Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-02/01/2018 Hearing TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Southold Town Hall Southold, New York February 1, 2018 10:03 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member (Absent) ERIC DANTES— Member GERARD GOEHRINGER—Member (Absent) NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO— Member KIM FUENTES— Board Assistant WILLIAM DUFFY—Town Attorney 1 February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Peter Negri and Elizabeth Kaye Negri #7128 3 - 9 Theodore and Anna M. Boutzalis #7131 9 -11 Rene Mendez and Leslie Henshaw#7132 11- 19 Cacioppo Living Trust#7133 19 - 24 Steven Walsh #7129 24 -40 Erol Baskurt#7130 40 -44 Richard J. McBride #7126 44 - 53 Kevin Foote#7127 54 - 62 2 February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting HEARING # 7128—PETER NEGRI and ELIZABETH KAYE NEGRI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for Peter Negri and Elizabeth Kaye Negri #7128. This is a request for a variance from Article XXII Section 280-116 and the Building Inspector's October 10, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff located at 9775 Nassau Point Rd. (adj. to Little Peconic Bay) in Cutchogue. Goo morning Rob just state your name for the record please. ROB HERMANN : Good morning, Rob Hermann of En-Consultants. I'm here for the applicant Peter Negri. Mr. Negri and his wife are here along with Matthew Hox the project architect and Stacey Paetzel the landscape architect. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It appears the variance-is for a 51 foot bluff setback? ROB HERMANN : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : To the corner of a proposed in-ground swimming pool. ROB HERMANN : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay what else would you like us to know? ROB HERMANN : So to follow along I'll try to be thorough but as brief as I can I've set some photographs up on the board in front of you. They're the same photos that were submitted with the application but if anyone wants to take a peek at anything I'm talking about it's there. The subject property is located at 9775 Nassau Point Rd. Cutchogue and we are here for bluff setback of 51 feet where 100 feet is required. It is now required for Peconic Bays this is still fairly unusual I shouldn't say unusual but a little bit of a new application for me as I'm used to being here talking about Long Island Sound bluffs and since the end of 2015 the Peconic Bay bluffs have also been included in Chapter 280's bluff setback requirement but because of the recent nature of that code change and the fact that the bluff setback under Chapter 275 Wetlands has also only been around since about 2003, 2004. The character of this neighborhood as I'm sure the Board is familiar along Nassau Point it consists of substantially of dwelling and accessory structures located much less than 100 feet from the top of the bluff including the applicant's dwelling which is currently located only 44 feet from the bluff at its' nearest point. Due to the recent nature of this code change I was only able to find one prior variance that the Board had issued in the surrounding neighborhood which was for the reconstruction of a dwelling located less than 35 feet from the bluff and that was about twenty properties to the north. So the 51 foot setback proposed for to the nearest corner of the 3 February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting swimming pool is greater than that Board approved setback. It is greater than the existing setback of the applicant's dwelling and it is also greater than the setback to the three other waterside swimming pools in the surrounding neighborhood whose bluff setbacks based on my review of aerial photographs appear to range from 15 to 40 feet. So with those numbers in mind it is our position that the proposed setback here would be consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and would do nothing to change or adversely impact that character. As far as the project's impact on the immediately adjacent neighbors there's really no conceivable impact to the neighbor to the north. The pool would unlikely be even visible and the associated addition would certainly not be visible from that property. Now with respect to the owner to the south, one of the things that is important to note here that in an effort to minimize the number of variances that we might need for such a project the pool is set within a raised patio so that it's quote unquote attached to the principle dwelling structure, by doing that we avoid the need for a non-conforming side yard variance. As the Board knows the pool a detached pool would not be allowed to be located in the side yard but what's worth noting is that in doing that the pool then has to meet the principle dwelling setbacks which in this case for the minimum side yard would be 15 feet but from the perspective of the neighbor they would probably prefer the detached setback for a swimming pool which here would be 25 feet and we exceed that setback with the pool. So the point being the pool is actually it's set in a raised patio so that we don't need a side yard variance but it's also set far enough away from the property line that it exceeds any possible setback that might be associated with the pool and that's at a sensitivity for any impact on the neighbor regardless of how it's characterized under the code. We have also sought to minimize the bluff setback variance that we do need by actually removing part of the existing dwelling and constructing the pool partially in place of it and by that I'm referring to what is a 16 foot wide by 21 foot deep protrusion of the dwelling on the south side of the property that you can see in those photographs which currently consists of an attached greenhouse and in order to push the pool as far as we can possibly get it from the bluff in addition to mimicking that orientation of the house so that only that far corner of the pool is actually set 51 feet from the bluff. We actually go in to some of the existing footprint so what happens is the existing greenhouse gets demolished and all but 7 feet of that protrusion is then replaced by the propose pool and surrounding patio and then the remaining 7 feet, 7 by 16 foot section that's to be removed gets replaced in place by an attached addition and what we're doing there is actually using that enclosed addition in place of the existing greenhouse to serve as really like an interior pool house or pool cabana which also serves the secondary purpose of eliminating the possibility of having to proposed another accessory structure an outdoor pool house which would then require an additional variance. So, in short I can sincerely say that this design has really sought to avoid every variance we could avoid and we've done that and to minimize the one variance that we can't avoid which is the bluff setback. So finally and perhaps most pertinent to that request is the fact that the subject bluff is February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting well protected at its toe by a bulkhead, a primary bulkhead that runs adjacent to the beach and a secondary retaining wall both of which were constructed after hurricane Sandy when a much older wooden bulkhead was storm damaged during that catastrophic storm. The bluff face is stable and well vegetated. It was re-nourished and replanted after Sandy as part of that bulkhead reconstruction project and that was a project that was approved by the Trustees for the prior owner in 2013. The objective third party evaluation that was conducted by Suffolk County Soil and Water District supports our assessment. They note at the time I'm referencing the report they submitted to you, the note at the time of their visit November of last year that the bluff face was "well established with native and landscaped vegetation" and the bluff appeared to be "in stable condition". The Soil and Water District's recommendation that heavy machinery and equipment be stored and used no closer than twenty five feet from the bluff was actually already proposed as part of our construction methodology in fact I make reference to that in our application and the applicants have no problem complying with Soil and Water's additional recommendation to remove and discontinue the use of any irrigation on the bluff face which I'm just going to take an educated guess was probably installed by the prior owner in connection with that bluff re-vegetation project because they would have needed the irrigation to establish the plants that were planted after the bulkhead was replaced. To further ensure the absence of mitigation of any adverse environmental impacts it's worth noting that the pool will obviously be substantially elevated above the ground water table and will have no impact on ground water. We have a dedicated pool dry well proposed more than 120 feet from the top of the bluff. There will be a temporary project limiting fence set in place during construction in order to make sure that that Soil and Water guideline is complied with in terms of keeping machinery and materials more than 25 feet from the bluff crest and a 10 foot wide plus or minus 2100 square foot non-turf buffer is proposed along the top of the bluff in order to enhance the ability the property to act as a sink and filter for runoff any contaminants that might be contained therein. So in summary we believe the project will be consistent with the character of the neighborhood here and will have no adverse impacts to that character or to the adjoining property owners. The design represents the most reasonable and practical location of the pool and minimizes both the number of variances and the extent of the one variance that we need and protects against any adverse impacts to the bluff or other environmental conditions. We had also met with the Trustees prior to starting the design and incorporated their input to the design which included how we got to the point of pushing beyond this 50 foot setback and into the footprint of the existing house. I can say that the Negri's have been very thoughtful and very deliberate with this design to try to make it as harmonious with the Peconic Bay environment here as they possibly could. That's all I have, if you have any questions I'm happy to answer them and anyone else that's here. 5 February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well as usual Rob I think you've been very thorough but just for the record although I think we've all been there and know the answer I would like you to explain why it is not a feasible thing to put the proposed swimming pool in the front yard which is permitted on a waterfront property. ROB HERMANN : Yep so I do address that in the application but I can also speak to it here for the record. We did look at that as a possible alternative because we have to. Obviously in a general sense having the waterside pool is going to be the most desirable thing for the applicants. For a property of this size to have the view of the bluff and all of those things that go along the pool on the waterside but in looking at the front yard and you can see this on the site plan and I think I speak to this in the application, most of the front of the property unlike the rear is actually pretty well vegetated except for the parts of the property that consist of the existing driveway, walkways etc. on the front side so placing the pool on the front would require the either complete reconstruction and reconfiguration of all of the surfaces that exist now and then potentially some of the vegetation that goes along with that. Whereas the side yard has been historically cleared and maintained as lawn there's no clearing or site disturbance really required in connection with the project aside from the realignment of that boulder retaining wall on the south side which I actually neglected to mention is also being done in order to allow the pool to get in there. So instead of trying to work around that boulder retaining wall we're going to reconfigure that to allow us to meet the setback and then significantly for the owners I've heard a lot of stories about they have several kids, they have lots of grandkids and they want everybody to be very close to the house and there's just really no practical front yard solution where you can put a swimming pool and have that kind of experience living in the house. The value of this property is associated with its Bayfront and that's where they're going to recreate, that's where they're going to eat, that's where they're going to enjoy themselves and that's where they want to swim. If that had to then be moved to the front yard it would take that entire experience away and move it up by the driveway but understanding the sensitivity of putting it on the water side that's why we've put so much effort into this design because we want to be able to demonstrate that we can put it on the waterside without having any adverse impacts. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, thank you. Nick any questions? MEMBER PLANAMENTO Yes a couple. Could you speak more about the elevation of the proposed swimming pool? On the site plan it seems that on sort of the southwest side it's a one foot step and on the I guess northeast side it looks like two, so is the pool just in theory pretty much at grade but just around a foot above grade or is it February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting ROB HERMANN : I'll let Stacey Paetzel speak to that. The desire to make sure that the pool would be deemed by the Building Department to be raised is what drove the design and based on their Notice of Disapproval they did accept that concept that I'll let Stacey explain how we got that. STACEY PAETZEL : Hi. I'm Stacey Paetzel, landscape architect for the Negri's. So to answer Nick's question the pool patio is raised about seven inches. We did put two steps on the other side almost as a precaution in case we needed a second step but we're hoping that we can keep the whole thing at one step down. So then you'll have one step.down where you see the two step locations and then one step down sort of into the lawn area and that works pretty well with all of the existing grades. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And then to that point while it's not exactly it is a raised pool but not raised in the sense of a couple of feet, is the proposed pool an infinity edge pool or is there any (inaudible) planned or any STACEY PAETZEL : No. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So this is a regular in-ground swimming pool? STACEY PAETZEL : Correct, it's a standard swimming pool. The infinity edge really didn't make any sense in this location. ROB HERMANN : Nick it's worth mentioning that and I spoke to it a little bit that was also one of the reasons why we wanted to make sure that we were also meeting the 25 foot setback that would be required if it was treated as a detached pool cause Stacey and I have been dealing with this for years. Sometimes it works against you, sometimes it works for you. The Building Department here has always taken a position that if it is not literally at grade even with the natural grade it's raised. So we've had occasions where we had to sort of artificially raise a pool just to meet a setback. From a neighbor's perspective whether the pool is here or here they don't care. There's a pool next to that so I understand that it may or may not trigger the need for non-conforming side yard variance but again from a neighbor's perspective it's all the same so we tried to take an approach here where even the worst case scenario setback which for a property this size would be 25 feet for a detached pool, we're meeting that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And I think to that point, this particular area while you're going to be disturbing that stone wall it's pretty much well established with vegetation which are plantings, those plantings will remain? STACEY PAETZEL : There will be some transplants in that area. The plantings are kind of actually spread out from when I was there so it's really only about three or four larger plants that we're 71 i i February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting going to pick up and transplant and relocate elsewhere on the property. None of them are native I think it's worth mentioning. They're all were planted as landscape you know ornamental landscaping when the house was constructed and whatever is-viable we're going to dig out and transplant probably just kind of along the property line behind it to provide additional screening for the neighbors. So it'll very much appear the same way that it does now with a little bit more dense planting. ROB HERMANN : So Nick in our application if you look at figure seven and eight and I'm sorry I didn't mention this in my presentation. I'm trying to be as short as I can but in figure seven is actually a view down the southerly property line and you can see on the right hand side this is all the natural vegetation that exists on the neighbor's property and this is the landscape vegetation on subject property, and this is actually a view of the yard from the property to the south. So between the natural existing vegetation to the south and all the landscape vegetation on the subject property to your point it is very well screened on the south side. Certainly if the Board you know wanted to stipulate a condition that this area again be similarly re-vegetated with a landscape vegetation that's there that's really not a problem because the Negri's are going to want their privacy as much as you know the neighbors are gonna want theirs. MEMBER DANTES : There is a second variance (inaudible) variance #7117 granted a 67 foot bluff setback to the (inaudible) what's the current setback am I reading right, the current house at 35.3 feet from the top of the bluff? ROB HERMANN : No that's to patio. If you look farther to the north the bluff kind of turns landward so minimum setback from that north east corner I'm going to call it the north east corner of the house is 44 feet from the survey bluff crest on the north side of the property. The existing on grade masonry patio which fronts the waterside of the house is currently 35.3 feet from the top of the bluff which is the setback you're looking at. The house is farther back from that and (inaudible0 MEMBER DANTES : Do you have to go to Trustees after us? ROB HERMANN : We would because we are within a 100 feet of the top of the bluff we'll need wetlands permit under not a coastal erosion permit but a wetlands permits under Chapter 275 but under the Trustees current policy they won't hear an application until you make a determination. In fact that has frustrated Mr. Negri throughout this process_ because the Trustees meeting is one day before your decision. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Unfortunate timing. ROB HERMANN : Yeah so we would expect to be heard by the Trustees in March which would be the only other approval we would need you know if the Board sees fit to grant the variance. i February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting That would be the only other approval we would need before going for a building permit as the project is outside the D.E.C.'s jurisdiction because of its elevation and location behind the bluff. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wished 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 PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7131—THEODORE and ANNA M. BOUTZALIS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Theodore and Anna M. Boutzalis #7131. This is a request for variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's October 19, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet located at 670 Holden Ave. in Cutchogue. Is there someone here to represent the applicant? Come to the podium please and state and spell your name. CATHERINE MANNO : Hi I'm Catherine Manno. I put in the application for Mr. Boutzalis and he is here so if you have any questions for him as to why he'd like to proceed with this extension he CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well this looks like it's additions and alterations at the front of the dwelling fronting on Holden with a front yard setback of 35.9 feet where the code requires a 40 foot front yard setback. You're adding a bathroom and enlarging a living room right? CATHERINE MANNO : Yes, master suite. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : For a full time occupancy by the owner. CATHERINE MANNO : It's a master suite extension with a master bath. 9 February 1, 2018.Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well .we've all been out there as you probably know to inspect the property. It would appear that the house basically just doesn't parallel the road and so as a result making the addition continuous with the existing elevation puts some of,that addition in a non-conforming front yard location. It's not the entirety of the house, just a corner of the house that's going to need that setback. I should also note that we did receive two letters of support from neighbor's thank you for that. From Mary Ann Fleischman and from Tom and Jane Glover and let's see if the Board has any questions or if there's anything that you would like to tell us first. CATHERINE MANNO : No that's really about it. It's not as elaborate as the one before us. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the existing dwelling is pretty much conforming with the 40 foot setback so tell us why that is located on that side of the dwelling as opposed to let's say the other side of the dwelling which has a greater setback. JOSEPH MANNO : Hi my name is Joseph Manno. I'm helping Mr. Boutzalis with the project overseeing everything for him. On the left side it would actually cause a little bit of an issue with the driveway and the driveway being so narrow alongside the neighbor, we're very high up I believe you guys were there to see the site and it would really you know put a little bit more of a I would say looking over someone else's home it would be a little awkward as far as the way the layout works out and also on the left side is where the family room is versus the right side where the master suite currently is located. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what you want to enlarge? JOSEPH MANNO : That's the side he really wants to extend yes. I mean on the right side I think we're within reason as far as our setbacks; it's.just that front little corner that's pushing out a little bit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I have no other questions, Eric? _ MEMBER DANTES : No I don't have questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes just want to bit of a point of clarification in the application you indicated that you're going to be relocated the electric meter, the electric service; it appears that you buried your electrical service. JOSEPH MANNO : Yes. J.0 February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : but adjacent to the foundation where you're proposing the extension there's a natural gas meter, I'm assuming that's also going to be relocated? JOSEPH MANNO : It's all being relocated yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I make the motion to close this hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7132— RENE MENDEZ and LESLIE HENSHAW CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Rene Mendez and Leslie Henshaw # 7132. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-13C, Article XXII Section 280-105C and the Building Inspector's October 12, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct an accessory building and to legalize an "as built" six feet high deer fence in the front yard at 1) the proposed accessory structure (private residential fitness building with basement) is not a permitted use, 2) fence more than the code required maximum four (4) feet in height when located in the front yard located at 3945 Soundview Ave. (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Peconic. Good morning Tom, please state your name for the record. TOM SAMUELS : Yes good morning, my name is Tom Samuels I'm the architect and the applicant for this project and Mr. Mendez is also here today to answer any questions and help the Board make their decision. Very briefly I would say that in this instance we're talking about an accessory building which from an area zoning standpoint meets all requirements. It's a very large piece of property. The building is located more than enough from all the side yards, property lines etc. It's the use of the building which is in question. The Building Department IL1 February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting gave us a disapproval because we're looking to build an indoor squash court. The Mendez/ Henshaw family are avid squash players. Their daughter is a professional, they all play. We believe that this should be considered a customary use. We understand it is not there haven't been that many of them but compared to a tennis court for example which would most likely be an outdoor structure we believe this would have less of an. impact on the neighboring community than an outdoor tennis court would. It's completely interior obviously. It's lit interior heated space. We just feel as though as a recreation building a private recreation building this is completely appropriate for the town of Southold and for this neighborhood. With regards to deer fencing which pre-exists their purchase of the property nevertheless, it's located approximately 400 feet back from the road in a woodland setting. You can't see it or hear it or has no impact on the surroundings but it obviously preserves the Henshaw/Mendez's garden and plants and from the ravages of deer so we believe it again has very little if any impact on the surrounding neighborhood and should be considered acceptable. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I can tell you that we have granted variances for deer fencing when the front yard setback met the principle front yard setback which certainly from Soundview this does. The right of way is perhaps closer however it's only I think one other property that's accessed by, it's pretty private. TOM SAMUELS : I'm sorry Leslie did you say that you have given CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have, we have but again only in situations where it has no impact on the road because it's setback so far you can't see it. MEMBER DANTES : What is the setback of this deer fence from Soundview Ave.? TOM SAMUELS : It's approximately 450 feet. It's a twelve acre parcel and the house itself is probably 600 feet back. The deer fencing just encloses an area of that entire parcel in order to try to maintain a you know a landscape in MEMBER DANTES : Can you dig up those variances that there's a couple along I would say 48. TOM SAMUELS : On deer fencing. MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) east of Soundview there's a couple of variances down there. TOM SAMUELS : We're also not quite and yet intending to. go to the Health Department for a sanitary system (inaudible) there's a half bath shown in the structure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So Tom you're obviously aware of the fact that and I'm sure the applicant is too that the permitted uses do not list a squash court. February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting TOM SAMUELS : Yes we are. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is where the Board has to grapple with because clearly when we write decisions we have the potential power to be rewriting the code and of course that is the purview of the legislative body, the Town Boards so we have to walk very carefully on those situations and it would require a use variance technically but a use variance application in this instance probably makes no sense cause you're never going to meet the standards of a use variance. I think the issue is clear. I don't really have any questions about it we just have to figure out what to do what we're allowed to do. Nick do you have any questions. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, I concur with what was discussed I mean the setback as far as the deer fence, it's substantial you can't see anything from the road and I can just imagine I mean we're looking at things during the winter during spring through fall I don't even think people realize there's a home there. TOM SAMUELS : Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric do you have any questions? MEMBER DANTES : Just to go over it, the size of the building conforms to code. TOM SAMUELS : Correct. MEMBER DANTES : The location of the building conforms to code? TOM SAMUELS : Correct and the height as well. MEMBER DANTES : And the exterior looks like a barn. TOM SAMUELS : Correct in keeping with the house style. MEMBER DANTES : In the locker room and the half bath also conform to code? TOM SAMUELS : Yes. MEMBER DANTES : So then the only thing that doesn't conform to code is the label of squash court? TOM SAMUELS : That is correct and like as I say we believe although it's not generally considered a customary use it to my mind meets the requirements of a customary use in that it is a private recreation facility. It just happens to be squash. If we had said you know pool house maybe that would have made a difference but it doesn't it isn't and so we want to be completely upfront and truthful with the town and let them know what we intend to do and we 13 February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting believe that this is an appropriate use and will have zero impact on the neighbors and if someone else were to come along to you and ask for a private squash court we don't believe the town you know is going to hell and a hand basket over it because it's interior use. MEMBER DANTES : Would the squash court be permitted use if this was attached to the main structure? TOM SAMUELS : Yes it would but the way the house is you guys were out there I guess and you see that it's on a hill and there's it would be tricky. We explored it and tried to find a way to make it work that way and ended up feeling you know this just isn't it's going to detract from the house from the style of the house and their enjoyment of it and it would be more appropriate-if we can make it an accessory put it into an accessory building. MEMBER DANTES : Will this building be heated? TOM SAMUELS : Yes. MEMBER DANTES : And cooled? TOM SAMUELS : Yes you know where you're talking about a squash court it's a very specific thing it would be presumable we think or we're working with we like to work with a vendor from Germany, it's a very technical court. It needs to be conditioned space because otherwise you know you have openings and gaps and things happening and plus it has to be in a basement in order to conform to the height requirements in the town and so there's obviously moisture issues which we'll attend to but nevertheless if you didn't heat and cool this space it would deteriorate rather rapidly. I just want to give you a printout of this is a Haley Mendez it's their daughter she as I say is a professional squash player (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just come to the mic and state your name please. RENE MENDEZ : My name is Rene Mendez it's actually I think you have it as Rene, Fernando Rene Mendez and I'll just say that we're relative new comers to the North Fork. I think we bought the house about three years ago. We love it. We love the quiet beauty of it and we enjoy all times of year. We are a family of life long squash players. My wife and I play. We've played you know for a long time. Our daughters have played since they were very young. They've played all the way through college and in fact this older daughter that you see in the article in front of you is a professional squash player and currently ranked number forty six in the world as of this morning. She was excited about that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Congratulations. 14 February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting RENE MENDEZ : Thanks. So it's always been a dream to have our own squash court and in fact you know given her vocation to have the facility here would make a meaningful difference to her training and her ability to actually come out and share and enjoy the property with us. So you know Tom has designed a lovely discreet building that's kind of imbedded in the interior of the property. I think half of the court you need roughly eighteen to twenty feet clear feet for a squash court but half of that or maybe more than half of that would be below grade so I think what you would see from the crescent driveway in front of the house I don't think you'd see anything from Soundview Ave. would be a modest discreet barn type structure but I'd be happy to answer any questions you have about squash or the family or squash court but that's really that's our motivation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me say this as an avid tennis player used to be before the knees went, anyway as I said earlier one of the things the Board has to be very mindful of although in some ways it doesn't make sense but that is the fact the law does not allow us to personalize applications. In other words just. because you love squash it's about the application itself the merits of the actual structure in that particular site rather than,whose going to be using it. That's just a fact although we are always open and interested in why someone wants to do something that the code doesn't permit. So let's see is there anything else that anybody wants to say? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just looking at the plans one thing that came to mind I noted in the mechanical room it illustrates that there's a hot water heater I assume that's going to feed the two sinks in the property but there's also a storage room, you're not proposing or planning at any point a shower are you? RENE MENDEZ : No. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : There will not be a shower. TOM SAMUELS : No. RENE MENDEZ : There is a toilet and a sink. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yep clearly visible. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah that's permitted in an accessory structure so I'm sure Tom knows that. T.A. DUFFY : If I may. From what I'm hearing from the Board it's not the merits or whether it's going to have an impact it's what they're going it seems what they're going to struggle with is under the law is that they have to follow can they grant this as a use. Is it an allowed use, are 151 February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting they allowed to grant you the use and I think that's the struggle it has nothing to do with you personally squash in general or RENE MENDEZ : It's an accessory, recreational building so pool house as I understand T.A. DUFFY : And if our code said accessory recreational buildings are allowed then CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No problem. T.A. DUFFY : No problem. We have to struggle with an old code and whether they can find that they're allowed to grant it or not and that's something I'll discuss with the Board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well one of the things the Board does do on a regular basis is when things like this come up we go to the Town Board and we bring them up to date on what's happening in the field implementing the code and where we think code needs to be looked at. It doesn't help immediate applicants particularly but we have done that on many occasion and will continue to because we feel it's our obligation to let our legislators know how the code is operating so that they can be on top of it and make changes if they think it's timely or necessary. Let me ask you this, do you in any way intend to have any people other than your family use this RENE MENDEZ : Oh no, I mean of course there would be CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You would have a guest visitor or something. RENE MENDEZ : Sure, sure I'm not good enough to play with my daughter to tell you the truth but only guests strictly guests. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Friends of yours. RENE MENDEZ : Yes of course. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No for profit, you're not going to open up a squash club. RENE MENDEZ : No, no, no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nothing commercial. RENE MENDEZ : Most definitely not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Purely for your own private residential use. RENE MENDEZ : Purely for our use. i-6 February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I can't really think of anything else other than we're going to have to look at that code and now is there anything else you would like to say about it? TOM SAMUELS : Just to the point that you just made, I think about and the town attorney said about uses and going to the Town Board and trying to make sense out of everything. It would make sense for you guys and for the Town Board to consider increased accessory uses in this town. I mean playhouse you can have a playhouse what does that even mean I don't know but you can't even have a studio. You can't have a home office in an accessory structure, why not? It makes no sense let alone a guest house that I won't even get in to because CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why couldn't you call it a squash workshop? TOM SAMUELS : Leslie we could have done that we could have put that in there but that's not what we're about. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand. There's no point in trying to do something the law doesn't allow. That's why you're here. TOM SAMUELS : Exactly. The point is that that section on accessory uses is overly and unnecessarily rigid and it doesn't reflect modern lifestyles or what people come to the town of Southold to do or what they've done here all their lives even. So I would encourage you to take that up in addition to approving this because I do think that it would be to the benefit to the town in the long run and to the benefit of you guys not to have to hear applications like this which to me don't really shouldn't really have to happen. The code should allow the kind of things which are in effect (inaudible) yes squash is a little unusual as a game these days but they allow a tennis court what's the difference? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Soon there'll be pickle ball. TOM SAMUELS : Pickle ball fine you know there's all kinds of cool games that are recreational uses that people might want to do so I think that would be very well timed on your part to bring that up at some point to the town. T.A. DUFFY : As you read the code would you say that an-enclosed tennis court a tennis court in a structure is an allowed accessory use under the code? TOM SAMUELS : You're allowed to have a tennis court as a customary' use I don't know if it actually says tennis court in the code but it might be difficult on most lots to make it high enough. You'd have to really bury that in the ground but yes I would say that should be usable. They should be why not we're allowed to play tennis outdoors. Indoors would have less of an 17 February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting impact if you had an old barn or something. It's a big area you know squash court is smaller than this room. T.A. DUFFY : I'm not talking about the practicality I'm just saying as the code reads MEMBER DANTES : What he's getting at if tennis would be allowed inside what's the difference between tennis and squash? TOM SAMUELS : They're both games played with racquets and balls and I don't see a difference other than the code is not explicit in either case but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's kind of silent cause I don't think we've ever had a tennis bubble proposed in this town. TOM SAMUELS : That's a shame because we need one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well certainly not on a residential property maybe commercially. RENE MENDEZ : This would be a lot more steady than (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah it would. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So actually Tom going back to your initial presentation where you discussed about potential alternative locations and trying to attach it to the house which would make it conforming, I understand the site I made a visit but is there any possibility although it would sort of be in the front but could you put it just south of the pool? I mean was there any thought about burying it in that location? TOM SAMUELS : And calling it a pool house? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well not necessarily calling it a pool house but just an addition to the structure. TOM SAMUELS : But it's still being an accessory as opposed to attached. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well no I was just thinking of it attached. TOM SAMUELS : We looked on the west side actually and there's a driveway there and an underground or (inaudible) garage MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right that didn't seem so TOM SAMUELS : made more sense. The other side we I mean if push should eventually come to shove then we'll have to consider all options but that one we did not explicitly study. We're jL February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting looking more on the west and actually designed an addition for that and ended up feeling it just it mars the views from the house and didn't really work the way it ought to and being on the MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I guess you also then lose your garages. TOM SAMUELS : Eventually we'd lose the garages yeah depending on exactly how we, were trying to find a way to make it all work together but it's difficult. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I can promise you we'll look at every aspect of the code we can possibly review and see what we can come up with. I can't you know obviously predetermine an outcome but we will do as much diligence on this as we possibly can. Certainly on the site itself it's not an issue. It's just you know just the use and we'll have to figure out what we can and can't do with that one, anything else from the Board, anyone else in the audience who wishes 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 is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING# 7133.—CACIOPPO LIVING TRUST CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Cacioppo Living Trust # 7133. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's October 24, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to demolish an existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling and construct an in-ground swimming pool at 1) existing frame barn located in other than the code required rear yard, 2) existing frame garage located in other than the code required rear yard, 3) existing frame chicken coop located in other than the code required rear yard and 4) proposed in- ground swimming pool located in other than the code required rear yard located at 4805 Alvah's Lane in Cutchogue. Is there someone here to represent the application, please state and spell your name? 19 February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting GARY ST.EINFLED : Good morning my name is Gary Steinfeld, I am the agent for the applicant. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this would appear to be a demolition of an existing single family dwelling that's pretty close to Alvah's Lane and a new dwelling that's going to be pushed back a lot farther leaving very little rear yard and placing the swimming pool although it's way toward the rear of the property all of them will basically be in side yards these existing structures. GARY STEINFELD : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just so you're aware we have done a site inspection. Everyone has been out there to see what it looks like. So what else would you like us to know about the application? GARY STEINFELD : Well I think the thought process of Paul and his wife Maureen that this is going to be their permanent residence they're long founding residence in the community here Paul and Maureen they any property they've been involved in they're always interested in maintaining the character you know as you probably saw from your inspection they did some new siding on all the structures but they kept it in the same farmstead type of style. They'd like to use this property as their principle residence but they are a little bit sensitive to road noise on Alvah's Lane due to truck traffic and the LIRR. When looking at placing this house on the site which is you know for the size of the lot is I'm not sure I'd say modest but it's going to be a 3500 or less square foot house. They're not looking to put up any mansion of any sort of that nature but they'd like to site that as far back from the road as possible. It's helpful that the new structure brings in conformity the front yard setback. The house that's there now is within that sixty foot requirement. If you look at on the south part of Alvah's- Lane there's a very similar property with multiple buildings on it that's been given variances in 2002 for both side yard for pool and side yard for the accessory structures. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What one is that? GARY STEINFELD : The numbers on those were #5048 and #5130 they were both in 2002. It was 1725 Alvah's I think is the correct address. It's a similar property except for the property that we're discussing now will maintain much larger rear yard setbacks. Paul and Maureen also own the surrounding agricultural land on two sides of their property that have the development rights sold. I mean when we look at the property we're not looking for it's only about 10% of lot coverage after the installation of the pool and new house we're still maintaining a pretty significant side yard setback of almost about 60 feet from the closest residential structure on the neighbor to the south and we're still maintaining at least from the new structures a very reasonable rear yard setbacks. I can answer any further questions you may have. 2® February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see it looks like this framed shed is going to be in the rear yard the one that's very close there's the framed barn is going to be in the side yard and then there's a chicken coop and then there's a garage, the framed shed you're leaving that? GARY STEINFELD : The framed shed will still be in the rear yard correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That wasn't cited cause it's conforming I presume. GARY STEINFELD : Right correct and-these are all you know very old farmstead structures. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They look like; they're in good condition. Were they renovated or anything? GARY STEINFELD : I think he just fixed up some siding on them but you know I walked around and it's very surprising the foundations are in great shape. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :.To that point I mean the foundations look good but clearly it's new siding and new windows and I was going to ask are there any C.O.'s on all these structures? GARY STEINFELD : There are C. O.'s I put it in the package here. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : There's a C.O. on the house but not I didn't see anything associated with the accessory buildings. GARY STEINFELD : He could apply for Pre-existing on those I guess if it's necessary. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I don't think we have anything. GARY STEINFELD : I mean these are probably from CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : From when would you guess they might have been GARY STEINFELD : I mean it's an old farmstead there so I mean they're 1900's easy. MEMBER DANTES : I think that would help if you apply for the Pre C.O.'s for the structures. GARY STEINFELD : Yeah we can do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah that way we know they're legally established and that helps the argument for leaving them there although they are now in a non-conforming location. GARY STEINFELD : Right, correct. MEMBER DANTES : Can you explain a little bit about the pool in the side yard. 211 February 1,.2018 Regular Meeting GARY STEINFELD : When you look at this application it's really centered around the house itself you know as the primary suspect here. The reason to put the pool in the side yard'between these two structures I really think is one is to preserve the vistas along the rear of the property but more so it's just to maintain privacy from LIRR that's on the other side. I mean that barn is a nice large structure that just it's there, it's gonna be in a side yard anyway with the house configured like this so to have the pool in between the two of them just makes for a nicer setting and a benefit to them from the point of view of privacy and noise control. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there any other reason for other than just the convenience why that proposed pool cannot be in a side yard I mean in a rear yard? You do have existing 86 feet from the structure that's a substantial rear yard that you're proposing. It's a pretty good sized lot. GARY STEINFELD : I mean the only other discussion on that would be the ability the potential at some point in the future to maybe use.the a portion of that framed barn as a pool house or an accessory structure to the pool which would really have,that proximity where it would be if we were proposing (inaudible) and I think that's also the second part of the motivation to keep it there centered on that and if they so choose in the future it would naturally allow it to be an accessory use to the pool. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It seems to me also that if you pulled the house forward to a conforming location you'd still need variances. GARY STEINFELD : Yeah I mean that's absolutely correct. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : For the framed garage, the chicken coop and the barn. The barn might be questionable because you might be able to pull it forward enough cause the road is on an angle. GARY STEINFELD : But the we'd have tight access around the site. If we start pulling that further forward it's exactly true, I don't think we'd change the scenario of the variance we'd be asking for right now other than may the pool and I think you know the larger setback we have from the road is beneficial for character and certainly beneficial for the use of the owner to get some privacy from road traffic noise that seems to be increasing on Alvah's which I believe this Board is pretty familiar with. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I think if-we wind up with Pre C.O.'s on all the existing structures that's going to be very helpful. The brand new swimming pool I think probably can I'm just speaking for myself, probably can be relocated to a conforming rear yard and still accomplish the goal of potentially using in future on of the existing accessory structures as part 22 February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting of a pool house, landscaping can help there's all kinds of ways to mitigate that. I think those are the issues here, anything else from you Eric? GARY STEINFELD : And I think the other thought of the owners that you know the further we keep structures away from the preserved farmland on the (inaudible) field lot I think it's just beneficial to preserve that vista. So anything that we push closer you know it's nice to have eighty plus feet for any accessory structures from a property that has development rights you know preserved and intact so if we start pushing anything further back swimming pool it certainly does have an impact on the beauty of that land. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And I think we addressed the C.O.'s of all the existing structures and I believe there's a pergola you know it's an old farmstead. It seems that no matter what one does with the house there's always going to be the need for a variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How long does it take to get the Pre C.O.'s from the Building Department? We don't really know. Well you know what we can do cause it's a benefit to your client would be to simply adjourn this subject to receipt of the Pre C.O.'s and then once we have them we'll just render a decision at the next available meeting. Does that make sense, cause I don't know how long it's going to take so GARY STEINFELD : It may take two or three weeks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So rather than adjourning to the next meeting and then adjourning to the next meeting you just work on it, send them into the office and as soon as Kim tells us we have them I'll put it on the agenda. GARY STEINFELD : Right and that wouldn't dynamically change anything we're doing here anyway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No. GARY STEINFELD : So that would put on agenda for a decision versus to re-discuss. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I don't think we'll need any additional public hearing time particularly. I just think it's a matter of getting those documents in hand and rather than giving you a time limit continuing to adjourn as I said it's probably easier to just say when you have them let us know and we'll put this on for deliberation. Is that alright with the Board? MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) 23 February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No we're going to close it subject to receipt of the Pre C.O.'s okay and that way as soori as we get it the clock starts basically. So that's the motion. Is there anyone else in the audience that wants to address the application? GARY STEINFELD : So is the only risk on that what is the next available hearing mean, the next hearing? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next hearing is going to be on March 15Y and the Special meeting is March 151H GARY STEINFELD : Oh so we wouldn't be put out a number of months like a new application would be put out? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no, no, no. MEMBER DANTES : It could be the hearing day or it could be the Special Meeting. It's every two weeks so you'd go to the next meeting that we'd have. GARY STEINFELD : That's very reasonable and makes sense. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so the motion is to close the hearing subject to receipt of Pre C.O.'s on the as built accessory structures that are part of the variance and MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution0 HEARING # 7129—STEVEN WALSH CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Steven Walsh # 7129. This is a request for a variance from Article XII Section 280-53 and the Building Inspector's October 26, 2017 amended November 21, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling 24 February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting at 1) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 20 feet located at 7065 New Suffolk Road in New Suffolk. PAT MOORE : Patricia_Moore on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Walsh. They're both here and I have Tom Samuels who's the design professional for this addition. The history of this property is that my clients purchased the house the way you see it today. The original developer owner of the property built a very lovely house. It's a truly cute little house but they did it in such a way so that they could get a building permit as of right with just wetland permits that they needed at the time but without variances which led to a very small one bedroom house. That's what my clients purchased. They have live there now for some time and we understand personal circumstances, personal hardship is not a standard for a variance but they do need to explain here that they have an adult son with autism who lives with them all the time and right now he is sleeping in the same bedroom with them. They share a bedroom and they want to keep this house forever and ever. This is their dream house and really it needs that extra bedroom. The sanitary system when it was designed was for maximum of a four bedroom house that's the Health Department standard so whether it was a one bedroom or now proposed two bedroom the sanitary system is compliant. There is no other location possible for this addition. On the north side you have School House Creek and its wetlands and I don't believe the D.E.C. would want to see any encroachment closer to the wetlands than the present house. Putting the addition behind the house on the dry side is really the only feasible alternative. Do you want me to continue? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I just was looking for something I wanted to make sure you had. PAT MOORE : Oh the LWRP thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it's not the LWRP. We just got a letter from a neighbor. PAT MOORE : Oh did I get that? I don't think so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think so cause we just got it yeah that's what I was looking for. Carry on and then I'll make sure you get copies of it. PAT MOORE : Yes thank you. So with respect to changing the character of the neighborhood this one bedroom addition, it's a small addition on the south side of the property. From the street it'll be really very minor in the, it'll be a width of what's the width twelve feet. It's a twelve foot addition out so from the street it's not going to be a significant visual impact. The amount of the lot coverage was or is now 5.76; the proposed lot coverage would only be 8.9 so again it's a very small addition to the lot coverage. The total lot coverage would go from the 557 square feet to 860 square feet. One of the and I pointed this out in my variance and I hope 25 February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting someday the town code will be revised that when we are dealing with parcels that have wetlands, the wetlands are an encroachment, there are a regulatory issue and we eliminate it from our ability to call it part of the lot but our setbacks are still using the overall lot size so in this instance if we were to use just the upland we would be conforming because the ten thousand or less square feet would provide for a five foot setback. So it's a real hardship always for any applicant who has a wetland a parcel with wetlands because we you know we use we don't count the wetlands but then use it against the property owner when it comes to setbacks and that's something that' I've always pushed for the Town Board to correct but it's just never yet gotten been corrected but certainly it's an issue that the Board should consider that as far as our buildable area we are well within our lot coverage and well within cause the lot coverage is calculated only on upland so we have a penalty going on in every application when you have wetland issues involved. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat what is the existing square footage of the house on the ground floor? PAT MOORE : Ground floor is 557 is the footprint so there's a second floor first floor it's a two story. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the house is about 1100 square feet. PAT MOORE : Yeah about a thousand more or less because it's not all livable. STEVEN WALSH : Good morning I'm Steven Walsh. I think the house is just shy 27 feet long by just under 17 feet wide. It's one bedroom, kitchen upstairs we have one bedroom and one bathroom. We're looking to expand PAT MOORE : No what's the existing square footage. STEVEN WALSH : On the first floor? PAT MOORE : No, no total. STEVEN WALSH : I think it's 850 and we're going to add like 600 so it would be like 1400 total with the two floors. Upstairs would be additional bedroom, interior space would be 11 foot 6 inches wide for my son's bedroom. Going out twelve feet we'd like to go out about twelve feet. We have like 17 feet on the side of the house on the south side. We're not able to build as Pat mentioned encroaching upon the wetlands on the north side or the east side closer to the creek so we would like to go on the south side again that's why we're looking for the variance. If I go out twelve feet, initially I wanted to go closer to the property line two or three feet but we scaled it back to go five feet which we've seen in numerous locations in Cutchogue and New 26 February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting Suffolk narrow side yard setbacks. We thought five foot would be just about okay for us again the interior width of our bedroom and room would be 11 foot 6, anything smaller than 11 foot 6 would be uncomfortable, unlivable like a closet to us to have our son a bedroom in such a small room. The adjacent property is a vacant lot. The prior owner received approval from the Trustees of a footprint to build a new home there at one point.Just to get the approval to make the property more sellable and the footprint was determined to be sixty feet from my property line the beginning of their footprint and then further away so if they had their 60 feet if I have five feet there's quite a large buffer there. I thought that was something I wanted to mention. That's it, it's a small addition. Our home is modest now and we have really no other direction to go so I really appreciate on getting your approval on this application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think it would be easier if I just read this letter. We just got it and you all haven't had a chance to see it. It's from Joni Friedman and Andrew Torgove who I believe owns that vacant lot. So let me read this to y6u so that you have an opportunity to address it before the Board. My name is Joni Friedman, I reside in New Suffolk Andrew Torgove. In January 2017 we purchased the property there's the address adjacent to your lot the subject lot. The property we purchased had been on the market for several years. We purchased the property at a premium price with all permits in place to construct a house for our family. We feel that the plans originally approved for the house on our property are too large and invasive. We believe that the surrounding wetlands and communities should be respected and preserved. With that in mind we have been working with an architect to design a more modest and environmentally friendly residence on our property. We were recently made aware of the plans to enlarge the neighboring house at 7065 New Suffolk Road owned by part time residents Steven Walsh. We have reviewed the plans submitted by Mr. Walsh for the extension of his house to within just over five feet from our property. The area variance states under reason #3 that "the lot is further constrained by wetlands and non-disturbance zone. The wetlands eat into three quarters of the property". This perspective is not respectful of the importance of preserving wetlands and the reason these codes are in place. Mr. Walsh was fully aware of the limitations of the property he purchased. We appreciate that the plan for the addition is in keeping with the integrity of the original design of the house and while the addition may appear to be modes in size, in fact it is an increase of approximately 50% of the size of the original structure in both footprint and volume. This has a substantial impact on a small property with significant wetlands. The request for an addition to the Walsh house was for an extra bedroom. This proposed two story addition expands existing living room, mechanical room, bathroom and storage area as well as a bedroom. In addition to the increased footprint the plans for the addition call for the structure to be located just over 5 feet from our property. The existing property which is currently 15 feet from our property is already 5 feet over the minimum 20 foot setback.. According to number 5 of the area variance reasons the original structure was 2? February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting approved and built to the maximum utilization of a very small property without a variance. According to the provided survey and elevation plans the house exceeds the minimum side yard setback by 5 feet when code requires a 20 foot minimum. We feel that having a two story addition looming just over 5 feet from our property is a significant infringement on our privacy and rights. The existing 20 foot setback in the code provides for a sufficient buffer from neighbors. The existing structure is already 5 feet closer to our property than allowed and now the owners are proposing to reduce the side yard setback an additional 10 feet. Thank you Joni Friedman and Andrew Torgove. We just got this as I said and I do want to give everyone an opportunity to respond to this particular letter in whatever way you think is appropriate. PAT MOORE : Just right off the bat I think she's mistaken on the setbacks. It's not 20 it's 15. The requirement here is 15 rather than 20 the side yard setback requirement. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the Notice states it as a minimum of 20 in the marine zoned district. STEVEN WALSH : As far as I know for years it was 15 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're going to look it up in the code right now. PAT MOORE : Yeah just double check it. 1 don't think its marine zone. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : According to this it says it's in the MI district. MEMBER DANTES : It says 20 feet on the Notice of Disapproval. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah that's what I'm pointing out. PAT MOORE : Oh okay because our plan shows 15 so hold on let me look. No we have it as R40 so I have a feeling the line New Suffolk for sure Shipyard is MI. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're going to look up the property. PAT MOORE : I have a feeling they're making a typo there an error. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're looking up the property card from the Assessor's to see and make sure that wasn't a mistake. STEVEN WALSH : The house right now existing is on pilings. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't see the zone district on the property card. Does anybody else see it? No not on here. Well that's the first thing we'll have to straighten out. 281 February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Yeah we'll have to straighten that out because the house has a C.O. and it got a building permit for the 15 foot setback so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we can assume maybe that this Notice of Disapproval needs to be amended. PAT MOORE : Maybe a typo. I'll double check that because it may be right on the line so yeah I'll have to check that. STEVE WALSH : If I may say every time I spoke with Andy and his wife they mentioned they want to preserve this open space. More power to them, I wish them the best but (inaudible) open land so they have no intention to build. They own three or four other properties right in the neighborhood he rents them out. They want to preserve the land they keep telling me. Again what was acceptable what was approved CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The notice is correct if the zone district is correct. It is 20 foot setback in MI. PAT MOORE : If the zoning is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you're saying you think it might be R40? PAT MOORE : We think it's R40. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's easy to confirm. PAT MOORE : We'll double check that. We have to look at the map. I don't know if you can see the map on your computer there, no oaky it's very small. Alright we'll verify one way or another it's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that makes a difference. PAT MOORE : Put,it this way our variance doesn't change. It's the only area we can expand. As you can see from the site plan, Tom's site plan the full front yard is a sanitary system. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there any way to increase the setback on the second floor? PAT MOORE : Well that's the building that's really where the bedroom is going to go. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right, no I'm just asking because sometimes when there's a two story addition if the ground level is non-conforming we ask to see if the second floor can be pushed back fromthe property line a bit more. So I'm asking it just to see your answer in the record. 29 February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting STEVE WALSH : We rather not consider than making it narrower than 11 foot 6. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that what the bedroom will wind up? STEVE WALSH : Interior space yes, 12 foot exterior 2 by 6 walls. T.A. DUFFY : Nick was able to pull it up it looks like it's MI. PAT MOORE : It is MI? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It would appear so. STEVE WALSH : And that's on the creek, we thought just on the other side of the creek. . MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's on the east side which the property is of on New Suffolk Rd. is MI. STEVE WALSH : And we're south of the creek. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right and that's all MI. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the existing side yard is 15 feet but they got permits without a variance. So we have a rather inconsistent Building Department basically it looks like. MEMBER DANTES : That building permit was about fifteen years ago. STEVE WALSH : This was like twelve years ago when I began the project I guess. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I doubt the bulk schedule changed. MEMBER DANTES : Anyway I mean you do have a hardship. PAT MOORE : We do yes. STEVE WALSH : We don't want to go closer to the creek. We don't (inaudible) into the wetlands. This is my wife. _ JEAN WALSH : Hi my name is Jean Walsh and while I do appreciate the note it's unfortunate that we were not made known,of that so I feel that that's it was unfortunate that we did not get that letter ahead of time to read that you know to act on it that you had to read that. Yes my son is twenty seven and he does have autism. He's developmentally disabled. He has been living with .us and will continue to ,live with us because of the NYS regulations that because we're not in crisis he cannot be placed in a group home because I would pursue that so at the time we bought the home you know thinking down the road if he you know will be a nice place for my husband and I but unfortunately it's not unfortunately it is I guess very fortunate for us to have a son like him but he is going to be living with us because at the time he is not in crisis 3® February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting i where now the NYS requires children who are in crisis to be placed in a group home setting. So unfortunately again and I don't want to use the word unfortunate he is going to be living with us and we'd like to give him his space as well as giving us our space. We do love New Suffolk, he does love New Suffolk. We come here,,we summer we are part time residents but I must tell you as part time residents we treat this home as it is.our primary residence and I don't know if I you had an opportunity to go and see it i CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did. JEAN WALSH : we take exceptionally good care of our home okay. We are aware that even though there aren't neighbors around us we do concerned about the care and the safety and the maintenance and try to stay you know keep the house as beautiful as we can. So I'm sad in that the neighbors are you know looking to stop us from what we're doing. Sometimes you have to put yourself in our shoes to see where we're at. The plan that we have really doesn't have a lot of windows. We're not putting floor to ceiling windows. We're not going to be staring ' at them. I mean we're there part time. We're going to be keeping to ourselves, keeping the house maintained so I just hope that you can consider you know I don't want to make it a personal issue but I would like for you to consider our application just so we can make it a more comfortable setting. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We certainly will. Pat was right when she started out knowing that unfortunately the law does not allow us to personalize variance relief because you know I somebody else could buy the house next week and then that issue might go away. However you know all testimony is relevant in any hearing. Would you like an opportunity a little bit of time to maybe address that letter in writing? You want to think about it and see if you have any comments? If not that's fine too. STEVE WALSH : I can't dispute their feelings. They're entitled to their feelings and I'm just getting the idea they're still again want to preserve as much open space as possible that's what they made objectives as they indicated to me on several occasions. T.A. DUFFY : They commented on the impact of your extension on their property. It's something you might want to consider addressing. PAT MOORE : Why don't you give us just a chance to submit something in writing how it will impact their property. Again I think it's pretty straightforward, in fact if they're shrinking their building envelope will be more than 60 feet from their property line. The reason that it's going in that direction is to maintain and preserve the wetlands so that is we all have the same goal in mind. The property between the two properties there's a fence oh you walk through? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a pretty tight in there. 31 February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE :.Yeah it's a very the design is not intrusive so JEAN WALSH : Right not going to be a lot of windows, not going to be PAT MOORE : In fact you have the elevations so what we can actually if you look at the second floor plan the one on the top well the second floor plan at the top of the page it only shows a very small window on the side that their side it's a very small window in the bedroom the south elevation and the storage room which is potentially give their son a bathroom as he gets older just a private bath so otherwise he would have to use the bathroom all the way over on the master bedroom side, storage initially because they don't need a bathroom immediately but you don't plan a bathroom at this point? STEVE WALSH : No first floor and that's it. PAT MOORE : No bathroom okay. JEAN WALSH : Those are very small windows. STEVE WALSH : That property is so disheveled I mean we're looking to preserve it, they're looking to preserve it fine but we did nothing but increase the value and the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Let's see if they go that route also. I don't know what they're telling us in the letter but again I respect their opinion and PAT MOORE : I'd also point out that since you actually pointed out that this is an MI zoning this property can be commercially used. That would be so much more intrusive to their residential use than this single family house so in a way what they're using the property for is much less than what MI would allow. Certainly the marina uses could be extended on to this property. So I think that that's actually a very strong basis for preserving and allowing the family to keep it residential rather than as we just found out it could be commercialized. They have no intention of doing that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask Tom a question. T.A. DUFFY : Would you covenant that that structure would not be converted to commercial use down the road? PAT MOORE : I mean I think that they are the owners but can I mean is that a fair thing to do if somebody T.A. DUFFY : You're arguing for the variance based on the fact that it's a residential so and not commercial so why wouldn't you covenant that it stay PAT MOORE : It's their decision. 32 February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting T.A. DUFFY : You'd have to talk with your clients obviously. It's something to think about. PAT MOORE : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The question I had is just because I want to explore in the record all options, we know the front yard is constrained by lots of septic and certainly the rear yard by wetlands and the proposed south side is not constrained by wetlands let's look at the other side. There is this what is this buffer here it's hay bales, let's just for the sake argument take a look at architecturally and you know in terms of the bulk schedule what would happen if you attempted to put the addition on that side other than on the north side rather than south side. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But to that point, couldn't you also work within the confines of the existing porch system? PAT MOORE : You mean like a second floor over the porch? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : However one designs it or remove the first floor porch for a bedroom. PAT MOORE : You don't really design wise the house has been designed with a living area, living room everything that would destroy the value of this house I think because all the views everything are looking out to the bay. If you block that view with a bedroom we've seen houses like that that they kind of destroy their value so I don't think that that's a reasonable option for them to use. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well take a look at the north side then. PAT MOORE : Yeah let's take a look at the north side. What we show is the north side yeah I'm just trying to think where the you see the hay bale line that's really the wetland line. It looks like we're at yeah oh that's the flagged but we have buffers so all the D.E.C. and the Trustees I think placed buffers, covenants actually buffer covenants of this property so we can't touch anything within that buffer area and what would that distance be, it looks to be about 40 feet from the corner would that be a good from the wetland boundary. This would be difficult with the D.E.C. The D.E.C. as a matter of law wants to keep you 75 feet from wetlands. Anything closer than 75 feet requires a variance from D.E.C. and that's a very difficult variance. It takes a great deal of effort. I've done them and they will truly particularly looking at the design they will actually force you to come for a zoning variance from this Board before they will accept a variance from them so they would actually recommend no construction on the north side. They would see this plan and say you've got room on the south side you know that's where you should build. I've had those kind of responses from D.E.C. I actually had to go to the appellate 33 February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting level of the D.E.C. to even put a second floor within the 75 foot jurisdiction so they're very rigid in their variances. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Tom do you want anything? TOM SAMUELS : I think that covered it all. Architecturally it doesn't work very well to put it on the north. I mean that is the front of the house even though the house is fronting on the road sideways it's because it's such a tiny footprint so to add to the front would change a lot of things that would be difficult to reconcile architecturally. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So architecturally the north side is the front elevation? TOM SAMUELS : Correct it is. That's the sort of the front of the house cause that's where the door is. PAT MOORE : That's also like a corner. TOM SAMUELS : Right you'd have to walk like through the living room it would be awkward I think is the best way to put it. It would be awkward. PAT MOORE : And again I would have to go to the D.E.C. because that would be encroaching to enclose it and even putting a second floor. I've had battles with the D.E.C. over a second floor in a case where it really made no sense but that's I had to go to appellate TOM SAMUELS : I would imagine the D.E.C. would see this as the best way and the Trustees as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you need the Trustees permission for this too? PAT MOORE : Oh.yes because we are diagonally adjacent to the wetlands. They should have no issue with it because we're maintaining the setback actually behind the porch. The porch is at 36 feet, the end of the porch and I'm sure that this wasn't easy for the D.E.C. to get but at least the porch is pervious and it is a pervious right it's not a covered? TOM SAMUELS : It is covered. PAT MOORE : It is covered oh okay I take it back enclosed okay. TOM SAMUELS : Screened. PAT MOORE : Screened thank you. I didn't see the back of the house I apologize I only saw the front and the side. STEVE WALSH : It's not enclosed not screened it's a two leveled deck basically. 34 February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Oh okay well thank you it's your house. It's a two level deck. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie would it be helpful if Tom was able to note the actual setbacks on the property for the MI zoning along with the setbacks for the wetlands to illustrate what is the buildable portion of the house? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's kind of sort of on there almost. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Kind.of and it isn't. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here's what I'm trying to get at. Number one, this is a small addition. Anything smaller is not functional and may not frankly I mean the you know the NYS code has minimum for habitable space so PAT MOORE : Yes they have limitations, and windows also. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's number one. Number two, we're looking at all the other possible places for an addition so the point is you can't if you're on the south side you cannot logically reduce the size of the addition to increase the side yard that's what I'm getting at. You can't put it in the front yard because of septic. You can't put it in the rear yard because of wetlands. The north side would require a D.E.C. permit for a two story addition and it has a substantial impact a much more substantial impact on wetlands so it's not TOM SAMUELS : It needs a variance PAT MOORE : A D.E.C. variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A variance yeah which is not an easy thing to do. I'd like to give you an opportunity if you want it to address in writing the letter from your neighbor. If you feel it's already been addressed in this hearing cause we have talked about it in length. PAT.MOORE : I think it's been pretty well addressed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then we don't need that. PAT MOORE : Don't you agree? Do we want to submit something I writing or STEVE WALSH : One more thing if I may, to the Board or to my neighbor? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no, no you talk to us. You may not even be talking to your neighbor after that. STEVE WALSH : In fact I wanted to I propose to him to purchase some of his property when he was in process of buying it so I would still be able to retain a 15 foot setback. I'd buy 20 feet of 35 February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting his property and I still have a 15 foot setback from the new lot line change for instance and he didn't want to do that so I was okay that's fine. We get along fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well actually that's I think a rather important statement because it you know it speaks to the intent to remain conforming to the code PAT MOORE : Right a willingness to yeah. STEVE WALSH : I mean I didn't want to buy the whole lot just to put my 50 foot property for $350,000 to use 15 of the yard. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : For me still just as a point of clarification in the MI zone it's 20 foot setback so you know even if you have that extra footage you're still in a variance situation from what you've said. STEVE WALSH : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But it's a much less substantial variance that's the point. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Can we get a better hold on how the permit was actually issued to build the house at this location other than I mean is there a paper trail or something that maybe we're missing? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the Building Department can the other thing well in addition to getting the original building permit which is easy, it's on file in the Building Department PAT MOORE : I think I may have given it to you. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No there's a C.O. PAT MOORE : Oh I gave you the C. 0. right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well maybe you can find out why it is that if this is in an MI zone the permit was issued without the need for a side yard variance. STEVE WALSH : There was a structure there behind it for fifty years it was like a grandfathered in type of situation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You need to talk into the mic because we're recording. STEVE WALSH : I'm sorry. There was an old residence there for two hundred years. It was leveled maybe 1970, '75, '80 1 don't know exactly but there was a big issue there was a grandfathering situation where they allowed a new residence almost the same size a little larger what was there was really tiny. It had no running water, it had no electricity so there was 361 February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting a (inaudible) working within they didn't want to go too large, they had wetlands to deal with, they had a side yard setback, a front yard setback, they had to build something there to make it grandfathered in to allow the owner to have a residence or building otherwise it may not have been approved at all if it was never anything to be grandfathered in. So they worked with all these parameters within and they came up this maybe they cut corners to side yard setback, too close to the wetland, the creek so they came up with this and this is to the best of my knowledge how it came about. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat I know you can do this, Mr. Walsh pointed out at what the Board basically knows also that there are many variances many non-conformities in New Suffolk lots of odd lots, lots of large ones, lots of smalls ones can you come up with some priors for side yard setbacks or if they were prior to zoning at least indicate the character of the neighborhood with you know you can possibly google earth this thing and see what properties that maybe didn't even get variances because they didn't need them at the time have very small side yards because that would certainly help with character of the neighborhood. PAT MOORE : Sure I can do that. MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) all the pre-existing non-conformities or abandoned. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well the property card illustrates a demolition permit issued in 2006 about the same time that there is a building permit. MEMBER DANTES : I don't think we'll get a clear cut. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Maybe they just recognize the prior structure that was there where it was located but it's water under the bridge by the way. T.A. DUFFY : It could have been resigned from residential to marine, they could have put the wrong thing on the application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Who knows but I mean the more important thing is what we're looking at today, anything else from the Board? I was just going to say is there anyone else in the audience who would like to address the application? Please come to the microphone and state your name. JONI FRIEDMAN : Hi I'm Joni Friedman. My husband Andrew Torgove and I are the owners of the adjacent property and we authored the letter that you read. We've been living in New Suffolk for over twenty five years and we are very environmentally conscious, active, civic minded in our family and we worked to purchase this property over the course of almost four years. There were a lot of issues with the property and the property eventually that we 37 February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting purchased was all permits were in place to construct a residence and that is our intention and it's not a personal issue at all. I'm not in any way objecting to what someone wants to do but situationally our property is where it is and we have every intention of having it be a nice small addition to the neighborhood and what we purchased the permits that were in place were not something that we personally felt was appropriate for the property and we've been working to try and come up with a much smaller, greener property and the it's a very tight fit and our neighboring property is very small it always was. There are no commercial rights that come with those properties and the property that we purchased does have a dock area and that has long since been it has kind of fallen apart so we're working to try and get the permits to rebuild that and permissions. Our objection is not personal by any means. That's not our intention. That's not our nature and you know if you purchase a property it's with and everything is very much structured to code on our property, our permits, our wetland permits, the D.E.C. everything is in place. We were very careful to make sure that what we were purchasing was something that was buildable and non-contaminated and we have been slowly working to try and clean it up for safety reasons so it's not to us a vacant lot. It's our property and I feel that the codes were written for a reason and should be respectful and I was put off by the push to change the code to encroach on wetlands which I think are a very important aspect of our community and the North Fork in general. You know we are shrinking every available area, things are eroding, things are you know to preserve the estuaries and what we have is a very important goal not to change the codes in order to eradicate that. I don't think there's a need to address this issue point by point but having realized that in fact we are already the house that is on the property is already 5 feet closer to our property line than the code allows and to ask to come within I mean this is 5 feet. I'm 5 feet that's untenable so that's really all I have CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Have you seen the plans, the elevations, the survey? JONI FRIEDMAN : Yes I was I spent some time in the Buildings Department and I have copies of the plans, we checked the code, we checked the zoning to make sure that everything was correct on what we had received and that was the frame of reference that we used to put this together. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I just want to make sure that you knew the specifics of what is your property zoned? Is it also MI? JONI FRIEDMAN : Yes. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Thank you for your testimony. PAT MOORE : That doesn't make sense because their setback on if their property is zoned MI their plans show a setback of 15 feet. 381 February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Which plans are you talking about? PAT MOORE : The neighbor? MEMBER DANTES : That's not in front of the Board. PAT MOORE : No, no but something just doesn't make sense because MEMBER DANTES : I mean maybe you just go to the Building Department and figure it out. I don't want to discuss her plans in front of the Board today because JONI FRIEDMAN : And those are really not our plans. MEMBER DANTES : Right I understand but it's not in front of the Board and it doesn't pertain to this application so I prefer not to discuss it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anyone in the audience? What does the Board want to do? Do you want to adjourn to the Special in case any other information wants to be submitted by anybody? I mean when there is discussion of this sort we want to just be sure that we give maximum opportunity for anyone to, you know you can't always be spontaneous. Sometimes you want to think things through and I would like to see if there were any priors in the neighborhood that support you know non-conforming side yard variances. I think what we should just do is adjourn to the Special Meeting at which that means that we have a meeting two weeks from today in the evening at five o'clock over in the bank building you know the Annex and we deliberate on decisions at that meeting. We do the public hearing here, we deliberate on decisions if we have them available. We have sixty two days from the time of closing but what we'll do is just give two weeks for people to reflect and if there's anything anybody wants to send in they can. We will probably just close the matter in two weeks cause I don't know how much more we can possibly learn so we'll probably close it. We may have a draft that evening depending on what we do or don't get between now and then. If not the latest would be well we have sixty two days say from that date but it will likely going to be at the next meeting which would be at the Regular Meeting which will be a month from now we would have a decision. I'm just explaining this because most people don't know how this works. Does that sound sensible? Afright it gives us time to think about it too. Alright so hearing no further comments or questions at this point I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting what are we February 15th. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. 39 February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 7130— EROL BASKURT CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Erol Baskurt# 7130. This is a request for Variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's October 23, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to legalize "as built" additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet located at 3575 Mill Road in Peconic. PAT MOORE : Good afternoon. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we're looking at legalizing what is essentially stairs and a porch elevated. PAT MOORE : Yes correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : With a front yard setback of 14.3 feet where the code requires 35 and a side yard setback at 7.1 feet where the code requires 10. This is a cedar deck. We have a letter of support from an adjacent neighbor. PAT MOORE : Yes and I actually have Mr. Dunn here who's another neighbor who I call him the mayor because he's also been very helpful I think you support the application, you've been very he's always been helping me getting access and so on for Mr. Baskurt who could not be here. Yes it's pretty straightforward. The house was raised. It got a building permit and I don't think the C.O. has been closed out yet for the house to be elevated for flood zone compliance which left a little box cape up in the air without much access or without any access so my clients we actually have worked very hard to find out what the average setback was and in order to make a conforming front porch and so that's why the building permit was issued initially was because of the conformity of the average setback but I guess none of us realized that the side yard was the 7.2 neither the Building Department or I really looked at the side yard because it was the existing side yard and the my client ultimately since we had to come for a variance because of that stoop said alright then my front deck I really need the full front deck to be the length of the house so it just cleaned it up. As you can see the stoop and the stairs is not even centered because we purposely tried to make everything to conform with the average setback and low 4® February. 1, 2018 Regular Meeting and behold you know still we tried but here we are for a very minor as we've said diminimus variances but nonetheless they are variances. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you're saying I think if I got it right that the average front yard setback is 14.16 and PAT MOORE : And we are at 14.6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You are at 14.3. PAT MOORE : Oh .3 MEMBER DANTES : So he built most of the deck under a building permit and just that little side extension there is PAT MOORE- : Right and then what happened is the stoop also it became 14.3 from one property line it's kind of the surveyor measured from one corner 14.6 and the Building Department measured 14.3 so it's too close to call I would say. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So these are really diminimus variations. PAT MOORE : Very diminimus, they're less than a foot but Building Department, black and white you can't MEMBER DANTES : Would you accept a condition of the deck to remain open to the sky? PAT MOORE : Yeah that's fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't have any questions, Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It doesn't have much to do with the proposed application but within the packet provided there is a C. 0. on the shed. I'm assuming that's for the larger of two sheds on site but there's a gazebo, what's the story with the gazebo? PAT MOORE : No one of the C. O.'s had included both. We actually went back and got a Pre C.O. for one of the sheds and the building cause we have permits on everything, I know I cleaned everything up afterwards. Maybe the gazebo didn't need a permit cause it's less than a hundred square feet or two hundred square feet and it's at proper setbacks so usually the larger shed I believe needed a building permit or it may have gotten a C. 0. building permit before the code changed that it doesn't need one, the one that is next to the property line that's a pre-existing pump house. That's the one I got a Pre C.O. for. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Oh that I assumed was the smaller shed that didn't need it. 41 February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE No it's the other way around. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Where the outdoor shower is located. PAT MOORE : Yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's the pump house. PAT MOORE : Yes that was a Pre C.O. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So in the packet there's just an accessory shed, it's not labeled a Pre C.O. and then there's a second C.O. for the alterations to raise the house so maybe there's something missing. PAT MOORE : I know there were the Building Department had a C.O. for one of those sheds. I know that if you conform with now the code doesn't require permits for sheds if they're conforming so MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I believe it's under a hundred square feet. PAT MOORE : Right and if 6.3 1 think we're under a hundred square feet on both of them. You tell me, it depends on its measured I think. The little one we got a Pre C.O. the setback but the other one but I have a feeling you have the C.O. I'll look in my file cause I remember MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah if you could just and just clarify what's going on with the gazebo that was only thing. PAT MOORE : Sure I'll send you a letter and then the other shed or gazebo and MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It seems to me just based on a quick calculation 78 square feet so it would look like it's conforming so that would explain PAT MOORE : So that doesn't need a permit right the shed you're talking about now? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes this is the larger of the two sheds the one that's sort of in the back yard. PAT MOORE : Yeah we're fine with that. MEMBER DANTES : The framed shed is 9.6 feet from the property line? PAT MOORE : What's the size of this lot it may be required 5. MEMBER DANTES : It's under a hundred square feet doesn't mean that (inaudible) 42 February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Right exactly. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And actually the gazebo would seem like it's in a conforming location but PAT MOORE : Yeah I know the gazebo was not an issue. Yeah the Building Department has been there a couple of time because we were dealing with the Pre C.O. for the house. That was the only mystery cause it was there and I didn't know why you know so you're okay with everything now? Do you need anything more from me or do you Nick? Did I answer your question? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I think it would be fine I don't know if there's any comment on it. I understood and maybe I'm mistaken that gazebo's do need a C.O. even if they're in a conforming location but I might be mistaken. PAT MOORE : No if it's under a certain square footage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, anyone else want to speak to the issue? ROBERT DUNN : Robert Dunn 3645 Mill Lane. I'm the neighbor to the north. We have no problems with anything that was done. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're familiar with the area. There's lot of small non-conforming lots. They're tiny cottages, things that have been improved over the years, all kinds of non- conformity. It's a pretty spot overlooking Goldsmiths. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Are you the immediate neighbor to the north? ROBERT DUNN : Immediate to the north yes. CHAIRPERSON WIESMAN : Anything else from anybody? Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. ROBERT DUNN : Inaudible CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Say that again. PAT MOORE : The other letter that was in your file is from the opposite yeah southerly neighbor, everybody was supportive. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a nice neighborhood-. So I made a motion to close, is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. 43 February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7126—RICHARD J. MCBRIDE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Richard J. McBride # 7126. This is a request for variances from Article II Section 280-9A(1) and the Building Inspector's September 29, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on a permit to legalize lot recognition at 1) at less than the code required minimum lot size of 20,000 sq. ft. and 2) at less than the code required minimum lot width of 300 feet located at 11750 Oregon Rd. in Cutchogue. Hi would you state your name please for the record. WILLIAM FABB : William Fabb, Mattituck New York. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is a lot created by recorded deed it looks like on April 1, 1976. Is that correct? WILLIAM FABB : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You need for variances for this pre-existing non-conforming legal lot. It's undersized now in the AC zone district which is the lot is 15,831 sq. ft. the code requires 20,000 minimum and the width is 67 feet the code requires 300 feet and on it is a sort of a cement barn. WILLIAM FABB : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what else can you tell us about this application? WILLIAM FABB : Well originally this property was separated back in 1976, '77. We have pre- existing certificate of occupancy from the then building inspector for this. Over the course of time these lots were joined because of Frank McBride owned both lots and the town CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They merged. WILLIAM FABB : They merged them together. February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you know this is a little confusing then because if they were merged you're not here for a waiver of merger. WILLIAM FABB : We're here to separate and legalize that undersized lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But not based on a waiver of merger rather based on the pre- existing non-conforming status. WILLIAM FABB : Right. MEMBER DANTES : Why not ask for a waiver of merger? WILLIAM FABB : Why not ask for a waiver of merger? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm just trying to figure out procedurally what are hi (inaudible) how are you?Are you representing no okay free advice? Do you have any insight to this Bill?This is a request for recognition of a prerecorded there's a pre on this lot created by deed and it's now pre-existing non-conforming but apparently it merged and this is'for lot recognition of a lot size and width so when was this merged? WILLIAM FABB : I believe in the early eighties. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you went to the Building Department did you go to the Building Department? WILLIAM FABB : Yes we did. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They must have because there's a Notice of Disapproval. WILLIAM FABB : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Have you been before the Planning Board or have you WILLIAM FABB : No we have not. MEMBER DANTES : How did the lots get merged. So they were created by deed, right how did they get merged? WILLIAM FABB : I believe the town took it on unbeknownst to the McBride family because of the undersized lot at that time and merged it to the farm to the west which is owned by the same person at that time even though they still-had two separate tax bills and had no idea until we got to this point in time right now. MEMBER DANTES : Who owns the lot right now? 451 February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting WILLIAM FABB : Richard and James McBride. MEMBER DANTES : And that's the same person that owned it or? WILLIAM FABB : The father, they're father actually owned it back then and Frank. MEMBER DANTES : So then from Frank it passed to Richard and James? WILLIAM FABB : Correct. MEMBER DANTES : But it's always been in the same family? WILLIAM FABB : Correct. T.A. DUFFY : That's what I noticed the Disapproval is kind of throwing us a little bit I think because either saying that the Building Department should recognize the lot and that their decision is wrong or they should have told you to go for a waiver of merger and you should be doing a waiver of merger application that doesn't really say either one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's exactly it. WILLIAM FABB : Yeah this is what we were instructed to do so this is how we've ended up here in front of the Board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I guess we're a little bit confused because they're really quite separate kinds of applications and one is to recognize a legally established lot that is now non- conforming in size but it would appear if it merged then the proper procedural thing it would seem to me would be to unmerge them and that's the end of that. Doesn't that make sense? T.A. DUFFY : Yes. MEMBER DANTES : Unless their question is the establishment of the original lot in the first place in which case then they (inaudible) merge. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well this lot was established prior to April 23, 1957. There's a C.O. #76892 dated 2/23/76. WILLIAM FABB : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN So it was legally existing at one point and usually the way things work things get merged because they're held in common name and then when the merger law took effect anything that was not conforming in size would merge with an adjacent parcel to make it more conforming in size if it was owned on the same name. 46 February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting WILLIAM FABB : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : First let's find out why is it Richard and James that own it now? WILLIAM FABB : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do they own the surrounding parcel also? WILLIAM FABB : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does the building have a C.O.? WILLIAM FABB :Yes it does we have C.O.'s CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a farm storage building. It's been there for about sixty years. WILLIAM FABB : Yes that's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think it was a potato barn mostly wasn't it? WILLIAM FABB : That's correct yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Tell me why you're before the Board now, what changed that brought you before us. WILLIAM FABB : I am in contract to purchase that property so through.the title company we've now uncovered that these lots had been merged so we're trying to I guess have a waiver of merger at this point now as you're directing me so that we can do that so we can proceed to closing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah they would have to be unmerged in order for you to be able to purchase it free and clear. MEMBER DANTES : Do you have an attorney who's representing you for the contract to purchase the property? .WILLIAM FABB : Yes I do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What proposed use are you going to have for this property? WILLIAM FABB : This would just be a cold storage building. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : An agricultural. WILLIAM FABB : Yes. 47 February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What are you engaged in farming in the area? WILLIAM FABB : I am in landscape contracting fields. This would be for dry storage goods. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How do you advise proceeding here, back to the Building Department? I mean I don't know what the lot recognition would do if it's you know; does that undo what's been merged? I don't think so. T.A. DUFFY : It would have said that it's exempt from merger that it shouldn't have merged. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We could go that way if in fact the dates add up cause there's specific dates in the code that create exceptions to the merger law. If it had received a prior variance which this probably didn't I doubt that this has had a prior variance on this lot. WILLIAM FABB : No I believe that they hadn't separated it from the farm to the east at that time and Frank McBride had purchased it from the Zuhoski's at that time and then they had given them a C.O. based on that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : On the building. WILLIAM FABB : Correct and that was 1976 1 believe. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Maybe we should just meet with Building and see what's going on. T.A. DUFFY : I think that's best. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know rather than burdening you with what appears to be a fairly convoluted history here how urgent is your time frame for this? WILLIAM FABB : Of course we would like to close as soon as possible. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What I'm suggesting I think is the Town Attorney and I potentially sit down with the Building Department and sort out this history and why they wrote this Notice of Disapproval this way and administratively what the best way to proceed to undo this would be. I'll tell you what, we have another meeting in two weeks from today in the evening I think what I'm going to do here unless I'm going to ask if there's anyone in the audience who wants to address the application while we're having a public hearing and see if the Board has any questions. I'm going to ultimately make a recommendation to adjourn this to the next meeting in two weeks so that we have the time to try and sort it out. Either the Town Attorney, I can't speak to you directly because it's an open application but the Town Attorney or Kim or both can be in touch with you to bring you up to date on what we discover and then we'll be I think a little bit more informed as to how to proceed to resolve the matter. 4-3 February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting JIM MCBRIDE : This is Jim McBride and he's got the C.O.'s that were issued from '76 and '77, do you have copies of these as well or would you like me to present these to the Board? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we have them. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :'Yeah they're in the application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we have them, I think they're in our file. We're just confused about we don't want to do the wrong thing and if there's a confusion about how to accomplish what you're here to accomplish what we want to do is make sure that the Building Department informs us as to why they wrote this as lot recognition rather than waiver of merger if they're effectively merged. It would appear you qualify since you still own the parcel and it hasn't transferred yet out of the family. That's an important criteria if it's already been sold out of the family then it no longer qualifies so either it's an exempt from merger which is why they wrote the variance. It's just something we need to clear up and I think we should try and do that rather than have you go back and get more confused. JIM MCBRIDE : Okay, I agree I appreciate it. MEMBER DANTES : I'm looking at the deed Leslie it says that it was recorded in the Clerk's office April 1, 1976 when Frank McBride bought it and then it transferred to Richard and James McBride in (inaudible) son your family members I guess (inaudible) in 2009 it says oh no October 2017 so it would be the easier route to go. WILLIAM FABB : We would appreciate some direction. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, are we okay on this, Nick do you have any questions at this point? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No at this point I think just the clarification on CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wants to MEMBER DANTES : Do you have a copy of the title report that you did? WILLIAM FABB : Yeah I think I might. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would be helpful. Get it into Kim and she'll make copies for us. 1 , think that would be helpful. Anyone else out there want to talk about this one? I'm going to make a motion to adjourn to the Special Meeting on February 15th and in the interim we will investigate the Notice of Disapproval and the potential merger or waiver of merger. 49 February 1,.2018 Regular Meeting RICHARD LARK : Richard Lark Main Rd. Cutchogue New York. When the Zuhoski's decided to get rid of the to (inaudible) the storage building Mr. McBride who farmed right across the street and next door said he would purchase it. The Zuhoski's were represented Joseph Snellenberg who later became a judge and everybody was represented and I represented the McBride family at that time and what had happened was the whole section from the dual highway to Oregon Rd. from Bridge Lane to Depot Lane or Cox Lane excuse me Cox Lane to Depot Lane was a controversial piece of property which is now the town owns most of it and the locally called the dump but the refuse area the reclamation area. When the town wanted to expand because of the D.E.C. and had to try to expand there because they no longer were going to be able to burn and to do the things that they were doing they reached out to the farmers. You need to know this history. They reached out to the farmers that surrounded the property. There were three major farmers there, McBride's was one, Trevis was one and Glover was another and what they did very shrewdly the Town Board and Supervisor got to purchase it at a low price and in exchange he zoned the whole thing the heaviest industrial zoning he can give and explained to them he not only needed it for the reclamation area because of all the activities they were doing there but it would benefit them financially because of farming was going to go out of business even then there was talk about farming declining due to labor problems on the island especially in that area and so the farmers bought into it and sold the land to the town and all the surrounding land which they currently basically own (inaudible) today. So, that when any of the farmers made any type of application to do anything in there and by the way the zoning ordinance as printed is wrong, it was 200,000 square feet per lot not 20,000 two hundred with a heavy zoning. It's now light industrial but before it was heavy. So when this thing happened where the McBride was going to purchase from the Zuhoski's it was cleared with the Building Department Mr. Howard Terry at that time and the way things were done in those days he did not do that on his own. He made two telephone calls and one telephone call and they met in the office with Mr. Galespi the Chairman of the Board of Appeals and Mr. John Wickham Chairman of the Planning Board and they said yeah fine you're just splitting off a little piece. It's already got the building on it and it's going to be for potato storage and storage for pipes you know in the winter and stuff like that so fine. It was all approved. So when the C.O.'s were presented everybody was content at the time. As it turned out about a year later or a short time thereafter it might not have been a year you have the dates there, McBride wanted to square off the building cause it wasn't square at that time so his builder applied for a building permit, Howard did the same thing and they gave him the building permit and they added on, gave them the C.O. a year or so later for the addition and it's remained that way ever since. Now when the merger law came along it was interesting that the farmers in that area Mr. McBride their father included said we're kind of exempt because in '89 the town tried to rezone it back and there was a revolution (inaudible) so it just became a sacrosanct piece that whole section just became sacrosanct type of thing and it was always cleared with the agencies but so February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting never formally like we would do today with hearings go here and going there and I remember having the conversation with Snellenberg and I remember having the conversation with Snellenberg and Mr. Terry 1 do remember that way back when, they said no it's not necessary. Mr. Wickham approved it, Mr. Galespi approved it, it's all set. Remember where you are, you're on Oregon Rd. so that's the way it was and then when this transaction came when Mr. rFabb here wanted to buy that because the McBride's are not utilizing it other than storage of pipes and such but haven't been using it for potato storage and stuff like that and the last year or so and he came along and wanted to buy it and when all this thing came up and they're here under this application and if he was here Mr. Verity would agree with what I'm saying. He told them to do it this way. He said because all you're asking the Board of Appeals is to do what should have been done in '76. Had approval from ZBA the undersized lot remember 20,000 as opposed to you know 200,000 with this 15,000 or something like that. That was number one and number two the Planning Board it was in consort with what the town had in mind for that whole area and he said if that's presented to the Board of Appeals in his words he says it will automatically exempt it from the merger cause I raised that with Mr. Verity. He said it would automatically exempt it so verify that with him and so in John's defense when he made this application on his own and he went forward with it cause that's what the deal with he cut with Mr. and the two McBride brothers that's why you got that application. I wouldn't maybe have done it that way you know as an attorney but he was directed to do it that way cause the Building Department made a de facto that if you granted this it was automatically exempt from the merger law cause the lots all were created. The building was built way before zoning even everything was all pre-existing there and Mr. Verity knew, he was a contractor in town he knew how it worked in those days and it was just done a lot of stuff was done orally and now we're having to redo it. I've done a number of applications and you've seen them that way. So that's the pickle that got Mr. Fabb got involved with on this thing because he said I really need this for my landscaping business because there's very few landscapers here that are doing it legitimately on industrial or business property or storing their materials running their yards out of it and he said I want to be clean and so he said I really want to buy this cause it's industrial and whatever I want to do there I can do under the code. So that's to be honest with you Leslie that why we're here. CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : That's really helpful. RICHARD LARK : But that is the accurate history of that. A lot of it I have in bits and pieces in the file with notes, conversations but there was nothing formally done other than Mr. Terry said here's your C.O., here's your building permit and here's your new C.O. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's probably why we have the C.O. and that's why we have the recorded deed but well lets S3. c February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting RICHARD LARK : So that's really the reader's digest version of what went on. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It certainly clarifies some things here possibly as to why the Building Department wrote it up the way they did. RICHARD LARK : He didn't do that on his own he was directed to do it that way. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Who didn't? RICHARD LARK : Mr. Fabb. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh sure no, no I'm sure that you're following the advice of the Building Department. What we don't understand is the conflict between if it's merged or is it insufficient lot area or when it was legalized and those dates as you know make a difference in terms of exemptions and so on so I just wanted to make sure we factually have the information there so that it didn't backfire on you. RICHARD LARK : If there's any questions I can answer cause I lived through all of that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Apparently you did. You have a much better memory than I have. RICHARD LARK : I only live a couple of blocks away so it's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's the character of your neighborhood. Eric do you have any other questions at this point? .MEBMER DANTES : Yes, Kim just handed me a single and separate search which I don't see it in my packet I handed it over to Bill T.A. DUFFY : I have a copy so I'll give it back to you it's in my packet. RICHARD LARK : So you do have one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we have it. Well the point is they would qualify for a waiver but if they don't need a waiver then what they need is a legally established lot one way or the other that is MEMBER DANTES : I mean both roads get you there where you want to go it's just the direction CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright well I still think even though that helped clarify a great deal Mr. Lark your testimony, we should probably just sit down with Building and say all this came up and we just need some guidance as to which way is the better way to unsnarl this. So is that agreed, is there anyone in the audience other than who also wants to speak? That doesn't mean that we won't like have another hearing, we may not need to it just depends on how this 521 February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting T.A. DUFFY : Mr. Lark would you essentially be saying we should overturn the Building Department's determination that it's not recognized? RICHARD LARK : I'm not saying anything. I just watched it go by I didn't necessarily agree with what's going on but that's the way they did it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that is one thing that we can do T.A. DUFFY : That's what we're trying to figure out. MEMBER DANTES : Do you represent any of the parties currently? RICHARD LARK : Yeah I represent the McBride family now. He's handling this all on his own see. He has an attorney. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that's what we'll do and then we'll just be more informed. RICHARD LARK : If I can answer any questions I'll be glad. T.A. DUFFY : Appreciate it thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Perhaps Bill might be in touch with you, I can't. Alright so that's what that's how we'll proceed. We'll find out more information and we'll either close it in two weeks and then deliberate or we'll have to put it on for a second hearing which will be a month from today. We'll try to avoid that if we can but you know if we have to enter more stuff into the record that's the way to do it because this is where we record the testimony and this is the public record so depending on the outcome we can decide how to proceed and we'll do it as swiftly as we possibly can. Is everybody good with that? Alright I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting on February 15tH MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) 53 February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting HEARING # 7127— KEVIN FOOTE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Kevin Foote #7127. A request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's October 6, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit for additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling, construction of an accessory garage, and construction of an accessory swimming pool 1) additions and alterations to a single family dwelling located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) proposed accessory garage located in other than the code required rear yard, 3) proposed accessory swimming pool located in other than the code required rear yard located at 780 Champlin Place in Greenport. MR. CUDDY : Charles Cuddy 445 Griffing Ave Riverhead NY for the applicant. With me is Jeffery Butler who is the professional planner who drew the site plan and also Nancy Foote is here. This is as your plan will show a small lot located in an area where there are a number of small houses. The existing lot is 12,095 sq. ft. in the R40 zone and it's twice as wide its 164 feet wide and only 73 feet in depth which makes it somewhat difficult to meet all of the requirements. It's less than 20,000 sq. ft. lot it's subject to the requirements of Section 280-124 which allows you to have smaller setback regulations. This house is pre-existing zoning. The house as it is now is 17 feet back from the road. We're proposing to build an additional unit to the house which will allow to have another bedroom, to modify the kitchen and that will increase the house from 1051 feet to 1526 feet. Basically they have one bedroom in the house now they would certainly like to have two bedrooms and adequate bathroom. The garage and pool meet the setback requirements but they are in the side yards. We don't have any other place to put them because of the size of this lot. It's only 73 feet deep. When the garage is constructed the driveway which is on the east side will be removed. When looking at this site it would appear to me that by just adding to the house in this neighborhood particularly because it's a small lots is not going to adversely affect the neighborhood in any way and it's not going to hurt environmentally to have a house in a neighborhood where it's an R40 district. Based on the lot configuration we really don't have any alternatives but to place the units where we placed them. There just isn't any other place that they could be located. The front yard variance may seem substantial but there's a section of the code which is 280-104A which says that when you're within 300 feet of other lots you measure what those lots are for setbacks. Mr. Butler has prepared a statement to show that the lots in that area in fact are less than 17 feet when you average them out so I just hand that up to you. MEMBER DANTES : I'm looking at this, is this pool really in a side yard? It looks 54 February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is because in order for it to be declared a rear yard it would have to be behind the dwelling. It's weird I know it looks like it's in the rear yard but it's really not. It's the way the Building Department interprets the MEMBER DANTES : So you wouldn't be able to see it from the street? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No you could see it from the street unless it's well screened. There is some evergreen screening there already. MR. CUDDY : The way they set this up in the Building Department that's in the side yard and we would also indicate that the lot was created many years prior to zoning so it's similar to the last we don't think it's a self-created situation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Was this a double lot I mean was this an original lot nothing merged? MR. CUDDY : No it wasn't this is the lot itself. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah because the width is so much wider than most lots in that area. MR. CUDDY : Yeah most of the lots in that area are about half the size that's right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You don't really have anywhere to put anything in the rear yard. You do have 33 feet back there other than for the deck that is you know creates what's the setback to the house, its' not calling out the attached deck to the back but you wouldn't really have much room back there for more MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would say also if the lap pool is moved to a conforming would still stretch into both side yards or at least one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah if it's a lap pool yeah. MEMBER DANTES : I noticed that (inaudible) angle the property line slight angle to me just the angle that pushes it in the side yard a little bit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : My question here is, is the septic requirements for distances that would not allow you to move that garage farther away than a 5 feet from the side yard? MR. CUDDY : I think it is. Mr. Butler drew it that way and I believe he could answer the question maybe better than I could. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah cause the code does specify how many feet apart these elements have to these pools and so on. February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : It's 20 feet from the pool and 10 from the structure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's what's here and that's why I'm asking because my first we don't have any plans for the garage either by the way so we don't know how high it is that's information I'd like to know. I've got the house plans and elevations but not the garage. JEFF BUTLER : Jeff Butler professional (inaudible) offices 206 Lincoln Street Riverhead. You're instincts are pretty accurate that pushing the garage closer to the house does create an issue for us with the sanitary system and the site drainage and the swimming pool in terms of setbacks. In terms of the garage, the height we haven't fully designed the garage yet but the code allows us to be 22 feet, we would be less than that with the height of the garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah because that was my main concern. There's another dwelling adjacent to that side yard and it's not that far away and if you were proposing a large two story I mean the code allows what did you say 22 JEFF BUTLER : Twenty two to the ridge. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Twenty two to the ridge JEFF BUTLER : Not the mean height the actual ridge height is 22. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it was hard for me to evaluate it cause I didn't have any plans I didn't know if you're proposing a loft, storage loft. JEFF BUTLER : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is a two car garage? JEFF BUTLER : Yes it's a two car garage correct. MEMBER DANTES : Which side is the pitch on it I mean is it an A frame facing the street or? JEFF BUTLER : The ridge would probably run front to back so the eave height at the 5 foot property line setback would probably be about 10 feet. MEMBER DANTES : Are there any dormers on that? JEFF BUTLER : No there's no dormers planned. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't know cause we haven't seen it. He's now telling us what he's thinking is going to be 56 February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting JEFF BUTLER : The dormer the code for the dormer if there was a dormer is forty percent of ridge line if we were to do it to minimize that volume on a garage on an accessory structure but we haven't gotten in to the design yet in that detail. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : While we're discussing the garage was there any thought or consideration given to attaching the garage off of what would appear to be the kitchen on the opposite side of the property where the driveway currently exists? JEFF BUTLER : There was, the applicant really wanted to create that yard between the garage and the side of the house where the covered porch is and the pool and kind of have them communicate with each other. That was the reason for the location of the garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well Nick does have a point though. The setbacks would not be an issue at all on that side of the dwelling and you would still have you know a really nice yard with a lap pool on the other side you know where you're proposing it. It's something to think about. What is the floor plan on the existing house? Could there be an easy way to enter it? JEFF BUTLER : It would be a little bit awkward. The other part is that we wanted to maintain that separation that you see because of the house is very quaint and charming and we're trying to maintain that street from the street and not over power with the garage that close to it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah I think if you look to the house immediately to the east their garage is attached. It has a' very different sort of feel but' it would seem that it would be something just to look at. I don't know what the kitchen plan looks like by memory. Actually though the whole floor plan is changing what currently I think looks like a kitchen is going to be the master bedroom. Everything is flip flopped in the renovated proposal. JEFF BUTLER : Right which is why the kitchen then communicates with what will be the garage. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : With the garage building. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well what my concern is that garage with a 5 foot setback which is a substantial sized structure just doesn't have any undue adverse impact on the adjacent property. It's not that there aren't accessory garages in the neighborhood there are. JEFF BUTLER : That are five feet away. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah there are but you know that's why I was asking about the height and so on because even at 22 feet that's still substantial even with the you know the eave being lower substantially from the ridge but we can't make that determination without seeing any information on the garage other than just you know square footage basically. So the one possibility is to condition the height and perhaps even lower it if you don't need a second 57 February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting story or anything like that on there or well it wouldn't be a second story but I mean we can condition it to just make it 18 feet high and that's it no dormers. JEFF BUTLER : Yeah I think 18 feet though CHAIRPERSON WIESMAN : With 24 by 24 it's pretty squat. JEFF BUTLER : Pretty squat yeah. I don't think that we'd like the way that looks with the property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you're not going to get much of a pitch. Twenty feet perhaps you'll be alright. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : What I'm wondering is that you talk about the interaction between the two structures is if in you're in the kitchen looking through the porch at the garage building you're really going to be looking at the roof. JEFF BUTLER : If you're looking at the side of the yeah MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right you're looking at the roof side of the garage building. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right you are. Well we don't have any communication from any neighbors that I'm aware of either for or against. We'll get to you in a second. Holds on you have to be on a mic because we record this so I don't want to miss what you have say. I'll tell you what let's do that let's get your testimony in. We may have other questions as a result I don't know. Why don't you come to the mic and state your name. MARIE O'SHEA : Hi, I'm Marie O'Shea we live across the street 735 Champlin and we when we received the notice in the mail of the requested variance we did not receive any copy of the proposed plan so we still don't know what's being proposed and we stopped over at the Building Department they told us that it's here you know for your benefit today. So I guess it would be nice to see that. I have one comment about the garage placement just as somebody who lives across the street and looks at this house which indeed is charming. There's quite a substantial number of trees along the property line. They've cut some right now it seems to be where the garage is proposed to accommodate CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The driveway they cut two of them I think is cited. MARIE O'SHEA : If the garage was to be moved closer to the house that would mean more trees to be cut so you know effectively diminishing that screen. 581 February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we're going to show you a copy of what they're proposing so that you can see how you respond as I said we don't have anything for the garage but we do have the plans and elevations for the house and there's a survey there, did you see the survey? MARIE O'SHEA : We have existing survey. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN, : No you want to see the new one too. It's a site plan it's not a survey but it's based on the survey. So you got both there now? What we could do is maybe recess for five minutes give them a chance to ask questions. We're all done other than this. I could you know adjourn this. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I prefer if it's possible I mean if there's sufficient time to look but Eric if you don't mind indulging us maybe to Leslie's point just for a few minutes to allow them to review the documents and then CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We may be able to just solve this whole thing really quickly I mean I don't think what they're proposing is egregious in any way but you have the right to look at this and make comments but we don't want to rush either. What we can do is adjourn to the Special Meeting in two weeks giving all of you time to talk to each other maybe giving you more time to think about this garage because it will have an impact. MEMBER DANTES : I would like to see an elevation too before we move on. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah that's what I'm saying you know decide if you want JEFF BUTLER : I was just going to suggest that and at the same time see if maybe I can squeeze it over a little bit and present you with some elevations to look at. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would be helpful. Why don't we do this then, I don't want to rush anybody. This is an important decision you know for property owner and neighbors, if I make a proposal to adjourn to the Special Meeting that's two weeks from today in the evening and that way you can talk to each other. If you say it's okay you could let us know. You can just shoot an email to the office. If you have issues you can talk to each other and see what you think. I don't know if the neighbor on the side yard has anything to say about it. Are you here for this application ma'am in the back? Oh wonderful hello. Alright so let's do that. Give all parties a chance for you to submit some more information and some more drawings and so on and you can submit whatever you like in writing and if we have everything we need and everything looks fine then we can close it. It's going to be on February 15th at five in the evening. We usually have executive session first. We don't have conversations or testimony at that hearing. We will not have a draft ready for that night because we're going to be looking at thiese drawings and so on and if we have more questions then we will put this on for the next 59 i February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting public hearing which will be a month from now it would be on March 1St. Then we'll continue to talk. You're welcome to sit in. You can listen to us but as I said it's not recorded and there's no testimony. JEFF BUTLER : You're talking about in two weeks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah and if we have everything we think we need and you've submitted something saying it's okay with you and everyone is on the same page we'll just close it and then what we will do at the first convenience would be a month from now we will have a draft decision to vote on which we will do before the public at a meeting like this. Again no testimony but it's open to the public, you listen to us talk about it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie would it be possible or is it premature'to even suggest that it could possibly be closed with a decision at the Special instead of waiting? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If in fact we have stuff MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Especially with the neighbor (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it takes time to write these and so if it depends on how soon we get information and if we give people two weeks I want to make sure that somebody who wasn't here who heard about it who was another neighbor you know has time to send in what they want to say that's the reason for holding the hearing open but if it appears that we have everything we need and we have time to write a draft then we will have it ready. We like to do these as soon as possible there's no point in delaying we just have a bunch more coming up the following month so we do try to act quickly. So I think it just depends on what comes in to us but my point is at the latest it's likely we will deliberate a month from now. I don't know that we're going to need another public hearing. It is what it is it seems to me but if you put in writing you know the setbacks are tied in as I said to the septic and so on and that's part of the whole thing the more we can have in the file the better. So is that agreeable to everybody? Would you please just go to the mic because we want to have that on our record? MARIE O'SHEA : Can I just ask a clarifying question as to how we would submit comments on the 15th, could we do that via email or CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh sure you can email it to Kim at the Zoning Board or just bring it in drop it off. BOARD SECRETARY : The email is on the bottom of that notice that was sent to you. 60 February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And by the way everybody has access to the file so Ms. Foote if you want to see if anything came in so that you have a chance to look at it and respond with your architect, your attorney that's available to you too. MARIE O'SHEA : So on the 15th it will be discussed? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well yeah because what we'll do is see what we have on the 15th and again that's over in the other building on the second floor in the conference room, we'll see what we have and if we think we have everything and we don't have any questions then we're just going to close it and we will either deliberate that night if in fact we have what we need soon enough. If not we'll deliberate a month from now. MARIE O'SHEA : And the 15th is the meeting open to the public? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh yes. MARIE O'SHEA : It is and what time is it again? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we start a five o'clock however we usually have executive session maybe the first item gets discussed five thirty something like that but the agenda will be posted. It's on our website. You can see what we'll have it down for potential to close but we'll talk about it and if it makes sense to close it we will. Again you're welcome to sit in or you can call the office and find out what happens all entirely up to you. It's an open public meeting. MARIE O'SHEA : Are we able to keep a copy of the plans then? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Perhaps the architect will be willing to share a copy. We have to as board members we need to keep our own copies so that MARIE O'SHEA : It was just our understanding at the Building's Department that we were mailed an insufficient package of notification that we should have gotten a copy of the proposed plans. So I just want to make sure we have that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The town attorney is willing to give you his copy because he can access our office file very easily. He'll pass that along. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : What I would ask I think Leslie explained this previously but if you made your comments earlier than later it would be helpful to us helping the applicant move forward. MARY O'SHEA : We'll summarize (inaudible) in email. 6:1 February 1, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And if there is no comments you might just say you know while you're a neighbor you're supporting the application. MARIE O'SHEA : Sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You don't have to look this is just part of the public transparency democratic process that we go through and we're lucky we live in a small town where government is so easily available and often things.are resolved through conversation, anything else from the Board, anything from any of you? I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to February 15tH MEMBER DANTES : I'll second that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) 6z February 1, 2018 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 lid Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : February 8, 2018 63