Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-08/02/2018 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 August 2, 2018 9:44 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN -Chairperson/Member PATRICIA ACAMPORA— Member ERIC DANTES— Member (Absent) ROBERT LEHNERT— Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO— Member KIM FUENTES— Board Assistant WILLIAM DUFFY—Town Attorney August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page O'Neil, Lynn # 7174 3 - 5 Stanley, Dale and Frederick# 7180 6 - 8 Macedonio, Elizabeth # 7182 8 - 14 Booth, Patricia C. Revocable Trust# 7183 14 - 24 Sigurdsson Baldor LLC# 7184 25 - 33 Zupa, Mary and Paradise Point Association # 7186 33 - 37 Virginia Gilmour/Robert White (Jesse Dorfman (CV) # 7185 37 - 55 Wilhelm, Brian (CV) # 7187 55 - 61 Margery Rifkin David and Reuben J. David #7168 62 - 70 Brian Morrissey# 7177 71 - 73 August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting HEARING #7174— LYNN M. C. O'NEILL,TRUSTEE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for Lynn M. C. O'Neill, Trustee #7174. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's March 23, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to legalize as built additions and alterations and to construct alterations (raise and move) to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, 2) less than the code required minimum combined side yard setback of 25 feet at 205 Fishermans Beach Rd. (adj. to Cutchogue Harbor) in Cutchogue. Is there someone here to represent the application? Please state your name for the record. MARC ANTHONY MUNISTERI : Good morning members of the Board, Chair my name is Marc Anthony Munisteri Architect representing Lynn O'Neil of 205 Fishermans Rd. Southold. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would appear there's an encroachment somehow of the house, where is the encroachment exactly, what side yard and how was that discovered? MARC ANTHONY MUNISTERI : So there was a subdivision done in 1973 and it would be the east side excuse me west side of the property. There is an existing encroachment let me verify that, yes it is the west side of the property. When the subdivision was finalized and approved the new borders drawn it was found that actually the house is about six inches over that line. So what we're requesting is to raise the house on piers and break away walls, make it safe and bring the value back as well as slightly move it over. It's a move of approximately nine inches which will center it between the property lines. There seems to be a subtle typo, the dimensions on either side will be .3 feet versus .03 feet and give us a combined of.6 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Setback will be .3 not .03 okay. MARC ANTHONY MUNISTERI : Yes ma'am. There are no additions being done to this residence everything is existing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what change in elevation will there be, what's the (inaudible) MARC ANTHONY MUNISTERI : Dimension wise I believe we're going elevation in height you mean, yes ma'am? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah from grade to where the first floor starts. August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting MARC ANTHONY MUNISTERI : So from grade to first floor will be approximately 4 % feet excuse me 5 % feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're going to put breakaway walls on that? MARC ANTHONY MUNISTERI : Yes ma'am, piers with breakaway walls. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And what will the overall height as a result be of the dwelling? MARC ANTHONY MUNISTERI : 23' 11 %". CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, let's see if the is there anything else you'd like us to know? MARC ANTHONY MUNISTERI : We're only applying for that, no ma'am. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : May I just ask two questions? Point of sort of clarification, the drawings are by Mark Schwartz and your name is Marc MARC ANTHONY MUNISTERI : Marc Anthony Munisteri yes, I work for the GOSER program office of Governor office of storm repairs. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : How do you spell your last name? MARC ANTHONY MUNISTERI : Spells name. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you, and then the other question, I just wanted to ask since the conversation as far as what the elevation raise will be, on the proposed drawings it shows an overall height as you just stated of 23 feet 11 % inches. MARC ANTHONY MUNISTERI : Yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The drawings show that the actual house above the proposed foundation is 14 feet 4 inches. MARC ANTHONY MUNISTERI : I apologize. Where are you getting that from? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If you look at the actual first floor elevation it's 7 feet 4 inches plus the roofline to the lower of the two ridges is 14' 4" for a total of 23'. It's on page Al of the drawings submitted. MARC ANTHONY MUNISTERI : Yes I have the existing on the right hand side of it existing north elevation is 19' 11 %" going to 23' 11 %". MEMBER LEHNERT : That would coincide with a four foot raise. August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah and I think I just caught my own error. I'm looking at (inaudible) what I was looking at. MARC ANTHONY MUNISTERI : And the dimension I was giving you was the total height from grade. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I caught an error I made so I apologize I was trying to do math I thought you were proposing a much higher foundation than what you suggested but you've resolved that on my end thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that area flood prone? MARC ANTHONY MUNISTERI : It's wetland yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you're bringing this in to FEMA compliance? MARC ANTHONY MUNISTERI : Yes ma'am. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has anything else. MEMBER LEHNERT : I know the area. Most of those houses were under water after Sandy. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting HEARING #7180 - FREDERICK and DALE STANLEY#7180 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Frederick and Dale Stanley#7180. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's March 23, 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) additions to the dwelling located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet, 2) existing accessory shed located in other than the code required rear yard at 2485 Bay Ave. (adj. to James Creek) in Mattituck. Is someone here to represent the application? FRED STANLEY : Good morning, I'm Frederick Stanley from 2485 Bay Ave. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would appear that we have a side yard setback of 14.2 feet where the code requires 15 feet and proposed addition is going to place the existing accessory shed partially in a side yard. It's currently in your rear yard is that correct? FRED STANLEY : Yes. I sort of developed (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please submit it but I want you to talk into the mic cause it's recorded. FRED STANLEY : So I've developed this property history of pictures because I'm not going to read it but I think it would be fun. You'll see pictures from the property in the 1930's and 1940's, 50's. I just want to say that we did not create this problem. My father in law built the cottage in 1949 or '50 I'm not exactly sure which was too close to the property line. I don't think there was a rule then. In 1975 they added a two story addition which you can see in picture ten. That was approved by the town but which was even closer to the property line because of sort of an angle. So basically we're asking for to put an addition on the old cottage from 1949 and we could set that back by eight or ten inches and it would comply with the code but on the other hand I don't think it would look very good. We'd add another roof and we detract from the appearance of the house. Now it's a small the corner of the old cottage is only about five inches too close to the property line and you know it just seems like your spending a hundred thousand dollars or more you want to make a nice looking house and it's not going to be nice if we have an extra roof that we don't need. As for the shed as you can see from picture August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting number nine on the last page it started out as my wife's playhouse in 1952 or so and then it just morphed into a shed. Now nobody is objecting to this. It's right next to one of my neighbor my next door neighbor's shed they're sort of twins in fact his shed is bigger and we basically have no place for storage. The mechanicals are going to take up the entire basement which is only under the cottage at this point and we have no place for storage aside from this shed which has sort of morphed since it was my wife's playhouse. Although she and the whole family still refer to this as the playhouse. The kids don't understand it but it's still the playhouse even though it has dangerous tools in it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you've been here long enough, you know that directions are often turn right where the big old tree used to be that's local directions. FRED STANLEY : They still refer to that deli down on the Main Rd. in Mattituck as the four doors as something. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It hasn't been that for years. FRED STANLEY : It hasn't been that for twenty years or more right. So anyway, none of these things were created by us. None of the things are being objected to by our neighbors, in fact one of our neighbors actually wrote a letter of support and others offered to do it but I didn't think it was necessary and I think ultimately the renovations we're going to make are going to actually make the property look better. We're going to put on instead of having the asbestos shingles from the '50's we're going to put on cedar shakes, it'll just make it look like a nice classic north fork property and we're not asking for much. So that's what I think. If you have any question about the structure our architect Mr. Thomas is here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes I think the elevations look very nice. The shed is what we call a technical variance. It's been in place forever and it's a consequence of an addition that then enlarges a dwelling. This happens not infrequently when people put additions on, accessory structures sometimes become non-conforming and the difference between 14.2 feet and 15 feet is what we would probably consider deminimus meaning fairly insignificant. I'm only one Board member but that's my opinion. Let's see if the Board has any questions, Pat let's start with you. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions, it looks like a pretty decent improvement. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I concur with that. MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions, good plan. August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Moving right along, hopefully this will be what the day looks like but it never is. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Hearing no further comments or question I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date, is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) ELIZABETH E. MACEDONIA and THEODORE N. PAPADOPOULOS#7182 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Elizabeth E. Macedonia and Theodore N. Papadopoulos #7182. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-13, Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's April 10, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool and the conversion of an accessory building to pool house at 1) more than the code permitted one dwelling on each lot; pool house by design constitutes as a second dwelling, 2) proposed in-ground swimming pool located in other than the code required rear yard, 3) proposed pool house located in other than the code required rear yard at 4175 Old Jule Lane in Mattituck. Good morning would you state your name please. SHAWN LEONARD : Good morning I am the architect 320 Hampton Rd. Southampton New York. I have some prints here that are smaller if that's easier. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You do know we made an inspection a personal inspection of the property. SHAWN LEONARD : Yes. So what we're looking for is to get relief for a structure this Board has already approved. The structure that is there not as it's currently set up but what was originally a workshop with a bath there was a variance that was granted many years ago for that but what has happened now the previous owner prior to my client purchasing this property had August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting finished the interior of the workshop. So it was a finished interior space so we're looking now to construct it was also there was a swimming pool on the property and that has also been filled in by the previous owner so we're now looking to in this front yard take what is the workshop and make that a pool house and also construct a new swimming pool to that for the pool house with a pergola and an outdoor shower. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well this is not unlike other properties in town that are burdened with two front yards. This is in this instance not a corner lot it's a through lot so street wraps around so there's really technically no rear yard here and the Board is well aware of those limits. I think the C.O. on the existing accessory structure which was converted to habitable space as a really an apartment is for a garage. I think the C.O. says garage accessory garage so what we need to do here is to see how what you're proposing conforms to what a pool house which is what the proposed use is going to work. The Building Department called it a second dwelling because in fact it's set up that way with a kitchen and full bathroom and various rooms and so on so let's look at how your redesign affects that standing. SHAWN LEONARD : We're trying to convert this existing structure as it stands right now with as little effort as necessary and one of the thoughts is we would take the side of the garage that faces the house and we want to add doors there and open it up so that it would actually become a pool house for this without you know going and having to do any major construction as far as alterations to the exterior or to the roof. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let's look at the swimming pool the proposed swimming pool. That's clearly going to be blocked by the existing dwelling on one side and by the accessory building on the other. I certainly don't have any questions about that. I think the question primarily is that in part the fact that I'm not sure whether you're aware of this or not but a shower is not a permitted use in a pool house. You're already proposing an outdoor one but that shower that's there in the bathroom is going to have to be removed. SHAWN LEONARD : That bath right now that was part of an original approval so that was that has already been approved by the town and as far as part of the C.O. as for the structure as it stands right now that has that bathroom was originally approved there. CHAIRPERSON WEIMAN : But you're changing the use. You're proposing to change the use and as a consequence what is permitted with a different use is going to be different than what that C.O. was issued for. So that's of some concern and then the prior kitchen, in order to conform to what a pool house permits you can have a wet bar certainly and microwave and things like that however the stove and the electrical line for the stove; I know the stove has been removed from the property we saw that but we need to remove the electric and ensure that no future stove that would create a second kitchen is going to be installed and I know that there's an August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting interest in creating some storage. I think the current it would appear that the current kitchen is being proposed as storage, I think what probably needs to happen is that storage needs to maybe wind up in the area that the prior garage was and that the rest of those walls need to become much more open so they're not habitable individual rooms like offices. Offices are not permitted in a pool house. Recreational activities are, certainly a changing room you know a half bath, a wet bar you know a sink, small refrigerator, television you know seating comfortable seating those kinds of things are what would be expected in a pool house so let's move forward with this and let's start and see you want to start down at that end and MEMBER LEHNERT : I think you got all my comments on this addressed everything. The use of the pool house as opposed to what we're seeing here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you possibly bring that closer to the mic because this is being recorded and I want to make sure we don't SHAWN LEONARD : So if I understand correctly you're saying that these walls here if they could be removed to make this an open space here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would be one way to do it. The other way to do it would be to remove the wall what you calling existing storage and existing office and create storage in what was the garage part of the house. You still have the doors there. I mean I'm not going to design it for you but I think that you need to think about I think probably what we've just talked about and see what kinds of alternative configuration you could come up with. SHAWN LEONARD : The way that the building seem to have been constructed as far as I can see, this portion here because the workshop that was the original building and in this part here was kind of framed on after. It was almost as they bought it as a kit. It seems the roof is all of it's a trust roof around here and this is more conventionally framed so this kind of a lot of stuff bares onto this wall so if we could I think we'd rather take those walls down and then just not have to break through this so that we're not disturbing that wall. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well if it's a bearing wall (inaudible) an exterior wall at one point probably. SHAWN LEONARD : It appears that way and when I was kind of inspecting the building that seemed to be some sort of (inaudible) should have been an exterior wall and it looks like they just pierced through at this point here when they framed this up for the bath. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay yeah I mean we don't want to burden you know additional expenses that's not the goal here. The least interference with what you want in your goals is August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting fine. However we really need to make sure that what happens here is what the applicant is applying for which is a pool house. Nick any questions or comments from you? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I think everything was addressed. I would just you know one comment, I always have a hard time with as built situations so the C.O. clearly is as a garage structure with a full bathroom obviously however these walls were built by the prior owner it's kind of I'm just looking at it from the standpoint of a garage conversion to a pool house and I would agree I think with what I've heard from other Board members that if there was a way without infringing upon that perhaps structural wall to relocate more storage in that living space and make it more code conforming while achieving the same goal. Perhaps also you might consider I mean I think that people are allowed to have outdoor kitchens and all that sort of fun stuff so you know for a barbeque or something whether it's on the plan or not I don't know and I don't know the permit process to achieve it but I think that whatever you might lose to storage including that shower is made up by having the outdoor shower and other amenities. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : I think it's all been said. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have any questions of the Board or does the applicant have any questions? What I'm going to suggest is this, to give you a chance to talk to each other and decide what your best amended plan might look like. So I think to give you some time to think it through and I just want to make sure you're clear on what we're looking at, why we're suggesting a slightly different layout and removal of the shower and so on. Certainly I would think you would want some sort of a changing room in I'm sorry would you just come to the mic and just state your name for the hearing. ELIZABETH MACEDONIA : My name is Elizabeth Macedonia, I'm the applicant in this case. We could use what we're calling in our plans is the existing office as a changing room. It really would make no difference. What we have here which is the original kitchen, you saw that we removed the stove and there was a washer and dryer there. The reason we want to use this as the storage is because there's also a door there and it would make sense for us to take our pool equipment in and store it there in the back. Now we designed this with the doors with double doors opening up to our main house and so the front of the building would be where we would have our storage and then this would be a seating area and a changing room with a door. I understand that you don't want a shower in the bathroom but you have no objection to the outdoor shower is that correct? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No not at all, that's perfectly code conforming. August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting ELIZABETH MACEDONIA : So I mean I think that could solve the issues that the Board has with regard to the internal structure is that correct? I mean we're not removing walls, we're just using it as a changing room. I understand the objection to using it as an office. Quite frankly we were trying to figure out what to call it. It's there already and then you know the plan was to put windows here because this is extremely dark and in fact if you looked at it it's the north side of the building and we need to get some light in there so that it makes sense. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you want to have a wet bar of some sort or another it makes sense to have it where the plumbing exists, financially anyway on that side but you're going to have to remove what is effectively a kitchen. I mean that wiring's got to go ELIZABETH MACEDONIA :That's fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Open up the wall. There'll be an inspection to make sure that's it's okay then you close up the wall. ELIZABETH MACEDONIA : Understood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I think you just gotta come to grips with the mechanics and where you want what. I mean right now it's still this looks as though since it's heated already that it could still be used in a way that's habitable and the ideas of pool house is not meant to be habitable. You can use it for recreation not for sleeping and not for cooking and eating and so on. ELIZABETH MACEDONIA : Understood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I suppose if it were me I would probably want to change it want it to be near the bathroom to be honest and I understand what you're saying about the door so I'm not here to you know tell you exactly how to design it. That's between you and the architect to decide but I think you need to do some tweaking of the plan a bit and remove that shower and indicate proposed kitchen to be removed and so on; on your plan cause what we stamp is what the Building Department is going to give you a building permit for. ELIZABETH MACEDONIA : Okay so I just want to make sure that when we leave here we understand exactly what your concerns are so that when we tweak the plan and give it back we're not sort of in a circular position coming back. So our new plan will have the kitchen removed right the electrical kitchen the shower removed. This will become what we propose as the existing office will become a changing room and I think that solves the issues does it not? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you have the mechanicals are going to have to stay where it is, you've got some closets in here. I think what the Board is looking for typically most pools would August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting be one room. It would have a changing room next to a half bath and it would be one room overlooking a pool usually and it would be used for recreational purposes and for storage and so on of pool equipment. So I don't know, what would the hardship be in removing the one wall that's not a bearing wall that's on the right side of the existing office? ELIZABETH MACEDONIA : But we don't have a changing room. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can make it a lot smaller. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah it's a big changing room. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a very big changing room. It's the size of a bedroom which is why I think it probably was. MEMBER LEHNERT : I think what we're trying to say is don't make it try not to make it resemble a bedroom. ELIZABETH MACEDONIA : What I'm trying to do is work with what's there and do it the most cost efficient way. MEMBER LEHNERT : I understand. ELIZABETH MACEDONIA : And so when we start removing walls and now we have to take down a wall and then put another one up and we also have to move the door. I mean that's the other alternative is take the wall down and make one big room and not have a changing room. Would that be acceptable? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that's probably better at least it's one large open area. MEMBER LEHNERT : It would be more compliant as a pool house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah. We're just trying to get this to be as ELIZABETH MACEDONIA : No I understand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : typical of what a pool house would contain and it's difficult because you're working with a lot of small rooms because it was used as a dwelling. ELIZABETH MACEDONIA : Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we're trying to get that use extinguished and permit you to go forward with utilizing the existing structure for a different use. Why don't we do this I have an idea, we can't solve this right now, let me do this I think the best way to do it is to adjourn this to next month to give you an opportunity to come back with an amended application, amended August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting plan. The application is going to be the same it's still the pool house but it would be an amended plan that will be more reflective of a typical layout of a pool house and then we'll take it from there. ELIZABETH MACEDONIA : Sounds great thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone else in the audience wanting to address the application, anything else from the Board? Okay hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to September 6t" at ELIZABETH MACEDONIA : When do you need the plans by? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As soon as they're ready I mean it would be very helpful to have them before the hearing so that we can look at them and see if we have any further questions but SHAWN LEONARD : We'll have them to you within the next two weeks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Great that's very good thank you. I have to have a second but I have to we're looking at September okay 1:15 so my motion is to adjourn this hearing to September 6t" at 1:15 P.M. is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7183— PATRICIA C. BOOTH REVOCABLE TRUST CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Patricia C. Booth Revocable Trust #7183. This is a request for a waiver of merger petition under Article 11 Section 280-10A to unmerge land identified as SCTM#1000-67-4-16 which has merged with SCTM #1000-67-4-9 based on the Building Inspector's April 11, 2018 Notice of Disapproval which August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting 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 265 Burtis Place in Peconic. Please just enter your name for the record. ANTHONY PALUMBO : Anthony Palumbo on behalf of the applicant. We did provide a letter yesterday to the Board and I just want to make sure they have it. It was a letter mailed directly to us that was a letter in opposition. We did receive I believe a handful of them and I just want to make sure that the record is complete. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I believe so. ANTHONY PALUMBO : Okay good and if I could just possibly go through a brief history of the property I think we can probably narrow the issues fairly significantly. This property was purchased by the applicant in 1995 from the Schwartz estate and the Schwartz's owned it for a period of time separately until they both passed prior to the enacted of the merger statute in 1983. So it was in common ownership and as you can see from the map there are essentially two lots that have been held in separate deeds by the Schwartzs' and Mr. Booth and in separate names by Mr. Booth upon the transfer to him in 1995 and I think what's significant to note is that pursuant to the merger statute that had the Schwartz family moved for a waiver this would have been an extremely simple waiver process and if we look at the statutory requirements under Section 280-11 of the code the three factors considered in Section B and I'll address Section A in a moment are that the proposed waiver would recognize a lot comparable to the (inaudible) to the majority of the improved lots in the neighborhood. The lot that we're seeking to unmerge is not only insignificant compliance or comparable in size it's actually the same size or even larger than most of the lots in the area and that's the unimproved lot that we're discussing. The lot proposed to be recognized is vacant and has historically been treated and maintained as a separate and independent residential lot since the date of its original creation. Now the Health Department has recognized the '83 maps for both the County and Southold Town subdivisions has given approval. In fact we have Health Department approval for a structure although that has limited relevance to the Board. They were held in separate deeds, there were separate tax bills and quite frankly at the closing Mr. Booth was of the understanding that they were separate because as I indicated the Schwartz's owned it prior to the enactment of the statute and they ultimately transferred it in '95 and during that interim of their ownership the statute was enacted. The last statutory factor that the waiver recognition will not create an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district and in that regard there are houses all around this on similar sized lots and smaller in the area and I know the Board is certainly very familiar with it. So as far as those August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting three factors in consideration of a waiver for Section B I believe this would have been a very clear and easy application for a waiver had the Schwartz's done so. That brings me to really the most important point of what my discussion will be with the Board I believe is that the attorney that handled that as well as the title company that did title in '95 were all of the understanding that these lots were not in fact merged and we've done some due diligence this week to try and see if a waiver application was granted and at the end of this I would just ask if we're able to do this that we possibly maybe close the testimony phase of this and hold it open for a bit for us to see if something does exist because it didn't make sense to us that everyone was of the understanding that a waiver was not granted and in that regard now to go to Section A that's really the wrinkle and I think that will probably involve the crux of our decision. I think if I may be so bold that and I know there was certainly some opposition in the neighborhood which may or may not be something that the Board should consider, but had this if the Schwartz's still owned it this would be a very easy waiver case and I think that the Board would be statutorily bound to provide them with a waiver because of the taking aspect that they owned it as separate lots although they were in the same name the statute was enacted which effectively would have merged them by law and it would have been an obvious taking I think they would have easily been split into two similar although non-conforming lots they were similar to the neighborhood's character. So that's really the gist of our position is that but for that transfer an un-merger would certainly have been granted or a waiver would be appropriate and as far as the exceptions in 280-10 any of those exceptions the reason they wouldn't apply of course I wouldn't even address those because of the whole merger issue and whether or not a waiver would have been granted in light of the fact that it was transferred to the Booths in 1995. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's figure this out. Could you please come forward I want to look at you know what happens with Suffolk county tax map numbers and survey numbers is that all the numbers are always different and I want to be absolutely certain that we're looking at a survey in which we understand what the subject lot is and what the lot is to unmerge. So here's this ANTHONY PALUMBO : I only made one copy but I can highlight on this small survey just I wasn't sure if this was provided do you have another one Tracey? We can pass which shows that I believe it's so lot 9 and I have the property card the town's card that lot 67-4-9 is this double looking lot that's the vacant lot that's the one we're looking to have unmerged. Yes 9 is the one that looks like a double lot and then the one where the house is which is 16 the triple lot currently has a cottage on it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright would you circle that on here. ANTHONY PALUMBO : Certainly, so the vacant lot I'll circle August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Vacant lot is 16. ANTHONY PALUMBO : Oh it's 16 1 didn't see the number. I think I need readers I think it's time. So the smaller of the two if I may circle that 16 is the vacant lot thank you for that clarification. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because again these numbers are constantly bantered around and they change and we need to make sure T. A. DUFFY : There's also subdivision lot numbers as CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's right so because we got all these numbers on here and that's the subdivision. Okay so this lot is developed right? ANTHONY PALUMBO : Correct yes ma'am. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And that is lot, what what's the number. MEMBER LEHNERT : 9 ANTHONY PALUMBO : 9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And this is proposed to be unmerged. ANTHONY PALUMBO : Yes ma'am. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is a triple lot according to the subdivision lines, this is a double lot. ANTHONY PALUMBO : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Got it. Let me ask you a question, as you know we all do site inspections on every application prior to a hearing and one of the things we have to look at again is the standards and one of the standards is held single and separate and so on and this lot the lot that you're proposing that is not developed has been mowed there's a little bit of fringe left you know a wooded buffer along the road but it appears to have been maintained by the developed lot. ANTHONY PALUMBO : Yes your honor, yes ma'am yes madam Chairwoman. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Leslie is okay I know it's a courtroom thing. It's like the white coat in a doctor's office. Can you address how that's been used? ANTHONY PALUMBO : It's been strictly as a maintained as a vacant lot and just maintained almost as to an extentest part of the yard can I say that of the larger lot just to keep it looking August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting appropriate for the community but again there have been separate tax map numbers, there's separate deeds, there's been separate assessed bills and tax bills so just for the purposes of convenience that they would mow the second lot the vacant lot while mowing the improved lot just for the purposes of maintaining some appropriateness for the community. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Typically when we talk about you know having been undeveloped and the separate maintenance has to do with ownership and so on but whether or not it has been clear cut you know whether or not it has been utilized as part of some an adjacent lots yard area, that addresses the second standard in the waiver statutes. So I just wanted to inquire about that a little bit more because when we looked at it we said oh that somebody has been kind of maintaining that area and has cut down clearly what the brambles were and so on, on that lot. ANTHONY PALUMBO : Sure and that was they're owned by separate members of the same family so as indicated I don't believe there are any fences up or any structures that would maintain as the same yard of the larger parcel but just out of convenience that they would just keep it looking appropriate and manicured to that extent. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, who owns lot 16 and who owns lot 9? ANTHONY PALUMBO : Well there was a transfer to so the improved lot is owned by Edward C. Booth and Bank of America as co-trustees of the credit sheltered trust under Article IV of the Patricia S. Booth Revocable Trust. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and lot 9? ANTHONY PALUMBO : Edward C. Booth and Bank of America as co-trustees of the Edward C. Booth Revocable Trust. So one was Patricia one was Edward. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : At this point are there any questions from the Board? MEMBER LEHNERT : I don't have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I want to see who in the audience wants to address the application, is there someone out there who would like to speak to this application? Please come forward and stand at there or there it doesn't matter which and tell us your name and what you'd like us to know. ANITA BUSBY : Good morning my name is Anita Busby and I live at 375 Burtis and Mr. Booth has mowed the lawn occasionally. It's not always maintained and the road that Burtis Place we've always paid to maintain it to have it leveled and Mr. Booth has never been involved in that plus the bushes along the road the fringe that you're talking about we have to cut it back because 0 August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting the cars can't get through that the Fire Department even asked us to do it one time. So I don't know what bearing that has but our main concern in the neighborhood is that we would like because of the merging and I believe the idea was to keep the general density of the population at a lower point. By adding this house we are concerned that the extra people involved. A few years ago Mr. Booth had it for sale and a man came to our door and asked us how we would feel if he built a five bedroom house and rented it out during the summer and I said he was our worst nightmare and that none of us rent our homes out we live there. We are there all year long so my feeling is that I would like to really express to you how much it will add to the neighborhood in a negative way. I'm sure that if a family moved in and we would eventually it would all work out but I'm worried that there's no way of knowing that's what's going to happen and we'd like to see it left vacant if we could. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone else, please come to the podium. NANCY CONLON : Hi I'm Nancy Conlon, I live at 310 Huntington Blvd. so I'm the neighbor to the north of the property that's developed of Mr. Booth and like my neighbor my back yard faces the property that is proposed to be unmerged and my worst nightmare is that we will have some sort of structure on that property that you know certainly will impede the timber of the neighborhood. Most of us moved out there because density was pretty not dense and we'd like to keep it that way and as Mrs. Busby said we're more afraid of what's going to happen down the road. It's very bucolic, it's nice to see it not having houses there, deer back there, birds are back there it's typical of what we came to the North Fork for. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome, anyone else? GAIL MURPHY : Good morning, my name is Gail Murphy and I live at 545 Burtis Place and I did write a letter I wasn't sure if I could be here today but short if I could just read it. Burtis Place is a short unpaved dead end road. It's more like a private driveway through the woods and I own the last two houses on the street. One is tenant occupied by one person and I've recently moved into the other house. I've owned the property for about thirty four years. What I enjoy most about living there even there even though it's only been two weeks is the rural peace and quiet of the area. If this lot is allowed to be unmerged and sold for development I feel that the additional traffic would be detrimental to our small road. As a resident and homeowner of the Burtis Place neighborhood I hope that the town can help us keep the rural feel of the neighborhood and prevent overdevelopment on our road. Would you like the letter for your records? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure we'll take it thanks. I have a couple of questions Mr. Palumbo. So it's my understanding that the you had your hand up? August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting IRIS WELCOME : Hi my name is Iris Welcome and I'm the tenant at 545 Burtis Place from Gail Murphy and I'm sorry I live in the neighborhood and I absolutely love my neighbors and sorry for this but I want to stay there and I can't be a tenant forever and when I saw that the lot was for sale that was something very exciting to me cause there are not many small lots that a single young person can actually reasonably purchase and when I inquired with Mr. Booth he said to come down here and support him in it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you a contract vendee, are you a potential purchaser of this lot if it's unmerged? IRIS WELCOME : Yes. It's my home you know the North Fork of Long Island is my home. I've been renting for eight years. I love all my neighbors, there's no other place I want to live but purchasing where I live isn't an option so that's it thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just clarify this, so the Schwartz's owned these two lots prior to the merger law? ANTHONY PALUMBO : Yes they did. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so then the lots were merged in 1983 when the merger law took effect and then they were sold to the Booth family? ANTHONY PALUMBO : Yes when they passed through their executrix and through their estate there was an executor's deed to Mr. Booth and Mrs. Booth. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So they were in fact transferred to an unrelated individual? ANTHONY PALUMBO : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay cause that's part of our standards too. ANTHONY PALUMBO : Exactly and that's why I addressed that Section A that that really is what we're looking to that extent we're looking for a variance in the interest of equity really that something that and again why I asked that if we could possibly leave this maybe close the record but keep the hearing open for the purposes of our due diligence because it just didn't seem that the attorney was very sophisticated attorney who handled the closing for Mr. Booth and the title company both would have the fact that they would have missed that merger is quite surprising to us. So we're seeing maybe there was there would have been something that would have indicated and as I said it was such a simple waiver process at that point that I think it would have been a simple application, a quick granting of it and then they would have closed so we're just trying to get to the bottom of that issue because Mr. Booth as well as his counsel who is now deceased that he was a local attorney and Town Justice as a matter of fact so very August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting familiar with the code obviously that we just wanted to see if we're missing something or if we can dig up some old paperwork to indicate why that misunderstanding was so vast. T. A. DUFFY : You might want to look at the prior code amendments. Looking at the title the properties transferred on October 13, 1995, the merger law was adopted a month later November 23, 1995 but dates the merger back to the eighties the code notes that there was an amendment in 2007 so you might want to look at the original text versus the 2007 ANTHONY PALUMBO : And how it compares to this current text. That's terrific and we actually were trying to dig that up and I'll speak to the Town Attorney's office to see if we can get the old renditions of the code. That would be very helpful. T. A. DUFFY : Lynnie in the Clerk's office. If you ask me I'm going to ask Lynnie in the Clerk's office. ANTHONY PALUMBO : Clerk's office great we got it, we'll get it today. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I do want the neighbors to understand that the Board of Appeals when the merger went into effect it essentially did so to try to create greater conformity and to reduce density primarily because of septic overload and so on but they also put into place this waiver because in some cases it was an unreasonable thing to do to merge these properties. When properties were merged unfortunately no one informed the people whose lots were merge. They found out usually when they went to sell it or when they went to go build something and everybody still gets separate tax maps and you know it's just the way it is and it's even more misleading because people assume those lots are still separate if you're getting two separate tax bills even if they have been merged by force of law. We have three statutes we have to look at when determining whether or not to grant a waiver of merger and I think counsel addressed what they were you know similar lot sizes not transferred to an unrelated individual, maintained as single and separate you know undeveloped and so on and if these standards are balanced and they prove to be all true then in fact we are probably obligated I won't say absolutely but a waiver is warranted. I want to ask another question maybe the neighbors would be able to better answer this, how many undeveloped lots are there on Huntington and Burtis Place do you know, Ms. Conlon come back to the NANCY CONLON : There's a swampy wooded lot on the west side and then Mr. Booth has a tiny little piece of property which I think you might be calling the third lot between his cottage and the people that live (inaudible) way I'm not sure if that's a buildable lot but that's all the property that's on Huntington. August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because in driving around it would appear that pretty much there's a house on almost every lot that I could see. There's a couple that look like they're still wooded or fringed or you know without anything on them but mostly they appear to be developed. NANCY CONLON : Well most of the houses on there you know are from a time period in the forties and fifties and they've either been updated or expanded but they conform to what the Building Department said could be built. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : At the time there wasn't a lot of them pre-date zoning. NANCY CONLON : My understanding haven't owned different other houses in different areas was that this minimum 40,000 sq. ft. or whatever you've called every single lot precluded any kind of new building and so when I bought my house I assumed that was the same law that was in effect so there wouldn't be another structure out my back yard that I was going to look at because any property that I tried to buy beforehand not knowing it was merged or unmerged cause that wouldn't have affected me I couldn't build a new house on a property that size at that time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not without the waiver of merger. The merger was effectively up zoning. It basically said we want more acreage, was controversial, it is in place, this Board has no jurisdiction whether it should or shouldn't have passed but the bottom line is it did but they put this waiver process in place to avoid hardship or if people in good faith kept those lots in a certain set of conditions you know that they didn't transfer to an unrelated individual, that they didn't develop it in any way, that it does meet the size of other lots in the neighborhood so it's characteristic of that neighborhood. The Board felt that this waiver process would provide some sort of justice for individuals who wound up having their property merged when they in fact thought they had two lots. NANCY CONLON : Well again, the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, I bought my property understanding the spirit of the law which was to keep any new building having the right amount of you know square footage to be built on and so that was what I understood to be the letter of the law and then I just assumed because the North Fork is trying to keep the quality of life that is trying to maintain I assumed that that spirit of the law was you know also going to be prevalent in my new neighborhood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well this is why I went and explained what the whole procedure for merger and waiver of merger was all about. I just want to make sure the public understands why this appeal is here in front of this Board okay cause they still have some rights to appeal from the merged property and we have to decide whether or not the appeal is strong enough. August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PALUMBO : May I address some of those just briefly? The application and some of the neighbors may have seen the Health Department application which was done by a local person very involved in property development and the application was for the largest envelope just to have a permit to ultimately prepare a septic system. So Mr. Booth is certainly not looking to build a McMansion if this were to be granted just to make to put their minds at ease to an extent and of course they'd have to come back to the Board or to the Building Department for the purposes of any approvals for the building so it would certainly be something reasonable. It's not going to be the five bedroom you know eight bathroom NANCY CONLON : Bed and Breakfast. Right but if it's out of Mr. Booth's control ANTHONY PALUMBO : And I just think if it was a concern CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait one at a time and you need to address the Board. NANCY CONLON : If it's out of if Mr. Booth sells it how are we guaranteed that the next owner isn't going to do something like that? We've seen structures that are two or three stories high that have you know this kind of bedroom and it will change the (inaudible) of our neighborhood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me say this, whatever gets built has to go to the Building Department and if they are not conforming to the bulk schedule meaning the size, the lot coverage, the height, the setbacks then they must come before this Board to appeal for a variance. We don't have to grant a variance. NANCY CONLON : Right but it seems having been out here for forty years the more people appeal often times things are granted and sometimes they're not. Again I think because presently we live there full time we will feel the impact more than people who don't live there and again the spirit of the law my understanding from and consequently me buying a lot that had at one point an existing structure on it because any other piece of property would have had an acre or more I couldn't afford and so I had to tailor my buying with the laws that existed and I bought my piece of property not thinking there would be a house out my back yard diagonally. So that is my concern. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Ms. Conlon, just a question and I'm a little confused by some of your statements. Did you just say you've lived in your home for forty years? NANCY CONLON : No I've been on the North Fork for forty years so I've gone from a two acre that we had to buy so many years ago to conform to a one acre and now I'm down to almost MEMBER PLANAMENTO : How long ago did you purchase your existing house? August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting NANCY CONLON : It would be fourteen or fifteen years ago. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Okay so clearly after the time that the Schwartz's sold to the Booths. NANCY CONLON : Right yes so that's why I was under the impression that it was going to remain you know not developed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anyone, anything else from the Board? Please come forward yes because when the woman transcribes our hearing she's gotta know who's talking. ANITA BUSBY : Anita Busby. When my husband and I bought our property in 1993 and after Mr. Booth came later and when we were renovating our cottage and moving out here full time we both are retired we had asked Mr. Booth if we could buy that piece of property and merge it into our property and he said no he thought about it and he said no he'd rather sell the property all together because he'd get more money for it. Now obviously his feelings have changed but I just want to point out that when he bought the property in the paper it said the back lot was in Mrs. Booth's name and the front property with his house on it was in Ed Booth's name. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you, anyone else, anything from the Board? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just one question for Mr. Booth, that's not necessarily relative to the waiver of merger but in our packets in your application you submitted a C.O. for your residence that's a seasonal dwelling was there an updated C.O. or anything? I'm assuming this is your primary residence. Oh it's not the primary residence. I was just asking if this was your primary residence. SOMEONE SPEAKING FROM THE AUDIENCE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ed would you come to the microphone. ED BOOTH : So it's a seasonal residence. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's what I was asking you, there's a C.O. on a seasonal residence. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you that's all he wanted. Anything from the Board, I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this to the Special Meeting in two weeks so that you can do some more investigation about the transfer to an unrelated individual. ANTHONY PALUMBO : Thank you so much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there a second? August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7184—SIGURDSSON BALDUR, LLC/WADE GUYTON, MGR. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Sigurdsson Baldur, LLC/Wade Guyton, Mgr. #7184. This is a request for variances under Article III Section 280-15, Article XXII Section 280-116A and the Building Inspector's January 16, 2018 amended February 27, 2018 and March 5, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to demolish an existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling and in-ground swimming pool at 1) proposed dwelling located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff, 2) proposed swimming pool located in other than the code required rear yard located at 1800 Hyatt Rd. (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Southold. So this is called a demo but it would appear that the demo has taken place already BRUCE ANDERSON : That is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and they could have also indicated that the swimming pool could be in a front yard since it's on a waterfront property as of right if it met other restrictions. So it looks like Bruce am I right 59.87 feet from the top of the bluff? BRUCE ANDERSON : Yes and that's from the edge of the terrace, the house is actually 65 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll put down the house at 65 okay and the pool is in the side yard. BRUCE ANDERSON : That is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay what else would you like us to know? BRUCE ANDERSON : Well I'm going to hand up some exhibits (inaudible) Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant. In November of 2016 the applicant Wade August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting Guyton lost his house lost his home to fire. The home we believe was built in the late '50's in the earliest certificate of occupancy goes back to 1961 and that was included as part of your application. The fire caused a complete and total loss of the structure and the applicant had purchased the property December 10, 2015. So Mr. Guyton now seeks to rebuild his home and to construct a swimming pool. Prior to the fire just prior to the fire Mr. Guyton applied for and received a building permit to renovate the home. Prior to the commencement of the construction the renovation work the house burnt down to the ground. What was existing prior to the fire was a two story dwelling with a second floor deck which totaled 1,418 sq. ft. and it was located 40.5 feet from the top of the bluff. There was a 15 by 15 foot pergola with an abutting 10 foot by 15 foot concrete pond that was 51 feet from the bluff and within the technical side yard and closer to the side lot line than the pool we presently propose. There was a cesspool remains a cesspool that's located 30 feet from the top of the bluff and there was an asphalt driveway that is still in place which extends to 35 feet from the top of the bluff. Following the fire we went through a process of site plan process with Mr. Guyton's architect Neil Logan who is with us today and they came up with a home that's 1,712 sq. ft. and it's located 65 feet from the top of the bluff. The dwelling height varies because the lot slopes from side lot line to side lot lines so on the west side the height of the dwelling is 27 foot 8 inches and on the east side it's 19 foot 2 inches. There's a terrace that totals 962 sq. ft. and that's located 59.87 feet from the top of the bluff. The pool at 680 sq. ft. is actually 67 feet from the top of the bluff. Under our plan the asphalt driveway would be pulled back to 97 feet from the top of the bluff and the new septic system that we would be building would be 130 feet from the top of the bluff. We are here because the zoning setback from the top of the bluff as per 280-116A1 is 100 feet which we cannot achieve and also because of the restriction found in 280-15 which precludes placement of a pool or any other structure in a technical side yard. I provided you in my first attachment with a tax map and in that tax map we've in pink reasonably determined what that neighborhood what we consider the neighborhood to consist of and you'll see there are seven lots and as you flip to the second page you'll find an aerial photograph and on that aerial photograph we've showed the lot lines, the top of the bluff and the structures and these particular locations were obtained from existing surveys that we were able to get through the town's electronic records. So what you could see moving from left to right, on the first property we have a swimming pool that's about one foot from the top of the bluff moving to the east you have a dwelling that's less than (inaudible) actually exceeds over the bluff by a foot, then you have the adjacent property owner of the Dangas who is 75 feet from the top of the bluff. You see the Guyton property after that at 59.87, then you see the Leudesdorf property at 75 feet, then when you get to the Gold property at about 5 feet off the top of the bluff and Carnivale that's 35 feet from the top of the bluff. These lots all range from about three quarters of an acre to 1.3 acres, in this case we're just shy of an acre so we're August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting within the range of that and it's important to note that none of the dwellings comply with the 100 foot setback from the top of the bluff. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Bruce if I can interrupt for one second, were these bluff setbacks established prior to zoning or did they have variances? BRUCE ANDERSON : I'm sure much of them were probably pre-existing but I don't have the variances, I can look into that and get back to you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'd appreciate it. I just would like to know how many of them got variances and how many were there before there was a code that required them to be that way. BRUCE ANDERSON : So it's our position that the variances should be granted because there would be no impact to the character of the neighborhood. The property as I explained is typical for the neighborhood the house being setback 65 feet and the terrace setback of 59.87 feet from the bluff where the dwellings in the neighborhood range from less than you now negative one feet to 85 feet with an average setback we calculated at 48 feet from the top of the bluff. Also the pool setback at 67 feet is further back than the other existing pool which is setback at one feet. I'd also like the Board to take note that the swimming pool is actually 22 feet from the side lot line which exceeds the minimum setback of 15 feet for this lot and also the property traditionally had these accessory structure in the technical side yard consisting of a pergola and a concrete pond of similar size as is the pool. We submit that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method other than a variance because in this application we originally had sited the house even further back and we had the septic system between the house and the bluff. In applying to the Health Department the Health Department required that we place the septic system in the front yard and that we maintain a 100 foot setback between the septic system and the well which is on a front lot line and of course we had to maintain the septic system in a location that would be 100 feet or more from any other adjacent wells. So that advanced the house to where it is before you. We cannot move the house back because the septic system has to go in the front yard, it has to be 100 feet or more from the well. Obviously you can't place the pool in the rear yard because it would be too close to the bluff. We submit our variances are not substantial in relation to the pre-existing setbacks for this lot (inaudible) setbacks that exist on other lots in the neighborhood and as I said before we have houses anywhere between negative one feet to 85 feet with an average setback of 48 feet. The pool terrace at 59.87 feet from the bluff is obviously significantly greater than the only existing pool found in that neighborhood. Then finally further we submit that the granting a variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood because we have implemented the best management practices in the August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting redevelopment of this lot. Here I just want to take a moment to address two correspondences that came in, the first is a memorandum received from the LWRP which states that it is recommended that the single family dwelling be located as far from the top of the bluff and the coastal erosion hazard area as practicable. The Board should take note that we are landward of the coastal erosion hazard area and we are located as far from the top of the bluff as is practical because of the location of where the septic system has to go and where the well has to go. Then it goes on to state that if in the event the action is approved it is recommended that storm water controls including a dry well for the pool de-watering be required which appears on the erosion control plan that I submitted and handed up today. Also it then goes on to say an alternative placement of the sanitary is considered to maximize the distance from the top of the bluff; note that a well is proposed in the front yard and separation distances are required. That is precisely what we have done here, we have placed the septic system as far from the bluff as it can be and as close to the well as it can be. Then the third is a vegetated non-turf buffer be established landward on top of the bluff, the existing vegetation should be preserved within this buffer and that is true the landward part of the bluff is vegetated. We anticipate if we succeed in getting a variance here to go to the Trustees and my expectation is a 20 foot buffer will be required and that is acceptable to the applicant. The second correspondence came in from Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District and that's dated July 17, 2018 and it is in your application jacket and page one makes some interesting observations, the first if which is that the front yard to the east of the (inaudible) slopes away from the bluff towards Hyatt Rd. is well vegetated in turf grasses and does not appear to impose an environmental concern at this time. It says a portion of the rear yard west of the proposed dwelling is sloped towards the bluff edge but the majority of the yard is sloped away from the bluff. The rear yard is well vegetated with turf grasses. The majority of the construction will commence on slopes that may cause significant erosion during construction and there is no toe stabilization present on the parcel nor does there appear to be a need for this at this time. That means the bluff that we are approximate to is stable bluff. It goes on to make recommendations and the first is and the only recommendation and we disagree is the first one is that the retaining wall the existing retaining wall not be removed it is our intention is to remove that wall for two reasons. Number one it is structurally integrated with the foundation of the house which is going to be removed and secondly the end of this wall is 20 feet from the top of the bluff and by removing it we can place the terrace that would be more like 60 feet from the top of the bluff. The entire gist of this application is to retreat from the top of the bluff. It goes on to say recommend that the pool be equipped with a dry well which we incorporated into our plan that storm water runoff generated from proposed new construction be directed in the dry wells which is already been implemented in our plan and then it's recommended that building plans include migrating and diverting any runoff that may develop during construction with an adequate sediment and erosion control plan which likewise we've implemented in our plan. I remind everyone that August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting when we go to the Building Department this will come under the review of the town engineer who will make sure these things are all proper as they should be. Then it makes an interesting recommendation that no heavy equipment or machinery or supplies be stored a minimum of 25 feet from the top edge of the bluff and that is a condition we can certainly live with and our intention is to bring no heavy equipment, material stock pile or otherwise within 25 feet of the top of the bluff. We submit our hardship is not self-created because oh I'm sorry we will go back will not have an adverse effect, we have the site drainage, we have the removal of the cesspool 30 feet from the bluff and the placement of a new cesspool septic system 130 feet from the bluff. We avoided the coastal erosion hazard area, we've provided the drywells for the pool, drywells for all the new construction. We have an adequate coastal erosion plan and we intend to establish or formalize the buffer adjacent to the top of the bluff. We submit our hardship is not self-created because the applicant really was compelled to rebuild his house after the dwelling was lost to fire that the Health Department required us to place a septic system where it is and no closer than a 100 feet from the well or anyone else's well and basically there's insufficient area land area of landward of the bluff to comply with these regulations including the Health Department and so forth. Therefore (inaudible) our contention that the benefit to the applicant if the variance were granted would outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. Our benefit obviously is our ability to enjoy the property in its intended residential use and it's to be developed in a manner that is consistent with the development patterns of the neighborhood and will not impact upon the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood and that concludes my basic presentation. I'm here to answer any questions you may have and also Mr. Logan is here who is the project architect and he can answer any questions you may have pertaining to the design considerations that went into this project. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay we'll start down that end, Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : No you've addressed all my questions right now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think that you were asked earlier as far as what the variances if any were offered on Hyatt Rd. and it's just I live in the general area I don't live on Hyatt Rd. but the two houses on either side to the east and west by my recollection are recent builds and their setbacks are far greater than what you propose so I'm trying to understand the dynamic of those two homes versus what I would argue are homes built prior to the Second World War so I'd be very curious to find out what the outcome of and I don't remember the name I didn't receive that (inaudible) offered but the property that was called Dangas is below the subject property and of course Leudesdorf is above. That's why both of those homes I would argue August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting were built within relatively recent history certainly Leudesdorf which has a greater setback so I'd be curious to know the outcome of that research. Additionally I'm just curious for the record is there any public water on Hyatt Rd? BRUCE ANDERSON : No. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's what I thought. That's all I have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No Nick asked the same exact question I was going to ask cause looking at the setbacks and you know that's a pretty big discrepancy from 75 on either side to be almost 60. BRUCE ANDERSON : Well as I said our number here arrived at because you must comply with the provisions of the Health Department pertaining to well and septic system. My guess is when I look at these properties more diligent you're either going to find you'll probably find that there's cesspools were placed between the house and the bluff. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good to know. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think it would be helpful. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah because obviously the 75 foot setback the houses on either side clearly are going to be more recent than the other ones which are probably going to pre- date zoning. They certainly would never have received in recent time variance relief for that close to the bluff so I'm going to assume it's likely they never got variances and that they were built prior to zoning. BRUCE ANDERSON : They could have been redeveloped in their present setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Possible that they might have been improved where the house was located not but they're really extraordinarily non-conforming so the point I'm making is we need to understand why you couldn't at least meet the 75 feet. BRUCE ANDERSON : Well as I said we cannot and obtain a Health Department permit that is the answer. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : From looking at the site plan that I see here and if you take the pool out of the equation and just look at the house there's no reason why you couldn't make the house perpendicular as opposed to sort of the L-shape. I'm not a designer but it would seem to me you could just push the house back into conforming or more conforming location. August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll tell you what, why don't we do this you want to have some time anyway to research the stuff we just talked about where the septic's are located and what happened with the 75 foot setbacks on either side. This will give you an opportunity to maybe provide additional information about the requirements of the septic and whether or not you can or cannot reconfigure anything on these plans to create let's say 75 foot setback. Why you can't in other words do that. Obviously what's happening here of course the house is gone so you're really starting de novo it's starting from scratch and I want to see how we can get it as conforming as possible and if you have 75 on either side it's not unreasonable to investigate whether or not that achievable. I see that you certainly couldn't put the pool on the bluff side and the slopes are such that it would be a little more difficult especially if you got a septic you're not going to be able to put it in a front yard with the septic so the side yard is the only alternative location but perhaps you could while you're investigating that talk to the architect and see whether or not there's any way you could get a few more feet out of there in terms of a setback. Certainly it's easy to say that 75 feet is characteristic of the neighborhood. BRUCE ANDERSON : No it's characteristic of the two adjacent homes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's true but I think that those were probably built under different circumstances than the other houses but that's what you're going to let us know. BRUCE ANDERSON : Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we won't you know we just keep an opened mind until you tell us what you can find. BRUCE ANDERSON : No I understand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anyone? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yeah on the most recent survey (inaudible) out of 59.87 and on the handout you just gave us it's 58.11 so which is it? BRUCE ANDERSON : 59.87 MEMBER LEHNERT : I think that has to be clarified because the original survey showed 59.87 the site plan 63 1 think 11 and now you've got 58.11 on the handout you just gave us. So which one is BRUCE ANDERSON : It's the survey (inaudible) MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So again that's the 59.87? BRUCE ANDERSON : That's correct. August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience wanting to address the application, please just come to you have to come to the hold wait state your name please. NEIL LOGAN : My name is Neil Logan, I'm the architect working with the client on this project and after experiencing this misfortune of this burned down house the owners really wanted to restore and we had an application in to restore but really we're traumatized by this took basically a year before we even came back to starting this project. We knew of this issue about the pre-condition, the house was forward of the allowable setback and so we thought well where can we put this house on this lot which is actually kind of a narrow lot. The property to the east of it essentially towers over it. There's a large concrete retaining wall there so what we had wanted to do and I think you can see on my site plan is that we had wanted to align the house with the property to the west immediately to the west and that actually felt like made sense to everybody because it was not blocking the person's to the west view and it wasn't towered over by the neighbor to the east. We had to nudge it forward five or six feet because of this septic issue and that's sort of where we are. I just want you to note that by pulling the house back considerably the condition between the neighbor to the west I mean to the east rather the one CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : The higher up? NEIL LOGAN : Yeah higher up would make an adverse condition both for them and for us because of this concrete wall and topography that's really the reason. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. MEMBER PLANAMENTO The only comment I would add Mr. Logan to that though is the subject property your design is actually towering over the Dragas house. When you stand at that sort of level plateau I want to say where the driveway garage are is you're well over a story above the adjacent home so it's no different from the house to the east and here's something that NEIL LOGAN : We were kind of aligning with that house to the MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I understand but you're still above it and I think you'll always be above it given the topography but I think it's at least in my opinion here's a basically a vacant lot that's being developed that you have complete control over as far as how to mitigate many of these situations. NEIL LOGAN : I'm sorry I don't understand what you're August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well I'm just suggesting that what you're saying about the neighboring property to the east towering over your proposed property the proposed development is towering over the neighbor's house. When you stand at that level location you're well over one full story above without even a structure the neighboring home. NEIL LOGAN : Oh I understand. BRUCE ANDERSON : I would just like to say point out that that would happen no matter what the setback would be. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right and I said that also given the topography. BRUCE ANDERSON : And number two the height that was selected are well below the maximum height permitted by code. So please take note of that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else, okay I think we should just adjourn this to the Special Meeting to give you some time to get all that other information together. We may have questions I don't know. If we don't we'll get whatever you give us and we'll close it and BRUCE ANDERSON : When is the meeting scheduled for? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : August 16th two weeks from today. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And Bruce do you have the handout for me. I didn't get that you gave me just a one page not the google earth image. BRUCE ANDERSON : You didn't get that? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well you gave me this one but it's just one page. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to adjourn this matter to the Special Meeting on August 16th. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7186— MARY ZUPA/PARADISE POINT ASSOCIATION CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application that's scheduled is for Mary Zupa/Paradise Point Association however we have a request Bruce from you to adjourn? BRUCE ANDERSON : Yes we filed an application for a lot line change and the reason why it required a variance it would effectively reduce the area of Zupa's making it more non- conforming. That lot line change it was my understanding was developed in consideration of a settlement between the association and Mr. and Mrs. Zupa. Since then there has been a disagreement as to the precise location of the lot line. So my recommendation is I understand they're going to be they're going to work it out. My expectation is they'll work it out within the next thirty days or so. I was hoping to get an adjournment for September because I understand I have to go to the D.E.C., Health Department and the Planning Board for this. I'm trying to make this as efficient as possible and the other thing I would suggest we do is re-notice it because the numbers and the area of the Zupa lot would change and therefore the variance (inaudible) would change so I would say (inaudible) arrive at some lot line that's acceptable to everyone and then from there we'll re-notice it so everything's sort of button down properly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you going to be able to accomplish all the stuff you need to Bruce within thirty days do you think? I mean you want to think about October? BRUCE ANDERSON : October you know if that's better for the Board that works. We're just trying to move it along. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes I understand. BRUCE ANDERSON : But I can't honestly to do anything with this project until we precisely where the lot line is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Exactly what you're proposing. Yeah well we saw what you submitted and of course I'm certainly familiar with the property and with the condition that the marina use be either removed you know when the dwelling was given variances or we come back here and apply for additional variance relief for a second use so I assume that this is in part in response though it's been a long time in coming to that requirement. Is that correct? BRUCE ANDERSON : That is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright I take it you want to say something. August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting VICTOR ZUPA : My name is Victor Zupa I'm the husband of the applicant Mary Zupa. Madam Chairperson and Members, this is the result of a court order settlement and the agreement was that we would convey to the Association a parcel of land to which their dock was attached in return for the release of an easement over our property which they now have which really is a very little use to them. So the agreement the court ordered stipulation provides that the conveyance will not interfere with we have stone planters, the stone planters and the driveways. So the initial survey that we submitted with photographs show the it actually cuts across our driveway and cuts across the planters. It's part of the application if you would like I can bring these up? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we have it, we have it in our packet. MR. ZUPA : That was not consistent with our agreement so we asked the both the Association and the expediter to correct this and so nothing was done so we had a survey done by Nathan Corwin. Nathan Corwin has done the survey (inaudible) property for almost twenty years so that provides for and we put up stakes as well and they're inches away from the planters and the driveway and that provides for no interference with the driveway and if I could present you with this CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you'd like to submit it you can. Do you have this information? MR. ZUPA : I have four copies here I can now the top sheet is actually CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you talk into the mic so that we can MR. ZUPA : I have the top sheet is actually an enlargement of the area so as you can see it clearly CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We only have four I want to put this in our file. Is this matter going to be revisited? BRUCE ANDERSON : My understanding is they're due back in court in the third week sometime in the third week in August and I suspect that would be the main topic of discussion would be where this line goes. So it doesn't matter to me what this survey or that survey shows because CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not conclusive yet. BRUCE ANDERSON : until everyone agrees on the same line I really don't have an application with your folks or with anyone else. MR. ZUPA : I thought we had agreed that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on you have to address the Board. August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting MR. ZUPA : My understanding was that it was agreed that at least Nathan's courses and distances from the survey that you have there would be incorporated into the Young & Young map cause we've been going back and forth the expediter and the Association with resolve I hate to put this back in court because we're really talking we're both in agreement that this piece of property should go to the Association and make it better for everybody. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I suspect that the way to proceed is to go and resolve it, come back to us when you have an answer and then we can go ahead and do what we have to do. BRUCE ANDERSON : I agree with that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then why don't we do that. There's a request to adjourn, let's adjourn to October. BRUCE ANDERSON : And let's re-notice as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And we'll re-notice, you're going to have to get an amended Notice BRUCE ANDERSON : I prefer to re-notice it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Just start over is that what you want to do? BRUCE ANDERSON : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay we're just going to hold on to this, we'll put it aside, you'll let us know what the outcome is and then we'll proceed. So we're going to put this back on for October and if for any reason it's not resolved you'll let us know and we can just adjourn it again. MR. ZUPA : Madam Chairwoman I just have one question, is there anything substantively (inaudible) with what we're doing with this idea in other words we are reducing what has been a lot on which a variance has already been granted. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No there's no consequences, you're meeting a condition actually one of the conditions of the original relief. Anything else from the Board at this point? So there's a motion to adjourn this application to October 4t" at one o'clock. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) VIRGINIA GILMOUR/ROBERT WHITE (JESSE DORFMAN, CV) #7185 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board for Virginia Gilmour/Robert White (Jesse Dorfman Contract Vendee). This is #7185 a request for a waiver of merger petition under Article II Section 280-10A to unmerge land identified as SCTM#1000-144-3-27 which has merged with SCTM#1000-144-3-28 and 1000-144-3-35 based on the Building Inspector's April 13, 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 350 Bartley Rd. in Mattituck. Would you please state your name for the record. JOSEPH HASPEL : Hi my name is Joseph Haspel I'm representing the applicants here. Before I start I had sent in yesterday a written presentation I was to make sure that the members got it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes a memorandum of law that you submitted. JOSEPH HASPEL : Yes and I just wanted to introduce one of the co-owners of the selling, Virginia is behind me and Jesse Dorfman with his newlywed wife Marisol and also here seeking this application. Also before I start I'd like to augment the record with copies of pictures of the neighborhood may I approach? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please. JOSEPH HASPEL : I have three copies I'm sorry that's all I have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's okay we'll take one for the original file, I'll take one and give Nick one. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you. JOSEPH HASPEL : I'm not sure if the Board has a current tax map showing the neighborhood, if they do I don't need to give you one if it is not part of the record I'd like to make it part of the record. 3 August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's just check. I'm sure we do. MEMBER LEHNERT : It was in our packet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah we have it. JOSEPH HASPEL : I'm also not sure if this is a Board's since I've had no practice before this Board that tends to go out and view the property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have we've done personal inspections. We do so for every application. JOSEPH HASPEL : That's good that means I don't have to make a long presentation of what it looks like because you're all familiar with it. As can be seen from the tax map there is no property in this area that is conforming under the current zoning code. Every property and certainly every property that was noticed with this public hearing is a property that is substandard under the current zoning. So the issue here is whether the property of the applicants is simply just another one of the non-conforming and should be able to build a house like every other house contiguous or next to the property to be built in conforming with all zoning regulations. As I indicated in my written presentation we don't believe that this is a waiver situation. We believe that this property has never merged for the reason being the Building Inspector indicated that it merged with a property to the north and as I indicated in submission the lot line is only 35 feet to the north and therefore would not meet the town code definition requiring a waiver. The other property on the east which we believe has never merged because there's not co-ownership. At this point in time the ownership of the property that we're seeking the application are two co-owners including Virginia and the adjacent property is only a single owner and therefore it's been taxed and viewed by the town forever as separate lots. With that understanding we don't believe that the merger has occurred. If there had been a merger then at this point and time when the two lots were purchased that would have been an illegal subdivision and we do not believe at least there's no indication in the town records that this property or any property around it has been violated as an illegal subdivision. Moreover there is a property directly across the street from the applicant property which is the same size and is also contiguous to the property and under the theory espoused by the Building Inspector that property would have merged also and therefore the building on that property which was granted a building permit should not have so if the town were going to be consistent with that property this property should not have been declared merged and the building permit should have been granted. If the Board disagrees with me on any of the (inaudible) considers that the property has been merged we believe that this property warrants a waiver and the reason why it warrants a waiver as set forth in my submission basically it's essentially identical to every property in the neighborhood. This subdivision dates back a hundred years. The idea of 3 August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting merger is to create standard lots. That cannot happen. Basically we have houses on substandard half the lots all around. So if the notion is to create standard lots by the concept of merger we have to look at practicalities. It can never happen with respect to this lot or any of the lots around it. Everyone is now substandard. Everyone is now owned by separate owners so the purpose of the merger provision can never be effectuated. It will always be substandard every lot around it. Now if you look at the factors that the local law sets forth for waiver and again there are three factors, the first is whether the proposed waiver would recognize a lot that is comparable in size to a majority of the improved lots of the neighborhood. As I indicated virtually all it's not a mere majority where it seems to be all of the lots in the neighborhood would be similar this would be similar to every other lot as clearly that provision warranting waiver is applicable. The second factor is the lot proposed to recognized is vacant and has historically been treated and maintained as a separate and independent residential lot since the date of its creation. That's what we have here, we have a lot that at this point in time is not owned by the same people and that's under the definition that I set forth in the application so it hasn't merged. The ownership is different, it's been taxed as a separate tax lot, it's the same as every other surrounding lot. That factor is in favor of granting the application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : May I just interrupt for a second I'd like to ask you a question, I want to enter this into the record. When were these two lots purchased and who purchased them after 1983? JOSEPH HASPEL : There is a history, there was an estate and I believe the estate through sold the lot to one of the beneficiaries of the estate and the beneficiary of the estate sold one of the lots to Virginia solely and the other one of the lots to Virginia and a co-owner. Now I don't know exactly what the dates are but that is the sequence. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess I'm trying to find out when the lots would have merged which would have been as soon as the merger law took effect in 1983 who the owners of the lots were. JOSEPH HASPEL : There was the a man by the name of Kook and then his estate as I said and then somebody within the estate and then the two lots were spun off and also again the lot across the street which would in this particular situation be a contiguous lot because we are on a private road. So since we're on a private road there is the lots across the street are effectively contiguous also and that lot was given the ability to build without the need to seek a waiver. There's no difference here. The fact that it's across the road is irrelevant because they were contiguous. So if there was a merger at that point and time that lot should not have been granted a building permit since that lot was granted a building permit in order for the Board to be consistent in its rulings or I should say the Building Department consistent in its ruling. I August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting don't think that one got to the Board because there was no finding that there was a merger when MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mr. Haspel just to clarify what you're saying, you're talking about opposite on Bartley Rd. on the subject property Suffolk County tax map lot 26 you feel is contiguous? JOSEPH HASPEL : Yes because it's a private road and because it's a private road MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But on the survey it doesn't show that the road is owned by any of the lots. The survey illustrates that while it's a private road it's a separate area. It's not contiguous. JOSEPH HASPEL : By the nature of the law the way I understand it is it's MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So then Leslie the Chairwoman's asking CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm just asking counsel to clarify. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't see them as being contiguous. JOSEPH HASPEL : There has to be ownership of property. The road is private road therefore it was probably created as part of the subdivision which makes each lot at least have a right of way through the middle of that road. Like any other real piece of property that has to be ownership. It certainly not owned by a town and I believe it's private. T. A. DUFFY : Do you know who owns it? JOSEPH HASPEL : I believe it's owned by the homeowners in that subdivision. T. A. DUFFY : You don't know. It could be owned by one or it could be owned by some. JOSEPH HASPEL : I don't know. I haven't been able to find the actual owner of that parcel. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When these lots what year were these lots transferred to Gilmour and MEMBER PLANAMENTO : '01 JOSEPH HASPEL : I'll take your word for it. MEMBER LEHNERT : '01 and the other one was'06. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know what it is I want somebody else to tell me. I just want these facts in the record. August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting JOSEPH HASPEL :That's fine. MEMBER LEHNERT : I'm looking at the tax property cards. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so the transfer occurred MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Lot 27 which is the subject parcel the one that Dorfman CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's September 28, 2001 and then for the Gilmour piece CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And were they merged the question is, were they merged prior to that date? Every single property in this town that was merged still receives unfortunately separate property taxes, separate you know they appear to be separate still. They are getting separate bills for their property taxes which confuses the issue tremendously. JOSEPH HASPEL : It certainly does because they were in fact merged the taxes my understanding on how properties are assessed the taxes would be less. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know but they don't they just never did that in this town which creates a good deal of unnecessary confusion but nevertheless that's what happened. I'm just trying to establish the chain of ownership and the dates to look carefully at whether or not they were or were not merged. I will agree that and again I'm just one Board member but I'm going to agree that the lot to the north number 35 because it does not share fifty feet or more in a common course, it only seems to share 30.5 feet that they should not have merged. So now we're looking at 27 and 28, improved and unimproved lot. So I'm just trying to establish the chain of ownership and the date in which the merger would have occurred. So we got one lot purchased and would you check and see who purchased, was it just Gilmour or was it Gilmour and White? JOSEPH HASPEL : Gilmour and White's predecessor. The co-owner has changed since the original purchase so there was a different co-owner at the time of the initial purchase away from the estate or the beneficiaries of the estate. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I want to know when both of these lots were purchased and who purchased them. JOSEPH HASPEL : I can tell you exactly. The subject property was purchased I believe as member MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Lot 27. August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting JOSEPH HASPEL : Lot 27 was purchased 9/17/01 with Gilmour owning a portion and a person by the name of Snow owning a portion. The Snow interest has changed overtime. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on wait, wait. JOSEPH HASPEL : I stand corrected. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you please come to the mic cause we're recording this and I have to make sure that all this testimony gets onto the transcript. Did you want to clarify something, somebody please just state your name. PHYLLIS SNOW : Phyllis Snow I live at 375 Bartley and we have had the property and then we since 2001 has not changed, we're the originals other than we first bought it. SOMEONE SPEAKING : Inaudible PHYLLIS SNOW : No. JOSEPH HASPEL :This is a different Snow. SOMEONE SPEAKING : Inaudible. JOSEPH HASPEL : Barbara (inaudible) also had a name Snow. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would appear Gilmour owned ninety percent, Snow ten percent. JOSEPH HASPEL :That is correct. T. A. DUFFY : That's in 2001. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 2001 JOSEPH HASPEL :That is correct. T. A. DUFFY : In 1995 Edward Deana and Mary Robert Deana took possession of both pieces correct? JOSEPH HASPEL : I believe that's correct. T. A. DUFFY : Why didn't they merge then? JOSEPH HASPEL : Why? August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting T. A. DUFFY : Yeah if they have common ownership, same ownership and undersized lots? I'm asking in 1995 they were held in common ownership it appears and they were undersized lots at the time why did they not merge in 1995? JOSEPH HASPEL : I believe there is that now we're getting into the issue of my understanding of what would be required of a town since it was never merged as a matter of town records that my understanding is that it wouldn't merge. Now you're saying that town records could indicate nothing and it could be a merger and go forward with taxing each lot separately and that creates confusion. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's exactly what the town has done. JOSEPH HASPEL : I'm not going to get argumentative at this point in time. I believe that that could create a legal problem but again I'm not here to argue that I believe that what we have is a potentially (inaudible) issue and also it's a tax issue etc. and so on which at this point in time I understand T. A. DUFFY : This is the ZBA though okay so they're not hearing a stop argument JOSEPH HASPEL :That's why I'm trying not to make it. T. A. DUFFY : What I'm trying to narrow down if you're arguing they have not merged didn't they merge by according to the code that they interpreted? They interpreted a code. The code says if they were in common ownership after 1983 or '84 then they have merged and that's what we have here. JOSEPH HASPEL : If this Board is going to interpret it that way I can't tell it not to. I would simply say that I disagree with that interpretation. T. A. DUFFY : So we agree on the facts though? JOSEPH HASPEL : Which is why I also said cause I was aware of that argument that's also why I argued if there is a view that it did merger this particular property is ripe for waiver because of all of the factors that are enunciated in T. A. DUFFY : So we agree on the facts that they were held in common ownership in 1995 lots 27 and 28? JOSEPH HASPEL : In 1995 when it was effectively the beneficiaries of the estate I believe CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's the name? JOSEPH HASPEL :That would be Dana. August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting T. A. DUFFY : The estate transferred to Edward Dana and Mary Robert Dana and it was dated 1/27/95 recorded 2/1/1995 for both lots. JOSEPH HASPEL : Those were the facts. I'm not disagreeing with the facts I'm just disagreeing with the potential application of the facts. T. A. DUFFY : I gottcha we should move on to the waiver of merger. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's just look at the waiver standards which you've addressed in your memorandum of law but I'm sure the audience would like to understand what your arguments are. You'll have time to speak. JOSEPH HASPEL : I think I've gone through two of the factors and the third factor is that the proposed waiver and recognition will not create an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Again this would be a simple relatively small house built in conformity with the zoning code with respect to the bulk requirements. I am aware of no argument how to have any adverse impact on the physical conditions in the neighborhood. I simply can't imagine any adverse I've heard of none. It'll just be if you've gone to the property you'll see that this is at the end of the road. I can't imagine an adverse impact on the neighborhood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I want to get back to standard number two. So the lots we will assume merged in common ownership in '95 when both lots were owned by the Dana Estate. JOSEPH HASPEL : If the Board wants to make that assumption I agree to disagree but (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So then what is the change of transfer after that? JOSEPH HASPEL : Excuse me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Who did Dana Estates sell these or give these to? JOSEPH HASPEL : One lot was given sold I stand corrected to Snow and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gilmour. JOSEPH HASPEL : Gilmour. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have the title search right here. T. A. DUFFY : You want a copy? JOSEPH HASPEL : I have it. August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting T. A. DUFFY : So one lot in 100% interest and one lot went to Gilmour and then the other lot 90%went to Gilmour and 10%went to Snow. JOSEPH HASPEL : That's correct and under the language of the zoning code those would be separate and distinct ownership. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now was there any familial relationship between Dana and Gilmour? JOSEPH HASPEL : I believe these were (inaudible) no family. CHAIRPERSON WIESMAN : Pardon. JOSEPH HASPEL : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No family relationship. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Trying to put faces to names I understand Mrs. Gilmour is in the audience? JOSEPH HASPEL : Yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is Ms. Snow here? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you come to the mic please so we can get this on UNNAMED SPEAKER : Snow was also her name from a marriage but her on the deed it's Barbara Ernsehoff and she moved back to Germany and that's why I now have it in with my friend Robert White. JOSEPH HASPEL : So the Ernsehoff ownership was conveyed to Mr. White. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And is Mr. White here? UNNAMED SPEAKER : No. JOSEPH HASPEL : Any other questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm trying to see if it was sold outside transferred to an unrelated individual. T. A. DUFFY : A. for the waiver of merger subsection A of the waiver of merger says that the lots can be the merger can be waived but they cannot have been transferred to an unrelated person cause you're saying you don't meet has that requirement been met or August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting JOSEPH HASPEL : I believe that that requirement does not have to be met because it's a disjunctive under the way I read it that requirement would make the entire section somewhat meaningless. It would be an impossible what would be the purpose of an owner to seek the waiver because the owner had both sides. So the law as I understand it and I'll read it's well established rule of statutory construction that the words and or or are convertible with the sense of the statute requires. So while the first paragraph has an end at the end I do not believe that the regulation could have any real meaning if it was a conjunctive and therefore I am viewing that as a injunctive. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the ownership of lot 27 still remains in the name of two people. JOSEPH HASPEL : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In this case Gilmour and JOSEPH HASPEL : White. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : White. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : My dilemma is this is more recent history but you have to go back to 1983 when the Cook's owned it and it was clearly merged and it was transferred after the merger occurred which is why lot 35 gets pulled into this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah that's absolutely right. The law requires that merger can a waiver of merger can be effectuated when properties have merged if in fact they are owned in common ownership and have not been transferred outside of the family. This is why this sort of chain of who owned what when and under what condition they purchased these, it's not uncommon for people to have purchased property that then they found thinking they were buying a separate lot and then finding out later on if they tried to build on it that in fact that lot has merged with another lot. This whole merger law has created some confusion and some dilemmas throughout town. The intent was to up zone, to try and reduce the density primarily because of septic load and so on to try and have a little less intense property development in general and the waiver of merger was put into place to permit these lots to be returned to their original size when in fact they met certain standards and that's what counsel is trying to address these three different standards that would allow the Board of Appeals to unmerge these lots. Clearly the chain of command suggests that these lots were merged after they were owned in common ownership and they merged by force of law when the law went into effect in 1983. Now what we're trying to do is figure out whether or not the standard that says they have not been transferred out of the family to unmerge them whether that occurred or not. It sounds to me that it was merged before Dana. August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's what I'm saying during the Cook's ownership. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Under the Cook's ownership and then they got sold to Dana and they were still merged. JOSEPH HASPEL : I believe that was still the same family at that point in time. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well Dana was the executor. JOSEPH HASPEL : Right that's why I'm saying when the estate sold it to basically to the way I understand it when the estate sold it to its own beneficiary or transferred I'm not sure how it happened but that was still be common family under the definition that I think you just said. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well we don't know if the Dana's are related but then even if the Dana's were related the waiver of merger would have been possible during the Dana's ownership but the Dana's then sold it to the Gilmours and that's where it stops. JOSEPH HASPEL : I understand that position. I've already indicated that I understand the position, I don't agree with the conclusion. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll tell you what I think for the moment we've heard you know considerable presentation about the facts are there any people in the audience who want to address this application? If so please come forward to that mic and state your name and tell us what you'd like us to know. JOSEPH HASPEL : I just want to in conclusion call your attention to your own comments with respect to the purpose of the merger. There's no indication here that the purpose to bring back these particular lots to standard sized lots under current zoning is possible. It's simply not and that has to be in part of the consideration too. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you. Anyone want to address the application? ALEX REGRUTO : Hi my name is Alex Regruto. I live on the block behind the properties and I agree with the Building Inspector. This is not a conforming lot. I heard a lot of speaking here and I'm not familiar with it of when mergers were taking place so I think it should stay as is. As far as the counsel saying there's no conforming properties that's not true. I live on Marlene behind him. Mine is conforming. I don't know where he got his information from but to say everybody is not conforming is not true and I took you have a picture there. I have a visual of the lot and to stick a house on that lot just doesn't fit. It's pushed up against someone's back yard and it's just not going to appear to be in conforming with the rest of the properties. That's all I have to say thank you . August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, someone else? You can use that mic there if it's easier either one is fine. MIKE SNOW : We're Michael and Phyllis Snow. We live at 375 Bartley Rd. that's just right opposite this lot that's in question. We're also in agreement with the Zoning Board that this lot shouldn't be subdivided. We were informed actually CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait a minute, we have not made that conclusion. MIKE SNOW : I thought it was done already, I'm sorry about that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no, no we're here to hear arguments as to why it should or should not. MIKE SNOW : About twenty years ago we were looking at these properties and we were told by our real estate agent Carl Auston at the time that the lot we purchased was the only one you know that could be subdivided because of the road that the two properties on the other side had to be sold as one and could never be split. That's the way we bought our property under that assumption. We built our house according to code. we needed no variances from the town. Our dirt road I don't think could handle another house. PHYLLIS SNOW : The holes we have now my car is just it's terrible and it's not going to be able to take any more cars coming down. As it is everybody does U-turns in my driveway. To manage all the trucks that are going to come and the constant going back and forth on the road the holes are horrendous and the traffic. It's a little area and we do have a Bartley Rd. right there, there is a road we don't own it I don't know who owns it but I know the town doesn't own it it's just common and it's a mess it really is a mess. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Who maintains it? PHYLLIS SNOW : Nobody that's why we have holes. MIKE SNOW : Occasionally I fill in some of the potholes but no one really maintains it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Two questions Mr. and Mrs. Snow, one is there any relationship to the other Snow that was discussed. MIKE SNOW : No. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No relationship. MIKE SNOW :That's why the confusion. August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's a coincidence isn't it? MEMBER PLANAMENTO Very much. The house that you're living in is the one that's the absolute end on the south side and it runs perpendicular to the road the long narrow house? PHYLLIS SNOW : Yes. MIKE SNOW : And that you know that was part of that I guess of that estate. We bought it from some I guess we bought it from the executor of the estate but it was made known to us right from the get go because we looked at that property also first and we were told you can't you know even though it looks like it's a separate lot you cannot split it because of the 1983 law. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes that's when it was merged and they the original owners could have come before the Board to ask to return it to the two separate lots because the Town Board decided that whenever they put in a restrictive code they could deprive people of some property rights they need at least to have the right to appeal and so they developed three standards for appealing which is what we've been discussing here. PHYLLIS SNOW : And also if you look where our house is and somebody coming down I mean there's no room to even make a turn it's so narrow it's just ridiculous. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you for your testimony. LINDA GALLOW : Hello my name is Linda Gallow. I own lot 35. If you look at your maps you will see that belongs to me and my sisters and I am here to talk to you mostly about well I was going to talk to you about some things but now I just wanted to give you some history. I don't know if this legally has any value to you but having been a neighbor of the Cooks for many, many years and actually lot 35 was owned by Ed and Marie Cook. It was given to my father it was actually a gift to my father from Mr. Cook due to their friendship and that road Bartley Rd. that all those houses are on was developed originally as a community. That community had access to the water which is now where boats are at the end of Sailors Needle there right across the street from Bay Ave. if you go all the way down there were boats that have their moorings and poles there, those were actually part of that little community on Bartley. It was a beach actually there at that time and I have a boat there actually because Mr. Cook gave his rights to his boat being there to my father and that was approved by the Town of Southold way back in the day. The one thing I will say is that when Attorney Haspel says that historically maintained as a separate lot I will say to you that I cannot speak for the current owner but if you want to go back in history the Cook's treated their property as part of their own property. They used to rent rooms in the building you'll note on lot 28 the one story framed building with the porches on the north and south sides, those were actually rental rooms. People would rent them every year. The refrigerators would be on the porch. It was kind of fun but so the land 27 August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting next to it was always used as part of the common space of 28 where the house was. So this is the first time I'm seeing it, it may have been a separate lot then it's maybe now made a separate lot but historically I would say recent history it's been maintained as a separate lot and I can't even speak to that but I would just say that that history is recent. I can also tell you the other thing that I just want to put into my comments here is that when you look at 35 and 27 and the gore, 35 was presented to my father as a gift out of friendship. The stipulation it's not in the deed but our family gave our word that we would not develop 35 we would not put a house on it and the reason why was because Mr. Cook was called the birdman from Brooklyn. He was an environmentalist before there were environmentalists and he maintained lot 35 and that gore as a wildlife corridor which extends beyond my lot 35 into the motel's lot the Mattituck Motel and I'm just talking history. I have been on this property since I want to say 1975 so in all that time until the new people put the fence on the back of the property there that was a corridor. People used to walk through there and wildlife went through there. So that's MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pardon me Ms. Gallow you're saying the gore was a corridor where people would walk. LINDA GALLOW : Yes actually people we would occasionally when we were kids would walk down Bartley Rd. and we would cut across that back area to get to our house which is on 34. So it was open to everyone. It acted as a gore which it does not now and that's the second part of my concern. My concern is, is that the current owners have put a fence that is a non-jumpable fence deer cannot go across it cause they can't see through it so they don't. So they have basically coopted that gore that used to be a common thoroughfare and so I have objection to that. I would like you to consider if you do grant this un merger so that 27 becomes a lot that someone can build on that you also rule that they cannot coopt the gore as it has been cooped now by the current owners. I have a strong feeling about that and had I realized that 27 and 28 were indeed two separate lots I might have said something that there was a gore there I might have said something but this gore is now come to my attention because of this hearing. So I would like you to consider that very strongly because I feel like as a gore and own lot 35 1 have as much right to access that piece of land as anybody else and I have the right to continue or to express the desire to continue Cook's legacy by allowing egress especially for wildlife because that wildlife now when I'm not at my house is the deer gathering place for my community and my property is showing the ravages of that. Now deer have to eat I get it so I'm not saying you know don't have the deer but I object strongly to that gore being blocked off and I would respectfully ask you to consider whatever your decision is in this regard if you do grant this lot 27 to be buildable that you have something in there that opens that gore up to common use as it is intended to be because it's not owned by anybody. I've spoken to the Assessor's office, I've August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting spoken to the person Mr. Woychuck who did this survey and he stands by his survey and that gore. So I would like to ask you to consider that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : How wide do you estimate that gore to be? LINDA GALLOW : On the map it looks like it's about 29 and %feet it narrows. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Which map are you talking about? LINDA GALLOW :That's at the north end excuse me MEMBER PLANANMENTO : Which map? LINDA GALLOW : I'm looking at the survey. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The Woychuk survey? LINDA GALLOW : Yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Because it doesn't illustrate a width. LINDA GALLOW : On the top half on the southern edge of lot 35 you can see that it's split into 29.25 and 30.55. Would you like to see MEMBER PLANAMENT : Would you mind showing me. LINDA GALLOW : Well on yours I agree it doesn't show it but on the one that was sent out to everyone it does. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick it's attached to the memorandum of law that we received. It looks like this. It points out both the 30.5 foot here MEMBER PLANAMENTO : This is the same survey that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes. It's pointing out this distance and then the gore is LINDA GALLOW : And if I may my last it's actually a question, I would like to know if the lot is granted as a buildable lot what is the setback because I'm not sure that the one story framed building on lot 28 1 mean that may be grandfathered in, I'm not sure if that conforms to current setback codes I would like to know what that is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's pre-existing non-conforming. It's perfectly legal because it pre- dated zoning. LINDA GALLOW : I agree with that but what would be the setback for 27? August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Probably ten foot on one side the side yards would have to be 10 feet on one side and 15 on the other and a front yard setback of 35 feet and a rear yard setback of 35 feet. LINDA GALLOW : Cause of course that's my concern too because my current building is also grandfathered in in that I don't believe it has 35 feet you know it might have the 15 on the side there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know who owns that fence that's on the rear of that property? LINDA GALLOW : My understanding is that it's the purchasers from the estate of Eddie and Marie Cook who erected that fence. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That would be Dana then. LINDA GALLOW : Yeah that's my understanding. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They put it up prior to the current owners who purchased it with a fence in place. I guess I can ask. LINDA GALLOW :That I cannot swear to that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know who owns that fence Ms. Gilmour do you own it? The one that runs by way in the back of that lot the undeveloped lot. VIRGINIA GILMOUR :The very back of that lot. There's a low fence in the back. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It says post chain link. LINDA GALLOW :There's a solid fence there. It says post chain link but it's a solid fence. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It says four foot high. VIRGINIA GILMOUR : The fence is just chain link low fence in the back when I had a dog and when I came there was a chain link fence as I'm facing the road Bartley standing on the lot. There was a chain link fence and then someone else put up later a stuck a wooden fence. LINDA GALLOW : If I go back there I cannot see into your backyard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :This is has little to do with the merger. No I got a copy I can see it. LINDA GALLOW : And I also want to say I appreciate your diligence especially since I'm 35 so I'm really part of that whole issue so I appreciate your statement. August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You own the deed to that LINDA GALLOW : Yes my sister and I, we don't own the hotel but we own 35 and the one to the east of it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So you have three lots? LINDA GALLOW : No I have two. I have 35 and I have 34. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And you access your property over lot 33? LINDA GALLOW : No I access my property over lot 34 and the additional lot that's to the east of that. I am not actually on Bay Ave. There is a house on Bay Ave. we share the driveway from Bay Ave. and that's how I access MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So you cross over lot 33 to gain access to your property? LINDA GALLOW : Is that 33 the one on Bay Ave. yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you . LINDA GALLOW : And that is owned by relatives of mine so it's never been a problem. Thank you very much for letting me speak. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're very welcome. Is there anyone else who wants to testify come to the mic and state your name please. MARY SINGLETON : Good afternoon, I'm Marylou Singleton. I'm at 2135 Marlene Lane. My property abuts the Gilmour property. Across the back of my property is a chain link fence which has been in existence for God knows how long. In front of that on my own property I erected a stockade fence for more privacy. My concern is the fact that this is quite a small lot and if you say there has to be 15 feet on one side and 10 on the other side okay that's 25 feet you're not building on exactly what is left to build a house on 25 feet? It's quite narrow. I have a major concern about the gore as was addressed here before because I have behind my house part of the gore and it is about 10 feet and as it goes north it gets wider to a point of maybe about 29 feet and my concern is that someone if granted this teeny lot decides that here is 10 feet more of useable space for me and starts to then use the gore. The gore my understanding according to a legal opinion that I had when we bought this house was, this is unusable this is fallow land. You cannot build on it, you cannot use it, it stays intact and that is fine with me. I am concerned that someone there who is you know cramped (inaudible) start to infringe upon the gore which I would not agree with. So I am supporting the findings of the Zoning Board in this matter. August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I should just point out that the gore is not shown as part of the ownership of property of lot 27. It's kind of no man's land MARY SINGLETON : Exactly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and that's the way it's on this survey and so that is not even remotely before this Board. MARY SINGLETON : But it does sit there with this lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes it does but to build anything should this waiver take place to build anything on that lot they would not be able to use or access or impede that particular area because it's not their property. Just so the neighborhood is kind of clear on that on the use of that and of course what I gave you was what the conforming building envelope would be if someone wanted to build a small little house that conformed to the code without any variances probably be the size of what we all used to live in called cottages which is what this area was about to begin with, they could do that. They could do it with a building permit. If they wanted to go outside of that building envelope they would get a Notice of Disapproval from the Building Department and they would be told they would have to come to this Board for a variance from the code if they didn't meet all the conforming setbacks. MARY SINGLETON : I see. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want the audience to understand how the law works that's all. MARY SINGLETON : And I too would like to thank you for your diligence in this matter, thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's what we're here for, anyone else? Please yes. JOSEPH HASPEL : I just want to briefly address, one of the gentlemen indicated that his property is conforming I think it's a pre-existing conforming. I think it's a pre-existing conforming, it's not a conforming under current zoning. I think current zoning requires 40,000 sq. ft. and there's no property anywhere near this property that's 40,000 feet. I would also like to ask to be introduced into the record a copy of the deed to the Snows as I indicated that lot is identical so if everybody wants to look at a good use of a small lot they could look at the Snow's lot. They did a lovely job in building that house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please yes thank you. JOSEPH HASPEL : And the fact that the Snows did this within the last decade or so indicates that okay twenty years indicates that that neighborhood is still building houses on that sized lot and August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting finally as part of the merger regulation there's an exception provision Sub C 6 which describes an exemption with respect to owners. It would seem to me that what the Board described as it's understanding of the waiver Sub A requirement in this provision are inconsistent with each other. You would not need a waiver if you are exempt under C 6 which is also why I thought that the A does not make sense as a standalone. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anyone, anything from the Board questions? Okay I guess we've heard about all we can so hearing no further questions of comments I'm going to 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? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7187— BRIAN and ELIZABETH WILHELM (CV) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Brian and Elizabeth Wilhelm (CV). This is request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's April 11, 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 35 feet, 2) less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet located at 220 Upper Shingle Hill Rd. on Fishers Island. Is someone here to represent the application? MR. LARK : Richard Lark Cutchogue New York for the applicant. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks like a front yard setback of 32.7 feet where the code requires 35 and a rear yard setback of 20 feet where the code requires 35. Is that correct? MR. LARK : Correct. I've been asked by the architect Sam Fitzgerald to represent him and his clients Brian and Elizabeth Wilhelm who I've spoken for the owners I'm presenting this August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting application before the Board. I believe the affidavits of mailing and posting have been properly filed is that correct? Okay. At the outset I would like to ask the Board a question, does everyone understand this application for the requested variances? The reason I say that, when Mr. Fitzgerald gave me the file with his drawings I was a little bit confused considering the way the Notice of Approval was written by the Building Department so if the Board has any questions please let me know and I'll try to explain which I'm going to try to do now the relief requested. Basically the applicant is seeking three variance. The proposed requested is shown on the application and the survey for Brian and Elizabeth Wilhelm by CMA Associates dated 4/12/18. What's nice about this survey is that the surveyor shows an interior triangle which pursuant to the Zoning Board is the legal building envelope showing the setbacks from the property lines. My point is that any part of the building inside the triangle is compliant with the zoning okay and anything outside the triangle is not compliant with the current zoning code. So the Building Department is treating the application as a non-conforming corner lot which it appears to be an effect a triangular corner lot. Technically it's a trapezoid but I agree with the purposes of this application it's triangular in shape. So under 280-A excuse me 280-106 of the zoning ordinance there are two front yards on the property. One on Lower Shingle Rd. and the other one Upper Shingle Road which leaves a rear yard along the land owned by Frank Lyon and others and an easement area for this lot and cottage C. The subject lot itself is 18,594 sq. ft. which of course makes it automatically a non-conforming lot and due to the zoning history of this basically non- conforming neighborhood which I'll get into I believe the Board is familiar with it because it has granted several other variance applications as the residents continue to upgrade their property. Clearly this is a non-conforming lot having been created prior to zoning. Under 280-124 of the zoning ordinance it's less than 20,000 sq. ft. and the zoning code therefore requires a front yard as the Chairman just said 35 feet and a rear yard setback of 35 feet and this particular property in effect has no side yards so here we go. So I'm presenting I'm going to give to the Board initially in Exhibit A cause like I said I was a little bit confused when the surveyor gave it to me if I may approach and I got one for each one which is basically an enhancement of the exhibit that you have before you. I've shown other features on that which I will discuss in a moment. As I said a revised copy of it's basically the same survey with additional information. I wish to point out that the to start with the 388 sq. ft. of the existing house which is built in believe it or not in 1895 is outside the building envelope and only 19.7 from the rear yard line so that's for starters. Therefore the existing residence set (inaudible) is 56% non-compliant with the zoning code. The first variance request is to add on to the existing porch to make it a wraparound porch. Parenthetically I've been told by the curator of the museum Pierce Rafferty that the house originally had a wraparound porch. Unfortunately 148 sq. ft. of this proposed porch and that's the one that map there that I just gave you. It's outside the permissible building envelope and will be 20 feet from the property line which is a variance request of 15 feet for this particular porch area from the required 35 feet. This in and of itself is a 43% percent relief from August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting the code. The second request is for a one story addition on the westerly side of the existing residence and the applicant is proposing to add move out or add 2 % feet from the existing structure. Again what's interesting, before any construction at all this area which is the existing entrance way and the kitchen portions of the kitchen area and you have that in the application the maps inside showing what's inside the house; the bedrooms, the kitchen, the bathrooms etc. is 118 sq. ft. outside of the permissible area in other words in the rear yard area in this particular case. This is primarily due to the angle of the rear property line in relation to the angle of the house and that's what caused that. The point being though from the zoning point, it's the nearest point is 22.1 the new proposal will be 22.1 to the rear property line which is a 12.9 foot variance being requested which again now is 37% relief from the code. However as I stated you have to keep in mind that the existing residence in the same within a few linear feet of one another where this is 22.1 would occur if it's moved out is already 19.7 feet from the property line so the proposal on the bump out of the house to add to the kitchen and the entryway is really a little bit less than the existing area of the house. The last request for the variance is on the easterly side of the house where there is a proposed second story bedroom and additional increased bathroom which will place 7 sq. ft. of the bedroom outside of the building envelope as the second story will only be 32.8 feet from the property line which is a 2.2 foot variance which represents a 6% relief from the zoning code. However the first floor of the second floor proposal a bedroom addition is already 32.8 feet from the property line and the first floor bedroom has a certificate of occupancy and I'm going to hand it up to for the record Z589 issued April 20, 1960. It was hard for me to get around these early dates. So the second story there is no in reality there's no increase in the encroachment in the front yard area. As I said we're only talking about a triangular a little shape of 7 sq. ft. which is actually encroaching in the front yard area. Now at this point to aid the Board and I think it will be hopefully it will be a good assistance to you, I want to give you if I can find them just bear with me for a moment oh here they go if I may approach I had the architect as Exhibit B and I got one for each member of the Board an architectural rendering of the roof lines and the elevations so that you can see what happens for kind of fun preferences the curator of the museum gave me a photograph from 1915 which shows (inaudible) the subject property and so you have it for the record since I didn't see it in Mr. Fitzgerald's presentation there's a C.O. for that first story bedroom that I talked about. I think that would be an assistance for the Board in looking at the application. This pretty well shows what is existing now I thought that important so that you can see exactly what's there. I know he did he (inaudible) a montage and he gave it to you in your application but you really don't get the sense of it until he puts it and accurately draws it which he's done there. You can see the elevations and the resulted roofline are rather dramatic and enhances not only the neighborhood but what was interesting to me when I compared it to some of the early photographs and the other variances that you have and the maps that you have it really it fits in, it blends in and really enhances the neighborhood in general. As I stated previously the August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting application is basically seeking these three variances and the Board is well aware an area variance involves no change in the essential character of the zone district if the neighborhood which is the case I believe before you in this enclave of non-conforming hotel cottages which have now been converted to individual ownership and are basically used as summer residences in this area. All of these residences in one form or another are non-conforming as far as the current zoning ordinances concerned so we're really in a sea of non-conformity here all over the place as we move forward. For the Board to determine whether or not to grant the variances you're required to balance the benefit to the applicant which is fairly obvious from reading Mr. Fitzgerald's application against any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. In applying the balancing test you're required to consider as you know the five criteria and town law 267 3B and at this time I'd like to go briefly through them because the application itself just touches on them that it doesn't deal and that's why I'm here from the zoning concept of a variance of what's required and that's why I want to spend a few minutes with you. The first factor is an undesirable change in the neighborhood or a detriment to any neighboring properties. In reviewing the application which involves the construction of the full wraparound porch, expanding the kitchen and entranceway area and adding the second story bedroom all these changes will not I submit to you will not incur any change to the residential aspect of the neighborhood. The proposed changes in elevations which you can have all before you are all looking at all compass points north, south, east and west you can see that it's a vast improvement from what's there and it is in keeping with the other houses in this neighborhood. As to the porch I've been told that the property originally had a wraparound porch but that was removed at some point. No one knows exactly when and we do know when that addition of that flat roof bedroom in the back was put on in 1960 but again the wraparound porch really improves the look of everything especially on that side of the house. The benefit sought by any other method, as I eluded to and discussed with you before considering this property any exterior improvement to the residence will almost automatically require a variance due to the size of the lot and the triangular limitations of the building envelope as shown and the Exhibit A before you. The bumping out of the entrance way and increasing the kitchen adding a second story when you (inaudible) the proposed elevation from any view shows an improvement and will add to the overall aesthetics of the neighborhood but again it requires a variance. It's a bonus eliminating that flat roof addition in the rear or the north part of the building rather the north side of the building that didn't fit in at all but when you look at the dramatic change when you add the second story bedroom and you incorporate the whole thing in it is really an improvement and almost brings it back to the original intent of those architectural lines of the cottages there and that is just a plus for the neighborhood. It is true that the kitchen and the second story changes improve the look of the entire house and again I submit add to the neighborhood. The bedroom the second story bedroom extending by 2.2 in the front yard is really not an increase in the sense that the existing first floor has the same 7 sq. ft. protruding August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting the same 2.2 so we have there's no increase in the request it's just on the second story rather than on the first which is already been granted when they granted the C.O. for that house which sits in that area. The interesting factor here is my discussion with you of the relief being substantial or not substantial. All proposals for the three variances when you take them together increase the coverage by 3.7% and the existing lot coverage according to the surveyor is 7.7 so you're increasing it to 11.4 and that's well within the 20% lot coverage. I don't know how you get 20% on this lot but that's what the zoning permit okay so I think we're okay on considering lot coverage. Two of the three variance requests could be considered mathematically substantial. The proposed front porch with the 20 foot setback is a 43% increase. However when you look as to where the 20 feet will be it's not any closer to the property line than the existing house which basically which is 19.7 feet from the property line in that rear yard area. So the proposed entranceway reduces the side yard at that point and again now moving on to the entranceway moves it to 22 feet which is 30% request relief from the zoning. Again I submit it's not substantial, when you take it out of a vacuum and you consider the house is presently in the rear yard area that same area is 19.7 and the requested variance actually is further 22.1 if we're getting into foot here foot there business but it's basically almost the same in fact it's a little bit less. The second story bedroom in the front yard the northeast side of the house is truly minor in that the 7 % sq. ft. intrusion into the front yard on this corner of the second story although outside the building envelope is minimal at best and the second story which is on top obviously of the first floor according to the drawing it's the same 32.8 or 2.2 which is .94% so again that is minor. Again you have to look at all three variance requests and it's not in a vacuum but in the context of not only what is being changed but what presently exists and take these changes into context of the neighborhood which has similar situations and considering the big picture I submit to you when you look at it as a whole it is really not substantial. Now the next factor that you have to consider is whether it will have adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions. Basically speaking I think the fourth element speaks for itself and then when you look at it and when you look at the neighborhood I don't think they'll be any adverse or physical impact in the environmental conditions. Looking at the drawings what the house is today and you have it there and what it will look like with all three variances granted comes to the conclusion this would be an enhancement of the neighborhood. Mr. Fitzgerald's proposal for the Wilhelm's it seem to be will be seamlessly intergraded and will match the architectural character of the neighborhood. As stated the house is already outside of the permissible building envelope so he had that to work with to start with and so I think taking in the composition everything that he did I think he did a pretty good job and this architectural revision is nothing more than an enhancement not only to the property but to the neighborhood and it makes a more practical and usable living space for the Wilhelm's. Now the last one which is the self-created difficulty can't argue. The difficulty is self- created. They want to enhance the property so they're causing the problem by asking for the August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting variances but as pointed out almost any type of improvement to this property will require a variance and considering its location and the triangular shape and the limited building envelope I believe the impact on the surrounding community considering the fact of self-hardship I do not believe great weight should be placed on this by the Board in considering whether to grant or not to grant this variance. Those as I see it are the five factors from a zoning point of view that the Board is required to consider for their balancing to determine if a variance should be granted. If the (inaudible) agree with the applicant and so that a variance should be granted then you have another balancing act to go through is this the very minimum that is necessary to accomplish the purpose and Mr. Fitzgerald when I spoke to him about this at length he said considering what the client's wanted to do in increasing their usable space inside this is the minimum he can do and achieve what they want in expanding in making it a workable kitchen and a second story bedroom as you see on the plan. This parenthetically as you notice there's no heat in the house so this is strictly a seasonal thing and I talked to the owners themselves the Wilhelm's and they have no intention of keeping it other than a seasonal situation for their family and especially their grandchildren children and grandchildren. So I'm well aware that the Board can add any reasonable condition in granting a minimum variance but unless someone can enlighten me I believe the drawings speak for themselves and it would appear that this variance should be granted as it is a conformity with the unique neighborhood and now (inaudible) that whole enclave by making that statement and I'm well aware that the Board has granted similar variances to other homes as they try to upgrade them and so thank you for your time. I don't really have anything else. I don't want to beat you to death it speaks for itself but you do have to go through what the statute requires you to go through, the exercise of considering all those factors and that's why I tried to lay them out in that fashion for you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well between your presentation and Sam's which is always incredibly thorough because it's hard for us to really see what's going on Fishers Island he does a wonderful job of documentation of you know as built additions. MR. LARK : He does. Those montages are great but I thought that other thing really added architecturally as to what it was going to be. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It helps on the survey that building envelope is like a snow cone. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Could we clarify the Notice of Disapproval is for two variances, Mr. Lark indicates three. MR. LARK : It really is three. When you look at the application that he's got before you it's three. I was confused as you with the Notice of Disapproval. August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I will tell you what's going on. What happens is they are taking the smallest setback that's proposed, the 20 foot rear yard setback even though the 22.3 in non- conforming they're only referring to the 20 because it's less non-conforming. MR. LARK : Oh okay that's where I was confused. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The assumption is if you grant 20 then you're granting 22.3 as moot. MR. LARK : I have to agree with that because that was my statement to Fitzgerald and he said no, no, no I want three and I said CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well he's right too. I mean not there are three non-conformities being proposed but they're taking the most severe case. MR. LARK : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So if you want it clarified we can write a decision that makes reference to all three of those non-conformities. MR. LARK : He would prefer that so when he goes for his building permit yeah CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that's not take note of that Rob would you? I think that's probably the way to go. We just make reference to what you did which are all the setbacks being requested and that will do it. Anyone in the audience wanting to address the application? We're going over to Fishers Island a bunch of us to actually see a number of these properties the Town Board meeting next week. He's a good architect. These are really, really excellent improvements in the massing of the house. The house will look a lot more like the other houses around it. Three front yards how do you like that one rear yard and no side yards. I'm going to make a motion hearing no other comments or questions to close this hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting HEARING #7168— MARGERY RIFKIN DAVID and REUBEN J. DAVID CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application Margery Rifkin David and Reuben J. David #7168. This is a continuation so there's no need to reread the Notice of Disapproval. When last we spoke you were going to go to the Building Department and investigate what options you might have had there and what happened? PAT MOORE : Well before I start let me just give you I did send you all a memorandum of law CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We got it. PAT MOORE : Good. There was a small typo because the case that I sited it was actually a daughter in law, a son in law and when Margery read it she thought I was describing her situation cause it's almost identical so I actually just crossed out need for a kosher kitchen so I meant a generic kosher kitchen so this I'll give you the revised. I just hand crossed it, it's not a (inaudible) change but since I was quoting the case I didn't want to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was a little confusing. I read it and I said wait, wait a minute it's case law already and it's not settled here. PAT MOORE : Believe it or not it's actually case law. There's been kosher kitchens requested in our lifetime before. So we can talk about that case secondarily but so we met with Mike Verity. He met with Mr. David and you were there also the three of us with Mike and I'll start off by saying that Mike interprets the calculation for an accessory apartment as exclusive of the lower floor. So he and when I pulled out the floor area livable he was remembering correctly that basements are not included except to the extent that their window space is less than 10%. In this case we have a full walkout. Let's assume that the way he's interpreted is the way it's always been interpreted. We would exceed and require a variance in order to put an accessory apartment on this floor as an alternative. The calculations exceeded 850 and the code says no more than 750 so size wise it would not work and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I thought it was 40% of the total house. PAT MOORE : Well it was no it is 40% yes 40% of the whole house but he's only calculating in the upper floor the upper floor is 1,200 so 40% was I forget the number off the top of my head but the 40% it just didn't the numbers did not come out and then when we looked at the way that the whole lower floor is set up it just doesn't work either because we have a house that's open. We have the stairway that goes down into access the room, the rooms that we would have to exclude in order to meet the size limitation we'd be blocking off the room like her office which is the room on the when you're looking at the floor plan identified as G you had gotten the floor plan with photographs and we identified each of the rooms; bottom line is that 1) August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting we'd need a variance because the 40% we'd exceed the 40% and 2) the layout of the entire lower floor it gets all screwed up they don't want to have to put in new walls. You'd have to change access points cause you have corridors that don't work so bottom line it was very it just wasn't a practical solution there and then we went and found the case law cause in the back of my mind I remembered that there was an old this was a relatively old case of a kosher kitchen and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What municipality was this in? PAT MOORE : It went up to the U.S. Supreme Court so I just don't recall CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Town of Ramapo. PAT MOORE : Thank you Town of Ramapo. Ramapo was always creating interesting law zoning law. Some of the older zoning cases started there but in any case but the law is still good. It's still sited as relevant law. The Sagaponick case used this particular interpretation also with respect to that you're not supposed to analyze an issue as to what if it was not used legally. You should look at it you know the four corners of what you're being presented. In this case we're presenting you straightforward out front, we want a single family house and the only thing we're asking for is that kosher stove that stove to cause the lower floor has the kosher kitchen setup. We did consider well could you put an extra stove upstairs, well practically 1) it doesn't work, her husband would have a fit pardon me because they've spent a fortune finishing the remodeling the kitchen upstairs, it's all done and it's been done for about four years. There's no space for it and all of the silverware, the cooking all the pots and pans are all on the lower floor the kosher kitchen portion so you'd have to carry everything up to put it into an oven that you can't fit anyway. So we've tried all the alternatives. I think as a matter of law the Building Department could have easily granted this as a matter of law allowing a kosher kitchen because you'd still only have a C.O. for single family dwelling. You follow the C.O. and your C.O. says a single family I don't care how many stoves you have. Let's say that you had a mini mansion and you had a kitchen that had a stove over here and you had another stove over there, well you wouldn't consider that a two family. That's all you know it's operating as a single family it's just a little mini mansion that somebody can afford numerous numbers of stoves or ovens or refrigerators whatever the case might be. In our case the Torklesons owned the house before. They put the stove in there. It was I don't want to say illegal because according to the case law it was not illegal it was being used as a single family and this was merely their summer kitchen. We bought the house and knew that and the David's are very honest people. They said no, no I want to make sure that this gets done legally and because they were in the process of renovating the house we said okay as part of your renovation and part of your permit process we'll go get a variance for this stove. So she did it the right way. She did it the honest way and August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting you'd have a lot of people that would have removed it, gotten their C.O. and just put it in. that's kind of what you're encouraging by not recognizing a single family residence that merely just wants a second stove. So I'm hoping that 1) you will send it back to the Building Department and say no according to the case law a stove does not mean you have a second dwelling if the entirety of the design and the entirety of the occupancy of the house is clearly single family use and your C.O. is going to say single family dwelling. That's the easy answer. If you must act on this as a variance okay we have no other alternative, we're trying to do this the legal way, we just want the stove and grant the variance. We're here, we've submitted all the work, all the expense has been done to get to this point so we're handing it off to you and saying please grant the variance. It's pretty much it's a pretty straightforward application as far as she wants a single family house that's it and that's why we came before you. I'll answer whatever questions you might have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well in granting a variance if we went by the Notice of Disapproval we're looking at an enormous variance PAT MOORE : Absolutely, we don't want an accessory apartment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and in fact site inspection showed all of us that this is not an apartment. It's clearly one house and I don't think anybody is arguing with that. The idea was is it feasible to create to keep that second kitchen cause it's more than just a stove now. The way you described it it's an actively used kitchen with dishes and PAT MOORE : Yes in accordance with kosher requirements. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know. So we just have to figure out which way to go with this. The obvious easiest answer would have been to remove the stove and put it upstairs because there's nobody that can tell you how many ovens you can have in a kitchen and it was the second kitchen that triggered this whole suggestion that this is an apartment because then it becomes a second dwelling. PAT MOORE : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we know it's not a second dwelling but we can't grant a variance that that's huge. The precedent would be absolutely horrendous. PAT MOORE : And that was my reaction. I wouldn't have come in with an application for an accessory apartment with that kind of variance. In fact I would have you know it would have had to be designed as in the renovation as an accessory apartment but they would have been designing something that they clearly do not want. So they'd be spending an awful a lot of money just to satisfy our interpretation of a stove. ';,y August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you did your due diligence. You went and found out what your options were and that's and now we got feedback. It's not feasible financially some other way to move that stove upstairs? PAT MOORE : No it's been renovated it's done. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here's the problem, case law may help but again once more variance relief doesn't allow us to personalize so you know it's possible to sell the house and then somebody comes in and they're not Kosher and they got a second kitchen and then they PAT MOORE : Well but that's not true because they would be buying it as a single family residence. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand but PAT MOORE : Assuming that that second family would be using it illegally which in fact they wouldn't because of the way it's set up should they want an accessory apartment then they'd have to come back to you and modify the whole lower floor as an accessory apartment so there is a method that a future owner could do it legally but with an expense of modifying the lower floor. The reality is that this is their second home, they're not going anywhere and it's not personal in the sense that it is a single family residence and the stove does not make per case law a two family or an accessory apartment so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think the Board would argue that it does. It just triggers they're pretty basic. PAT MOORE : Yeah the Building Department it's black and white. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here's a second kitchen, it's a second dwelling PAT MOORE : And that's why we're before you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They're not looking at the floor plan, they're not look at how the house is used. PAT MOORE : In your case you could do instead of a variance you send it back that given the facts and the circumstances this is not an accessory apartment done. Then we get we close out our C.O. and we have a single family dwelling, so if you don't want to act on it as a variance Mr. Duffy you will advise them of course you just you send it back that under these circumstances presented the layout it doesn't stop the future application that may look you know if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck that was the way the code enforcement would always answer me Mr. Forester that was his favorite line you will continue to get applications +;uu August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting that the Building Department deems requires your approval. I have one that I'm about to file that the Building Department said for a pool house, oh this is too nice. Too nice? If it's too nice it comes to you. So you'll be seeing one of those. It's not going to stop the Building Department from sending things to this Board but once you're here then you look at the totality of the facts, the design and everything and then at that point you can determine okay they've proven to us, they want a single family and the stove is not will not constitute the use of this as a two family. That's it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's explore the possibility of C. & R.'s. PAT MOORE : Yeah you can put (talking to her clients) no C.& R.'s covenants and restrictions saying that we're going to record something that says despite the second stove this is a single family dwelling. Not a problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not only that but the fact that again because this is a unique situation should the property be sold in future that the covenant would say this kosher kitchen is no longer required by the next owner and therefore that stove will have to be removed. PAT MOORE :That seems kind of harsh because T. A. DUFFY : I don't think we can do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have done it once not with a stove with a bathroom with a full bathroom in an accessory building for a very, very serious medical condition that we had testimony and medical documentation that it was very unique to the applicant who was using that as workspace, legally and wanted a needed a full bath and we put covenants and restrictions that okay but should you sell that property you go back to a half bath. Take the shower out and that was because it was very unique to the owner of that property and their particular need. We're going to have to muse on this. PAT MOORE : Are you guys going to talk about you muse away. We're willing to say that it is not a two family should it ever be made into an accessory apartment and needs approval from the Town or whatever the law is at the time. Ten, fifteen, twenty years from now who knows what the law is going to be. My only issue is a stove I mean just like the Torkelson's liked that summer kitchen it's a nice amenity and I'd hate to have a buyer say oh I really like that extra stove and then we'd have to come back to you and say can we remove the condition because we really like having a second stove when I do Thanksgiving I'm the one that receives you know all my guests and having two ovens is a great way to cook two turkeys. I mean it's as simple as that. I think the use is not an issue. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We first have to explore it on the record. I have to ask the questions. August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : No and I say we have no problem with the C. & R.'s says it's a single family, it is and that's how it would be sold as a single family house. I don't care what the amenity is it's still a single family dwelling in accordance with the C.O. period. T. A. DUFFY : I have a couple I think it's a technical issues but I'd just like to try and clarify it. the reality is you applied based on whatever the Building Department told you to do, you applied for an accessory apartment so you can come here and get the variance right? PAT MOORE : Yes I actually I think in my application I did say I did not agree with the analysis as far as being T. A. DUFFY : I don't know that's what I'm asking. If we didn't because now essentially it kind of amended the application or the request that now you want a stove returned I guess a determination that a second kitchen makes it a two family dwelling which essentially what you're asking for now. PAT MOORE : Yes that it's not correct. T. A. DUFFY : Right so if we didn't my only concern is we didn't notice that can we as part of our hearing can we grant that relief. PAT MOORE : I think so cause we're not because it's a much more intensive use to do an accessory apartment than to leave it as a single family with a stove. So we've actually noticed it with a much greater relief request than essentially what I'm saying or what I'm asking is overturn the Building Department's interpretation that we actually have an accessory apartment it's a single family. T. A. DUFFY : Is that what the Notice of Disapproval said? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah the Notice says that it's a it says the livable floor area of the as built accessory apartment is 90% of the livable floor area of the dwelling so it's supposed to be maximum 40% (inaudible) 91%. PAT MOORE : Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So they called it out as an accessory apartment. It is not now nor has it ever set up as an apartment, it doesn't have a separate entrance. PAT MOORE : Right and I actually I tried to go to the Building Department and tell them we're not an accessory apartment. T. A. DUFFY : So the application to the Building Department was just for a C.O. for the built kitchen and then August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Yes. T. A. DUFFY : Okay. PAT MOORE : Well we had an application for the C.O. but when they saw the stove they said sorry we're not going to give you your C.O. for your single family dwelling. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So here we are. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Could I ask a question and I heard at our last meeting and again today that there's no interest in that respect that you don't want to have an accessory apartment but that conversation in my mind's eye when I look at the plan it might be just an easy application. What makes it so complicated? PAT MOORE : Well 1) because Mike says it can't be greater than 40% of the well the code says 40% of the livable floor area. Livable floor area's defined term and Mike says the full second floor the first floor so one we need a variance for size. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I understand that and I don't mean for you to repeat things yeah but based on the floor plan as part of the application it seems very easy to end up with a one bedroom apartment. PAT MOORE : No it's actually well here let me walk you through the floor plan. If you have the floor plan in front of you? You have the stairs down, to get access to my clients it says here office studio okay you've got to go through the accessory apartment area to get access to that room so we would have to MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't mean to interrupt you it's all repeated I'm not intending to design anything but I highlighted I don't understand there's two different options cause there's so many doors and swings and you have to go through rooms you know this is probably in the 40% range. You have a simple either you put a simple partition wall this way or that way you end up with a one bedroom apartment. PAT MOORE : Well that's you have to actually put in a partition wall. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right I understand that but then you end up with a legal kitchen. PAT MOORE : But you're not just closing the door you're actually putting in a wall a new wall. But they're not intending to use it as this is a great room all open. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right L-shaped for the most part. , August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Exactly so you're asking them to spend I don't know maybe five thousand dollars more or less MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have no idea of a wall PAT MOORE : Sheetrock you know installation whatever else you have to do to put in a wall that the way they use their house what are they going to do get the C.O. for an apartment and then take down the wall because MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No and that's not what I'm suggesting but just PAT MOORE : Exactly it's not and then think about this when you get to this room you've got to go through MEMBER PLANAMENTO : A whole series or you go through all these rooms. PAT MOORE : These are storage rooms. They have utilities. This is a utility room, storage and utility room so you can't building code use one room to get to another one you'd have to actually develop a quarter you need a code compliant sorry so I have on the record you have to have actually create corridors to meet state code. You can't go through MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But then how do you get to for example and I don't want to cause a problem that doesn't exist so maybe I should stop (inaudible) but then you have to go through one room to get to the other room. PAT MOORE : Yes but the rooms you're going through don't have MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Are just storage. PAT MOORE : One is yeah there's one is no I was going to bring her up here MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't know if there's any point to have more of a dialogue you entered it PAT MOORE : The answer was it would have 1) required construction of walls, partitions just as you pointed out but then access to her office and access from the staircase because they use her office is part of the first floor access you have to go through the apartment to go into her office or design a corridor system and open walls to create the corridor to get to the office and it's going through her workshop and MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's four rooms you're basically walking through I understand that. August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on, bottom line is it's worth it if you want it. If you don't want it it's not worth it. PAT MOORE : It's a complete waste of money if you don't want it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you know if that's not the way you want to use your house then you shouldn't use your house that way. We asked you to go explore it because it would appear that you thought perhaps that would be useful for you to have an apartment. If in fact it's becoming a problem rather than something that's feasible we'll have to just drop that and we'll have to figure out what to do. I mean you explored it, we asked you to and you've come back to say it's not feasible for you. So we'll take it from there. I mean it isn't that you couldn't do it you can do it. PAT MOORE : No, no you can do anything with money enough money. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Again it may be an amenity that a lot of people would like but it may be something you don't care about. PAT MOORE : This is their year round home so for a family if you're chopping up and taking three quarters of your space to an accessory apartment this is not what they want. It's just a simple one and a half story in a sense because the half story is below. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience, anybody else up here want to say anything or ask anything before we close? Hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting HEARING #7177— BRIAN MORRISSEY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this next application is for Brian Morrissey #7177 and this is a continuation so we don't need to read the notice again into the record so where are we now? BRIAN MORRISSEY : Good afternoon everybody. This is the plan that I have that I received from the with the changes on it that you requested and these I blew up copies so that we CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : Oh good ancient eyes get to read the numbers. Okay so I think the issue was the shed seemingly was pretty innocuous the issue was the setback on your proposed covered porch and what do we have now? BRIAN MORRISSEY : Basically I want to build a sunroom that's not going to be heated. It's going to be you know a covered porch with windows on it and the setback is going to be exactly the same setback as the setback that the existing porch has except that it's going to be shifted over 5.3 feet do you see that there in the corner of the property? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 5.3 oh yes I see where it is. BRIAN MORRISSEY : Okay so if you look the existing covered porch that other line there, it runs on an angle it starts right on the corner of the house and runs on an angle and that's where you have the first 9.7 feet. In order for me to come out another 2 feet I had to shift it over 5 and a 1/3 feet to get that extra two feet in order to continue with the same setback that was granted on the porch. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is your amended survey showing side yard setback at 9.7 feet right? BRIAN MORRISSEY : Correct. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And I guess the original application was for 5.4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 5.4 instead of the 5.4 okay. Alright and your kitchen windows are still okay? BRIAN MORRISSEY : Basically you can the request that I would like is that you can look out the window and you'll be able to see if there's kids in the pool, if somebody is drowning you can run out and save them as the other way if the room is there you may it would be obstructed even with the windows. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the kitchen window is in front of that area where the stairs are from the deck? August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting BRIAN MORRISSEY : Correct. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good cause I know that was a concern for you. BRIAN MORRISSEY : And also a cooking issue too but more of CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Fumes and BRIAN MORRISSEY : More of the life threatening thing is greater. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do we need any other drawings or is this sufficient? The survey that you just submitted that still has the shed okay cause you gave us the blow up of the setback for the proposed porch. This is what we have to use this whole survey we stamp that so that the sheds included. BRIAN MORRISSEY : The shed is included in that too that hasn't changed. I blew the drawing up because the real question that we had was this 9 foot 7 inches. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, any questions from anybody? Sorry that you had to wait so long to do something so easy. BRIAN MORRISSEY :That's the only copy I have right now but I can send another one your way. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We keep one in our file and we have to stamp one and send it to the Building Department. BRIAN MORRISSEY :John has a couple more at the office that I can pick up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Just drop one off to Kim at the office. BRIAN MORRISSEY : Okay I know how to get there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from the Board, because you know we did thorough testimony the last time so this is just BRIAN MORRISSEY : Right you guys pretty much have all the information that you needed from the first one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we're fine. You explored what we talked about and you gave us a BRIAN MORRISSEY :Thank you so much and have a we'll be looking forward to your answer. August 2, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay we'll have a decision in two weeks, that's the next time we meet. Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) August 2 2018 Regular Meeting g g g CERTIFICATION I Elizabeth Sakarellos, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment and is a true and accurate record of Hearings. Signature Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : August 15, 2018 �4