The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA-11/01/2018 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 November 1, 2018 10:15 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member ERIC DANTES—Member ROBERT LEHNERT— Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO— Member KIM FUENTES— Board Assistant WILLIAM DUFFY—Town Attorney 1 November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing_ Page David and Lisa Cifarelli #7206 3 - 14 Dorothy and Raymond Raynor#7207 14- 17 Paul Orlick# 7202 18 - 20 Charlotte Green and Joanna Lomas #7210 20 - 34 D. Scott Ketner#7211 34- 36 Jeremiah M. Bogert and Margot Campbell Bogert, as Trustees#7217 36 - 38 Halsey A. Staples and Janet E. Staples#7213 38 - 50 Halsey A. Staples and Janet E. Staples#7215 38 -50 Tracy Peck and David Corbett#7209 51 - 56 Lenore Brancato and Louis Potters#7208 57 - 76 2 November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting HEARING#7206—CAVID-andLISA CIFARELLI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for David and,Lisa Cifarelli #7206. This is a, request for variances from Article IV Section, 280-17A and the Building Inspector's August 9, 2017 amended May 17, 2018 Notice of, Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to legalize "as built" structures, a pergola and a wood frame shed at 1) "as built" pergola does not constitute a permitted principle use on a residential parcel, 2) as built" wood frame shed does not constitute a permitted principle use upon a residential parcel at 2650 Peconic Bay Boulevard in Mattituck. Good morning Pat, would you just state your name for the record. PAT MOORE : Patricia Moore on behalf of the applicants. I have Dave Cifarelli here with me, Lisa 1 couldn't be here. As you stated the basis or the request of this application is that my client is I the owner of the adjacent property and this property is the yard for the adjacent waterfront or the adjacent center property. This lot as well as the two lots to the north were all subdivided in the eighties by the prior owner who is, all family. This property goes back and you'll see the names appearing on the record. You have these are all related parents and grandparents so we have Catalano, we have Cardinale and now we have Cifarelli good old wasp name no. Anyway, these the family members the grandfather bought the property and there were two houses on one property where the Cifarelli's live now and then the other parcel also improved and is occupied by family as well. Then the Cardinale's when they became the owners they subdivided in the 1980's and there was both the Zoning Board approval for the separate lots and also Planning Board approval in the 1980's and I have the appeals were 2692 dated May 28, 1980 appeal 1914 on June 13, 1974. It Was also considered grandfathered by the Planning Board by resolution September 23, 1980. So these are pre-existing non-conforming lots that have all been in its existing configuration since the seventies if not earlier. This piece of property and it's obvious when you went inside, it has purely recreational structures. The pergola is just some artistic wood post that covered the like a patio a BBQ MEMBER DANTES : Just a quick question,for you.Pat, has someone,in the town trying to claim the lots are merged? PAT MOORE : No never. MEMBER DANTES : Okay you went through that whole history I couldn't figure that out. RE : Oh no I'm just giving the history of the lots having been subdivided. PAT M00 � g g y g MEMBER DANTES : So that's all kosher November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Oh yes absolutely there's no issue of these, lots have remained single and separate. In fact two of them have houses on it and that's why when it was originally subdivided it was recognized that they already had 'single family homes on them. So this property acts and the principal,use I would argue is the open space element and I know that our zoning code which was adopted in the fifties and continued through the eighties and continued through the eighties encourages principal use being the house and the accessory use as being the shed or a pergola or whatever but I think we should look at it a different way. Now in 2018 if you look at the purposes section of our zoning code it specifically says the reason that we adopted zoning in all our master plans is one to reduce traffic, the other one to preserve natural and scenic qualities of open lands and then obviously the protection of subsurface water supply and surface waters. Well the alternative to them the only alternative other than obviously merging and you wouldn't merge a property it's an extreme measure certainly financially you wouldn't merge a property like this is that it's not to have a pergola and a shed. It just, doesn't make sense. The purposes of our code is to reduce the interest of property owners to over develop and here the alternative to the variance that we're asking for is to build a.single family dwelling. So you build a single family dwelling you can have the pergola and the shed but it really makes no sense to over crowd the property, add another sanitary system, add another dwelling,the whole determination of accessory is just it makes no sense. What I suggested to Mr. and Mrs. Cifarelli I said well would you ,be willing to put a covenant on the property that if you were to sell this lot to a third party okay obviously the kids family wouldn't count but to a third party you no longer have a recreational area to your house and they said yeah of course because this is our back yard. Our house is th,e middle lot and obviously there's the waterfront which is kind of full of a house and a driveway and everything,very little and I think they got a variance a long time ago for a small garage to be attached to that little house ,cause there were no garages in place. Then their house which has the pool so it really has no room for anything more without a variance so this is the kids back yard and you can tell from the way it's been you know it's been developed. You've got a trampoline which is okay because it's subsurface, you've got a swing set which is again not considered a structure so we're okay. It was the shed which I went back to old surveys and it's been in place since the eighties. It was there before my clients acquired the property from the family and then the pergola which is just a barbeque pit area and clearly just a summer time amenity. So I understand the theory of not allowing an accessory without a principle but there's really no other option here because whatever you put on that property is always.going to be accessory to something. I argue that it's actually accessory to open space. The lot is an open space lot. It's just it's undeveloped in the sense of it doesn't have a house on it but it still doesn't stop you from going there. If you want it to sit on your own property just like every other property in the town that you own you can go and enjoy it, nobody stops you from enjoying your property. So I'd like you to look at this a little differently which is the general purposes-of our zoning code overrides that provision November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting that says no accessories without a principle and I think again ve would satisfy any concern about having accessory uses proliferate the town only because we are in this circumstance it is a back yard to a home and we would covenant that condition that would clearly identify it as the backyard to their adjacent property, any other issues that you want to address or any questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well one question, how is it that you're now before this Board? , PAT MOORE : I'm sorry what? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How is it that you're now before this Board? PAT MOORE : Because the Building Department said that we couldn't get a building permit for the pergola or the shed because of its location. Even though it well the shed was built in the eighties so at the time it was put there it would have been a 3 foot setback, it's just nobody even thought to get permits for a shed. Ultimately our code does not require permits for sheds but under today's code it's a 5 foot setback rather than a 3 foot setback so that is we're here because the Building Department says we can't keep these structures without getting a variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And why would you go in for a building permit? They were already built. PAT MOORE : Yes because the Building Department went by and issued a Notice of Violation that it was there so we corrected immediately tried to correct the violation so that's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what I wanted to know. Well I think the argument that these are accessory to open, space is an argument you might make before the Town Board. We are obligated to grant relief from the code as it exists and what's written in the Notice of Disapproval but let me see what other Eric do you want to start with questions? MEMBER DANTES : Yeah the I heard before pergola's do they require a building permit or I mean that's the one thing I could never put my PAT MOORE : Yeah I think it depends I'd have it both ways. Does this pergola have a footing? Come on up Dave. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait till you get to the mic cause we're recording this and state your name please. DAVID CIFARELLI : David Cifarelli. The post going into the ground has a little bit of concrete I think I don't remember but you mean a footing as a foundation? November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : I'm just trying to figure out why the pergola is considered a structure cause if it's not a structure then it doesn't CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well for the same reason that a shed is a structure it's three dimensional. It has height and it's anchored in the ground. Something that's at grade which is why the trampoline was not called out MEMBER DANTES : I mean the swing set is not a structure. CHAIRPERSON WEIMSAN : Neither is the baseball court even though it's a recreational use it's at grade sorry I meant basketball. PAT MOORE : Oh I was getting confused. DAVID CIFARELLI : There was a baseball years ago I thought maybe MEMBER DANTES : No I mean the open space I think�we can maybe look at the (inaudible) of not being a structure I mean PAT MOORE : Well that's another interpretation that MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But I would wonder it appears that there's an outdoor fireplace and things I mean there's a masonry structure there so it PAT MOORE : But that's not that's,usually landscape features they're not structures. DAVID CIFARELLI : It's actually just a steel chiminea it's not you know normally a chiminea is ceramic but it's a 14 foot tall steel chiminea it's not no concrete on the barbeque. It's not a barbeque it's a fire pit. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Fire pit. MEMBER LEHNERT : To the pergola question, I've gotten permits for pergolas in the past and they looked at it as a habitable structure because there was a roof over your head. PAT MOORE : And this doesn't have a roof.This just has posts. MEMBER LEHNERT : It still has the posts.,There's still something over your head that could fall down. That's how the Building Department looked at it. PAT MOORE : And then again I had pergolas that were more of landscape features so really I think it depends on the size and it's configuration. DAVID CIFARELLI : And their use. November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : While we're discussing pergolas, on the opposite side of the subject pergola isn't there a second pergola?There's like an outdoor dining table. PAT MOORE : There's only one. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :'There wasn't something along the driveway? PAT MOORE : Along the driveway? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's (inaudible) on the survey. DAVID CIFARELLI : Yeah there is on the MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And there's like an outdoor chandelier. PAT MOORE : Oh it's the,other lot. DAVID CIFARELLI : It's (inaudible) my property, it's on the other it's the middle house the middle lot. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So it's south of that then. PAT MOORE : North. DAVID CIFARELLI': No it's•south. It's on the southeast side of the buildable lot on the vacant lot. PAT MOORE : Oh it's north of this property but on the southeast portion of the house parcel. The house parcel has no issues cause there's a house so any accessory is permitted. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm just thinking of the day that I was where I parked there's like a turnaround in front of I guess is your residence and then to walk to the subject-property you walk in front of that. DAVID CIFARELLI : You walk past MEMBER PLANAMENTO : past it. DAVID CIFARELLI': Yes correct. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Ok my mistake. DAVID CIFARELLI : It's right on the driveway. I didn't know you were there. MEMER PLANAMENTO : We all make inspections. 7 November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Let me just confirm that the subject property is owned by David Cifarelli is that correct? DAVID CIFARELLI : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the dwelling adjacent property with the dwelling on it is owned by Lisa Cifarelli? DAVID CIFARELLI : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you husband and wife or DAVID CIFARELLI : Yes. I think it's a code that you have to keep the properties in a different name. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN If you don't want them to merge'that is correct, that's absolutely correct. DAVID CIFARELLI : I think the lot is maybe in one of my kids maybe. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well here's the thing, what you're really looking at here when the Notice of Disapproval talks about it's not a permitted use without a principal use which we've had a number of over time it's a use variance. It's a use variance, it is not an area variance. There's no lot coverage issue, there's no setback issue. What's there is not permitted because it's there without a principal use, in this case on a residential property it would be a dwelling. That's how the code reads at the moment okay and that's just what it is. Now we have not we've denied some of these or addressed some of these using an area variance template for decisions. However I think going forward were going to have to recognize that this in fact is not a permitted use and requires a use variance and we didn't grant it as or deny it as an area variance though we wrote it up in that format. So I just want to be 'clear'because we're seeing several of these and going forward we're going to have to try and clarify it even greater than what we've been doing. Now you said that you didn't think it was feasible for them to merge these properties, that is an alternative to the removal. PAT MOORE : We understand the alternative however we're`offering an alternative which is a covenant which treats this as if the two lots were merged in the sense that they are it's purely attached to the residence so we're going to treat it that way so that obviously the only way it gets eliminated is to put a house on the property. Now as the kids get older and maybe you want to give a little house to the kids it may be possible at that point and then all these structures if they're not in the way of the house would be accessory to a dwelling but to force construction of a single family home which is if financially you're able to do it but it really makes 1 November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting no sense it seems to punish the community because the recreational use doesn't bother anybody. It's equivalent of anybody else's back yard. I think that as again I point you to the purposes of zoning where this treating it as a use variance or even treating it as you know even as not permitted I think we can address it again and historically have allowed certain unique circumstances to be permitted with a_covenant because then it's consistent with the way the code is intended to be read as far as I've had application where you've had trellis's that are between two properties, common properties Leodis is one where there was a trellis that connected, there was a walkway that connected from one structure to another that through a covenant said ok if you were to sell off the property then you have to take down that trellis because obviously you have a third party and that would be inconsistent with the way that the Board considered the application'. So you have-treated in the past applications based on the circumstances. I looked in the general area about accessory structures here and unfortunately I couldn't find any but I think because they're so unique in the way that you have to look at every parcel on its own you know four corners and in this case it seemed to me an appropriate condition that with a covenant can be solved. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I do just want to say one thing and in response to what you just said which is that no one is forcing anyone to put a dwelling on that property. Merger would take care of that entire issue. PAT MOORE : But you're not going to devalue CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And waiver of merger if the day comes that someone wants to put a dwelling there waiver of merger would put it right back to a separate lot as long as you don't sell it outside of the family. PAT MOORE : I would as a lawyer giving legal advice to a client I,would say one you're going to devalue this property all of a sudden the marketable value of the property is completely eliminated, two I don't know what the Town Board is going to adopt as far as waiver of merger ten, fifteen years down the line. Yes,today but ten or fifteen years from now when maybe the family wants to put a house I would hate to rely on that opinion from today so I don't think it's feasible, I think you by saying we're not forcing you well in order to keep this property as to keep the two structures and use it recreationally to the other property I think that is only alternative. I don't see another alternative: CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has anything, Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : I don't have anything,more. " CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick? November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No. CHAIRPERSONS WEISMAN : Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else Eric? MEMBER DANTES : I think if you can maybe write a letter or find some justification that the pergola is not a structure and it's a landscape feature I think that would be you're strongest argument. I don't know about the shed but I mean I thought that would be my PAT MOORE : Yeah the shed is within the 100 foot but the distance is the problem. MEMBER DANTES : No I'm just saying I don't know about the shed I mean that's a hard argument to get approved but,I think finding some justification that the pergola is a landscape feature and not a structure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the Building Department has already ruled that it is a structure. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the application, please come forward and state your name for the record. WALLACE MAHONEY : I'm Wallace Mahoney I live right across the street on Wendy Drive and if he wants to put something up it's fine by me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you, anyone else? PAT MOORE : We just spoke very quickly because I'm trying to think of trying to address the issue that was just raised. Possibly leaving four posts and just throwing a sail cloth over the top of it for the shade which is really what all that trellis material is might solve it. I could present it to the Building Department as a modification to it. I know that sail cloth is not considered a structure which is good. I mean it's not a tent it's just a sail cloth. It's just you need to have obvious you need posts to connect the sail to it that might be a solution. I can certainly talk to the Building Department about it so if you want to leave the hearing open just to give me an opportunity to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If that's what Member Dantes wants MEMBER DANTES : If you can remove a variance I think it's a , CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not a variance it's a use, it's not a permitted use. MEMBER DANTES : If you can remove a quote unquote :to November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting T. A. DUFFY : Whether it's a structure or not it's a use issue. PAT MOORE : No I would respectfully disagree. The only use issue is if it's a,structure. If it's not a structure then it's not before this Board. So yes the shed maybe an issue because I can't turn it into something it is not even though you know we can move it and I would even say that when it comes to sheds if we planted row crops or something on it then it's you know you've got plants. I mean sheds are so innocuous, they're usually just storing you know landscaping cutting equipment maintenance equipment but that certainly you know something you can deal with. The lower part of the structure is not considered the structure, it's the trellis portion the top so we don't have a use issue here if the trellis is not considered a structure. T. A. DUFFY : We can agree to disagree because you can't use a property against zoning without having a structure on the property. So in'theory you could be issued a violation for not using the property you're using the property in violation to code and you could PAT'MOORE : So you're telling me as T. A. DUFFY : Let me finish. I'm saying in theory you could be cited for using the property in violation of the code without having a structure on it okay. In theory if somebody PAT MOORE : If you tell me what the uses I'll agree or disagree with you. T. A. DUFFY : If somebody built a dirt track made out of made a path and had a dirt like a dirt bike track on residential property that would be an illegal use right and PAT MOORE : I would actually the Board T. A. DUFFY : Let me finish a sentence Pat. PAT MOORE : Alright fine we say it is. T. A. DUFFY : If somebody built a dirt track on residential property and charge admission there's no structure right but they're using the property illegally so you can use the property illegally without having a structure on the property. So potentially it's not just about the structure it's about the use so I'm going to disagree with your statement that it's all about whether it's a structure or not I disagree, it could be a use'issue and you could appeal. If you got a'violation from Code Enforcement or a letter violating you could appeal that determination by Code Enforcement to this Board. So it doesn't take it out of jurisdiction of this Board. Potentially you could be before this Board on.a use issue. PAT MOORE : Okay this hypothetical does not apply to this property. This is a back yard residential piece that I think the Building Department hasn't said it's a use issue with respect to 11, November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting anything other than the cited structures okay so using and you have this all the time. You have two properties where a person might cut the lawn, they might have two separate single and separate properties but they cut the lawn, they landscape it, they put their swing set on it, they're using it residentially. So we're not talking about-a use variance of using this property as the back yard to your adjacent residential property. So I'-would respectfully disagree that the use of the property itself is not a violation. The trellis because the trellis considered an accessory structure is why it's before the Board. The shed because the shed 'is accessory structure is before the Board. So we don't have a' use variance overall use variance as to the whole property. It is a residential property used in accordance with any yard any property vacant property that is in this town. So the two issues which as I said it seems inconsistent with our whole philosophy and our purposes section of our zoning ordinance to not allow a property to be used concurrent with your adjacent contiguous property. That just makes no sense to me but you don't have a use variance on the lot itself. That I would strenuously disagree and T. A. DUFFY : I wasn't addressing the merits of this application or you made a blanket statement that if it's not a structure and it's just a use is not before it may not be before this Board but it doesn't take you out of the jurisdiction. It could still be under the jurisdiction I was just disagreeing with your blanket statement that take away the structure and it takes away from the ZBA. It's still an issue that can come before this Board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well look is the you said this is sort of a family compound is that right? PAT MOORE : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the dwelling that's up by the water that's a family member? DAVID CIFARELLI : That's a single family just us my wife and my three kids there's no one else living on the property nobody has. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No but at the end of the right of way that is not PAT MOORE : That's him. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean totally at the end, there's you as you come in somebody is on the side okay as you're driving in facing the water PAT MOORE : DePipo MEMBER ACAMPORA : No the Westies they just sold the house. r CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No but I'm asking as you go down Cifarelli right of way 12 November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Yes it's all family. - CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what I'm saying is that the subject property is on your right hand side then you keep going and there's a dwelling a single story dwelling on the'right hand side with a swimming pool and then there's at the very end a two story house. So I'm asking is that two story house part of the family? PAT MOORE : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and do the people who live in that house use that recreational area?You said it's kind of a family DAVID CIFARELLI : We go back and forth every ten years from house to house. No one else lives in either one of the houses. PAT MOORE : He and his wife yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So just in other words you basically own two houses. DAVID CIFARELLI : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Both of those houses. DAVID CIFARELLI : Correct. .CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay just trying to clarify. I'm starting to feel like judge Judy up here. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Maybe Leslie to your point then where you described that you own the vacant parcel and your wife Lisa owns the middle parcel, who has title to the waterfront parcel? DAVID CIFARELLI : I think you said Lisa was the front parcel (inaudible) the middle parcel and I think me and one of the kids are attached to the vacant lot I don't recall. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm looking at the survey it says now or formerly the one with the one story dwelling and swimming pool that says Lisa, the one that's being used recreationally says David. PAT MOORE : And the waterfront we don't know it might be CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know because it doesn't show on the survey. It's alright I just wanted to understand use, whose using that area. Anyone else in the audience, we have a request from a Board member and from counsel to adjourn this to the Special Meeting for t3 November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting investigation about how a structure can or cannot be defined so I'll make„a motion to adjourn to the Special Meeting is there a second? MEMBER,ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. MRS. MAHONEY : I just wanted to know what they're going to put on the property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't know what the future will hold that will be up to the property owners. All we can do is look at what's there at the moment which is just the recreational use and the various structures that are on that property. Basically the Building Department has determined that because there's no house there on that property that they can't have these other small structures because those are considered accessories to a residential use a principal use which would be a house in this case okay. That's why they're before us and that's the problem we're trying to address. So we will be looking at their next step their next investigation as to whether or,not the pergola that's there can be redesigned to remove the problem of it being a structure and then we'll see where that goes. After we know that then we'll make a decision as to how to handle this. So Special Meeting is what November 15th is that what we said. PAT MOORE : That's what you said yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did we vote I think we did. Thank you we're done. HEARING#7207— DOROTHY and RAYMOND RAYNOR CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Dorothy and Raymond Raynor #7207. This is a request for a variance from Article IV Section 280-17A and the Building Inspector's May 16, 2018 Notice of Disapproval,based on an application for a building permit to construct an accessory garage at 1) garage does not constitute a permitted principle use on a 14 November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting residential parcel at 1175 Home Pike in Mattituck. Good morning, would you state your name for the record. RAYMOND RAYNOR : Raymond Raynor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay Mr. Raynor let's see as you know we've all been out to inspect the property and we do that with every application. So right now on that lot which is a separate lot from the residential lot that's adjacent to it at the end of that right of way, it's an R-40 zone; we have a 20 by 12 foot sort of shed building and in fairly poor repair with a lot of fishing equipment on the property as well. What you want to do is build a new garage right on that property and there's a framed shed, you're proposing actually to remove those things. RAYMOND RAYNOR : I'm proposing to remove the existing shed. It's in disrepair if you noticed the utility pole is actually pulling the shed over and there's an accessory building to the south of that which is an old truck body, I'd also like to remove that and put up a new garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now you've just sat through this hearing which ironically happens to be referring to a so called vacant piece of property with accessory structures. How do you reply to that? RAYMOND RAYNOR : I reply that I'm not putting another building on the property. I'm going to remove two and put up one. I already have the accessory building or a garage on the property. I'd like to tear that down and put up something modern and more eye appealing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have any certificate of occupancy for the old garage? RAYMOND RAYNOR : No. The old garage was built as far as I can tell sometime between 1935 and 1940. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I can tell you this much, when an old structure that has been there for a long time even if let's say it's legal, if it's torn down that legality goes away it's extinguished but in this case that doesn't really apply because you don't have any legal documents saying that it was built with a building permit. Alright let's see what the Board has to say, Rob want to go first. MEMBER LEHNERT : No I really don't have anything. MEMBER PLANAMENTO- : I just want to better understand him while I just heard your testimony that you'd like to replace the existing garage that's there, why not repair the garage? RAYMOND RAYNOR : The garage has been cemented. Originally when it was built it was a dirt floor and when the people cemented the floor the cement got up into the walls of the garage 15 November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting and what they would have to do is actually cut the garage in half from halfway up down and put in a new bottom half and I thought it would just be more eye appealing to move it to its proper place with a 15 foot (inaudible) and make it more eye appealing something that's more modern. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But the barn then you're saying or the garage is salvageable that you could repair it? RAYMOND RAYNOR : Anything is repairable yes it could be repaired but it would cost me more to repair it than it would to put up a new one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's possible the Building Department might deny a building permit for that if you were trying to make it bigger because it would be enlargement of a pre-existing non-conforming structure so that may not be an answer either. If you were just repairing what was there in place and in kind maybe we don't make that decision. RAYMOND RAYNOR : What I'm trying to do also is I'm trying to clean up the property you noticed I got a lot of stuff there. My father passed away last year and I inherited his stuff plus my stuff and I got a lot of stuff and I just want to get all in a garage that's what I'd like to do. I'm a displaced lobster man. I lobstered off the property for many years there's no more lobsters left. I took a job with the state and I'm in the process of getting rid of a lot of commercial fishing equipment but it's been a long slow process cause it's hard of getting rid of lobstering equipment when there's no lobsters to catch. As you know I live next door right adjacent to the property and I'd like to put up something more aesthetic, eye appealing, a little bit taller instead of a 7 foot high I'm going to try to put 10 foot high and put all my stuff in there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Have you thought about since you live next door have you thought about putting a garage on the property where there is an existing dwelling which would make it legal? RAYMOND RAYNOR : Yes we thought but I don't own the property next door it's owned by my brother and sister-in-law. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if there's any Eric any questions? MEMBER DANTES : So you use the property for the commercial fishing operation or you don't? RAYMOND RAYNOR : No I don't. I lobstered off the property from '83 to '06 then I took a job with the state, turned in all my commercial fishing licenses and slowly selling my commercial fishing equipment. MEMBER DANTES : Is the dock is there a dock on your property? November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting RAYMOND RAYNOR : Yes. MEMBER DANTES : It's still there now? RAYMOND RAYNOR : Yes. MEMBER DANTES : Do you have a Trustees permit for that? RAYMOND RAYNOR : Yes. MEMBER DANTES : Why not build a residence and develop the property? RAYMOND RAYNOR : We may eventually, we're not sure. More than likely we're going to be the last people standing out of the family and we'll probably going to inherit the house that we're living in also and at that time we don't know if we're going to build a house on the vacant lot, combine them back to a big lot we're not sure what we're going to do down the road. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from the Board? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well given the uncertainty about the future development wouldn't having the proposed garage at its current proposed location impact the future building of a house because the accessory should be behind the house and I know that there isn't an application before us for a house MEMBER DANTES : It could be in the front because it's a waterfront lot. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Oh that's a good point thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wanting to address this application? I think the facts are what they are you know. Alright 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 ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. 17 November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING# 7202— PAUL ORLICK CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Paul Orlick#7202. This is adjourned from the October 4th and October 18th so there's no need to read the Notice of Disapproval again. Hello again, we've received your amended survey and I want to make sure the Board didn't have any additional questions about it so we wanted you to present your survey and what changes that you've made that you're amending and tell us why you think this is an appropriate thing for the Board to it's still a lot coverage issue but you've reduced it from what to what? PAUL ORLICK : Reduced the lot coverage for the pool from 512 to 400 sq. ft. which is now the proposed was 32 by 16 and we brought it down to 25 by 16 and that also would give us the it would conform to my neighbor's septic tank it would be 22 feet of that and 22 feet off our own septic tank. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright and you are now proposing a lot coverage of what? PAUL ORLICK : 22.3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 22.3 1 just wanted you to enter it into the record, and you previously were proposing PAUL ORLICK : 23.2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat do you have any comments or questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEMBER DANTES : Yes, so for a code conforming pool you'd be able to build slightly over a 100 sq. ft. pool? PAUL ORLICK : It's under 100, 1 think it's 9 by 8. MEMBER DANTES : And then you've already prior to purchasing the property you had to apply for variances with the Department of Health? PAUL ORLICK : Just for the distance from the septic tank to the water. They downsized the code I guess since the lots were built. They used to be 65 feet off the water to septic tank and then November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting they went to 100 now it's 150 and the way the lots were cut out they you know conformed years ago but they fell short of the new 150 code. MEMBER DANTES : And then why didn't you put the pool in when you submitted the application for the house? PAUL ORLICK : It was kind of an afterthought. When we decided to do the pool I didn't realize that we were going to exceed not much f,knew it was under what the lot coverage,was but I didn't realize that we were that close. MEMBER DANTES : I don't have any further questions. k MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think at out prior meeting we requested that if there were,an,y other pools in the general neighborhood. PAUL ORLICK : There's one that's behind me and off to the east. I don't know what the zoning is on that, that's the one I know of. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You didn't research whether or not they exceeded lot coverage? PAUL ORLICK : I don't I think they had a double sized lot. Our lots are smaller than the other ones in the developments when they cut them up years ago. I don't know he has a big house and I don't know if he exceeded the lot coverage on it. I CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you've reduced the size of the pool, is there no way you could reduce anything that would be considered a structure on your dwelling? PAUL ORLICK': No it's already I'm probably seventy five percent complete on construction so I'd have to demolish part of the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we do have to look at character of the neighborhood and whether or not there are other lot coverage non-conformities that the Board has granted in the past, whether or not there are swimming pools typically characteristic in the neighborhood and so on. It's just unfortunate that you didn't think this through in advance so that you would have been able to conform or just de rriinimus very tiny bit over. Even'though 22 is better than 23 it's still 2.3% over what the code permits so we're just going'to have to see if we'can figure something out. PAUL ORLICK : I do know there is a pool behind me on the adjacent street a house and half away from me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But they may not have needed a variance for it. 19 November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting PAUL ORLICK : I don't think so. I don't believe so because I did research before coming here and if there was any pool variances there was a lot of relief for I guess setbacks from the bluff but I didn't see anything in the immediate area. I don't know if somewhere else in Orient. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN': Right and so that's the swimming pool area. Did you take a look at lot coverage issues along your street. I know there were setbacks from the water. PAUL ORLICK : I know there were a lot of setbacks but I don't recall. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You didn't find any lot coverage. PAUL ORLICK : Not on the street but I think there was a vast majority I guess relief for the bluff. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, anything from anybody on the Board, anyone in the audience wanting to address the application? 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 PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. r HEARING # 7210—CHARLOTTE GREEN and JOANNA LOMAS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Charlotte Green and Joanna Lomas #7210. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's July 3, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to relocate an accessory tennis court at 1) located in other than the code required rear yard located at 500 Stephenson Rd in Orient. So tell us about this tennis court. Please state your name for the record, we're recording this. BEVERLY GREEN : My name is Beverly Green, I'm Charlotte Green's mother and I'm speaking for her here. 20 November 1,2018 Regular Meeting JOANNA LOMAS : And I'm Joanna Lomas. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nice to meet you both. So you're proposing to put a tennis court in that flat area as you.approach your house it's sort of a dead end. _ BEVERLY GREEN : It's a resurfaced. There's been a tennis court there for years. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Has there,ever- been any Certificate of Occupancy for the tennis court? BEVERLY GREEN It was built in 1881 and I^don't know if they had Certificate of Occupancy in those days.. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No they wouldn't have probably-but how do you know that? BEVERLY GREEN :'My daughter has researched,that. With your permission I'll read her letter to you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure please do. BEVERLY-GREEN : Okay thank,you. My name is Beverly Green and I am reading this letter by my daughter Charlotte Green who could not be here in support of her and her aunt Joanna Wendy Lomas' application for a building permit to renovate our historic tennis court at 500 Stephenson Rd. in Orient. Wendy is here and she and Charlotte are co-owners of the property. Just to give ,you background on the court it was built by our great grandmother,Mary Sing Stephenson in 1881 and wa's one of the first tennis courts in New York State. It has been in use by our family continuously since that time. We are seeking to finish the restoration process which began in 2005 in which we decided to resurface it in an order that it can be more easily and 'inexpensively maintained.-1 have provided a number of photographs over time of the court use on this poster and USB. In addition four of our long term neighbors on Stephenson Rd. have written letters supporting the court and mentioning their personal knowledge of this history. We last appeared here in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals when we sought to restore the crab shack which was built by our great uncle Mr. Hallock,Young. Since 2005 we've undertaken three historic renovation projects of which the crab shack and our ice house restoration have been completed all with the required permits and variances'. These first two projects were of higher priority than the tennis court as they were both aging structures and,in danger of falling down. Now we are seeking to restore the tennis court as is equally important to us to maintain the original outbuildings and amenities that have existed here over the decades. Here we would like to apologize for not having initially sought a permit`as we had been advised by the company doing.the restoration Southwest Greens that it was not, necessary given that it involved resurfacing of an existing court and we have never had a permit on the occasions November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting when we have renovated the court in the past. Given the company's experience•in the matter we didn't think to seek a permit. We have always sought permits for other projects when we thought they were necessary. I forwarded a letter which we requested Southwest Greens where they indicated that we had a conversation regarding our erroneously assuming that no permit was required. Also I asked the, company to describe in the letter the full surface permeability of the court, loose crush stone with a fake grass overlay which does not require any additional dry well system and is playable immediately after rain-unlike many other court surfaces. The stone has been in place for about a year and we can see that it drains well. As you can see in the two surveys, we shifted the court a small amount to ensure that the corner is off the private driveway next to it which we own by our Stephenson Rd. LLC. The court cannot be further away from the driveway as there is a forest next to it which is uphill.The historic fencing around the court was wooden post with mesh netting approximately ten feet high. We were planning to rebuild it in the same manner; because the existing posts were rotten we took them down last year in order to replace them. It would be fairly easy for us to shift the court back to the original position if required. We hope that you would be able to approve this court as we are pleased to have it playable again for our family particularly Charlotte and my granddaughter age 9 and grandson age 12 who enjoy playing tennis. There is no other available flat surface on our property for a court of this size as we have unusual historic boundaries in R40. We would like to be able to complete this restoration' and see that this-part of our-property looks somewhat the way it used to look. We are happy to provide any further information that you need with regard tolhis application. Regards Charlotte Green and Joanna Wendy Lomas. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you.-Can we get a copy of that so that the Board can refer? BEVERLY GREEN : Yes indeed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thanks very much. Did you say that you have some visual documentation some photos and stuff. BEVERLY GREEN : Yes we do. JOANNA LOMAS : Wefhave photographs and the USB. BEVERLY GREEN : She also requested that,we make a poster for you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This does not show any fencing around the court. Let's see back here (inaudible) court facing creek. It looks like there was some sort of a fence. BEVERLY GREEN : They were back stops for CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Back stops okay. You guys want to have a look. Noverimber•1, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : I have a question for you, do you have like the Orient Historical Society or anyone can just authenticate the dates orrthe photos?' BEVERLY GREEN : As a matter of fact I would ask permission to speak directly after this and I do yes. These are fifty five year history from historic aerials and these also these are the four approval letters from our neighbors one of which is the support letter. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN': Okay cause we only have one I think from someone named Adam and Lydia Irving. BEVERLY GREEN : I'm glad ('brought them then, there are four of them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is,one,of them from-the owner it says on the survey Gentlemen's Ridge LLC? That's the dwelling that would be most impacted by the activity on a tennis court, not so much the existence of the court but people using it. It's this one here across the right of way. BEVERLY GREEN : I sent them the letters that we were told to send but,unfortunately they seemed to have moved with no forwarding address: PAT MOORE : I'm here on behalf of,Gentlemen's Ridge. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh fine we'll come to that in one second Pat. MEMBER DANTES : I just have a question, if we approve for them to,build itis it the Building Department going to,send them back if they put the fence up because I don't see any plans that (inaudible) a fence on the back. BEVERLY GREEN : It's not a fence it's a backstop. MEMBER DANTES : Either or cause it's in'the front yard so,therefore if it's over four feet tall it's a fence.Just make sure you don't have to come back if you add the fence that's my CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Even if it's a backstop you probably will because it's a waterfront property, it's in the front yard and as MEMBER DANTES : It's waterfront? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well no yours is not the other is'. That's not waterfront either. Well we have to make sure.The front 23 November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) I'm just saying (inaudible) the fence let's take care of it all now so that you don't have to come back later. You have to show it to the Building Department themselves. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess all they saw was the survey and there's nothing on the survey that shows a fence in conjunction with the surface. BEVERLY GREEN : The 2006 survey should have shown that. The one that he did just now we took them down last year because they were rotted. They were falling over. MEMBER LEHNERT : I think what he's trying to say is you should add it to the survey that you're proposing to us so it's in there so you don't have to come back if this gets approved so you don't have to come back again for the fence. Make it a part of it. BEVERLY GREEN : I can have Nate redo that for you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What we're saying is that the what's before us now is for a tennis court in the wrong location, it has to be in the rear yard. Well your rear yard is a hill and obviously the fact that this pre-dated zoning is, helpful, and we'll look at everything you submitted. I mean it's a lot of stuff to look at and we'll make sure all the Board members get copies and certainly a tennis court in this day and age is going to require some sort of fence around it even if it's just the two ends. MEMBER LEHNERT : Just make sure you check the height of the fence. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah well it would be a height variance because in a front yard it's only four foot is-allowed and you need at least eight sometimes ten is used for a tennis court unless you're very good players you're going to need MEMBER DANTES : So basically take the old survey write like eight foot high fence on it or whatever the height you want and give it to the Building Department, they'll amend the Notice of Disapproval and then BOARD SECRETARY : A new survey. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we're going to see all those letters of support. MEMBER DANTES : Give it to the Building Department and they'll amend the Notice so.you can take care of everything now as opposed to BEVERLY GREEN : I'll have Nate do that. November 1, 2018'Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There wouldn't have been any C.O.'s o'r Pre-C.O.'s or anything on this property. How is it then that a stop work order'happened? BEVERLY GREEN : We don't know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There was an inspection obviously by the Building Department. BEVERLY GREEN : There was a complaint put against us and we don't know who it was. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well let's hear from Pat do you want to come MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just before can you explain'a couple of different things for me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Take a look at that. That's a fabulous photograph. BEVERLY GREEN : With the permission of this Board I'd like to add comments to this project of Charlotte's and Joanna's. I am strongly in favor of the tennis court resurfacing and would like very much to see it go forward. At the outset when the stop work order was put in place I attempted to ascertain and address the issues standing in the way of the work because my daughter was not present to do so. It was brought to my attention that if this tennis court-never existed and that therefore this was a new construction located in the front yard a prohibited location. I explained that the court was built by our great grandmother Mary Sing Stephenson for her children in the 1800's and has existed ever since in its present location but I failed to make myself understood. They say that a picture is worth',a thousand words. In-the book A Sense of Place a beautiful pictorial history of the beginnings of Orient'and East Marion the property is included both in the front cover and on pages two and three. This enlargement speaks volumes as to the location and antiquity of the court. It is my hope that you would rescind this stop work order and permit Charlotte and Joanna to proceed with the resurfacing work. Hopefully I've touched on and clarified your concerns about this project and I thank you for inviting us to speak today. Thank you. MEMBER DANTES : I'm sorry I have one question. Do you know what year the book A Sense of Place was written? BEVERLY GREEN : I have it right here one second. It's unfortunately it's out,of print or I would have had it here. MEMBER DANTES : Copyright 2006 BEVERLY GREEN : It was on pages three and four and there is a short (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what would be helpful, why don't you make a Xerox of the cover of the book and you know the pages you're in and just submit it. November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting BEVERLY GREEN : That's what you have there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh that's what you just MEMBER DANTES : But that's this because it says C. 1900 on it. It says Copyright 1900's page four because it says Copyright 1900 and I'm assuming that's evidence the picture was from 1900 so that would support your application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Who's this lovely Victorian woman? BEVERLY GREEN : We don't know it's a mystery. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're very welcome. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Sorry could I just ask I don't know quite your relationship with the applicants BEVERLY GREEN : I'm sorry my relationship? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah maybe (inaudible) you could answer the question I'm going to ask, to understand you stated that there were different restoration of the clay tennis court, when was the tennis court most recently restored? BEVERLY GREEN : That I can answer. We had started to do this in 2005 and we hired a company in and begin the restoration but the Heide Bear it was her company and she was an EMT in Riverhead and was killed in an accident and that totally tabled this work. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So since 2005 there'd been no improvements to the site, prior to that when was the previous restoration? BEVERLY GREEN : I'm taking a guess at that, periodically they put more clay on it. JOANNA LOMAS : Dirt and it blows away. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right and that's I think part of maybe for me you know I don't want to suggest overlooking that, understanding the cedars and the location that you're speaking of without any fencing etc. it could just look like a dirt area. With that said then do you have photographs of people actively playing on the court in 2000 well it's just the one you said in 2000's, anything in 2005, 2010, 2012 where people are actively using? BEVERLY GREEN : No. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So since 2005 no one's used the court since? 26F November 1;2018 Regular Meeting BEVERLY GREEN : Only briefly and then we that was when we took up'all the lines and were preparing to do these renovations but we got sidetracked by the hurricanes and we were forced to redeploy our assets to the crab shack in Orient and also our ice house so this took third place. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I remember the ice house. I was on the Board with the ice house project. Well let's see what Pat has to say. PAT MOORE : I'm here on behalf of(inaudible) Bick who is the owner of Gentlemen's Ridge LLC. He purchased the property, time flies I want to say about three years ago more or less, it's been a little while. He's asked me to appear because one he was quite surprised when the tennis court was going into the construction was starting because there was no evidence of a tennis court being there certainly prior to his purchase and all during this time. I did check the County's website the geographic website and if you were to look at the prior years there is no evidence of this tennis court during the eighties when the most clear pictures show up on the County's website. I did pull out from his file when we were 'researching the history of this property prior to his purchase; the subdivision was filed in it says here filed July 11, 1906 and I have the structures that appear in 1906 when this subdivision was filed by Mary Stephenson who was I believe a family predecessor of the original family that was being mentioned. This Stephenson's owned all of the parcels here and they were subdivided as parcel C, E, G, W, M, R, X. I've never seen that before but this is a unique subdivision. This map is a copy and 'it shows the Bick home that is there today and then it shows no, other homes other than one to the northeast which is plot X as being some of the prior early homes. I didn't have the benefit of the pictures that were submitted but I can only speak with respect to the documentation. I'll start with this, sorry this is the copy of the filed map that's on record. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And if I can just interject (inaudible) understand the lay of the land, the house that was formerly called the Cedars I don't know if Gentlemen's Ridge is are they maintaining the name the Cedars? Was that the applicant's family's home? PAT MOORE : It appears the Stephenson family member great grandmother. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And then the house that the applicant lives in was actually the service barn or accessory? PAT MOORE : Okay barn and carriage house built after the subdivision. BEVERLY GREEN : No before. PAT MOORE : Okay I don't see it on the map but it's early 1900's. i November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat which one of these is the subject property? Is it the one with dwelling on it? PAT MOORE : The one in the center yes.The dwelling is the center. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No the dwelling is the Cedars. PAT MOORE : Yeah the Cedars that's the original. Lot,W is my client's property. They're plot X I'm just putting it on the record. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Plot W was subdivided or plot X? PAT MOORE : The entire property was subdivided into those lots. So X, W that's what they called the lots rather than one,two, three, four MEMBER DANTES : Pat is your client in favor of the application or against the application. PAT,MOORE : No. My client is not in favor of the application. MEMBER DANTES : How does it affect his property? PAT MOORE : He is directly he is the most closely affected. MEMBER DANTES : What's his objection? PAT MOORE : Objections? One is the placement of it which is directly a foot off'of the road. It is right in essentially in front of his property closer to his property than to the applicant's own property. It does not allow for any screening whatsoever and I'm glad you pointed out the fence because we couldn't tell where they were putting the fence. It would again if it were right along the property line of the road his ability to even turn into his garage is affected by the placement of a fence there. My client did and I relayed this to the applicants before the meeting because just so that they would know, my client is willing to contribute to a more appropriate location of the fence. There's a couple of things, there's an electric line that bisects their property, it has been there since 1900's when electricity came on and it actually is directly under the tennis court. It makes no sense to have a full electric line that services the big property that is subject to damage or worse somebody injured by electric line that is running directly under this tennis court. BEVERLY GREEN : It's an overhead. PAT MOORE : Oh I'm sorry over the I misspoke. The tennis court is under the electric line and this is the primary trunk line that goes into the house so there are several concerns that my client expressed and that's why I'm here. I do have from again we had Young & Young provide a a$ November'1, 2018 Regular Meeting survey as early on when he was purchasing the property and this is a survey that Howard Young provided that is more of an aerial viewing of the property lines and on this aerial it doesn't show a tennis court. I would and Nick was kind of focusing in on that issue which is as a pre- existing non-conforming use our zoning code says that if the pre-existing non-conforming use is terminated or stopped in its use that you lose the pre-existing non-conformity and clearly this tennis court has been through their own testimony not in use for at least fifteen, sixteen years so that pre-existing both in its location and use has technically legally been extinguished. T. A. DUFFY : Well that's your position (inaudible) PAT MOORE : That's our position of course. So what I did is in an effort to see if certainly my client has no objection to them having a tennis court so if they want a tennis court that's not his issue. It is the placement of the tennis court and any fencing or whatever is going to be used around the tennis court. I don't want to presume that I know better than they do, where a tennis court should go but I did do some of my own little arts and crafts where I took the same dimensions that they show on the survey of 30 by 100 and tried to place the tennis court in a conforming location; it is possible. Now the way to do it would be to cut into some of the bank and create some form of a retaining wall not al,l the way. The bank goes up to the Birds Eye which is at a different topography but there is an ability to cut into the bank that would both preserve some trees for buffering from Birds Eye and also provide a conforming location. Now again my client is offering them and I think it would be something that appropriately we should talk about off the record but my client was even willing to 'help contribute towards subsidizing some of the cost that they might incur in cutting into the bank with a retaining wall. It shouldn't be a large retaining wall. I think it might at most be three feet because the bank is relatively shallow in the area where it encroaches in the conforming location of this tennis court. It only goes up a little higher and more wooded as you get to Birds Eye so there is room for proper placement of it and my client since he's most affected he'd rather contribute to giving them you know allowing them to have a tennis court but also providing what would be normal buffers and placement of it even so much as offering and I spoke to them again off the record working with Key Span LIPA whoever it is these days to bury to relocate the line and push it right not it's a telephone pole that's off of Birds Eye and it crosses their property to my client's property. It would require some work with the electric company to put in another pole and possibly run the lines to the street. So my client is willing to put his money where his mouth is and try to work with them to give them what they want,meanwhile provide for a more suitable location. It's not your job to negotiate or.even play intermediary so I appreciate that but I think it would be good for us to talk and if they came up with an alternative and my client is willing to sit with them whatever is necessary to make this happen. If there's no cooperation or agreement well you will do whatever you have to do with respect to the application but where it is being proposed now is just not suitable for those reasons that I stated previously. So I'm 9 November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting going to give you this aerial that came from Howard Young and my little colored paper placements. It was done by me and it's not intended to be exactly to scale but it gives at least an idea where we could make a tennis court conform with a 50 foot front yard setback requirement which is what the code requires. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we already know that the applicants need to kind of figure out what's going on with the fence. PAT MOORE : Yes, I had that as one of my notes but I'm glad you addressed it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that some sort of buffer between a residential property and a tennis court is not overly demanding and there is some simple ways that can be done. Does your client live in that dwelling? PAT MOORE : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is he there year round? PAT MOORE : I don't know that to be sure. He's been working on it and it has a building permit and it's gotta finish it's building permit process so I don't know if he's moved permanently there and I don't know. I can ask. I think he's there more than he's not there. His family it's he his wife and children I think they have one maybe she's pregnant with the second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anything from the Board at this point that you would like MEMBER ACAMPORA : I think you covered it. MEMBER DANTES : The only thing I'm looking at is, the old survey shows the fence that's over the property line it looks like. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's the old survey. MEMBER DANTES : When you do the new fence it should be within the property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the tennis court that you're now proposing the new one is on the property. That was my first thing when I looked at the old survey I thought this thing is partly in the right of way so they have obviously remedied that. PAT MOORE : Yes and prior to the hearing I acknowledged that I said oh I see that cause they said they moved it I said yes you wouldn't be able to get a variance from this Board if it was not on your property. I know I've been through that headache of fencing headache in the past. 30 November 1, 2018,Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the' issue is no one is really objecting to a'tennis court but to its placement PAT MOORE : Yes.. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and whether or not it can be moved farther from the right of way with perhaps some evergreen screening on the side PAT MOORE : And also please look at the location of the electric lines because if they don't my client obviously if they're going to insist on putting it where they want he's not going to contribute and the electric line will remain where it is. It's historically there and it'll stay there. It makes no sense and I don't know that the electric company would be very thrilled to have a tennis court under their lines. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It depends if whether people lob or not. PAT MOORE : I think my clients they may be excellent players and have ho intention of having fencing I give them credit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Listen I'm going to expedite this because we have an arraignment that's (inaudible) the cops are about to come in here. We have to vacate the meeting hall so that Justice Court can convene briefly for an arraignment then we will be back here as soon as they are finished. I think you understand the issues and what I'm going to do is adjourn this to the Special Meeting so that you can speak to each other if you want to and at least the applicants can go back to the Building Department about a fence and you can consider what you've heard and vice versa and we will take it from there. We will be meeting in two weeks so if there's an amended Notice of Disapproval which means that includes the fence let's say that you're going to propose or you want to consider moving it slightly we'll entertain all of that and we'll just is that clear? Does everybody understand what we're talking about? Well I don't know if we'll need another public hearing. REGINALD MEYER : Can I say something quick. My name is Reginald Meyer. My property is right next to the tennis court. There's no road in between my property and the tennis court property. We're right directly next to it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you on Birds Eye? REGINALD MEYER : I'm on Stephenson 360 Stephenson Rd. In fact I have I had my wife and I (inaudible) I don't know why you didn't get it but I have a copy of the letter. We've been there for twenty five years. We bought the property from (inaudible) were the first outsiders there and for twenty five years we have hopefully been good neighbors and they have been great �1 November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting neighbors to us. I know the tennis court has been used. I know that the fences around the tennis court were taken down about two years ago I think because they were starting to fall apart but the court had been used I know since 2006 or 2007 something like that. It wasn't used professionally like it had been before or semi-professionally. There were other tennis courts in the area on the other side of Birds Eye which are non-conforming also but this tennis court had been used by many of the neighbors in the area and fixing it up and redoing it is going to be very beneficial to me because it's going to improve my property at the same time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So several neighbors use this and the owners basically make it available to all the neighbors? REGINALD MEYER : The neighbors had asked if they could use the court and they always said yes. It was never a problem with it and as far as the electric goes in twenty five years there's never been a wire come down at all in that area as far as I_can remember and the people that moved into the Gentlemen's whatever it is property they're there about three days a week. They at the present time as far as I know don't have any children. I think they probably they just got married I think about two weeks ago three weeks ago, very nice people. They did a beautiful job with the renovation of the house. It certainly has improved the whole area. Some of the work I don't know'if it's exactly conforming or not but it's been done and I have no problems with any of the neighbors and all I can say is that the tennis court would be beneficial to everybody I think. One other thing, for them to move it would be very, very expensive because the hill is quite steep and right now they would have to put at least a thirty foot wall on the one side if they go in further as was suggested I'm sure the wall would have to be at least six to eight feet high. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mr. Meyer may I ask if you have any family photographs illustrating the fence being there two years ago? REGINALD MEYER : I don't no. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You don't have any family photographs of a barbeque that would illustrate the fence in the back yard? REGINALD MEYER : No we have woods between us and the tennis court is a wooded area and which is probably maybe twenty feet or so and then we have at least ten feet of grass between our house and that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think you somebody else had something to please come to the podium and November'l, 2018'Regular Meeting WILLIAM PLONSKI : My name is Plonski I'm a friend of the family. I visit-quite often and I was going I had several things to say but I better limit it to I question like the Gentlemen's Ridge or whatever they're talking or whatever they're calling themselves. I've been up there quite often. I've never seen anyone near the house. If you seethe, house from a distance or even when.you start to go up the hill I don't mean to be cute now but I'm reminded of the movie psycho kind of I call it the psycho house it's a big it's a huge MEMBER DANTES : Just keep your comments to argue for or against the tennis court and why are you for it. WILLIAM PLONSKI I'm for,the tennis, court. It's been there, since 1881. The Green -family Stephenson family has been quite comfortable to the community. They work for the church. They've made contributions to the Oyster Bay Historical Society. I don't see any problem with a structure that's been there,since 1881. 1 don't see any reason at all to question where it is. I don't see any problem. I think perhaps that the people next door might not have done their homework when they purchased the house. MEMBER DANTES : That's irrelevant to what we're WILLIMA PLONSKI : Okay irrelevant but just to capsulize it•I'm totally in favor of the'tennis court and I think it belongs there. PAT MOORE : I just want to correct one thing and I apologize you were absolutely correct, I'm remembering his partner my client just got married he has no children and they can't move in yet. They have a an open building permit they need to put some railings around the decking and then they'll get their C. of 0. The reason they haven't seen as much activity there is as my clients would like is because it's been a process of renovation of the house since they purchased it with a proper permit.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN,: Alright I'm afraid we do really have to get out of here. Do you want to submit something else? What is this that you are submitting? BEVERLY GREEN•: This is my great grandmother's subdivision survey from 1906 and this is also there seems to be confusion on the ownership of the roads, that is the deed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that right of way Stephenson Rd. is deeded to your family? BEVERLY GREEN : (inaudible) deed and if you put it (i'naud'ible) there are three members of the LLC; myself, my sister and my daughter. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so you own that right of way. 33 November 1, 2018 Regular,Meeting BEVERLY GREEN : We own it all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, so we're going to adjourn this to the Special Meeting and the applicants can consider what we've talked about and whether or not you talk to each other is entirely up to you. The' Board has no vested interest one way or the other. We just hear impartially all testimony. We have a lot to look at. If you want to submit anything else this is held open so if there's anything else you or anybody else wants to submit with regard to this application you can do so. In two weeks if we're satisfied that we have enough information, if you choose to make some changes one way or the other show us what they are or you ask for more time, you say well we need more time to get the surveyor to do whatever. If you need more time or we have questions we'll adjourn to one month from now and we'll have another public-hearing or we will just close'it because we've gotten what we need and we won't have any more testimony necessary, everybody understand? So having settled that I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting on November 15tH MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBERIEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye: CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7211— D. SCOTT KETNER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for D. Scott Ketner #7211. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's June 15, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to legalize an accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) located in other than the code required rear .yard located at 4321 Brooks Point Rd. on Fishers Island. STEPHEN HAM : Stephen Ham Southampton New York for the applicant—I've given Kim an original affidavit for my client who couldn't be here today and it's attached to that 34 November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting memorandum I just distributed I think it's Exhibit B. It explains the circumstances surrounding how this pool was built without a permit. What happened basically he hired a contractor who did get permits from the environmental people the state and the local environmental regulatory agencies and then built it. It was built off season, he didn't see it till Memorial Day after it was completed and did not know that it lacked a permit or a C.O. The argument that I make in the memorandum that I just distributed which addresses the criteria for an area variance would I argue that even had he come to this Board before building it he would be entitled to a variance so I think and he's dealing now with the consequences of the lack of a permit and the contractor has died so he has no recourse really against him. He's dealing with the Justice Court, he's been sited and he's working that out. He is working he has someone who is reapplying to the D.E.C. and to the Town Trustees because the Building Department will as I point out in the memorandum they will require updated permits. Also what was built was slightly different from what was approved so he has to go through that process anyway. We understand that if you grant a variance on this you know to make a condition to obtain all other required permits as a condition is totally acceptable to my client. The legal argument or the area variance arguments the main ones are no impact on the neighborhood. The neighbor that's most affected has written to your Board. I have that letter a copy of it attached to the memorandum saying that the pool has no visual or sound impact on their property and the other argument is the practical difficulty because we have three front yards here and this Board granted a variance for the house back in 1999 which sort of established one of these yards as the main front yard, the house is right behind it. It's the logical de facto rear yard. The other two streets are respectively 180 feet and 100 feet away so I think you know there's a good case here for the variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's very clear from the survey where the wetlands are. You need to get updated from Trustees and D.E.C. STEPHEN HAM : Mike is requiring that yes and my client is working on it. The D.E.C. is very hard to get to visit the sites so the Town Trustees looked at it on Town (inaudible) Day. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh they did. STEPHEN HAM : As you did. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah we did actually we saw this property. I don't have any questions, Rob anything? MEMBER LEHNERT : I just have one question, reading through the whole application you keep referring to a different pool built from the one; are we looking at the survey of what's actually there? 35 November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting STEPHEN HAM : Yes, well yes and I sent Kim what had been approved the site plan. With the application is the existing condition. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the approval will be based on the survey we've got alright. Anything from you Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric, Pat anything? There is no one in the audience. 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 ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA-: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7217—JEREMIAH M. BOGERT and MARGOT CAMPBELL BOGERT,AS TRUSTEES CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Jeremiah M. Bogert and Margot Campbell Bogert as Trustees #7217. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's June 15, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct an accessory garage at 1) located in other than the code required rear yard located at 8196 Clay Point Rd. (adj. to Fishers Island Bay) on Fishers Island. STEPHEN HAM : Stephen Ham Southampton for the applicants and I have some more reading material. In this one I have two arguments, one on the basic criteria for an area variance which the memorandum addresses but I also point out in the memorandum I think you could say this doesn't need a variance. It meets principle dwelling requirements and the reason that I think he's saying it's in a side yard is because it's sort of at a side of a house but if the house were November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting moved to still be in a conforming location and I think it would be in the front of the house but that's something for you to consider. As far as the area variance reasons or concerns you've got tidal wetlands and a bank on one side and on the front yard side there is existing septic and you might need a variance if you put it in the front yard anyway or what the Building Department \ considers a front yard. I've attached having a detached garage in a side yard is not an unusual feature in this on Fishers Island or in this neighborhood. I've attached as evidence of that a survey which is Exhibit A I believe of a property that's only a few doors down that has an existing detached garage in a side yard. The Town Trustees have visited the site and they have actually on this one have issued a letter of non-jurisdiction because we are away from the coastal erosion hazard area and the tidal wetlands. So environmentally this is the logical place and the impact on the neighborhood is minimal. The surrounding properties are another lot owned by the applicants. There's a FIDCO lot across the street that is not going to be developed and the Ferguson Museum which is (inaudible) Land and Trust is an owner that I had to notify and an abutter and also across the street. So from the environmental point of view and the zoning neighborhood point of view I think this location is the best one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did visit this also. MEMBER DANTES : Did you need to apply to the D.E.C. for this? STEPHEN HAM : I think it's going to be out of jurisdiction. I'm not handling that but I'm told (inaudible) elevation would be out of D.E.C. jurisdiction that it's probably not going to be required. MEMBER DANTES : Do you know if they got the letter yet or STEPHEN HAM : No I don't think they have it yet. The surveyor told me he doesn't think that Mike is even going to ask for it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And it is LWRP consistent. STEPHEN HAM : Yes that's right I did receive that notice. MEMBER DANTES : Do you have the letter from Trustees is that in here? STEPHEN HAM : Yep that's in Exhibit A or B I forget, yeah Exhibit B, A is the neighboring property showing the garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from anybody, Rob, Eric, Pat? Okay, no one is in the audience I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. 3? November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER DANTES, : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7213 &#7215 HALSEY A. STAPLES and JANET E. STAPLES CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next 'two applications before the Board are both for Halsey Staples and Janet Staples. One is for a Waiver of Merger and one is for a Special Exception permit with variances for a two family dwelling. I'm going to open them both up at the same time. It's just easier to talk about them that way and I'd like to look at the waiver of merger first. So let's I'll do it in order which is the Special Exception permit variances first. The Special Exception and variances would be on one in my mind and the Waiver of Merger I'm doing as the other application. So first of all Halsey A. Staples and Janet E. Staples #7213 a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's January 8, 2018 amended June 19, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to legalize a pre-existing storage building that has been altered to an "as built" two 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 combined side yard setback of 25 feet located at 1100 Wilmarth Ave. in Greenport. The other application is for a Waiver of Merger that's application #7215. This is a waiver of merger petition under Article II Section 280-10A to unmerge land identified as SCTM #1000-41-1-15 which has merged with SCTM #1000-41-1-12 based on the Building Inspector's January 8, 2018 amended June 19, 2018 Notice of Disapproval which states that a non-conforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or non-conforming lot held in common ownership with the first lot at any time after July 1, 1983 and that non-conforming lots shall merge until the total lot size conforms to the current bulk schedule requirements (minimum 40,000 sq..ft. in the R40 residential zoning district) again located at 1100 Wilmar'th Ave in Greenport. Is there someone here to represent the application? Come to the podium please and just state your name for the record please. 31 November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting MORGANT FIEDLER : Morgant Fiedler CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'd like to take a look at the second application first the waiver of merger. Until such time as we're able to separate these lots very little can really be done on the special exception for a two family dwelling and the variances simply because there are two dwellings on one lot at this point and so that needs to be fixed first alright. So let's talk about the standards for waiver of merger. Would you like to go ahead and address the Board or do you want me to review anymore. MORGANT FIEDLER : If you can present what the issues are. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well first of all we have to determine that the lots are held in common name and have not been sold out of someone. MORGANT FIEDLER : They were held in common name but one of the lots was sold to the adjacent owner so currently they're owned in two separate names. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is the adjacent owner would that be Robin Walden? MORGANT FIEDLER : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And is there a family relationship? MORGANT FIEDLER : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is that relationship? MORGANT FIEDLER : Niece and uncle. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright well I think that technically still qualifies for family right Bill? T. A. DUFFY : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so even though it's been sold and we'll remember this from the previous waiver of merger that was in 2014 where the lot that was on Main Rd. was unmerged from the one that has the business operation (inaudible) other house. MORGANT FIEDLER : Correct. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Could we just clarify something I'm a little confused regarding the ownership. The lot that's not part of this conversation which is owned by the niece Ms. Walden lot 3 on the survey which lot are you saying she owns today? $9: November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting MORGANT FIEDLER : She owns that lot it's lot 12 1 believe, yeah 12 and 14 and when those two lots were MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) where the monument shop is. MORGANT FIEDLER : Correct. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The property where the barn is who owns that, that's with Halsey Staples? MORGANT FIEDLER : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That has not yet been sold to Colin Ratsey? MORGANT FIEDLER : No note yet, we're in contract but we CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on wait we need to hear one at a time and Colin if you're going to testify you have to come to a mic. What I want to know is whether or not the first standard that has to be addressed to qualify for a waiver of merger to even look at the three criteria that we can balance is that these lots have not been sold outside of the family. MORGANT FIEDLER : Correct not yet we haven't we've entered into contract but that's contingent on the lots being unmerged so nothing has gone through as CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The deed is still held in those names? MORGANT FIEDLER : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we're getting to step one now as long as we can just follow this through. So are you aware Morgant of the standards for waiver of merger? MORGANT FIEDLER : For waiver CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have to address those let me see if you did in your application. You want me to tell you what they are? MORGANT FIEDLER : Yes please. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the first is, if we get to step one cause there's still in the same family which would appear is the case and do we have in our record deeds showing the ownership?We have the title MORGANT FIEDLER : Yes the title search includes the deeds. It's a little bit further in the application. 40 November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now there are three standards that have to be addressed in order to effectuate the waiver of merger. Number one is it would have to recognize a lot that's comparable in size to a majority of the improved lots in the neighborhood. Then the waiver would recognize a lot that is vacant and historically been treated and maintained as a separate and independent lot since the date of its original creation. Now we know this lot is not vacant. MORGANT FIEDLER : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's on it pre-dates zoning but it is one standard we have to address and then thirdly the waiver and recognition'would not create an adverse impact on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood. So those are the three things I would like you or the owners whoever you wish to address before the Board. MORGANT FIEDLER : So the this is the owner of lot 15 Halsey Staples. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm sorry sir we record this stuff and have to transcribe it so please just state your name for the record. HALSEY A. STAPLES : Halsey A. Staples. I always get a little confused because I've always called them lots 3, 4 and 5. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The county messes us up pretty good. HALSEY A. STAPLES : Now the setbacks for I think we can change that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're just going to do the waiver of merger. HALSEY A. STAPLES : It was separated from the lot 3 that I call it and to me it's an equal situation that lot being separated as well as because what they do is they meet on the end of my lot. My lot is across and there is on the Main St. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here's the thing, they may not have even been merged had you not had a common boundary of more than 50 feet. It seems to be 57.50 feet that's why they merged. The law allows for things not to merge even if they're held in common ownership if they don't have a common boundary of greater than 50 feet if it's 50 feet or less. So you happen to have 57.5 feet. HALSEY A. STAPLES : It was always my assumption that a pre subdivision the subdivision took precedence over the conjoining. This has been subdivision Washington Heights subdivision since 1928 and each lot was individually built on and so I thought that the subdivision sort of took precedent over the conjoining. 4:1 November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No they're very different laws. The subdivision basically if you can show us that the plat of that subdivision that lot let's call it lot 5 which is what you're familiar with the one with that's in contract, if you can show us that that's the same sized lot pretty much as all the other lots along Wilmarth in the subdivision then that would say that it meets standard number one. It recognizes a lot comparable in size to the majority of the improved lots in the neighborhood. You're following what I'm saying? HALSEY A. STAPLES : I don't know if I have a copy of that. MORGANT FIEDLER : I believe in the application there is a map of Washington Heights showing it all. HALSEY A. STAPLES : That all the lots were divided in that whole block Wilmarth Ave, Booth Place, Washington Ave., Main St. they were all subdivided to equal amounts to the best of my knowledge. I've got an old Van Tuyl map at home I didn't bring it. It was I think the Robinson Farm at one time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There are some subdivisions that are exempt from waiver of merger, I don't believe this is one of them. MEMBER DANTES : They're only exempt until 1997 then the town repealed the exemption so they'd still be here I believe. HALSEY A. STAPLES : So I took the possession in '78 1 think it was. MEMBER DANTES : Could we just go through the names again. Lot 3 is owned by Walden? HALSEY A. STAPLES : That's correct. MEMBER DANTES : And lot 4 HALSEY A. STAPLES : I believe it's still owned by Walden. MEMBER DANTES : Is that the one that has the Staples monument business on it? HALSEY A. STAPLES : On the corner of Wilmarth and Main is the one with the monuments. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And that one is also owned by Walden. HALSEY A. STAPLES : Two lots owned by Walden. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the lot 5 which is the subject lot is owned by Halsey and Janet Staples. 42 November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting HALSEY A. STAPLES : Yes my wife. MEMBER DANTES : Is that the one that has the two apartments on it. HALSEY A. STAPLES : No that's just three lots involved. MORGANT FIEDLER : I have the map of Washington Heights if that would be helpful. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright that's helpful. MORGANT FIEDLER : It's in the application that you have. MEMBER DANTES : The lot that with the,Staples business and the other little house on-it that's not part of this application. HALSEY A. STAPLES : Yes it is because the west end of that lot abuts my lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we do have this in the application. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's in the application. HALSEY A. STAPLES : I used to own the cemetery,monuments for thirty years I bought it from my father previous to that and so I sold that (inaudible) to my niece and her husband (inaudible) I retired. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mr. Staples pardon me just so I understand all the parties in the room right now, is (inaudible) niece in the back corner? HALSEY A. STAPLES : Yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's her husband. There's the niece okay good. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so we're familiar with Washington Heights and the first standard is if we unmerge these lots are they going to be characteristic of the neighborhood. Are they going to be about the same size as others. According to this plat the answer would be what? MORGANT FIEDLER : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I wanted you to say it not me. MEMBER DANTES : Can I ask a question Leslie, I'm looking at the certificate of occupancy search from data track, it says there is no certificate on file for the original building according to Building Department records. Tax Assessors records indicate that the above mentioned premises was originally constructed as a dwelling of undetermined age. Do you have the actual 43 November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting tax assessors record in here that says that? If that's the case I don't understand why they merged. MORGANT FIEDLER : The lot was inherited by MEMBER DANTES : No I understand that but if this was a dwelling before 1978 and he had the business on the other property with a dwelling then it shouldn't merge. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No that's not right. MEMBER DANTES : If there's two dwellings next to each other? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's property that you're looking at in common ownership. They don't go out to inspect to see whether it's vacant or not. MEMBER DANTES : So if it's not (inaudible) I'm confused. I thought it had to be a vacant piece of property for it to merge. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's supposed to that's what qualifies it for an un-merger a waiver of merger that it's been kept vacant. However that's one of three standards and legal counsel has advised us that those are things that we can balance out and is not absolute because otherwise this would no way qualify for a waiver of merger because it's not vacant and it hasn't been vacant for years and years and years and years. Very early on long before zoning. Now the argument that people often make is that the lot has received separate property you know separate tax bills and so on that really is not an argument for waiver of merger. Every single property here the town never really allowed people who were, property owners to basically understand what had happened until they go to do something and then they find out that it's merged. Many, many people just assume this never happened and they had separate lots and they discover that by force of law when this went into operation in 1984 they were up-zoned they were merged. So that is an argument everybody makes but it doesn't hold much water with legal standards. The third thing is that it won't have any adverse on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood if we were to unmerge these properties. Would you address that for us. MORGANT FIEDLER : I would agree that it would not have any adverse effect. It's in essence it's existed or since the early 1900's as is. There would be no changes to the neighborhood by unmerging the two lots or to the structures themselves. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we have lots of information in our file, letters from people who have known this property, lived in the neighborhood for many years, affidavits and so on, November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting testimony that it was originally owned by someone who had a carpentry shop and lived above. We have that well documented in our files we don't need to review all of that. HALSEY A. STAPLES : And he lived there before he died. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you purchased this property from HALSEY A. STAPLES : My father. Actually I had a contract of sale prior to his death and when he passed away my mother said I don't want this property can you come up with the money. I did purchase the property from her and (inaudible) my possession. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Let me see if the Board has any questions here, I'll start down at Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Could you back in 20141 guess it was your niece Ms. Walden made an application for waiver of merger to separate lots 3 from 4, at that time the three lots were disclosed to have merged why did you not make an application to unmerge this lot concurrently, simultaneously? HALSEY A. STAPLES : I misunderstood I assumed the wrong thing because I received a separate tax bill. I assumed incorrectly I guess now that it had been merged. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm a little confused cause if you knew about the waiver of merger for lot 3 from 4 why not 4 from 5? MORGANT FIEDLER :That wasn't an action taken on our behalf. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right that was Ms. Walden. MORGANT FIEDLER : By us that was Ms. Walden. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don't you come to the podium and state your name for the record please. ROBIN WALDEN : My name is Robin Walden. So when we went for the waiver of merger from the two lots my husband and I were under the understanding that the lot that Halsey Staples tried to unmerge from our lot at this time was never merged because there was a break in the title. Now we found out that it was untrue so that's why it wasn't presented as a waiver of merger at the time cause we thought this was not an issue. As they did we misunderstood the whole proceedings. As you can see with these three lots it gets a little confusing and we understood at the time that they,were not merged and then when he wanted to sell it to Mr. Ratsey they found out it was merged. So that is the answer to that. 45T November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just for me cause it is a little confusing, I certainly was not on the Board at that time but the transcript I read it. From that transaction people were aware it was discussed that it was at that point merged. ROBIN WALDEN : When I spoke to my attorney at the time he said no that is not an issue they are not merged. I was given the incorrect information. If we knew it at the time of course cause I said are they going to be unmerged he said all three of these properties will be unmerged at this time and that's the information we were given my husband and I otherwise of course we would have addressed this situation then. It just gets complicated. Does that answer your question? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything? MEMBER LEHNERT : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric anything? MEMBER DANTES : Yes. For lot the one with the Staples monument business on it, do you have C.O.'s in here for those buildings in the file? ROBIN WALDEN : Yes. MEMBER DANTES : What are they C.O.'d for? ROBIN WALDEN : The property at 919 Main St. which Staples Monuments is on we have a C.O. for residential non-conforming use. MEMBER DANTES : Okay and then the shop is there a C.O. for that building as well? ROBIN WALDEN : The shop meaning MEMBER DANTES : It just says survey here says building/shop the building that's behind the house. ROBIN WALDEN : That is part of our property as Staples Monuments it's just a garage. MEMBER DANTES : So it's part of the C.O. for the existing non-conforming? ROBIN WALDEN : Yes. MEMBER DANTES : So then we go to lot #5 now on there, survey says two story framed house and garage under this data track file says that Assessor's record indicate that the above 46 November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting mentioned premises was originally constructed as a dwelling of undetermined age but there's no C.O. for the building. MORGANT FIEDLER : Correct. MEMBER DANTES : Do we have the Assessor's record that determines that the building is a dwelling in this file somewhere? MORGANT FIEDLER : When I went to the Assessors they said that they didn't have that information. MEMBER DANTES : But-Data Track found it? MORGANT FIEDLER : I was told by the Assessors that they did not have it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Data Track found something but the bottom line is that not only is there no C.O. but the property card MEMBER DANTES : Can you ask Allstate to show you what Data Track found? MORGANT FIEDLER : We have they pulled everything that they could find which is also in the file. MEMBER DANTES : Cause I mean if it's I mean that's my contention I mean if it was a dwelling and obviously we know that the front lot was a dwelling why would it merge. I never heard of two developed lots merging together. I don't understand the situation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well look, the bottom line is the Building Department has determined that it's merged and I think F understand why it merged because it shares a boundary of more than 50 feet and it's owned in the same name so vacant or built it's going to merge. What's before us now is qualifications for whether or not it can be unmerged alright. The property card from the Assessor's office refers to this as a storage building. It is my understanding that originally way back in the day it may have been a barn serving several properties. I'm sorry come back to the mic. HALSEY STAPLES : Mr. Anderson the gentleman the carpenter he's the one that did the upgrades and that was in the forties because I can remember it, I was born in 1943 and he did the living part CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Upgraded upstairs. HALSEY STAPLES : Upstairs he had yeah he slept at times upstairs. He was a tippler that's why he didn't go home but anyway that's another story. 471 November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Better not to drive was that it. HALSEY STAPLES : His wife was a prohibitionist so anyway he was a carpenter. He did the original renovations on it. He didn't change the footprint of the building but he did never once have I seen a two by four there because he had it all sheet rocked. The downstairs was all sheet rocked, upper and lower had pine floors but the lower was a larger studio and he lived upstairs and did his cabinet work downstairs so he did live in there. It was a dwelling in the forties. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well what we're really trying to do is just you can see why we need to look at the separation of these properties first before we do anything else. The setback variances are what they are I mean this thing is built in place and short of tearing it down and moving it they are what they are. Nevertheless the Special Exception permit has a whole different set of standards which you know is spelled out in the application for Special Exception permit. The Building Department shows that both of these applications to just state all facts on their Notice of Disapproval regardless of what was going on, whether it was a waiver of merger, whether it was a variance or whether it was a special exception. For some reason this time they wrote them all on the one so that's why I'm trying to separate these for clarity sake. Is there anyone else who would like to give us any background on the qualifications for a waiver of merger? I think we have a lot of information in' our files so anything else from the Board with regard to that? MEMBER DANTES : I just like to see this if Data Track found some record from the Assessor's office I'd like to see what it was cause it should exist if they found it. Maybe try to look at the file yourself and see. MORGANT FIEDLER :To clarify you're looking for a Pre C.O. or what? MEMBER DANTES : I'd like a Pre C.O. but it says if the Assessor has a record that indicates the above mentioned premises was originally constructed as a dwelling I think that would help CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If that's the case you might qualify for a Pre C.O. (inaudible) a certificate of occupancy for a two family dwelling for a single family? MEMBER DANTES : It just establishes a residence CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A residence that would be prior to zoning. That would mean that it had some legal standing. If that can't be produced it has no historic legal standing. That doesn't prevent us from going forward with this anyway I just want you to be very clear about trying to track down everything. I don't think that we can address the variance standards of a Special Exception until we separate this out. I think the best way to do this is to adjourn that until the / decision is made on the waiver of merger. Now what I can do is propose to adjourn this to the 481. November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting Special Meeting in two weeks which would then mean you can produce whatever additional information you think would be relevant, what Member Dantes suggested you look at and then if we have no further questions we'll close that and we'll make a determination. We may have it ready for that night but we may have to wait another two weeks depending on what we get and when we get it. If we get it soon then we'll be able to maybe have ready then, then we can schedule a day for the hearing on the rest of these I'm just going to propose we adjourn the application that is referred to as #7213 which'the variance and Special Exception. I think it's much better to do this one step at a time-cause we can't really legalize-two dwellings on one property. MORGANT FIEDLER : Correct. So just to clarify, you just want supplemental information whatever I can get from the Assessor's Office on both parcels? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No we're particularly concerned about the subject parcel which is where the two family dwelling is now. Data Track indicated that it had been built purposely built as a residential structure. History kind of suggest maybe otherwise because it was used as a carpentry shop, it was probably used for other things before then. It's in the property card as a storage building I don't know why but it is. HALSEY STAPLES : I think maybe when the I don't know who did the zoning the people that come through and classify but Mr. Anderson didn't have a lot of money. The house didn't have a lot of (inaudible) on it and so the question might have'been to the people coming through (inaudible) building all along houses that,made them look like a barn because there's no paint, the windows were I don't think he had any curtains but he after his wife passed away he was there all the time but I don't think he (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that remains you know I get what you're saying but we need to just find out what kind of history we know from your point of view what history in terms of occupation in the building. I guess Member Dantes is suggesting that if there's any way that you can find out anything that would further improve the legality of the structure we'll give you some time to do that. That doesn't preclude the granting or denying one way or the other of the waiver. So I think unless the Board has is there anyone else in the audience who wants to say anything? Robin did you have anything else to add or before we ROBIN WALDEN : The only thing else I'd like to add is you said in the beginning there was three reasons which we can get a waiver of merger and one of them is that they were still in the same family which they are. So,that's one of the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That gets you to step one. That means you qualify for a waiver of merger. 49 November 1,2018 Regular Meeting ROBIN WALDEN : Exactly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then the other three standard kick in. Anything else from anyone in the audience? Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to adjourn application #7215 to the Special Meeting. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's November 15th by the way seconded by Eric, all in favor? ) MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTd : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. , CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, (See Minutes for Resolution) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and I'm going to make a motion to adjourn Halsey A. Staples and Janet E. Staples #7213. This is the Special Exception permit and variances without a date because I don't want to plug this into a date until we have this first thing solved. As soon as that's solved we will put it back on the calendar make a note' Kim you know for the next available slot to carry on with this process. So I have a motion to adjourn without a date for application #7213 is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. r' MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) 50 November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting HEARING#7209—TRACY PECK and DAVID CORBETT CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Tracy Peck and David Corbett # 7209. This is a request for a variance from Article XXXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's June 25, 2018 amended July 20,2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to demolish an existing single family,dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet located at 1305 Sigsbee Rd. in Mattituck. MIKE KIMACK : Good afternoon, Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant. This had been previously approved by the Board under your file #7087'and the request at that particular time was to have a setback of 31.8 feet from the'33 some odd feet'that was,there. At that particular time you found it you voted in favor of it based upon the fact that the neighborhood essentially represented those types of setbacks and the one the house directly across the street had in fact a granted setback of less than that. The permit was issued as a partial demolition and the client's exceeded that and, the Building Inspector sited it for pretty much a demolition and if you visited CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Pretty much it is because there's nothing but floor joists and a chimney stack. MIKE KIMACK : And a chimney stack and one partial wall which is up. The foundation and the new foundation had been poured and-the beams had been put on the foundation. So I'm before you primarily again to.ask for the variance for the front yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that variance was for 31.8 feet for a covered front porch and a one story addition. MIKE KIMACK : That hasn't changed in terms of the design. The building hasn't changed in terms of exactly what was there. Originally the house was going to be added onto the ten foot on the side and the porch added to the front and for whatever reason they got into it and I think he was doing it himself as most cases happen they find that it's difficult sometimes to work with an existing structure and they decided to take it down. The original approval that you gave in terms of the side addition with the porch in the front is exactly what'this application is before you now except the'only difference is that we're requesting it as a full demolition, same structure going back. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mike is your client here? MIKE KIMACK : No they're not. 51 November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting -MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So you're the only individual speaking on behalf of the application? MIKE KIMACK : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well you know very well that the difference is that an addition begins with something built in place and a demolition we would ask different questions. We would say why-can't you be conforming to the code even though characteristic of the neighborhood so we have some problems here. This is not the first application where and I know you know that where applicants have come before the Board and have requested some sort of addition or alteration to something that had an existing footprint, may have been.non- conforming and the next thing you know there's no building there and you know somehow or another we have to come to grips with the consequences of that kind of thing. People are going to have to stop ripping things down without contacting the Building Department first to resolve the problem to see if additional variance relief is necessary. MIKE KIMACK : I think the difficulty that when permits leave expediters such as myself and get into the hands of the contractor and the homeowners they begin construction on a house and primarily trying to update an existing house that all of a sudden they find you know it may have defects. I had one before you I think with extensive termites and had this played out the way that let's say normally they would have gotten into this and found that there were these deficiencies and there was a requirement to take it down and they called the Building Department and the Building Department showed up and the end -result would have been the same primarily I would be before you asking for a demolition permit so I'm not condoning what they basically did in terms of their activity except that the end result of them taking it down for reasons I suggest would probably legitimate in terms of from,a construction point of view solely the removal of that but they had got so far to pour the new foundation basically in the ground that conforms to the original permit in terms of its setback of 31.8 feet that's in place and then they framed it over and at that particular point when they beamed it for the first floor that's I believe when the Building Inspector showed up and stopped it. So looking at it that way I agree that you are struggling with this situation but if I was going to come before you I would use the precedence that you wrote in the original permit basically that the neighborhood basically,is a neighborhood with a lot. of those buildings a lot closer to the road. In essence it isn't detrimental to the overall character of the neighborhood itself and directly across the street you did give approval for one I think was about 24 to 27 feet away and that was new construction as a precedent point. It's no condoning what they basically did, I understand the circumstances I've had it before, their expediters had it you've had it before basically but the end result in this case is they took it down unintentionally against that. They didn't realize it was issue, began to put it back and what they were asking for here is even though now it's a SZ November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting demolition the house that they're putting back is the same one approved by you the same setbacks with a foundation in place. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from the Board? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes, could you elaborate specifically what the problem was that they discovered that would cause a demolition to a house? MIKE KIMACK : I came into it fairly late primarily. They called me after they got the citations which is normally the case. I do not know why they took it down. I had been involved in others in terms of understanding and one I think I had extensive termite MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do you have any photographs to support any sort of damage that a termite may cause or-other MIKE KIMACK : I don't know whether it was termites or whether it was just difficulty in trying to frame given what they were attempting to do because they were in a sense if I remember correctly from the design they had to reframe the roof anyway because they were adding on a ten foot along the entire one side of the house and the roof had to be reframed completely. That was a complete change so what we were looking at I think was they took down-the walls of the first floor but the roof was coming down anyway because that had to be changed in order to change the configuration in the A line and the roof was also added to the back. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Logically people are usually enthusiastic about things are looking forward to a home or renovation, I would think there would be some sense of documentation to illustrate the reason why they would go to such extreme. MIKE KIMACK : I can ask my clients to send me a letter indicating the reason why MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And supporting photographs. MIKE KIMACK : I'm not quite sure maybe they have them I'm not quite sure if that's available Nick I don't know. I wasn't-there, I wasn't part of the construction, I wasn't part of anything like that I just T. A. DUFFY : Certainly there must be somebody that can come here and speak to what happened right? (inaudible) a letter contractor somebody that can come and explain. MIKE KIMACK : I would imagine they had a contractor. T. A. DUFFY : Cause it's your burden to overcome it's not this Board's problem. 53 November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : I understand that Bill I understand that. I don't know the contractor. I suspect that I could get the contractor to come. Would a letter from the contractor and the owner suffice as opposed to personal appearance if I can get that letter to you? CHAIRPERSSON WEISMAN : I suppose that depends on what the letter says. MEMBER LEHNERT : Didn't you already state that the owner was doing this himself? MIKE KIMACK : You know I wish I can clarify that. I didn't get that information in terms of who took it down. If the owner was doing it himself hopefully he took some photos. If the contractor was doing it at least have some reason from either one as to the reason for having taken it down. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me suggest this, I'll adjourn this to the Special Meeting. You can inquire, find out whether or not an appearance is possible. Possibly submit a letter which may or may not suffice the Board will have to (inaudible) f MIKE KIMACK : The strength of it if I can get them to come it's stronger than the letter and perhaps bring the letter along with me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I suspect so but T. A. DUFFY : You can't question a letter, the Board may have questions. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That was going to be another question` of mine, why isn't the applicant here to speak for himself? MIKE KIMACK : They work in the city. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And this isn't an important issue to them? MIKE KIMACK : It is.They relied on me to put it forth for them. MEMBER ACAMPORA : I think the other question is also that only the owner and the contractor might be able to answer if they decided to take this down based upon whatever the problem was why couldn't they then go back to the drawing board and bring the building into conformity? MIKE KIMACK : Good question. When you did something like this primarily when they took it down and poured the foundation Pat 54 November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : I know but that could be� remediated. It reallVr could. I mean it doesn't seem like a lot of thinking went into this whole thing. It's just like oh we'll take it down, we'll do what we want and hire someone to come and speak for us. I think they need to come and speak themselves. MIKE KIMACK : The answers lay with the owners and I will make an effort to get them here at the Special Meeting at least one of them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Well that's the most generous offer that we can suggest. We're talking about a three foot variance and three feet of concrete can easily be filled in if need be to be conforming. I'm not suggesting that will be the outcome but I'm saying that the 'Board is getting sick and tired of seeing applications that are additions and turn out to be demolitions because our first obligation is to grant when justified the smallest variance the code permits and the bottom line is if something is brand new, construction and you're proposing it to be non-conforming you have to have'dam good reason why. MIKE KIMACK� : I never come before this Board without the understanding that you guys (inaudible)to mitigate or to eliminate. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I would say you know just simply to recognize your position. Expediters, permits people frequently walk away after their job is done and have no control or no knowledge of what happens with the homeowner or the contractor after the determination is made, so they're contacting you after the fact. However we do need for you to"give us more information. MIKE KIMACK : No I understand completely the request to show information. I will what"s the date of your Special? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : November 15`" MIKE KIMACK : And that's at what time? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :,Well we start at 5 o'clock. MIKE KIMACK : We'll be there. MEMBER DANTES : Wait Leslie we don't take testimony there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah, I mean you can listen and you can but you know that. At the Special Meeting we deliberate. We won't be deliberating on this because we have to wait and see what we get so November l,'2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the only thought though do you want to wait for the December meeting because it would be interesting to have testimony from the applicant. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Before he does he's going to try to see if he can get testimony if he can get MEMBER PLANA'MENTO : Right but if it's written testimony we don't have an opportunity to question. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's correct. The point is it's unlikely that we're going to close based upon a letter cause it depends what's in the letter. MIKE,KIMACK : Is it`better perhaps to then adjourn to the December meeting? CHAIRPERSON-WEISMAN : Well we can do that. MIKE KIMACK : Because it would appear to me that perhaps you may not be totally satisfied with the way that the Special Meeting or the information given at the Special Meeting what you can do with it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that's fair comment. Alright is that what the Board wants to do? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think that's absolutely I'd like to find out what's going on here. MIKE KIMACK : That might be.better served. I'll bring my clients in for the Board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay we're going to I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this to the December 6` meeting. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. 56 November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7208—LENORE BRANCATO and LOUIS POTTERS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Lenore Brancato and Louis Potters #7208. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's July 9, 2018 amended October 11, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to demolish a dwelling and reconstruct a new single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, and 2) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% at 675 Skippers Lane in Orient. Is there someone to represent this application? PAT MOORE : Good afternoon Patricia Moore on behalf of the applicants. I have Mr. Cook here, his is the architect and him go over the architectural issues that come up. We saw that the Notice that went out actually included a variance that was resolved okay so our last amended Notice of Disapproval is dated October 11, 2018 which at that time we were able to identify on Skippers Lane the average setback of the homes along Skippers Lane and there's two Skippers Lane, one is considered State St. but it wraps around. The Skippers Lane side that's on the north is we have a conforming setback so that is no longer a variance. We have also worked very hard to try to limit our lot coverage and we are actually down to 20.97 lot coverage which we may have been able to oh .3 now? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Notice of Disapproval says 20.97% which is virtually 21 and the front yard setback at 29.8 where the code requires 35. PAT MOORE : Right, the lot coverage we're down to 20.93 because we eliminated some steps correct? Okay good I want to make sure I had the percentage right.That we weren't able to get to the Building Department in time but I'll get you revised surveys. We're just double checking on our surveys that we had here because we think they're CAD program changed something that's not right so I want to make sure that they.'ve given me a correct version. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what is it you're saying is now 20. PAT MOORE : 20.93 and that's by eliminating some steps that was the extra lot coverage and were designing so that the steps are in within the decking. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Can I just ask a question just to understand who's in the room, is the applicant owner'here your client? 57 November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : No he couldn't be here. He's an oncologist at Sloan in Commack and he was called away. He wanted to be here and unfortunately he couldn't make it so he sent us along MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is his wife here? PAT MOORE : No. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No one's,here then. PAT MOORE : No, no applicant. If you needed to we could have them at the next time. It just I have to give him advance notice and sometimes particularly with oncology you can't predict but we have all his professionals here. He was at the last Land Preservation not Land Preservation, Historic Preservation thank you meeting and he explained to Historic Preservation this is his personal home he and his wife want this to be their summer until they can relocate and part of his long term goal is as an oncologist to the Sloan and Northwell Health he can commute to the extent possible. So he's really trying to work his way out east which certainly is not a factor for granting variances because that's a personal issue but to explain to the community he's certainly not a developer plopping a house it's his home. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Question before you proceed, just on the numbers here, the survey that I have, shows a front yard setback of 30.4 feet. The Notice of Disapproval says 29.8 feet. I'm not quite understanding why. You want to take a look at this one? Is this the most recent one? PAT MOORE : Let me look at that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's the survey let's see if the site plan is different. PAT MOORE : The steps on that side so you have two front yards, you have a front yard setback from'Skippers Lane one side being the average setback application and that's the 20 something and then the 30.4 being the latest version of our setback which is how we eliminated those steps. So I have a survey but as I said I mean I can give you the survey it's just not sure whether the surveyor plotted one of our setbacks correctly or not. We would be conforming on the Skippers Lane the average setback but they changed a number on us and I don't know why. Did you find what CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, Kim and our original office before we go around to a number of other issues I just want to make sure this is useless I can't even read it. PAT MOORE : Oh yeah when we did the average setback it was on a very small sheet and we ended up having to ask for a larger November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's moot. I do want to enter into the record that in addition 'to the two variances that are requested this property is going to need a certificate of appropriateness from the Landmarks Preservation. I believe this is in a historic district? PAT MOORE : Yes it is. Yes they've started the process, they have been through at least three, four, five meetings discussing the plan with Historic Preservation and I believe at this point Historic Preservation is going to schedule a public hearing and we expect it sometime in November. The date to be determined cause the rooms available only somewhat an issue. Oh it is scheduled now 27th, 2:15. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here?Jaime in here I know just want to know where. JAMIE GARRISON : In addition we would request to defer on your determination after we had a hearing and give our determination because everything you're talking about is stuff we are working on. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Quite frankly I was going to propose at the end of this but there are many interested people here and I'd like to have them enter into our record their concerns or their support. Whatever it is I want to hear their testimony. PAT MOORE : Oh they get two bites at the apple your hearing and then the next one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's how it goes when you have (inaudible)jurisdiction. PAT MOORE : First amendment right to speak,you got it. May I continue or are we at that point yet? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's November 20 did you just say? PAT MOORE : 27T" JAMIE GARRISON : In this room even though they posted the wrong room it will be in this room 2:15. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay Pat go ahead. PAT MOORE : Thank you, okay what I did want to provide for you we have a couple of exhibits to deal with the existing structures to a certain extent some of this will be discussed at the Historic Preservation meeting but other things aren't within the realm of your purview. The first thing I did is I gathered all the area variances that have been granted in this area, there are a significant number. I have plotted or I've given you a schedule with all of them and then being November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting that it is too much paper to print quite frankly because this is a packet of the variances that have been granted, I'm giving you one highlighted one with tabs; it gives you the tax map number and I'm going to give all of you the like a box identifier plus the tax map that's attached to it to give you a quick pictorial of the variances. So I've highlighted on a tax map every variance where it's been located so I'll start with that. The blue is my client's property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat when you submit you know when you scan and sent this in it looks like all of these are additions and alterations. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah there's only one of them that's new. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you point out any that are new construction? PAT MOORE : I think there's one but I couldn't tell from the ZBA decision. It could have been before the fifty percent rule took place so I'll have to double check that. MEMBER LEHNERT : From what you handed us here there's only one new construction. PAT MOORE : Oh one okay good. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And that was in 1980 the rest seem to be additions and alterations. MEMBER LEHNERT : The rest are additions and alterations. PAT MOORE : There is I'm being assisted here, so that there's one house which is 420 Skippers Lane, 1000 Oyster Pond Lane and that has a full addition two story addition to the existing house.That was new construction but the whole house obviously CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Which one are you referring to? PAT MOORE : 420 Skippers Lane, it's two addresses it must be a corner lot 420 and 1000, 26% oh that was the one that was 26% lot coverage. I have this from the architect so I don't know CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh this is different than what we have PAT MOORE : It could be yes it's an (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is this for us to keep? PAT MOORE : Yes you may keep that. The situation we have here is and I know that the Historic Preservation certainly the goal is not to have a demolition but to have renovations/alterations but as you actually the prior hearing was good that many of them were here to hear it which is 60 November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting when you reach a certain level of deconstruction or demolition- and you reached that fifty percent threshold and it doesn't take very much and it's fifty percent of the value of the existing structure that's the applicable law you end up with an application to this Board for demolition. My client has a house that when it was inspected there are so many deficiencies with this property that quite frankly it is a safer house.if it is demolition. You have lead paint in throughout, you have chemical abatements are required', there is mold throughout the house significant levels of mold throughout the house.-The- structure itself requires a significant amount of remediation and what I'm giving you again because it's so voluminous I'm giving you one full set and then the executive summary of the first page: So I give you and again if you'd like I can scan it and send it to you so you have the full. Here's the full document and here's the executive summary. So when you have an opportunity to review the condition of the house it is something that was talked about extensively with Historic Preservation, what the design at the end of this process is to replicate the architectural features that would have been the features most important if you were to do a renovation of this house and the architectural feature that has been that was concentrated I'll have the architects provide more detail but is the Skippers Lane view and then with our meetings with Historic Preservation they reduced down and volumes were reduced and architecturals were reduced in order to have views that would be comparable from the park as well as from Skippers Lane to other homes in the surrounding community. So I'll let them speak of those details. One of the issues that came up was because our need for a variance and we've said to Preservation listen we need to remove this foundation, we'll move it back so we can be conforming and they were kind of the Chairman was kind enough to send an email which I forwarded it to you that their preference is to put the house back exactly in the same location. So the reason we are here is in part because lot coverage is a de minimus less than one percent is that we are maintaining the setback from Skippers Lane which is the preferred setback that the Historic Preservation wants us to if we're going to rebuild or whatever start there. So in the interim the issue of the condition of the foundation was raised it's been our opinion my professional's opinion that the foundation really does need to be removed. We asked Joe Fischetti to do a he's a structural engineer, he went to take a look; I have a letter from him he was kind enough to provide it in this very short time. The bottom line is well I'll read it on the record just so that those that are here can hear it but it says, Dear Ms. Moore, I had a chance this morning to inspect the foundation for the above referenced dwelling. The structure below the first floor of the original structure is a foundation consisting of formed concrete foundation. An addition built at a later date was a concrete block foundation and crawl space. I was not able to ascertain if any of the two foundation sections have footings under the walls. While the walls both seem to be sound no determination can be made for the reuse of these foundations for a new two story structure above without knowing what is supporting the existing'foundation walls. I apologize and my phone is dead so I don't know how I'm getting pardon me. The last paragraph is I have been a builder and engineer for November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting the North Fork for forty four years. Over that time I have seen many historic structures. It is very important to secure our historic architectural heritage for the future. As for the historic value of keeping the existing foundation it is my opinion that there is no historic architectural value in the particular foundation. It is a concrete and concrete block foundation very similar to what is being constructed today, being old does not make it architecturally significant. He provided that as his opinion. Obviously you can't tell the condition of the foundation until you dig deep under to see what the footings are but this foundation if you're going to invest in hundreds of thousands of dollars on the house you don't want to compromise it with a foundation that is relatively an inexpensive part of the process. So our request route has been replacing the foundation. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pat what is the ceiling height in the basement and crawl space? PAT MOORE : The architects can provide I'll hand this up you go up. RICK FALCOWSKI : Rick Falcowski from Peter Cook Architect. The foundation wall is nine feet tall. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The existing basement? RICK FALCOWSKI : Oh the existing, the existing is I think a little over seven. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And that's through the entire house or there's a crawl space under. RICK FALCOWSKI : There's a crawl space. I didn't get into the crawl spaces. I'd say the most three feet. No slab it's sand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So your argument is that it can't be conforming to a front yard well it could especially if you're removing a foundation but is the priority for any new structure to have the same presence street as the historic house. PAT MOORE : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat do you have a lot more cause I have a lot of stuff to read. PAT MOORE : No I'm actually finished with all of my documents. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Possibly time to hear from others in the audience unless at this point the Board has questions they want to ask we can hear from the audience. Do you have any questions of Pat before we hear from the audience. J November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Maybe before you ask the audience do you want to ask Mr. Cook to speak. PAT MOORE : Oh yes, I'm sorry we have a couple of more I apologize we do have some we have a revised model and as you know models you want to put them right at eye level so you can see what you would be able to see from yes renderings. MEMBER DANTES : Pat why don't you put it at the table cause I think the audience wants to see them as much as we do. PAT MOORE : Yes of course. Let me put the renderings over here. PETER COOK : So I'm Peter Cook, Architect. So as Pat described, what we chose as the dominant visual feature of the house was the Skippers Lane corners which is the one and a half story structure that you see as the most prominent part of the current house. There is an addition that was put on some time in the sixties or seventies we are looking to remove. We're seeking to sort of rebuild in kind that perspective from the street which is this corner here which is what you would see coming down Skippers Lane which is the top two renderings. So we have essentially taken the shape of the existing one and a half story roofline, we've taken the shed dormer off the back and replaced it with matching gable dormers on either end to be more fitting for the area and then complimented it with a two story sort of gentleman's farm for the structure which is consistent,with the architecture of Orient and actually a lot of the details in the architecture were pulled from the historic manual with the Village of Orient. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In your opinion as a licensed architect is this structure salvageable? PETER COOK : What part? If you were to look at the house and try to identify any architecturally significant features there aren't any. The house is (inaudible) and asbestos, it has aluminum siding over all the trim outside. It's got aluminum soffits. Once you strip all that back it's got single pane one over one windows. Once you strip everything off this house that is either something that environmentally you wouldn't want in your home today or architecturally unpleasant or not significant to the neighborhood you might end up with a substandard frame. The frame was built sometime in 1938, structurally the floor system couldn't support or wouldn't pass current building codes, hurricane codes, structural loads. I'm sure you're all familiar what work goes into a house these days is very different than what went into a house in 1938 which might have been a few wires and some copper piping now we're many, many wires, bigger pipes, insulation, heat and air conditioning ducts and walls end up being chopped November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting up to the point where if you don't have a significant structure you have nothing left to support the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to add this information into the record. What is the existing square footage on the dwelling? I know we have it I want it in the record. PETER COOK : The total living space of the existing structure is 1,827 sq. ft. that does not include the garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you are proposing how many square feet? PETER COOK : We are proposing a total of 3,341 sq. ft. on two levels. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Two story, and how many bedrooms and bathrooms? PETER COOK :There are a master a two bedrooms up and there is a den on the first floor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN So it's a three bedroom? PETER COOK;Three bedroom unless they put one in the basement.There is an opportunity CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so possibly four bedroom. PETER COOK : Yes it's possible. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah the basement okay and it's a habitable basement it will be a habitable basement? PETER COOK : That would be the goal to put in (inaudible) wells for egress and daylight requirements. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any questions you have Rob at this point? MEMBER LEHNERT : No my question is just general, I mean you've got a blank slate you know why are we why can't we make it conform more? PETER COOK : Well one of the directors of the Historic Preservation Board is to retain certain features including the garage. We could conform to lot coverage if we tore the garage down and made it a one story garage but that goes against what Historic Board is asking to be done with the property that has an out building so we were just going to reside and refinish the garage but leave it intact where it is. It could be reduced and we would be fully conforming to lot coverage. 64 November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : That was my question, you're at 20.93% lot coverage I mean what would it take to bring it to conforming with leaving the garage? PETER COOK : 84 sq. ft. I think. I think we've trimmed what we can. We probably have more square footage in the footprint of the house because we're keeping the footprint of the existing one and half story building and if we were to change that we could reduce porch steps. It's got a ten foot covered porch on the front of the house. We pull that back to seven and get almost all of our square footage there but then we're not consistent with the Historic Board's directives. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's why I think it's appropriate after we hear everything anyone wants to say to adjourn this subject to the recommendation of Landmarks Preservation Commission because what we want to do is collaborate with each other. We don't want to be going back and forth and back and forth and undoing what the other wants to,do and since this is a historic village a historic property district I would think that they would have precedent over what they think is appropriate for the Village of Orient and then we will it might change what's before us might be amended as a consequence so it might become conforming. It depends on what they want to do. PETER COOK : So I think in essence between the garage which we could alter down in scale the front porch if we didn't have to or didn't maintain based on the lines sort of a reconstructive fagade or and call a memory corner of what used to be there but I think much improved visually we could be at 20% but as there's been area variances in the neighborhood this seemed rather minimal considering (inaudible) trying to maintain of this property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the justification-for a non-conforming front yard when you're starting from scratch is the recommendation of fitting in the character of the neighborhood of the historic village otherwise we say be conforming. When you're building from scratch why can't you be conforming, well you may have a reason because you're in a historic district. So we're going to have to wait and see how that comes out. PETER COOK : Okay I'm here if anyone needs MEMBER DANTES : One more question, so the existing structure is at 20.93% lot coverage as well? PETER COOK : No, no the existing lot coverage is 13.9 MEMBER DANTES : So then it's just a line and that's what you're trying to keep. 6, November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's the front yard setback. PETER COOK : Oh in terms of the setbacks (inaudible) putting this new structure or rebuild in kind structure exactly where the current one is. So it's on exactly the same footprint. If someone determined that there was some value historically to keeping the foundation once we could certify that they had footings that were substantial to support the structure it could be essentially built on that same foundation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have any knowledge of the history of this dwelling, when it was built, who, what it was built for? PETER COOK : I was told it was built in 1938 as a summer cottage. It was non-conditioned. It was a seasonal cottage. PAT MOORE : And then the addition was built in the 1970's that had a permit. MEMBER ACAMPORA : When was the garage built? PAT MOORE : That we don't know. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Only because the house is in such bad shape how come the garage isn't? PETER COOK : Well you're not going to live in the garage. PAT MOORE : If it has mold we can restore it. MEMBER ACAMPORA : It still can fall down, it still can be a health hazard. PETER COOK : Oh no the garage is fine structurally. It has no insulation it hasn't been plumbed. There has been no water in it yet. We would still replace the doors and windows. MEMBER ACAMPORA : I was just wondering why that's why my question was when was it built? PETER COOK : When we it would obviously be later than the original house but I don't know because I don't have any permitting on that but it would be stripped down as well; siding, roofing to be re-shingled to match the existing house and trimmed like the existing house so it would but it is what it is. PAT MOORE : If I could just interject one more thing cause I asked as far as square footage and allocation of living space and part of the problem on this particular allocation of spaces again 66 November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting Historic Preservation is trying to keep the volume from Skippers Lane a certain size with a certain height and so on so it limits what ordinarily if you were down to the ground there would be no issue, you'd build within the footprint and build with a 20% because you'd have a box you know a three dimensional box you could work with. In this case we-have essentially you have the Skippers Lane portion which is a smaller one story portion or one and a half story portion and then you have what is the addition that gives you all the living space. So that is one of the things and I think is important to put on the record that the architect's efforts and maintaining historic preservation volumes particularly on the original 1938 portion streetscape from there limited the livable floor area that the family needs and so a little bit of lot coverage expansion is required. But again we could meet it if we took down the part of the garage and again we're at the conflict between trying to maintain the structures even though the garage it didn't have a Pre C.O. but it looked like from the Assessor's records it may have been late 50's maybe early 60's I couldn't really tell very much but it's not it's value is the fact that it's been there not a historic carriage house it's just a standard two car garage pretty architecturally similar to anybody else's in the 1960's. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : May I ask you what kind of wastewater treatment system you're proposing? PETER COOK : What we've got right now we're going for a Health Department variance cause we're a few feet short of well separation but it's just a standard septic system a dispersing system shallow water. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well just so you're aware so you don't get blindsided depending on how this proceeds, we have this Board has been using its authority to mandate on all new construction that comes before the Board for variance relief an advanced waste water treatment system. The ground water protection is imperative in our community and we feel that we have the authority, we've been told by legal counsel we do to require that new construction come up to speed and there are several we just had training actually from the Department of Health on what systems are now being permitted and what's available and so on so I just want you to be aware of that. PETER COOK : I don't imagine my client would have any problem with that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think it would timely now to see what MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just another question, have you given any consideration or your client to the need or future thought for accessory structures of any kind? PETER COOK : There hasn't been any discussion of anything but restoring the garage. 67 November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just from a consideration standpoint because this is put on new construction that may be something that depending on their needs, hobbies etc. they might look upon that as you maybe look to scale back the house or discuss the square footage the coverage that you allow yourself the future growth if and when they need something for a growing family, for bicycle storage I don't know. PETER COOK : I think they would understand that if they capped their lot coverage they're done. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you. MEMBER DANTES : No just cause we had someone earlier say oh I didn't know pool counts as lot coverage and now he wanted a pool. PETER COOK : They have no interest in a pool. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Brand new construction and suddenly they're back for a swimming pool that's exceeded their lot coverage. PETER COOK : They're sailors they want to keep their boat in Greenport and they've been coming out here rented out here for the last two seasons and this just came on the market and they said let's get a house where we can be near the boat. They do have kids older boys but they're very simple, they're modest. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you for your testimony, anything else from the Board before we ask the audience? Alright, who would like to address the Board? Okay stand in line, who wants to go first?Just state your name please. CHARLES DEAN : My name is Charles Dean I live in Orient on Village Lane which is perpendicular to Skippers Lane which is a (inaudible) I refer to (inaudible) but the notice said on the board outside the house then I realized that there's a couple, Mrs. Barancato's application to demolish her historic house and replace it with a new and larger house with a larger footprint than our zoning rules allow is a watershed test for our community of Orient if we are to prevent the Hamptonization of our community. Once this house situated on a very prominent property a corner lot backing up to our beloved Poquatock Park is torn down and replaced with a much larger structure what will be the basis for denying such requests in the future. There seems to be two intertwined issues here. First the application to tear down the house should be denied. The house is solemnly historical, it's almost a hundred years old and it was one of the contributing houses in the establishment of the Orient historical preservation district. The application refers to the house as a "dilapidated structure". Well dilapidated is a vague term. 6$ November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting It's subject to the feelings of the beholder. Someone coming from the South Fork used to the mcmansions that clog that area might well think of the house as dilapidated but the house is certainly as solid as many other houses in Orient including mine at 295 Village Lane which is built in the early 1700's. The fact that the Brancato house has some mold issues is not a valid reason to tear it down. I have mold issues in my house. The fact that there's lead paint can be removed. The fact that there's asbestos shingles on the house is not a reason either, asbestos shingles can be removed. In the fact that the Historical Preservation Commission has in fact I think Mr. Garrison said at the first meeting he did not think the house was of much importance as even less relevant. Mr. Garrison's taste is not a valid reason for destroying any home in the heart of the historic district. If we were to tear down all the houses that were built after 1900 we would be wiping out a century of history of Orient. Maybe as a group these houses are not as quaint as the colonial, federal (inaudible) and Victorian houses but they are part of our history. Raise them to build fake historical looking houses and our beloved Orient will soon become as artificial as Williamsburg Virginia. History is not populated by only the beautiful. The Brancato house might not be the loveliest house in the village but it is ours. There is absolutely no reason that the Historical Preservation Commission or this Board should approve it's demolition. Assuming God forbid the house is demolished the second issue is why should he be allowed to replace the house? In no way should the community zoning rules be suspended because the purchaser wants a larger house. The house is currently a size in keeping with the others on Skippers Lane at approximately 1,800 sq. ft. It stands harmoniously with the other houses on the north side of the park. Mrs. Brancato proposes to add a back section facing the park which you can see in her in this diagram here in this little markup which is the side that most of us will see most often because the way Orient is situated the park is our communities park. This is where we walk our dogs, where we have our parties, where we have historical meetings, where we have games and it's that side everyone's going to see. The side on Skippers Lane is in the far corner which is important but it's not too many go down that road unless you live down there but everyone goes to the park. So their application the applicant says you know we are keeping the side of the street right we're going to overbuild on the parts side, well that is the most important side. That's the side everyone's going to see that it's a monstrosity being built there. The house will be scaled much larger than others on Skippers Lane. It will stand out as obviously new construction and partly historical. It will in no way blend with the remaining historical houses on the street. The application tries to mitigate the obvious overbuilding by drawing attention to two large trees on the property. First the trees they are not standing between the park and the proposed offending large structure and even if they were storms can topple trees, trees can die and owners who want better water views can cut down trees. The trees are a smoke screen. The zoning rules are in place to protect the renowned charm of the village characterized by modestly scaled old homes. Both of us in the historic center of the village live in relatively small houses that if that is not suitable for the grander designs of this 69 November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting applicant perhaps she has chosen the wrong property. The house she wants does not fit comfortably on this small lot. I strongly object to her intent to ride rough shot over the rules and zoning that protect the charm of Orient. If the proposed house is approved there is no basis to prevent our village from becoming Orient Hampton. If we are not going to enforce the rules we have we might as well just throw out all of the historic and zonirig rules and return to the anything goes of the past. I urge,you to deny the destruction of this house and the requested variances.Thank you for your time. MEMBER DANTES : Can I say something Leslie, one thing I will say is the variance request for the size of the house is minimal. Most of it is permitted by the town code so if you guys are upset about the size of the houses being built out in Orient it would be an issue for the Town Board cause they can change the size of the houses built set the limitations by code, we can't. CHARLES DEAN : Can you stop the house from being torn down? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually Charles the best the Board can do is deny what's in front'of it which'is a front yard setback-and lot coverage. We don't have authority to prevent demolition the Landmarks Preservation Commission could because they control what happens with regard to the historic district. We couldn't prevent demolition. We could only grant or deny excessive lot coverage which is_a pretty small amount in this case but it is not code conforming and- a front yard setback. Charles why don't you come to the mic cause we have to record this and so CHARLES DEAN : Well on the sign in front of the house to announce the hearing it says request demolition and rebuilding of the dwelling., CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's correct. That's just describing What the applicant is proposing and if it was conforming to the code they would have the right to do it other than the fact that it's in a historic district. Demolitions happen all the time and people build new houses, we don't even see them unless they're not conforming to the code and in this case it's setbacks from the street and it's the amount of lot coverage; the maximum permitted by code is 20% and they're now requesting 20.93%. CHARLES DEAN : It looks like these are setbacks from the park also or not? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, here's one of the problems. CHARLES DEAN : You can build right into the park line? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no, no there are setbacks in all four directions, side yard, front yard, rear yard and the ones they had two front yard variances but they've eliminated one and 701 November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting the way that happens is that the-code allows you to average the setbacks along the same street and you know as I do that a lot of those setbacks are non-conforming they all pre-date the code. So they speak to character of the neighborhood and I think what I heard earlier was that Landmarks if this demolition is to take place prefers that it stayed within that front yard setback that has existed rather than stepping it back which would not be necessarily characteristic of the neighborhood. CHARLES DEAN : So that means push the house back towards the park which means it's very close to the park and MEMBER DANTES : It would push it 4 feet that's what they are requesting a four foot variance. CHARLES DEAN : Four foot variance on the park side? MEMBER DANTES : Four feet closer on the street than otherwise 'permitted and then as far as their expansion they're only about 100 sq. ft. over the allowed CHARLES DEAN : I guess the argument for the Historical Preservation Commission (inaudible) which is their job anyway MEMBER DANTES : Or for the Town Board to limit the size of the houses. CHARLES DEAN : Yeah but the Historical Commission should be the group to protect the house that's their job. I mean that's what they're supposed to be doing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I see it. Let me explain what the story is, you want to come forward and I can explain this I can show you. Here's the survey, because they have two front yards okay so this is considered the side yard alright cause the house fronts that way and the code only requires ten feet for a side yard. CHARLES DEAN : Oh okay so it can be within 10 feet of the park. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah but it can also be buffered with evergreen screening and a number of other things that when the Board grants variances it can put conditions on the variance relief to mitigate any potential adverse impacts. CHARLES DEAN : Right now though this is'the side that everyone is going to be seeing from the park a two story large very much out of scale (inaudible) that is the real objection. That's, for Historical Society has to realize that's what they're going to be allowing (inaudible) it's really out of scale with the rest of the houses. 7:1 November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : It's not that it's not our job it's that we don't have the authority. That's why we're explaining it. PAT MOORE : If I can just speak before the next person comes up, I just want to address so that things are not forgotten okay. We do want to and with your permission we're going to need those for the Historic Commission so we don't want to we can either take them back down or give them to you and just borrow them back for the hearing so whatever you prefer is fine. We did the architects sorry before you continue Mr. Cook's office we in part of the discussion with the Historical Preservation agreed, this is the proposed house. They also did this is the elevation of the neighboring house, another neighboring house, this is the side that is being retained from Skippers and again the streetscape from Skippers Lane so what in meeting and the design that was that's being set forth is in keeping and trying to keep the volumes that are in fact the visible the views from the park. This house is relatively new construction, that you should find in your variances 505. A significant portion of that house.is in fact been reconstructed. This one as well I remember as well seeing a variance for this portion of the house that is like a cupola portion so the design has been very respectful of the volumes and I know that Historic Preservation the meetings that have taken place have pushed the applicant into this conforming volume and we don't know what certainly the Historic Preservation the people that are going to be there are going to see it and with that particular model but the volumes this house is not a McMansion in any way. We did come up with the lot coverage which was provided to you but it's worthy of note that the livable floor area of the proposed house is first floor, 1,874 sq. ft. second floor 1,467 sq. ft. so they are for new homes and for really any home that's a very modest request. The difference okay I'm glad I'm entertaining the group, again it is consistent with the size of homes in this community and the extra square footage is for the open space decks and patios. So I want to put on the record because I don't want the last word to be a misunderstanding of the facts. I'll put this up for your Board to review, again this is the view scape. Oh I also pardon me this you should have in your records but if not and this is my only one, it is the building structure inventory form that was prepared when for the Oyster Ponds Historical Society when they were inventorying the homes and this particular house the address is there but there's actually no description or any other documentation of the I guess the quality of the construction, the architectural features of merit, why this house would be worthy of retaining in this architecturally other than the fact it sits in the historic district. So I think you have significant testimony from the architects and a record in your file which is the fact that this is an old house not very attractive. I guess you can find you can conclude that on your own and it's condition so do you have this in your file? If I can just get a copy of it back I'll give you mine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No we don't have it. 72 November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Okay then you keep it. FEDDIE WACHSVERGER : Freddie Wachsverger I am from Orient. I'm afraid that the whole purpose of the historic district is getting a little lost here. The point was in preserving it historic district. It's not just to reflect what the historic district looked like but why it looks the way it does to reflect the social situation, reflect the society and the activities of the community and the big houses in Orient which were the houses of the wealthy farmers or of the whaling captains all built on the Main Rd. The village itself I'd like to think that you can even trace the economic situation by walking down from the Main Rd. down to the water as the houses get smaller and many of them were businesses. The village was a village of (inaudible) shoe maker, seamstresses, people who ran the Inn, small businesses, sailors, (inaudible) men. It was a very modest village and the houses reflect the modesty of the community and so size is more than just relative views it actually discouraged and informs us about who lived there and what they did and the big houses were built in the 19th century on the Main Rd. The village, the earliest houses as you probably know date from the Revolution and was built very gradually and the houses continued to be very modest and this I think is a key to the experience of the historic district of the village that you actually walk in the footsteps of'people who built these houses and who worked in these houses and everybody who has come since and bought into the village has respected that. There have been no attempts to expand and ignore the essential built environment that reflects the original people who live there. That's one of the things that I think is being lost in the discussion of an intrusion of a house like this which if it were to follow the social history of Orient would actually be on the Main Rd. so I think this house could be built anywhere in Orient but the buyers must have known must have been informed of the particular restrictions of-the historic district and must also God knows have been informed if the house was in that miserable condition they must have known what they were buying. So all of this it seems to me is an attempt to ignore what the particular purpose is of the historic district the foundation of the historic district to begin with. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, anyone else? LUCY STILLER : Hi I'm Lucy Stiller and I have a house at 220 Skippers Lane so I would be a neighbor of the Potters. I learned about this from friends despite the fact that I subsequently learned that in a Historic Preservation meeting the Potters represented that in fact neighbors had been informed of their plans and approved of their plans. That is simply not true. There may have been one but I have letters from four other neighbors on Skippers Lane,who completely oppose the proposed dwelling. I can't address the historic element which I think Freddie did quite brilliantly but I did go to the Historic Preservation meeting that Mr. Potter attended and I heard him speak about how he came to the house and his feelings etc. and what struck me was that he was interested in the site and as Freddie also said, if the house was in 731 November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting such terrible shape why did he buy it? He knew it was in a historic district. He described he and his wife going on this lovely walk and stopping at this place and the site was so beautiful. He bought the site and we live in a community we all want to live together. We chose to live on the North Fork and we chose to live in Orient because it was a community that respected history, preserved what was good and banded together and I have a passel of letters from people who are both literally neighbors on Skippers Lane and neighbors in Orient protesting this. I realize that it's a complicated issue and you only address part of it but unfortunately I won't be able to be here at the Historical Preservation hearing on the 27th so I thought I should at least let you know this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you submit copies of those letters? LUCY STILLER : Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody else. PETER COOK : Just in regards to her testimony about Dr. Potters attitude, he bought the house believing he could work within the codes like everybody else and make that house habitable for him and his family. There's nothing that we're asking for on this project that hasn't been granted all around us. Lot coverage variances, there's not a house on our side of Skippers Lane or State St. that conforms to the front yard. The only neighbor we have on State St. is more non-conforming than we are because the lot is bigger and the setbacks are greater yet they're only at 35 feet from the property and they're supposed to be 45 from the street so he's working within the same laws and rules that everybody else is. He's being respectful of the architecture of Orient. He's been respectful of the imagery and the memories of that corner and that house but he did buy the house with the assumption that no one would make him live in a house that couldn't currently be occupied. It hadn't been occupied it's been basically a hoarders house when they came to it. It hadn't been occupied for many, many years so that is kind of an unfair characterization of his romantic nature of the house. Yes he loved the site, it's a beautiful site and he's doing what he can to respect that corner and the memories of that site are exposure on the Oyster Pond preserve is no wider it's actually less than many of the neighbors along our side of the street. Our gabled section is 45 feet wide. The house immediately neighboring us is 45 feet wide, two houses away he's 55 feet wide. Our garage is detached and moved off the structure of our main house so volume wise it looks smaller. The neighbor's house the garage is almost up to the house so you have a 45 foot house and you have another 16 feet of garage that you see along the park so the characterization that we are off scale building a McMansion I just don't think it's true. If you look at the scaled model everything about it is to scale. You can see it's sensitively designed for that reason with the help 74 November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting of many meeting with the Historical Board. We've come back and forth and manipulated our program to better satisfy the requirements of the code and the thought of the Historic Board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. Anything from the Board, anything else from the audience? DEEDEE THOMAS : I'm Deedee Thomas and I ,live also on Village Lane and I just wanted to clarify two or three things that I heard just recently and,maybe Mr. Cook didn't know this but families have been living in that house since about a year before it was sold. The family had been consistently there during the summers, there's lots of kids involved and they would so I mean the idea that it was sort of a hoarders house or an abandoned house I will say somebody can probably come into my house and say it was a hoarder house which is why I don't have a lot of people over but because we do tend to hold on to all of these ridiculous pieces of furniture and history from living on the lane that long so that would be one thing and the second thing was the issue about the survey. One of the reasons that the house would probably have been included on the cultural resource management inventory sheet but not have a lot of information is that that study was done in the seventies and one of the minimal requirements for including it is a historic structure is that it has to be fifty years old and if it was built in 1938 in the seventies it wouldn't be fifty years old. So it was sort of seen in a grand scale of being somehow contributing to the overall character and nature of the district but not necessarily have a lot of or there wasn't as I understand a whole lot of the study itself was done by a lot of people and there are a lot of forms and having been involved in putting together some of those cultural resource management sheets it does require a lot of hours so I think that's why it was included in the district but maybe not a whole lot of information on it and I probably had a third point but it wasn't as important as the other two so I'm good.Thanks. PETER COOK : Excuse me, clearly the hoarder thing is my information from Dr. Potters who witnessed people would pull up and they would use a camper and use the house just for the bathroom. So they would actually stand a camper outside and not live in the house. He went to the house as soon as it was offered for sale before it went on the market before anything happened, walked through the house and he said there was literally corridors between piles of junk and newspapers and things. So that was his definition of it. Point number three I'm missing that too. I'll just leave it at that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from anyone else? Board members I think what we'll do is make a motion to adjourn this until after we receive updated information from Landmarks Preservation after their Historic Preservation Commission after their hearing in November and then we will make a decision as to how to proceed, whether we will have another public hearing or we will require additional information or whether we'll just close this hearing will 75 November 1, 2018 Regular Meeting depend on what we receive. We've had plenty of testimony and an awful lot of written submission but since this is going to be adjourned I just want all of you to know that if anyone wasn't able to be here today and they would like us to receive some written commentary they certainly can do that. Our records are also available in the office through a FOIL procedure. If you want to see everything that was submitted to us' today you have an opportunity as members of the public to come and request reviewing whatever we have in our records. SOMEONE FROM THE AUDIENCE SPEAKING CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN No just the Zoning Board and give them to Kim who's the office manager she's the Board secretary, she'll make sure we all get copies okay so anything that was submitted we'll all get copies and we each have individual packets of the same thing that the office has and we'll all have copies and we'll review all of that thoroughly. So I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing without a date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. ` MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) 76 November 1, 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 /14 Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : November 16, 2018 7-7