HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/05/2012 Hearing 1
1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK
3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
4 -------------------------------------------- X
5
Southold Town Hall
6 Southold, New York
RECEIVED
7
JAN 3 0 201Z
8 January 5 , 2012 BOARD OF APPEALS
10 : 06 A.M.
9
10 Board Members Present :
11 LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
12 JAMES DINIZIO, JR. - Member
-~ 13 GEORGE HORNING - Member (Left at 2 : 20 P .M. )
14 KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER - Member
16
17 JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney
18 VICKI TOTH - Secretary
19
20
21
22
Jessica DiLallo
23 Court Reporter
P. O. Box 984
24 Holbrook, New York 11741
( 631 ) -338-1409
25
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 2
-, 1•
2 INDEX OF HEARINGS
3
4
5 Hearing: Page :
6
7 Joseph and Elizabeth Brittman #6522 3-3
8 David Moore #6515 4-5
9 Patrick and Diane Kelly #6519 5-12
10 Bruce and Elizabeth and Donna Collura 12-27
11 #6527
12 Dorothy and Stefan Kotylak #6529 27-43
13 Threshold Blue, LLC (Sparkling Pointe) 43-57
14 #6526
15 Hernan Michael Otano #6525 59-119
16 Louis and Elizabeth Mastro #6530 119-134
17 Melanie M, Marianne, Michael Selwyn 134-144
18 #6528
19 Nelson Family #6532 144-155
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 3
1 HEARING #6522 - JOSEPH and ELIZABETH BRITTMAN
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : -- for the amended
3 Notice of Disapproval that we received, that
4 requires two additional variances and it was
5 not properly advertised. They were only
6 advertised from the carryover prospective . So
7 I am going to ask if there is anyone in the
8 audience who wants to address this particular
9 application?
10 (No Response . )
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If there is no
12 one in the audience who wants to address it,
13 then I am going to make a motion to adjourn the
14 hearing to February 2nd at 10 : 00 A. M.
15 Is there a second?
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by
18 Gerry.
19 All in favor?
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
21 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
22 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
25 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 4
2 HEARING #6515 - DAVID MOORE
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next hearing
4 is for David Moore . This is a carry-over from
5 a public hearing and there is no need to read
6 the legal notice . We have received a letter
7 dated January 4th, from the agents, requesting
8 an adjournment, so that all the information'
9 required by the Town Engineer on the Drainage
10 Control Plan ( In Audible) could be completed
11 and so that all that information is here before
12 us . It has been advertised, so I am going to
13 ask if there is • anyone in the audience that
14 would like to address this application?
15 (No Response . )
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
17 comment, I am going to make a motion to adjourn
18 David Moore #6515, to February 2nd, at
19 10 : 15 A.M. So moved.
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by
22 Gerry.
23 All in favor?
24 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 5
1 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye .
4 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
5 **********************************************
6 HEARING #6519 - PATRICK AND DIANE KELLY
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : -- carry-over .
8 Is there anyone here in the audience that would
9 like to address this application?
10 MR. WEBER: Yes, Fred Weber . I am the
11 architect representing Patrick and Diane Kelly .
12 I guess at last months hearing, we submitted a
13 plan, which I guess had some second floor
14 encroachments on setbacks , as well as a
15 proposed floor . And that third floor had
16 basically three rooms, and one was a -bedroom.
17 One was a sitting room and one was a bathroom.
18 And the Board was objecting to the fact that
19 they didn ' t think it was appropriate for
20 bedroom space to be on the third floor . I
21 revised the plans to show a third floor, which
22 consist of one room, which as a -- which views
23 out to the bay. And has a deck in front of it .
24 That was submitted early this week. My client
25 is actually not really happy with the -- sort
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 6
1 of the half -- large half round window that
2 occurred on that elevation . I am not sure if
3 you had a chance to look at that . And I did a
4 revision that they are happy with and I was
5 wondering if I can show that to you --
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We actually got
7 these plans this morning, your revised plans .
8 MR. WEBER: Basically, it ' s still a
9 single room. The main difference is that we ' re
10 trying to create a different look on the
11 exterior, which providing two small ( In
12 Audible) .
13 (Far away from the microphone . )
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We ' re all getting
15 copies of this .
16 MR. WEBER: I will give you a minute to
17 absorb it . The concept is really the same to
18 have a one room up there that is really a
19 family room, gathering room. A room where they
20 can view out to the bay.
D
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Instead of making
22 it a chamfering of quarters on the deck as the
23 larger plan are proposing, you want to do a
24 rectangular deck?
25 MR. WEBER: Right, but the main change
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 7
1 is really the elevation . That is the reason it
2 was changed, not for the chamfering of the deck
3 or whatever. It was changed because the client
4 did not like the half round treatment of the
5 windows , in that main gable . They wanted it
6 less of an element . Much less of a large
7 element on the roof and I guess more of a
8 quieter element . Less of a pronounced element
9 on the roof .
10 MEMBER DINIZIO : Is it covered porch?
11 MR. WEBER: No .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Open deck.
13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That deck does not
14 extend pass the roof line of that second story,
15 so therefore there is no setback issue; right?
16 MR. WEBER: Correct .
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The setbacks that
18 are there are the same setbacks --
19 MR. WEBER: Correct .
20 MEMBER DINIZIO : I wanted to make sure
21 that the roof wasn ' t coming out because it
22 looks like the other proposal was covered.
23 MR. WEBER: The other proposal was
24 slightly covered. They didn ' t like the fact
25 that it was covered and they thought that that
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 8
1 kind of restricted the view and whatever .
2 Unfortunately, they' re in Florida right now and
3 we ' ve had a little problem with communications
4 over the holiday ' s here .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, because you
6 changed the roof line a little bit, the room
7 itself, is getting -- yeah -- in this proposed
8 family room --
9 MR. WEBER: Right .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There are like
11 wings on either side with windows and seats and
12 so on; right?
13 MR. WEBER: Right . That is really --
14 that was really not done to create any extra
15 space . It was done really to create the look
16 of --
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The symmetry?
18 MR. WEBER: Yeah.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don ' t have any
20 issues with it . We didn ' t particularly
21 describe to you what size or anything like
22 that . Just that it be storage or a sitting
23 room with a deck.
24 MEMBER HORNING: In the event --
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don ' t have any
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals, 9
i
1 questions about it . Maybe some of the other
2 Board members do .
3 MEMBER HORNING: Just for
4 clarification .
5 MR. WEBER: Sure .
6 MEMBER HORNING: In the event of a fire
7 and someone was on that third floor, I know
8 you ' re going to have a sprinkler system
9 throughout the building; correct?
10 MR. WEBER: Correct .
11 MEMBER HORNING: Let ' s say that someone
12 is on the third floor and there is a fire, and
13 they have to step out onto a window on the
14 third floor, let ' s say they' re able to step out
15 on the one with the little bit of deck there,
16 what would they do next? Can they step from
17 that deck onto the second floor roof or what
18 would happen?
19 MR. WEBER: Well, they would step off
20 that deck. That deck doesn ' t quite go to the
21 edge of the roof .
22 MEMBER HORNING: Right .
23 MR. WEBER: And below is where the --
24 there is a second floor deck. You know, it
25 would be -- you know, basically -- you know, an
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 10
1 8 foot drop to the deck and then maybe a 6 foot
2 drop to the deck rail .
3 MEMBER HORNING: So in a life
4 threatening event --
5 MR. WEBER: Yeah, in a life threatening
6 event --
7 MEMBER HORNING: They would go from one
8 deck to the lower deck?
9 MR. WEBER: I would.
10 MEMBER HORNING : Now, how about from
11 the window seats? Are the window seats going
12 to make an impediment to getting out that
13 window?
14 MR. WEBER: Well, it ' s really all one
15 room. And I think you would go out the door .
16 I don ' t think you would attempt to go out --
17 there are two doors there that go out to the
18 deck.
19 MEMBER HORNING: Onto the deck?
20 MR. WEBER: Yeah, onto the deck. You
21 would go out onto that proposed deck and I
22 don ' t think you would deal with the windows .
23 Because those windows are going to be higher up
24 then the -- then the other windows in the
25 center and obviously the door .
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 11
1 MEMBER HORNING : In the event you did
2 have to crawl out one of those windows, what
3 would happen?
4 MR. WEBER: Well, you would be on the
5 roof of the -- the roof that is over the second
6 floor bay there . Again, it would be about an 8
7 foot drop to the roof below . You know, there
8 you don ' t have a rail to come down . You just
9 have a roof surface . I would go out onto the
10 deck and drop to a flat surface deck rather
11 then go out a smaller window and drop to a --
12 MEMBER HORNING: I know, but in a panic
13 situation, you do different things .
14 MR. WEBER: Right .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, also
16 George, just as a reminder . The whole thing is
17 going to have to be sprinklered.
18 MR. WEBER: The whole house . Not just
19 the third floor .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Jim, do
21 you have any questions?
22 MEMBER DINIZIO : No . No, questions .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken, do you have
24 any questions?
25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions .
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 12
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Nope .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
4 Is there anyone else in the audience
5 that would like to address this application?
6 (No Response . )
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
8 further comments , I will make a motion to close
9 this hearing and reserve decision to a later
10 date .
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
13 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
15 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
18 (See Minutes for Resolution. )
19 ***********************************************
20 HEARING #6527 - BRUCE AND ELIZABETH AND
21 DONNA COLLURA
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Our next
23 application is for Bruce and Elizabeth and
24 Donna Collura, #6527 . Request for variance
25 from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the
L•
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 13
1 Building Inspector ' s November 4 , 2011 Notice of
2 Disapproval based on an application for
3 building permit for a deck addition to a single
4 family dwelling: 1 ) less than the code
5 required rear yard setback of 35 feet, located
6 at : 170 Manor Road, corner Gillette Drive and
7 East Gillette Drive in East Marion .
8 Is there someone here to represent this
9 application? Can you please come forward to
10 the mic?
11 MS . D . COLLURA: Good morning .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning .
13 Can you please just state and spell your name
14 for the record?
15 MS . D. COLLURA: Donna Collura,
16 C-O-L-L-U-R-A.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you .
18 MS . E . COLLURA: And Elizabeth Collura,
19 C-O-L-L-U-R-A.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you . Okay.
21 What would you like to tell us about your
22 application?
23 MS . D . COLLURA: Well, we have an
24 unusual situation because we found out we have
25 three front yards, and situations where we have
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 14
1 a four bedroom house and sleeps 8 to 10 people .
2 And the living area is not large . So our first
3 instinct was to expand the blueprint of the
4 house but that would have required, obviously a
5 variance also and we didn ' t want to be an
6 optimtacious (phenetic) building and in an area
7 where there are not a lot of big houses . We
8 wanted to conform to what is there . So then we
9 thought, well, okay, we will just put a deck on
10 the outside of the house and that will increase
11 our living space .
12 MS . E . COLLURA: It ' s right off the
13 kitchen. You would step right off the kitchen
14 onto it .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. This deck
16 is before us because the code requires a 35
17 foot setback from your rear property line .
18 It ' s your only property line that isn ' t a front
19 yard. And you ' re proposing an 18 foot deep
20 deck, which gives you the 17 and according to
21 your plan, 0 . 3, whereas , the Notice of
22 Disapproval says 17 . 1 foot setback from the
23 property line . Okay.
24 Jim, do you have any questions on this?
25 MEMBER DINIZIO : No . No, questions .
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 15
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George?
2 MEMBER HORNING: I do not .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Nope .
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Nope .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Nope .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The only thing
9 that I am going to ask you is would there be a
10 difficulty if you increase the setback a little
11 bit by just making it 16 feet, instead of 18
12 feet?
13 MS . E . COLLURA: That would be doable .
14 That would be fine .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I mean, because
16 the Board is obligated by law to grant the
17 smallest variance possibly reasonably can,
18 should a variance be warranted. So the Board
19 generally explores options like that . If you
20 have no objection to that , that would reduce
21 the variance and thereby increase the setback
22 to 19 feet .
23 All right, is there anyone else in the
24 audience that would like to address this
25 application? Please come forward.
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 16
1 MR. HOHN : Donald Hohn. I live at
2 945 Gillette Drive . My side yard abuts their
3 rear yard. I guess I am the only piece of
4 property that would be effected because of the
5 odd shape of the property. I have talked with
6 the applicant . They have assured me that
7 they ' re going to be doing some buffering around
8 the deck to sort of screen it . With that in
9 mind, I have no objections whatsoever to your
10 application .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you . In
12 observing the neighborhood and I think this
13 Board is very familiar with that area because
14 there have been a number of variances because
15 of, you know, so many of the lots have rear
16 yards and front yards that are really
17 technically front yards . And almost all the
18 properties up and down East Gillette are
19 screened with some sort of a Evergreen
20 screening just to create privacy for the
21 property owners, as well as from the street .
22 The deck would be highly visible from many
23 perspectives without appropriate Evergreen
24 screening, but -- why don ' t you come back up
25 for one moment . Just make sure your answer is
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 17
1 on the record here . Your intent is to do some
2 Evergreen screening along the line between your
3 neighbor and your proposed deck; is that
4 correct?
5 MS . D. COLLURA: Yes .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And what about
7 any screening from the two streets? Are you
8 planning to --
9 MS . E . COLLURA: Yeah, over time, we
10 were looking to do something like that .
11 MS . D. COLLURA: For our own privacy as
12 well . I mean, you kind of feel like you ' re in
13 a fishbowl back there .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Generally when
15 people are barbecuing they like a little more
16 privacy --
17 MS . D . COLLURA: Right .
18 MEMBER HORNING: Leslie, while they ' re
19 here and if they ' re agreeing to a 16 foot deck,
20 are we going to amend the application or are we
21 going to require another survey showing --
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, I think we
23 can just grant alternative relief . Yes, we
24 will just grant alternative relief of 16 feet
25 and then they won ' t have to bother to go
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 18
1 through any more submissions or changes .
2 MEMBER HORNING: So you have an
3 understanding of what we would be doing then?
4 MS . D . COLLURA: Yes .
5 MS . E . COLLURA: Yes .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: In other words ,
7 you have applied for the 17 . 1 and we would
8 grant you 19 . 1 feet or 0 . 3 .
9 MEMBER HORNING: Would we necessarily
10 have a condition about the screening or we
11 would take it in good faith that they would do
12 it?
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That ' s up to the
14 Board. The Board does have the jurisdiction if
15 the impact on the character of the neighborhood
16 would be in some way compromised by your deck
17 not being screened to some extent . We do have
18 the option to grant it with the condition that
19 you do provide Evergreens or privacy screening
20 of some sort of another .
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And we also have a
22 request from the neighbor .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, the
24 neighbor approved it based upon the assumption
25 that it ' s going to have it . So how would you
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 19
1 feel if the decision reflected the -- let ' s say
2 at the very least for now, some privacy
3 screening between your house and your neighbor,
4 to start with? Evergreens , your choice?
5 MS . D . COLLURA: Okay.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Arborvitae ' s ,
7 Leyland Cypress, Pine Trees of some sort of
8 another . Just something that would create over
9 time an additional barrier between the two
10 properties .
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Continuously
12 maintained.
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In other words,
14 if something died, you would put in a new one .
15 That ' s all that that means .
16 MEMBER DINIZIO: Usually we require how
17 high they' re going to be or how long they ' re
18 going to be, you know, along the particular
19 piece of property . We would have to come up
20 with those measurements .
21 MS . E . COLLURA: Is there a timeframe
22 in which they would have to be installed?
23 MEMBER DINIZIO : Yes , before , you get a
24 CO .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In other words , a
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 20
1 condition in getting a Certificate of Occupancy
2 on the deck, which legalizes the deck, you
3 would have to include that landscaping.
4 MS . E . COLLURA: If it ' s on the
5 property line, would it be a shared expense
6 between the other property owner or would it be
7 solely our responsibility?
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would be on
9 your property and it would be your
10 responsibility.
11 MS . D. COLLURA: So we ' re talking about
12 just the back and --
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, that is the
14 only person who has come here to address his
15 concern .
16 MS . D . COLLURA: I just want to make
17 sure that we ' re on the same page . That we ' re
18 agreeing to something that we understand to be
19 -- we need to put something along the back of
20 the deck, so that there is privacy between
21 us --
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right .
23 MS . D. COLLURA: And our neighbor?
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes .
25 MS . D. COLLURA: And the sides we can
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 21
1 do at a later date?
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes .
3 MS . D. COLLURA: Okay.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, that ' s what
5 we ' re talking about .
6 Do other Board members have any
7 questions or thoughts about it?
8 MEMBER HORNING: Would you want to do
9 such a thing right adjacent to the back of the
10 deck or along the property line?
11 MS . E . COLLURA: Well, we were thinking
12 along the property line . We would probably be
13 more aesthetically pleasing.
14 MEMBER HORNING: And the dimensions of
15 your house are what right now?
16 MS . D. COLLURA: Is it on the survey?
17 MEMBER HORNING : The deck is 30 feet .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The setback is
19 spelled out but not the house .
20 MS . D. COLLURA: 24X54 -- yeah, that is
21 with the garage .
22 MEMBER HORNING: Okay. If we had a
23 condition for screening, are we talking about a
24 54 foot distance?
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, 30-35 feet .
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 22
1 MEMBER HORNING: Along the boundary or
2 something like that?
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes .
4 MEMBER HORNING : So it ' s not a large
5 length, really.
6 MS . D. COLLURA: 30 feet, right .
7 MS . E . COLLURA: And that would be on
8 the property line .
9 MS . D . COLLURA: Unfortunately, my
10 brother and her husband, he ' s sick. So he ' s
11 not here to discuss this with us, but we ' re
12 going to want to assume that he would want to
13 put it on the property line .
14 MS . E . COLLURA: Right in front of the
15 line with privacy .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You would have to
17 plant it at a sufficient depth inward, so that
18 when it grows it ' s not overhanging on your
19 neighbor .
20 MS . D. COLLURA: Right . We understand
21 that . So we would need something, 30 feet for
22 the back property line inside, so that it would
23 not grow and encroach on his property?
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Correct .
25 MS . D . COLLURA: Okay.
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 23
1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Perhaps we can have
2 the applicant show us what they proposed on a
3 copy of their survey? Show where they propose
4 to do such screening, so we can have it for the
5 file?
6 MS . D . COLLURA: Well, we ' re going to
7 have to determine what it is -- what type of
8 arborvitae --
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: They can think about
10 it .
11 MEMBER DINIZIO : Are you happy with
12 arborvitae?
13 MS . D . COLLURA: I don ' t know.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don ' t think
15 that we have to . I think we can say
16 Evergreen --
17 MEMBER DINIZIO : Four feet high?
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes . Screening,
19 minimum four feet high so they can grow. Just
20 to give you examples, such as -- and let you go
21 to a landscaper and find a good deal or
22 whatever and put in. We can say plant it three
23 foot on center -- you know, that is relative to
24 the type of plant material . You can ' t really
25 know for sure --
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 24
1 MS . D . COLLURA: Right .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : -- how far apart
3 they should be, being we don ' t know how many -
4 MS . D . COLLURA: Right --
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: -- you ' re
6 planting or how big they' re going to get .
7 MS . D. COLLURA: That ' s why I made the
8 comment that I made, we don ' t know yet .
9 MEMBER HORNING : But you can estimate
10 and do it three foot on center and 30-35
11 feet --
12 MS . D.. COLLURA: Right .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think it ' s fine
14 if we put down Evergreen screening such as, to
15 be planted and provide a continuous visual
16 enclosure or barrier and you will have to
17 consult with a landscaper as to what your
18 preference is .
19 MS . D . COLLURA: Right .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It will
21 accomplish the goal . That ' s the intent . I
22 mean, we ' re not going to sit here and design
23 your landscape for you . I don ' t think that is
24 the intent here . We want to make sure that it
25 does what the intention is and just to make
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 25
1 sure that it ' s continuous and not just a boom,
2 boom and everybody can look through . You might
3 as well plant Pear Trees then, you know?
4 MEMBER HORNING: And namely, if it is
5 as a condition in our decision, we want you to
6 be aware of it, as it ' s potential effect and
7 that it ' s going to be there .
8 MS . D. COLLURA: Well, initially,
9 they' re not going to be -- I am assuming, there
10 is going to have to be some space in between
11 them because --
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, of course .
13 MS . D . COLLURA: Okay.
14 MEMBER HORNING: They will grow
15 quickly.
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have a lot of
17 sun there .
18 MS . D . COLLURA: Yeah .
19 MEMBER HORNING : I don ' t think we need
20 to get a plan .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don ' t think
22 that we need a plan, no .
23 You have to come back up to the mic .
24 MR. HOHN : I am just trying to leave
25 them with an option . Does it have to be at the
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 26
1 property line or can it be at the deck? Just
2 to give them an option of where to put it?
3 MEMBER DINIZIO : All we ' re asking is
4 that they screen that deck.
5 MR. HOHN : So it doesn ' t matter if it ' s
6 on the property line or the deck?
7 MEMBER DINIZIO: No .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We ' re just going
9 to say inside the property line to conceal the
10 deck from the adjacent neighbor .
11 MR. HOHN : Great .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anyone else in
13 the audience want to address this application?
14 (No Response . )
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any other
16 comments from the Board members?
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Nothing.
1.8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
1.9 further comments, I will make a motion to close
20 this hearing and reserve decision to a later
21 date .
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by
24 Gerry.
25 All in favor?
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 27
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
2 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
3 MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye .
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye .
6 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
7 ***********************************************
8 HEARING #6529 - DOROTHY AND STEFAN KOTYLAK
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Next application
10 is for Dorothy and Stefan Kotylak, and that is
11 #6529 . Request for variance from Article III,
12 Code Section 280-15, and the Building
13 Inspector ' s November 16, 2011 Notice of
14 Disapproval, based on an application to
15 construct an addition to an accessory garage,
16 at : 1) more than the code required maximum
17 square footage of 660 square feet on lots up to
18 20 , 000 square feet ; located at : 280 Pine Wood
119 Road in Cutchogue .
20 Is there someone here that would like
21 to address this application?
22 MR. KOTYLAK: Hello. My name is Steve
23 Kotylak.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, thank you .
25 MR. KOTYLAK: Basically, I am looking
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 28
1 to expand the garage, so I have room for my
2 lawn mower, power equipment . Also, right now,
3 it ' s like a garage and a half. You can imagine
4 the things that you can accumulate as I -- I
5 have been renovating the house . So I had to
6 take everything out . I am trying to keep
7 everything indoors, my lawn equipment, my moms
8 car, possibly my truck, myself . So I know the
9 maximum is 660 square feet . All I am asking
10 for is 188 square feet . I spoke with my
11 neighbors , nobody has a problem with it . I
12 also counted the -- in my immediate
13 neighborhood around the block, out of 46
14 residences, 26 of them have two-car garages
15 that were detached garages .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you want to
17 submit this to the Board?
18 MR. KOTYLAK: Sure .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: For the record,
20 this is a plat, copy of the neighborhood with
21 little green dots showing what residences have
22 two-car garages .
23 MR. KOTYLAK: The green and yellow are
24 detached.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Thank you,
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 29
1 sir .
2 Jim, any questions?
3 MEMBER DINIZIO : Can you just go over
4 the square footages? What is the square
5 footage there now for the garage?
6 MR. KOTYLAK: Right now it ' s 450 .
7 MEMBER DINIZIO : 450?
8 MR. KOTYLAK: Yeah. It ' s like a garage
9 with a little wooden shed right off the back.
10 MEMBER DINIZIO: I see that .
11 MR. KOTYLAK: But it ' s a dirt floor and
12 basically useless .
13 MEMBER DINIZIO : But that shed is
14 included in this --
15 MR. KOTYLAK: Yes .
16 MEMBER DINIZIO: And you want to go to
17 how big?
18 MR. KOTYLAK: I want to add an
19 additional 398 square feet .
20 MEMBER DINIZIO : What ' s the total?
21 MR. KOTYLAK: The total would be 848 .
22 MEMBER DINIZIO: 848 .
23 MR. KOTYLAK: So minus your 660 , 188 is
24 what I am asking for .
25 MEMBER DINIZIO : Okay. And you ' re here
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 30
1 for two variances . One is for square footage
2 and the other one is because you ' re in a side
3 yard. Are you adding that deck or does that
t
4 deck currently exist?
5 MR. KOTYLAK: The deck is on the house .
6 MEMBER DINIZIO : It is?
7 MR. KOTYLAK: Yes .
8 MEMBER DINIZIO : So if you took a foot
9 off of that deck, you wouldn ' t be here for that
10 second variance . That is how -- that ' s how
11 they come to the point that you ' re in the side
12 yard.
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Wait a minute, we
14 only have one . It doesn ' t say that it ' s in a
15 side yard.
16 MEMBER DINIZIO : It says it should be
17 in a rear yard.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And it is .
19 MEMBER DINIZIO: No, it ' s not . The
20 deck makes that a side yard probably about six
21 inches .
22 MR. KOTYLAK: The deck is on the
23 existing house .
24 MEMBER DINIZIO : The first requirement
25 speaks to that . And I am not saying --
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 31
1 MR. KOTYLAK: I wasn ' t aware of that .
2 MEMBER DINIZIO: I am assuming that ' s
3 the reason why the Building Inspector gave you
4 that -- refuse to give you a permit on that
5 too . Had you not had the deck on the back of
6 the house, you would be here for one --
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jim, you have to
8 explain this to me because I don ' t see -- I see
9 only the side variance .
10 MEMBER DINIZIO: Look at the Notice of
11 Disapproval .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am reading it .
13 MEMBER DINIZIO : All right . First
14 statement says --
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Should require a
16 rear yard subject to -- subject to the side .
17 It doesn ' t say it ' s located in the side yard.
18 MEMBER DINIZIO : Well, why would they
19 even mention that?
20 MEMBER HORNING: It ' s a statement of
21 fact .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They usually do .
23 MEMBER DINIZIO : We grant variances
24 because of that .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right .
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 32
1 MEMBER DINIZIO: They want to build a
2 deck and to me it looks like it ' s about six
3 inches on the survey overlap .
4 MR. KOTYLAK: It ' s not overlapping the
5 deck at all . If you look straight from the
6 house --
7 MEMBER DINIZIO : -- rear yard.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Vicki is
9 clarifying . It is in the rear yard. It ' s just
10 the side .
11 MEMBER DINIZIO : It ' s not clear .
12 MEMBER HORNING : It ' s not clear, Jim,
13 but I don ' t think they were cited for it .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They weren ' t .
15 And site inspection shows that they don ' t have
16 that deck in the backyard. So I see what Jim
17 is referring to . I think we ' re only looking at
18 a side yard.
19 MR. KOTYLAK: Yeah, I was only aware of
20 the square footage issue .
21 MEMBER DINIZIO : Sorry for the
22 confusion.
23 MR. KOTYLAK: It ' s all .right .
24 MEMBER DINIZIO : . You know just looking
25 at your variance reasons and basically other
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 33
1 people in the area have two-car garages,
2 detached. I would say similar --
3 MR. KOTYLAK: Most of the older homes
4 in the area have detached garages because
5 that ' s the way they built them.
6 MEMBER DINIZIO : You have to speak into `
7 that microphone .
8 MR. KOTYLAK: The older homes usually
9 had the detached garages and then as they built
10 that area up, there were more ranches and they
11 have the garages attached .
12 MEMBER DINIZIO : You could do this
13 without a variance by just attaching it to the
14 house .
15 MR. KOTYLAK: Yes .
16 MEMBER DINIZIO : I think that is all I
17 have .
18 MR. KOTYLAK: Okay.
19 MEMBER HORNING : I wanted to explore
20 that a little bit . The idea of attaching the
21 garage and not requiring a variance, didn ' t you
.22 testify that this current garage has a dirt
23 floor or --
24 MR. KOTYLAK: No, there is a little
25 shed existing off the back. That has kind of a
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 34
1 dirt floor .
2 MEMBER HORNING : Just the shed?
c
3 MR. KOTYLAK: Yeah . The garage is all
4 a cement floor .
5 MEMBER HORNING: And how feasible is it
6 for you to build an attached garage or relocate
7 what you have and attach it and make it bigger?
8 Is that feasible?
9 MR. KOTYLAK: To attach it to the house
10 at this point wouldn ' t be feasible . That ' s
11 part of the problem. When I worked with the
12 architect, to be able to drive a pick-up truck
13 in between the house, the deck and -- you know,
14 the addition of the garage -- you know, that ' s
15 why it ' s kind of stepped back a little bit . So
16 you would have nine and a half feet more or
17 less to have access to the backyard.
18 MEMBER HORNING: But if the whole thing
19 was moved over to where the deck was in that
20 area then you would not need to drive a pick-up
21 truck in between because you would have plenty
22 of room on the driveway side .
23 MR. KOTYLAK: On the far side -- the
24 driveway side, the land kind of slopes there
25 and it has -- actually right now, it has 2X6 ' s
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 35
1 and it ' s kind of stepped out and landscaped.
2 So we would have to do some major excavating
3 there . And my neighbor next door, back before
4 they had too many rules, built their house on a
5 grade and they basically just dug the
6 foundation out and heaped it up . So they have
7 a flat property and it slopes down six to seven
8 feet towards property. So I had to do some
9 landscaping and navigating with 2X6 ' s to get
10 the water to drain so it wouldn ' t get flooded.
11 That is kind of the reason why I am doing what
12 I am doing .
13 MEMBER HORNING : Okay.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions .
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Would you say
17 Mr . Kotylak, this is one of the older houses --
18 this is going to be a very nice house, and an
19 older frame --
20 MR. KOTYLAK: Yes .
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Would you say this
22 is one of the older houses in that area?
23 MR. KOTYLAK: Absolutely. Yes .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So bearing that in
25 mind, the easiest way for you to deal with this
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 36
1 situation is to add onto the garage?
2 MR. KOTYLAK: Yep .
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay.
4 MEMBER DINIZIO : The existing garage
5 and not that shed, can you fit a car in there?
6 MR. KOTYLAK: You can fit a car in
7 there but like I said with lawn mowers . I have
8 a log splitter . I burn firewood. It ' s very
9 tight . If I am doing it, I might as well do it
10 the right way. To make enough room to make it
11 useful .
12 MEMBER DINIZIO: But you are going to
13 tare this garage down and make a new one?
14 MR. KOTYLAK: Some of it .
15 MR. MCGANN : No --
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have to state
17 your name, please .
18 MR. MCGANN: My name is Doug McGann . I
19 am doing the work for Stefan at his house . For
20 him and his mother . The existing garage is
21 going to remain. We ' re going to demolish the
22 right side wall where the extension is going
23 and the back wall, but the front and left side
24 wall are going to remain.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : New roof?
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 37
1 MR. KOTYLAK: New roof, yes .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I have to ask a
3 question, I think, because again, as I stated
4 before, the law requires us to grant the
5 smallest variance reasonable and possible,
6 should a variance be granted. And you have --
7 you made this 28 foot deep, this garage,
8 allowing it an approximate 8 feet of deck for
9 lawn mower, storage and what you ' re calling a
10 workshop area .
11 MR. KOTYLAK: Yeah, I want to put like
r
12 a small overhead door, so you can run the
13 mowers out the back without having to shift
14 cars around.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right . You do
16 not have a lot coverage issue . There is
17 nothing to prevent you from creating somewhat
18 of a smaller garage area and building a storage
19 shed for all of your other -- you know, lawn
20 equipment and things like that . What hardship
21 would result if you reduce the size of the
22 depth of that garage somewhat?
23 MR. KOTYLAK: Well, the whole idea was
24 not to have a property with all kinds of sheds
25 and -- you know, make it one unit and look
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 38
1 nice . You know -- I don' t know, too many sheds
2 on a house, it looks kind of -- you know, funky
3 to me . I would rather keep it clean . All in
4 one and have it look nice .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And could you
6 manage to get your equipment into a -- let ' s
7 say a five foot rather then an eight?
8 MR. KOTYLAK: I suppose it ' s possible
9 but I wanted at least -- you know, like I said,
10 an overhead door where I could drive the
11 equipment out easily. The log splitter is -- I
i
12 don ' t know, four feet across, five feet across .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You ' re proposing
14 a six foot door?
15 MR. KOTYLAK: Yeah .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well , you got
17 your carpenter here . What is the smallest area
18 that you could manage to --
19 MR. MCGANN : You mean the smallest size
20 door?
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, I don ' t
22 want -- we ' re not arguing in any way with your
23 desire to use this garage -- let ' s say, other
24 then for cars . We just are seeing what the
25 smallest size that is reasonable --
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 39
1 MR. MCGANN : I understand your
2 question . He would also like to have a work
3 bench along the back side of the wall . So he
4 can work on his tools and equipment and such .
5 So to put a 2- 2 1/2 foot workbench, you still
6 want to be able to move his mower from where
7 the front of the car would be . So that is why
8 him and the architect came up with that
9 dimension .
10 MR. KOTYLAK: Basically, that
11 dimension, that area back is where the existing r
12 shed is . I am not looking to go further then
13 that . That is really where that small shed in
14 the back that was really of no use . So I
15 figured make the garage that way and not
16 imposing any more on my neighbors side . You
17 know, I am coming actually into my property.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You ' re proposing
19 to expand upon what is a partial footprint now?
20 MR. KOTYLAK: Yes .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Demo the back
22 shed --
23 MR. KOTYLAK: Yes .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We went to the
25 site, by the way.
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 40
1 MR. KOTYLAK: Okay. So you have seen
2 it .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is the one
4 with the dirt floor .
5 MR. KOTYLAK: Yes .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And that is
7 coming off and you ' re just going to take that
8 dimension and run it all along --
9 MR. KOTYLAK: Exactly. And I am coming
10 into it this way and I didn ' t feel I would be
11 encroaching on anyone .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. I just
13 think it ' s important for the record to reflect
14 the reasons why you ' re requesting this
15 particular size and are there other feasible
16 alternatives for you .
17 MR. KOTYLAK: Sure .
18 MEMBER DINIZIO: It is a considerable
19 variance .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes .
21 MEMBER DINIZIO : 30% almost . You need
22 20 feet for a car, I assuming . You are not
23 going to partition that off --
24 MR. KOTYLAK: No, it ' s going to be all
25 open.
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 41
1 MEMBER DINIZIO : You just want to put
2 that garage door on the back or the side?
3 MR. KOTYLAK: On the side facing in
4 towards my property.
5 MEMBER DINIZIO : Because the other side
6 is kind of a hill?
7 MR. KOTYLAK: Yeah, the grade is tough .
8 MEMBER DINIZIO : All right . Thank you .
9 MR. KOTYLAK: Thank you.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just so you are
11 aware, the maximum that code permits on a
12 property that is a bit larger than yours is, is
13 750 square feet .
14 MR. KOTYLAK: Okay.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And you ' re
16 proposing more than that . So that is why I am
17 trying to explore with you what might be less
18 of a variance .
19 You said the yellow and green --
20 MR. KOTYLAK: The yellow and green are
21 detached garages in my area . The green alone
22 are two-car detached garages .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right, there is
24 like four --
25 MR. KOTYLAK: Right . I didn ' t count
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 42
1 people with basement garages that go into the
2 house . Some people have no garages .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Those garages
4 don ' t have any restrictions on size . It ' s
5 considered an accessory structure .
6 MR. KOTYLAK: Unfortunately, that
7 doesn ' t work with my situation.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No . Yours should `
9 be compared to other similar detached garages .
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is a one-story
i
11 structure, similar to what you have now?
12 MR. KOTYLAK: Yeah. There is a little
13 -- I believe the elevation of the roof line is
14 up a little bit . There is going to be a little
15 extra storage area up there, but that ' s it .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, I don ' t
17 have any further questions .
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don ' t either.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh, yes , I do .
20 This is going to be unheated?
21 MR. KOTYLAK: Yes, unheated. No
22 plumbing . Just electricity.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Unfinished?
24 MR. KOTYLAK: Yes .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All right .
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 43
1 Is there anyone else in the audience
2 that would like to address this application?
3 (No Response . )
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
5 further comment, I will make a motion to close
6 this hearing and reserve decision to a later
7 date .
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
11 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
12 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye .
15 (See Minutes for Resolution. )
16 ************************************* *********
17 HEARING #6526 - THRESHOLD BLUE, LLC
18 (SPARKLING POINTE)
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Next application
20 is for Threshold Blue, LLC, ( Sparkling Pointe) ,
21 #6526 . Request for variances from Article XV
22 Code Section 280-63 (Bulk Schedule) and the
23 Building Inspector ' s October 21, 2011 Notice of
24 Disapproval based on an application for
25 building permit to construct new commercial
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 44
1 warehouse at; 1) less than the code required
2 minimum side yard setback of 20 feet, 2) less
3 than the code required minimum combined side
4 yard setback of 40 feet . Located at :
5 1270 County Road 48 (aka North Road) in
6 Southold, New York.
7 Is there someone here to address this
8 application?
9 Nancy, do you have any green cards?
10 MS . STEELMAN : I don ' t . Let me see,
11 there were two . We did a search on those and
12 they were delivered. They both happen to be
13 Steve Mudd and David Mudd. Steve is here now
14 and they were actually hand delivered to him
15 yesterday. I can give you the tracking, if you
16 would like?
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you just
18 please, for the record, state your name?
19 MS . STEELMAN : Nancy Steelman,
20 S-T-E-E-L-M-A-N, Samuels & Steelman Architects .
21 Let ' s see, as you can see on the site plan, I
22 am sure you have been able to study this a.
23 little bit . We have a very unusual site . This
24 was subdivided, I am thinking around 1942 and
25 was probably at another later point, actually
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 45
1 zoned Light Industrial . So the current
2 configurations of the site, doesn ' t meet the
3 minimum requirement for Light Industrial . It
4 meets the one acre requirement . It ' s just over
5 but the minimum width for the current zoning
6 Light Industrial is 100 feet . The larger
7 dimension, which is 78 feet along North Road
8 and bringing -- and that ' s on diagonal to the
9 road, bringing that down further to where we ' re
10 proposing our door main, 76 feet . So it ' s a
11 very unusual site but approximately 550 to 600
12 feet long and it backs up to the railroad
13 tracks . So it ' s very long, long and narrow.
14 My clients just recently purchased the property
15 and proposed a cape storage building for their
16 winery on site . It ' s very close to their
17 current facility. There is Light Industrial to
18 the west, which is currently a farm and
19 residential . And it is cultural conservation
20 to the east, that is now being occupied by the
21 Suffolk County Water Authority. Sparkling
22 Pointe is just to the east of that property .
23 So as doing our layout here, we realized that
24 we tried to maintain the 40 foot required total
25 side yard setback, 20 and 20 , which is
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 46
1 approximate 36 feet long. The square foot area
2 that was required sort of created a building
3 that was required. This would have created a
4 building that was 172 feet long . And it would
5 be a very inefficient building for their use .
6 They have large pallets for cases and large
7 bins for some of their wine storage . And they
8 need a forklift to be able to access some of
9 that wine . And they need certain circulation
10 area between two pallets . You know, we tried
11 to design a building that is working for them,
12 in terms of its functioning. And also in terms
13 of trying to do something where we institute,
14 somewhat, on our site conditions . After doing
15 some little bit of exploration on the
16 proportion of the total area of the 40 foot
17 total side yard, that would be approximately
18 400 of the width of the property, that would be
19 required for this variance . If we take our 30
20 feet that we ' re requesting, that is
21 approximately 400 of that 78 feet . So it ' s in
22 range, in terms of what the code is . The other
23 point that I would just like to make is , the
24 reason why we located 10 foot side yards on the
25 Light Industrial is because that is Light
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 47
1 Industrial . Yet it is currently being used for
2 residential use but it is Light Industrial . So
3 any other future development there would have
4 less impact . The 20 feet that we have along
5 the eastern property line, is for access drive,
6 that goes to the rear of the property. And
7 that is for additional storage area that we
8 have rear of the building, so we can access
9 that . And we have an unheated storage area for
10 miscellaneous items . Not wine in that space .
11 So there would be vehicles going towards the
12 rear of the property. We ' re also acknowledging
13 from the Planning Board that we also need
14 emergency vehicles access to the rear of the
15 property also . So instead of putting the
16 larger dimension on that side yard on the
17 western property line, adjacent to the
18 residences, where there would be a lot more
19 activity, we put the -- we utilize the relief
20 on the side yards to ( In Audible) western edge .
21 This actually, we ' re working with Green Logic
22 on this project to do a thermal system and
23 solar panels, which is not shown on our
24 architectural drawings . We ' re trying to keep
25 this 100% off the grid . We ' re kind of excited
January 5, 2012, Zoning Board of Appeals 48
1 about that . So I think I have generalized
2 what we ' re proposing . Do' you have any
3 questions?
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can you address the
5 Planning Board ' s recommendations in shrinking
6 the building?
7 MS . STEELMAN : Yes . Yes . And I was
8 actually at the meeting when we discussed this .
9 We presented it to them and we acknowledged
10 their requirements . They would like to have it
11 22 feet along the eastern property line for
12 primarily emergency vehicles . I think -- I
13 talked to my client . That is fine . We can do
14 that and not a problem.
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So you would be
16 shrinking the building by 2 feet?
17 MS . STEELMAN : Correct .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: (In Audible)
19 pallet location or anything like that?
20 MS . STEELMAN : No, I think we can work
21 with that without a problem.
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the easterly
23 property line setback is going to be 22 feet?
24 MS . STEELMAN : Correct .
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the westerly
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 49
1 would remain as a 10?
2 MS . . STEELMAN : Correct .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the proposed
4 width would be 44 feet?
5 MS . STEELMAN : Correct .
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 46 now.
7 MEMBER DINIZIO : Why 22?
8 MS . STEELMAN: I think the Planning
9 Board -- I don ' t know if you read through their
10 memorandum. They were mostly concerned about
11 getting emergency vehicles back into the rear
12 of the site and along the side of the building.
13 And I think the 22 is sort of their standard
14 for vehicle access .
15 MEMBER DINIZIO: I think the zoning is
16 20 .
17 MS . STEELMAN : The zoning is 20 . So
18 it ' s a little bit of a --
19 MEMBER DINIZIO : My preference would be
20 that you make it 12 foot on the other side .
21 You reduce that variance .
22 MS . STEELMAN: Right .
23 MEMBER DINIZIO : They asked you for
24 more than what the code asked. That is why I
25 asked the question . Is it the tractor ' s that
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 50
1 are wide?
2 MS . STEELMAN : Gerry, I think it ' s the
3 fire vehicles . It ' s emergency vehicles . That
4 is what there concern is .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This would
6 require site Plan approval by the Planning
7 Board. I think it probably makes sense for the
8 applicant to have consistent determination . If
9 you ' re offering it, perhaps you want to give us
10 an amended site plan?
11 MS . STEELMAN : We could do that .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You know, showing
13 the 22 feet and 44 width and the 10 feet, so
14 that we can base our decision based on that
15 particular amended application.
16 MS . STEELMAN : Okay.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The single side
18 yard is 10 feet, when the code requires 20 .
19 And it ' s a combined side yard of 30 , and it ' s
20 over 40 .
21 MS . STEELMAN : Right .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it ' s not
23 substantially changing --
24 MS . STEELMAN: Right .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Planning
- January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 51
1 Board is going to require Site Plan approval
2 anyway.
3 MS . STEELMAN : Correct . f
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nancy, how fast
t
5 can you get us an amended --
6 MS . STEELMAN : This afternoon if you
7 would like? I can get it to you very quickly.
8 MEMBER HORNING: Leslie, can I ask a
9 little more about that?
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure .
11 MEMBER HORNING : The character of the
.12 neighborhood, where the winery is now and the
13 Suffolk County Water Authority and the old
14 potato farm or whatever it was, were they all
15 one parcel and then that got subdivided?
16 MS . STEELMAN : You know, we did a
17 Single and Separate search on this . It ' s a
18 good 40 pages . It appears that the earliest
19 deed on the property was 1946 and assuming that
20 -- actually Steve might know, is that this was
21 a farm at one point . I think it must have been
22 Doroski Farm all the way over to Sparkling
23 Pointe .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sir, you ' re going
25 to have to come to the mic . We have to record
- January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 52
1 this .
c
2 MEMBER HORNING: Nancy testified that
3 Doroski, . even though there is a residence there `
4 now, is Light Industrial Zoned?
5 MS . STEELMAN : Yes .
6 MEMBER HORNING: Is that what you said? -
7 MS . STEELMAN : That is right .
8 MEMBER HORNING: And how about the
9 Suffolk County Water Authority 5 acre parcel ,
10 what is that zoned and I was wondering where
11 that was divided from? What parcel?
12 MR. MUDD: Good morning . I am Steve
13 Mudd. I am a neighbor across the street . I
14 have been a neighbor of the Doroski ' s for 58
15 years . So I can probably answer whatever
16 questions you have about that . I am a little
17 confused about the question, sir . Can you
18 define it a little better for me, please?
19 You ' re asking if the Doroski owned the Light
20 Industrial piece that borders this to the
21 east --
22 MEMBER HORNING: Yes .
23 MR. MUDD: And continues to the eastern
24 direction and the Doroski ' s owned Sparkling
25 Pointe --
- January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 53
1 MEMBER HORNING : No . If they owned the
2 Suffolk County Water Authority parcel?
3 MR. MUDD: I want to say, no. That was
4 owned by Greenport Water Authority and as long
5 as I can remember that well, has always been
6 part of the Greenport Water Authority. The
7 Greenport Water Authority had that well and
8 another well on Gordon ' s Lane . They had
9 numerous locations in Southold Town. There was
10 no well of Greenport Water Authority owned that
11 was pumping out of Greenport that was
12 Incorporated Village of Greenport, to my
13 knowledge . So that was previously owned by
14 Greenport Water Authority.
15 MEMBER HORNING: Okay. Thank you .
16 MR. MUDD: Thank you .
17 MS . STEELMAN : One other point, the
18 eastern property is zoned Agricultural
19 Conservation . So that is the AC Zone .
20 MEMBER HORNING: Right .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken, any
22 questions?
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jim, any more?
25 MEMBER DINIZIO : How does the lot come
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 54
1 to be?
2 MS . STEELMAN : You know, based on the
3 single ( In Audible) it was 1946 . I don' t know
4 when they subdivided or why or if there was a
5 subdivision of a larger parcel . The Planning
6 Board looked at it and it was such an unusual
7 lot, they asked us to provide a search for
8 them.
r
9 MEMBER DINIZIO : I would like to see
10 that .
11 MS . STEELMAN : I have a portion of it
12 that I can give you .
13 MEMBER DINIZIO : If you could --
14 MS . STEELMAN : Sure .
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you .
16 MS . STEELMAN : Sure .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
18 else in the audience that would like to address
19 this application?
20 MEMBER DINIZIO : I have another
21 question . You have a winery that a ( In
22 Audible ) removed ( In Audible) .
23 MS . STEELMAN: Everything is in tact .
24 MEMBER DINIZIO : Is this building going
25 to replace anything that you have in the winery
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 55
l that you have there? In other words, a,re you
2 going to increase the size of the tasting room
3 as a result of this?
4 MS . STEELMAN : No . No, not at all . I
5 am not sure if you have been in the building .
6 Currently, there is a very large basement in
7 the building . There is a ramp that goes down
S
8 to a (In Audible) and then a substantial
9 basement, which primarily two-thirds of the
10 existing footprint of the existing building .
11 All the cases are now in . that area . They have
12 bought additional property and they are just
13 expanding and in need of additional case
14 storage . So it ' s not going to be -- the
15 tasting room will stay the same . Everything is ,
16 staying the same .
17 MEMBER DINIZIO : We ' re not going to see
18 a two level tasting room there?
19 MS . STEELMAN : No . No, not at all .
20 Actually, if you are there in the current area
21 where they ' re doing all the bottling and all
22 also where the station room is, it ' s jammed
23 pack. So some of that area is going to be
24 going down into that basement level . Just for
25 loading and unloading .
.January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 56
1 MEMBER DINIZIO : Will they be there
2 full-time?
3 MS . STEELMAN : No, we will not be there
4 full-time . We ' re putting a toilet room in
5 there basically to meet New York State Building
6 Code . So the only reason that is there is to
7 meet Building Code issues .
8 MEMBER DINIZIO : Right . Thank you .
9 MS . STEELMAN : Would you like me to
10 revise that drawing?
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, I think it
12 would be great . So we can stamp the drawing
13 we ' re basing the decision on --
14 MS . STEELMAN : Okay.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As opposed to
16 waiting for it to come . It just saves time .
17 MS . STEELMAN : Okay. Great . Are we
18 closing the hearing today?
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes .
20 MS . STEELMAN : Okay. Great .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would be
22 closed subject to receipt of an amended set of
23 plans and a single and separate search .
24 MS . STEELMAN: Okay.
25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have a quick
January 5, 2012 Zoning' Board of Appeals 57
1 question, if you don ' t mind?
2 MS . STEELMAN : Okay.
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Is this going to be
r
4 a bonded warehouse?
5 MS . STEELMAN : Yes . Yes .
6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER:' Okay.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else
8 from anybody?
9 (No Response . )
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
11 else in the audience that would like to address
12 this application?
13 (No Response . )
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Hearing no
15 further comments , I will make a motion to close
16 this hearing and reserve decision subject to
17 receipt of a Single and Separate Search
18 document and amended plan .
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
22 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
23 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye .
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 58
1 (See Minutes for Resolution. )
2 ****************************** ***************
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to recess
4 the hearings for lunch .
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
8 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
9 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
12 (Whereupon, a recess for lunch
13 was taken at this time . )
14 ***************************************** *****
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Motion to
16 reconvene the public hearings of the Regular
17 Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals .
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by
20 Gerry.
21 All in favor?
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
23 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
24 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 59
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
2 ***********************************************
3 HEARING #6525 - HERNAN MICHAEL OTANO
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
5 application before us is for Hernan Michael
6 Otano, #6525 . This was adjourned from the
7 public hearing on December 1 , 2011 , so we will
8 not reread the legal notice .
9 MS . MOORE : Happy New Year. I just
10 wanted to begin --
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: State your name
12 for the record?
13 MS . MOORE : Oh, I 'm sorry. Patricia
14 Moore on behalf of Mr . Otano . I did submit
15 last week, a memorandum of law, which should be
16 part of your records . I am not sure if you had {
17 time to read it or not, but please do refer to
18 it . I have -- Mr . Cohen is here on behalf of
19 Breezy Shores Community and he will actually
20 speak first . So I will sit down and have
21 Mr . Cohen introduce himself and continue .
22 MR. COHEN : Madam Chairperson and
23 Members of the Board. My name is Michael
24 Cohen . I am the attorney for Breezy Shores
25 Community Incorporated .
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 60
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you spell
2 your last name for the record?
3 MR. COHEN : C-O-H-E-N . Breezy Shores is
t
4 a cooperative apartment housing corporation,
5 within which Mr . Otano ' s cottage is situated .
6 With us today is the president of the
7 cooperative Board of Directors and several
8 other cooperative shareholders, who took time
9 off from their schedules and their work today
10 to demonstrate to this body ( sic) , how
11 important this issue is . I came to address two
12 issues, the first is since it is a cooperative
13 cooperation that is the owner of the Otano
14 cottage, I wanted to briefly give the Board
15 some information about the relationship between "
16 the cooperative and Mr . Otano, and also address
17 what Mr . Otano and the co-op believe to be
18 threshold issues , with respect to the
19 consideration of this matter .
20 I think all the members of this Board
21 have a sense of the history of the Breezy
22 property, so I won ' t go into that unless there
23 are specific questions , but just go back to the
24 year 2000 . Immediately prior to that time, the
25 same group of people had rented cottages at
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 61
1 Breezy Shores for several years and they
2 decided that it would be in their best interest
3 to get together and form a cooperation and buy
4 the property, which they did in 2000 . Once
5 they bought the property, they realized they
6 needed a system of governs to operate the way
7 that they wanted to and they decided to form a
8 cooperative education. They came to me for
9 assistance in that regard and in 2001 , this
10 regular C-Corporation was transferred into a
11 cooperative housing corporation . The regular
12 plain vanilla leases that shareholders had were
13 converted into proprietary leases . The Board ' s
14 By-Law ' s were amended by the shareholders to
15 become a good set of cooperative By-Law' s and
16 the property has been operated as a cooperative
17 housing corporation continuously since 2001 and
18 will be so operated in ( In Audible) . The
19 scheme of the cooperative and the proprietary
20 lease, is that like all cooperatives, the
21 cooperative corporation owns all the property
22 including all 31 residences, including
23 Mr . Otano ' s cottage, but the proprietary leases
24 make it the responsibility of each shareholder
25 to maintain, repair and replace his own cottage
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 62
1 at his sole expense . Since the cottages are
2 owned by the cooperative, the proprietary
3 leases contain some language, giving the co-op
4 certain rights, in the event the cottages are
5 not being maintained but is the sole
6 responsibility and financial responsibility of
7 each shareholder for his own cottage . That is
8 why this application is made by Mr . Otano, with
9 the approval and knowledge of the cooperative
10 Board of Directors, which has written a letter
11 to this Board in support of Mr . Otano ' s
12 application . So although Breezy Shores is not
13 an applicant, as the owner of the property, it
14 has a very significant and a very strong
15 interest in this issue . As a threshold issue,
16 both the cooperative and Mr . Otano ask this
17 Board to determine that the cottages at Breezy
18 Shores and the property, is not a nonconforming
19 use but rather a permitted use . The property
20 is located in an R-80 Zone . The R-80 Zone
21 according to the Town Code, permits one-family,
22 detached dwelling not to exceed one dwelling on
23 each lot . Not that there is any issues but the
24 cottages are used for residential purposes .
25 Not any kind of commercial purposes . The
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 63
1 cottages are unattached. They have the
2 single-family home use, as far as that goes .
3 The key determinant and I believe the reason
4 they have been found to nonconforming uses, is
5 because there is more than one cottage on the
6 lot . And the courts in New York has held that
7 in cases such as this, where there is a zoning
8 requirement for only one dwelling unit on a
9 lot, the presence of more than one dwelling
10 use, does not change the character of the use
11 from one family. It makes the structures , {
12 nonconforming structures themselves , but it
13 doesn ' t make the use nonconforming . In fact,
14 one of the leading cases in this area comes out
15 of the Town, the Town of Southold. In 2004 ,
16 the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court,
17 the case of Dawson verus the Zoning Board of
18 Appeals , the Town of Southold, was asked to
19 consider whether the Zoning Board at that time
20 correctly withheld the issuance of a
21 Certificate of Occupancy from a cottage, which
22 was located on the same lot as a one-family
23 structure . And what the Appellate Division
24 found is that the use of that cottage was for
25 one-family occupancy purposes , the fact that
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 64
1 there was more than one dwelling on that lot,
2 should not have precluded the issue of a
3 Certificate of Occupancy. What the court said
4 in one sentence, is the cottage, which is a
5 residential use situated on the same lot as a
6 primary residential dwelling, constituted a
7 nonconforming building, rather than a
8 nonconforming use . And I urge respectfully,
9 that that same line of reasoning should be
10 followed with respect to Breezy Shores . That
11 there is more than one dwelling on this
12 property and certainly there is no question
13 about that . But these are all unattached
14 single-family units . So that there use is
15 consistent with the R-80 Zone . So what I
16 suggest is that the use is permitted. It ' s the
17 structures that are nonconforming . And to that
18 extent, the. Notice of Disapproval from the
19 Building Department cited the Section 280-123
20 of the Town Code, which governs nonconforming
21 buildings with nonconforming uses . What I
22 would suggest is that this should have been
23 handled under 280-122 , which addresses
24 nonconforming buildings with conforming uses .
25 That difference is significant in that that
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 65
1 difference is critical . Not only is this a
2' technical argument under the definition of a
3 Section 280, which defines the R-80 Zone . It ' s
4 also according to recognize what the cottage
5 Breezy Shores are not . The cottages at Breezy
6 Shores are not multiple dwellings under the
7 code, under Section 280-4 , definitional
8 section, because to be a multiple dwelling, the
9 -- there would have to be three or more
10 dwelling units in one building . These cottages
11 are all separate . They ' re unattached. The
12 Town Code has a definition of cooperative but
13 the fact that Breezy Shores is operated as a
14 cooperative doesn ' t put it into any one
15 particular zoning classifications . And they
16 still as , cooperatives , can and can I suggest,
17 should be considered to be one-family detached
18 homes . There are practical classifications by
19 suggestion, finding that these cottages are
210 permitted uses rather then a nonconforming
21 uses . The shareholders at Breezy Shores spent
22 a lot of money to purchase their cottages . All
23 different amounts depending upon the particular
24 circumstance of their cottage . I think that
! 25 everybody, both at Breezy Shores, on this Board
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 66
1 and the Town, would like. to see these cottages
2 well maintained and improved as time goes on .
3 I submit that it would be peytonly ( sic) unfair
4 and duly prejudicial, if for example, a cottage
5 burned down . There by the water, if there was
6 a hurricane and knocked down a cottage . To the
7 extent that they ' re determined to be
8 nonconforming uses, they would be unable to be
9 replaced . But to the extent that they ' re
10 determined to be conforming uses in
11 nonconforming buildings , it would be a '
12 different outcome . Also to the extent that
13 they ' re determined to be nonconforming uses , as (
14 time goes by and all the shareholders want to
15 make improvements to their cottages and
16 maintain those cottages , they will all be back
17 before this Board in order to -- if their
r
18 building permit application got denied. It
19 would be less difficult for the Board. It
20 would streamline the process for the
21 shareholders . All in the idea that it ' s in
22 everyone ' s interest for the shareholders to be
23 able to properly and best maintain their
24 cottages . So I would ask this Board prior to
25 considering this specific details of the work
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 67
1 that Mr . Otano did to his individual cottage,
2 as a threshold matter, to consider whether
3 these cottages should indeed be considered to
4 be nonconforming uses or whether they should be
5 found to be permitted in conforming uses, just
6 nonconforming structures . And to the extent
7 that the Board determines that the latter is
8 correct and they ' re permitted and conforming
9 uses , that this should be governed by
10 Section 280-122 of the Town Code and either
11 Mr . Otano ' s building permit should be issued or
12 that the matter should be sent back to the
13 Building Department to determine whether the
14 work that is requested by Mr . Otano 'followed
15 the standard in 280-122 , which is to either not,
16 to create a new nonconformance or not increase
17 the degree of nonconformance . The fact that
18 these cottages are primarily seasonal use, also
19 by itself does not change the nature of their
20 single family use and should not preclude a
21 finding that they ' re permitted uses in a R-80
22 Zone . And I would ask that this Board make
23 that determination and then take that into
24 account for the rest of Mr . Otano ' s
25 application .
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 68
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER- I think at this
2 particular point that we take a five minutes
3 recess in Executive Session and discuss one
4 particular issue that was stated by Mr . Cohen
5 at this particular point . I ask for that
6 resolution.
7 MEMBER DINIZIO: I ' ll second it .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
10 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
11 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye .
14
15 (Whereupon, a recess was taken and 4
16 the Board members went into
17 Executive Session. )
18
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right . Would
20 you like to continue?
21 MR. COHEN : No, I really have said what
22 I came here to say. So subject to any
23 questions, I will yield the microphone to
24 Ms . Moore and I think that the president of the
25 Breezy Shores Board of Directors , Ms . Mooreshin
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 69
1 (phenetic) would like to address this Board.
2 Thank you.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
4 MS . MOORE : Thank you . I am going to
5 continue with respect to the work that was done
6 with the cottage and if you follow along with
7 the memorandum, the next issue that we address r�
8 is the reconstruction of the unit, which was
9 in-kindly and in-placed, with respect to the
10 elements that were from this cottage . The code',
11 specifically allows and provides that the
12 reconstruction does not create any new
13 nonconformance, increase the degree of
14 nonconformance with regards to the regulations
15 pertaining to the building . I know that has
16 been an issue over the years as to when we come
17 in for a zoning variance and when we don ' t . In
18 this instance, the original permit for a
19 building foundation, the Building Department
20 issued a permit to, replace the foundation .
21 Again, in-kind and in-place, except for the
22 deteriorated brick, it was now a poured
23 foundation but in the exact same location . At
24 that point, the owner began to remove some of
25 the interior elements and the exterior cover of
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 70
1 sheathing of the house and found the
2 deterioration of the walls . It was obvious
3 that there was going to be a need for
4 additional work. The house was, as you recall,
5 was lifted. Dawn House Movers picked up the `
6 house . The porch was still hanging on but very
7 quickly, as soon as the house was put on the
8 foundation, the porch was clear that it was
9 going to need to be replaced in total'. At that
10 point, Mr . Otano, Amy Martin, and the help of
11 Fairweather-Brown Architects , they went to the
12 Trustees and to the DEC and got some approvals
13 to reconstruct the rear porch . All of this is
14 going exactly right in the position of the
15 original house . And in fact, what led to some
16 of the confusion early on when my client was
17 planned on a small addition, which would make
18 the cottage -- if you ' re facing the water to
19 the left, and the Breezy Shores Community
20 rejected that plan. So he was limited to just
21 repair and replace what he had. That is where
22 this -- this is where we are today, with the
23 condition of the cottage . The foundation is
24 new. The structural elements , what we did for
25 you at the inspection, was I had an outline
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 71
,1 that we prepared with the help of the
2 architects and attached to the memo, right
3 before Exhibit A, document . I put it at the
4 end of the memo, which describes the remains
5 the not reconstructed portions of the house
6 verus what was reconstructed. That was done
t
7 really to assist in the inspection process . So;
8 that when we came to this Board and I had this
9 outline, I knew that you at least had an
10 opportunity to see what we ' re describing on t
11 that outline . I know that you were all there
12 and you were able to see for yourselves .
13 Again, when we have an in-time and in-place
14 construction, there really should be no need
15 for variances, since we ' re not increasing the
16 degree of nonconformity. There is also the
17 provision that I cite in the memorandum of
18 280-125 , which says even with respect to a
19 nonconforming use, that ' s not withstanding any
20 of the foregoing regulations and therefore all
21 the regulations that it cites prior to, nothing
22 in this article shall -be deemed to present
23 normal maintenance and repair then building or
24 taring out upon the issuance of building permit
25 of major structural alterations or demolitions
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 72
1 necessary in the interest of public sa.fe,ty. So
2 that language specifically gives the Building
3 Department the authority to give a building
4 permit when you ' re making -- again, not
5 changing the footprint . Not changing even the
6 volumes of the structure . You ' re replacing the'1
7 existing structure, which in many cases would ,t
8 not meet the State Building Code and the
y
9 obligation is to meet the State Building Code .
f
10 Again, in the memorandum, we talk about he 50% t
11 rule, the State Building Code dictates that if
t
12 you make repairs exceeding a certain percentage '
13 of the structure, you have to make the house
14 more conforming or those elements that you ' re
r
15 replacing need to be more conforming . For s
16 example, if you have a window and even though
17 you pop a window in and out, there may be a
r
18 need to upgrade the quality of the window so
19 that they' re more energy efficient then what
20 was there before . Again, subjectively, it may t
21 not be the hurricane standards ( In Audible)
r
22 because there is a recognition . You are
23 popping in and popping out windows but
i
24 nonetheless, you have to make everything more
25 conforming . If we get to the issue of the area
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 73
1 variances, I did provide at the heart of, the
2 memorandum, the standards of the area variance
3 and just from your own observations , I don ' t i
4 want to reiterate or recite what I have already
5 written in the memorandum, but I do want to
6 point out, when you go to the property and you
7 look up and .down from Mr . Otano ' s unit, up and
8 down the waterfront, there is a certain
9 character of the area. Certain style of
10 structures that is very apparent and for the
11 most part, uniformly 50 feet from the bulkhead. '
c
12 That is the way that this community was
13 developed. From the water, it has a very
.14 unique look to it . So that in a sense, we have `,
15 the uniqueness of this property is not only
16 from the land side, which in a sense is
17 difficult to see, since it ' s a 82 acre piece of
18 property but more so from the water side . And
19 from the water side, is why the community is so
20 adamant about maintaining the look and the
21 consistency of the previous cottage . None of
22 these cottages can be taken and replaced with a
23 modern -- you know, glass enclosure . They have
24 to be the look of the original historic
25 cottage . So it ' s -- I cited the different
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 74
1 cottages by number . You also have in your
2 file, a survey and you can see the setbacks of
3 the cottages . So with respect to the character(
4 of the neighborhood, the neighborhood here is
5 so self contained Breezy Shores Community. 82
6 acres with the few -- with the number of units , (
7 30 something units that consist of this C
8 community. So it creates it ' s own character . 1
c
9 The benefits sought by the applicant can not be,.`
10 achieved by some method feasible for the t
11 applicant to pursue, other then the area
r
12 variances . Again, if we get to the area
13 variance issue, because again, it was in-kind
14 and in-place and the foundation has been
15 poured. It was replaced with a building permit
16 and that was properly. No problem. That -- my
17 clients ownership interest with a proprietary
18 lease . His real estate interest here is what
19 is the safe of the unit itself. And we can ' t
20 go more or less than what was there before .
21 Certainly without the permission or the overall
22 agreement of the community. And so far the
23 community has been pretty aggressive in
24 maintaining what has been historically in place
25 at the time of the 2000 co-op conversion . With
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 75
1 respect to whether this is a substantial
2 request? Is it a substantial variance? Again t,
3 I would say -- I think the answer is logically
4 no, and even if we ' re at 50 feet from the C
r
5 bulkhead. The bulkhead as you know from your
6 observations, was recently placed so that it is'
7 brand new and in the perfect condition . There ,
8 is also stone jetties going there that protect
f
9 the edges of the bulkhead towards the north
10 side . And this is the community that has been .,
11 built up since the 1920 ' s . For the most part,
12 has stayed the same . Will it have an adverse
13 impact on the physical and environmental
t
14 conditions of the neighborhood or District?
15 Again, the answer is obviously, no . We ' re at
16 our reasonable distance from the bulkhead, 50
17 feet from the bulkhead. The work has been done
18 to the foundation and to the house . We ' re in
19 line with the FEMA requirements . And all
20 activity that we have done on this cottage was
21 intended to restore the property to its safe
22 condition. Was the difficulty self-creating?
23 Well, the answer is, no . It has been in the
24 same location, again, since the 20 ' s and it is
25 work that we have done in-kind and in-place .
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 76
1 I do want to point out, last time I
2 was here, you very -- I think you gave me the
3 LWRP and I did have an opportunity to pull out
4 the LWRP . And it ' s interesting because, the
5 LWRP as you know, has the first -- the written
6 dissertation with the summary and the
7 conclusions and the planning study that is
8 makes up the LWRP . And it addresses the
9 different reaches of the Town . This particular
10 reach is Reach 6 . This actually is a specific
11 description, discussion of this property. And
12 the interesting thing is, when this was
13 adopted, I believe in ' 94 , shortly after some
14 applications that were submitted. There was an
15 original submission while, the Sage owners were
16 trying to sell the property before the co-op,
17 there was an application to do a condominium.
18 That was denied. There was an application to
19 do a subdivision . That was denied. Ultimately
20 the development of this property was
21 recognized, had development pressures, with
22 respect to this property. And what the LWRP
23 reported, Valerie Scope has wrote at the time
24 was, she said and I quote page -- well, we had
25 it numbered as Page 503 . It ' s actually Reach
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 77
1 6, Paragraph 28 . And I can give that to you .
2 This is from the row of pages . It says, the
3 property faces significant obstacles to {
4 development because of its clay soils and
l
5 improved -- lack of improved access . It says,
6 presently the site is improved with 30 plus
7 summer cottages and one year-round residence,
8 of which the ( In Audible) are considered, based ,
r
9 on her mind, a nonconforming use . I think we e�
10 have discussed what the law has addressed as a
11 nonconforming use . She goes on to say 1996,
12 the property owners were granted permission by
13 the Building Department to repair the cottages .
14 Sufficiently to allow them to be rented
15 seasonally, thereby ensuring the continuance of
16 this nonconforming use for (In Audible) year
17 term. There was -- back in ' 95- 196, the
18 recognition that there was an interest in
1.9 preserving these cottages . Certainly, the Sage
20 Family at the time was faced with circumstances
21 that in fairness entitled the repair of the
22 cottages but since then, the policies of the
23 Town have really been changed . In the sense of
24 preserving this property the way that it is .
25 And the fact that it is a co-op has ensured
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 78
1 that success in continuation . With respect. to
2 the LWRP, Mr . Terry cites that it is an
3 inconsistent -- it ' s inconsistent with the LWRP
4 but I think because he looks at it solely as a g
5 setback from the bulkhead and any time you
6 don ' t meet the setback of 75 feet, it would be
7 deemed inconsistent . But I think he fails to
8 recognize that the document itself emphasize
9 the preservation and the continued protection
10 of the properties . So I would ask that that be,
11 considered with respect to the LWRP . I would
12 like to have enough time to address any
13 questions the Board has . We did -- I
14 apologize, the next issue that I almost forgot,
F
15 is the issue of the amount of work that was
16 constructed and we did provide at the end of
17 the memorandum as an exhibit , Rob Brown ' s
18 certification. It was based not only on his
19 own observations but the outline that was
20 prepared about the work that was done . And he
21 concludes that there was -- there was less than
22 500 of the existing structure, having been ( In
23 Audible) abolished because that is the term
24 that has been used by the Building Department .
25 In fact, this is standard reconstruction for a
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 79
1 1920 ' s version, 1950 ' s repairs and overall -kind
.2 of slapping together overall repairs to
3 cottages . So I think realistically, anytime,
4 you ' re doing any work to cottages of this
5 vintage, even later then the 1980 ' s, you ' re
6 going to be faced with structural issues that
7 are going to need to be restored and
.8 reconstructed. That is all I have . I guess at
9 this point, I will step back and answer
t
10 questions that you may have and go on . Thank
11 you.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you want to
13 someone to speak from the association?
14 MS . MOORE : Sure .
15 MS . MACHI : Hi, good afternoon . My
16 name is Ms . Machi and I am on the Board for
117 Breezy Shores Community Inc . , and I am
C
18 remarkably nervous .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s okay. You
20 can start with spelling your name for us .
21 MS . MACHI : Sure . M-A-C-H-I, Machi .
22 Thank you for taking this time to hear our case
23 and thank you esteemed counsel .
24 So I have clearly nothing prepared
25 here . I want to thank you and in advance for
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 80
1 considering our case . As I said, I am here to
2 give you from my heart and from my brain as
3 well, a small timeline, I guess you can call
4 it , and how this co-op is remarkably in the
5 pasta As you know, started in the 20 ' s and
6 from the Sage Family and the legacy of the
7 brick and extraordinary solidity of a brick
8 factory. Creating a foundation for a
9 community. Built from a solid to a very -- I
10 don ' t know how you call it, a logical home for
11 several families . From the past and from the
12 present and going forward and the future .
13 Where we hope to be working in a community with
14 the Town and with our neighbors , maintain and
15 sustain a living community that gives home to
16 grandfathers, grandmothers, children, brothers ,
17 sisters , etcetera, etcetera . I am getting
18 really nervous and I don ' t know why. Anyway.
19 So again, this is a -- from the heart and from
20 the brain, a hello and introduction and I hope
21 that you consider what we have placed in front
22 of you today and a look forward to Hernan, who
23 has made a great commitment to maintain and to -
24 -- keep this cottage solid and for the past of
25 creating a new foundation and also to the
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 81
1 future . And in hopes that we will continue to -
2 have a sustainable, healthy, positive
3 relationship with the Town, ZBA and the
4 Trustees . That is all I have to say. I would
5 like to ask any of the other gracious people if
6 they would like to say something, then not,
7 okay. Don Wilson is also in the court and is
8 going to say something .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All right .
10 MR. WILSON : Good afternoon . My name
11 is Don Wilson . I just wanted to express my
12 overall interest in this . I first went out to
13 Breezy in 1967 and rented a cottage from Sage .
14 My three children grew up there . And then as
15 it closed, I disappeared and I came back 30
16 years later and bought the exact cottage that I
17 had rented before . And I was on the first
t
18 floor, and one of the things that we tried to
19 maintain at that time was the essence, the
20 beauty, the historic value . We even had a list
21 of paint colors that you could use on the trim.
22 We really stressed to maintain that look and
23 since I have probably been there longer then
24 anyone else, on a regular basis . I just wanted
25 to say that it ' s my second home . Now my
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 82
1 grandchildren come out . And we ' re into our,
2 third generation of Breezy Shores use . I have
3 a lot of interest in Hernan ' s progress there .
4 Some of the difficulties that came up with
5 weather and everything else . I think that
6 we ' re all in place that we want to see -- you
7 know, everything completed and looking nice .
8 And our community can move on and step forward .
9 I truly have nothing else to say but just show
10 my support for the community and what we ' re
11 trying to do .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you just hold
13 on for one second, Mr. Wilson?
14 MR. WILSON : Sure .
r
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mentioned this
16 at the last hearing . We did receive a letter
17 and counsel made reference to some Breezy Shore
i
18 Board of Directors . As I mentioned at that
19 time, there is no signature . It ' s just a
20 letterhead . This is the letter that we got .
21 And if in fact, the Board wishes to submit
22 something in writing, it would certainly be
23 much more useful to us . For the fact that it
24 was signed by someone who had the authority to
25 represent the co-op Board. Okay. So I mention
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 83
1 that to you and perhaps you can mention that to
2 the Board. Secondly, you mentioned now, some
3 sort of standards in which you want to maintain
4 the historic character of the neighborhood. On
5 the C & R' s that the co-op has imposed upon on
6 all the --
7 MR. WILSON : Excuse me?
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The covenants and
9 restrictions section.
10 MR. WILSON : Oh, I really don ' t know
11 about things like that .
12 MR. COHEN : There are not specific
13 C & R' s that address certain rules as you might
14 find recorded in the Office of the County
15 Clerk. But the proprietary lease does say
16 shareholders can not make alterations to their
17 cottages without first getting approval in
18 writing from the Board of Directors . And there
19 is a process in place to solicit that approval
20 including a submission of plans . If
21 applicable, a submission of an Engineer ' s
22 Report, information as to color, style . To
23 that extent, something very similar to a C & R
24 exist . And in response to your first question,
25 I would like to -- permission to have the
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 84
1 opportunity to submit something on behalf- of
2 Breezy Shores to this Board following the
3 conclusion of the hearing . I think two weeks
4 would certainly be fine . Thank you .
5 MS . SZRAKA: Good afternoon . My name
6 is Helen Szraka . That ' s S-Z-R-A-K-A. My family
7 as well as Don Wilson ' s, has been coming to
8 Breezy Shores since the 1980 ' s and we ' re in
9 fact the same situation as Don ' s children and
10 it ' s now our grandchildren that come out and
11 spend time with us . I think my concern mostly,
12 is the fact that there has been some discussion
13 about Otano having to move his house back 25
14 feet and I think that would be a really such a
15 negative thing to happen to Breezy Shores ,
16 considering the historic place in this
17 community. As Mr . Cohen has mentioned, that
r
18 all the cottages are lined up in a row and to
19 have this happen to us would be such an awful
20 thing that I can ' t even envision it . So I ask
21 you to take that into consideration . I am not
22 exactly sure where the violations have happened
23 or if any have . There seems to be a lot of
24 confusion, at least in my own head about what
25 rules we ' re supposed to be looking at . Taking
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 85
1 into consideration. the situation at Breezy,
2 Shores . And so I am just asking you to take
3 that into consideration. This is really a
4 historic property. We ' re trying to maintain
5 it . The houses or cottages , as you know, have
6 been in absolutely terrible condition . We ' re
7 trying to do our best for ourselves and the
8 Town of Southold. I think it ' s a very precious
9 property, and so my only question to you, is to
10 really consider what you ' re doing to us . We ' re
11 trying to do our best . We have been here
12 before and the Town of Trustees to have jetties
13 put in to maintain the properties . We ' ve had
14 (In Audible) with the Town and I think we just
15 want to maintain that . Thank you .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. We
17 will continue in a moment but we just have some
18 people from the Building Department that would t
19 like to have --
20 MR. OTANO: Just one? I am Hernan
21 Otano . I thank my neighbors for coming out .
22 As you can see, we ' re a very tight community.
23 It ' s been a very difficult time for me going
24 through all of this because my head has been
25 swirling since Day 1, of just processing it .
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 86
1 Just to put it in perspective, when I got the
2 Trustee ' s permit, everyone is talking about
3 permits , permits , permits . I got the Trustees
4 permit for the foundation . I thought that was
5 it . I didn ' t know you needed a building
6 permit . I didn ' t know how to process in doing
7 anything . We have come this far . I just want
8 to say I was one of the renters in the 90 ' s and
9 I was .lucky enough to buy it . I was married
10 out there . The place has a lot of memories . I
11 just -- I made some mistakes in trying to fix
12 things and make them better . As you know, I am
13 very interested in the same things as my
14 neighbors and in the aesthetics . I love that
15 place with all heart . It ' s all I have . I have
16 a little hole in the wall in the City and I
17 probably spend as much time, when weather
18 permitting, out there . The community is very,
19 very special to all of us . And I have seen
20 neighbors children grow and now Facebooking me
21 and it ' s just -- I can ' t tell you how important
22 that is . All the other things, structural
23 things , I think they speak for themselves . So
24 that is sort of why I have this legal team here
25 because I don ' t really get it . But as you can
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 87
1 see, we ' re really compassionate and trying to
2 keep a community as it is and was for the
. 3 future . Thank you .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. We
5 have with us , Chief Building Inspector, Michael ,
6 Verity and also Patricia Conklin from the
7 Building Department . And our purpose today is
8 to gather as much of information from the all
9 the different parties, from all those that
10 contribute and our complete understanding of
11 this process . So I would like to ask either
12 one of them to come forward and answer a few
r
13 questions from the Board.
14 MS . CONKLIN : Pat Conklin, Permit
15 Examiner with the Town.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let ' s start off
17 with the Notice of Disapproval .
18 MS . CONKLIN : Okay. `
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The notice was
20 written for a demolition and a construction of
21 a cottage, a seasonal cottage . There is a area
22 variance for a bulkhead setback, which we all
23 know is the case with all the cottages, not
24 just this one . And it is also described as a
25 nonconforming building with a nonconforming
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 88
1 use . So I would like to ask you why the Notice
2 of Disapproval was written as a demolition and
3 why was it written as a nonconforming structure
4 and a nonconforming use from the Building
5 Department ' s point of view?
6 MS . CONKLIN : Well, my business is to
7 look at conformity. And when it was brought to
8 my attention, first that the project had gone
9 beyond the scope of work that was issued. It
10 was to repair the foundation . Get more
11 compliance and FEMA compliance . I looked at
12 the paperwork. Saw pictures from the Trustees
13 and determined with the site review, determined
14 that it was a nonconforming building. No . 1
15 because it ' s a seasonal cottage and it ' s less
16 than 850 square feet . Therefore it fits the
17 category of a nonconforming building. The
18 second part of that nonconforming use is , it ' s
19 the second structure as a principle building ;
20 which is on that property . For formality in a
21 sense, but that ' s how we review for
22 nonconformity or conformity. We do it with
23 many other properties in the Town. This is
24 just one of them.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you saying
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 89
1 this is the way the Building Department has
2 historically issued -- `
3 MS . CONKLIN: That ' s correct . We have
4 a second structure after the principle one and
5 have one lot . And then there are subsequent
6 structures , they ' re not permitted as of right .
7 So that is why it would be sent to you as a
8 nonconforming use . And then in addition, this
9 is a nonconforming building because it ' s a
10 seasonal cottage as such on the CO. and it ' s
11 less than 850 square feet, as defined in the
12 Southold Building Code -- Town Code .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let ' s address the
14 issue of demolition and the Stop Work Order .
15 Why was that issued and why --
16 MS . CONKLIN : It came to my attention
17 from the Trustees from some photos, that the
18 building had really been redone to quite an
19 extent and I paid a site visit in early
20 December to confirm that this was the case .
21 And from my observation, it had gone beyond the
22 scope of a foundation. You know, just to raise
23 the house on different piers , so to speak. It
24 had gone beyond that and it had been more of a
25 reconstruction because of what I had observed
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 90
y v _
1 on the site .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you make a
3 subsequent site inspection of the interior of
4 the building?
5 MS . CONKLIN : I went out to the
6 interior in mid December to see what in fact
7 the inside had looked like and it had undergone
8 quite a bit of reconstruction on the inside .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you tell me
10 how the Building Department defines a
11 reconstruction in-kind and in-place, can you
12 make that interpretation?
13 MS . CONKLIN : The only permits that I
14 am permitted to make are based on a decision,
r
15 interpretation of that of a ZBA, which in-place
16 and in-kind, only for repair and generally
17 minor repair . Like a porch is falling apart
18 and they want to -- someone wants to sure it up
19 and improve it or just a minor repair in-kind.
20 I have never ever issued a whole house or
21 dwelling, you know, entire structure without
22 sending it to the Zoning Board of Appeals . To
23 you guys .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you or
25 Mr . Verity familiar with the Dawson case, that
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 91
1 counsel raised relative to --
v -
2 MS . CONKLIN : There are so many
3 decisions over a ten year career that I can not
4 say that it is fresh in my mind, no .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
6 Do any of the Board members have any
{
7 questions for Pat Conklin?
8 MEMBER HORNING: I have a couple of
9 questions . Just in reviewing the Notice ' s of
10 Disapproval and then the amended, I just wanted
11 to clarify what each one was all about . There `'
12 is a Notice of Disapproval dated
13 October 14 , 2011 , which was amended on
14 October 18 , 2011 , and that amended is footnoted,
c
15 by saying, it was amended to as-built changes
16 discovered in the field. Can you specify
17 exactly what those were?
18 MS . CONKLIN : It was not -- no longer
19 exactly what was permitted in our paperwork
i
20 initially. Initially, it was to be a
21 foundation and I saw the site plan come in or I
22 was aware and I went and visited and saw that '
23 it -- it has a further scope of work now .
24 MEMBER HORNING : So you mentioned you
25 had gone there for a site inspection in
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 92
1 December. You had also been there previously
2 or someone from the Building Department had
3 been there previously?
4 MS . CONKLIN : I am not sure if anyone
5 had been there but I had saw pictures from the
6 Trustees and initially had been brought to my
7 attention that work had been done beyond the
8 scope of the permit .
9 MEMBER HORNING: Okay. And then on
10 December 8 , 2011 , Notice of Disapproval was
11 amended again to reflect the current Notice ofK
12 Disapproval and that has a footnote on it, it
13 was amended to certify the description of the
14 structure . And the only detectable difference
15 that I have seen in that, is instead of talking
16 about a seasonal cottage in the beginning for a .
17 partial reconstruction and addition to a
18 seasonal cottage, and it got changed to a
19 demolition, was the first page that you talked
i
20 about . First a partial reconstruction and then
21 changed to a demolition, and then it got
22 changed from seasonal cottage to cottage . Is
23 there any significance to that?
24 MS . CONKLIN : I think I initially
25 errored by saying leaving out the word
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 93
1 "seasonal" up top and I had to clarify it to
2 that fact .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It was amended on
4 October 18th. It was written as demolition of
5 construction of a new dwelling .
6 MS . CONKLIN : Right, and I needed to
7 clarify --
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: -- to say
9 demolition of construction of a new cottage .
t
10 MS . CONKLIN : Right . I had to specify,
11 that .
12 MEMBER HORNING : Got it .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jim, do you have
14 any questions?
15 MEMBER DINIZIO: I would just like to
16 get into the seasonal thing, whether or not
17 it ' s a seasonal cottage or a dwelling .
18 MS . CONKLIN : Under the definition of
19 our code, it ' s not . It ' s not a single-family
20 dwelling. Even dwelling is defined as more
21 than 850 square feet in the Town Code .
22 MEMBER DINIZIO : Can you tell us what
23 makes it seasonal?
24 MS . CONKLIN : Basically it ' s
25 construction . It ' s unheated for year round
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 94
1 use .
2 MEMBER DINIZIO : So it ' s not heated, no
3 insulation? That kind of thing?
4 MS . CONKLIN : Correct .
S
5 MEMBER DINIZIO : It has water in it?
6 MS . CONKLIN : Yes .
7 MEMBER DINIZIO : The building, these
8 are seasonal single-family residences . Is
9 there any such thing in the Town?
tr
10 MS . CONKLIN : Brand new today, we don ' t
11 like them, but in existence, there are t.
12 "seasonal cottages" as we call them. If
t
13 they ' re under 850 -- 850 seems to be the bench
14 mark or the pivotal point for calling it a
15 "dwelling" in our Town .
16 MEMBER DINIZIO : Because I was just
17 looking in the application to you.
18 MS . CONKLIN : Right .
19 MEMBER DINIZIO : So they ' re saying that
20 it ' s a single-family -- seasonal single-family
21 residence . I can ' t imagine --
22 MS . CONKLIN : We don ' t issues those
23 today. No, not as right . We don ' t get the
24 ability to put them on without going to the
25 Zoning Board of Appeals .
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 95
1 MEMBER DINIZIO : You know what, I did
2 the inspection . I was there with you. I don ' t
3 know if you got the pictures . And it ' s not
4 something that I usually do . I don ' t go and
5 pick something I off but I wanted to see it . And'
6 I was amazed by all the new lumbar that is
7 there . I don ' t think I have seen one 2X3 ,
8 which is what the walls are made -- the
9 exterior walls are made out of, that was not
10 honey in color . Okay. I was just wondering if
11 that was your impression also?
12 MS . CONKLIN : That was my impression
t
13 also .
14 MEMBER DINIZIO: I got pictures of -- '
15 the wood has a nice 2x6 ' s over the top of it .
16 It ' s all studded out real nice . Not something
17 that I would have seen there in that cottage .
18 And it seemed to me that the siding was a
19 little painted -- brand new --
20 MS . CONKLIN : There was sheathing, I
21 know that was painted, which seemed to be all
22 new. None of which was in our permit to start
23 with in October.
24 MEMBER DINIZIO : I was just wondering,
25 if they took down those walls and put it back
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 96
1 up, is that a demolition?
2 MS . CONKLIN : To my mind it is . That
3 is why I wrote the notice that way .
4 MEMBER DINIZIO : Based on that?
f
5 MS . CONKLIN : Yeah, observations ..
6 MEMBER DINIZIO: More than 500? r
7 MS . CONKLIN : I believe .
8 MEMBER DINIZIO : 500 -- if you could
9 explain that, does that relate to the actual
10 amount of material or is it the value of the
11 building?
12 MS . CONKLIN: In this context, it ' s the
i
13 amount of change to the building materials .
14 Not money value . FEMA is money value . This is'
15 just now change to the structure .
16 MEMBER DINIZIO : And would you consider
17 interior walls not to be holding anything up, c
18 to be part of a structure?
19 MS . CONKLIN : Yes .
20 MEMBER DINIZIO : You would?
21 MS . CONKLIN : Yes .
22 MEMBER DINIZIO : Okay. New windows,
23 wouldn ' t really make an effect on that?
24 MS . CONKLIN : As long as the framing of
25 it -- the framing of the space is the same .
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 97
1 MEMBER DINIZIO : I read Mr . Brown ' s
2 evaluation and seems to me -- I know there was
3 a floor left under there and the joists might
4 be all original . I could be wrong, and I did
5 look at the ceiling and the ceiling to me,
6 seems to be original . t
7 MS . CONKLIN : Yes .
8 MEMBER DINIZIO: Th shingles --
9 MS . CONKLIN : With respect to the
r
10 windows , if you change out all your windows ,
11 you ' re required to get a permit with us and ittI
12 should have been included in the scope of work,
i
13 which it was not .
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : That is all I have for,
15 now.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken, do you have
17 any questions for Pat?
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: At the moment --
22 we all did an interior inspection, by the way.
23 George, I don ' t think you were able to see --
24 MEMBER HORNING : No .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because he lives
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 98
1 on Fishers Island. The existing roof, there is
2 no ceiling -- the roof that is there now, there
3 is a Stop Work Order that was placed on the
4 work that was being conducted. So right now
5 there is a tarp that is over that roof that we
6 observed. In your opinion, is that structure
7 enough to be maintained or is it likely that it
8 will need to be rebuild?
9 MS . CONKLIN : I would rather defer to
10 the architects on that . It was not in great
11 shape . I will say that . It was not in great
12 shape . You can see the sky in some portions of
13 it . That I do recall but I would defer to the
14 architects on the jobs .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I know you ' re not
16 an electrician, but what would you have to say
17 about electric that is currently in the
18 building?
19 MS . CONKLIN : Again, it didn ' t look in
20 good shape . It was a lot of loose wiring
21 around. I really didn ' t have an opinion as to
22 how you would complete the renovations in that
23 end either . I would defer to an electricians
24 opinion as well .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And I did notice
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 99
1 that there is no.. plumbing currently in the
2 structure because that ,ha•s been removed, for
3 potential harm of the environmental .
4 Nevertheless, there is going to have to be a
5 plumbing system installed; correct?
6 MS . CONKLIN : I would assume so to get,
7 it up working again .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you . I
9 don ' t think I have any questions for Pat .
10 Mike, is there anything that you would ,
11 like to add from your observations?
i
12 (No Verbal Response . )
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are there other
14 comments that you would like to make, having
15 heard --
16 MS . CONKLIN : Yes .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Maybe have the
18 architect --
19 MS . MOORE : I would, but I would
20 probably like to put some things in context . I
21 don ' t think that there is any question that the
22 work that was done was beyond the foundation,
23 shouldn ' t have. gotten a building permit . That
24 is not the issue . My client actually called
25 the Building Department for a foundation
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 100
1 inspection and it was Gary Fish who pointed out
2 that there was work done -to the structure
3 itself. And should have gone through a
4 building permit process . So he wasn ' t trying
5 to avert getting a building permit . It wasn ' t
6 his attention to squeeze anything by. It was
7 just lack of knowledge . And he called and he
8 -- Gary Fish said, okay, we have to get you a
9 building permit so everything is done
10 correctly. So my concern with the line of
11 questioning is we ' re kind of going, in a sense,
12 off topic. Going back to the memorandum, there
13 is no doubt the Building Department has to
14 follow the 50% rule with respect to the
15 structure and whether or not to make -- whether
16 or not we need a building permit and whether or-
17 not make the material choices and so on and so
18 forth. To be more to code and conforming to
19 code . That is really not an issue . We keep
20 getting distracted as a Board, Zoning Board, is
21 we ' re going to say, well it ' s in-kind and
22 in-place, you know, you ' re taking it down and
23 reconstructed, we now consider you a
24 demolition. So you need to start over and move
25 the building. Change this and change that . We
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 101
1 don ' t have that situation here . Not only that
2 there is no 50% rule that, the Zoning Board is
3 following with the code and please read the
4 memorandum. It explains it all in there . But
5 more so, because of it ' s co-op ownership, my
6 client has to restore this one unit out of the
t
7 31 units to comply with the co-op ownership and
8 his legal obligations to the co-op . So again,
9 in the memorandum, I did give you an analysis
10 that was used with the motel and the motel --
11 the yellow one there up on the Sound, Sunset .
r
12 And Sunset, it was treated -- because it was a
13 fire, the 50% rule did apply in this case and
14 Sunset -- the Board looked at the case law and
15 it was consideration of the overall whole . And
16 that is the same situation that we have here
17 with the co-op . So I don ' t want to get
18 distracted with the line of questioning that
19 you are -- have been so customarily coming up
20 on the individual, single-family dwelling . You
21 know, have you taken down too much or not taken -
22 down too much, and so on. No doubt there
23 should have been a building permit but the
24 Building Department should have -- should get
25 some direction from the Board and can issue it
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 102
1 without coming before the Board and that is the
2 issue of an in-kind -and in-place, because
3 they ' re trying to follow Wall ' s decision . With '
4 every case that comes in front of you, which is
5 reconstruction, and many cases there is some
6 alterations that increases the nonconformity,
7 but that is not the case here . And you ' re
8 going to find that there are other cases where
9 there is some degree of nonconformity. Just
10 the fact that you need a building permit . So
11 this case is important because I want you to
t
12 look at it for the co-op and help us but the
13 Town Board hasn ' t made a decision on what
14 replacement or reconstruction . As to zoning,
15 zoning regulations, you or the Building
16 Department is going to enforce . The Building
17 Department has its own set under the Building
18 Code, fine . But this Board and the Building
19 Department sending all of these applications of
20 reconstruction, back to this Board, that
21 becomes the difficulty . And you can see from
22 the comments that have been displayed, "I don ' t
23 know what to do . I don ' t know what I am
24 allowed to do . " It leads to incredible
25 confusion and that is where, when I think, we
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 103
1 go by way of Wall ' s decision by code revisions ,
2 that the one example leads to -another, which is
3 a little different first . And then overall tenk
4 years, all of a sudden, you ' re in a really
5 different . scenario then the Wall ' s decision
6 originally contemplated . So with respect to
7 the amount of work, did you want to go over it
8 with the -- with Amy or Ian --
9 MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I just --
i
10 MS . MOORE : -- yeah.
11 MEMBER DINIZIO : My line of questioning
12 with respect to that, had more to do with
13 coming out historically . How this is a
14 historic site . And what makes it that, is the
15 location of those cottages . To the water, you
16 know, 50 feet . How there is 30 of them --
17 MS . MOORE : Yes .
18 MEMBER DINIZIO : And the cottages
19 themselves . So in my mind, that is what I am
20 looking for now, if a cottage is historic and
21 you replace the entire thing with the same
22 thing you had? In other words , if everything
23 is new there, is that historic? You just told
24 me, new windows, new electricity, new siding .
25 MS . MOORE : That ' s considered
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 104
1 reconstruction restoration. If you do a
2, historic structure the renovations , alterations,
3 we were going to do -- let ' s say to a building
4 like mine, I had a foundation problem that was
5 historic . I had to replace a portion of the
6 foundation. I didn ' t have a choice .
7 Structurally it was unsound. You had to
8 replace . Again, it was in-kind and in-place .
9 It was a bunch of rocks . It had to be poured. ;
10 So I have most of my foundation being rocks and
11 a portion of it to be poured because you can ' t
12 replace with the materials that were in place
13 at that time .
r
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : That is what I am
15 saying. That is what I am talking about
16 historic .
17 MS . MOORE : Historic here, you have the
18 character of the community and a co-op as a
19 whole . If my client or any one of these --
20 let ' s assume that no one touched a unit and
21 they came to you and said I want to put a glass
22 tower and the community agreed with that, you
23 would be looking at this glass tower and it
24 would be increasing the degree of nonconformity
25 with respect to the bulkhead. Now you ' re
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 105
1 putting this big glass tower on top . You would
2 look at it and say wait a second, the historic
3 nature of this community. And again, I think
4 that ' s why the LWRP, there was a discussion of
5 this -- this property and the preservations of
6 the property. And the property can ' t take a
7 unit away from the overall 31 units . They all
8 act in a community in and of itself . So to say,
9 that well, this one -- God forbid that there
t
10 was a hurricane and three units were destroyed•
11 with the hurricane, would they be entitled to
12 go and be put back? Exactly where they were,
13 , because everyone ' s proprietary interest would
14 be only as to the portion that they owned. You
15 would be looking at it and saying, not only
16 because of the motel case, it ' s part of an
17 overall whole . There is no difference here .
18 This unit is part of the overall whole . And I
19 did check with our historian to see if this
20 place ever declared a historic -- you know on
21 the national registry. It never has been but
22 that doesn ' t mean that it ' s not culturally
23 significant to the community . And I think
24 again, the LWRP sets forth its importance to
25 the community and it ' s importance to preserve
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 106
1 it . The co-op has done that . Nobody could
2 have anticipated in- 1995, when it was
3 originally -- when the LWRP was prepared.
4 MEMBER DINIZIO : I am still wrestling
5 with a new building, new siding all the way
6 around this thing, does that constitute what
7 was there before?
8 MS . MOORE : But the code does address
e
9 that . Remember, the reconstruction is
10 specifically allowed in the 122 , I think it was
11 that I cited. Let me pull it . When you read
12 the memo, maybe it will answer your question .
13 Again, 122 says nothing in this article shall
14 be deemed to prevent the remodeling
15 reconstruction . I mean, this is a
16 reconstruction or enlargement . It goes beyond,
17 that . It says enlargement of a nonconforming
18 building .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The memorandum of
20 law that you and counsel have presented jives
21 with the language that this Board will
22 interpret, agree with or disagree with the
23 Notice of Disapproval written by the Building
24 Inspector.
25 MS . MOORE : I understand --
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 107
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s a little
2 more complicated then your -typical situatio-n-, --
3 MS . MOORE : This is unique .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We know that it
r
5 is unique and you ' re absolutely right to the
6 historic nature and character . It is different
7 then a historic building that has been
8 registered --
i
9 MS . MOORE : I am -- ,
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You ' re
11 suggesting --
12 MS . MOORE : No . No, not at all --
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : -= certainly it
14 does speak to the character of this
15 neighborhood and this Board is fully aware of .
16 MS . MOORE : But you have situations ins;
1'7 Orient for example, where some of the houses
18 are almost completely constructions . Some of
19 them have been reconstructions that were
20 architecturally the same house but essentially
21 -- you know, the materials are all new. And
22 that is in a historic district . So here we
23 have a culturally significant location and I
24 don ' t see the distinction. I see that the code
25 does allow for the in-kind and in-place
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 108
1 restoring --- repainting . Remember, his efforts
2 here were initially, pick-up _the structure and
3 put it on the foundation. He didn ' t plan or
4 budget for the amount of work that has been
r
5 done here . That happens when you all of a
6 sudden in placing the exterior with a new --
7 something that wasn ' t planned. That is why
8 there is new sheathing there . You take that
9 material off and you see, oh my goodness . The ,
10 way that this was constructed was essentially
11 with a toothpick. So that is when again, the
12 code, the State building code directed and make
r
13 sure that when you ' re building, you do it right
14 and properly. But that is in conflict I see
15 with the Zoning Code but not in the overall
16 context of 1 out of 31 units on a 82 acre piece
17 of property. The roads , the infrastructures,
18 everything was related here . It is all
19 integrated. You can ' t just take this one unit
20 and say, ' well, you have reconstructed, it ' s
21 gone . One of the issue -- this issue actually
22 interestingly came up in the 90 ' s and Gerry you
23 may remember this . In the 90 ' s, it looked like
24 En-Consultant ' s for the Sage Family was doing
25 the building -- needed building permits for
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 109
1 restoration -repair and the Building Department
2 and the Zoning Board, because that is the
3 application that never went anywhere, the
4 Zoning Board asked them to provide an
5 engineer ' s report to determine the extent of
6 the renovations, modifications, maintenance
7 and/or reconstruction . Including new
i
8 foundation or description of new pier
9 construction. So in the 90 ' s you were looking ,
10 at this, not in the use that was not permitted.
11 It was citing the section that is the
12 reconstruction provision . And at that time,
13 Joe Fischetti prepared an Engineer ' s Report for
14 all the cottages to distinguish between those
15 cottages that needed cosmetic verus building
16 permit . And at that time, he gave a report
17 that said this unit has "X" amount -- he says,
18 as per the entire unit, 60% is the foundation
19 -- or 30% is the foundation . This part . This
20 part . 60% of that percentage needs work. So
21 overall it was identified 10 years ago that
22 there was going to be a need for building
23 permit issued work and non-building permit
24 issued work. And it was with an Engineer ' s
25 Inspection that identified unit by unit . So
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 110
1 that is ' as far back as 195 . It ' s no different
2 today . Except for the fact that now the
3 community, the unit owners , come up with that
4 engineer/architect, to determine what extent of
5 work is going to be required. In this case, it,
6 was absolutely clear the foundation needed to
7 be replaced. There was no doubt about that .
8 Beyond that, it should have just gone through
9 the process of getting a building permit . When
10 the time comes up, you look at it .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask you a
12 question .
13 MS . MOORE : Sure .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You presented a
15 different interpretation then what is the
16 Notice of Disapproval, one thing that we ' re
17 concerned when looking at area variances is
18 because then it ' s ( In Audible) --
19 MS . MOORE : I understand.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is just C .
21 really one small part of this circumstance .
22 We ' re looking at the definition of use,
23 nonconforming use, and how we interpret that,
24 okay? I am sure, counsel, lawyers in the area,
25 are familiar with the use variance standards .
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 111
1 They examine assets like economic hardship .
2 They examine aspects that deal with the unique
3 ability to realize any kind of reasonable
4 return on any use on that property, which
5 clearly --
6 MS . MOORE : I think I have established
7 already by prior applications .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have put
9, forth your considerations for your client . The
10 possibility of examining our standards as to
11 whether or not a use variance may not be
12 something that we might consider and obtain --
13 MS . MOORE : Well, just momentarily, if
14 I can explain that analysis, that that -- I
15 think that the case law has given you guidance
16 on a residential use . And the courts have
17 said, it ' s either residential or commercial .
18 We ' re not asking for a pig farm on this
19 property.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have to think
21 about the options available here .
22 MS . MOORE : Okay.
23 MR. COHEN : If I may?
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please .
25 MR. COHEN : We have given some
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 112
1 consideration to asking this Board to entertain
2 the possibility o'f a use variance . under 267 -of
3 the Town Law. In order to get there, the --
4 this Board has to determine that these cottages '
5 are not permitted uses . If you agree with our
6 argument that they are, then we don ' t have to
7 get variance issue _ So first, the Board would
8 have to disagree with us . So to that extent ,
9 it could be a fall back argument for us . If I
10 understand, Ms . Conklin correctly, there were
11 three primary factors that the Building
12 Department relied on to determine that these
13 cottages are nonconforming uses . The seasonal '
14 nature of the cottages . The fact that they are
15 less than 850 square feet . The fact that it ' s
16 the second structure on a lot . You had
17 mentioned the Dawson case, which comes out of
18 this very Town . The Dawson case says very
19 clearly and very plainly, the fact that the
20 structure is the second structure, doesn ' t make,
21 it a nonconforming use . You don ' t look to the
22 technical word in the statute to look at the
23 use of which it is put . It ' s put . to a
24 residential use, the fact that the second one
25 doesn ' t make any difference . There is also
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 113
1 similar, case ,-law with respect to the seasonal
2 nature of the cottage and I will be brief .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am sorry, I
4 don ' t mean to interrupt . I just got a note
5 that there will be an arraignment at three
6 o ' clock. Yippie, and so we ' re are already
7 behind. So a couple --
8 MR. COHEN : I will take five more
t
9 minutes of the Boards time .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure .
11 MR. COHEN : There is case law coming
12 out of the Town of Southampton . I will cite in
13 my memo, that says essentially the same thing . `
14 The fact that a structure has a seasonal use ,
15 does not change it ' s residential character .
16 That unless there is something specific in the
17 code exempts a seasonal use from a residential
18 seasonal use district, then that is not a
19 relevant factor to be considered . And my
20 understanding is that this Town Code does not
21 use seasonal usage of whether it ' s proper for
22 the R-80 Zone . So the fact that these are
23 seasonal cottages , doesn ' t change the fact that
24 they are residential uses . And with respect to
25 the third and final factor of this particular
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 114
1 cottage is• less than 850 square feet . I
2 haven ' t at least as of yet, I expect that I
3 will, find any case law. I didn ' t know - that
4 there would be questions on this issue . The
5 same line of reasoning. ' s apply. The courts
6 never look to the specific technical statutory ,
7 language in issues such as this . They look to,
8 the use of the property. This is used as a
9 residence whether it ' s 850 square feet or 750
10 square feet . That doesn ' t change its use,
11 which would make it a dimensional area issue,
12 rather then a use issue . So the fact that it
13 is less than 850 square feet, should not
14 prohibit this cottage from being determined to
15 be permitted use in this area . It would be a
16 nonconforming structure, but it would still be
4
17 a permitted use . Thank you.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mike or Pat, do
r
19 either of you have any reaction to that, that
20 you would like to state for the record?
21 MS . CONKLIN : The only thing that I
22 would like to add is that in late 2010 ,
23 Mr . Otano came in to us and presented plans to
24 renovate and expand on the building . At that
25 point in time, I told him what would be
fS
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 115
1 require-d a<nd-in terms of the enormous amount of
2 paperwork and approval from multiple places .
3 Specifically, I addressed it with him. The
4 paperwork he was talking about filing, he
5 decided against and went to an alternative of
6 just raising the house at that time and that ' s ,
7 how we came to the issue that one permit just ,
8 for the foundation. It was explained up front
9 in late 2010 what would be involved and how we
10 interpreted, as the Town. For many, many
11 years , how we interpreted these properties .
12 Whether it be Breezy Shores or not, it was our
13 case history of how our case law and how we
I`
14 dealt with these properties and how they were
15 building, which is not to never issue- a permit
16 but go through the process and get the papers .
17 That is all I wanted to go on the record and
18 say.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. i
20 MR. OTANO : May I , because I do
21 remember the conversation? Yes, the expansion
22 was denied. Those plans were submitted. The
23 expansion was denied by the community . I made
24 an error by not following the communities rules
25 in asking our community for the expansion
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 116
1 first . I -was trying to be pragmatic and get
2 the foundation permit, which was for safety
3 because it was failing . Once the expansion was
4 denied, we had a conversation and that is when
5 the whole repair came in . Obviously, that was
6 going to have to go to a ZBA. Once the r
7 expansion was off the hook and we were just
r
8 going to keep the house as it is and spend all
9 the money to lift the house and put the house
10 back down, I did not anticipate as much
11 repairing as what you witnessed. When the
12 builder called me and he took the siding off, I
13 was in the city working, he said, there were no
14 studs here . . I said to Mike and I talked to him
15 afterwards and I said, what do you do? He said
16 it ' s going to cost you more in material but we
17 will put framing to code where there isn ' t any
18 framing because it ' s not going to support what
19 you want to do . So I said, okay. All right .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you . We ' re
21 certainly going to continue to take testimony.
22 I am not going to close this hearing. There is
23 a lot to think about . And we ' re going to need
24 to read the transcript of today and perhaps ask
25 more questions and may have some more thoughts .
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 117
1 Also, we ' a-ppreciate everyone taking the time
2 today and coming `in today and offering their
3 explanations . Thank you.
4 Because we have other applications and
5 an arraignment, I don ' t want to short circuit
6 anybody here or cut anyone too short, I am
7 going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing
8 to I think the next available date is in March,
9 the March Public Hearing. We can ' t get you in
10 next month but we can certainly get you in for
11 the following month . Do you want to do it
12 first thing in the morning? That way we will
13 be able to read --
14 MS . MOORE : No, I want you to .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand the
16 special nature of this community. We
17 understand that there is consequences for other
18 property owners and we want to be very careful
19 and thoughtful and give everyone an opportunity,
20 to be heard. So I don ' t want to rush this .
21 Is this okay?
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes .
23 MS . MOORE : While you ' re looking it up .
24 I know Hernan ' s concern he has raised to me, he
25 has already replaced the tarp on the roof
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 118
1 twice . It is just every day that it continues
2 to be exposed, damages and what has been done
3 with the material, wouldv -- could he, I want to
4 say at his own risk, could he seal up the roof
5 so that it ' s no longer exposed to the elements?
6 It ' s very difficult . I did ask in December and
7 I think the Building Department just said, tarp
8 it off and if we agree, it ' s going to be at his
9 own risk. I am hopeful that we will get
10 through this process , reasonably based on all
11 the information that we have given you . I am
12 confident that you will do the right thing. I
13 am just wanting to protect the structure .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Pat, what I think
15 we had explained to you previously and when we
16 saw and told you on site, that is a
17 determination that the Building Department
18 needs to make with you and your client . We
19 really don ' t have the jurisdiction to
20 continue --
21 MS . MOORE : Okay. I will speak to Mike
22 Verity. I think ultimately they would always
23 consult with the Board as well .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think not in
25 this case . That is really not our
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 119
1 determination and our decision to make .
2 MS . MOORE : Okay. I will talk to them
3 and explain the circumstances .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So there is a
5 motion to adjourn to March lst at 10 : 00 A. M. ,
6 is there a second?
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
8 . CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
10 MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye .
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
13 ( See Minutes for Resolution . )
1
14 ********************************************
15 HEARING #6530 - LOUIS AND ELIZABETH MASTRO
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
17 application is for Louis and Elizabeth Mastro,
18 #6530 . Request for variance from Articles XXII
19 and XXIII Code Section 280-116 (B) and 280-124 ,
20 based on an application for building permit and
21 the Building Inspector ' s November 23, 2011
22 Notice of Disapproval concerning proposed
23 demolition and construction of a new
24 single-family dwelling at; 1 ) less than the
25 code required bulkhead setback of 75 feet,
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 120
1 2 ) less than the code required minimum side yard
2 setback of 10 feet, 3) less than the code
3 required total combined side yards of 25 feet,
4 4 ) less than the code required rear yard
5 setback of 35 feet, at : 1595 Bayview Avenue,
6 adjacent to Arshamomque Harbor, Southold.
7 Hello again .
8 MS . MASTRO : Hello, Happy New Year and
9 thank you for the first approval .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You just have to
11 state your name for our --
12 MS . MASTRO: Elizabeth Mastro,
13 M-A-S-T-R-O .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There are some
15 correspondences in our file that I want to make
16 sure you have a copy of . We have a copy that
17 we just got, the Local Waterfront
18 Revitalization Program Coordinator ' s Review,
19 which I will give you a copy of and also a
20 notice from Suffolk County Planning, indicated
21 a matter for local determination, in which it
22 doesn ' t mean a whole lot . Let me give you ,
23 that . So all the paperwork is good. So in the
24 interest that we know we have this arraignment
25 coming up, I would just like to review, what I
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 121
1 believe the relief that is being requested is,
2 to make sure that we understand it correctly.
3 MS . MASTRO: Okay.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And we can take
5 it from there . This is written as a demolition
6 and construction of single-family dwelling.
7 One, the bulkhead setback is proposed at 32
8 feet, when the code required is 75 . Two, the
9 single side yard setback is 7 . 9 feet . The code
10 requires a minimum of 10 . Three, the total
11, side yard setback is 18 . 5 feet . The code
12 requires 25 . And the fourth variance is a rear
13 yard setback of 34 feet and where the code
14 requires 35 feet .
15 MS . MASTRO: Yes .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You are proposing
17 to retain the existing setback from the
18 existing cottage . And there is a small
19 landward addition to repair/replace as needed.
20 Making structural repairs as needed to the
21 existing structure .
22 MS . MASTRO: That ' s correct .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We all remember
24 here, the Board members remember you were here
25 before us for a demolition and a new house and
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 122
1 at that time, ,we determined that it really
2 wasn ' t salvageable . There was an awful a lot
3 of mold and so on .
4 MS . MASTRO: Right .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand your
6 circumstance of change and trying to salvage
7 that .
8 MS . MASTRO : That ' s correct .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And try and make
10 it a one-story dwelling.
11 MS . MASTRO: Yes .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think that
13 summarizes most of the points . Let ' s take some
14 testimony.
15 MS . MASTRO : Okay.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Tell us what ' s
17 going on? Why is this not a demolition permit?
18 Why did the Building Department write it as a
19 demolition? Again, you ' re telling us it ' s not?
20 MR. MASTRO : The renovation . We ' re
21 going to add to the existing house with a new
22 roof as same footprint . So it ' s not a
23 demolition . We ' re going to save a lot of it .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You ' re going to
25 save what?
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 123
1 MR. MASTRO : We ' re going to save a lot
2 of the home .
3 MS . MASTRO: The reason we decided not
4 to do a new home is because of economics , okay.
5 When we purchased the house we had "X" amount
6 of dollars to do a lot of renovations to the
7 house and in the meantime, the time passed. By
8 the time we got the permits and stuff like
9 that , income got reduced and it ' s not
10 economically to us to spend that kind of money.
11 in a house that will actually surpass what the
12 value of the nature of the home is . If we
13 knock the house down and rebuild a new home,
14 we ' re going to be in a million dollar
15 investment .
16 MR. MASTRO: And also to consider, the
17 purchase price of this property, you all know
18 it and you have been there and we paid close to
19 $ 600 , 000 . 00 for this house .
20 MS . MASTRO : Without doing anything .
21 MR. MASTRO: To put another
22 $400 , 000 . 00 , it ' s not going to make any sense
23 at all . So we just want to fix what is there .
24 We ' re -- almost four years we have had this
25 house . We ' re anxious to get this project
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 124
1 going .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask you
3 something, the exterior walls , they ' re boarded
4 up and you really can ' t see what ' s going on .
5 Has the architect even looked at the extensive
6 rot in those studs?
7 MS . MASTRO: Actually, any rot of any
8 place, we would like to replace . We don ' t want
9 to make the mistake . We ' re learning as we are
10 coming to this meeting, we have to ask for
11 permission . Just like you saying, if we find
12 there is a main beam underneath and rotted out,
13 we would be asking for permission at this time
14 to remove it and replace it . To make it more
15 sounder .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is one
17 thing that we can ax right off the bat, the
18 porch . You ' re going to have to rebuild
19 entirely.
20 MS . MASTRO: Yeah .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you cut that
22 back by one foot, you ' re going to get rid ,of
23 your rear yard nonconformity.
24 MS . MASTRO: One foot meaning?
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One foot, 12
1
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 125
1 inches . You get rid of one of those variances .
2 In other words , the code requires a 35 foot
3 rear yard setback and where you have it now, is
4 34 feet . If you cut that porch back, which you
5 have to rebuild anyway by one foot --
6 MS . MASTRO : Okay.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Towards the land.
8 MS . MASTRO: Okay.
9 MR. MASTRO: New foundation, of course?
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, you need to
11 tell us what the scope of work on the repair
12 part is going to be . We know you ' re putting i,n
13 a new ( In Audible) with a cellar underneath .
14 There is going to be stairs down to that cellar
15 underneath from your side yard. `
16 MS . MASTRO: Right .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You are going to
18 make a side yard even smaller when it comes to
19 the water .
20 MS . MASTRO: You ' re absolutely right .
21 I have been talking to the architect . I want
22 him to configure the whole thing and how he can
23 actually sink it into- the house . Like when you
24 have some type of lending and it goes right
25 into -- instead of being on the side or sticks
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 126
1 out to the neighbors yard. Somehow we can come
2 in and -- it ' s actually for the heating for the
3 houses . You have seen the house .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes .
5 MS . MASTRO: We have thought about
6 pulling the house from the front and putting
7 the equipment underground. Again, it ' s going
8 to become more L-shape . We want to make it
9 square and small and not an eyesore for those
10 people . That can be a possibly. We can redo
11 the staircase and have it on the side . I don ' t
12 know. `
13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask one
14 quick question?
15 MS . MASTRO: Yes .
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Has your architect
17 clearly stated that the major portion of the
18 foundation there is usable enough to support
19 the structure that you are anticipating?
20 MR. MASTRO: Yes .
21 MS . MASTRO : He said, yes .
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am absolutely no
23 architect . I am absolutely no engineer, but I
24 have to tell you that, I think you are going to
r
25 run into problems with that foundation .
i
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 127
1 MS . MASTRO: You think so?
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I really do . You
3 know, it ' s not pointed. It ' s -
4 MS . MASTRO: There is no cracks in that
5 foundation .
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It really doesn ' t
7 have to do with that . It is the fact that the.
8 water has been laying against it all these
9 years and it has been against that foundation
10 and you just don ' t know how good that block is .
11 That is my opinion . I have been there three
12 times now, since you filing this application t.
13 and looking at it . If he gives you the
14 certification and it goes to the Building
15 Department, then that is fine . That is just my
16 opinion . I am not trying to get you to put a ,
17 new foundation . In my opinion, it ' s putting
18 good money into bad.
19 MR. MASTRO : I understand.
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You know what I am
21 saying? You ' re proposing something very nice
22 and you know, you ' re fixing -- you ' re repairing
23 a portion of it . Putting a new cellar under a
24 portion . _I mean, even if you went with a crawl
25 space underneath that . A brand new crawl
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 128
1 space . You ' re probably better off than, you
2 know --
3 MS . MASTRO: This is what the law is .
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I see the way
5 you ' re doing it . That is just my opinion .
6 MS . MASTRO: If we did the crawl space,
7 then the rooms would be like this and then kind
8 of --
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It ' s a crawl space
10 already, right?
11 . MS . MASTRO: No, it was not a crawl
12 space . It ' s not --
t
13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It is a crawl
14 space .
15 MS . MASTRO : I see what you are saying .
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am seeing blocks
17 that are not pointed any more . There is
18 constant add-on ' s to that location .
19 MR. MASTRO: We were concerned with
20 that too, Gerry, and we dug down and around it
21 and he was very confident that the foundation
22 is sound and secure .
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I mean, I hate to
24 see you come here a third time .
25 MS . MASTRO: I don ' t care .
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 129
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here is the
2 thing . The stairs in the side yard that you ' re
3 proposing are 3 1/2 wide, which is reasonable .
4 But if you take 3 1/2 feet off 8 . 8 feet, you
5 have almost no side yard. No emergency access
6 at all to -- you can access on the 10-foot
7 side . On the other side .
8 MS . MASTRO: Could we do it in the
9 front? Would there be no objections to the
10 front, from the street? Would you have
li objections to that? If you move it to the
r
12 north side?
t
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is entirely
14 up to you and your architect . We ' re just
15 commenting on the variances . We mentioned that
16 it would be better to eliminate one variance
17 that is only 12 inches . It ' s better to keep
18 your side yards more conforming, if you can
19 move the stairs to some other place, you ' re
20 going to increase the combined side yard.
21 Well, they might not be counting the stairs in
22 the side yard but the side yard has been
23 reduced to a three foot width --
24 MS . MASTRO : You ' re absolutely right .
25 MR. MASTRO: That is fine .
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 130
Y 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What I would
2 really like to see and I don ' t believe that our
3 file reflects any written documentation from
4 either an engineer or your architect, really
5 analyzing what can be salvaged. What is going
6 to be questionable and what is going to be
7 brand new? I mean, we don ' t want to get into
8 situations where again, there is Stop Work
9 Order --
10 MS . MASTRO : No, I don ' t want that .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s the last
12 thing that anybody wants .
13 MS . MASTRO : Right . I mean, my
14 understanding of alteration is all inside .
15 Outside does not apply to alteration.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is not true .
17 If you replace window. Even if you were
18 replacing and in-kind, it would go again with
19 the definition. But you have to have enough
20 framing to put a new window in.
21 MS . MASTRO : Right .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you ' re going
23 to reframe the whole wall, then that ' s new
24 construction.
25 MS . MASTRO: The bottom is going to
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 131
1 stay. The majority is going to be the front .
2 And like you said, you want that one foot off
3 the front porch, we go with you. What ' s fair,
4 is fair .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What I am really
6 saying is that we have Notice for Demolition,
7 and you know demolition --
8 MS . MASTRO: Right .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We would like
10 some clarification from your expert as to why
11 this is not a demolition .
12 MS . MASTRO: I spoke to the Building
13 Department and I asked them, why did you put
14 down as a demolition on the permit, and she
15 said it goes to the amount of work and what we
16 want to do . It goes under the "demolition . " I
17 said, we don ' t want to do demolition
18 construction. We want to do an addition to the
19 house .
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It ' s more than 500 .
21 That ' s why.
22 MS . MASTRO: It ' s not demolition . The
23 only demolition is going to be of the roof .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Wouldn ' t it behoove
25 of you to have your architect here with you?
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 132
1 MS . MASTRO: I asked him to come today.
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And he wasn ' t able
3 to make it?
4 MS . MASTRO: No .
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can we postpone
6 this until he comes so that we can get the
7 proper documentation from him, so we know where
8 we are going?
9 MS . MASTRO: Okay.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So look, we
11 talked about the rear yard setback. We talked
12 about the side yard. We talked about the fact
13 that we really need to have some more
14 definitive information on the scope of work and
15 naturally a structural analysis .
16 MS . MASTRO : Okay.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If he has to go
18 in there and tare into the walls and look at it
19 and all that kind of thing, then so be it . We
20 need to understand so that there is no
21 surprises . We would like to move this as
22 quickly as we can --
23 MR. MASTRO: We appreciate that .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I know you guys
25 have been waiting a long time to get something
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 133
1 going.
2 MR. MASTRO: Did you want to come in
3 the house, Gerry?
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I did ask the
5 Board if they were interested in doing an
6 interior inspection, and at this point, no . We
7 may do it after we hear from the architect .
8 We ' re going to schedule this for March 1st at
9 11 : 00 A.M. That way, if you can get that
10 information to us prior to that, that gives us
11 time to review it . It gives him time to do the
12 structural analysis . What percent is rot?
13 What percent needs to be removed? The
14 condition of the foundation. All that sort
15 stuff. If he doesn ' t want to do it, I am sure
16 you can get recommendations . This way, we will
17 have a chance to look at it .
18 MS . MASTRO: Okay .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to adjourn
20 this hearing to March lst at 11 : 00 A.M.
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by•
23 Gerry.
24 All in favor?
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 134
1 MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye .
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
4 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
5 ***************************** **** ************
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Motion to recess,
7 the public hearings .
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So moved.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
11 MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye .
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
14 (Whereupon, a recess was taken . )
15 ************************************* *********
16 HEARING #6528 - MELANIE M, MARIANNE,
17 MICHAEL SELWYN, as tenants in common and JANE
18 GOLDEN
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
20 application is for Melanie M, Marianne, Michael
21 Selwyn, as tenants in common and Jane Golden,
22 #6528 . Request for variance under Article IV
23 Section 280-18 and the Building Inspector ' s
24 May 24 , 2011, updated November 22 , 2011 Notice
25 of Disapproval, based on an application for
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 135
1 building permit for a subdivision, at :
2 Proposed Lot 1 ; 1 ) less than the code required
3 minimum lot size of 40 , 000 square feet, 2 ) less
4 than the code required minimum lot width of 150
5 linear feet, 3 ) less than the code required lot
6 depth of 175 linear feet; Proposed Lot 2 ; 1 ) at
7 less than the code required minimum lot size of
8 40 , 000 square feet . 2 ) less than the code
9 required lot width of 150 linear feet, 3 ) less
10 than the code required lot depth of 175 linear
11 feet; located at 200 and 150 Three Waters Road,
12 Orient . This is an R-40 District, proposal for
13 subdivision . Just for the sake of making this
14 quick. There is two nonconforming lot sizes .
15 One is at 12 , 802 square feet . Lot 2 , at 12 , 924
16 square feet . Two nonconforming lots . The code
17 requires 150 linear feet . Lot 1 is 100 and Lot
18 2 is 100 . The two nonconforming lot depths,
19 the proposal is for 175 linear feet . Lot 1 isI
20 at 128 . 64 and 2 , at 129 . 85 linear feet . Those
21 are the two variances that we ' re looking at .
22 It ' s a re-subdivided merged lot, that are now
23 owned by two separate families .
24 MS . MOORE : Correct .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Take it away.
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 136
1 MS .. MOORE : Thank you. Patricia Moore
2 on behalf of the Selwyn ' s . Also in the
3 audience is Gail Wickham who represents Jane
4 Golden, who is owner of the house at this
5 point . Kevin McLaughlin is also here in the
6 audience also because he represents the z
7 contract, MD for the vacant lot . They don ' t
8 intend to speak. They are here to make sure
9 that I do my job .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
11 MS . MOORE : And I do welcome any input
12 that they have, if they have anything . To
13 begin with, we may have a very interesting
14 situation . This is the first time that I have
15 ever seen this and I am sure the Board as well .
16 This is oriented by the Sea Section 1, which is
17 filed map . Filed at the Suffolk County Clerk 's
18 Office . It is property that has been develope6
19 for a very long time . In fact, there are only `
20 two vacant lots in the entire subdivision . The
21 applicant being one of them. Her lot is Lot
22 15-6-13, which is owned by Mr . And Mrs .
23 Molfesdish (phenetic) . Corner of Three Waters
24 Lane and Uhl Lane . Other then those two ,
25 Section 1 has been completely developed. What
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 137
1 -- in looking for history of Orient by the Sea
2 Section 1, I have found and I have submitted to
3 the Board and you have in your .file, a letter
4 dated December 23, 2011, that I sent it to
5 Mr . Sidor of the Planning Board as well as to
6 Madam Chairman, and the Board, that this Orient
7 by the Sea Section 1, was approved by both the
8 Planning Board and the Town Board. It was an
9 open development area under 280-A back in 1958 .
10 The importance of that is that the Town Code ,
11 still refers to in 240-26 with respect to open
12 development areas , it ' s still listed in the
13 subdivision regulations . And in particular,
14 let me give you the section of the code, it may
15 either one, not require this application at
16 all, but two, ,that even if this application is
17 required, sets forth the setback criteria that.
18 were applicable at the time the open area were `
19 approved. So I am going to give you --
20 So you can see in Section 240-26, it
21 says the Town Board may grant the applicants
22 the right to future approval of the creation of
23 lots and the issuance of permits for the
24 erection of structures , to which access is
25 given by right-of-way or easement . Such
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 138
1 rights, shall be in accordance with the
2 designated zoning district, density and minimum
l
3 lot size for the property in effect at the time
4 of establishment of the open development area . ,
5 That seems to be pretty straightforward and `
r
6 pretty clear that setbacks are -- all of the
7 variances of having to obtain for today, are
8 all grandfathered by this provision of the open
9 development area . So I give that to you . I
10 gave it to the Planning Board originally. Th`e
11 Planning Board was kind of baffled by the open
12 development area and some of the old-timers on
13 the Planning Board said, gee, I didn ' t know
14 that anybody knew about open development area's
15 in that time, but there are actually a handful
16 of open development approvals from the 50 ' s and
17 they are set forth in these records . So I
18 think that establishes , a determination by this
19 Board that we don ' t have merger and we have a
20 grandfathering of the area variances .
21 Nonetheless , I do want to proceed with
22 our application, in the case or event that you
23 are advised that no area variance approval . I
24 have the -- a Google map that provides the
25 development of this area . I didn ' t make
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 139
1 multiple copies of this because I assumed that
2 you ahad this in your file . The one that Vicki
3 always provides as back-up . I do have an
4 aerial photograph that shows the entire
5 development area of Orient Point East One . If'
6 you recall from my presentation, Orient Point
7 East Two, was one of the exempt lots . I don' t
8 understand the history. I wasn ' t around for
9 the exemption provisions of the merger or why
10 Orient Two was included but Orient One wasn ' t,.
11 Could it be that it was an open development
12 area and believed to be grandfathered? The
13 fact is the entire neighborhood has received
14 building permits . The situation today is as a
15 result of the timeframe between ' 83 and ' 93 and
16 the reason is that Costa ' s, the owner of these
17 two properties, originally bought from the
18 Withold ' s Development . The original
19 subdividers . They bought the property in 161 .
20 The house was then sold in ' 93 to
21 Mr . Eberhardt . Mr. Eberhardt kept the house
22 parcel that is now owned by Ms . Golden. In
23 1993 , Mr . Eberhardt -- actually back-up,
24 Costa ' s had originally gotten a building
25 permit . His permit had expired. I think he
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 140
1 chose not to build at that time . He sold the
2 home with the permit . Mr . Eberhardt renewed
3 the permit or got a new permit . I am not
4 clear, but in 193 got a permit . The house was
5 built to code . It was built with the proper s
6 setbacks according to the Orient Point East One
7 setback that were established for the
8 subdivision . Thereafter in 193 , Marianne
9 Selwyn and Michael Selwyn purchased the house .
10 They purchased, I believe in 2000 the house and
11 similarly, they -- I don ' t remember off the top
12 of my head. But nonetheless , or around the
13 same time, Costa ' s decided to sell the lot .
14 The lot was sold to the Selwyn Family in 2000
15 but they were careful to preserve the integrity
16 ( In Audible) which they believe was in place .
17 Separate tax bills . The property was expected
18 to be developed. Selwyn ' s then sold the house
19 and said, they went and bought another house,
20 actually in this community. And decided to put
21 the lot on the market and market the last -lot
22 subdivision and Susan DeBorbe went in and
23 believed that a building permit could be
24 issued. Went to the Health Department . Got
25 approval and later on, I guess Kevin
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 141
1 McLaughlin, and he can speak for himself, but
2 ( In Audible ) question because between ' 83 and
3 ' 93, there was common ownership with the
4 Costa ' s . Unique circumstances, but
5 unfortunately our Waiver of Merger Law was
6 changed and there wasn ' t -- we couldn ' t for ( In
7 Audible) the tag of a Waiver of Merger
8 application in the code today. So at this
9 point, we have the application for the area
10 variances . Again, I go back to the open
11 development area . In the code it says that we
12 are entitled to the density and minimum lot
13 size for the property in effect at the time of
14 the establishment of the development area . In
15 1958 it was approved. The setbacks were
16 established. Actually every house in the
17 subdivision has been in accordance with the
t
18 setbacks in 1958 . So again, institutional
19 memory changes over the years and the -- it was
20 treated as a merged lot, without the
21 recognition of the open development area . - I
22 would be happy to elaborate at any point that
23 you want . I am trying to go smoothly and
24 quickly since this is pretty straightforward.
25 There was no intention -- there was overt
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 142
1 intention on keeping the property separate and
2 only because it was technicalities of the
3 Waiver of Merger law and we have to -go through
4 this process . To have a piece of property, the
5 Selwyn ' s now own . Ms . Golden has a house . At ,,
the time they were offered the lot, just if
7 they wanted to have the lot . As far as a sale
8 of a separate lot for the investment potential .
9 And at the time, she was said no, and she was
10 interested in the house . So that is when
11 Mr . McLaughlin ' s client went into contract . So
12 she is in contract and as I said, all the
13 Health Department, everything is approved and
14 you know, we are asking for this relief . I am
15 hopeful that when counsel looks at the language
16 and the Board looks at this, I think 240-26 may
17 be a unique provision for open development area
18 and grandfathered these lots . So if you have
19 any questions?
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I ' m fine, no .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jima?
125 MEMBER DINIZIO : No .
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 143
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think this is
2 pretty straightforward in terms of the clarity
3 of it . It was merged under whose originally?
4 MS . MOORE: Only during Costa ' s . The
5 original owner of the property that bought from
6 the developer . The Costa ' s family retained the
7 lot until 2000 , when the sold the lot to the
8 Selwyn ' s .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They were not
10 aware that it had merged?
11 MS . MOORE : No . No, not at all . They
12 had separate lots . Separate variances .
13 Mr . Costa got a building permit for the piece
14 that got developed with appropriate setbacks .
15 There was no raising of the issue at the time
16 Costa got a building permit, that the property
17 had merged . That building permit was in 183 .
18 Pardon me, ' 93 . So in that point, there was
19 zoning, so it would have been an issue at the
20 time, but Eberhardt, who ultimately bought from
21 Costa and built the house, was never told that
22 there was an issue with the adjacent property.
23 At that point, Eberhardt owned one piece and
r
24 Costa ' s owned the vacancies . So 'it continued
25 to proceed under the belief that these were two
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 144
1 lots and independently buildable .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
3 Is there anyone else in the audience
4 that would like to speak on this application?
5 (No Response . )
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Board members?
7 (No Response . )
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I will make a
9 motion to close this hearing and reserve
10 decision to a later date .
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
17 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
18 ***************************** *****************
19 HEARING #6532 - NELSON FAMILY
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Our next
21 application is for Nelson Family, #6532 .
22 Request for variances from Articles XXIII and
23 XXII Code Section 280-124 and 280-116 (B) , based
24 on an application for building permit and the
25 Building Inspector ' s November 20 , 2011 Notice
r
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 145
1 of Disapproval concerning proposed deck
2 addition to existing single family dwelling,
3 at; 1) less than the code required minimum side
4 yard setback of 10 feet, 2 ) more than the
5 maximum code required lot coverage of 20%,
6 3 ) less than the code required bulkhead setback
7 of 75 feet, located at : 2955 Bay Shore Road,
8 adjacent to Peconic Bay.
9 Let ' s go over this . We have a 327
10 square foot proposed deck addition for a
11 single-family dwelling, 12 foot deep by 21 feet
12 wide, with a side yard setback of 7 . 3 feet,
13 while the code requires 10 foot minimum. This
14 is to accommodate that depth . A 30 foot
15 bulkhead setback. The code requires 75 feet .
16 The house is setback 38 . 9 feet from the high
17 water mark . The lot coverage is 23 . 8% . The
18 code permits a maximum of 20% . The existing
19 lot coverage is 18 . 5%'. That summarizes that .
20 Just to address some of the issues .
21 MS . MARTIN: Good afternoon . I am Amy
22 Martin of Fairweather & Brown, 205 Bay Avenue,
23 Greenport . I represent the Nelson family in
24 hopes of obtaining a side deck for their home
25 at 2955 Bay Shore Drive in Greenport . Robert
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 146
1 and Bonnie Nelson are also here, should you
2 need any further input . This is a small piece
3 of land nestled between two larger homes , on
4 the Bay, near Pipe ' s Cove . The cottage has
5 been in the family since 1979, and granted a
6 variance in 1963 for a front yard setback of 36
7 feet . The interesting issue about that, is
8 that the house was actually built at 37 feet
9 from the road and now only 3.5 feet is required.
10 The property is unique in regards to the
11 configuration of its bulkhead. In that the
12 line of the bulkhead is recessed from those of
13 neighboring properties and lessen the distance
14 obtainable to the bulkhead . As you must have
15 noticed on your site visit and from photographs
16 submitted, the houses on either side are larger
17 and ( In Audible) of this cottage and both of
18 these homeowners have submitted letters, which
19 you have hopefully received but they have no
20 objections to the Nelson ' s request for this
21 addition .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don ' t think we
23 got those letters?
24 MS . MARTIN: I submitted them with the
25 application.
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 147
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Go ahead.
2 MS . MARTIN : The side yard variance is
3 the same distance to the south property line,
4 steps and landing to the side door . This
5 extension will allow passage from the deck to
6 the house . This design will aid senior members
7 of the family without trip hazards . There is .
8 no current outside area to dine or sit on the
9 property. The Nelson ' s are not requesting a
10 covered porch . The size of the deck requested
11 is what they feel be enough room for a table
12 and chairs and access with a walker or
13 wheelchair . We feel the request is unique to
14 the neighborhood and shall not set a precedent .
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I found the letter .
16 MS . MARTIN: I knew I had them. I am
17 not feeling well today, so I don ' t need any
18 more shots today. But both neighbors are in
19 favor of this .
20 On the Fasbach side which is side most
21 effected by the side yard setback, there is a
22 large area of (In Audible) . So they have
23 definitely no problem and it really doesn ' t
24 affect the neighbor on the other 'side, other
25 then the distance to the water and closer to
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 148
1 the water . They have a different
2 configuration .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: However their
4 bulkhead is probably setback a lot farther from
5 their bulkhead because they are more seaward --
6 MS . MARTIN: Right .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the Nelson
8 property has an inset bulkhead --
9 MS . MARTIN : I don ' t know the history.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have any
11 idea how that happened?
12 MR. NELSON : I can probably tell you a
13 little bit .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, then come
15 forward.
16 MR. NELSON : I am Bob Nelson. I am
17 actually the trustee of the property owner,
18 which is my parent ' s trust . The house has
19 actually been in the family since 1959 , I
20 believe you misspoke there and it was bought by
21 my father from Tom Jesinia who was also the
22 owner of the Silver Sands Motel . And I ' think
23 it was a tug boat captain and he helped to
24 develop the whole entire Peconic 'Bay area and
25 had a very good respectful to see and, so when
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 149
1 he had this house constructed, he decided that
2 the bulkhead should be further back from where
3 some of the neighbors wanted to put it, because
4 it thought it would be safer and less likely to
5 have storm damage . And that is why our house
6 is cut back a little further . The house to the
7 north, which is now owned by the Fasbach ' s ,
8 actually is probably closer to the bulkhead,
9 her bulkhead then ours is to our bulkhead. And
10 the Vava ' s House, which is to the south is
11 probably very similar in distance to .their
12 house and their bulkhead. Did I answer the
13 question?
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think the
15 neighbor ' s to the north have the raised deck
16 and patio, that virtually is on the bulkhead,
17 but Member Horning who had to leave, asked me
18 to inquire what the history was and why your
19 property had the setbacks and if you had any
20 way in providing any information what the
21 bulkhead setbacks of the neighbors to either
22 side of you?
23 MR. NELSON : Personally, I don ' t know
24 the numbers . If you want, I can 'ask them? Is
25 that appropriate?
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 150
1 MS . MARTIN: We can scale . it off from
2 the aerial and provide that .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would be
4 good. Just so we have something to show what
5 the bulkhead' s are on either side .
6 MS . MARTIN: There may be reference to
7 the Trustees on what either side of the
8 bulkhead is .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
10 MS . MARTIN : I will gladly provide
11 that .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You are proposing
13 to put the deck over some foundation plantings,
14 some sort of shrubs .
15 Jim, questions?
16 MEMBER DINIZIO: No .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The plans show a
19 nonturf buffer on the site plan .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes .
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What ' s the
22 proposed --
23 MS . MARTIN: I believe I proposed 9
24 feet . I figured the Trustees would tell me if
25 that had to be different .
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 151
1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
2 MS . MARTIN: But they wouldn' t hear us
3 until we proceeded after you .
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
5 MS . MARTIN : And I only used mine
6 because of previous applications .
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What ' s the ( In
8 Audible) of your bulkhead compared to your
9 neighboring bulkhead?
10 MS . MARTIN: I think that is something
11 that we -- it looks to be at least 20 feet . If
12 you look at the proposed deck portion and turn
13 that sideways, it looks about 20 feet .
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
15 MS . MARTIN: And it needs to be even on
16 both sides .
17 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The side yard
18 setback of 7 feet 4 inches?
19 MS . MARTIN : Yes .
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You requested or
21 proposed rather?
22 MS . MARTIN: Yes .
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That is to a
24 proposed landing at the top of the stairs?
25 MS . MARTIN : That is to,, -- over
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 152
1 occupants can come out -- there is only one
2 door to this residence .
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Right .
4 MS . MARTIN : So they can come --
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: There is only one
6 door to this residence?
7 MS . MARTIN : Yes . And come out and for
8 a walker or wheelchair to come around that area
9 to get to the seating area on the deck .
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I am looking at the
11 site plan survey.
12 MS . MARTIN: Yes .
13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Where it says
14 concrete --
15 MS . MARTIN : That is the existing, to
16 that landing . That would -- the landing goes
17 into that little out cove, which is a like
18 vestibule off to the side of the house . So
19 that the door is right there on that concrete
20 landing .
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. So they come
22 out there . Then the area that depicts the
23 proposes deck, that proposed deck will --
24 MS . MARTIN: Will adjoin "the concrete
25 pad.
r
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 153
1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So my question is,
2 that is all portioned that -- joins the
3 concrete pad and at the top deck is more like a
4 little landing to that --
5 MS . MARTIN : Yes .
6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That is part if a
7 stair?
8 MS . MARTIN: Yes . Basically, if you
9 would have gone forward with the existing
10 setback along the property line . Straight out
11 with a landing in between .
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
13 MS . MARTIN : The actual addition of
14 such is really in line with the vestibule that
15 is now on the side of the house .
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Which presently has
17 a 11 . 1 side yard setback?
18 MS . MARTIN: Yes .
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have no more
20 questions at this time .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, only to the
23 effect when I went over and looked at it, which
24 has absolutely nothing to do with this
25 variance . There was a Rescue Squad issue a
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 154
1 couple of houses down. So I had to stay for
2 about ten more minutes before I could get out
3 of the driveway. It was absolutely horrible
4 because it was a magnificent day and I had -- I
5 looked back at the water and said, "My God,
6 what a beautiful piece of property. " It truly
7 is .
8 MS . MARTIN : And it certainly is .
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It ' s perfect .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jim, any
11 questions or comments?
12 MEMBER DINIZIO: No .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Does anyone want
14 to address this application any further because
15 there is nobody else in the audience?
16 (No Response . )
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am going to
18 make a motion to close this hearing, subject to
19 receipt of the information regarding the
20 bulkhead setback of the neighbors on either
21 side and reserve decision to a later date .
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by
24 Gerry.
25 All in favor?
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 155
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
2 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
5 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
6 ***********************************************
7
8
9 (Whereupon, the public hearings for
10 January 5 , 2012 concluded. )
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 156
1
2 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
3
4 I , Jessica DiLallo, certify that the
5 foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public
6 Hearings was prepared using required electronic
7 transcription equipment and is a true and
8 accurate record of the Hearings .
9
10 Signature . &4 ___C-t--
11 G Jessica DiLallo
12
13 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
14 PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
15
16 Date : January 22 , 2012
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25