Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-04/05/2018 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 April 5, 2018 9:46 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN -Chairperson/Member PATRICIA ACAMPORA— Member ERIC DANTES— Member GERARD GOEHRINGER— Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO— Member KIM FUENTES— Board Assistant WILLIAM DUFFY—Town Attorney April 5, 2018 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page 53245 Main Road Corp. # 7147 3 -7 loannis Hirakis# 7154 7 - 9 Elsie Tietjen # 7149 9 - 11 Richard J. Flood # 7150 11 - 16 Timothy and Georgia Quinn # 7151 17 - 21 David Kilbride# 7152 21 - 28 Douglas and Diane Robalino# 7153 28 - 35 Stephanie L. Teicher# 7138 35 - 36 April 5, 2018 Regular Meeting HEARING #7147—53245 MAIN ROAD CORP. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for 53245 Main Road Corp. # 7147. 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 convert a pre-existing single family dwelling to a commercial retail store and to construct a freestanding sign at 1) proposed conversion will provide for two separate uses (pre- existing accessory cottage and a proposed retail store) upon a single parcel measuring less than the minimum allowed 20,000 sq. ft. in area per permitted use located at 53245 Main Rd. in Southold. Is there someone here to represent the application? JOHN NICOLETTI : My name is John Nicoletti. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning. JOHN NICOLETTI : Good morning. Just one correction on something I heard you say, the square footage of the property is 23,000 and change. It is over 20,000 square feet as noted on the survey. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It says here in the notice it's 21,780 square feet. In other words it's less than the allowed. The code says 20,000 square per use. JOHN NICOLETTI : Oh I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's one of the dilemmas. You now would be instead of one residential use one pre-existing non-conforming cottage you're proposing a retail use so for each of those uses you would need 20,000 square feet, the lot is 21,000 so that's why you're before the Board. You also need site plan approval from the Planning Board and you also need a certificate of appropriateness from Landmarks Preservation Commission for the proposed sign and those are the conditions of the Notice of Disapproval. So we inspected your property, what would you like to tell us? JOHN NICOLETTI : Well as we discussed on the inspection we're an interior design, kitchen and bath design firm with some light retail mixed in as well. At the location we will be doing kitchen and bath design, will be meeting with clients there and doing their interior design work, selling merchandise that we will be eventually using in our projects as well as people who happen to be walking by on the street want to come in and buy as well and that is the retail portion of the business. My family has owned a business in Massapequa for over forty years doing pretty much the same operation. This is our first real stab at expansion and opening a second location. It's very exciting for all of us and we hope that it's something that can be done. April 5, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I'd like to enter into the record that we have a memorandum from the Town Planning Board and they are supporting this application on the basis that the adaptation of an existing building especially in a historic district is preferred to new construction and although the variance is substantial the two uses of the two uses one is not a commercial use one is and it fills the cottage fills the need for the town for rental homes and it's low impact relatively low impact. So, that's an important thing to put in the record. Basically they believe that you can meet site plan approval so long as you only use the one floor for the public retail. It's my understanding that it is. JOHN NICOLETTI : Yes that's our intention. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from the Board let's see Eric anything? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : As I said to you we're going to ask a couple of questions just for the record. What's going to happen with the swimming pool? JOHN NICOLETTI : The swimming pool is going to remain covered and out of use throughout our time at the location. We have no intention of opening that pool using it or doing anything with it. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Okay it's not used in concert with the cottage? JOHN NICOLETTI : It is not. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Is there anything that you have that you wanted to ask the Board that you may not have talked about or suggested to us? We didn't really get into conversations about the property because we're primarily interested in having you bring anything up that you may want to mention. JOHN NICOLETTI : There's really nothing I can think of that we haven't already covered. We don't plan on making any alterations to the property at all as far as the landscape, as far as any of the fixtures of the house. It is a historic house so we know that we're very much limited to what can be done and that's fantastic because we love the way it looks just the way it is. So other than you know some planting of flowers and that kind of stuff we really don't plan on doing anything extra to the property so I really don't think there's anything that we haven't already covered. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Great thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick? April 5, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : To Gerry's point in addition to the pool there's an outdoor shower. I think you just stated for the record that the public will not be on the pool deck or the back portion of the property. JOHN NICOLETTI : No, no. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Will the outdoor shower remain? JOHN NICOLETTI : I actually haven't given it much thought. It's never going to be used. If it needs to be removed it can be easily taken out and removed. That was there previous to us taking over the property because it was a residence and I guess was used at one time but we have no intention of ever using that outdoor shower. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Okay and one other question, during the site inspection some member of your group offered that you have like a coffee bar in the kitchen display area, is that a retail food use or is that just sort of like an accessory for guests and JOHN NICOLETTI : Yeah just like a Kureg coffee machine in case one of our clients want a cup of coffee. It's not for sale. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's not going to be a cafe of any sort? JOHN NICOLETTI : No, no not at all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEMBER DANTES : Yes, are there other buildings with multiple uses I mean it's a village I'm sure there are but are you aware of any other businesses JOHN NICOLETTI : No I'm not aware. I'm sure there could be but I'm not aware. MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you asking are there other this building is a single use but are you saying are there other properties that have more than one use on it? MEMBER DANTES : Yeah that are similar size in the village there. I would think so but I'm not sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just have a quick think. There might be behind Jen's, Jeni's grill but you know the bottom line is it's a permitted use, it's retail in a retail zone, it's in hamlet business HALO zone where it's an appropriate use. There are businesses on either side and it's in a historic district and won't be touched in terms of the actual structure itself so I think April 5, 2018 Regular Meeting there's compelling enough information relative to character of the neighborhood. I mean I suppose we can research it but I don't think see first of all it's a pre-existing non-conforming legally established cottage and so it has legal standing. The second use is it's interesting because the bulk schedule probably ought to be a lot different in a hamlet business zone anyway because you don't want setbacks from the street because then you're creating you know a strip mall. What you want is a presence on the street on a walkable street which is exactly what this house offers in terms of retail use and is very much the same as the drug stores and compliment the chef across the street and you know it's a linear hamlet and it preserves the street scape so I see no downside to this. Pat did you want to ask anything? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No I think everybody has asked just about as much as you can. MEMBER DANTES : The luncheonette and Revco are a multiple used parcel. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was going to say Ivy League Florist also you have there's a hairdresser and then there's something on the second floor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Dog grooming thing or something. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Are you going to be using the access from here the Town Hall for parking for people in the back or anything? JOHN NICOLETTI : No that access will strictly be for the cottage that's in the back. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from the Board, anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? MEMBER DANTES : Do you guys have a copy of this I don't have a copy of the survey in my packet. Oh there it is. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Any discussion over the signage? I think that the sign is in keeping with other signs on Main Rd. BOARD SECRETARY : It doesn't need any variances. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it just needs because it's a historic district. Didn't you say JOHN NICOLETTI : Yes I've already met with the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Landmarks. JOHN NICOLETTI : Yeah Landmarks Commission. They've already approved the sign. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have the certificate? April 5, 2018 Regular Meeting JOHN NICOLETTI : I don't I think Damon from Planning or Building has that and is holding on to it until we meet with the Building Department to apply for the permit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's fine. We'll just make a note that you have obtained that requirement. Anyone in the audience, okay hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBE GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7154— IOANNIS HIRAKIS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Ioannis Hirakis # 7154. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's November 13, 2017 amended December 22, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling, 1) located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet located at 2100 Cox Neck Rd. in Mattituck. Hi would you state your name for the record please? IOANNIS HIRAKIS : Ioannis Hirakis. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would appear that you want to partially roof over your patio that's in the rear yard. IOANNIS HIRAKIS : Yes ma'am. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And that would create a rear yard setback since it's a structure of 24 feet where the code requires 35 feet minimum and you're proposing to leave it open on three sides? April 5, 2018 Regular Meeting IOANNIS HIRAKIS : Yes ma'am. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're just attaching it to the dwelling. IOANNIS HIRAKIS : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks like you also removed a swimming pool at some point. IOANNIS HIRAKIS : Yes I did with a deck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let's see Pat let's start with you, any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No it's pretty cut and dry. You did a good job of removing the pool though. It looks like it was never there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEMBER DANTES : No, no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just so you're aware, we have all visited the site (inaudible) run into property owners sometimes we don't but we go out and inspect every property before a public hearing cause that's the best way to know what something really looks like and what your neighbors look like and all that. IOANNIS HIRAKIS : Did you like it? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes very nice patio. I don't have any particular questions about it. How about you anything from you Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes, I just wanted to ask I noticed that there is a shed on site. It appeared to be larger than 100 square feet. I believe a C. of O. might be needed. Do you have a C.O. for that? IOANNIS HIRAKIS : No I don't. I was told at the Building Department that I don't need it if it's less than 100 square feet. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So it's less than 100 square feet? IOANNIS HIRAKIS : Yes sir. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I didn't measure I guess maybe the shape was unusual. It didn't look like a standard 10 by 10. IOANNIS HIRAKIS : It's exactly 10 by 10. April 5, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It is? IOANNIS HIRAKIS : Yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : One other question, Gerry and I were talking about the lot coverage and while the patio is really quite nice I don't know how one interprets whether the patio counts against lot coverage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It does not count in lot coverage. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Even though it's raised? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does not count, anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7149— ELSIE TIETJEN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Elsie Tietjen # 7149. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's December 4, 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 rear yard setback of 50 feet located at 7625 Skunk Lane in Cutchogue. MIKE KIMACK : Good morning, Michael Kimack for the applicant. It's an unusual piece of property because it has a pond that occupies the front section of it and I would imagine that that was probably what forced them to put the house in the back of course they pushed it way April 5, 2018 Regular Meeting to the back and this is unusual. Basically I haven't had one where the existing house plus the proposed deck is all within the required 50 foot setback by a couple of feet. There isn't really any other place with which to for the deck basically to go except for the front as far away as possible but it's still within the setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a little confusing about rear yard and front yard on this. MIKE KIMACK : This was a little (inaudible) we had already gotten EPA and Trustee approval (inaudible) discovered that they had missed the back yard. MEMBER DANTES : The only thing I don't understand Mike is that the Notice of Disapproval says it was a rear yard setback of plus minus 48 feet. I'm looking at the survey it looks like decks the house is setback is 10 feet and the deck setback is 38.3 feet. I don't understand why he went to the other side MIKE KIMACK : He basically picked up the wrong on the Notice of Disapproval basically. MEMBER DANTES : So it should be 30 1 mean it doesn't MIKE KI MACK : Rear yard setback of 48 feet. He picked it up the front he should have picked up the 38.3 feet. They were both there basically. He picked the front of the deck out rather than where the deck basically started at the house. It should be 38.3. MEMBER DANTES : Let's use the right number when we write the decision. MIKE KIMACK : That's a good pick up Eric. I should have I looked at it too basically and we had put all of the measurements in there right next to each other he just picked up the wrong one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay 38.3. MIKE KIMACK : At least he's not going closer to the back. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The property slopes dramatically it's just very little choice about any outdoor space. It's already screened on the side yard with some evergreens so MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And there's also the addition of some new stockade fencing I think. MIKE KIMACK : It's difficult to see the house from the road because of the vegetation across the front of the road and then down the side and it is set way back. Unfortunately too way back but that's the way it was. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright Nick anything, Gerry anything? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No. April 5, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pretty clear cut. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, anyone else in the audience, there is no other audience. Hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7150— RICHARD J. FLOOD CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Richard J. Flood # 7150. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's December 27, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct a single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet located at 605 Eastwood Drive in Cutchogue. Would you please state your name for the record please sir. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Good morning madam Chairwoman and members of the Board my name is Nigel Robert Williamson P. O. Box 1758 Southold and I represent the owner Mr. Richard Flood who's also here in case there's any questions. As you say my client is proposing to construct a single family residence and is requesting two variances, one for the front yard variance 40 feet required and we're proposing 35 feet which represents a 12.5 reduction on the total setback and the total width of the porch is 21 foot 6 inches in single story in nature. A rear yard variance of one foot six inches is being requested, zoning requires 50 feet and the proposed master bedroom bathroom is at 48 feet 6 inches the setback request is minimal and represents a three percent reduction in the total setback and the total width is 24 feet 6 inches April 5, 2018 Regular Meeting in single story in nature. The neighborhood is a mixture of single and two story dwellings. The front yard setbacks on the street vary from 35 feet to 50.5 feet on the side where the proposed dwelling is going to be built and on the street total it represents 35 feet to 59 feet front yard setback. The proposed dwelling will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental condition of the neighborhood. The front porch is open on three sides and there's no real (inaudible) to the structure. The master bedroom bathroom has a minimum massing over the 24 feet 6 inch widths and my client will be using landscaping at the rear of the property to block any visual effect of the structure. Again if you have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just have one, when you it's a 150 foot deep lot so when you're building a brand new house from scratch tell me why you need variances, why you can't make this house conforming to the building envelope. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Well what happened was my client mistakenly whether someone told him or he misheard that the rear yard setback was 40 feet, he had all his drawing designed by the engineer and everything and at that point when he submitted he knew with the front yard he had an issue with the porch and with the rear yard when he had submitted then that became an issue so I mean he was into design and everything he had finished construction documentation at that point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay because you know normally you wouldn't need to be before the Board. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Correct I mean yeah for the 1 foot 6 inch variance at the rear yes but again whether my client misheard or someone actually told him that's water under the bridge and he had designed it at 40 feet so he thought he was in good standing at the rear. He knew he was not at the front. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the house itself is setback 40 the one story that's the two story house it's the front yard setback I believe looks as though it's 40 feet. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Correct it is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The porch is what creates the five foot difference pretty much. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Correct and again that single story in nature it's open so there's no real massing and there are two residences on that side of the street to the north I think the second and third lot over where they have a 35 foot and front yard setback. Again those structures were done way before this but MEMBER DANTES : Do those structures have variances? April 5, 2018 Regular Meeting NIGEL WILLIAMSON : I do not believe so. I mean those structures I believe were done way back when. They're single story dwellings and let me see that is lot section 110 block 3 lot 18 which is actually three houses over and lot 19 which is 45 no sorry lot 22 which is 39.6 feet which is next door to him. Again they're older houses so I don't know if they got variances. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pre-existing non-conforming possibly. But you're saying the average front yard setback you're calculating is between 35 and 39 feet? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : No, no that's the average that is one lot 18 has 35, lot 19 is 44.8. The average on the whole street is 43.28 feet that's the average on one side of the street and again lot to the north of him has 50.5 feet, the lot to the south has 39.6 and the lot on the corner of Southern Cross and Eastwood is 46.5 so I mean it varies greatly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any other questions from Nick, Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Sort of the same conversation that you embarked upon, Nigel can you explain what's involved whether it's the roofing system or what not within the construction to redesign where you just pushing the house back into a conforming location and it would seem to me that the natural thing would be to sort of re-orientate the master bedroom and bathroom. That if you just follow the roofline where the garage is you'd capture that extra five feet you know it would shorten the depth but broaden the width. Is that feasible? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : I mean it is. There's a cost to that. I mean he would probably he's going to have to redesign the house I mean the master bedroom as itself I believe is 13 feet wide and 19 feet deep. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Which I mean is not a great size again it's just the cost and the he was so far into the I mean he was finished with his drawings when he submitted them based on again like I say a matter of error. I don't know who the error came up on whether he misheard or whatever. It's a cost and what could you; do I don't know. Without going through the whole scenario I think it may trigger other issues as well along the back if you widen the master bedroom bathroom on the back of the house coming across the living room and everything else. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I didn't suggest it to go across the porch area but just more in line with the garage. April 5, 2018 Regular Meeting NIGEL WILLIAMSON : I'm sorry Nicholas are we in the front of the house, we're in the rear the master bedroom you said correct. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly it just seems to me if you just shorten the depth but make it wider you'd end up with the same area. Granted you would have to redesign the location of bathroom fixtures to avoid the need of a variance. I don't know if that's feasible. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : I'm sorry my client will comment Nicholas cause CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Excuse me speak into the microphone and state your name please. RICHARD FLOOD : Richard J. Flood and I'm the owner of the property and eventually the resident I guess. It's not like we didn't look at that, it's not a matter of changing a few pencil lines it's a matter of just throwing this away. Somewhere along the line I was of the opinion that the setback was 35 feet instead of 40. It's my fault alright. I mean I think what I'm only asking for is for the porch. It's like a hundred and something square feet of objection you know and it's not like we didn't put a lot of thought into I mean you know we kind of settled on this house alright so I guess I just would have had to start over which would have cost I can't tell you how much it would have cost so I don't know. I mean I'll answer any question you want to try and ask me but that's here is where I am now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that was my only question because as I said earlier when you design from scratch you should most likely be able to avoid all of this by sticking with the building envelope. RICHARD FLOOD : Admittedly that's my fault. MEMBER DANTES : So Nick do you want them to shift the house 1.5 feet so it's a slightly larger front yard variance and no rear yard variance? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I mean in my mind's eye and I don't want to redesign their house and I get that there's an expense but if you just push the house in to a conforming location and you make the master bedroom wider as opposed to deeper MEMBER DANTES : No I'm saying shifting 1.5 feet would remove a variance and then at least to unconditioned space that's in the variance area as opposed to I mean it's just a benign MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would agree it's benign. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look the bottom line is this, people come before us because they want to do something the code doesn't permit. The question is how egregious would that non- conformity be in that neighborhood. We cannot and should not redesign people's dwellings. April 5, 2018 Regular Meeting That's up to the property owner. Clearly that's why I asked that question the answer was given, it's cost prohibited to start from scratch and errors were made initially that caused this dilemma. Is that correct to say sir? RICHARD FLOOD : Yes ma'am thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so we know it's a self-created hardship but we also have other standards to look at and to ask ourselves what kind of variance relief is actually being requested and how it would impact the neighborhood or not. You know that's really what's before us. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? Come to either here or there wherever you're comfortable and state your name for the record please. EILEEN MCCARROLL : Eileen McCarroll, I am the property owner to the rear of the proposed construction. I welcome Mr. Flood to the neighborhood but do need some information about the pool. In a quiet neighborhood like Fleets Neck pools are a problem at night. People have parties, barbeques all summer. I would wonder twenty feet seems to be what I have from my rear fence you will see this is me to the pool. Am I reading that correctly twenty feet? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You are just about yeah. EILEEN MCCARROLL : What is the guidelines twenty feet from the fence? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is being proposed is conforming to the code it is permitted according to the code. They don't need any variance for that swimming pool. EILEEN MCCARROLL : Okay I do have some concerns but I think I will have to seek out Mr. Flood as a friendly neighbor to work on trying to find out what time noise would cease etc. We've had several new pools and that's why I'm here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand. There is a row of arborvitae on this survey. Is that existing or proposed and who's it looks as though it's on your property ma'am and not the applicant's. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : That is not the applicants madam Chairperson, that is the neighbor behind and as I stated and my client is we'll be using landscape between the neighbor Ms. McCarroll and his property at the rear. I mean if that has to be a condition in the findings then that's fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, anything from anybody? MEMBER GOEHRINGER :Just a minute, so the arborvitae is on the neighbor's property? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes it's not on the applicants. April 5, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Nigel said that they are going to put some screening? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Correct my neighbors not my neighbor my client is going to put screening across the back of the property between Ms. McCarroll's and his property. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : And what kind of screening would that be? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : He could put arborvitae I mean it can be as simple as that. EILEEN MCCARROLL : There is a nice green chain link new fence not new CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're going to have to address the Board if you're going to speak. I see there is a chain fence that's listed on there and the arborvitae are on your property at the moment at least that's what's on this survey. However the applicant is stating that they want to create some sort of evergreen screening to separate the pool, it will help in that area it will also help with some noise abatement in addition to some visual privacy. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Just so Mrs. McCarroll also knows my client will be putting up a fence around his property because he cannot rely on other neighbors fences for his pool compliance I just want you to know that ma'am. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay anything else from anyone? Hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) April 5, 2018 Regular Meeting HEARING #7151—TIMOTHY and GEORGIA QUINN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Timothy and Georgia Quinn # 7151. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-116 and the Building Inspector's December 5, 2017 amended January 8, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff located at 63165 CR 48 (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Greenport. MERYL KRAMER : I'm Meryl Kramer and I am presenting the project a little last minute. Rob Hermann was unable to be here. So the first thing I'll do is I'm assuming all of you have these drawings and photos, I'll just kind of walk through a little bit of what we were planning on doing but I think it's pretty obvious. This is the landward side of the house and we are changing the roof of the existing two story portion of the structure. We're not actually changing any other part of that structure but the roof slope was very shallow there so we're increasing that from an aesthetic point of view no other reason than that and to give some more height in the ceilings actually on the second floor and then the existing single story portion of the house we are adding a new second story addition over the existing footprint in order to give the owners who just had a second child some more space. On the rear of the property which is the water sound side you can see again the second story addition. We are extending the existing second floor deck to go along the entire waterfront area and wrapping that over the existing pool deck to create a pergola so that we have a physical connection if you will between the new roofline over the front of the house and the rear of the house. And again that's generated by an architectural desire on our part and also a desire to have a shady spot for the family to sit by the pool. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me just enter into the record exactly what this relief requested is. It's a 65.25 foot setback from the top of the bluff where the code requires 100 feet minimum and you were granted alternative relief for a bluff setback of 64 feet ZBA # 5644 of February 3, 2005. So you're proposing this second floor within the actually at greater than the prior variance relief for a bluff setback. MERYL KRAMER : I think it's the other there was a confusion on ZBA case 6833 which was the previous CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's the 2015 MERYL KRAMER : Correct. We are going landward of that. We are not extending beyond. I thought you were saying April 5, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no I'm saying that you're staying within the footprint in (inaudible) of the relief granted setting it back by a foot or so more than what the 64 foot MERYL KRAMER : Exactly so that was what I was about to say. So all the proposed additions that we are doing are contained within the existing footprint. We are not going any closer to the bluff. We're farther away from the previously approved setback. We're requiring relief due to the increased height. It's a vertical expansion not because of any sort of expansion of the footprint itself. From an environmental standpoint we're not getting any closer to the bluff. We are beyond well over the 100 foot setback from the wetlands. We are not expanding the number of bedrooms so therefore we're able to reuse the existing septic system which is landward of the house and the existing septic system is approved and is by the Suffolk County Water sorry the Health Department and we actually well Rob met with the Health Department to confirm that the existing system was adequate for the new expansion which we knew it would be. Additionally we are going to be adding protection to the environment by providing expanded drainage system of leaders and gutters and drywells to the new roof areas where there was none before and we are also going to be providing a project limiting fence to provide containment of all runoff during construction. So all in all we're giving the owners the benefit that they seek in the least impactful way possible and I'm here to answer any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's deemed to be LWRP consistent and Soil and Water's report to us indicates the bluff is stable. The property as we know from inspections slopes backward away from the bluff and toward the house and that the construction is within the footprint of the existing dwelling. They're just warning once again not to use heavy equipment close to the bluff which is a pretty standard comment on their part. Let me see if the Board has any questions, Pat anything? MEMBER ACAMPORA : I noticed some deer fencing along the property, has that been approved? MERYL KRAMER : I am unaware I wasn't involved with any of that. I thought any fencing they would have to be approved by Trustees but you don't need a building permit for I'm not sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If it's fencing that's over 4 feet in the front yard then you need a variance period. Six feet is okay in the side yard and rear yard but an 8 foot fence and I don't think its 8 feet actually it's a mesh kind of enclosure. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well there's two different heights. On the east side it's high which (inaudible) the 8 feet where on the west side it's lower it's probably 6 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know what is it on the survey? Well they're going to have to go out, Building will have to go out and do inspections anyway during construction and if it's 0 April 5, 2018 Regular Meeting something that they feel needs to get variance relief then they will let you know and you'll be back for the fence but at this point it's not before us and I don't know what you know what we need they would have to go out and do a site inspection. You'd have to put it on the survey and all of that. MEMBER DANTES : Can we just make it a condition that before they issue a C.O. fencing should be code conforming? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Add to that also the gate. The gate is well over 4 feet which I think the code limits it to 4 feet so just to insure everything is code compliant. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know the other option is to just Mel just to ask the Building Department to go out and take a look while we're doing these variances and see what they think you know when we could address it instead of causing more delay for your client or any kind of problem in the future. If you want to go in and tell them it was brought up at the hearing. MERYL KRAMER : Let them inspect and see what's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let them have a look and see whether or not it's compliant or how it needs to be modified or do they need variances and so on and we can probablyjust take care of it all at one although you might have to apply for a second variance. MERYL KRAMER : I know the owners are very willing to do whatever is required and if they did something that was not compliant they'll either bring it into compliance or apply for a variance. They're not you know they don't oppose to that. I wasn't involved in that so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's just you know that's why we go out and do site inspections for all these properties. You observe things sometimes that you know the Building Department has no way to know they'd not been out there. So I think it's better you know all the way around just clear it up now and see whether anything needs to be done about it or not. MERYL KRAMER : But it won't hold up this variance correct? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No what I think we'll do is because what we need to do is make a decision that might reflect a condition of additional variance relief. Maybe what we can simply do is roll this over, just adjourn this to the Special Meeting in two weeks. We can have a decision ready on that bluff setback anyway but then you can let us know see if the Building Department's been able to clarify anything. Otherwise rather than delaying this cause I know it's time to start getting things built at this time MERYL KRAMER : Exactly we've been waiting. April 5, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don't we if in fact we don't have any further information we'll just simply put some notice in this determination for the bluff setback that the fence was brought up and needs to be investigated as to whether or not further variance relief is requested or fending needs to be removed and we'll just have to word it as a condition of some sort. MERYL KRAMER : Okay I'll go right to the Building Department after this hearing and ask for an inspection so I'll no delays on my part for that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah so what I'm just do is I'm going to adjourn this to the Special and we'll be prepared to close it at the Special and deliberate on the bluff setback also so you won't be delayed in any way but if there's any information we can get between now and then we can incorporate it into that decision. MERYL KRAMER : Perfect. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pardon me Leslie, how does that work though if it's discovered that a variance is needed? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They have to apply for another variance. They'll have to pay another application and apply for another variance. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So we can deliberate on the pending matter and then CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Absolutely then they'll be in with another application. We can't do them on the same application. It's a different Notice of Disapproval. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I didn't know if they would amend it or something. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We possibly could but then they'd still have to pay for another variance a second variance and we have to have a hearing on it too so MERYL KRAMER : I'd rather not delay this portion of the project. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I mean we could separate them I just want to make sure that we have if it's possible to have the information that we need to be more specific as it's a non- issue or it is but we won't delay on the setback. MERYL KRAMER : Okay well I'll go over there right after this. I'll at least ask them to make the inspection and if you know hopefully they'll be able to say which April 5, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Or even just take a bunch of photographs. Photograph the gate, tell them what the heights are, draw it on a survey if you need to expedite it and just say that we just want to make sure everything is clean on the property that's all. MERYL KRAMER : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody in the audience wishing to address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting on April 191h. Is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7152— DAVID KILBRIDE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for David Kilbride # 7152. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's December 26, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to demolish and reconstruct an existing accessory garage at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet located at 860 East Rd. (adj. to Cutchogue Harbor) in Cutchogue. Hi would you please state your name for the record. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Sure I'm Anthony Portillo, I'm the architect and we did the design for the new garage, the address 860 East Rd. Cutchogue New York good morning ladies and gentlemen, madam Chairperson. So we're presenting a proposed design for a new garage to replace an existing garage. We are keeping the same front yard setback. We are increasing the garage basically to fill in a portion that's missing in the rear about 41 square feet. The height of the garage is increased as well and the idea there is to present some storage space. The existing April 5, 2018 Regular Meeting garage is not feasible to actually fit an automobile into it so the new garage has room for basically one car but no storage so the idea is to get some storage in the attic space. We are not exceeding the 18 foot minimum height restriction per zoning code and I do have some photos and that I can present to you of some of the surrounding areas with the same sort of conditions and then the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Mr. Kilbride has put together a statement for you guys he just wants to go over and then that'll be it. DAVE KILBRIDE : Good morning and I thank the members of the Board for your time and attention to this. My name is Dave Kilbride I'm the applicant on this matter. I put together some thoughts, I've written them and I thought for purposes of brevity and to get the detail across I would just read this so it's formal and I apologize for that but I think it'll move this along. So for the past forty years my family has owned and been the caretakers of a vintage cottage and wood frame garage originally constructed by the Fleet family situated on a unique parcel of the North Fork but the garage has deteriorated to the point where it's beyond repair. We're proposing replacement that has a footprint 41 square feet larger than the existing and the pressing approval to construct a new garage on existing footprint. The garage sits on an angle to the town right of way but the closest point which is measured on a slight diagonal it's about a 19 foot setback. We're proposing garage height of 17 % feet just lower than the current guidelines. We're undertaking this project because the current structure is unsound. We need a garage on the property for storage of an automobile, boats off season and a significant volume of family stuff that currently resides in a rental storage unit. We believe that a larger garage is a legitimate need of our family that should be reasonably accommodated on a property that measures about a half-acre. The adjoining cottage is vintage, it's seasonal, it's tiny and it features a total of two interior closets. The proposed garage design is minimalist, simple and it's appropriate to the neighborhood and is intended to recall the utilitarian scallop and oyster shacks that once were numerous along the shores of Peconic Bay. So a couple of points, first of all we do not believe that the requested variance will produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or to the detriment of nearby properties. Our property pre- dated town zoning. The cottage and garage date from about 1900. The structures that do not perform with current town zoning are typical in the neighborhood reflecting the area's early development. On East Rd. there are twelve road front properties along the bay side of the road and of those twelve properties seven of them either have a garage or residence that does not meet current zoning setback requirements. The handout that I've given you, pictures two typical examples on the bottom of the first page two homes that are just up the road. Other Fleet Neck roads are lined with numerous early structures similarly positioned. Two of the three April 5, 2018 Regular Meeting adjacent neighbors, neighbors that we were required to formally notify about the hearing also have garages which are non-conforming setback locations and I've shared photos of these, the Schwartz garage on the upper left and the Cornell on the upper right. Cornell garage on the upper right which is immediately alongside of us has a 7 foot setback from the road. Recognizing the typical non-conforming aspects of this neighborhood ZBA has approved some recent construction with two examples on adjoining Fleetwood Rd. pictured on the second page of the handout. On the upper left there's a house with a 22.5 front yard setback and the upper right is a garage with a minimal 14 foot front setback only a 3 foot side yard setback and they were approved a 25 % foot height on the road side 14 feet back. Another newly constructed garage just two houses away from us on East Rd. is a corner property which is approved for a garage on their side street in 2016 without any variance. It has a height of 18 feet, a 28 % foot setback from the side road based on the specifics of that parcel no variances required but basically what all of this means is that every situation is unique in this non- conforming neighborhood. Each project requires its own specific consideration. One might observe the tasteful non-conforming is actually a feature of the neighborhood. Second point is that the variance we are requesting cannot be achieved by a feasible alternative. You've received letters from the neighbors both on our west and east boundaries who are in support of the proposed design and construction in the current location. Both writers are the property owners most directly impacted by this project and both make the point that the placement of the new construction in accordance with current setback requirements would be a negative or detriment to them because it pushes the new garage closer to their homes which both consider to be a negative outcome. Our property and those of these two neighbors are narrow individual lots running from the road down to the bay and they share a beautiful sloping hillside which runs from an elevation of 40 feet above sea level down to the bay and down towards East Creek across all three lots. There's a photo of the site of that hillside on the lower left corner of the second page and it's on that slope where the current zoning would require that the new garage be located. It's a rare and striking Bayfront North Fork topography but if required to be constructed in this spot the new garage footprint would span a five foot drop in elevation right in the center of that photo and require either the building of a retaining wall or a brutal regrading of the property or a five foot elevated foundation at the lower corner. Both neighbors have communicated to you that they are opposed to that proposition paradoxically they're communicating in their letters to you that our constructing this garage in accordance with current zoning actually would be to their detriment. The third point is the variance we are requesting might be considered substantial but our property lay out in the entire neighborhood significantly predate zoning and again the proposed replacement of the garage is appropriate and totally consistent with the non-conforming and historic character of the neighborhood. Maybe an unusual but secondary perspective that I would just throw in here is that the fact that the survey that I submitted in conjunction with this application was drawn in January of April 5, 2018 Regular Meeting 2017 and a classic bad timing move on my part the survey was drawn just one month after the biannual dredging of East Creek Inlet by the Suffolk County Dredge and as part of that dredging the deposit dredge spoils extended our property at least forty feet out in to Peconic Bay. It's my personal estimate of how much property was added, I think it's probably a low estimate. This is done every two years. Based on this the lot size might have been increased 2,000 square feet or more just in time for the survey which we submitted to you. So I'd ask the Board to consider that had the survey been done a month or two sooner I strongly believe that we'd be talking about a lot size of less than the 20,000 square feet we'd be seeking a variance for a 35 foot setback rather than a 40 foot setback. I have actually a survey that I brought with me from 1973 which shows a lot size of 20,350 feet. This is a lot that expands and contracts. It used to be that when the dredge came they had time to move the hose further and further down the beach. When they come now they in and out in two days. Fleets Neck property owners at the end of the road wants the sand. It gets thrown in about two or three houses. It's a big peninsula then they leave and that's when the survey was done. Four, we do not believe that the Board's approval of the requested variance would have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood because the proposed construction would maintain the garage location where it's been for the last hundred years fully consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. The increase height that we're requesting is consistent with neighborhood houses and garages of all sorts of varying heights and property elevations and we and the neighbor's feel that an adverse physical environmental condition would arise actually if we were to relocate the garage and reshape the hillside water runoff, erosion, drainage challenges with the hillside side and construction fill on the sensitive property reasonably imagined. Lastly, the requested variance is not due to a self-created set of circumstances. The pre-existing non-conforming side of the home and garage along with most of the others in the neighborhood is a product of the late 1800 early 1900 development of the neighborhood. The current location of the existing garage is the correct location for the replacement. The alternate side downhill which would be mandated by the zoning currently is inappropriate due to the natural slope of the property in that location with a negative result that the new location would have on two neighbors most impacted. So we thank you very much for your consideration of this application. I guess in closing I would say that we feel that we are the caretakers of this sensitive piece of property. It's in our best interest to see it redeveloped and maintained in the best possible way for the benefit and enjoyment of the neighborhood and our family so thank you. One of the neighbors is here. Thank you for sending that letter I don't know whether you would add but I'm sorry this is Carol Allison of 820 East Rd. CAROL ALLISON : Good morning my name is Carol Allison of 820 East Rd. I've lived there for many, many years and I approve of the Kilbride putting the garage where it is presently standing. April 5, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. MEMBER DANTES : Can I ask a quick question Leslie, what's the address of the ZBA approved setback variance in the immediate vicinity do you know? DAVE KILBRIDE : The house? MEMBER DANTES : Yeah. DAVE KILBRIDE : Yes, 1650 Fleetwood and it was presented at a meeting on May 18, 2011. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have a file number, ZBA file number? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes, 6468 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And that was to grant a setback of what? DAVE KILBRIDE : 22.5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's for a house right? DAVE KILBRIDE : Perhaps correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's a front yard setback? DAVE KILBRIDE : Yes ma'am. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Didn't you say there was a 14 foot setback for an accessory garage? DAVE KILBRIDE : Yes ma'am that is file 5362 at 1145 Fleetwood and the hearing date it's at an angle but it was 14 to 18 from the front yard CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : For an accessory garage? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Correct and the height was 20.5 feet for the garage. DAVE KILBRIDE : I don't know if we have the hearing date in here but we have the file date. That was signed by Ruth Olivia on November of'03. ANTHONY PORTILLO :The meeting date is November 6, 2003. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you. ANTHONY PORTILLO : If we can make one other request, unfortunately it wasn't presented on the drawings the proposed height but if you guys would consider allowing us to go to the 18 foot height maximum for accessory buildings April 5, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If it's code conforming we have no right to deny it. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Right well the non-conforming increase in height the non-conforming portion on the building is the reason that we're requesting that the variance not just the front yard setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you want to just well you don't need a variance. If it's 18 feet high you don't need a variance. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Even if we're encroaching on the front yard setback? MEMBER DANTES : Was this the same drawing you gave the Building Department to apply for ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yeah but we would like to revise that and go to an 18 foot height which would allow 7 % feet in the storage area to the ridge. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The point I'm making is that an 18 foot high is still conforming to the code and doesn't require variance relief. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Regardless of the front yard is encroaching? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah the front yard setback is what it is. ANTHONY PORTILLO : So if you grant a front yard setback CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The thing though that I think would be useful because they get very confused if we stamp drawings and they're not the same drawings that you're going to give to them for a building permit you're going to wind up back in front of my office asking me for a diminimus request which is an increase in the height. That is one way it can work otherwise you just go there and get confirmation. Redo the drawings, submit them to Building, submit them to us and just make sure there's no other variance requested and that's the drawings we'll stamp. I mean it shouldn't take you very long to redraw that. ANTHONY PORTILLO : No I just put a knee wall increase the height. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean I don't want to delay you unnecessarily, there's no reason do that but I think why don't you just check with the Building Department and see what they have to say about that and try to get us the drawings. If they tell you there's no additional Notice of Disapproval required get us those drawings. Why don't I do this, I'll adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting in two weeks. We will have a draft that we can deliberate on also at that time so as to not hold you up but that would give you time to redo the drawings, submit them and I don't even think it's going to require amended relief but we just want to make sure that we have the stamp the right drawings, the drawings you want. So check with the Building April 5, 2018 Regular Meeting Department, let Kim know what's going on. If you can get us the drawings prior to the say within a week or ten days or something we should be able to move without any additional actions required after. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Unfortunately we made that decision this morning and I just wanted to bring that up because CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's better that you did because then we just take care of it now and you don't have to wind up having the Building Department telling you these are not the drawings they stamped and therefore you gotta go back to it wouldn't require a hearing I have the right to authorize what's called a diminimus change from what was approved so if you're drawings shows what the height is 17 % feet you want another 6 inches we could do it that way but if it's going to hold up anything just tell the Building Department I'm willing we discussed at the hearing and if it's faster that way than getting the drawings in which probably it isn't but it's one more step. It means that I have to write a diminimus. I'd rather that you just try and straighten it out ahead of time then we don't have to have any variations in what we approved. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Okay so then that would mean an adjournment for two weeks and then get the drawings to you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we wouldn't have a decision the next meeting is in two weeks at night and so that would be the earliest we'd be able to deliberate on what you're proposing so if you can get us those drawings with assurance that no additional variance is required from Building, then when we deliberate we can refer to the correct drawings and stamp them as approved and we send that to the Building Department and you're good to go. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Okay great thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from anybody else on this, anybody else in the audience want to comment? Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this to the Special Meeting on April 191h subject to what we just discussed relative to possibly amending the height of your structure. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. April 5, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7153— DOUGLAS and DIANE ROBALINO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Douglas and Diane Robalino # 7153. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's November 13, 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) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet located at 1695 Bay Ave. (adj. to Marion Lake) in East Marion. Is someone here to represent the application? Please go to the podium and state your name for us it's being recorded so speak in to the mic. JAMES DELUCA : My name is James DeLuca, I'm the architect for the job. My address is 12 Linda Lane East in Riverhead. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright it looks like you want to put a 16 X 28 foot wooden deck along the side that's facing Bay Ave. JAMES DELUCA : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and you're proposing a front yard setback of 15.7 feet where the code requires a minimum of 40 feet. JAMES DELUCA : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, just so you're aware we've all been out to the property to inspect it. We do that with every application we take a look at the property and the neighboring properties. JAMES DELUCA : Right I understand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so what would you like to tell us? JAMES DELUCA : Well as you note on the survey we have also a deck in the back that was installed it's kind of I'll start with that one. It's on would be the south side of the existing structure with we want to legalize that deck. We're taking a good part of it off. The steps and the rear portion of it we're dismantling it and being removed and then we're also putting a April 5, 2018 Regular Meeting taking off the existing roof. It's made of many different roof lines and we want to put one gable and roof on it and one lean to roof in the back that's why you see the two x's through the structure and that since the structure was built prior to zoning the roof the Building Inspector said since it's outside the building envelope since we're putting a new roof on it there's no habitable areas it's just an attic and part of the living room ceiling will be vaulted up in that attic area we're replacing the entire roof structure and then the deck will come out of the living area where we have the proposed vaulted area and really that's the portion of the house that we chose to do cause it really doesn't affect any of the neighbors. It's very secluded you barely can see it even from the road because the elevation is very high, the road is very low and it has a good view from that part. It's right out of the living room area because the bedroom area is on the east side where this is on the bedroom area is on the east side, the living area is on the west side and we wanted to and it's the terrain there is a little difficult to deal with if you were out there you would see it and that's really the only probable place that we can actually install a deck without changing any of the contours of the property or anything else. It's really the only really flat area that has any area that we can install a deck opposite the living room area, living room and kitchen area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So on the flat side of the property which is really you're putting down the building envelope right you're saying that those I don't think we have house plans so (inaudible) alright I have to have a look but you're saying that that's where the bedrooms are? JAMES DELUCA :The bedroom area is lined up on that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : to go out that way for purposes of recreation. That was my first question. It's a difficult place to build with such an incredibly dangerous precipitous slope down to the bay why put it there when you have this nice big open flat area on the other side that seems so easy to do. JAMES DELUCA : Yeah that's the reason why. It's on the bedrooms. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It has to do with layout of the floor. JAMES DELUCA : Correct and we're not changing it. It's existing and we're basically leaving it that way. A couple of modifications and closets and things of that nature but all the interior walls are staying in the same place. And actually that area is fairly slopes off a little bit but it's fairly easy to build the deck there. Once you go past the walkway south of that the terrain starts to really go down fairly steep but in that one portion there the difference in elevation of from the one side going east to west is a couple of feet. It's not that severe but any other place on the property on that side it's you couldn't really do it you couldn't really put it in and like I said that is where the living dining area is. April 5, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And what about the wood deck that you're removing partially and rebuilding in place and in kind is that (inaudible) in Trustees? JAMES DELUCA : No we're just taking it away. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're just taking it away. So it's just well wood steps I see what part you're removing but you're leaving some wood JAMES DELUCA : Yeah we're leaving the one that's it's like 12 x 14 that part is staying. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And does that need to it was built without a permit originally, does that need to be legalized? JAMES DELUCA : We have to permit it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have a building permit for it or you're saying you have to go before the Trustees? JAMES DELUCA : We had to come no we're going to present an application to the Trustees. I have a letter from I don't know if you've seen the letter that the Chairman I don't know if you saw this they didn't see any problem (inaudible away from microphone) we have to complete that paperwork but I was told to come to the ZBA. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh yes we have that the LWRP means it's exempt from review that's all but you will need to get Trustees permission. JAMES DELUCA : Oh yeah. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay questions? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : While I understand you're rushed now for putting the deck on the west side as proposed you have the existing deck that you were just speaking about that you need to get Trustees permission for the as built why wouldn't you just extend and I understand JAMES DELUCA :That's off the bedroom basically. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well the bedroom on the east side this is on the south side so couldn't you just continue it or you know double the width to satisfy JAMES DELUCA : (inaudible) right along that side. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right the bedrooms are on the west side I'm just suggesting the deck or you can just make that larger instead of having a second deck. Would you consider that? April 5, 2018 Regular Meeting JAMES DELUCA : No I don't think the I have the plan right here that's yeah that's actually for the bedroom area that deck. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And you just couldn't extend the existing deck to serve the same purpose of the view of the lake? JAMES DELUCA : If you want to go out on the deck you gotta cross all the way across the living room it really is illogical to do that over there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let's look at this, you're proposing 16 x 28 feet? JAMES DELUCA : Yes ma'am. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is the smallest size deck that you can contemplate in other words could we increase that side yard from 15.7 feet to something a little bit bigger by cutting back a little bit of the deck? JAMES DELUCA : Yeah I would say lumber runs in two foot intervals so if you're gonna go to that I would probably say make it you know 14 or 15 I'm sure 14 would suffice to utilize the way the lumber is sold. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that would make it 17. JAMES DELUCA : No that would make it 14 x 28. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I mean the setback would then increase by 2 feet. JAMES DELUCA : Oh yeah it would increase by 2 feet so it would be 17.7 instead of 15.7 at the closest point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right so let's look at the fence that's there now, the cyclone fence and so on. JAMES DELUCA : Yeah we want to replace that and I have the code here for the taking the fence down and putting the fence up according to code so we're going to do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay now that is still considered a front yard even though it's high above the road bed. JAMES DELUCA : Yeah I went to the Building Department and they explained to me that we can go from the front part of the house facing north we can go back 6 foot 6 but from the where the house from the front forward we can go 4 feet till we hit the radius of the corner we have April 5, 2018 Regular Meeting to then drop it down to I think it's 3 % or 3 1 forget right now I have it in here and he's going to follow the rules. I've already been to the Building Department about that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay cause we saw that and we thought well that's probably not gotten a permit because it's higher than what probably the code permits however it's certainly is a necessity I mean that would be dangerous to be that close to such a precipitous slope and not have some sort of protection. JAMES DELUCA : No he wants to take it down and redo it. It's actually old and it's kind of needs help. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see Nick do you have any questions? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, you brought the fence and I just want to make sure that we're speaking the same language. What you call the cyclone fence is the chain link fence that looks like it's about 6 feet high running along Bay Ave. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And that you're saying along the length of Bay Ave. you're going to replace the existing fence with a code compliant fence approximately 4 feet high. JAMES DELUCA : Yes the whole length. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The whole length. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry anything? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : I see under the proposed deck the larger one that we're talking about you have there's a walk in entrance, is there a full basement in the house or what is it? JAMES DELUCA : No. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. How big is the basement? JAMES DELUCA :There is no basement. MEMBER ACAMPORA : It's just a cellar? JAMES DELUCA : Cellar crawlspace if that's what we want to call it. There's no stairs to get down there. The only thing that they have there if you look on the survey there's a little out April 5, 2018 Regular Meeting shed over there that's a that little shed like on the right that's where the boiler is. That's why the chimney is right there. Years ago they just you know did what they had to do. MEMBER ACAMPORA : They just did what they did. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They were cottages you know funky construction. You're proposing to remove that shed and to build a conforming garage. JAMES DELUCA : Yes that shed's coming out of there also. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the garage is not before us it's conforming. Okay Eric anything? MEMBER DANTES : Should we get the printout of other area variance in the area cause I think there's a bunch in this neighborhood. JAMES DELUCA : There's a lot of stuff in very close to the line all over the whole neighborhood basically. It's like a lot of these old neighborhoods where I am in Riverhead, Reeves Park all the rest of it the houses you know they are what they are, they've been there for years. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Most of them are pre-existing non-conforming. However, whether or not you could probably do this you know with Google Earth or whatever just find out there are a number of front yard setback variances that I'm sure we've granted along Bay Ave. and Rabbit Lane is another one but that helps the application. If you can look at the other non- conformities in the neighborhood and say that this is characteristic of the neighborhood you can submit to us a list of what the front yard setbacks maybe within you know such and such a distance. As a matter of fact the law does allow you to average within three hundred feet of the subject property whatever the front yard setbacks are there and that might be helpful. JAMES DELUCA : Well I think it's more going down the Tuthills Path is more of them closer to the road than Bay Ave. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's fine they actually front on two streets so either or both streets. JAMES DELUCA : Yeah but my client would be more than happy to you know go to 14 when you start getting less than that the deck starts to get useless. MEMBER DANTES : We're not talking about that we're just trying to get the old precedent that we've set in the past just give us a list of that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If there are any variances for front yard setbacks in that area you have to have a look and also you can just tell whether or not even if they didn't get a variance they might pre-date zoning and just simply be there and didn't require a variance cause they April 5, 2018 Regular Meeting didn't do anything to change anything but we need to look at the character of the neighborhood and sometimes not only does the fact that there are other conformities that are very similar make a difference but also the fact that if it's a substantial setback percentage wise which this is I mean it's a big difference between 16 feet or 17 feet and 40 feet so we mitigate that substantiality by saying that you know this is we've already granted variances that are similar to that so if is there anything else from the Board? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I just wanted to ask one question because again you sort of offered that you'd be willing to reduce the deck, are the Robalino's here or oh hi. Is that something that you'd be willing to offer or amend or how do we process what CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We do it one of two ways, either you amend your application to increase the setback or we grant you we deny the 15.7 feet and grant 17.7. We just give him alternative relief and then you would have to submit the drawing that's 14 instead of 16 and we'll stamp that and that goes to the Building Department. JAMES DELUCA :That's fine you do it through resolution, I'll just give you a new survey. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's fine. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So then you're suggesting that you'd be accepting a 14 the deck with 14 feet which increases the setback? JAMES DELUCA : Yeah. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Perfect. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we'll do it as alternative relief and then you'll just submit the drawing that's all. Anything from anybody else, any of you want to say anything. We record these so you should have actually been in front of the microphone, hey Liz the applicant spoke and said that they wanted to make their house bigger. Okay hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. April 5, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES: Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh I'm sorry I should have closed this subject to receipt of additional information on the non-conforming front yard setbacks in the area. So I'm just going to amend what I just said. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Thank you and the sooner you can get that to us the better cause we want to get busy writing up a decision and include that. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7138—STEPHANIE L. TEICHER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have a request to adjourn the Teicher application to May the Trustees are going out today with Mike. So motion to adjourn to May 3rd at 1:30. MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. April 5, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) April 5, 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 : April 12, 2018 37