Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-12/07/2017 Hearing u 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 December 7, 2017 9:38 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member ERIC DANTES— Member GERARD GOEHRINGER— Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO— Member KIM FUENTES— Board Assistant _- - WILLIAM DUFFY—Town Attorney December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Stritzler Family Trust#7106 3-8 Martha E. Rosenthal #7107 8 - 10 Zane Sellis#7108 11 - 15 Gian Mangieri #7109 15 - 28 Fleming TJ and HB Trust#7110 28 - 31 Jon Tomlinson and Herb Lewis#7111 31 - 37 Lori and Neil Kearns#7112 37 - 39 Durante and Anna Galeotafiore #7113 39 -41 Matthew Mizrahi #7114 41 - 50 Shawn Fitzgerald/Fitzgerald SP Rev. Liv. Trust #7115 50 - 65 December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting HEARING#7106—STRITZLER FAMILY TRUST CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for Stritzler Family Trust #7106. This; is a request for variance under Article XXII Section 280-116 and the Building Inspector's July 26, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for an amendment to the Building Permit No. 41221 to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff, located at 955 Soundview Avenue (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Mattituck. Is there someone here to represent the application? PETER STOUTENBURG : Peter Stoutenburg Environmental East. I have a letter here that addresses the concerns (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Peter would you do me a favor? Just pass those out and then go back to the mic because it's being recorded and we want to make sure we hear what you have to say. Let me just enter in to the record that this is for essentially for a deck and steps going down to the bluff is that correct? PETER STOUTENBURG : It actually is for a bathroom that's underneath the existing deck and it's for a kitchen extension, very small that's on top of it so the fact that we're within a 100 feet we are within the footprint of what exists. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you need Trustees approval too Peter? PETER STOUTENBURG : Trustees I don't know when I go back it depends on what the Building Department says when I go back. The Trustees have already granted the approval for the deck from years ago and (inaudible) some repairs on it last year and then they said well while we're there can we do this additional work all within the existing footprint. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And I see you replaced that large seaward deck with the (inaudible) composite material a Trex type thing. PETER STOUTENBURG : Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's 57 feet from the bluff at the nearest point. PETER STOUTENBURG : Yes and we're not going to be at the nearest point, we're behind it underneath the kitchen will be almost behind the deck and even the bathroom is behind the deck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now did you want to address Soil and Water, the conditions that is that what your letter does? December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting PETER STOUTENBURG : Yea I mean we're going to do whatever we need to. The biggest problem I think that they addressed was not that anything is happening towards the bluff, we're not going to be putting any equipment up there. It's more the fact that the dry wells have seen their day and water is running towards the neighbor's property and that we will be putting in new dry wells anyway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And we have a recommendation that it's LWRP consistent just so do you have a copy of that letter or do you want a copy. PETER STOUTENBURG : I have a copy. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I just wanted the record to show that it is considered to be consistent. PETER STOUTENBURG : There should be a copy of the fabric that we will be putting under the decks since the deck just nothing can grow under but that's an erosion fabric that we've used before. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Which one are you going to use Peter? PETER STOUTENBURG : I prefer the larger mesh. I think it's the third one down. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any questions from anyone? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : How effective is that? PETER STOUTENBURG : It's about as effective as you can get because nothing grows there so your other option is to put something that's not (inaudible) but then you've got to collect all the water. On a (inaudible) that you can grow things on it's very effective because it holds the seed. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : The question is, is there a particular way that you could if you wanted to and this is not a sarcastic statement I assure you it's pragmatic to change that (inaudible) way it's going down and trying to put something on the top of it so that the water is running on you know some wooden surface with possibly this jute underneath it or something that would not run off and create more of a PETER STOUTENBURG : If they had put a pitch on the gutter and the water that's all water coming off the roof that's why you've got that (inaudible). We've re-pitched the gutters and when we connect in the new dry wells that will disappear. It will actually be filled in and it will grow grass again. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : So the jute is actually going to go underneath the deck. 4 December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting PETER STOUTENBURG : Yeah. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : So for any excess that would be on the deck that dribbles through that will take care of that. PETER STOUTENBURG : Right just go in the sand. I mean that's they really don't have much soil up there. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No it's all sand, there's clay underneath it I'm sure. PETER STOUTENBURG Although we've opened up the cesspools to check on and they're draining fine. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : They're in sand, they're draining real well. PETER STOUTENBURG : So there's not as much clay there as many places. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any questions Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes, actually Peter one question it's not relative to the work on the water side of the house but on the front. When I was at the property for the site inspection, walking around I came well I walked on the kitchen side first back on the water side and then I guess it would be the east side returning to the front, there is a series of like flag markings along that catwalk ramp, what was that sort of square area that's PETER STOUTENBURGH : Well since it took us I guess four months or five months to get on your schedule I know you guys are very busy. My customer is kind of pulling their hair out and beating me up and they said well what happens if we want to put in a screened in porch on the other side and I said well I will ask the Board if they would permit any addition on the road side of the house at the meeting. MEMBER DANTES : How many feet would be additional on the road side of the house from the bluff? If it's over 100 feet then it doesn't PETER STOUTENBURG : Well let me just see if MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So am I correct in understanding the area on the road side you're planning a proposing something that PETER STOUTENBURG : I'm talking to them because this is taking so long, they're thinking about what they want to do next and so they'd like to have a screened in porch and a new entrance way on the roadside. 5 b December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : According to your survey your kitchen or bathroom addition is 70, 80 feet from the top of the bluff so if there's another 20 feet of house there and it's over 100 then it's not (inaudible) PETER STOUTENBURG : There's a four foot gray area but I had a new survey done and the new survey shows that MEMBER DANTES : What I'm telling you is I can't give you an answer without a proposal on the survey showing that it's not our jurisdiction. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea, here's the thing Peter. We can't unless that was part of the original application to the ZBA we can't rule on it in any way because we can only effectively hear an appeal from an action of the Building Department and if the Building Department didn't put this in the Notice of Disapproval it's either because they didn't know about it or they knew about it and it's conforming. T.A. DUFFY : And it wouldn't be fair to the applicant or to the Board and it would be improper for them to weigh in on how they might rule if there was an application so I'm advising them not to speak to it at all. PETER STOUTENBURG : So then if I've had a survey done since then since they said they wanted to do something in the front yard and there is about a five foot section that is within the 100 foot even though it's on the road side of the house where you saw those flags and then most of what they want to do with the screened in porch is well beyond CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know what, that would be a decision that the Building Department will have to discuss with you and then depending on their ruling we'll be involved or we won't be involved. PETER STOUTENBURG : Well then I would need to come back again. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If in fact they say that there's a variance required for it I'm afraid that's true and we'll get you on the agenda as soon as possible. You're right; we have seen an enormous number of applications. We're usually able to calendar within from the time we get a completed application within maximum two months but we're just taking first come first served. PETER STOUTENBURG : Well I'm sorry they throw so many things at you guys. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So are we. 6 December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Wouldn't it make sense if the applicant's considering this that they make an amendment then and we continue to hear it or would we just discuss what's before us at this time and then T.A. DUFFY : You would have to re-notice the whole CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If it's a different issue than something that's currently here and then they would have to have another hearing anyway because they'd have to send out a notice to say we want this also so it's not going to cause any other delay because they're going to have to be separate applications because they weren't applied for at the same time. PETER STOUTENBURGH : Well I don't think they even thought about it five months ago when we were finishing up the deck project and I think (inaudible) that they finally said well what else do we need-to do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN. : Anything else from anybody? MEMBER DANTES : Or if there is an easy design change that takes you out of that area you can always explore that option as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's true. You know generally something on the landward side is a whole lot easier as you can imagine but we can't really make a decision about that or comment one way or the other. MEMBER DANTES : I have a question Leslie. It says on the survey that the (inaudible) addition under existing deck starts at 79.5 feet from the top of the bluff, do you know how far the I guess it's a kitchen addition you know how far that starts at from the top of the bluff? PETER STOUTENBURG : No but it should scale off there. Where the existing-house is, it's no closer than the existing house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm trying to figure out why did they, why the Building Department cited 57 feet. PETER STOUTENBURG : I think that's the deck and that's already been there and they've already got the right to do it, everything is behind that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm just double checking because I guess they simply took the closest point to the top of the bluff. PETER STOUTENBURGH : Both the kitchen addition and the bathroom are extending parallel to the existing house. 71 u December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPEROSN WEISMAN : Okay, anything else from anyone? Hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. ,CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :.Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7107— MARTHA E. ROSENTHAL CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Martha E. Rosenthal #7107. This is a request for a variance under Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's July 17, 2017, amended July 31, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize "as built" additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet located at 802 Munnatawket Ave. on Fishers Island. Good morning, state your name please. STEPHEN HAM : Good morning, Stephen Ham 38 Nugent St. Southampton for the applicant. I have the affidavit and a memorandum. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : While you're handing those out I'll just indicate here that this is to legalize "as built" additions and alterations at 6.5 feet from the rear yard setback. Just so you're aware, a number of us went to the annual Town Board meeting on Fishers Island were able to do a site inspection so STEPHEN HAM : Oh yes, Mrs. MacDonald brought you there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's right. December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting STEPHEN HAM : Well as you said what we are requiring here is the setback variance to the rear yard requirement of 35 feet for improvements that were made over the years through building permits were issued for them for various mistakes by the Building Department, omissions by the contractor were never closed out with C.O.'s. However all of the improvements have now been inspected by the building inspector and passed inspection so what remains is to get C.O.'s for these two open permits which are consolidations of prior permits. It would be the rear yard variance plus the payment of any required fees. So we're sort of at,the end of the process here. In the memorandum, and there's an affidavit attached to that from my clients the owners of the property, that they were unaware or became aware only gradually of various problems and I address in the memo the issue of self-created hardship here which could conceivably be a factor. However I think you know they were innocent of willfully violating or failing to get C.O.'s. They relied on their contractor and the Building Department actually issued building permits for,,most of this construction over in three stages in '76 and '89. It wasn't until 2007 that the Building Department when they wanted to put on my clients were putting a front porch addition on that they noticed that a part of it was within the 35 foot setback they sent them the Building Department sent them to the Zoning Board. I was not representing them then but your Board granted a variance for a slight overhang of this front porch. No one ever mentioned the fact that a good bit of the house was within the 35 foot rear yard setback so this has sort of continued over the years and is now we're trying to rectify it. In the memo I make the area variance I address the criteria and I think you can you will be able to find that had this not been an "as built" situation but a proposal for this construction that you could freely grant a variance based on the various criteria particularly the fact that they really have no options. The survey we submitted with the application shows a very narrow building envelope. It's a very small property in R-80 zone district only about sixteen percent of the required area and even with the setback relief provisions for non-conforming lots it would be impossible really to utilize the property. On top of that and a major factor here is it's a very small neighborhood in terms of number of houses. There's a large property owned by Amanda and Richard Regal that wraps around it and their house is quite a ways away. It's protected by heavy vegetation in that area and the Regal's I hope you received, Kim, a letter from them that they have no objection that this would have you know impact on their property and finally I just want to point out we're not asking for any further variance other than for what is there so that's sort of the proposal. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's an interesting property because you can't tell where the rear lot line is. It extends from a bit of grass which is actually part not on their property according to the survey and then down rather a precipitous slope to a road so that area is visually very detached from any other properties and it looks as though their property is much deeper than what on paper. STEPHEN HAM : Right and it looks very extreme on a survey but in person 9 December 7,,2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WIESMAN : It does but it certainly doesn't look that extreme when you're there, any questions from anybody or comments, Pat or Eric? MEMBER DANTES : It looks like it was a non-conforming lot size that got up-zoned to R80 that seems to be what (inaudible) most of your problems. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Typical of Fishers Island. Nothing seems to conform. You should have had your own zonings, anything from you Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yes. So all you're asking us to do is legalize what is there? STEPHEN HAM : Correct. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I just wanted you to say that for the record or on the record. There's no plan on doing any other construction at this time? STEPHEN HAM : None, none at all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Pat, all in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) 101 December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting HEARING #7108—ZANE SELLIS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Zane Sellis #7108. This is a request for a variance under Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's August 9, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory garage at 1),located in other than the code required rear yard located at 25335 NYS Route 25 in Orient. Is there someone here to represent the application? Would you state your name for the record please? ARTIE RAMANAUSKAS : Artie Ramanauskas. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you spell your last name. ARTIE RAMANAUSKAS : Spells name. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is for a proposed accessory garage, in the side yard where the code requires a rear yard location. This is a one car garage,_15 feet 11 inches high and 9 foot wide by 20 feet deep correct? ARTIE RAMANAUSKAS : It's 12 feet wide. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Twelve feet, how did I get 9 feet, let's see. ARTIE RAMANAUSKAS : It's 12 by 20. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see what I have here and see why I said that. Maybe I misread the plan. Oh I see what happened here I got it. I put down the setback instead of the okay. So why does this need to be in a side yard and not in the required rear yard? ARTIE RAMANAUSKAS : Just like to keep it symmetrical because we have nice landscaping already set up in between the garage. We like to keep it symmetrical and you know when you pull in the driveway the garage is there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Have you considered attaching it? ARTIE RAMANAUSKAS : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because then it would be legal. ARTIE RAMANAUSKAS : No just the way the look of the design. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's purely an aesthetic decision on your part because you have an enormous back yard and a very large side yard on the other side of your house which would allow you to possibly put in another driveway on that side and 1� December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting ARTIE RAMANAUSKAS : It would be very expensive. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, a conforming garage in the rear yard. Are you aware of any other accessory garages in side yards along 25 or are they in the rear yard? ARTIE RAMANAUSKAS : I'm sorry, can you just repeat? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have to look at character of the neighborhood. When I drove up and down 25 1 saw a lot of accessory garages. ARTIE RAMANAUSKAS : Sheds right like two sheds in CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Or garages, either a shed or a garage. ARTIE RAMANAUSKAS : Okay yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And they seem to all be in back yards. I'm looking to see if there are other side yard locations in that neighborhood for accessory garages. ARTIE RAMANAUSKAS : The neighbor on the left side has a garage in the front. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In the front? ARTIE RAMANAUSKAS : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know if they had a variance because they would not legally be allowed to put in the front yard it's not waterfront property. ARTIE RAMANAUSKAS : Well it's attached to the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh it's attached to the house. That's not an accessory. Well let's see what other questions, I guess Mike Kimack couldn't be here your representative. ARTIE RAMANAUSKAS : The owner Zane Sellis. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes. Alright what he's basically saying that the location was in order to utilize an existing parking area driveway and to maintain that arch that you have two (inaudible) trees and it was selected to be small in scale and he's saying that the property line slants along that side so that the setback becomes difficult but there is an entirely huge other side here side yard that would allow you to easily access the rear. He also said that they didn't want to look at it basically in the back yard. I just wanted to enter it into the record because he did submit a letter. Okay let's see what questions people may have, Pat? IL7- December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Again just asking the question, if they did remove the plantings and part of the at walkway and put the garage attached. ARTIE RAMANAUSKAS : I mean like he doesn't want to because he already spent so much money on the plantings and the sidewalk it's really expensive to attach. MEMBER ACAMPORA : So it's a wish. ARTIE RAMANAUSKAS : I mean he doesn't want I'mean to remove the sidewalk. MEMBER ACAMPORA : It just seems that you do have a lot of room to the west side of the property. ARTIE RAMANAUSKAS : Yes it's very expensive to create another driveway from the other side of the house. MEMBER ACAMPORA : It's a balance edge, walkway, garage. ARTIE RAMANAUSKAS : We're trying to go with the most economical way just to make a detached one car garage. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : To Pat's point if I may, when I was at the site during the inspection, I had seen a .note discussing the landscaping and I do understand landscaping is expensive and it's actually beautifully done. I count and I've got a list of the trees, the species in the flagged area where the garage would be versus relocating the two weeping birches and the weeping archway is really pretty but when and I don't know what the foundation of the stone path but they look like they're just loose fit stones like paving stones on the earth it would seem that an easier solution would be to attach the garage and relocate the two weeping trees and I think there were four small hydrangeas versus you know I've got a list of eight privets, three hydrangeas you know a variety of different roses and all kinds of other things so the proposed garage area actually it would strike me as being more work to locate the garage where you're proposing versus attaching it to the house or putting it on the west side of the property. ARTIE RAMANAUSKAS : Well those two archway trees they're going to stay. We're not going to remove them. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I know, but what I'm suggesting is from a relocation plan to dig up all the landscaping that you put in the location of the garage, proposed garage it would strike me as being easier to relocate the two trees and the small four shrubs versus all the privet hedge, all the roses, all the hydrangeas etc. 13 it December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting ARTIE RAMANAUSKAS : Like I said I just you know the homeowner wants that way and that's why I'm here you know just representing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well certainly the homeowner has every right to request a variance from this Board but the Board has a series of standards that we have to examine in order to make a determination and one of those standards is does the applicant have any feasible alternative to a variance. So that's what we're questioning here. We're looking to see whether or not it's feasible for them to do something,-that is conforming or more conforming. That's the nature of these questions. I won't conclude anything we're just exploring at a public hearing. We'll make our determination within two weeks' time at our next meeting in the evening. Gerry do you have any questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yeah I'd like you to take a ride down that road particularly it can be on either side of the street because there are stand-alone garages on that road okay and get the house number, bring it in the office and see if they can get you a possibility of any variances on those and then the Board will make a decision. That's really the only answer that we have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric would like to MEMBER DANTES : Yea I have a comment, the Notice of Disapproval that says garage located other than the code required rear yard but I'm looking at the site plan by Mark Schwarz showing the garage 4.5 feet from the property line and I thought code required 5 no? So (inaudible) Notice of Disapproval isn't disapproving the 4.5 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Maybe they're just looking at the larger setback because it's at an angle. ARTIE RAMANAUSKAS : Yeah and they have a cesspool and a drywell which is right behind. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah, the setback is not necessarily the issue. The issue is the fact that it's in a non-conforming side yard. So when it's in a non-conforming yard if we grant it, we have the right to grant it anywhere in that non-conforming yard because no matter where you put it it's still going to be non-conforming, anything else from the Board, 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 : What if he gets garages I mean can he bring that in? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There aren't any. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : There are down the road. 141 December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Comps, priors? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I don't know, you know, I don't know if they're CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : My observation was that the ones that I saw were either attached garages or in the rear yard. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No there's a couple of stand alones going down the road. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, we can do you want and try to look and see whether or not you can identify other things or do you want us to just close this? ARTIE RAMANAUSKAS : No we just have to because he's not going to go you know for the other option. He wants to just the way we're asking. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, so I have a motion to close the hearing reserve decision, is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7109—GIAN MANGIERI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Gian Mangieri #7109. This is a request for a waiver of merger petition under Article II Section 280-10A to unmerge land identified as SCTM#1000-125-3-18 which has merged with SCTM#1000-125-3-2.3 based on the Building Inspector's July 6, 2017 Notice of Disapproval which states that a non-conforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or non-conforming lot held in common ownership with the first lot at any time after July 1, 1983 and that non-conforming lots shall merge until the total lot size conforms to the current bulk schedule requirements (minimum 80,000 sq. ft. 15 ii December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting in the AC Zone District) located at 2050 NYS Route 25 in Laurel. Good morning Martin, would you state your name please. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good morning everybody, Martin Finnegan, Twomey, Latham, Shea, Dugan and Cartararo, 56340 Main Rd. Southold. I am here this morning on behalf of Mr. Gian Mangieri who resides at 1900 Main Rd. in Laurel. Before I begin I have a memo if I could hand that up to the Board, and I have a couple (stepped away from the microphone). As Leslie pointed out Mr. Mangieri is seeking a waiver of merger of two parcels located on the Main Rd. in Laurel. They are lot 2.3 and lot 18 for our discussion here today. As depicted on the survey that you all have in front of you lot 18 is a vacant, unimproved parcel in the AC zoning district. It's about a half an acre in size. Lot 2.3 is an eleven and a half acre parcel in the same zoning district that is improved with a single family residence and agricultural storage building, some greenhouses and a horse barn. All of the existing structures on lot 2.3 have C.O.'s and the development rights are intact on both of these parcels, lot 18 and lot 2.3. The Mangieri's live on this land with their family. Mr. Mangieri operates Laurel Creek Landscaping Nurseries and is a wholesale grower of large container hydrangeas. Just a little of the history of this property prior to the Mangieri's ownership. Before 1960 this property was farmed. The prior owner who took title in the early 1960's converted the use to a sand and gravel mining operation which wreaked considerable havoc on this property. It exploited it significantly and when the Mangieri's took over the ownership of the property and over the last twenty years they have worked very hard to correct the damage that was done to restore the soils to active agricultural production and as a result they're able to operate their hydrangea farm there on a substantial portion of the site. So, the merger what happened? Lots 18 and 2.3 became inadvertently merged when in June 1994 when they were conveyed to Mr. Mangieri's parents Mario and Louise. There's only been one subsequent conveyance that occurred six months later in December of 1994 and that was to Mr. Mangieri. The property remains in title to him. I just want to take a minute to talk about the big picture here because a full disclosure we are hoping that this is just a first step in the process that Mr. Mangieri would like to do with the property. His ultimate goal if the waiver is granted is to seek a lot line modification to divide this property into two conforming lots. So, even though the lot line still appears on the tax map we know that it is legally invisible and we're hoping that ultimately it can be restored and then moved and I'll explain that in a little more detail. As I said the development rights are intact and this property would have the potential to be subdivided into three or four lots under our code but Mr. Mangieri is a farmer and as I said he's worked really hard over the last twenty years to restore this property but he has a family and he is looking to have the ability to construct one more house on this property which would be down here in the southwestern corner of the property where there is not a lot going on right now and as it is with an existing single family residence (inaudible not talking into the mic). We have had some discussions obviously with the Planning Department. I am aware 1 December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting of their official comment on this but they certainly are aware of what is proposed here and we've gotten positive feedback because obviously the concept of a subdivision of this would not be good for anybody so anyway that is really the method to our madness if you will here and so if it is granted he would (inaudible) move this western lot line of lot 18 to the west essentially just draw a line right here from this point straight up and the resulting parcels would have one single family residence here and all the remaining agricultural structures be here with one farm house to be constructed at some point in the future. So, the criteria we certainly believe that under the code that Mr. Mangieri and under the circumstances here that he can establish the criteria for the issuance of a waiver of merger under 280-11. The first criteria as you know is, has there been any other conveyance outside the family, I have a single and separate search that I provided for the record with the application which confirms that the only conveyance,since Mr. Mangieri's parents took title was to him back in December 1994 and as such there are no transfers to unrelated persons. So that criteria has been satisfied. Then we go to balancing test your favorite thing to do and the first element there is are you going to create a lot that is consistent or comparable with the other improved lots in the neighborhood. Obviously we're not dealing if you I don't know if you have a section of the tax map in front of you, we're not dealing with a normal with a standard pattern of development in this area this particular stretch of the Main Rd. in Laurel is comprised of a lot of larger agricultural parcels obviously to the north there's a lot of residential development. Lot 18 is somewhat unique but there are comparable sized parcels directly to the east, directly to the north and so we would argue that if you're looking at it as it currently exists then we would satisfy that because it would be restoring a lot that is comparable in size with reference to some other similar lots but I would again ask you to keep the big picture in'mind here that if this is granted and once the lot line modification presumably would be granted that even then the ultimate lot that would be created or recognized by the Planning Board through that process would likewise be comparable because of the fact that there are there's such a variety of sized lots here that I think that under either scenario what would currently exist or what may exist in the future would really be comparable with this surrounding community. I just wanted to I do have a letter in support from Dr. Joseph Gebia who resides directly to the south on Condor Court that he is full support of the application for a waiver of merger of the farm just to the north of his farm. He owns the farms just directly south. MEMBER DANTES : Can I ask you a question Martin? Go back to your single and separate search, I got property 18 and property 2.003, property 18 held by Jordan McCarthy and Helen McCarthy okay and then it goes upon Jordan McCarthy (inaudible) in Florida and Helen McCarthy surrogates court it says in the Estate of Helen McCarthy, James McCarthy, George McCarthy and distributees of the Estate of Jordan McCarthy and Helen McCarthy and then 2.003 at the same time goes to distributee as the Estate of George A. McCarthy and Helen 171 December•7, 2017 Regular Meeting McCarthy. How come it wasn't merged upon the death of Mr. McCarthy into it looks like those two estates are the same according to this search but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What year was that? MEMBER DANTES : 1994 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the merger law was established in '83 MEMBER DANTES : Right but this is an estate so I don't I just need you to somehow clarify why this estate isn't merging the properties because estates aren't always the same as individual ownership. It looks like they had it checker boarded until George died. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Let me take a look at;the for you Eric and I can try and get some more clarification on that but I do believe that it was held by so it was Charles, George McCarthy and Helen McCarthy MEMBER DANTES : They have it separate and then this estate it looks like it may be MARTIN FINNEGAN : I know when we went through this it was definitely, well I can review that and clarify that for you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And Mangieri's bought in '94 did you say? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes in '94 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and then they bought both lots? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes both lots. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : separate lots and they then merged MARTIN FINNEGAN : They bought them as separate lots, separate deeds for each lot yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and they were merged what in what year, immediately or what because the merger law went in to effect in '83. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yea, so I would think immediately they when they bought them CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If they were in the same name they would have automatically been merged at that time and MARTIN FINNEGAN : At that time yes. 1 December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : but they purchased them as separate lots so apparently they hadn't been merged prior to but that's what I guess we have to look at. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes, purchased them as (inaudible) lots and they still are treated as separate lots that's one of my CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Typical of Southold. MEMBER DANTES : What was the zoning back then though, was it MEMBER GOEHRINGER : One acre. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It might have been one acre, it might have been conforming. They would not have merged it if they were conforming. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yea, right at that time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : These are always so complicated to trace. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Martin; excuse me is there any relationship between the McCarthy's and the Mangieri's? MARTIN FINNEGAN : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just for the record, why not just do a subdivision with the Planning Board? Why do you have to unmerge these if the ultimate goal is to take the property that's the two properties that have merged and divide them anyway do they have to really be unmerged in order to do that create two conforming lots? MARTIN FINNEGAN : It's obviously a much more streamlined less expensive process to do a lot line modification. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you just want to go with a lot line. It's more about the feasibility of time and"money. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes, we're not because subdivision that process obviously has implication for a you know to be able to cut this property up like that they only want two lots they don't want any more and you know the fees and everything that would be associated and in consultation with the Planning Department who like that would be crazy to go through that process if the end goal is only to just have two lots. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I just wanted it in the record because it's an obvious question. 19 December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting MARTIN FINNEGAN : Anyway moving on to the next criteria, has it always been, yes, it's always been treated historically. I have copies of the current tax bills,that I can hand up for each parcel. They've always been treated by the town by the county, they're still in the tax map as separate parcels and they've never been anything but and then lastly adverse impacts honestly there's no change contemplated here other than the movement of this line ultimately. The operation of this land has been consistent. It has been a well maintained operated farm by the Mangieri's and so we can really conceive of no adverse impact. There certainly has been no concern or opposition expressed by any neighbors. This is simply intended as we have expressed to enable them to go to the next step and pursue that lot line change. On balance I would submit to you that those three criteria have been satisfied by the evidence on the record. If you need any other evidence for each of those points let me know but we would ask that you render a decision in favor of the Mangieri's. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : With regard to the ultimate goal of the creation of two lots the Planning Board action, in order for us to feel as though the ultimate end result would be two conforming lots rather than the creation of an atypical rather small lot in that area, what about the possibility of conditioning the granting of a waiver of merger based upon obtaining a lot line change from the Planning Board? MARTIN FINNEGAN : I think we would be open with that. That would be fine. I mean and it is obviously the goal would be because we don't want to come back here would be to create a conforming lot in the AC zone and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because I think it strengthens the argument about not unmerging something that then creates a very small little lot. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I mean that's what I'm saying, it's not a fiction or whatever but we're asking for you do restore this little lot almost temporarily and it would absolutely be conditioned that's fine that's what we're looking for. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm happy that you asked that question, that was something that I was thinking of myself. The only other sort of thing that I'm thinking about when I look at the site and it was a little bit difficult to actually find the site to understand the lay of the land the topography, while you say that it is single and separate and I understand that there's separate tax bills and I understand the history, the ownership is a little bit of an amorphous conversation to me because it would seem as a layman you know a starting point that in fact the lots were merged. Additionally where you say that it's always been treated independently it seems like this is the only access and usable means for the farm to function. It's where a farm stand occurs, its where access to the mobile home, to the greenhouses etc. so I don't quite know if 20 r December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting it's fully separated or not but I am happy to hear your statement that if there was a condition applied to an approval that would actually rectify I think a lot of my (inaudible) MARTIN FINNEGAN : Absolutely fine that's what the goal is. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But it is something that I would argue, it really strikes me that it has already been merged. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Well it's legally merged, yes and that access road you see is a historical road, the Main Rd. used to have a different configuration as Gerry will recall and as I understand it that has always used to be the way in when the Main Rd. Franklinville Rd. was the way around and so but yes no objection to any such condition. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess the only remaining thing then Martin, then, would be to make sure that providing us with information that when Mangieri's parents purchased the lots they were at that point not merged already. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Alright I can clarify that. I will submit a letter. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That will clarify that. That's I guess where Eric was looking. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address this application? Please come to either podium but you have to speak into the mic. GIAN MANGIERI : Thank you Mr. Finnegan. I appreciate you representing me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : State your name please. GIAN MANGIERI : My name is Gian Mangieri, I am the owner of the present owner of the property and just so that the Board knows I have absolutely no intention, if it is unmerged to build, anything on that lot to do nothing and for any of my neighbors who might be here to do nothing but move the lot line as the Planning Board suggested to me so that I could avoid having to go through a subdivision. To do a subdivision instead of unmerging the property will force me to do more development not less because if I have to go through this tremendous expense and I can only do it once then it's going to make me do what I don't want to do and it's going to compromise my operation so I just want to be clear that I would be more than happy to make it contingent upon the moving of the lot line and the moving of the lot line would actually be conforming to the way that the lay of the land is because where we would move the lot line to is in the naturally existing creek would be where the line goes. So it just kind of makes sense. I like my predecessors very much, but they did a lot of damage to the property and the way the things were chopped up when the road was moved caused a lot of problems and.issues and sadly I did not have the benefit of and my parents did not have the benefit of good counsel. 21 December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting When we did purchase the property we did and there is evidence of it that we have three different deeds. So I don't know if there's and we can I know Mr. Finnegan has them and we can produce them as evidence that it was three lots that were purchased so I'm not an attorney and I don't know if they were merged prior to that. That's why I have Mr. Finnegan helping me, but I just want to let the Board know what my intentions are and thank you for hearing my case because I certainly don't want to subdivide and have to put in you know break the property up because it's going to it'll be broken up forever so again thank you for hearing me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your testimony, anyone else in the audience? ALTHEA TRAVIS : Hi. I'm a neighbor also. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Just state your name please. ALTHEA TRAVIS : I'm about to do that. I have a copy of what I'm going to say for each of you. My name is Althea Travis. My property is north of Main Rd. and I must say I'm a little bit vague on some of the descriptions because the diagrams were not posted where the audience could see them. I had to refer to a map that had been mailed to me but there might have been changes before it was presented to you today. If that .could be done at a later time in this hearing I would appreciate it. MEMBER DANTES : I could show it to you if you want to see it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here's what we could do. I want to make sure you have time to talk to each other and see what's going on. ALTHEA TRAVIS : My presentation is only four minutes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't mean to rush you, I just want to see if you want to take more time to talk to each other, go out there and do that. (applicant is explaining to the neighbor how the proposed subdivision would occur) ALTHEA TRAVIS : Thank you. I still would like to pursue the thoughts that I had here earlier. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Excuse me if I may Ms. Travis, would you mind telling us which lot you own so I could see on the map so that I better understand what you're speaking about. ALTHEA TRAVIS : I live at 540 Franklinville Rd. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but do you know the tax map number or would you be able to identify if I showed you the map? 27 December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting ALTHEA TRAVIS : If you showed me the map it's directly across the street. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you're directly across the street. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So are you on the 2.1 acre lot? ALTHEA TRAVIS : Yes, well no it's not 2.1 acres. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is it the land that's called Franklin Villa LLC? ALTHEA TRAVIS : Yes, that's about a quarter acre. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So you're right there on the edge within the groin if you will of Franklinville and Main Rd? ALTHEA TRAVIS : Yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Okay. ALTHEA TRAVIS : There's two of us there, the Marybeth Andreson and myself. We share in essence a geological feature which is Brushes Creek. On the illustrations they were labeled as a pond. I think historically it would be important to have going forward to have things labeled by Brushes Creek. That's part of the glacial outwash stream and it goes although it's been bifurcated by the Long Island Railroad and other cranberry (inaudible) and so on Main Rd. It is all geologically the same Brushes Creek. It's evidenced as water on my property and also on Mr. Mangieri's. The letter from the petitioner's attorney which contained the hearing notice and the plan map was dated November 20, 2017. During this delivery period I was out of the county and or out of state. The few days that I became aware of the petitioner's application to unmerge adjoining lots of the property have not been sufficient to study what impact that granting his waiver might have on our vicinity of Laurel but not limited to my property. As stated in hearing notice lot 1000-125-3-2-18 merged with lot 125-3-2.3 at a result of the Building Inspector's July 6, 2017 Notice of Disapproval. A history outlined on a section of the survey map seems to indicate that proposed lot line dated June 27, 2017 may have been what drew the disapproval from the inspector. So I hope during this hearing light will be shed on what precisely was the cause of that disapproval. With such information I would be better able if the Board will allow a continuance of the hearing to study and discuss with neighbors the potential impact of the requested unmerging. No one wants a neighbor to struggle to conform with unnecessary and arbitrary regulations or enforcement but the agricultural conservation AC district zoning is to preserve as much as reasonably possible our town's agricultural and low density residential character a worthy mission indeed. Yet regrettably sometimes well-meant rules imposed needless hardship on local farmers whose survival is AC zonings declared 23 ft December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting (inaudible). My initial reaction to the waiver application is to support the Building Inspector issuing the Notice of Disapproval because I believe in the mission assigned to AC zoning. I am concerned that waiving the merger of lots imposed by the inspector enforcing the AC zoning statute would undermine efforts to retain our towns' agricultural and low density residential character. Overturning the inspector's findings should not even be considered unless the particular code enforcement is clearing shown as running contrary to the stated purpose of the code. I believe the immediate community potentially impacted should have more time to get more information on A) the history in particular of lots involved on existing and any proposed structures and C) on the opportunities of the petitioner had to bring the non-conforming lot into compliance and what bulk and other specifics prompted the Notice of Disapproval. Perhaps facts might emerge they could come and change initial concerns. I had a few questions that arose along the way. I was glad to hear that there is not a subdivision intended. I was able to observe the property on Google Earth. Unfortunately the pictures were all taken during summer so one could not observe the topography but it talks about proposed green houses and I see there's a mobile home I don't know if that counts as a residence or not and it looks from this description that the green houses are already there. It's not evident on Google Earth. I think that may be what is the proportion of land to the structures and I'm not oh what does the term bulk what does that apply to that's in the code? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The bulk schedule. That refers to the dimensional considerations, the depth and width of the property. The setbacks from the street, the rear yard and the side yard things like that. What size the property is. What's being proposed here is to take all the property that's there and to ultimately make two lots that are conforming to code in terms of the size and any setbacks. They would not be non-conforming which is why I was asking about conditioning the potential approval of a waiver which takes this little lot and kind of separates it from the big lot just on paper because it's already there and that then allows them to do an easier creation of two conforming lots by going to the Planning Board to get a lot line modification which again is going to be on paper. So everything that's there is staying there. There's no proposed change and the idea is to create two lots that conform to the bulk schedule and to the code requirements. ALTHEA TRAVIS : And they would both be agricultural AC? , CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes the zoning doesn't change. ALTHEA TRAVIS : Nothing gets recorded as residential? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it's an AC zoned district and we're not changing the zone. That stays in tact it's still agricultural. 241 December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : What's your question? I mean you can build a house in an agricultural district.That's a permitted use. ALTHEA TRAVIS : Okay well that makes sense. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you have any other questions? ALTHEA TRAVIS : I was taking notes hickledee pickledee, I think the merger law went into effect in 1983 and yet they weren't merged you pointed that out that they weren't merged early on when the McCarthy's passed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we think they weren't. If they're held in separate names in same family then they don't get merged but sometimes like when a spouse dies and then it goes into the other spouse's estate and then it's in one name and then they up zone okay and then the law was changed because that seemed very punitive you know if a husband and wife had different names and then one dies so merger upon death was an exemption it became an exemption. It's complicated this merger law which is why it takes attorneys to figure it out, figure out the title changes. I have an idea MEMBER DANTES : That could be the answer to our question to Martin. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes exactly. Martin did you want to say something? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Just to address the I think when you read the single and separate search they were the one property was in George's name, the other property was in George and Helen's name so they were single and separate. When it was conveyed to the Mangieri's they did that by way of a single deed which identified parcel one and parcel two. So, I have that deed and it references them back to George and then back to George and Helen. So they were single and separate at the time they came into the Mangieri's and I will I don't have another copy I can submit this to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's fine. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Didn't you provide us with a copy of the deeds? MARTIN FINNEGAN : You may have that deed but it's the '94 deed that definitely breaks it out since both parcels went at the same time I think the search makes it look like they had merged into the estate but they were separate. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And it got merged because the Mangieri's held it in one name the joint names for both lots. MARTIN FINNEGAN :John's mom and dad took it from the McCarthy's and each one separately 251 December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you need to submit a little bit of paperwork to us I think just what you just said. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yeah, I can submit this deed and an explanation of how CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to make sure that the neighbor is fully aware of what's happening and any impacts you might be concerned about. Did you want to say something; you have to go to the mic. ALTHEA TRAVIS : A small adjustment might be going forward that the water be adjusted Brushes Creek because if there's an environmental discussion going forward it's important that we respect the integrity of that because it is even though there's a road there and a railroad that it's all one unit geologically. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure, can you address any potential impact to Brushes Creek? GIAN MANGIERI : There will be no impact. So again, the good news is that you and I are on exactly the same page because there is nothing more my passion has been to protect my creek and in fact I have brought it back to the point where I have nesting wood ducks, I have nesting mallards, I love that creek and I have no intention of doing anything. All we're trying to do and I have a small copy of this for you is to show where the lot line would be geographically down the middle of the creek so in fact my intention is to always protect the creek. My predecessors allowed duck hunting on,the creek. They hunted the muskrats that all stopped. So we're the same on that. What I'm trying to do Ms. Travis is I'm trying to avoid if I can't get a waiver of merger from the Board and I'm certainly again I understand that the Board has to make its decision what it's going to force me to do is it's going to force me to go for a subdivision which I now again subdivision is a tricky process but I don't need a variance to go for a subdivision and I've actually went through the research and thought that we were going to have to have a subdivision but the planners were kind enough to tell me they said look there is another way if you unmerge the property you can move the lot line and not have to do a subdivision and if I have to do a subdivision it's going to make more lots not less. I'm sorry that you and I didn't have a chance to speak about this you were out of the country out of the area. ALTHEA TRAVIS : I'm very mobile because I do property management. GIAN MANGIERI : And again like I said I want to give you this small copy so you can it shows clearly where the new lot line will go. ALTHEA TRAVIS : I think I have I have the large I have a huge spread GIAN MANGIERI : This actually has the proposed lot line 26 December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can talk to each other but outside of the room. ALTHEA TRAVIS : A little measure of humor, I ,think my house was originally owned by the McCarthy's before they moved across the street and I was widowed and recently married. My husband isn't yet on the deed but his name is McCarthy. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do I dare ask if there's anyone else in the audience. MEMBER DANTES : Just to clarify because he said Mr. Mangieri said he had three deeds but the one you were referencing is the deed in liber 11689 page 757 is that correct? MARTIN FINNEGAN : 11712, 142 oh wait no, no, no MEMBER DANTES : That's the one I'm finding MARTIN FINNEGAN : 11689, 757 MEMBER DANTES : Yes that's the one we have here. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Do you need further explanation on that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually I think it's been satisfied. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Any other question of the Board? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If I may of Ms. Travis though, you heard us speak earlier that we ask Martin Finnegan on behalf of the applicant and the applicant even affirmed this that should there be an approval made with a condition that would be potentially acceptable to them, would that be something that you would accept also? I mean are you fine with the concept of what he proposed and do you understand that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait, wait if you're going to talk to her you have to come back to the mic. This is recorded and we can't get your comments unless you're at a microphone. ALTHEA TRAVIS : I'm gaining understanding of the system of merging and unmerging and I'm more comfortable than I was sitting at home doing my writing and research. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay good. The average individual really doesn't grasp the complexity of this particular part of the code. It's nobody's fault. It's not the kind of bedtime reading you would you know be seeking and they are technical but MARTIN FINNEGAN : I (inaudible) myself after six years 27 December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well each one seems to be rather unique. I mean the circumstances you think they're all A, B, C, D but they almost never are. Are we all set? 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 DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 7110— FLEMING TJ AND HB TRUST CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Fleming TJ and HB Trust #7110. This is a request for variances under Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's July 20, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet located at 30 (a.k.a. 355) Osprey Nest Road in Greenport. PATRICIA MOORE : Good morning, Patricia Moore on behalf of Heidi and Terry Fleming who are the principals of the Trust. Mr. and Mrs. Fleming are here today. I also have Ann Surchin who is the architect on this project so I may have her come up if you have any specific questions about the design of the proposed garage. This application is necessary. To begin with the property has an original variance from 1965 when the existing garage was put on the property. At that time the Zoning Board granted in '65 a setback of 24.8 which is what the existing setback you see on the survey. This house began as a summer home and my clients have moved permanently. This is going to be their full time residence. What they have found is they love their house very much, they love the area but it's a little tight for year round living and so the logical expansion was to take the existing garage and make that living space which then required the addition of the proposed garage which is tucked in between on the within the 281 December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting opening of the existing garage and the existing house which is more of an enclosed porch. The situation we have here is that we have a corner lot Osprey Nest Rd. which goes around the property so this parcel has two technical front yards. It also based on the location of the existing house we have a non-conforming rear yard as well that is the area between lot#16 and lot #17. All of this is showing on your survey which is a nice clear way of explaining all this. So the architect will clarify or correct. ANN SURCHIN : My name is Anne Surchin, its three front yards not two front yards. PATRICIA MOORE : Oh yes it is three front yards which means that Osprey Nest it's like a peninsula it goes around but we are really impacting sorry for my misstatement. We have three front yards and we're affecting Osprey Nest on the east side. That's always hard to believe you have three front yards but this is the situation we have here. MEMBER DANTES : What's the setback from the other road, it looks like you have two setbacks labeled but what's the other one? PATRICIA MOORE : I want to make sure I'm answering the right question. You have Osprey Nest Rd. with the front door where the front door is. Osprey Nest Rd. actually goes around the property. MEMBER DANTES : Right from the western line what's the setback to the house? PATRICIA MOORE : Oh the western line we have an existing that's not changing. That must be conforming because even when the house was built and the garage addition it did not require a variance so I want to say I don't have do you by chance have the measurement come on up here. It might be able to be if you have a there you go. I don't have do you have an original prints in your file because mine is a photocopy. I've given you all my originals there we go. I don't want to scale CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah you can't scale off a Xerox. ANN SURCHIN : Well it's over 40 feet let's see here, it's about it must be about 41, 42 feet scaled. PATRICIA MOORE : So we meet the 35 foot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat just let me enter into the record that the proposed front yard setback is at 17.5 feet and the rear yard setback is at 28.3 feet okay? Do you have any green cards? 291 r December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting PATRICIA MOORE : Yes correct. The answer is no. I;will check when I get back to the office and bring them back to you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the affidavit of posting do you have that? PATRICIA MOORE : My secretary gave it to me this morning. I have a feeling I may have left it at my office but I signed it and I will get it back to you. I will affirm that I posted and it's I personally posted. I'd like to address you have in writing all the standards, I'd like to address any questions you might have because it is more or less a more routine variance than the ones you typically get and the setbacks when the Zoning Board granted the setback in '65 they acknowledged that there was room for a when the garage expansion was proposed at that time there was enough room to keep a car off the street and that remains the case today so we will the garage is actually in order to put a car and then there is additional room beyond that 17 feet for a car to be parked as well as beyond the property line we probably have close to another 15 feet before the pavement of Osprey Nest. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well take a look at the fact that the Board granted a 24 foot 8 inch setback for the attached garage section of the existing house, you're proposing to reduce that slightly to 17. Well it's not so slightly but to 17.3 in order to put in a one car attached garage. PATRICIA MOORE : Correct it's a 7 foot encroachment beyond what was the existing garage well a little less than 7 feet no more than 7. 1 can have the architect step up and describe the roof line and the fact that we are not increasing the roof and volumes of this house significantly and if you'd like to hear the design issued I'd be happy to bring her up. I mean it's obvious from the elevations. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, yeah, I mean I don't know if anybody has questions fine but it's pretty clear from the drawings what. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Looking at the front from the existing I mean we can see the roof line there's significant roof line I'm sure that's going to be somewhat compatible in reference to PATRICIA MOORE : Yes, there is I'll bring the architect up you were describing for me how the roof MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Raising the ridge. PATRICIA MOORE : Yeah, it has to raise slightly in order to create a proper angle. ANN SURCHIN : Well, we you know we wanted to minimize the scale of this thing and so we're actually bit extending and building over the existing garage; sort of having it come up and come down over the new garage roof, and so if you looked at where the ridge behind that existing 301 December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting garage is which is a higher ridge we're only going up slightly under two feet above the existing major ridge there and so you know we tried to keep it at a minimum and the same is true by putting it in that L-shaped area trying to keep it close and also it was the only logical place to put it because their sunroom, porch room whatever you want to call it is right off of there and you walk in the door and then you're in the kitchen so logically when you're coming home and you know pulling in to the garage with your groceries it's the most in terms of design flow the most logical place in the whole property to put it and the most innocuous in terms of I think the rest of the neighbors. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from the Board, any questions or comments, anyone else in the audience wishing to address this application? PATRICIA MOORE : It's pretty straightforward. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody who's got three front yards has significant challenges let's just put it that way. I have two front yards but I don't have three. Did you want to say something sir? If there's nothing else from anyone 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 DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7111—JON TOMLINSON and HERB LEWIS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Jon Tomlinson and Herb Lewis #7111. This is a request for a variance under Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's August 14, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to 311 December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) located in other than the code required rear yard located at 4525 Breakwater Rd. in Mattituck. Would you state your name please? VIC PRUSINOWSKI : Yes madam chairman and members of the Board my name is Vic Prusinowski 533 Elm St. Riverhead and I'm here to represent the applicants in this matter. I've already submitted my affidavits of posting of the property and the mailings together with all of the green return cards that I had at the time but I have one more for you Kim. This application before the Zoning Board of Appeals is a pretty straightforward due to the nature of the lot which really faces Long Island Sound, the front rear yards are really reversed because the access to the house is in the front yard. If you don't understand what I'm saying you got the Long Island Sound here and the access road in the back so under normal circumstances in a neighborhood when the house faces the access road that's the front yard the rear yard is in the back so it's a pretty straightforward. I will say that in reviewing the neighborhood one of the conditions of consideration for the Zoning Board of Appeals an accessory pool on a single family dwelling like this is within the character of the neighborhood so I don't think it poses any type of hardship or negative impact on the neighborhood and that's really the application. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can I ask a question? I guess there are other spots you could place it but why is this the best spot? VIC PRUSINOWSKI : I don't think there was enough in reviewing the MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I've been up there three times and I tend to agree with you I just wanted your VIC PRUSINOWSKI : Yeah in the front in the property line there I don't think there was enough room to put the swimming pool in the front of the house and I think you have some side yard front yard requirements or side yard requirements, I'm not familiar with the Southold code but it's got to be at least you gotta have at least 20 feet or I'm assuming what is the rear yard requirement? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well for an accessory structure like a pool it's a little different than a garage for example. Primarily it's the non-conforming yard that is at issue not the setback. VIC PRUSINOWSKI : Yeah the main thing here is that it places better in the back yard plus you know you have to have the security gate to go the state law requires the security gate and you have to have the fencing and all that so it makes it much better placement I think even for the neighborhood but that's just my opinion. December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well just so you're aware the Board members have individually inspected the property and have been out there to look at it, drive around and see what's next to it and so on. We do that with every application. VIC PRUSINOWSKI : I know you do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's certainly set way back from the road from Breakwater. It's up on a hill. It's not visible at all, you can't even see the house until you drive up into the driveway and also I mean if you look at the property even though it's a new house you could have put it'anywhere you know when you were building the house and citing the house you could have thought about the pool at the same time and possibly find a conforming location, however the problem-is it's very confusing about what is front, back and side with that particular house and VIC PRUSINOWSKI : I will say that the original dwelling which is shown on the survey that we submitted was demolished and the new structure was set farther back from the property line which is now the rear of the property facing the Long Island Sound. MEMBER DANTES : So the survey here from Young &Young doesn't show the new dwelling? VIC PRUSINOWSKI : It does it's right there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It does but it shows what was demolished. VIC PRUSINOWSKI : Yeah it also shows a shadow in there you'll see what was there previous. Yeah this house was issued a building permit and as you know you inspected the property it's been constructed and I'm sure the C.O. is pending or maybe they got the C.O. already because this is a separate building permit application to build the pool so MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm just a little confused, I think fundamentally where you state that the front yard is really the north side where I see the front yard as very clearly Breakwater Rd. and that it was the applicant's choice when he demolished the existing house to locate the new structure in-the orientation that he or she chose to so I'm still just a little confused if somebody can maybe clarify how you feel that this is actually the north side is the front of the home and I understand that you were taking advantage of the site but I mean should the neighbor put trees up you have no view and that you still have road frontage on Breakwater Rd. MEMBER DANTES : I don't think Breakwater Rd. is the front. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well technically here's the thing, it doesn't matter which way your house sits on the property. The Building Department will declare whatever elevation faces a road as the front yard believe it or not. Even in the front door is what would be a side yard or 33 f December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting the front of the house is basically whatever parallels a road. So that's why technically it's in a side yard. You see it's running next to what would be the east elevation. VIC PRUSINOWSKI : Also to turn the house, I guess this is what you're saying, to turn the house around and have the front of the house face Breakwater Rd. you're also practically I do commercial real estate I mean the location is everything, you have a view of Long Island Sound and that's why the applicant chose to place'the house there because you get the vista of you can see if you stand in the front you can see the Long Island Sound right there. So that to me makes sense why they would make a choice that they would want the house positioned that way so they have the view of Long Island Sound and even if it's in the distance you can see it. MEMBER DANTES : But that's not what we're saying is all you have to do is move the pool thirty feet west and then you're at code conforming location and you have a view of the Long Island Sound from the pool. VIC PRUSINOWSKI : I don't think they want; I think they want the pool behind the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, here's the thing, you have a shed there and the other part of it is when you get over into that area the westerly part of the lot it slopes, it's not flat and it also has a lot more tree coverage so it's more shaded. VIC PRUSINOWSKI : There's also some rocks over there too which we'd have to remove to if I remember right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm just simply saying topologically the open flatter area is the easier place to construct a pool but you know it isn't to say that you couldn't shove it over and Eric's right to the west and I guess it would be very close to that shed but then it would also be closer to your neighbors. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But I would agree that you're talking about the topography as being one challenge, but to the best of my recollection there are not trees or woods. Everything is clear cut you can see all the neighbor homes on both sides. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can see them but it's much more shaded in that area. The time of day that I was there that whole part of the property was in shadow. Maybe it was the house casting it I don't know. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't remember any trees on any CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :.I thought there were some. In any case MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) can be moved that's a minimal issue. December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting VIC PRUSINOWSKI : But I think that what the applicant wants is to have the pool directly behind the house so they can walk out the sliding glass door and you also have the security fence situation that you have to comply with the law so it's not just the size of the pool it's a security fence too that has to be CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well each application is site specific and people have the right to request whatever it is that they wish. The Board has to evaluate whether or not the applicant has any feasible alternatives to a variance. That's why we're asking the question about can it be moved to a place logically; can it be moved to someplace that's conforming on that property and that's What we have to come to grips with. Yes, swimming pools are characteristic of this and most residential neighborhoods. Is the hardship self-created? Yes they built a new house, they could ,have thought about it in advance. They could have figured out a conforming location. None of them are in and of themselves sufficient reason to grant or deny. We have to balance all those factors out. Is it a substantial variance? Yeah it's a hundred percent variance because it's completely in the wrong location. So, you know I don't know which way the Board's going to go with it to be perfectly honest personally speaking for myself I think given the property and the surrounding other structures you know on other lots it's not in a harmful area you know I don't see that it has an adverse visual impact on anybody. VIC PRUSINOWSKI : It's my understanding that the applicants discussed this with the Building Department prior to all of this. I got on to the job a little bit later on because I work for really I do work for Islandia Pools in Riverhead it was the contractor that put this in so they're the ones that recommended coming to the Zoning Board of Appeals because they didn't think it was an erroneous request to consider this variance with this particular location. I do know that the applicants wanted the pool to be directly behind you'll see the little patio back there with a deck, to them that made more logical sense. Also the security fence you know again the security fence to comply with state law that's always a consideration too. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from the Board, anything from anybody else? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : The driveway situation is extensive. I was up there with my truck and it's somewhat difficult to turn around and so I can see where they wanted to keep the pool in a clean place and when I refer to clean I mean just in an area that's more pristine than you know a driveway or leveling effect, I can see why they wouldn't want to go VIC PRUSINOWSKI : I will tell you these two particular gentlemen who own the property and this is their house, they're very pro-environment, very you know they live in New York City and they're very pro-environment and they really don't they want to do what's best for the property so and speaking with them I can tell you that they you know they I'm sure they 35 ii December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting thought this out but they're very pro-environment they're very they want to do the right thing so that's why we're here today. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Pat or Eric any questions? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If I may, can you tell us a bit if there is even a landscaping plan or what is proposed? During the time that I was there for the site inspection there was just some clumps of like pompous grass along the property line. VIC PRUSINOWSKI : I don't have that but the Building Department has that. I know there is a landscaping plan and it was finished later in the fall. The house was finally constructed that's why I think there's only a temporary C.O. That we'd have to check with the Building Department. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Can you provide us with a copy of that? VIC PRUSINOWSKI : Sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The other thing-let me see do we have stone concrete patio, we don't have on this survey the location of the pump equipment or anything like that. VIC PRUSINOWSKI : I thought we put that on there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Dry well for pool de-watering can you get us that information? VIC PRUSINOWSKI : Okay yes definitely. That's going to take me a couple about a week or so to get that. I have to get the pool company and I thought we did generally with all these jobs that I do in both Southampton and here we always put that on there. I didn't even realize we didn't have that on there. I would have had it done before this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll tell you what we do. We can adjourn this to the Special Meeting in two weeks and if you can get that into us we can close it then. I don't think we'd have any more questions. If we did we'd adjourn it for another hearing but I don't see what more we can ask for VIC PRUSINOWSKI : So we need the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We want to see where the pump equipment and the pool de- watering dry well is and a landscape plan. VIC PRUSINOWSKI : pump equipment the pump house and a dry well and the landscaping. S December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just get that in to the office for us and then we can close it and then we'll probably deliberate at the meeting after that which would be January 4th okay? VIC PRUSINOWSKI : Okay you got it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this application to the Special Meeting on December 21, is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEBMER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 7112—LORI and NEIL KEARNS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application is for Lori and Neil Kearns #7112. This is a request for a variance under Article IV Section 280-19 and the Building Inspector's July 14, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to make roof alterations to an existing accessory building (pool house) at 1) less than the code required minimum setback from the property line of 15 feet located at 18075 Soundview Ave. (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Southold. ROBERT BROWN : Good morning Robert Brown architect for the project. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this roof alteration is for they said accessory garage in the Notice but's it's a pool ROBERT BROWN : It's a pool house yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's an accessory structure 4 feet from the property line. You're not proposing to actually move the structure? 371 December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting ROBERT BROWN : No, the intent here is if you've been to the property you're aware that we're doing some work on the primary residence primary structure and this was really an afterthought to try to bring the roof line of the accessory structure the existing accessory structure in line with the architecture of the renovations and it's really just building over a portion of the existing roof to make a more consistent roofline. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This one's a little do you have green cards Rob? ROBERT BROWN : Oh yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we should enter in to the record that the principle dwelling was granted a 3 foot 4 inch side yard variance previously and this pool house structure is 4 feet 4 inches from the side yard and you're not proposing to change that in any way. ROBERT BROWN : No there's in real terms there's very little room to move it given the layout of the property right now and really it was an afterthought to conform the roofline to the renovations of the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's interesting because the survey looks like one thing and then you get out there and you see a thing it looks like it's sitting on the property line. There's a (inaudible) fence that kind of goes around it. ROBERT BROWN :. I believe that's all changing as well. The fencing I believe is going to be modified as well but all as of right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's set way back from the CEHA from the sound ROBERT BROWN : And from the road. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And from the road. It can't be seen very well anyway by neighbors because it's screened with existing vegetation. I think there's a shed that's even closer to the property line than the pool house. Let's see Pat do you have any questions or comments? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric, Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : None. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : None. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wow, anyone in the audience? 381 December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting ROBERT BROWN : He's with me so he better not. CHAIRPERSON-WEISMAN : He carries your drawings. Alright hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7113— DURANTE and ANNA GALEOTAFIORE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Durante and Anna Galeotafiore #7113. This is a request for a variance under Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's August 23, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback at 35 feet located at 2675 Hobart Rd. in Southold. FRANK NOTARO : Good afternoon my name is Frank Notaro and I'm the architect for Mr. and Mrs. Galeotafiore. Basically when I was brought on board they asked me to look at the house and the house has numerous structural problems with it number one and then they asked what can we do we have a growing family and they actually have the house next door and this they're giving to their daughter. So basically in essence what we did is we squared off the front portion and went up within the same footprint of the existing dwelling, if I can answer any additional questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me just enter here that you're proposing a front yard setback of 25 feet, the code requires 35 feet. This one story dwelling is to become a two story dwelling. You received a prior variance for a rear yard setback deck addition and you are intending to maintain the existing 25 foot front yard setback, is that all correct? 391 ii December'7, 2017 Regular Meeting FRANK NOTARO : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As you know Frank we've all been out to inspect the property and look at the neighborhood and so on. Alright let's see if the Board has any questions, you want to start Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : May I ask a question? I'm trying to understand the lot width, it would appear looking at the Suffolk County Tax map that there's a double lot and I really couldn't read the dimensions of that, does the proposed or the site survey illustrating the proposed renovations conform to the lot width or is there a second lot somewhere that I'm missing? FRANK NOTARO : As far as I know it's only this one lot 50 foot wide. In other words they own the property next door to the corner also. That's a totally separate MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So they own lot#31? FRANK NOTARO : Yeah that's the one on the corner to the left. If you're looking at the survey that's the one right over here so they own both properties actually. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So that's part of the miscommunication then, I understood that there was a second lot and just looking at the Suffolk County tax map there is like a dash running perpendicular to the road so I thought there was some issue with the double lot there. FRANK NOTARO : No. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you. FRANK NOTARO : And that we renovated that house a number of years ago. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry anything? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No not at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric? MEMBER DANTES : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I had another question also if I may. So there's a shed in the back yard, so just out of curiosity will the existing shed remain? FRANK NOTARO : At this point it will. 401 December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close this hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7114— MATTHEW MIZRAHI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Matthew Mizrahi #7114. This is a request for variance under Article IV Section 280-19 and the Building Inspector's August 4, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize "as built" accessory ground-mounted solar panels at 1) located less than the code required minimum setback from the property line of 15 feet located at 530 Hobart Rd. in Southold. So this array is ground-mounted at 2.5 feet from the property line where the code requires 15. PATRICIA MOORE : Good afternoon, Patricia Moore on behalf of the applicant. I have Mr. and Mrs. Mizrahi here as well. He and his wife purchased the property in 2016 and the prior owners had put up the solar panel. He had to buy it subject to the existence of the solar panels he can have it resolved before the closing. Due to the Zoning Board applications and so on they just the sellers didn't have that kind of time. The solar panel I'm told was put up in 2007. The sellers I don't know if they knew or didn't know that they needed a permit but nonetheless it does not have a permit. I asked my client because one of the obvious things is we move it and the issues are that this property you've gone and seen it, it's pretty wooded and the area where the solar panel is, is probably the clearest less obstructed area for the proper functioning of the solar panel and that's most likely why the prior owners placed it there. Also the solar collectors have all their plumbing and electricity everything is buried under ground so it's not just picking it up and relocating it it's a lot of underground the utilities that are all connected to the electrical 41T �l December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting systems of the house so it was a much more extensive process to relocate this solar collector. I did hear from Southold Historical Society. We always ask in our cover letter if you have no objection please contact us or if you have any comments contact us. The Southold Historical Society had no objection. They really didn't have any issues with it. They have a fence I believe they said they are planning on putting up some vegetative screening. I actually am the attorney for Southold Historical Society and I know that there's been discussions about ultimately putting that lot on the market so whether or not they've decided that that will be sold or not be sold they may put some screening up themselves and I just warned my client and I said they might be putting screening so just double check and make sure that you know the screening doesn't block the sun and the obvious spot that we have it. It shouldn't be a problem because most of the sun collection is from the clear area to the south and noon time so it shouldn't be an impact. We'll answer any question that you might have. It is a very it's a passive structure, accessory structure. It's hidden behind the house. This property is very unique in that it's one of the Edson properties and the Town of Southold it has a common driveway access in to the property and the town created these ponds in the front as a water collection system. It's Hobart, it's the water is collected through Hobart and then it's a ponding area where the water filters as a drainage system and then ultimately filters the water and it ends up in the creek. So this is a very a system that was created by the town. This is very innocuous but nonetheless it is too close to the property line. We'll answer any questions that you might have. MEMBER DANTES : What's the life span of the solar.panels? PATRICIA MOORE : Good question. It was put in in '07 do you have any idea? Come on up and put I don't have that answer sorry. MATTHEW MIZRAHI : Very non-expert understanding, they say that you know between fifteen and twenty years is kind of rough life span but they do become less efficient over time especially relative to what you can buy on the market. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you just state your name please. MATTHEW MIZRAHI : I'm sorry Matthew Mizrahi. PATRICIA MOORE : So it's about ten years old now so it still has most likely a good ten more years. MATTHEW MIZRAHI : I mean yeah I'd look to replace them as soon as my electricity bills start going up basically. MEMBER DANTES : And you say there's no other place on the property that they can go and still function? 421 December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting MATTHEW MIZRAHI : They would function less well. The closer you get to the tree line basically the less sun you're going to get. MEMBER DANTES : So they have to be there in order to (inaudible) PATRICIA MOORE : Yes it's the function. MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) best benefit for the electricity. PATRICIA MOORE : It's my guess that the prior owners when they were consulting whoever the company was that put it in probably looked to the most efficient functioning spot. Nobody really thinking, measuring to property lines, they just put it where it made more sense and I know that there wasn't a more recent survey. They had a survey when they were doing the house but I don't believe they got a survey of where the actual solar collectors were actually placed. The, survey was done when you purchased and all of a sudden the location became obvious so MEMBER DANTES : And now you're saying the property that neighbors the solar panels is the water collection ponds. PATRICIA MOORE : On this property you can see at the Hobart see where Hobart, if you look at the survey you see that there is a wetland pond in the front, that wetland pond actually goes on his property and on the adjacent property and then down further south is the creek so what happens is like the Southold Historical Society doesn't the property doesn't hit Hobart. There are wetlands that bisect the way that the topography is and the ponds are actually drainage systems that the town adopted or created I want to say I was working on it so it's got to be at least fifteen!years ago maybe twenty years ago or more. MATTHEW MIZRAHI : The house was built in '02. PATRICIA MOORE : Time flies. I remember having to do when Edson I actually did the right of ways and dealt with some permitting for the road to go in from the D.E.C. and Trustees cause there's a common road, gravel driveway it's a common access to both properties and it goes over like�the culvert between the wetlands and I was involved with that years ago for Edson. When the town was doing all of this I wanted to be sure that they gave us a permit for the common access for the driveway. We didn't want to leave behind a property that was sterilized because your access point is affected. So I know more about these wetlands than most people do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's the height of the panel at its highest point? PATRICIA MOORE : Is it five feet? 43 December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting MATTHEW MIZRAHI : We had the measurement, it's roughly (inaudible) in height CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you speak into the mic? PATRICIA MOORE : I want to say it's approximately oh here it is, 74 inches so what's that six feet? MATTHEW MIZRAHI : Six feet two inches. PATRICIA MOORE : Yeah to its highest point and you can see that I actually have a photograph and on the photograph is the measurement so on the highest point of the panel you can see a lot of vegetation. There's privet and I mean a lot of stuff that I think has grown between the two properties. It's pretty vegetated, private. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anyone? Pat, Eric, Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Well the only thing you can do is you can give him some time to keep them there and when they've reached their age have them removed. MEMBER DANTES : I was thinking that but if he wants to replace them and if this is the best spot to make them work then your options are limited as far as replacement. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Well not necessarily because if the new ones become more efficient which they are okay it may not make that much of a difference if you just have to take down a tree or two and that's just a thought. PATRICIA MOORE : I mean maybe as a possibility in the event that if they're replaced that we make the setback more conforming. I don't want to say like to the 2 % feet but maybe it can be pushed away from the property line a little bit. We just don't know what the technology is going to be in ten, fifteen years. It might be this big you know, at that point it's not in his best interest to take up his yard with this thing. It's not the most attractive accessory structure so I think ultimately if it's ever removed then the variance pretty much goes away anyway. I think over time it may be a mood point. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : The normal statement is move it to a conforming location in x amount of time. PATRICIA MOORE : Yea because the setbacks I think this undersized property may be like a 15 foot setback so the yard is you only have a very small yard here because of the amount of wetlands and drainage that occupies the entire front yard so there's about from the house to the property lines about a 121 feet and then when you know shrubbery and so on it starts reducing the amount of area. December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting MATTHEW MIZRAHI : Yeah I mean there really is the amount of open space is pretty small. There's a lot of tree cover. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : You may consider putting it on the roof of the house. MATTHEW MIZRAHI : That would be the problem then is that the solar panels are not pointing in the wrong direction. They will only get sun half the day because the sun would kind of come over the top. PATRICIA MOORE : Yeah that house the peak is pointing east west right? MATTHEW MIZRAHI : Yes, so I mean these do face south which catches the sun for most of the day that's sort of the idea. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I was only throwing it out there. PATRICIA MOORE : No, no it's a good suggestion I mean there is always the conflict between being energy efficient and you know environmentally friendly and then how it impacts setbacks but as I said the impact on the Historical Society is zero and even if the Historical Society sells to somebody again it's a non it doesn't make noise it doesn't do anything it just sits there and collects sun. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So what I'm curious of is what two other members discussed as the idea perhaps allowing it except during it's useful life and if and when it's replaced go to a conforming location. The question that I would have from the site inspection there was all kinds of overgrowth that's even visible in the photographs so there's a question from me as far as the functionality currently plus there's like an evergreen tree right in front of it and there's a bunch of whether they were locusts or not I don't remember the species but in the rear yard a lot of trees that should cast shadows that in ten years if those trees aren't maintained or taken down I don't know how functional they will be meaning the solar panels so while I hear what Pat what you're saying as far as we don't know what the technology will bring, I think alternatively we don't know how the property will be maintained or who's going to use it. There's just a lot of tree there and I don't mean the trees behind it, the trees in the front of it that I don't know if they were included in the packet. I just made a little drawing while we're talking but there was like an evergreen tree right in front of it and then so by memory this is an evergreen tree like a Christmas tree that's like twenty feet tall and then there's like a grove of locust so PATRICIA MOORE : You have to talk about that I don't know. MATTHEW MIZRAHI : So that tree I actually expect to remove at some point. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It seems for efficiency you would need to. 4.5 l� December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting MATTHEW MIZRAHI : Yeah, yeah that for one and for two it sort of kills a lot of the useful space in the yard. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's smack in the center. MATTHEW MIZRAHI : That tree in particular is something I would like to get rid of. PATRICIA MOORE : It's probably an old Christmas tree that ended up there after Christmas so. MATTHEW MIZRAHI : I don't know the origin. To be honest I haven't had a chance to do a ton of like real work in the back yard just yet. I've done some but we do plan to landscape it certainly differently and we will take into account the efficiency of the solar panels for sure. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And would it be acceptable thought if there was a condition that should the equipment you know at the useful life of it could you come back or just accept the thought that you might have to put it in a conforming location? To Pat's point maybe the technology is no longer necessary I mean who knows. MATTHEW MIZRAHI : I'm happy to I mean I think PATRICIA MOORE : Well I mean it just means having to spend all this money all over again and you know that's my only issue with having to keep coming back to say hey it still have another five years to go or you know the technology we can't put it well I think we've eliminated the roof because of the positioning MEMBER PLANAMENTO : the angle, absolutely. PATRICIA MOORE : so really the only thing you could do is relocate it somewhere else in the yard and without doing some heavy duty landscaping but that kind of takes away your privacy. You've got the homes there on the east side I mean the nice thing about this property is it's very private and I'd hate to see him be forced to cut away trees in order to move this to let's say the southerly property line or where the Galanos is and which that house has sold as well. There's a new owner there. MATTHEW MIZRAHI : The most efficient place for these collectors no matter what they are they're going to be as close to that fence as possible basically. I mean we can shrink them perhaps but I would imagine that the southernmost part of it is the least efficient part so you kind of want to keep it as close as possible but you know I guess that's MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I understand the functionality that you can also angle it, it's just it's a tough lot I think for solar given the trees and other things. It's a choice that was maybe was enthusiastically placed I don't know what the benefit is necessarily. 46 December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting PATRICIA MOORE : Does it really reduce your electricity? MATTHEW MIZRAHI : Oh yea. I mean. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I know that but I don't know if it's to the degree that someone else in another location will have the same benefit. I have no idea of the technology. PATRICIA MOORE : You're not just talking about moving the panels, you're talking about all the substructure the sub MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And that I understand absolutely. PATRICIA MOORE : That's really the most expensive part. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would agree with that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There's probably no I mean one of the things you're saying in your application is that they want to maintain this location close to the property line to maintain the recreational use of the total rear yard. PATRICIA MOORE : Yeah. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN I'm not sure that's the most compelling argument. Perhaps the possibility that it's benign where it exists and that it's an expense to move you know if you're going to go through the expense in moving something it doesn't make sense to move it a foot or two feet unless that's not a big deal. I mean they're just wires underground in conduit. There's not 1 mean there's probably only some sonic tubes possibly for where the uprights are the wood posts that are holding them up on an angle so that they wouldn't fall over. I don't really know what the financial cost would be. I don't think it's enormous but I also believe that it isn't terribly impactful where it is and certainly I don't think that just I want my back yard to look pretty is and have more room for volleyball or whatever is a good reason to accept a non- conformity so we'll see where we go with it. It's not very easy to enforce a condition that it be replaced in time because who's going to report on that one right? I don't like to put conditions down that are simply not going to be something that's actually going to be adhered to because it's too difficult to monitor but I think we've covered everything. I mean I don't know what else to ask or what else PATRICIA MOORE : As far as the standards of an area variance it meets the standards of being it doesn't impact character of the neighborhood or CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it doesn't but it's also not typical of the neighborhood and it's certainly a substantial variance 2.5 feet instead of 15 feet is certainly a substantial variance. 47 i' December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting PATRICIA MOORE : Oh absolutely. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you know that's why we have to balance this. MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) with solar panels on like garage or I mean at some point and time this whole system will become obsolete. PATRICIA MOORE : Yes it will and I think at that point it's going to be a moot variance because you know it's MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you'll have to apply to put in another kind of solar array if in fact you wish to and then you'll have to go to the Building Department for a permit and then they'll tell you that you should put it in a conforming location or you'll come back to us for a variance. PATRICIA MOORE : Or we'll be back here (inaudible) to be relocated to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hopefully not in front of me, I don't plan to be here in a wheelchair. PATRICIA MOORE : You and me both. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have to both retire at some point. PATRICIA-MOORE : Mr. Goehringer is never going to go away. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Oh that's not true. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone else in the audience, John you want to come to the podium. JOHN ROONEY : My name is John Rooney 425 Maple Lane. I happen to abut the rear and welcome to Southold we never really met. My only concern is for the future. The array that's there yeah it's been there a decade and my wife and I have no if it's simply to leave it there for its life and it's functioning, it's serving an environmental purpose we have no problem with it staying there. I didn't realize it was such a variance that the prior owner you know we're just concerned that in the future if it is allowed to stay where it is that it doesn't open the gates to some future thing being a much more invasive I don't know if I'm expressing that very well but it's any future thing that we would be concerned about. If it would require new application and everything else you know an improved system down the road then it will be looked at again by the town. 481 r December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : If it was in a non-conforming location it would need a new application, if it's in a conforming location then no. JOHN ROONEY : Yeah right whatever you know I'm saying if it needed to be up to the property in other words by allowing this installation to remain would a future installation be allowed to stay within only the 2 %feet? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Building Department determination and I don't know if they determined'that they're replacing it in kind the benefit of a variance and it's the same height and the same size they probably will just leave it alone. It wouldn't be any more than what is already there. If on the other hand they feel it's a full replacement then they'll ask for it to be in a conforming location or they'll say you need a variance so PATRICIA MOORE : That's how they've treated things in the past. JOHN ROONEY : Simply this size in the future you know that's not a problem as long as it's not more invasive. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what, we'll find some proper language to get that in there in a way that is not that doesn't create problems of enforcement and so on. I think we can work that out. JOHN ROONEY : Yeah that's our only concern and we hate to see trees taken down. At least now he doesn't have to remove any trees because that's not very environmentally sound either. As is we have no objection. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else, anything from the Board? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just sort of(inaudible) sort of a clarification but in light of Mr. Rooney brought forward a light bulb went off that I've seen many ground mounted solar systems where people use them as sheds underneath so I think and PATRICIA MOORE : Well parking at the county center uses them MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Oh right at the county center (inaudible) parking back there I hope not but I think CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're not planning on a parking garage back there are you? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well some people do enclose them as sheds and I think what Mr. Rooney brought forward and what the Chairwoman was describing is some sort of limitation that it would only be used for solar and that you couldn't turn it into a shed or whatever. 49 December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting PATRICIA MOORE : Yeah that's not CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7115—SHAWN FITZGERALD/FITZGERALD S. P. REV. LIVING TRUST CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Shawn Fitzgerald/Fitzgerald S. P. Rev. Living Trust #7115. This is a request for a variance from Article XXII Section 280-105C and the Building Inspector's July 27, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to construct an eight (8) foot high deer fence at 1) more than the code required maximum four (4) feet in height when located in the front yard. This is located at 495 Paddock Way in Mattituck. Is someone here to represent the application? Please state your name for the record. MICHELE DAVIS : Michele Davis. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we've all been out to inspect the property and as you probably know deer fencing at eight foot height is permitted in side yards and in rear yards but you're looking at perimeter fencing for the entire property which would include the front yard. MICHELE DAVIS : Most of his useful yard is in the front. Even the pool is located in the front. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right because there's wetlands precipitous slope and wetlands where I think most of the deer are probably coming from at least they were when I inspected the property. 5® December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting MICHELE DAVIS : It's beautiful but it's the ticks and the problems with the children and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is Paddock Way a private road? MICHELE DAVIS : It appears to be. Please forgive me I'm only a fence girl. I don't really know the town's but it comes off of a main road then it turns,on to a long road and then the'private homes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's a couple of homes up there. Well we've heard from two neighbors, one neighbor says as long as the fencing is sufficiently on to the applicant's property that it can be maintained from both sides and still be maintained on the applicant's property not having to go on their property. MICHELE DAVIS : Right, so move it in about five feet or so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The other neighbor is very concerned about the stand of existing cedar trees,along the property edge and I guess they share that property line. I can look it up and give you the name of the neighbor but in any case it's not real clear exactly where you want to put this you know and it's hard to even determine what is a front yard when you're in the end of a cul de sac although technically wherever the house fronts the closest right of way is considered a front yard by code so I have to have a look at this again. MICHELE DAVIS : Now if the trees are a concern I'm sure the homeowner wouldn't mind stepping in and that will give us the maintainable space to maneuver that wouldn't be an issue. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : The word is maintain. Not only maneuver and maintain. MICHELE DAVIS : We'll be able maneuver on the land without stepping on the other persons property and maintain it as far as cleanliness. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Well yes that's another issue okay but in the application it reads that he wanted to place the existing fence with the deer fence and what I'm saying or we're saying I'm not speaking specifically for the Board because they're here is that you have to leave at least a five foot area in between the fence or the greenery which exists and the deer fence so that you can maintain the property and maintain the deer fence if you have to without stepping on somebody else's property. MICHELE DAVIS : Totally understandable. MEMBER GOEHRINGER :-And secondly with the environmental issue against Wolf Pit Lake you can't go over to that at all. MICHELE DAVIS : That's the wetlands? l December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yeah. MICHELE DAVIS : We have to stay 100 feet off the wetlands. Whatever code is told we'll abide by it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would appear I guess the only front yard their talking about is just along that's paralleling the short end of the tennis court. I think that Middle Rd. or Wickham Rd. is also considered a front yard but there's also wetlands down there so we'd have to look and see they didn't call that out. I mean it is permitted in a rear yard, I guess it's the applicant's rear yard but they're calling it they didn't call that out. I don't know if you have two front yards or not actually. MICHELE DAVIS : Because it's that cul de sac you almost own everybody's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is a big precipitous slope with you know Wolf Pit Lake over here and a bunch of wetlands along here and there is a wood fence here now behind the house and you're proposing to set this it looks like from the lake is that 150 feet? MICHELE DAVIS : I think code was to stay MEMBER DANTES : It's 100 feet to the property line but the 150 is this other dotted line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah what is that dotted line? MICHELE DAVIS : I think what it is, is you have 100 feet from the wetland and then the property goes another 50 feet; so from property line to allowance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay yeah, yeah, yeah that's 150 yep. Well I think that's pretty sufficient setback there I mean you're really right at the top practically what we would call the back yard. We're assuming it's a back yard and it's a very, very large lot. How much room though is there between say the short you got a it says proposed deer fence two feet off the property line over by the tennis court? MICHELE DAVIS : There's still plenty of room to go back to come in so if we were CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm just looking at where the tennis court's got fence around it too. MICHELE DAVIS : Tennis fencing? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah. December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting MICHELE DAVIS : The whole property has a post and rail cedar fence as well so yes the tennis court has a tennis court fence and then you have property and then you go to your post and rail and then I believe after that you have the trees. There are lots of trees that he's keeping. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the trees are along it looks to me along the long side of the tennis court and that is the neighbor who is objecting to the disturbance of those trees but my question is if you left the trees alone and you placed the fence between the trees and the tennis court how much room do you have on either side of the fence? MICHELE DAVIS : Well we definitely have more than five feet. I can definitely get back five feet for you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And then even if you sort of jogged it back to closer to the property line beyond-the road the existing cedar trees to keep going that way that might work. MICHELE DAVIS : We can keep the trees on the non-fenced in side I have plenty of room. I believe I have 15 feet it looks like 15 feet. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I would say that. I was down there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Between the trees and the fence of the tennis court? MICHELE DAVIS : Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yep. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what would be helpful, let's continue this discussion. We have to its very rare that we permit deer fencing in a front yard mostly because it has a terrible visual impact. If you were really along a road it looks awful and its one thing if you're a farmer it's another if you're a property owner. I have two front yards and it's impossible with the deer but I can't fence it so I've just put in you know what I can along the rear and side yards to at least have a little garden that I can deal with so I understand we're all kind of stuck with that but mostly what's happened when we've granted them before we've granted them at a front yard setback that would be the setback the code requires for a principal residence. Now this is a pretty big lot what would the front yard setback be on that? MEMBER GOEHRINGR : Forty five to sixty. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think it's 35 it would probably be bigger than that. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No I said 45 to 60, 45 to 55 maybe. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It won't site it it's not going to site it in the Notice of Disapproval. 531 V December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting MICHELE-DAVIS : Now another concern if I may where the pool is too it's in the front and the biggest fear is my fear is the deer jumping in. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And they can. MICHELE DAVIS : They have I've witnessed. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : They can swim though. MICHELE DAVIS : They swim across the sound to get to Lloyds Neck. That's why Lloyds Neck Harbor allows us now to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah but do you want them swimming in your swimming pool? I don't think so. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : The problem is they're not going to get up enough to get back over again. MICHELE DAVIS : That's the problem. I've seen tragedies and I've seen rescues. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What if we asked you to take a little bit of time and meet with the homeowner and come back you know it can be on a survey or it can be just even drawn by hand for the Board to look at, moving the proposed line of deer fencing as far away from lot 12 because that's the front yard technically as you think feasible and I guess the fencing along lot 10 which looks like a side yard really but because it's in front of the house it's still part of the front yard move that as far away as reasonable in other words just bring the thing in closer save the cedar trees, move it back from any front yard area as far as you feasibly can and then once you're in to the side yard of the house which would be anything parallel to the front elevation of the house you know where the stone path is going to the porch so anything from the corner of the house over in either direction is going to be side yard and rear yard and that you can do pretty close to the property line but you do have to have it on your property line and you should want to be able to maintain it without having to go on somebody else's property line. MICHELE DAVIS : The homeowner had mentioned that he wanted for visual reasons to keep it tucked in the trees so we are trying to be very considerate visualize it would be black pipe, black usually it's dead to the eye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah it's true. It's not that it's definitely not that visually intrusive and it's pretty light in the area it isn't I just put some in myself it isn't like a heavy farm you know big pole 541 c December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting MICHELE DAVIS : No it's like a six gauge wire four by four squares and a 1 5/8ths inch pipe all black powder coated. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I wanted to pencil it in though on this thing either pen it in or highlight it in so that we know exactly where it is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's what I'm saying. Come back with a drawn in on this survey MICHELE DAVIS : Would the homeowner like me to make an appointment with them return to their home at a set time and do the measurements? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : That's what I would do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do that, explain to them what we discussed, come up with an amended location for what's on this survey and then submit it to our office and what we'll do is we will put this I will adjourn this hearing so that there's no more cost or hassle or anything like that. I'll adjourn it to the Special Meeting in two weeks and then we'll look at what you submitted. If we're satisfied with that we'll just close it and then we'll deliberate. I don't know if we'll be able to it depends on how fast you get it to us. We may not be able to deliberate or have a draft prepared certainly not till we've seen it until the following meeting which would be we have two meetings a month two weeks apart so we can close it if everything's okay in two weeks giving you time to do what you need to do with the homeowner and or if you're not ready we will adjourn it to the next meeting we'll just keep doing that till it's all settled. MICHELE DAVIS : And what I'll do is get like utility flags and wherever the homeowner that's questioning this would like me to we'll flag it so that you can see what we've CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I'm more than willing to go back out and do another site inspection so that we can see exactly MEMBER GOEHRINGER : You have a copy of this you produced this right for us? MICHELE DAVIS : Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : So blow it up a little bit so we can MICHELE DAVIS : Okay and I will give you the footage and everything else. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now.there's someone else in the audience, would you like to speak? CHRIS KELLY : My name is Chris Kelly and I had the pleasure of speaking with Michele and I'm very delighted to hear the Board talk about a modification in terms of the fence because my principle concerns are two-fold. 55 ii December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where do you live? CHRIS KELLY : I live on the property that (inaudible) Christopher Kelly and Masea Kelly on the survey okay so I am personally directly impacted by that fence line. Everything about it visually is affecting me personally okay. I could not tell by this particular drawing because what I see is the existing fence line in X number of feet down further south of the south border is that correct? Is this coming back up I can't MICHELE DAVIS : All fencing would be well we are away from the wetlands so we are the existing fence that's there is the 100 feet off of the wetland, 150 off the road off the property line. CHRIS KELLY : What is that other line?That's what I don't understand. I see the survey, I see the highlighted in pink that's the proposed correct? MICHELE DAVIS : Oh I see the dotted line the'swirly? CHRIS KELLY : You see that dotted line that's further south that dotted line that's further south is where the existing fence line is Michele and this is why my question my quandary here. I want to know is the fence line actually moving northbound you know what I'm saying? Is that going because if it goes northbound to the monument which I looked up literally today that's another thirty feet back and that actually,makes, it to a 100 feet not 150 feet. I actually measured that today. So I just want to ask there's a couple of concerns that I have and part of is look I've been a farmer out here for the last thirty five years so I understand deer fencing, I've needed deer fencing to make sure my crop grows' but we're asking a very different question now. We're now going from where my finances depend upon it to where I want it in a residential context. MICHELE DAVIS : (inaudible) more to safety. CHRIS KELLY : Hold on. Now we'll talk about safety because here's the deal, the moment you add a perimeter exclusion every non-conforming fence in a large area as you gentlemen noted where does that off load go where does the population go?That goes to me, that goes to every other neighbor so I'm not so sure that I buy into that guess what that just because you don't want your plants or your kids affected makes my needs any less. So I'm just a little bit puzzled. What I think I would like to see from the outcome of this particular fence I am not unsympathetic to the applicant as a person who has been treated twice for Lyme's Disease. I know first-hand what it is to be affected by deer borne diseases. What I'd like to see is a reduction in the footprint of this particular plan. I'd like to see the reduction so it does not affect me visually. I think I'd like a reduction so that there's still a pathway for deer to go through north to south because right now if you blew this picture up where Wolf Pit Pond is to 56 i December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting the east on the east side of Mill Lane there's a big agricultural deer fence. It goes (inaudible) from Midway all the way up to Oregon Rd. if you go on the flip side of Wickham on the south side where the old Cider Farm used to be you know we've got that so we've got parameters that are from agricultural concern that are impacting residential concerns. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All throughout town. CHRIS KELLY : Right so my fear is now if all of a sudden this is adjacent this is a (inaudible) this does affect me negatively on every level. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask you something sir, there's two properties here that says the dotted lines here formerly Christopher Kelly and then CHRIS KELLY : Yes I own both of them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Both of them. CHRIS KELLY : Yes I do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because I think what currently is being proposed is deer fencing that is north of the existing wood fence. CHRIS KELLY : It's north of the little lot. There's a wooded lot that's all that is that's a wooded lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's the one where the deer fencing actually comes to a corner that's on the lot that you're living on. CHRIS KELLY : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well here's another option in terms of just the visual and that is again talk to the homeowner if that they actually have as of right by code the ability to put 8 foot high deer fencing in the side and rear of their property. They're only before us because they wanted to do it all the way around the lot which includes the front yard. However at a courtesy and in consideration of everything you've said and as good neighbors, if the homeowner is willing to scoot that fence back far enough from the property line or forward onto their property to maintain it on both sides possibly they may be also willing to do something about screening the fence the visual appearance of the fence with some evergreens of some sort. It's not going to solve the problem of displacement of those deer onto your property. We all suffer with that. There is very little this Board can do about it. We're trying to work with a property owner to mitigate adverse impacts on anybody else but give them some reasonable extension into a front yard if we can justify it and if they can avoid destroying you 571 December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting know existing trees and maintain it properly on their property and it's mostly because the property is unique. What's it fronting on really you know what I mean, it's really fronting on other people's property. It's at the end of a cul de sac so it's not CHRIS KELLY : It's actually fronting on Wolf Pit Pond. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah and you can look at it that way too. CHRIS KELLY : You're not telling me that that's now a real thing and that makes no sense. It's everything about it is gauged to overlooking the pond. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand. I mean that's why we said maybe you have two front yards. The Building Department didn't see it that way but I'm not the point is it's way away from the road and more than meets what a principal setback for a dwelling would be if it was from Wickham and so. MICHELE DAVIS : I think good vehicle pathway I'm not sure that might be one of the reasons it's not deemed two front yards to go over the wetlands with a vehicle CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Maybe. CHRIS KELLY : What was that? MICHELE DAVIS : I don't know if there's a proper road like I would think that MEMBER DANTES : That's doesn't decide if there's a road or not. CHRIS KELLY : I don't know any of that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Usually what they basically do is say we have to give you a rear yard. Here's your front yard these obviously then have to be side yards. The pool and the tennis court are in the front yard of this property and the only reason they could be there legally without a variance is because there's wetlands behind in the rear yard. As soon as you get to waterfront or marsh land property you can then put accessory structures by code as of right in a front yard because there's much less impact than it would be if it were near the wetlands. So they clearly the Building Department's call is that that's the rear yard you know by the lake by the cul de sac is their front yard and actually you abut the side yard and lot 10 abuts the side yard. CHRIS KELLY : Can I then ask you this question Chairperson, so then the applicant has been able to leverage the idea that's there wetlands to put pools and stuff in his front yard and he's got exclusion or variance for that but now that you come to deer fencing he's able to say oh that's my rear yard and I don't have to worry about that and I can put eight feet up on the rear yard yet it affects both the public and me in a detrimental way. December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I'm saying that it's always been his rear yard but because that rear yard you know what let's say you were on the sound okay, your front yard is probably going to be where the road is and the rear yard is going to be on the bluff but because there's a bluff and water there you could put a swimming pool by code as of right without a variance in between the house and the road. So in a sense that's what happened here. It's still his rear yard but it's allowed in a front yard because of the water that's there. I just think the best thing to do is let her go'let Michele go and talk to the homeowner and give them all the information that she's heard here and come up with an amended survey. You can come in to our office or call and just say have we gotten it yet. You have every right through the FOIL process to fill out freedom of information laws which you can get in our office; you can come in have a. look at it and if you want to provide any written comments you can do that as long as this is open we haven't closed it and we're not intending to close it for at least two weeks. The next meeting would be the opportunity so if you want to come and have a look and write some comments we won't be taking testimony or anything like that at that meeting but based upon what we hear from them and from possibly you we will then either adjourn to another hearing or we will close it at that time and then make up our minds. CHRIS KELLY : I want to be clear I'm sympathetic to the Fitzgeralds. I want a modification of the footprint. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that came across. This is not an adversarial position. You're trying to protect obviously your own views and I don't know what they'll come up with but I think they'll certainly come up with some modification and I think a number of the neighbors have chimed in on this and we're trying to listen carefully to everybody and it appears that they are too. CHRIS KELLY : I thank you, thank you to the Board. MEMBER ACAMPORA : What kind of a fence is presently around the pool? MICHELE DAVIS : Oh they have a two coat PVC five foot high picket style so rail to rail we are 48 inches so we are pool code. That was on their building permit that it was a separate permit but yes it is all fenced in and to MEMBER ACAMAPORA : And again what's around the tennis court? MICHELE DAVIS : The tennis court is a black powder coated nine gauge vinyl chain which is truly a tennis fence but it's a black powder coated system. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How high is it? 591 December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting MICHELE DAVIS : I'd say about ten feet. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : It's pretty high, close to ten. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You got a prior variance for a ten foot high fence with a tennis court. CHRIS KELLY : May I ask one other question, I just wanted to know why the applicant has failed to maintain the paddock fence on the south side? They opened up that whole area. I'm just puzzled as to why the other three sides have been maintained and yet the south side has remained open. I don't quite follow. MICHELE DAVIS : I'm assuming when I'm saying it's under construction type of situation. I know they were doing some yard work, building pools CHRIS KELLY : So they created a temporary access is what they did. MICHELE DAVIS : I can't answer honestly I just assumed. CHRIS KELLY : And then I wondered I guess the follow up question to that is there would not be allowed a gate or an egress or ingress from that side. We would not want that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's no proposed gate. MICHELE DAVIS : The sides no, front no by the wetlands there has to be I think legally for emergency vehicles. CHRIS KELLY : You should be northbound of it so you're no longer encumbering any of the conservation easement. There should be no need for a gate. MICHELE DAVIS : If the request is not to have a gate we'll we're not fighting anything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I did notice in the existing wood fence that there was a gate going out into the preserved area. CHRIS KELLY : And they've left it wide open. You know again I hear and I absolutely respect the idea. Look I don't want any more deer on me than I need to okay but the thing is that if you leave an area and the applicant's contractors actually opened that fence it was closed they opened it, they created it temporary ingress and egress and in it they failed to ever actually close it again. MICHELE DAVIS : I do have and please forgive me for bringing this up it's more personal, the main contractor his wife has terminal cancer they just found out so there might have been a pause to all work. 60 December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting CHRIS KELLY : Understandable. MICHELE DAVIS : The only thing I can think of there's been a pause, he's MEMBER DANTES : That doesn't affect your variance. MICHELE DAVIS : But it might have affected the work on the land. CHRIS KELLY : Forgot to lock it up. MICHELE DAVIS : Yeah he's a mess right now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright I think we've heard MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Actually if I could just ask two other points, questions relative to what Pat had asked, when you look at the pool area on the survey and I don't know why I didn't catch this earlier but there's this irregular shaped what I think is a fence a dotted line running around the pool, around the pool fence and then just jutting north, what is that? MICHELE DAVIS : There was originally post and rail in that area. I don't know if there was an old pool structure but the dotted lines with the circles are you speaking of? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right so that was probably the original pool fence because there's a demolition. MICHELE DAVIS : Yes that would be the old wood fence. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right because it's not there. I just saw it on the survey so I was just curious and then the other question I wanted to ask, at the driveway entrance from Paddock Way is there a proposal for a gate or anything because I mean obviously the deer could walk in. MICHELE DAVIS : Yes. They actually have this the grates on the ground that the deer won't pass over. Eventually one of the deer are going to get smart and hop and tell his friends that's exactly what's going to happen but that would be the next step. There hasn't been anything proposed. I have nothing in contract to do a gate but down the road I'm sure that they're going to request. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They have to. It would be stupid to go through all this and then say this way in put up a big neon sign entry and exit. MICHELE DAVIS : It's really known as a cattle guide. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right I saw that and the deer do know how to go through that it's amazing. 61 December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting MICHELE DAVIS : (inaudible) figured out how to jump over. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't think it's just jumping, they cautiously walk through it. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I saw one walk through it on Bergen Avenue. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what, if while you're talking with the homeowners you can do that. It might be prudent to ask them about that question and maybe just include that. If they're planning to do something just include it with this on this survey so that we have all complete information. I mean it'll be silly to go through all this rigmarole and then be denied something that's as important as a complete enclosure. MICHELE DAVIS : I'm wondering if I may ask off the record if they put a six foot high gate to code are they allowed to run a one wire across. Believe it or not that wire deters the deer so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know and the other thing is they're not really allowed a six foot high gate in the front yard. Four feet is the maximum height for any fencing in a front yard but deer fencing usually includes a gate somewhere. Usually it's the same height as the fence. MICHELE DAVIS : (inaudible) back access gate but that's the gate you do not want right the back by the water and a pedestrian gate on the other side get rid of that too, all gates in the rear gone? So then yeah then that would be the next biggest question. MEMBER ACAMPORA : I have one last question, as you're looking across that back property does the owner or would the owner consider instead of it going from one end to the other end how about moving this to where you have where it passes by the pool and to where you have those little circles then along instead of making it a right angle make it kind of curved. MICHELE DAVIS : I'm not sure if I'm understanding where I don't know if that would be more of an eyesore and I would think tucking it into the trees would be more preferable for eyesore. MEMBER ACAMAPORA : Are they planning on putting plantings in that back area? MICHELE DAVIS : Yes all the area. Their intentions are after the fencing is up then they're going to go for a second layer of trees all around. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So would you please include that proposed landscape plan also in whatever amended location. MICHELE DAVIS : Like I don't know how many trees they're doing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you come up for a moment. One of our members just, suggested the possibility of curving in this corner away from Mr. Kelly's lot instead of going here 67 December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting to here move it away, screen it especially if this is gonna now become more like that so that might be a useful you know. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : This is what Gerry and I came up with while we're talking sorry the same positions, you were following the plane of the tennis court so the deer have room to walk around and then you follow it to the wetlands but now you're saying just round that corner. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're looking at the possibility here's your property right we're looking at the possibility of moving this away more toward here and then curving it toward the back one so that this is more open and then instead of this corner and then screen it. CHRIS KELLY : And then (inaudible) up above the dotted line you see the dotted line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is that dotted line?That's the conservation easement? CHRIS KELLY : (inaudible) come down and around and then the upside stays north of the dotted line which would be the conservation easement you're done and you just screen that with what was the proposed plant material? MICHELE DAVIS : I think they were going to use CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Leyland cypress or green giant CHRIS KELLY : Arborvitaes are useless. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Unless it's green giant. CHRIS KELLY : Even green giant the problem with all of those kind of things they work for about two or three years and then they MEMBER ACAMPORA : They eat them. CHRIS KELLY : They eat to the top six feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But if they're inside this screen the fence rather than outside then they're protected. CHRIS KELLY : Then it doesn't matter I didn't realize they want to put it inside. That works for me. If there's a curve and it stays north of the conservation easement thing so that just slides up. MICHELE DAVIS : I have to figure out where that's located because this is a visually I can tell. I'm just not sure how many 63 December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting CHRIS KELLY : I'll give you an idea. You look at my property okay and you're going to see a steel pipe which is where that monument is and then I think if you're looking about ten feet north that's probably exactly (inaudible) you're going to do some kind of a curve that works for me so that what ends up you're up from here somewhere see what I'm saying and then you're CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They're very hard for us and we often deny them but it depends entirely on the specific application and what, where and how. Is there anyone else wishing to address the application, anything else from the Board? MICHELE DAVIS : The name of the neighbor I should meet with? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Alan Dickerson. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What other neighbor? Actually the ones that were concerned about the cedars are the ones Ivan Shabotraev. They're on the survey. They're the ones who wrote in about the concern about the cedar trees. We can give you copies of the letters. You have every right to have that information so we will make a copy. You know what we're going to close your hearing by adjourning it to the next meeting then we're going to close our meeting and then Kim will go and make a copy for you right now of those letters so you have them. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can I get a copy of those letters too? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure you should have gotten them. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : My printer is not working. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to make a motion hearing no other comments or questions to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting on December 22nd in anticipation of receiving an amended survey or plan with landscape plan of the proposed deer fencing and including proposed gate. Is there a second? Oh I'm sorry December 21St CHRIS KELLY : Will I get a copy of the amendment? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No you don't automatically get one but you're more than welcomed to come in to the office and to just ask for it. They'll give you a form, Freedom of Information thing, fill it out FOIL it and you can see whatever you like in the file. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's been seconded, all in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. 64 December 7, 2017 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. l MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) 65 December 7, 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 Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : December 18, 2017 66