they saw were the just non-construction plans that the Health Department asked for floor 17 November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting plans. They won't give you Health Department approval without floor plans and obviously when you do an application you want to do it with a number the maximum number of bedrooms so that if you do modify your plan or make it smaller you don't it's an easier modification than if you ask for two bedrooms and now you've got to change your design because of the number of bedrooms that you actually plan to build. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you address the building envelope the conforming building envelope on that subject property. PAT MOORE : I see that the building envelope there is a thirty five the house itself the proposed the house shows a thirty five foot front yard setback. There is a I can't tell what that is around it if it's a patio or if it's going to be it doesn't tell me what it is because I don't have those plans. Again it was to the Health Department do you have those? Come on up please. ROBERT RAGONA : My name is Robert Ragona. When we acquired it we weren't quite sure if we were going to keep the house and build on the plot or build on the plot and sell the house. At the time I think when we sold the house both properties were up for sale. There were signs probably someone came and looked at the house and didn't see the secondary sign for the empty lot and their real estate didn't say to them and also this lot next to you is for sale but I guess that could have happened. As for the plan I don't know it needs talking about. We didn't ask for any variances. McCarthy said you can sell this; you can build on the plot as long as it conforms to the frontages to the backage and I think that's what we submitted. We didn't submit any plan at all I don't know what plan he's talking about. I didn't submit any plan. I'd love to see what it looks like it sounds pretty good but so it's very hard for me to respond to the mega mansion comment since I don't think that exists. It certainly didn't come from me you know. I mean it's a fifty by a hundred plot that's what it is I get it. The fact of the matter is we tried to sell the plot we were going to buy something else but and I think we're going to get stuck. My wife wants that plot to build on it so and we're not looking to build a mega mansion it's just not true. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the bottom line is what is before this Board at this time is not what might be built on there. ROBERT RAGONA : No I understand that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) proposing something that wasn't conforming to the code you'd be back before the Zoning Board. Our task here is to look at lot recognition. ROBERT RAGONA : That's all that we're asking for, lot recognition. I mean when I saw and it looked like I don't know it seemed environmental thing 1$ November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Yeah that's the Health Department. Yeah the Health Department plan has a front yard setback of twenty eight which is probably an average setback there since most of the homes are closer to the street than thirty five. It has a rear yard setback of thirty five and ten and fifteen. So it shows what the building envelope is and ROBERT RAGONA : And that's the only thing I submitted. PAT MOORE : The building envelope is twenty five by thirty seven. It looks like a pretty good comfortable building envelope so if they were using just one of a plan just for purposes of floor plans it may not have fit precisely in that building envelope but the Health Department may not have cared. They were just looking at the design of the sanitary system. But remember what we're here for is just it's a technical request. It's not as you pointed out on the record the variances were granted. This is a lot. It's whether or not we have to proceed to the Planning Board to complete it or whether or not based on what the code says we can at this point it's a recognized lot because of what the code says today and really it sound much more complicated than it is but it's really that simple. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anyone? EDWIN KINSCHERF : I have here copied of the house that they propose or they submitted and it clearly states the rear yard should have a thirty five foot setback and it only has twenty two feet. This came in their certified letter and I'd be happy to give it to the Board if anyone wants to look at it. I didn't make it up.This came in the envelope from them. PAT MOORE : It's the Health Department drawing right, yep same thing. EDWIN KINSCHERF : It's a four bedroom two story house encroaching thirteen feet on my buffer zone. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well they couldn't build that without a variance. EDWIN KINSCHERF : I know but what they say is oh no we have no intention in putting an oversized house but they submit plans that they don't even fit the local codes. I mean this is not a person who wants to hear good neighbor. They shouldn't for disguise the limit and that's what it comes down to it's all about a money (inaudible). Thank you. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie may I ask a question? Mr. and Mrs. Neff if you wouldn't mind when we last met we afforded you the opportunity to seek legal counsel I'm a little confused by your response that you sort of saying that it's up to the Board to sort of make'a decision and you're entrusting us, did you in fact speak to an attorney? Have you retained an attorney and sort of tell us more about that conversation. 19 November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting GENEVIEVE NEFF : We haven't retained anybody yet no. ADAM NEFF : We spoke to three different attorneys and we've been basically we've been told we're going to see what the Board decides. I mean basically the land is still merged with our property and is unmaintained so as the property owner we have the legal parcel and their property is merged with ours. They haven't maintained the property and I want to know who's responsible for the insurance should one day large trees fall. Is it under my coverage? Do they have insurance on the property? I mean I'm at the point now is if the Ragona's plan on building and moving there we're moving. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think there's different conversations occurring, what I'm more interested in understanding again is with the counsel that you sought as far as what they've said. Now you're sort of implying it's in theory your land. I understand this is why we're here. GENEVIEVE NEFF : There is no definite answer. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Why haven't you retained an attorney? GENEVIEVE NEFF : Because it's so involved and we didn't know how long it was going to go on for and there is evidently no cut and dry decision. I mean it's left in your hands ultimately. ADAM NEFF : It's up to the Board basically. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But I would kind of argue you have a vested interest in this and that if you had an attorney they would guide the conversation for us today. It's a really tough you know I think a decision to make. I understand neighborly factors and there's certain things that go beyond what our purview is. It's just we're trying to unravel what occurred fifty, sixty years ago. ADAM NEFF : What occurred is, we purchased the home and when we purchased it was listed as 350. After we purchased the home the address changed and then all of a sudden the property which was we were told was separate is still attached to 350 but we have we're now living in 410 because the address was changed. Now Mr. Ragona supposedly they retained the deed for the empty land and he gave that to his wife so we don't know what to do now. We're at a loss and out of the three lawyers two of them concurred and one of them who is from Southampton he had a different story but we're not going to retain him yet so we're just going to wait and see how the Board reacts. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I think as long as you what we wanted you to have was have an opportunity to be more informed to seek legal counsel, to come back to this Board on your own 20 November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting or with legal counsel. You've chosen to be here to basically say that it's complicated. They all said it was complicated and you should be leaving up to the Zoning Board is that correct? ADAM NEFF : Correct basically like I said, we purchased the home. The fact that it is still merged we were told different. We were told different by the realtor that it was not merged it was a separate parcel and in fact it's still merged I feel that this is a problem created by the Ragona's and their realtor so why should we have to pay to resolve their problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, anything from anyone else, anything from the Board? Well I think we've heard everything we possibly can on this one. We're just going to have to sit down and (inaudible) through a lot of facts. So hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING# 7100—55500 MAIN ROAD, LLC— ERIC and SUSAN RUSSELL CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for 55500 Main Road, LLC Eric and Susan Russell #7100. This is a request for a variance under Article XIX Section 280-85N (1) and the Building Inspector's July 18, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to install a wall sign at 1) proposed wall sign to project more than one foot from the exterior wall of the building located at 55500 NYS Route 25 (Main Road) in Southold. Would you please just state your name for the record? ERIC RUSSELL : Eric Russell. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN . Hi Eric. So you're proposing a 13 inch by 19 inch sign with a 38 inch bracket about 21 November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting ERIC RUSSELL : That sign I think that's incorrect. I think it's I have it over here can l-come I think it's 32 by 19 that sounds correct yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the bracket is 38 inches where the code does not permit more than a 12.inch projection off of the front fagade. ERIC RUSSELL : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we have done a site inspection. We know most of us live here so we know your restaurant and know Main Road pretty well. Tell us why you want to do that instead of putting the typical wall sign that most other commercial restaurants, delis ERIC RUSSELL : Strictly aesthetics. We're trying to eliminate some of our signage. When I bought the place there were on the east and west side of the building there were two big signs up. I actually put smaller signs in their place. There was a lettered awning over the front door which I got rid of and went to a non-lettered awning. I got rid of the awning and we resided about we finished the residing job about fourteen months ago and I didn't want to put the old signs back. I don't like the billboard affect that on the building. I want a very one very small sign up in the peak above the front door that hangs out to identify the restaurant and no other signs. Just trying to go actually just for a quaint aesthetic look and from what I understand we can't go out further than twelve inches. Our soffit is 12 inches so it really nothing we could do inside that 12 inch, I wouldn't even mind a sign like you see around town where they're hanging on property out front like a swing sign in that regard but we don't have property. We have our building is only about a foot and a half off that west wall and on the other side it's a driveway so there's really no place to put that so we're just trying to go for one hanging aesthetically pleasing sign with actually limited information. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The only other sign that's similar to what your proposing that we did observe was one that Grateful Deli has. ERIC RUSSELL : Oh yea, ours would be much smaller than that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But that's similar to what you're what size do you think theirs is, do you have any idea? ERIC RUSSELL : I couldn't guess. I'm not good at guessing on things like that but I know it's not the size we're looking at. CHAIRPERSON- WEISMAN : How do you propose to secure that sign. Would it be just sort of swinging? 27 November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting ERIC RUSSELL : No. I told I was working with a contractor in Riverhead and I told them if we can get approval on this I don't want it to swing. I had an issue with an awning that you know with the wind I don't want anything that requires maintenance or any of my attention whatsoever. That's why I don't even want to do an awning. I was going to replace an awning get everything down and put an awning back up with words on it but I found those to be too much maintenance. I was just trying to go for something low maintenance, aesthetically pleasing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We saw you know we have in our application a copy of what you're proposing so that's going to be rigid sign so okay let's see what the Board has Pat? PAT ACAMPORA : No you answered my question, I was concerned about a swinging sign. ERIC RUSSELL : No I already told it's Wedel in Riverhead; I told them I don't want it to swing. I want the swing it's called a swing sign cause of how it hangs but I don't want it to actually swing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If I may. I happen to aesthetically like swing signs. I think that they look great. Alternatively however your particular location there's two street trees that when I drive east or west it makes it actually more of an encumbrance to see what I perceive as what is a sign smaller than what Grateful Deli has where in their application there are no trees. ERIC RUSSELL : You are correct. I can respond to that go ahead. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's my concern. ERIC RUSSELL : That's why we easily could have done something in that peak that was flat and I felt that that wouldn't have been seen at all but I'll be totally honest with you I don't even really care that much about signage. I don't need a lot of signage. I don't even advertise. I just want to identify the building. I think you can do it easier coming from west to east you can see that spot a little easier but I figured that's all we really want. As a matter of fact the signs if you drove by you see the signs right now temporarily on stakes because I don't want to drill through my new siding if I didn't want those signs and for the first month and a half we finished that job I didn't even put the signs up like that my carpenter did thinking he'should but I didn't even really care we're so local I mean it doesn't even matter what we do honestly. I just want a nice aesthetically pleasing sign especially at night. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It kind of contradicts the application because the thought is in the application at least as I read it to have greater visibility to attract consumers. Many people I think know that you're a restaurant and I'm confused 231 November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting ERIC RUSSELL : I don't know if an application says greater visibility to attract customers those two wall signs east and west would do that more so but I find them unattractive. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right and I like the idea of like a ridge sign I think would be visible obviously if you're standing there I just don't see with the street trees so I don't know if there's any plan of trimming them or how one you know as they mature they're not really mature trees yet. ERIC RUSSELL : No I know. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It seems like it might be counterproductive. ERIC RUSSELL : It's not a concern of mine. I do think one of those trees need to be trimmed and I was going to talk to the state guys about it because it's growing into my building the one on the west side needs to be trimmed a little bit but there's actually a stump in front of the building when they cut the big tree down it was dead I called them three times. They came and marked it three times with paint and flags and they never came back ever to do the stump so calling them to trim a tree is probably going to be a long drawn out unsuccessful process but one of the trees needs trimming but I'm not planning on the trees are kind of small to trim except a couple of branches growing into my building. We're not doing it for greater visibility. We're doing it because it looks nicer. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think what Nick was asking was that in number two the benefit sought cannot be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than area variance you wrote down according to code, a wall sign may not project more than twelve inches from the wall. One foot does not allow enough space to create a sign that can be easily seen passing premises east or west. ERIC RUSSELL : Well (inaudible) hang a sign up when the soffits come a foot if we did something within twelve inches it would run long and you wouldn't see it at all. I think you would seethe hanging sign I don't think it would be as visible as the east and west wall signs would be or an awning but it would still be it would still identify it as a restaurant. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No, the code sometimes is ambiguous based upon.the way it's written. It probably should say from the footage should be calculated as it goes out from the peak of the roof and it would give you another twelve or fourteen inches not to have to come before us you know what I'm saying because it doesn't do any good when it's in to the peak and I can understand your concern for the gable and (inaudible) 24 November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's actually a good point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone else on the Board that has any comments or questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No I would just say as far as the state D.O.T. call.Senator LaValle's,office or Tony Palumbo's office. They're much more effective in getting D.O.T. to respond to you. ERIC RUSSELL : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7104—WILLIAM GRELLA and GARY OSBORN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for William Grella and Gary Osborn #7104. This is a request for variances under Article III Section 280-15, Article XIII Section 280-55C(1) and the Building Inspector's July 19, 2017 Amended July 20, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to legalize an as built accessory outdoor shower at 1) located in other than the code required rear yard, 2) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 30% located at 1200 First Street (adj. to Cutchogue Harbor) in New Suffolk. State your name for the record please. WILLIAM GRELLA : William Grella. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we have; you're asking us to legalize an as built accessory shower just so you're aware we've all been out to the sight and seen the property which we do with 25 November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting every application before a hearing. This is now partially in a side yard, the lot coverage is 39.4% the code permits a maximum of 30%. Prior ZBA variance permitted a 38.2% lot coverage in appeal #6773 November 16, 2014. So what would you like us to know? WILLIAM GRELLA : The shower that we built was replacing a shower that had been there previously. The plumbing was all there and the. drainage was already there. I had fired my contractor and my architect prior to rebuilding this. He had already put the plumbing in there so I just had the shower rebuilt. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, you did so without a permit and in excess of what lot coverage was permitted by this Board when you did the major renovations and so on. WILLIAM GRELLA : I didn't really understand that there was a problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In addition to increasing the lot coverage beyond what was 8.2% over what the code permits the shower itself also is closer to the bulkhead than what your dwelling is. WILLIAM GRELLA : Yeah it's where the old shower was. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And why didn't you apply for that to begin with. WILLIAM GRELLA : I really didn't know that I had to. I mean I got rid of the architect and I wasn't really aware. I mean he had left the plumbing intact so I just had a local guy build the shower. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see what questions we have, Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Was there any C.O. on the old shower? WILLIAM GRELLA : Yeah. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : There was a C.O.? WILLIAM GRELLA : Yeah. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Do you have a copy of that C.O.? WILLIAM GRELLA : I don't have it with me but there was I mean we went through a whole thing with the Building Department, the Trustees. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Notwithstanding the fact that you may have exceeded the lot coverage I think it would be prudent to get a copy of the C.O. 26 November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting WILLIAM GRELLA : We're very limited on that property as you know it's pretty tight so I mean lot coverage the house takes up the majority of the property and MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I remember that shower that's why I'm asking you. WILLIAM GRELLA : From before? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yeah. WILLIAM GRELLA : I actually had the new one built so that it's not down with the ground so that water can flow below it because we had issues with flooding over there. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I merely just looked over the fence just to make sure it was there. The pictures were pretty good on the shower so it wasn't really a necessity to go in. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mr. Grella you stated that you have a C. of 0. on the original shower, are there any photographs of it in addition to that C. of 0. or you know at the time that you acquired the property that would illustrate the shower in its place? WILLIAM GRELLA : When we acquired the property the shower there was a different kind of a shower there. We built that shower in when we did the decking. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but you're saying that there was a C. of 0. on the shower and that you have it so I'm just curious to know if there are any photographs that would illustrate whatever was there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It doesn't matter if it was demolished it expired the C.O. is distinguished. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Okay then I guess we don't need it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I mean if the structure is demolished and it certainly wasn't there during the house construction WILLIAM GRELLA : No we took it out I mean we took out everything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah right and so MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So this is new? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is brand new. Whatever C.O. was there is extinguished so he's asking us to legalize this structure and to get a C.O. 271 November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I'm just trying to figure out as Nick had how big that one was in -reference to this one and what the difference was on (inaudible) WILLIAM GRELLA : The difference was that I mean that one was it went down to the ground. I don't remember exactly the size difference but it was in the same location. It was built on actually in the same place because that's where the plumbing was so we didn't have that moved. I might have old pictures of it probably I'm not really sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No my questions were asked. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Please come forward and state your name. ARLENE CASTELLANO : Arlene Castellano 1275 First Street New Suffolk. The initial application for this property in 2013 was to repair a single family house due to the damage it suffered from Hurricane Sandy. Myriad variances were granted to accommodate their construction plans.. Before the construction of this property it had an illegal apartment that is detailed in the drawings labeled existing house. When the rebuild was proposed architectural plans designated half of the first floor as play room. That play room became a new illegal apartment. An ad was listed by the owners on Home Away and VRBO listing the house as two separate condos available for three or seven night minimums in January 2017. The ad read two bedroom house boat flat listed is one of two private units. In house boat each with separate waterfront deck separated by a gate and trees. Units may be rented as whole home. Upon inquiry total twelve people, ideal for two families or corporate retreats. The house boat has two full kitchens. The entire house boat has two separate private entrances front doors, separate garage parking, separate private waterfront outdoor deck areas each including dinning, grilling, outdoor shower and upholstered lounges. You may rent the house boat flat too or complete house boat upon special inquiry or for special occasions. Concierge services available upon request for CSA local organic weekly vegetable basket, local wine delivery from select vineyards. Vineyard tours with lunch. Fresh homemade farm donuts, stocked groceries, fresh local flowers in every room, in- home services, massage services WILLIAM GRELLA : I'm sorry may I interrupt, does this have anything to do with the shower? T.A. DUFFY : You can't interrupt. WILLIAM GRELLA : I can't? T.A. DUFFY : No. 28 November 2; 2017 Regular Meeting ARLENE CASTELLANO : In home chefs, massage services, babysitting and boat rentals. A certificate of compliance was issued in August 2016 under the condition that no additional work be done without filing for new permits. Mr. Grella and Mr. Osborne signed a letter MR. GRELLA : I'm sorry it's doctor Grella. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please don't interrupt again, thank you. ARLENE CASTELLANO : Mr. Grella and Mr. Osborne signed a letter agreeing to those terms but work went ahead without permits and today there is an open application with the Board of Trustees seeking the legalization of fourteen as built violations as well as a proposed staircase which Mr. Portillo has already tried to deem diminimus to the ZBA. In this application Mr. Portillo is seeking the legalization of an outdoor shower constructed a year ago without permits. I have submitted to you my concerns about the lot size of this property. The Suffolk County tax map list the lot size as 2,875 square feet. Mr. Portillo reported the lot size was 3,118 sq. ft. in 2006 and today he lists it as 3,620 sq. ft. meaning the lot has grown over eleven feet towards the bay since 2006. The entirety of this lot was completely excavated during construction. The claim that the outdoor shower was built in its previous location using existing plumbing is not accurate and I have a picture to show you what the site looked like. I strongly urge the ZBA to deny this application. There is absolutely no point for Southold citizens to go through proper channels and the permit process when all you have to do is build whatever you like and then simply apply to legalize violations. All that I expect is that the town code be followed. Thanks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in the audience wishing to address the application, anything else from the Board?Would you like to address anything you've heard? WILLIAM GRELLA : I don't know what half of that had to do with the shower. The shower is in the same place where it was. The plumbing was still there nothing was added. I just this family is intent on causing me difficulties. They've sent emails to a friend of mine indicating that they have nothing better to do with their time but to cause me problems on this property. We've been out of that house for five years. I have two young children that are now six and seven years old which we were able to get back in to this house so we could start first grade with them. All we wanted to do was have our house and be unencumbered. I've made attempts with this family to have some kind of reconciliation and they have basically indicated to me that the way they're going to handle this is what they're doing now and to absolutely have no contact no conversation with me. They walk down the street, they won't acknowledge us. They've called the police because we put cones in the street so that my children won't get run over by cars coming around the turn. I mean everywhere I go it's just some kind of altercation with them and I just want to live in my house and have my children be comfortable. 29 November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can I ask you a question sir, we have a photograph we've seen this because we were around when all of this renovation was happening obviously there were variances that were sought prior to the construction. This is when the house was on cribs? WILLIAM GRELLA : Yeah. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you show us where a shower is here? WILLIAM GRELLA : Where was it? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When was it knocked down? WILLIAM GRELLA : (inaudible) it was right back in here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, the bottom line is if you wanted that it should have been part of the original application. However, now you're before us to request additional lot area beyond what was granted to you in the previous variance and a structure that please go back to the mic so that we can get you on record. WILLIAM GRELLA : I had this in the hands of the contractor who was also the architect. He did a lot of things that weren't copasetic and you know we trusted him to walk us through this because I don't know you know half of this stuff and we had an application when we fired him my only understanding was that the application was closed was the one for the staircase in the back. I didn't realize that it encompassed all this other stuff so we're trying to work our way through the mess that he left us. I mean there's really there's no I have no malice here. I'm not trying to get over on anybody. I'm just trying to construct what we had you know previously at this house so when my kids come in from the beach they can you know rinse off before they come into the house basically that's it. I wasn't trying to get over on anybody. I'm not trying to get over on anybody it was a mistake to have built it but unbeknownst to me it was going to be built and I just this guy didn't do I just had I got rid of him and had a local guy build it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from anyone else? ARLENE CASTELLANO : I just want to respond CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please state your name again please for the record. ARLENE CASTELLANO : Arlene Castellano, New Suffolk. I felt that the Zoning Board was very generous in granting all the variances it did given the size of the lot and I wrote a letter initially and said I felt that what they were proposing was too big for the lot and the variances were granted and then we were tortured for about two years with the construction with absolutely no regard for any of the neighbors. Not for me not for Elaine Romagnolli. We were screamed at 30 November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting by workers. Many days I couldn't get out of my driveway. Mr. Grella has screamed at my husband at Elaine and it really was just unreasonable and then when the house was finally built I said well this is what it is, we have to just go on now but it never stops. There's construction going on there today. WILLIAM GRELLA : There's painting going on today. ARLENE CASTELLANO : Okay there is always trucks. There is always construction. Bill Grella and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We are familiar so both of you know with the origins and the ongoing issues on this property and the circumstances with impacts on the neighborhood and so on, that is really not what is before this Board today. You did submit many additional written pages I just wanted to let you know we all have them that's all and that they will be part of the public record and we will consider everything that was said here today and we'll render a decision. ARLENE CASTELLANO : I just want to say you know we are the victims not Mr. Grella and Mr. Osborn. He would like to paint himself as the victim here. He is not. Whatever was done was at his wish and command to that property so you know and I have told Bill he has two beautiful wonderful children and Frank and my daughter Elizabeth and I will always be good to those kids and the you know Frank was outside in the yard doing yard work and I called the police to tell them that there were cones right in the middle of the street and he's right CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm sorry ! do understand your frustration both of you. ARLENE CASTELLANO : I don't want him to say I did it against his children. I did it to protect his children because they were not safe there and so,that's the reason I'm bringing that up only in response to him that's it. Okay thanks a lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. I didn't mean to cut you short but the Board has to address the issues that are specifically before it and we're very aware. ARLENE CASTELLANO : (inaudible talking from seat) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand we're all human in the end one way or the other. Is there anything else from anyone in the audience or from the Board? Hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? 31 November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7.102—PAUL PAWLOWSKI—CAPITAL ONE BANK CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Paul Pawlowski, Capital One Bank #7102. This is a request for a variance under Article XIX Section 280-86C and the Building Inspector's May 25, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to erect a freestanding sign at 1) more than the code required maximum number of freestanding signs allowed on subject parcel located at 11600 NYS Route 25 (Main Road) in Mattituck. Would you state your name for the record please? ARLENE MELI : Arlene Meli. I'm with Ultimate Signs and Designs Corp. representing Capital One and Paul Pawlowski. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the problem seems to be that the subject lot has a directory sign and the code only permits only one sign per lot of that type. You have two wall signs up on the actual building. ARLENE MELI : One only needed a physical permit, the other one was permitted by code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right the front and then the other side. So what would you like us to know about this application? ARLENE MELI : I was driving down, you are all familiar with the area, I actually almost pased the spot where the bank was located. The directory sign that's there now is the copy itself is just about eight inches high pretty negligible at the top spot granted but it's pretty not noticeable as you drive by the side wall sign because it's so blending in with the background of the building it doesn't give it a lot of visibility and we're hoping to get a secondary and because there's a driveway that splits the two sections of the land it looks like an independent property. It doesn't have enough;visibility for people to actually know to turn in there. So we're looking to put a separate ground sign dedicated with indirect lighting, cove lighting that shines down on the sign so it's not coming out of the sign to give it better noticeability is that a word, get it noticed better so that they can turn in easier. If you're coming from the west side and you're 32 November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting coming around that curve again you will overshoot and we need to make sure that the bank gets the best visibility it can have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is that sort of cement cover is that covering the utilities? ARLENE MELI : I have no idea what that is. I saw that. That's covered by some landscaping; I don't know what that is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks like it might be some utility camouflage. ARLENE MELI : I don't know nothing to do with CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where is that sign proposed I thought that was where the I thought it was the sign covered up. ARLENE MELI : No we didn't install it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So where are you proposing this exactly? ARLENE MELI : We're proposing it just to if you're looking at the sight just to left of the about a few feet in from where the stop sign is or the enter sign that's there, there's a ground sign. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I guess it's not showing in here or,I guess that other structure would be behind it? ARLENE MELI : That structure that's there now would be behind it. It would be on the far side. I don't know what that is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat, questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Why not just change the directory sign? ARLENE MELI : The directory sign that's not that was something that was approved by the owner when he went in to build the lot. I don't know that was not brought on the table. We felt that because of the division in the where the curb cut is that it would make it look like it was a separate parcel so it would be easier to identify as the sign being in front of the bank instead of being off to the side and I don't know what he had originally had approved through MEMBER ACAMPORA : I just think the placement of the directory sign would have been better off on the larger piece of property because as you come up to that directory side if you're driving on Main Road it's kind of hard as you're driving to zero in on that sign I think in the location already in place. 33 November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting ARLENE MELI : The existing directory sign that is in place currently in front of the other business building? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yeah I don't know why it wouldn't have been placed further to the east on where you're proposing to put this sign now. ARLENE MELI : I understand and I don't know why it was positioned in that respect. I think the owner and I can't speak for the owner, my assumption would be that the owner thought it would be better placed in front of the businesses so that people can be drawn in to the businesses. I don't know but I know that it is a it looks like two separate parcels. I think that because it's very easy like I said I knew where the sign was where the building was and I still almost overshot it. It's a forty mile an hour zone I believe. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No it's thirty. ARLENE MELI : It's at thirty? Oh people weren't going thirty. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Nobody obeys the speed limits. ARLENE MELI : It's just real easy to as you're coming up to that area to say oh my God I gotta turn in here which is I mean I was going forty but I just almost overshot it and I made a quick right in to ther lot. If you see the sign coming up the road the sign will be better and will have better visibility so that people can turn or slow down or come around a lot easier for a safety purpose I think that would be good. For a visibility purpose it would really clarify where that building actually stood. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Well the bank has sent out so much notification to the people who bank there. Everybody knows now that the new bank is open and the old one is shut down. The old bank that was on Love Lane had really not much signage to delegate it as the bank and if you're driving through Love Lane you have enough to navigate just to get through Love Lane rather than looking to see what sign and what's where so I think you know locally most people do know that the bank has relocated and you do have a very large sign on the building. I mean you can't miss that. ARLENE MELI : Well you can because in the sunlight when I was coming in the sunlight actually glared off the building and it didn't really give a good visible location to the bank and the fact that the MEMBER ACAMPORA : They.can paint that. They can paint the eave to make it a different color so if you think the sign would be you know blurred with the white that's on the eave there they could paint that and the sing I think would stand out more. 34 November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting ARLENE MELI : Well I don't I'm not here to address building colors. I'm just saying that the bank switched locations, feeling this was a better visibility location, hoping to get a better ground sign in general to give them better direction and visibility, so that they know where it is and it's not just for the locals. I mean you have a very active area out here and you get a lot of people that come out here to do tours and do other things it's just so beautiful out here. People need to know there's not a lot of locations out here MEMBER ACAMPORA : It's called Google. ARLENE MELI : I know and it's very similar to the Chase Banks sign itself on the property that is only .2 miles away from it. It's pretty identical to that in construction, in illumination. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think however I mean a lot of people today use GPS, a local person knows where the bank is. It's clearly visible that it's a bank and to Pat's opinion on Love Lane where it's actually signage above the door it's harder to see because of the trees or because of the narrow road itself but when I look around town I don't see other banks with that benefit. Case in point Capital One. Right now as you know the shopping center basically across the street you know has a directory sign and it has the sort of the unit sign over the bank entrance that in my mind's eye it's just a chaotic, very visually disturbing channel Main Road Route 25. ARLENE MELI : I'm sorry what sign are you referring not the new building are you? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, no I was going back to where their previous bank location was and you know I just see there is a directory sign there. I think most people are going to understand that this is a bank building. Whether you understand it to be a Capital One or not I understand that point But if you are a local person you do know it's Capital One versus someone from out of area maybe using an application or whatever might be on their smart phone or whatever device it is to locate a bank. ARLENE MELI : Like I said there's a Chase bank that's .2 miles west of the Capital One Bank and it has a wall sign and it has the ground sign the way we have positioned the Capital One ground sign in the same look and the same affect and we're looking to get that making it more uniform. We're not looking to do anything different than that and it kind of brings it together as maybe a bank look. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask you something, one of the wall signs is permitted as of right which one was it? ARLENE MELI : The side one. 35 November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The side one alright. So did you get a permit then for the one on the front fagade? ARLENE MELI : We did. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Should the Board consider granting the freestanding sign how would you respond to the condition that that one be removed from the front of the building? ARLENE MELI : That the Capital One be removed? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The wall sign the second wall sign. ARLENE MELT : Oh, from the main front of the building? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes. ARLENE MELI : I can't speak for Capital One on that score. I would have to go back and ask them if they would be willing to do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, the Board can condition determinations and I'm not sure that three signs make sense on the property plus a directory sign. ARLENE MELI : Understood. My opinion would be if they had to have a choice between their ground sign and that front wall sign they would choose the ground sign. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what I thought. So it's the side elevation that was permitted. ARLENEN MELI : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't have any other questions. ARLENE MELI : If I may I did get one late card in that I didn't have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure give it to Kim, Gerry anything? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from anyone in the audience, anything else from the Board? Hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? 36 November 2; 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7099—EDWARD L. DALEY and DIANE L. DALEY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Edward L. Daley and Diane L. Daley#7099. This is a request for variances under Article III Section 280-15, Article XXIII Section 280-124 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 and to a pre-existing accessory (boathouse) building at 1) single family dwelling located less than the code required-minimum side yard setback of 20 feet, 2) accessory building located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 20 feet at 1350 Paradise Point Road (adj. to Southold Bay) in Southold. Please come forward and state your name for the record Mr. Cuddy. MR. CUDDY : Charles Cuddy, 445 Grilling Ave., Riverhead, New York to represent the applicant. Mr. Daley is here with me as well as the architect, John Nastassi. There is no boat house application. That was a mistake; apparently it originally was put in to the building inspector but it's on the pages that you have on your form I think it says no work on the boat house. So the boat house is not part of this application. It's just a side yard setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah okay I see what happened. The Notice if Disapproval was amended July 19th it just says side yard setback of 13.5 where the code requires a minimum of 20 feet. MR. CUDDY : So it's just that's all we're here for. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is the subject boat house what they were talking about this structure; that's right along the bank? MR. CUDDY : Yes, the little structure that's there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And that's pre-existing,correct? 3? November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting MR. CUDDY : That's pre-existing but that's not part of this application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we're just looking at this. MR. CUDDY : Daley home was constructed more than fifty years ago and at that time it met all the setback requirements; and in fact the C.O. was issued in 1966. What the Daley's want to do is to modernize the home and add to it as well as construct an attached garage. The side yards will remain the same. They're not being decreased at all. There's a stockade fence that's been there marking both property lines. The house on the north side is setback a fair distance away from the property lines so it can't impact that house. The new garage will be back similarly to where we have the house. Moving it forward would actually intrude into the access circle that's shown on your survey and make it difficult for trucks and cars to drive in and out. As far as the setback it's interesting to note that on the north side and it shows up on your survey that there's a deck and step that are a foot; and a foot and half from our property line. So the setbacks in the old days were much different I guess than they-are today but certainly that has an impact on my client too. I would say under the circumstances building in line with the existing setbacks is not going to cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and adding to the existing house and constructing a garage in place of the vehicle parking area in the zone designated for residential use on this parcel cannot have an adverse effect on the vesical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood. It's essentially an area where the residential houses that's what it's zoned for. It would be difficult to add a second story to the house except in its present location. The location that the attached garage is determined by both the house location and the existing pad that's already there and these are improvements that I don't believe could reasonably be achieved through any alternative. While the relief sought may be substantial at least in part it's caused by the zoning code because the zoning code has change over time and made this so much more a restricted type of setback. Obviously when the house was constructed it did conform to the code and so we're not asking for any change that reduces side yards and as far as self-created hardship I think it's a misnomer to use that term because here you have an existing house with existing setbacks and we didn't create that situation. So I believe that this application and having that house reconstructed will add value to the neighborhood. There really are no adverse impacts and I would ask the Board to approve it and I think Mr. Nastassi would also like to speak. Thank you. MR. NASTASSI : Hello my name is John Nastassi, I'm the architect for the applicant the Daley family. I've given you four sheets that I just want to briefly talk through. On sheet number one is a diagram of the ground floor the existing ground floor plan of the house which is in blue and the breezeway and garage which I'm proposing and this diagram on sheet one shows the existing setbacks of the house to the north property line and how we're aligning the proposed garage with that north elevation of the house and it also shows how the front of the garage is 381 November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting pressed north enough so that you can pull a car in and turn around and pull out of the property. So this explains why the garage is where it is. It also shows that in blue all of these things are remaining. So the basement of the house is remaining, the first floor is remaining and we're adding a second story to a one and a half story house. On page two I've marked out digitally where the garage is going to be as well as the pool and the pool house in relationship to the existing property and this is a pretty accurate using digital means so you can see how these pieces lay out on the property. Page three is an image of what the front faeade of the house will look like with the attached garage and breezeway and then page four is a rendering of what the rear faeade or the water faeade will be in relationship to the bulkhead to the existing boat house and then to the neighboring structures to the north. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : John, can you or Charles tell me, what's that ten foot right of way? Is that beach access for somebody? JOHN NASTASSI : It's a beach access for the neighbor who lives west of that house that's on the water to our north. So there's a house behind the neighbors to the north and they have a ten foot right of way. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat, any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : I want to live there. Beautiful drawings I have to say very, very nice but you're not going to do anything with that existing building the pool house where the JOHN NASTASSI : The bunker? Right now we are not and I think my clients are still gathering up the funds to renovate this house so that's not in the scope of work at this point. MEMBER ACAMPORA : What are you going to do with the existing garage? JOHN NASTASSI : It's going to stay and be for storage for boats and kayaks and things that you collect. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Are you making any changes to it? JOHN NASTASSI : In the state it's in right now it's okay shape. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think you've answered the question I have an actually the visual drawing that you provided; illustrates the turnaround issue. I didn't understand why you couldn't necessarily pull the garage forward the extra six feet sc that it's in a compliant location but I do get that for a car to turn around you can very clearly see that in the illustration that you would be reducing the size of the driveway or losing the island. 39 November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : My only concern is that in some respects and this has no reflection on you or your firm, you've done a beautiful job on most everything that I have reviewed but I'm only concerned that the maximum height of the proposed additions remain at less than thirty five feet and I think they are based upon the information here. JOHN NASTASSI : They do comply. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? MARK MILLER : My name is Mark Miller and I live at 1000 Paradise Point Road the home immediately to the south of the Daley's home and we're very familiar with the project and think that it's absolutely perfect for the neighborhood. It's in the spirit of the rest of the homes and the other projects that have been on going in the neighborhood and we're completely in support of the variance request that they've made and think that it's a great project. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that's always helpful. Well I don't think there is anyone else in the audience, anything from the Board? MEMBER ACAMPORA : I'll mirror what Pat said. It's a beautiful project and I do think it's something nice for the neighborhood too. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I wouldn't have expected anything less. Alright 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 ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) 40 November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting HEARING#7105—SEBASTIAN HEATH and SARAH BURNES CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Sebastian Heath and Sarah Burnes #7105. This is a request for variances under Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's July 31, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing seasonal dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet, 2) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 435 Skippers Lane (a.k.a. State Street) in Orient. Is someone here to represent the application? MERYL KRAMER : Hello, my name is Meryl Kramer. I'm the architect for the owners. I think that you've already been to the site so you can see that the existing structure has a what was seems to be an addition put on originally that was already non-compliant with regard to the setback so we're not changing the footprint of that piece of the structure. We're simply adding a sloped roof to that structure which now has a flat roof and we're also going to be reconstructing the walls which are not up to today's building code standard. We're also going to be doing some work underneath the house in the area where we're showing a new entry mudroom because there is a rubble foundation that is having some structural failure. With regard to the setback with the wood decks that we're putting on they're not really decks they're more of a stoop so that when you open the doors you have a place to stand and put things down and I am here to answer any questions that you might have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me enter into the record that what you're actually requesting is a rear yard setback of 26 feet where the code requires a minimum of 35 and lot coverage of 24.3%where the code permits a maximum of 20% and you also need approval from the Historic Preservation Commission. MERYL KRAMER : Which we have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have that. Did you submit a copy with the application or MERYL KRAMER : We had our hearing last month and 1 don't think we had everything in writing yet but they gave us we went to a pre-submission meeting and then our hearing and everything went smoothly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's in process you haven't received a final and you're proposing to increase the lot coverage by 198 square feet? MERYL KRAMER : Yes that also includes our stoops. 41 November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One third of which is for entry stoops you said I think. What is the rear yard setback for the principal structure now? MERYL KRAMER : Thirty feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thirty feet. MERYL KRAMER : So the 26 is again a four foot stoop and there is a stoop there now-that's like 3 % feet, we're just making it a little bit more easily walkable. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's the stoop that's going to change the rear yard setback from 30 to 26? MERYL KRAMER : Correct and there is a stoop there now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Am I right that the current lot coverage is 21.9%? MERYL KRAMER : Correct and we're going to 24.3 which again it's the stoop that's adding to that but as well as our little corner mudroom. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The one story addition? MERYL KRAMER : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you address other variances for setbacks or for lot coverage in the area? MERYL KRAMER : Yes we did include a little bit of a narrative on that and it's on page it's your well page three of our reasons of appeal so SCTM#1000-24-2 in 1980 there was a request and approval of a setback of 10% where there was a required 50 foot setback but they granted 45 feet. The neighbor immediately to the east which was your ZBA file 4533 should I enter the tax map numbers as well into the record or not? 1000-24.2-4 in 1998 asked for an approved rear yard setback of 28.6 where there was required 35 feet so that's their exact next door neighbor and the reason is quoted out of the decision that in light of the density of existing structures in the neighborhood and of the fact that several neighboring houses have rear setbacks of less than 35 feet the Board finds that granting a variance will not produce an undesirable in the character of the neighborhood. So I think that's very significant because it's their next door neighbor and the Board granted something very similar. Do you want me to keep going down the list of all the items or CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we have two lot coverage priors that you also submitted, 26.2 and 22%. 421 November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting MERYL KRAMER : Yes. Well let me actually say so the third with regard to rear setback would be ZBA file #7056. That granted a rear yard setback of 35.1 feet where there was a required setback of 50 feet and that was for an as built second floor deck in 2017. Then jumping to the lot coverage this is your file #4182 tax map #24.1-8 and that is lot coverage of 26.2 square feet and again they're saying your reasoning was that the substandard size of the lot which 8710 and our lot coverage size is 8304 so even smaller than that and then the final immediate east neighbor again the same property your same file #4533 lot coverage of 22% on a lot size that was 8285. So it's something that's not unheard of on this street. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has questions, Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes I had a question that I had asked my fellow members earlier about the ownership; can you explain I see on the property card illustrates an owner as Bliss yet the applicant is MERYL KRAMER : It must not have updated the property card so I'm going to let my neighbors know I mean my clients know and they'll have to contact the town and see. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And the other one said it's a little unusual but I can't it seems that they purchased the house like in 2007? MERYL KRAMER : Yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So it's a long period that there's a gap so I don't know if it's important to ask for a copy of the deed or anything but if there's some way that you can evidence that. MERYL KRAMER : To give proof that they own it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That they're actual owners. I know they filled out the application but just MERYL KRAMER : Yeah I think it might be just that they were unaware that the property card was updated. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Another question I had, the area that you're intending to add the one story addition from like the bilco door and I understand you're relocating the bilco door to the I guess it's the south side of the property. MERYL KRAMER : East. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Oh it's east. MERYL KRAMER : Well southeast side. 43 November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : There seems to be some sort of like an exhaust vent, what is that vent? MERYL KRAMER : On the existing or MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah it's right on the corner. I didn't see any signs of a gas meter or what could potentially be an oil tank or anything so I'm just curious to know MERYL KRAMER : I have to look at the photos because I honestly don't remember. I know they have a water heater. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It might be for the water heater (inaudible) MERYL KRAMER : We are replacing the water heater and there's an oil tank in the basement as well so I think it's for one of those I can't see clearly from the photograph I'm sorry and we're doing so much renovation. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I assumed it's going to be relocated. MERYL KRAMER : So it's going to be it was kind of something it's not significant to the project because it's going to be removed and relocated. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No nothing at this time. Do you have anything how old the house could be? MERYL KRAMER : The owners I have notes of the story which is fascinating because the original owners he grew up in the house and had the entire house moved to this site so the house is completely unheated right now. We're going to be the old knob and tube electric, wall paper kind of just peeling down from the walls so we're trying to restore the interior of the house as part of the project. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Apart from the problem with the foundation that you were referring to, in your opinion is the house structurally sound? MERYL KRAMER : It seems to be. There isn't a lot of sagging going on and the owners several years, ago replaced the roof with a,cedar roof which is actually there are some areas that are failing so part of our renovation we're going to be repairing that as well and if there's anything that like I said the portion of the house that we are working on that rear addition that does not seem structurally sound but we're going to make it so. 444 November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I stood back and it looked pretty straight to be honest with you. MERYL KRAMER : It's straight but it's not it's made with 2 by 4's I guess instead of 2 by 6 which is current code and even though it's unheated, un-air-conditioned space we are going to be insulating it so that it becomes more comfortable in the summer and can be used hopefully more extend the season. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Thank you for putting the sign up so quickly because there's a couple of streets around there with the same name or they use the names interchangeably and so it was a little interesting. I didn't bring my GPS with me. I try to do it without it and but I zeroed right in on that one.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No the question about the roof was answered. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Any idea when you're going to hear from Historic Preservation? MERYL KRAMER : Let me just check my file to see if there's definitely nothing here so I will have to check in with them and see. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't want it to delay the variances particularly. There's no need to do that. We can always condition it subject to approval by the Planning Commission which you will eventually get anyway. MERYL KRAMER : Yeah I would imagine that the only thing that I can think of also is that for some reason I'm seeing on the letter of disapproval as well it has the wrong address for my office. It says 213 Front Street, its 213 East Front Street. But I've subsequently moved to 260 Hortons Lane in Southold so maybe it was mailed to the wrong address so I can check in on that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well as soon as you get it submit it. The only reason I ask is because when we approve drawings we stamp them and I wouldn't want to be stamping a drawing that might have been altered by Landmarks Preservation. We'd rather be on the same page. MERYL KRAMER : Yeah and we did actually make sure CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) to the Building Department that way. MERYL KRAMER : We did make sure that the we use the same set of drawings for both so but I will have them forward or I'll get copies and send them to you to your office. 45 November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anybody? Hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close this hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7101—JOHN WICKHAM CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for John Wickham #7101. This is a request for a variance under Article IV Section 280-14 and the Building Inspector's May 23, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit for a lot line modification (to combine two lots and then create a new lot) at 1) proposed lot measures less than the code required minimum lot area of 80,000 sq. ft. at 744 Old Pasture Road in Cutchogue. Good afternoon. ERIC BRESSLER : Good afternoon madam chairwoman, Eric Bressler. Wickham, Bressler and Geisa for the applicant. We're here today seeking a peculiar form of relief. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right you're making it bigger but not big enough. ERIC BRESSLER : What we're seeking to do is take a pre-existing non-conforming lot and make it more conforming. That's what we'd like to do. We can think of no reason why this shouldn't happen. We take it that the Board is familiar with the property and it would seem to be no reason why this shouldn't occur. This subsidiary question of course arises as to whether the code really says that or whether it should say that but that's neither here nor there. As the lot is becoming more conforming we think it's a benefit with the neighborhood and plainly meets the test for variance thus we ask that you view this application favorably. I'd be happy to field any questions. I don't think the Board has any but if you do I'll take them. 46 November 2; 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I just want to enter into the record some of the details which is that there is a very small parcel adjacent to the subject parcel which has a garage on it and you want to put the garage on the same parcel as the house thereby increasing the conformity of one parcel and getting rid of a supremely non-conforming lot. ERIC BRESSLER : Without otherwise affecting the other parcel size wise. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's also located on a very private sort of dead end on Wickham Creek. The new lot is going to be 40,596 sq. ft. and it's in an R-80 zoned district. The notice says that you need Planning Board approval. ERIC BRESSLER : Yes it does. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you're combining a 0.387 acre parcel now part of lot 2 with lot 1 which will equal 0.544 acres. Lots will increase in size to 0.9319, 40,596 sq. ft. I just want to get the numbers in the record that's all. ERIC BRESSLER : Yes that is all correct madam chairwoman. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from the Board, Pat? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Mr. Bressler would you call this an enhanced variance? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : An enhanced variance? ERIC BRESSLER : I'm not quite sure what to call it. I think we're just trying to improve the neighborhood since I live in proximity there too. On a personal level I think it's a great idea and it certainly makes a lot of sense. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm just curious a little bit about the history if you don't mind sharing, how did the subdivision occur when you sold the development rights didn't this come up at any earlier time. It's an unusual lot and the garage clearly looks as if it should have been attached to the house to begin with. ERIC BRESSLER : Well it came up at the time and you can see from the surveys based upon the area with respect to which development rights were not sold that is the preserved area you can see that plainly thought was given to having this occur but sometimes in the event things don't always happen at the same time. So the answer to your question is yes it was contemplated at the time that the development rights were sold that this thing be regularized being a family thing for years and years nobody paid close attention to it and then when people looked at'it and said this just isn't going to work. We need to do this so we'll reserve that area out of there where the garage is and eventually we'll get around in making the applications and here I am. 1 47 November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting think that's a little bit of history and there was no reason other than the natural velocity of things why there was a gap from then and now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No visible change what's so ever is going to take place here. I mean it already looks like it's one lot and just also for the record it's LWRP consistent because it's creating more conformity to the code, anything from you Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) 48 November 2, 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 : D- " Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : November 13, 2017 49