Full Transcript

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The area is very small.

Right here in the middle of this thing. Now this right here is what I wanted to point out with this one. These are two new houses. One of them is on a lot I know that can't be more than 20,000 or 22,000 square feet. The side yards on both of these are extremely close to each other. In fact, they would be considered outside of code basically at the present time. I don't know when they were built, but they're expensive houses and they're relatively new. And the other ones that I show, for example, this right here, this is much older. But this is... Okay. These houses are all very close together and very close to the road. Okay. There's no setback on any of them. And they've been there, you know, for a while, but they're not extremely old. But this is basically if there's so much of the housing stock in the area is nonconforming to current code. And what we're requesting is simply to actually have a bigger lot with the opportunity to build on it, which would in no way even be visible from the road and wouldn't impact on any of the neighbors at all. In fact, the three lots directly to the south of this lot are smaller in aggregate than the proposed subdivision lot. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. So.

Are you concluding? Have you finished? Say again? Have you finished? Yes. Any questions? Mr. Bonds, any questions? What I'm going to suggest is I understand there's other people here who want to be heard on this. You may want to take a seat, please. I can't hear you, sir. You may want to take a seat. I believe there's other people who want to be heard. Okay, thank you. Right. Okay.

That's okay. You can leave that here. Good evening, members of the board. Are you asking for public comment? I would like to make a comment. Yeah, we'll get to you. You're on Zoom, I believe, right? Yeah. We'll get to you. Okay, so you'll prompt me. Okay. All right. My name is Martha Reichert. I am an attorney with Tumi Latham, Shea, Kelly Dubin, and Quartararo, 33 West 2nd Street, Riverhead, New York. I represent the owners, the adjacent owners at 200 South Jamesport, Mr. Terrence Gallagher and Ms. Roseanne Giambalvo. They have reviewed the plans, and they've asked me to come here to express sort of their view on this particular application and their concerns. In principle, they are not opposed to the applicants. They agree to the proposal, and they agree to the proposal. parcel, but they would like to sort of request that the board take certain things into account. They want to ensure that the proposed common driveway remains where it is shown on the map, on the southerly side. And with respect to the lot two, which is being created, which is what adjoins their property, they would like to request perhaps the imposition of some sort of vegetated covenant requiring that the 20 feet around the westerly and the northerly property lines be kept wooded. It is native vegetation there. And so they think that with respect to creating an undersized lot and everything else, that they would be adequately protected and be mitigated if there could be an assurance that there would be vegetation protecting their sense of privacy. Anything else? That's it. Okay. Somebody on Zoom, I believe, too? Yeah. I believe so.

You ready? So, you want to raise your hand? Hi. My name is Alta Endelman. I'm the property owner at the corner of South Jamesport Avenue at Peconic Bay Boulevard, which is approximately, Peconic Bay Boulevard is approximately 525 feet from the beginning of this property. And my question has to do with storm drainage. Ma'am? I'm in the area. Ma'am, are you listening? Yeah, talk directly into it. Ma'am, are you listening? I'm sorry. Yeah. Would you, the purpose is for you, raise your right hand, tell the truth, tell the truth, and I'll be good. Oh, yes. I'm doing that. All right. And once again, your name is? My name is Alta, A-L-T-A Endelman, I-N-D-E-L-M-A-N. And your address you gave? My address is 1039 Peconic Bay Boulevard. Which is the corner lot at South Jamesport Avenue and Peconic Bay Boulevard, directly to the north of this, north of this property. All right. Ma'am? My lot is 1.2 acres, my neighbor directly to the south, which is just opposite the driveway of this property, is 1.2 acres and some. My concern is strictly about storm drainage in the area. The application appears to indicate that there's no Suffolk County storm, regulated storm drainage within 500 feet of the property. I believe that's an error because there's an easement, there's a right-of-way on my property for the drainage ditch, which is called a stream for the whole area, that then crosses South Jamesport Avenue. So I'd say within. Really, there might be a river there. it may be even less than that of 196 south james foot avenue and it uh it is a county regulated uh stream and the um lagoon where it empties into is also regulated and there's a another drainage valve that regulates that emptying into the bay there's a significant problem with storm drainage flooding in this particular area and uh my concern is a that the application be accurate about the proximity to these um county regulated drainage locations and assuming those uh um that i'm correct that it is closer in proximity than is indicated on the application my concern is that any future i'm sorry i'm in new york and there's a siren outside um i'm concerned that um it not be exacerbated by any reduction in the percolation of the soil by new basements or other construction any questions about anyone anybody else on zoom

there's somebody out there not answering them they're not answering yeah all right i think you had some remarks yeah i have some questions first uh and then remarks number one as to uh miss uh and if i mispronounce it i apologize indelman's comment uh do you agree that there is drainage uh within proximity to the property such that the application should be amended to reflect that there's no problem with drainage that's not my question she indicated would you go to the microphone please um miss ingleman a resident of the area stated her lot is 1.2 acre an adjacent property i believe is also 1.2 she's obviously very familiar with the area and familiar with drainage and she's stating that the application was incorrect and that it failed to state uh there was drainage in proximity to the application do you agree to amend your application to indicate that drainage yes okay yes thank you if the zoning board of appeals required and made a condition that you manage all your storm water on site would you have an objection to that no uh next i have a question if i could for uh uh council breakers yes if i could

you stated that on behalf of your clients it was their desire that there be a on the westerly side of the property a 20-foot vegetative cover can you describe to me would that vegetative cover could it be grass could it be are you asking that trees not be removed can can you highlight for me absolutely i'm happy to give more information about that again this is martha reichert uh timmy latham shea kelly dubin and corduroy for the adjoining neighbors terence gallagher and roseanne giambalva um they own the property which is labeled on this on the site plan as uh now are formerly of deal linda broderick and james broderick just so you can understand the area that we're talking about with respect to the vegetative um buffer you know i i'm going to make an exception here in the I think that from an environmental standpoint and from also just sort of the existing community conditions, this is wooded. If you look at any aerials or even the photo overlay that was supplied by Young and Young, this is existing wooded native vegetation. And so, you know, I think as a first preference, it would be basically no cutting, no tearing anything out, just leaving it wooded. You know, I think our second preference would be vegetated with landscaping. I mean, the idea is to sort of protect privacy in this area because my client's lot is set all the way back and has always enjoyed sort of a reasonable expectation of this wooded area and the privacy. So, you know, I think that given that the RB zoning code already restricts any accessory structures from being from, you know, they have to meet a 20-foot rear setback. If we could have a 20-foot vegetated covenant there, right, so basically no removal of existing vegetation, that would go a long way to preserving the current character of the environment there. And you know, I think that along the northerly part, again, the RB 40 dimensional requirements for a side yard setback are 10 feet for an accessory structure. So 10 feet along the way. I mean, 20 feet along the westerly and, you know, 10 feet of, you know, keeping that wooded and not cleared would make my clients feel, you know, much better about knowing that there's a house going in back there potentially one day in the future. Thank you. There's a couple of other matters you wanted to address. Yes. Mr. Lerner, I think you should go back to the podium. Mr. Lerner. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. First of all, do you have any problem with what was just discussed about the vegetation?

lot too? Yes. Yes. Okay. Take the existing driveway and extend it. So your application here, currently the zoning requires 40,000 square feet. And essentially what you're proposing is to have two substandard size slots, correct? Yes. If the zoning board of appeal was to condition that all future proposed improvements for lot one and lot two meet the required dimensional regulations, front side, rear and lot coverage applicable to existing zoning for each lot, would you agree to that? I believe so. Okay. Well, if I may have one minute. Sure.

Oh my God. I got it. Okay. If you want to. Well, first of all, anybody else have any questions? You have any questions, Mr. Vaughn? Mr. Vaughn? Mr. Vaughn, do you have any questions? Leroy, do you have any questions? Well, I wanted to make it clear that lot two, we're talking about the southerly boundary line that, is next to the house, right? That's where they want the vegetation. They were saying westerly. No, along the westerly boundary line. It's where 200 sits. I have a map of it. Their view, Leroy, coming forward is to that westerly boundary line. We can put the map on it. Okay. Sure. Leroy, if we could, we're going to put a map on the counter and council's going to show it. You want this one? This is the Broderick. Now we're formally Broderick. Yeah. So it's the eastern and the northern boundary lines that you're talking about. Correct. He's switching it over for you. Just give him a minute. He'll pull it up. And if you sit and speak and then point, it won't show like the back of your head. Exactly. Which no one wants to see. All the mics will pick you up. Jason, do you have that? Justin? Rather.

Justin? Okay. Okay.

So what we have here is lot two. And my clients own this parcel. Their house is located approximately over here. And so what we would like to... Respectfully request is the imposition of a covenant in which there would be a 20 foot no clearing vegetative buffer along this property line, which is the westerly one. And then a 10 foot one here along this common driveway, which services this lot and my client's lot. And I think, frankly, it probably will end up being preferable for whoever ends up developing this lot because, again, you have cars coming down here, right? Right. So the idea is to preserve everyone's... Privacy, sort of this peacefulness. I agree with the characterization that in the neighborhood along 4th Street and along here, you have smaller residential lots. However, as you move further north, you have compliant RB40 lots that are newer, such as these three, which were a minor subdivision. And even further along to the north, all the lots are compliant. So, you know, I think that, again, in terms of creating something where the benefits to the applicant is balanced. And if the applicant is not balanced against any detriment to the neighbors, this is what we would like to request. Just one question. I believe you said to the west. It's the west side of your client's property, but... No, I'm saying that the western side of lot two. No, it's the western side of lot two. Okay. Right. This is South Chance Port of Avenue. Oh, I'm so sorry. This is north. Here. There we go. It's the eastern side. I apologize. That's why everyone is confused because I am... So, yes, I meant the easterly side of lot two, the proposed lot two. Right. And then the eastern side. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I meant the proposed lot two. Right. And the northerly side here along this common driveway for these two lots. Sweet. We got that on the record that way. Apologies for the... Sorry. ...the confusion. Should I leave this here in case there are any further questions? You can. Here. You can. Mr. Lerner? I see... Okay. I'm sorry. I got dropped. Mr. Barnes, did you say something? Boxer? Somebody? Mr. Barnes? Yes. I'm sorry. Did you say, I beg your pardon, did you say something? I want to show, can you show me where they want to put the buffers, where, I mean, I guess I'm looking at it wrong. You want to show me again? The southern boundary line is 240 feet. Am I correct or incorrect? I'm not talking about, this is the southerly boundary line of Lot 2. Right. Right. I don't represent it. Is that where you want the vegetation? No. They want it on the easterly boundary line. Thank you, Leroy, for sending us all straight. And along the northerly boundary line. Okay. So easterly and northerly. Gotcha. As you can see, it's noted on the plan that this is existing wooded area. Okay. So now we're seeing it correctly. The other suggestion I would have, Anne-Marie, is that the planning staff, actually, call out what kind of buffer should be made so that everybody's comfortable with the buffer. Whether they call out arborvitaes, green giants, natural buffering, but to be identified on the plan and as a condition and as part of the resolution if we approve it. Did you hear that? Yes. Do you agree with that, board members? Mr. Lerner, do you agree? Do you agree with that? Yes. Thank you. Okay. Anything else, Leroy? That would be my only concern. And I don't know about the drainage issues that are across the street or up the block, but I would think that when Young & Young did the design of the subdivision, they probably would have addressed it. And I'm not sure if they have a representation there tonight. Yes. Do they have anybody? Anybody from Young & Young there? Yes. Would they like to explain the drainage issue? Leroy, but they have agreed that they're going to maintain all their own stormwater. Okay. And they'll cover that. I believe someone else was, well, okay. Alter Eidelman was the one that was concerned. Tell the truth, not the butchery of the selfie card. I do. Put your claim down. But hand out in a loud, clear voice. Please say your name and your address, please. Yes. Thomas Wolpert, civil engineer with Young & Young, 400 Osterender Avenue, Riverhead, New York. You want to respond? Hi, Tom. Yeah, I'm sorry. Would you repeat the question? I was hoping that when the subdivision was designed, Alter Eidelman was discussing drainage and things that are made in the city. Really, did you notice anything about drainage issues Did you address that or did you consider that as part of laying out the lots? We did not consider drainage as an issue at all with this subdivision because we don't believe there is an issue. And furthermore, we're aware of any county drainage easement that traverses our property. We are aware and have identified in the application documents the presence of a New York State DEC mapped freshwater wetland. And that is shown on the map. We are fully aware that a permit or a letter of no jurisdiction will be required from the New York State DEC for that freshwater wetland. Okay, and that will be part of the building. And that's a permit application for lots there. Yes, we, after Zoning Board of Appeals, we have kind of a long way to go. We have to deal with the Suffolk County Health Department, the New York State DEC, as well as the Riverhead Conservation Advisory Council. Okay, well, I would hope that Alta Eidelman is satisfied with explanations. Alta, can you say anything about that? Actually, I'm... I'm not satisfied because the entire area drains to the street that goes into a culvert that goes into the easement stream that's on my property, which is a wetland. And that goes under the street to the lagoon across the way as storm drainage. That is the storm drainage for the area. There's significant flooding in the area. All winter. We've had that issue, and we've had it before. It has to be addressed, and any retainage is a significant issue. I'm not sure what method of retainage. You would need some tanks underground or something to that effect because the soil percolation, it's completely saturated. Well, I think that as a condition in the subdivision that we can put in our approval, that drainage will be... Really, if there's a drainage space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space in the space I'll respond to that question. Mr. Wolpert will answer you. Okay. Thanks. As a function of constructing a new house on lot two, we would propose to contain all of the stormwater runoff from not only the roof of the house, but all impervious areas into dry wells on our property. So we will not, if there's a flooding issue on South Jamesport Avenue, we're not going to affect that at all because we're going to contain all of our stormwater runoff. I understand. As long as that's technically feasible on your site, the reason that I had the concern to begin with is that the stormwater drainage, which is the Suffolk County controlled stormwater drainage, is within 500 feet of the property. And it was checked. And it was checked off as no on the application. And so I was concerned that perhaps that had not been understood. If we didn't understand it before, we understand it now. But again, we're not going to contribute to an existing problem. So I think at this point, I would recommend to the other board members as well as our legal counsel that we draw up a resolution with these conditions in it. And then we'll save it for a future meeting. Council, would you agree with that? We could do that. I am confident that I have them drawn up. All right. What date? How long? Put it on for the next time. Do you have everything? I have everything. You have everything? All right. We can do it now. Leroy. First of all, anybody else? I'm confident I have everything. I took copious notes and bulleted them. But if you prefer to do it now, I'm confident I have everything. I'm confident I have everything. I'm confident I have everything. I'm confident I have everything. If you want to wait until next meeting, that's fine. Well, I just want to make sure that everybody's comfortable with how it's going to be designed. And I'm quite sure Mr. Zeidlman will be satisfied because Mr. Wolpert's a professional engineer. So I don't see it to be a problem. And if we can pass it tonight, that would be fine with me. If you feel comfortable with writing up the conditions or calling. First of all, anybody else wish to be heard? All right. Is there an application? Okay. Mr. Chairman, with respect to appeal number 2024-001, I move that the appeal of Vincent Franchini, Jr. and Thomas Franchini, Jr. of 196 South Janesport Avenue, South Janesport, Suffolk County Tax Map 600-91-2-2.2, which is in residence RB40 zoning for area variances and or relief from Chapter 301-17. We're proposed lot size for lot one is 23,720 square foot and the minimum required is 40,000 square foot. Chapter 301-17, we're proposed lot width for lot one is 85.37 foot. Minimum required is 150 foot. Chapter 301-17, we're proposed minimum side yard for lot one is 20.4 foot. Minimum required is 25 foot. Chapter 301-17, we're proposed. Side yard for lot one is 43.2 foot. Minimum required is 55 foot. And Chapter 301-17, we're proposed lot size for lot two is 33,433 square foot. Minimum required is 40,000 square foot. Be granted subject to and conditioned upon the following. One. Applicant agrees to demolish and remove the 14.5 foot by 17 foot. Metal frame canopy set situated on lot one. Prior to such demolition and removal, applicant shall meet with the building inspector and to the extent deemed necessary, make application to the building department to undertake such demolition and removal. Two. Applicant should not be permitted to file for a building permit and or commence construction or improvement on lot two prior to completion of one above. Three. All proposed future improvements to lot one shall meet the. Required dimensional regulations for front, side, rear and lot coverage applicable to existing zoning district. Four. All proposed future improvements to lot two shall meet the dimensional regulations for front, side, rear and lot coverage applicable to existing zoning district. As to front yard, the dimensional regulation shall apply to the entire length of the front yard. Five. Applicant shall. Regulation. Shall record and file a covenant with Suffolk County clerk in favor of the town of Riverhead reciting conditions three and four above and waiving all rights of owner and successors or assigns to make application to the zoning board of appeals related to relief from the above dimensional or lot coverage requirements set forth and made applicable to lots one and two by the town code for the town of Riverhead. Six. The covenant shall be approved by the office of the town attorney prior to. Recording and no building permit for lots one or two shall be issued until said covenant is recorded. Six. Applicant shall record and file a permanent easement on the Suffolk County with the Suffolk County clerk for shared driveway access for lots one and two. The permanent shall be. Permanent easement. The permanent easement shall be approved by the planning board and office of. The town attorney prior to recording and no building permits or lots. Four lots one or two shall be issued until said easement is recorded. I have two additional covenants. May I read them? Sure, please. Number seven. Applicant shall covenant and maintain a vegetative buffer 20 feet in width along the easterly property line and 10 feet along the northerly property line. Okay. Number eight. Applicant shall maintain a Such vegetative plan to be approved by the planning board. Eight. Applicant shall maintain all stormwater runoffs for lots one and two. And install or create any drainage system required as part of planning board approval. Next. Note. That the building must be in accordance with the schedule of the building and must include approval of the building envelopes and proposed setbacks depicted on the sketch plan. And instead to the extent required by the planning board. Or upon application to the building inspector. Such building envelopes and setbacks related there too must be revised to conform to three and four above. This approval is subject to planning board approval. accordance with any such other amendments thereto, if any, required by the Planning Board and Building Inspector. Can I get a second, Mr. Barnes? Second. All right. Mr. Zawiski? Aye. Mr. Barnes? Aye. And I vote aye. All right. It's been approved on those conditions. You'll be, you know what the difference is now, right? Okay. Okay. Really? Really? Really? Really? Really? Really? Really? Really?

MINIMUM ALLOWED IS 50 FEET. CHAPTER 301-11, WHERE PROPOSED SIDE YARD SETBACK IS 6 FEET, MINIMUM ALLOWED IS 25 FEET. CHAPTER 301-11, WHERE PROPOSED COMBINED SIDE YARD IS 51.5 FEET, MINIMUM ALLOWED IS 55 FEET. THIS WAS ALSO ADJOURNED FROM FEBRUARY 22, 2024. Mayor Redekop. Raise your right hand, please. Tell the truth, tell the truth, none for the truth. I do. Would you hand out, please, and allow it to be voiced. Please state your name and your address, please. My name is Robert Shromsky. I reside at 44 Circle Drive, Jamesport, New York. I am acting as the architect for the applicant and for the project. What you have before you is a project that is looking to renovate and rebuild an existing wood deck that is seaward of the existing frame bungalow. And then also what we are proposing to do is there's an existing accessory cottage. We're looking to demolish. That existing cottage and propose a new two-story single-family residence on the parcel. This new structure would become the primary residence and the existing frame bungalow would be considered the accessory. This has been a project that has been under review by the town of Riverhead back in 2012 at the time when Mr. Podlos was part of the building department. He had deemed that as long as they were to remove the existing condition within the frame bungalow, that that frame bungalow could be considered the accessory structure. And that this proposed new structure would be considered the primary structure on the parcel. This project is also looking to upgrade the existing sanitary system because of the proposed improvements. This project. Has been put forth to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. The DSE has considered the non jurisdiction with with regarding to their review.