Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-05/03/2018 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 May 3, 2018 10:03 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member (Absent) ERIC DANTES—Member GERARD GOEHRINGER— Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO— Member KIM FUENTES— Board Assistant DAMON HAGAN —Assistant Town Attorney May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Kevin Foote#7127 3 -7 Timothy J. and Nancy Lee Hill # 7155 7 - 13 1505 Birdseye Road, LLC# 7140 14- 31 Sara Lamm and Matthew Aselton #7156 31 - 33 Peter Pantinella # 7157 33 - 37 Lefkara Holdings, LLC#7158 37 -46 William and Lorraine McIntosh #7159 47 -48 Tou Patera Mou, LLC, Nick Moshouris#7158 48 - 50 Thomas Simon and Jeanne Shanahan #7161 50 - 53 Stephanie L. Teicher# 7138 53 - 57 2 May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting HEARING#7127—KEVIN FOOTE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board was adjourned from February 1St, that's Kevin Foote#7127. There's no need to reread the Legal Notice as a result of this having been adjourned. Mr. Cuddy would you like to come forward. , MR. CUDDY : Good morning, Charles Cuddy for the applicant. With me is Jeffrey Butler who is the engineer and also Mr. Foote the owner. As you recall from February we wanted a variance setback wise for the house and we met the requirements because we were certainly the same as everybody else if,not better on that street. There also was a concern about the location of the pool. I think it's actually in the back yard it's the only place that we could locate it and so we think that that's appropriate and the big question came about the garage and we took the garage and we moved it from the west end to the east end which I think the Board also asked that we would do and the question now is the height of the garage. Certainly Mr. Foote is looking to be able to use his garage possibly for an office, if not for an office for some sort of recreation type of activity and he can't stand up if he doesn't have the height of twenty two feet. I would point out to you that he could build on his existing house and go thirty five feet high and have two and half stories but he hasn't done that because I think that would be disproportionate to the way the neighborhood is set up with houses relevantly small. So what he's asking for is the same footprint for the garage but he's asking that it be higher so he can make some use out of it. He does not intend to use it as an accessory apartment. He intends to use it just for the limited purpose that we've talked about which is either an office or possibly a gym with some equipment in it. I don't know that this would have any adverse effect on the neighborhood. The next house is actually over a distance from us and right next to us is a garage so our garage would be back to back with the existing garage with the neighbor. I don't know that there's any adverse environmental affect by building a slightly higher and I don't think that the certainly the neighborhood is not going to have any adverse effect in doing that. I don't know that there is an alternative. The alternative really is to build something on his house and I say that's disproportionate to the entire neighborhood so we're hoping that the Board understanding that we've moved as you requested from west to east would be satisfied with the garage that we've been showing to you. Do you have a copy of the floor plan, because CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We do actually we have a copy of the architectural drawings the elevations I just lost my identity, thank you. We have a copy of the elevations and the first floor. We don't have a copy of the second floor for the garage so I'd like to inquire a little bit about that. Maybe Mr. Butler you want to take the podium. JEFF BUTLER : Good morning, Jeff Butler here on behalf of the applicant Mr. Foote. The second floor footprint is just designed as open space right now. We don't have a design locked in. We May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting understand that the code with regard to the dormer size of forty percent has been recently amended to allow eighty percent which they tweaked the design a little bit to make it a little bit more attractive and useful on the second floor so right now it's just designed as open space. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's no plumbing,there's no half bath? JEFF BUTLER : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can build a twenty two foot high structure on that property, however you would need if it were a conforming location a ten foot property line setback. Eighteen would be okay with five. Now it's not called out in the Notice of Disapproval because it's a side yard location so anywhere in that side yard it's going to ,be non-conforming so the setback was not specifically called out. With a structure that high I would certainly suggest a ten foot setback is reasonable from both property lines. You have plenty of room to do that. It shouldn't be a problem. JEFF BUTLER : Well it does begin to pinch the access to the house a little bit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well what is it now 13 feet? JEFF BUTLER : 13 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it'll become 5 foot less. JEFF BUTLER : And 5 foot forward is what you're suggesting? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah 10 feet from the property lines. It's not characteristic of the neighborhood to have a 22 foot high accessory garage, 18 yes. So if you want the Board to consider that then the least we're going to try to mitigate any impacts to adjacent properties by putting in place the code required setback that would be the case if it was in a conforming location. KEVIN FOOTE : Kevin Foote, if I went to 20 feet can I leave it where it is? I just the house is just so charming I don't want to make it look awkward and I want it to be accessible so I really just want a treadmill upstairs and be able to stand up.That's what I'm looking for in the height. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Understood, however the Board is obligated when variances are justified to grant the smallest variance possible and I don't think it's I'll speak for myself because I'm just one vote on this Board but it doesn't seem unreasonable at all in consideration of what kind of lot you've got and the particular neighborhood and typical accessory structures in the neighborhood. You have to decide what's important to you. JEFF BUTLER : That would be fine what you're suggesting. May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if there are questions from the Board, Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER I've always been considerate of neighbors in reference to water runoff. I realize there's another garage. This is a typical roof situation with gable ends and so you know Chapter 236 is very important in this particular situation. We wouldn't want to flood out the neighbor's garage in the back by there so I have to honest with you we recently did a house in Laurel and we mandated commercial gutters which are about that wide. More importantly so it didn't overshoot the gutters and that very simply we put everything in a drywell and that's most important here. So I'm just throwing that out to you. The other situation, I was not at the first hearing I was away is the lap pool. Is there any reason why this pool is sixty feet long? KEVIN FOOTE : Exercise. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Exercise. You didn't anticipate any type of wave type of pool. r KEVIN FOOTE : I do triathlons so it's just the length. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : That uses a lot of you know a lot of lot coverage there's no question about it. Alright I'll leave it at that. JEFF BUTLER : Can I go back to the storm water runoff just for one second, we have capacity designed in for the roof and we have four points coming down which are Mani folded to that drywell. We will certainly oversize the gutters so that in a deluge they don't overrun and I think with the move of five foot and five foot it also helps in that event to buffer it so there's no (inaudible)to the neighboring yards. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : And of course the house will have leaders and gutters too. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes actually I just want to confirm that you're going to relocate the garage per the discussion a few moments ago ten feet from either lot line to maintain the 22 foot ridge height? JEFF BUTLER :That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric? MEMBER DANTES : I don't have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I did hear you say that you might be adjusting the dormers. 5 May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting JEFF BUTLER : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Bear in mind that any changes to any drawings that this Board stamps approved will wind up back in my office with a request for de minimus. It would be much better to make that decision before we stamp those drawings and we have to go through yet another process because once we approve something we stamp it and then that's what the Building Department is going to give you a building permit for. They're not going to accept something that has changes to it. ' JEFF BUTLER : So can I talk about that process for a second then. So I'm going to submit that back to you a relocated garage and I'm going to note on there the gutter sizes and demonstrate the drainage like we've talked about. Then I'm going to submit to you elevation drawings and floor plans first and second floor and that's what provided they're still conforming with our discussion and the 22 feet of height. We're not triggering any other variances with dormer widths or anything like that then that would be what would be approved correct? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you're going to change the drawing you just submitted to change the dormer width then I would do it so that that's what we approve. JEFF BUTLER : Correct yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, I don't believe since the law has been changed it would trigger a variance but it would be a good thing to probably just double check with the Building Department so we don't run afoul. I think you'll be fine but as long as you conform to whatever the code now allows. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the application? Jeff how much time do you need for this submission? JEFF BUTLER : Two weeks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : To get all that stuff together. Do you want to then adjourn it to the Special Meeting or do you want to go ahead and adjourn it subject to receipt? We can adjourn this to the Special Meeting and close it there giving you the two weeks or we can close it now subject to receipt of the drawings you just described. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'd rather close it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's fine I'm just asking that's all. That way if we adjourn it subject to receipt if you send it in a little earlier or a little later it's not going to matter cause for us the clock starts when we receive the information. Alright so motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7155—TIMOTHY J. and NANCY LEE HILL CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Timothy J. and Nancy Lee Hill #7155. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's December 14, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to legalize an "as built" deck addition and to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 360 Oak Avenue in Southold. BRUCE ANDERSON : Good morning, Bruce Anderson Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant Mr. and Mrs. Hill. (Speaking away from microphone handing out paperwork to the Board at the dais) The proposal here is to construct a 12 foot by 40.3 foot addition to legalize an existing 25.4 foot by 12 foot deck and expand that deck by 14.8 by 12.3 feet. Those improvements are depicted on the survey prepared by Peconic Surveyors that we filed as part of this application. The purpose of the addition is to expand interior space and if you look at the floor plan and that was provided to you you'll see that the Hills have a sort of an open floor plan and in a very small area consisting of approximately 450 square feet they have a kitchen, a dining room and a living room so it's very, very tight and all they're seeking to do is to expand that area essentially to expand the living room portion of it. If you look at the exterior elevation you'll see that this is a one story ranch house. There's a reversed gable off the eastern side and this goes to the western portion of the house and that too would have essentially a matching reverse gable so it's a ranch, house (inaudible) symmetry in the space you'll see that in the exterior elevations that were also filed with this application. The existing dwelling contains 2,126 square feet which is calculated 18.9% of lot coverage and with the proposed addition which totals 666 square feet the coverage would increase to 2,792 square feet or 24.9% of lot area. The other thing worth noting is that the proposed house addition and deck would comply with all respects to all dimensional setbacks to all property lines so please take notice of that. It May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting is a non-conforming lot and it contains 11,200 square feet and if you look at the aerial photograph I also attached a copy of the tax map, what you will notice is that in this particular neighborhood all the lots are non-conforming with respect to the R-40 zone in which they are situated. So it's an older neighborhood characterized by similar sized houses, some two stories, some one story. Here the desire is just to maintain the one story ranch look and which I think is in keeping with the neighborhood. This also is unique in that if you look at the tax map you'll see that there's an unnamed road that runs along the northern portion of the property and all the properties in the neighborhood and when I first looked at this we asked the attorney if we could simply put claim that portion of the lot cause if we were able to do that obviously the coverage would decrease as the upland area seaward of the seawall as shown on the survey. The problem we experience is we according to the attorney is that there was no way of quick claiming that portion of the road because no one knows who owns it and the town when I was going through some of the old variances on this (inaudible) variances they used to treat this as two front yards, they no longer do so I think there's a recognition that as a practical matter the unnamed road which is a fifty foot wide road is essentially (inaudible) to the waterfront parcels. All these parcels contain either bulkheads or seawalls, docks etc. which span that fifty foot road. I gave you a copy of the tax map for that. In addition we believe it would fit in to the neighborhood is my understanding is I don't believe we have any objections in the neighborhood. Then I also point out that similar relief has been granted in the neighborhood I have four of them here for your information (inaudible) MEMBER DANTES : I have a question for you Bruce about the road, so anything in front of this lot line here like the seawall, the steps, the wood deck, the floating wood dock, that would all be on the road's property not on your client's property? BRUCE ANDERSON : The road is 50 feet extends according to the tax map if you look at the tax map which I have attached there, there is this imaginary not imaginary a paper road essentially what it is MEMBER DANTES : So it cuts to the wetlands? BRUCE ANDERSON : Oh yea and I think maybe it was done many, many years ago maybe there was an interest in horse drawn you know wagons hauling oysters or clams or something. That's the only thing I can think of but it's kind of a unique feature you don't see that often. The Board's familiar with this because they've entertained other variances up and down the street here because they're all non-conforming and they all have this condition and I think it's just a situation that can't be like I said we'd love to quick claim it and that would basically solve our problem. MEMBER DANTES : Did your surveyor calculate that part of the land as part of a lot coverage? May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting BRUCE ANDERSON : No, no because we don't no, no and the survey shows that but I throw it out there because it's interesting I think. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can I give you a reason why it has not been, cause there's no tax map number on it. It was never taxed okay so in a case of a normal situation you'd ask the Assessors to tax it okay and then the County would take it for non-payment of taxes and that has never happened. BRUCE ANDERSON : Cause it simply doesn't have a tax map number. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : That's correct.They never assessed it cause it's probably underwater. BRUCE ANDERSON : So is it a gore?A gore I guess that the best way to describe it. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : It's underwater land and that's probably the reason why they never taxed it. BRUCE ANDERSON : Okay that makes sense. So to sort of wrap this up is that you know it's our intention that there is really no impact to the character of the neighborhood because the house even with this addition is similarly sized to the houses that already exist in the neighborhood. I will point out that the deck in front,the intent there is just simply to square off with the existing deck. My suspicion is that that deck was built many years ago on what was I believe a patio but the reason why you have to have the raised deck is cause that's where the doors open. So the first floor is about four feet off the grade of the land so the idea is just to square off the deck and I trust that (inaudible). The benefit we seek we need a variance to do it because the lot is undersized at 11,200 square feet. We maintain that the variance sought is not substantial. We're talking 24.9% which roughly calculates to approximately 400 square feet which is quite minimal. We submit that the granting of the variance will not have an adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. With the construction project obviously we would be taking the dwellings that exist today with the addition the entirety of the dwelling and bring it into compliance with the town's storm water regulations. Note that there was an LWRP that was submitted as part of this application and in that report it states that the proposed (inaudible) is not discordant with the surrounding community character. And then finally that the hardship is not self-created because of the existing non-conforming nature of this lot. So we would contend that the benefit to the applicant if the variance were granted would outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. The benefit is obviously the ability to develop the property so you have a reasonable sized living room addition in what is a very cramped space right now. We don't believe there is any impact to the neighborhood in terms of health, safety or welfare and that concludes my basic presentation. I'll answer any questions that you may have. May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : For the record Bruce, do we have town water there or no? BRUCE ANDERSON : Yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You indicated that a ranch house is typical of the area, however driving through the neighborhood you see many two story homes including immediately opposite, has the applicant investigated the idea of adding a second floor as opposed to increasing the square footage? BRUCE ANDERSON : Well I think the as these folks get older they don't want to climb stairs and I think the intent here is to keep everything on one level so that it's easier to get around within your house. I've seen that a lot with the housing projects we involve ourselves with. You get a little older you don't want to go up and down stairs and MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but the (inaudible) BRUCE ANDERSON : You can add a second story, it doesn't solve the problem of expanding the you know what he's really trying to do is expand the living room that's already tight cause if you look at the floor plan you'll see that you have a kitchen, you have it says kitchen, dining room, living room all compressed into this relatively small space. If you were to add a second story it defeats the purpose of the application which is to expand the living room section. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let's follow up on the whole idea the lot coverage, the square footage and so on. The priors that you just submitted Bruce, thank you very much for that we have 21.9%, 22.5%, 23.3% and 21.7%. BRUCE ANDERSON : That is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you're applying for 24.9%. BRUCE ANDERSON : That is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So is there I'm looking at this deck extension, this is 14.8 it looks like by 12.3 feet, if that were not to be built you would be reducing lot coverage. Can you figure out by how much? MEMBER DANTES : I think it comes out to 23% Leslie. BRUCE ANDERSON : That would calculate at 1.6% of lot coverage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that brings it in at 23 what did you say Eric? MEMBER DANTES : I just (inaudible) at 23.2 May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting BRUCE ANDERSON : The deck the 12.3 by 14.8 calculates to 1.6% of lot coverage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So take that off of 24.9 MEMBER DANTES : 23.3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And it's 23.3 okay. BRUCE ANDERSON : But then what you wind up you see that there's doors that open up on to that space so what you wind up doing is you know you have to come down I guess steps or something to be some sort of landing, I'm not sure there's any benefit to the community granting it. I will say that if you look at some of these decisions some that I have gone over that obviously if the decks were at grade we wouldn't be here and we understand that and so what the Board has done in the past is say we'll grant the variance under consideration that the decks never be roofed and you'll see that and you can make that for obviously the existing deck and because if you were to take both of those off let's say you would comply. You certainly bring it down by you'd be right at 20% or CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I'm just trying to see what leverage there is to bring this lot coverage down to what the highest lot coverage in the neighborhood has already received a variance for which is 23.3% so the existing deck is very large. It's a really good sized deck. As you know we've all been out to the property and seen it, it's 28.2 feet, (inaudible) so yeah I mean that's almost always the standard condition of any deck and this one has to be granted legal as built legal deck and no doubt the condition the standard condition will prevail in any case but BRUCE ANDERSON : My only concern is that like I said the first floor of the house is about four feet above the grade. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well yeah I mean you have to redesign that, egress and so on so that it was safe but didn't add to lot coverage. It's a pretty small consideration. It may be a little less convenient but it's a pretty small consideration in granting you know this lot coverage and legalizing the existing deck. Eric any comments or questions from you? MEMBER DANTES : The only question I have is it says area of septic, is that going to be is it the old septic system then you're going to be adding a new one or BRUCE ANDERSON : No that's the existing septic system and one of the things we run into this there's nothing about what we're asking for that would trigger a septic upgrade. However, the world of septic systems is rapidly changing as you may be aware of so I did express a concern about that and we referred this over to our engineer Joe Fischetti cause I wanted to make sure :X1 May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting that there would be nothing about this addition from a space standpoint that would preclude you know any future septic new septic system which typically would be place between the house and the road so I have a letter and Mr. Fischetti has confirmed that adequate space to accomplish (inaudible) should that need arise. MEMBER DANTES : Do you have to go to Trustees review after our review? BRUCE ANDERSON : Yes we do. MEMBER DANTES : Those were my only two questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? MEMBER PLANAMENTO I just wanted to add one comment where Mr. Anderson had indicated about access to the deck and mobility etc. On the elevations it clearly illustrates along with the plan that from this addition there are no doors to that deck addition. So there's the sliding door which is sort of in the dining room in the existing house so I think that if the deck was scaled back it would make it more compliant to the lot coverage. BRUCE ANDERSON : Well if you look at the oh I see what you're saying. In other words you have MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Where the deck currently stops you got the addition but there's you know a bank of windows from the living space but no access point so that reduction I don't think would be detrimental. BRUCE ANDERSON : I mean he's right about that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's 23.3% lot coverage without this reduction which is more in keeping with the maximum that this Board has granted relief for in the past in that area so okay are you done with your questions, everybody done with questions, anything else Bruce? BRUCE ANDERSON : No I don't think I have anything more. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay anyone in the audience? Hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing BRUCE ANDERSON : Wait I do have one point I want to make. If the Board chooses to grant a variance with the condition that that deck not be constructed, it seems to be possible. It may be useful for the client to re-proportion that space elsewhere, you follow? Because he wanted to square it off, I get what he's saying. Maybe if that space is for example a hundred and whatever it is a hundred twenty square feet maybe he takes a little bit off you know just re-proportions it and I would assume that if that choice were made that would be regarded as a de minimus change if you wound up with the same coverage, is that a fair statement? May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I can't say until I see it. Hopefully I wouldn't have to see a de minimus but if you contemplate that that's a possibility that you will want to reconsider how it's built based on the lot coverage being reduced by 1.6% then perhaps you ought to talk to your client and make this decision in advance and we could BRUCE ANDERSON :That's what I'm thinking too. I'd like him to have that consideration. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We could grant alternative relief or we could just adjourn to the Special Meeting and you can then consult and see if there are any if you want to submit an amended survey or plan to us at that level of lot coverage I have no problem with that but I don't want to have to have you come back with a de minimus if we can avoid it. I can't predict how that will work but if you want BRUCE ANDERSON : And of course not taking a vote, all's I'm saying is that I think that it would be beneficial for the applicant to understand what the discussion has been that's all I'm saying. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure, well I'm happy to give you time to do that. BRUCE ANDERSON : He may say alright I guess I won't build that portion of the deck you know he might say that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's fine. I'm happy to give you time to talk to your client. I don't think the Board has any issues with that. Why don't we just adjourn this to the Special Meeting and then that would give you some time to make some decisions and either say yes or this stands the way it is and just deny this piece of deck extension or no we have a different idea that's going to conform to the lot coverage we've been talking about. BRUCE ANDERSON : Right I think that would be efficient. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's fine so I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting which is two weeks from now Thursday May 17tH MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. May 3,2018 Regular Meeting (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7140— 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for 1505 Birdseye Rd., LLC. This was adjourned from March 1St so there's no need to reread the legal notice again. We have some new information that's been submitted and I, imagine we'll be taking testimony with regard to that, Mike. MIKE KIMACK : Yes Michael Kimack for the applicant who is also present. Yes at the last meeting on March 1St there were two issues that were raised before the Board of one of which was the long term stability of the slope of the property. As a result of that and another issue the Board adjourned it to give us enough time to gather additional information. I had requested Kathleen Fallon PHD with the NY Sea Grant to accompany me to the site which we did and she viewed it and I asked her to render a report under the stability of that slope that report should be in your packet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is. MIKE KIMACK : I just wanted to go over some of the highlights of that. What Kathleen was able to determine is that if you look at the second paragraph in there, the boulders to the east and to the west play a role in stabilizing the shoreline and the fact that the beach itself is composed of large pebbles which requires a lot of wave energy in which to move it is also a mitigating factor in any erosion of the slope itself. One of the things that Kathleen did is she looked at the last twenty years of data on the conditions that had been presented itself on storms and she recognized that that particular beach line had basically had receded and deposited on natural occurrences that many times and even though no one could predict going forward in terms of what may be the case but the history of this particular location and more importantly the (inaudible) position of the shoreline itself which Kathleen basically points out as being northwest facing in and of itself is a mitigating factor in terms of the erosion of the beach and her last statement over there basically the beach will continue to fluctuate and (inaudible) is subject to both winter and summer storms however the stability over the last twenty years is encouraging during which it has survived multiple storm events. In that fourth paragraph down she does indicate that the property does face northwest which provides some safety from the larger (inaudible) waves and obviously she also reconfirms the fact that the vegetation on the slope is the main stabilizer to the bluff and it's well vegetated. It's in good condition, there's no erosion present at all and that letter I know is in your file. The other issue that had been raised was whether it was the location of the top of the bluff and you had requested the Trustees to 141 May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting go out there and determine that. John Bredemeyer did visit the site and did flag it. If I can turn your attention to the survey which would be in your packet and so it's not too confusing cause you got a couple of line over there, John's flags are the triangle ones on the drawing, there are five of them. John basically brought it he pretty much worked on the north east corner of the bluff/bank and you can note that his, beginning point is really lower than where we had positioned the top of the bluff. He did not bring it over to the westerly side of the property primarily. What we did is when I went to Peconic I asked them Peconic went out there and picked up these particular finds and also we then just we put on the we then connected that back to the line we had done and brought it even further up the, bank. You can see going from west to east along the top of the bluff we connected higher up the bluff than John's actual flag. I also left in place the one done by Inter Science which was not that far the east the west the steepest portion of the slope itself. Then you'll also note that from the highest point the property basically the building itself and this is the this is the portion that extends over the top, it's not the foundation of the building meets the fifty foot setback but also on that drawing there are dimensions that from that particular line to the foundation itself which exceeds the fifty foot. Essentially if you're looking for any kind of impact that a building may have on a bluff it's going to be not the overhangs it's going to be the foundation itself. Now with that we also then I requested another application a pre-application and the Trustees we visited the Trustees on site and they did a field inspection on April 11th as we had discussed. Subsequent to that we gave them copies of the adjusted map and also I gave them a copy of Kathleen Fallon's report on the stability of the slope. That letter is in your possession from the Trustees and essentially they also picked up the northwest orientation (inaudible) the protection from the letter that Kathleen had provided but it's the last comment that they make is that the applicant has designed a structure that supports the intent of town code while addressing the physical constraining characteristics of this property. They find that the location that that building was cited in meets the code under the conditions present on the site both natural and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I wouldn't say that it meets the code, it meets the intent. MIKE KIMACK : It meets the intent. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's not quite the same. That's an interpretation on their part as to what the intent of the code is. MIKE KIMACK : Basically they felt that the building as it's now proposed meets the intent of the code in that particular (inaudible). Those were the two main factors. The other two variances that we are requesting having to deal with the bridge that was proposed being seven foot forward of the fifty foot (inaudible) yard setback, the reason that one of the reasons that it does go further than the fifty feet is that we have an understanding with the Trustees and they 1s May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting would like to be able to protect that wetted area. They so indicated that on several occasions. You'll also see on the drawing that on the survey itself that you'll see the silt fence is also shown on there which was not on the last one and I had Peconic put that on because I wanted to show the Trustees that all of the proposed work is seaward of that basically. The drywells and the house itself so there would be no work below that for that are that they really want to be able to stay away from and that was one of the reasons that the bridge was pulled forward because what we didn't want to do is add additional fill into that area and an extra seven feet would get into some of the bases of the trees and that area that we're trying to preserve. So that's why the bridge basically was set seven feet into the fifty foot front yard. It had a function in terms of not being able to or being able to preserve as much as we could of not disturbing the area that the Trustees had a vested interest in. Thirdly the variance we're asking for the deer fence I address you to we did the only thing that as a concurring application we did want actually it was mine it was application #6992, it was approved for a deer fence with similar types of situations. In that situation it was on the water, there were no deer fences in the area and it was at the end of the road about three hundred feet and it was pretty much lined up with what we're asking here too. This particular property is at the end of a road. The deer fence the way it's going to be put on the property, the natural contours of the property are pretty much going to hide it from any neighbor. You're not going to be able to see it. If in fact some of it may be seen the owner is quite willing to do any kind of plantings necessary to hide those particular areas although I don't expect that to be many and that was pretty much when you made that decision in 6992 in that case the deer fence was wrapped in to a completed planting,area all the way around so it became part of the planting area. In this case we really have a natural condition of plantings. The deer fence is not going to be seen from most places but if it is going to be seen we certainly will be willing to do a planting in that area too to minimize the visual impact. MEMBER DANTES : What's the address on that variance? MIKE KIMACK : The address is 308 Park Ave. MEMBER DANTES : And it was a deer fence built into the bluff? MIKE KIMACK : No what they did basically was a deer fence all the way around but on the bluff it was a four footer that came across. In this case the difference is that there's no visual sighting of any fence on the bluff at all because it stops at the house. It doesn't extend beyond the house itself so it's a much shorter type of a fence. In that case in the 308 case it went all the way down to the bluff as an eight foot deer fence but then it came across as a four foot fence but it was visually more seen from the waters but this one would not be. It's on the other side May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting and it's down the other side of the slope it's not part of the any impact from the Long Island Sound at all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Shall we listen to everyone before we ask questions? Okay anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Morning, Martin Finnegan, Twomey, Latham, Shea, Kelley, Dubin and Quartararo. I am here this morning on behalf of John Josephson and Carolyn Zapf who stand together with all the surrounding neighbors including the LaVecchia's, the DeLorenzo's, Ms. Valentine and Mr. Mantisonni and the Jordans all of whom are here to voice the strenuous opposition to this application based on their well-founded concerns over the clear negative impact this project will have upon their neighborhood, their properties and the environment. At the last public hearing we submitted our arguments regarding the applicant's inability to meet the standards under Section 267 B of the town law for the issuance of area variance relief to enable him to construct what is a massive dwelling surrounding by a pool, terrace and deck within 50 feet from the top of the bluff where the code requires a 100 foot setback. I pointed out to this Board (inaudible) previously declined to grant relief of that magnitude to an applicant who sought to build a structure a quarter of the size of what is proposed here based on findings that the 1600 square foot house proposed in that matter 50 feet from the top of the bluff would introduce impermeable surfaces and alter the soil structure causing accelerated recession which could result in damages to the neighboring properties and the proposed dwelling and that's quote. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is this the Aliano? MARTIN FINNEGAN : In the Aliano case. That determination as you know was upheld by the Supreme Court and also by the Appellate Division in the Aliano case and copies of that decision was included in our prior submission at the last public hearing. We also pointed out that there are no front yard deer fences in the community and no justification for altering the character of this neighborhood by allowing an unsightly eight foot deer fence in the front yard of this property partially screened or not there is just no it's completely out of character in this neighborhood. The front yard variance for the walkway is, we submit likewise unnecessary. Moving it back seven feet to comply with the code is equivocally available alternative and cannot be said to have any impact. As was mentioned at the last hearing questions were raised regarding the location of the top of the bluff and it seems that since then this Board had requested some input from both the Trustees and the Town Engineers to confirm that location. Their review is apparently confirmed the astonishing fact that the proposed construction is not 50 feet from the top of the bluff but is now merely 37 feet from the top of the bluff. Now the applicant had already conceded that a 50 foot variance was substantial. Now it appears they 17 May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting need a 63 foot variance to construct a house that is going to maximize the entire allowable lot coverage on this parcel. I don't know if it's even possible to dispute that relief of this magnitude will have an adverse impact on the environment. I mean I don't know what I'm missing but in Aliano you had relief for 50 foot variance out of concerns that that development of a 1600 square foot house was going to accelerate recession and erosion of a bluff. Now we're talking about 6,000 square feet of invasion in to the bluff plus additional structures almost entirely within the setback. What is even more disturbing and astonishing is this April 13' memo from the Trustees and the comments there. I understand you routinely refer things to other agencies for comments and that you may be inclined to give deference to the Trustees on an environmental issue but it has to be stated that the Trustees comments to this Board do not compel you to grant variance relief. The comments seem to be based on a field inspection on the subject premises on April 11th and an off the record discussion that took place there between unidentified persons the substance of which is not part of the record of this proceeding that I'm aware of. Without explanation the memo states that the Trustees are satisfied that the proposed construction merely 36.7 feet from the top of the bluff achieves their stated goals which include the need to preserve vegetation that stabilizes the bluff and the need to preserve the low lying area in the southeast corner of the property. With all due respect to Mike Domino and to the Trustees it is completely illogical (inaudible) that the construction of 6,028 square foot dwelling surrounding by a terrace, pool and pool deck almost entirely within the setback area protected by Section 280-116 of the code will stabilize the bluff. I mean seriously that is astonishing. Bob Grover is here to speak in more detail about the actual impact this construction will have on the bluff, but it doesn't take an advanced science degree to recognize that the clearing required to complete this massive construction project will decimate the surrounding vegetation and undoubtedly enhance bluff erosion. Noticeably absent from the Trustees memorandum and the record is any explanation of how the proposed construction will serve to achieve that goal. This is however ample evidence in the record that demonstrates that the applicant can locate the house in a conforming location on the property without the need for any setback relief from this Board and I would submit to you that doing so would in fact preserve the vegetation that stabilizes the bluff and I just want to show this that we had showed at the last hearing but this is the depiction of the available (walked away from the microphone, inaudible) that measures 954 square feet (inaudible) conforming. Now the purported justification for the relief requested to build the house 37 feet from the top of the bluff is the need to preserve the low lying area in the southeast corner of the property apparently because there's trees, it's vegetated whatever. Again the Trustees memorandum offers no explanation or substantiation for the need to protect this area that is clearly outside their jurisdiction and unlike bluffs low lying areas are not even defined much less protected by the express provisions of our town's wetlands and zoning codes. Trees are not protected in the wetlands code, bluffs are. The area is a natural swale. The fact that construction in a low lying j,$ May 3,2018 Regular Meeting area may be inconvenient, more costly or result in a less desirable view of the Long Island Sound is certainly not a justification for you to abandon the established setbacks in the town code. The applicant should not benefit from the alleged constraints that existed when the applicant purchased the property. I mean this is confusing to me because you know if you knowingly buy a property that is not suitable for construction and then you don't get to come here and ask for permission to build a house that maximizes the buildout in an area where the code says you're not allowed to have any construction. It just doesn't make any sense. Also puzzling to me and to my clients is the Trustees conclusion that the proposed structures support the intent of the town code. Now I'll spend a little time with our town code and I can't find any provision in there that supports the relief sought here. If they're referring to section 280-116 of the town zoning code the proposed construction adjacent to the bluff is clearly contrary to the mandate that buildings and structures shall be set back not fewer than one hundred feet from the top of the (inaudible) bluff. It couldn't be referring to the wetlands code their code because there the Town Board stated purpose was and I quote the protection, preservation, proper maintenance and use of its wetlands and prevention of damage to structures and natural resources as a result of erosion and a minimization of the impact of new development, restoration and or expansion on the resource area values listed above. It's not clear to me how the expansive design of the proposed structure is within a protective setback area supports the intent of the,town code. It's not clear why the Trustees are abdicating their responsibility to protect the bluff in favor of a low lying area that lies outside of their jurisdiction but I remind you that this Board's analysis is governed by the standards set forth in the town law. You're not bound by the opinion of any other agency. You are obligated as you know to conduct a balancing test to determine if the benefits sought by the applicant if the variance is granted outweighs the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding neighborhood. You're faced with the request for multiple variances some of incredible magnitude. Any evidence of hardship you have heard is entirely self-created. (inaudible) speak to the indisputable negative impact this project will have on the bluff. Evidence has already been presented regarding the availability of an alternative conforming building envelope with ample room to accommodate all of the proposed construction but there's scarcely any evidence in the record that establishes that a house and pool cannot be constructed in this twelve thousand plus square foot area. (inaudible) submitted that the granting of a variance of such incredible magnitude to allow the construction of a massive house that would essentially sit on the top of the bluff and further relief for a front walkway that unnecessarily invades the established front yard setback and an unsightly eight foot deer fence around the perimeter of the subject property will have an immediate undesirable and adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood and the environment. Under Town Law 267B it remains undisputed that the 63.3% deviation from the setback in 280-116 is unquestionably substantial. There are feasible alternatives in a conforming location as demonstrated by Mr. :19 May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting Grover and Mr. Matthews. As I said previously any difficulty here is entirely self-created and there's no question that we're talking about an adverse environmental impact. You did it Aliano, you denied a variance for something that was not even a quarter of the size and I would suggest to you that the same reasoning applies to compel you to deny the variance relief sought here. I mean the granting of such extreme variances on the sole basis that there's a low lying area not even protected by our code that somehow needs protection is going to set a pretty horrendous precedent and I think you have to be careful about sound front homeowners lining up to build their houses right on the bluff or close to it so they could have a better view of the sound and that's what we're talking about here if we deviate from the setback. So at this point I just want to yield the floor to Bob Grover who is going to offer some comment on the letter that was referenced and submitted by Kathleen Fallon and what we believe to be the actual impacts the project will have on the bluff. There are also several of the neighboring property owners here that I believe would like the opportunity to address the Board thereafter. MEMBER DANTES : I just want to make a comment there is another variance in Peconic that we denied for a bluff setback for a brand new house and then the other one is as I'm looking at this fence on the version I have, it's on the bluff and if the fence is located seaward of the coastal erosion hazard line they need to go to the Town Board for approval for that? MARTIN FINNEGAN : They start with the Trustees I believe but then they have to go to the Town Board. MEMBER DANTES : We really can't comment, make a decision on that part of the fence. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Any other questions from me or can I open up okay. ROBERT GROVER : Good morning, Bob Grover director of Environmental and Coastal Sciences at Green and Pearson in Babylon. At the last hearing I presented my credentials and my resume is on the record so I won't get them to you now so I'm going to jump right into it. When I was here last at the last hearing I presented testimony that the top of the bluff line is depicted on the applicant's survey was incorrect. Since then my determination of the bluff line has been essentially verified by your Town Engineering staff and so now we are looking at a setback of 37 feet from the edge of the bluff which to me is just I can't stress how inappropriate that would be and I'll get into some of the reasons for that. I had an opportunity to read Ms. Fallon's letter. I've only met Ms. Fallon once. She's pretty new on the job. I knew her predecessor Jay Tansky very well and his predecessor but she's fairly new on the job. I don't know how much experience she has on the long island coast and the only thing I'll say to her credit, she don't have any gray hair. She hasn't been doing this for very long. She claims that and Mr. Kimack has stressed this as well that for some reason the orientation of this bluff makes it less resistant to erosion and Ms. Fallon claims that the narrowness of Long Island Sound limits wave energy. The 72-0 May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting fetch which is the amount of water the wind can blow over from the subject property to the northwest to Connecticut is over twenty miles and the water is deep so there is no significant limitation on the size of the storm waves that can affect this beach and not only that northwest if you look at something called a wind (inaudible) engineer's publish them they're kind of complicated or I would have submitted one but the gist of it is most of the wind energy on Long Island on the north shore of Long Island comes directly from the northwest so I don't know how this somehow conveys some protection but it doesn't. Almost all of the bluffs for this reason almost all of the bluffs on the north shore of Long Island are experiencing severe erosion. Ms. Fallon and Mr. Kimack told me about how all the beach is stable. Yes the beach is stable and I would invite you to look at any coastal geology textbook any one you can find and they're all going to say the same thing, the bluff supplies the sand to the beach. How does it do that, it does it by eroding. I'll ask a rhetorical question, where does everybody think those boulders that were being talked about and this gravel where is it come from? It came from the glacial marine that is being eroded by Long Island Sound. That's why they're there because the bluff is eroding. Ms. Fallon also said something to the effect that it can be assumed that future erosion rates will be similar to recent rates. Well that's not true. It's actually the opposite is true and Ms. Fallon did concede the sea level is rising. She used the wrong rate of sea level rise. She used the global average of three millimeters per year where unfortunately Long Island and most of the east coast of the United States in what's called a sea level rise hot spot. We're rising much faster than the for a number of reasons I won't get into but we're rising much faster than the global average and our average right now as determined for Long Island as determined by the U.S. Geological Survey is a little bit over four millimeters per year so that's a twenty percent error and that four millimeters per year you compound that and all of a sudden you're talking inches over a periods of less than decades and what does that do?That raises the sea level so it raises the ability of the Long Island Sound and the waves to cut into the bluff. As we say in the business it increases the cutting edge, it raises the cutting edge. So, we have a real severe problem on Long Island with bluff erosion. Bluff erosion as I testified last time is generally catastrophic and unlike beach erosion which can recover, bluff erosion is not recoverable unless and I think I might have said this previously last time, unless you want to wait for the next glacier to come along but I'm going to give you some recent examples of serious bluff erosion on Long Island very recent and you probably read about all of them. In Shadmoor State Park out in Montauk an area I know very well, one night fifteen feet of bluff disappeared. That happened in one night ant that's not an unusual event. The Montauk bluffs aren't much different than the Orient bluffs. It's the same glacier. It just stopped in two different places. A project I worked on in Shelter Island back in Sandy had a bluff that very much resembled the bluff on the applicant's property. It was very heavily vegetated, it superficially looked stable and in one night during Hurricane Sandy they lost twenty five feet of bluff. That's pretty significant and what it did is it endangered a whole bunch of houses. The problem with that is once these bluff 21 May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting erosion events occur if the property behind it is not developed Shadmoor State Park I work for I do a lot of consulting work for New York State Parks and as well as New York County Parks but Suffolk County Parks but all they did is they said well there's a hiking trail, the hiking trails now in the ocean they move the hiking trail back, that's not that big a deal they understand that's what you're dealing with but when there's a house there the reaction is entirely different. The reaction when there's a- house there is oh, oh I need to build a seawall. So I can almost guarantee you that if this were approved a 37 foot setback keep in mind if they had a 25 foot loos of dune in one night now the house is only back 12 feet from the edge of the bluff. That's scary and even before that happens I would predict that this applicant is going to come back and say you know what I think I need a seawall to protect my bluff and then your Trustees are going to be looking at the possibility of a sea wall which by the way will cut off public access to the shoreline. I don't know if you noticed it but there's an article in Newsday today it's kind of timely, I'm going to let everybody have a copy of it. It was on their website yesterday and the print edition this morning at least in western Suffolk. I don't know if you got it out here so I'm going to give you all a copy of it. What this discusses is exactly this, houses were built maybe back there they'weren't too close to the bluff but now they're too close to the bluff and there's a demand for a structure and I believe it evens highlights in this article from what I recall that if you put that if you lock up that (inaudible) of the structure there's no more sand getting to the beach and as I said before the material for the beach comes from the bluff. That's very simple coastal geology. So in the case of the project I was involved with in Southold which by the way faced the same way, faced northwest with a much, much shorter fetch cause it was just from there to Shelter Island I'm sorry from there to the North Fork to Greenport very short fetch didn't matter twenty five feet of boom bluff gone and so now what do they have they have a seawall and what is that seawall doing, it's preventing at high tide people from walking on the beach. So, that's something you really have to keep in mind it's a serious concern that approving a project like this is going to eventually result in a request for seawall and in the case of Southold I'm sorry Shelter Island the regulatory agencies really had no they didn't have any choice. These houses are now sitting on the edge of the bluff. These were big, big expensive houses and this bluff had been stable for fifty years and the regulatory agency said we don't want to grant a permit for this but we have to because we can't afford we don't want to lose this real estate and I don't blame them for that. It's problematic. So, moving on to of the other aspects of this one thing that Ms. Fallon didn't address is what are the appropriate setbacks? She said yeah it's a pretty stable area but she didn't say the setbacks should be 37 feet for the house. As a matter of fact in her letter if you read her letter carefully there's no indication she was even ever showed the site plan. She may have no idea what's being proposed. She looked at a bluff and said yeah it looks like it's pretty much stable for by the way twenty years and like I said the one on Shelter Island was stable for fifty years before it collapsed. The idea of doing this to me is from an environmental point of view, coastal management, and coastal geology it 22 May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting makes no sense to put a house there. Looking at this low area that seems to be everybody's reason for wanting to put this house closer to the bluff, that doesn't have any special environmental value. It's not a wetland and any encroachment on it can easily be dealt with by very simple standard everyday what we call engineering best management practices, BIVIP's. There are ways to do this it's not particularly difficult. So, I'm not the least bit concerned with the idea of encroaching down on that low area and the introduction of impermeable surfaces 37 feet from the bluff is also a big concern because that pushes water injects water into the bluff itself which can have a destabilizing effect on the bluff. Supercharge the bluff and what do you have you have a collapse. And finally, we got into a little bit of a discussion at the last hearing on liquefaction and I talked about how the operation of construction equipment or even the digging of fence posts on the bluff can cause soil liquefaction and Mr. Kimack said well the ground water is too deep and you have to have water for soil liquefaction. Mr. Kimack needs to Google soil liquefaction. Has nothing to do with water and I'll tell you exactly what it is. If you take a piece of clay from a long island bluff just a little sample and you rub it between your thumb and your finger it's very slippery because the clay particles are shaped like little discs. When you have a compressed body of clay which is a big portion of what our bluffs are it can stay pretty stable for a long time if it's undisturbed but when you get vibration over it all of a sudden it causes these little discs to start sliding on each other. There's no water involved. They start sliding in each other and all of a sudden boom you have a collapse of the bluff. So that to me is a serious concern and it can easily be avoided. I mean that's the least of the reasons I would say this needs to be disallowed but it is a concern. I mean it makes no sense to put something this close to the bluff but soil liquefaction needs to be addressed as well and I would be really happy if you would ask me some questions. MEMBER DANTES : What's the biggest the instances or examples you said were on the ocean or on the bay what's the biggest single like sound bluff(inaudible) MR. GROVER : The biggest single one that I've worked on in recent years was the one on Shelter Island during Sandy. MEMBER DANTES : No one on the sound. MR. GROVER : On the sound well the article I just gave you discusses the sound. I mean it seems like once a year there's an article in Newsday about a bluff somewhere you know that's the difference between the south shore and the north shore, the north shore is mostly bluffs and at least once a year there's somebody who wakes up and they walk out on their porch on the Long Island Sound and they look and say Oh my God my porch is now hanging over the edge of the bluff. You see those all the time. If you'd like I can get you specific geographic locations but they're very common and they're all east and west all along the Long Island Sound shoreline. 23 May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Remember Fishers Island? That's exactly what happened with a variance we had on Fishers Island, complete bluff blowout and the house was hanging over the bluff. MR. GROVER : That doesn't surprise me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Enormous expense. MR. GROVER : Unfortunately I don't have a lot of access to Fishers Island but I have been there once I actually assisted the County and appraisal of it and looked at environmental values when they were looking to buy it before Lewis Bacon MEMBER DANTES :That's Robins Island. MR. GROVER : Oh that's Robins Island I'm sorry. Fishers Island I have never been to. I must confess and I know it's part of your town. I go by all the time on the ferry but I would love the opportunity to visit Fishers Island someday. Yes that sounds about right. MEMBER DANTES : There's the Carbone and then there's the other one the judge. His house had to be pulled back. That's just off the top of my head. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : The answer for you Eric is in Mattituck at the end of Ruth Rd. where we had a prior variance for a swimming pool but from that particular point on west the erosion of the bluffs is absolutely phenomenal. The houses are literally hanging off and they have not moved them yet because they're such large houses. One is cement block to my knowledge. MR. GROVER : Yep and also out in Montauk on the north side of the north fork of Montauk it's a little bit of a different situation because it's related to the maintenance of Lake Montauk Inlet but properties just between Montauk Inlet and (inaudible) point that are in real serious danger as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well look in the interest of first thanking you for your patience the rest of you here who are not here for this application, we had to start late because we had an arraignment at nine thirty when we were supposed to start our hearings so thank you for your patience. I just want to take all the testimony and try and get this all into the record with as much efficiency as we can. It's a lot of time dedicated to-this and we do have other hearings but I don't want to cut anybody off either so does the Board at this point have any other questions of Bob, anyone else in the audience Mike do you want to say anything? MIKE KIMACK : May I respond to or do you want the other individual to speak first? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don't you go ahead. 2,41 May 3, 2018'Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : I'll be brief as I can I realize we're running late. He brought out the fact that there was this the house was out of the magnitude of the area and I refer you back to this indicating that it's well within range of all the other square footages that are on the property. We stand by the fact that when you go back,to Ms. Fallon's letter she indicates that it's a well vegetated slope. There is no continuing existing of continuing erosion on that slope and has not been. I'm not quite sure how we can characterize the pebbles on the beach and the sand coming from the slope it just isn't happening primarily. There seems to be this concern that was raised about the fact that if the slope goes the house is going to be in jeopardy as it's positioned. Take a look at the foundation level of this it's at twenty feet the basic foundation of the house itself. You literally have to lose if you take a look at the twenty feet there you'd have to lose pretty much half the property and the bluff itself before you're even impacting the house and the location that's been chosen. Let's talk about the bluff. We know where the top of the bluff is now and the reason that John laid the line out the way he did is because there's a different definition between 275 and 280 as to what's defined as top of bluff. Under your definition under 280 you have to meet two criteria. One it has to be more than twenty feet and it has to be more than twenty percent grade. The interesting part about that is the twenty percent grade is calculated as it rises from the high water level. If you look at this if I can focus you on this particular take a look at the slope that's here, as you come halfway across we have no question and I didn't argue the fact (inaudible) make my calculation going back to high water mark that particular criteria is met it's higher;than twenty feet and greater than twenty percent grade. Where it gets fuzzy is where John a little bit on where it turns you can see where and the difference comes (inaudible) the steepness and begins to gradually fade off to the northeast right there. Under your definition that's a bank that's not a bluff. Under the Trustees definition it's a bluff because they do not have the twenty percent and the twenty foot high. They simply say if it declines it's a bluff but the reason that it's not a bluff for the Trustees is that also part of that definition requires in order to be defined as a bluff that it runs to the shoreline. That part doesn't run to the shoreline. I did not raise this with the Trustees because I knew that their definition was different than yours and the other reason was that when you look at where the foundation is being placed on the property and take a look at the bluff, all of the contour lines slope away from the bluff downhill and everything basically to the east of that is sloping almost easterly almost a good portion of that is also (inaudible) away so a good portion of that whole range where John's got those first three flags is really not a bluff as much of a bank both under your definition and under their definition but I did not question when John put his flags down. But let's look at the actual factors as to what that represents, this whole section over here it's a much more gradual (inaudible). It doesn't go the beach. It doesn't go to the shoreline. It's not subject to the wave action that area and that I would suggest is one of the reasons that the Trustees did not have an issue with that 36.7 foot setback is because it was not something that would necessarily be subject to the wave action that the westerly half of the property would May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting which is clearly defined as a bluff. To reiterate again there is no existing erosion. There is no erosion that is attributing rocks, pebble, boulders etc. to the beach, it's well vegetated has been well vegetated for its history and Ms. Fallon's letter indicates this will continue to be well vegetated. The foundation one of the reasons also the house is set where it is, is take a look at where the septic system is, it's the only place that system could be placed on the property because it has to 150 feet away from three different wells including the one that the owner has to put down and if you look at where the drywells are on the low side we can't come down any lower because the bottom of those drywells has to be two foot above ground water. So everything that we've balanced off on this property, where the house is located, where the septic is located, where the drywells are located, where the bluff is located, the condition of the bluff and the fact that halfway across the property it doesn't become a bluff it becomes a very, very gradual bank going down which under your definition would not be subject to it. I didn't question it and I would imagine that it was probably one of the reasons there's a differential in that area between where John put his flags and where Inter Science eventually put theirs because they looked at it as not necessarily a bluff. They just kept it coming right across. The actual aspect of it is those gradual declinations down and I think you might have walked that pathway going down, it's a very, very gentle but it's not subject to wave action for that whole section over there. So we've maintained more than the 50 feet more where it's critical to the top of the bluff. (inaudible) 63.6 and 69.8 to the foundation, where in fact it is designated bluff and where it's most sensitive but where it swings around to a lesser percentage of grade and where it does not go to the water and where the wave action is not going to be in any way attributable to affecting the toe of the slope yes it is closer but if you look at all those contours it's going away at that particular point from the bluff. So given all of these conditions and given working with the Trustees and working with the natural conditions of the site and working with the code limitations this basically is the proper place for the house to be. It will have no impact on the bluff of where it's being placed liquefaction aside during construction or so it will not impact that bluff at all. D.E.C. basically has given approval up to the 26 foot line on top of the bluff. They don't want anything seaward of that from the top of the bluff and the 26 foot line except for the walkway to the beach. So there's going to be no disturbance at all from us as conditions the bluff. Are there any other questions for me? CARLOS ZAPATA : My name is Carlos Zapata. Just one question because there is some issue about this bluff and putting the house closer to it would do to the bluff. Well there is a historical presence here. The neighbor to the west his house or their house is 25 feet from the bluff. It has not affected the bluff. It is extremely (inaudible) so if we look for an actual example that's the house it was built of course before the regulations but it was built 25 feet away and MEMBER DANTES : How do you know it was built 25 feet away and the bluff didn't erode until today it was 25 feet away? 76 May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting CARLOS ZAPATA : Well I am not magician but I can see the vegetation on the bluff and it's the same vegetation going around it. That's just a simple observation. So I would just take that into consideration. The rest I leave it up to you I mean we have presented out case. We believe we have taken our time. We bought this property a very long time ago. We've been studying what's the proper way of positioning the house. We're not trying to affect anybody. The views are not affected to anybody. The reaction is what it is. We're trying to present our case without emotions just presenting information. If you have suggestions to us we'd be more than happy to take them into consideration. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you, anyone else? JOHN JOSEPHSON : Good morning, my name is John Josephson I'm' grateful for the chance to chat. I own 1900 Birdseye Rd. as well as the contiguous lot just to the east of the applicant's lot that's undeveloped and just two points that I'd like to make just very quickly. One is I acquired the vacant lot that's contiguous to the applicant's lot. When my wife and I bought 900 Birdseye Rd. about fifteen years ago our intention has always been to develop that as a small home for ourselves when we pass our house on to our children in a few years' time. I actually retained Bruce Anderson who testified here earlier today on two separate occasions in the last ten years to figure out how I can develop that lot and he told me there is no way that I would ever be able to get permission to build here which would be right next to where the applicant wants to build his house. That means that I would have to build in the as of right envelope and if I build there my only view will be of the working end of the applicant's house so there will be an impact on the views for me that's one point. The second point very briefly just on the character of our neighborhood, we did not know any of our neighbors before they moved in. We've become close friends with all of them. When the LaVeccia's moved in about seven or eight years ago they also wanted to make changes that required variances we met the applicant on the beach when we were having a picnic last summer, we introduced them to the Mattesoni's, we invited them to reach out to us if he had any issues or questions, we never heard anything from him until we got this application which I would submit to you is very substantial and when the LaVeccia's wanted variances we sat down with the Mattesoni's and we reached an agreement that met everybody's needs without ever having to take your time up and they came back with a proposal and it was quickly approved. We've never heard anything from Mr. Zapata and I guess the one question I have, I don't see why-the town has an interest in giving a variance of this significance that meets all of his needs and gives zero consideration to the concerns of his immediate neighbors and you know I would hope that there is a solution here one way or another that addresses his needs. I'm not seeking to prevent him from building a house in whatever style he chooses I just believe that if you're going to be giving or contemplating giving a variance of this magnitude it should be on a basis that it at least tries to address everyone's concerns not just one persons and I thank you. May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Madam Chairwoman we've been here for over two hours. I think we really need to take a quick recess. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I think we're going to probably finish this testimony fairly quickly Gerry and then we can recess after that. PAMELA VALENTINE : Good morning my name is Pamela Valentine. My husband Bill Mattsoni who is here today as well and I reside at 1525 Birdseye Rd. which is a sound front lot one lot removed to the east from the applicant's property. We've lived in Orient for almost thirty years since 1989. We're happy to be here today because at the last hearing on March 15t we were out of town and we were unable to attend but since that time I've read again and again the applicant's application for a building permit for the variances and all the submissions to the Board in opposition to and one in conjunction with the application that of Ms. Fallon. The opposing submissions legal, environmental, architectural and community oriented are universally uncontroverted, unopposed and unanimous. So I have to wonder why are we here? The applicant has submitted an application with utter disregard to applicable codes, rules and laws. It smacks a disrespect to this Board who's charged with applying those rules the applicant prefers to just flaunt. On a more personal level the application smacks a disrespect to all the neighboring property owners in the community over whose property rights along with his environment and the character of their community the applicant proposes to trample. The law is clear. The purchaser is charged with the responsibility and obligation of understanding the property he purchases including the relevant rules, regulations and restrictions to which his property is subject. If ever there were sophisticated knowledgeable and informed purchaser this applicant is it. Yet despite his knowledge of zoning and building rules and restrictions be they septic, be they well, be they environmental, be they code he has made no effort to submit a thoughtful plan. Rather he's chosen to submit a clumsily conceived plan that makes no effort to consider or conform to applicable rules and restrictions. He proposes to erect a non- conforming albatross. It's entirely out of keeping with the existing proportional sizes of homes to lots and out of keeping with a respectful locations of homes visa vie their neighbors and out of keeping as well with the quaintly modest character of the community. It's a community that has no existing deer fences yet he proposes a non-conforming fence in the front yard that would extend to and over the bluff whose erection would further threaten the integrity of the bluff. With complete disregard to the character of the community he proposes to ignore all setback rules and risk the integrity of the bluff and thereby the coastal environment of the community. The comparison to a ball in a china shop is tempting but inapt. The ball doesn't know any better, this applicant does. This is not about the property rights of the applicant. It's about the property rights of all the owners in the community. None of us opposing this 281 May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting application are asking the Board to infringe at all on the applicant's property rights. The applicant didn't purchase and he doesn't now have the right to do that which he proposes. We ask only that the Board apply the law consistently with those five factors you're mandated to consider under New York law so the applicant is prevented from infringing on the property rights of neighboring owners in the community. As property owners we should have the right to expect the codes and rules will be applied to protect and maintain the character of our community. The community we bought into. The community we've all worked to preserve and maintain. As property owners we should have the right to expect the codes and rules will be upheld so that the coast line and properties are not exposed to the risks of premature and unnecessary erosion. We believe that the codes and rules are in place to protect both the environmental and geologic aspect of the community as well as the socio historic aspect of the community. This applicant proposes to bulldoze his way over both along with this Board and its mandates in the process. Now the credibility of the application has come into question. The application substantially understated the extent to which it seeks to encroach beyond the hundred foot setback from the bluff rule. We now know it proposes to encroach the hundred foot setback by an egregious 63 feet not the admittedly substantial 50 feet and the application is problematic in other areas. The bluff is currently well vegetated. The applicant admits that at least some of that mature vegetation on the bluff is going to be destroyed in the process of building so close to the bluff and in erecting a deer fence extending beyond the setback and over the bluff. We heard that again today. His (inaudible) solution is to revegetate. Is that really feasible? The conditions for immature unestablished plantings on that bluff are not just harsh they're extreme. The bluff is routinely buffeted by winds in excess of thirty, forty, fifty miles an hour and worse in severe storms. The vegetation on the bluff is pelted with sea spray and salt. We have attempted to plant on our property and far more protected areas with less exposure to winds and salt plants known to be salt resistant. Their survival rate is poor. Immature unestablished plants stand little chance of survival in extreme conditions to which they are exposed to on that bluff. The existing mature vegetation is a testament to the survival of the fittest. Where is the Board going to be when best intentions revegetation efforts fail to partially or fully succeed and the bluff is even more exposed and its integrity even more compromised and since we've been talking about the applicant's expert Ms. Fallon in think on this point even she agrees with us. The second to last paragraph of her submission says vegetation is the main stabilizer of bluffs and plays an important role in slowing erosion rates. Due to the sharp contrast between vegetated and exposed areas erosion features are easy to see. The property's bluff is well vegetated,•well it is now with mature bushes and trees that are acting to prevent erosion. When more of the bluff face is exposed a greater percentage of the shoreline will rapidly recede. An un-vegetated could erode at rates as high as two meters per year. The applicant also states that his purpose is to construct a residential dwelling for the use and enjoyment of the owner and his family. One can only wonder isn't trampling over the property May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting rights of your soon to be neighbors a counter intuitive way to proceed if you expect to enjoy your location? I will not rehash the valid unopposed legal points submitted, the valid unopposed environmental concerns and the unanimous concerns of the neighboring property owners. I'll just ask again in light of such clear consistent and uncontested submissions and testimony why are we here. Isn't this one of the most clear cut determinations the Board could ever be asked to make? Why should this application not be denied in its entirety leaving the applicant free to return with a proposal that respects the code and rules, the environment, the health, safety and welfare and character of the community? Let's not allow this to applicant to bulldoze. Let's ask him to do what he excels at, be an architect solve the problem, and overcome the restrictions. Go back to the drawing board and present something thoughtful and respectful to the Board, to the environment and to the community. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm just going to ask people to wrap up whatever they have to say. MIKE KIMACK : I just noted on this survey and I didn't have the opportunity cause I got it the day before I met the Trustees, this survey shows that deer fence down on the slope, it's not there it's back at the house which is on one of your other drawings. According to D.E.C. we are not to disturb the from the top of the bluff the 26 foot line except for that walkway going down. So there's not a revegetation planned for the bluff at all for the top of the bluff down. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Just real quick, yeah the top of the bluff line that Jay flagged was verified by Jaimie Richter in the letter a record property line on a survey does not stop water flow okay. As we know all these properties go down to the beach, go down to the water. I don't think we can say that because the line turns that we're not at the top of the bluff. I think we're at the top of the bluff as the code defines that and so at this point whatever it is we're still well within the hundred foot setback which is in the code for a reason which says there shall be no construction within that setback and as Leslie pointed out in the earlier hearing obviously it's your job if any relief is to be granted to grant the minimum relief necessary and I suggest to you that in this case the record confirms that's zero okay because we have a building envelope that is available. Everything else can be reconfigured on this site and the worst case scenario we can downsize the house substantially to make it fit and to keep it in character with the surrounding community. So, Ms. Fallon doesn't say anything in her letter about the need to protect the trees in the front yard it's not there. So there's really no real evidence that suggests that there's any reason why this house can't be moved forward and be built in a conforming location. Based on everything you've heard I would just renew our request and I think that most of what we've heard here has been included in a letter that we've submitted for the record as well but we would obviously renew our request that the application be denied and I thank you for your time. 30 May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Board members any questions of anyone before we move on? I'm going to make a motion, I think we've heard compelling information I'll say both sides and strong arguments and I think we have a lot to digest but I don't know what else we could possibly learn that we haven't already heard so I'm going to make a motion hearing no further comments or questions to close this hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7156—SARA LAMM and MATTHEW ASELTON CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Sara Lamm and Matthew Aselton # 7156. This is a request for variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's December 20, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool 1) located in other'than the code required rear yard located-at 1045 Orchard St. in Orient. MIKE KIMACK : Mike Kimack on behalf of the applicants. As you have indicated there are two front yards. There is now an existing swimming pool and also an existing fence around the swimming pool. If you look at the Disapproval letter you'll see that also required to meet the requirements of the local law #22 of the Landmarks law. I did have a meeting with the Landmarks people and as they reviewed what was there and what was proposed they decided that they didn't want to take jurisdiction on it. They decided there was no need to go to historic since the fence had already been erected and that was not going to be changed and the pool would simply be taken out and be replaced pretty much in the same spot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have that in writing? MIKE KIMACK : I can get that in writing for you. 31 May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would be helpful. MIKE KIMACK : I suspect that would have gone back to Damon. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay all we need is just some sort of confirmation that's no longer MIKE KIMACK : I would have thought that it would have gone over to you part of a normal process but in any event CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Kim is going to look in the file to see if there's anything. MIKE KIMACK : I'll get you the comments on that but it's pretty straightforward. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a replacement pool basically a little bit larger virtually the same location. MIKE KIMACK : A little bit larger yeah and different patios. Essentially that's pretty much it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As you know we've all been out there and seen the property. MIKE KIMACK : They're doing extensions and renovations on the main house at the present time and there's a rather large existing two story building off of Tabor Rd. that for the most part CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Excuse me in the back, please go outside. We are conducting a public hearing and we cannot hear. Thank you. Finish Mike go ahead. MIKE KIMACK : The pool basically for the most part is going to be behind that existing two story building grade level that faces Tabor Rd. As it is now (inaudible) it's going to be about a third of it is outside of that but its ground level and it's not going to necessarily going to be visual to Tabor Rd. That was one of the considerations that the Historic Board Landmarks took into Consideration that there was no visual impact and you can see that the fence is shown on there, that fence remains existing fence around the pool it stays it's the same one that's not being changed. That's pretty straightforward. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric anything? MEMBER DANTES : Did you submit the prior variances around this area of the application? MIKE KIMACK : I did not. Although I read it I think this one when they did it at one time it was split in half. MEMBER DANTES : No not for this property. I mean I know we've done other variances in this neighborhood. 37 May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : Oh you did. MEMBER DANTES : I'm pretty sure yeah. If we had that list that pretty much makes the application.That was all I had. MIKE KIMACK : Eric I can dig that up for you and bring it in along with the letter. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry, Nick anything, anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Okay this is straightforward, hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of a letter confirming the fact that a C of A is not necessary from Landmarks Preservation and if you can dig up any other priors of swimming pools in front yards in that general area. Is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7157— PETER PANTINELLA CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Peter Pantinella #7157. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's January 15, 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 minimum side yard setback of 10 feet and 2) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 440 South Lane (adj. to Orient Harbor) in East Marion. MIKE KIMACK : Michael Kimack for the applicant. Mr. Pantinella is proposing to expand the house as its existing at the present time. He wants to basically take what is now the existing porch and make it an office and then build a porch opposite more landward of that keeping in conformance with the side yard setback of the existing house. He does want to extend the garage forward and build a second addition above it and then close off one of the corners on 33. May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting the westerly side of the house on the northeast side of the house close off that corner. The existing setback on that side is 9.6 he just wants to close it and keep it straight and then to close that off to the interior design of the house on that particular side. You can see he's doing a second story framed extension over the existing garage on his proposal there. Then he's reconfiguring the existing porch basically. He's going to include as part of his inside habitable area and then add a porch outside of that which is adjacent just landward of the existing porch (inaudible) adjacent to the garage and that's pretty much it. His existing approved lot coverage is 36.3 and he's asking to ask to go to 37.7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait, wait say that again. MIKE KIMACK : The existing lot coverage at the present time is 36.3%. MEMBER DANTES : Your Notice of Disapproval says 22.5% CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I'm very confused here. Oh the driveways don't count. That was not calculated correctly Mike. The driveways don't count. MIKE KIMACK : I'm sorry we're going from 18.9 to 22.5 1 apologize. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay now that's better. MEMBER DANTES : Would your client accept a condition that the porch remain unenclosed and not be converted to conditioned space? MIKE KIMACK : Yes that's no problem. MEMBER DANTES : That's my only question. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The proposed addition for the porch, the porch is 21 feet by 10.9 feet and that's going to bring everything up to the 22.5% lot coverage, do you have any information about other excessive lot coverage variances in the area? MIKE KIMACK : I think I looked but I will take another look. It was such a long time ago because by the time I submit these applications and the time I get before you I grew a beard but I can I thought I had taken a look at your past variances as with the previous one I'll take a look. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks as though the addition to the house is going to bring it up to 20.3% and then the porch addition will add another 2.2%. MIKE KIMACK : That would be correct. 34 May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the other thing to ask because we again we're obligated to grant the smallest variance possible when justified, is there any way to reduce either the garage extension or the porch in size to bring the lot coverage a little lower. MIKE KIMACK : Well the garage extension I would suggest probably not simply because of the construction that is going on above it. I can imagine that the deck but the (inaudible) it's not a normal size. It can be brought back a little bit but I'm not quite sure how much it would be able to be reduced from the 2.2%. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you say deck? No I'm looking at the proposed enclosed porch, covered porch. MIKE KIMACK : The enclosed porch basically right now is that adds the 2.2%. No that becomes part of the inside design of the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The one that's there. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the one that's proposed to be constructed not the enclosure of the existing porch which becomes habitable space. I'm talking about the 21 by 1 inch by 10.9 feet proposed covered porch. MIKE KIMACK : Could that be reduced? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah, I'm not suggesting that it's required to reduce it I'm just asking whether or not it can be so that if you can find evidence that that is typical lot coverage. They're pretty small lots there in that area. It shouldn't be difficult to find other variances. MIKE KIMACK : I can't remember, I should have done the I wasn't quite sure I did that research in the area to see what the percentage of coverage was. I normally do and if it's not in this packet that means most likely I wasn't able to find anything in the immediate area but that doesn't mean that I might be able to extend it a little bit further out. I always try to get cases that are somewhat close in proximity. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that would be cause it would be characteristic of the neighborhood. MIKE KIMACK : I found something twenty two miles away that absolutely fits this situation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah that's not going to be characteristic,of that neighborhood. MIKE KIMACK : I can do that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I just want to ask a couple of questions regarding first of all drainage. I noticed that on site all the gutters rather leaders just drain on to well the grass at grade. It 3S May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting would appear to be some sort of collection device that's buried but if you following it two feet off the foundation of the house you see where the drain actually opens up to the lawn so can you just talk about drainage. MIKE KIMACK : I would rather suspect that the Building Department would require that and normally when you do a building permit you have to submit the storm water management but basically based upon what's going on in terms of construction most likely it would throw it into having a drywell situation. It's not shown on the drawing. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's not that's why I brought that up. MIKE KIMACK : But I would imagine based on my experience with this it would be something that would be required. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The other question I wanted to talk about or the other statement was the addition on the I guess it's on the east, side, currently the air conditioning not air handier but the compressor for the central air is located there along with some other equipment, where is that all proposed to be relocated to? MIKE KIMACK : I was looking at that too. I would imagine they're going to move that along that same line forward of the garage there. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So it's even closer to the neighbor who has you know there's no screening there, there's no landscaping. MIKE KIMACK : That can be screened, the air conditioning unit moved over that can be screened. It would be against that little 3.5 foot setback on the other side of the building so in a sense it already has the house on one portion of the house screening it as it is cause that's all generally what you need and then all you MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do the utilities have to meet a setback? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think so. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So it's considered like the outdoor shower conversation that we had? MIKE KIMACK : Nick that can be screened and it's easy enough. A.T.A HAGAN : That's a building code. MIKE KIMACK : All that can moved over and MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It seemed that it had to be moved over. 36 May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : (inaudible) to have access to it and that would stop any kind it would minimize any types of sounds with reaching the neighbor and certainly visual aspect would be eliminated. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think the sound is already there so MIKE KIMACK : The new ones are really great but the older ones sound like you're starting off a MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Ajet. MIKE KIMACK : Pretty close. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Gerry did you have anything? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of any information regarding excessive lot coverage in the subject neighborhood. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7158— LEFKARA HOLDINGS, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Lefkara Holdings, LLC # 7158. This is a request for variances from Article XXII Section 280-116A, Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's January 16, 2018 amended February 5, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling and to construct new accessory structures at 1) less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff, 2) more than the code permitted 37 May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 1070 The Strand (adj. to the Long Island Sound) in East Marion. Is there someone here to represent this application? MIKE KIMACK : Yes Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant who is also present today. I'm on a roll here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's your day. MIKE KIMACK : Yeah thanks it certainly has been. We are requesting two variances and I'll deal with the first one which is the less than 100 foot setback from the top of the bluff and you got basically if you look at the sheet itself the pool as it now presents itself is situated about 76 feet away from the top of the bluff primarily and you have in your possession a letter from the I don't have it in front of me I should that indicated that they had a concern about the bluff itself and that the project stayed back at least 74 feet from the top of the bluff so that we fall within the recommended range. They had concerns about the erosion that's going on on the bluff at the present time. They had concerns about the toe of the bluff and they suggested that don't come any closer than the 74 feet. This was designed in a way so that the pool basically the retaining wall is 74 feet and the pool is 76 feet to water going back. The area of the construction has a lot of similar type of houses and a lot of similar type of activities and I do point to I actually did this one basically if I can point you to the prior finding deliberations and determinations that are part of your package. There are many here that represent something similar to what my applicant is looking for. If you look at the cases the distance from the bluff 1 thru 5 basically and there is a map that goes along with it indicating where those particular locations are they're all along the same coast line and along the same Strand Rd. so all of these do fall in the immediate area. I will go through these because I think it's probably necessary to have to make a record of it but in your ZBA #4245 you approved to construct a pool and a deck no closer than 50 feet from the top of the bluff and you noted in that it was not uncommon for (inaudible) along the sound bluff to require variances for accessory structures within 100 feet of the bluff to the limited available building area after meeting all other setback requirements to the zoning code that was #4245. In #4750 you approved to construct a 16 x 32 foot in-ground pool no less than 60 feet from the top of the actual bluff. In #4794 25 by 40 pool was approved whose seaward edge would be no closer than 50 feet to top of the bluff and there is a map indicating where these properties are and their location to the applicants. In #5629 you approved a 20 x 40 in-ground pool no less than 64 feet from top of the bluff and in #6027 you approved an 18 x 36 in-ground pool no less than 70 feet from the top of the bluff. You should have this with all of the cases in there. It was part of the application. The number was 6027 and 6027 also represents part of the other part of the variance, it's a two for in this case. So there is ample evidence of past decisions made by the Board that have allowed variances far less than what my applicant is asking for and even though there is some erosion at the present time 38 May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting which was noted the requirement was to stay back at least the 74 feet where he is now. What I'm going to give you here is the next issue that we have is the coverage issue. File #6027 which was westerly of the applicant's lot essentially was basically under the file number where they approved the 18 x 36 in-ground pool no closer than 70 feet to the bluff but also was a coverage application too and it got interesting because when I went back to look at it because this was the only case for coverage that I was able to find in the area my client is at the present time his existing house takes up 2,980 square feet of the property and I believe that 3,100 and some odd is the allowable given the CEHL setback primarily. So that what you have is a couple hundred feet if you put the spa in there and the proposed barbeque area his proposed pool essentially is the difference between the increase above the twenty percent whatever would be granted above that. I do bring your attention to #6027 and it was interesting because I believe there was an incorrect reference to the lot coverage there at 23% and I looked at it quite extensively. If I can take your attention and point it to your area variance amended relief on that particular one, apparently this client had been before you at one hearing. He had designed a pool that was long ways to the property, a larger pool 40 x 20 and the recommendation was could you cut it back and turn it and if you read this basically it pretty much says that what he did it was a 40 x 20 to a 36 x 18 and he turned it and that particular percentage was 24.6%. 1 got confused and I was using it is if you go to your resolution of the Board you use the 23% number which actually is incorrect. It really is 24.6 cause 1 looked at the Google map which is also part of what you got there too. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well this denial as applied for is alternative relief of 23% so how is that MIKE KIMACK : Well because the surveys that I gave you the survey that you relied on that August the one that you quote in there August 28th of 2007 gives the alternative relief and that's the second one on the sheet there basically and it calculates it with the 18 x 36 pool at 24.6. MEMBER DANTES : So then he would have built the pool in violation of the ZBA variance I mean according I mean it's a 23%variance that's what it says. MIKE KIMACK : That's the thing about this is that you got it it's in your decision variance amended relief you basically quote the 24.6 you quote back to the survey which has a 24.6 on it with the 18 x 36 and then in your denial you use called a 23. 1 looked at the Google maps MEMBER DANTES : So we denied the surveys. MIKE KIMACK : I looked at the Google map which you got a copy of here but having said all of that if you look at this here you'll see the pool in place (inaudible) it's an 18 x 36 pool but more 391 May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting important if you go back to where the applicant's construction is now happening with the house primarily his proposed pool is no further seaward than his neighbor to the west. It lines up this is his house being constructed the pool basically is even with (inaudible) with this house. If you drew a line from here to here that's as far seaward as the pool comes. I've given you cases indicating that percentage. It's the coverage issue that I wanted to address a little bit more. Be it as it may with this one he does have a 24.6 and it was alluded to as 24.6 and I think it picked up because one of the sheets had 23% on it and I'm not going to get into that but essentially you indicated it with being alternative design the 18 x 36 but the 18 x 36 represented 24.6. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well there may have been an error, an inconsistency in that determination but as far as I'm concerned the clarity is 23% of alternative relief. If that was inconsistent in the surveys or whatever the lot coverage is 23%. Have you looked at the possibility of also reducing the size of this pool? It's very large and also rotating it to parallel the house instead of it to be perpendicular? That would both reduce lot coverage and increase the setback. MIKE KIMACK : To rotate it would be because if you look at the design with the spa and everything along the side of it having the spa and having the walkway around it with not necessarily would be as easy to do and from a design perspective. The reduction of the pool obviously that's going to be a consideration. I can say to you right now that the proposed pool is 17 x 44. It represents pretty much essentially the entire proposed increase from 20% to 25% by itself and that each 9 feet of the pool represents 1%. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know and the spa itself also has lot coverage. MIKE KIMACK : Yes well if you take the if you look at the proposed coverage basically right there the house is 2980 basically and there's allowable 3180 so to come 100 feet incorporates within that 20% the spa and the proposed side yard barbeque area. So essentially when you go over the 20% you're really dealing with the pool itself because you can include the spa and include the barbeque area within the 20% coverage area calculation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What about reducing the size of the pool and what about rotating it. You can put the spa anywhere you want. It's not built yet. This is sort of standard what this Board has done typically when something is when you have an opportunity to increase the bluff setback by simply rotating the pool. That is typically what this Board would recommend and approve and you got plenty of room to do that. MIKE KIMACK : I have the owner present. 40 May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting NEO STEFANIDES : My name is Neo Stefanides, I'm the owner of the property thank you for hearing us. I've been working with architects for about three years designing a house that would be pleasant to the neighbors and that would be in conformation to the area which I love. I've been coming here since I was a kid and so we didn't get an opportunity to build a house when my dad was still alive. He died twenty years ago but we have finally been able to find a property and build something that would be something for the family. In terms of the pool you mentioned maybe reducing the size of the pool, I think that would be very possible. I think we can reduce the size of the pool but if we can keep it in this vertical orientation the way it is now it would be something that works better with the property. Right now it's at 44 feet of length I think we could you know reduce it 2 to 4 feet maybe would that help? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it all helps. I mean the reduction in the length is going to increase the setback and it will reduce lot coverage. NEO STEFANIDES : If we can keep the vertical orientation I'd be happy to reduce the size of the length of the pool. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any comments from the Board about that? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Well my main concern is what's going to happen to the woods okay that you have in the rear of this house okay because water runoff off the top of the bluff is a main concern. So the closer you go to the bluff the more of a concern with the swimming pool. You're recharge everyday on a swimming pool of this nature and you know so now you gotta put dry wells in and so on and so forth. I'd be honest with you of all the years that I've been on this Board I've never seen anybody leave the woods up okay to this degree without telling me the Board what's going to happen to it. You're cutting it off at the stump line which normally Soil and Water requests so that the roots stay in and you know there's no runoff from that standpoint. What's the plan? NEO STEFANIDES : I'm also very concerned about the bluff. This is my property I don't want any erosion there. One of the reasons I purchased in Pebble Beach Farm area is because the erosion there is minimal compared to other areas such as Southold on the sound. So I am concerned about the bluff. I'm happy to if there's any erosion there you know replant the eroded areas. I'm very concerned about like I said the erosion and some of my neighbors have cleared the property all the way to the edge of the bluff. I don't think for me that is totally necessary. I'am happy to keep some of the more planted areas and I don't have to have grass all the way to the edge of the bluff. It's really not my priority. My priority is to keep my property in tacked without having it fall into the ocean and in terms of my neighbors, most of my neighbors have built closer much closer to the bluff than I have and you know like I said I'm happy to reduce the size of the pool and make everybody happier. 41 May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : So basically the site plan that I'm looking at right now which has the treed area on both sides of the property line both the west and the east or the east and the west whichever one you want to say you're pretty much the way you're going to leave it. So you leave the trees on both the periphery of both sides and then the pool would go in the center of that. Is that what you're doing? MIKE KIMACK : Gerry you're looking from the pool towards the bluff MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Right that is correct. MIKE KIMACK : If you look, I know that Deborah was on the property cause she met with the MEMBER GOEHRINGER : We were all on the property. MIKE KIMACK : Oh I didn't realize all of you showed up. It's pretty much of a rough area. The one thing in its favor is it doesn't really slope towards the bluff. It kind of gradually comes back a little bit away from it. We do propose basically from the top of the bluff to do a non- disturbance buffer. There is some at the present time some eroded damage to the top of the bluff which was noted to the slope as well to the toe. We're not addressing that at this particular time but we are addressing that we can remediate the top of the bluff and then do the non-disturbance buffer back from there so we can stabilize the bluff and then do the planting plan that had been illustrated here. Mr. Stefanides was correct that almost all of his neighbors had basically grassed it right to the top of the bluff. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We've seen it we know the neighborhood very well a lot of variances in that area. MIKE KIMACK : From what I've seen I'm not quite sure about where their slopes lie. His particular slope has had some damage to it and if we don't do anything with the slope we have to raise (inaudible) remediate and stabilize the bluff and that's what that vegetated landscape (inaudible)from the pool towards the bluff itself. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : What I'm saying to you Mike it's been unrealistic from what we've seen particularly when you go a little farther west that the T factor of the house being here and then Ting the pool like this puts the pool out farther and that's one of the unique situations that I think the Chairperson is referring to and we just don't see it. If you look most of them are laying you know east and west. MIKE KIMACK : I would suggest that this is probably the case where it does extend out but in this particular case where it's located and between the houses that it's located essentially the pool doesn't extend any further seaward than the existing house next door. 4ZI May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Well it depends upon how close you put it to the existing house that's being constructed now. MIKE KIMACK : If you look at the stakes out there the front stakes are even with so it's not more seaward than the house next door Gerry. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I'm also thinking about the lot coverage issue which is maybe just as compelling and if in fact you want to keep it the way it is you know that orientation you can put in an 18 x 36 foot pool which is pretty standard. Keep it the same way you know same orientation you'll be increasing the setback by another 8 feet and that's going to give you an 82 foot setback and it's going to reduce the lot coverage. I have to calculate by how much. MIKE KIMACK : Well roughly it will probably take the lot coverage down to about 24%. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If I could just add one detail that came up as a result of the submission of the Google image here, there's actually six swimming pools illustrated on the map and they're all running parallel to the shoreline and not perpendicular as you propose so it is something that I think that it would increase you know a greater setback make it more conforming by rotating the pool. MIKE KIMACK : But as you look at those structures your concern is that the weight of the water in the pool is going to have an effect on the bluff and all those situations those pools basically extend further towards the bluff than the actual houses themselves. In this particular situations (inaudible) the pool doesn't extend further so if there's going to be any impact it's really much more for the houses around there than the pool itself. The pool isn't going to be standing alone in essence and where it moves closer to the bluff than the surrounding structures (inaudible) MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Well that's because the house is closer to the road. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly which I think while it's not under our purview you know when you're at the western neighbor there's like a large wall of stone. I mean it's a substantial massive the house it's substantial and while that's not open to discussion here you know I do think that the pool is and we're dealing with excessive lot coverage and that's the dialogue. MIKE KIMACK : The thing is is that all these lots are very narrow basically and the use of the design of that pool (inaudible) in a sense it would make it difficult to place the spa and the concrete (inaudible) and everything it works better long with the long length of the property right now. As long as the pool itself is not going to interdict or impact on the slope more than what has (inaudible) structures and I suggest to you that this simply is not the case. 43 May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well what I was proposing was to allow the orientation to stay there if in fact that's your preference, your priority but make it smaller not so long and thereby increase the setback and reduce the lot coverage and that would suffice given the setbacks from the bluff that other pools have gotten variances for. I had another questions. MIKE KIMACK : Mr. Stefanides has agreed that we can do an 18 x 36 (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And will you calculate what that lot coverage is going to be then? MIKE KIMACK : Yeah I would think it's based upon it's probably going to drop it down to somewhere between 23.7 to 24% but I'll rerun the numbers. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you want to resubmit a survey? MIKE KIMACK : I'll resubmit the survey. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And then we'll have the actual calculations. MIKE KIMACK : And have the actual calculations. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright that's fair enough but I did have a question. This is new construction right? MIKE KIMACK : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why did the Notice of Disapproval say additions and alterations to a an existing single family dwelling? MIKE KIMACK : Well it's under construction at the present time. I'm not quite sure why he used that wording exactly. I guess he was in between commencing construction and completion of construction. It could have easily said house is under construction. NEO STEFANIDES : I just recently received a tax bill for instead of a plain lot no house it says with house so I think maybe that's why. CHAIRPERSON WIESMAN : I don't know it's odd I mean I think it's not a problem that it's new construction, the problem is there's a big difference to additions and alterations to an existing dwelling; I think it's a Building Department issue. It's not before us for new construction. MIKE KIMACK : They refer to additions and alterations I think what we were doing is if you look at the property the overhang, Mr. Stefanides was putting two patios underneath it within the same envelope and I think they viewed that additions and alterations. 44 May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you have a building permit to build the house so maybe that was they were saying you're changing the permit that was originally granted.-1 just wanted to explore it more. Anything from anyone in the audience, come forward please. PEGGY MIHALIOS : My name is Peggy Mihalios. I am the daughter of Nick and Kathy Mihalios who reside at 1150 The Strand Lane. I have already send you an email explaining our objection to the proposed construction of an enclosed shower in the side yard. MEMBER DANTES : Ma'am the shower is not before the Board. Do you have any objections to the pool? PEGGY MIHALIOS : No don't have objections to the pool. MEMBER DANTES : Okay cause we can't do anything about the shower. PEGGY MIHALIOS : Oh so I cannot bring up this because it's part of the proposed construction and it's on the landscape plan as well so I was wondering if that can be brought up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here's what this Board is allowed to do by law. We can only take action on something that the Building Department has denied. We're a Board of Appeals. In other words if someone says no to you, you have the right to come before us to say we really want to do this, it's reasonable here's why; we meet all the legal standards and we can grant relief from what the code says but we can't take an action on something that hasn't been disapproved and they didn't disapprove the shower. So, if you have an issue with that you know maybe the thing to do is to talk to your new neighbor and see if there's something that they're able to do to make you happier with the way it's going to be built. We don't have any jurisdiction over it. PEGGY MIHALIOS : Okay so this hasn't been approved or disapproved. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All we're really looking at is the pool and the lot coverage that will be created by the pool and the setback from the bluff. PEGGY MIHALIOS : So my parents were just concerned, they wanted me to bring it up because but I understand what you're saying. Once the decision is made than we can appeal it if necessary. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What happens is people go in to get a building permit and if everything conforms to whatever the code requires they get their permit. If something doesn't conform to the code in this case it's the swimming pool that creates more than 20% lot coverage and also it doesn't have 100 foot setback from the bluff, then they will deny it and you can come before this Board to appeal their decision to see if we can give you relief from the 451 May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting code. I'm looking to see where the outdoor shower is proposed. Here it is I see it it's in the side yard, it's on gravel and that shower I presume is just a shower head with drainage. MIKE KIMACK : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's nothing else in there, there's no toilet, there's no sink. MIKE KIMACK : No roof over. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No roof over it and it drains into a drywell? MIKE KIMACK : I would assume that would be the case. PEGGY MIHALIOS : No I understand but the issue is that it's directly viewable from the entrance and the front yard of our home so it's not put in a location that's private. It's directly visible and in addition if it's open on the top we can view directly down into it from the balcony which is directly above. So it's a privacy issue. We're just requesting that if you relocate it to a more private location. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I'll tell you what, I think this is a matter of neighbors to talk to each other. Maybe Mr. Stefanides is willing to relocate it or maybe he's willing to put in some landscaping you know some tall trees, evergreen trees or something. That would be up to the two of you to discuss neighbor to neighbor. It really isn't anything that this Board has jurisdiction over. Is there anyone else in the audience? Hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of an amended survey. MIKE KIMACK : I've got a lot of homework to do. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) 46 May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting HEARING# 7159—WILLIAM and LORRAINE MCINTOSH CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for William and Lorraine McIntosh # 7159. This is a request for a variance from Article IV Section 280-18 and the Building Inspector's November 30, 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 side yard setback of 15 feet located at 395 Holden Avenue Extension in Cutchogue. Would you please state your name for the record? WILLIAM MCINTOSH : My name is Bill McIntosh, I'm here with my wife Lorraine and yes we're looking I guess continue the existing bump out the cantilevered bump out in the back of the house to continue to the corner so we could kind of square off the room and open up the kitchen and dining room as one. MEMBER DANTES : How many square footage are in that non-conforming area there? WILLIAM MCINTOSH : It's two feet by five feet so ten. MEMBER DANTES :Ten square feet? WILLIAM MCINTOSH : Yes. MEMBER DANTES : I have no further questions. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was going to ask what the side yard on the other side is also I mean it's quite substantial. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sixteen feet. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, no, no on the I guess the north side. MEMBER DANTES : 85 feet it looks like. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you're maintaining the existing setback and you're adding ten square feet of habitable space. WILLIAM MCINTOSH : Correct yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ok and just so you're aware we've inspected the property. We do that for every application before a hearing so we know what the neighborhood looks like and we can see it on the ground. Gerry any questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I have to tell you that of all the variances that we have seen here in the past this is certainly a very easy one for us I think I'm not speaking for the Board, I'm 4 May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting speaking for myself to look over and very simply give you an A OK on but we can't do that until we actually take a full vote but we thank you for giving us such detailed information and coming down and looking at your lovely house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick anything from you? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I think it's all been said. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay anyone in the audience wishing 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 PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING# 7160—TOU PATERA MOU, LLC, NICK MOSHOURIS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Tou Patera Mou, LLC, Nick Moshouris # 7160. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's December 19, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to legalize "as built" demolition and to construct additions to a single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet located at 295 Central Drive in Mattituck. Pat it looks like you want a front yard setback of 26.6 feet where the code requires 35. PAT MOORE : Yes 26.6 is to the entrance way. It's a foyer entrance. Historically that was a previously C.O.'Ed structure in '88 the prior owner Papadopoulos had enclosed the porch in 1988 with a building permit. Apparently that permit never got closed out so it got closed out in 2007 but nevertheless that was part of the existing structure so we're I'll back track a little bit here. My client as you can see from the original additions are setback 35 feet. What they were 48 May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting trying to do is make all of this conforming so the additions were actually pushed back to the proper codes setbacks, side yard setbacks everything. What happened is that the plans showed where windows were going to go and if you look at the elevations you'll see that the back wall is pretty much all windows. The front wall the existing windows don't appear where the new windows are going to go so by the time all is said and done the few little boards that were left of the walls they found termite infestation so the contractor unfortunately said I you know really should replace all of the framing of the walls and once that was done then unfortunately for them it became over that 50% threshold for between demolition and renovation. So that stopped the project after the framing had all been completed. The additions had been poured so since January or so it's had a tarp and it's been waiting for this hearing so that they can hopefully proceed with the original plan which was the existing house reconstructed and then the additions that are conforming locations. So as I've said the existing house everything had a C of 0 or has a C of 0 and the foundation is exactly where the original foundation was and the flooring is exactly where the original flooring is the floor joists and the base that everything that now is going to be constructed on. I provided for you today just an outline of variances that are similar variances within the immediate area of Captain Kid and it is a very common variance that is requested a front yard setback. A lot of the homes here and it really was very close when we were looking at the setback of all the other homes on Central Ave. The corner house has a variance, it's the (inaudible) house that's the first one Appeal #6201 and that one because it was a corner it actually got 27.5 on the Inlet Drive cause it's a corner. The frontage along Central Drive was properly at 35 so even though that house got a variance their variance was on the other front yard rather than the one that would have helped our case. Most of the other homes are in the range of setbacks of 31 because when you look down the block it's so close you wonder if we have an average setback but it's off by a foot more or less so they're all anywhere between 30, 31 and then those that get a variance much closer. But as I said the variance was not helpful to us because it was on the other corner. It's pretty straightforward as applications go and I'd be happy to address oh one thing I do want to correct, the elevations. Originally the elevations show metal roofing but it's actually going to be normal architectural asphalt shingles. The price was just too much and this hasn't been this delay kind of helped kill the budget as well so it's just going to be normal asphalt shingles. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pretty much replaced in kind. PAT MOORE : It is exactly replaced in kind. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : No I mean I think it's unfortunate that the project had to be delayed for a couple of months. I mean these things happen. 49 May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I mirror Eric's sentiment. No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : It's certainly typical in Captain Kid Estates to have variable setbacks as they were built a long time ago and I don't think they worried about the front yard too much in those days in reference to the setbacks therefore I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay anyone in the audience wishing 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 PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7161—THOMAS SIMON and JEANNE SHANAHAN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Thomas Simon and Jeanne Shanahan. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15, Article IV Section 280-19 and the Building Inspector's December 4, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct an in-ground swimming pool at 1) located in other than the code required rear yard located at 1375 Greenway East in Orient. State your name for the record please. JASON PETERS : My name is Jason Peters, North Fork Pool Care. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is a swimming pool in a side yard. It's a 32 x 6 foot. JASON PETERS : 16 so May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm sorry 16 and it's located proposed to be located in a side yard rather than the code required rear yard.Tell us why this needs to be in the side yard. JASON PETERS : It doesn't depict very well on the site plan the driveway the asphalt driveway is on the eastern side of the house. Access over that would damage the driveway and the Belgian block and so on and so forth. There's also a lot of soft scape that you can't really see. On the back or the western side of the, property there's a lot of really big trees that provide privacy so that it's exactly 31 feet from the deck to the back of the property line. We'd have to drop a lot of big really big trees in the back there opening up the back yard to the neighbor's yard. On that side of the property (inaudible) nice and wide open for access for cement trucks and heavy equipment so on and so forth to minimize the damage created by building a swimming pool. As you can imagine from the initial excavation drywell locations, pool equipment, cement trucks it becomes a bit daunting and that area gets a little bit destroyed. So in the back of the house in lieu of dropping a lot of big trees that serve as a buffer between the two properties and trying to squeeze it in to that smaller area we opted to push it out to the side of the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it would be kind of squeezed but you know if you rotated that if you kept it basically behind the wood deck that's on the back of the house and left it I guess it would still be a side yard even if you do that that whole area is a side yard but I'm thinking of here. I guess it's still a side yard. No matter which way you look well we've all been out to inspect the property. Just so you know we've seen you know the neighborhood and we've looked at the back yard. It's kind of close back there anyway very tight. Any questions Eric? MEMBER DANTES : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Jason do you know where the sanitary system is on the site? It's not marked on the survey. JASON PETERS : I'm not exactly sure where it is. It's in that I believe it's in the front yard. It's not in the back. I know there's a drywell or two that aren't marked in the back yard that could be relocated but the septic I believe is in the front but I'm unsure on it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry any questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No, we've had applications like this before where you're partially in the side yard and partially in the rear yard. JASON PETERS : Yeah it's close tuck it back. May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : In the days when these houses were built the Health Department didn't require the a lot of times they were supposed to be in the front yard. They thought the access was better. All the houses that I had prior to like 1968, '69 were all in the front yard and then they said well if you're on the water you have to be in the front yard anyway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have any idea what the setback is from the pool to the street can you scale that? It's not on the survey. JASON PETERS : It's 40 feet to the front of the house and another 42 to the rear. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's eighty something, 88. JASON PETERS : Less than (inaudible) but it's got to be over 60 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know if the applicant has any plans obviously they have to screen it with a required code compliant fence four foot high fence. Any landscape screening to buffer the visual between the pool and the street? JASON PETERS : Currently there's a couple of big trees we can squeeze between. There's nothing currently there but if you'd like us to put some soft scape to buffer that we can absolutely do that. There's a large hedgerow to the neighbor I guess that would be south of the property. He has Leyland Cypress that he's got a pool directly on the other side of the fence and they're nice and big. So if you'd like us to screen that front fence area it wouldn't be a problem. We could put some Leyland Cypress there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I just think for the applicant's sake too you know bit of privacy from traffic going back and forth, other neighbors and so on. JASON PETERS : Absolutely, we've been in discussion on a few different layouts outside of the patio, softscape. I think he wants to do a hedgerow from the house directly across that back yard the side yard to close it all off but honestly I don't have a definitive answer or a landscape plan. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well all we could simply do is simply say between the side of the house and the side property line the applicant shall plant evergreen landscaping to screen the proposed pool from the street. JASON PETERS : Not a problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can specify a minimum height of five feet you know and three feet on center Leyland Cypress get monstrously big so probably put them okay is there anyone 52 May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting in the audience wishing to address the application, anything else from the Board? I'm going to make a motion to close this hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. 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 was an adjournment wasn't it? I don't need to read the legal again if it was an adjournment. So we have a memorandum from the Trustees and we have a new site plan. In a nut shell they wanted everything to be minimum of no a maximum of 24 feet 11 inches seaward of the existing dwelling. Now you still have a six foot by six foot deck. MIKE KIMACK : Yeah let me explain that, basically I'll give you some background. Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant again. I did meet out there with the Trustees when they had their visit on the site and they basically had concern about that little nub of the deck that had stuck out and we're aware that unfortunately the deck had we required an as built and I knew based upon the conversation I had that they would obviously not recommend squaring it off and most likely may recommend taking it down. Had they said that I do want to go back and indicate that you also got in your record a letter from Suffolk County Soil and Water and you got the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program letter, the slope and the bluff are well vegetated and in excellent shape. That's not the issue with that. I can understand cutting off the dock oh I'm sorry cutting off the deck because even though my client wasn't responsible she's in a position of being held accountable for it. The deck had been in existence for some time in that location and the deck had had no impact on the slope as it had sat or on the not on the slope but also on the bluff. We can understand and my client has accepted the fact that the Board recommended it being removed and she has removed it and that's shown in the drawing as well as taking everything out at the bottom of the between the retaining wall and the bluff May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting she's redoing that. Here lies the difference though with the landing. Landings less than 100 square feet that are attached to a proposed set of stairs are not something generally that the Board has general issues with unless for some reason it's going to have an impact to some extent (inaudible) on the bluff (inaudible). In this case they include both the cutting off the deck and getting rid of the landing in one fell swoop. The deck basically is almost in a covenants of an administrative sanction because it was something that certainly the Board it was entitled to either Board you or the Trustees to cut back on since it was never originally approved but the landing is a different animal because it isn't in place, it's proposed. Less than 100 square feet is normally you look at in terms of the overall scope along with the deck along with the stairs going down and whatever landings there may be on the stairs going down also. We had originally proposed an 81 x 81 with some seats in there. They basically the Trustees recommended (inaudible) it wasn't predicated on whether or not there was a bluff that was in excellent condition or anything like that. It wasn't predicated on other than the fact that it was lumped in with cutting off the front of the deck which we did. She would like to be able to she cut it back, she'd like to put a little 6 x 6 landing at the top of the stairs on a well vegetated, excellent bluff that's in no danger. You got two letters that affect the one more significant is the Suffolk County Soil and Water. I didn't see and all due respect to the Trustees I didn't see the merit in their argument. I can see it for cutting off the deck. I could not see it for disallowing the entirety of a landing at the top of the proposed replacement of the proposed staircase because that's something that is normally a part of. So we would respectfully ask that we be given the opportunity to have a 6 x 6 landing. It has no seats on it. They were all taken out and we'll do (inaudible) with the Trustees. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that what's the topography there, that's a flat? MIKE KIMACK : It's flat. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So why not put pavers? Why do you need a wood deck there for? MIKE KIMACK : That's what she wanted to put in there, it was a wood deck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean if she wants to just have a sort of a small area to put a chair on MIKE KIMACK : Listen on a 6 x 6 you really don't have much of CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah so I just don't understand. MIKE KIMACK : The original plan but let me ask you a question, I mean I've done a lot of this before you anything less a landing less than 100 square feet what are the criteria's for it being disallowed? 54 May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : I don't know if I've ever seen anyone apply for it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I don't think that this is not the kind of thing that typically comes before us.This is just based on Trustees comments more than anything. MIKE KIMACK : Well I know that you don't have the jurisdiction on the set of stairs itself. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah and if this is part of a landing that is a part of the stair system. MIKE KIMACK : It's part of the stair system cause it ties right to the first set of stairs going down. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Exactly so I think you know this is a matter for the Trustees to discuss with you. Are you going MIKE KIMACK : I have to. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah to get their permission and also so I would just it's not even on our Notice of Disapproval you know so MIKE KIMACK : I wasn't quite sure exactly since they brought it up in their letter. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh it's a zero foot cause they're looking at it's well yeah they said zero because it's at the top sitting there on top MEMBER DANTES : Is it on grade or above grade? MIKE KIMACK : It's pretty close to I'm not quite sure. It's probably raised. It probably starts pretty close to grade and as it probably goes to the set of steps (inaudible) you couldn't achieve the levelness of tying it back to the set of stairs with bricks. You have to change you have to refill and everything in order to match the bricks but that first set of stairs. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what Mike, I mean maybe seriously I mean you didn't go back for an amended Notice of Disapproval or anything, I'm wondering since it's now really a landing maybe a little bit bigger,than what has to be there but if it would be removed from the Notice of Disapproval as permitted with Trustees approval I don't know cause it's no longer zero I mean they may say that as part of the steps it doesn't have a zero there's no longer a zero setback at the top of the bluff cause it's not a structure it's a landing and part of the stairs. MIKE KIMACK : It's an interesting point of the law. When I talked to Mike Verity and this is an interesting point Leslie you may pick it up cause you don't do the stairs all the time. You see those two short landings going down the stairs which is very typical of design so you don't have to run all the way down a set of stairs and tire yourself out. Those were designed 4 x 32 to avoid 5� May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting them being considered landings per say. They're more of a transfer because you get to the bottom of the stairs CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and you turn. MIKE KIMACK : got 4 foot in front of you, you walk over and you go down again. A lot of people design it bigger and Mike Verity basically told me, he said that would work fine. It doesn't fall within our landing definition per say and of course up at the top we've got 36 square feet so it's pretty close to that primarily and I would suggest that we probably at the top is simply (inaudible) to the grade a lot easier than you can with bricks because it does (inaudible) to make sure you have a flow from you got even steps from that little deck landing to the first step and that would be it. MEMBER DANTES : Can we just leave it alone, let the Trustees review it? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I guess the problem is that it's still we have to address whatever is in the Notice of Disapproval and we're talking about a now if that was not an issue then we would be talking about a 24 foot you know setback instead of a zero. So the only deck expansion being proposed now is in the side yard and you're maintaining the existing conforming side yard setback with the wraparound here. MIKE KIMACK : The Trustees I did point out the side. They had no concern about the side. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes you're just maintaining what's already there and it's conforming anyway so I don't have an objection to that. So it's I think we might be able to say that this survey is amended to show that setback, 24.11 and leave it at that and see what the Trustees say about your proposed landing. MIKE KIMACK : I think I can make a reasonable argument for its approval to them based upon the fact that the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the deck is being replaced in kind with an extension in the side yard pretty much. MIKE KIMACK : The deck in the side yard basically is being extended out to a more (inaudible) was 3 % x (inaudible-a lot of chatter going on) it's being cut off completely. Just for the record will point out to make sure that everything is correct, the original C. 0. on that deck was for 19.8 and when I found that out I realized that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Your bluff setback? May 3, 2018 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : No from the house, 19.8 from the house and somewhere along the line whether it was at the original I looked at the construction it looked like it might have been an add on if you looked at the way they framed it. Somewhere after 1982 that might have ,been built. In many respects the recommendation from the Trustees is (inaudible) to that extent there recommending at least preserve both the 1982 24.11 but cut off the little section in front which is another 3 % or 4 feet closer to the bluff. I just wanted to make sure that was your understanding. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any questions Eric? MEMBER DANTES : No I just need to go back to the file again. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, there is no one else in the audience. You've worn them all out. So 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 PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) 57 May 3, 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 : May 17, 2018 58