Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-09/06/2018 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 September 6, 2018 9:35 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN -Chairperson/Member PATRICIA ACAMPORA— Member ERIC DANTES— Member ROBERT LEHNERT— Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO— Member KIM FUENTES— Board Assistant WILLIAM DUFFY—Town Attorney September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Alex Friedman # 7189 3, 4- 7 Michael Harkin # 7190 8 - 23 Peter Honig and Susan Honig# 7191 24- 25 Andreas Pfanner# 7192 26 -40 Donald Brennan, Cottage on Third, LLC# 7193 40-46 Martin Bancroft # 7194 47 - 56 Christian and Carol Zimmer# 7196 56 - 58 Elizabeth E. Macedonia and Theodore N. Papadopoulos# 7182 58— 60, 70—71 R. Bradford Burnham # 7181 61 - 70 September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting HEARING #7189—ALEX FRIEDMAN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board this morning is for Alex Friedman #7189. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's April 25, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to demolish a portion of a dwelling and construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet at 350 Macdonalds Road in Laurel. I think that is actually 455 if I'm not mistaken perhaps that can be clarified cause when I went out to do a site inspection clearly the survey and the elevations of the property noted on the dwelling itself a different number than what was sited here so I think we need to just make that correction. Is there someone here to represent this application? ELIZABETH MACEDONIO : My name is Elizabeth Macedonio, I have a matter on the calendar which was scheduled for 9:30 but the agenda shows it at 1 o'clock so I'm not sure if there was some confusion with the 9:30 appointment since no one is here for Alex Friedman. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I wonder myself. I wondered why I saw you this early in the morning. I don't know. The published agenda has it down for at the moment for 1 o'clock. MEMBER DANTES : What did it say on the Legal Notice? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Same thing. The Legal Notices have it down, where did you get the impression that it was 9:30? ELIZABETH MACEDONIO : That's the time that you told us to come back the last time we were here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have it down for 1 o'clock on the Legal Notice. I have no problem hearing ELIZABETH MACEDONIO : We're ready to go. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know but the problem is that if it's noticed at one and people show up assuming there's going to be public interest we will have to you know what we can do I got an idea, excuse me are you representing the Friedman application? Well I'll tell you what we'll do, we'll have to hear them and if we get depending on how the time goes if we can hear yours we can just hear it but I can't adjourn it. I'll have to leave it open in case someone shows up at one o'clock. ELIZABETH MACEDONIO : Okay thank you. September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have a choice to go and come back. T.A. DUFFY : I don't think you can do that because the public can't hear the presentation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright well counsel is advising that we really can't do that because the public has the right to listen to your testimony and not to repeat it so I'm afraid we can't accommodate you. I'm sorry about the mix up but we'll have to hear it at the time that it's posted. I do apologize. So I just read the Notice of Disapproval, you're representing the Friedman application would you come forward and BEGINNING OF FRIEDMAN #7189 HEARING ANTHONY PORTILLO : Good morning Board, my name is Anthony Portillo from AMP Architecture representing the Friedman residence 350 MacDonald Rd. in Mattituck New York 11952. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I want to get verification here, when I went out to do a site inspection as we all do prior to the a public hearing the elevations and the survey showed the subject property you know bordering on the right of way and the private road MacDonald that comes in to (inaudible) the address on the house said 455 not 350; 350 is next door. ANTHONY PORTILLO : There's two properties on the same lot. There's two residents on the same lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay how does that work? I guess it's Pre C.O. ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's been there a while. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Long time. Well but the subject dwelling is the one that is along the paper road correct? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Correct yes it's 12.8 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They just had different addresses. The one that is to the left of that is labeled as 350 and the one that's the subject's got a number on the house for 455. (SOMEONE FROM AUDIENCE) : inaudible CHAIRPPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah but on that dwelling there's a number posted 455 on the front of the house. ANTHONY PORTILLO :This is the address that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to be absolutely certain because these are technical legal September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes the building that we're speaking of is the one that is closer to the road. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That was pretty clear from the elevations. MEMBER DANTES : Wait Leslie, one is C.O.'d as one family dwelling with accessory shed and accessory garage attached to guest cottage so I guess the other address is the guest cottage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So one was a guest cottage. Okay well that's cleared up, the point is you're asking for a front yard setback of 12.8 feet where the code requires 40 feet. That would be from the right of way. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes ma'am. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The paper street. ANTHONY PORTILLO : So the existing residence has currently a second floor above that portion of the home that's encroaching. It has a gable A-frame type roof and what we're proposing is to remove that roof and basically straighten the walls out and do a flat roof. One is to allow for more square footage or useable square footage really the square footage is there, just due to the A-frame there's a headroom issue for Mr. Friedman and his family and just aesthetically the building itself but it's probably not you guys worry about but we did look at a few other cases that were heard by the Zoning Board in the area that had some front yard setback requests for a variance. One is case #4059 and they requested for a deck and an addition on the home and the setback was 23 foot 6 from the property line on the front yard and relief was granted in that case. Another one was 6875 and this was an existing home that was demolished and then put back and that was granted. It was a 33 feet setback I'm sorry 20 foot setback from the front yard that was granted. Again I mean the building is existing. We're not adding to the footprint and there is a second floor now so basically we're just requesting to build just straight and get full headroom above that portion of the home. CHAIRPERSON WIESMAN : It looks like the construction on the first floor is all interior just reorganizing the walls and the second floor extension you know is sort of full ceiling height for a roof that's higher and so on and it's all within the existing footprint. You're LWRP exempt and you're out of the jurisdiction of the Trustees. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's no cut, there's no fill removal, the vegetation 100 foot landward of the top of the bluff. Let's see if anyone has questions, Nick? September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah just a couple of questions. I wanted to learn more about the site if there'll be any removal of trees or anything. There were two quite beautiful trees I don't know the species of them that might be within the sightline of the proposed renovations, any plans for alterations of those trees? ANTHONY PORTILLO : From my knowledge no but I can ask the owner. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please come to the mic and just state your name for the record. ALEX FRIEDMAN : Alex Friedman nice to meet you. There is wild trees growing on the site that are not healthy. We had the landscaper come he will be removing those. All the healthy trees the tall trees we love we personally love the trees. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So specific in my mind's eye on the south side of your proposed renovation the larger of the two structures ALEX FRIEDMAN : Those are definitely staying. MEMBER PLANAMENT : There's I don't know what type of tree it is but it's really oh that was an oak tree, it had a beautiful canopy so I didn't know if ALEX FRIEDMAN : there are two of them MEMBER PLANAMENTO : One on each side of the house exactly. ALEX FRIEDMAN : One on each side no we love them and we're that's one of the reasons why we love the house so much those trees form like a nice beautiful shady (inaudible) around. There's also a tree I guess north which is completely hidden in all of the vine that's killing it running up we're going to save that tree also. It's also a big tree. It's probably a maple the landscaper thinks versus an oak, we're definitely keeping that tree and all of the big trees on the property. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just a question because I'm not familiar with the unnamed streets and how they behave but clearly the street just south of your home the proposed renovated site is really grassed over, it's sort of your lawn just merges with the neighbor to the south that has like a golf course on the front yard or a putting green. ALEX FRIEDMAN : Yeah it's their septic so they put a putting green on top of MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The neighbor to your south, but my question is relative to the who has access to use that road and are there any September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting ALEX FRIEDMAN : No one really. It's been grassed over historically Carol Ann and George took care of that and mowed it on behalf of the community but it's kind of merged in no one really uses it. There's no way to really get to the water from there it's all kind of MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's a little over grown there's rocks and bricks and other debris. Are there any covenants and restrictions within the neighborhood or formal association? ALEX FRIEDMAN : There's no formal association I don't believe no. There are ten houses so to speak ten owners and there's a very friendly association and informal one but people don't really like when we went there for the first time we didn't even know it was there and we had a meeting last week of the community members and people haven't really used it. Back in the old days you can kind of see there's still some broken down concrete in there and bricks and what was probably canoe launching poles fifty years ago they're all rotted out and rusted out so that's sort of still there but no one really uses that in the community so it's grassed over and you know we'll keep taking care of it going forward like George and Carol Ann did but no one really uses it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything, Pat, Eric? Anyone else in the audience wishing to address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing and 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. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting HEARING #7190— MICHAEL HARKIN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Michael Harkin #7190. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's April 24, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to relocate an existing accessory barn and a shed and to construct a new accessory building at 1) accessory barn to be relocated in other than the code required rear yard, 2) accessory shed to be relocated in other than the code required rear yard, 3) proposed accessory building to be located in other than the code required rear yard at 6175 Sound Ave. in Mattituck. I'm just going to indicate that Member Dantes is recused from this application and will be leaving the room for that reason. We were just about to make an announcement about that hold on. T.A. DUFFY : My office received a call from John Wagner, he's the attorney for the neighbors he's running late and I can attest that there's a lot of traffic on 25 today for construction so however you want to proceed. He'd like to be heard and have an opportunity to be heard I think we can wait or have you start and let him BILL GOGGINS : I have to be in County Court by 10:30. T.A. DUFFY : Do you want to let him start or do you want CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How would you like to proceed? Do you want to start BILL GOGGINS : Yeah if I could start that would be great. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Certainly hear his testimony we'll be sure that we don't close anything without him saying what he wants to say. BILL GOGGINS : Good morning William Goggins for the applicant 13235 Main Rd. Mattituck New York 11952. This is an application to get variances for relief from a rear yard setback side yard I'm sorry front yard setbacks. The property is accessed by Sound Ave. which has always been the access to this property. The house is build prior to zoning and it's a five acre parcel. Sometime in the 1980's Marilyn Gatz and her husband Walter Gatz bought the property behind them and made a minor subdivision and access to that minor subdivision is the private road that is to the east of the property. That previously was a farm access road for a farm in the back so this private road that was created by this minor subdivision was created by the neighbor Walter and Marilyn Gatz. There's a variance application because it's deemed a front yard and there's a lot of these in our town where houses are on a corner of two streets and they're deemed to have two front yards. Historically the front yard was always Sound Ave. It was never on the east side of the property where this private road was created back in 1984, 1985 so we'd like the variance to deem this a side yard as it has always been a side yard and that we would September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting agree to the setbacks that are for normal side yard setbacks which on a five acre parcel I believe it ten feet would be a setback on a side yard on that site. So we have a hoop house that we proposed located within ten feet of that private roadway and then we also have two sheds that we're asking to move out of the rear yard and move them it would still be in the rear yard (inaudible) for the side road that was created and the reason why they need to move those sheds is because where the shed is located the only flat part of the property so they'd like to move them so that they will be in an area that is sloping away from there so that Mr. Harkin can plant some crops up there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the code requires a rear yard as a conforming location so even if it was determined that this was a side yard it would still be a non-conforming location. BILL GOGGINS : Right, to make it conforming for a side yard CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're talking about a setback for a side yard but the location for an accessory structure in the side yard is not conforming to code. BILL GOGGINS : I understand and the assuming that Sound Ave is the front yard the location of the proposed (inaudible) building would be in the rear yard. MEMBER LEHNERT : I think she's talking about the framed barn marked as #2 just to the east of the house. Even if it was a side yard you'd still be in a side yard not a rear yard and the same with #3. BILL GOGGINS : We have #2 proposed location we would need to move that back behind the rear point of the house for it to be in the rear yard, is that accurate? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : To some extent. It depends on exactly where but the question I actually have that's I think more compelling is those two structures already exist in a conforming location why do you need to move them to a non-conforming location? BILL GOGGINS : Because of the topography of the property. The only flat portion on that property is in that rear area so Mr. Harkin wanted to clear that area out so he could use it for farming that part of the property. I don't think Mr. Harkin has an objection to move #2 more where it would be located behind the house so that would be more conforming. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well if both of them were moved if he insists what I want to make sure I understand what you're talking about; the area that's currently fenced in deer fencing that's what you want to be able to plant more extensively? BILL GOGGINS : Right. September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you want to remove those two structures to give yourself applicant to give himself more land back there to plant. Now there is no reason why both of those structures could not be moved outside of the deer fencing into a conforming location behind the subject dwelling. BILL GOGGINS :That is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That would actually take care of two variances right there. BILL GOGGINS : Right I understand. If I can have a moment. The reason why he located is because of the topography of the land but I mean he could possibly you know move them in a better location which would serve it but the optimum place to put it would be where he has proposed but it's only to be structure#2. MEMBER LEHNERT : Well if you're making the argument for the topography, we're not seeing any of that on the survey we were given. BILL GOGGINS : No I understand it's not a topographical survey. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you do know that we did each of us did a site inspection and walked the property so we saw what was there. BILL GOGGINS : There's a big gulley there in the front so anyway that's what we're asking for the variances for and you know the roadway is not to the east is not a substantial road that has a lot of traffic. It is solely used by Marilyn Gatz and Gatz Landscaping to access their properties. It's not used by the public and in fact if you drive by the property on Sound Ave. you've seen it there are two pillars and one pillar is for the Gatz so you drive by it looks like a private road and in fact they use it as a private road for access to their residences as well as their landscaping business. So again it's this road was created by Gatz for the subdivision and if that subdivision never happened then we really wouldn't be having this application other than to ask that the two sheds be moved in a less conforming area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's look for a moment at the proposed hoop house the 30 by 100 foot, that's a new building. BILL GOGGINS : Correct that's a new building. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There was at some point a 36 by 42 foot farm building that's not there now right? BILL GOGGINS : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's just the hoop house? September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting BILL GOGGINS : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's one new proposed accessory structure? BILL GOGGINS : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, that's a pretty big building and is there any reason why it can't be moved farther away from that right away than 10 feet cause it's not a side yard it's still considered a front yard and the code requires a I think it's 40 foot. BILL GOGGINS : 40 foot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's a huge variance. BILL GOGGINS : Yeah well we can reduce that to make it a ten foot variance to make it 30 foot from the property line if that would be acceptable to the Board that way it wouldn't be it would be a 25%variance not a much bigger one as we're requesting. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : To understand the use or rather to understand the site as you proposed these relocations and new additions can you share a little bit about the use because you're suggesting now to move the shed rather the hoop house 30 feet from the road as opposed to 40 what's the difference between putting it in a more conforming location or truly a conforming location? BILL GOGGINS : Well you know we'd like to keep it where it is but you know in the spirit of cooperation with the Board and to reduce the variance that we're requesting we'd be willing to move it you know an additional 20 feet from the road. It's going to impinge upon the rest of the property if we move it 30 feet and if we move it 40 feet it's going to further impinge so MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But what I'm getting after what I have a hard time looking at having been at the site also is the distances to walk between structure to structure you know for a house this is a huge effort and you know as the buildings currently sit and the rear yard they're all relatively close to one another which makes whatever the intended use might be a little bit easier for whoever is actually maintaining it whether it's the current owner or future so could you maybe elaborate a bit on the use? BILL GOGGINS : Of the hoop house? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The hoop house and all the structures I don't understand why they're kind of spread out across the property. BILL GOGGINS : He owns the property and he chooses to do certain things with the property whether it's farming or planting trees, whether it's having chickens or whatever and based September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting upon his view of how he wants to operate his property you know in the back portion where it's flat he wants to do mostly you know planting of stuff so he can grow and use it for a possible sale or farm stand or personal use and with anybody you know you want to kind of create open spaces in your yard and you want to put your structures away from the open spaces that you want and that what he chooses to do and you know this hoop house he's building is mostly for storage and it's not like it's different from what Gatz has in the back. They have a huge barn in the back which is bigger than this on their property so it's not like it's changing the neighborhood or impacting anybody. To the east is land that's been sold for the rights and there's Lieb Vineyards there, in the back is Gatz where they operate a landscaping business with a huge barn and equipment and so forth and Gatz has a private residence back there so the only people that use that road you know are them and they're the ones who created this road which is creating this situation. So you know as far as being self-created it's not and I don't really see any adverse impact for granting a variance for what we're asking for. It's certainly not substantial other than the ten feet that we're asking to come off from that east private road and we've already agreed that we would move it to 30 so it becomes not a substantial request. We ask that the variances be approved we would agree to move the hoop house instead of 10 feet off the line we'd move it to 30 feet. We'd like building proposed location of #4 to stay where it is and we're going to move proposed structure #2 behind the rear side of the house to make it more conforming or it would make it actually conforming and that's our application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if there are any other questions, Pat do you have any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Are there any plans then to create another ingress into the property on that eastern side? BILL GOGGINS : Not right now but there is which I learned yesterday there is litigation between Gatz and Harkin. Gatz commenced an action against Harkin regarding access specific access on that side and I don't really know that much about the suit except from what I read in the complaint last night and it indicates that Gatz doesn't want Harkin accessing it's property at all from the side and Harkin since it's a road he has access so you can't have it both ways. You have Gatz saying well it's a private road and now it's deemed a front yard and it's a road yet it's our private road and you can't use it. I have the copy of the subdivision map which I will give to the Board as well as pictures of the entrance and a copy of the subdivision map and also an aerial view of the Gatz barn. As you can see from the phots of the entrance it appears to be a private driveway exclusively for Gatz and as I said before if you drive by it looks like a private driveway and that's essentially what it's used for. The whole reason to have setbacks in this town was so that it would be a normal process of development of properties and they want a building September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting setback from roads this has become really a private driveway. So I don't think it deserves the same scrutiny as an actual public road or a private road that is used by the general public. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you're saying the only this right of way leads only to the one dwelling? BILL GOGGINS : No it leads to two properties owned by Gatz and another property owned by somebody named Platt. Platt owns two properties. If you look on the subdivision map Platt owns lots 1 and 4 and 1 and 4 is one is next to Harkin's property on Sound Ave. and 4 is on Sound Ave next to Harkin, 1 is north so the property north also has access to the right of way but it's not used. Platt only uses his driveway from Sound Ave. So again the only people that use this roadway is Gatz and Gatz his business called Gatz Landscaping on a residential parcel. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone who would like to address the Board in the audience? Oh I'm sorry counsel wanted to T.A. DUFFY : Bill I saw that there's a concrete driveway from that private road, does your client ever need deeded rights to the (inaudible) BILL GOGGINS : Yes according to the deed it says right to pass and repass and I think this litigation is about what are the rights of Harkin to use that road cause it's a fifty foot wide right of way and I think only twenty foot of it is paved and that's the (inaudible) in question is who has the right to do what and if it's a fifty foot right of way you know it's the age old thing people fight about all the time. I want to use the whole fifty feet or you can't use any of it or you can use twenty feet of it cause that's the traveled portion but in Mr. Harkin's deed it clearly gives him the right to pass and repass. It is silent as to whether he can access his property from that side of the right of way and I'm guessing the attorney that's here for the Gatz family can (inaudible) T.A. DUFFY : It's important to this Board's determination because the definition of front yard is if they don't have access to a private road then it's not considered a front yard but if they do then it is considered a front yard. BILL GOGGINS : Well that's the Gatz position in the litigation a verified complaint where Gatz swears that you know it's their position that Harkin does not have access to that road. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you like to take the podium please and state your name. JOHN WAGNER : Good morning members of the Board my name is John Wagner. I'm an attorney with Certilman Balin Adler and Hyman offices at 100 Motor Pkwy. Suite 156 Hauppauge New York appearing today on behalf of Gatz Enterprises LLC which is the owner of September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting tax lot 1000-121-1-4.6 which is located immediately north of the subject property. I'm also appearing on behalf of Marilyn Gatz who is present today in the audience. Marilyn Gatz is the owner of tax lot 1000-121-1-4.7 which is in fact the subdivision access road that runs along the easterly side of the subject property and she's also the owner of parcel 1000-121-7-22 which is actually the Gatz house parcel which is part of the subdivision in question and lies north of the subject property that's here today and has by way its sole access by means of this subdivision access road that we're talking about. As the Board has noted in their questioning and as it appears from the Notice of Disapproval and also from the town code the parcel in question the Harkin parcel actually has two front yards as defined by zoning. Has two front lot lines, one is on Sound Ave. and the other is on the subdivision access road owned by Mrs. Gatz as I stated earlier which is to the east of the subject parcel. Now I should point out that that subdivision road is actually shown on the minor subdivision of Green Pastures which was approved by this town's Planning Board on December 14, 1987. 1 have with me today a photo copy of the subdivision in question. I submit it for purposes I'll submit both of these when I'm done but I submit it for purposes of showing that this is in fact a subdivision road and therefore under the definition in the town code that easterly property line of the subject property does in fact constitute a front lot line and a front yard is measured from there as is a rear yard. So moving on we're here today on area variance application as the Board is well aware variance requested which is from Section 280-15 of the town code is governed by the principals and the criteria in town law Section 267-B it's the Gatz' position that this application should be denied because the applicant has completely failed to meet the criteria for grant of an area variance under those statutory provisions. To elaborate three things can be covered at once. One is that this requested variance application will in fact produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and a detriment to nearby properties would result from the requested variances. In addition the variances would have an adverse effect on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood and thirdly the variances that are being requested are actually quite substantial which is one of our criterion in the statutory requirements for grant of an area variance. Now to explain what I just said and to put some meat on the bones so to speak I point out initially that the application has been filed with the Board purports to answer a number of the questions that are germane to these criteria that I just mentioned to you the answer is really sort of missed the mark. With regard to the issue of substantiality if there is in fact no answer in the application it's just left blank probably for obvious reasons which I will explain. Under the AC district which contains this property a 60 foot front yard is required under the town code and is in fact required along the Gatz subdivision access road as I mentioned earlier on the easterly line of the subject property. This proposed 30 foot wide by 100 foot long hoop house is not only within that front yard but it's proposed to be only possibly 10 feet from the Gatz subdivision access road and it's proposed to be at that distance along the entire 100 foot length of that building. I should point out also the September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting building as represented in the application is 21 feet high and again runs at that height for the entire 100 foot length along the property line and the Gatz' access road. That access road by the way is not only owned by Mrs. Gatz as the survivor of her husband (inaudible) it was originally owned by Walter and Marilyn Gatz but Mr. Gatz passed away this past spring so it's now owned entirely by Marilyn Gatz. That is in fact the exclusive access that Mrs. Gatz and her family have both to the Gatz house which is to the north on that last parcel I mentioned earlier and also the Gatz business which lies just north of the subject property and this 100 foot long hoop house is effectively going to present a wall of building directly along the access road with virtually no separation from the property line itself. I should also point out that the applicant has himself increased the substantiality of this proposed variance and it's impacts on both the neighborhood and the environment. He's done so by destroying all the originally existing screening vegetation that was along the subject access road and in fact within the subdivision access road. So this 21 foot high 100 foot long hoop house will be in plain view of the Gatz' or anyone else using the subdivision access road as well as I might point out other neighbors lying to the east of the subdivision access road. Now I have some photos that I brought with me today if you don't mind I'm going to hand both of these up now. The first thing is the copy of the subdivision I mentioned earlier and these are some photos that were taken in August of last year showing the actual removal of the pre-existing trees and shrubs and other vegetation that existed along the easterly line of the subject property. Those are actually for you, you can take them. All those pictures were taken about the same time. As counsel mentioned earlier there is in fact pending litigation regarding the use of that right of way by the Harkin parcel. My firm is counsel in that litigation on behalf of the Gatz' so I'm intimately familiar with the litigation. I can tell you it was not correctly described by counsel. The reason the litigation was commenced and still pending in Supreme Court was that there was removal as you see from those photos of all the existing vegetation along the easterly property line of the Harkin property thereby removing all the natural screening that existed there and also within the right of way BILL GOGGINS : Speaking from the audience (inaudible) JOHN WAGNER : Well I'm sorry you brought up the litigation and you misstated it so the reason the other removal that took place was vegetation within the subdivision access road itself. If the Board has been out there and has looked around you know that although the access road is 50 feet wide on paper. It was actually only open to a width about 20 feet. The rest of that width on the westerly side which is the side adjacent to Harkin was actually treed and shrubbed and all that vegetation was removed without the consent of the Gatz'. They objected to it and eventually came to my office and we commenced litigation to stop further removal from taking place. As it stands today the vegetation is substantially gone and there is no screening and that just exacerbates the problem of the requested variance because the building is totally exposed if they put it in that location. Moving along with the criteria under town law 267B, there are in September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting fact feasible alternatives for this applicant to pursue other than the variances that are being requested. First of all the applicant can locate this proposed hoop house within either of the substantial 75 foot rear yard that exist along the west and the north lines of the Harkin property. That's the area so the property that are opposite the two street frontages. As you can see from the survey submitted there is ample room there for location of these structures. So they don't even need the variance that they are asking for because they can place these structures within the rear yard as the code requires. In fact the applicant can easily leave the existing barn and the shed where they are which is their pre-existing condition or they can relocate them easily within the two 75 foot rear yards I mentioned. Now I should point out that not only is the 21 foot high roughly 3,000 square foot hoop house not proposed in the rear yard as required by the town code, it's actually proposed to be built well into the required 60 foot easterly front yard on the subject parcel. In fact that house the hoop house is proposed to be located for its entire 100 foot length only about 10 feet from the front lot line of the Gatz subdivision road as I mentioned earlier and as I pointed earlier the applicant has itself exacerbated the substantiality of the variance. Last criterion is self-created hardship, this is truly a self-created situation. There is no need for a 100 foot long hoop house let alone one that is located in a front yard only about 10 feet from the adjoining subdivision access street. If they want to have a hoop house they have a place on the property where to put it where it would be fully conforming with zoning in a rear yard. There's also no need for this applicant to relocate the existing barn or a shed at all let alone to non-conforming locations outside the 75 foot rear yards which are quite substantial along the western (inaudible) lines of the subject parcel. Based upon all of these non-conformities with the applicable criteria for grant of area variances I cannot see how this Board can conclude that the benefit to the applicant outweighs the detriment to the neighborhood or community that will be created by the granting of these variances. I would also point out that under these circumstances where the applicant has completely failed to (inaudible) the criteria for the variance you would be setting a terrible precedent to grant an application under such circumstances. The last thing I would point out is that one of the other statutory criteria is kind of outside the list is that this Board is required to grant the minimum variance that is necessary to alleviate the alleged difficulty and as I pointed out for numerous reasons this is not the minimum variance. The minimum variance is no variance okay. They're asking for very substantial variances even with the proposed modifications as I mentioned earlier. One last thing which is about the litigation, the Harkin parcel abuts the subdivision access road on the westerly side, there is a deeded right of access to that subdivision road. There was originally a drive through from the Harkin parcel up at the north easterly corner of the Harkin property to get on to the subdivision road, that was the agree upon access to get out onto that road. Nobody was denying the Harkin's access. What they decided to do was clear cut the entire length of their easterly property line and also go onto Mrs. Gatz' roadway and take her trees down as well. That's what started the lawsuit. September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting That's what the lawsuit is all about. It's to declare what the rights are. No one is saying that the Harkins do not have a right to use that road but they have exceeded that right by miles and miles and that's what the lawsuit is about and it was also to protect whatever trees we could to keep them there. The only last thing I would say is that there is a technical defect in the application in that the Harkin parcel is in fact owned by Mr. and Mrs. Harkin, husband and wife and Monica Harkin is not a co-applicant nor has she filled out a disclosure statement filed with this application so procedurally the application is defective as submitted. Do you have any questions? T.A. DUFFY : Did Mr. Harkin answer in the Supreme Court litigation? JOHN WAGNER : He has answered and there are motions pending before the court right now. T.A. DUFFY : Could you provide me with a copy of the complaint and the answer? JOHN WAGNER : I have one here. I can give you the complaint right now. I can provide you with the rest of it later. T.A. DUFFY : Alright. JOHN WAGNER : I'm just handing this up. Thank you for your attention. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience anyone else? MEMBER LEHNERT : Leslie I have a question. So you're asserting that this is a private road that he has a right of way over? JOHN WAGNER : The Harkin (inaudible) title includes a grant of a right to pass and repass over that roadway that's correct. MEMBER LEHNERT : But that is technically a private road? JOHN WAGNER : Well it's a subdivision road that was shown on the minor subdivision. I mean effectively it says on the subdivision and you can see from the copy, private road but it is created to provide access to the interior parcels for the minor subdivision and it's actually used by Gatz to get back and forth to the house. MEMBER LEHNERT : It's not a town road. JOHN WAGNER : It's not a town road but it's not required to be a town road under the code. T.A. DUFFY : I think that's the answer he was trying to see, if a town road or a privately owned. JOHN WAGNER : No it's not town owned, it's not town maintained but it is a subdivision road. September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting BILL GOGGINS : I have one question that I don't think was answered and that was is it the Gatz position that Harkin has access to its property all along that road or not because if it's the Gatz' position that he does not have access Mr. Harkin doesn't have access to his property from that road then you know it's not deemed a road it's deemed a driveway as far as the Harkin family is concerned so if he could answer that counsel could answer that question as to what their position is with regard to Mr. Harkin's access because if he has access all along that road to his property then it's a road and that's a little bit different but if Gatz' position is they don't have access to their property from that road and that's what they're fighting in Supreme Court and that's what they believe then it's not a road at all it's in fact a driveway. T.A. DUFFY : Well I think it's also a matter of what type of access. I don't think he's I think their complaint is more that he doesn't have the right to remove vegetation or he might different types of access he may be able to pass over a road but it doesn't mean you have the ability to maintain it or remove trees. BILL GOGGINS : Which is a separate issue. I mean the issue here is what is the use of this road and if it's Gatz' position that Harkin has no access to Harkin's property from this road then what is it? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let's get clarification. MEMBER LEHNERT : Do we have a copy of his deed? JOHN WAGNER : I believe a copy of the deed is attached to the complaint I just handed up. It's together with the clause and the deed it talks about the right of access, the question that's going to be determined by the court and is still before the court at this moment is what the extent of the access is to that road. It's the Gatz' position that there's a right there but it does not include a right along the entire property line. It's a right of reasonable access out to that road which is what actually had been agreed upon on the northeast corner and also the right of access does not include the right to clear cut a property adjacent to you. That's what the dispute's all about. Just to refocus a little bit the reason this is a front yard again is because I don't think anybody can dispute that that driveway or access way whatever you want to call it is a road that was shown and is necessary for access to the other lots in the subdivision. It's shown on the subdivision approved by this town and that's what kicks the definition in and makes that a front lot line and creates a front yard and a rear yard measured from that easterly property line. T.A. DUFFY : Are you familiar with the definition with front yard though in the town code because it specifically says if they don't have a right to travel over the road then it's not considered a front yard for that purpose. 0 September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting JOHN WAGNER : I did not see that. It says I think I have the definition here, it says that it's a line a lot line along a street or a road I believe it says and that's what it's measured from. The real issue here is you know the reason they're here today is cause they're trying to do things outside the rear yard and T.A. DUFFY : Well you weren't here in the beginning, part of Mr. Goggins argument was that it's actually more of a side yard than a front yard and that's why I was trying to make this distinction of right of way over the road because to me the way I read the definition of front yard if he didn't have a right over it, it would be a side yard it wouldn't be a front yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It sounds to me that both attorneys are indicating that Harking has a right to use that driveway. JOHN WAGNER : Yes there is some right to get onto that road that's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think both of you are arguing the same thing that in fact he has access to that road. JOHN WAGNER : Just the extent of that access that's an issue. Do you have any other questions while I'm here? T.A. DUFFY : I have a question for Mr. Goggins. Bill I just want to get back quickly to the topography issue. I drive by there every day and it seems like your client was filling in some of the gullied areas. Is he done doing that? BILL GOGGINS : He had cleared some trees he wasn't filling in. T.A. DUFFY :There was material brought into that property no doubt. BILL GOGGINS : He can testify to that and also as to the removal of any brush. MR. HARKIN I just want to make clear that no vegetation was removed from the Gatz' property that it was only mine that was vines and underbrush things like that and as far as the front I cleared. There's going to be a grape field grape vines. T.A. DUFFY : My point is are you done clearing and are you done bringing MR. HARKIN : Yes. T.A. DUFFY : Can I finish my September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting MR. HARKIN : Yes I'm happy with what I got. I am going to add to the front to level it some more but I'm waiting for the manure to mature. I have grapes already growing in the back that I'm going to transplant and put up front. T.A. DUFFY : So you're not going to fill in the rest of that property? MR. HARKIN : No. T.A. DUFFY : Are you willing to covenant that to this Board that you're not going to continue to fill in the property? MR. HARKIN : There is the one field after the depression that I have to level but all of the material that I'm going to use is already on the property and I'll put it you know I'm willing to when you say covenant I don't know what you mean but T.A. DUFFY : Well your attorney can explain that to you. MR. HARKIN TALKING WITH HIS ATTORNEY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please just state your name into the record and speak into the microphone. MARILYN GATZ : My name is Marilyn Gatz and I am the owner of the road and the subdivision that I a four lot subdivision that my husband and I created. When we created the subdivision we well actually we owned the house that he's living in and after we purchased that piece of property we sold it about an hour later to the (inaudible) and they wanted a walk through onto my road and so we gave it to them and it was on the north end of my subdivision road and never had a problem with it at all ever. There is no right of way for them to go across my property to get to that road other than that 50 foot right of way and that's where they can go and I understand that if he puts this up he will be carrying on with this business and whatever he's going to do through my yard. I don't believe that's the intent and the only reason he can't build this hoop house is his whole piece of property is filled with horse manure and I'm 5 foot and he's put about 3 to 5 feet of horse manure all over his property which has made us so sick. It's as high as I am and he's spread it all over his property, rats it's a terrible scene over there and I would like to ascertain my line and I want to put a fence up from my entrance to that 50 foot right of way which I am definitely going to let him use and that's all and not coming out all over my property and yes I want all the plant material that he cut out, dug out with the roots, killed everything all my flowers everything he did it in defiance of us my husband and I and I do not think that this should go ahead as it stands. That's why I have another lawsuit because he's caused me a lot of problems and money. Thank you. September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was just going to ask if you would clarify you mentioned a 50 foot right of way and I don't know if this is the same question as the Chairwoman was going to ask but the unimproved road the access to your properties in the back runs north to south it's approximately 20 feet wide even though there's a 50 foot width. MRS. GATZ : Yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Now you mentioned that in the northeast corner where there was originally this foot path or whatever is that where you're talking about a 50 foot right of way? So they only have 50 feet access to use that road? MRS. GATZ : No what I'm saying is when we subdivided it and I signed the papers stating that his property wasn't his then was not part of my subdivision at all cause that would have made it a five lot subdivision. So I signed the paper with the Town of Southold stating that I have a four lot subdivision and that does not include his property and that the right of way that I was going to give that lot the Pafalls was a walk through and it's 50 foot wide. I don't know why I made it 50 foot wide but I did and consequently he can come out there if he wants to with his car or he can walk through there. MEMBER PALANEMTO : That's my question just for clarification, the 50 foot wide right of way is that actually the entire lane? MRS. GATZ : No gosh no. It's not the whole road. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Could you approach please cause there's something on the survey I was going to ask the same thing. There's something on this survey that shows a (inaudible) driveway and the northwest corner MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Northeast. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of their property yes but it's here let me show you right there in that corner you can come and have a look as well. It's a survey that you provided us with. MRS. GATZ : (Going over the survey) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just note that Mrs. Gatz and her attorney are speaking to each other at the moment. MRS. GATZ : See where it says earth driveway? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes that's what I'm asking about. September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting MRS. GATZ : That is the 50 foot that I gave that piece of property to come out from my road that's all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what I was asking about because I believe you made reference to it and I just wanted to see if that was what you were talking about. MRS. GATZ : Nothing else on this side at all. JOHN WAGNER : Just for the record, what Mrs. Gatz was just referring to is the pasture I mentioned earlier in the northeast corner of the property there is in fact no title document or instrument that describes as being 50 feet wide. It is what it is as shown on the survey. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I don't see 50 foot JOHN WAGNER : There is no 50 foot yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a pass through that was granted for access to the right of way. JOHN WAGNER : Actually what that what's on there it actually existed prior to the clearing that took place and it's my understanding that it was that access way was what was agreed to between the owners of the subject property and the Gatz' for how they could get out to that roadway. That was their access way not the entire length but in that northeast corner. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in the audience. BILL GOGGINS : Again it shows that (inaudible) a driveway. There's nothing filed as far as I know as Mr. Wagner can let us know that that is in fact an access whether it's an easement or whatever it is. I think it just shows a dirt driveway on a survey. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome. Anything from the Board, questions? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have a question for our attorney. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you need to do this in executive session? MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah it's a quick little question. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright do you want to do this in executive session alright I'm going to make a motion to recess to executive session. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Since there's so many of you here we will really be back in one minute. We already exited executive session out there so we can resume. Is there anything from anyone else in the audience either counsel that you would like us to know? BILL GOGGINS : One last thing the building #2 Mr. Harkin said the reason why he wanted that building there is because it's at the edge of where the land drops off and at some point you know he was going to put a basement under that and use as like a wine cellar and that's why he located that building there cause it doesn't make sense that he would just put it right in the middle but he just told me that's where he was going to have his wine cellar and make like a I guess a brick or a rock entrance so it's naturally it would be on the edge of the cliff so he would just have the basement go in (inaudible) southern exposure be like coming in from that side and that's why he put it there. If he moved it back then it wouldn't be on the edge of where it kind of slopes down. Other than that his wife's name is Monica and it is true we didn't I didn't realize that she was also on the deed. We're willing to amend and do whatever it takes to fix that technical defect thank you she's here today. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nothing else, anything from the Board? Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting HEARING #7191— PETER HONIG and SUSAN HONIG CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Peter Honig and Susan Honig #7191. This is a request for a variance from 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 demolish an existing accessory garage and construct a new accessory garage at 1) located in other than the code required rear yard at 745 Watersedge Way (adj. to Hog Neck Bay) in Southold. NANCY STEELMAN : Nancy Steelman, Samuels and Steelman Architects. I think this is a relatively straightforward application. This is a proposal for a new two car garage in the side yard. We are demolishing an existing garage, one car and we've studied a variety of locations and where we could place this. We decided that the best location was in the general vicinity of the existing garage. We would be required to if we moved it to the front yard which would be allowed to by code because we are on the water we would be encroaching on the front yard setback so we felt that being in the side yard where the existing garage was located was the best option here. So I can answer any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are there any plans for heat or second floor or NANCY STEELMAN : There is storage on the second floor. Currently there is a flat roof on the existing garage. We have a gabled roof structure on this now and it will be storage there but no heat and no second floor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No half bath, no NANCY STEELMAN : No half bath. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No plumbing. NANCY STEELMAN : No plumbing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Just electric. NANCY STEELMAN : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're proposing a 10 foot side yard, what's the existing one car garage the setback on that? NANCY STEELMAN : I don't actually have that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Probably about 20. September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting NANCY STEELMAN : I think it's about 19 feet actually cause we're adding 9 feet to that edge. MEMBER LEHNERT : Nineteen feet it says on the survey. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so part of this has to do with the setback from the bulkhead. NANCY STEELMAN : Yes we are maintaining the existing water's edge where the existing garage is now and we would not be able to locate it any closer into the water and we would still be maintaining the we'd still be in that side yard if we brought it closer to the water and we would be in the front yard setback if we moved it any closer to the street. MEMBER DANTES : What is the code conforming front yard setback there? NANCY STEELMAN : Thirty five feet. You see it there on my site plan there for principal structure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The side yard is also conforming. I believe it's a 10 foot so it's just a matter of side yard location. NANCY STEELMAN : We're in the side yard relative to the existing building the existing house we're in the side yard area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's just the location. NANCY STEELMAN : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from anybody on the Board any other questions about this? Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the application? Good, hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7192—ANDREAS PFANNER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Andreas Pfanner#7192. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's May 8, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct an accessory garage at 1) located in other than the code required rear yard at 2725 Harbor Lane in Cutchogue. MIKE KIMACK : Good morning Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant. The request is for an accessory garage on a piece of property that inevitably has two front yards which you have dealt with on many occasions before so no matter what occurs with the location of an accessory garage there will always be the need for a variance. The location that was chosen for this accessory garage is in an area where there are other two accessory buildings one of which you have given a permit for perhaps about a year or two ago if I can recall. It's a logical location on this particular piece because the size and the shape of the building primarily it's a shed type of a roof structure. It's 12 feet in the back and 16 feet in the front and it's up against on Oak St. it's up against the whole line of 12 foot to 14 foot high laurels so it really from a line of sight from Oak St. immediately it's not going to be visible at all and it's way, way back and from the other street primarily from Harbor Lane the proposed building is way in the back section so from a visibility point of view it would not necessarily pose any type of a line of sight restriction. The owner would like to be able to have the accessory building for two purposes. He is a car collector and he already is utilizing the variance building that you gave the last time for part of his collection and he would like to be able to put three cars into this one as much as three cars. If you would notice on the design it has a full basement and the other part of what he would like to do is that's for his wine cellar down below. It is a 750 square foot building. It's designed for the property. You can see the rather odd characteristic a trapezoidal side over there in order to turn it properly. It's location is such that if you can see the driveway coming off of Oak St. basically its location is such that it allows you to swing past the wood storage shed and be able to swing into the garage area. It's really the only way that you can access it with that location of the building back there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mike this gets a little complicated, I remember this very well this application. There is an let's just go over what's already built on the property. So we have near the dwelling a garage an existing garage that's you know you access through Harbor Lane okay MIKE KIMACK : Correct. September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and then this is sort of this you know narrow waist we'll call it that goes over to the other part of the through lot MIKE KIMACK : At one time it was two separate lots and then I can remember that it was all merged. It's an odd shaped piece of property. It's probably the largest one along Oak St. and along Harbor Lane in terms of size magnitude. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay but I want to understand because I've looked at Mark Schwartz' drawings and I'm a little confused. It's already built it's there. MIKE KIMACK : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are we talking about where the stakes are? MIKE KIMACK : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what I'm asking because there is a building that looks just like the photographs that's already on the property. MIKE KI MACK :That was approved by variance about two years ago. Let me see. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right here is the building that's got that shed roof. This one was also approved and it was supposed to be demolished should it ever become deteriorated and this has been renovated and according to our notes from the Building Department that is being used as a dwelling. It's not supposed to be but they are saying that it is and when I looked inside it appeared as though there was a children's crib you know play area, there was sink, there were some wine bottles, there's a wood burning stove, there's a couple of lounge chairs, there's stairs going up to a second floor which I don't have any access to. We have no idea what's going on there but I saw some wood working tools in there but and a motorcycle but I did not see any use as a workshop. I mean as a garage or workshop. MIKE KIMACK : He had activity in there primarily you're absolutely right. There was activity in there that would be considered a necessity of a variance if he was going to use it other than what it was supposed to be used for. He has ceased all of that. The Building Inspector had come by and had looked at what he had there and instructed that you know what I think he as much I think he had a bed upstairs if I remember correctly and he took all of that out and right now he recognizes that he can't do any of that unless he wants to go forward and the only way he can go forward on that particular building if he wants to utilize the upstairs is to apply for a second floor workshop basically. It's not a bedroom it won't be a bedroom but there's no bathroom in the place. There's no facilities for bathroom. I'm not quite sure what the sink would be attached to because there's no facility for that at all. September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : During my site inspection that particular I'm calling it the barn it appeared that there was actually plumbing and there was certainly heating and cooling and I remember all kinds of other improvements. I couldn't figure out the C.O. for which building, it was a little complicated to understand. MIKE KIMACK : I did not do that building originally. I got involved with the one towards the house basically. If you can recall that one, we had started it; it was done as an as built. He had constructed it and it was too big it was too close to the property line and he cut it back basically to the 750. Then he was only left with one variance which was the variance for the other than the rear yard for that building and it was granted. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So at the moment we have three accessory garages presumably on the subject lot and a fourth is being proposed. MIKE KIMACK : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you just describe the three existing buildings what they are used for? MIKE KIMACK : The one that had been granted the variance a few years ago is used for his cars he parks his cars there. It's a one story shed roof structure primarily and that's what it is. You obviously had more experience with what's in the big building the one that's right off the wood shed, I think he has a myriad of storage in there. He's got some wine stored in there, it's not any cars or anything like that cause he doesn't have garage doors to it but I think he uses it for his motorcycles which he has several motorcycles as well as several vintage cars that he collects. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I noticed that the garage that's actually accessed through a driveway on Harbor Lane is in fact being used as a garage and there are cares in there, there's one car actually. It's clearly a garage. MIKE KIMACK : He basically as I think I asked him how many do you have and he said well I've got about twenty vintage cars so he's got several and apparently this is where he'd like to be able to at least keep them and (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is the current lot coverage on this property? MIKE KIMACK : The lot coverage, it's 51,000 square feet so there would be he would be allowed 10,000 square foot of coverage I'm not quite sure he's anywhere near that. I don't think we did it per say because MEMBER LEHNERT : The application says 8.51 September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : Yeah then I did CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is the current or proposed? T.A. DUFFY : It says proposed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Proposed is 8.51 MIKE KIMACK :Then I ran the calculation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. MIKE KIMACK : It's fairly easy to do basically off the scale. The proposed is that the existing is like 7 something. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep I somehow didn't wind up with this drawing in my packet I got this one which has only partial information. Okay well let's see what else, so he wants to put in another garage for more cars. MIKE KIMACK : And also for a wine cellar. MEMBER PLANAMETO : For what? MIKE KIMACK : Wine cellar. If you look at the detailed drawings from the architect. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : In the basement. MIKE KIMACK : Has a full basement and he's got if you look at the front section there's a door off on the side that goes down other than the garage the overheads that goes down to the basement. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This drawing is this what Mark is proposing for the new one cause it looks very much like what's there now that's why it's a little confusing. MIKE KIMACK : There was I mean he kept to the similar architectural style but also the fact on a shed roof in your code he really can't a shed roof can't be higher than 16 feet anyway and there was no reason to go any higher than that so the front of the building is 16 foot high, the back of the building is 12 foot high and the back backs up against the laurels that are there right now which are going to remain. There's no the reason that we're doing this is because the laurels provide quite a bit of camouflage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If they're proposing a basement with for wine cellar I presume there's going to have to be some HVAC system. September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : He'll have to run electric over because I think it's fifty five degrees and fifty five percent humidity you have to hold it in there so there would be the requirement for an HVAC system. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does the applicant work on these cars? MIKE KIMACK : You know I believe he does. He's an interesting individual. I don't know a lot about his background. I know that he loves motorcycles and vintage cars. He's been involved in the America Cups Races he's a boats man so he spent a lot of time doing that so he does a lot of travel in different countries as a result of that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is this his principal residence? MIKE KIMACK : Is not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a second. MIKE KIMACK : He just recently about a year ago became a dad so he's at the later age so he's adjusting to that primarily in his life right now but it's not his principal residence no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you want to hear questions from the audience or do you want to ask questions now? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well I just wanted to bring up one point that's not referenced on the survey that I noticed during site inspection, there's what would appear to be a 10 by 12 foot shed on the Oak St. side of the property which is not in the photographs or the application submitted but again it's in a non-conforming location so I don't know if that's something that needs to be amended or addressed or it's being removed. MIKE KIMACK : The shed basically if you if I can recall Nick the shed did come up in the prior application hearing that we had on the original building and I think it might have been Gerry that brought it up. He did note that the shed was not in the setback requirement basically at the time but I think if you look at the variance that was issued you will see that if in fact the (inaudible) or in fact that the shed deteriorates and has to be removed and it has to be moved back to a MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but in your photographs it's not even here. MIKE KIMACK : Which one? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : There's a blue shed right where the I guess Porsche is parked. The view is the Pfanner residence view#4 taken May 5, 2018 looking September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : A blue shed? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : looking north. It's like a steel blue it has a Peconic Shed Company or rather New York Shed Company label on it. It looks like it was just delivered. MIKE KIMACK :That's a new one on me. I'm not quite sure. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Did anyone else see it during their site inspection? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I certainly did. MIKE KIMACK : Where is it located? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : When you come in through the driveway and the stacked firewood CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Behind the garage well which garage MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Where the Porsche is parked. So when you come in the driveway it's immediately on your right. MIKE KIMACK : I didn't know that. So that's something that might occurred MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It looks relatively new. MIKE KIMACK : If it is relatively new then it's something that I was not aware of. It's not on the drawing and as a result it's not on the survey. (inaudible) So we have a mysterious shed. I'll have to basically I mean obviously if the shed is there and it's on the property and it doesn't meet the setbacks and it's not on this drawing I'll have to talk to my client about it. It may have to be removed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see, anything from anybody at this point? Is there anybody in the audience who wishes to address the application? Please come forward. STEVE STAROFF : Hi my name is Steve Staroff and I live directly across the street at 260 Oak St. from the proposed shed. A couple of things that I'd like to just state is you guys are right the new shed that's there where the Porsche is parked is a new shed. It was delivered within that last couple of weeks so it's probably after the proposed shed was put up. Also your observation of the barn when you went and looked, it has heating, it has plumbing, people have been staying in it overnight. I live I bought the property about eight years ago. I've been living full time there since I retired two years ago and I've noticed that Andy uses the property mostly besides the storage of his cars but for his business as well and he's been storing wood planking there. Some of his employees spend the night in that location as well as in the property next to September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting me. So it's being used more than just a barn or a barn for storage. He also has internet in there and as I said people have been staying there overnight. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mr. Staroff could you tell me which lot you have or STEVE STAROFF : I am directly across the street 260 Oak St. is MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So you're on the creek? STEVE STAROFF : from the entrance to that property I own the property directly opposite it. I'm concerned that this new structure which looks like a showroom won't only house his collection of automobiles which I don't have a problem with having that happen but I also believe that the basement may not end up being used as a wine cellar as much as additional storage for his business and the concern that I have is the traffic that I see going in and out of that property. Now as you've noticed or as the lawyer had said the applicant does not live on that property. He visits rare occasions on a couple of weekends here and there and there's been more traffic coming in and out from the trucks from his business in Brooklyn and what I've notice over the last two years living there full time is that there are a lot more kids on the street whether it's because of retirees grandchildren because a lot of people have retired all over the block for a while or weekend people with their kids there's a lot of traffic on bicycles going by, there's a lot of kids on strollers. It's a small street heavily thorough fared by the populace of the neighborhood and I think that an additional structure will create more traffic which for me creates a safety issue. Also you guys have visited the property that you can see coming from the south of the property from the Harbor side it's a blind curve so you really can't see cars coming in and out of that little driveway and from the other side it is also a blind roadway so that the vehicles coming in and out really pose I think a danger to the neighborhood and to the traffic in the neighborhood and that's my biggest issue with it is safety for the people in the neighborhood. Also you know not wanting to get in the way of him being able to store his cars if you take a look at the entire property where the other garage is for the main house that's there that's a pretty big property. I mean I don't know the laws the zoning laws but it appears to me that it's big enough to house a three car garage if he wants to put it up without having to go through any additional issues. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How do you conclude or assume that the trucks you say are going on and off the property are from a Brooklyn based business? STEVE STAROFF : I sent you guys a letter and I included a picture of the truck which says specifically on it SFA Interiors Brooklyn, New York. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't believe I got that. September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I didn't receive that either. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have a copy? MEMBER ACAMPORA : We don't have it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did get a copy from this is the truck that you've been seeing? STEVE STAROFF : Yes I also sent a copy of the truck on the property itself right behind those wood sheds. I emailed to Kim F. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's her. She's been on vacation and sick so maybe it was missed. Do you know what the nature of this business is? STEVE STAROFF : I believe it's a woodworking business, high end woodworking business, tables and so on. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Furniture. STEVE STAROFF : Yeah from my understanding. I can resend a copy because the pictures that I have are not the ones that are depicted in my statement. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know who is living currently in the subject dwelling do you have any idea? STEVE STAROFF : No I have no idea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else you'd like us to know? STEVE STAROFF : No, any questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think I've asked mine, does anybody else have any? Anyone else want to speak? LLOYD WEATHERS : I'm Lloyd Weathers my wife and I own the property at SCTM#1000-136-1- 25. We're adjacent to the lot on which the garage is to be constructed and we back on the single family residence. The back of our lot is just in back of the single family residence that faces Harbor Lane. We asked that you deny the request for variance from Article III Section 280- 15 and the Building Inspector's May 8, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on the application to construct an accessory garage at 2725 Harbor Lane in Cutchogue SCTM#1000-136-1-24.2. Construction of an accessory garage at this location is not consistent with the single family residential character of the Eugene Heights subdivision and would increase the use of this property for business in an area that is zoned R40 by the town. The applicant is not in residence September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting at this location and has not been in residence at this location since 2014. 1 think this is an important point. A person in residence has rights to accessory structure modification for personal purposes or MEMBER DANTES : If you go by the area variance standards in NYS law I mean we can't treat second home owners and full time home owners different. They're all considered the same. We're barred from using that as a criteria. LLOYD WEATHERS : Okay the I thought your code that you put forth for accessory structures modification for apartments MEMBER DANTES : For apartments yes but not for a modification. LLOYD WEATHERS : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How is it that you're aware that this applicant is not in residence just out of curiosity and that you know the date 2014? LLOYD WEATHERS : My observance. I've seen the I can back up on this a little bit from the I can answer some of the questions that were previously asked and answered. The structure at 2725 single family structure 2725 Harbor Lane is only occupied on an incidental or occasional basis by people who have been identified as employees of the applicant or friends. I suspect I have met all of them but I have they have been identified to me as employees of SFA Interiors Inc. and that's from a (inaudible) in Brooklyn. Others have also occupied the structure that you referred to as the barn and that has been going on for some time but those include friends, the applicant himself and others have occupied that on an incidental or occasional basis. My basis for the statement is that I have not observed it, I live next door. I'm a non-resident, I've lived there for approximately six months of the year but I have also queried additional residents from the area including the prior speaker and who also will concur with that statement. No one occupied the 2725 1 mean the applicant does not occupy the single family residence at 2725 Harbor Lane. Seven accessory buildings or structures including the proposed garage will be located on the property. No other property in Eugene Heights has more than three accessory structures and you can look at this yourself observe it as you walk down Oak St., (inaudible) St. or Harbor Lane. Six of those accessory structures if you include the proposed garage would be located on the consolidated on the lot next to mine which is the old 24.1, that's 14,496 sq. ft. and this is the average size of a lot in Eugene Heights. Three of those buildings would provide a composite storage space greater in size than a single family residential structure and it's garage. This is from their footprint. An increase in storage space could lead to an increase in business activity and have already been observed at the site and this is by virtue of the paneled truck with the SFA Interiors Design on the exterior surface and the people that have actually done September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting work on the buildings themselves. There is a history of building code violations that this property with specific reference to the accessory buildings. You mentioned the garage on Harbor Lane, ZBA #6859 if you look through the 139 pages of it you'll find that was a one story structure, two car garage with attached storage. It's a three car garage now. I think you've already mentioned the wood sheds there's two wood sheds and the building that was addressed in ZBA decision variance granted in ZBA decision 6859. The wood sheds were not setback far enough from Oak St., they were as built and at the same time they were discovered and included in the variance you found that the garage the new garage that had been architected plans and then encountered about over 900 sq. ft. it would be reduced to conform to the 750 sq. ft. and framing and concrete had to torn out in order to do that. The barn that you've referred to is a very interesting case in point. This was in the old when the lots were merged if you go back to ZBA decision variance granted in 6707 early 2014 the barn was part of the structures that were included when the lot was sold to the applicant. The barn was restored in 2014 by an upstate New York company specializing in timber based construction and I don't know if any permit I haven't seen anything in the permit for that property that indicated that work was permitted. The barn was not addressed in the variances that were granted in the ZBA decision 6859 in 2015. A building permit was taken out on the barn in early 2016 February 2016 and it addressed the structure as a barn to be restored as a barn and a building permit was granted to it that was I think 40468. 1 (inaudible) a complaint in March 22, 2016 that indicated that the cesspool was being constructed at the eastern end of that building the barn and that modifications were being made for a two story habitable building. In April of that year based on the records from the permit building inspector also identified the same thing and asked for an expression of use for both floors. That building permit continual was granted an extension and is currently in progress as building permit 42484 and the barn has now been transformed into literally a two story habitable structure. So this is the type of propagation and I consider this to be a problem that has gone forth on most of the accessory structures all of the accessory structures so far on this site and I think it's a problem for the Board. MEMBER DANTES : Do we have a Health Department permit to put the septic system in do you know? LLOYD WEATHERS : Not that I can find but I'm just going through the process now to determine how I construct the nineteen digit district code and obtain a letter of you know an F.O.I. agreement and get the information but I have not seen it. The last structure that you mentioned the 11 by 8 structure was added in July by simply and that's the seventh that would be the sixth of the and then the proposed garage would be the seventh. Something I've noted that just in the hearing here is that I think there were a good deal of concentration on the building plans that this was an unconditioned garage to be added and is now evolved into an unconditioned garage plus a wine cellar which would need to be conditioned. I believe there's September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting sufficient based on what I have seen in the past that there is an indication here that this facility would ultimately be marked into another a component of a multifamily application and I think that's one of the parts that I the applicant is not a resident at this site. It's being used by for multiple applications now and here is an opportunity to do it once again. The (inaudible) impact to me of this new garage would be small the area on Oak St. is properties are selling for what people ask for them. It's a dynamic property and construction two new projects are in construction and will be submitted for plans, another one will be planned next year but the problem with an accessory structure on Oak St. now is that we've already had five elements move into rental capacity and rental type situations and the rental for one of the residences has been as high as $8000 a month. So there is a tremendous pressure to increase the application for uses of this type. I think the approval of a garage and this type of extensive addition of accessory structures simply creates a path that other people will want to follow and I think this will ultimately if you expand that use of accessory structures throughout Eugene Heights it will change the fundamental nature of the neighborhood. I believe the greatest impact however of this type of application is to the Board itself because people that you have identified in the previous variances granted that knew what they were doing are planning and executing construction without permit if found they move forward and apply for the variance and ultimately obtain some form of a variance based on their construction. As built if you look at the track for this barn you find that as built is now as built in construction to describe these types of projects. I think there is a danger to the Board and in granting this new structure and people will view this process as one that they can be for themselves. Any questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does anyone have any questions? LLOYD WEATHERS : And I would like I did provide this CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have it. LLOYD WEATHERS : Okay thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're very welcome. Anyone else in the audience wishing to address the application? MIKE KIMACK : I'd like to make a couple of comments. This property is probably it's the largest one in the area. It's probably three to four times larger than anything else that's there. It's 51,000 sq. ft. and the gentleman is correct, most are in the 12,000, 11,000 sq. ft. range. There's a density on most of them primarily I suspect of a much greater extent than this particular piece of property. This would be the fourth building not the seventh on that particular piece that's required as an accessory building. It's being asked for a garage. It's designed as a garage and going to be used as a garage and the basement is going to be a wine cellar. It's going to September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting hopefully get your approval and get a building permit and the building permit is going to say that's what it is. I suspect with all that's been going on the neighbors are going to be watching it pretty closely so that if there's any violation the Building Department will know if in terms of whether or not there's a change of use but the design of the building is not a building that's going to be converted or easily converted to something livable habitable space. As far as the barn itself that's under a building permit whatever is going on there. They were issued a building permit obviously the barn didn't have any additional issues at that particular time. It may have now but in terms of the issuance of the building permit and what has been ongoing is within the Building Department at the present time not before this Board. MEMBER ACAMPORA : I have a question, in the residence is there a basement in the residence? MIKE KIMACK : I don't know the answer to that I really don't and I do know the gentleman said that everyone's but and he doesn't spend a lot of time here obviously and I'm not aware of the on goings whether it be storage (inaudible) like that but your decision is not going to be based on whether it's partially lived in by a MEMBER ACAMPORA : No I'm asking the question only because if there's a basement possibly that could be used as a wine cellar rather than doing the excavation for a basement. MIKE KIMACK : I don't know the answer to that. Is there a basement in the main house? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on you have to come to the mic and state your name please. BLAIR MCBRIDE : Blair McBride. The house that you're talking about is shared with another couple and he keeps his stuff down there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's the dwelling on the property. BLAIR MCBRIDE :The dwelling on Harbor Lane. MEMBER ACAMPORA : The residence. BLAIR MCBRIDE : Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So are there so when you say share with another couple do you mean the applicant and another couple or BLAIR MCBRIDE : On the property and the other couple are there most weekends. My property is next to where the building is proposed. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So Blair you own lots 21 and 22. 3 September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting BLAIR MCBRIDE : I don't know what numbers they are, I'm 2835 Harbor Lane which is on the corner of Harbor and Oak. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He's right on the curve. MEMBER ACAMPORA : So who really owns the property then? BLAIR MCBRIDE : Andy Pfanner. MEMBER DANTES : Were you the seller that sold Andy Pfanner the property? BLAIR MCBRIDE : No he bought it from the Estate of Betty Deeroski. T.A. DUFFY : You just said he shares the house with another couple. BLAIR MCBRIDE : He does, it's not on the deed that way but that's the way it's worked out. MIKE KIMACK : The only other comment I would make in terms of that it's being proposed as a garage for storage. It's not going to be creating any additional traffic that the gentleman had a concern of so there is going to be a number of vintage vehicles on the property but they are not moving back and forth so there's not in a sense if you grant this you're not creating additional traffic patterns as a result of this garage going on the property. I know that he had a safety CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand your argument but with all due respect the bottom line is many of the structures on here that were proposed for specific uses are apparently not being used the way that they're the limits within the limits of what that original variance (inaudible) MIKE KIMACK : The only one that may fall into that characterization would be the old barn but as far as the variance that you approved two years ago it's being used as a garage and it's stored with cars and this one is going to be CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's currently well I won't even refer to the crib where the wood storage is T.A. DUFFY : Someone who uses barns illegally we can trust that he won't use a garage illegally? MIKE KIMACK : In terms of illegally I mean if you design T.A. DUFFY : I mean in violation of the code okay uses barns in violation of the code but we can trust him you admitted he used it incorrectly right you admitted yourself MIKE KIMACK : The barn itself look I don't know anything about all I know he was issued a building permit Bill. 3 September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting T.A. DUFFY : In your presentation you admitted that there was some activities going on in some of these structures that was not permitted and that he had to stop them. MIKE KIMACK : He basically in the T.A. DUFFY : Did you not say that? MIKE KIMACK : In the existing barn I did say that primarily that he had done things there's an ongoing building inspection that's going on there. When they showed up they had some irregularities and he corrected them but he wasn't as far as I know today he hasn't been issued a violation that's the barn. The garage variance he uses the garage. This one he will use as a garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you aware of any other properties in that neighborhood where let's see currently there's the blue shed was added so there's three accessory structures on the frontage on Oak St. and a fourth is being proposed. MIKE KIMACK : I don't think the other properties Leslie are somewhat smaller. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I understand it's not a lot coverage issue I'm just talking about the fact that accessory structures in front yards are non-conforming and we now have three and a proposed fourth two of which received variances. MIKE KIMACK : I didn't do that assessment because this is rather a unique situation and in terms of its size with the building there. You know in a sense could I have found some additional accessory buildings that needed variances along the way but none of that would have basically contributed to a similarity with this. This is rather unique and the way that that lot is constructed in terms of it's being combined into two lots and being on two roads and being as big as it is and having that concentration of two existing barn and garage and a proposed third garage and that one location does not fit into anything else that's going on simply because of its magnitude and what's going on. None of the other lots would you know even if I pointed it out I'm not quite sure it would allow you to say well we've set a precedent here this is okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from the Board, anything else from the audience? This will require our review of the hearing transcript and we have some new information that we need to take a look at so based on that if the Board so agrees I'd like to make a motion to adjourn this to the Special Meeting so we have time to do that and I'll ask our transcriber to do this particular hearing first. MIKE KIMACK : If you need any additional information from me please let me know. September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We certainly will. Alright so there's a motion to adjourn to the Special Meeting on September 201h. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7193— DONALD BRENNAN, COTTAGE ON THIRD, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Donald Brennan, Cottage on Third, LLC #7193. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's April 19, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to demolish an existing dwelling and to construct a new single family dwelling, accessory pool house and an accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) single family dwelling located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) proposed improvements more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 850 Third St. in New Suffolk. Is there someone here to represent this application? GARY STEINFELD : Gary Steinfeld, West Creek Builders 385 Grathwohl Rd. in New Suffolk representing the owner of the property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so this looks like a front yard setback as proposed at 4.1 feet from the property line where the code requires 35 feet and lot coverage of 25.4% where the code permits a maximum of 20% is that correct? GARY STEINFELD :That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What would you like us to know? September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting GARY STEINFELD : We're essentially building rebuilding on the existing footprint so there's an existing single family residence on the same footprint that we're proposing other than a move of about two feet north to provide better access to the garage. There's currently a 10 by 20 shed structure located in the same area that we're proposing the new garage. As everyone is very familiar with this area in New Suffolk we're faced with small lots sizes there. This particular lot being 8,420 sq. ft. The front yard setbacks and the lot coverage issue is a very familiar situation with this area. Most of the houses in that area are on a reduced front yard setback if we take a look around that neighborhood. Also we're dealing with a lot of scenarios where we have a higher than a 20% lot coverage in that are also. The 4.1 foot setback that's being requested now is the same as the existing and that pertains to a 4.1 feet to a covered front porch. In the existing building right now it is a fully enclosed 7 by 18 porch area. That's now being reduced to 7 by 12 and it will be in an open format deck and roof above. The setback to the main house structure is significantly larger as you will see on the site plan that we submitted. Also a unique part of a lot of properties in this are in New Suffolk and this one in particular so we're anywhere from 11 feet to 12 feet on the setback to the main structure but as you probably noticed from your site visit there's about a 15 to 16 foot grassy buffer on the edge of the actual roadway to the property line so even with a non-conforming 4.1 and around a 10 to 12 feet to the main structure the proceed setback on how it matches into the character of the area is significantly larger than that although we are actually dealing with the exact code numbers here. The pool house and garage and the proposed swimming pool these are all customary accessories for the town and this neighborhood in particular. Both those structures will be sited on the land in a conforming location with a rear yard and conforming setbacks. The pool will be on grade so it's well screened by the house and the garage position. The garage is in a position where a existing structure slightly smaller than it existed so we're not changing in particular to the character of the area with the addition of that structure. If you walk around the neighborhood and I can provide you a list, there are numerous parcels that are over the 20% lot coverage and numerous parcels that have a less than the mandated front yard setback. So looking at that in whole I think that you know we believe the site plan that we proposed to the Board conforms very well with the character in this particular neighborhood and is not asking for any additional uses that are not customary being a garage, pool house and a swimming pool. If we just take a quick look around that neighborhood this house on 780 King St. that has under a 6 foot front yard setback, 1300 Second St. has a 27.4% lot coverage, 2395 Jackson St. which is on the corner of Jackson and then Second St. has a 26% lot coverage. All these that I'm speaking to you right now were offered variances to get to those coverages. 1175 First St. has a 24.8% lot coverage and then we can just continue on and find examples of that you know throughout this grid of New Suffolk which is kind of laid out a grid with houses close to the front yard. There's also numerous examples of existing structures that predate the code that are sitting close to the lot lines and have high coverages. The ones I mentioned are September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting the ones that went through the variance process with your Board. I'll give you for a record the copies of those. So I can answer any questions or talk to you about your thoughts. We were careful to stay with the footprint of the existing house. From the point of view of character you know the only thing that's really being added to the property is the swimming pool. I mean obviously we're going on lot coverage but you know when you look at the nature of the structures on the property the garage is going exactly where the existing storage building is and the house is going exactly where the existing house is other than it'll just have a little larger presence due to the full second floor versus a partial that's there now and we tried our best to reduce the size of the structures that would be at the 4.1 setback from the property line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the existing front yard setback is 4.1 and you're maintaining that? GARY STEINFELD : We're maintaining that so we're not changing that and we're trying to reduce that volume of that portion of the structure that's 4.1, the 7 by 18 structure that's now is a fully enclosed room. We're really just looking at a front stoop that's covered from the weather so it'll have a much more open feel up to the main portion of the house. When you try to design something in that neighborhood you're trying to stay within the character and you know the house is still a modest sized house. It's under 2,000 square feet the proposed house it's just four bedrooms. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Just four bedrooms. GARY STEINFELD : Well in today's day and age with children four bedrooms is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I get it, I'm just saying it's a strange thing to be living in a situation where a four bedroom four bathroom house is now considered modest for the North Fork. GARY STEINFELD : I understand, I live in a 1,700 sq. ft. house and people look at me like I'm crazy with two kids in that but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we're all obviously very familiar with the area. It's very helpful that you submitted the priors you know some priors for variance relief and so on. Just for the record sake is there any way you can reduce the proposed lot coverage? GARY STEINFELD : I mean we could reduce you know it also it kind of has to do with the feeling of the Board. I mean are we just doing that to meet numbers for precedent you know so we can definitely you know I think two things. I look at code and I look at character of the neighborhood and then you know I guess we can't only look at character of the neighborhood because the code has to not create precedent of you know going over larger numbers so if I was to look at his property and see what they can reduce we could certainly reduce the size of September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting the front porch which at its size right now is being included in buildable area correct, so if we went down to 5 by 6 on that porch which would be 30 sq. ft. or less it would not be include in the buildable area. So we could reduce that which would probably bring our coverage down to I did make some notes we could reduce lot coverage down by you know I'm bringing it down to a 5 by 6 to a 24.83 MEMBER DANTES : That's a covered porch though isn't it? GARY STEINFELD :That's a covered porch but we could MEMBER DANTES : I think covered porches are always calculated. GARY STEINFELD : I think we'd have to get an interpretation on that but I don't know if the owner would be against taking the coverage off it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I have to ask (inaudible) on the record cause I'm sure you know we have to grant when justified the minimal variance possible. So we're just looking to see if there's GARY STEINFELD : That's a definite, we can reduce that size to minimize it. They would like to include the roof on there so we can look into the (inaudible) of that. I'm very familiar with the code and you know the code doesn't seem to be specific on that. I mean there are cornices and things of that nature that can protrude 28 to 30 inches into the zone so I'm open to the Board with that if you feel strongly about no roof being over that step it can be. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what's not on here there's no drywell for pool de- watering on your proposed site plan. GARY STEINFELD : We will fully be you know maintaining to the code. we're putting in a new sanitary system all new drywells. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I saw that in the side yard but GARY STEINFELD : Yeah it's not on the site plan but we'll be doing that for the house structure itself for the pool and stone driveway as required. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well looks like your proposed garage and pool house is pretty small. GARY STEINFELD : I tried to keep that as small as possible. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's only a one car garage and it's pretty small. GARY STEINFELD : And it's pretty tight. He has pickup truck that he stores over the summer. September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A 16 by 32 foot pool is pretty standard on a smaller side so I just wanted to see what well alright anything from the Board? GARY STEINFELD : I mean if the Board feel strongly that we're pushing the limit too much we can try to do something else but I don't think CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we'll take a look at the prior variances and you know compare them to what you're proposing for lot coverage. GARY STEINFELD : We tried to match up what other things were going on in the neighborhood you know swimming pool sized that were similar in the area, garages that were similar or smaller. You know there's a couple of other houses around the corner that you know did some new pool house garages that we tried to stay kind of within that character in that size also. I don't think we'd be reducing that garage size would be pretty difficult at this point. It would barely fit in the pickup truck. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So you spoke a lot of the character of the neighborhood in New Suffolk specifically which is sort of a well small scale, smaller housing stock sort of environment. The massing of this house in my opinion when you look at it from the street facade in its current condition sort of fits in to the community. Granted it's an older tired home in need of updating but the new facade is really quite substantial. It's a full two stories, it runs the width of the lot, why are you not renovating the existing house and maintaining its charm versus demolition and building a new home. GARY STEINFELD : A couple of reasons, one the client would like to get a basement in the house, two about two thirds of the existing foundation is not up to standard building codes. If we go to put a second story on it there's a deteriorated crawl space area and there's mixed in rubble and brick on a good portion of the foundation there. So to reuse that and build we'd have to tear down most of the house anyway to rebuild that portion of it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And you couldn't elevate the house and work underneath it? GARY STEINFELD : Part of the house also was a garage structure now so I mean we did look at that cause the client is under a tighter budget to you know get a new structure up but it gets to the point it just doesn't make sense to renovate that. They'd still be looking to do the same mass to get an expansion of that second floor over the garage area anyway so I still think the facade would still you know come across at that level. There are a number not a lot but there are some traditional colonial style you know two story facades in that New Suffolk area especially down New Suffolk Ave. that have that two story presence you know within right on the sidewalk which is in a couple of feet of the setbacks so it's not completely out of the character of the area to have that two story facade. We're challenged here with an 8,400 sq. ft. September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting lot. It's just you know I would have loved to get a little you know if you could of got less of a full length house on that front yard you know it would be interesting to explore but on an 8,400 sq. ft. lot you're really very limited. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I understand there's limitations and also because this is a demolition why aren't you pulling the house back a bit? GARY STEINFELD : Because we're trying to get a swimming pool in the rear yard also and a garage in the rear yard. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : When you look at the scale of the lot the back yard space and we're not dealing with a large (inaudible) GARY STEINFELD : If you look at it now the house right now is you know less than 20 feet from the garage which doesn't really give you much room to you know if the code speaks of this town isn't strict about it but the code even speaks of keeping 20 feet between accessory structures and a house. It's in the zoning code so we're you know we're tight on that right now. The garage is sitting right on the lot line so there's really no option to slide that back further. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the dwelling began as a seasonal unheated cottage thus the name I guess. GARY STEINFELD : Exactly. So that answers your question. There's really we don't have the depth of lot there to get that. If you look at the lot on the survey it's not much 85, 86 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone else in the audience wanting to address the application? Sure please come forward just take the podium and state your name for the record please. FRANK CASTELLANO : Frank Castellano 1275 First St. New Suffolk. This doesn't affect me directly but everybody talks about the character of New Suffolk. They build higher and higher and it affects neighbors drastically; they lose their privacy. Everybody knows New Suffolk and the building that's been going on there is quite crazy over the last couple of years and I don't understand why people buy pieces of property knowing there's limitations and then everybody wants to exaggerate it or go further. The character of New Suffolk is being lost period. I see it going on all the time. Everybody is pushing the envelope. Now granted I know there's non- conformity in New Suffolk. A lot of houses are close to the street. Those are the old ways yes, keep it that way. I'm not saying change it but all these variances within New Suffolk is quite crazy, you mentioned it. They build and they build to the point where New Suffolk is getting to be like almost like skyscrapers to the point. Everyone knows this. I'm sick of really seeing the character lost in New Suffolk and it's just getting worse and worse and this is not against him or September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting the people and it doesn't affect me directly but when I walk my dog it's just not the same anymore after buying my house twenty five years ago. Like I say everybody goes higher and higher and then the next person goes higher because they want their privacy and before you know it you know I don't know what else to say. I said to myself I'm not going to say anything I just came to hear but I just want to say that this nonsense that everything is in the character of New Suffolk is total nonsense. It's everybody is just doing as much as they can and I agree with you why if you're going to build you know build take the structure and just rebuild it and stay within the code. Okay you're five feet from the front line so that's acceptable in New Suffolk but not more and more and more because they are small plots in New Suffolk. I have one of the bigger plots but still they are small and I know that and I knew that when I bought the house twenty five years ago. There might be traffic because I'm on the corner but it's getting out of hand and that's all I wanted to say thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else, anything more from the Board? GARY STEINFELD : Just I want to reiterate that from the edge of the street from the pavement this house is going to be at 27 % feet and the front porch will be 20 % feet so I just in all this talk of 4.1 setbacks I just want everybody to understand and I know you guys have been out to the site that we do have those distances on this small lot from the roadway just at a nature of the wide grassy area that's within the town right of way so we're not looking at a house when you're walking on the street, walking a dog four feet, five feet, six feet or even seven feet from the roadway. We're talking at a house that's set back almost 30 feet from the pavement at 27 feet and that small front porch that we're proposing is setback over 20 feet from the road pavement and again the house we're not looking at a large house here. It's less than 24 feet wide or 22 feet wide and it's less than 2,000 sq. ft. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 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 DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7194— MARTIN BANCROFT CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Martin Bancroft #7194. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's April 23, 2018 Amended May 9, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct an accessory swimming pool and an accessory garage on a residential parcel at 1) accessory in-ground swimming pool is located in other than the code required rear yard, 2) proposed accessory garage is located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet located at 38099 Main Rd. (adj. to the Long Island Sound) in Orient. We were all out to visit the site to inspect your property. The new lap pool is 50 by 8 foot wide with a 10 foot side yard setback in your side yard. It's going to replace an existing one and of course the code requires a front yard or a rear yard a front yard on waterfront properties so it's a side yard location and then a new accessory garage at 15 feet by 22 feet in a front yard with an 8 foot front yard setback where the code requires a minimum of 40 feet. MARTIN BANCROFT : It's been changed to 10 feet maybe you didn't get the updated. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I did that's for the lap pool right? MARTIN BANCROFT : No I'm sorry ma'am for the garage. So it's 10 feet from the side yard and 10 feet from the back. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so it's a front at 10 feet. Do I have an amended alright I've got your survey here, we got your correspondence let me just make sure I got this right. Okay yep I see it. We don't have an amended Notice of Disapproval this is just an amended survey okay. So what would you like us to know? MARTIN BANCROFT : It's going to be a small garage, very low 14 foot height and it's 15 by 22. Now if you notice on the drawing I really don't have any option except to put it right there for the garage. The pool is just being pushed over about 4 inches so I'm in compliance with the 10 foot setback from the west property boundary and then the new pool will be 110 back from the coastal erosion line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we did observe when we went out to the site that you know you're clearly at the end of a very long private right of way on waterfront property primarily surrounded by undeveloped woodland so it certainly will not have any visual impact on anyone September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting and based upon where your house is located, where your swimming pool is located it's certainly sensible to locate the garage there, is it a one car garage? MARTIN BANCROFT : One car and no second floor, no plumbing just electric. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay Pat any questions, Eric questions? MEMBER DANTES : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The pool is being reconstructed and the garage is new. It has a conforming side yard setback but it's still in the side yard. It's the location basically. MEMBER ACAMPORA : And the gazebo is gone? MARTIN BANCROFT : The gazebo will be taken down. I didn't realize but it was illegal. I didn't have a building permit but it's coming down. If anybody wants it they can have it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is that a bribe. MARTIN BANCROFT : Oh no, no I wouldn't you don't want it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just to ask a formal question that I think I know the answer to and I don't mean to be the stick in the mud but you just stated that there's no other reasonable location for the garage, why not put the driveway as a continuation along the side of the house on the east side with a garage? MARTIN BANCROFT : You know why, I need access. I'm putting in a propane gas tank number one, it'll be placed in the eastern side of the house but Nick more importantly Hurricane Sandy did ten thousand dollars' worth of damage to my bluff and I'm the only one that has a road down to the bluff so the trucks would use that right from the right of way they would go down the bluff and repair it. if I get another hurricane I can't MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You're landlocked and I noted I thought that was very interesting how (inaudible) natural contour of the land to the beach below which is really quite nice. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know we always try to keep at least one side yard clear and open for emergency access it's important. Anyone else in the audience? MICHAEL SOLOMAN : Good afternoon madam Chairperson, members of the Board. My name is Michael Soloman I represent (inaudible) Sound Property Inc. which is the Mendoza family and by the way I happen to be a Southold Town resident. The first observation I want to make is September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Where do they sorry sir on the survey it says Rizanski on the one side MICHAEL SOLOMAN : These are formally former owners is what was put down by the applicant but the first thing I want to say I have a hard time when I'm fighting a messenger of the Lord so I have to be a little careful here of what I say but anyway the Mendoza family effectively owns the sixty acres that surround this property. They're opposing the application. They're opposing the application on a series of grounds. The first which is the simplest ground I believe is the applicant came before the Board in 2004 and already sought variance relief as related to the pool and it was granted. Now he's walking back fourteen years later and said you already gave me some variance, I haven't heard any discussion about how a hardship erupts from a 32 foot lap pool to a 50 foot in length lap pool cause he's looking to add on another 12 feet. So to me that wouldn't satisfy under any even if he tried to present it what is he going to say it's two more strokes so anybody swimming effectively would get two more strokes if they're using it as a lap pool for exercise. I also understand as it relates to this property, this property from the information that I've received is primarily a rental property and it's not primarily being used by the owner which the only reason I even bring that up because I know sometimes that doesn't even matter is the fact as well if you're just renting it out where does the length of the pool really matter unless you're going to tell me you're putting in an Olympic swimmer there who owns the house and for some reason there's some merit to it. When this Board approved the variance apparently there was obviously other members at that point and time and I'm sure the Board has looked at the decision then and one of the issues that was raised was well we're going to recognize putting this in a side yard because we have some concern about disturbing the bluff in the back. I really and it relates to the garage also which I'll get to in a minute, this is a four foot depth pool. This is not an 8 foot depth pool a 10 foot depth pool, a 12 foot depth pool any ground disturbance is going to be minimal. As it relates to a garage, if it's only on a slab it'll even be less intrusive by just putting a slab. So the pool from my client's position could be relocated elsewhere on this property. The garage very easily could be located elsewhere on this property without any real significant issue concerning the bluff and I really believe that's the point that really hasn't been brought forward and discussed and it's blamed by the applicant. As a matter of fact when you read his petition, his petition says it's a hardship and it says explain why and it's blank. It doesn't even say why any of this is a hardship. MEMBER DANTES : Wait can I give you a clarification, he submitted a new plan and the new plan has the pool remaining at 38 feet in length and it looks like he's just sliding it north about 8 feet. MICHAEL SOLOMAN : I believe the new plan is not I think the new plan is still at 50. MEMBER DANTES : Not the one I have in front of me. September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting MICHAEL SOLOMAN : Well I guess the applicant can answer that question. I believe he's still looking for a 50 foot pool. That's the one received by the Board in August 20, 2018 and it shows in it existing pool to be removed versus the first plan says existing pool to be renovated, extended and now it's a brand new pool that's going to go 50 feet. MEMBER DANTES : The note says 50 feet your architect didn't he just wrote 38 feet on the where he listed the size of the pool. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Maybe he was just showing where the 38 feet is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let's just ask the question. Are you proposing 38 or 50? MARTIN BANCROFT : It's 50 the proposal but may I also answer? I am the primary this is my primary residence. I only rent it out summer from Memorial Day to Labor Day. I always have done that for ten years. The Mendoza's and I we don't really talk. They're very nice neighbors but they asked me to come to their house this is about seventeen years ago they wanted to buy my property and I said no and so I think that created some animosity cause they finally built their house but as people have said you have the best location alright and now they are actively selling the house. Their property manager Jeff Standish who you might know Jeff even said to me if you were to move the garage ten feet, originally I had it at eight feet he said the variance make it ten feet on both sides but then he said remember the Mendoza's have a potential buyer for the $17 million dollar purchase price and he said they don't want anything to spoil the purchase. Well I've always been a good neighbor and have designed the house always it's low key so I don't see how anybody would object but that's their business. As far as a lap pool yes a lap pool 38 feet is not an official lap pool. An official lap pool is 50 foot so one day I'm getting older, I would like to sell the house not now. I'm going to work out here, retire but one day when you sell as the realtor said you need to sell a 50 foot lap pool not a 38 that was the motive for doing that. MICHAEL SOLOMAN : On that point I think that's a bad argument for extreme hardship that the real estate told me to make my pool bigger. Some of you members I know are brokers somebody may relate to that but anyway the other intriguing situation about this parcel, the actual I guess site plan that was submitted to you it shows in the body of the site plan when it talks about lot area it talks about 100 by 205 at 20,000 sq. ft. On the bottom side the footnote part of it shows lot area 29,596 feet I think it says. But in looking at this application I think the Board really has to pay attention to is that all the construction, all the work that the structures the accessory buildings are all going within basically a footprint of a 100 by 100 that's really what's going on. If you look at it if we accept the proposition for some reason we don't want to disturb the erosion on the bluff everything that is now going in is going on 10,000 sq. ft. so now he's looking to make a bigger pool which I don't think there's an extreme hardship to establish. September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting He's looking to put a garage that very confidently can be relocated somewhere else. This is not a bluff issue. It's going to be built on a slab. That's not the type of construction that would be a bluff issue. He may not want it in towards the back of his property but I believe it's very easy if you come straight down the right of way just keep going and put it somewhere in the back over there. He's got 110 feet from the end 106 from the end of his property to the top of the bluff. He's got 110 feet from the pool to the top of the bluff. It's like he's asking for everything. Okay if you want a garage then maybe you should be putting a garage where the pool is or maybe he should be putting the pool where you want to put the pool but don't come before the Board and now say it's a hardship and ask for a waiver. This is not asking for a waiver from you know from 40 feet to 35 or 40 feet to 30 this is a waiver from 40 to 10. Now I understand this parcel may be a little bit unique but trust me there'll be an attorney or applicant standing in front of you one day bringing this application to you and saying well you agreed to reduce a 40 yard setback to a 10 yard excuse me a 40 foot setback to a 10 foot setback and now there's some precedent within the town so I'm not here to argue this case like the Hatfields and McCoys like Mr. Bancroft is indicating that potentially there was a problem with the Mendoza's which I know nothing about. I'm really just trying to argue this case within the confines of what I believe the proper decision making of the Board of Zoning Appeals would be under the way our code exists and I really believe that you're being pushed to permit technically a lot of construction on the net effect of a 10,000 sq. ft. usable lot versus a 20,000 or 25,000 sq. ft. parcel and that's why my client is objecting. My client is not objecting because of any personal issues here. This is not a personality issue. We all know driving into this parcel it feels like a mile off the Main Rd. when you go back there with the dust being generated from the car in front of you but that's really the basis of my client's objection. I believe it's well founded, I believe there's been a request for relief, there is a functional lap pool there. One other concern that my client does have is that what assurance do we have that that garage is really not being put there to be an accessory pool house and you can say whatever you want there's no (inaudible) but the way this is being set up it almost lends itself to being a pool house, right next to the pool so we potentially see that as the use and not even being not even as an accessory garage. Those are my comments so if anybody has any questions of me I'd be happy to answer them but that's my client's position on this application. MARTIN BANCROFT : Could I respond, sir I don't even know your name. MICHAEL SOLOMAN : Michael Soloman. MARTIN BANCROFT : Michael. MICHAEL SOLOMAN : I think you have to ask the Board for permission. I'm not taking control of this meeting. September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No he can respond to your comments but he has to address the Board. MARTIN BANCROFT : Oh sorry. I respectfully disagree with Michael. As Michael was saying place the pool and the garage any place. He said there are many places there is no place. This is the only location. There will be no water in that garage. I've never had a garage. It's a one car garage so when I live out there I can park my car in the garage. A pool house, I'm a simple man a pool house? I would love one but I don't have the space or the money so that's out of the question. Lap pool, I'm not an Olympic swimmer. Look at the you couldn't get a regular sized pool in that piece of property so I really designed the pool around the property, now I'm just going out further. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I would say one thing, frankly there is no lot coverage issue number one and number two the pool the size of the pool is not the problem it's the side yard location and it's still in the side yard whether it's 30 feet or 50 feet or 100 feet it's still a side yard location which is the relief that we have to look at. Did you want to say something or ask a quick question Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : I want to ask a question, where in reference to this property is the Mendoza's house located? Can they see the garage once it would be built? MICHAEL SOLOMAN : But now we're going to get into foliage and no foliage. I think in the summer time probably I would say maybe not in the winter time I would say probably yes but I don't want to be an expert in that cause I really haven't gone and looked but the Mendoza property as you're heading north would be on the left hand side so I don't want to I can't answer that. It would go into traditional foliage issue. Properties that are not water view in the summer are water view in the winter and I would tend to believe that there was going to be some site line with this. MEMBER ACAMPORA : So where their house is located is that the thirty some odd acres? MICHAEL SOLOMAN : Well his property is located close to the waterfront line and the Mendoza is located relatively closer to the water line so it's going to be an easterly view off the Mendoza property to that garage. MEMBER ACAMPORA : And is it true that they are in the midst of selling their properties? MICHAEL SOLOMAN : I have no knowledge of that but as I'm saying I'm not here to argue when I argue cases whether the Board of Zoning or Planning Department I'm arguing legal principle. I don't want to, to me if it's right it's right if it's wrong it's wrong. If this is a problem for this owner it should be a problem for the next owner but I don't look at it subjectively the neighbor September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting says well this is okay I don't know what the next neighbor is going to say. I know my client who still owns it this is you know it's being obviously there's some information it's been marketed it's not being marketed as a very quick sale the kind of prices if this is what's accurate I don't know if it's even accurate but the Mendoza's can own this property for God knows how many (inaudible) I don't know what the end result is going to be so I really I can't present to this to what's going to happen with the properties are they going to be sold or not going to be sold, whether Mendoza will be there or Mendoza will not be there but as I emphasized MEMBER ACAMPORA : Well I'm trying to get to why the objection, what is the real objection? Can they see this, is this you know blocking their sight view what is the real objection? MICHAEL SOLOMAN : The real objection is, what he's doing he has other there's no hardship. His petition where is the hardship here? There was original permission to put it in the side yard in 2004 MEMBER DANTES : She's asking how it affects the Mendoza's. MICHAEL SOLOMAN : I wasn't here to argue that case. In 2004 1 would have argued that case differently because somehow how they thought of a 4 foot lap pool would ever affect erosion. If a statement is being made to you today I can't put the garage elsewhere. I want to put it within 10 feet of a property line, 10 feet from the front and 10 feet from the side at least offer some expert testimony other than the witness saying I can't put the applicant saying I can't put it back there we don't know we're just taking his word I can't put it back there. I would guarantee you if an engineer an architect was in here you can build a garage in the back of the property. So why give him a 40 foot you're giving him a 75% reduction listen the Board can obviously can do what the Board deems fit I get that but I really believe it's a very dangerous precedent setting MEMBER ACAMPORA : I think that's where I'm trying to get to. You're asserting that this is a dangerous precedent setting problem which have you done your homework in the Town of Southold to see that there are other garages set exactly the same way and even some of them closer and pools also. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here's the point, if you were to put this is a rear yard which would be a conforming location you would require a significant bluff setback variance because it's within 100 feet of the coastal erosion hazard line so one way or the other either he has to get they're both conforming locations. The front yard on waterfront properties is more desirable for environmental protection than a rear yard and you do need to keep one side yard open for emergency access, it's 280-A it's part of the code. So I think what Member Acampora is getting at is we want to really understand the impact that this would potentially have adversely on the September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting Mendoza property and let me ask you sir since you know the property, you know the Mendoza property what would be the visual impact of the proposed pool and garage? MARTIN BANCROFT : Well that's from a drone sir. SOMEONE SPEAKING FROM SEAT MARTIN BANCROFT : Well I've walked their property, stood on their porch you can't see. I have a gazebo which is 15 foot high you can't see the gazebo from their property. This garage will be 14 foot high. MEMBER DANTES : You want to hand the picture up? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is that a google earth thing? Here take a look. MARTIN BANCROFT : From the air yes you can see my house and my pool from the air but not from his property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you like to see the photograph? I mean fair is fair I mean everybody else is looking at it. MEMBER LEHNERT : If you look at the Mendoza's house wouldn't their pool be either the front or the side yard? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah. Let me ask now because you know in the interest of time we do have another applicant waiting here and then we have another one at one o'clock, what other argument if any needs to be made by either one of you? If you have anything else to tell us that we haven't heard. MICHAEL SOLOMAN : Madam Chair I have a hearing issue. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm sorry I just wondered if there was anything else that anybody wanted to say I MICHAEL SOLOMAN : No the only point I want to really leave here with is this concept that one of the key elements is to show extreme hardship, you have to show your hardship. I don't unless there's an expert brought here that is going to testify that that garage can't be placed elsewhere. Whatever he's required to do I really believe in my opinion that the Board really doesn't have the footing to just say we're going to accept a lay person's testimony that I can't put it somewhere else. If literally I'd be sitting here I would agree with the Board as an expert says I've done an investigation, I've done a study, it's going to be a disturbance to the bluff or whatever other issue may come up then I have very little to say. Then that argument has been satisfied but as I said his own petition doesn't say what his hardship is. It's a lay person saying I September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting can't put it anywhere else and listen I'm not maybe he's right but I don't think that's enough for the Board to rely upon. I think the Board would need some expert to come in and say you can't put it somewhere else. Otherwise any applicant can go walking around any day and say it's an extreme hardship I can't put it anywhere else and the Board basically just has to accept that proposition but thank you for your time I appreciate it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome, anything else from the Board? Mr. Bancroft sir what we're going to do is ask that we get an updated survey showing the 50 foot dimension you're proposing you have one fine. If you would submit that she'll make copies for us so we just want to make sure we have the accurate. No see what happened is our MEMBER DANTES : It says 50 feet here (inaudible) these need to match. MARTIN BANCROFT : This was the first one, this is the new one but I also noticed you're absolutely right 38, 1 think he was trying to show CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We just need to show that it's a 50 foot. MARTIN BANCROFT : So should I have him go back CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just make it match that's all. The numbers have to match. Alright, hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. That's actually going to be subject to receipt obviously of corrected survey. Let me just withdraw that motion and close this hearing subject to receipt of a corrected survey showing a 50 foot length. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7196—CHRISTIAN and CAROL ZIMMER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Christian and Carol Zimmer #7196. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's April 16, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet located at 7525 Nassau Point Rd. (adj. to Little Peconic Bay) in Cutchogue. Hi Bruce. So we're looking at this is LWRP exempt. We're looking at a single family dwelling with a side yard setback at 9.8 feet the code requires 15 foot minimum but you are maintaining an existing 9.8 foot non-conforming side. BRUCE ANDERSON : That is correct. So we have an existing four bedroom house. It's on 38,931 sq. ft. The house was originally built in 1973. What we have here is a renovation to the house is planned. We would extend the setback to 9.8 off the side lot line. So we'd extend that by 10 feet and then we would return 16 feet to square it off with the existing if you will bay ward or westerly face of the building so it just squares off an area. You should know and I know some if not all of you have been out to the property that there is a large hedge that runs along the property line between the proposed addition and the adjacent dwelling to the north. Although not part of the application the property (inaudible) would create a 16 by 16 foot porch or what we call a Florida room which conforms with all respect and we would construct a garage addition and within that addition we would relocate a bedroom maintaining the same number of bedrooms. The advantages to renovating the house in this fashion is it reduces the need to re-plumb the entire property the house because the kitchen is really an expansion of an existing kitchen and the dining room is an expansion of an existing dining room so to avoid the re- plumbing and re-wiring it also maintains most of the roof structure and it maintains exterior look of the property you may know. The lot area is 38.931 sq. ft., the buildable area is 34.131 sq. ft., the existing house living area is 2,244 sq. ft., the proposed addition adds 300 sq. ft. to September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting that for a total of 2,544 sq. ft. The existing garage would be expanded by 89 sq. ft. and so the total would be 2,544 sq. ft. Those numbers are depicted on the architectural drawings that were made as part of this application. The existing ground footprint on the buildable area of the property is calculated at 10% and the height of the building would be essentially maintained at 17 feet above existing grade. We submit to you that an undesirable change in the neighborhood would not occur because the planned expansion is moderate. There's no further encroachment towards the side lot line. The 160 sq. ft. addition is screened by a tall and full hedge and the building height remains low within the roof ridge running parallel to the side lot line and slopes towards the side lot lines so the height of the roof adjacent to the side lot line is 10 feet above existing grade. We submit that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other means for the applicant because the dwelling already is 9.8 feet from the side lot line. It's a pre-existing non-conforming condition and also because the expansion occurs with the existing kitchen and dining room already exist. The matter of relief we submit is not substantial for the 160 sq. ft. addition it's small. The relief sought 5.2 feet constitutes 35% of the standard and that the variance request will not have adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the site because there's no increase in the degree of non-conformity. The 9.8 foot setback would remain. The expansion is screened by the hedge. There's no additional encroachment towards the bay and the dwelling would be brought into conformance with the town's storm water management controls pursuant to statute. We submit our difficulty is not self-created because of the non-conforming condition of the building of the existing dwelling and also because of the dining room and kitchen established in that portion of the dwelling. Thus the benefit to the applicant we believe it would outweigh any detriment to the neighborhood obviously the benefit to the applicant. It is a moderate expansion to the home and we submit there is no detriment to the neighborhood whatsoever. I'm here to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's start down here, Eric anything, Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look at that, you waited a long time but it went fast. I submit that you're correct. There is nobody in the audience unless you'd like to speak. BRUCE ANDERSON : This is Mrs. Zimmer. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm sorry just come to the mic. CAROL ZIMMER : We've had the house for over twenty years and we want to retire you know hopefully within the next five to ten years so finally renovating our kitchen with you know pressed wood, harvest gold old appliances everything so we inherited a dining room set that is September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting larger than what I have which is my old original kitchen set I'm going to be married thirty three years in a couple of weeks and that's what's going to go there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7182— ELIZABETH E. MACEDONIA and THEODORE N. PAPADOPOULOS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Next application before the Board is for Elizabeth Macedonia and Theodore Papadopoulos #7182. It's adjourned from August 2nd so there's no need to reread the Legal Notice. So we received an amended survey and an amended floor plan. Tell us what you'd like us to know. SHAWN LEONARD : I guess I'll just recap, basically we are taking a pre-existing building that we're trying to have it legalized as a pool house. It was originally a garage with a workshop and at our last meeting the original pool the building there had been divided up to like three rooms and we took the proposed here is to remove the walls so that the sitting area would just be one large room and then the area that was kind of set up as a kitchen the electrical line will be removed that was to the stove and we would just have a wet bar in that space with some storage. There is a bathroom that was originally a legal bathroom that was in there as well but now we are converting we understand that we also have to make that now legal to the current standards so we are removing the shower in there as well but we'll keep the outdoor shower. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and the new survey shows the pool location changed. You're going to attach it to the house with a deck? September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting SHAWN LEONARD : Yeah it's further away it's closer to the let's see it's moving now a little bit more towards the south than what we originally had. So it's further south onto the property. The reason being is that they've now realized that while studying the property and living there they just purchased the property this year that the tree area along the southern part of the property there I'm sorry the northern part of the property there the tree line creates quite a bit of shade and the idea was to try and pull the pool just a little bit back so that we could actually be in the sun. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so it's now basically located on the rear of the dwelling. SHAWN LEONARD : More of the rear of the dwelling correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that an attached deck attached to the house? SHAWN LEONARD : That would be kind of a deck at grade yes attached to the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cause my question then is now you needed a variance for a pool in a front yard then I'm wondering if it wouldn't be useful to go back to the Building Department to find out if by changing it to this you even needed that variance. You know what I'm saying? SHAWN LEONARD : And I think that's pretty close I'm not a hundred percent sure but there was a variance that was granted to this piece of property I think it was back in '81 if I have it correct for a swimming pool in a very similar location for right there but the previous owner had removed the pool. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Removed the pool. So then if it was removed then that variance is extinguished otherwise it would have run with the land because there were no time limits at that time of variances. I just want to make sure that this change in location doesn't actually remove one of the required variances I'm not sure because it's now usually when something is attached to a dwelling by a deck or something and there is a pool in it then it has a different impact as though like it a free standing accessory. Just to make sure we're clear I mean it isn't problematic I just want it to be accurate. It isn't a problem I just don't want to be writing up a decision that doesn't reflect the change that may in fact improve your application by reducing the number of variances requested. SHAWN LEONARD : So what I'll do is go and speak to the Building Department. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah and as soon as you talk to them about it give the office a call, let them know what the Building Department advised and if it's the same then it's the same and if it's not then we'll write up the decision to reflect the change the amended survey which we September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting have to do anyway cause you are amending the location and the plan. Let's see if anybody has any questions, Eric, Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, no questions here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience want to say something? ELIZABETH MACEDONIA I just want to be clear, if the deck goes up to the pool then we perhaps may not need a variance? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The deck is clearly surrounding the pool and it's butted up against your house. ELIZABETH MACEDONIA :The deck is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The deck is yeah and if the pool is in the deck as drawn then it may not require a front yard variance cause it's attached to the rear of your dwelling. ELIZABETH MACEDONIA : Understood okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anybody, are you ready for me to close this hearing everybody? Okay we're going to close it but subject to information from the Building Department. As soon as you get that to us we'll begin writing the decision. So it's going to be closed subject to receipt of information regarding the potential diminishment of a variance for the amended location of the pool, is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEBMER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting HEARING #7181— R. BRADFORD BURNHAM III CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for R. Bradford Burnham III #7181. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's February 15, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct an accessory garage at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet at 2464 Peninsula Rd. (adj. to West Harbor) on Fishers Island. We're recording this so please state your name for the record. MARY BURNHAM : My name is Mary Burnham and I'm here I'm that architect and also the owner of the property and I'm here with John Mealy my associate and my architecture firm who has been helping me try to solve this problem intractable problem of trying to get an accessory garage on this very small site on the peninsula on Fishers Island and so thank you this afternoon all of you members of the Board for your consideration. We have a few things to hand out just to illustrate the problem. As you probably know and I'm hoping that some of you at least got to go to the site to see the very small CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did three of us were there. MARY BURNHAM : Okay wonderful that's great and what we're trying to do is create a relatively small very small accessory building on a very small site and between the required setbacks and the D.E.C. provision of being 75 feet back from the high water line. We're sort of locked into a very difficult situation where it's almost impossible to find a site that wouldn't need a variance for this accessory building. We're trying to preserve the very unique character of the peninsula and of this site and we are requesting a location that we think has the least impact on our neighbors and our you know everybody in the community and at that end of the peninsula. It is close to the road but as we'll show you there is precedent all over the peninsula almost every single building is close to the road but where it's located will be largely in what we call Fishers Island jungle. It will be you know not visible from the road for the most part because we will not open it to the road. It will be open from where we park so that it really won't be noticeable at all from the road as we see it. So we think that's sort of the best possible solution and as I said one that has the least impact on that site and that end of the peninsula. So the first drawing shows you the 75 foot setback clearly. Actually if you just pull this back so I can just sort of point it out what we're showing and so it's situated at the end of this sort of wooded heavily wooded area with only the short end opening to the area where our parking area is and what the green illustrates is sort of wooded and the white everything that isn't green is sort of more open but our house is really surrounded by trees as well. It was very hard to really present the sort of full extent of how wooded that area is. There's really one open green space is out in this area here. The second panel is really to show you the context and for those who September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting went this is a reminder of what it looks like sort of driving up the road. Our neighbor is quite close to the road and just built an addition closer to the road and it is a dirt road at this point on the peninsula. All these photographs are marked so it just sort of shows you the sequence going up the road and looking at the site from both sides as you approach and as you would approach from the opposite side here and so that gives you a sense of what we're proposing and as you can see in the photograph B on the left hand side of the road it is very heavily wooded and sort of just grown up so we think that hiding it in that grove is really our intention. The third page just shows you instances all over the peninsula where we have accessory buildings and actually primary residences that are located close to the road. I'd be surprised if you know maybe there are a few houses on the peninsula that have you know it's just you know given the context of this particular part of Fishers Island all the lots are extremely narrow and it's almost impossible I mean it is impossible in most cases to actually create the setbacks that are required. So as you see on our road on the peninsula itself our particular road has (inaudible) buildings that are really virtually right up on the road and so this is very much the context and the sort of precedent that is already existing in this part of the island. I'd love to know if you have questions or comments. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay Nick why don't you start. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm one of the Board members that actually got to visit the site. We walked around, I was happy to see your resubmittal or your amended plan where you articulated the garage building in a different direction but I'm still having difficulty understanding the location chosen versus elsewhere on the property and I understand that you're trying to mitigate you know potentially well dealing with a number of variety of factors including the setback the distances from the creek but why would you propose to put the garage sort of in this wooded hill area versus where the existing gravel driveway terminates in the same just facing opposite. It seemed like a natural level spot that would be really easy and it's well shielded from the road. No one would see it, it would be easier to you know bring groceries or what not to the house I mean you name it. MARY BURNHAM : Right and we thought about that hard and ultimately staked it out and everything really lived with it for a while and it just it's so in your face and I think we just don't want to see this building at all and so it's very hard to plant that out without losing a significant amount of our only green space. So I know it's easier this is a slightly more difficult but it is you know this is a building that is accessory, it is not something that we, we really really need it to make our very tiny little house function but we do also want to put it in a place that we don't interact with it all the time and that yard is between us and our neighbor you know is walked through all the time. Our neighbors walk through it, it's sort of it's not a community space but it is you know we walk through it all the time. We just don't really want see this building. September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It seemed like whatever the barrier plantings whatever you want to call it along the road there were openings that would give passers by a view into the property it just seemed that would be the natural spot for the garage. MARY BURNHAM : But what they would see is a building and so we really don't want to have that be the view. So those pathways are heavily trafficked and I think the whole idea of we hate even having cars there but having a building there is very it's just feels wrong. It's just very kind of in your face and it makes it really the centerpiece of the site and it just it's not something that we really want to see. It's not something that we want to have sort of as a block in the middle of this site that is constantly that we're constantly moving through. So that was really why. I mean we really I know that sort of it would still require a variance and you know it may seem obvious but when you're living there it really is it feels very wrong because it's something that you would be constantly going by instead of the greenery so I think we're trying to keep this as a sort of green rural sort of not you know if we can mitigate the need to have this building by landscaping it out that's really our goal and the way to do that was to put it in the landscape and not in a place that is basically right in our path and right in the middle of the site so that was something MEMBER PLANAMENTO : What about further up where it was wooded beyond the utility box area? It's also level and you have the same road access sort of in what would be sort of the northeast corner I guess right where your thumb is right now. MARY BURNHAM : So that again is a the barrier between us and the neighbor I think that would be a very aggressive thing to do in terms of between us putting a building between us and that neighbor where it's not a very you know we'd lose a significant piece of that green space and I think again planting that out we would lose that green space so I just it seems it just it doesn't seem really that useful here because our cars are here and (inaudible) parking here but you know that doesn't make sense to us to move that whole thing (inaudible). I think we're trying to keep the green sort of feeling of the peninsula so that's what were we really, really thought hard about where this should go and this seemed like the most the least impactful the most sort of clever way to do it without you know having it be in the way and so that was really why. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let's take a look at the variance standards that we have to address when making a determination. The first one is character of the neighborhood, is it in keeping and you attempted to show us that there are many accessory structures really close to rights of way and roads and so on. If you can produce any prior variance relief for some of those front yard setbacks that would be very helpful to support that argument. You have actually reduced the front yard setback when you changed the orientation from the original which was 12 feet. It's now at 5.2 feet which is slightly bigger than a yard stick so that's in one corner it's September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting not through that at its closest point. So if you have some prior variances that can support the fact that there are many various front yard setback relief that has been granted that would help. MARY BURNHAM : How do we is there can we just find that in our archive? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah we have those kinds of things on Laser Fiche, we can assist you with how to go about searching those records so that you can come up with it. So that's one thing. The other standard then is environmental impacts, we have to look at that. Now there is potentially far more significant land disturbance in working on a slope that's as extreme as that requires piers and so on and if you were building on a slab someplace on (inaudible) flat plane. We need to kind of have a better understanding of how you see this preserving the environment as opposed to having a greater impact on it. Clearly you would have to put in you know all the onsite storm water controls for drainage, downspouts, gutters and so on. MARY BURNHAM : Which would happen regardless. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes no matter where it goes you have to do that. The substantiality of the variance is another thing. When you consider that the front yard setback that the code says is the minimum is 40 and now we're at 5.2 that's an enormous percentage of relief. We can grant it but it has to be based on mitigating factors. Something that says well it's got to be like that because and it won't have an adverse impact even though it's that close because see what I'm saying. If it's five percent relief we'll say it's not substantial but when you're getting up to forty, fifty, sixty, seventy five percent relief and more that is a substantial variance and the Board is required by law to grant the minimum variance justifiable. Self-created hardship, again in and of itself that is not a reason to grant or deny, these are all balanced out. The law requires us to look at all of those criteria and balance them and ultimately determine if the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the community or the other way around. So yes this is self-created because you bought the property, you knew what the limits on the property were at the time you purchased it or you should have, the law requires that you do. So you want to build something the code doesn't permit so that's it's not like there was a pre-existing structure there way before the code was ever decided so we have to address the self-creation and what have I forgotten? Oh do you have any other alternative for a variance. Can you do what you want to do without a variance? In this instance probably not because you're the front yard location is not the problem. On waterfront parcel the code allows you to put an accessory structure in the front yard, it's the setback from the right of way that's the problem okay and lot coverage isn't a problem either. You just have the one variance that we're looking at and those are I think you did do some of those in your application cause those standards are spelled ';,y September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting out in the application but if here before the Board you would like to address any of them now we're certainly willing to entertain whatever you want to say. MARY BURNHAM : So I think in terms of the constructability of the building and the difficulty of building flat versus not, I think we were going to our plan was to make this as a lightweight structure as possible and to have minimal you know a sort of minimal number of pilings and it's actually not that sloped there. I mean it is a little bit but it's really holding up that back corner and that's sort of it so from a constructability point of view we don't think it's a drastic or you know a sort of detrimental to the site. We think it's very doable from that point of view. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well if your goal is to in fact or part of your argument is that you're going to tuck it behind existing vegetation in order to reduce the visual impact and create a buffer between the structure and the road we need to understand how you're proposing to get equipment and machinery in there and not destroy any of that buffer. You'd have to come in off your driveway I guess and use small equipment as opposed to big large tractors. MARY BURNHAM : Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That kind of information would help. Can you think of anything else. I mean I want to say this from the get go, I'm an architect so I understand the aesthetic consequences of certain decisions and why you would want to preserve not only the natural landscape but your vistas your views and some open space but having said that you know I'm obligated as are the rest of the Board members to go by what the law requires and unfortunately the preservation of view sheds is not part of the standard unless you're on a scenic vista the scenic byway which this property is not. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think also one of the things you know just having walked that site and the revised plan as submitted is much better than the original but you're still sort of canter livered for lack of a better word, you have to create this retaining wall to support the foundation. I don't know what impact if any there would be but even though there's a slope if it was pushed further in perhaps that might be a benefit. Not in towards the road, I'm saying in towards that 75 foot buffer if there was a way to angle it forward and in to create more space. MARY BURNHAM :To make it more parallel to the road and push it towards MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah to bring it up to where your index finger just went. MARY BURNHAM : Yeah no exactly. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You're creating I mean that might be something that would help to mitigate I still have just a hard time and I don't live in the house I've only been there once but +;uu September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting that flat area opposite the gravel parking area just seems like the logical spot and I understand it's in your view shed as you described but it just seems like that's where it naturally and (inaudible) should go. MARY BURNHAM : Right but as I said it's just in the middle of the site and it's where we go you know we walk back and forth there all day and I just think that we won't put it there. It would kill the site. It's not a big building but it would be so it would be very you know it would be putting a building right in the middle of the site which you know feels we have this large side on the site that we don't really that it's just wooded and it feels as though if we MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but the terrain there on the south end I mean there's really I don't want to say it's a steep bluff or a bank but having walked and we all walked up and down that general area MEMBER ACAMPORA : Wasn't there a foundation of some sort there? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah there was like a little foundation tucked in there. MARY BURNHAM : Where? MEMBER ACAMPORA : There was an old foundation tucked in to in that green area. MARY BURNHAM : No here? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah. MARY BURNHAM : That's not an old foundation that's an old it's a platform for a tent that we had. MEMBER ACAMPORA : It looked like some foundation of sort. MARY BURNHAM : Right and that is a precisely originally we had actually our original idea was to put the building here (away from microphone inaudible) with the FEMA lines we actually have a lot of work trying to work with that and we ended up getting that sorted out and then we realized with the D.E.C. line there was no way we could do it there and that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The red line is what? MARY BURNHAM :That's the 75 foot setback that's required by the D.E.C. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The blue is the MARY BURNHAM : The FEMA line but that's no longer our biggest issue it's really the 75 foot setback. September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well here's the point even if you tucked on the flat area okay the bottom line is if you moved it between those two trees you're still going to need a substantial front yard setback variance. MARY BURNHAM : Yes right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And that's really all that's before us. MARY BURNHAM : (speaking away from the microphone) if we just moved it up the length of the building would that work for you? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What I'm looking for is the largest front yard setback you can give us. Now you gave us 12 at one point but this is by far a better site. Siting it this way has far less impact on the road but the more you move it toward that larger tree and toward the water the greater the front yard setback. You have to find the middle ground I guess you know where does it become too much and then you start to impact you know that big tree. MARY BURNHAM : We looked at you know down that our biggest I think we're the 75 foot line is really the one that we don't think we can you know have any relief from so if we moved it down towards the parking and maybe move the parking a little bit further that way would that be accessible I mean acceptable? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well look it's not for us to design it, we're just trying to give you the feedback to say that these are the things we have to think about and the bigger the front yard setback the better. The more you can find of course we don't want to have an adverse impact on the water that's for sure which is why front yards are the preferred location when you're on waterfront property and you know we agreed you want to keep this as the least visually intrusive as you can, preserve as much as the buffer and of course the more you start removing it toward the gravel drive the more visible it gets MARY BURNHAM : But I would be willing to you know plant more trees around there because that would just be an extension of the wooded area. In other words if we moved it up we would move that tree line up so it wouldn't be standing on its own in you know the open space. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : With half of it sticking out. MARY BURNHAM : Put it into that open space and then plant trees. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can propose some additional you know landscape screening. MARY BURNHAM : (away from microphone) if we move it here I think we can plant it out (inaudible) We're also trying not to have the entry be a new entry curb cut onto the road and September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting have it all come off just one curb cut. I mean we only have place for two cars. It's very small, everything is incredibly small. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do you know what the current distance is from the location of the proposed garage on the plan that you're showing us right now. Currently it's 5.2 feet what I assume is the southeast corner, what is the distance from the northeast? I don't have that on anything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks like it's almost double I don't have a scale ruler. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Because that would then become the new sort of southeast corner if you're pulling it up. MARY BURNHAM : That's from the property line (away from microphone) almost ten feet from the actual road. (away from microphone) which is another 5 feet from the road so it's about 17 feet to the road. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah because if you start to cross that 75 foot line then you start to wind up with Trustees approval required and all of that. If you start to get too close to the water they have jurisdiction is this LWRP exempt did we not send it into them? MARY BURNHAM : I think that dimension is on the application the previous paperwork that we did you see that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah. We don't have any LWRP on this I wonder why. Did we not send it up? BOARD SECRETARY : Yeah we did. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do we have an LWRP on this? They might call it exempt because you're on that side of just double checking on we have to look at comments from the local waterfront revitalization program coordinator the LWRP. That was put into place a number of years ago which is a local law that now allows us to make local determinations about setbacks from naturally regulated feature. Exempt that's what I thought cause it's not okay you're fine on that. We send MARY BURNHAM : We're fine on what? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We should give you a copy, we'll give you a copy MARY BURNHAM : We're exempt from what just so I'm clear. , September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here it is I got it right in my notes. It means that the coastal policies that are in place you are exempt from because you don't have to conform to anything because you're already behind that 75 foot line. MARY BURNHAM : I see. If we stay behind the 75 foot line then we're exempt. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah if you have a corner of it sticking in it's not going to be an issue. It's just if the whole building were moved there then we'd have a different jurisdiction, they would have to look at it an additional one not a different one. It's not within Trustees jurisdiction but it's not 100 feet from the water either. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think the opportunity here though is if they can increase the setback from the 5 % feet or the 5.2 to something greater whether you slide the garage building somewhere along that red line, whether you put it in what would appear the lawn area where you said you definitely don't want it. You're always going to be at that same 12 % foot line. So think we're sort of you know the suggestion here is that we just need to see a greater setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you can create this more (inaudible) orientation return to the 12 foot 12.5 front yard setback that is certainly going to be probably more in keeping with other non-conforming front yard setbacks for accessory structures. I mean we do we've been to the island I mean some of them are literally sitting on the rights of way we know that but when we look at character of the neighborhood we don't take in all of Fishers Island. We're going to look primarily at Peninsula Rd. because that's where the impact would or would not be any other comment or question from anybody at this point? So why don't we do this, let me give you an opportunity to think about what we just discussed. Discuss it together, I'll just adjourn this for two weeks to the Special Meeting and then give you some time to perhaps revisit where you exactly want to place it and submit it to us. If we have no further comments or questions about what we get and we do get it by then we'll probably just close the hearing and then write a decision. If we do have additional questions we'll adjourn it for the next public hearing a month from today. Well it's not a month exactly from today but it would be the October hearing. MARY BURNHAM : So the Special Meeting is not a public meeting right or am I CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is a public meeting, it's open to the public but no testimony is given. It's just for anyone who wants to listen to us deliberate for the decisions. T.A. DUFFY : It's not a hearing. MARY BURNHAM : It's not a hearing but it's an open meeting and if we submit in time for that you will consider a different location and continue deliberating on that at that time and September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean we probably won't have a draft written cause we don't know what you're going to do but it depends on how fast you can do it. MARY BURNHAM : I think we can move quickly but I think as I said CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's on auto cad I mean that helps. MARY BURNHAM : It does help okay great and so are there any other questions from anybody about any other aspect of this? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No but if you would think through what I discussed with you regarding the substantiality and the character of the neighborhood and any priors you can find, Kim will call and tell you how you can go about researching that. We gotta make sure that the record is substantial enough to support what you're requesting. That's about it really, anything from anybody else Bill any suggestions? Okay so I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this to the Special Meeting on September 22nd. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. This means that this hearing is technically still open so anything you want to submit is fine. If you want to get some letters of support from neighbors that always helps. They're a part of this process too they have the right to be heard, sometimes people do and sometimes they don't but if you have support for what you're proposing that's helpful to have them send that into us. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7182— ELIZABETH E. MACEDONIA and THEORDORE N. PAPADOPOULOS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I take it you've gone to the Building Department. September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting SHAWN LEONARD : Yes I've been to the Building Department and you're correct because it is a deck surrounding the pool attached to the rear of the house they say it would be an addition to the house and a variance would not be required for that pool. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what I thought. So why don't you ask them for an amended Notice of Disapproval based on the new survey to say fine just indicate that all we need is the one variance for the proposed pool house and a front yard. SHAWN LEONARD : Okay and once I get that do I give that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just give it to Kim. We'll know it's coming, I mean I just knew that that was going to change. SHAWN LEONARD : So a new Notice of Disapproval. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah an amended one to remove the one variance for the pool and then the pool house remains. They can do that very quickly I think. SHAWN LEONARD : Have a good day thank you. September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting CERTIFICATION I Elizabeth Sakarellos, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment and is a true and accurate record of Hearings. Signature : Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : September 17, 2018 72