Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-07/05/2018 Hearing TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Southold Town Hall Southold, New York July 5, 2018 9:45 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member ERIC DANTES— Member ROBERT LEHNERT— Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO—Member KIM FUENTES— Board Assistant WILLIAM DUFFY—Town Attorney 1 July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Arthur and Gwen Pier#7167 3 -5 Margery Rifkin David and Reuben J. David #7168 5 - 10 Mark Volpe# 7169 11 - 13 Justin and Elizabeth Mirro #7171 13 - 18 Stacia M. Rempe#7178 18- 23 Lauris G. L. Rall # 7175 24- 28 John and Margaret Hochstrasser# 7176 28 - 31 Michael Geraci #7173 31 -34 Brian Morrissey# 7177 34-44 Kenneth Richert#7188 44 - 57 July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting HEARING #7167—Arthur and Gwen Pier CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for Arthur and Gwen Pier #7167. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's February 6, 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 front yard setback of 40 feet at 25 East Side Avenue in Mattituck. State your name for the record please. BRUCE ANDERSON : Bruce Anderson for the applicant Arthur and Gwen Pier. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is a front yard setback of 27.1 feet where the code requires a minimum of 40. Mr. and Mrs. Pier are a single family dwelling at 25 East Side Ave. in Mattituck. The lot area is 36,745 square feet located in R40 zone and therefore it's a pre-existing non- conforming lot developed with a conforming residential use. The front yard for a lot this size is 40 feet and in this particular case the Board has made a previous ruling that there are actually -three front yards. It's located on the corner of East Side Ave as it bends to the east and becomes Harborview Ave. and then there's a paper road known as South Laguna Lane, which leaves from East Side Ave. down to Mattituck Creek. The relief requested is for 27.1 feet where 40 feet is required therefore we're asking for relief of 12.9 feet. The existing dwelling measures 1,820 square feet. The proposed addition measures 20.2 X 38.5 feet or 770 square feet. The distance from natural grade to the top of the ridge for the second story addition is 27.1 feet. Essentially, in this case, South Laguna Lane is functionally a side yard and if it were, a side yard setback 15 feet would be required. The house faces East Side Ave. and you can tell from the photos included in the application that South Laguna Lane is not opened; it's simply a paper road that leads down to the water. Also the Board should take note that the property benefits from a previous variance granted to Mr. and Mrs. Reily in 1997, that would have been decision #4456 for the 27 foot setback that currently exists adjacent to South Laguna Lane and in that proceeding the Board found that the relief was not substantial that there's no desirable change in the neighborhood, that the property technically had three front yards and that the relief requested was not self-created due to the regular half mooned kind of shape of the lot and the same reasoning we believe would apply to the second story on top of that northerly side of the house. I provided you with an aerial photograph that depicts the house and the proposed addition. It also depicts the surrounding properties and as you can see from the aerial two story houses are quite common in the area, in fact predominate the area. So our position would be that the proposed second story addition would not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood as there are many two story houses in the area. The benefit cannot be achieved by any other method other than a variance because it is place on top of already existing development at 27.1 feet from South Laguna Lane. The relief is not substantial July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting because there's no further encroachment in to that technical front yard and it will not have an adverse effect on the environmental conditions on the site. It would be subject, we have obtained a letter of non-jurisdiction from NYS D.E.C., and we would be compelled to make an application to the Trustees for the second story addition, which would be an administrative application. We submit the difficulty is not self-created and that the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted outweighs any detriment to the public, health and safety and welfare in the community, which the property lies. That concludes our basic presentation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Bruce. We'll ask the Board if they have any questions, Rob any questions from you, Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well yes, it's not necessarily relative to the front yard setback as applied for, just going through the file trying to understand the C. of O.'s on the property. Can you walk me through the C. of O.'s that the property has and what they're for? BRUCE ANDERSON : Sure, we have C. 0. September 3, 1997, 25222 which is additions to existing single family dwelling as applied for by ZBA determination 4456 that's the first floor expansion towards South Laguna Rd. that I spoke of earlier. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :That one I understood. BRUCE ANDERSON : In 1992 there's a C. 0. which is decking and open porch addition to the existing one family dwelling as applied for, that is the portion of the house facing the water. There's a screened porch and decking. Certificate #3 is Z16125 dated September 2, 1987 which is an addition to the existing dwelling and permit amended to include for attached deck, seasonal dwelling. Then there is C. 0. Z12882 dated October 11, 1984 which provide for a one story framed stucco one family dwelling situated in a residential agricultural zone with cabin. The property has been accessed from East Side and Harborview Drive both town maintained roads. MEMBER PLAN AMENTO : Excuse me one second Bruce, do we have that C. of 0? 1 didn't have that one in the packet.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that it Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes I apologize for that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric any questions? MEMBER DANTES : No I think it's pretty straightforward. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat? July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the application? Hearing no further questions of comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date, is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7168— MARGERY RIFKIN DAVID and REUBEN J. DAVID#7168 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Margery Rifkin David and Reuben J. David #7168. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-13(A)(6)e and the Building Inspector's February 13, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to legalize an as built accessory apartment in an existing single family dwelling at 1) as built accessory apartment exceeds 40% of the livable floor area of the existing dwelling unit at 1130 Glenn Road (adj. to West Creek) in Southold. PAT MOORE : Patricia Moore on behalf of the David family and I have Mrs. David here, Margery. Where we began some confusion is I think is where the Building Department took our application for a second kitchen a kosher kitchen and declared it to be an accessory apartment. We do not want an accessory apartment. The design of the house is not as an accessory apartment it is a one story house with the lower floor that is a walk out so it's kind of upside down of what a you know a two story might be with a basement. My clients purchased this property and the Torkelson family had this kitchen that the Torkelsons we know the parents were European and the kitchen was put in as a summer kitchen because the lower floor is July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting always much cooler than the upper floor and just like we have today which would be like for a lot of the high end homes have the outdoor kitchens in the olden days older days summer kitchens were pretty common in homes particularly in the European families or where you know in the summer the generally the wife I don't want to be sexist but the wife would be cooking in the kitchen in the lower floor that was many times prior to the air conditioning that was available in homes. So anyway this kitchen was there, my clients were renovating the house and as you for those of you who actually went and had an opportunity to go inside you go down a set of steps that has no door, it's an open staircase equivalent of a second story going up so you go to the lower floor there's an extra bedroom downstairs for the family and there's a living area and this kitchen. The kosher kitchen I sent you a kind of a write up to familiarize yourself with kosher kitchens. Some of you maybe more familiar than others so I thought it was educational certainly for me as well as for others and it explains that when you have a kosher kitchen you have everything identified. Everything has to be separated and if you want more detail I have Mrs. David who can certainly provide that detail. Again we are not asking for an accessory apartment. Certainly we would have been entitled to it. This is their principle residence but that's not what they want and it didn't make sense to ask for an accessory apartment when all we wanted was a kosher kitchen. I'll try to answer any questions. It's pretty straightforward except for the fact that it's a little unusual. MEMBER DANTES : What has to be done to meet code. I mean you just take the stove out and put an outside barbeque in would that meet code? PAT MOORE : No you don't what do you mean to meet code? MEMBER DANTES : To meet to avoid the variance what work would actually have to be done? PAT MOORE : Oh, you would have to remove the stove. MEMBER DANTES : That's it? PAT MOORE : I believe so. MEMBER DANTES : And just put an outside barbeque in and then they would meet code? PAT MOORE : I think so. I would have to double check with Mike Verity but having the extra stove is part of the kosher requirements. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No Pat it is not. I kept a kosher home for many years and I had one kitchen, one stove and separate cupboards and you know it is not a requirement. PAT MOORE : The stove. July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : To have a separate stove. Now the big problem is and I know you know this the reason it was called an apartment even though we inspected it and realized that it's not designed as an apartment is the fact that it has a second kitchen in it. That creates a second dwelling by code and because it constitutes a second dwelling they said okay it's an apartment in a house because it's got a second kitchen. That's why Torkelson never bothered to legalize it and the problem is if it's determined to be a dwelling an apartment which we know it's not designed as it's a 90.9% of floor area when the code only permits 40%floor area. PAT MOORE : Well it would require a whole redesign of the lower floor to make it a CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Which makes no sense. PAT MOORE : It makes no sense exactly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : At all, but that is the Notice of Disapproval and that's why it was written that way and I'm sure you understand that. PAT MOORE : I do, I understand but I think it could have been CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because of it's a second kitchen it creates a second dwelling and a kitchen is defined generally by a stove. You can have a wet bar, you can have a sink, you can have a refrigerator MEMBER DANTES : Microwave. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know I mean it's just the way the law is and the other thing you have to realize and I know you know this and I'll tell this now to Mrs. David, the law does not permit us despite our personal feelings to personalize applications. Variances run with the land and it is always about the merits of the application and not the personal circumstances of the applicant. PAT MOORE : I understand that. A variance that is related to the religious maintenance in the home if the condition of the variance is well if it's sold to a non-kosher following individual you take out the stove. So CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm sorry I can't buy that argument because there's nothing in the code that addresses it, it simply isn't and nowhere in the law of this town is there a provision for personal circumstances whether it's religious or whether you're disabled. I mean if you have to put in a ramp it has to be a setback and the setback has to be reasonable based upon the six state statutes. July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : I would I think the Building Department with ramps they actually because of the handicap accessibility will override the setbacks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If they make that call it's odd because usually that's definitely the case with commercial projects where the public comes in. With residential variances that is generally not the case, not with residential but commercial where the public comes in. I mean we try to accommodate reasonable variances and we would do everything that we can to work with the property owner but this situation needs to be clear. I mean I need to really explain that I understand why the notice was written the way it is even though it's not an apartment. A second kitchen creates a second dwelling unit and if the removal of the stove is all that is causing the problem it seems to me the problem can be solved pretty easily. PAT MOORE : Is the stove something that maybe explain Chairman Weisman who I guess your family had the kosher kitchen didn't have the kosher oven how would that assist you in maintaining the kosher kitchen? I mean you may need to provide that information. Would you put it on the record please. MRS. DAVID : My name is Margery Rifkin David, I'm at 1130 Glenn Rd. I understood always with the (inaudible) that the stove has to be blessed and there's a certain way of cleaning it and when we moved in the Rabbi our Rabbi came from up island and did that for us. That was seven years ago. We have the house for seven years. At this point and time I have a potential son-in- law coming into my family and he comes from an Orthodox family so I mean we could have removed the stove but many people told us just remove the stove. Have the Zoning Board take a look at the house and then put your stove back in but that's not ethical so we did not do that. We did not understand that we had to apply for a secondary an accessory apartment. Is it possible to then change the request to because it is legal to have a secondary apartment. We won't be using it as such but we could have it zoned that way, is it possible to then change the application? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well actually the application is for a second apartment. It is because the only thing the Building Department could do and they didn't go and inspect it and see whether or not it had a separate entrance and so on. It was written as though it is an accessory apartment because of the second kitchen which you know that's why they said gee this has to be a second dwelling an apartment. PAT MOORE : But then we have a significant variance for size. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me try to explain to Mrs. David what the problem is with regard to the apartment. The law allows an apartment in a principal dwelling as long as it does not exceed 40% of the livable floor area of the principal dwelling. In other words it has to be much July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting smaller than the rest of the house. According to this because it's literally your whole downstairs it's 90.9% of the livable floor area. Now that is a very substantial variance. In other words upstairs it's a certain square footage and downstairs is almost as big because it's the whole downstairs pretty much. I mean you have a mechanical room down there too and that wouldn't count but they looked at the floor plan and said well this is the otherwise you would have just gotten you would have just gotten an approval from the Building Department because you can have as of right an apartment as long as it's not greater than 40% of the upstairs let's say. So that is almost double more than double what the square footage allowed happens to be so it's a very substantial variance. So that's what we have to grapple with is you know can we possibly make such a substantial variance or can it possibly be redesigned in such a way that it would become a certain part of downstairs would become separated by a door at least PAT MOORE : A lock yeah. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A wall and a door and then you know the downstairs bedrooms could be part of the principal dwelling. In other words reduce the square footage of what's downstairs where the kitchen is say this much is the house down here and up there and this much is the apartment and if that can be accomplished then I think we have some basis for granting it but otherwise it's such a huge variance. The Board sets precedence by what it does so if we do such an enormous precedent going forward it's going to come back to bite us because somebody else is going to come in and say I want my whole downstairs which is as big as my home upstairs to be an apartment. So we have to be very careful when we make these decisions. MRS. DAVID : There's an office that I use downstairs and there's a bedroom. MEMBER DANTES : It's up to the Building Department he's the one that will make the determination. PAT MOORE : What we can do is why don't we put this application adjourn it. We'll sit down and I'll go over where we could possibly allocate space and you could I mean you have all the requirements of an accessory apartment and how you use it. You can use it anyway you want you don't have to rent it but it would be an accessory apartment by law. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's one way to go the other way is take out the kitchen and then your problem is solved. Well take out part of it. Go to the Building Department and make sure what would have to be done in order to say there's not a second kitchen. Obviously cupboards don't count. You leave that stuff in, a sink isn't going to be a problem and I don't really think a refrigerator is a problem either. I think it's basically comes down to the oven. If you really feel you absolutely have to have that second oven I mean I don't know according to the Kashrut July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting that I was raised with I had one oven but you know I had separate cupboards for dairy and meat and I actually had two refrigerators but that's I had one oven but that was me. PAT MOORE : How big was your place, your families place a big house or an apartment? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A big house. This was in Michigan so PAT MOORE : Oh Michigan not in the city. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No not in the city. Those are the options and I think what you need is to talk to each other and figure out which direction you think is feasible and go to the Building Department and see what you can work out and why don't we just adjourn this and come back. It will give you time to decide what you want to do and if you decide to reapportion the space into a you may even be able to do as of right and withdraw the variance because if you can get it down to 40% then you don't even need a variance. Let's do this, let's adjourn to next month. I'll see if the does the Board has any questions at this point on this? We're going to get to look at it again anyway. Mrs. David are you clear with what the issues are now? MRS. DAVID : I have one question and there is a small cooktop that's there, would that have to come out as well? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Probably. That would be the code enforcement officials are really the Building Department. We can only grant relief from something that was denied. They're the ones that have to do the denying and then you can appeal that denial to us which is what's happening here and the only reason you're doing it is because it's 90.9% instead of 40% of the livable floor area and we can just take it from there. What's the date of the hearing? Alright we'll put this on I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to August 2nd at 1:30. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. to July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7169— MARK VOLPE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Mark Volpe #7169. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's March 5, 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 rear yard setback of 35 feet at 10896 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard in Laurel. It looks like additions and alterations with a rear yard setback of 30 feet when the code requires 35, this is for a wraparound covered porch. PAT MOORE : Correct. Patricia Moore on behalf of the applicants. Mr. Hines is here he's the contractor if you have any questions I'll defer to him. As this application states this was a renovation of an existing house and additions, alterations and the right of way that we are requesting a variance from is a 10 foot right of way which is actually a pedestrian access. However it is not a defined pedestrian access, it's defined as a right of way and since it has no language limitations the Building Department can't treat it as a pedestrian even though when you look at it it's obvious that it's not used by any house as I recall. There are no houses it gets access to the beach next to the Mattituck Park District beach. So our variance request is 30 from this right of way and as you can I mean this is a second home for the family. Most of the living space is the deck and the outside and it has beautiful views of the bay over the park so this second story deck is really a very desired usable space that is not overly large but it does require a variance since our setbacks would be 35 and we are at 30. It was pretty straightforward. I don't know if you had any questions when you went out to look. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As you know and I'll just let them know that every application before the Board receives inspections personal inspections by all Board members prior to the public hearing so we are actually able to see what the property looks like, what the neighbor's homes look like, how far away things are and so on we do that on a regular basis for all applications. So we've seen it and we've seen the right of way and we've seen the park district. PAT MOORE : And speaking of neighbor's homes I know that I forwarded to you support letters from both neighbors who are very kind, very supportive. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any questions, I guess we'll start at this end Pat anything? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. Nothing from me, Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes just a modest question regarding my site inspection. I noticed that there were propane tanks and central air compressors on the side of the home, any plans for additional landscaping? PAT MOORE : Apparently it's going to be fenced. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Fencing around the propane tanks? PAT MOORE : Fencing around why don't you come up and put it on the record. JIM HINES : My name is Jim Hines I live in Mattituck, I'm the representative of the Volpe family. We are in the process right now with negotiating with National Grid to try and get natural gas up the road at which time we will put that in the house. If that does not work we intend to put the tank in the ground which whether or not it requires a permit I don't know at this time but right now it's temporary usage and we had intentions for beautification of putting up a gated fence along the side of that property. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : On the property line or around those JIM HINES : Just around the tanks. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The reason why I ask that is the property really looks quite nice except for that one side facing the neighbor. JIM HINES : Thank you and we plan on dressing it up if we have to go through that. PAT MOORE : So right now it's until they can find a MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's a work in progress. PAT MOORE : A work in progress yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 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 is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? �7 July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7171—JUSTIN and ELIZABETH MIRRO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Justin and Elizabeth Mirro #7171. This is a request for a variance from Article IV Section 280-18 and the Building Inspector's February 26, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to demolish and construct a new single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 50 feet at 2455 Nassau Point Rd. (adj. to Hog Neck Bay/Little Peconic Bay) in Cutchogue. PAT MOORE : Patricia Moore on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Mirro is here and Tom Samuels the design professional both here. So the variance application that we have before you is for the portion of the house that is on the south side of the property. The way that this house is designed is that wing is the wing for the Mirro's Mrs. Mirro's parents so it's the design is intentionally set aside from the rest of the craziness of kids and loud noise and so on so it's the quiet area of the house. The reason for the variance is again these foot paths to the beach that exist that are not vehicular access points but they are again right of ways that are undefined so without the pedestrian label of on the language of the right of way you have this through Nassau Point. I know you've had lots of variance applications for setbacks from these right of ways. I included them in this application form the ones that I found on record and generally the variances from these right of ways are granted as applied because the Board does recognize that these pathways are beach access points not roadways. In very rare occasions is it actually possibly a driveway access it also provides beach access. In this case that's not we have an actual footpath to the beach. My memory is it was fenced as I recall, landscape and a fence as a pathway to the beach without the ability of any vehicular traffic to pass. That is the reason for our variance request and there were a lot of other issues that we got the LWRP, we got the Trustees comments. They're not related to this application in the sense that this portion of the house is the variance is really a very minimal straightforward variance. We did take the July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting comments of the Trustees to heart. My client and Tom Samuels redesigned and I provided for you the revised plan that pushed the pool house for their back and pushed the decking on grade rather than be where he my clients preferred it which was between the bulkhead and the retaining wall which is the non-turf buffer that was created when the bulkhead was constructed. They pushed it back behind the retaining wall. So those things were done based on the Trustees recommendation and we do have to go to the Trustees next with respect to this plan. So we will have an opportunity to discuss any other issues that they might have at the public hearing with the Trustees. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you address the LWRP cause as you know we can't grant anything that we can't find consistent with the LWRP. PAT MOORE : Yes that's fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask you another question beforehand. So the site plan that I've got, Tom is that let me see what date, that's the one where you already made the changes? PAT MOORE : Yes it was re-dated May 28, 2018. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah May 28th that's the one we got. So they were commenting on a prior site plan? PAT MOORE : Who was? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Trustees. PAT MOORE : The Trustees yes but I don't know LWRP whether he was replying on a prior site plan or on this site plan. So I'm going to assume this site plan. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I will too because we got the memorandum from Mark is June 19th so PAT MOORE : And you would have forwarded the May I assume you would have forwarded to him the revised because he didn't identify which site plan date he was relying on CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No he didn't. Is the Notice of Disapproval well the Notice of Disapproval is for this and that remained the same. That has not changed so that's not going to address any of this other stuff. PAT MOORE : Correct yeah the others are wetland setbacks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah you need to go before the Trustees. :14 July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : With respect to the while Kim is looking at that in your file, the LWRP comments the first comment is with respect his note, we don't have a bluff on this property so that is first and foremost. He states that well the proposed house has been relocated to 95 feet from the bulkhead so the house the existing house is I want to say 20 feet from the bulkhead more or less 25 feet it's here somewhere but the proposed house is 95 feet from the bulkhead. So we have made this as a more consistent application than the renovation of the existing house. The property is located it's on Little Peconic Bay which is presently improved with a two story single family dwelling, accessory decks and platforms and detached garage. The existing structures do not comply with FEMA regulations and the current structure does. So we are complying with well the FEMA regulations which the FEMA line in this case the VE line hits no structures other than the patio and the deck which is all on grade and not generally an issue under FEMA since it's not a habitable structure even it's all on grade patio. So the pool, the pool house and the house are outside of the flood zone, flood zone VE. It is in flood zone AO which is the rest of the property. So the entire property is in AO and all our structures will comply with the AO flood provisions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the house is in AO also? PAT MOORE : Yes, it appears I'm not seeing X anywhere here so am I correct? You need to come up. I'm looking at the plan and TOM SAMUELS : Tom Samuels the architect. The AO zone is set up relative to topographic contour, probably the 6th contour from Michael Verity says that this will be the line you have to add two more feet onto that. As we know we're considerably above that so that house is not entirely in the AO nor is the site entirely in AO but a lot of it is in the AO zone. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's mostly TOM SAMUELS : I would say mostly in the AO and therefore needs to comply with FEMA which means no basement which mean flow through vents etc. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is it on pilings or no? TOM SAMUELS : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cause that sure does flood, that property. TOM SAMUELS : It does. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It does it floods right July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting TOM SAMUELS : I mean we're anticipating a fair amount of fill but parts of it will still flood I suppose. PAT MOORE : But I would also point out that the bulkhead was replaced and it was raised to eight feet so the flooding should have been addressed by the raising of the bulkhead. So that was done after Sandy so what happened is during Sandy the bulkhead failed. It wasn't this owner it was the prior owner so due to the failure of the bulkhead the upland property flooded. Part of the restoration of the property was that the bulkhead was raised, the property was restored and the existing house is still there. My clients when they purchased the property had the existing furniture that the family previously had. It was sold as a furnished home so one of the points that LWRP makes is that it looks like maybe there was flooding in the house again we can't really tell but possibly through Sandy again because of the bulkhead failure but that has all been remediated at this point so we should not or do not expect to have any flooding but even so there would be the compliance with FEMA that would if there is any flooding it would not damage the new house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What kind of waste water treatment system are you proposing? TOM SAMUELS : We're in application to the County Health Department now with a conventional system. Obviously we can't complete that until this and the Trustees but at the moment it's a conventional sanitary system in good drainage and located more than a hundred feet from wetlands of course as per Health Department. PAT MOORE : And you can see that the road is actually much higher than the property. There's a slope. If you see the site plan it shows the elevations so in part the sanitary system is being moved to the street side and it is again all being raised with fill but without trying to cut in too much into the existing slope of the property. We've got some existing hilly area there in the corner or topography change I wouldn't say a hill but it's a topographic change so it's being tucked into that area. If you look at the overall the larger site plan you see the elevations over on this side. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We've been out there. I bring it up because if something is on a flood prone property it certainly at this point and time where they're just about to switch over fairly soon to alternative you know waste water treatment systems that actually improve water quality substantially to consider that kind of investment at this point since it's new construction and it makes a lot of sense and it'll certainly help mitigate any of the LWRP concerns. TOM SAMUELS : I would just point that the sanitary system is not proposed in a flood zone. In fact the topographic contour there is over ten feet so the sanitary is not in a flood zone but �l6 July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting your point is well taken Leslie and we would certainly consider those options as long as they remain options to us. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see what questions the Board may have, Eric why don't we start with you. MEMBER DANTES : I do not have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How about you Nick, Rob no questions. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody in the audience wishing to address the application? MEMBER DANTES : I mean these are straightforward applications. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : State your name for the record please. BOB SULLIVAN : My name is Bob Sullivan. I'm not the next door neighbor but I'm right next to the next door neighbor. I've only been here fifteen years but for what's there and what's coming this is a great improvement really. Most of the people I know right in that area are very happy with this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good thank you for letting us know and we did get a letter I think from the neighbor supporting this application. Please come forward. PHILLIP PALMIERI : My name is Dr. Palmieri. I'm his immediate neighbor to the south of him and my family has been there for fifty years so I've seen all the storms I've seen everything and we all are very much in conservation and making it aesthetically beautiful and keeping it nice and he has made multiple efforts with me over the last just a few days and weeks to really take into consideration all the neighbors. The people who are behind us, the people who are next to us and he really has their interests so that they're not CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you tell us who he is'just to be clear. PHILLIP PALMIERI : Mr. Justin Mirro. You know I didn't know what to expect myself but now have spent time with him and his way of going at it and I don't'know his architect but I know of him for years so I know he'll make a tasteful, I mean something had to be done there and I think he does have everyone's you know good intentions. July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else? Sounds like you'll be very welcomed in the neighborhood. Anything from the Board, okay I think we got it covered. You need Trustees approval you know that and I would certainly suggest that at this point in time a more advanced sanitary system is definitely the way to go because in future it's going to be required. This is new construction, it's a substantial investment this is the time to do that and to really be a good steward of the environment to the extent that you can be. Other than that not much else to say I think. This is a very small setback variance from a right of way basically so that's what's before this Board. Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING# 7178—STACIA M. REMPE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Stacia M. Rempe #7178. This is a request for a waiver of merger petition under Article II Section 280-10A to unmerge land identified as SCTM #1000-53-6-39 which has merged with SCTM #1000-53-6-40 based on the Building Inspector's March 19, 2018 Notice of Disapproval which states that a non- conforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or non-conforming lot held in common ownership with the first lot at any time after July 1, 1983 and that non-conforming lots shall merge until the total lot size conforms to the current bulk schedule requirements (minimum 40,000 sq. ft. in the R-40 residential zoning district) located at 3080 Bayshore Rd. in Southold. PAT MOORE : Yes thank you. This is an application for a waiver of merger for Mrs. Rempe. I have Mrs. Rempe here and her daughter. She was quite surprised that her property had merged. They had received a vacant land C.O. which nowadays the Building Department pardon me let me just close I couldn't even hear myself. So her husband had made sure they had gotten a vacant land C.O. and in fact when one of the additions they had done to the house was 18 July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting for a garage and at the time they couldn't go closer than ten feet to the property line. Had she you know known that the lost wasn't going to be recognized they would have considered other options but at the time the garage the Building Department was recognizing the home parcel as a standalone separate parcel. Most recently when they came to me we learned that the parcel had merged this application was submitted and I gave you the history. Here it is two lots on map of Peconic Bay Estates. Mrs. Rempe her husband actually was one of the first buyers in that subdivision and then the lot was the house was ultimately conveyed to her and to her husband. I think your husband owned the property first before you got married? Yeah okay so it's been a long time. Her husband has since passed away. They did everything that they could do to maintain this property as a separate property believing that it was separate. Certainly in the eighties the practice was get a vacant land C.O. just to confirm that you still had a vacant piece of property. Interestingly today the Building Department when you go to them and say do you have a vacant land C.O. they say we don't keep those records anymore. They're kind of the town considers them nullities in a sense that they're not useful anymore but nonetheless property owners relied on them and certainly this is one of the property owners that relied on that vacant land C.O. So this waiver of merger meets all of the criteria as far as being between husband and wife and the two family members that own this property even prior to zoning being implemented and here we are today. The written application sets forth the history and the single and separate so rather than restate everything I'd rather address any questions that you might have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think probably the it's minor but the shed is on the undeveloped lot and that will probably need to be moved to the developed lot unless a principal dwelling is being planned to be there. PAT MOORE : Yes there is a plan. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It has to be accessory to something. PAT MOORE : Yes there is a plan to build on this property. However not in the immediate future so either the shed will be taken down, moved if need be. You hate to get rid of something that's useful but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well yeah but it isn't a big deal to move it over either. PAT MOORE : No. T.A. DUFFY : I don't know how you can make the argument that it's been treated as separate lots if you're keeping an accessory structure on the lot. 19 July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Well because property owners still it wasn't that the lots were not incorporated or used by the family. The shed it's a lot of land to just sit without anything so the shed provided a place for a lawn mower to keep the property mowed. T.A. DUFFY : One of the requirements to get the waiver is that you have to prove that it's been recognized, it's vacant and has been historically been treated and maintained as a separate and independent lot so how are you proving that if you're saying that you're potentially keeping accessory structure for the one lot on the proposed lot to be separated? PAT MOORE : Well I'm just saying that if the Board wants us to remove it we would but most likely a house would be put on it in a relatively short time frame. T.A. DUFFY : But that's not adjusting the criteria, how do you address that PAT MOORE : Then we'd move it. T.A. DUFFY : If you stop interrupting maybe I could give you my thought. PAT MOORE : I'm sorry I thought you stopped and asked a question. T.A. DUFFY : I stopped when you started talking over me. You have to establish that it's been treated as separate but you have an accessory structure for the one lot on the other one so how's that historically treating the lots as separate? PAT MOORE : It's by deed, by single and separate, by remember this property was acquired prior to zoning. So you had two properties that were acquired prior to zoning. A shed to me is a very minimal structure that it was still treated it was treated as a separate property in that when the garage was added to the house the lot was treated as a separate lot and the setbacks of the garage were maintaining the setbacks of lot tax lot 40. So you see that in '94 there was an application for a garage excuse me yes a garage and sunroom was added to the house in 1994. So clearly after zoning and after merger up zoning what? MEMBER DANTES : Does the shed require a C.O? PAT MOORE : No the shed does not require a C.O. MEMBER DANTES : The she didn't have a building permit? PAT MOORE : Well it was less than it's less than the code requires a permit now. I don't know that it ever I don't see a permit for the shed so MEMBER DANTES : So we're assuming a permit wasn't required 20 July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : I'm assuming a permit would not have been required so therefore the Building Department didn't look at it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well this is a you know it's clearly the same size lot as all the other lots in the neighborhood, however when you do a site inspection you look and see what's going on and of course what I suspected by the survey was in fact what I confirmed in the field which is that it's been beautifully manicured, it's lovely grass with a shed on it and it looks as though you know even though it's certainly a lot size it has been treated as one lot because it's mowed, it's manicured, it's not wooded in the sense that many of these waivers are lots that are just undeveloped entirely. They're just wooded lots that nobody has done anything to. Because of the shed and because of the grass and the hedges and so on for privacy appears to be a double lot. It appears to be one lot. Now that isn't to say that they're not two lots. The argument that everybody got separate tax bills is the same with everybody. Everybody is surprised that they got merged to tell you the truth because when the Town put in the merger law they really didn't notify property owners properly that your lots were being merged and everybody kept getting the same separate tax bills which makes it very confusing. The idea was to up zone so that there was less development, less septic systems and so on and the relief provided for that merger which was an effort to make lot more conforming in size was to come here to request a waiver but the idea is you have to meet those standards. We don't have a lot of wiggle room, you either do or you don't. Now it clearly has been held in the same family and hasn't been sold outside of the family but I think what counsel was pointing out was that for all appearances it has been treated as a double lot as you know the owner of the developed lot is maintaining the lot next door. PAT MOORE : They have not stopped maintaining the property. It was acquired in the fifties and it's always been a maintained property because just the character of this neighborhood is a very neat very lovely very well maintained area that certainly the Rempe's didn't want to detract from their own property and their neighborhood by leaving it had been farm fields so it would have been an overgrown untidy area so yes it was kept private in a sense that if there's hedges to create privacy. It does have a separate asphalt apron so if we're looking at it in purely for future development potential there is a second asphalt apron on Bayshore Rd. which implies a separate driveway for a future home. So that's showing on this survey. Yes there's a shed. It would have not required a building permit or a C. of 0. because it conforms. Again the shed was for maintenance of the properties but again the house the main house the principal house was built for the family, has a garage, received additional permits all later in time in the nineties it would have been after up zoning multiple up zonings at that point or multiple code changes but it was still maintained within the perimeters within the size of the original lot. So I think overall given it's character to the rest of the community these lots were originally double sized lots right from the beginning and that's the size that has been maintained. Most of the as you go 2�. July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting down the homes there the only time that I saw lots that looked like they were oversized was when the houses were made significantly larger and they were in fact expanded on to, larger pieces I didn't see a lot of properties that there aren't a lot of vacant lots as my memory I don't want to misspeak because I have to go back and look but certainly this house is I have a picture of the front of the house it's developed well within the bounds of its original property. Again Mrs. Rempe has been a tax payer you know she's owned this property since the fifties and has paid yes everybody gets separate tax bills but in this case she was paying a tax bill as if the lot was going to be developed so that's a long time to be paying for a lot that the town has technically merged so something to keep in mind. Yes everybody is surprised by their tax bill but given the time frame that she's owned it she's now in her eighties. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I think the strongest argument is the conformance to the side yard setback of a proposed addition on the developed lot. PAT MOORE : Exactly and the town issued CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that does show some degree of recognition that the attempt was not to exceed the code required side yard PAT MOORE : And at the same time '87 is where up zoning occurred, the Building Department issued a vacant land C. 0. 1 was practicing at that time and that was the basis that we used for transfer of lots that we would then recognize that the lot would be a buildable lot you know you have to go back to the eighties in time to know that that was a legally, very significant document because it allowed all buyers and their attorneys to rely on the future development of that property. Unfortunately we don't have those rules today so it puts us all as attorneys for buyers in a real angst you know position. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright let's see if the Board has any questions, Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEMBER DANTES : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions but I was just going to comment that for me the shed was a bit of a sticking point that when I look at the site it really looks like it's a single lot meaning the house is on a double lot. The placement really spoke to the fact that the homeowner was really using this as a one property but I have to agree with the Chairperson that there's a history here that as you brought forward the C. of 0. on the vacant land along 22 July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting with the side yard setback for the garage the framed shed is a bit of an issue because I think everyone commonly knows you need a primary to have the accessory so it's a little bit of a (inaudible) PAT MOORE : If you go through a building permit process, homeowners do not know that. I mean I had lots of sheds on vacant land building permits for garage on the other hand is usually where people go to the Building Department and they're told no you can't have an accessory without a principal. So pools, garages things that actually go in for building permits is when the homeowners learn MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) so it's a little bit of a sticking point but I think that you well in my mind just the conversation that the property does need to be maintained but you know the shed is a little bit of an issue. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in the audience wishing to address the application? Hearing no further questions of comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) 23 July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting HEARING#7175— LAURIS G. L. RALL CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Lauris G. L. Rall #7175, a request for variance from Article IV Section 280-18 and the Building Inspector's March 22, 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) less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet, 2) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet at 5400 Peconic Bay Boulevard (adj. to Great Peconic Bay) in Laurel. Good morning Mike. MIKE KIMACK : Good morning everyone. Michael Kimack for the applicant who is present. I think the best way to approach this is that he's the request is for a variance to construct essentially a second floor expansion of the master bedroom within the same existing perimeter and I would direct you to you got a copy of the plans the set plans. I direct you to A2 basically which is the proposed second floor area primarily and also the existing it gives you a better picture. If you look at the existing bedroom there's a what they're proposing to do in the expansion is pretty much create an area over an existing roof in the front essentially making it the second floor complete and creating a closet area a walk in closet area which does not exist at the present time for more convenience and then extending that over. The picture of that basically if you then you go to A3 primarily if you look at the existing rear elevation on the right hand side you'll essentially see where that master bedroom is raised. I think for a small part if you go back to A2 there's an existing balcony there which is going to be cut back in order to put three windows in from that one side. So to reiterate essentially there is no change to the outdoor perimeter it's essentially a second floor expansion of a master bedroom to make it more convenient for the family a place to put clothes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the Notice of Disapproval says a rear yard setback of 32 feet, the code requiring 50 and a single side yard setback at 10 and the code requiring 15 and the survey there's a difference on the survey. MIKE KIMACK : Yes and I talked to Damon this morning essentially and I'll have a corrective survey for you before your Special Meeting to correct that because it was written at 32 feet and then the survey showed 31. 1 had given Damon a copy of that so we didn't have enough time to get it done this morning so I'll have that to you before the Special Meeting. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We just have to make sure they jive. MIKE KIMACK : Yeah the background story of that was that the surveyor disappeared and I needed to get the application in so I scaled it off and then he came back and put in a foot different, I said how wonderful. MEMBER DANTES : So it's a 241 sq. ft. expansion of the residence? 24 July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : Yeah if you're looking at the chart there Eric, I would think that would be about the right number. Essentially it's over that lower roof basically coming straight back up again. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you're maintaining all of the existing setbacks. MIKE KIMACK : No change at all in the perimeter all the way around it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see what the Board has, Rob any questions? MEMBER LEHNERT : No my only question was the Notice of Disapproval not matching the survey (inaudible) MIKE KIMACK : Kim basically picked me up on that one basically and I just got back Tuesday night so I've been scrambling to have it, I'll have it all adjusted before you have your Special hearing for the vote and the LWRP did find consistency. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just make sure I have a copy. It's got to be in here someplace. Let's see if there are questions, Nick anything? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No just a comment it has nothing to do with the application. There are things that came up that I think were just addressed but the neighboring right of way, the terrain there it's very interesting how the bulk heading works sort of a double bulk heading and you have to climb up literally a ladder versus stairs. MIKE KIMACK : I looked at it and said hmm you know but and it's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Doing a site inspection was fun. MIKE KIMACK : It's interesting the right of way which is 9.5 or it's not really a right of way because it has its own tax map number and that's the reason why it wasn't the 20 feet from the other side cause it wasn't a right of way that's why it was a 10. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just you know whoever is the beneficiary of that if they have any mobility issues or small children, I can't imagine them really enjoying the beach. MIKE KIMACK : I'm not quite sure why that was ever created that way. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's very strange. MIKE KIMACK : Essentially it's not any use for any vehicle or anything like that. I suspect probably at one time they might have taken some boats down. 25 July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And I've seen people that you know certainly on the bay bulk heading on the water side you know sometimes you have a ladder there just isn't room or people just don't want to spend the money but this one is (inaudible) unusual. MIKE KIMACK : You can put a diving board at the end. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's a good idea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, anything from you Eric, Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yeah we did receive a letter from a neighbor who was concerned about the curbing that was damaged recently by a truck going on the Rail's property. MIKE KIMACK : I'm unaware of that. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yeah and he said the highway department did come and correct it but they're concerned about future construction going on because they claim that if the curb is damaged in any way it also presents a drainage problem for them. MIKE KIMACK : Is it on town property Pat the curb or is it on? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Well they used their driveway they have a right of way on Rall MIKE KIMACK : Yes to go in. MEMBER ACAMPORA : that these people allowed them to use. MIKE KIMACK : I suspect if it was the I mean I can understand that the heavy equipment MEMBER ACAMPORA : If you're looking for you know consideration of if this is approved and moves forward that the Ralls keep you know maintain that driveway and the curb. MIKE KIMACK : Well Mrs. Rall is here I mean Lauris had stepped out for a while primarily but I would imagine that the big vehicle coming in would be the material truck essentially everything else is going to be general construction, laborers, ladders there's nothing really big that's going in there essentially it's just once that truck went in and did it's delivery that would be the end of it. The question would arise was would that vehicle coming in cause any further damage that had already been done and repaired. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Right they're concerned about the damage to the driveway. MIKE KIMACK : They have their right of way across the Rail's property in order to get to their house it's an odd situation there Pat. When I walked down I looked at you know where the 2f July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting driveways went it was a little bit confusing there. I'd rather suspect that if there was damage that there would be a consideration by the Ralls to repair for their own benefit. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Maybe a conversation with the neighbors might be helpful. MIKE KIMACK : Had they said how it had been damaged before? MEMBER ACAMPORA : It just said that there was a large truck that attempted to come down the driveway and make a delivery and it damaged the curb and they called the Highway Department and asked the Highway Department to come and fix it because the curb is essential to maintaining the proper roadway drainage to a catch basin like ten feet west of the driveway. MIKE KIMACK : It's not a very wide and it's a tough turn in there to begin with I mean. I think you would imagine that anything swinging into that driveway is going to whether it's a medium sized truck or whatever like that may run into that same issue. It may in a sense be chronic, I mean this may be something that simply because of the nature of the width of that driveway and the depth going down that anybody swinging in there may have the opportunity to do further damage and it may not be necessarily respective of any truck going down although,that would be more probable simply because of the size and width of it would be more probable damage. I would imagine that they would basically if there was damage they wouldn't be able to repair it because it's not on their property so it would be the town that would have to come out again and do it so it would be a question if I'm not mistaken on that one. We're talking about the town coming out and repairing it the first time or the second or the third time so if it was damaged again the Rall's would not be able to do their own reconstruction it would have to be done by the town. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :This is town property?The driveway and curbing is town property? MIKE KIMACK : Well the curbing on the road right of way I would imagine if it's up on the top over there it is are we talking right off of Peconic Bay Blvd.? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Well they didn't give the location. They're just saying the curb is essential for maintaining proper roadway damage and drainage to the catch basin located ten feet west of our driveway. Additionally the curb prevents the water from draining down our driveway and undermining it thereby preventing further repairs at their expense. MIKE KIMACK : It sounds like you know I'll take what I'll do is I'll go out there and see where that catch basin is and take a look and see the situation and I'll get back to you. I mean it would appear to me from what you're saying Pat is that it's got to be on the road in order to stop the water from going down that driveway towards theirs. Let me do that and find out what we have and I'll do a letter to you. So you've got something in the file in response to his concern. Z7 July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes send Mike the copy of the neighbor's letter. MIKE KIMACK : Yeah cause I didn't pay attention to that simply because it wasn't something that was within my radar screen when I was looking at the property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from the Board, anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of amended Notice of Disapproval and a letter addressing the issue with drainage and curbing. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7176—JOHN and MARGARET HOCHSTRASSER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for John and Margaret Hochstrasser #7176. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's March 12, 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) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet at 2855 Nassau Point Rd. (adj. to Little Peconic Bay) in Cutchogue. MIKE KIMACK : Michael Kimack for the applicant. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And these are additions and alterations to an existing dwelling with a side yard setback of 12.8 feet where the code requires 15 minimum and that's it. MIKE KIMACK : Yes what they're trying to achieve basically is for their family, if you look at the best way to describe it is to go to the drawings by Mark Schwartz and more specifically to A4 2$ July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting which shows you the existing primarily on the inside. What they're essentially doing is they're expanding their kitchen because you walk in off the existing porch on the entry and it's a small kitchen which is right there and what they'd like to be able to do with this expansion is to put the kitchen in that are that's shown on the site plan, essentially moving it out and in its place put a proposed pantry and proposed bath and a proposed laundry. Then extend the roofline up a little bit and put on the second floor above the existing family room do a small office. That basically that office is within the same framework that exists now so the request for the variance is essentially to expand it with the same side yard setback of 12.8 feet on the what is essentially the southwest corner of the house. I would imagine you had an opportunity to visit the site and the stakes should have been there basically it was pretty straightforward. I went back because I set them so early and if I don't go back and check I might find you'll show up and there's nothing there so I went back to make sure the stakes had been in place. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah they're there and they are maintaining the same side yard? MIKE KIMACK : Maintain the same side yard 12.8 essentially and this is really from the way that Mark put the drawings together was the only way that they could expand. They really had no other option to move the kitchen but to that one area to expand it the way they really wanted to do it and pick up an extra bathroom on the first floor with a proposed laundry room and also the pantry. It almost kind of squares off the building a little bit on that one corner. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that side yard is extremely dense foliage and evergreens. It's not visible at all the street. MIKE KIMACK : It's really not visible. I think that's to let you know basically and the neighbor on that one side did contact me and the map I had sent him I guess he thought it was too small which I (inaudible) with you before give me a bigger map Mike so I did send him a larger copy and I said give me a call anytime. I had not heard back so I suspect CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We haven't heard anything either. MIKE KIMACK : I did address his original not concern but he just wanted a larger copy so he can basically see it. I think they're two gentlemen that own that property but as you indicated it's pretty densely vegetated on that one side. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think the house is also higher so there's an elevation. MIKE KIMACK : Yeah and of course it drops down quite a bit in that one but it's really a lovely little spot down in there. You wouldn't really know it until you got down there to take a peek at it. 2-9 July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well the landscaping along the driveway and entering the property you wouldn't know where you were going. MIKE KIMACK : You wouldn't know matter of fact I drove passed it a couple of times before I picked up the driveway and the only way I know this is watch for the thirty speed sign and when you see if make a left. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's easier than private road three of which there are three in the Town of Southold. MIKE KIMACK : Are there any further questions of me on this? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody have any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : In pulling in where the garage area was cause they had a lot of company the day I showed up there is a double car garage and then there's another building that looks like a garage. MIKE KIMACK : It's all C. of OA. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Is there something going on is he using that for an office, one portion? MIKE KIMACK : I didn't put cause what I did when I put the application together I downloaded all the C. of O.'s everything there was C. of OA. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob says there's a C.O. for an apartment it's a legally established. MEMBER LEHNERT : There's a C.O. for an apartment. MIKE KIMACK : Pat once I got the C. of O.'s and looked at it I realized there wouldn't be a further issue cause a lot of times when I take these on we do find when you're going through the application you download it they don't have a C.O. for something that's on the property and you have to clean it up but when I looked at it originally this was completely C. of O.'d right across the board. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's beautifully maintained. MIKE KIMACK : It's a really lovely piece of property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that when I went they had a house full of people too. The daughter got married the day before. MIKE KIMACK : I think they've been there a number of years in that place. 0 July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I felt so bad intruding. MIKE KIMACK : But they're lovely people. I don't think they would of minded. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else, 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 ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7173—MICHAEL GERACI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Michael Geraci #7173. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's March 15, 2018 amended March 20, 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) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet, 2) less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet located at 525 Old Salt Road (adj. to James Creek) in Mattituck. Good afternoon, would you state your name for the record please. BROOKE EPPERSON : I'm Brooke Epperson. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so this appear to be additions and alterations to a dwelling with a front yard setback of 38.1 foot where the code requires 40 and a rear yard setback of 35.3 where the code requires a minimum of 50. So tell us what you'd like us to know. BROOKE EPPERSON : I am the architect on the applicant and my Michael Geraci is the owner I'm representing him. He would like to utilize the space that is existing on the second floor 31 July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting currently. It has an office are which he converts into a bedroom and he has unfinished attic space which has his mechanical equipment and he would like to add the headroom to those areas to make them full height rooms, add a bathroom up there and just do a small extension to the side to utilize that area where it's just an attic currently and add a deck to the rear on the water side. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is a second floor addition within the existing footprint? BROOKE EPPERSON : Correct everything is within the first floor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just so you're aware every Board member has been out to inspect the property. We've all seen the subject property and the surrounding neighborhood and so on. It's part of what we do before a hearing on every application. Let's see what the Board wants to ask about this one, Pat. MEMBER ACAMPORA : I don't have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric any questions? MEMBER DANTES : It doesn't look like they're on top of any neighbors, I don't have any questions. MEMBER ACAMPORA : I want to go back to that. I do have a question, I remember when speaking with the homeowner he had questions with regard to the drainage and drywells; there's old dry wells but they've been requested to put new ones in? BROOOKE EPPERSON : Correct and we did the calculations, we would need one dry well and it will be put in the front yard and it's outside CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Which front yard? It looks like you're just on a curve there's front yards everywhere. BROOKE EPPERSON : So there's the driveway and then there's the walkway leading to the front of the house, it's basically right in that area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So a dry well is going to be added. BROOKE EPPERSON : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you're going to have to comply with the town storm water drainage plan anyway. The Building Department will require and we do too. Let me enter into the record a couple of other things, the house has a setback of 35.7 feet. The second story is proposed at 38 so it's even more conforming, slightly more conforming than what the existing 32 July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting front yard setback is and then of course you have more than one front yard, 35.3 foot is a rear yard setback to proposed new deck and 43.2 feet rear yard setback to a proposed second story additions. Is that all correct? BROOKE EPPERSON : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick any questions? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It seems today I've got questions for all the applicants. I don't mean to be difficult but two things, one are there covenants and restrictions to the homeowners or the properties in Salt Lake Village and will those obviously be recognized? BROOKE EPPERSON : It is a private community and everything will conform to what is required of them. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Perfect and then the other question I wanted to ask which I think may be a benefit to the owner I don't know, there is a coy pond on the property and a gazebo do either of those structures need a C.0? I saw in the package that there were C.O.'s for improvements to the home but not specifically including those two amenities. BROOKE EPPERSON : I have to ask Mike. MIKE GERACI : I'm Michael Geraci I am the homeowner. The gazebo and that back all the work done on the back of the house was there when I purchased it so and it was kind of expensive so I'm kind of surprised that it wasn't done but I honestly don't know. It was on the original information that I received in terms of the original surveys and so on all showed it and from what I understand it was all done to code but I honestly don't know. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't know that's why I brought it up. I don't know if it's an important issue or not. MEMBER DANTES : Is the gazebo 100 sq. ft.? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's probably smaller. MIKE GERACI : The gazebo is pretty small. I mean frankly the gazebo needs work. We're planning on replacing the roof on the gazebo because if you walk the property you saw that it was pretty deep that's one of the things we want to fix while we're there but all of that back porch area that's there was all from what I understand was all part of that major renovation that was done back in the eighties. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And our C.O.'s I just don't know the specific work covered so I guess my thought in bringing this forward is you know other families have been required to get a C.O. July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting on a gazebo. Now yours is smaller, a coy pond I don't know the specifics about but I think that while we're here it's good if you just clean everything up so that there aren't any issues. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think probably they would have been called out as non-conforming when they made the application in the Building Department and got a Notice of Disapproval. The gazebo is in the code required rear yard as is the fish pond and I don't think they require anything. Is there anything from you Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : Nothing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the application? Let's see if there's anything else in our file that we need to look at. You are not increasing the degree of non-conformance in terms of the footprint. You're before us because mass is now considered non-conforming when it's increased as opposed to just a horizontal dimension. I don't see any real problems here that haven't been addressed. No one else in the audience okay I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All if favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7177— BRIAN MORRISSEY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Brian Morrissey #7177. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's January 26, 2018 amended March 28, 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 legalize an existing 100 sq. ft. accessory shed at 1) accessory shed 34 July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 10 feet, 2) additions to the single family dwelling less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet at 65 Corey Creek Lane in Southold. Please state your name for the record. BRIAN MORRISSEY : Brian Morrissey 65 Corey Creek Lane. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is for a side yard setback of 5.4 feet where the code requires a minimum of 15 feet. This is for a sunroom addition correct? BRIAN MORRISSEY : Correct. CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and for an existing 100 sq. ft. accessory shed with a 1.4 foot side yard and rear yard setback where the code requires a minimum of 10 feet. So tell us what you'd like us to know. BRIAN MORRISSEY : Well the sunroom that there's a can I ask a question, has everybody been to look at the house? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes. BRIAN MORRISSEY : Well if you could see the way the house the lot is shaped it's a (inaudible) the house the way it's set up you really it's very hard to build anything on the back of the house with the setback rules that you have. There is an existing porch that was probably built or a deck maybe twenty five, thirty years ago I don't know. You might have a permit for that you could probably map it down better than I do. I do have some of that stuff from when I bought the house but I don't have it in front of me. It needs to be replaced, it's dangerous and when it was built you know we didn't have problems with mosquitos like that probably cause I've been out here for thirty years and ticks and my wife and I decided rather than replace that it would be more enjoyable to have a sunroom where you can just be locked in you know from the element from bugs and ticks and lyme disease or whatever else and that's why we applied for to tear down the deck and put a sunroom on. When we applied for the permit we thought everything was going to go through because it was almost the same size that we were tearing down but we were told that it has to be 15 feet and it's almost impossible. How far is the setback? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : For your proposed sunroom? BRIAN MORRISSEY : No, no I mean CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's required? BRIAN MORRISSEY : Correct. 351 July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is required by code is a minimum of 15 feet. BRIAN MORRISSEY : Right and I don't even think the house is 15 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not it's 12.5 feet. BRIAN MORRISSEY : Right and if you look at the survey there's you know the back of the house is just an angle that cuts across so you're just losing your entire back yard the way the house was positioned on the lot and it being an irregular sized lot. It's just really very hard to when now that I'm into it this deep it's really hard to get out of it and you know this is the next step to try and rectify it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the shed of course is in this triangular pointed corner behind your garage right? BRIAN MORRISSEY : If you look at the previous one of the previous owners that owned the house his mother lived in the house behind the where the fence is there and the fisherman's house today and you'll see the fence is about several feet or five feet from my property line. So that's actually his back yard so if I even wanted to knock the shed and move it a little bit closer would you know he's kind of been squatting rights on that property back there since way before I moved, purchased the home and I didn't want to you know rock the boat. I try and be a good neighbor. I have good neighbors and I don't want to upset anybody because CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that your fence, it should be your fence no? It's on your property. BRIAN MORRISSEY : I believe it is my fence but I could knock it down and move it back to the property line but he's using that space to you know he's had it so long that I don't wish to you know I don't really need the space back there but I put the shed up and none of my neighbors have any problems with it that I know about. Did anybody give CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We got a letter of support from one of your neighbors. BRIAN MORRISSEY : From Harry Fishman I believe. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes. BRIAN MORRISSEY : He came by and told me that you know that he didn't have any issues and my next door neighbors on the other side they said that they didn't have any issues but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well frankly without that fence there would be much more of an impact to your neighbor because their house is very close to your mutual property line. July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting BRIAN MORRISSEY : Yeah a lot of these laws that are in effect now for the setbacks and everything I don't think back in the seventies and eighties I don't know when they went into place but now it's kind of CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well zoning was 1957. BRIAN MORRISSEY : Okay the setback that they have CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All the zoning that went into effect did so in 1957 so anything before that was built was built without any requirements any setback. BRIAN MORRISSEY : Right but this house was built in the seventies was it? MEMBER DANTES : There were different setback requirements depending on the years. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It might of changed. BRIAN MORRISSEY : Right well that's what I'm saying. Say you had a 5 foot setback and now it's 15 it's kind of hard to say oh well you know you can't you know when you look at it it's not very easy to accommodate that to play by the rules. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay no one can see that shed. You have two front yards which is a bit of a burden. BRIAN MORRISSEY : The other thing was too, I thought about putting it towards the front of the house and the side and my other neighbor on that side they watch the school bus stops on my corner and they don't want I park my boat there and they said please don't park the boat there because we watch the school but when the kids get off the bus and make sure they get off the bus safe so I actually moved my boat out of the way from and don't put any big bushes or anything over there for that particular reason because I try to be you know a good neighbor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How long has that shed been there? BRIAN MORRISSEY : Over two years maybe like four or five years. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you put the shed in? BRIAN MORRISSEY : I built it myself yeah and I didn't really realize that you know I looked at my garage and my garage and I said oh it's about three and a half feet and I really didn't realize that there was all these codes and laws and stuff like that and I figured if there was an issue when I bought it and sold the house if I had to I would take it down or I could move it but moving it is not an easy thing. It could be moved but it's not the easiest. If you had to move it a few feet but to take it down and move it to another space would be very labor in fortified. 37 July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know I'm looking at this survey now carefully Bill help me with this, I can see the 1.4 foot setback for the shed what would be I guess your well I guess they're both rear yards. What is this 6.6 MEMBER DANTES : They're saying the fence is 6.6 feet west of the property line oh I'm sorry the fence is 4%feet the shed is 6.6 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's right and the Notice indicates 1.1 foot for the side and rear and I think that's a mistake. I think they're siting it to your fence and not your property line. So I think technically your shed is 1.1 feet on this side yard and BRIAN MORRISSEY : May I come up and look? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure. Am I right? I thought they were saying side yard and rear yard. Look at the Notice. It says 10 feet from side and rear that's what the code says right and it's 1.4 feet. It's kind of moot, we're not going to bother with it but I want to make sure we're accurate that's all. Let's talk about the proposed covered porch. Your house is now 12.5 feet and we see as you go farther towards your back yard you're encroaching farther you know closer to that property line but why can't you move it over a bit and give us a little bit more of a setback? BRIAN MORRISSEY : Well the one thing is if I do move it over there's one window in the kitchen and I do have a pool in the back yard and if there's somebody in the pool you can look out in the back yard and if you didn't move it over that's the only window in the kitchen for cooking and stuff like that when you're cooking if you have the window open every all the smells and everything would go right into the sunroom. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I believe although you didn't submit any house plans so we don't know what the layout of your house is okay but I believe when I was there you pointed to the kitchen window as the window that's on the opposite the last window on that rear elevation BRIAN MORRISSEY : There's two windows yes it's the furthest window correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah and so you could slide it over a bit more and not hit that window could you? BRIAN MORRISSEY : My original plan was I wear glasses but here is the deck here right, this is the old deck I think it comes on an angle so I figured if I went from the space from this corner here to the property line was whatever that space is. So I figured if I shifted this over more the existing deck which this plan isn't doing any justice because it actually is moved over more to the other side of the steps the sunroom the plans for the sunroom should come out this far. don't I only saw this and the papers had to been submitted already so it was kind of late in the July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting game for me to start saying this isn't the way it should be. So my plan was this actually is coming out two feet further so if this was a point here we were planning on like shifting it two feet over but that with the two feet and being that the existing deck this is I think what size is this deck here the existing deck can you see on the plan? CHAIRPERSON WIESMAN : It's just showing it doesn't show the deck. This is why we're not able to really evaluate how easy your difficulty would be for you to move that over. BRIAN MORRISSEY : What my plan was to try to do or what I'd like to do is try to keep this distance from my original plan was to try to keep the property line distance the space between the corner of my existing deck and the property line to move it over to the point where it would equal the same. BOARD SECRETARY : That's an additional two feet you're saying. BRIAN MORRISSEY : Well it's something like that I have to come out two feet so I have to move it over two feet. It will come out almost the same I thought almost the same. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah but that's not what's showing on here? BRIAN MORRISSEY : I know that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the Notice of Disapproval is referring to what you submitted. So what you're saying is you could actually you're planning to actually create an additional two foot setback is that what you're saying? BRIAN MORRISSEY : When you say the setback this is two feet-this is if you look here this is two feet should be about two feet bigger the deck the sunroom. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The hatch lines are the expansion from the existing deck you see it's not labeled so it just says proposed 20 foot by 12 foot addition with steps. BRIAN MORRISSEY : It would be a lot better had this been this specific area been blown up on one particular page so we really could get it better. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : See it better. Here's part of the problem Mr. Morrissey, if we were to go ahead and stamp this you would get a stop work order because we have to stamp what you're going to build or the Building Department will BRIAN MORRISSEY : So we need to resubmit plans? I don't have a problem with that. I waited a year now, another couple of you know what I would ask is if you would possibly put this back on the calendar as soon as we possibly can so that we can get another 391 July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you in agreement with that, are you seeing what he's saying. MEMBER LEHNERT : I see what he's saying but I would still like to see the first floor plan of the house. BRIAN MORRISSEY : Okay Bruce could we write this down what they're asking to do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you just state your name for the record please. BRUCE WOHLARS : My name is Bruce Wohlars I'm the contractor Sunview Enterprise. The issue that we ran into is actually this is what we originally proposed. We submitted to Building Department, we got an approved permit. We went to the project and on the back of the last page of the survey which you don't comply with he said in red ink was maintain 15 foot setback from the property line and that's when we stopped the project and then went down and said we don't comply. I almost felt like we should have gotten a rejection prior to paying for a building permit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah they issued you a building permit in error. They should have issued a Notice of Disapproval. BRUCE WOHLARS : Yeah it would have saved us some time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to make sure that no other unfortunate misunderstandings happen. BRUCE WOHLARS : No I agree. The issue is I think was really that we're getting close to that kitchen window and I understand what Mr. Morrissey's concern is as it would be mine. You're only exterior fresh air for your kitchen is now going to go into an enclosed sunroom. Even though it's not habitable you're going to have the windows closed in that and you're going to be able to get fresh air when you're cooking. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well all we want to do is see the floor plan and to see where the proposed addition (inaudible) that kitchen and avoids the window and then what is this actual setback to the property line from that corner that nearest corner for the sunroom. What I think you should do when you go back and get this surveyor to redo it and draw up a floor as long as the floor plan is to scale it's better if it's stamped by someone who has a stamp you know a licensed professional but I think in this instance you know even if we had to do an interior inspection just to see what it was we could go back but I'd like to have some information as to where this suhroom is going to sit relative to that kitchen window because that could be a legitimate reason for saying we need this variance. The other thing to do is to think about is the size. We need to have the greatest setback possible from that side yard 40 July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting because the law allows us in fact requires us to only grant the minimal variance, the minimum possible variance when justified. So if you can give us a bigger setback that's going to be a benefit. The Board can grant alternative relief too. We can say you want five feet we think you can make this happen maybe not exactly as you want it with ten feet or eight feet. That's called alternative relief to what you've requested. I think what we should do is give you a month, we'll adjourn it. This shouldn't be very time consuming. I don't want to we've already adjourned one but what will that give us twelve for next month? It will give us eleven for next month. We can do that. Okay so I'm going to give you some time to work this out now that you do understand what we're looking for now. Is everybody okay with that? BRIAN MORRISSEY : If we can keep the same distance between .the property line and the existing deck that's there now would that be acceptable? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know what that setback is? BRUCE WOHLARS : No it's never been scaled. BRIAN MORRISSEY : I think it's probably eight feet, ten feet. I mean I've measured it but you know and I haven't measured it lately because I've really been kind of disgusted with it the whole thing. Every time I look at that cause I had tape on the ground and I had it all marked out and I just got tired. It's been a year now but I mean if we try to go into that work in that guideline would you consider that?That's what I'm trying to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have a C.O. on the deck? BRIAN MORRISSEY : You guys should have all that information in front of you because I bought the house.There's no way the bank or anything to give you to financing with CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if we have a C.O. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah there's a C.O. on the deck, '86 BRIAN MORRISSEY : Excuse me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He's looking MEMBER DANTES : Banks don't always look for decks. BRIAN MORRISSEY : Okay I can understand but I do remember seeing it on MEMBER LEHNERT : Deck addition to existing one family dwelling in 1986. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What year was it Rob? 4:1 July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : 1986 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 1986 so you have a C.O. It won't tell you what the setbacks is but it'll say you got a building permit for the deck so the deck was legally established. If you didn't require variance relief at the time or whoever built the deck didn't require it then it was probably conforming to the code at the time. BRIAN MORRISSEY : Right now the one question is if we try to work within that perimeter of keeping that same distance between the corner of the sunroom and the property line the question I'm asking, would that maybe possibly be acceptable or do we need CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It could possibly be acceptable but I really can't answer it till I see it. I want to see a floor plan and I have to know what the setback is. I mean I'd like to be able to say if you had a C.O. for a deck and you are maintaining the same setback. There is a difference between an open deck and an enclosed room. BRIAN MORRISSEY : You're absolutely right and you know something the survey it should be on here. That you know I paid for the survey and that should be I don't know why it's not on there but it should be and this is my CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They should go out and redo this so that they dot in the as built deck and then hardline the proposed addition and then we can compare them. We can see what the existing setback to the deck is and what you're proposing. And if you're going to redesign the sunroom to make it sort of sit on top of the existing,deck although you'll have to rebuild it obviously you know we'll certainly take a look at it but just keep in mind when you're doing this that the closest that you can come to the 12.5 feet that your house is at and that's not easy because we know it's at an angle. BRIAN MORRISSEY : Well it's very hard because the house isn't even 12 foot 5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is, the corner of the house is 12.5 feet. That's on the survey. BRIAN MORRISSEY : But it's really hard to do that because it's at an angle it's almost impossible. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The only way you could do it is to slide it way over and that may be too far over for your goals but we can't know that until you draw it up till we see it. BRIAN MORRISSEY : Right that's why we're here today. If I wanted to do that we would just did that a year ago and now I'm even in a little deeper but is there any other questions with the shed or anything like that right now? 421 July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I don't think that's does anyone have any questions about the shed? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions about the shed. I have a question about the garage the stairs going up. Is that habitable space up there is that an apartment? BRIAN MORRISSEY : No if you want you can go it's basically storage you know MEMBER ACAMPORA : (inaudible) climb the steps just to even look at your neighbor's property. BRIAN MORRISSEY : I mean I have a bed up there and a couch and stuff like that but no one lives up there. If I have an overflow somebody might crash up there but at night. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No I see you were granted a C.O. for accessible garage CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Accessory garage. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Accessory garage says nothing about a second floor or anything. BRIAN MORRISSEY : It's no apartment. There's no bathroom or water or anything up there like that. It's basically storage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But I would suggest to you that unless you have a C.O. for habitable space it's dangerous to sleep somebody in there. The reason that we don't put people in garages unless the Building Department knows about it and gets approval is because God forbid there's a fire, Fire Departments don't even know to go look. BRIAN MORRISSEY : I was totally unaware of that and when you think about too there's a lawn mower in there, there's a car with gasoline and stuff so it is kind of a hazard and stuff like that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just make sure it's for storage. BRIAN MORRISSEY : Well thanks again for everything and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to make a motion is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? Alright I'm going to make a motion then to adjourn this hearing to August 2nd at 1:35 p.m. is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. 43 July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7188— KENNETH RICHERT CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Kenneth Richert #7188. This is a request for variance from Article III Section 280-14 and the Building Inspector's April 17, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a lot line modification at 1) proposed lot measures less than the code required minimum lot area of 80,000 sq. ft. located at 25705 CR 48 in Cutchogue. This is for a lot line change on an 80,468 sq. ft. lot in the AC zoned district, 1.847 acres and the proposed lot 1 would be 60,555 1.39 acres requires Planning Board approval and what else would you like us to know about this application why do you want to do this? KENNETH RICHERT : I don't have a whole lot of reason to want to be doing it other than I'm trying to help out the farmer and the owner of the property around me and the people that are currently buying the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on I'm sorry please state your name. KENNETH RICHERT : I'm sorry, Ken Richert. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Richert, I'm sorry I mispronounced your name. Well you would be creating have you received a copy of the Planning Board's memorandum? KENNETH RICHERT : I did get a copy of that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright why don't you address that. KENNETH RICHERT : I went up and spoke to the Planning Board about it and the consensus or the best answer I got from them was this letter was more of just a legal letter of what the actual law states and not necessarily what their actual opinion on the matter would be. So they said it would be further addressed after you guys decided what you were going to do with it. I tried to get some clarity to what this actually meant cause if I read this word for word there's no sense in going even standing before you if I'm and they said no that's not the case this is more of just the legalese of what their Board does. 44 July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : So in other words they put something in writing and then verbally told you oh we don't really mean that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look the bottom line is we always ask for comments from the Planning Department whenever there's a lot line kind of change being proposed because it has to go to them eventually anyway. If we were to say okay but you're here because your lot line change is creating a non-conforming lot. KENNETH RICHERT : I understand that yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We want to know why you need to create a non-conforming lot. KENNETH RICHERT : Is there a need to do that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There has to be a reason. There are six state statutes for variance relief. KENNETH RICHERT : There is no need there's no other than it was all initially a connected at one point it was all the sod farm originally. When I bought the house the farm had all been farmed except for the little piece of property that I live on. Most of my 1.8 size, 8.3, 8.6 whatever it is was all farmed at one time by McBride and before that the sod farms had farmed it. Sand Lee Farms who is renting the land now came to me and asked if I would be interested in selling a piece of it along with the owner of the farm now and I said I wasn't using it. It was sitting idle and I thought it would be better to come to some positive use than me let it sit there and grow weeds and MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do you mind sharing is parcel 1 your primary residence? KENNETH RICHERT : Can I look at what you're looking at I'm not the ranch house CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Come up we'll show you the survey. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's your home and then who's the owner of the farm? KENNETH RICHERT : That's Steve Hannon who actually owns the farm. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is you. KENNETH RICHERT : This is me. Steve Hannon owns all of this around it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And who's the tenant? KENNETH RICHERT : The tenant is Sang Lee Farms (inaudible) Lee and Frederick Lee. They rent that, they rent 451 July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Some of their workers? KENNETH RICHERT : No they use the farm they farm the land. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They're leasing the farm and there's a tenant in here? KENNETH RICHERT : There are tenants in there, actually I don't know if they work for them or not it would make sense so you're probably right. (inaudible) renting this farm next to them I forget but Sang Lee is renting that as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's this little corner we're looking at this little corner here. KENNETH RICHERT : We're looking at this piece that they want we just instead of making it too small we just redesigned that to take some of the property back. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Who is it that wants this? KENNETH RICHERT : Steve would like it, Will would love it who's renting it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cause what you're doing is creating a curb cut on Route 48 instead of just accessing this lot from Bridge. KENNETH RICHERT : I'm guessing what the ultimate plan is, is some access here and they'd like to continue farming this. I only use from this down the line this is all weeds, I'm not doing anything with it. McBride used to farm potatoes on it and before that it was (inaudible) by one of the local sod farm companies had grown sod on it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Couldn't Sang Lee just rent that portion of the property from you to continue farming? KENNETH RICHERT : I'm selling the house. I guess their concern is that they'd like to own it. They don't know who's going to be buying it or what the interest of the people buying going to be. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're selling your house? KENNETH RICHERT : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And they want you to change these property lines prior to sale. I think in part is because it may provide a more valuable equity in the land by having access off of Main Rd. and the other thing is, by increasing the size of this lot you may be getting big enough for two uses. 46 July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting KENNETH RICHERT : Well the owner is definitely Steve the man that owns the property is not interested in that. He's willing to put something in writing however that would work. This is all new to me so they're not looking to build. They're looking to continue farming and just have more farmland that's as far as they're looking to go with it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well for us the problem is that unless there are really substantial reasons based upon the state statues that we have to use in order to evaluate the merits of an application there has to be a really big reason for creating a non-conforming lot when you have two conforming lots. KENNETH RICHERT : I completely get it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you understand what I'm saying? KENNETH RICHERT : I don't have a ton of skin (inaudible) to be a hundred percent honest with you Sang Lee came to me and asked, the people that are buying the house that are interested in buying the house it's a new young family that used to live out here they're trying to come back out here and buy. I can save them a little money if I can sell this piece of land off to them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure because the lot's smaller. KENNETH RICHERT : He's willing to pay for it so that he can have more access so like I said if I sell the house I'm not in it. I'm trying to help two people out that came to me with an interest. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is there a representative of the neighboring farm or Sang Lee here? KENNETH RICHERT : They can come here right now if you want him here. He's plowing the field right now but he said if you want me to call him he can come down right away if you wanted him to. I've never been to one of these. I didn't know what was expected so I didn't know. MEMBER DANTES : What if he writes a letter. KENNETH RICHERT : Will wrote a letter? MEMBER DANTES : Yeah if he could write a letter. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No he hasn't written one but MEMBER DANTES : He should. KENNETH RICHERT : He should? MEMBER DANTES : Yeah. 47 July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting KENNETH RICHERT : Okay. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But he's the tenant so he wouldn't be the I mean he could in theory be the beneficiary from the landlord but I'm assuming the farm owner KENNETH RICHERT : The farm owner Steve Hannon I guess would be the ultimate to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He's the one that needs to write it not Will cause he's just farming the property, he's leasing it right? KENNETH RICHERT : Sang Lee is just leasing it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have to have.the property owner explain why he wants to do this. KENNETH RICHERT : You want me to tell you what his answers are? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure. KENNETH RICHERT : He wants access from 48, it would be easier for him to access where his main farm is, it's almost directly across the street and he wants to farm more land right there. Those are the two reasons he's giving me. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And you shared that he had stated and this is here say but he stated that he'd be willing to put covenant and restrictions on the use of that property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what the problem with having stuff in writing is that if we have questions about it and it's not in the hearing then we can't (inaudible) I'd rather just adjourn it. I'll tell you what, why don't we do this let's do this, if I adjourn this to the Special Meeting which is in two weeks that will give them an opportunity whether it's Sang Lee, whether it's Fred or Will or the property owner to write their reasons for requesting this kind of variance and then I will then close it in two weeks if we have no questions. If we have questions we will then adjourn it to the next Public Hearing and ask those questions because we can't ask the questions at a Special Meeting. It has to be a recorded hearing like today. So if we get more information from them KENNETH RICHERT : Will can be here in about four minutes if that's good or if you guys are done today I understand that just telling you what he offered me. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think the more important person is not the tenant but the property owner Mr. Hanlon. I mean a tenant can change so whoever Steve Hanlon is I'd like to understand 48 July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The person that has an investment the real equity is the property owner. A tenant has very little to say about what happens to property so I would definitely say that get the property owner of the other parcel that's adjacent to yours to write to us this guy KENNETH RICHERT : You're talking about Hanlon. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah. T.A. DUFFY : And or Will too. I'd hate to put Will on the spot cause he's five certain criteria he has to explain and for him to come in here he might not be able to do it and may not be able to you know speak to you properly so I would rather give him time to you know CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what, the application itself has a whole series of things on it you know that you have to answer where is that darn thing and they're not real thorough. Here we go, I mean they're really, really minimum it's just it's still going to farmland is basically what he said. KENNETH RICHERT : I think he was trying to minimize like the fact that nothing is going to change. You're not even going to notice that's a lot line change at all. It's going to stay appearing the exact same thing the only thing he's going to be doing is being farmed. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well the only thing that I would add to that though it's developable land that you're increasing the square footage means that you have additional potential uses. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You following what Nick is saying especially with access on 48. KENNETH RICHERT : Steve agreed to sign something that they're not looking to use to gain to acquire the land to start building something. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well then what he has to do is say he's willing to put covenants and restrictions on the use of the land KENNETH RICHERT : Steve CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep he's the owner that the land remain farmland in perpetuity without additional structures other than AG structures and no additional uses other than agriculture. KENNETH RICHERT : That's not a problem. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But how would that impact also road access if the intent is to have access off of 48 you can't do that across farmland? 49 July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Only if it's farmed. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Or for like a farm tractor I guess. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah if it's just an agricultural structure like a tractor but there's no road there should not be a curb cut for a tractor. MEMBER LEHNERT : No curb cut for a tractor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what I'm saying there be no curb cut. KENNETH RICHERT : (inaudible) Will said he's not looking to have tractor trailers pull in and out of this entrance for loading and unloading. Maybe that's part of your question whether or not he's looking to have tractors access the farm to be able to farm that piece of land and make their way to the back section of farmland. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think that's a different story than entertaining the public or tractors or trailers or delivery as he suggested. KENNETH RICHERT : No they're not (inaudible) he brought it up himself that no tractor trailer or anything (inaudible) that you're trying to talk about now. He's talking about (inaudible) trying to farm this piece of land make his way back. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the question is whether or not written information would suffice or would it just be better to have the property owner and Will here at the same time so we can ask those questions, get their answers into the record cause we have to base our decision on public record which is why we transcribe these recordings because this becomes the record. This is part of the record and everything said here today is part of the record. T.A. DUFFY : Do you have a tight time frame on it? KENNETH RICHERT : I do have a tight time frame but that's not your T.A. DUFFY : We try to be accommodating. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You say you have a buyer somebody that's interested in the home. KENNETH RICHERT : The home is in contract, we're trying to close the end of August. T.A. DUFFY : Since you're on a tight time frame why don't we do like you suggested put it on for two weeks and have him submit something in writing and if that's sufficient you can close if not then you put it over but at least you might be able to get it done. 5o July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And then they can understand the talking point for the neighboring farmer especially. KENNETH RICHERT : I think you're clear now on what we're getting at because if they're willing to put covenants and restrictions on the use of this without any public access, no curb cuts off of 48 strictly tractors and pardon T.A. DUFFY : Farm vehicle access only. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Farm vehicle access only that kind of-thing. KENNETH RICHERT : I know for certain that's not a problem cause initially when we'first started this we talked to the Planning Board first before we applied and then they sent us back down to you guys and that was all addressed and I was sitting there with Will and Steve said no we're not looking for anything, no public access, no nothing like that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well you_see once this is done unless there is covenants and restrictions on here they will run with the land but let's say they want to sell in some future time without those C. & R.'s this can become you know an entrance to a winery, it could you know anything like that so we want to make sure that we know what we're doing what their goals are and what the consequences for the town will be. KENNETH RICHERT : To be honest with you I thought they were going to be here today. I'm just kind of playing middle man here. I'm trying to do what people are asking me and try to help the people that are buying the house and save them a few dollars. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And look at the gratitude you get. KENNETH RICHERT : My real estate agent told me to run for my life. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah no good deed goes unpunished as they say. KENNETH RICHERT : So you want me to come back in two weeks with these letters or CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All you have to do is have them write them and send them to Kim in the office. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Can we do them quicker not two weeks but set a deadline, Friday or Monday the latest. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I want to get them as soon as possible. By the end of next week that's plenty of time. Here's what happens Ken, we have another meeting in two weeks we meet twice a month and we meet in the evening over at the Annex. It's an open meeting, July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting people can sit it there's no testimony like here this is a hearing that's transcribed and recorded we don't do that over there. You can listen to us talking about the various applications and what we're going to decide, we have a draft written up for each of these applications. We will not have a draft for this application because what we're going to do is wait and see what they have to say and if we have no questions about the letter, the letters clear up everything then I'm going to close this hearing. This hearing is staying open for two weeks. That means that we have all kind of flexibility. If we have more questions then we're going to adjourn it to like a month from today so that we can ask those questions. You don't want to be closing and opening and closing and opening. We'll try and get it done as fast as possible but it depends on what they give us. KENNETH RICHERT : The letters can clarify enough. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Exactly that we won't need any additional information. Now if the letters come in sooner that gives us enough time to write up a draft then we will close the hearing at that time and we will also deliberate on the decision in two weeks but it depends on how fast you could get the letters in. KENNETH RICHERT : I will be on the phone (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're trying to meet your time frame but we have to have what we have to have so it's up to all the players to KENNETH RICHERT : I'm middle man here, I'll do whatever you ask me to do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If their answers are sufficient reasons for granting this change we will write up a decision that will then clarify with the Planning Department the issues they brought to us like public access you know when you have an intersection curb cut that close to an intersection like Bridge and 48 we know we all live here we're neighbors we just live down the road that's you know if you got public also coming in and out of a (inaudible) that that's close that's an accident waiting to happen. So their concerned with traffic impacts and stuff like that cause there's nothing in this application that says what's going to happen with that (inaudible) it just says it's going to be farmland. It's very vague so that's what we need more information. KENNETH RICHERT : That's pretty much all it's going to be is farmland. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But they need to tell us they're going to put covenants and restrictions that run with the land because if they do that then we know there will be limitations on that cause it's the reserved parcel. They sold the right behind it. This part is preserved. 5� July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting T.A. DUFFY : Especially when Planning Board puts in a memo that they object to the application and then this Board needs some assurances to back it up to.why they're approving a variance where another Board objecting to it so they're saying this is just a formality is kind of kicking the can and putting the blame on this Board saying you know CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not a formality believe me. KENNETH RICHERT : When I got up there I was very confused as to which way we're going and it didn't sound that they were putting the pressure on you or otherwise. It sounded like they were going to (inaudible) what you guys decided. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the point is they can't do anything without the Zoning Board's approval because you're asking the property owner is asking you to create a non-conformity and only this Board can do that but if we choose to do that the Planning Board has to then create a different subdivision line. They have to bless it. So if they're saying no, no we object it's no good we gotta find out how to make them T.A. DUFFY : Technically this Board just approving the small lot and then the Planning Board has to approve the actual moving of the lines. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah that's it. KENNETH RICHERT : Can I just one thing you guys mentioned, if it's just farm equipment going back and forth you wouldn't have to worry about curb cuts that's one thing that the Planning Board had an issue with CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's right it's for agricultural equipment only for farming. KENNETH RICHERT : That would take care of one of their issues. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's right and then you have to address we will have to look at the degree of non-conformance. You know is it a big variation from the square footage required by the bulk schedule or is it medium or small. You know the smaller the better because the Board is only allowed to grant the least variance that is reasonably justifiable that's what the law requires of us so KENNETH RICHERT : Okay, address the letters to Kim? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : To the Board but send it to her. They can be emailed or they can be dropped off and she will forward them to us to read before the next as soon as we get it. KENNETH RICHERT : Should I try to be at that can someone be at that? 5.31 July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of course you can. I think that would be useful for your sake. I mean we won't be talking to you but you'll be listening to what we have to say. Anybody in the audience you guys want to make a comment. UNNAMED SPEAKER : We're the buyers. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh hello. I wondered why you were sitting here oh they're so interested in zoning laws. Alright, so we're going to try and work things out you know to the benefit of everybody but we have to have this stuff grounded in what the law allows us to do. KENNETH RICHERT : I'm going to talk to Steve right now, I'll get those letters. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay fine. So, did you want to say anything except we're the buyers? I'm going to make a motion to adjourn the hearing to the Special MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie just a moment I think CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure come to the mike and just state your name please. JOSEPH HOFER : My name is Joseph Hofer. So as far as the overall issue with this the owner of the farm in the back just needs to provide a letter that puts restrictions on any future use of the property should in the event they sell it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep it will run with the land. In other words covenants and restrictions say because that part of the property is a reserved parcel meaning when they sold the development rights to the town so that it could remain farmland they reserved a piece. Now that allows you to put things on it that's not necessarily agricultural. You could put a house on it. If you had enough acreage you could do two uses, a house and a winery let's say. So what we want is to make sure that if we create a non-conforming lot to reconfigure those lot lines that it's going to remain farmland basically and that they're going to limit any future structures to agricultural structures and that that flag that's created on Route 48 is not going to cause traffic impacts by people coming and going. You wouldn't want it anyway next to your house. Why would anybody? So the bottom line is we're trying to protect the town, protect the property owners and be very clear about what the goals are. It sounds like that's what they want to do but you know that wasn't stated very clearly in their application number one and number two we need to make sure that they're willing to put covenants on the property which has to be filed with the deed so that it stays the way they want it to stay in the way I would imagine you would want it to stay. JOSEPH HOFER : Is it fair to say that's the obstacle with getting this approved just getting that letter from the owner stating that? 54 July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would certainly clarify things. I can't I don't want to jump the gun and you know and say MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think the applicant still needs to state the reasons I mean it's six points. T.A. DUFFY :'It's not a formality submitting just a letter. The Board then has to evaluate the criteria that's set forth in the letter to make sure that they're entitled to a variance that JOSEPH HOFER : That it's a valid reason based on what they put in the letter. T.A. DUFFY : As long as you know substantial planning goes into creating these farm lots when they get when the town purchases development rights and they carve out a little exception where the development rights are not sold so a lot of planning goes into that in the beginning. So to upset that and kind of change it you know it takes a lot so those covenants would address a lot of the concerns that went into the original planning of the farmed lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I got something in here typed up I wonder who no we I don't know who wrote this. There's something do you all see this? It's not signed it's an explanation, there's a survey on the back I don't it's dated but it's very unclear I don't know it's just a loose piece of paper. See we already have-something in here could you come up please Ken. See I don't know who this is from it was in our file but it sounds like it was written by either the property owner or Will. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Kim did you distribute this to everyone cause I don't think I have it either. KENNETH RICHERT : (inaudible) he typed this up for part of the application we thought it was part of the application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Probably an attachment to this but it's not clear. Here just for all your benefit cause we're not that late in the day I'm going to explain something. On the application it say reasons for appeal okay right here which is what you said you recognized as Will's writing. KENNETH RICHERT : Yeah that's Will's handwriting. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So here's the these one, two, three, four, five these are among the six statutes that we have to we ask the applicant to address because that's what we have to use to make a decision, they're town laws. An undesirable change will not produce in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties if granted because fill in the blanks so we have to these are the things you will see in our decision. The second is the benefit sought to ------------ 5$ July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance because. In other words I have to have this variance in order to do this, cause again if you can do something without a variance you're not going to get a variance. The law doesn't allow us to do it. Number three the amount of relief requested is not substantial because let's say you know the differential in lot size you're going to make it less conforming to the code or it'll become it is conforming now it'll be non-conforming in square footage and let's say it's only five percent. That's not substantial but if it's thirty five percent reduction in the acreage to make it you know less conforming that's substantial and if it's substantial you have to find a reason to mitigate it. How can we create some mitigating circumstances. The amount of relief is not substantial because okay and then the variance will not have an adverse effect on the (inaudible) environmental conditions in the neighborhood and then has the alleged difficulty been self-created well yes it's not something you have to have it's something you want to have. But that doesn't mean you can't grant it. Self-creation does not mean none of these say you can't grant it. It's a balancing test and in the end we have to answer this question, is the benefit to the applicant/s outweigh any potential detriment to the community or visa versa. That's the legal basis for making these decisions and so when you get something that's kind of that vague usually if you hire a lawyer you have like five pages of stuff here. So that's why we want to beef this up and if you want to you probably have a copy of this or somebody does. So say take another look at these, maybe rewrite this with a lot more than what's here. This is something but we didn't know who wrote it. We need to have the property owner make this application because that's the person who is really Will's a tenant he's farming? KENNETH RICHERT : We filled it out together me and Will because we were trying to come up with real istic,answers we were like there's no drastic changes being made it's just CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand and you know people who are not lawyers or permit expediters certainly are limited in their knowledge. We understand that we try to help people along. Not everything requires expensive legal fees you know not everybody needs a lawyer for everything so as long as you walk away today understanding what needs to happen and why then I'm happy with the outcome. I just don't want you to go away confused. KENNETH RICHERT : I'm going to be confused but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well okay well then I haven't done my job well enough. KENNETH RICHERT : I understand. Just some of those answers are just vague cause there's not there's no visible change going to ever be taking place there so I don't know it would look nicer probably when he start farming. July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the idea would be okay. It's reasonable to say it's all still going to be farmland so no one will actually be able to understand what's what but there will be access then from 48 but you can simply say however it will only be farmed and it's only going to be accessible not to the public or there'll be no curb cut it's just for farming equipment so we can farm it without having to go around Bridge Lane. I think if you think a little more deeply about these you'll be able to come up with a little bit more substance and if we still have questions we're just going to have to carry on next month but we'll try and get it done if we get enough information we'll try and close it in two weeks and KENNETH RICHERT : I think I'll get those letters done the right way I think I should be able to take care of it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we'll try but it's up to you guys. KENNETH RICHERT : That's what I just said I think I'll be able to get the letters the way you want. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright sounds good. Everybody okay on all this we done now? Go talk to each other. We were wondering why they were sitting here since early morning didn't you have an agenda to see what time it is. Well hopefully you won't have to be back before this Board but you can always sit in and listen we're perfectly happy to have people in the audience. So I'm adjourning this with your vote to the Special Meeting July 19tH MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) 57 July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting CERTIFICATION I Elizabeth Sakarellos, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment and is a true and accurate record of Hearings. 941A S14,14 Signature : "'� 7Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : July 13, 2018