Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-10/04/2018 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 October 4, 2018 10:36 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 October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Melan LLC# 7201 3 - 5 Paul Orlick# 7202 5 - 10 Thomas Cornell # 7203 10 - 14 Halsey Tuthill # 7204 14 - 22 Krupski Limited Family Partnership# 7205 22 - 27 Mary Zupa/Paradise Point Association # 7186 27 - 30 John and Gloria Skoblicki # 7198 30 -40 Robert and Catherine Harper# 7200 40 -44 Salvatore Agosta # 7199 44 -47 October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting HEARING #7201— MELAN LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for Melan LLC #7201. This is a request for a variance from Article IV Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's April 19, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct additions and alterations to existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet located at 230 Lesters Rd. in Mattituck. Is there someone here to represent the application? Please come forward and state your name in the microphone. ANTHONY D'ANGELO : Anthony D'Angelo. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is a request for a front yard setback of 27.5 feet where the code requires a minimum of 40 feet for additions and alterations. The house itself is 35.6 feet from the road. This is for a proposed covered open porch that's about six feet deep is that correct? ANTHONY D'ANGELO : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wrap around. What else would you like the Board to know? ANTHONY D'ANGELO : The house is remaining as it is. We're going to do some work on the interior of the house so we've already have gotten building permits approved to do that. We're really just looking for the variance with which the wrap around porch in the front and side area, they're going to go you know the setback area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you happen to have any of the green slips from the neighbors? Okay well let's see if the Board just so you're aware for this application and all application the Board of Appeals members go out and inspect the property so we've all seen all of the applications before us so we know what the neighborhood looks like to have an idea. Pat do you have any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : After looking at the property, are you going to keep the driveway to the right? ANTHONY D'ANGELO : Yes we are. MEMBER ACAMPORA : And are you still going to have that driveway going down where I guess you're going to close off that garage. ANTHONY D'ANGELO : We're going to close off that garage. That garage space is going to be repurposed is a family room. October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : And I noticed that the house with the view across the street is that property to the water? Who owns that property? Do you have access are you going to have access ANTHONY D'ANGELO : We have water access. There's a path between the two houses directly across the street and one down the street on the corner. MEMBER ACAMPORA : And the house seems to be in good condition for you to do this you know construction on it? ANTHONY D'ANGELO : Yeah as I said we've already pulled the building permits for the interior work. We've actually gutted it and we're just really trying to wait to see what we're going to do with the porches on it before we you know finish up the construction. The house itself the framing is all in good shape. We're going to do a bunch of work to the plumbing and electrical systems just bring it up to where it needs to be. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEMBER DANTES : I do not have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to point out that the 27.5 foot setback is for one end and it increases at the opposite end of this proposed porch addition to 34.2 which is almost conforming because of the way your house is sited on the property, it's not parallel. ANTHONY D'ANGELO : It's crooked to the property lines yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Two questions, do you have any proposed plans for a second story addition? ANTHONY D'ANGELO : No, we're going to leave the house the footprint of the house the square footage exactly as it is today. We're just going to repurpose some of the basement space but no second floor. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And secondly any proposed garage or accessory structures? ANTHONY D'ANGELO : Not at this point no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob. MEMBER LEHNERT : I don't have any questions. October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close this hearing reserve decision to a later date, is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We'll have a decision for you in two weeks. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7202— PAUL ORLICK CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Paul Orlick # 7202. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's June 6, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) proposed improvements more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% at 1300 Sound View Rd. in Orient. Is someone here to represent this application? Please come forward and state your name for the record. PAUL ORLICK : Paul Orlick good morning everyone. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is a proposed pool that would bring the lot coverage on your property to 23.2%where the code permits a maximum of 20%. PAUL ORLICK : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would appear from your survey that the house is 19.1%, it's under construction. Would you happen to know about any other prior variances along your street? PAUL ORLICK : I don't believe there were any on the street for lot coverage. I know there were plenty bluff CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Setbacks. October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting PAUL ORLICK : Setbacks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright what would you like us to know about this application? PAUL ORLICK : Well I've notified all of my neighbors by certified mail and I've had conversations with three of them and everybody seems to be for it in fact one of my neighbors was nice enough to write me a letter that I can submit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay we'll make copies for all the Board members. It looks as though you're going to have to do some additional excavation additional removal of shrubs and so on in the back in order to put your swimming pool in. PAUL ORLICK : No that's not my property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it's not. PAUL ORLICK : No that's another parcel behind me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's even closer than I thought. Alright let's see what the Board has, Eric you want to start. MEMBER DANTES : Sure looks like this house is just being built so why didn't what code conforming what have you thought of doing just to conform to code so it wouldn't require a variance? PAUL ORLICK : Well the pool is sort of an afterthought. The house conforms to zoning and I didn't realize that I would be exceeding the lot coverage for a swimming pool. MEMBER DANTES : How big of a pool would you be able to build that wouldn't exceed lot coverage? PAUL ORLICK : I think maybe 9 x 8 is what's remaining. MEMBER DANTES : That's all I have at this time those are my only questions right now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : On the site plan survey it illustrates your own septic system as being in the rear yard with a leaching pool that's 22 feet from the proposed pool and it says that the required minimum is 20 feet yet at the I guess it would be the western border of your pool where it's 10 feet to the lot line it shows a neighboring cesspool which looks like it's maybe now 4 or 5 feet so it seems that it's under the 20 feet from the neighboring pool. Can you explain what's going on there? October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting PAUL ORLICK : I really wasn't aware of that. The surveyor placed the pool I thought it conformed to all of the setbacks. I mean if possible I can shift it a little bit to help with that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Given the size it seems that it would scale out at 15 feet so even by shifting you have 2 feet which it still allows a shortage of 3 feet for the pool length. PAUL ORLICK : May I grab a survey and take a look? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think this is what Nick is talking about. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly to the west. MEMBER LEHNERT : Where would the overflow pool be placed? PAUL ORLICK :The overflow (inaudible) current drywell for the roof runoff. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're probably going to have to plug in any swimming pool into a dry well for pool de-watering also. Is that capacity large enough for that? PAUL ORLICK : I believe he sized for that. It says for both roof runoff and pool discharge so they've sized it properly. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And while you're researching the neighbor's cesspool if you wouldn't mind also indicating where the pool mechanicals will be. PAUL ORLICK : Okay. Is there a preference where the you know like that placed? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Typically we would prefer that for the sake of your neighbors that it be far enough away from their bedroom windows that they wouldn't be disturbed but more often than not the Board requires that you place any pump equipment in a sound deadening container or shallow well of some sort just to prevent extra noise but a lot of the mechanical systems nowadays are so much quieter than they used to be and nobody wants to hear that extra humming going on. PAUL ORLICK : I would think the back of the property and maybe just kind of shield it with some shrubs would be a good idea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well Nick I'm not sure what our jurisdiction might be with regard to a cesspool on an adjacent property. I'm going to check with Bill if there's anything that we have to do about that. I don't really know. October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) you're supposed to have pools 20 feet away from the septic tank. I mean (inaudible) 5 feet off the property line that's legal. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah it's a cesspool not a septic tank and you don't know what's next door really all we see if one cesspool there. We don't know whether they have a tank or not. Rob do you have any comments or questions? MEMBER LEHNERT : My questions have been answered. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anything you can think to do to reduce that lot coverage from 23.2%to anything less? PAUL ORLICK : I guess I can probably put a smaller pool in. I was hoping to get that kind of size. Both my wife and I are very athletic and would like to you know to get a smaller pool we'd like to do laps or something. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 16 x 32 is probably a pretty standard sized swimming pool. I there a smaller one you could put in? PAUL ORLICK : I'll have to look into that. I'm sure if we can custom size it a little bit better if the septic tank is an issue on the other side maybe bring it in a little bit and make it a little shorter. MEMBER ACAMPORA : What about turning it around? PAUL ORLICK : I'd be open to that. Shifting it from the back of the house towards back of the property line? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yeah instead of having it go horizontal to the house turn it around. PAUL ORLICK : I think it would be a viable option if no other ones are available. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Cause it didn't look like the back yard was that deep. PAUL ORLICK : It's not. MEMBER ACAMPORA : And my concern was the overhead wires. PAUL ORLICK :The surveyor you know set it MEMBER ACAMPORA : The surveyor shows the wires you know like 10 feet away but to me it looked like it was closer. October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's hard to tell where the property line ended back there cause you're under construction and it's kind of messy so it's hard to know exactly where the corner of your property line is. PAUL ORLICK : Basically what well there was a mound of dirt there too which (inaudible) topsoil so it made it kind of a little difficult to see. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well I mean the 10 foot side yard and rear yard setback is conforming to code if that's correct, the only thing that's before us really is lot coverage and I don't see anything you can do on the dwelling itself which is you know really pretty far along to reduce lot coverage with the house. So it's just a matter of whether or not there is any other thing you can do. You're not proposing a deck around it I presume. PAUL ORLICK : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're going to have grass, you're going to have just patio just paver. PAUL ORLICK :Just pavers or grass. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If we don't have any jurisdiction over that neighbor's cesspool then I don't mind where it is. You can rotate it if that's going to improve something for you. So what do you want to do Board members? Can you look into the possibility of reducing the lot coverage a little bit by reducing the size of the pool and just let us know what that might be? PAUL ORLICK : I'll have to see the size of them that are available in like a cement wall pool. I think they probably could custom size it to anything but I'm not sure if the liners come standard so I'll have to do some research on that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well I'll tell you what, is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to address the application? Alright I think what we'll do to give you some time to find out I'm going to just propose we adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting in two weeks. That gives you time to look into it and to let us know what options you might have and you might amend your application with a different lot coverage and a different sized pool and then we will look at that and deliberate after we get that information. PAUL ORLICK : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So just be in touch with the office and if you need to make any changes on the survey for a smaller pool and reduced lot coverage see if you can get that in to us and then we'd be able after that to go ahead and make a decision. Anything else from anyone? Motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting on October 18th, is there a second? October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : 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) THOMAS CORNELL#7203 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Thomas Cornell #7203. This is a request for a waiver of merger petition under Article II Section 280-10A to unmerge land identified as SCTM#1000-31-4-8 which has merged with SCTM#1000-31-4-9 based on the Building Inspector's June 15, 2018 Notice of Disapproval which states that a non-conforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or non-conforming lot held in common ownership with the first lot at any time after July 1, 1983 and that non-conforming lots shall merge until the total lot size conforms to the current bulk schedule requirements (minimum 40,000 sq. ft. in the R-40 Residential Zoning District) located at 580 Stars Road in East Marion. PAT MOORE : (already into the hearing) they were not aware and that's most of the cases here. It is also the case with the Cornell family, the history here is that and we have the two lots. We have the lot 8 which is the smaller parcel and it actually is lot 1 on Sound Crest Woods subdivision and I'm going to hand up I'll have Sara hand up for you, give each of them one of these. So Sara is going to give each of you the exempt list and some of you may or may not be familiar with the exempt list. The town as it was going through up zonings created grandfathered subdivisions and they were listed in the old code 100-12. It's still referred to today but as a footnote and when they were adopting the waiver of merger provisions there was a recognition that many of the lots were originally on the exempt list and that it gave owners time until 1997 when the code was changed to separate the lots that they may have appeared on the exempt list. The lot #8 is one of those lots that at the time that this exempt list well I'll back up, when the two properties were owned by Mr. Cornell's grandparents first you had it was owned by Morgan Cornell the grandfather and Mabel Cornell the grandmother the October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting properties were owned since the sixties, sixty nine. The subdivision lot was purchased from the developer Schroeder from the subdivision that is known as Sound Crest Woods. Sound Crest Woods is the subdivision that is east of Stars Rd. the east side of Stars Rd. north or east however you place the map and the other subdivision is called Stars Manor and that is on the west side or south side of Stars Rd. All these lots were similarly sized; they were lots that were 100, 110 by about I think it's 200 1 have to look because this map is awful but anyway it is what it is today. This was lot one they acquired it they were already the owners of the larger two acre piece that they had also bought from Schroeder's. The Schroeder's owned all this land here and the Schroeder's first sold the 2 acre parcel to the Cornell family and another piece to the north which had a house on it and that was single and separate so they bought lot 1 but they had already owned the larger 2 acre piece and it appeared on an exempt list. It was bought at the time that it was conforming and the Cornell family owned it the grandparents owned it for decades. In January of '86 Mr. Cornell passed away, the Cornell's got an appraisal at that time and I attached the appraisal to my outline; I'm working off of an outline to try to simplify the facts and I'm going by it as well but attached to it is an appraisal that was done prepared by this David Kapell at the time and it was completed in '89 at the time of the death of Mr. Cornell. So grandma Cornell still owned the properties. The estate the Mr. Cornell and Mrs. Cornell owned it as joint tenants with right of survivorship they were husband and wife so when the husband died it all went to the wife. However, when it went to the wife it was still considered exempt because it was appearing on one of the exempt listed maps. So that continued however then Mrs. Cornell passed away Mabel passed away, she died in 2003. 1 have the date on my outline. She died November of 2003. When she passed away that's when his father was the executor of the estate but because the properties were going to go to the grandkids the father kept the estate open until the kids were in his mind old enough, mature enough and with families and grandchildren that they were at that point able to receive their inheritance the property. So at that point the property was conveyed to Mr. and Mrs. I'm sorry husband and wife here. So we have a situation where we meet the waiver of merger provisions, the interesting thing is that the lot is on an exempt list subdivision, the larger piece is 2 acres and for many people when I talked to the older attorneys out here who know when the law was adopted it really wasn't intended to merge a large piece that a 2 acre piece you wouldn't expect that it would merge to the adjacent lot. However in reading the language very carefully it obviously does because it merges to either a conforming or a non-conforming property so you have the merger that's occurred today. So I've given you a lot of information but all of it consistent with the purposes of the code which is 1. To allow for the unmerging of properties that have been held by families for a very long time and unintentionally merged by the common ownership or in this case the estate that owned the property Mrs. Cornell who acquired the property from her husband and then continued to own the property as an estate through the period of time. Unfortunately not realizing that had there been a deed in 1997 for this lot 1 it would have been protected. Not October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting many people knew that. I think unless you're a very savvy real estate attorney or a very savvy real estate broker people were not paying attention so you see a lot of that in many of your waiver of merger applications. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So Pat when these merged by force of law in '83 because it was held in common ownership PAT MOORE :They merged in '97 after'97. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But I mean the point was you had until 1997. PAT MOORE : Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :To checkerboard these. PAT MOORE : Lot 1 it was really just lot 1. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Lot 1 and that didn't happen. PAT MOORE : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that kind of removes that possibility. We're really just looking at the balancing factors because this has not been sold outside (inaudible) PAT MOORE : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you provided variances for lot sizes in I guess Sound Crest Woods subdivision PAT MOORE : I pulled up through the tax map number all of the lots that had received area variances or variances in that general area so it's actually beyond the Sound Crest Woods. It extends up to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's up and down Stars Rd. isn't it? PAT MOORE : Well Sound Crest Woods is the north, Stars Rd. is the west, south and then beyond that is another subdivision that is I know I had some waiver of mergers that appeared because of the tax map designation that appeared off of Cedar Drive that loop. There were some additional lots to the as part of that subdivision that I believe are also listed but for sure the north and the south of Stars Rd. has received many an area variances and waiver of mergers because again of the long ownership history of many of the lots in that area. Most of them were acquired right after the subdivision was granted in the sixties and through the seventies and that's what you're finding when you do the searches. October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let's see if the Board has any questions, Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : Not right now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric? MEMER DANTES : Sorry I missed it, what was (inaudible) Thomas' relationship to Thomas Cornell? PAT MOORE : Oh that's grandma oh no Martin is right here. That's his wife, she just goes by her maiden name and it leaves me confused because we got a Thomas the first name but it's Martin Thomas last name. And they have a little one year old now so they were actually quite surprised the estate was surprised when they learned that the merger had occurred because they actually had to go to dad as the executor to try to clean up the title to all of these properties and they came to me and we reviewed this particular property and said oh we gotta do a waiver of merger application. So they are the generation that has been directly affected. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So who would be owning lot 8? PAT MOORE : So they have to decide how CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : Who at the moment owns the large parcel and the small parcel? PAT MOORE : The estate no I'm sorry not the estate, what they did is when they acquired it they checker boarded it from the estate so that Thomas has the ninety nine percent and Marta has one percent. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of which lots? PAT MOORE : Sorry the large lot it's on the single and separate. The large lot is just in Thomas only Thomas, the smaller lot is in both their names in percentage of ownership. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And they're looking to unmerge and what plans are if any are in PAT MOORE :They're planning a house at this point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : On which lot? PAT MOORE :The small one. October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And at the moment the plans are to leave the larger lot just undeveloped for the moment? PAT MOORE : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything more Eric, Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No I'm good. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from the Board, do we need to hear anything else, anyone in the audience wishing to address the application, Donna do you want to say something? So hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. PAT MOORE : Do you guys want a copy of the subdivision map cause I did have those. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's helpful I think so. (See Minutes of Resolution) HEARING #7204— HALSEY TUTHILL CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Halsey Tuthill #7204. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's June 6, 2018 amended June 15, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet now we have an amended Notice of Disapproval we received on October 151 so this is I'm going to change that so yeah it's just changed so strike that 15 we have a front yard setback of 17 feet from Locust October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting Court where the code requires a minimum of 35 feet and a proposed front entry at 14 feet from the street line where the code requires a minimum of 15 feet from the street line could you please state your name for the record. HALSEY TUTHILL : Halsey Tuthill. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. Alright so you're demolishing the existing house and proposing to put up a new two story dwelling. HALSEY TUTHILL : Yes and I wrote a letter you know I hope you read that. The area that I'm in Gardiner's Bay is the old section where most of that you know that section was set up year ago and the lots are I think 40 by 100, 40 by 115 feet in that one little section and then later on the lots got bigger. Basically when we answered all those questions about how it would affect the neighborhood the reason I don't want to go back any further than 17 feet is the trees if you saw the photographs I gave to you, there's a matter of about six or eight there's four trees on the left and two big trees on the right that would come into play if I went back that far they would have to come out and the biggest problem is my neighbor who is on Old Orchard (inaudible) if I went back that far I'd be 13 feet six off my line and it would come into play with you know he'd be looking at the side of my house from his patio. The code is that you have to have 35 feet from the front line they wanted that for your septic's but since it's a corner lot they said you know you have two fronts so I maintained the one front 35.10 and I wanted to go back 17 feet which would not come into play with you know it would have the least effect on my neighbor the Cronins. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The neighbor you're talking about is your facing your front door the neighbor to the right? HALSEY TUTHILL : Yes the neighbor to the right the Cronins. He has a corner lot and if I go back that far I'd be you know my side his patio would be looking at the side of my house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well the as long as you have a conforming side yard the distance we have inspected the property sir you know we do that for every application and your neighbor has a very substantial side yard where his house is quite a big side yard bigger than what the code requires so we need to understand why you can't be trees there's nothing in the code that says preservation of trees is a compelling reason to grant a substantial variance so we need to understand if there's any other thing you can tell us as to why you can't be conforming with 35 feet on both of those street frontages. HALSEY TUTHILL : Well I thought you only had to do one side. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No. October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting HALSEY TUTHILL : That's the reason. In other words if I was to have to go do that I would if I put my house on Sylvan if you rode down Sylvan you would see that all the houses there are probably 15 feet off Sylvan because Sylvan is a 20 foot yard road. MEMBER DANTES : The average setback? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well possibly if it's you can do an average setback but HALSEY TUTHILL : If you go through the neighborhood the average setback is probably 15, 20 tops. I was just talking to my neighbor you know they're Sylvan I should say Locust Court is a 30 foot road and if you go 30 feet from my lot line and then you go to my neighbor's they're 17 feet off of Locust and if you drive through the area the whole area very few people are more than 15 foot the average is probably 15 feet off the road cause most of the roads in Gardiners Bay are 30 feet wide. The only one that is 20 is Sylvan but if you look at the property all the roads in the association are 30 feet wide and the only one that is 20 is Sylvan. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would appear that most of the dwellings in that area are one story not all but most of them are, probably most of them predate zoning. HALSEY TUTHILL : Yeah they all are. This house has been there built probably in '39 the cottage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So a lot of that non-conformity was because they were built before the code. So if you were proposing to put a second story on the existing house that would be one thing because it is where it is but when something is proposed to be demolished unless there are really compelling reasons why you can't meet the code you have to meet the code and a lot of properties like yours including mine are corner lots and so we have the burden of two front yards because any street frontage by code is considered front yard and of course the bigger the house the more impact if it's close to the road obviously. A one story would be less than a two story. TUTHILL HALSEY : At one time I was thinking about doing an addition but then they said it would be too close to the road, you'd have to get a variance and then it would be you know going up higher so that's why I decided to instead of doing an addition (inaudible) corner of the house I figured well this here I get my 35 feet and go back 17 and that's the average setback for almost the whole community. It's probably 17, 15, 20 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well in order to know that well there aren't very many houses on Locust Court altogether what are there HALSEY TUTHILL : There's only two houses. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yours, the neighbor across the street October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting HALSEY TUTHILL : And across the street that's it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What about the one to your right? HALSEY TUTHILL : No that's on he's on, he fronts on the other road. It's Old Orchard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But he still have two road frontages. HALSEY TUTHILL : Yeah but it faces on the other way. I mean that road is only 215 feet long Locust and there's only two houses that face on that, the Shantz and mine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let's see who's got any questions, Pat do you have any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : I do. So you're proposing on that second floor four bedrooms? HALSEY TUTHILL : Yes. MEMBER ACAMPORA : And two baths. HALSEY TUTHILL : Yes. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Do you happen to know what kind of a septic system you HALSEY TUTHILL : I'm going to put a new septic system in. It's going to be a totally new septic brand new yeah the septic system I have is nothing. No this would be a new septic system. MEMER ACAMPORA : So you really have a pretty large parcel here HALSEY TUTHILL : Yes. MEMBER ACAMPORA : and since you're going to demolish this is there any way you would consider moving the house back? HALSEY TUTHILL : Well I am going to move the house back I mean it would be my house right now that house is 9 feet off the road so that's why I wanted to go back 17 and then it won't come into play taking out the trees and I wouldn't put any pressure on my neighbor to the right. MEMBER ACAMPORA : I'm good for now I have to come back to this. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mr. Halsey may I ask a question? Diagonally opposite your house, now your frontage is on Locust Drive diagonally opposite is what appears to be a relatively new two story home on Suffolk County tax map lot#9. October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting TUTHILL HALSEY : Oh you're talking about the (inaudible) MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm not familiar with the owners. TUTHILL HALSEY : Is that it's on Locust and Old Orchard that's the Manlees. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly, so that house seems to and I've not measured it, I'm not privy to their survey TUTHILL HALSEY : He's on a smaller lot than I am. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It is a smaller lot but the house is set further back. Is that a house that was renovated or is that new construction? HALSEY TUTHILL : That was the house that was ripped down and a new one was put up and I believe he might be see I don't know his setback I didn't look at his but it might be 15 or 20 feet it may be 20. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It seems from visual inspection the neighborhood is to be maybe even double that I think. HALSEY TUTHILL : What happens is if you take a look the road the thing is that road like Old Orchard you come down Old Orchard that's a 30 foot road. It's probably only maybe 10 or 15 feet wide. Everybody if ride to the area almost everybody is on the road. For example where we (inaudible) where Locust is that's 30 feet. If you ride down that road it's only 8 foot wide and if you measure like I said if you measure where my lot line is and you go 30 feet there's two big trees that are actually growing in the middle of the road. That road is 30 feet wide and if you saw it looks like it's like 8 feet but if you measure from my lot line as surveyed you go 30 feet there's two huge oak trees that are sitting they're in the road. See what happens is you know if you ride through the area you'll see that most of the roads are 30 feet wide but if you ride through there it looks like they're 10 or 15 and people have taken over on the road you know taken property that's really on the road. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It would seem to me then that would make the house even closer to the lot line than what's visually there so again my point was just to better understand what's going on at lot 9 because it is a two story home, the setbacks seems to be more correct conforming (inaudible) HALSEY TUTHILL : No cause if you were to look at that road there's a lot of trees there right, he planted all those trees that's really on the road. I mean most of the houses if you take a look in there a lot of the road is 30 feet long but when you look at it there's grass and stuff growing in 0 October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting there cause like people have extended their front yards, their side yards they're on the road so nobody cares. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well look the bottom line is that it's really not very relevant to what is before this Board. The bottom line is we have a survey that shows or a site plan where your property lines are. The Building Department has determined that what you're proposing to do is not conforming to the code. So what's before us is whether or not there have been other variances in that neighborhood I mean we've been talking about new construction. It's a very different consideration. HALSEY TUTHILL : Yeah I know because you're saying additions and I think you gave a lot of variances to Doug Fisher who's on Old Orchard. He has but it was an addition but I think you had to give him two or three different variances to do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah it was probably built before the code before zoning. HALSEY TUTHILL : But you're saying if I wanted to (inaudible) this building and make an addition then it would be I can do that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not necessarily. HALSEY TUTHILL : No see that's what I'm saying. That's why I took this choice but as far as if I was to put my house on Sylvan then I could conform with everybody else on that road right, is that correct? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know that. I can't answer that. I'm only saying to you that in order to conform to what the law requires new construction to be built at you need 35 feet from Sylvan and you need 35 feet from Locust. HALSEY TUTHILL : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I can't speak for other properties. We looked at them visually but I don't know the details on them. HALSEY TUTHILL : Well I understand if I was to conform the Building Department says if I was to conform, lined up with other people on the same line they would probably approve it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If the average there is something in the code that says if the average you can average the setbacks on either side of you. However the problem is you only have one across the street okay. You just told me that the property to your right is off Old Orchard. HALSEY TUTHILL : Right. October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And then you're already conforming on the Sylvan side so the only property on that road is across the street from you so you can't average the setback. So unfortunately you have such a tiny street there you don't have anybody else to average the setback. Now if you look at the total area you've already said correctly that you know a lot of summer cottages there, we know the property and many of them were built most of them were built before zoning and so you have a lot of non-conformity. That's characteristic of the neighborhood but when you're building from scratch unless there's some absolutely impossible reason why you cannot meet the code the Board is not allowed legally to grant anything less than the minimum variance allowed if in fact a variance is justified. That's what the law requires this Board to do. It's never personal you know, it's never about the applicant it's about the merits of the application before us so we have to work within the boundaries of state statutes. T.A. DUFFY : When you have a legal pre-existing non-conforming structure there's no self- created hardship because the house is there prior to zoning but knocking down a house and putting up a brand new one it's totally a self-created hardship because you have 160 feet of property and you want to be 17 feet off the property line. It's a completely self-created hardship and that's what weighs heavily on this Board's decision. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from the Board at this point? Is there anyone in the audience? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think just one other point of clarification, maybe you understand this but you had suggested that you were leaving a 10 by 10 section of the house remaining but still what's proposed is a demolition it's not a renovation. HALSEY TUTHILL : No at the time I said if I wanted to do I thought about leaving part of the house. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And I guess that's my point even leaving part of the house it would still be considered in my opinion new construction. A renovation is maybe a small addition or a porch on the house, this T.A. DUFFY :There's a definite there's the code defines what (inaudible) MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Please come forward and state your name for the record, speak into the mic. EMILY GUNDERSON : My name is Emily Gunderson and I own the house at 125 Locust directly across the street from the new build. I do have some concerns with the new build. My home is October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting a one story under 900 sq. ft. and at the highest point it's 15 % feet tall from peak to ground. It's on a very narrow road which you have seen and I think that allowing a 15 or 17 foot setback will really effectively block the sun and affect my privacy with a two story a full two story house and I also believe it will affect the value of my home and for me it's a quality of life issue that once it's done it can't be changed it is forever. The adjoining homes to the new build are one story, small homes and this is a very large tall home for the neighborhood. Since the proposed build is to be on a 100 ft. wide by 160 foot deep lot I think that there's adequate space to be able to move it back to the 35 foot required setback. There's no hardship here. I also had concerns with the site plan and the house plans that I was sent because the blueprints didn't show the front steps and the columned portico which came off the house five feet and then would be ten feet off the road. So the plans had stated that the house would be completely demolished and taken away and then there was also a notation on the blueprints that said a 10 by 10 foot section would be remaining. It contradicted what I knew from the zoning and also from the legal ad in the Suffolk Times that I has read about complete demolishing. So really I just ask that the ZBA reject the application for a variance and require the house to be built in compliance with the zoning requirements. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you and we have your letter in our file. Anyone else in the audience, please come forward and state your name please. STEVE SHAN : Good morning I'm Steve Shan I'm the co-owner of the house across the street with my sister. My family has owned our home for sixty three years so we have invested interest in that community. Zoning laws bring standards and protects the community from over building. There are times of hardship or extenuating circumstances when a variance is needed. This is not one of those times. The proposed new house can be built on a lot without a variance and keep within the zoning requirements. A 35 foot front setback and a 35 foot deep house leaves a back yard that is 100 feet wide and 90 feet deep. This back yard would be larger than any of the adjoining lots. Since there is no hardship I request that the Zoning Board of Appeals deny the appeal for a variance of 17 feet that I learned this morning. Thank you guys. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome, anyone else? Anything else from the Board, Mr. Tuthill anything else you want to tell us? Okay hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7205— KRUPSKI LIMITED FAMILY PARTNERSHIP CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Krupski Limited Family Partnership #7205. This is a request for a waiver of merger petition under Article II Section 280- 10A to unmerge land identified as SCTM#1000-111-13-8 which has merged with SCTM#1000- 111-13-7 based the Building Inspector's June 12, 2018 Notice of Disapproval which states that a non-conforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or non-conforming lot held in common ownership with the first lot at any time after July 1, 1983 and that non-conforming lots shall merge until the total lot size conforms to the current bulk schedule requirements (minimum 40,000 sq. ft. in the R-40 Residential Zoning District) located at 6125 Nassau Point Road (adj. to Little Peconic Bay) in Cutchogue. Please state your name for the record please. KAREN HOEG : Karen Hoeg. I am from the law firm Twomey, Latham, Shea and I'm here today with John Krupski on behalf of the Krupski family. The applicant the Krupski Family Limited Partnership is the current owner of improved land known as SCTM 1000-111-13-7 and the adjoining vacant parcel to the south known as SCTM# 1000-111-13-8. Both parcels are in R-40 zoning district requirement of lot size of 40,000 sq. ft. The existing lots appear on the subdivision map entitled amended map A of Nassau Point owned by Nassau Point Club Property Inc. which was filed in the office of the Suffolk County Clerk on August 16, 1922 as filed map #00156. Lot 7 is shown as lot 42 on the filed map and lot 8 is shown as lot 43 and a copy of the filed map was submitted along with our application. Most if not all of the lots in the filed map and existing on the waterfront of Nassau Point are non-conforming lots. Lot 8 appears to be the only vacant waterfront parcel in this area of Nassau Point Rd. and is the lot that we're seeking to unmerge. Parcels on the amended map of Nassau Point are of similar shape and dimensions as lot 7 and 8 and in fact most of them are roughly 100 by 350 feet as reflected on the filed map as well as the Suffolk county tax map. I have a comparison aerial to submit to the Board which shows the neighboring lot sizes. As you can see the lots in the neighborhood are non- conforming ranging from .75 acres to .91 acres in size. Only one lot is 1.15 acres 6485 Nassau Point Rd. To give you some factual information on the lots, lot 7 which is improved the lot size is 30,812 sq. ft. with a street frontage of 100.04. The north property line is 307.95 feet and it's 99.99 feet along the waterfront. The southerly property line is 308.92 feet. The waterfront is October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting bulk headed and contains a heavily vegetated bluff. In regards to the chain of title, on lot 7 in August 30, 1976 John P. Krupski Jr. and his wife Susan P. Krupski purchased lot 7 from Agnes Callen. In November 18, 1985 John and Susan Krupski transferred the property to John P. Krupski Jr. individually. John then transferred the property to the Krupski Family Partnership by deed dated November 10, 2010 and John P. Krupski Jr. is a member of the Family Limited Partnership. Turning to lot 8 which was the first lot owned by the Krupski's in which they intended to build a home on until lot 7 came to the market. That lot, lot 8 is 30,808.28 sq. ft. with a street frontage is just under 100 feet at 99.95 and the north property line adjacent to lot 7 is 308.92 feet. It also is 99.99 feet along the waterfront and has a southerly property line of 307.80 feet. Like lot 7 lot 8 is bulk headed having received Trustees approval in 1992. Lot 8 is the vacant parcel is wooded and contains wood steps and a platform from the top of the slope to the base of the beach. In regards to the chain of title on lot 8 the lot was transferred from Mary (inaudible) to Baxter Properties in February of 1952 and on November 5, 1970 Baxter Properties transferred the property to John P. Krupski Jr. In December 10, 2010 John P. Krupski Jr. also transferred the property to the Krupski Family Partnership. Per town code Section 280- 10A in November 18, 1985 when lot 7 was transferred out of John P. Krupski Jr. and Susan Krupski to John P. Krupski Jr. individually the lot merged. As John P. Krupski Jr. held title solely in lot 8 as of November 5, 1970. It was unknown to the Krupski family that this created a merger of the lots. The lot proposed to be recognized is a separate lot has not been transferred to an unrelated person or entity since the time the merger was effected and remains within the Krupski Family meeting the standards of 280-11A. When the family decided to sell the lots they filed last October an application for a building permit to unmerge the parcels. On November 22, 2017 the Building Department issued a Notice of a determination of merger stating that based upon the application the single and separate search along with the records and files in the town they determined that a waiver of merger was not necessary and it was their opinion that the property in question was single and separate. Upon receipt of the letter the family went to market the property for sale as two separate lots. Contracts for each lot were entered into on June 4, 2018 and it was not until we had further discussions with the town Building Department and the Town Attorney's office that it was determined that the November 22, 2017 letter of single and separate status was issued in error. Therefore a new application was then filed and a Notice of Disapproval was received on June 12, 2018 which is how we're here today. In applying the waiver of merger standards under 280-11B lot A would be comparable to a majority of waterfront lots on Nassau Point Rd. The Nassau Point subdivision contains lots that area similar in size to lot 8 that is proposed to be unmerged. The average lot size on the amended map A of Nassau Point is 100 by 350 sq. ft. as evidenced by the aerial analysis map I provided and the Suffolk county tax map. Lot 8 at 30,808 sq. ft. is comparable to these neighboring lot sizes. Historically the town of Southold has treated the lots as separate lots. As previously mentioned they appear on a 1922 filed map. Each lot has its own tax lot designation from the Suffolk October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting County real property department. Town property cards are maintained by the town tax assessor for each lot and the Assessor's Office treats them individually. Lot 7 is taxed as a one family residential lot of .83 acres with an assessed land value of $2,700 and lot 8 is taxed as residential vacant land with an assessed value of$2,500. The town Building Department treated lot 7 as a separate lot when it issued a building permit in July of 1960 for construction of a one family dwelling at 6025 Nassau Point Rd. The Town Trustees have also issued wetland permits for lot 7 in 2011, 2015 and as recently as 2017. The Town Trustees have recognized and treated lot 8 as a separate lot. The Town Trustees permit dated December 12, 1992 was issued for lot 8 authorizing and permitting the replacement of 100 foot of bulk head and stairs to beach as an in place, in kind project as shown on a 1970 VanTuyl survey. This 1992 Trustees permit was after the merger would have occurred in 1985. So for all purposes the Town Building Department, the Town Assessor and the Town Trustees have treated the lots as separate individual lots not as a merged parcel of 61,620 sq. ft. It is our position that there will be no adverse impact on the neighborhood by the Board's granting of a waiver of merger. I reviewed the LWRP memo dated October 2, 2018 from Mark Terry and have a few comments on that. As per the memo Mr. Terry states that the waiver of merger is inconsistent with policy standards of the LWRP as it will increase residential density in the area contributing to adverse impacts of ground and surface water through nutrient loading and sanitary systems, (inaudible) areas and increased potable water usage, large homes and irrigation construction. If developed he states that the residential use would not make a beneficial use of a coastal location. The practice in the town has been to allow for the development of these non-conforming lots on the waterfront of Nassau Point. As you can see from the aerial photographs many if not most of these homes exists with accessory structures including pools. Lots are comparable in size to the lot in question. If the properties were merged one could arguably build a much larger home on 1.4 acres, have more water usage, irrigation consumption and greater nitrogen loading. Any development of lot 8 would require maintaining bluff setbacks and a storm water management plan under Chapter 236. The bluff area currently on lot 8 is heavily vegetated and stable. No adverse impact would be created if lot 8 was maintained as a separate lot. We believe that we satisfy the standards of town code Section 280-11 and that a waiver of merger should be granted. If the Board has any questions I would be more than happy to answer them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Who built the steps the platform that's on lot 8 who built that and what year? KAREN HOEG : The Krupski family had built that I think it was back in the 1970's. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In the '70's okay and who is using it who used it? KAREN HOEG : The Krupski family uses it. October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's just how come it wasn't built on the other lot how come they weren't built on lot 7? KAREN HOEG : They didn't own lot 7 at the time that the stairs and the walkway was built. The intent was for the Krupski family to build on the vacant lot, lot 8 so they put the stairs in and then while they were contemplating what they were going to build lot 7 came for sale and they purchased that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Understood, and Trustees were okay with putting that on there without having a principal dwelling? KAREN HOEG : They issued various approvals that are all in the file. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright I just want to make sure it was in the record clearly that's all. Let's see what the Board has, Rob anything? MEMBER LEHNERT : I don't have anything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I appreciate the clarification on the stairs and the history of the lots I still have a difficult time understanding the stairs being on an undeveloped lot and that's I know it's a Trustees issue it just doesn't make sense. KAREN HOEG : Today I'm sure you couldn't but back in 1992 they had approved it and issued a permit which is in the application package. T. A. DUFFY : They still do today. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : They would still allow that? T. A. DUFFY : It's their (inaudible) you don't need a building permit so it doesn't go to the Building Inspector you just need Trustees and Trustees approve it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) considered bulk heading and stairs as T. A. DUFFY : You don't need Building Department. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any plans should this become unmerged any plans for a house construction on lot 8? KAREN HOEG : They're in contracts I'm sure that the new buyers have some plans in mind but it's not within my knowledge. October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's lot 8 is in contract. KAREN HOEG : Lot 8 and lot 7. CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : Oh both are. KAREN HOEG : Both are in contract. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so both the developed lot is proposed to be sold and the undeveloped lot unmerge and proposed to be sold. KAREN HOEG : Yes they're both in contract. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, Pat, Eric? MEMBER DANTES : Yes, who is Susanne Marino? KAREN HOEG : It's Mr. Krupski's daughter. MEMBER DANTES : So I think the hurdle on one thing I'm not aware of is approving a waiver of merger from an LLC so how come it transferred to the LLC didn't count as a transfer outside of the family? KAREN HOEG : It's a family partnership. MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) explanation of family partnerships, we'll also need documentation proving that partnership (inaudible) KAREN HOEG : Sure I can provide it. The partners of the family partnership are John Krupski who is here today and his daughter. So it has not transferred to a John Smith or somebody outside of the family. It's transferred to a family entity. MEMBER DANTES : Do you think you can send us in the articles and then proof that they (inaudible) owners. KAREN HOEG : Sure yes I can do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah it's unusual to actually have an LLC before us. T. A. DUFFY : This is different than an LLC. KAREN HOEG : Right it's a partnership it's not an LLC. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not an LLC. That's what we want to have in our records that's all. October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting KAREN HOEG : Sure I can provide that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No you answered the questions because I noticed the for sale signs saying under contract and I was a little dismayed because how can you be in contract when you don't have this straightened out? KAREN HOEG : Right, well we got we entered into contract based upon the November 2017 letter from the Building Department saying they were single and separate lots. So it wasn't until after we were in contract and the buyers attorney and myself you know wait a minute looking at the materials provided something's not adding up so we spoke to the Town Attorney and the Building Department and they took a look at it and it was determined that no they're not single and separate based upon the searches provided. That's how we got to where we are. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that clears it all up. Anything from anybody else, okay I'll just I'm going to make a motion to close it subject to receipt of documentation of the family partnership. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7186— MARY ZUPA/PARADISE POINT ASSOCIATION CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Mary Zupa/Paradise Point Association # 7186. This was adjourned from August 2, 2018 so there's no need to reread the Notice of Disapproval into the record. We have a slightly amended survey. Would you just state your name for the record please. October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting BRUCE ANDERSON : Bruce Anderson Suffolk Environmental. On April 191h of this year we filed an application with this Board seeking relief under Article III Section 280-14 which states that no building or premises shall be used or altered unless the same conforms to the bulk schedule incorporated into the chapter. The Building Inspector correctly notes that the lot size in a residential R-80 zone is 80,000 sq. ft. and at that time the proposed lot line change would have resulted in a decrease of the existing 75,533 sq. ft. lot owned by Mary Zupa to 70,250 sq. ft. In other words the Zupa lot would become more non-conforming than as presently existing. Subsequently a dispute arose as to the precise location of the property line between the Zupa property and Basin Rd. That dispute was resolved by both parties resulting in a slight modification of transfer where in the previous area of transfer at 5,283 feet from Zupa to Basin Rd. was decreased by 43 additional square feet to 5,240 sq. ft. Because of the slight change the application was re-noticed and here we are today. The lot line change sought in this application resolve a long running dispute between Zupa and the Paradise Point Association. In addition the lot line change resolved an outstanding zoning conflict wherein previously this Board declined the ability for a dwelling to be constructed on the Zupa property due to the previous finding that the Zupa premises would contain two principle uses, a residential use and a marina use. The requested variance relief essentially remains the same that is from Article III Section 280-14 to authorize the Zupa lot to become more non-conforming than it presently is. Instead the Zupa lot becoming 70,250 sq. ft. the lot would become 70,290 sq. ft. or an increase of 43 sq. ft. over what was originally proposed. We all know a principle consideration in the granting of any area variance is whether or not the granting of a variance would result an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. In this case there is no change in the character of the neighborhood because no physical improvements are actually sought and so to run through the criterion we would suggest that there is absolutely there is no change in the character of the neighborhood and that the benefit sought by the parties can't be achieved by any other method other than an area variance because the Zupa lot is already non-conforming and if the marina use is to be separated from the residential use the Zupa parcels must become more non-conforming. Thirdly the variance sought would not be substantial because the transfer of the 5,240 sq. ft. represents only an approximate 7% decrease in the land area for the Zupa lot. The grant of a variance would not have an adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood because physical changes of the property there are no physical changes of the properties that area proposed in this application and although from an area standpoint the Zupa premises become more non-conforming it is self-created. The two uses residential and marina technically occur on the Zupa lot is not self-created and is resolved by the granting of this application and thus it's our contention that the benefit to the applicants, Zupa and the Paradise Point Association if the variance is granted would outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. I would be able to answer any questions you may have. October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well said, very thorough and it remedies a long standing condition that the Board placed upon the residential property. I'll see if the Board has any questions or anyone else in the audience wishes to address it. Let's see Eric any questions? MEMBER DANTES : I think it's a pretty straightforward application. I don't have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? MR. ZUPA : Good afternoon madam Chairperson members of the Zoning Board of Appeals of Southold. My name is Victor Zupa, I'm the husband of the owner of the property the applicant Mary Zupa and I support the application to transfer the portion of the land to be part of Basin Rd. and it also does remove the marina use from our property and to move it over. The only objection last time with the lot line is because he had cut through the driveway etc. and that was (inaudible) markers were put in by the surveyor for the association so everything is acceptable. If I could ask, would there be some reference to that fact that the marina use that it has accomplished the removal of the marina use from our property? MEMBER DANTES : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can put that right into the decision. MR. ZUPA : Okay thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 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 reserve decision to a later date is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7198—JOHN and GLORIA SKOBLICKI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for John and Gloria Skoblicki #7198. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's May 18, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, 3) located less than the code required minimum combined side yard setback of 25 feet located at 560 Youngs Ave. in Southold. Is there someone here to represent the application? Please come forward and state your name. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : First if I may I'm going to recuse myself from this application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. ANN SURCHIN : My name is Ann Surchin and I am the architect for the applicant. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it would appear that we want to have a side yard setback of 5.8 feet where the code requires a minimum of 10, front yard setback of 20.7 feet where the code requires a minimum of 35 feet and a combined side yard setback of 18.5 feet where the code requires 25 feet is that correct? ANN SURCHIN : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you want to put on 155 sq. ft. front porch and a second floor additions. ANN SURCHIN : Correct and a little mud room on the opposite side adjacent to the kitchen. I mean there's a stoop going up there now and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's on the side yard. October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting ANN SURCHIN : The side yard yes and we're pushing out part of the back wall 6 more feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's a side yard deck addition on the south and east, enlarging a den, adding a second story, mud room okay. The front porch is open with columns nine foot deep is that correct? ANN SURCHIN : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anything else you'd like the Board to know before we ANN SURCHIN : No I think it's all in the written application. The house was built when the zoning was different. It was you know commercial then and so it was legal at the time that it was built on the property which is important and then the codes changed which is obviously why we're here today and it also I just want to say what I think is important is that we tried to keep the scale down of the house. We don't have a regular eight foot plate height upstairs, we have a low pitched roof. The building is 26 feet high and the (inaudible) residents right next door is 27 feet 6 inches high. I know this because I renovated that house and even the porch we felt brought the scale of the house down because it breaks up that facade which would look an awful lot higher if the porch weren't there. So that was the design rational for us. Also changing the way the pitch of the roof works so that the gable and the front meaning that the eaves are low down to each side of the house. If it had been reversed the way it is now then that roof would have seemed very tall to the adjoining neighbors. So that was our strategy and trying to be respectful of its size. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is the current front yard setback? I'm trying to see if I can see it on the survey. ANN SURCHIN : I'm sorry I couldn't hear you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is the current front yard setback of the dwelling from the street? I'm looking on the survey I'm trying to see if I can see it. MEMBER DANTES : It's about 29 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah it's about 29 cause to the porch it's 20.7 and it's a 9 foot deep porch so 29.7 1 guess. ANN SURCHIN : I'll tell you what it is cause I do have it. It is the existing houses is oh yes it's 20.7 plus 9 feet to the face of the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so the house is already in a non-conforming front yard. October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting ANN SURCHIN : Correct as are most of the front facades of all the houses on that block. In fact opposite there's Mr. Planamento's house and his porch is it's a little skewed to the street but one end of it is 9.2 feet from the property line and the other is 9.6 feet. I have the survey that can show that if you want to see that the other side of the street. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's possibly helpful for character of the neighborhood. ANN SURCHIN : Well I have it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that an extra copy or can you make us a copy? ANN SURCHIN : I can lend you this copy. This survey is actually from my property because I live diagonally across the street. So when I bought my house I had to do show where all the other (inaudible) on my side of the street. This is Mr. Planamento's house and the Skoblicki residence is directly opposite. So here's his setback, I don't conform, this house conforms, this one doesn't, this one doesn't and the other porch down here on Youngs doesn't either in terms of setbacks they are pre-existing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that all helps with looking at character of the neighborhood. If you want to take this and we'll return it or do you want to just summarize these for us just you know in a letter just indicating that the survey shows these various non-conforming setbacks along the street? ANN SURCHIN : Oh you mean submit a letter? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah just submit a letter. ANN SURCHIN : You can simply keep it for now I have another one. If you can return it to me that would be great. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We should also note that this porch addition is one story it's 17 feet wide, the house in and of itself is like 26 feet wide so if you're talking about maybe two thirds house with a one story addition one third will remain the same footprint as it is now. ANN SURCHIN : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does the Board have any questions? MEMBER DANTES : I have one. On the north side where's that 6 foot side yard setback how close is the neighbor's house? ANN SURCHIN : It's on the survey. It doesn't say how close it is but I mean it shows on the survey October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : I see something that says building I don't see which survey are you looking at? ANN SURCHIN : It's a concrete wall (inaudible) see it? MEMBER DANTES : That's not the whole house though is it? ANN SURCHIN : The main house is (inaudible) there's a little bay window here but the front of it is in alignment pretty much with this house. MEMBER DANTES : Right I know that I'm just asking if you put a second story addition how does it interact with it being 5 feet off the property line (inaudible) neighbor's house. ANN SURCHIN : Well that was the whole strategy of lower the plate height and MEMBER DANTES : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They're not really supposed to be up here that's why you can't that's why we ask people to stay at the mic but sometimes people have to show us some visual documentation and it's easier for them to come here and explain it to us so I apologize and we'll do our best to it's actually this is the neighbor that he's talking about because that side yard is (inaudible) this is the one that (inaudible) alright Pat do you have any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : I do, can you tell me is the septic, cesspool what does he have on the property. ANN SURCHIN : Can you I'm having trouble hearing. MEMBER ACAMPORA : What kind of septic or cesspool system is on the property and can it handle now the additional bedrooms and bathrooms? ANN SURCHIN : It can handle it. They are thinking about putting in a new septic but you know it's under the four bedroom limit and we think it's adequate. MEMBER ACAMPORA : I was going to ask the second question is where is it located? ANN SURCHIN : They're in the rear. JOHN SKOBLICKI : Hello I'm John Skoblicki I'm the owner and the survey shows that the septic tank is located in the rear yard towards the rear right corner of the garage in the center of the yards but it's back towards the rear corner of the garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know when the system was installed? It's not a cesspool it's a septic. October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting JOHN SKOBLICKI : It's a septic I believe and I do not know the exact date it was installed. The reason for our wanting to modify the house is that my wife and I recently retired and it's our intention to move out to Southold on a full time basis. Currently the house is two bedrooms with one bathroom and our family consists of three adult children one of which is married so there's a husband and two grandchildren and the house we've made the most of it while we still have as a secondary residence but it really it would be inadequate for our needs moving you know into the future. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, anything else Ann? Let's see if anybody in the audience wants to address the Board, please come forward. NANCY GENDRIN : Good afternoon Zoning Board of Appeals and thank you for hearing us. That is my brother Richard Gendrin and I am Nancy Gendrin. My brother Richard and myself are co- owners of the property and house located at 620 Youngs Ave. We are both strongly opposed to granting the request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 to construct additions and alterations located at 560. The edifice on 620 Youngs Ave. is the original telephone company. MEMBER DANTES : Is 620 a direct neighbor or where are you in relation? NANCY GENDRIN Yes we are the direct neighbor to the north. The edifice on 620 direct neighbor to the north is the original telephone company building. In the past we had received a mailing as to its eligibility of being designated as a historic landmark. Because of the proximity of the building at 560 directly to the south the effect of construction and or alteration vibrations to 620 is yet to be determined, my brother will continue. RICHARD GENDRIN : I'm Richard Gendrin. Mom and dad bought the building, it was a telephone company originally and he converted it into a retirement home. Because of the original sidewalk it is there on the south side of the house of 620 Youngs Ave. which is we are the neighbors to the north 620 Youngs Ave. We have a water main that goes up there and we also have I had installed cause it was oil originally we installed a gas line and that gas line is basically a foot off the property line with the water line. It runs all the way up the side of the neighbor 560's property and we don't want that disturbed. Also it ducks in underneath the sidewalk so we can get into our house the sidewalk belongs to us but because of the sidewalk that's why they put the gas main so close to the property line. As it is our houses are very close together as it is anyways. There is also a cesspool that we have and it is in the front corner of the front yard and it is in the south west corner of the yard which is very close to their property line. That is where our cesspool is. Their cesspools they have two of them not one they have two and it goes all the way back past their garage in the center of their lot and one is a holding tank and the other is the overflow. They have two back there and the pipe must run all the way from their house all the way to the back which is a long run for a cesspool line to go but anyways it October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting works for them. That's the way it was done years ago. Very interesting when we put in the gas main I was there cause I wanted to make sure everything was going to go properly and I was so surprised because as they went through with the digging of the trench they actually ripped up part of the irrigation system for their lawn come to find out it was over on our property. They didn't know where their property line was. It took them a long while to figure out where their property line was. I kept digging it out where the marker is but it kept getting covered up but that's neither here or there but when we did the gas main I said well we can't leave it like that so we put it we cut it shorter, we put it on their property and we reinstalled it so that everything would be going good. I didn't want to cause any friction or any problems. I thought that was the polite thing to do cause they're not there that often and if it goes on automatically it would just be shooting out so that wouldn't be good so I did that repair for them. I don't think they even knew about that. I also need to address the situation of the telephone building mom and dad put together as their retirement home was built in 1930 and then it was done in a manner to conform with the rest of the structures on that street and the telephone company talks about it in one of their surveys which I have here which shows the building and all and it is now they want to make it a landmark preserve. Now if you build a two story house right next to it, it changes the whole conformity of the community there. It just does not make sense. So that's that deal. We have the water service problem that's there with the gas main I discussed that already, I took care of the sprinklers, I told you about the cesspools. I am concerned I don't think it's proper to go against your rules and regulations to the community here in Southold with a front yard variance. I mean (inaudible) nine foot coming out with a porch, I don't care if it's opened or closed. That's really cutting down on the open area of the atmosphere of the community that's there. I mean it's kind of a nice little community that's there and I hate to see that cut their front yard shorter yet. It just doesn't make sense to me. The back porch goes out 12 feet when you consider they're going to add on a two story portion there I don't like that idea. It's just going to be just ugly to me, it's going to be so high up. I don't care what way you pitch the roof it's still going to be two stories and it's non-conforming to the community this there. If you're to a point where you need more room and more space you knew what you were buying when you bought the house. Now you're going to change the conformity. I don't understand that. It's really going to change the aesthetics of the area there and my sister and I are both opposed to it because it goes against the grain of the covenants that you have here with the regulations of setbacks and so on and so forth and it's really going to be to have a two story house right next to us we have a built up roof that's on close to it's a fire hazard. If this house would have a problem that's a major fire hazard to have that come there's no room between two houses. It's very close as you can see on the survey. I think it's un-conforming to the community and my sister and I are bothly opposed to it. I know if my father was here he would also be opposed to it. He was a building contractor and he did a lot of building in the October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting area and so forth and it's just non-conforming and I don't understand how you could give this variance permission to go ahead. It's unrealistic. Thank you so much for listening. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask you just to clarify where your residence is. RICHARD GENDRIN : 620 Youngs Ave. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When you're facing the applicant's property RICHARD GENDRIN :They are on the south side of us. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So then you're going to be to the left. RICHARD GENDRIN : We are on their north side. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're on the north side. RICHARD GENDRIN : They're on our south side they are our neighbors. Youngs Ave is in front of us. MEMBER LEHNERT : So the portion on the survey on the house next door is you? RICHARD GENDRIN : Yes and that shows how close it is and that's going to go up to two stories I don't understand it. It's just not reasonable okay thank you any other questions? She's going to give you information about our presentation thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think so. Anyone else in the audience please come forward. ROBERT MADDELENA : My name is Robert Maddelena I am the Skoblicki's immediate neighbor to the south. Having seen the plans CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Could you just spell your name for us sir please for the record. ROBERT MADDELENA : Spells name. Having seen the plans and discussed the aesthetic considerations with the architect I think that this would enhance the appearance of the neighborhood. The Skoblicki house and the old telephone company building are surrounded by two story structures with front porches including mine. I also am happy to welcome such wonderful neighbors on a full time basis and that's all. I have no problems with anything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where is Ann, a couple of questions for you. We have seen from the survey you just gave us that there are some non-conformities with front yards and side yards and so on, is it possible to submit any variances along that street, along Mechanic St. that have been granted for side yards or front yards? 3 October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting ANN SURCHIN : I would have to do some research. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would be helpful and the second thing, you're proposing a 9 foot deck on the porch front porch, is there any way to reduce that deck so that the front yard setback is a little bit greater than what the current proposal is? ANN SURCHIN : Well the interior space on that porch is 8 feet and that's really sort of the minimum that you would like for a porch where you could actually sit on the porch and if we shorten it up it's going to be very cramped. Anything is possible you know in terms of reducing you know the size but it becomes maybe a little futile to do that in terms of I think in both the aesthetics of the house and the ability to use this porch structure. I have a 6 foot porch on my house and I can't sit out there. It's just not useable for that manner so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, I have to ask. ANN SURCHIN : No, no I mean of course it's in the realm of possibility but I don't think it's practical or aesthetically pleasing to do so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, anything else from the Board, anybody else to come forward I wanted to see if the Board had any questions we're not done until we say we're done, please did you want to come forward? UNNAMED SPEAKER : I just wanted to add that we did not see the plans of the house, we have not seen it nor did the architect discuss it with us as she did with others so we have no knowledge of any of that. ANN SURCHIN : The plans were available for people to come in and look at the file. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They are. Anyone who is interested in this application MEMBER DANTES : Let this lady come first cause she's been waiting and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I was going to say if anyone who's interested in anything that's in this application can come to our office and fill out a single very simple FOIL request, Freedom of Information Act and you will have all of the information available to look at thoroughly and we're right over in the bank building over there on the ground floor. It's all available to be looked at. Everything is very above board and transparent, please state your name. ADRIAN LYNCH : Hi my name is Adrian Lynch and my family my husband and my three kids live at 450 Youngs Ave. so we're you have Mr. Maddelena who's the direct next door neighbor and I'm right next to that so I'm three houses from the proposed from the Skoblicki home and I can say that when I'm very much interested in the character of the neighborhood. My husband and 3 October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting I bought the Young's home which is the oldest supposedly oldest house in Southold Town so very familiar with historical structures and wanting to keep the character of the neighborhood intact but also I can understand raising a young family in a historic home what it's like sometimes to try and fit a round circle into a square hole in terms of size and accommodating families and so I can appreciate the Skoblicki's wanting to enlarge their home to accommodate a family. I can say if you come to Young's Ave. most of the houses on the street are two stories so it's not as if you have mostly one stories and you're looking to put a two story it's pretty much the opposite and while I totally understand Nancy's and her brother's position being overlooked by a second story I also think you know you gotta kind of understand that people want to change their homes in modern society and that's not a completely you know do construction and upgrade and modernize and so believe me I see all sides of it but I'm here mostly to speak about the character of the street and I don't you know Ann does beautiful work. She's also our across the street neighbor so it's her block that she's building this thing on and I can't imagine that she's going to want to put something there that isn't in keeping with the other stuff that's there. It doesn't serve her well or any of us so there can be some kind of meeting of the minds and that's about it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now did you want to say something else sir? RICHARD GENDRIN : I just want to say I did come to Town Hall and I went to the old bank building which is where the Board is located now and I did ask for any information you had plans or anything like that and I was told that and the lady was very nice she wanted to know if I was part owner of that residency so she went and looked it all up and I waited and waited and waited and it came out that I am part of an owner of that piece of real estate but in the meantime I was dismissed. I never got a chance to see any plans of what the new construction would be and I kind of asked for that too and maybe she was busy with something else or what I don't know but I didn't get to see them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you come to the Board of Appeals or did you go to the Building Department? RICHARD GENDRIN : Building Department. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright well that's the difference. You need to come to the Zoning Board of Appeals. RICHARD GENDRIN : Where is that located? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We are right behind the Building Department. What you do is go to the counter, there's a big phone there 3 October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting RICHARD GENDRIN :That's in the bank? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah. RICHARD GENDRIN :That's where I went. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You were talking to the Building Department and not this Board. We have the files that are showing what the applicant is proposing and all you need to do is there's a phone there that says for Zoning Board of Appeals please pick the phone up it's right at that counter that big counter when you go in RICHARD GENDRIN :That's where I was. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One of our staff will come out to assist you. RICHARD GENDRIN :That's what I did and the lady came out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think it was our staff. I think it was someone from the Building Department you spoke to. In any case if there was a mix up I apologize for the Town of Southold although I do not personally take responsibility but I can assure you this woman here is the one who will help you at the Zoning Board. Ask for Kim when you go in ask for Kim, she'll come out and make sure you have whatever information you want. RICHARD GENDRIN : And stand corrected also the lady mentioned that they're all two story houses on the block. Well we live in the country, we're not in the city, we don't build right on top of one another when you're in the country and to go up two stories is pushing it on that little piece of land. Maybe they need to go get another piece of real estate where they would have more room or a bigger house just a thought. Thank you again. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone else in the audience, anything else from the Board. I'm going to make a motion hearing no further questions or comments to close this hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7200 ROBERT and CATHERINE HARPER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Robert and Catherine Harper #7200. This is a request for a variance from Article IV Section 280-18 and the Building Inspector's June 13, 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) more than the code required maximum allowed two and one half (2 % ) stories at 2600 New Suffolk Ave. in Mattituck. Is there someone here to represent the application? Would you please come to the mic and state your name. ROBERT HARPER : I'm Robert Harper I am the co-owner KATHERINE HARPER : And I'm Katherine Harper his wife. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, so you're home has a certificate of appropriateness for this proposal from the Landmarks Preservation Commission. I think I counted thirteen letters of support a couple of them from well-known preservationist from this town. You're proposing a third story on an 1874 Victorian home. The code only permits 2 % stories. This is the restoration of a tower that is not habitable, it's windows right and that is the only third story based on height although it is not a habitable story. This tower apparently was destroyed in 1948 in a fire correct? RICHARD HARPER : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. It's about 105 sq. ft. RICHARD HARPER : That sounds about right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and I think that's about all the summary we need. It would appear there's no access via an internal staircase or anything like that is that RICHARD HARPER : There's a staircase to the attic which is on the other end of the house and it's essentially I have to kind of duck to go through the attic so the staircase is on the back part of the house, the tower is on the front part and honestly I've never been able to figure out how the originals got up into the tower maybe through construction we might see that there was some sort of staircase in the front but it's above our bedroom now. October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What else would you like us to know about this application? RICHARD HARPERT : Our house and this according to the Preservation Committee in 1996 was deemed from 1873 that's from Ralph William, Bill Peters and John Stack. We immediately applied for landmark status because I wanted the work that I would do on the house to remain so we are a Southold Town Landmark voluntarily. As you noted there was a fire in 1948 they were burning off a field behind us and it hit the roof and it caught on fire. According to our late neighbor Parker Wickham who said that it belonged to his family at the time that his father recommended that they not put the tower back so it was just roofed over and I can show you a photo of that. From the day we bought the house I said this house is there's something wrong with it. I knew there was a tower there. I have a photograph from early on where I drew a little picture of a tower (inaudible) to it. Shortly after that my wife went into Riverhead Historic Society and she was doing research on the house and the woman who helped her whose name is Joanne Brooks was a former owner of the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh how interesting. RICHARD HARPER : Mrs. Brooks provided us with this. This is a blow up of a postcard of the house. We think it's about 1906, 1909 actually it is because the postcard had a postmark on the back so we know exactly when this was dated. So this was the tower over here. This is the same view of our house today and you can see pretty much it's the same. It's got the same clapboards it's go the same patterned shingles which I take care to if any of them rot I replace them exactly the same way. So the tower in this one would have been right there. So we have an octagonal bay that would have kind of gone out. We live in a particular lovely spot on New Suffolk Ave. there's a historic house next to us on either side. We also are on part of the Momorita Estate which is the former Frank Lupton Estate and now since 1910 the Norris Estate. We bought the house from the Norris family and I believe the Norris family is very much in favor of us restoring this. We feel it would enhance the streetscape, we're across from Lake Maratooka and I've always felt that this is the front of the house as it exists now that it just looks well this is what would be below the tower and (inaudible) was just roofed over. As far as we know there's one other original tower house in the town of Mattituck which is this lovely home, this is the Judge Tuthill house which is on Wolf Pit Lake and this is as it was they didn't need to restore it, it's still there. We did find some other homes in Southold town that have towers. This one here is down the block from us on New Suffolk Ave. toward the beach. This one here is on Calves Neck Road in Southold, this one is on Harper Rd. it has nothing to do with us I did not build it the road is not named after me so that's also in Southold and this to me looks like an occupied third story, this is on Peconic Bay Blvd. in Laurel and I'm not even sure what this is but it's in our neighborhood and it looks tall so I included that. We really feel this would put the house whole again. We are staunch preservationists, we have I labored for thirty October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting years on our house to make it as authentic as possible both inside and out and we think that by doing this and since the house is landmarked it would protect the tower in perpetuity since it would be then grandfathered and any change would require the HPC to say they could remove the tower which I doubt that they would ever do. So if there are questions we would be happy to answer them. I think I covered everything that I'd like to say. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay we'll see what the Board has to say. Good job wife approves. Nick do you have any questions? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes a few things, one just as a preservationist thank you for your efforts it's a lovely home and it's wonderful to learn more of the history about it. You just now announced or shared multiple photographs of different properties some of which were included in your application as far as I don't want to say source materials to support your case but there are others that were not, would you mind either sending an email or writing a list of those actual addresses and then submit them to the office. ROBERT HARPERT : If it would help I can these are just blowups of photos that I already have so if you'd like I can submit these as part of the package would that be okay? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If you don't mind so that we have the actual addresses. Some of them I'm sure were beneficiaries as you pointed out in your application of a variance, others clearly were historic structures that I think were built prior to zoning. ROBERT HARPER : The Tuthill house obviously was. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And I think the water tower or I think that's the one that's at the bottom of like Maratooka ROBERT HARPERT : Yeah it's almost right on the water down Maratooka. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think it's nice to have them all on the application. I don't know if you want to make a copy Kim and give him the original back. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We could just make some black and white copies. ROBERT HARPER : You're welcomed to them really it's we'll stop at CVS the more the merrier. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : No I have nothing. October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions just a comment, when I came to inspect the site Mr. Harper was outside working diligently on the outside of the house and we received so many letters and I had the treat to go down in your first floor to see the inside and I have to say you two have worked so hard and it really truly is beautiful and historic and something of real value to the town. RICHARD HARPER : Thank you, I appreciate you coming. It's usually people are shocked when they see the inside and such an appreciation for it and oddly enough I just finished a pair of pocket doors when Ms. Acampora came and she's the first one to actually see them. I have them tucked into their pockets and I roll them out but I appreciate that and I appreciate how you feel about it. We think this is a wonderful place that it enhances the community and I think this would even enhance it more so I thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric anything? MEMBER DANTES : I think it's a neat project. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A neat project. MEMBER PLANAMENTO I would add one other comment which I think our Chairwoman already spoke to the volume of letters of support, it's amazing the number of people that come out to share their sort of I guess a positive response to desire to preserve our community. RICHARD HARPER : We're thrilled to hear that. Obviously a lot of these are neighbors, people who see it every day and as I said I think going by that stretch of road it's going to make it really special so I thank you all for listening. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're very welcome and thank you for your efforts. I'm a retired professor of architecture so I appreciate the restoration to the original aesthetic of the house and how amputated the house feels without it and thank you for your hard work in keeping the Town of Southold like the Town of Southold should be kept. Anything else from anyone in the audience, anything from the Board? Hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution)) HEARING #7199—SALVATORE AGOSTA CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Salvatore Agosta #7199. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXII Section 280-105A and the Building Inspector's May 7, 2018 amended May 21, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to legalize "as built" six (6) feet high fence in the front yard of a single family dwelling and to demolish as "as built" accessory garage and to construct a new accessory garage at 1) proposed garage is located in other than the code required rear yard, 2) "as built" fence more than the code required maximum four (4) feet in height when located in the front yard at 1250 Shipyard Lane in East Marion. Good afternoon, would you state your name for the record please. SALVATORE AGOSTA : Salvatore Agosta. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have the affidavit of posting? SALVATORE AGOSTA : I think she handed it in. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright we'll check in the office. Just so you're aware everyone on the Board has visited the site, we've looked at it, we've inspected it. I do have a six foot high fence SALVATORE AGOSTA : It's on the side of Gus CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no I know where it is I thought at some point it said deer fencing but it's not. We've all have seen and SALVATORE AGOSTA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We all have seen it and it's a white six foot high white vinyl fence and you have a swimming pool back there so you need a fence. The only section that's really in question is because you've got two front yards cause you're on a curve you know from Shipyard over to Gus Drive. It's this piece along here October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting SALVATORE AGOSTA : Yeah where it sticks out and goes back. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah it's along the frontage on Gus only four feet is permitted in a front yard and that is a second front yard. A side yard is okay and rear yard is okay. So let's look at these one at a time. The garage is a two car garage? SALVATORE AGOSTA : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright and we have actually in our file a letter of support from a neighbor. The proposed garage is 14 foot 4 inches is that high 24 by 28 foot? SALVATORE AGOSTA : 24 by 28 yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : two car. Any heat or water? SALVATORE AGOSTA : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, electric? SALVATORE AGOSTA : Electric. I bang my head enough at work I need light. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of course, electric only. When was the fence installed? SALVATORE AGOSTA : At least ten years ago 2007. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 2007 and did that happen in relationship to the swimming pool or SALVATORE AGOSTA : The fence was up first. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The fence was up first and then SALVATORE AGOSTA : and then the pool. We put a lot of shrubs in the back with all the deer around a four foot fence they would have hopped over it like it was nothing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any questions, Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : Just one, I mean were you aware of the height restriction on the fence when you installed it? SALVATORE AGOSTA : No the fence guy never mentioned it and we didn't ask. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was curious for the existing shed as our Chairperson just asked when the fence was installed, when was the shed built or installed? SALVATORE AGOSTA : About three years ago. October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And then the same sort of question, I would suspect that it's greater than a hundred square feet it's a larger building and I understand that you have a boat and other things that need storage but we're you aware that that shed would have even SALVATORE AGOSTA : No. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You had no knowledge? SALVATORE AGOSTA : When you go buy it they don't tell you, I didn't ask. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And they just dropped it off. SALVATORE AGOSTA : Yeah. It's pretty cool too remote control. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And what are you going to do with that shed? SALVATORE AGOSTA : I'm going to sell it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's going to pretty much go in the same place as the shed is now the new garage. SALVATORE AGOSTA : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So to get in to that garage are you going to just put in some sort of opening on the fence? SALVATORE AGOSTA : Yeah I'm going to take down the two sections whatever it is and it's going to go in line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is not typical for the Board to grant six foot high fencing in a front yard mostly because it doesn't look very good but you know to neighbors. You can plant as many shrubs as you want at whatever height you want for screening, you do have enough room on the property because it's set back from the road enough to plant a row of say evergreens to kind of camouflage it. You have to put something that the deer don't eat. Giant arborvitaes is going to be your answer right there otherwise SALVATORE AGOSTA : We did that in the front. We put greenery we have that in the front part of the fence so we could just carry that over. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any, Pat do you have any comments or questions or comments MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric anything, Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah just a matter of contributing to the record, the location for the proposed garage is where the existing shed is but it's still in your side yard. The lot is a corner so you have two front yards, are there any other possible locations to place a garage? SALVATORE AGOSTA : I was just looking (inaudible) another driveway running electric out there MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It would be prohibited. SALVATORE AGOSTA : It would be prohibited, that's right there and the driveway is I just have to extend this MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It exists. No other questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Anything else from the Board otherwise I'm ready to close this. Anything you want to learn or enter into the record? Hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) i October 4, 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 : October 15, 2018 4-