Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/03/2019 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 January 3, 2019 9:54 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 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Frank and Paula Doka #7227 3-9 Frank and Paula Doka #7229SE 9 - 12 Kevin S. McLeod and Chun Y Cheung#7230 13 - 20 Michael McCarrick Real Estate, Inc. #7231 20- 28 Goldsmith's Inlet, LLC#7232 28-31 Ann Aguanno and Gerald Gleason #7233 32 -35 Henry Hintze, Lynn McMahon and-Marie Basile#7234 35 -40 Johnny S. Donadic and Steve Donadic#7235 40 -44 Marco Maida and Alexis Eileen Norris Maida #7222SE 45 -47 Alejandro Azcona and Daniel Devito #7197SE 47 -50 Harvest Inn - Darolyn and Christopher Augusta #7257SE 50- 63 Harvest Inn—Cristina Illa (Contract Vendee) #7258SE 50- 63 William A. Penney, III and Sukru Ilgin (CV) (Southold Gas Station) # 6839SE 63 - 91 Z January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting HEARING#7227 FRANK and PAULA DOKA CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for Frank and Paula Doka and I think they're quite separate from the second application so rather than opening up at the same time I'll do one at a time. The Special Exception is quite different from the area variance. Rather than opening them up at the same time which sometimes we do if they're interrelated I'm just going to open up the first one which is for the additions and alterations. This is application #7227 Frank and Paula Doka. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's July 24, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to legal,ize "as built:' additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling and legalize "as built" accessory apartment in an accessory garage well these are really two separate applications. The area variance is 1) less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet located at 755 Lupton Point Rd. (adj. to Deep'Hole Creek) in Mattituck. Is there someone here to represent the application?This is a proposed would you please just state your name for the record. ANGELA MANGELS : Angela Mangels Architect for the owner. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is additions, and alterations to a dwelling with, a rear yard setback of 42.8 feet where the code requires 50 feet. What would you like us to know about this application? ANGELA MANGELS : So the property is located as you know north side of Lupton Point Rd. and the lot size is an irregular shape which creates somewhat of an L-shape. The existing two story framed dwelling has been built on an angle from the front and rear yard property lines and therefore has a slightly diminishing rear yard setback. The house was constructed with a rear deck which follows the house length and is 8 feet deep by 38 feet across the house. The existing setback of 42.8 feet was established with the original deck. The rear patio was originally constructed with a building permit. The owners would like to enclose the lower portion of the deck in order to create a basement extension which would provide nice views and access to the rear yard. The deck at the first floor level would be a covered porch and the second floor deck would be able to remain. The height of this work is not higher than the existing and or the dwelling and would not be visible from'the street nor really have any effects on the neighbors. Are there any questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see what the Board, just so that you're aware the Board has inspected the property so we've seen the proposed interior and exterior. Let's start with Rob, any questions Rob? January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah I do, can you go through the chain of events how we're legalizing this? ANGELA MANGELS : As far as what it was or what it is? MEMBER LEHNERT : As far as what it was to what it is and how we got here. ANGELA MANGELS : So the existing house does have a full basement which has had two rooms in it two finished rooms which they're basically looking to extend. So the deck and that footprint was already established so it does kind of sound different from any other previous application but really the idea is to enclose underneath that deck and extend those two rooms so that this way it's an open floor plan in that basement space. MEMBER LEHNERT : But this has been done already that's why we're here. ANGELA MANGELS : Yes they I guess with having those setbacks already established didn't realize that needed to then be addressed so we're here at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah if I may, you said just a moment ago that the applicant would like to increase their nice views and access to the rear yard and then you mentioned that the deck was previously established which we're aware that there was a deck on site but you're talking about accessing views. It's my understanding from the history of the structure there were two finished rooms already in the basement with rear access to the yard so is this application about increasing square footage of the house or about the views and rear yard access? ANGELA MANGELS : I would say a little bit of both. Their views that they had previously weren't as I guess you could say as elaborate or as they're really trying to make it as if the whole wall is going to have multiple all the access points are going to have view because instead of having that concrete poured wall it's going to be door, door you know where you can have like the glazing with MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Could they not have done that with the existing foundation where there were windows and a door? ANGELA MANGELS : Well they were trying to increase that space so by maintaining that deck footprint and going out to that existing distance that's where they were trying to bring it to. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And is there a Trustees application pending relative to this application or that improvement excuse me? January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting ANGELA MANGELS : Yes. So that has already been in the works. MEMBER LEHNERT : And also the D.E.C. application? ANGELA MANGELS : I'm not sure on that I'm sorry. I'm pretty sure we already went to the Trustees though cause I think initially I tried to submit something to the Trustee and then I think we had to go in front of the Zoning Board first. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So right now that application is basically adjourned until after the ZBA decision is rendered? ANGELA MANGELS : Yeah I think that might be I would have to double check with the records but I'm pretty sure that's valid. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This application received prior variance relief for rear yard setback, what was that relief? ANGELA MANGELS : That was for variance 6711 for that setback for that same distance there. So it had already been granted. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think now my note show that 6711 was dated January 23, 2014 and this was for a second floor deck at 63.4 feet from the bulkhead where the code required 75. ANGELA MANGELS : Right,so that's the setback that had already been granted. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But you are now proposing 42.8 ANGELA MANGELS : As compared to 50 so it's on that diagonal rather than going perpendicular to that cause it's kind of because ofAhe shape of the lot it kind of creates that angle where it's almost like an L so you have to take it from the minimum distance not to the furthest distance. MEMBER DANTES : So they weren't sited for the rear yard the first time they when the house was built? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They were but at the time we did bulkhead setbacks and they were 75 feet MEMBER DANTES : Right but the main house is I mean that's not is that 50 feet from the rear yard line? ANGELA MANGELS : It's slightly below it existing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Just want to make sure the numbers are accurate that's all. January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting ANGELA MANGELS : I took it from the plot plan is taken from the survey which was provided and that was previously also submitted to the Board in 2014. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The application has been determined to be inconsistent with the LWRP, do you have a copy of that letter? ANGELA MANGELS : Yes I did get a letter from that. One of the things that I was just surprised with is that the property has been maintained in meticulous condition so it is really in character if you drive up and down the street there Lupton Point it is in conformity with the character of the neighborhood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just read something into the record here so you could reply. In the LWRP determination it says in the last paragraph, in the event the application is approved it is strongly recommended that land owner is required to replace the existing sanitary system with an IA on site waste water treatment system due to the proximity to Pipes Cove a high value marine wetland. Funding may be available to replace existing systems through and there's a website. Can you reply to that? ANGELA MANGELS : The owners are looking to comply with what is needed so if that in turn would be needed then they would look to comply with that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And Leslie I just want to correct you when you were reading the LWRP determination you mentioned Pipes Cove the determination indicated Deep Hole Creek. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh okay good point wrong hamlet. MEMBER LEHNERT : You mentioned something about a covered porch above the second story deck is that going to be open or is that going to be covered? ANGELA MANGELS : It's open to remain open on the second floor correct. So that creates the covering for the first floor. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Could you discuss the composition of Lupton's Point Rd? Is it a town road or private road? ANGELA MANGELS : It's,a private road. It's a very quaint narrow road. It has a slight bend to it and it's highly it's got a very cozy feeling. You know the trees kind of canopy the road. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is there an association? ANGELA MANGELS : I don't believe so. 6 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And do you have any letters of support or testimony from adjacent property owners, lot owners on Lupton's Point Rd? ANGELA MANGELS : In conversation with the owner he hasn't had any issues with any of the owners of any of the neighbors around the block. They've owned the property now for quite some time. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And to Rob's point earlier his question as far as how we got here, was a stop work order noticed? ANGELA MANGELS : Yes it was and once it was given to the owners they were trying to address it immediately. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Has any work commenced since that stop work order? ANGELA MANGELS : No. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's one other point on the LWRP policy recommendation which is to the installation of twenty foot wide landscaped buffer a non-turf buffer landward of the tidal wetland. I'm not sure whether the Trustees would impose that but that would be likely that this Board would in order to mitigate any potential adverse impacts to the water quality impose such a buffer. ANGELA MANGELS : I did bring in the plot plan indicating where natural shrubbery is and fencing around the pool did you all CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think we have that. ANGELA MANGELS : I just made the notation yesterday. Do you want me to give them to you? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah sure if you have copies absolutely. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Did I hear you say that the landscaping plan is around the pool or the buffer at the waterfront? ANGELA MANGELS : That enclosure (inaudible not at the microphone) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where you indicate line of natural buffer were you referring to the where the subject property boundaries are? ANGELA MANGELS : Along that edge there's a screening natural shrubbery along that natural 7 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How deep is that from the property line to the water? ANGELA MANGELS : Well it goes on the northern side I think it's northern it goes all the way toward the waters front. On the southern side it gets a little thin as you get closer to the actual Deep Hole Creek but it looks like it had been previously there maybe it's a little thicker in the spring time. Right now we're kind of in the dead of winter so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess what I'm looking for is to see where the property line is and the suggestion is to put a 20 foot to leave the buffer in place for 20 feet from-the property line landward. ANGELA MANGELS : From the property line landward. CHAIRPERSON' WEISMAN : Landward yes toward the house because it's meant to be a buffer between the house and the water. So I need to see where 20 feet would be ANGELA MANGELS : From the house? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : From not the house from the water. ANGELA MANGELS : From the water. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The edge of the water going landward 20 feet deep running around the boundary that is on the water. The other thing that I don't really see on the survey maybe it's on the site plan is the actual setback. It must be on a survey someplace or a site plan that you drew. Oh I see it's marked without a line. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah there's no line delineating it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have setbacks here but you don't show from where to where. ANGELA MANGELS : It's the closest point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright got it. So that's going to be to the property line from the corner. ANGELA MANGELS : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat, Eric anything? Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application-? Hearing no further questions or MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie pardon me if one last question if I may. Would your client like to offer personal testimony as far as how they went about what happened and how they ended up with a stop work order? 8 Janoary 3, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have to come to the microphone and state your name sir. FRANK DOKA': Frank Doka,property owner and my wife Paula. I went about it the wrong way because I thought the deck was already established I didn't think we needed I realized what I did was wrong and I apologize and I want to do my best to correct it and won't have any issues like that ever again. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, so primarily it was the assumption that since relief had been granted for that second story deck that you could 'fill in underneath it is that what you're saying? FRANK DOKA : Yeah. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And Building Department had informed you that was not the case. Alright anything else? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have no further questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I make a,motion to close this hearing reserve decision to a later date is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7229 SE—FRANK and PAULA DOKA CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright now we're -going to go on to the accessory apartment application. Let me read that into -the record. This is application for Frank and Paula Doka #7229SE request for Special Exception under Article III Section 280-13B(13). The applicants are the owners of subject property requesting authorization to legalize an "as built" accessory January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting apartment in an existing accessory structure at 755 Lupton Point Rd. (adj. to Deep Hole Creek) in Mattituck. So you're in the process of renovating this accessory garage. We did,do an interior inspection. What I did not notice was the existence of any kind of a kitchen in this. ANGELA MANGELS : We,didn't put it in. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's proposed to be put in? ANGELA MANGELS : Correct it would be preferred to be able to put that in. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have a memorandum from the Building Department confirming that the livable floor area is 630 square feet which is conforming to the section of the code that tells you how big or small it can be. Who is going to be residing in this accessory apartment? ANGELA MANGELS : It's going to be the mother who is getting a little bit older now and is at times going to be staying there during the winter time so that this way they can have them there are well. So I don't know if you want to come up and talk about the family. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Just restate your name please. We record this. MEMBER DANTES : Do you have a lease or something in this packet that you ANGELA MANGELS : It was family. MEMBER DANTES : We just need to see a copy of I'm renting the thing to my mother for term of what year FRANK DOKA : No there's no money involved. MEMBER DANTES : Just put a dollar. Yeah just write something out, I'm renting to so and so for whatever years and charge a dollar just it helps our paperwork. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And we have an affidavit in here attesting to the fact that your mother will be the occupant'the sole"occupant. FRANK DOKA : Part time occupant. They used to go to Florida in the winter time. My dad past away about a year and a half ago and so she's in Baiting Hollow now and she's up in kind of a bungalow community where they don't ,plow out so much so the idea was just to allow her to stay with us during the winter time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that's the only occupant will be your mother? FRANK DOKA : Yeah. 101 January 3,2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Part time. I don't think let me just check, what we have to be sure of is that the drawings we have on file second floor plan it does show a kitchen area; it does show a full bathroom, a bed sofa area so it's not a separate bedroom it's a kind of a alright we have the drawings we need. We need some sort of just written notarized affidavit,of intent that your mother with your mother's name is going to be the part time occupant and as Member Dantes suggested a lease agreement. It can be a dollar a year it's irrelevant but that's what part of what the code requires is that there'll be a rental agreement for this apartment. MEMBER DANTES : Technically the rental's a full time rental whether she's there or not it's your business but just CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright anything from the Board on this one? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have one question, has there been an application to the Health Department or is there any notation of septic systems for the proposed apartment? ANGELA MANGELS : No but if you know that would be handled assuming it would granted MEMBER LEHNERT : Are you planning to tie it into the existing system or put a new one in? ANGELA MANGELS : So yeah I guess tie into the existing system. MEMBER DANTES : Well in the other application we were going to condition it for an IA system. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well look I think this will all be taken care of because with the variance application we already talked about the possible installation of an IA system and that would certainly take care of the requirements of the accessory apartment plug that right in to that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO A couple of questions, I noticed in the application there were submissions to indicated residency of a driver's license, an optimum Wi-Fi bill, your personal taxes; does the applicant currently receive a STAR exemption? ANGELA MANGELS : No, I guess we can verify that but he doesn't think so. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well on the subject property I'm asking. It's something that you personally need to apply for to indicate residency. PAULA'DOKA : They sent my tax bill to a wrong address so I don't physically have it to look to see MEMBER DANTES : When did you purchase the property? i t ' January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting FRANK DOKA : A year and half ago. MEMBER DANTES : So it might still be it might not have kicked in yet Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The STAR exemption. I thought you could apply for it MEMBER DANTES :.You can,apply but then you got to get to the next tax cycle but if you don't apply then you don't get it. Honestly you would know if you applied if you didn't do the application the you wouldn't get it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And then the other thing which I believe was already discussed in the prior application is the LWRP CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess what the Board is looking at here is we have to verify that this is your principle residence. In order to grant an apartment the owner has to live in either the apartment or, the-dwelling doesn't matter which but you have to be on premises and it has - to be a principle residence which is why the STAR exemption was asked because that's where it goes to one's primary residence. MEMBER DANTES : It's a criteria you have to meet though other than being your principle residence. ANGELA MANGELS : I'm sorry I wasn't but yeah they're full time. I didn't know the tax question but I know that they're living there full time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, anything else cause we're running a little behind on time. Anything from anybody else on the Board, anyone in the audience wishing to address -the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES :,Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. :.2 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7230- KEVIN S. MCLEOD and CHUN Y. CHEUNG CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application is for Kevin S. McLeod and Chun Y. Cheung #7230. This is a request for a variance from Article XXII Section 280-116A(1) and the Building Inspector's August 13, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to make additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff at 605 Sound View Ave. (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Mattituck. MIKE KIMACK : Michael Kimack for the applicant. Happy New Year everybody I know it's a few days late but that's the only way I get a chance to do it and my clients are in the audience. The parts of the house that are being constructed,,within a 100 feet I'll just go through that;'all of you or some of you have had a chance to visit the site and notice the stakes that were there? Okay the existing sunroom basically is going to be replaced in kind and then added on to moving back to tie in with that back corner of the house it's moving four inches from the property line in order to meet the side yard setbacks cause the original sunroom was about four inches over. There'll be'a full foundation on'the (inaudible) primarily and would be connected back to the full basement and back as part of the living accommodations of the house itself. Behind that basically if you look at your drawings behind that the existing deck will be extended to match behind that sunroom and up to the side yard setback and then that's also part of the 100 foot setback. Then also partially part of the 100 foot setback in there is that secondary lower deck which extends beyond the existing deck towards the proposed pool which I'm sure you all saw being constructed and I did have the stakes in there for that. Hopefully they didn't bulldoze the dirt out of that but the stakes locating that particular room was there. In the seaward side of the dwelling they're proposing to ,put an addition to their patio at the present time. The patio proposal is on grade. I'm not quite sure whether or not that with 100 foot setback still falls under the same exemption that normally is applied to on grade structures and then there is a proposed second floor balcony 4 by 17, 68 square feet which extends seaward from the building basically renovated at the present time. I do bring to your attention for your consideration I'm not quite sure you can apply it is Chapter 280-116 and basically where it does give you the authority for the 100 feet from the top of the bluff but there's an exemption category in there and I'm not quite sure how you would apply it or how you favor to apply it in this consideration but the language basically says, buildings and structures which are proposed landward of existing principle dwellings shall be exempt from the requirements set forth and 2-3 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting subsection Al. Subsection Al is the 100 feet back from the bluff. I'm not quite sure whether you 'take that from the back of the building or from the front of the building. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is generally been interpreted to mean on the landward side of the structure. MIKE KIMACK : The backside of the structure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN, : There are circumstances .in which, existing structures are maybe thirty, forty feet the house isn't that wide it's the whole house is less than 100 feet but the when the proposed addition is on the landward side rather than the seaward side that's what MIKE KIMACK : The backside of the house primarily. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you could consider the seaward side the,front MIKE KIMACK : Then the landward side everything from the front edge of the house going back would be considered landward. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If,you have a structure that's let's say the front of the house that fronts on the street let's say that that's 45 feet from the bluff 70 feet it doesn't matter the point is if you put on. a front porch then that might be exempt if there have already been placed variances that allow for the non-conforming setback of the structure. It would probably be considered LWRP consistent to be building on the landward side of the house but not the seaward side.That would increase the degree on non-conformance. MIKE KIMACK : The thing on the seaward side are the two components. One is the patio which is grade level and I'm unsure whether or not the grade level patio falls CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think so. I.think you're really talking about a setback•for the proposed second floor balcony. The existing there is no Notice of Disapproval for a side yard variance. You are in conformity with your side. MIKE KIMACK : So it really falls into the seaward extension of the balcony on the second floor the 4by17. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's correct and 51.8•feet and the dwelling itself is at 55.8 feet. MEMBER DANTES : We would be sited for that bump out on the side as well. I mean that's part of the variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's 15 feet. z4 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : It's not it's-still within theMuff-setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But it's not called out as a variance. MEMBER DANTES : Cause they just call out the closest,point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's right. They just called out MIKE KIMACK : As I understand it Eric MEMBER DANTES : No I've-seen things sited that are on the landward side of the house by the Building Department. MIKE KIMACK : The way the Building Department wrote this up and as they explained it to me was that they don't break out each of the specifics they just basically say it starts from here and it goes landward from that particular point. MEMBER DANTES : Right but it's still part of the variance. MIKE KIMACK : No, no, no it is part of the variance the only reason I brought up Chapter 280- 116 was I had not dealt with this specifically before this particular aspect of the chapter and I wasn't quite sure how it would apply to some or most of the components that are being proposed that may possibly'be in for an exemption rather than having because I know your task here is to minimize or eliminate variances.In this particular case if in fact some of what we're doing falls within the exemption of 116A(1) then so be it but at the same time it doesn't and we're asking for'those particular components within the 100 feet to be considered for the variance which would'be that second deck that 4 by 17 deck what'falls into the replacement of- the sunroom on the side, the extension ,of the deck behind it and the new deck which also partially falls within .the 100 feet. The new deck'between the existing deck and the pool which was staked out those are the components that forward of the 100 foot setback of the bluff. Does that help? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a bluff setback and so any addition that is not conforming to a bluff setback would be included. It's not a side yard setback it's a bluff setback. MIKE KIMACK : It's a bluff setback nota side yard setback. We eliminated a side yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's called out as the closest point which is that proposed' 4 foot (inaudible) which is reducing the setback by a couple of 5 or 4 feet. MIKE KIMACK : I could point out to,you that it does probably extend about two foot past the eaves overhang at the present time so (inaudible) as a proposal. So it's not as perhaps it's not exactly 4 feet because it's a little bit more than the existing eaves overhang which is not January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting considered. I know normally the eaves overhang is taken into consideration but not in this particular situation for a setback within the 100 foot setback cause we're already within it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's look at something else for a moment. I think we understand what's applied for, the LWRP says that it's consistent but again is requesting the installation of an IA MIKE KIMACK : Already applied for already designed and applied. It's in the .hands of,the Department of Health. We've already received request for additional information which will be submitted actually this afternoon and I expect to get that permit within the next two to three weeks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Very good. You need Trustees on this too. MIKE KIMACK : Gotta go to Trustees after you they also have code jurisdiction. I do point out that if you did look at the property it's very well vegetated all the way around it with there really isn't much you could really see. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah the Soil and Water says things are quite stable. MIKE KIMACK : The bluff is. We had a chance to look at the bluff. There are some minor areas that may need it but for the most part the bulkhead stone behind it and the bluff is fairly well vegetated. They did request that we stay back 25 feet with any heavy machinery which is easy enough it's standard stuff. I wasn't quite sure about that sprinkler head but it's easy enough to make it a 180 than a 360 and I suspect that we will probably have already informed my clients that we will be when the Trustees visit the site we will be subject to a non-turf buffer,and we would probably recommend we don't have much back there at least a minimum,of 10 feet. So I said that would be coming from the Trustees. That's almost a standard imposition to their permit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else on the Board with any questions? MEMBER DANTES : I do. When I was'there it looked like there was like a non-turf buffer is that true? KEVIN MCLEOD : Kevin McLeod my wife Chun Cheung of twenty seven years. The question I think was on the bluff. MEMBER DANTES : Right so y6u' have the hay bales and behind the hay bales it looks like an area before you get to-the bluff where you don't mow it's just a vegetated buffer. KEVIN MCLEOD : Yes those are junipers that we planted. 1� January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Was that you did it on your own or was it conditioned from some prior Trustees approval? KEVIN MCLEOD : No that was just for make a clean line for the bluff and optics. I like the trees nothing specific. MEMBER DANTES : Do you have to go to Trustees for this permit? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They'll do it they're going to put in at least ten foot anyway. Anything else Eric, Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : There was on the survey a fire pit, is that staying? KEVIN MCLEOD : That was our intent to keep it there yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And actually relative to the fire pit is it gas or actually for wood? KEVIN MCLEOD : It's for wood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anybody on the Board? MEMBER PLANAMENTO If I may a couple of questions regarding the front yard not necessarily part of the application but because of a site visit there are things that I saw that I'm just curious about. There's discussion of an existing shed to be removed yet I found a shed sitting in what would be the I guess southeast corner is that the proposed relocation of the shed or is that KEVIN MCLEOD : No we're using the shed which was our former shed so to speak for temporary storage while the construction is going on. We intend to remove that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : From the property or relocate it. KEVIN MCLEOD : From the property. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It will be completely gone. KEVIN MCLEOD : Yeah that's our intent. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Good. The other question I wanted to ask was, who owns the stockade fence to the east on the property line? KEVIN MCLEOD : I believe we do. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I might be mistaken there's a chain link fence across the front of the property also. 17 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting KEVIN MCLEOD : Across the front of the property? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes between the evergreens and the road. KEVIN MCLEOD : Yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So I don't know if it's something that's within our purview or open for discussion or needs to be part of the application but aren't front yard fences limited to four feet in height? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They are. MEMBER PLANAMENTO Is that something that needs to be addressed or part of the application? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's a swimming pool is there not? KEVIN MCLEOD : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that needs to be four feet it can be taller but it needs to be at minimum at 4 feet for a swimming pool. I didn't even notice it. It was pouring rain when I went there. I was in wellingtons and mud up to my neck. KEVIN MCLEOD : We purchased the property in 2007 it's exactly twelve years ago all the fencing that you're indicating was there in place and we've done nothing to alter it. We did have a prior pool replacing the pool and we certainly want to have the required fencing there. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So my thought was relative to the fencing or the commentary on it does it make sense to include it potentially in this application? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would require a Notice of Disapproval. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And then they would have to come back. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right Bill? MEMBER DANTES : Honestly the easy way if the Building Department makes an issue you can just take it down or replace it with a code conforming. MEMBER,PLANAMENTO : With a four foot fence. MEMBER DANTES : It would be easier if you in the long run. KEVIN MCLEOD : We're happy to comply with whatever. January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting T. A. DUFFY : You may have issues when the Building Department comes to inspect Mike can help you with that but they may have an issue with the size of the fence. MIKE KIMACK : It's surprisingly no one's pointed it out. We didn't focus on the fence because generally the greenery pretty much did it. The Building Department had been there a few times already for the inspections for the pool and I don't think they've looked. _ CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If they have no issues then it's fine but the code as you know does not permit anything higher than a four foot fence in the front yard. MIKE KIMACK : It will be addressed and hopefully easily and expeditiously as we can. We weren't I wasn't aware of it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It was just something I caught because the day that I was there they were actually gates up the driveway. MIKE KIMACK : Is it six foot Nick all the way around? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It appears in my opinion to be six the stockade fence is clearing six, the chain link it's higher than me so I'm assuming it's six but again it's something that I just didn't want see,any hardship come up as a later point. I thought it's better to bring it forward. MIKE KIMACK : It's gotta be four all the way back to the house so it's pretty much gotta be replaced all the way around CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I would just simply as long as you're going through all this procedure to make sure everything is legalized and as it should be I would certainly just talk to them about it next time they're out doing an inspection just say this fence was here can we keep it or do we need to lower it. MIKE KIMACK : I'll stop by Building Department this afternoon and ask them to go out and take a look at the fence and see what they're recommending. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Makes sense but do it separately from this. I don't want to muddy the MIKE KIMACK : We will address it. - CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else, anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. 19 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) MICHAEL MCCARRICK REAL ESTATE, INC. #7231 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Michael McCarrick Real Estate, Inc. #7231. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's August 1, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct an accessory garage at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet at 415 Lakeside Drive (adj. to Pleasant Inlet) in Southold. MIKE KIMACK : Michael Kimack for the applicant. A little background on this, there was an original zoning permit issued, original Trustees permit issued and an original D.E.C. permit issued for the construction of the dwelling and it had not been built and then the land was sold to my client and he basically recognized that he hadn't included the garage so I wanted to let you know why we're coming back for the garage after a permit was issued for a brand new house. The original individual who had applied for that particular zoning permit did not include the garage so we came back in. We have already applied to D.E.C. The setback if you look at the drawing we cannot go back any further than we already are because the setback has to be the same distance as the house is and D.E.C. has accepted that setback so in order to fit that garage in as a simple structure it's a 24 by 24 only electricity, no second floor, 18 foot high and it's angled in such a way that if you notice the way the driveway comes off of that road to be able to swing back into it and the swing your car out of it in order to drive away. It was really the only way that it can be angled on the property and that's why the variance is being requested for the side yard setbacks. It's a restricted limited piece in order to get the garage in and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a front yard setback. MIKE KIMACK : I'm sorry a front yard setback. That's right we did meet the five on the side. 2O January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And why-didn't the applicant in building a new house just attach the garage? It would have,still probably required a variance but it would have been a substantially less variance. MIKE KIMACK : To move it a little bit further in basically to you mean to attach it in a way the house is structured now it's raised up the garage is much lower and the foundation is higher up on the ground so the garage would have had to been redesigned in order to have a staircase to step up into it. They just thought that they to separate it out they just wanted a simple garage put in and then walk back to the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There are certainly a five foot setback from that property line is really very, very substantial. It's a very narrow private sort of right of way basically. MIKE KIMACK : I did have a conversation and my client indicated that if that might be an issue that he thought that he could be able to move the house move the garage closer to the house cause right now I think one side is about 16 feet the closest corner right there the backside is about 21 feet basically on the angle. He said that he could adjust it a few more feet closer to the house if that would make a difference with the Board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well if the Board grants any variance at all you know that it needs to be the minimum variance feasible. MIKE KIMACK : I don't know I would suggest that two or three feet would not be unreasonable. I wouldn't what happens when it's a little bit more than that it becomes a little bit more for the driveway swing in there primarily it's over the septic on the driveway now but those are H20's so they're heavy duty.That's the way it's designed and it's been approved that way. So they can be driven over but it's really a function of how it's angles in order to come off the road into the garage and into the driveway. So it can be I think it can be situated parallel to that property line perhaps another two or three feet further west or the northwest direction without jeopardizing the way you swing the car in (inaudible) that would give it an extra relief of an extra two or three feet if that helps the Board's decision. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you please address the drainage on site. MIKE KIMACK : The existing drainage have all been approved for the house primarily. It had received it's storm water management. There was a proposed drywell for the garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that on the survey, yes. MIKE KIMACK : Yes there is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat let's start with you, any questions? January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : No again that all of us looked at,is,why; why not attach the garage to the house? I mean I know you said the elevation but the house is on an elevation so the garage would be on an elevation. I mean that's only common sense. So I don't see what the hardship would be to attach the garage to the house. MIKE KIMACK : Well my client chose this particular way to do it. He didn't want to attach. He wanted it•as a separate detached. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Well even if you moved it further and just had like a little breezeway of maybe you know six feet would still make it I mean to me that property was full of mud when I went there so there's,definitely a drainage problem there. MIKE KIMACK : It was full of mud when I put the stakes down three times cause they kept knocking them down. MEMBER ACAMPORA : And it had deer running through the property cause I could see through the mud you know it's a place where all the deer run through. MIKE KIMACK : What I could suggest since this I think is going to be your inquiry and certainly your deliberation when you come in two weeks is I could approach my client to see whether it can be attached or at least moved over with a breezeway and perhaps give you an amended drawing. I can't move it back any further because that simply locked in. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No you can't move it back you don't have much of a back yard'there. MIKE KIMACK : And plus the fact is the distance that was already approved by D.E.C. was the same distance that we left with the garage by that one corner so it really can't come in any closer to the back waterway to the wetland area back there but we can perhaps redesign'it and get you a drawing. MEMBER ACAMPORA : As far as where the proposed garage is now that property is slanting downward as it is anyway so with the rain and everything else I can see MIKE KIMACK : A little bit Pat. A little bit it does kind of come down a little that way. ;CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN ; It's also a very substantial mass sitting there literally on a property line very, very close to where people drive by all the time . MEMBER ACAMPORA : Right it's five feet away. , CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's going to have a very big visual impact on the character of that neighborhood. �2 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : Okay then I will basically I understand what your concerns are and I'll take it back to my client and get you a redesign or an amendment to the location of the proposed garage. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mike just for point of clarification for me relative to what Pat just said, did I understand you to saying in your introduction that the current owner purchased the property with an existing building permit? MIKE KIMACK : Yes all three building permits, the D.E.C. the ZBA and the Trustees and they bought that.They bought that lot with all permits attached. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And then just based on my observation CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you say ZBA? D.E.C., ZBA and Trustees? MIKE KIMACK : No I'm sorry I'm not quite sure,if ZBA was included in that particular one but certainly Trustees and D.E.C. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah cause he had to have been before us so there were no permits from ZBA. MIKE KIMACK : Yeah and we're here because of the garage but they purchased it with the D.E.C. and the Trustees permit for the house primarily. MEMBER DANTES : It meets the setback for the house. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So from my observation driving around the neighborhood and personal site inspection accessory garages aren't very common to that neighborhood. They are either attached to the house or there are several homes I noted that don't even have a garage. MIKE KIMACK : Correct it's a dead end over there. There really isn't much happening in that particular location and I did note that too. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well I actually drove around also down by the beach access. MIKE KIMACK :,But that doesn't mean that he's not entitled to at least propose a garage on his property even though others may not have it. I'm not quite sure if we relocate it attached to the house whether we eliminate the variance completely. T. A. DUFFY : Isn't character of the community one of the criteria you have to establish to get the variance? MIKE KIMACK : Correct yeah. January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting T. A. DUFFY : So attaching it to the house would make it consistent with the character of the community while this is not consistent with the character. MIKE KIMACK : We can also do with an 80 sq. ft. breezeway that would give us an attachment factor so we can have some separation there. MEMBER DANTES : An 80 sq.ft. breezeway right but it would still MIKE KIMACK : 80 sq.ft. unconditioned. MEMBER DANTES : Right but it would still be a greater variance than if you attached it cause you'd have that extra space. MIKE KIMACK : Well it would be 80 sq. ft. would be maybe keep it about 10 feet and then square it up with the property basically just square it up with the house and make an attachment there in order to gain whatever height you might have to do in order to get into the house but I'm not quite sure if the house if we attach it we probably don't have an entrance there. We just have to come out of the garage door and then just go into the regular house. There's no door on that side. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The only thing that is on that side of the house is one window. MIKE KIMACK : That's correct on the back side if I remember correctly if you're looking at the right hand back side there MEMBER LEHNERT :There's no reason why you can't grade it to go right into the house. MEMBER DANTES : It looks like according to the survey it's only a foot and a half elevation difference so it's not a big MEMBER ACAMPORA : Right one is 9 foot and one is 8 foot. MIKE KIMACK : So noted. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the only thing that I would add though even if you attach it to the house it would appear that you'd need a variance because from the closest corner of the house it's 35 feet so I can't imagine you know it would seem that when you were building the house the solution would have been to have the garage start at that 35 foot point and extend the house to the location of the deck. MIKE KIMACK : But if we attach it then that minimizes the variance so it can be minimized. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right it would also (inaudible) 24 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Look the Board is certainly willing to entertain an amended application with an improved MIKE KIMACK : I'll have it before the drawings before your two weeks Special hearing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : However we've received a lot of written correspondence from neighbors and we want to take that into consideration. Anything in writing is already part of our public record. MEMBER DANTES : Can I ask one last question Leslie, I'm just looking at the reasons for appeal in the application and number three the amount of relief requested is not substantial because you guys left that one blank. We need that filled out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Or he can say it here. MIKE KIMACK : I can attach it with the amended garage design since it will change. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there someone in the audience, wanting to address the application? State your name for the record please. RALPH GERCHECK : Good morning ladies and gentlemen my name is Ralph Gercheck. I own the property across the road at 520 Lakeside Drive South which is directly opposite where the garage and where the property would be where the garage would be constructed. My primary issue with the drainage issue, as it is right now I did submit an objection to the Board which clearly indicated my garage is below grade and as it is the drainage problem exists to some degree already on my property. I see this as having a major impact on that with the construction of a garage particularly a garage of that size. As the Board pointed out I don't understand why the initial construction did not include the garage with you know within the building which would have been acceptable from my point of view. Also the privacy issue is another major concern to' me with,the proposal being 5 foot off the road, the noise and the visibility not to mention the fact that if a vehicle was parked directly in front of the entrance to the garage. It's my perception that it would be extending into the fifty foot right of way if parked outside the garage and if any possibility exists I think perhaps a one car garage attached or directly to the house might be a feasible alternative to what the proposal is. Thank you for your consideration. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you we do have your letter. RALPH GERCHECK : I appreciate that and as you see all my neighbors are also in you know agreement with my proposal thank you. January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on one second Mike let the rest of them is there someone else who would like to comment? JACKIE MOSQUOWITZ : Hi my name is"Jacki Moskowitz and I am one of the Trustees on the CBPA Board which is the area where we are. The Board basically feels that what is proposed is too large for the area for the property and it's positioning five feet from the property line against code is not something that we would like to see in our neighborhood. We feel that it's our we're making a statement because we feel we are there to state in general the principles and to protect the rights of the other homeowners in the area and a huge structure five feet from a property line does not fit with the area and is not something that we would like to see happen. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you, anyone else? Mike did you want to MIKE KIMACK :Just to address on the drainage, all I can say there is that we have to meet storm water management criteria and the standard is that all water from the impervious areas remain on the lot which is how it's designed so that's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you say that you already had the drainage approved by MIKE KIMACK :The drainage for the house was approved. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The house. MIKE KIMACK : The house was already in I'm not quite sure if the drywell CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We need comments on the proposed garage. MIKE KIMACK : That has except for the garage itself which will now be adjusted. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we'll be waiting to see what you do for an amended application and I'm also going to request comments from Jaimie Richter the Town Engineer. MIKE KIMACK : That's fair. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN' : and see that comments he might have about perhaps we'll wait until we see what you amend the application to rather than getting comments and then changing getting other comments again but I do think it's important to make sure that everybody is aware. MIKE KIMACK : I don't think the drywell calculation will change but obviously the location will change. Thank you. Z6 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting T. A. DUFFY : Mike, the Board in writing just now has heard about a 50 foot right of way and how the structure would interfere with the 50 foot right of way can you address that? MIKE KIMACK : I think basically the way that the driveway is designed if you look at the way it is now primarily is you pull into the garage, when you pull out of the garage the parking areas are over within the property line are over the top of the septic area so it's not within that. I think the gentleman was saying that if you parked at a skew in front of the garage part of the car in the backside may be hanging out on the 50 foot right of way but that's not where the parking is laid out. We'll have to take a look at that when we redo when we relocate the garage to make sure that the swing around out of the garage stays within the property line. MEMBER DANTES : Is this something we should have added on the survey Bill? Is it on our survey? MIKE KIMACK : No it's on the survey is the garage and then the swing around. MEMBER DANTES : Then which is the right of way they're talking about? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Lakeside Drive. MIKE KIMACK : At the property line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in the audience. MEMBER DANTES : I have one last question Leslie. For the leaching pools do you guys have a covenant from the Department of Health to put the driveway over the leaching pools? For the leaching pools if you applied for a covenant with the Department of Health to put the driveway over the leaching pools. MIKE KIMACK : It has already been approved. I wasn't part of that but the septic and the disposal pools have already received Health Department approval. MEMBER DANTES : Right but was the driveway on the plan that the Health Department reviewed? MIKE KIMACK : Yes it was on the plans and they work it both ways. If you look at the Health Department code they have it for regular driveways, for regular disposal pools and if you're doing it and you're going into a driveway situation you're going into the HA20's which this one was it's a heavy duty ring. That's the way it was approved. EKMEL KASABA : My name is Ekmel Kasaba, I'm one of the neighbors down the street. I filed one of the written objections. To be practical and to Nick's point 24 by 24 is a two car garage. If you put the 24 by 24 two car garage next to the adjacent or connect it to the house you will still January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting require a variance. Take out the ruler look at the survey and you will see that you will still require a variance from the 35 foot setback. However a one car garage connected to the house or next to the house would not require a variance. I'm not trying to solve the gentleman's problem but he also has a right to have a garage and a one car garage such as many of the houses in the neighborhood have will not require a variance if placed attached to or next to the house.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anyone? Okay I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting on January 17th. 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#7232—GOLDSMITH'S INLET, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Goldsmith's Inlet, LLC #7232. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's August 28, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to build a deck addition to be attached to an existing single family dwelling at 1) existing accessory garage will be located in other than the code required rear yard at 2700 Mill Road (adj. to Goldsmith's Inlet) in Peconic. This is a bit confusing. Well the accessory garage is in the side yard MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie I think because they're adding the deck the deck extends if CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and puts it in the side yard. I just want to make sure that the record is accurate. The way it's written it's a little confusing. The accessory garage is "as built" and the 28 January 3, 2019 Regular-Meeting rear deck addition part locates that accessory garage now in a partially non-conforming side yard and would you please state your name for the record. MATT IVANS : Matt Ivans Suffolk Environmental, I'm here for Bruce Anderson he couldn't'be here today. So you pretty much walked through what I was going to say about this. Again it's a 604 sq. ft. deck because being built seaward of the house it's basically placing the attached garage now in a technical side yard that's why we're here today. We do have I don't know if you guys have seen I do have a letter of support from the neighbor to the north. We applied for and received D.E.C. approval on that. We applied to the Trustees as well. Trustees told us to come here before they would rule on it and that's really about it. I'm here to answer any and all questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually I had one, question about the garage, the doors face Goldsmiths Inlet. MATT IVANS : I saw that yeah. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How in the world do you get that car the driveway just stops so how do you get that car into those doors? MATT IVANS : Yeah I don't know. I think previously and I'm guessing here cause again I'm here for Bruce but I'm guessing it was used for boats I mean back in the day. It's not used for a boat anymore so that's what I'm guessing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah cause the driveway stops and you'd really be driving on very fragile soil. MATT IVANS : Yeah I don't think they intend to at all use the seaward side of that garage for entering. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That' was my only real concern. It looks like this existing garage complies with wetland setbacks, has a D.E.C. permit? MATT IVANS : Yes I mean we didn't apply for it in this case but originally it should have received a wetland permit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the deck setback is acceptable. MATT IVANS : D.E.C. yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cause the only thing sited here is the non-conforming garage location as a consequence of the construction of the deck. January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting T. A. DUFFY :The C.O. says accessory boat storage building (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah they're using two different languages. The C.O. says accessory boat storage but the rest of the stuff says garage. MEMBER DANTES : It's kind of a thing that says 54 feet for the deck setback so I don't know what they're setting it back from but 54 feet would be conforming. MEMBER LEHNERT : Of the tidal wetlands. MEMBER DANTES : So the property line would be further. Are they keeping that septic system that's seaward of the house? MATT IVANS : They are. They are abandoning the small cesspool on the seaward side of the garage. MEMBER DANTES : What about cesspool service? MATT IVANS : There was a half bath apparently way back in the day which is no longer in there now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that cesspool is going? MATT IVANS : Yep. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Again this is LWRP consistent but I guess standard nowadays is recommendation to replace the sanitary with an advanced wastewater treatment system because it's to make sure it's out of the flood zone. Can you just comment on that? MATT IVANS : I mean in light of the size of the project I mean a deck I mean right now the owner don't feel that they're going go ahead and replace the sanitary system. I mean in the future if they do you know major renovation or expansion of the house I'm sure that'll come into play but right now no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I just want to make,sure it was in the,record. Anything from the Board? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : A couple of questions and I'm sure they're going to have to make it compliant but I noticed that the guttering and leader on the southeast corner of the house drains into a tube that's not connected to but appears to run underground towards Goldsmiths Inlet. Additionally all the other leaders on the house just drain onto, the lawn so apparently there are no drywells. 301 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting MATT IVANS : I don't believe that there are. I mean we can figure out exactly where that one leader is going. I mean how far how close to the wetland boundary do you know is that leader and MEMBER DANTES : We can,just make it that they have to comply to the Chapter. MATT IVANS : I mean the Trustees will probably weigh in as well on the storm water. MEMBER DANTES : Put a condition on the decision that they have to comply with the Chapter and that should clean all that up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah we have to condition it cause we generally make reference to that one of the reasons but if it's a condition the Building Department will check on it. If it's not a condition they won't and given its location even though it's a small cottage and it's been there a long time all those structures (inaudible) into the wetlands. MATT IVANS : Yeah no either you guys or the Trustees or the Building Department I'm sure they'll recommend that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have to go before the Trustees also? MATT IVANS : Well we have an application already in the line but they requested that we come to you guys first. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But it needs Trustees approval and I see you got a buffer on there. Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Anyone on the Board? I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date is,there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) 3:1 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting HEARING # 7233—ANN AGUANNO and GERALD GLEASON CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Ann Aguanno and Gerald Gleason #7233. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's August 17, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct an accessory shed at 1) located in other than the code required rear yard, and 2) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% at 2085 Bay Ave. (adj. to Marion Lake) in East Marion. Good morning Rob. ROB HERMANN : Good morning how are you? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good thank you. So we're looking here at an accessory shed in a side yard where the code required a rear yard, lot coverage of 21.7% code permits a maximum of 20%, LWRP consistent and I think we have priors on this didn't we? ROB HERMANN : There was one prior. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I remember okay what else? ROB HERMANN : So now I'm going to talk more about a shed than any of you wanted to hear. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a new year give us a break. ROB HERMANN : Yeah well it seems like an easy one but MEMBER DANTES : A 96 square foot shed. ROB HERMANN : What's that? MEMBER DANTES : A 96 square foot shed. ROB HERMANN : I know sometimes these are the ones that catch me by surprise so I'm going to be over prepared and hopefully leave you speechless. MEMBER DANTES : One question for you, what would the normal side yard setback be? ROB HERMANN : Three feet cause that's not the side yard setback for this lot size is conforming. It's the fact that it's a side yard location that's not conforming. It is actually an interesting application because it is a shed that's less than 100 square feet. It does not need a building permit but it needs a wetland permit and it needs a zoning variance and a long story short is we have no choice but to apply for a zoning variance because we need to place the shed as far from the fresh water wetlands associated with Marion Lake as possible and to the applicants credit instead of just putting the shed up after hearing they didn't need a building permit they 32. January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting researched further which they're probably sorry they did and found out that they needed to go through this fairly long and exhausted process but hopefully we can convince the Board to help us continue on with it and satisfy their need for storage. Basically due to the very small parcel size which is 4,943 sq. ft. we're really forced to place the shed in the side yard because there's simply not enough room to place it to the rear of the house without being almost physically adjacent to the fresh water wetland boundary and not enough room to place it in the front of the house without being physically adjacent to Bay Ave. So in terms of choosing an optimal location for the shed we've situated farther from the road than the applicant's dwelling and the neighboring dwellings and with a minimum wetland setback of 39 feet which is actually only 11 feet less than what would be required for an in-ground swimming pool pursuant to Chapter 275. So we've tried to we've worked very hard to pick the best place we can find on the property and as I just noted to Eric the shed meets the minimum side yard setback for an accessory structure of this height which is 9 feet at its peak on a property of this size. The additional variance relief that's needed for lot coverage is also unavoidable because the existing lot coverage is 911 sq. ft. so the addition even just of a 96 sq. ft. shed increases lot coverage to 1,007 sq. ft. which is roughly almost equal to 20% of the total lot area but 21.7% of the buildable land here due to the presence of the wetland. To maintain perspective on the lot coverage variance we would ask the Board to consider that the maximum allowable lot coverage on this lot is 926 sq. ft. which is a little more than the 850 sq. ft. living floor area that's required as a minimum for a single family dwelling in an R40 zoning district. We'd also like the Board to consider that due to the small size of most of the parcels situated along Bay Ave. and the southern tip of Marion Lake here sheds are a very common accessory structure used for storage in this neighborhood. For example both adjacent properties to the north and the south and the property located two to the south has a shed and those are shown on the photographs here. This is the subject property and you see the shed location is staked. This is the shed on the property to the north. This is the shed in the back on the property to the south and this is a shed on the property two to the south or I may have this backwards but these are the two bottom photos are the sheds on the two southerly properties. So our position is the placement of the shed on this property would not alter the character of the neighborhood or adversely impact the immediate neighbors and to further ensure that the shed will not have a negative visual impact, the shed will be sided, painted and roofed to match the existing dwelling. It won't exceed 9 feet at height at its peak which matches the height of the neighboring sheds. It will as I mentioned meet the required 3 foot side yard setback from the northerly property line. It will be largely obscured from the view from the north by the existing stockade fence located along the property line and will not interfere with lateral water views of Marion Lake because it is situated with a reasonable setback from the fresh water wetlands associated with the lake. We also argue the shed would have no adverse impacts on the physical environment as again it's been located to achieve (inaudible) wetland setback and installation of the shed requires no 331 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting excavation, clearing of vegetation, placement of fill, changing an existing grades or any other measurable form of land disturbance. The site plan also includes the permanent establishment of a 280 sq. ft. non-disturbance buffer adjacent to the wetland boundary and I should note for the record the project was granted New York State fresh water wetland permit 1-4738-04606/1 by the New York State D.E.C. on July 20, 2018. We also have an application pending before the Southold Trustees but pursuant to the internal town policy they won't hear that application until we've been through your Board. Finally I would be remise if I did not articulate the applicant's need for the shed and I can also draw in what Leslie mentioned about the prior variance here. As we stated in the application the benefit of having additional storage space on the property cannot be more reasonably achieved by any means other than the detached storage shed. The very small house contains no garage, no basement, no attic and has a total footprint of 665 sq. ft. and including the porch and the stoop it simply does not provide sufficient space for storing common household or recreational items such as outdoor patio furniture, bikes, kayaks, barbeque grill, lawn mower etc. Although there is a small outdoor "shed" it was authorized by the Board for the prior owners in 2012 that remains currently attached to the side of the house. The structure is a small narrow storage bin for small items. It is not water tight and pursuant to the Board's decision in case #6604 can never be replaced. Therefore the need for additional storage space and requested area variance relief is reasonable, necessary and unavoidable and the applicants and I would_ask that you grant the relief necessary to install it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay Rob thank you, let's see if the Board has any questions, Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : He covered it all. ROB HERMANN : That's what I wanted to hear. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything Eric? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? I'm going to make a motion to close this 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. 34 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7234—HENRY HINTZE, LYNN MCMAHON, and MARIE BASILE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Henry Hintze, Lynn McMahon and Marie Basile #7234. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280- 124 and the Building Inspector's July 12, 2018 amended July 13, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to make additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum combined side yard setback of 25 feet, 3) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% at 590 Brooks Rd. (adj. to Pipes Neck Creek) in Greenport. State your name please for the record. BROOKE EPPERSON : Good morning I'm Brooke Epperson, I'm the architect hired for this project. We are requesting a side yard and lot coverage variance to construct an addition to the second floor of the pre-existing non-conforming home. The proposed second floor addition will increase the square footage of only the second floor and remains within the existing layout of the first floor exterior walls. By proposing the addition to stay within the-existing layout we will not be encroaching further into the side yard setback nor increasing the lot coverage any further. We did research some existing neighboring homes on the water in this area and we found that within the neighborhood of my clients home there have been similar variance reliefs granted for two story homes. For your reference these cases are ZBA #6743 in 2014 for re- construction of a demolished home requesting side yard and lot coverage relief and ZBA #5516 from 2004 also for the relief of 'side yard setbacks. (inaudible) for my client to come up and explain to you the property and why they are looking to increase the second floor. HENRY HINTZE : Good morning. My name is Henry Hintze I am the owner of-the property. The house has not been renovated for quite some time so I'm actually looking to reduce my carbon footprint overall. I'm very environmentally conscious. I'm looking to do this in a green and (inaudible) as well as a well building manner. The flat roof that we're looking to go over has given us nothing but trouble for the last thirty years. We can't seem to find a flat roof roofer anywhere that can make something hold up for more than five years. So in looking to renovate the home especially the interior of the home to bring it up to today's codes and more January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting environmentally friendly we decided to go to also look to put the extend onto the existing first floor within the same footprint so there'll be no excavations or anything like that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And there's no increase in your lot coverage then, it's still 22.4%. HENRY HINTZE : Yeah not at all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just so you're aware the Board does do site inspections of all the applications so we've seen your existing house and what you're proposing and what the neighborhood looks like so can you tell us a little bit about your existing sanitary system. It says it's unknown and hasn't been sited somewhere. On the LWRP report it says that what you're proposing in inconsistent because you're adding four additional bedrooms. BROOKE EPPERSON : I can answer that. No the original application I handed in the plans stated that the second floor had four new bedrooms but that was a mistake on our part. They should have said modified and I did bring in some existing floor plans a couple of weeks ago to show what the second floor looks like now and you can see that there are four bedrooms up there plus the existing bedroom on the first floor for a total of five and five is what is proposed in the construction. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you already have five bedrooms, your sanitary is servicing this five bedrooms? HENRY HINTZE : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Can you tell us where it exists? Is it on the survey or not on the survey? HENRY HINTZE : The septic? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and what condition it's in. BROOKE EPPERSON : It's on the SP100 that I handed in with the application. There's two wells by the existing framed shed and then a third one CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright you got it on here. Probably Mark didn't see that at the time. He's the LWRP coordinator. He didn't see where it was located. Do you know when that was installed? HENRY HINTZE : Morris has done all of our sanitary work so two of them have been there probably for twenty years and I think the third one was added maybe ten years ago. 36 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When there are major renovations or new construction being proposed particularly close to any sort of water you know kind of fragile wetland or something the Board has been discussing with applicants the possibility of upgrading their existing sanitary if it's an older system into something that is a little bit more you know advanced in its ability to treat wastewater properly have you thought about doing that? HENRY HINTZE : So I have thought about it and I'm doing a lot of research omit (power failure machine shut down) MEMBER DANTES : So what you're saying you talked to an engineer and he tells you that the new sanitary system don't actually treat the nitrogen? HENRY HINTZE : Not that it's just that he felt the jury was still out on it to be quite honest with you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well there are actually we had some training at our own request by the Department of Health to give us some background information on what current practice is and there are a number of options out there and there are various levels of feedback on them. I think they have actually just now there are now there's one they have chosen that they're giving permits out for. You might give them a call just to have a look and see what's involved cause too when you're upgrading bedrooms and things and the system is old I think those of us who care particularly as you said about the environment and are anywhere near wetlands or water in particular (inaudible)thinking about doing that. HENRY HINTZE : And we do and you know I don't know if any of you (inaudible) did my environmental survey and he'll tell you how we've maintained the environment around the house for forty years. That's something you just maintain before the surveyor comes in cause years and years of growth there and for good reason. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's glad to hear that you have that concern for protecting our environment. Anything from the Board, let's hear what Eric? MEMBER DANTES : I have one question. How close are you to being the definition to a demolition from the town's demo code? HENRY HINTZE : I'm sorry say again. MEMBER DANTES : How close for this proposed scope of work how close are you to being a definition'of a demolition? HENRY HINTZE : I'm not understanding the question to be quite honest with you. 3T January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting BROOKE EPPERSON : So the first floor the exterior walls are not being touched. We will need to take off the existing roof and go from there. So if you look at the existing BX200 it's that higher roof in the front elevation that is coming off and we're going up so no foundation, no crawl space, no first floor walls nothing on the first floor. There's no site work at all so it would just be the roof and we're going right up with it. MEMBER DANTES : Just a new bathroom on the first floor? HENRY HINTZE : Renovate that yes. MEMBER DANTES : No I'm just asking cause sometimes people come in and they say we're doing this then they don't and demolish the house and then they come back and HENRY HINTZE : No we're not doing that. MEMBER DANTES : We get this whole dog and pony show oh no one knew what was going on. BROOKE EPPERSON : The second floor is staying and we're just expanding (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No I just like to note that in the LWRP it does say that you know you're adding four bedrooms but you're saying that you're not so BROOKE EPPERSON : No we're not. As soon as they modified (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we did get those (inaudible) correctly yeah cause it was confusing MEMBER ACAMPORA :Just for the record I want it on the record. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the houses on either side of you certainly have gotten a lot bigger over time. Life unfolds on the North Fork. Anything Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah a couple of questions relative to the site and the improvement proposed, first of off all I'm not quite understanding Brooks Rd. is it a private road, is it a right of way it's county owned land. HENRY HINTZE : My address has been 560 Pipes Neck Rd. since 1960 and then currently because of 911 call in it's not recognized so they created 590 Brooks Rd. which has created a little bit of a problem for me to begin with. So all my mail goes to 560 Pipes Neck Rd. I mean that is my house but because of the 911 call in they changed with the tax assessors as well, it's now 590 Brooks Rd. 38 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So is Brooks Rd. a town road or HENRY HINTZE : It's actually a dirt road that was caused by (inaudible) Brooks (inaudible) to sneak into his house at night. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So how did you previously access your house? HENRY HINTZE : We always use the dirt road. The dirt road has been there forever. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And then the other question I wanted to ask on either side of your property is county owned land, I noticed that what would appear to be your side yard to the east we have a volley ball net like there's a bunch of I couldn't tell what like umbrellas HENRY HINTZE : So we maintain that yard for the last fifty eight years yeah it's owned by us you know we have a handshake deal with the original owner or so ago and then they cut a deal ten years ago I guess with a developer called Malazzo and all of a sudden it was gone and Malazzo couldn't develop so he sold it to (inaudible) MEMBER PLANAMENTO : To the county. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you maintain that moat area. HENRY HINTZE : Yes . MEMBER PALANEIVITO : And also where the parking is across okay, and then a question wanted to ask relative to the design and the interior plan and I don't think it's necessarily part of this application if I just better understand what's going on, the proposed rear elevation on the waterside shows a third floor balcony, it shows sort of a double dormer along with a shed dormer which would appear to be a door yet there's no third floor plan in the application. HENRY HINTZE : There are no third floor plans. The third floor basically is going to be used to the AC equipment and storage. There's no staircase going up there. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : In the plan it showed that there's a pull down attic stair. HENRY HINTZE : That's what I meant no permanent staircase. I don't have dry storage down in the basement. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's attic storage. HENRY HINTZE : Yeah attic storage. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's a beautiful attic. I can imagine the views. 3 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting HENRY HINTZE : Well I don't know I just honestly (inaudible) to the design I just though it added some character to the house (inaudible) it's not that big of(inaudible) area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else, Rob? Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Hearing no further 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#7255—JOHNNY S. DONADIC and STEVE DONADIC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Johnny S. and Steve Donadic #7235. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's September 4, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to reconstruct an accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% at 325 Willow Point Rd. (adj. to Budd's Pond/Canal) in Southold. Good morning Pat, Happy New Year. PAT MOORE : Good morning Happy New Year. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is a 22.309% lot coverage variance is that correct? PAT MOORE : Yes it is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Parcel did receive a variance #4602 in 1998 for 23.6% lot coverage right? PAT MOORE : Correct. 401 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what else would you like us to know? This is an already been reconstructed,cause PAT MOORE : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's just covered and PAT MOORE : Yeah. This is a replacement,of an existing pool,in kind and place. It is Mr. Donadic who's here he was explaining to me that through storms-and Sandy and thereafter with storms that have come through its shifted some of the plates under the pool and the pool company has said hey you're really on your last leg. Fortunately they were able to at least use it this summer. We had originally hoped that a replacement of in kind and in place when variances for more lot coverage had been approved would be permitted you know a permit that you can get from the Building Department. It's my understanding that the Building Department does not recognize area variances as running with the land if you replace the structure. I think that is incorrect and I'm hoping that in this application which is a pretty straightforward application you can ratify or confirm the law on variances that variances run with the land,-and that an in kind and place replacement should have been a simple building permit issuance. We would have we started this process back in January of 2017 1 think it was. We put in an application to the Building excuse me to the Trustees and that's when it got bounced so ever since we did request de minimus and the Chairman very graciously responded but it was mostly because the Building Department historically has required reapplications on a replacement demolition and replacement. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They view it as extinguished. PAT MOORE : And that as a matter of law doesn't make any sense because if the existing structure certainly in this case we have an existing pool, we're replacing the existing pool. It went through two applications one of which the 'variance that was granted recognized that 'it was that the overall development if the property was consistent, the pool was there it just seems like a very erroneous application to anybody MEMBER DANTES : Right I understand what you're saying but you're not applying for a code interpretation and I mean the Town Board decides the law not us. We just grant relief. PAT MOORE : No the Town Board the Building Department interprets the code MEMBER DANTES : The code but we don't write code. PAT MOORE : I didn't want to ask my client to pay for an interpretation when we (inaudible) here but the Board has through it's the Zoning Board excuse me the Building Department looks 43, January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting at your Zoning Board applications and by the mere fact that you had to take on this application they will then continue to interpret that any historic variances when the structure is being replaced even though it doesn't create any greater increase in the degree of non-conformity or any variances associated with additional variances they will make an applicant go through the process. I don't mean to complicate this application. It's a very straightforward application as an in kind replacement. I will point out that the LWRP recommended drainage but the drainage is already connected. This pool has a backwash and a drainage system and you can see on Fischetti's plans a very kind of a shaded drywell south of the pool and then over to the sides where it says drainage in NDT I don't know I guess he can't see it it's underground. So my client was able to identify it cause it was constructed and it was in place. So I do want to address the questions by LWRP, this pool again it's all an existing condition, it's all been properly drained throughout its existence. It was constructed in '77 and has been there since the seventies and it's time to be replaced. It's not part of the application although we did show it, it's one of the retaining walls we do have in place an existing gravel area non-turf area that was part of the Trustees permit application that was done early on by prior owners so you can see from your own pictures and the plans that we have approximately nine almost ten feet of non-turf area between the existing bulkhead and the retaining wall and then the retaining wall is being the wood retaining wall has deteriorated again it's a wood retaining wall over time and myclient is going to replace it with stone so it one it provides extra protection from the upland obstructions, from any surges from storms and too it's ready to be replaced. That is the overall _ plan. If you have any questions I'd be happy to answer them . MEMBER DANTES : What's the rear yard setback to the swimming pool? PAT MOORE : It is let's see to the retaining wall is 13.5 and then an additional let's say 9 feet so 22, 23, 24. MEMBER DANTES : What's code for this sized property? PAT MOORE : It's an accessory structure so MEMBER DANTES : Yeah but what's the code? PAT MOORE : R40 would be like accessory structures 10 feet, 5 or 10 feet. It had gotten a variance a long time ago for a setback to the bulkhead but that's no longer a variance requirement. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Obviously the pool is closed for the winter, is this a gunite or a liner pool? It looks perhaps to be a liner. PAT MOORE : Liner. 4:1 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And the proposed PAT MOORE : Come on up cause they have to transcribe you know the details. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I want to say restoration but it's installation PAT MOORE : Replacement. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well it's not a replacement is it I don't know. Is it going to be vinyl or gunite? JOHNNY DONADIC : I asked around and everyone's recommending stick with vinyl. I prefer doing gunite but I'm just going with the recommendation of the pool companies. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So a vinyl pool is what you're proposing? JOHNNY DONADIC : Yeah. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And would you please state your name for the record. JOHNNY DONADIC : I'm sorry Johnny Donadic. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. Pat anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Well I'm just wondering are they going to rebuild the build with the same type of frame work or is that going to be different because she said it had shifted and that's why it needs to be replaced so are they going to do the same thing or are they doing something different? JOHNNY DONADIC : It will be the same type of installation but this is from the seventies. imagine pool assembly technology has gotten a little better with the rebar however they're going to assemble it so I couldn't really speak to what's there. The shifting is not a large you know twelve inch shift it's enough to keep the vinyl together really an inch or so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anybody? MEMBER DANTES : What you do is your business but the first time I've ever heard a vinyl being better than gunite, there's a cost difference but I've never heard of anyone saying vinyl is better than gunite. JOHNNY DONADIC : Yeah so because of the static pressure that might be within that region there might be surges cause I'm not that far that's where you know two out of three pool guys told me that vinyl is the way to go and someone's trying to tell me that going with a massive fiberglass shell and dropping it in was a different way of going. I prefer going with a gunite 43 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting actually. My parents have a gunite across the street maybe easier to maintain but we're worried about cracking. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else anybody? There is no one else in the audience. Okay come forward and tell us what you'd like us to know. CHRIS BAIZ : Chris Baiz I live across Bay Home Rd. from the site of the Donadic's houses and I fully support their plan here. I think we should move ahead and let them do it as quickly as possible. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you Chris. You're going to fill the pool with wine? JOHNNY DONADIC : Loyal member of the Old Field wine club. CHRIS BAIZ : You all know what Sandy was and I mean I drove up and down Bay Home Rd. where I could during Sandy and I was I'm amazed that all the houses didn't float away that night because the water was right up to the lawn's top. I don't know how they do it and of course I had 80,000 sq. ft. of bay on my front lawn as well on that night and I think from an engineering point of view yeah I mean I (inaudible) says it's going to stay there forever but if you got all that hydrostatic pressure and I know even now my cellar and my house on full moon and new moon high tides the water's bubbling up through the floor so it's the hydrostatic pressure in these areas is very important. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, thanks for your comments. Okay if there's nothing else from the Board I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting HEARING #7222 SE— MARCO MAIDA and ALEXIS EILEEN NORRIS MAIDA CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Marco Maida and Alexis Eileen Norris Maida #7222SE. Applicants request a Special Exception under Article III Section 280-13B(14). The applicants are the owners requesting authorization to establish an accessory bed and breakfast accessory and incidental to the residential occupancy in this single family dwelling with one (1) bedroom for lodging and serving of breakfast to the B&B casual, transient roomers located at 29745 Main Rd. in Cutchogue. PAT MOORE : Good afternoon, Patricia Moore on behalf of the owners. I have Marco and Alexis here with their newborn who's only four weeks old so hopefully he will be he will enjoy the hearing. This application is taking a space that had historically been a dentist office and you can see from the design of the house, it's kind of a unique house both in materials and layout. It's pre-existing and it has the separate entrance which used to again be the dentist office, that separate entrance provides access directly to the one bedroom. There is a separate bathroom which is as most of you notice it's the only bathroom on the first floor. It would be exclusive to the use of the B&B guest while it's occupied. It's a single family home so obviously if nobody's there then they can use it but for the most part they're young and their two infants so for now the one bathroom full bathroom on the second floor has been certainly adequate. Part of the plan down the line once they get an architect is possibly adding a half bath to the first floor when the kids are getting a little older and need to rush. But anyway the space is very simply laid out. The breakfast is provided as a continental breakfast. We used-the plans that were prepared by the broker years ago when the house was marketed to my clients so it does call it a kitchenette but in fact there's no stove in there. It is a small sitting area with a microwave and small refrigerator for cool drinks. It's accessible again to the B&B guest. The breakfast is provided as a continental breakfast at my clients actually ask the individual would you prefer a homemade breakfast that they would deliver to the room or continental bagels or something from a local deli so it's been working it works out fine as far as just the convenience and comfort to the B&B guest. The property is over two acres. It is quite a large piece of property. The house as I said pre-existing so it's close to the road. It's very walkable so the space has been really a very suitable location to give a couple that are in the unit access to Cutchogue to the Diner, to the Deli, to the Jitney it's very convenient and desirable. We're here really to answer any questions you might have because in the form we addressed all the issues and questions that the B&B application requires so we hope that you find this application acceptable and favorable as a one room B&B. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm just looking on the site plan here on the survey it's written by hand 45 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Yes those are my CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : my copy for the parking. Yeah only requires three and you got more than that anyway. PAT MOORE : Yes I used the code requirements of 10 by 20 which is a relatively larger parking space but as you can see there is ample space. This property is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well what's important here is just simply that there's turn around space also in the driveway so that there's no backing out onto Main Rd. cause that's dangerous. Let's see what the Board has to say, Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have nothing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there we have all the affidavits about ownership let's see we have documentation, driver's license, MEMBER LEHNERT : Star exemption in there. PAT MOORE : Yes this is their principle residence. They actually work remotely. They're he just explained it to me IT media and technology so it really is computer access and even their meetings with clients is remote by computer and screens and they have their two little ones that are growing up here. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Was I mistaken or was there a second address other than the Cutchogue address in the application just relative to residency? PAT MOORE : No just one address that I'm aware of. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I could have sworn I saw something and I forgot to note it. This is your primary residence? PAT MOORE : Yes. MEMBER DANTES : I think on the deed it has their old address on it. PAT MOORE : Oh yes probably. When they purchased they were living in the city and purchased Alexis's parents actually retired and are living in Cutchogue so nearby less than one mile away. MEMBER DANTES : It's a pretty straightforward application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything from you? 46 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : No it's pretty straightforward. I like the idea that they have their own separate entrance cut off from the rest of the house. PAT MOORE : Yeah it's'a nice set up there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not that anybody would back. down a driveway but I'd like to propose that the only thing you have to add is some place in the guest parking area please no backing out to the Main Rd.Just a little safety. PAT MOORE :That's not a problem a little sign. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Board has done it can be a little homemade thing as long as you know people see it as a safety precaution and that also gets your liability taken care of too if someone has an accident God forbid as a consequence of some very heavy traffic on Main Rd. Anything from anybody else, anyone else in the audience wanting to address the application? With B&B's you either meet the standards or you don't it's pretty straightforward. Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close this hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : 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#71975E—ALEJANDRO AZCONA and DANIEL DEVITO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application is for Alejandro Azcona and Daniel Devito #7197SE. These applicants request a Special Exception under Article III Section 280-13B(14).The applicants are the owners requesting authorization to establish an accessory bed and breakfast accessory and incidental to the residential occupancy in this single family dwelling with four (4) 47 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting bedrooms for lodging and serving of breakfast to the B&B casual transient roomers located at 565 South Harbor Rd. in Southold. Good afternoon please state your names for the record. DAN DEVITO : Good afternoon I'm Dan Devito. ALEJANDRO AZCONA : And I'm Alejandro Azcona. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nice to meet you both. So you're proposing a four bedroom B&B in a home that's about 1897 is that the year? DAN DEVITO : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And my notes say that you've lived there since about 2012. DAN DEVITO : We've owned a home in Southold since 2012. We live in this or own this home since November of'17. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And this is your principle residence now? DAN DEVITO : It is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you have one bedroom on the first floor for yourselves with a bathroom, three other bedrooms with bathrooms on the floor plan, four parking spaces and we have documentation of your residency in the file. Let's see what other issues. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And I think Leslie it was my understanding from the application the owner's quarters are on the second floor not the first floor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay yep I have that second floor. So you have three bedrooms upstairs for guests and your own bedroom up there. On the first floor there's one guest room on the first floor that's smart. There are people that sometimes can't do stairs plus as you age you may find it useful for yourself. Let's see if the Board has any questions, let's start down that end Pat any questions you might have? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Not at this moment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And as you know site inspections were conducted to verify what we have in our file. Eric any questions, Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You know I do. So you were kind enough when we did the site inspections to open up the attic access that's from your owner's bedroom stairwell up to the attic and I just wanted to briefly talk about that. Is there any work proposed, planned anything in thought for a third floor? 4$ January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting DANIEL DEVITO : No it's just storage. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It will remain just as storage and mechanicals? DANIEL DEVITO : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't have any further questions. Have you operated a B&B"before just curious? DANIEL DEVITO : We work in the hotel industry. We both worked in hospitality for over twenty five years each. We've worked for brands such as Four Seasons, Mandarin Oriental Hotel Group, Baccarat, Trump International (inaudible) Hilton. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And what are you serving for breakfast? DANIEL DEVITO : Alex is a chef so he can tell you a little bit about that. ALEJANDRO AZCONA '. Breakfast menu to be determined but we want to make sure that it's good and enjoyable. DANIEL DEVITO : It will be a full service breakfast. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The dining room is absolutely appealing to any meal. DANIEL DEVITO : Thank,you very much we appreciate it very much. When we embarked on the renovation of the home we really wanted to keep a lot of the historical and architectural detail. It was very important to preserve kind of the homes that are out here on the North Fork. We have a great appreciation for that. We also used mostly local contractors and suppliers as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wonderful, anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Okay this will be short and sweet. I'm going to 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. 49 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7257SE— HARVEST INN— DAROLYN and CHRISTOPHER AUGUSTA CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good afternoon and Happy New Year. I have two applications here for B&B's and I'm going to open both of them at the same time. Harvest Inn, Darolyn and Christopher August #7257SE and Harvest Inn, Cristina Ilia (Contract Vendee) #7258SE. Both are applicants currently the Augusta's are applicant owners requesting authorization to establish an accessory bed and breakfast accessory and incidental to the residential occupancy in this single family dwelling with five (5) bedrooms for lodging and serving of breakfast to the B&B casual transient roomers and the Contract Vendee, Cristina Ilia under Article III Section 280-13B (14) request authorization to establish an accessory bed and breakfast accessory and incidental to the residential occupancy in this single family dwelling with five (5) bedrooms for lodging and serving of breakfast to the B&B casual transient roomers. Documentation of ownership to be submitted upon closing of sales and occupancy of the subject bed and breakfast structure. Let's see where we should start with this. We've all made site inspections as you know. We've seen what the property looks like. We know it has been operating. Not yet in a second we'll have you come to the mic and testify.'We know that the current owners purchased the home as a B&B 'from the prior owner in 2002 Como. They have been why don't one of you Chris or Darolyn take the podium and let me ask you a couple of questions. Would you just state your name for the record please. DAROLYN AUGUSTA : Darolyn Augusta (inaudible) in Peconic. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you have been residing in this home as your principle dwelling for how long? DAROLYN AUGUSTA : Since October of'03. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of '03 and you have been operating a B&B for how long at that premises? DAROLYN AUGUSTA : Same amount. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Same amount. Have you been inspected by the Building Department? DAROLYN AUGUSTA : Bob Fisher was last there at the end of November. January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we've received something that said December 2017 and inspection also but you say he was there more recently. DAROLYN AUGUSTA : Yeah I've got it right here for the next year beginning in December. We wondered why actually he started in December cause he was there in November but it made sense cause the other permit didn't expire until Decembers o CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cause yes it's an annual inspection it's a twelve month. Alright and it is your intent to sell the premises to a contract vendee who's here? DAROLYN AUGUSTA : Yes Cristina. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay we did get a copy of the contract of sale. DAROLYN AUGUSTA : Yeah. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That you submitted. Let me see if Board members have any questions, let's start down there Rob do you have any questions at this point? MEMBER LEHNERT : Not at this point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : One thing I noticed and you were kind enough during I guess the site visit to give me a tour, you just mentioned that Bob Fisher was at the property inspecting it; based upon the application the Board we talked about this, there's a finished basement so I'm a little confused as far as DAROLYN AUGUSTA : No it's not finished. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's partially finished. DAROLYN AUGUSTA : Right that's the way we purchased it. It's not finished it's like half of it is unfinished storage. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right there's like an exercise room and then a room with some sort of like a bedroom used for someone's nanny or caregiver or something. DAROLYN AUGUSTA : No we don't have a nanny or caregiver. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Oh no, no when we were together you had said that the prior owner I guess the Como's had someone. DAROLYN AUGUSTA : Oh the Como's yes, yes, yes. January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So I'm just curious is there a C.O. that's missing from the application or something for that space? DAROLYN AUGUSTA : Nope it was always there from the moment we bought it. So the C.O. we have includes that. T. A. DUFFY : Not necessarily. If the C.O. is issued before there was the basement was converted and you bought it it's not covered. DAROLYN AUGUSTA : Gottcha well guess what, it's been there since we purchased it so T. A. DUFFY : It doesn't matter. DAROLYN AUGUSTA : No, no I'm not arguing the point I'm just saying we wouldn't have known any different because we purchased the home that way. When we were here with the Como's in '03 the same thing so when we were before you all. CHRISTOPHER AUGUSTA : If I may add since we've owned and operated the property the room down there the exercise room has been there and the other room that was being used for the Como's for a different purpose is just an office for our own private use that we have. It's never been used as another space for occupancy if you will. DAROLYN AUGUSTA : The point I think is that we wouldn't have known any different when we purchased that was all there let me put it that way so that's all we know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well the reason MEMBER DANTES : Wait Leslie what's the gentleman's name? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's Mr. Augusta that's Christopher Augusta. Would you just state your name. CHRISTOPHER AUGUSTA : Christopher Augusta Darolyn's husband. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The line of questioning is there because our obligation and our responsibility to you and to the town is to make sure that all the paperwork is in place that's all. So anything that we observe on any application whether it's a sprinkler head turning the wrong way over the bluff we need to address it. DAROLYN AUGUSTA : I guess what I'm trying to say is that the C.O. we have is for the property just as purchased. There's been no additions or anything. So if you need anything else from us we're happy to provide it but that has been there since we closed on the property. January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting T. A. DUFFY : I'm telling you you're misinterpreting the law and no matter how many times you say it you're incorrect., It's not the C.O. does not cover how you purchased it. The C.O. there might have been a C.O. it doesn't state that's the,condition of the house DAROLYN AUGUSTA : By the way I'm not arguing T. A. DUFFY : Let me finish. You're saying the same thing over and over again even though I've corrected you two times. So the C.O. is good says that on the day that the Building Department went there it met the requirements when I was there. It's not saying that it was good for you and the condition when you purchase it DAROLYN AUGUSTA : I understand. T. A. DUFFY : Well you keep saying something different so I'm not sure you do. DAROLYN AUGUSTA : Let me try it a different way. T. A. DUFFY : It's not a defense that you bought with a C.O. DAROLYN AUGUSTA : I'm not trying to defend because we're just as surprised with the questions come up. Here's what I'm trying to say, the C.O. what'i stated before and what we went through when we purchased it we wouldn't have known any different. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying that's all we know is the paperwork that's there so what do we need to do? If there's something more that we need to do because we don't know the property any other way than that. T. A. DUFFY : You have to do to the Building Department and make sure that the C.O. covers that basement or get a C.O. for the work that was done in the basement. DAROLYN AUGUSTA : Okay we can do that that's fine. We never knew that we had to cause of course we thought it was as I said as is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not terribly uncommon for people to purchase things, find them in a certain condition and then realize later that somebody went and renovated an entire basement when in fact the C.O. says unfinished basement. CHRISTOPHER AUGUSTA : Because it was new construction when the Como's built the property and probably foolishly and it's certainly worth a trip to the Building Department everything that was there we assumed was done there during the construction of the property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that's understandable. -53 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting CHRISTOPHER AUGUSTA : We'll certainly go to the Building Department to reaffirm that it's covered and if it's not we'll get somebody down there to make sure it does. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you know you're contract vendee wants to make sure that that's in place. DAROLYN AUGUSTA : And what I was trying to say is not to be argumentative what do we need to do because to our surprise it's been there since we purchased in answer to your question. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's one thing. The reason that you're before us simultaneously with the contract vendee is because both situations are a little bit unusual in that somehow you assumed or thought you had a permit to operate the bed and breakfast legally. DAROLYN AUGUSTA : Do you want me to explain Leslie? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I want to just enter into the record the reason you're here and then you can say whatever you'd like to say. The fact of the matter is, is that we've discovered that when you came to talk to me and Town Attorney and Supervisor that we had nothing on the record with your name on it for the B&B. We had the original B&B operator the Como's. So just to make sure all the paperwork is in place you are here to legalize the current operation so that when a contract vendee takes over that then is not transferable, it's just to get it in place historically. You cannot transfer from one person to another because you have to be a person who's living in the property and owning it. So what we will wind up doing is legalizing this. We will then look at your application. We understand it's jumping the gun a little. We have never previously granted something to someone who didn't already occupy the premises and own the premises so we're trying this to see if we can move this forward so that you may operate a B&B legally but you will have to of course provide us with a contract of sale, with a deed and so on and then with other documentation to show occupancy. That's why I'm opening these together so that we can just address all the issues. The same floor plans you know you're not making any changes to the actual B&B and how it's operating. Plenty of parking on site we looked at that and now is there something that you wanted to say Darolyn? DAROLYN AUGUSTA : I appreciate all that you just said. We're just confused cause we did this we were here at a meeting just like this as you and I talked about fourteen years ago and we're not sure what fell through the cracks so any guidance you gave we followed. We didn't know what else to do and I think you agreed we don't have anybody still on board that was there back then. We know the Como's and we were here but there's nothing else we can CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we can't turn up any records. We have records going back for I don't know seventy, eighty years in Laser Fische and so 541 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting DAROLYN AUGUSTA : We went through archives and everything and we think the Como's probably have them but at that point we thought it was easier just to do this as you suggested because you know it is funny because it is and I know it's a different department but our names are on other things so who knows what happened. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see Pat do you have any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric any questions? MEMBER DANTES : Yes. If you look at the contract of sale it mentions four different LLC's. There's one LLC that owns the house, one LLC that owns the business and then the purchaser that's going to purchase the house in an LLC and then purchase the business in an LLC. DAROLYN AUGUSTA : Can you help with that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you come to the mic and state your name please. MEMBER DANTES : Wait she has two but don't you have an LLC? CRISTINA ILLA : My name is Cristina Ilia. MEMBER DANTES : Who owns the LLC's? CRISTINA ILLA : The LLC that's going to be owning the house is going to be Ursula my daughter, her father and myself. So the three and the only purpose that we did the LLC was because the lawyers recommended for the purchase to have the house in an LLC no other issue. MEMBER DANTES : Who's going to own the LLC that owns the business? CRISTINA ILLA : Ursula and myself. MEMBER DANTES : Can you provide copies of those? CRISTINA ILLA : I'm sorry. MEMBER DANTES : We need copies of those. CRISTINA ILLA : Sure. My (inaudible) which is the LLC that's going to be operating the Inn has been under my name for a few years but we have not been operating anything because we have not found the right business to operate. So Ursula and I will be will be owning my (inaudible) and Ursula's dad and myself will be owning the house and Ursula and I will be living here in the house. 55 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're going to need that, copies of that. The reason we're asking is because LLC's typically are business oriented you know tax oriented and so on. The Bed and Breakfast Special Exception permit in this town MEMBER DANTES : I'm sorry did you say one of the LLC's involved your husband? Was there a third member on one of the LLC's? CRISTINA ILLA : The house is going to be owned by the three of us. MEMBER DANTES : So all three of you will be residing at the house? CRISTINA ILLA : Ursula's father will be not full time there. Ursula and I will be full time there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're going to need an affidavit of principle occupancy also, notarized. The reason being MEMBER DANTES : Well Leslie the last prior one LLC we've approved all the members of the LLC were residents. We've never approved where one member is not a resident. CRISTINA ILLA : It's like a personal situation that I don't want to get into at this very moment. He might eventually be full there but at this time he cannot be full time there. CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : The point is if we have in the record the fact that the individuals who are proposing to operate the B&B are in occupancy as their principle residence. CRISTINA ILLA : For sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Name all three, I don't care if you say how many days of the year somebody is in occupancy. If it's their residence and you are going to both be there full time year round operating this business we just need to know that because the code does not allow us to grant a B&B to an LLC. It only allows us to grant it to an owner occupant and that is because the spirit of that code was always to say if someone lives in a house and they want to operate a B&B as an accessory incidental to their dwelling to their home ownership that's what this code was set up to do. What we want to be careful about is going forward you know the town is developing at a fast pace and people from out of town come are attempting to operate businesses not just B&B's but businesses in general where in fact the code wasn't set up for that. So we want to make sure that you will not questioning that you will be we just need the paperwork in place to ensure that you will be occupying as your principle residence this address and that is where you will be running this B&B from. I know that is your intent I believe that is your intent but 56 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting CRISTINA ILLA : Not only the intent and the reason that you know that we are buying this house and the B&B's because this is going to be my forever house. It's not only a temporary thing for two weeks. It's my forever home eventually. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that okay Eric? MEMBER DANTES : It's something we have to talk about we've never had a B&B where we didn't make all members of the LLC be residents. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did it once. This is the first time with this one. We've never had a contract vendee either so we're getting a great deal of challenge before us with regard to the proliferation of these kinds of requests and I think I've said it before and I'm going to say it again, I think this is the purview of the Town Board who makes code, who passes legislation. I've brought it to their attention and there are things they need to think about and decide how they want to handle and the Town Attorney and I are prepared with the Zoning Board to go back; we've already been before the Board once and identified some issues and it's time for us to go back again. So that we will be doing in the future. That does not have an impact on your current applications, they are what they are but as you can see we are stretching the boundaries of this envelope substantially by taking on a contract vendee by looking at what does an LLC mean; these are not things that existed previously. People owned the house and they wanted to open up a couple of bedrooms you know for guests. Now they're kind of turning into part of the hospitality industry out here and they are a part of a business model which the Town Board has to decide how they want to handle because it's not just necessarily something that's incidental to somebody's principle dwelling anymore not in every case. In some cases it is and some cases it's not. MEMBER DANTES : Who owns the Dacon Ltd.? DAROLYN AUGUSTA : DCA1 is us. I was just going to interject, it's interesting cause I understand what (inaudible) I,would hope everybody, ZBA and Attorney's,counsel every B&B owner out here to establish an LLC for insurance purposes. We've had one on good advice for a full ten years DCA1 which Eric asked about. So we did it after the fact after we purchased but I would assume and hope that everybody does cause you need to if no other reasons for insurance purposes. MEMBER DANTES : But who is the owner? I mean you and your husband are the only two owners of it? DAROLYN AUGUSTA : Yep. MEMBER DANTES : And you're also the residents of the house. 571 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting DAROLYN AUGUSTA : Yep and so will they be. CRISTINA ILLA : On my (inaudible) the LLC operating the B&B is just Ursula's and mine but Ursula's dad is helping to pay for the house. MEMBER LEHNERT : Haven't we asked previous LLC's to document who owns what? MEMBER DANTES : We had the articles of incorporation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They're going to submit that. CRISTINA ILLA : But there's no other purpose of this LLC than to rent the rooms so basically we took their model because we want to continue the same thing. The same thing that they were doing instead of them would be Ursula and myself. So the same you know we're not changing the name, we're not changing the beds, we're not changing anything so we're continuing and that's why the idea would be to keep the bookings and everything so one day we'll just be there instead of Mr. and Mrs. Augusta. So that's the spirit of what we're trying to do here. MEMBER DANTES : I also don't know of where we approved a B&B without one of the owners on the deed not being a resident of the house. CRISTINA ILLA : What was that I'm sorry. MEMBER DANTES : Every owner we see with a B&B all the owners on the deed were also residents of the house. CRISTINA ILLA : As I said at this time of my life Javier is not living with us but he might you know be back but not at this very moment but at the same time he is also Ursula's father and he's been you know I moved to the States with him thirty five years ago and he's not only my daughter's father he's also my best friend so he wants this to happen for us and he's just putting money with the buying the actual property. So this is very personal but I mean if I need to share it I'll share it but if you want an affidavit from him saying that what I'm saying is true that of course it's true. So the situation is because we had this opportunity that's what you know we dreamt of the situation. We talked with Ursula many times about this situation or a similar situation not necessarily to here somewhere else maybe and it just happened so at this time Ursula's father was able to help us you know with the purchase of the house and understanding for the business the part of the Air B&B we will be just doing ourselves here that's all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This application is unorthodox in many ways. We're just going to have to plow our way through it, get all the information in the record that we can. 58T 1 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : I think the application will have to be changed to Cristina Illa, put your daughter's name and your husband's name on the application. CRISTINA ILLA : That's we know is not a problem if that's what you prefer. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I think that's probably not if in fact someone puts their name on the application and is not in residence that's not making it better. I mean I'm satisfied if there are two people that are there full time year round operating this B&B and there's a third investor who may or may not be there part time. But the question that arises, you're proposing a five bedroom B&B and there's a sixth bedroom for your occupancy correct? CRISTINA ILLA : There's a big bedroom and there's a small bedroom behind it. There's two bedrooms upstairs. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That are not part of the B&B operation? CRISTINA ILLA : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay because you're each going to need a bedroom. CRISTINA ILLA : We do. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's not on the floor plan. It's a den not a bedroom. CRISTINA ILLA : Well Ursula's bed is there and then we share a bathroom. We live in the city the same way. DAROLYN AUGUSTA : It was built to be two bedrooms. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah but the waste water permit,is only for five. MEMBER LEHNERT : The Health Department permit says five bedrooms. CRISTINA ILLA : There are five bedrooms in the B&B. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : For the B&B it's five bedrooms. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The construction documents. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Those are old those are not I don't think these are brand new are they? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah but they said they've never done any work since the Como's built it. January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : It says study not a bedroom. CHRISTOPHER AUGUSTA : It's always been seven bedrooms and seven bathrooms. When the Como's owned the property .one bedroom was for Joseph and Christina Como. The other bedroom was for their daughter. The only reason that it's not a bedroom now is because we didn't need it as a bedroom. We have our bedroom and I was just using it as a T.V.'room. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's fine. We just need to make sure that,the people who,are living there have a bedroom that's all. So this is a seven bedroom house. Alright so two for the owner occupants, five for B&B transient. I think the drawings that you submitted were the original construction drawings from Como right that you got? These drawings here where you outline the bedrooms DAROLYN AUGUSTA : We got them from the town. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : From the town Building Department. Alright we'll have to MEMBER LEHNERT : (inaudible) from the Health Department can solve that question, answer that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what we'll have to do. We'll have to see what's on the record with the Building Department you know cause the Health Department you want to make sure that there's if that's an accurate acceptable seven bedroom Health Department certificate for seven bathrooms and seven bedrooms. Now if there was seven bathrooms on there MEMBER DANTES : They don't count bathrooms. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They're just counting bedrooms so the Building Department will have that information and if that Health Department thing needs to be updated then we'll request that you update it that's all. CHRISTOPHER AUGUSTA : I intend from and obviously just from the base that I've heard here there's a couple of issues that I need to go to the Building Department about this certainly being one of them and then the priors on what Mr. Planamento had brought up about the basement and that would be addressed tomorrow. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Fine that's good. Okay anything else from the Board at this time? I'll tell you what, let me do this let me just adjourn this to two weeks so that you just have time to kind of sort out all this stuff and then we can close it in two weeks and have a decision rendered. We probably will have the decision in two weeks but instead of just closing it now in case there's anything dangling and out there that we need to address we'll give you time to address it and you can call the office with an update of any information you might have found 6Q I - - January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting out and we'll go ahead and start working on writing some drafts and presumably there will be no further questions. If there are we'll just continue till they're resolved that's all. CHRISTOPHER AUGUSTA : Will Cristina have to return in two weeks as well? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No. As long as we have what we need from you there's no one even needs to appear in two weeks. The meeting that we will have in two weeks that we're adjourning to is at five o'clock in the Annex upstairs. It's not a public hearing. There's no testimony. It's where the Board deliberates on draft findings. It's open to the public, you're welcome to sit in but what we would be doing is saying,do we have all our questions answered you know does everything that we talked about at the hearing is that our resolve or is there something else that needs to be done and I don't anticipate we're going to need another public hearing on this. DAROLYN AUGUSTA : Can I just to recap I think I know what our deliverables are and you said to ask Cristina so did I hear Eric say copies of the MEMBER DANTES : The DACON Ltd., the two LLC's of the purchase with the schedules of who owns them. DAROLYN AUGUSTA : With the what what? l MEMBER DANTES : On the bottom of the articles of incorporation or the back there's usually it says there's a schedule of who owns it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The owners. T. A. DUFFY :The LLC's members. CRISTINA ILLA : The lawyers created the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah just get a copy. DAROLYN AUGUSTA : So we'll get those two copies and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : To Kim. DAROLYN AUGUSTA : We've already got a sworn affidavit from Cristina about full time residency so we need Ursula to do that as well. " CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We'll need one from Ursula and that would take care of them. You need to check with the Building Department to make sure that seven bathrooms are covered MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Bedrooms. January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm sorry you need seven bathrooms but you need a permit for seven bedrooms. Suffolk County Health Department permit and just find out if the C.O. covers what's going on in your basement. If not you need an updated C.O. from the Building Department for whatever they determine the status of the basement. We had an application not long ago that's had a C.O. for an unfinished basement that was turned into like three bedrooms and two bathrooms and I mean it was a fully developed floor. You could walk out from there but you know it certainly was not in any way reflected on the C.O. We had to get that straightened out. DAROLYN AUGUSTA : I understand. That's what we were confused about before it's all we know. MEMBER DANTES The Building Department should have the Suffolk County Health Department CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They'll have the Health Department CHRISTOPHER AUGUSTA : The Building Department should have that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah they'll have a copy. Do you have any questions of us? CRISTINA ILLA : Do you need anything from Ursula's dad? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you just come to the mic and ask that question because we're recording and just state your name please. URSULA SALA-ILLA : I just wanted to make sure because I was taking notes along the lines of what you guys needed and I think initially Eric requested us to maybe also have an affidavit from Javier my father saying that he was on board or what I'm not sure I didn't really quite understand what you needed from him to specify that he was the third party in owning the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that complicates it to tell you the truth. I mean I understand where you're going Eric and I see MEMBER DANTES :This way we can figure out T. A. DUFFY : You've already stated that he's one of the members of the LLC that's going to own the property. He's not going to live there so I don't see what you can add to it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Just leave it then he can come and go as he pleases. CHRISTOPHER AUGUSTA : And we'll get that information as quickly as possible. 62 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : What is Ursula's last name for the record? URSULA SALA-ILLA : Says and spells name. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright thank you Ursula. Hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to adjourn this matter to the Special Meeting on January 17th. 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. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING# 6839—WILLIAM A. PENNEY, III and SUKRU ILGIN (CV) (SOUTHOLD GAS STATION) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good afternoon everyone. The next application before the Board is for William A. Penney III and Sukru [[gin (CV) Southold Gas Station #6839. This was adjourned from a public hearing before this Board on 7/2/2015 and so I will not read the Notice of Disapproval again but I do want to do a little bit of updating. First of all there is another application that was advertised for variances for this subject property. That was application #6840 and these were for primarily setbacks and pumps and so on and so forth. That application we have received a new Notice of Disapproval indicating that the project has been scaled back and now completely complies with all of the setback requirements in the bulk schedule of the town code, which means that we are officially accepting the letter of request from the applicant's attorney to withdraw that application. There is no longer a need for any variance relief. What is before us today is a Special Exception permit request. Let me give you a little bit of background on this. Public hearings were held before this Board for the proposed use of a gas station and convenience store on June 4, 2015, July 2, 2015 and April 2, 2015. The matter was adjourned from this Board to the Planning Board. The Planning Board has to provide site plan approval on this application. The Planning Board also conducted a full state 63 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting environmental quality review called SEQRA. No decision by Planning or Zoning can be made without a determination as to the impacts that SEQRA requires us to look at. This Board reviewed the Planning Board's SEQRA recommendations which were (inaudible) and submitted to us. The Board our Board, Zoning Board adopted the Planning Board's SEQRA findings let me see what that date was, on November 15, 2018 so just recently. We have a copy of the findings and since that time this project has been scaled back considerably from what the original proposal was and there are also proposals in the SEQRA findings to mitigate any potential adverse impacts. Before I get into any of that I'd like to ask counsel Mr. Cuddy to please come forward to the mic and to bring this Board and the audience up to date on precisely what is now being proposed for this site known previously as Tidy Car. CHARLES CUDDY : I'm Charles Cuddy. I have an office at 445 Griffin Ave. Riverhead N.Y. and representing the applicant. Right now we have essentially what would be four stations. We'll have eight pumps and we will have a convenience store of three thousand square feet. That convenience store is set back as you indicated appropriately so it's a hundred feet back. The convenience store is a separate entity. It's also a permitted use for the site but the gas station and Mr. Nicosia will show on his plan is now cut back or setback anyway so that it is only eight units that will be pumping gas. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This site plan is the current site plan that was before the Planning Board. I understand we don't have current architectural drawings of the elevations and floor plans, they were also changed is that correct? I just want to get all of the bits and pieces into the record so that everybody knows what's needed, what we have. ERIC NICOSIA : Eric Nicosia 82 Rocky Point Landing Rd. in Rocky Point.The CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You are the architect. ERIC NICOSIA : Yes I am the architect for the project and in adapting the site layout to eliminate the variance items you had just discussed one of the items was the building the restriction was on the sixty foot maximum dimension for the building. So it had been 75 by 45 and it's been reduced to 60 by 50 and the elevation is substantially the same. There was just taking out proportionally from the building that dimension to get it from that 75 down to the 60. So I didn't have that for today it was a little bit short notice but it is substantially similar elevation you probably won't notice the difference to it when it's changed. It's just taking out some of the proportionally from each section of it and the canopy of course was larger and now that's been reduced and that's (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The building is 50 by 60 feet, how many parking spaces do we have? Do we still have thirty two and are you land banking some of them? 6 J4 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting ERIC NICOSIA : Yes we have the same amount of spacing I'm sure that we could do the land banking. I hadn't discussed it exactly with the client but there's certainly some of them I see right away that we could land bank without hurting the function of the building there's still plenty of parking. So the canopy would be 60 by 42. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 60 by 42, 1 think it was originally 92 by 42? ERIC NICOSIA : Yes correct we had taken out a pump that's two sided and then a hundred foot setbacks of course which have been adjusted and I didn't want to step I can go into some more about some of what been adjusted. Also in part of that the entrance on Youngs Ave. has been moved back from the intersections significantly about thirty additional feet further back from the intersection which is helpful and of course the canopy and the building has been moved behind that hundred foot setback and we still have approximately 47% of the lot is in natural or landscaped to remain natural and landscaped. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Those are the buffers that are along the what would be the rear of the building. ERIC NICOSIA : Correct the rear CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Adjacent to the residential property. ERIC NICOSIA : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And then there's a substantial landscaped buffer that turns the corner at the intersection. ERIC NICOSIA : Correct about 75 feet on Youngs Ave. is open to the open air and landscaping. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you addressed the buffers. I know that there had been considerable concern about ingress and egress and turning lanes and traffic and so on. Can you address a little bit more about the various you already addressed moving back the entrance and exit on Youngs farther from the intersection. Tell us about the turning lanes on ERIC NICOSIA : I guess I would defer to Steve Schneider we have here with us as our traffic consultant if that is appropriate. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes. STEVEN SCHNEIDER : I was here before, my name is Steven Schneider, Schneider Engineering 1 Comac Loop Ronkonkoma, N.Y. 11779. 1 prepared the original traffic study and obviously traffic is always an issue and ingress and egress is always an issue. I would say a couple of quick notes, the original traffic study that was done originally in 2015 the end of 2015 that presumed twelve 6� January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting pumps alright I'm sorry let's see twelve pump stations and they now have eight so whatever those numbers were before which were (inaudible) the level of service at the intersection as well as the driveways at that time with the higher numbers cause the more pumps you have the more trips could be generated normally it's generated to a gas station keeping the same basic footprint it doesn't make a difference where the footprint is on the site for the convenience store alright the numbers would be drastically less it's around forty percent less to be honest but even if you kept the same numbers the levels of service for either A or B at the intersection during the peak hours or weekends we looked at as well and on a the two driveways there were A and C but they did not change from what's there now. I also will mention I should mention that I normally do these types of studies you know I'm adding traffic but I presume I'm adding from zero to whatever we're adding to. I didn't take credit for what was already there not that there was that much being generated at the site so I just took it all but to answer your question the key in this case was moving that easterly driveway as far south as possible. Obviously you have to stay within the property line because anytime you put a driveway you want to keep it as far from the intersection as possible. That would be on CR48 as well as on Youngs and that's what they did here physically. The cars could come out of the easterly driveway and make a left if they wanted to but if a person's coming to the site and usually it's pass by traffic most of the traffic is coming on CR48 so they'll be coming in there and they may go out there or they could make a left turn on the east driveway and very easily make a left turn to go out back to 48. So site distance is not a problem, you know the movement is not a problem, the levels of service which is basically a grade they give on intersections like a test score. A-you're the only person on the road it's wonderful, F-everybody is on the road. If you get A, B's and C's that's not a problem whatsoever and there's no site distance issues here either. To answer your question there's no egress or ingress issues here at all. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : May I just ask a question Mr. Schneider? I just wanted to clarify on the updated site plan that I was offered I don't see arrows for traffic but you're clearly stating that for both access points from the north or CR48 and from Youngs Ave. you have two way traffic, exit and enter on both sides. STEVEN SCHNEIDER : That's correct yes and now with a convenience store back further it makes it easier to come out of the convenience store and go right back on to CR48. I think previously it had it somewhere closer to the intersection. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Excuse me I have another question, so if you have cars exiting and going left to go back up to the light to make a left hand turn. STEVEN SCHNEIDER : Yes. MEMBER ACAMPORA : What about the other driveway will there be a sign, no left hand turns? 66 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting STEVEN SCHNEIDER : Well you can't make a left turn if you want we can put that in but you can't make a left turn on 48 because there's an island there. I mean if you want a sign there we can put a no left hand turn there. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : There's no island. STEVEN SCHNEIDER : Is it painted there? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No. STEVEN SCHNEIDER : It's gone. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No because you have a lot of people who are not familiar with the area who come here in the summer and they're going to try and make a left hand turn they would think they could get out quick on 48 that's happening. STEVEN SCHNEIDER : Was is happening is a no left hand turn sign. MEMBER ACAMPORA : What about also which was my concern originally about also asking the County to put arrows, turning arrows because there again there's going to be problems with cars going east trying to make a turn to come down Youngs Ave. There's no left hand arrow there. STEVEN SCHNEIDER : You said a left turn or a right turn? MEMBER ACAMPORA : A left turn heading south on Youngs. I think the County would need to put a left turn arrow there. ' STEVEN SCHNEIDER : Westbound you're saying there not eastbound? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Going westbound correct. STEVEN SCHNEIDER : Going westbound making a left turn MEMBER ACAMPORA : To go south on Youngs. STEVEN SCHNEIDER : Well we can ask them to do that. I mean it's their property. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Because the traffic is increasing dramatically and of course safety should be the number one issue that everybody cares about. STEVEN SCHNEIDER : With me it's one, two and three to be honest. MEMBER ACAMPORA : On my scale safety that's the government's number one issue should be safety. 67. January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting STEVEN SCHNEIDER : We will suggest it to the County cause it's their roads. We can't tell them what to do only recommend them what to do. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Well I know I had asked the Town Planner also and nobody ever thought about the turning arrows being something that I think is necessary whether or not this was there anyway because of the volume of traffic that's coming out here now. STEVEN SCHNEIDER : Well they have turning arrows down to the west I know. They have a lot of turning arrows. MEMBER ACAMPORA : They do but not here at this particular intersection. STEVEN SCHNEIDER : Maybe it's a maintenance issue but I will send a letter to them a suggestion and I'll CC you so that you know that it went out. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know who's going to be able to address this so I'm just going to ask the question, on page seven on the SEQRA findings which we adopted that were done by Planning Department let's see, they're looking at potential mitigation to any impacts. One of them is to request that the applicant agree to restrict the hours of operation so that this site is not open twenty four hours a day to provide some relief from the light pollution and the noise to the adjacent residential neighbors. Is there someone who can address that? CHARLES CUDDY : I was going to indicate to you I will now that we agreed to all of the mitigation measures. It will not be open twenty four hours a day. It will be open 6 a.m. to 12 but it will not be open twenty four hours a day. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 6 a.m. to 12 p.m. T. A. DUFFY : A.M. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A.M. sorry 6 a.m. to 12 a.m. okay. You have agreed to all the mitigation on 7? CHARLES CUDDY : Yes every single one of them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you like me to read you what those are? I think the audience might be interested. Reduce the number of fuel pump stations to no more than eight. Twelve were originally proposed. Eight means there are four of those island things with you know a car on either side so when they say they don't mean eight of those stations they mean four with one on each side alright. Reduce the size of the canopy which has already been done. Reduce the hours of operation, provided additional screening with landscaping and a fence to the 6� January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting neighboring residential property, I believe that's already on the site plan. By the way the site plan is right up there so if any of you want to go take a look and see what it looks like now we can provide time for you to do that. Preserve existing trees on site to the extent that's feasible. The storage and sale of vehicles on site is prohibited. The use of security cameras should be employed to deter a crime. Loitering on site should be prohibited. No littering,signs should be posted and litter should be picked up promptly and that's it. CHARLES CUDDY :The applicant has agreed to all of that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The applicant has agreed to adhere to all of those conditions those mitigation factors. Now let's see if the Board members have any other questions or comments about what we know so far or is there anything else you would like us to know that you'd like to CHARLES CUDDY : I think you have'addressed the question of light and we're going to comply with the dark sky requirements and obviously we have to go to the Planning Board if we get approval here and I'm sure that that will be part of their approval too. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'd also like to just point out to the people who live along Youngs particularly the owner of the property that's adjacent, the building has been moved away from that property line substantially. The back of the building is now facing the Town of Southold land that's just to the west of the property and what is the setback I'm looking here that's the setback to the it's all fenced but that's not that's to the trash bin the loading I'm looking to see 47.4 feet-okay. So from the residential property that's just next to it on Youngs the building is now setback 47.4 feet away and-there's a buffer zone of landscaping and a fence and you will be dark sky compliant with the lighting which the code requires. There will be some light pollution of necessity by the canopy because the canopies high-it has to be by code fire code but the canopy has,been reduced a lot in size so that's still is going to remain on site and it's all going to be directed downward,it's not going to go up into the sky according to the information that we've got. CHARLES CUDDY : And that's the same as the canopy at Cherry Hill which is a new canopy that does the same thing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where's Cherry Hill? CHARLES CUDDY : I'm sorry,that's the gas station that's on the Main Rd. on Bayview. I'm sorry Willow Hill I was told it was Cherry Hill. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I thought it was a golf course. So that's what'it's going to be the size of it? January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting CHARLES CUDDY : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do the Board members have any questions or comments at this point? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just curious looking at the site plan Mr. Cuddy there's an existing sidewalk that you're proposing to reconstruct along CR48 that bends along the curve south on Youngs Ave. but then it stops prior to the I guess Youngs Ave. entrance exit, is there a reason why it doesn't continue? CHARLES CUDDY : No I think that we'll probably discuss that with the Planning Board but I anticipate that it will continue. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So there will be sidewalk all along the perimeter of the site? CHARLES CUDDY : Yeah. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick anything else Nick or Rob anything from you at this point? MEMBER LEHNERT : Not at this point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from any of the other people here representing the applicant at this point or would you like me to open this up to the public? CHARLES CUDDY : I would like to speak if I may. First of all I just want to point out that the site is a large site, 66,000 sq. ft. which is twice the size that you need in the general business district. I'd also point out to you that it's surrounded essentially by business property. The north is limited business, the west is limited business, the south is the RO district residential office and east is all general business. I would also point out to you that the building that exists there is 3,400 sq. ft. it's bigger than the building we're proposing and obviously that building is going to be removed. I think that it's important that we consider the section 280-143, that indicates and if you don't mind I'd like to go through it with you because that indicates the matters that need to be considered by the Board and there are quite a few of them and if you don't mind I'll go through them because I think we need to address each of those matters. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would be helpful. CHARLES CUDDY : First one talks about the character of the existing and probable development of uses in the district and the (inaudible) suitability of such district for location of the permitted uses. Our response is that the route 48 corridor from Horton Lane to Boisseau Ave. has been developed with businesses and offices in both the general business and limited business district. It's a main thoroughfare and has been significantly improved by the County of Suffolk. 70 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting The general business district in which the parcel is located and is designated in the zoning code is an area particularly set aside for gasoline service stations. It's the one area in the town the general business district you can have a service station in it. The next item is the conservation of property values and the encouragement of the most appropriate use of the land. This site has been in existence as a commercial use for more than fifty years. It was originally as people know a gas station. That stopped a number of years ago but the use that's being made today is a commercial use again and that area has been developed commercially. The next one says that the effect of the location of the proposed use and location that entrances and exits may have upon the creation of traffic, I think we've already addressed that so I won't go through it but I think that we've taken care of that particular item. Then next one talks about the availability of adequate and proper public and private water supply. We have public water available to us. We're going to obviously go to the Suffolk County Department of Health and have an appropriate septic system and it'll have to be approved before we can go ahead. We certainly are going to monitor to this site also to determine if there's any effluent from its use that has to be. The next one talks about whether the use of the materials incidental thereto or produced thereby may give off obnoxious gases, odors, smoke or soot. I think the SEQRA analysis indicates that there's no real significant odor from a gasoline service station. There are no really obnoxious gases, smoke or soot from this type of use. "F" in this matter says whether the use will cause disturbing emissions of electrical discharges, dust, light, vibration or noise. Again SEQRA answered that and the answer is no that it doesn't do that. The next is whether the operation in pursuance of the use will cause undue interference with the orderly enjoyment of public parking or recreational facilities. There's nothing in that area that's a public site that will interfere with by the gas station. Then it talks about the necessity of bituminous-surface space for parking of vehicles and by its nature a gasoline service station requires that type of surface and the site will be sufficient large enough and provide adequate parking for both the gas station and convenience store. Next is whether a hazard to life, limb or property because of fire, flood, erosion or panic may be created by reason or as a result to the use or by the structures (inaudible). The site will have two entrances from the street. It's fully accessible to the fire and emergency apparatus which is not that far away and the structures at the site are internally protected to prevent hazard to life, limb or property. "J" says whether the use or the structures to be used therefore will cause an overcrowding of land or undue concentration of population. The gasoline station certainly makes use of a site that shouldn't be a problem for anyone. It does not involve an overcrowding of land. We're not doing coverage that's certainly even close to what the code allows. Next is whether the plot area is sufficient, appropriate and adequate for its use and reasonably anticipated operation and expansion thereof. Again this is a large plot probably the largest gasoline service station plot in the town and the structures are going to be used for they are to gas stations. It says whether the use is to be unreasonably near a church, school, theater or recreational area. It's not it's obviously in one of the code 71 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting requirements is to be back at least 300 feet. It's more than 300 feet from any church or school. "M" states whether the site of the proposed use is particularly suitable for such use. Again historically this originally was a gas station. It's historically been a commercial site and it's our position that it has an intersection with a traffic light, it's the appropriate place to put a gas station. In fact in this town gas stations are usually at main thoroughfares and that's exactly what this is and the County of course has improved this thoroughfare too. Letter "N" states that adequate buffer yards and screening can and will be provided to protect adjacent properties and land uses and we've already addressed that I think that we're going to have a significant buffer. We're going to maintain the trees that are there and so I think that that should be satisfactory. Then finally whether adequate provision can and will be made for the collection and disposal of storm water runoff, sewage and so on. We obviously have to do that, that's part of the storm water management plan. We will be containing all liquids on site. That is all storm water runoff. Finally it says whether the natural characteristics of the site are such that the proposed use may be introduced there without under disturbance or disruption of important natural features. The site has been continuously used for commercial purposes and that's what we're doing at this point. I would also point out to you that in addition to the mitigation measures there are specific gasoline special exception provisions in the code. At 28048 B (12) & (13) we will comply with and abide by all of those sections so that there shouldn't be a problem. Again we believe that this station is appropriate where it is. We think that we've done an appropriate site plan. We have certainly reduced the dimensional requirements and we believe the gas station should be approved. I would like to hand up too if I may I can do it later but the application of general standards which you have to apply to this particular site and I have that and I can hand that up to the Board. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just confirm one more time I didn't mention this in the record but although we don't have final plans, architectural plans for the building which we will need the plans must be approved not only by the Planning Board but by the Architectural Review Committee which is a subcommittee of the Planning Board. They will be looking at it for its aesthetic character that it fits appropriately within the scenic corridor of 48 which is an important scenic corridor so that will also be part of this process. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And if can add one other comment at least something I think is important for the record that while the application has expressed the zoning of the general area and adjacent lots I'd want to remind the Board and the community that the property to the west is preserved along with the property to the north opposite CR48 which I think is an important focal point for community character. 7i January 3, 2019-Regular Meeting CHARLES CUDDY : We agree to that but we also point out that,it's still limited business property. In other words the zoning of all those properties nearby is either limited business, general business or even though they're preserved. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But wouldn't the zoning be extinguished through preservation? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The development. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The development. CHARLES CUDDY :The zoning is the same though the zoning has not changed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay are we ready for comments from the public? Who would like to address the Board? The procedure is to just come up there to the mic please and we're recording this so please state your name and spell it for us and tell us what you'd like us to hear. ELIN CORWIN : Elin Corwin Founder Village. Excuse me if I'm a little nervous up here. I'd rather be someplace else but you know I can't drive by that.corner every afternoon and not know that I didn't do what I could to prevent this building. It's all good news that the applicant has agreed to all the mediation in the FEIS. That does kind of change my presentation but not much. I'm just wondering if this was available to the public before today before the public hearing the change in the site plan and the agreement to all the mitigation? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What we have in the application before us is that plan and then the SEQRA findings that we adopted that the Planning Board proposed and that was available through FOIL, freedom of information act and anyone could have come in to Planning or to Zoning to obtain a copy of that. ELIN CORWIN : No I meant not the FEIS and the findings statement but the changes that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The mitigation. ELIN CORWIN : The mitigation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No there was nothing in writing that we received. I believe it was just the statement today at the public hearing that the applicant has agreed to all of those things. We didn't have anything in our file. We didn't know that until Mr. Cuddy told us. ELIN CORWIN : This has been going on for three and a half years. The original site plan was submitted back in May of 2015. This is our third public hearing. Planning Board in August of 2015, Planning Board in August of 2017 and today's hearing in front of the ZBA. Youngs Ave. residents and Southold residents have stood strong in opposition to this proposed gas station. 731 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting Two petitions, three traffic counts and numerous letters have been submitted by the residents. As I said all the agreeing to the mitigation is terrific. It's important but at the end of the day this is still a gas station and it does nothing to mitigate our real concerns which is traffic and safety. I'm going to address traffic volume, impact at the intersection and three major concerns related to Youngs Ave. I'm hoping that there will be others here today that will speak to community character and scenic impact. I'd like to start with the traffic studies our own and the original one included in the DEIS and the update in the FDIS. Founder Village residents conducted three traffic counts, Labor Day 2015, Labor Day 2017 and on Memorial Day weekend in 2018. We counted vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles at the intersection of 48 and Youngs Ave. and at the entrance to Founder Village on Youngs Ave. We presented the raw data, counted in person on the date sited. No growth factors, no seasonal factors were used, no extrapolations or alliance on data from industry studies or analyses. These traffic studies were conducted by area residents who will bear the impact of any traffic increases. I'll stay out of the weeds a little here the traffic count details are in the file and I urge the ZBA Board members to review these if that hasn't been done so far. On Labor Day in 2015 we counted a total 1,214 vehicles between 4 and 5 pm. On Labor Day in 2017 we counted a total of 1,428 vehicles between the same hours 4 and 5 pm. That was an 18% increase in the two year period. The 2017 count is 28% higher than the highest count in the original traffic impact study. In the HIS they did update the traffic study with I think increase the seasonal factor from 2% by 6.6 to a total of 8.6 so maybe our count in the 28% drops to maybe 20%, 22% that's still a great difference in traffic counts. The HIS response to this was while it's interesting to note that Labor Day in 2017 had much higher traffic than was predicted using the seasonal adjustment factor. A traffic study's goal is to examine how the proposed development would likely impact traffic in the operation of the intersection. A higher volume of traffic on any given day doesn't change how much traffic this site would generate. I think the point here is that there's a correlation between significance of impact and traffic volume. In the DEIS it was stated that 63% percent of the gas station volume or cars already on the road just passing by. The percentage of 50% was used in the FEIS. Perhaps with the decrease in pumps percentage may go down but just using the original percentages as an example 63 or 50% what about the other 37% or 50% of the cars who weren't just passing by, who weren't on the road already isn't that where our increase is whether it's whatever that percentage that turns out to be that's the increase and throughout this entire process whether it's in the DEIS, the FEIS, the traffic study impacts it's always that's there minimal impact and we certainly don't feel that that's going to be the case. I'd like to focus on the operation of the intersection. Everybody takes (inaudible) positive traffic light etc. you know that this is all good that this is a perfect place that's there's really limited impact at the intersection. Let's go back and take these cars just passing by, whether it's 63%, 50%, 40% whatever it turns out to be they were passing through the intersection either at a high rate of speed or they were stopped in a nice little line at the red light. What changes now is these cars 74 1 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting however many there are whether it's reduced a little by the reduction in pumps or not these cars are no longer just passing through the intersection or stopped, they're turning in and out of these two driveways and that changes the nature of the intersection. This intersection to start with was unsafe for pedestrians. This is before the County redid the intersection and put in the new controls. They're now on the northwest and southwest corners. Before they were on the northwest and the southeast but they're no safer. Pedestrians still have to rely on the traffic signals to decide when to cross the road. There's no pedestrian signals like there are down at Youngs Ave. and the Main Rd. A pedestrian has to cross the east and west bound lanes plus the turning lanes. I was up there the other day and obviously I made it back but it's not something you would want to cross with any regularity. The other thing I want to talk about were the concerns on Youngs Ave. Youngs Ave. is the main north south route from Route 48 to the Main Rd. in Southold. This is because of the two traffic signals, one at the intersection of 48 and Youngs and the other at Youngs and the Main Rd. Many large vehicles choose this cutover because of the southbound access land up at 48.These large vehicles include car carriers bound for Mullens, tractor trailers bound for the IGA, landscaping trucks with trailers and limousines which can no longer make U-turns on 48. It also seems to be a preferred route for the Southold Fire and Police Departments heading to 48. Founder Village which is located on Youngs Ave. approximately 850 feet south of the proposed build site and we have three major concerns. Pedestrian safety, vehicles entering and exiting the gas station on Youngs Ave. and increase in turn around traffic at Founders Village entrance. Youngs Ave is a heavily traffic road in the daytime. There is no sidewalk north of Founders Village on the west side of Youngs Ave. and no sidewalk at all on the east side of Youngs Ave. There are no shoulders on the road. Currently it's not safe to walk a bicycle here. The addition of a convenience store at the intersection of Route 48 and Youngs Ave. will increase the volume of pedestrians on Youngs Ave. This will significantly increase concern for public safety. It's as if the convenience store is luring pedestrians to unsafe conditions. The original traffic impact study stated, the proposed action has no significant impact on the pedestrian access to the site. Given the usage and location the site is not likely to generate significant pedestrian traffic. I think that's wrong. I think there are many in the area in the neighborhood who will walk to the convenience store on a somewhat unsafe road. The FEIS recognized the potential impact to pedestrian safety and had indicated that it was not fully mitigated to the extent (inaudible). I'm just wondering if that was addressed in the mitigation process. I would hope that the ZBA takes that into account in any final decision. On a weekday morning September 2015 we counted 204 vehicles in a one hour period on Youngs Ave. and on a Saturday morning of the Memorial Day Weekend in 2018 we counted 428 vehicles in a one hour period passing our entrance. Vehicles entering the gas station from Youngs and vehicles exiting onto Youngs from the gas station will present dangerous conditions on Youngs at the driveway area. I wanted to ask I believe the applicant stated that that driveway now is 30 feet from the intersection. My point of reference is prior 75 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting documents that said that they were hoping to move it 4 feet south so I can't see from here but where does that driveway now go? Is it all the way down close to the property line or is it just 4 feet from where it is today? I don't know what 30 feet from the intersection is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's 43 feet from ELIN CORWIN : How far from its present location is it moving, 4 feet or 12 feet or something? UNNANMED : First of all it's not 30 feet from the intersection it was 30 feet from the property line. ELIN CORWIN : 30 feet from the southern property line. UNNAMED : Yes from the south more than 30 feet from the intersection much further south as south as it can be physically. ELIN CORWIN : Oh okay because of the trees there or we're talking about the FEIS the Planning Board moving it 4 feet that that was the most it could be moved was 4 feet south. So is that what you're doing or CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on, hold on. You all have to address the Board. You can ask the question but I'd ask you to please get up and talk into the mic so you can be heard and you can answer. ERIC NICOSIA : I didn't have the original survey with the condition right now but when we updated the site plan we had moved it an additional 35 feet back towards the south, so now it's 43 feet from the property line where before it was 75 feet from the south property line so we had moved it back an additional I think the original site plan which had showed it at about 75 feet. I believe that's approximately CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think I might have a copy of it ERIC NICOSIA : where it is currently. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can see that up there the Rempe property is you'll see that it's labeled, it was 71 feet from the property line to the Rempe property. It's now 43 feet okay. So there's a couple of trees proposed there and the driveway entrance is 30 feet wide. ERIC NICOSIA : And that has been reduced. The previous had a larger opening which we cut down. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was well what's on here is 30 feet. 76 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting ERIC NICOSIA : Right the original site plan submitted going back three years CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That was what our original application to the ZBA was what we're looking at now and, I don't want to interrupt you but I do think that we should offer anyone in the audience an opportunity to kind of take a look at that. I'm not going to interrupt you know cause otherwise it will be a stampede with everybody getting up. SOMEONE FROM THE AUDIENCE : Does it have the roads on the site plan? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Roads yes 48 is on there and Youngs is on there. So when you get up there you'll see. ELIN CORWIN : The big green thing (inaudible) which is right on the curb. This is what you know one of our really serious concerns the FEIS stated as a positive that there's a yield sign on 48 when using the turning land making a right turn to head south on Youngs and to make sure that there's nothing blocking the view. I think moving the driveway certainly helps that south and you know that looks good on paper and it looks good there but in the real world I think anyone here who frequently makes this turn off 48 to go down Youngs will say that they're focused on traffic coming from the left. Coming from the north down Youngs through that intersection or coming east and making that turn may not be good driving but nobody is looking to the right to see that there's somebody coming out of Tidy Car. You know going back you know I'm jumping ahead a little to the question about businesses, Tidy Car was a very passive business. This gas station is not a passive use in the way Tidy Car was or even the prior gas station which we'll get to but that's a great concern of ours is that there's going to be accidents there on Youngs Ave. even moving it further down it's still going to be difficult and one of our other major concerns is the cars coming out, if they can't make a left back on to 48 and go west they're going to have to come out the Youngs Ave. exit and I'm not sure we were talking about where is this no left turn sign going. Is this on Youngs? MEMBER DANTES : No on 48. ELIN CORWIN : On 48 okay. Our concern is that the cars coming out they can't go back that way, they come out even though the driveway's down they may have trouble making a left onto Youngs. They're going to shoot down south, they're going to make a right turn come down south into Founder Village to make the turn around and I'll get into the more details here. We have a very nice entrance. We have an island there in the road an goes just right around in a little circle and everybody could just change directions and go out. We have ninety two units at Founder Village with approximately a hundred vehicles plus those of guests, contractors, service providers entering and exiting Founders Village daily throughout the day and evening. On a daily basis we have our share of non-Founders Village vehicles using this entrance today to 77 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting make their turn especially large vehicles who need a larger turning radius and we're happy to be good neighbors for these vehicles. We're happy to be accommodating but we're not going to be able to safely tolerate an increase in these turn a rounds being driven by cars having a problem up at the intersection at the gas station. The FEIS dismisses this concern with vehicle increase along Youngs Ave. is expected to be minimal and as such impact to the Founders Village entrance is expected to be minimal. We're afraid that this is not going to be true that we are going to see a significant increase of cars coming down Youngs because the intersection is not really working for them. They're going to want to change directions and they're going to come down and make that turn. As I said before the potential for traffic impacts you know I don't think cause really been taken that seriously throughout this process through the DEIS or the HIS in the traffic impact studies. You know overall they've concluded that the potential for traffic impacts are not significant. I think most of us the Founder Village residents and those neighbors on Youngs Ave. find this really difficult to understand this position. In 2015 a petition expressing concern over the proposed gas station, signatures of almost 300 Southold residents not just residents on Youngs Ave but 300 Southold residents was submitted to the Planning Board. The residents of Founder Village submitted a petition with over 100 signatures in September of 2017. This was an expression of our concern for the traffic and safety impacts created by the gas station. I'd like to take minute and just read from the second petition. We do not support the approval of this gas station cause it represents a very real threat to our community. A community already burdened by a growing traffic problem, we are at the tipping point. The character of our neighborhood is at risk and once lost is gone forever. The prior use argument that's referred to in this application and was referred to a number of time by Mr. Cuddy today seem weak. That was almost sixty years ago. A one or two pump gas station combined with a garden center. A lot has changed in sixty years and this is a lot of gas station. Even though it's been pared down it's still a lot of gas station. A gas station and convenience store and it's intended problems changes Southold forever. Just because an area is zoned for business and a business wants to be there doesn't mean it has to be. There can be nothing automatic just because the code is met. This application will require ZBA variances not any more but there's no variance for changing the character of Southold. If we allow now a reduced four pump eight fueling station gas station and a 24 hour convenience store you have changed our landscape forever. We ask the ZBA to deny this request for Special Exception. Thank you. CHERYLE AMARA : Cheryle Amara I live on Youngs Ave. I have a house there. I'm two houses south of the proposed property. What Elin brought up is very important. I have been the safety traffic queen since the beginning and the Planning Board file I did a very impromptu thing back in July 2018 and sent it to them if you want to have a look and it was just on random days. The biggest issue here is that merge that comes onto Youngs Ave. We were kind of hopeful when the county did the road work on 48 that they would square up that intersection. That merge January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting has been a problem long before they even proposed this project. There's really the site line is very difficult. You have to drive it to see it. So that's something that's a big concern the safety is a big concern for me. Also there's no the other thing is there's no shoulders on Youngs Ave. and it's a heavily trafficked road. So that merge coming on that is the biggest issue. The egress the ingress is a real concern for this project and it really should be looked at very closely. The only other concern that I have besides the traffic and the ingress and egress is the hours of operation 6 am to 12 am leaves us six hours of no business there. I was wondering is there a possibility of tightening that up,at some point you-know making the hours go not so late at night?The land bank spaces I mean they talked about them and I understand what that's•about but if you're going to land bank anything in this project I would say land bank the spaces that are facing the residential side. There are I counted them on the site plan there's twelve I think there's twelve regular spaces and two handicapped spaces along with two and then there's additional loading two loading spaces facing the convenience store building that they're property line goes with Peconic Land Trust Charnews Farm and they a have an enter and exit behind Tidy Cars property, it would be best to have the parking spaces facing the convenience store rather than facing the residential side. There's about twelve facing the residential side right now. So that was a big concern too but I can't say enough about,the safety issue. When we had a stop sign at the intersection a tree grew over the stop sign one summer and we had eight accidents one summer. Then they put in the traffic light that made it a little bit better but that merge coming from the north road Rt. 48 going south down to Youngs Ave. it would have to be enforced with a police presence a lot I mean like every day in order for people to start understanding that they cannot merge onto Youngs Ave. going forty five miles an hour. Nobody stops at the yield sign and looks they just go and if you go if you take a ride and just sit there for a couple of minutes in Tidy Car's parking lot you'll see it. It happens all the time. I'm only the second house down from Tidy Car going towards the village and they're going by my house at at least forty miles an hour coming off that merge. I'm not so concerned about the left hand turns coming down because they opened up that intersection and that the actual intersection on 48 is nice but that merge for the entering and exiting on Youngs Ave. really concerns me, really concerns me. The traffic Elin spoke to the traffic and I really I have no use for the traffic studies because, I live there and the traffic studies are wrong. I'm sorry they are. You have to come sit on my porch with me and it's serious. It's really serious out here. What I sent was like ten minute intervals to the Planning Board , on random days, random times no holiday weekends and I was averaging twenty five cars every ten minutes going south down to the village because it's only there's only one light there. That's the main drag light for Southold that's it you know so we have that it's a concern. Getting out of our driveways now without the change in the business for the last five years trying to get out of our driveways to leave our homes living that close to that intersection has been a problem. You know you start to pull out, you look both ways you don't see anybody and all of a,sudden somebody's right there because 79 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting they are coming on that merge. That's my biggest concern, people going eastbound on the north road on 48 and making that merge to go down into the village. It's very dangerous and I really think that needs to be looked at I really do before any kind of anything happens. I think all the changes that have been made so far I think have been with the community in mind that's appreciated. Thank you for everybody for their work but that is going to be the number one problem I think going down you know in the future if this comes to be. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have any suggestions as to what could improve that? CHERYLE AMARA : I was thinking about I understood what you said before about not making a left onto the north road but MEMBER ACAMPORA : You're absolutely right I brought that up to the town planner in saying you can't have a yield if you're asking the county to make a left hand turn cause you're going to have people having all kinds of accidents. CHERYLE AMARA : I kind of felt like the county knew that this was being discussed as a possibility so when they did the construction on Rt. 48 and widened the lanes and stuff I thought I don't know about anybody else in the neighborhood but I thought they were going to square up the intersection and if they squared up the intersection where you have to make an exact you have to make a stop and then a right hand turn we're going to have a lot of accidents there I'm just telling you right now. It's going to be it's probably going to be people pulling out from that Youngs Ave. because you're going to put the burden you can't go left on to the North Rd. and they're going to be making rights and lefts out of Youngs Ave. across that merge. That's really scary. It's very scary to me. Has nothing to do whether there's a business there or not but it's a scary situation and if you have a business there that is not like Elin said a passive business which we've had for like I don't know how long now almost as long as I've lived there and I'll e there thirty years this year it's not a passive business. So I think that just that alone is going to create more of a problem there and part of it in my opinion is the county you know I mean don't know. You would think that they would be paying attention too. So that's my biggest concern and I really don't have when I first looked at the site plan and I thought I had a solution where there would be making no left hand turns out of the Youngs Ave. you know and then thought well maybe they could make a left turn, maybe no right turns because the traffic would be coming down I don't know. I don't have a solution. I couldn't think of one safe way for this to happen and I understand moving the entrance and exit on Youngs back is a little bit better but there has always been a visibility issue that when people take that merge it's not until they're really into Youngs Ave. and driving down the street that they can see and we've had some near misses quite a few over the years. So anyway that's my two cents about that. I'm really worried about people getting hurt. Thank you. 80 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else? You want to take a few minutes to do that. You want to have people to continue to testify and you know one at a time or two at a time we can put a second one there if you'd like on the table. Why don't you pass this around in the audience okay then we won't have a bunch of people getting up and all that. We can put a couple out, you can have a look at what they're currently talking about. Could you kind of do this quietly. I just want to continue with the testimony so that we don't waste a lot of time but by all means have a look. We're passing one around to the audience. There's another one over there. You'll all be given plenty of time to have a look. No, no that's right the roads are shown but there's no like turn lanes and all of that stuff. Alright just a moment please state your name. GARY REMPE : My name is Gary Rempe address 3325 Youngs Ave. next to Tidy Car. I've been there since 1986 and I have to deal with Tidy Car stuff for thirty two years. I planted a,ll them trees that are there we planted them twenty five years ago. Tidy Car we get trailers in, unload them back them into my trees. I go could you please move them. Take them a month-to move them then the next load comes,same thing. So (inaudible) going over the question why you're doing this and I always end up with garbage in my yard, cardboard boxes from his and also my wife runs a business there out of the house which quite a few are.elderly people so now where that entrance is going to be closer to our driveway now how are these people going to get out of our driveway going to be thirty feet off our property line?They make lefts, rights, depending where they're coming from you know. And I also have town water there so are the, cesspools going to be where my water my well is? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think it shows I don't have my copy now..1 don't think the septic system shows on that is it on that? Is the septic on? GARY'REMPE : What the distance is you want to be from the cesspool to somebody's well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the Department of Health will obligate them to do that but I understand you know Mr. Rempe what you're talking about Tidy Car was very untidy to say the least. GARY REMPE : We always had to deal with his garbage in our yard. We've been-picking up cardboard boxes you know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was very unpleasant became quite an eyesore. GARY REMPE : Like I said it's been for thirty two years we've been dealing with it. He would rent his property put a trailer and rent the property to somebody. I was out there cutting my grass and this girl sunbathing on the lawn there and I'm trying to cut my grass you know so it's been going on for thirty two years and I'm not happy about this now either especially where that entrance is going to be closer to my property now and like I said them trees are mine. �1 - January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The hedge row you planted the hedge. GARY REMPE : Yea. I just want to say thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, anyone else? ANNE HARKINS : Anne Harkins Youngs Ave. I just wanted to mention that the roads are not on there and everything that's already been mentioned about the concerns about the safety and traffic is of course safety as well as the character of the neighborhood is a concern but mainly the safety in my perspective you know we don't have a left turning lane right now, when you go up Youngs Ave. north to make a left onto 48 there are two lanes and then the merging lane as Cheryle mentioned coming south and then the lane that merges onto Rt. 48 going east I'm sorry from west to south and from south to east and you know you can see usually when you're turning to make that but to make a left onto Rt. 48 or west from Youngs Ave. there is no left hand turning lane. It seems that people squeeze you know you don't need it because some people go straight some people turn left but nonetheless it seems that the width of Youngs Ave. would have to be widened and they should also as Elin mentioned again the pedestrian concerns is the other thing cause I and it's not always me but I have a lot of friends that do walk up that way and cross over to the restaurants on the other side of the road. I walk up to Willow Hill I mean leave my car there and walk back and that sort of thing. There's no sidewalk, there's no on Youngs just that little tiny thing that they added and then the one further down by the gym and the Eastern Long Island Hospital physical therapy and those stores the deli but there's no sidewalk and so it just makes it very, very difficult for both pedestrians and of course I really think for the vehicles I think it's going to create a major, major safety concern. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else? YUNIS ILGIN : My name is Yunis llgin, excuse me I've never done this and stood in front of people before but I have my commercial driving license I'm twenty one years old and at that section you know I'd never had problem. I drive big trucks and usually I get in there that yield sign is for you to stop when another car is coming from the light making a left turn so you're already watching and you're seeing what car's on your right side or your left side you know where the entrance is on Youngs Ave. you can completely see all around you. I've never had trouble you know with the area. You can clearly see everything. It seems that safety is the biggest issue here, everybody is saying all the left turns onto 48 and the traffic light; in my opinion the best way is to you know obviously put only one way there and no left turn onto 48 and if everybody is only going in going out from the gas station making a left turn onto the traffic light it would still be safe cause there's you have yield sign and people making a left turn it's everybody just slows down for that. I've see big trucks I have to slow down and most people have to also but in my opinion I don't see a big issue with just two entrances and one exit cause 82- January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting you're already going into a safe area. There's a yield and a traffic light, people are already slowing down and looking both ways and the trees and everything we can plant more trees and put more signs up and barricade where the cars are you know parking so they don't have to go more forward and hit anybody's property you know. Light emitting (inaudible) if light is an issue they point straight down and canopies on a rainy day I mean most people here area probably retired, when it's a rainy or snowy day they want a canopy to fill up their car you know. It doesn't distract any of the views it's business has been there we have gyms there, we have rotisserie, we have you know bagel places there and those areas don't have the safety stuff there. We're going to have all the safety signs and things to help people, we'll have arrows everywhere and barricade and trees to make it look better. It all just helps. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you very much I appreciate it. I'm wondering you can speak next but I just wanted to ask the architect something and maybe traffic consultant. It's true it's more difficult to visualize actual movement of vehicles without seeing the lanes on Youngs and on the North Rd. now named Middle Rd. cause the county knows about us so well I kept saying did they change the name of my road but anyway it's possible that a lot of this conversation could be far more informed if people actually did see what the width of the yield and the merger is, what there actually are two lanes at the traffic light going north on Youngs across 48; one has an arrow that goes straight, the other has an arrow that turns left. They're not great big wide lanes but they are there. I know because I live on Soundview five seconds from there and like everybody else I turn on Youngs because during the summer in particular there's nowhere in the world you're making a left turn off of Hortons onto Main Rd. so you have to understand we are your neighbors. We live here too we do understand what you're talking about. Many of you go to the IGA and use the exact same roads. I just wondered if it's possible to maybe add that to the site plan. ERIC NICOSIA : In the FEIS is a diagram that shows what's going on in there. The site plan was generic on that. It was originally this application was in 2015 and obviously in that interim they've done work on the road and that changed some of the striping etc. so I didn't have access to a survey of what's been done now since in that time frame but it is shown on the visual impact study and in the EIFS it does have that diagram and pictures the satellite picture that's been enhanced. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we just have the findings statement from the Planning Board which doesn't have any visuals. ERIC NICOSIA : I guess it's in the appendix of it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah that's where I have to look. I think that's important information for all of us to just be able to see accurately ingress and egress 83 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting ERIC NICOSIA : I think also there was some sidewalk there, I guess when they did this curb work they eliminated that there's nothing there at this point but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sidewalks are a problem for all of us everywhere who want to walk they just aren't any. Kids come from Southold High School walking on Horton and there's nowhere for them to walk except the grass. ERIC NICOSIA : So also in the site plan review process the county we need to obtain a highway work permit for that so obviously the county is going to dictate what has to be' done there including all the striping and signage and that's when we'll have to get into all that and that'll definitely be demonstrated and analyzed also by the county and planning. I'm sure we put the sidewalks back and would have to address the signage issues then also. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I want to get that from Planning you know from the FEIS and have them look at that information. Please state your name.• PHILLIP REIN : When I asked before about the roads you said it's indicated, they're not indicated on there. All of you know what that intersection is like. It's a disaster, it's a disaster waiting for a happening. Let's take for instance somebody driving from the ferry, coming up to Youngs Ave. there's, a gas station, he has to turn into it. He has to turn onto Youngs Ave. then go in the entrance that way is that correct? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Or could make a left off of Main Rd. PHILLIP REIN : He's not going to go beyond the intersection so he has to go in there. How does he exist? He exists the same way it goes in. Is he going to cut across Youngs Ave. to go to the light he won't be able to do that there'll be traffic going the other way. He has to go south past the entrance to our property. This is going to be a disaster for him and for us because there's so much congestion there that it is a disaster without even an accident. I beg you to make this thing a non-happening. My name is Phillip Rein. CHRIS ROCK : Hello my name is Chris Wruck I live on Mt. Beulah Ave. so I'm not a Founders Village person. I just have a very simple question, there's a gas station on 48 several miles away with a convenience store why do we need another one? MUHAMMED ILGIN : My name is Muhammed and the last name is Ilgin. Well I'm an Uber driver so you know I help people who clearly don't want to drive their car you know drunk so I pick them up and obviously we have a lot of bars in Greenport and in this town and' in Mattituck and we do need another gas station because that one closes at ten o'clock. The Greenport one sometimes they don't have gas sometimes they don't have (inaudible) so we definitely need another gas station for me because I can't keep driving people you know who are clearly $Q January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting intoxicated to get them home safely if I can't find a gas station you know. So that's why I think we definitely need another gas station and all of the Uber drivers agree with me in this town. Thank you. PAT MARCOUX : My name is Pat Marcoux and I live in Founder Village. Let's say we have two kinds of drivers, we have drivers who are familiar with the area because they live here or spend a lot of time out in Southold and we have drivers who aren't that familiar with the or not familiar at all with the area because this is in transient going to the ferry. Now if you're going eastbound on 48 one of the things that you see after you leave the Hortons intersection is a sign that says Southold with an arrow and you're saying oh boy I'm going to make that move. When you're unfamiliar with an area there's a little bit of tentativeness so you're going to take your merge going south on Youngs Ave. and one of the things that is I'm very much aware of when I do that is that suddenly everything narrows down to a two lane road so if you have several things occurring or potentially occurring at the time, people entering or exiting just a certain number of feet away from the intersection you have somebody coming off who might not be that familiar and may not slow down enough because now you're eastbound on 48 and it's a substantial road and now you're turning into a two lane road basically. You have nowhere to go, I wouldn't want to live in that house on the left. Also it occurred to me when someone was describing where the parking designations are inside the gas station, cars pull in does that mean that when at night when the headlights are on they're facing that road, it lights up the road but also could be a hazard too if you have a lot of activity going on. I think it sounds I'm not that familiar with the site plan but it sounds more logical to have people be able to pull in to park where they're facing the access road for Charnews farm because it's not going to be disturbing anybody who lives there. So there are a variety of things that just listening to others, heard that we might need to look at some more but you know as has been repeated the safety issue is a big one and I think that merge turn onto Youngs Ave. south is a real problem. UNNAMED : I have something written from Melissa Talorico who is a resident at Founders on Youngs Ave. She's at 2895 Youngs Ave. and she couldn't be here today so I offered to read this for her. This summer and fall Southold and the east end experienced record crowds of day trippers, weekender, wedding parties, wine tour groups, apple and pumpkin pickers, bicycle racers each group bringing increased road, rail and jitney traffic to our town. We have also seen an increase in accidents on our roads including the corner of 48 and Youngs Ave. This increase in traffic is an addition to the ever day local traffic generated by the IGA, Agway, Burts Reliable their suppliers and customers and those working or visiting the Town Hall offices. I believe if we were to poll this room and ask every person in here if they had been on Youngs Ave. at least twice two times this week almost a hundred percent of the room would say yes and many of you are on this road every day. We do not support the building of this gas station because it would bring more traffic, crime, noise and pollution into our neighborhoods a community January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting already burdened by a growing traffic problem and quickly becoming a victim of its own success. We are at the tipping point here in Southold and must acknowledge that the quality of life and the character of our neighborhood and town is not well served by the addition of a gas station in this location and we implore you to not approve this request. Thank you. That was Melissa Terarico. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you want to submit the letter for the record? UNNAMED : I did have one other question as long as I'm up here and that is going back to the parking spaces at thirty two parking spaces and what will we end up with for parking spaces if some of them are going to be banked? What is the final number for parking places that we're contemplating for the site plan? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's probably the Planning Board's prerogative. UNNAMED : Thirty two is a lot of parking places. MR. CUDDY : That's a site plan issue that's going to be discussed at the site plan. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what I presumed it will be before the Planning Board. UNNAMED : I would also say that the sidewalk that was taken away by the county they did that to widen that merge lane. They took the property there ten feet of whatever property it is to you know to do that. MR. CUDDY : I'm greatly troubled by what I heard because we spend a year and a half through the SEQRA process. In that year and a half we had traffic studies done, the town reviewed the traffic studies, the town adopted part of,their findings statement on impact and transportation. All of the testimony that was given by the initial woman I guess Elin I don't know her last name I'm sorry was the same testimony that was given at the time that we had a hearing in SEQRA. It's like a do-over. The problem is that there was a determination made by the Planning people and it says and I'll read it to you because I think it takes into consideration everything that's been said here today and it says that while the lead agency agrees that the volume of traffic from the development once completed can be accommodated by the adjacent roadway network. They're actually agreeing that the traffic is what we say it is. There remains traffic and pedestrian safety impacts related to traffic that must be mitigated and they give the mitigation and it seems we've already discussed it's a turning lane. It's moving the driveway, it's looking at the driveway intersection, widening the driveway the very things that we have said we would do and it's'remarkable that the testimony today is not about special exception it's really redoing what's already been done in the FEIS. So you can just see there is very elaborate schemes to show the roads. These things were filed, these people had an opportunity to see January 3, 2019 Regular.Meeting them. I'm disturbed that today we're doing the very same thing and really not addressing the Special Exception and I would hope the Board would take that into consideration. I also would offer up the matters which I discussed which] don't think (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does somebody out there have my copy of the site plan, it's floating around? I just want to get it back. You know what I have it. I guess you brought it up when I was talking. Is there somebody in the back that wanted to say something? MAUREEN SMITH : Maureen Smith. The one thing that I'm concerned as everybody else it with the traffic situation and'the gentleman that just spoke I believe said the study found that there were adequate other roads to handle the traffic that would'be generated from the gas station being erected there and I think everybody would agree that there are no adjacent roads that will handle the traffic as someone on the Board mentioned that we all use Youngs Ave. because that's where a light is and if you use the adjacent roads you cannot make a left hand turn unless you want to stay-there for a little time because there is so much traffic and generating more traffic from the gas station onto Youngs Ave. there just is no other way to get to the Main Rd. and so that's why I take aberrance with the stated fact that there are other roads that can be used to that the gas station would not interfere.Thanks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Deep breathe everybody we've been at this for quite a while. I certainly don't want to cut this short, how many more people would like to address, one, two, three okay. Let's do it. Whatever order you want whoever wants to go first. BERNICE MELLY : My name is Bernice Melly, I'm a resident of Founder Village: As I'm listening to all of the comments this afternoon and in the back of my mind I keep thinking about that horrific accident that took place on Rt. 48 four years ago. If you pass by you still see remnants of flowers on one of the (inaudible) there. Now it was acknowledged that that intersection needed a traffic light and even after the horrible accident occurred it took a period of time before that traffic light was installed. So as I'm hearing comments about coordination between the town arid the county I'm just saying to myself'please God be so, so thorough. We all know what's happening at the vineyards with the increase in the attendance and accidents thereafter and now to be presented with another situation I just say you know the town had a very bad situation it was on National TV and certainly in the newspapers. We don't need another repetition of a terrible accident like that again. So extreme, extreme caution and coordination between the town and the county so that we don't have these loop holes which open up the situations. That accident should never had happened if that traffic light had been installed previously so those are my thoughts. PHILLIP FERRATO : My name is Phillip Ferrato and I'm sorry if that gentleman objects to us repeating ourselves but I think that some of the studies that have been done are flawed. To re- January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting visit, two years ago I stood in this room and I said people don't come to Southold for our gas stations. It's that simple. You acknowledge (inaudible) and I was grateful to hear you say that this was a scenic corridor and it should remain that way and I think that's probably a better use than a gas station. I mean just because it was a gas station seventy years ago does not mean it should be a gas station today. Just because we need a another convenience store frankly if you can't get your cigarettes at 7-Eleven you know or a quart of milk nobody can walk there because Youngs Ave. is (inaudible) unfriendly. I will say that there is no reason for a gas station here. There are other gas stations, there are other locations for gas stations and there are other pending locations for gas stations. This is basically the entrance to Southold and if what you want to see at the entrance of Southold at 48 and Youngs Ave. is a gas station canopy instead of the contributory structure,that's there now and the trees that's going to be your legacy but don't think that this is no matter how it's changed it's still going to have a tremendous impact on traffic just by people trying to get in and out no matter what you do. With a convenience store and a gas station you almost create a hazard on its own. So I hope you vote against it and I don't think we need another gas station. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think there was one other person who wanted to speak please. JOHN ABELE : My name is John Abele. I'm a resident of Founder Village and I spoke at one of the first meeting that was held on this proposal. I indicated my opposition at that time, I have not changed my mind. This is the wrong use of that property. A lot of people have referred to all the traffic numbers and the accidents. There was an accident there last Sunday night and it's a section vulnerable to accidents. One of my other first I would like to make some comments on the nature of the traffic on 48, it's mostly people in a hurry to get to either Greenport or the ferry and they're late or they're coming off the ferry or they're coming back from Greenport and they are trying to get through as quickly as possible. With this proposal the westbound traffic somebody needs gasoline they're going to have trouble getting through the eastbound traffic to get there that's one other reason. The one thing that probably annoys me most is directly across the street is a large parcel of preserved farmland, something Southold has been working on for many years and to put a gas station right across from there just doesn't seem right. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else? I'm going to poll the Board. I think given the amount of information I certainly want to take a look at the updated road network. When I said the roads were on the site plan I was referring to the fact that not the turning lanes but the fact that 48 was mentioned and Youngs was mentioned that's all to show egress and ingress. I think I want to certainly review that information more thoroughly and also when there's a complicated application like this before the Board, I think it's wise to adjourn for two weeks because there are often people who want to think more about it, who might want to write something that $$ January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting they didn't think of, someone who couldn't make this meeting, some other comments that the applicant's might want to submit so I'll poll the Board but I think it's probably useful to adjourn this to the Special Meeting for those purposes so that we can have the most up,to date and thorough information. I don't know that another public hearing is particularly useful only if there would be some substantial unanswered questions. That's not the nature of what I have in my mind at the moment. We have very clear standards. We have to address counsel has submitted them. If you're interested I would refer you to the Special Exception standards in Chapter 280, they're spelled out very clearly step by step and that is what the applicant has just addressed in writing for the Board to consider. I would remind you that Special Exception permits are permits that require review by this Board but they are uses that are permitted in the particular zone district. So we have'a lot of balancing and thinking to do in evaluating this application. Anything else from the Board at this time?Are you agreeing that adjournment is an appropriate action to take at this point? It gives us time too in case if we close something then that's kind of it, but this way it gives us a little more time to think through if there's something that we think is missing we can get it you know it just makes things a little bit more thorough. Did you want to say something? MR. CUDDY : I just want ,to make sure that the adjournment is just for the purpose of submitting things to you-so you can review them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we want to obtain additional information from the longer environmental impact statements that we don't have. We need to get some elevations and plans that are updated from the architect now that shows the smaller building although I do understand that it'll look very similar but we you know if we stamp drawings we need to stamp the right drawings. So that'll give you a little time to maybe do that and if you can't get them we can you know adjourn again. We don't want to rush this but We don't want to belabor it either. We want to be as 'expedient as we possibly can without sacrificing thoughtful thoroughness. So that is the purpose it's not for another hearing. I'm going to adjourn this to the Special Meeting not to another hearing date. I presume within two weeks we will have everything We need. We can close this hearing and then just so you're aware of the time frame the law obligates us to make a decision on this application within sixty two days of the date of the closing of the hearing which I anticipate to be in two weeks. We rarely take that long but that is what the law obligates us to do. Anything else from anybody that I forgot? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I wanted to ask Mr. Cuddy and or the applicant if perhaps over this two week period you could maybe respond some sort of I don't want to say dialogue just respond to the preserved land in the immediate are and also a'little bit more about the scenic corridor. I'm not aware of other gas I'm aware of other gas stations that have received a Special January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting Exception permission but nothing at a site such as this. So I'm hoping that you might be able to provide some sense of testimony or information to that point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually that's a question that maybe the architect can answer. This is probably a site plan issue cause I don't even see it on here but there's an elevation of the site monument sign on this site plan and I believe it conforms to the square footage of the area but I'm not sure about whether or not internally lighted branding internally lighted signs are permitted by code I don't know Bill are they permitted? T. A. DUFFY : They're not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They're not okay. So the proposed sign would require a variance or a reconsideration of how it's going to be done but this is calling for an internally lighted branding name and or logo sign 15 feet high. ERIC NICOSIA : So I would modify that to have a goose neck lighting on it (not at microphone) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The point I'm making is that again in making a determination we want to make sure that if we stamp a drawing it is the correct drawing so I don't want to stamp something with something on it that is not you know correct. So this would give you time, if you need to update anything on your site plan or your architectural drawings two weeks is probably sufficient time. It's all on auto cad so okay. Anything else from the audience? You all understand how the procedure is going to work now? The meeting that we will have in two weeks is open to the public. It is not a public hearing, we don't take testimony. It's in the Town Annex at five o'clock. We start at five usually we have an executive session first and the purpose of that meeting is to deliberate on decisions before the public. I don't believe we're going to have a decision on this in two weeks. So just so you're aware we'll get to it as soon as we have all the information. We will discuss in two weeks whether we have everything we think we need. So that's what we will be doing then. You're welcome to attend if you wish but again there's very little that's going to happen except to say yes we have this, this, this or we still need that and yeah we can go ahead and close it or no we need to give them another couple of weeks to get us this or that. That's what we're going to be doing in two weeks. So hearing no further comments or questions I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the September ah September I'm still jetlagged from a thirteen hour time difference from where I just came from. I'm going to adjourn this to the Special Meeting on January 17th. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? 90 January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Thank you all for your time and your testimony. (See Minutes for Resolution) January 3, 2019 Regular Meeting CERTIFICATION I Elizabeth Sakarellos, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment and is a true and accurate record of Hearings. Signature : Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE :January 15, 2019 97