Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/01/2018 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 March 1, 2018 9:36 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN -Chairperson/Member PATRICIA ACAMPORA— Member ERIC DANTES— Member GERARD GOEHRINGER— Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO— Member (Absent) KIM FUENTES— Board Assistant WILLIAM DUFFY—Town Attorney March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Seven Cats Investment, LLC#7136 3-7 SV Greenport, LLC (Soundview) #7137 8 - 10 Stephanie L. Teicher#7138 10 - 16 1505 Birdseye Road, LLC#7140 16 - 36 Monay Bell and James Brennan (Bryan Nicholson, as Contract Vendee) # 7139 37 - 39 Joanna Dixon Reisman # 7141 40-43 Joseph Richburg# 7142 43 -44 Kevin Whitrock# 7143 45 - 51 Elizabeth Branch and David Branch # 7144 52 - 59 LeJon Enterprises, Inc. (L. Hoeffner, as Contract Vendee) # 7145 59 - 67 March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting HEARING #7136—SEVEN CATS INVESTMENTS, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for Seven Cats Investments, LLC # 7136. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's November 8, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to legalize an "as built" deck addition attached to a pre-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 145 Dickerson St. in Peconic. PAT MOORE : Patricia Moore on behalf of Seven Cats Investments, LLC and may I proceed? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes please. PAT MOORE : Did you get LWRP or anything? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see, no we didn't that I'm aware of I'm not sure. PAT MOORE : It might be exempt causes it's not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't have anything. Pull out the office file because this one doesn't have any. PAT MOORE : I guess I'll proceed and if something is found we can respond to. This is a house that's in Peconic Shores which is a 1930's subdivision. This house was built prior to zoning then an addition was built in the 1960's and I've provided the C. O's and the pre-C.0 for this structure and I'm sure you've all gone to take a look at the property. Peconic Shores is very unique. If you didn't have to go there you probably didn't know it existed. The property is also unique in that it's more of a compound and so when you look at the property lines, many of the homes there and there seem to be in total six parcels that I will call like immediate parcels of that road. None of them match setbacks; none of them conform to setbacks. They are placed on properties in different angles probably to create again a sense of community, private community and certainly not following any setback rules but it made sense in the 1930's I guess. MEMBER DANTES : Well there were no setbacks rules. PAT MOORE : There were no setbacks but it made sense as far as their design principle in the 1930's. I'm giving them credit for not having to having some common sense in the way that they were set up. It is a very lovely community though. My clients when they purchased this property they couldn't remember if there was a deck or not a deck but as it turns out I had the pleasure of hanging out with yesterday with Ron Rothman who his house is on the other side of Dickerson and it's one of the homes that I listed in the variances and I'll talk about that in the March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting handout that gave you this morning but anyway he was saying that his memory is that there was a deck there. Now, my client had renovated and this is the ultimate deck that's there. The way that this deck is designed is the steps are more of landings and it almost acts as a bridge because you come in, starts at grade the step and then it's a landing. It's a little architecturally unique because his brother is an architect so of course it was designed nicer than most you know standard contractor's decks. So you get on the step, there's a landing and then you go up another step and then you get to the deck behind the house. It's a unique variance interpretation and I never knew this actually was the way the code was interpreted because the house is so close to the front yard that this deck which is actually in the rear yard of the house is considered non-conforming with a 35 foot front yard setback. Never knew that that was an interpretation but that's why one of the variances a variance for a front yard the front yard requirement is 35 feet, well the house is not at 35 feet so one of those variances is a technical variance and again I don't understand the logic of that interpretation but until it's either legislative clarified or the Board interprets that if it's behind the house it doesn't have a front yard setback you're technically in the rear yard. Nevertheless the deck is close to the property line but the property line is actually a concrete wall, the pre-existing concrete wall and as you can see from your inspection this property has different grades none of which are flat. You have a grade from the front yard to get up to the deck and once you're at the back of the house there is at least a five foot differential between the back door and the back of the house so I don't know how anybody could have had this house without a deck because it's impossible to put a deck on grade. There is no flat grade. You'd have to create larger, higher retaining walls and maybe there are retaining walls under the deck but I physically couldn't see them. So it is again a unique circumstance. It is a very lovely deck. It doesn't intrude on anyone. It is in the rear yard. There really is no common sense way to redesign this other than the removal and start over and it really is in great condition with all proper handrails. The Building Department did not have an issue with its construction; it was just its placement so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat hold on one second, first let's just enter into the record what the variances are, it's a front yard setback at 8 feet, the code requiring 35 feet and a side yard setback at 1.5 foot the code requiring 10 feet. Now having said that we did go out as you know and I noticed it's not on the survey but there appears to be a little shed, storage shed in that corner. PAT MOORE : Up on the hill? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it's actually right in the corner. It looks to me as though it's in the corner of the property. You see where it says 9.6 feet? It's right in that corner. PAT MOORE :That's a chimney. March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it's an actual freestanding shed that's in that corner it's right on the survey. PAT MOORE : I'm trying to remember, I was there so many times and I don't remember seeing it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah there's a storage shed right in that corner. PAT MOORE : Okay I believe you. I don't remember seeing it. Let me see if I have pictures of it that will help. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Unless it's on the it's so impossible to determine the property lines on anything in this area that it could be the neighbor's for all I know but there's a little shed there. PAT MOORE : Here I have my survey. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here I'll show you where. It's in that corner there and it's just a little you know storage shed one of those ones you buy prefab and I PAT MOORE : I don't have an answer for you because I don't remember seeing it but I don't dispute you seeing it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you all know the shed? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yes. PAT ACAMPORA : Yes. PAT MOORE : Was there a shed there? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I didn't make it up. I did not hallucinate the shed. PAT MOORE : Let me see if I find it in some of my pictures. I believe you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh it's the old survey. Let's find that. Just because PAT MOORE : Oh here it is. I see it in a blue. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah a blue thing. PAT MOORE : I'm looking at this picture and there's a little tiny thing. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Looks like a dot. March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's not that tiny but it's a shed. PAT MOORE : I honestly I don't cause the survey doesn't show it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's so close. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Looks like it's on the other property. PAT MOORE : It does look like but again those property lines are CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah but Pat did you say you found it on an old survey? PAT MOORE : Did you see the survey? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He's looking. It is there now that blue thing that you're pointing out is it that's a shed. PAT MOORE : Well it was there three months ago four months ago. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We deserve brownie points for that site inspection. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : That's been the whole issue trying to get out of there. PAT MOORE : To be honest with you I if you have a problem with it but if you don't have a problem with it we'd like to keep it. It might be pre-existing. It looks old. MEMBER DANTES : Just for the in my packet I have a certificate of occupancy from 1960 PAT MOORE : Yes that was the addition. MEMBER DANTES : Right but you said is there a PreC.O? PAT MOORE : Yes I sent it I certainly I'll double check but I'm pretty sure put it this way did the inspections we did everything it came in later because let me see if I have it. Did it come to you later Kim? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on I'm looking. PAT MOORE : Well put it this way I know I applied for one and I know I did everything to get one so I will go to the Building Department and see where it is because MEMBER DANTES : I think it was right in the application. PAT MOORE : Oh absolutely. I went through and I got it and John and I went through did the inspection. March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't have one. PAT MOORE : Alright, I'll go and check where the PreC.O. is, not a problem I'll get that to you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so this application is all about legalizing this as built deck with these non-conforming setbacks. PAT MOORE : Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat do you have any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No I think we answered I mean the area is very strange. You can't tell where one property line ends and where the other one starts. PAT MOORE : Right and again this property, the only yard is what would be the front yard of the front part of the yard but again it's sloped everywhere and then the back yard is a hill so with a small shed that does show up and it was included I believe in my PreC.O. so I'll double check that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry anything? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in the audience wishing to address the application? So hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of a PreC.O. MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting HEARING #7137—SV GREENPORT, LLC (SOUNDVIEW) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for SV Greenport, LLC (Soundview) #7137. This is a request for a variance from Article XIX Section 280-85 J (4) and the Building Inspector's October 3, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to install a wall sign at 1) more than the code required maximum number of wall signs allowed on subject premises located at 58775 County Route 48 (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Greenport. Good morning, would you state your name for the record please. THOMAS NAPLES : Good morning, Thomas Naples for SV Greenport, LLC. So, essentially we are permitted to have two signs on the building. Currently we have the Soundview Inn sign on the top of the building but we want to add an external graphic outside the new lobby and existing restaurant so it would be about a 13 foot wide by 5 foot high painted graphic that would essentially be a fish and I believe you guys have this paperwork as well but the fish, it says the Haylard, open late food and drinks and the reason kind of two reasons we want to pursue this is one, you know we're renovated product and there's still a lot of people that drive by and do not know where the new food renovated property is so there's in summer there's like five thousand cars coming each way on that road and we really want to capture that audience and with the existing building it's all just white mostly on the facade, we think this would be a little eye catching and help create a little more awareness to the people driving by the building and then the other part is it would become part of art and we are trying to capture this whole idea of creative economy (inaudible) tourism and so we would like to you know incorporate this as part of our product and you know a lot of what we do at the property in terms of programming and who we target is this artist community and like recently we've had what was it, meet the creatives a bunch of creative guys in the art industry came and spoke to you know hotel guests in the local community and we have various different programming like that throughout the property throughout the year so we feel like this would be fitting for our kind of product at the Soundview Inn. MEMBER DANTES : I have a question for you, by code you're allowed to have a business directory and then you're allowed to have a sign on the building correct? THOMAS NAPLES : What do you mean by business directory? MEMBER DANTES : You're allowed to have like a sign out front that list the businesses that are in the building, do you have that? THOMAS NAPLES : Yeah we have so we have a few signs. We have on top of the roof we have Soundview Inn that was recently placed a couple of months ago. This is something we'd like to do. We also have the original Soundview Inn sign it's like a big bulky wooden sign that sits in March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting the front of the building as well. That is still left over from the original owner that we do want to kind of freshen up so we would have we still have that sign. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's quite at the opposite end of the property though, that freestanding sign that's been there forever. Well one of the things we should point out is that there are very few businesses around the Soundview. They're mostly residential properties so there's not a whole lot of sign clutter. This is a flat signage that one could actually consider an art mural, a wall mural even though it is an identifier which then makes it a sign. You also have just small signage on the awnings over the doors to each entry. MEMBER DANTES : Does the property have a Pre C.O? I got the one from 1982 but is there one from like I'm sure there's something there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the buildings of course have been there for a very, very long time but that is really not incredibly relevant at this point for this sign for the purpose of this sign. I don't really have any further questions. We've got an arraignment coming in. Gerry do you have any questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No other than the fact that I remember a fish sign there at one time. THOMAS NAPLES : Do you? Like a painted graphic like this? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay we're going to have to adjourn because we have an arraignment here and that will take precedence so we're going to have to leave the you don't have to leave you can stay here but we have to leave. MEMBER DANTES : Wait I don't have any questions doe's anyone else need? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does anyone have any questions here? MEMBER ACAMPORA : NO. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience? Alright, hearing no further questions I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. We'll have an answer for you in two weeks. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7138—STEPHANIE L. TEICHER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Stephanie L. Teicher # 7138. This is a request for variances from Article XXII Section 280-116 A (1), Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's November 15, 2017 amended November 20, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to legalize "as built" additions to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff, 2) less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet located at 6825 Nassau Point Rd. (adj. to Little Peconic Bay) in Cutchogue. MIKE KIMACK : Michael Kimack for the applicant who is present and the correct pronunciation is Teicher. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm sorry. MIKE KIMACK :That's quite alright, I kept saying Teicher for some time till I was corrected. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we're looking at a zero foot setback from the top of the bank at its closest point, the code requires 100 feet and we're looking at a rear yard setback of 13.4 feet, the code requiring 50 feet. Is that correct Mike? MIKE KIMACK : Yeah, when you're using that 13.4 that's for the from the property line to the I think you're talking about to the bulkhead correct? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I presume that's what they're defining as the rear yard. MIKE KIMACK : That's what they're defining basically as the rear yard. I'd like to take this in two concepts. I want to look at the top of the bluff and discuss that first and then we'll discuss the proposal for down below. If I can go to the map that I gave you basically the proposed map, what we have is you got an existing deck that we want to modify slightly. The original deck had been approved. It was the 19.1 feet extended from the house. Somewhere along the way and I wasn't able to define exactly how it was built to 25 feet out so one of our requests is an extra 5.1 feet in there to get that approval for the deck and also to close that corner off with the deck to square that one corner off, to redesign the steps and to remove an existing 222 square foot brick patio and replace it with lawn and also to put a 81 square foot landing on top for the set March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting of stairs coming down. On the other side of the deck though there is now an existing set of stairs if you can see it by that proposed masonry path. The existing set of stairs that we'd like to be able to extend the deck out and put the stairs further seaward because it makes it easier and more convenient ingress egress to the deck itself. The other one was just close to try to get around that one little cut out of the building. The proposed masonry pad is level with the grade and it's being placed there and my notes may not have been clear on it. If you see the existing utilities next to it, it is meant and intended that those existing utilities be moot to the (inaudible) so that it's more stable. At the same distance from the side yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mike you say this was approved, who approved it and when? MIKE KIMACK : It was done at the construction of the house in 1982. It's in the, I gave copies of the site plans Al and A3 that were stamped. CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : So it was approved by the Trustees? MIKE KI MACK : By the Trustees. MEMBER DANTES : The Trustees or you just have the Building Department permit? I don't know if I see a Trustees sticker. The smaller deck was approved not the bigger deck. MIKE KIMACK : Well the big deck on top was approved. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have a Trustees approval dated December 21, 1992. Replace 100 foot of bulkhead and two 20 foot returns as per application in kind in place; install 100 foot retaining wall landward of bulkhead. It doesn't say anything about a deck. Dick Warden, haven't seen his name in a long time. So this is a site plan yeah, this was approved by Building Department approval. MIKE KIMACK : It took a while to go through this to figure out exactly what happened but if you look at the basically the approved the construction of the house and the deck but the deck itself was only approved at 19 feet at least from the drawing basically and when we measured it off it was now presently 25 feet so somewhere along the line it was added on to but the original deck had been approved. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you're also proposing to replace the stairs and landing and all of that? MIKE KIMACK : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN So I'm sure you've had a chance what Soil and Water has to say about it and the LWRP? Would you like to address those? March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : Well basically Soil and Water we're talking about during the construction basically to make sure that there's no siltation factor and that the construction is done in a manner with which to not cause any further erosion of the slope itself. The slope is in relatively good stable condition at the present time and the replacement of the staircase is a necessary factor in order to build it new so it has a long duration factor to it. The lower retaining wall had been constructed I think when it was replaced basically and it has stabilized that whole bank area at the present time so there wasn't an objection to putting the stairs and it was just really a question of whether or not it would be done in a relatively safe manner to make sure there was no further erosion of the bank itself which it will be. It's going to have to be done by hand, there's no way to get machinery in there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The LWRP is recommending that we Mark Terry that we adjourn until Trustees have reviewed this application. He's concerned that the as built additions primarily the wood platforms exceed the Town Trustees allowances. MIKE KIMACK : Are we talking about the area between the bulkhead and the retaining wall? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes and I think some of the deck as well. It looks as though the as built upper deck is 10 feet closer to the bluff than what was approved. MIKE KIMACK : 5.1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 5.1 feet? MIKE KIMACK : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well this is clearly major construction, very it's practically sitting on top of the bank. MIKE KIMACK : Well that deck has been the deck basically had been approved pretty close to the bank to begin with. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well would you need variances then if you replaced it in kind? MIKE KIMACK : At this particular time basically that extra 5.1 feet when you look at the top of the bank and you look at the vegetation I know that it's a short distance. When you look at the vegetation on the slope itself and at the top of the bank between the top of the bank and the deck it's been a stable situation for some time even with the extra 5.1 feet of the deck there. There's no disturbance of the slope, there's no erosion of the top of the bank itself as it sits and the slope is in good shape. As far as that area that we would call accessory building, the raised decking etc. like that between the bulkhead and retaining wall we do have a proposal for that. My client is prepared to remove it all and to limit the decking to less than a 100 square feet that March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting would simply be able to have a little landing at the bottom of the proposed stairway back to the existing steps to the beach and we would like to be able to leave the existing storage bin in place or to remain. We can move it from the line if that's necessary and leave the existing wood benches in place and the concrete table but everything else, the walkways and everything else save for that 100 square feet would be taken away. That would eliminate the issue of that was raised the other day as to whether or not we have a side yard issue side yard setback issue with an accessory building and I believe the 100 square feet is appropriate simply because it falls within the landing designation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you're saying you will be reducing that 9 foot by 9 foot landing that you're proposing on this site plan? MIKE KIMACK : Oh you're talking about the top of the bluff. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah. MIKE KIMACK : No, no I'm talking about the bottom. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The bottom okay. MIKE KIMACK : That whole area through there Leslie. All that walkways and all the decking etc. like that all the as built we would take all of that out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I suspect that's all Trustees jurisdiction. MIKE KIMACK : Yes it's your jurisdiction because it's within the rear yard setback and it was one of the variance CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Got confused because we don't do bulkheads anymore so it's almost MIKE KIMACK : I know but you do do rear yard setbacks based on the property lines so sticking with the bottom over there sticking between the bulkhead and the retaining wall if you look at those walkways etc. like that the walkways the decking would all come out. Say for 100 square foot the landing and an access egress in order to get back to the existing steps we would like to leave the storage bin in place and the wood benches and the table. At the top of the slope there's an 81 square foot wood platform to go in place that's part of the proposed set of stairs. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let's see if there's any questions here, Pat any questions? Eric? Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yes, what was the nature of this I know we don't do bulkheads but what was the nature of the erosion factor during Storm Sandy? March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : Pretty much none at all. I don't think there was any damage. It was very interesting, I can relate to three properties down which we worked at Gerry. We had a permit for that property basically the elevation the AE VE line at the top of the bulkhead if you look at it the water basically the energy of the water just basically comes right across the top of the bulkhead up against the retaining wall. You did one for us it was Perez Stronsky which was down there, very complicated retaining wall structure etc. like that; the height of that bulkhead is pretty much the same as the height of Ms. Teicher's bulkhead and the AE the VE energy line basically is pretty much within six inches over the top of that. It comes up against the retaining wall. There was an existing deck that was there that you chose not to take jurisdiction on which was under 200 square foot on that one. That one survived Sandy the deck itself so I would have suspected that had things been different these walkways would not have been in any kind of danger of being destroyed but under the circumstances we're proposing to take them out and limit the walkway 200 square feet and just leave a few things in place and just replace everything back the way it was. Generally the energy factor between the bulkhead and the retaining wall has not been an issue. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, I think because there's so much construction going on here and it's already a pretty large deck and you're looking to even expand it more I wanted the very least to pay attention to the LWRP coordinator's comments and get at least some written comments from the Trustees before the ZBA does anything. Does the Board agree with that? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yes. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay because you're going to have to go to them anyway so it's in the best interest of the property owner that we collaborate on this application so that we're not going back and forth and counteracting each other with recommended changes and approvals and so on. Let's work with them and see where we can go so MIKE KIMACK : Can I make one comment, we really I know the original deck had been expanded by the 5.1 feet and we did propose to add an additional 80 some odd square foot to it in two sections which is 1) to square one corner off , 1) to make the egress ingress on the other side. The landing area though is really connected to the stairs themselves. It falls within your jurisdiction even though you're not assuming jurisdiction on the stairs but you are assuming jurisdiction on the landing and the landing basically is less than 100 square feet. It falls within your purview of size at that particular point. So I'm not sure exactly where your LWRP is coming from where they're talking about the grand expansion of the deck itself but they're talking about the as built section? March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think he's talking about all of it. What's there already, what's being proposed? It's clearly deemed to be inconsistent. MIKE KIMACK : He might not have been aware that the Building Department approved you know eighty percent of it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I want to make sure the record is accurate so if he's not aware then we should make him aware and see what his final comments were because he gave us preliminary comments. MIKE KIMACK : Mark may be looking at the fact that he's looking at the deck as completely not approved so therefore he's looking at the deck as a major expansion in and of itself wherein most of the deck had already been approved and constructed with the exception of that which had been done prior to my client purchasing it and with her eighty some odd square foot additions to it in order to square one corner. That may be the confusion. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's the point, I don't want to be confused. I want to make sure we're all very clear about what the concern is. He said that he thinks that exceeds the Town Trustees allowances. I want to verify that it does or it doesn't. So the way to do that is to ask the Trustees to take a look and to provide comments. They may clarify. MIKE KIMACK : Would you be letting them know that the size and square footage of the original approval if you look at my comments in here that I did the square footages are listed in there in terms of CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we have what we'll do is give them our packet. We'll give them our office file. MIKE KIMACK : (inaudible) with a brand new deck that had never been approved. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right understood and I think what we'll do is just give them our entire file with all that information in there so that they can review it, give us comments and then wait and take it from there. MIKE KIMACK : We will also put together a proposal to remove that an architectural rendering of what that new landing will look like and get it to you next week for your file. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Excellent okay. Is there anyone in the audience who wished to address this application, anything from the Board? Hearing no further comments or questions I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this to the April regular meeting and to obtain comments from Trustees and any other comments that any interested party wishes to submit. Is there a second? March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7140— 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for 1505 Birdseye Road, LLC # 7140. This is a request for variances from Article IV Section 280-18, Article XXII Section 280- 105, Article XXII Section 280-116 and the Building Inspector's November 17, 2017 amended November 22, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct a new single family dwelling and to erect deer fence at a height of 8 feet at 1) proposed single family dwelling located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 50 feet, 2) proposed dwelling located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff, 3) proposed deer fence more than the code permitted maximum 4 feet in height when located in the front yard, located at 1505 Birdseye Rd. (adj. to the Long Island Sound) in Orient. Hello again Mike. MIKE KIMACK : Hello again, Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant who is also present. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright let me just enter in to the record the three variances that are part of this application. This is a single family dwelling located 50 feet from the top of the bluff where the code requires 100 feet. This is a front yard setback at 41.7 feet where the code required a minimum of 50 feet and the deer fencing partially in a front yard which is not permitted. It's permitted in side and rear yards. MIKE KIMACK : We're fortunate that my client was able to put together a model of the entire piece of property with the proposed house on it. Is it situated in a way that everyone can see relative to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we can also just get up and go have a look at it. I haven't seen foam core in a while. March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : Well I think in this particular case it's going to be most helpful. I'd like to begin and I'm going to walk away from the mic, I'll talk loudly. Picture it as if the house wasn't on the property at all and you were working with a property that has natural limitations to it and then (inaudible) with the governmental limitations. The entrance off of Birdseye which would be here comes in this way right to this particular point, the property drops down into an area that really is an intermittent ponding area primarily not necessarily a wetland, there's no vegetative wetland plants there but there's a sensitivity factor and I'll just discuss that. It rises up and continues to rise up to its highest point right here and then drops down. Now your jurisdiction and I just simply want to point it out to you, top of the bluff (inaudible) feet back. This property is a little unusual in a sense that about two thirds of that is bluff, the other one third a bank in terms of its percentage. The bluff ends pretty much right here to this particular point and then the bank. Can you hear me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you want to Mike cause we're going to get up and come closer, why don't you pull that table back so that while you're describing it you can be speaking into the MIKE KIMACK : So this is what we're starting with in terms of a not an easy piece of property basically. What we did primarily last August, I put in for a pre-application with the Trustees for a site visit which occurred on September 12th of last summer. They visited the site and we had it staked out where we pointed to them that we would like to be able to move this up the hill 50 feet in order to really stay away from that low ponding area. Their main concern was that low that (inaudible) ponding area. They considered it a sensitive area. They wanted to move it away as much as we could. At that time when you look at that the original house the original proposed structure was 20 feet closer to that area and the road going in to it came pretty much where the bridge is at the present time. So, after that particular meeting the owner Mr. Zapata went back and redesigned it in order to move the roadway away from that low ponding area and move the constricted the house and redesigned the conformance of the house to be 20 feet further away from the pond. That's going to have some significance when we begin to point out all of the things that have to fit within this restricted area primarily and why we're requesting the 50 feet and I'll talk about the 50 feet first. Yeah go ahead Eric. MEMBER DANTES : Is there like a formal comment in here from the Trustees or is this just an informal meeting? MIKE KIMACK : I had the meeting with them basically. This was on site. I'm only going with what they told me when we looked on the site. MEMBER DANTES : But you don't have anything in writing? I understand but there's nothing in writing at this time? March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : No cause I haven't gone to them yet. They're the next after here. They basically wanted that lower area not have any trees cut in that one area pretty much left as it was. There's a lot of dead debris on the property which we would probably be able to take out but this area here all the way through here would be pretty much left unattended for the most part as their request and if you see on one of your map drawings it's laid out that way that one particular area is not to be it's not part of the area to be cleared. So yes we had to basically move away from there but there are other mitigating factors. What we've got here is where the house is situated it is 50 feet from the top of the bank primarily but that's the roof line for the most part. The house is 143 feet from this point to this point, long and narrow for the most part, 3,700 square feet proposed, there's 6,028 square feet roughly of drainage area including the pools, the pond and the patios primarily and basically the way this house is constructed is and the way it's put is to be able to fit where we have the septic area and to also fit where we're able to put the dry wells. It was designed so that the dry wells would not go on the upside but the drywells would go on the down side. If you can see this entire which would be a photovoltaic roof, everything drains this way and the dry wells are going to be right through here. At that particular point the drywells which will take all that water had to be at that particular location which is the lowest point in order to maintain the two feet below them at the particular point two foot to water table cause water table at this point which is the now point right here about three foot below grade. The other thing too is because of the nature (inaudible) the septic area which had been designed, I did the original septic area for the prior owner and we got that septic area approved on site which is this area right here. This is the approved area. It's being amended at the present time. The reason it's there is because it has to be 150 feet away from the proposed well which is back in this corner right here and it has to be 150 feet away from the neighboring wells of which there are two or three and when you draw all of your lines they come (inaudible) this is the only place for the septic area at this point. So the location of a structure of the house in order to have the gravity feed to the septic area is exactly where it needs to be at that particular point. Also what you've got is the grade is going up to the top of the bank so I essence there isn't going to be any drainage that's going to erode that bank any further as a result of this house because not only is all of the storm water going the other way but also all of the natural drainage of the property goes this way too the property is elevating up. This whole hillside over here the whole slope is well vegetated. It hasn't been destroyed by any storms essential like that. It's in good shape. It survived along the way. I will point out that we have D.E.C. approval. D.E.C. limited except for the pathway they limited any kind of removal on that slope to the 26 foot elevation and at 26 foot elevation is roughly right here you see this line right here like this so that there would be no clearing and no cutting of vegetation (inaudible) for the proposed pathway to the beach at the 26 elevation seaward of that, that was in the D.E.C. so we got that. As a result of that the original proposal was to have the deer fence further back but I'll get to the deer fence later. When you look at the 50 foot 0 March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting setback, the house if you can see the structure of the house the proposed pool is here. Actually this corner here to the top of the bluff is 85 feet to the foundation. This point here is 67 feet to the top and the closest point is 61 feet to the foundation. What you got is the 50 foot is really represented by the overhang roofs for the most part. They don't exceed but I want to point out to you that when you the reason for that 100 foot setback is to make sure that there's no degradation at the top of the bank. That there's no in fact the bank erodes that there's enough safe distance that there's going to be no problem with the house or any kind of structural changes on the house. In this particular case there isn't an issue with the slope. It's well vegetated, it's not eroding; D.E.C. has instructed us to make sure there's no cutting of vegetation on that. That's going to be left in place and we're back far enough on the other side going on the downhill slope so that we got the foundation itself is going to be sufficiently well back never to really be a situation that's going to have any kind of impact on that. Another point which is a technical point but I might as well point it out here is you really have from this point to this point 96 feet of bluff by definition and the other part this point here this is all bank so your jurisdiction as this particular point is 96 feet. The house is 143 foot long so one third of it is really on the bank, two thirds of it on the bluff. That portion that's on that connects to the bluff if you run the bluff line back this way parallel to the side line we're setback the foundation is set back from 61 feet to 85 feet because of the way the contour's going there. So yes its 50 feet to the roofline but not to the foundation simply because of the overhangs. We've got and as far as the septic area is concerned it's a tight area right here, (inaudible) is right here and the disposal at this particular point, it's exactly 150 feet away. It's the only place it could go. And from the house perspective from the design perspective of the house it fits the property. Now there is concern I read some of the letters although I didn't have an opportunity to go through them all. Some of the neighbors were concerned about the size and scale of the house. The house basically fits the property. It's designed for the property; it's designed for the views. Given the limitations, both natural and governmental the house works in here and it works in that particular site alone but there is 6,028 square foot of overall area to be drained. That includes the house, roofs and the deck etc. like that but the house itself is 3,740 square feet. There's 2,300 square feet of pool and patio. I must point out that when you configure a house on most properties and you figure the square footage of the house, people never consider the patios and pools being added to that. In this particular case we had no other means or Mr. Zapata had no other means but to put everything within the confines of the same structure. There's no other place on the property to put a pool. There's no other place on the property to put a patio except contain within the design itself. So that when you look at the 6,000 square foot or the 2,300 square foot of the decks etc. like that that would be kind of similar to other people who have patios and pools and walkways that are not part of the square footage of the house itself. I would like to give you a comparison. What you're looking at is the aerial view of the property superimposing the house on the property and the square footage and the square March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting footage of all of the neighboring houses along the way. They're comparable. They're not designed obviously as this is designed but this is the personal choice and personal preference of the owner. This is what he does. This is his design work, but if you note that in terms of the overall aerial and one thing to point out too is if you look at the location of the house in reference to the adjoining houses it's no further and no closer to the water and it's not in their view line at all and also if you look at the house I can point out I'll walk over if you look at this house here their view is this way. Look at the house behind here, their view is this way and then this one their view is this way so the location of the houses not only meets the demands of the natural restrictions of the property and the governmental restrictions imposed but also it's put in a way that doesn't interfere with anyone's line of sight in terms of where the house is being located. Is it an unusual house design? It is in a sense but it does work with this particular piece of property and the restrictions up on it essential like that and given what has to be contained within it etc. like that it does really does not exceed the overall size in comparison to the neighboring itself. Now that's the house and that's the 50 foot setback from the house. The other was the front yard setback which is the walkway bridge which you can see right here from the parking area. That was we didn't want if you there's some soil to have to be added here in order to make the carport. We didn't want to create to build this out too much to interfere with the low area and the bridge basically would be connected to that so this would slope down essentially like here. We wanted to stay away at the foot in here and not be any closer to the ponding area with the fill material. So the bridge basically starts at where the top of that bank begins which is 7 foot closer than I think its 43 feet from the line rather than 50 feet from the line from the front yard line and that was the second variance request. The reason it's not 50 feet is because if we did that in order to build out that far view would be interfering further with the low area drainage at that particular time. So we kept that back in order not to and to see to what we know is going to be the Trustee's concerns that the toe of that new bank that we have to fill that in order for the parking does not interfere with the low drainage area that's that second requirement right there and that bridge was also moved back away from that area. The third request is for a deer fence. Originally the deer fence actually extended all the way down on the down side of the slope itself and when D.E.C.'s comments came back they didn't want that deer fence there. They wanted it left completely undisturbed and my client pulled it back to the house. You can see this line here this represents the deer fence. If you look at the back property line here, there's a row of trees right here and the deer fence basically is almost 50 feet away from there. This is all heavily wooded through here and through here and it ties back to the house. He would like the deer fence because he has animals, he has dogs and it's as much to keep the dogs in as to keep the deer out so that they don't mix but putting the deer fence in that area given the kind of vegetation there and given the fact that it is not going to be visible to any of the neighbors at all it isn't something that is going to be visible, it's not something that's going to be intrusive to the neighbors at that particular point. He's also March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting planning to point out on the roof basically the complete structure of the roof is all going to be photovoltaic. He would like to able to be off the grid completely if possible and with his own electric sources etc. like that. It's a house that has a lot of visual appeal in terms of a lot of glass. It's all glass and steel and concrete. We believe that the design given the uniqueness of this piece of property given the natural limitations imposed upon it, given the government restrictions that this is an given the personal likes of the client that this house fits on that property without unduly causing any kind of problems with a 50 foot setback at all which actually is to the roof line but basically the foundation is even further back from there as I pointed out. I think that is it, if you have any questions of me. MEMBER DANTES : I have a question, the lot next door is that do you know if they have the development rights in tact as a building lot or do you know if they've sold their development rights? MIKE KIMACK :That odd shaped one Eric? MEMBER DANTES : Yes. MIKE KIMACK : I don't know. Theirs is next right here as far as I know right here there's a walkway path that goes down to the water right here which is part of that lot primarily and I don't know if they've got development rights on it or not. MEMBER DANTES : Or is it owned by an association or I mean it says now or formerly but I don't know who owns it now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric there are some neighbors here that I'm sure will want to testify and perhaps they can clarify it. I think before any questions take place number one I think the Board should come down and take a closer look at the model and then there's a number of people in the audience who want to address the application so I want to give them plenty of time to do that too. So why don't we go take a look at the model. If anyone in the audience wants to come forward and do the same thing please join us. If we're going to have a conversation it should be in the record. MIKE KIMACK : Originally we were going we had that roped over so Carlos redesigned it all to just completely stay away from here. I know that some of the concerns were, can you move it back literally 50 feet. We can't because not only are we restricted in getting into this area at all for the most part but we just really aren't able to because of the location of where that septic is here you simply can't actually (inaudible) and that's because the well is here, there's another well here and there's a well over here. (inaudible) this is the septic area see that the only way to (inaudible) the one neighbor's house is here I'm not quite sure who's it is (inaudible) for the most part. (Cannot hear the conversation going on-someone asking a question) My suggestion March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting to Carlos was to make sure we drain everything away from we did not want to introduce any more storm water into the ground that we had to so we put all the storm water devices down here because it would drain in to the water table (inaudible-someone else speaking) and that's one of the reasons we moved the road over. I will tell you one thing and I don't want to do it again, this whole thing is thorn bushes and I've gone up there three times hacking away putting stakes in there. I got torn up basically doing it. It's not an easy piece of property there's no question. When Carlos picked it up his imagination took he put the design together but we worked together to be able to adapt it as much as we could to fit the natural restrictions and the government restrictions on the property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let'sjust review the red markers MIKE KIMACK : Is the property line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are the property lines. This is fencing? MIKE KIMACK : (inaudible) 15 to 20 foot setbacks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Side yards. MIKE KIMACK : This is the fencing. This is the CEA (inaudible) coastal erosion hazard line. As best I can figure I think this roughly is the 26 foot line non-disturbance from the D.E.C. basically so everything this way (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does anyone have any questions that we could put on the record of this otherwise we'll go back to our seats and hear from other people? Pat we can't have conversations off the record thank you. We've had quite a bit of information presented, at this point I'd like to see if there's anyone in the audience who wishes to address the application. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good morning Martin Finnegan, Twomey, Latham, Shea, Kelley, Dubin & Quartararo. I'm here today representing John Josephson and Carolina Zapf and they are the owners of the home and properties located at 1515 Birdseye so their property is here. They also own two other properties along the other side so their property is south of the subject property. We're also joined today by representatives of the (inaudible) family and I believe the letters submitted (inaudible) all of the surrounding property owners in opposition to this application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm just concerned that when you're walking away from the mic that we're picking it up. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Okay I'll stay put. Ms. Zapf and Ms. Jordan and Ms. Livekia have submitted letters but they're also here and they may offer their own comments when I'm done. The March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting overwhelming sentiment from my clients and their neighbors is that the proposed development is entirely out of character with the existing development in their community and that there are in fact feasible alternatives available to achieve the desired benefit here in the absence of variance relief from this Board. You've heard a lot of sort of scientific evidence here today presented by counsel for the applicant and it seems to me that there are no wetlands on the front portion the southern portion of this property. We're basing a lot of this it seems on an informal meeting with the Trustees where there was a low point identified but I think it's important to note that there are no wetlands and there are alternatives and we've invited Mr. Bob Grover here who's an environmental scientist from Grimm and Peterson who's going to speak to the propriety of developing this property at all. There's no question that it's a constrained property but it is located obviously on the sound and there is a bluff there that is protected by code and we certainly contend that there is an alternative configuration that would be entirely compliant with the setback in 280-116 and the bulk schedule and Mr. Grover will speak to that. We also have submitted for the record a letter from Mark Matthews who's an architect who has conducted a site inspection of the property, has evaluated it's conditions and offered his opinion regarding the existence of a substantial as of right building area on the parcel and I'll speak to that in a moment. We're dealing with an application here to construct as you know a six thousand square foot dwelling which includes a terrace and a pool and all that is to occur within 50 foot of the bluff in contrary to the existing 100 foot setback. The applicant also seeks to construct a walkway within the front yard setback and surround the property the front yard with a deer fence. I think in the application itself there's already been an acknowledgment that this relief is substantial. The relief sought is substantial and the difficulty here is self-created. We've had commentary about the foot bridge. I'm not sure why it's needed or why it needs to be within the setback but I think the record will confirm that there are no other deer fences in this community which seems to belie the contention that there is a deer haven there. I know that you're here and you have a job to do which is to conduct your balancing test so I just want to briefly address the 267 criteria. We are confident that the record is going to establish that the detriment to the surrounding community and to the health, safety and welfare of that community opposed by this development is going to far outweigh any perceived benefit to the applicant. I just want to just briefly with respect to whether the variance will produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and a detriment to the properties, clearly a 50 foot deviation from the codes 100 foot setback from the top of the bluff will create an undesirable change. There are no other houses in this area or no other variances have been granted to construct houses so close to the bluff line. There's clearly a reason as was referenced there's a reason for this limitation. There's a reason for the setback because the bluff is fragile and it needs to be protected and Mr. Grover will address that in more detail but our clients submit that a variance of this magnitude is going to lead to erosion, it's going to lead to instability of the bluff, it's going to accelerate the bluff recession March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting and there's no question it's going to impact views. As to the deer fence on the entire front yard as I already mentioned that there are no other deer fences in the community so that's clearly going to change the character of this community particularly running along the entire front yard. There are not only no deer fences in front yards, there are no deer fences at all. As many of the neighbors have stated in their letters, the feeling is that this fencing is going to degrade the quaintness of this small community. It's a beautiful area, it's a beautiful neighborhood and that is going to change the way it looks for everybody. So the granting of setback relief here would clearly create a dangerous precedent for others who would seek similar relief from this Board in the future and I want to speak briefly to a prior case that came before this Board which Gerry you're probably the only one who might remember the Aliano case. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know it. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Leslie you as well. That case as you may recall and for the benefit of the newer Board members involved an area variance permitting the construction of a dwelling 50 feet from the bluff and in that application the applicant proposed to construct a 1,600 square foot house which is obviously substantially smaller than the 6,028 square foot of development that is contemplated here. Among other things the ZBA's determination found that the presence of new impermeable surfaces and the alteration of drainage and soil structure had been responsible for accelerated bluff recession which could result in damage to the proposed dwelling as well as to neighboring properties. In applying your balancing test the Board at that time concluded that the grant of the proposed variance would produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. There was a finding that the variance was too severe and that the proposed area variance to permit construction within the 50 foot setback was substantial and also there was a finding of self-creation of the difficulty and as a result the variance was denied. There was an Article 78 that followed which was dismissed by the Supreme Court and on appeal the Appellate Division upheld this Board's action finding that it was rational and reasonable under the circumstances. We've explained that whole thing in more detail in the written submission that I've provided and I also gave a copy of the case all of the case through the procedural history of that starting with the ZBA's determination through the Appellate Courts but sufficed to say that the concern for the stability of the bluff led to the denial of the application of a 1,600 square foot house in Aliano and here a structure nearly four times that is proposed. No question in our mind that alternatives could exist. Dealing with a parcel that's over an acre 1.36 acres about 59,000 square feet but the proposal here is to develop 19% of that almost maximize the available lot coverage on a property that the applicant understands does have some constraints. Feasible alternatives exist. We have submitted the letter as I mentioned of Mark Matthews who has offered an opinion and I would like to just there's an attachment to that but this is just a copy of the attachment to the letter that was submitted that shows there's a buildable area of nearly March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting 13,000 square feet on the southern end of the parcel. Now you've heard some conflicting testimony about the constraints there whatever but yes it's a low area. There's a lot of properties with low areas that can be built up. There could be grading, there can be fill placed in it, there could be retaining walls, there is the ability to build in that area and not getting anywhere near the bluff and to honor the setback and that is what Mr. Matthews as (inaudible) Mr. Grover will elaborate on. So, while the applicant may be required to perhaps downsize, reduce the length of the pool or the terrace, make a smaller structure, move some earth we submit that the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community significantly outweighs the benefit sought by the applicant if he is relieved of the obligation to make some changes here. There is substantial vegetation on the northern end of the property as has been submitted for the record and it would be a lot harder to clear in this area we believe than in the southern end which is less vegetated. As for the walkway we're talking eight feet. I think that there's a way again with grading, with movement of earth or whatever to not invade the front yard setback and move that walkway to the extent that is required eight feet back. So substantiality I've already mentioned a fifty percent variance from the 100 foot setback particularly when you're talking about a bluff setback where the code clearly states that it should not be fewer than a 100 feet is a substantial variance. As the Aliano case again I'll refer to that is very similar and in their Board found that a 50 foot variance from a bluff is substantial and it is indeed substantial here as well. The 50 foot variance from the 100 foot setback would have an adverse impact on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood without question. It would bring the house substantially closer to the Sound. As in Aliano the presence of impermeable surfaces near the bluff changes in vegetation, in soil structures, septic system placement all that can accelerate bluff recession that will negatively impact on the Sound and neighboring properties. As for self-creation is there really a difficulty here? Obviously whatever the problem is this applicant bought this property understanding as an architect I assume we can hold him to an understanding and even if he weren't he's charged with knowledge of our zoning rules, of our setbacks so I don't think it can be stated that this is anything other than self-created. This is a choice to design a property in what is the you know with the best view to place it where he's placing it and we believe that there are feasible alternatives available to moving the property to the south and a location in compliance with the code. The walkway can be reduced in size and the deer fence there's a reason why there's a restriction on deer fences in the code in front yards, it's because they're ugly, they're unsightly and there's recognition that they shouldn't be there and there's a way to control deer outside of the front yard so we believe that there's really no basis for granting relief from that code section. March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I was just going to ask you, the other properties we have this aerial you have the same thing over there, are there any other non-conforming bluff setbacks of these houses? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Not that I'm aware of. The research that we did we couldn't find any other variance relief granted to any other of the neighboring structures in that area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So they're all conforming to the bulk schedule in your research? MARTIN FINNEGAN : I believe so yes. Anyway bottom line is on behalf of Mr. Josephson and Mr. Zapf we submit that on balance the indisputable detriment to the environment and to the neighboring properties caused by granting the requested variances far outweigh any benefit to the applicant particularly in a case where feasible alternatives exist and so we're going to respectfully request that the application be denied. I'd like to invite Mr. Grover to come up and speak and then I believe some of the neighbors might want to comment as well. MEBER DANTES : Leslie while I was driving through some of those houses look pretty old so there might be some Pre C.O's in that area. I don't know about area variances but some of those structures are old. What I'm saying if it's a Pre C.O. it might not conform to the bulk schedule (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's just if you eyeball it you know on this aerial it looks like some of them are about the same location from the but the bluff can vary you know it's not necessarily a straight line so it's just indicative of character of the neighborhood that's all. I just wanted to find out if we can find out a bit more about that. Please state your name for the record. ROBERT GROVER : Good morning yes my name is Robert Grover. I'm a director of environmental and coastal sciences for Green and Peterson Inc. otherwise known as GPI in Babylon New York. I submitted a letter which you should all have and attached to that letter I believe was my resume. I'm not going to belabor too much of that. I think one highlight I should point out is I've been serving for several years now more than ten years now as the Suffolk County's consultant on that Fire Island restoration project and then that continued on to the massive Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point project so I'm very familiar with coastal issues and since I don't think that I'm familiar to any of you let me just talk a little bit about my background in Southold. I've been doing this for over forty five years now and going all the way back in to the seventies I was retained by the Suffolk County Attorney's Office to do what I believe was the first quantitative study of the erosion rates at what is still always in the paper Kenney's Beach. That was in the seventies a long time ago and then fast forwarding a little bit in to the eighties I represented for several years the Peconic Sound Shores Association in this room many, many times many late nights trying to broker appropriate deal that would maintain March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting the ecological and water quality integrity of Goldsmith Inlet still one of my favorite spots. After Sandy I worked very hard trying to restore the access to Orient State Park so we rebuilt that road for them. They lost in the course of one night about twenty feet of shoreline which is not untypical for a (inaudible) which that is not a bluff but it kind of leads me into the topic of what happens during storms. So I'm going to talk just very briefly about the natural processes that occur on a bluff. They applicant's representative seemed to indicate that this is a very stable bluff, it's well vegetated. I agree it is well vegetated. Bluffs in general on the Sound here still if you do historic analysis they retreat at a rate of anywhere from one to three feet per year and that was kind of the rationale for the coastal erosion hazard line and by the way they have new maps still waiting for them to release them. They're going to be much more restrictive than the current maps but the point is yes we do have a chronic erosion problem with these bluffs it can't be ignored but that's not the only thing that happens. During Sandy for an example and I've seen this many times on bluff on long island. I had clients on Shelter Island who in the course of five minutes during Sandy lost had a catastrophic collapse of the bluff and they lost twenty to thirty feet of bluff instantaneously. That is not unusual it happens all the time. In this particular case when the applicants requesting a 50 foot setback, if he has one of those catastrophic bluff failures and by the way the bluff in Shelter Island was even more heavily vegetated than this all of a sudden you have one more catastrophic bluff fail away from losing your house. That's one of the reasons we have this 100 foot setback. There's a reason for a 100 foot setback. Now let me speak a little bit more specifically about this property. In my opinion this property is just not suitable for development. I'm not saying it's not possible. I work in an engineering firm with thirteen hundred engineers. I know if they can do, they can do some pretty amazing things but from a coastal management and coastal processes standpoint if a client came to me and said I want to buy this property and develop it I'd say I'm not going to represent you. I think it's completely unwise to even attempt to develop this property. Not only that and this model kind of proves my point, there's plenty of room between the actual 100 foot setback and what was erroneously referred to as a pond and I want to talk about that a little bit. There's at least 50 feet between the 100 foot setback and this what I'm going to refer to correctly as a swale so there's a building envelope there, the views not going to be as good. There's going to be some engineering required but it's usually done. Any engineer worth his salt who does site plan work can engineer a building lot that is perfectly suitable. The sanitary issue that was raised by the applicant's representative that can be solved as well and none of these bluff setbacks are necessary. I don't really this is just an arbitrary self-imposed hardship. I can't imagine you would entertain granting something like this. Now what would be the impact of putting the house there? Well it could be severe. Again there's reasons why we have a 100 foot bluff setback. It's a setback that I recommended to the Town of East Hampton when I was their consultant back in the eighties so there's precedent for going way back and by the way to answer one of your questions I'm sure there are some older houses in the neighborhood that March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting are probably non-conforming with your bluff setback. We know more than we did then. We knew more in the eighties than when we did then but it takes a while for the codes to catch up to the science in many cases so there may be some houses but they're non-conforming and they were built before everybody had the complete awareness that they have now which was obviously heightened by hurricane Sandy. So putting this house up here what's it going to do I mean they're going to have to dig a foundation, there's going to be heavy equipment up there, they're talking about a pool which is extremely heavy. I did not hear them address what they're going to do with the back wash water, where's which going to be discharged? That could be an issue and could cause problems with discharging water in to the bluff soils but I'm really concerned about the idea of on the top of a sensitive bluff like this bringing heavy equipment and operating heavy equipment because when you're operation heavy equipment on a bluff on long island bluff soils, these are glacial soils what happens is the vibrations of the equipment cause the soil particles to slip against each other and that alone can cause one of these catastrophic failures. It doesn't happen often but it certainly can and it's certainly a scary thought. The deer fence is mystifying to me. Looking at the model I'm not sure if the deer fence is designed to keep the deer in or to keep the deer out. The applicant's attorney said it was you know partially to keep the dogs in, I am convinced I'm the biggest dog lover in this room and I have dogs and I keep them on my property very simply with a simple wire buried in the ground the perimeter that I don't want them to cross and they wear a collar and when they get near the collar the collar beeps and they stop they realize they're not allowed and it takes very little training to keep a dog yard trained and I've never had a problem with it. Now there are two other things I wanted to real quick I want to mention to you, the grading as shown on this model is incorrect in my opinion. There's some interpellation of the grades that extend off the site. If you look at the applicant's survey you'll see that the grading only goes to the property line, the topography only goes to the property line. I have here I'd be happy to leave it with you it's very hard to see but we have in our office in our library we have NYS DOT light (inaudible) for all of New York and is very precise, very accurate topography and it clearly shows that depression area again erroneously referred to earlier as a pond is actually a swale that continues further towards the northeast and eventually drains down the face of the bluff so it's not a self-contained pond like that. It's the head waters of a swale and filling it would have no impact whatsoever. The characterization by the applicant's attorney that this depression area was more sensitive than the bluff has no basis whatsoever in science. It's just a ridiculous statement to make. Finally I would contend that the I'm not sure who determined on the survey the top of the bluff but it's wrong and I can demonstrate on their model if you'd like or I can show you on the survey but there's a continuing rise past to the south past what is they show the top of bank on their survey as along the 32 or I want to say it's the I can't read it anyway you can see there's another rise to the south and that's accurate so the top of the bluff is basically misrepresented by roughly eight to ten feet. So now all of a sudden the proposed 50 March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting foot variance is a 60 foot variance. It's an even more egregious variance. The house rather than being 50 foot from the top of the bluff is really closer to 40 and again I can show you on the model or I can show you on the topo if you'd like me to come up and point it out to you but that's something that needs to be corrected because it causes the proposed house to become even more non-conforming and that's a further concern to me. So I think that kind of wraps up my concerns. This is a very important application because it has serious implications. I don't know what kind of precedence it might set for the town but I would think that they would be severe and I highly recommend that this be denied and that the applicant be invited to explore a conforming alternative to the location of the house which is very doable and I would be happy to answer any questions you have. MEMBER DANTES : Can you just mark up a survey where you think the top of the bluff ROBERT GROVER : I can mark up one of yours if you like. MEMBER DANTES : Yeah that's fine. ROBERT GROVER : This one doesn't show the top of bluff as they staked it out but the actual top of bluff it goes see this is a little hill here yeah that'll do that has the topo on it. (inaudible) determine that this was the top of bluff but they have the top of the bluff you can see where that line is and then you can see it goes up two feet and then there's a hill here so clearly the real top of bluff goes through the top of that hill and then follows something like that so this distance unfortunately this is not to scale so I can't measure it for you CHAIRPERSON WEIMSAN : No but the contour intervals are about ten feet I think. MEMBER DANTES : Can you put your initials on there when ROBERT GROVER : Sure. UNAMED SPEAKER :This was done by a surveyor by the way. ROBERT GROVER I understand that but surveyors do this wrong all the time. I mean it's anybody can look at that and say this is the top of bluff not this. MIKE KIMACK : What grade elevation are you picking? ROBERT GROVER : This is top of bluff right here not this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks like it's one contour interval. ROBERT GROVER : Yes one and a half. March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK :This is the top of the bluff as determined by the surveyor. ROBERT GROVER : Incorrectly in my opinion. MIKE KI MACK : As far as we're concerned it was correct. T.A. DUFFY : Did he follow our code or make his own determination? MIKE KIMACK :There's a little high knoll in here but it's not T.A. DUFFY : Did he follow our code and use our definition of top of bluff or did he do his own determination? MIKE KIMACK : Well top of bluff would be a continual basically T.A. DUFFY : We define top of bluff, did your architect or your surveyor follow our definition of top of bluff? MIKE KIMACK : Yes. ROBERT GROVER : Unfortunately in my experience surveyors are not always experts in coastal theology so that's what we're dealing with. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look folks we've spent an awful lot of time. We have a lot of other hearings in front of us and there's an awful lot to digest. I will allow some continuation but please make your comments direct and brief. Clearly I think there's more to uncover and I'm not sure we should close this. I think we should probably continue it. We do need we have some conflicting information about whether it's a pond or a swale and what the Trustees opinion was and of course this will require Trustees approval also so once again we're back and forth and we want to make sure that we find a way of coordinating the information so that we're all informed to the same extent. We certainly will need some comments from the Trustees in writing to confirm what your meeting with them was Mike. I want to give the neighbors and who is being represented by counsel an opportunity to look at that also and see if they have any comments or their expert has any comments so I can see that this is going to continue but I certainly want to give you an opportunity to address us now that you've heard a good deal of information. MEMBER DANTES : I'm looking at the site plan (inaudible) it's labeled top of bluff but there isn't a stamp a surveyors stamp or an engineer's stamp. MIKE KIMACK : You have a survey in there from Peconic Surveyors MEMBER DANTES : It doesn't label the top of the bluff does it? March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : Yes it does. MEMBER DANTES : Does it have a line on it? MIKE KIMACK : Yeah. MEMBER DANTES : I have a label but I don't have a line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look those are details that we will be continuing so those are details we can certainly ask for and obtain. MIKE KIMACK : May I make some short comments? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes you may. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Excuse me Mike, do you want to hear from the neighbors first and then let Mike follow up or CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we have certainly things in writing and so those comments are part of the public record but if you would like to make very brief comments please hold your comments just to a minute or two so that we can get to some of the other hearings. We will again continue this hearing so it's not over. You'll have a chance to speak again at greater length if you wish but Mike why don't we let you make a couple of comments and see if the neighbors want to chime in. MIKE KIMACK : Look the comments about the fragility of the bluff, to be fair probably given the right storm that's coming our way and giving the right type of hit it's going to be every bluff is going to be subject to some kind of degradation. This one has not to the extent that it has taken Sandy and all the other prior storms to it, it was left in place. The beach below it is well sanded; it doesn't look like it's been really DE gradated that much. Will there be a storm in the future that comes along and takes out half of Long Island maybe along with everything else but at the present time and given what we know that area is well vegetated and protected. D.E.C. set that 26 foot line basically so they to be that they used I sent them the survey showing the top of the bluff where that was. They chose the 26 foot line to protect the vegetation. They feel that that protects the vegetation on the slope at that particular point and then that was where their jurisdiction ended at the 26 foot line. If you can look at that under any circumstance from wherever the top of the bluff you may consider everything goes back, nothing drains toward it. It all drains back towards the low area. I called it a ponding area, the Trustees looked at it as a wetland ponding area. It doesn't have an outlet. There's no culvert on it so whatever water runs in there in the springtime. It accumulates into an intermittent pond. That's what it is and they looked at it we get a letter from the Trustees, they looked at it. It's a sensitive area; they March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting wanted it away from there as much as possible. The location to whoever the architect was laid it out to move this down another 50 feet puts us right in to that low area and we can't be there. The Trustees will tell us we can't be there, we shouldn't be there. The only place we can be is where the house is now located. It doesn't interfere with the slope, it doesn't interfere with the integrity of the slope primarily and all of the water that we have coming off of the house, off of the property drains back into that low area so there's no (inaudible) and as far as the construction my background and I might as well lay it out for you right now. I have built two hundred homes, golf courses, ski areas, sewage treatment plants, roads, dams, bridges over the years. I know soils, I know conditions, I know construction. What that gentleman was talking about was the ponding of the (inaudible) requires any kind of vibration requires some kind of water to get in there to be able to (inaudible). The water depth of where is 19 feet down. There's not going to be any of that occurring. We already had approval of the septic area from the Health Department. So they've already approved that location. There's isn't a question as to where it's supposed to go. One of their requirements is that it has to be at least 65 feet back from the top of the bluff which it is and that's one of the reasons it's in that location no less than that or at least 100 feet back from the top of the bluff and that's why it was there. So Health Department had their own location about where the septic system was going. There is no what that that house can be relocated lower down the bank no way into that area. What I can basically do is while I'll let you to your own thing is contact the Trustees and have them put together a letter as a result of the meeting that we had and their recommendations to us which was taken up and put on to that plan. If you look at one of those plans that I gave you, you'll see the area that has been set aside from any cutting essential like that at their request. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well at the very least we need to have their comments because they are a Board that you're going to have to get approval from and we'll have to see what they have to say. Perhaps may need to get their approvals first before we make decisions. This is where it's very, very difficult process wise to figure out. MIKE KIMACK : We've been there before. That may be a possibility that we may go if you so desire we may go to the Trustees and then have that delineated as we delineate it so that we can remove that as a speculative issue in terms of what their concerns and requirements will be given the property and you're right, I do not speak for them but I can only tell you what we discussed when we visited the site and what their concern was when they looked at this. As a matter of fact they didn't want any clearing without one of them being present in that particular area if I remember correctly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright you know these are just things that have to be accurately represented in the public records with writing and so on and we'll have to determine March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting procedurally what the best way to move forward on this is but before we conclude for today I'd like to see if the neighbors want to make some very brief comments or Martin on your behalf. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Just very quickly, I think we've heard a lot of you know here say here today about Trustees, D.E.C. and I agree that it would be appropriate cause I can't speak for the Trustees either but I find it really hard to believe that they are preferring to protect and an unidentified low area that's not a wetland before they would want to protect the bluff. That doesn't seem to be consistent at all with their mission. As to the D.E.C. and this 26 foot thing and whatever that is I'm not aware of any evidence in the record what that means or what that is so clearly we have a drainage code that can deal with issues of drainage when there's development and all that would have to happen and occur so those issues can be addressed and if there's a natural swale there then it can accommodate drainage and so I don't think that that is a reason to (inaudible) the bluff setback but enough said I will just turn the floor over. MIKE KIMACK : I will get you a copy of the D.E.C. approval. CAROLINA ZAPF : I'm Carolina Zapf. We are the owners of 700, 900 and 1515 Birdseye Rd. since 2004. My family has owned a home in Orient for thirty five years and has spent about four to five months at our home with my three children. Every treasure quaint and historic neighborhood we're a community, we all take care of our neighborhood if it means clearly snow or cleaning up the beach we all kind of stick together and very thoughtful to keep our neighborhood that way. If there's alterations made or even some new constructions they always fit in to our little community. The construction of this building is going to change our neighborhood a lot also which is not being addressed is that we own a property right next to the construction and which is a vacant lot right now. If ever we would chose to build there it would totally be in front of that lot which is something I want to point out. It's not being developed right now but I just wanted to add that. So that's pretty much I mean you heard all the scientific reasons why this should not be allowed but I just wanted to also point out that it is a historic neighborhood and this is very out of sorts of what the neighborhood is about. MEMBER DANTES : I have a question for(inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Excuse me Ms. Zapf could you come back to the MEMBER DANTES : So you have a lot directly to the east of the applicants? CAROLINA ZAPF : It's right next to it 1515. MEMBER DANTES : It's directly to the east? CAROLINA ZAPF : It's like this odd shaped one yeah. March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : It's a buildable lot? CAROLINA ZAPF : It has development rights but we (inaudible) LESLIE LAVECHIA : Hi my name is Leslie LaVechia. I live at 908 Birdseye Rd. I've owned the home for about five and half years and I can't emphasize enough how much we absolutely love it and similar to Carolina the reason we bought it was because of how special the area was in terms of a coastal line, in terms of how the house is situated facing north facing the Sound. In terms of the deer fence we have two black labs and I want to preface it with the fact I'm probably not supposed to say some of this stuff but I feel bad that you have to go through all of this, but we have two black labs and we have no fence and we have no electric fence whatever. When I do some bike riding up to the point it's not unusual for me to see a dead deer hanging over the fences and I don't really know if that's the reason that eight foot fences are not allowed I don't know and also a lot of the documentation refers to eight feet, six feet or four feet. I'm really not sure what the rules are but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I can clarify if you'd like. LESLIE LAVECHIA : Well I just don't want to see a dead deer and if that's the purpose of the lower limit for the fencing then that should be the end of the story. The other thing I wanted to mention in terms of this drainage going south and again I have no expertise. I'm a CPA and I don't really know a lot of other things but I was here physically for super storm Sandy and the devastation was quite extreme so I can just imagine a heavy rain storm like we're supposed to get tomorrow and the water is going south and it has no place to go. I mean the drains are going to fill up and there's just going to more of it as the property is going to be filled by a parking lot, a house, a swimming pool and a patio. I know from my own property every year I have to put soil in and I'm quite a bit of feet off the shoreline just because of erosion. So I can't imagine a house and a swimming pool and a parking lot and a patio and that not happening and of course the walkway to the beach. So that's just my extreme concern. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. Can you make this very brief please? MANDY JORDAN : Yes. My name is Mandy Jordan. I'm at 1105 Birdseye Rd. right behind this house and I'm up high. It's not going to ruin my view or anything like that. I'm just concerned if we change the setbacks then the next house is going to have that as a they're going to be able to set theirs back and I just don't want it to you know just like stick with the rules. I think there's a reason that we have these setbacks and I just want to stick with the way CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you and thank you for being brief. So there are some things that we would like to have entered in to the record. We want to get some more comments from Trustees, from D.E.C. I want to give you an opportunity to look at those to review March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting everything and I think the Board is going need to have a second bite of this apple. We're going to have to find out whether or not once we've seen that information we should ask Trustees approval go first and adjourn. We won't start over, we can adjourn subject to that approval which means you won't have to do anymore mailings or things like that except just once (inaudible) send out a notification once the another MIKE KIMACK : Make I just make a suggestion? When we did the original pre-application with the Trustees in September there's a new Board now so we've got two new members and perhaps what I could do basically is do another pre-application and have the Trustees look at it given the new designs etc. like that because if we want them to respond in writing they're going to be (inaudible) to be able to respond. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well they'll have to have firsthand knowledge. They're going to have to have an application in front of them. MIKE KIMACK : And this was some time ago. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They don't have this particular application? MIKE KIMACK : They don't have this particular application or this particular design. This was not available at the time when I went out there. So we have much more information as what we were doing there now is we went out there without any of this with just a rough sketch of a house of what we proposed within the 50 feet and we looked at the property under that condition. They have not seen this so I perhaps think if we are going to look if you're going to look to the Trustees for their recommendation they need more information than they have now or they were able to gather at a time when the Board had a different makeup and they didn't have all of this background information. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that makes sense. MIKE KIMACK : So I could put a pre-application get them out there again so that if they're going to give you a letter they're giving you a letter under informed circumstances. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Absolutely. I wouldn't want it any other way. What do you think May back here in May is that enough time? MIKE KIMACK : Well if I put the letter in I can get an April pre-application out of them. They could get the letter to you for May. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then why don't we do that. Why don't I make a motion to adjourn this till May which leaves the record open for any additional written or other documentation anyone wants to submit maybe to verify the top of the bluff once again either from your March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting surveyor and or their engineer and we'll just get as much information together as we can so that we really understand the full impacts and what the Trustees thinking is. They're the ones that has to grant approval. Get a copy of the D.E.C.'s MIKE KIMACK : I'll also get you Health Department approval of the septic system. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Health Department yeah the more we have in the record the more we'll be able to discern the probable outcome. So I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to May 3rd at 10 o'clock. We'll be back here on May 3rd at 10 o'clock and we'll see what's turned up. Meanwhile just so you're aware, these records may all be seen disclosed by coming in to our office and filling out a F.O.I.L. request and of course courtesy is that any attorneys representing both parties will automatically get this information. MEMBER DANTES : Can we ask the Town Engineer to review this? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I believe he's done some preliminary but we should get him because they're going to have to comply with the storm water management chapter of the code anyway and they're going to need a drainage plan for the Building Department so MIKE KIMACK : We've already put that together. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good then we'll have a look at that can you submit that to us and Jaime also we'll send it to Jaime Richter? MIKE KIMACK : Storm water management are on the plans basically. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh fine alright. MIKE KIMACK : (inaudible speaking away from microphone) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright well we'll have Jaime look at it and comment. Okay there's a motion to adjourn to May 3rd at 10 o'clock. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER GEOHRINGER : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 7139 — MONAY BELL and JAMES BRENNAN (BRYAN NICHOLSON AS CONTRACT VENDEE) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Monay Bell and James Brennan (Bryan Nicholson as Contract Vendee # 7139. This is a request for a waiver of merger petition under Article II Section 280-10A to unmerge land identified as SCTM#1000-48-2-23 which has merged with SCTM#1000-48-2-22.1 based on the Building Inspector's October 4, 2017 Notice of Disapproval which states that a non-conforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or non-conforming lot held in common ownership with the first lot at any time after July 1, 1983 and that non-conforming lots shall merge until the total lot size conforms to the current bulk schedule requirements (minimum 40,000 sq. ft. in the R40 Residential Zoning District) located at 360 Flint Street in Greenport. Is there someone here to represent the application? KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN : I was going to say good morning but I think it's good afternoon now. My name is Kevin McLaughlin. I'm an attorney here in Southold and I'm here representing Bryon Nicholson contract vendee on the vacant lot. So, just a little history of the lots, tax map lot #22.1 which I'll refer to as the house lot consists of .258 acres and it's improved by a single family dwelling. The dimensions of the lot are 100 by 112.5 feet. There are certificates of occupancy on the property. That property was purchased by Susan Green in 1961. It's a combination of two lots on the original subdivision called Map of Driving Park that was filed December 1, 1909 with the Suffolk County Clerk as Map #369. After that tax map lot #23 the vacant lot that's my client is under contract to purchase and it joins this lot and it consists of .129 acres of vacant land so 50 by 112.5 feet. That lot was purchased by Susan Green and her brother Hayward Johnson as joint tenants in 1981. This was lot 85 on that same subdivision map. As you can see the Susan Green intentionally checker boarded these two lots. She owned the house lot solely in her name and then she purchased the adjoining vacant lot with her brother. Unfortunately she didn't realize that if her brother predeceased her she would be the sole owner of both of the lots and of course that's exactly what happened. He passed away and at that point of course there's a deemed merger of the lot. He died in 1984 but of course Susan Green never knew that there was a merger of the lots as she continued to receive separate tax bills on the two lots. So here we are with this effective merger of the two lots so we're here before this Board seeking a waiver of merger and basically there are four criteria under the statute that this Board is to consider in any waiver of merger application and the first is that the lot proposed to be recognized hasn't been transferred to an unrelated person or out of the 3 March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting since the time of the merger was effected. The time the merger was effective Susan Green owned the property. There's an affidavit in your packet from Monay Bell who is in fact the great granddaughter of Susan Green and she is the current owner of the vacant lot. Susan Green passed the vacant lot down to her daughter Gloria Murane I believe her name is pronounced and then it went from Gloria down to the granddaughter Monay Bell who still currently owns the property. So there has been no transfer of the vacant lot out of that family. The second criterion is that the proposed lot to be recognized is comparable in size to the majority of the improved lots in the neighborhood. You've got a copy of the relevant tax map page. You also have a copy of the original subdivision map and I will be handing up to you along with a copy of a letter a copy of a google maps picture basically showing all the lots in the neighborhood. The original subdivision lots were basically all the same size 50 by 112.5; again the house lot next door that this lot has merged with was made in to a double lot. They took two of those original subdivision lots and made it into one and then they have what they thought was the separate vacant lot next door which is a standard sized lot in that neighborhood and if you look at all of the evidence clearly this is in fact very comparable in size to the vast majority of the lots in that section. If the waiver of merger were not granted you'd basically have a triple sized lot that would be much larger than the rest of the lots in the neighborhood. The third criterion is that the proposed lot to be recognized is vacant and it has historically been treated and maintained as a separate and independent residential lot. It's always been a vacant lot. It's overgrown, it's never been any use in conjunction with the neighboring house lot, there's never been a driveway or any kind of outbuilding or anything on this lot and in fact the only thing that happens unfortunately with this lot is people use it sometimes as a dumping ground. So it's basically our position that if a waiver of merger is granted my client intends to build a small modest sized home on the lot that will fit with the neighborhood and this will in fact be a good thing for the neighborhood instead of having an overgrown vacant lot that people like to throw things into. The fourth thing is the proposed waiver and recognition will not create an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Again, this is just going to be one additional similar sized lot in a neighborhood of very similarly sized lots. There's public water so there's no issue with that. Again, the house lot next door is twice the size of most lots and this one will be virtually identical with the vast majority of the lots in the neighborhood. So there really should be almost no impact on the neighborhood or district so for all of those reasons we respectfully requesting that there be a waiver of merger granted so that my client can purchase the property and put a nice modest sized house on it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Kevin, Monay Bell is the one who inherited through the family line from Green down to KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN : Yes, Susan Green is her great grandmother. 3 March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Whose James Brennan? KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN : He's independent he's not related but he owns the house lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The one next door that's the double lot? KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN : Yeah he owns the double lot now he's the current owner of the double lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He's down because that's what merged is that correct? KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN : Correct and he has signed the necessary papers to allow this to go forward. He has no objection to it. As far as I know no one has objected to this application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just wanted to verify that that was the owner of the cause the family does not own that developed lot. KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN : Does not own that lot right. They transferred that out at that time when they didn't realize that there had been a merger. If anybody has any questions I'm available. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He just has to be on the record approving it because it's obviously merged with his property. He has to be on the application because obviously his lot Brennan's lot has merged with Monay KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN : Correct. Also the applicant is here if you have any questions we'd be happy to answer. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I think you've gone through the criteria and unlike area variances there isn't much wiggle room. You either qualify or you don't qualify and I think you've addressed at least to my satisfaction the circumstances. Does the Board have any questions, anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting HEARING #7141—JOANNA DIXON REISMAN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Joanna Dixon Reisman # 7141. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's November 22, 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 2360 North Sea Drive in Southold. So we're looking at a front yard setback of 17 feet the code requiring 40. It's a property with two front yards. ROB HERMANN : Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. My goal is to try to help you make up some of your lost time but I want to give you at least briefly give you the whole picture for my client's sake. We are asking for a 17 foot setback where 40 foot is required for construction of what is roughly a 20 by 24 partially covered attached deck on the north side of the house. The most significant element of this application and why we're here is that the front yard relief does not actually relate to the front yard at least not the front yard that Mrs. Reisman or the neighborhood would view or consider to be their front yard which is the yard in front of the house facing North Sea Rd. Rather on the north side of the house and I've put a blow up a little bit of a blow up of the survey here. On the north side of the house there is an unopened paper jog in the town roadway where North Sea Drive transitions into Hortons Lane. You wouldn't know from driving down that road that these are two different roads but on that slight curve in front of the beach town beach parking lot it does transition from North Sea Drive to Hortons and unfortunately because this paper jog makes it just far enough east that the north side of the applicant's house and the location of the deck faces that the Building Department has determined that this is a partial second front yard for this part of the property and thus the variance. Now if this paper jog were not here we exceed what would be the required 15 foot setback for the principle structure from the side. The other unique element of this application is that this property here which was previously owned by a former client of mine who I actually helped in the process of having the Community Preservation Fund from the town purchased the property so this is now and this is a view of that property to the north or to the east I should say this is now preserved land adjacent to Lake Pond in the town's CPF so this is not a neighbor so to speak. This is not going to ever be presumably not ever going to be occupied land or developed land. Interestingly we actually had some conversations with the town about whether we could do a road abandonment for this jog here at least part of it because presumably the town wouldn't purchase this for preservation and then cut a section of it open and pave it but nobody felt completely comfortable with the idea that you know maybe someday you might need it for drainage or something like that but my point is in the presentation is that for all intense and purposes this is preserved land here there's no neighbor that's going to be impacted by the relief that's been granted here. The neighbor across the March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting street Mr. (inaudible) who I think is here today it actually exceeds the front yard setback requirement relative to North Sea Drive and for the neighbor to the west obviously the deck is completely on the opposite side of the house not something this neighbor would ever see not from his property anyway. MEMBER DANTES : What's the difference between the deck and the road itself? How far is the actual pavement away from the deck? ROB HERMANN : I got a scale I can tell you. If one of you can find it faster then I can you see what the scale is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I've got it looks as though from the front yard setback of the dwelling is 51.3 ROB HERMANN : Okay so from the nearest to Eric's question the distance from the nearest point of the existing edge of pavement to the nearest point of the proposed deck is about 70 feet maybe 71 feet. Thanks Eric that's actually a great point I wasn't prepared to make. Well again only because we've been trying to operate under the assumption that this might actually be you know open and paved (inaudible) the setback be because that's what the Building Department actually takes it from but it's a great point. From the actual roadway that exists today it's more than 70 feet from that point. Just very quickly popular phrase today, with respect to the design really ideally the applicant would have loved to do this completely in the back because there's already a deck in the back but because of the fresh water wetlands associated with Lily Pond when the Vasquez's developed this property I was involved with those permits years ago the D.E.C. imposed a 65 foot wide non-disturbance buffer adjacent to the wetland boundary so there just isn't room. Ms. Reisman is also proposing a hot tub in the back of the house but that's not before this Board because it has not been determined to need a variance. Leslie if you want to peak at the hot tub on the plan just make sure so we don't have to come back a second time but basically there is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's on the plans. ROB HERMANN : It is on the plan yes. There's a small hot tub with some steps down to it on the back side so basically the way that this is designed is the sliders open to the back of the house which you can see here so basically part of the deck that's uncovered is just really an extension of this walk that will come out this way and then turn with the section of and you can see CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The bay window is staying it's just kind of poking out into the March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting ROB HERMANN : Right so it kind of works its way around and then it just becomes sort of a covered outdoor space that they can sit on and eat at and enjoy because the deck in the back is pretty narrow. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any intention of enclosing it with conditioned space? ROB HERMANN : There's no intention. Her plan is to actually an outdoor recreational space to this. I couldn't honestly say to you that she would never imagine doing that but I can honestly tell you it's not something she ever discussed with me. It seems that what she wants is you know for the house to have an actual covered deck space that you can be outside and that they can you know just to give them more space to use and enjoy. Environmentally there really aren't physical impacts to discuss here. I discussed them a little bit in the application. We are proposing drainage because part of the deck will be covered though in terms of the wetlands setback the nearest point of the new deck will actually be a couple feet farther from the wetlands than the existing deck so there's no additional encroachment on the wetlands. The lot coverage we end up coming still to less than 13% 1 think 12.7% so we're not at any risk of having any issues there and honestly I think this is one of the rare cases, it's getting harder and harder to prove that these variance requests are not self-created. I would argue that this one isn't because I can tell you that until we filed started discussing the Building Department and putting in application for this I know that Mrs. Reisman had no idea that she had a road on the northeast side of her house so in this case you know we're just really stuck between a rock and a hard place with the wetlands in the back and this unopened paper road on the side. It's not a substantial proposal I think it's reasonable and just for the record I tried to look to see if there are any similar cases in the past, throughout North Sea Drive there's really only one other corner property and I included this in the variance test relief section of the application we discussed you know your sort of litmus test for variances and if you go all the way down North Sea Rd. there is a property that has the same two front yards with North Sea Dr. and Kenney's Rd. and you have to go all the way back to 1984 with the Board's case#3204 and a variance was granted for that property actually to have a 16 foot setback from Kenney's Rd. which was the side/front yard in that case so our 17 foot request here is consistent with that prior Board decision. Again it's a long time ago but it's really the only other property in this immediate neighborhood that faces this problem so it would be you know similar in scope to what the Board did grant for the other end of the road. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does the Board have any questions of Rob? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7142—JOSEPH RICHBURG CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Joseph Richburg # 7142. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's November 1, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct a deck addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet located at 675 Sunset Lane in Greenport. JOSEPH RICHBURG :Joseph Richburg I'm the property owner and applicant. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks like you want to replace sort of concrete slab patio area? JOSEPH RICHBURG : Correct. There's a small concrete patio that's there now. The plan is to get rid of that and put a deck in that would be slightly larger. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So your existing side yard setback is 6.8 feet is that right 6 foot 8 inches? JOSEPH RICHBURG : Yeah that's the distance from the edge of the house on the southern side to the property line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the code requires a minimum of 10 feet so your house is non- conforming, you're proposing to put a deck in the rear yard which is permitted and to maintain thatsetback? March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting JOSEPH RICHBURG : Right and one other point is that the back door that would lead out to the deck is also within that ten foot line and so if I wanted to have direct access from inside the house to the outside of the deck the deck would have to be non-conforming. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright I've got it. Eric any questions? MEMBER DANTES : Would you accept a condition that the deck is open to the sky not to be enclosed? JOSEPH RICHBURG : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEIMSMAN : Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience, record time. JOSEPH RICHBURG : And it's getting close to lunch time so I wanted to be brief. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So there was no one else who wishes to address the application I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting HEARING #7143 KEVIN WHITROCK CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Kevin Whitrock # 7134. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15B and 280-15F, Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's September 6, 2017 amended October 31, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to demolish an existing single family dwelling, construct a new single family dwelling and a new accessory garage at 1) proposed dwelling located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet, 2) proposed dwelling located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet, 3) proposed dwelling located less than the code required minimum total side yard setback of 20 feet, 4) proposed accessory garage located less than the code required minimum (2) side yard setbacks(s) of 15 feet located at 580 Terry Path in Mattituck (adj. to Great Peconic Bay) hi Bruce. So we're looking at we have accessory garage notes a side yard setback of 8.3 feet and 6 feet code requiring 15 feet, a new dwelling with a rear yard setback of 40 feet the code requiring a minimum of 50, a single side yard setback at 5.9 the code requiring 15 and a total side yard setback of 11.9 feet the code requiring a minimum of 20. Okay now that that's in the record tell us what you'd like us to know. BRUCE ANDERSON : Bruce Anderson Suffolk Environmental Consultants for the applicant Kevin Whitrock at 580 Terry Path, Mattituck. Subject parcel is improved with a 26 by 32 foot, footprint 889 square foot single family dwelling. It is a one story dwelling with a framed garage that measures 20 by 16 feet and two framed sheds 8 by 12 each. The existing garage and dwelling would be demolished as explained and a new two story dwelling 27 by 46 feet containing four bedrooms and a detached garage 24 foot by 24 foot would be constructed. The application also features the abandonment of an old cesspool, construction of a new septic system that would be constructed at distance from the water and would meet all Health Department requirements. Coverage is calculated at 9% where 20% is permitted and the applicant has made an effort to center the dwelling on the lot to equalize the side yard setbacks. Subject parcel is a waterfront parcel. It takes access off of Terry Rd. which is a private road along with five other parcels. The subject parcel is also protected by a fully functional bulkhead as are all improved properties constituting the neighborhood. All of the parcel is located in zone X according to FEMA. There are no particular design constraints required in an X zone. The new dwelling would be a modular construction and would be set upon a crawl space. Subject parcel is pre-existing non-conforming with respect to the R40 zoning setbacks in which it lies. It is non-conforming in that it contains 22,775 square feet where 40,000 square feet is required. It is also a non-conforming with respect to lot width where the lot width here is 36.4 feet where 150 feet is required. Our variance consists of 280-124 which provides for lots between 20,000 and 39,999 square feet that the minimum rear yard setback be 50 feet, the minimum side yard setback at 15 feet and the total side yard setbacks at 20 feet. As proposed March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting the dwelling would be setback from the rear lot line by 40 feet and would have a side yard setback of 5.9 feet and a total side yard of 11.9 feet. The dwelling height is 29.6 feet as measured to the top of the ridge. The proposed garage requires relief from 280-15F which requires setbacks of 15 feet, the proposed garage would contain side yard setbacks of 8.3 feet and 6 feet. Thus we're seeking relief of 10 feet for the rear yard for the dwelling. We're seeking relief of 9.1 feet for an individual side yard and relief of 8.1 feet for total side yard is required in connection with this application. It's important to note that the existing improvements on the lot area are similarly non-conforming. The existing dwelling currently is 34 feet from the rear lot line and contains individual side yard setbacks of 3 feet and 6.4 feet for a total side yard setback at 9.3 feet. Thus when we redevelop this property as proposed we would increase conformance with respect to the dwelling and its rear yard setback. That is the dwelling would be sited at 40 feet where it is presently at 34 feet, individual side yard setback at 3 feet would be increased to 5.9 feet, total side yards setbacks currently at 9.3 feet would be increased to 11.9 feet. The garage has been placed on the lot so that the individual side yard setback is maintained at 6 feet and 8.5 feet respectively. The 8.5 foot westerly side yard setback is sufficient we believe for purposes of fire protection. With me today is Amos Meringer he is Chief of the Fire Department in Cutchogue. I'd like him state for the record as to whether the setbacks provide for adequate fire protection for the dwelling to be constructed. AMOS MERINGER : Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen Amos Meringer second assistant Chief Cutchogue Fire Department also be the builder for Mr. Whitrock. We have and do regularly perform extractions through lots narrower down through New Suffolk and all throughout Cutchogue. The side yard setbacks will not impact our ability to remove a victim from the waterside of the property if that were a concern, any question? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is always a concern of course that's why we have side yard setbacks so you can get to the rear yard and take care of any emergencies, thank you for your testimony. MEMBER DANTES : Is there any concern of fire spreading from the subject property to the neighboring properties? AMOS MERINGER : No more going forward than their currently is. In fact I believe the side yard setbacks on the new home are larger than what is currently there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually I had a question, Bruce maybe you can answer it I'm not sure. Did anyone have any questions? March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I very rarely Chief question anything particularly a neighboring department but the 8.3 and the 8.5 on the garage is predicated on the fact that you're going to get a truck through meaning our trucks a ladder truck or whatever the case might be. AMOS MERINGER : No you're not going to get a truck through. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No, and that's the issue okay and I realize there are severe constraints here so I mean in reference to zoning but zoning sometimes has to be a little liberal about possibility of getting something not that we would normally need to get to the house unless there was a particular fire but definitely from this standpoint we are very simply at the overall situation of what's going to happen next door if somebody decided to park a vehicle almost on the line. We're going to be dragging hose all the way to the house. AMOS MERINGER : Well it's not an option to park a vehicle on the line because they're separated by hedges on both the east and west side. The property as it sits now you're not going to put an engine beyond the garage because there's a septic system in the way so any way you slice it you're not getting the truck further south than the garage nor would you want to because now you're in the fire zone and you're going to drag your hand lines those extra few feet anyway. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Well maybe we can use the property next door. AMOS MERINGER : Right the old (inaudible) property just to the east has a very wide entrance that would probably make the most sense for attack. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I actually had a question about you had a property marker you know put in a stake with the pink tie on it on that corner by the Lascelle property and I just wondered is that it looked as though was that denoting the proposed dwelling or was that the property line? BRUCE ANDERSON : The one up against the foundation practically? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's near the hedges it's right near the hedge row where the Lascelle property is adjacent to. SOMEONE SPEAKING : (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that's what I wanted to know because otherwise the setback would probably be on the Lascelle's walkway. I happened to be very familiar with that property from an old friend named Katherine LaSalle. All of the properties down there are the same thing. They're shoe stringed lots. You provided well actually Mark Terry provided with the LWRP a kind of google earth thing showing the setbacks from you know the beach from the bulkhead, March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting we're now rear yard setbacks is what we're dealing with. They're all pretty similar. They're all developed in a rather similar way, Bruce do you want to address that non-conforming what we'll call a rear yard and relative to character of the neighborhood? BRUCE ANDERSON : So (inaudible) the redevelopment actually increases these setbacks that's the point of what exists today. So we have defined the character of the neighborhood by a tax map which has been the accepted neighborhood for applications that have come into these areas. We've handled two of them, Daneri and the Long application so that's fairly well established but what you need to know about the neighborhood is that it consists of twenty four residentially developed waterfront lots which include this parcel and of those twenty four lots, twenty three have insufficient area on the rear yard setback. All lots in the neighborhood have insufficient lot width as required in an R40 zone and at the average setback among residential developed waterfront lots its 34.9 feet and as proposed the dwelling would be 40 feet setback from the rear property line or approximately 15% more than the average found along this strip in the neighborhood. The other thing that's worth noting is the twenty four lots consisting in the neighborhood twenty one of them have detached garages that are located between the house and the road so what we're doing here it fits in with the neighborhood. I'm going to hand out and the Whitrocks when they were formulating their plans and they filed for this they did reach out to their neighbors and so what you have there are a letter from Carlo (inaudible) in support of the application which is followed by a second letter from the LaSalle's which are in agreement with the application. These are the two adjacent property owners for your information both property owners have two story homes so we would have a similar sized home. We would also have a two story home as the neighbors on both sides. The third letter of support is from Eugene Daneri who we had represented some time ago who was initially denied a variance which was subsequently appealed to Supreme Court and then again to the Appellate Court upholding the variance as we originally applied for and I invite you to read through the court decisions both the lower court and the upper court because the facts and circumstances in this application are essentially identical to the facts and circumstances in the Denari application. MEMBER DANTES : What was the setback that was denied? BRUCE ANDERSON : The setback for Daneri would have been off the rear yard would have been 42 feet. The case dealt with a bulkhead setback we just added in since we no longer regulate bulkhead setbacks essentially he would have needed a variance from the rear yard just as we did. We're at 40 he was at 42 by our measurements so they're essentially the same. He also had a side yard setback of 10 feet on his plan which the courts deemed to be in this circumstance consistent with the neighborhood and these decisions all talk about the character of the neighborhood as the essential fact ingredient in weighing out whether these variances would March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting should be granted and they also speak about consistency of decision making. So it was remanded back to this Board and the Board granted the appropriate relief as ordered by the courts. The second one we include that decision for your records, you already have that, the second case that we include is the Posillico matter which was it's an older decision in 1981 in which the dwelling was located some 25 to 30 feet from the bulkhead and approximately 40 feet from the rear lot line as we would be but they made the Board made an important finding there and their finding in their decision is that the dwelling be constructed so that it does not protrude towards the bay any more than the easterly property. In other words to maintain a character of the neighborhood you should kind of line of these houses with the houses on either side which is precisely what we've done in this application. The third is the application which featured 10 foot side yard setbacks and a rear yard setback of actually 35 feet and this Board made a finding that under that circumstance the redevelopment of the property which consisted of a demolition and a rebuild would not be out of character of the neighborhood. Here we're more than 35 feet from the rear lot line however slightly less from the side lot line and then finally we include the Bozo application which was 1986 which provided setback relief at 18 feet from the bulkhead which is essentially is a rear lot line. Our criteria now (inaudible) follows that there would be no detriment to the character no impact to the character of the neighborhood cause this property is typical for that neighborhood. The dwelling that will be constructed is of reasonable size 1,270 square feet. The dwelling setback from the high water line which is the rear lot line lines up with the neighboring dwellings on each side. We submit that the individual side yard setbacks for the garage increased from 5.1 to 6 feet while maintaining sufficient passage to the house. We submit that the benefit to the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance because the lot is particularly constrained with respect to lot width at 36.4 feet where 150 feet is required and in order to construct a dwelling in line with other dwellings thereby preserving the character of the neighborhood relief from the rear yard would likewise be required. As for the garage it's a standard garage. It measures 24 by 24 which is a standard two bay garage. Any such garage would require variance relief given the side yard setbacks on this 36 foot wide lot. We submit the variances we request are not substantial in relationship to the pre-existing setbacks that already occur on this property. As I said before the dwelling would be 6 feet from the easterly side lot line 5.9 feet from the westerly side lot line, 40 feet from the rear lot line where its existing dwelling is located 3 feet from the easterly side lot line, 6.4 feet from the westerly side lot line and set back from the high water mark which is the rear line at 34 feet. As for the garage we tried to place it in an area to provide the adequate access while maintaining a reasonable setback for this area on the westerly or off the westerly lot line. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Can I ask a question on the garage, there's a shed there, would you be removing that shed? March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting BRUCE ANDERSON : Yes. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Are you going to be moving it someplace else orjust get rid of it? KEVING WHITROCK : Kevin Whitrock. Thank you for your time. Yes that existing shed that's near the turnaround can definitely disappear with the increased storage area inside of that garage. We don't need that. That's basically summertime storage for water activities so that can be dispensed with yes. BRUCE ANDERSON : We submit to grant a variance will not have an adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood because all the best management practices have been applied and incorporated in this project design and they include we would obviously abandon an old cesspool, we would construct a septic system that would be suitable elevated above ground water and would properly serve the dwelling and would comply with the regulations that exists today. We would also integrate all of the runoff controls that have been required now by the town and we will make sure that this will comply with the town storm water regulations in all respects. We will control any short term construction related impacts by deployment of silt fences as is the practice in this town and it's important to note that the redevelopment of this property does not require any fill or any particular grading in order to accomplish this project alternative. I believe the project would be consistent with the town's LWRP and finally our hardship is not self-created because what we have is a pre-existing non-conforming lot in the zoning in which it lies and is recognized by the town as a building lot obviously and the applicant has sought to minimize relief request through project design and so it is our contention that the benefit to the applicant if the variance were granted would greatly outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community or neighborhood. Our benefit would be the ability to develop the property in accordance with its intended us which is residential in a size and location of a house that is common in the neighborhood. The development is consistent with the neighborhood the development patterns in the neighborhood and will not in any way impact the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. Accordingly it's our position that the variance should be granted. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Bruce do you have the LWRP letter? BRUCE ANDERSON : No I do not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's deemed to be inconsistent but you know that's clearly what they're going to say in a situation like this. So let me make sure you get a copy of this. BRUCE ANDERSON : I would just point out that and it's noted in the decision in the Daneri letter that Mark Terry had deemed long consistent and inconsistent at the same time because upon March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting the Trustees permit it was consistent and then it became inconsistent when a variance was requested so there's some problems with the consistency review in this area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well certainly the garage is the accessory garage is consistent. The dwelling setbacks and so on well alright let's make sure you get a copy. MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can if you want to but is you know all we need to do is take BRUCE ANDERSON : I didn't hear your point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He's saying should we close this subject to your writing a response to the LWRP letter. I think you just did in your testimony and we can actually deem it consistent because we have to deem it consistent based upon mitigation because we can't make a determination that's you can't approve anything that's inconsistent so we do that pretty regularly. I think you just commented on it. Alright so anyone else in the audience wishing to address the application please come to the mic. BILL LASELLE : I'm Bill Laselle we had the property since 1922 and we have different neighbors occasionally everything has changed a lot over the years all for the better and I think it's continuing and we have nothing against what he's going to do with this new house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Very good that's helpful as you certainly are right next door that's for sure. Thank you Mr. Laselle, anybody else? Hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting HEARING #7144 ELIZABETH BRANCH CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Elizabeth Branch and David Branch # 7144. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-123A and the Building Inspector's October 25, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing accessory guest cottage at 1) the accessory guest cottage is not a permitted accessory use at 5160 Indian Neck Lane (adj. to Hog Neck Bay) in Peconic. Is there someone here to represent the application? BRET KEHL : Hi good afternoon. My name is Bret Kehl I'm here on behalf of Elizabeth and David Branch. We're looking to basically enclose the covered porch as noted on the request. It's approximately 133 square feet and it's a pre-existing roof line and in doing so it's going to help us enable the homeowner who is been diagnosed with front temporal lobe dementia and Parkinson's to use this during the summer months when the grandchildren come out because of the front temporal lobe dementia is a type of dementia where a person sees say they're walking over a bridge and they see water they don't even think about it they say I want to go swimming and jump off the bridge so when the grandchildren are out at certain times he has to be under twenty four hour care they're going to put him over there you know so he can see the grandkids and the grandkids are basically I'm going to say safe but for some he got upset they don't want something to happen but the kids and the grandkids can come out and enjoy the house with the grandmother. The other thing was we just want to remove the roof system and replace the existing roof system not to exceed the 18 foot height and reframing. Most of the reason the big reason for doing that is because of the wall heights of this cottage that's been there for forty five plus years are about six foot high and we want to make that front wall eight feet so that we can put a standard door height in and door width so that we can conform to the town code. On the building there is a rear and a front deck which we're going to remove which would decrease the non-conformity of the rear well actually a side yard setback. We're sitting right now about I think it's about 5 1/2, 6 feet something like that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's already been done hasn't it? BRET KEHL : That came off. They took that off when we got a building permit last year from the town to raise the foundation so we've done that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that's gone cause we did do an inspection. BRET KEHL : And they've also applied for or we'll have to apply for a new septic system according to the plan to conform to all of the new standards and everything. MEMBER DANTES : How many square feet is the cottage now? March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting BRET KEHL : It is actually it's only 500 or 600 I'll tell you in one second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can figure it out, it's 12.1 by 34 foot 4 and a quarter inch. BRET KEHL : About 400 feet something like that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Square feet because what we're trying to do here see a non- conforming technically this is a non-conforming building with a non-conforming use. It's a second dwelling but it's legally established says the Pre-C.O. so the code doesn't really would permit probably renovation or repairs in place and in kind to enclose it with more habitable space than is essentially looking at an expansion of a non-conforming building with a non- conforming use and that's what the code does not want us to do. What we're trying to see is how big it is now and what you're proposing to enclose. That would also be 34 no it's not it's less this internal because that porch doesn't run the entire front elevation so can you tell us then what the square footage of the proposed enclosed porch is. BRET KEHL : 133 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 133 square feet. BRET KEHL : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the current cottage size is? BRET KEHL : 34 feet 4 by 12 foot 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right does anybody have a calculator? BRET KEHL : 415 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : That was pretty close the total. You said 400 BRET KEHL :That's pretty good off the top of my head isn't it? MEMBER DANTES : So at the end it will be 552 square feet after the renovation? BRET KEHLS : 548 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 548 MEMBER DANTES : I got 419 how did I do that? I probably added the point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's interesting because you're hardly it's just about an apartment size 850 starts to constitute a dwelling it's still then considered a cottage. I do want to just say one thing for the record cause it's important our personal feelings about compassion towards March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting people that have disabilities and illnesses of various sorts may very well exist but this Board is not allowed to address them as you probably know. We look at the application and not the applicant. This could be sold to anybody at any time. So I understand the purpose of doing it you know why you want to do it. BRET KEHL : Right and I know people want to sometimes rent them out but this they even said that they would even if approved the property owner would be willing to limit the use going forward to family members only which has been only used right now for it you know like an overflow at the house of cousins or kids or it's not being used as a rental. These people do not need to rent this and it's not part of financial gain from. MEMBER DANTES : But it is a legal dwelling now right? BRET KEHL : It is legal. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a cottage. BRET KEHL : It's a legal cottage it's C.O'ed MEMBER DANTES : How many bedrooms does it have? BRET KEHL : One it's going to remain one. MEMBER DANTES : Remain one so what will be the additional space how will it look like on the floor plan? BRET KEHL : The floor plan what they're trying to do is pull the bedroom just a little bit forward more but they're trying to get the bathroom larger so they could get into it, a handicapped bathroom. MEMBER ACAMPORA : That's what I was going to ask, If you were going to make any of the cottage handicap accessible? BRET KEHL : Yeah they're trying to get as wide as possible. The bathroom right now is only like 4 feet wide CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a pass through. You don't even have any circulation space at all in the interior. You walk right through it. BRET KEHL : Right through the bathroom to the bedroom and this here they want and try to make the bathroom wider so they can at least get a wheelchair in there and widen the bathroom door or the access into there so it was a big thing too cause that's just going to be for him and an aide. March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well again we're going to have to figure out how we can actually address this relative to the law and not the human problems associated with this structure. MEMBER ACAMPORA : But as we talked about in the past accessory apartment we call this a cottage should we think about that they should be somewhat handicapped accessible just in case anyway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well what they do with the interior is entirely up to them in this situation. MEMBER ACAMPORA : What about the front door, access to the front door a ramp or something you know getting into it? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well right now that's not being proposed. BRET KEHL : It would all be on grade, coming up off a grade there'd be a ramp coming up to it right into the door. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah well cause you got the slab down there. BRET KEHL : Yep slab's there already. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that's not the problem. The problem is the expansion of habitable space that's the issue before us. It would be extremely tiny if you were trying to BRET KEHL : I mean if you've seen the property I know you've seen the property it's a massive piece of property and they don't want to develop anything I mean this is their little retreat get away and the biggest thing is like I said needing it for the husband. MEMBER DANTES : I mean I don't really have a problem with it. It looks like a modest I mean it's just enclosing something that's exterior living space to interior living space and you really can't go any further cause there isn't any more covered porch. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think the only way that this is even remotely feasible is to have a permanent covenant and restriction for the use that would run with the land should the family ever sell it. Otherwise it becomes a very profitable rental you know and you can't put in place something that then becomes a code enforcement issue. BRET KEHL : No this is like I said been in the family for forty five years and they don't look to get rid of it. It'll go probably pass down to the grandkids or the daughters and sons. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I don't doubt what you're saying by any means but again that sort of testimony is not really relevant to the legal standards we have to address so if there's March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting anything that you can give us to help us with that substantiality, what percentage of expansion are we looking at? MEMBER DANTES : About thirty. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that is substantial. We have in the past granted what we would call diminimus improvements at Breezy Shores and things like that where those cottages are very, very old. They're all non-conforming cause they're multiple dwellings on one property but sometimes people needed to like create a code conforming height in a bathroom which meant a two foot expansion on something and we granted it as a diminimus and reasonable over time to do repairs and so on or they needed a larger utility room cause they had to be FEMA compliant you know there were reasons for permitting the enlargement under those circumstances. I'm trying to find a comparable one here. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Why don't you let him enlarge the one that's directly in front of the bathroom and that'll be the three percent or whatever we were talking about? In other words not the whole front of the house. MEMBER DANTES : You're talking about nine square feet I mean that's not going to BRET KEHL : By the time you get done it's MEMBER ACAMPORA : You might as well go the whole length. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not a reasonable way to live to walk through a bathroom to get to a bedroom I mean that was a cottage, pure and simple the way they built them whatever way they could fit it in BRET KEHL : But even the openings and the size of the bathroom don't even conform to codes now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nothing's conforming not the ceiling height or anything else. BRET KEHL : Right so we're just trying to do it with the least amount of impact anywhere. That's why you know we're trying to keep the height down trying to you know open up inside and make it a little bigger but if I mean if you have to put a covenant on it or something CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What do you think Bill, you know to restrict it to strictly family use no rental. BRET KEHL :That would be they don't even care that would be fine. She even told me this CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know if that gets us anywhere. March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : The other thing is I mean this isn't there aren't that many of these cottages on properties right so this isn't like it'll be coming up again and again. T.A. DUFFY : How big is this building? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The whole this is the existing here an here this is the roofed over porch so T.A. DUFFY : What's the square footage? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :This piece that exists now is we said 415 T.A. DUFFY : So you don't meet the requirement for habitable space (inaudible) make it more conforming to building code if you approve it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And this enclosed bit is 133 the whole thing is 548 it's still a cottage it's not being enlarged to a dwelling. MEMBER DANTES : What do you need for a dwelling 550? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 850 MEMBER DANTES : An accessory apartment is? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Minimum 450 or 500 1 can't remember. I think its 450 minimum up to 800 or so no 750, 450 to 750 for the accessory apartment. MEMBER DANTES : But it's not full time residence right? BRET KEHL : No it's just summer and mostly just summer. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The other thing to explore would be to turn this into an accessory apartment in an accessory structure for a family member but they have to be here it has to be their principle dwelling and year round plus I think Eric pointed out, you don't really want to give up that Pre C.O. for that cottage that's pretty valuable. T.A. DUFFY : Like you said I don't see it as to do the analysis and the impacts it's such a big piece that's not going to be (inaudible) only going in the footprint to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There are some originally they were talking about additions rather than just enclosing the footprint and that we made very clear we're just our hands are tied but if you're talking about a roof that's there already you're putting walls up basically so perhaps we can I don't know we'll have to think about this and March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting BRET KEHL : I mean there is like you said there is no problem whatsoever just making it for the family you know the covenants because they were like we don't care after we just need this now for the husband, other than that we're not worried we don't need it for rent, we don't need it for anything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are they planning on doing anything with that I mean the property is very large and long and thin and whatever are you planning on doing anything with the fencing that's in place?The fencing that's behind this cottage is pretty dilapidated. BRET KEHL : That was actually when they actually moved the tractor around and stuff that's what happened. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that what happened? It got beat up. MEMBER ACAMPORA : It wasn't put back right. BRET KEHL : Yeah I mean these people like I said you seen the house how nice they want find out what they can do and then they'll finish, fix all the fences, they got to sod in the front and where the I guess there's a playground now for the grandchildren and there's a septic system that's where that's been figured to be located where the playground is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you're going to upgrade existing sanitary? BRET KEHL : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have Department of Health approval or you haven't applied yet? BRET KEHL : I don't think they have applied yet for it but the Building Department made it clear that if they get this they have to go back to Board of Health and upgrade it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well, anything from anybody? What do you want to do you want to just close this and deal with it because I don't know what other information we're going to get. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Close it and ask him to get a covenant that's all subject to a covenant. T.A. DUFFY : You got to put that in your decision. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that we'll put in the decision then they'll have to go to the Town Attorney's office, there's a form that they can provide that you the owners would have to fill out. March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting BRET KEHL : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : File with the County. Alright well hearing no, nobody is in the audience so hearing no further comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7145— LOON ENTERPRISES, INC. L. HOEFFNER, CONTRACT VENDEE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for LeJon Enterprises, Inc. (L. Hoeffner, contract vendee) # 7145. This is a request for a waiver of merger petition under Article II Section 280-10A to unmerge land identified as SCTM#1000-139-3-49 which has merged with SCTM#1000-139-3-50 based on the Building Inspector's November 28, 2017 Notice of Disapproval which states that a non-conforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or non-conforming lot held in common ownership with the first lot at any time after July 1, 1983 and that non-conforming lots shall merge until the total lot size conforms to the current bulk schedule requirements (minimum 40,000 sq. ft. in the R40 residential zoning district) this property is located at 6125 CR 48 in Mattituck. Would you like to state your name please for the record? ERIC RUSSO : For the record my name is Eric J. Russo (inaudible) with offices at 140 Main St. Sayville New York 11782 here today on behalf of the applicant LeJon Enterprises Inc. and LeRoy J. Hoeffner as the president P O Box 277 East Setauket New York 11733. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. I'd like to just start with a question for you, we're very familiar with the ZBA approval of a rear yard setback variance in March of last year and so what would be helpful to us would be to tell us once they got that variance what happens next how did things unfold why you're here now? March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting ERIC RUSSO : So why we're here now as you indicated the properties at 6125 CR 48 in Southold and the call as you indicated is what we're looking for, for the R4 residential district zoned property. The issue as you indicated is the fact that this particular parcel of property was previously owned in single and separate ownership and I have our expert John Breslin who is our real estate expert and title attorney who's going to review with you the title issue if you have a question about it and what had transpired is our client is the contract vendee. He is purchasing the property and Mr. McLaughlin who I believe was before you this morning is representing the seller and what we have is we have a Health Department approval that was previously issued after the original building permit had been issued. This property had a building permit that was issued on June 30, 2005. It had a Health Department approval and I provided you with a binder with photographs and in the binder it shows you the various documents that we have. I passed it up to Ms. Fuentes. There are twenty two photos of the site in the area, the ZBA notice and we also provided you with a copy of the building permit 31229Z which was issued June 30 of 2005. We've given you a copy of our Fidelity National Title which was issued as of July 5th of 2017 because when we went to renew the building permit after the Zoning Board granted the application on March 16th of 2017 the Building Department requested title for the renewal which is why we provided that. We have not had an opinion of counsel or an opinion of the Town Attorney relating to the title that was submitted. It was requested that we come and make an application for lot merger under your section of the code which is as stated in the call of the meeting 280-10A and the Zoning Board now has to revisit the prior application you granted, the prior building permit that the town had issued back in 2005. We have in the documents the Health Department approval that was granted for the lot that was applied for and the Health Department approval was January 28 of 2003 that has to be renewed. We haven't gone to renew it yet because of this cloud and issue concerning the lot itself but the Health Department already reviewed the sanitary application and approved it previously which allowed them to get the building permit and we're on pause right at the present time waiting for discussion with you as to how to proceed. We've provided you with photographs in our opinion based on what we're seeing. We think that this Board upon review of the documents should concur and renew its grant given what they previously done and what the town has done and allow the applicant to be issued a building permit so we can proceed with contract. There are deeds that I also provided you in the binder that go back to the original sales of the property which they're in the documents there. They were transfers back in 1972 and 1971 which shows they were owned separately and we then the title moves forward from there. I know there was a taking along CR48 for a portion of the property on the road frontage for the widening so that sort of diminished the size of the lot as it was in compliance previously under the zoning which was the R40. I'm not aware of any up zoning other than that for the parcel, if there was I'm not familiar with that particular point. Maybe you can share that with us and we'd be happy to review the other testimony and documents if you would like and that's March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting our purpose here today. Mr. Breslin can come forward at this point. The purchaser is here Mr. (inaudible) and Mr. Hoeffner who are here to my right and Mr. McLaughlin the sellers attorney is also present and there is an existing contract and we'll go forward with the purchase upon clarification and approval of this Board based on the merger issue in question. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So when did the Building Department first indicate is it just recently clearly that the they determined that this was merged? ERIC RUSSO : You granted the variance, the applicant went back to the Building Department to apply for a building permit. Upon receipt of all the documents in the review they then asked for the title and then after July they came forward and said we believe that you need to go and address this again with the Zoning Board because we believe there might be a merger. It took time at that point given all of the applications filed and the documents prepared to corrugate additional documents to come before you and then Ms. Fuentes and I diligently worked on trying to get here as soon as we could which is today when we filed back I think in November, December. MEMBER DANTES : You said maybe a merger, was there a merger? ERIC RUSSO : I would like Mr. Breslin to be sworn in as our witness and our real estate expert and then we can go forward from there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : State your name please. JOHN BRESLIN :John Breslin. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright I'm going to swear you in so you're now under oath giving testimony. Do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? JOHN BRESLIN : I do. Madam chairwoman you asked what I thought was a very simple question about the why and Eric gave you a very long answer to that question and the short answer is I think the Building Department when they went for the permit kicked it back saying that they believed that there was a merger and in looking at it the answer is it's not really clear as to whether there was a merger or not. What appears to have happened going back to the grant the original permit back in 2005 the interpretation of the single and separate search is that they were the properties were single and separate, both this one and the property to the east that fronts on Conklin that a house was built on. The company Adelphi owned both properties from I think starting they bought them separately under different deeds so at some point after they acquired them the merger clause came into existence. Initially they were separate parcels by virtue of the town's ordinance the merger clause came into existence sometime after that so when they gave the single and separate searches in in 2003 and 2005 the town recognized both March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting of the parcels as single and separate and therefore allowed the building permits to take place. Subsequently this lot never got built on the other lot did get built on and has a house on it as it does today this applicant the property changed hands a couple of times this applicant now is before someone purchased the property went and got the idea of building a house again got another permit never built it they then came back in now for the rear yard variance which was granted never thinking there was an issue with respect to the other requirements under the code submitted the building permit and the Building Department said wait a minute we need a new single and separate search to determine whether or not you comply with the ordinance to allow your relief from those portions of the code. They submitted the single and separate search and the Building Department said well I'm not really sure if it's single and separate. They sent it back to you to clarify so the applicant's here seeking the relief to allow the development of this lot. I think that it's been contemplated going back the earliest 2003 maybe even earlier if you look at the filed map and the areas that were part of it but essentially now what you have is a left over lot, you have houses all around it on individual lots. I think it was contemplated at the time the house next door was built as well as the original filed map. By allowing the lot to be developed it's certainly not going to be out of character with the houses around it. The lot is consistent with the sizes. It was originally comprised of two filed map lots similar to the houses around it. There are a couple of lots that are single filed map lots but they're longer and narrower if you take a look at the tax map but this lot certainly is not out of character with the lots around it. It's completely consistent. By granting relief I think you're solving the puzzle of what's happened with respect to this lot and the lot next to it and now the solution of granting the relief or whatever relief you determine necessary whether it's that it is single and separate or granting the necessary area reliefs to allow the lot to be developed and then the puzzle's complete. There's a house in the middle, houses on either side and of course the houses to the north. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you not think that by virtue of having granted an area variance already that this Board has determined that this is a building lot? JOHN BRESLIN : I think you did it twice actually. I think you did it on this lot and I think essentially you did it or your predecessor did it when the town by recognizing the building permit on the lot next door just on that lot and not this, this not being considered merged with it at that time so I think the town has previously recognized the legality of this lot several different ways. So I think that is exactly what's happened but I think you can even look passed that to see it's an appropriate sized lot for this area irrespective of the zoning that it's applied to it now because it fits with the pattern of development. The zoning is really not applicable in this little pocket which I'm sure was part of a mass rezoning for a much larger area. This specific lot really wouldn't be appropriate for that zone anyway. March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting ERIC RUSSO : In addition although I indicated that there was a prior Health Department approval which is in the binder my client has given me the June 21, 2017 approval from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services for construction of a maximum four bedroom home dated as I said June 21, 2017, R10170027. I'll give you a copy of this because that would at least show you that another municipal agency has reviewed it found it to be acceptable for sanitary design so it's not even a question at this point with you acting earlier in the year and then taking your zoning approval and granting this, when he went to go get the building permit comes back in that's when the issue of the lot merger comes up as Mr. Breslin said. (inaudible) original ownership had to do with your code that says 1983 and Adelphi acquiring properties in 1977. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just make sure you're in the mic, we record this and so we want to make sure we get everything. JOHN BRESLIN : Eric Russo was saying about the original acquisition by Adelphi Land Corp. who is the entity that owned the both of them together. They acquired tax lot 50 in 1977 and they acquired excuse me 49 in '77 and 50 in both in '77 with different deeds though and then they were conveyed out later on which you can see from the single and separate search. ERIC RUSSO : Which reflects the deeds that I've provided you in the binder which show the prior two owners before they went in to Adelphi which is how the house on lot 50 was constructed. JOHN BRESLIN : When they acquired them from different people there were different owners. So in conclusion I think by recognizing the reliefs or granting the reliefs to have a new house here you're not creating an undesirable change and there clearly is no other way for the applicant to do it without relief from this Board. ERIC RUSSO : So it's our opinion that we comply with the requirements set forth under NYS town law 267B and also addressing your merger section under your code under 280-10A. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it seems is there I don't want to say anything until everyone has spoken Mr. McLaughlin do you want to say anything. KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN : I represent the current owners. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Just state your name. KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN : My name is Kevin McLaughlin, I'm an attorney here in Southold. I represent the Minhas's who are the current owners of the vacant lot tax map lot #49. They had a building permit; they had Health Department approval in 2005. They decided not to build at March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting that time. We entered into a contract with the purchasers back in August of 2016 assuming they were there was an assumption they might have to get a variance from you an area variance. There was no idea there was going to be an issue of merger but here we are so obviously my clients would love to see the waiver of merger issued so that we can get on with this contract and sell the property. MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) single and separate search in 2005 for the building permit? KEVING MCLAUGHLIN : I'm assuming they probably did I don't know. ERIC RUSSO : I don't have any information as to that. I only have copies of the Health Department, the building permit and the information that Mr. McLaughlin's office was able to provide us with so we're looking at the new documents and the fact that this Board had acted. The Building Department was in action and the Health Department had approved it so we were on the journey to complete, get a building permit and go to closing until this issue of merger came up. KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN : (inaudible) Building Department issued a building permit for the other lot and the building has been built a house has been built on it. MEMBER DANTES : When was the other lot the building built? ERIC RUSSO : I would assume somewhere in the late seventies early eighties before the zoning code change because I've provided you with photographs of the residence. It does appear to be a dated residence but I CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We've seen it we've gone out there for site inspection. ERIC RUSSO : I have the photographs in the binder. There's probably six that I took last Tuesday when I came out here to double check all of the adjoining properties to determine and confirm the nature and character of the area so again although our expert has testified I would tend to agree that there's no undesirable change being proposed in the character of the neighborhood. You've already determined that in your March hearing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did it with prior variance. It seems to me that over many years a number of agencies you know municipal and other agencies that have recognized this is a building lot. We're in pretty murky waters when it comes to chain of title in terms of who owned what, when and were they in common names, were they checker boarded, was it sold outside the family; to me the waiver of merger standards get very confusing with regard to the history of this property and I think the better way to do it is to look at a reversal of the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval. ';,y March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting T.A. DUFFY : Actually I don't think under our waiver of merger that would qualify but I think you'd have to find either that they didn't merge and that they're recognized lots or that there's an exception to the merger other than giving a waiver and I think as you said it's been recognized prior and so there's a quirky little section 280-10C that refers back to old code section that says if the lots appear on certain maps then it's exempt from the merger claim and I think that might be one of the maps. This was part of a map created in 1929 maps of Garden Estates so it might fall under an exemption as well. ERIC RUSSO : In addition the Health Department has gone back and looked at that in order to issue the Health Department approval in June of 2017 so clearly if there was considered to be a merger they would have raised the issue as well and then would have reported that back to us instead of giving us an approval on the Health Department but giving us a denial saying you need to do a land division with the Town of Southold where you need to get a zoning approval. They did not request either and they granted the application and they have become very stringent in recent years in terms of approving sanitary systems. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what I mean there's a long history of lot recognition so the question is which way do we go to unravel this and get you back on track where you need to be. We'll just have to get some legal advice and look through everything you just submitted and see how we can best approach the situation. I mean if the town has consistently recognized this until the eleventh hour after approvals have been granted and so on then this is hardly a self- created hardship. ERIC RUSSO : In referencing Mr. Duffy's reference under the particular section he's looking at 280-10C and I believe you're referencing 2 which says the non-conforming lot obtained a lot size variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals, based on that you've already granted that variance T.A. DUFFY : 2 and possibly 4 which talks about the (Mr. Russo talking over T.A. Duffy) ERIC RUSSO : which is if the lot is on the maps described in former section 112 the non- conforming lot has been held in single and separate ownership from January 1, 1997 to date. JOHN BRESLIN : Would this filed map be on T.A. DUFFY : I'll double check but I'm assuming the filed map goes back to 1929 so and that's before we had a code. JOHN BRESLIN : So either one of those methodologies whichever you think would be more appropriate so that it doesn't bind you for something else would be ways you can accomplish the same goal. +;uu March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting ERIC RUSSO : Either 2 or 4. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well there are dates we have to really look at the dates. There are dates with those exemptions that are in the code. First we have to determine that this property meets those dates so then a potential exemption is we can do that and to it that way. We'll have to just see what makes more sense. I want to take a look at all the documents that you have submitted you know and take a look at the title search and figure out the best way to go. Mr. Russo do you happen to have the packet that you just submitted in digital form that you can email? ERIC RUSSO : I don't have it at the present time but we can CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you maybe scan that and email it to Kim and she can distribute it to all the Board members because we can then study them quietly in our individual homes or home offices. This will take a while. ERIC RUSSO : (away from microphone) request is that the Health Department took my client's copy. I didn't have it at the time I put it together last night and today but if you give that back to me I'll get that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's good. Is there anyone else in the audience wanting to address the application? JOHN BRESLIN : Mr. Duffy just looking at that section 4 again, I think the single and separate search clearly shows that these lots are in single and separate status after 1997 it goes back to '83 so it clearly meets that date criteria. T.A. DUFFY : As long as this map is one of the maps described in (inaudible) which we'll research. JOHN BRESLIN : Understood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I bet it is. ERIC RUSSO : You can also look at the tax map I provided you because that tax map is showing you clearly the subdivision layout and I will go back and see if we can verify with our title company the date of the filing of the map. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good that's helpful. T.A. DUFFY : So you're going to take this back the packet back? ERIC RUSSO : You can keep that and we'll send you I'll email Ms. Fuentes with additional copies. March 1, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from the Board, anyone else in the audience. I think there might be another comment or question. ERIC RUSSO : Ms. Fuentes may have in her file back in the office a copy of the Health Department approval. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That was in relationship with the variance I think wasn't it? JOHN BRESLIN : No it would have been after the variance when we filed the waiver of merger so but I will resend it to you in any event so that you don't have any issues and I also have to thank you because Ms. Fuentes and your office over there has been exceptional and very helpful in moving forward with this application so we thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's always nice to hear. Thank you. Hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) I March 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 Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : March 9, 2018 681