HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/01/2012 Hearing 1
1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK
2 ------------------------------------------- X
3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
4 -------------------------------------------- X
5
Southold Town Hall
6 Southold, New York
7 RECEIVED
8 March 1, 2012 APR 0 4 2012
10 : 11 A. M.
9 BOARD OF APPEALS
10 Board Members Present :
11 LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
12 GERARD GOEHRINGER - Member
13 JAMES DINIZIO, JR. - Member
14 KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member
15 GEORGE HORNING - Member (Left at 2 : 20 P . M. )
16
17 JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney
18 VICKI TOTH - Secretary
19
20
21
22
23 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
24 P . O . Box 984
��. Holbrook, New York 11741
25 ( 631 ) -338-1409
2
1
2
3 INDEX OF HEARINGS
4
5
6 Hearing: Page :
7
8 Hernan Michael Otano #6525 3-45
9 Robert V. Longo #6539 46-70
10 Louis and Elizabeth Mastro #6530 71-89
11 David Steele #6547 89-94
12 Dougall Fraser #6545 94-100
13 9105 Skunk Lane, LLC #6538 100-113
14 David M. Hall #6535 113-120
15 Patricia Mele and Cheryl Christiano #6542 120-154
16 William C . Goggins #6540 154-165
17 Roma Baran, #6544 165-170
18
19
20
21
I
i
22
23
24
�j 25
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 3
1 HEARING #6525 - HERNAN MICHAEL OTANO
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Our first
3 hearing this morning is for Hernan Michael
4 Otano . This was adjourned from
5 January 5th, so there is no reason to read
6 the legal notice . Just go ahead and
7 proceed.. Good morning .
8 MS . MOORE : Good morning, how are you?
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning .
10 MS . MOORE : This morning, as you said,
11 we ' re going to proceed --
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You have to just
13 state your name for the record.
14 MS . MOORE : Oh, I am sorry. Patricia
15 Moore on behalf of Hernan Otano . We are
16 here with regard to Unit #5 in Breezy
17 Shores Community, and fortunately today, I
18 do have Rob Brown here, and I would like to
19 continue his testimony with respect to the
20 work that was done at that property.
21 Mr . Brown had previously given you a letter
22 because he was unavailable last time . I am
23 going to ask him to come to the microphone
24 and we will continue with that, unless you
25 have something .in particular you want to
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 4
1 ask us before we proceed with that?
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No .
3 MS . MOORE : No, okay. Great . We will
4 resume with that .
5 MR. BROWN : Good morning . My name is
6 Robert Brown. I am an architect . I have
7 an . office in Greenport . I am licensed and
8 registered as an architect in New York
9 State since 1984 , and I have been
10 practicing architecture in New York -- on
11 the Northfork, since 1984 . Having been out
12 here for quite a while, I am well aware
13 that one of the things that all of the
14 Board' s in the area, such as yourself,
15 struggle with, is determining the amount
16 relative -- the demolition that is taking
17 place on a particular project . And I
18 wanted to explain why I believe that this
19 is less than a 50% demolition . I
20 calculated the square footage .of structural
21 material, the garage, the floor structure,
22 the ceiling structure . The roof structure .
23 I do not include the cement surfaces
24 because generally speaking, can be and are
25 repaired and/or replaced, without getting
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 5
1 permits at varying degrees of frequency.
2 In this case, there were a number of
3 reasons to -- safety reasons to remove some
4 of the finishing materials in this
5 structure . There was lead paint . There
6 was masonite, which has formaldehyde in it .
7 In any case, I have always felt in
8 determining the percentage of demolition,
9 is that the real is.sue is , the amount of
10 structure that is being taken down . The
11 calculations that I did, I can go through
12 the various components , but the bottom line
13 was , the amount of wall, roof structure and
14 poured structure that was removed, was ,
15 1 , 664 square feet and the amount of roof
16 structure, poured structure, wall
17 structure, and ceiling structure that
18 remained was 2 , 438 square feet . So in my
19 estimation and my professional judgement,
20 it was clear to me that this was clearly
21 less than a 50% demolition .
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What was the first
23 figure, Rob?
24 MR. BROWN : 1, 664 square feet .
25 MEMBER HORNING: The calculations , do.
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 6
1 you have that on paper that you can
2 submit?
3 MR. BROWN : I don ' t have them on
4 paper, but I can certainly get that to you .
5 MEMBER HORNING: Thank you .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is the plan
7 that was submitted to us , with the
8 application, that was drawn by your firm?
9 MR. BROWN : Yes .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And in it, you
11 have a legend that indicates the existing
12 walls and this indicates new walls on
13 here?
14 MR. BROWN : May I?
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes . Please
16 come up here and take a look. Okay. Let
17 me point out something, according to your
18 legend, I have color coded it, what ' s in
19 yellow indicates rebuilt existing walls .
20 What ' s in green, indicates new walls . This
21 is what was given to us .
22 MR. BROWN : Yes .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What ' s left?
24 It ' s all new. According to your own plan .
25 Each of us , did a personal inspection . And
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 7
1 you know that, because you were there . The
2 Building Department did an inspection . And
3 certainly it ' s important that, you know,
4 people understand that the members on this
5 Board have many, many years of experience .
6 They have examined, probably hundreds of
7 demolitions over years . I guess ,
8 collectively, over 20-30 years -- we
9 probably have over 70 years of collective
10 experience in evaluating demolition .
11 Myself, I have 38 years as a professional
12 architect . We know you had a new
13 foundation with a permit . That ' s fine .
14 You have new exterior walls . You have
15 studs . You have steel plates . I know we
16 have a list, but the list is very vague .
17 Right here, what ' s retained? Retained
18 sills -- only rotted sills replaced. Well,
19 there is no percentage of only rotted .
20 What is , "As Needed, " mean? We can ask you
21 how you ' re going to proceed with the
22 construction of that roof? You have
23 already indicated, that you ' re going to
24 need a new roof, basically. The rafters
25 may remain . You got all this . You have
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 8
1 new window frames . All new windows . All
2 new doors . No plumbing left . That ' s going
3 to be all n,ew plumbing . It ' s going to be
4 new electric, and you ' re going to have new
5 steps and landing, you know, front and
6 back. And I don ' t know how you calculated
7 the percentage of remains of what was taken
8 down . Based on the -visual inspection, in
9 my opinion, this constitutes as a
10 demolition . The house is being rebuilt .
11 We can argue about replacement in time;
12 however, we also have testimony from the
13 Building Department that they have never
14 interpreted replacing the entire
15 building --
16 MR. BROWN : That was not our
17 intentions .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. In fact,
19 I will give you a copy of this, Pat . We
20 all got a memo dated April 15 , 2002 from
21 Gerry Goehringer, who was our Chair, and
22 represented the Zoning Board, a memo to
23 Mr . Verity, Building Department, talking
24 about -- confirming the types of activities
25 authorized in a principal building, okay.
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 13
1 safety of the entire structure .
2 MEMBER DINIZIO : Which is a
3 nonconforming structure, by any standard.
4 MR. BROWN : I don ' t know.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have to go
6 to a microphone and state your name .
7 MR. OTANO : I am sorry about that . My
8 name is Hernan Otano . I am the homeowner .
9 I see what ' s going on here and I am just
10 the homeowner . I went about this thing,
11 you know, very -- trying to do -- basically
12 go over and talk to these guys at the
13 Building Department and stuff . When I got
14 the call about when the builder pulled all
15 the cedar siding off . He called me in a
16 panic . He said, "you ain ' t got no studs .
17 There is nothing here . You are going to
18 put HardiPlank on this . What do you want
19 me to do?" I said, "I don ' t understand
20 what you ' re saying . What are you talking
21 about?" He said, you have rotted window
22 sills , and we ' re going to replace those and
23 you barely have any studs . I think he
24 said, I had four studs and it ' s a 25-foot
25 wall , and half of them were rotted. He put
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 9
1 Not a cottage . Either eligible to receive
2 a CO or -- this doesn ' t apply to this
3 particular situation because of the history
4 and property. It describes the kind of
5 things that the Building Department has
6 been asking upon, saying that you can
7 replace this in-time . And exploring,
8 painting and caulking, interior doors .
9 Repair or replace in-kind and in-place .
10 Existing water heater'. Existing
11 appliances . Replace electrical wiring,
12 which meets State code . Repair or replace
13 existing windows and/or existing door
14 frames of similar size . It goes on . It is
15 quite small things . Smoke detectors .
16 Ceiling height . Existing deck. I can show
17 you this , if you would like? I would like
18 to perhaps , you can respond to this --
19 MR. BROWN : If I may --
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : With all do
21 respect .
22 MR. BROWN : With all do respect, if I
23 may, you have pointed out the wall and
24 certainly the -- the wall will replace then
25 ( In Audible) but when I weigh that against
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 10
1 the two doors, sometimes even less than 24
2 inches from the center, against a poured
3 structure, roof structure 2x6 ' s or 8 ' s , I
4 am not sure . All of which will remain . To
5 me the preponderance of the structure is
6 remaining. And that is what I base my
7 argument on .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Does
9 anyone on the Board have anything?
10 MEMBER DINIZIO : It says in the
11 middle, "repair" and then went further to
12 replace parts of the exterior wall that had
13 been seriously under built . What do you
14 mean by, "under built?"
15 MR. BROWN : That is essentially more
16 than ( In Audible) it was -- structurally
17 unsound.
18 MEMBER DINIZIO: Does that mean that
19 you increased the amount of studs that are
20 on that wall? Am I right?
21 MR. BROWN : Yes . Yes . Certainly.
22 MEMBER DINIZIO : This appears to me
23 that that was done on most of the walls,
24 outside .
25 MR. BROWN : As I said, I agree, there
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 11
1 is more walls rebuilt then saved.
2 MEMBER DINIZIO : What would you say
3 that percentage is?
4 MR. BROWN : Maybe 250 .
5 MEMBER DINIZIO : Let ' s say if you had
6 to remove those walls, would the roof have
7 been able to stay up?
8 MR. BROWN : Not without support . From
9 my point of view is, that we did not have
10 to rebuild the whole structure .
11 MEMBER DINIZIO : I am just trying to
12 figure out what exactly is demolition and
13 what is saved . Because you say seriously
14 -under built . To my mind, that all four
15 walls were under built .
16 MR. BROWN : The exterior walls, yes .
17 MEMBER DINIZIO : So if you didn ' t have
18 the exterior walls , granted it ' s a
19 nonconforming structure, how would the roof
20 stay up?
21 MR. BROWN : Well, we were concerned
22 that it wouldn ' t stay up . We provided
23 temporary support .
24 MEMBER DINIZIO : And what was the part
25 that wasn ' t -- the 250 , was that the
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 12
1 northeast corner?
2 MR. BROWN : Some interior wall .
3 MEMBER DINIZIO : Well, interior, I am
4 not concerned about . I am more concerned
5 about this structure . That it could have
6 existed the way that it is today, had you
7 not done what you did.
8 MR. BROWN : Well, I think you ' re
9 arguing logistics , whereas I am arguing
10 percentages . Where I think, it ' s apples
11 and oranges .
12 MEMBER DINIZIO : You said it was
13 seriously under built?
14 MR. BROWN : Yes .
15 MEMBER DINIZIO : And you made it
16 built . I mean, you made it better?
17 MR. BROWN : Yeah.
18 MEMBER DINIZIO : By replacing the
19 wall?
20 MR. BROWN : Yeah . Absolutely.
21 MEMBER DINIZIO : And how do you say
22 that is not demolishing it and rebuilding
23 it?
24 MR. BROWN : I am not arguing that part
25 at all . We replaced the walls for the
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 14
1 studs where there weren ' t any studs of the
2 HardiPlank that he put on the outside .
3 Again, I might have done it wrong, but made
4 it better, safely. I said, "do whatever .
5 Do it to code . " So he did it . You know,
6 and this was after a conversation I had
7 with Pat . This is -- I was kind of caught
8 in the middle between my community in
9 getting this --
10 MEMBER DINIZIO : Can I ask you a
11 question?
12 MR. OTANO : Yes , sir .
13 MEMBER DINIZIO : In conversation with
14 Pat, did you apply for a building permit?
15 MR. OTANO : This was after I had
16 gotten my foundation permit .
17 MEMBER DINIZIO : I am talking about
18 replacing the walls?
19 MR. OTANO: No, but that is the thing .
20 That is the thing where I find myself in
21 the middle . My community forcing --
22 telling me to get my house put into shape,
23 and getting all the permits necessary and
24 following all the rules of law and I put
25 the foundation in, I had that done . My
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 15
1 mistake in my community, is that I also
2 applied for an extension to cover the
3 porch, which my community didn ' t allow and
4 we were supposed to go through this
5 process , which we would have learned a lot,
6 in what I had to do and what not to do . So
7 my community asked me to rescind that
8 permit for the extension and then the
9 construction -- the house was lifted 10 to
10 15 feet in the air, and then had to be
11 lowered on the new foundation . When the
12 builder of the house said, these are not
13 good. I am not putting this house on this
14 thing . You know, I can ' t leave this up
15 here . I went to Pat Conklin . I tried to
16 talk to Mr . Verity in the office --
17 MEMBER ' DINIZIO : Hold on . What was
18 the result of that conversation?
19 MR. OTANO : If you ' re not expanding,
20 you can replace things that are rotting.
21 That is what I walked out of the
22 conversation with. And so, I mean -- the
23 way that you ' re phrasing putting in new
24 walls , you know, we put studs there because
25 there weren ' t studs . The structure wasn ' t
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 16
1 safely sound. We did not expand. I didn ' t
2 see, you know, where I errored. I am the
3 one who called the Building Inspector to
4 come down, and he is the one who said, I
5 came here to inspect the foundation, and
6 you have a ( In Audible) building . So here
7 we are . In earnest, it ' s just kind of
8 crazy. It ' s a cottage .
9 MEMBER DINIZIO : Let me just make an
10 explanation to you. This Board deals with
11 nonconformity, and everyone of those
12 cottages is nonconformity.
13 MR. OTANO : Sure .
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : The setback doesn ' t
15 conform to any of today' s standards .
16 MR. OTANO : Understood.
17 MEMBER DINIZIO : And the Town, in its
18 infinite wisdom, has decided that things
19 that are nonconforming should not carry on .
20 In other words, go away. And I understand
21 the dilemma that you ' re in, but we grapple
22 with all the time, where is that line?
23 MR. OTANO : Okay.
24 MEMBER DINIZIO: I have a memo from
25 2002 , because in 2001, we made a decision
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 17
1 that drastically changed on how we look at
2 nonconformity. Okay. The memo clears that
3 up, and you will have to read it . It
4 doesn ' t say that you can replace an entire
5 wall . It does say you can replace a window
6 sill . You know, certainly, in the course
7 of that, the Building Inspector would say,
8 of course if something doesn ' t have a
9 header on it, put a header on it . Okay,
10 but if you ' re saying four studs , per 25
11 feet, okay. You ' re rebuilding that wall .
12 We have to make the decision and the
13 distinction as to where that cut off point
14 is . And if I base it on this memo, this
15 2002 memo, you started exceeding the cut
16 off . Now, I don ' t know about any
17 conversations you may have had with Pat,
18 because she hasn ' t testified to that, and
19 neither has Mr . Verity, but it seems to me
20 that your impression was, that it was okay
21 to take those walls down and rebuild them,
22 as long as you did them in-place and
23 in-kind.
24 MR. OTANO : Correct . I mean, I was
25 there on the day that the inspector came
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 18
1 and wow, I really did not know .
2 MEMBER DINIZIO : And what about your
3 builder?
4 MR. OTANO : I mean, he was just trying
5 to make it sound. That is really it .
6 MEMBER DINIZIO : Is he local?
7 MR. OTANO: Uh-huh .
8 MEMBER DINIZIO : Would he have not
9 known, that you know --
10 MR. OTANO : Yeah . It ' s been sort of
11 learning as we go . I never did something
12 like this .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think maybe it
14 would be constructive to ask at this point,
15 to have Mr . Verity and Ms . Conklin, to come
16 forward and make some comments relative to
17 what they just heard. Either one of you or
18 both of you .
19 MS . CONKLIN : Good morning .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : State your name,
21 please?
22 MS . CONKLIN : Pat Conklin, Permit
23 Examiner .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you talk up
25 a little bit? Sometimes it doesn ' t record
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 19
1 that well .
2 MS . CONKLIN : Sure .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you.
4 Okay. Pat, you made a personal inspection
5 of this property, and your office issued a
6 Notice of Disapproval of the demolition.
7 Can you talk to us about your observations ,
8 and your comments about Mr . Otano?
9 MS . CONKLIN : Basically, when I went
10 there I had observed that the cottage was
11 rebuilt, and I had -- as a result, I had to
12 change my Notice of Disapproval and I did
13 so . And I never would have said to
14 Mr . Otano that he could replace the walls
15 in-place and in-kind. I have always gone
16 out of my way to tell everybody that is
17 doing renovations , that if you find changes
18 in the field, you have to come back to us
19 for reevaluation with amended plans and a
20 whole new look. Especially, when I know
21 the project is nonconforming . In a
22 conforming situation, I say, if things
23 change, come back to us . That ' s just
24 standard procedure .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any questions?
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 20
1 MEMBER DINIZIO: In your mind, was
2 this a rebuilt --
3 MS . CONKLIN : Rebuilt . There were
4 extra pieces added, just as it has been
5 testified to . The building looks as
6 though, from the inside out, that it was
7 redone and things were added.
8 MEMBER DINIZIO : Did you base it on
9 the 2002 memo? I mean, is that how you
10 guys are looking at demolition? In other
11 words, with respect to nonconforming?
12 MS . CONKLIN : One thing changed out,
13 you pretty much are demolishing and
14 rebuilding . To me, that ' s the bottom line .
15 The verbiage is always ,changing . The
16 semantics are always in changing . What I
17 saw in the field, to me indicated a
18 demolition and rebuilt of that cottage .
19 That is what my observation was .
20 MEMBER DINIZIO : Let me just go over
21 this . This is kind of new discovery to me .
22 There is a memo from the chairman at the
23 time, Gerry Goehringer . And it says repair
24 in place, existing boiler, heating,
25 exterior -- existing interior doors and
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 21
1 trams . Flooring, you can modify it . That
2 kind of thing. Painting, caulking, repair
3 and replace existing fixtures . Electrical
4 wiring, you know could be more to State
5 code . You wouldn ' t have a building permit
6 for that . Smoke detectors . The ceiling
7 height -- was the ceiling height raised ih
8 this? I don ' t think that it was . Again,
9 replace existing deck. As long as their is
10 no extensions or modifications, which
11 increase the degree of nonconformity. Now,
12 the degree of nonconformity, has to do with
13 the setback . Not necessarily, that the
14 building is made of 2x3 ' s , with 25 inch
15 centers . Four studs per 25 feet . Is that
16 correct?
17 MS . CONKLIN : Technically that ' s
18 correct .
19 MEMBER DINIZIO : The consensus of this
20 Board is that, that is not that .
21 MS . CONKLIN : Correct .
22 MEMBER DINIZIO : So increasing the
23 degree of nonconformity, which is again,
24 what brought this whole thing to life .
25 That probably didn ' t come into play here,
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 22
1 if you don ' t count raising the height of
2 the building, by putting a foundation --
3 how do you say it, that was required by
4 FEMA.
5 MS . CONKLIN : It would be requested to
6 raise it to have it made better .
7 MEMBER DINIZIO : Well, yeah.
8 MS . CONKLIN : And that is what we
9 wrote .
10 MEMBER DINIZIO : And we ' re going to
11 get to that point to . The point is there,
12 we had a building that was raised and it is
13 50 feet, and nonconforming should be made
14 better . Why weren ' t we moving that
15 building back to meet the code? It was
16 already raised. There is no reason why you
17 couldn ' t do it . I am just looking, if you
18 can explain to me, and I am pretty sure you
19 can, you walked in, as I did, as all of us
20 did, and the first thing that I said was ,
21 you know, this building has been rebuilt to
22 the point of all -new wood on the side .
23 MS . CONKLIN : Correct .
24 MEMBER DINIZIO : Regardless if some of
25 the studs were assisted. To my point, the
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 23
1 only part that was really the old stuff,
2 was the northeast part of the building . It
3 seemed to be the older studs . I could be
4 wrong with my memory. I have pictures . To
5 me, that building was demolished. And you
6 know, that is why I was trying to get from
7 Mr . Brown, how do you hold the roof up?
8 Would I be correct in making that
9 assumption?
10 MS . CONKLIN : That was my impression .
11 I was there the same day that you were .
12 MEMBER DINIZIO : Regardless of the
13 porch, you want to add, it ' s not --
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He didn ' t add
15 it .
16 MEMBER DINIZIO: So we can rely pretty
17 much on this memo when writing the
18 decision, that you would concur on this
19 memo and rely on this --
20 MS . CONKLIN : We do .
21 MEMBER DINIZIO : You consider it a
22 demolition?
23 MS . CONKLIN : The phrase that comes to
24 mind is, when it ' s gone, it ' s gone . My
25 review of something, if it ' s gone, it ' s no
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 24
1 longer there . Then you ' re putting -- if
2 you ' re going to redo it, you ' re putting
3 back a nonconformity. And that is where
4 adjusting those limits of that application,
5 the ZBA has permitted to do that .
6 MEMBER DINIZIO : Thank you .
7 MS . CONKLIN : You ' re welcome .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think Member
9 Horning had a question . Did you want to
10 ask Pat Conklin or Mr . Verity?
11 MEMBER HORNING: I will ask the
12 Building Department . Do you work on a
13 formula or a percentage, or how do you base
14 a demolition and a reconstruction, versus
15 repair? I know there is a lot of talk
16 about the line between the two and how you
17 approach it . Roughly speaking, how do you
18 consider a demolition versus a repair? Is
19 there a percentage?
20 MR. VERITY : Mike Verity, Building
21 Department, Chief Building Inspector .
22 Basically, the memo that Jimmy has .
23 Everything on there is a repair . Outside
24 of that , it ' s basically a demo . If you
25 have four walls and you take four down,
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 25
1 it ' s a demolition . You have to use the
2 definition from Webster ' s . You have to use
3 common construction knowledge and
4 understand that is the way that it is . You
5 don ' t have to demo the entire building .
6 You can demo a certain portion of the
7 building and still consider that a
8 demolition. You take an entire roof system
9 off, that ' s a demolition of a roof system.
10 That is no arguing to that . I don ' t think
11 that anyone is arguing the fact that the
12 walls were removed or replaced. To me,
13 that ' s a demolition . I was only able to
14 see the exterior of the building . So I
15 can ' t really comment on the interior of the
16 building. No one is mentioning but, there
17 is also approximately a third of that water
18 side portion of the floor system that has
19 been rebuilt . So viewing it from the
20 outside, it ' s definitely a demolition in my
21 eyes . And based on percentage, we really
22 don ' t have a definition of that . There is
23 definitions in the State Code, which can
24 define repair, alterations and renovations,
25 but we don ' t have it in a Town Code . So we
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 26
1 do use it, you know, what is given to us to
2 the best of our ability.
3 MEMBER HORNING : Do you use the State
4 Code?
5 MR. VERITY : Yeah, we have to use the
6 State Code . We use the State Code for the
7 building portion of it . We use the Town
8 Code, when we ' re writing our Disapproval ' s
9 or when we ' re reviewing other sections of
10 Zoning . We have to use the Town
11 definitions to do that . We can ' t comingle
12 the two .
13 MEMBER HORNING: This memo from the
14 former chairperson, says something about
15 replacing the roof, would not need a
16 variance, and you ' re saying replacing a
17 roof --
18 MR. VERITY: It depends on what you ' re
19 talking about roof . You ' re talking about
20 roofing . I don ' t know -- anything
21 structural that would require a permit,
22 would be reviewed by us , not only for
23 Zoning but for State Code compliance . If
24 you ' re reroofing, and I guess that is what
25 the memo was about, reroofing .
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 27
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That ' s correct .
2 MR. VERITY: If you look at all the
3 other items on there, they ' re pretty much
4 nonconforming items . And I think that was
5 the intent . You mentioned electrical .
6 Anything you do electrical wise, even if
7 it ' s an outlet in the wall, you need a
8 permit . So there is a little bit of a mix,
9 but most of it does not require a permit .
10 MEMBER DINIZIO : What about plumbing?
11 MR. VERITY: Requires a permit .
12 MEMBER HORNING: Would you be able to
13 determine if they added a roof rafter or
14 something?
15 MR. VERITY: Easily. If I was able to
16 get in . There was a nice hole in the
17 bottom, looked like a raccoon but I wasn ' t
18 going to find out if a raccoon got in, so .
19 I can easily, with a -- tell you --
20 MEMBER HORNING: But based upon all
21 the information that you have right now and
22 not getting inside, you ' re standing by the
23 Building Department ' s determination --
24 MR. VERITY: That ' s correct .
25 MEMBER HORNING : That this is a
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 28
1 demolition?
2 MR. VERITY : That ' s correct . And I am
3 basing that, No . 1 , on plans . No . 2 on the
4 site visit that I did. I don ' t even have
5 to get inside to see what was done . You
6 know, with over 25 years of experience it ' s
7 easy to see . And just to answer Jimmy ' s
8 question, I think the owner, if he had a
9 permit, he did not have a permit . He was
10 told that he needed a permit to move
11 forward with that . He only had a
12 foundation permit . I can only stress that
13 another hundred times, as we stressed to
14 him. So any conversation outside of that,
15 shouldn ' t really be had.
16 MEMBER DINIZIO : That is why I asked
17 about the plumbing.
18 MR. VERITY: Yes .
19 MEMBER DINIZIO : There is no new
20 electric?
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not yet .
22 MR. VERITY : Any re-have of
23 electricity, would require a permit as
24 well .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let ' s --
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 29
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just have one
2 question . Mike, you ' re referring to a
3 permit in the Building Department to
4 replace something, but not necessarily
5 affecting the nonconforming structure or
6 the conforming structure? You ' re referring
7 to a building permit to replace a new
8 electrical system? To upgrade the
9 electrical system as opposed to using a
10 certified or a licensed electrican to do
11 that or a licensed plumber to do that in
12 the building; is that correct?
13 MR. VERITY: I am not understanding
14 the question .
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, we have a
16 difference here between what we ' re
17 referring to as a nonconforming structure
18 or a conforming structure, and so on and so
19 forth . I issued a memo based upon the
20 fact, I never said to replace without
21 having the proper licensed people doing
22 it --
23 MR. VERITY: That ' s correct .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And they were
25 nonstructural changes --
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 30
1 MR. VERITY: That ' s correct .
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And I just wanted
3 everyone to be aware of that fact, that
4 memo was issued in that way.
5 MR. VERITY : Yes .
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The people who
7 were doing it, you have to use a person who
8 is New York State licensed.
9 MR. VERITY : And the memo is not the
10 sole reason why we make our decision . It ' s
11 not even -- to be honest with you, it ' s
12 probably in the back corner, and say, hey,
13 you remember that memo? Let ' s bring it
14 out . Like one of the many pieces of the
15 puzzle that we may use to figure it out .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s also
17 important to recognize, to say from the
18 Zoning Board' s point of view, "this list is
19 for specific activity that would not
20 activate the need for a variance . " So in
21 other words , these can be done as of right,
22 with a permit from your office, from the
23 Building Department Office, without
24 requiring a variance . No dimensional
25 changes with regards to setbacks and so on.
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 31
1 There are no new nonconformities . This is
2 primary for repair?
3 MR. VERITY : That ' s correct . And you
4 could --
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Repairs are
6 in-kind and in-place . If you put in a big
7 bay window, instead of a double hung --
8 MR. VERITY : All bets are off .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just to be clear
10 about it .
11 MEMBER DINIZIO : If you have a wall
12 and it only has four studs , and you make it
13 more to State Code, do you need a permit
14 for that?
15 MR. VERITY: To reestablish that wall
16 with additional studs , yeah, you do .
17 MEMBER DINIZIO : Even if you add a few
18 studs?
19 MR. VERITY : Yes , you do . Not even a
20 hesitation . No question on that .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat, you need to
22 come up .
23 MEMBER DINIZIO : The variance really
24 doesn ' t have anything to my mind. My mind
25 is whether or not this building is
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 32
1 demolished or not . The setback is not an
2 -- they denied it and that ' s fine . I am
3 more concerned now, on how when I walked
4 into that building how I saw so much new
5 lumbar, and whether my assumption was
6 correct in saying that this building is a
7 demolition .
8 MS . MOORE : I understand. The
9 question, in looking at this memo and
10 Mike ' s testimony -- past testimony, there
11 are --
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Pat, can you
13 please talk into the mic.
14 MS . MOORE : Sure . I am just getting
15 kind of a clarification because we have
16 different standards . So according to this
17 memo . You repair or replace existing
18 windows , okay, and the existing door frame
19 of similar size . So let ' s say you have the
20 walls -- for example, the wall that was
21 there, you ' re replacing the window there
22 with new window, but you don ' t have the
23 support structure to hold that window up .
24 There is -- nobody here is disputing that
25 he should have come in -- according to the
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 33
1 Building Department and State Code, come in
2 and get a building permit to get
3 permission, or at least have a building
4 permit in place, to put the extra studs in .
5 That is a structural improvement, and
6 whether or not you need a permit, I think
7 Rob Brown will tell you -- I think also the
8 State Building Code talks in terms of
9 amount of value . It ' s not just because you
10 put studs in, you need a building permit .
11 I think that there may be a discrepancy in
12 the code interpreted by architects and the
13 State Code interpreted by the Building
14 Department . We will leave that issue
15 aside . So you have a wall and you decide
16 to put the window back in . Now, that same
17 wall -- and Mike the question that you
18 asked was, can you go in and get a building
.19 permit for that even for a nonconforming
20 structure --
21 MEMBER DINIZIO : What I am asking is ,
22 at that moment ( In Audible) .
23 ( Far away from the microphone . )
24 MS . MOORE : No .
25 MEMBER DINIZIO : Here is where I am
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 34
1 going with that . If the applicant had come
2 in and said, I have to do all this . And
3 all these new studs that are going to be --
4 that I saw -- what determination would have
5 been made at that time? You have to ask
6 that question .
7 MS . MOORE : He didn ' t ask that
8 question .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess Jim is
10 asking it now .
11 MR. VERITY: He was told, because the
12 question was asked. He was told that he
13 needs to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals .
14 That he backed way off of the original plan
15 and went back to a foundation only .
16 MS . MOORE : No, no . The original plan
17 was the extension in the front .
18 MR. VERITY: Besides the extension,
19 but it was almost a total rebuilt that
20 originally came in to us .
21 MEMBER DINIZIO : That was never wrote
22 down . There is no denial to it . It was
23 just done .
24 MR. VERITY : What was done, Jim?
25 MEMBER DINIZIO : The studs were put in
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 35
1 place --
2 MR. VERITY : Oh, yeah, that was done .
3 There was multiple conversations what you
4 could do and could not do . And it turned
5 out at the end of the day, he chose to do a
6 foundation . According to our permit and in
7 our eyes , in turned into something more
8 than that, which we told him that he
9 couldn ' t do without going through the
10 variance process . He did not want to go
11 through the variance process , but here
12 we ' re today going through the variance
13 process .
14 MS . MOORE : Why would he have gone
15 through the variance process?
16 MEMBER DINIZIO : Because of the amount
17 of alterations and renovations to a
18 nonconforming building with a nonconforming
19 use . And what would that be?
20 MR. VERITY: Basically a tare down .
21 MEMBER DINIZIO : Okay.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In the essence
23 of time, we have many, many applicants out
24 there . I would like to see in addition to
25 discussion about the demo, where we might
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 36
1 go with this .
2 MS . MOORE : Okay.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have some
4 thoughts about that , Pat?
5 MS . MOORE : Yes .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :
7 MR. VERITY : That is my question to
8 you . What are we looking for? I am asking
9 that of the applicant and I am asking that
10 of the Board? What are we looking for and
11 hopefully, I can give you a magical answer
12 that might make all happy. So just we can
13 end the week after week, month after month,
14 hour after hour of whatever .
15 MS . MOORE : Well, it seems if you
16 determine that the structure was
17 demolished, which I think is what I am
18 hearing, okay. Then the issue is, could
19 you reconstruct because it ' s been
20 demolished, and if the Board takes the
21 position that nonconforming use, with a --
22 a nonconforming setback and a nonconforming
23 use, we have already addressed ad nauseum
24 at the last hearing, the variances needed
25 to keep the building where it was at a
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 37
1 distance of 50 feet from the bulkhead.
2 That was that area variance application. I
3 think you have heard enough about that .
4 What we discussed and I discussed with the
5 Breezy Shore attorney is that,
6 alternatively would be to make an
7 application in addition to the area
8 variance for the setback. We would also
9 make an application for a use variance . In
10 order to rebuild, in-kind, in-place, the
11 picture that is there today. And I
12 prepared -- I heard initially -- we talked
13 about it two months ago with the Breezy
14 Shore Board and at the time, they were not
15 giving us approval to make that application
16 because as you know, we are just 1
17 shareholder among 31 shareholders, and we
18 would not have the authority to make that
19 out or argue . We don ' t want to be in
20 litigation over there, while we have the
21 permission of the Board to make that
22 application . As of yesterday, I heard
23 that, okay, they will let us make the
24 application as a alternative relief, so
25 that we can let Mr . Otano to continue the
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 38
1 process and not be -- not incur extreme
2 financial hardship, of having everything
3 phased out as well . That is unoccupied and
4 allowed to deteriorate . It ' s not sured up .
5 I prepared a use variance application . I
6 assume -- I planned on submitting it to the
7 Board today, with the standards . I also
8 have sales comparable -- I gave you the
9 price of the property, that we purchased
10 the property for and I also have attached
11 from Mr . Cohen ' s office because I got it as
12 an e-mail just about five minutes before I
13 arrived here, it ' s attached, and it ' s the
14 comparable sales -- last sales in 2010 of
15 the units in this community. So we have
16 the financial data to Mr . Otano ' s damages .
17 He is not permitted to reconstruct . His
18 permission is only to reconstruct only
19 within the four walls we had before,
20 because the co-op ownership, that is all he
21 has authority to do . So when you were
22 asking, well, why didn ' t we move it back,
23 legally, he would not have the authority to
24 move the foundation back. The foundation
25 was issued with a building permit . The
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 39
1 Building Department, Mr . Verity has
2 testified in the past, and you can ask him
3 to testify as to that issue, that when you
4 are replacing a foundation, it is not
5 considered an increase in the degree of
6 nonconformity. It is a State Code
7 compliance foundation . The foundation
8 replacement is the State Code compliance
9 and that is what has been done here . That
10 was done . The building was raised and set
11 back down here . So the building permit for
12 the foundation was issued. It was issued
13 properly. It is now the triggering of the
14 other remaining part of the structure that
15 is causing you to jump to the issue of,
16 well, you need a use variance to construct
17 here, and I am prepared to make that
18 application . I have it here . I want to
19 give you the alternative relief scenario .
20 The legal standard should you decide to
21 grant the use variance, it makes this unit
22 a permitted use on this property. So it
23 gives it that legality from now and in the
24 future . So Mr . Otano ' s issues will be
25 resolved. And Breezy Shore will deal with
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 40
1 Breezy Shore ' s however they wish .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . The use
3 variance application is an independent
4 separate application from this hearing .
5 And I would suggest that is you wish to
6 preclude that, you need to go to the office
7 with your application, and we would process
8 your application and schedule a hearing and
9 take it from there . In regards to the area
10 variance that is in front of us now, how
11 would you like to proceed on that? We have
12 a couple of choices . We can close the
13 hearing and make a determination . We can
14 adjourn without a date, and then come back
15 when you ' re ready, if you would like to do
16 that?
17 MS . MOORE :' Well, honestly, I think it
18 makes more sense to carry them together,
19 because they do --
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don ' t believe
21 that can be done .
22 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: ( In Audible) .
23 MS . MOORE : No, no . Misunderstood. I
24 am saying the area variance, carry it
25 simultaneously with the use variance
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 41
1 application . That whether we close it
2 today and get a decision, I am happy to get
3 an approval, but it doesn ' t give me any
4 further progress with getting a building
5 permit .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is why I am
7 suggesting that we just adjourn it .
8 MS . MOORE : Exactly. Carry it --
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Leave it open .
10 MS . MOORE : Leave it open, and then
11 close both hearings at the same time, in
12 case an issue or a question comes up, then
13 raises a question with the area variance .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don ' t know if
15 we could close those hearings at the same
16 time, but I don ' t think that is a
17 difficulty -- technically not a difficult
18 -- if we adjourn to another date, in timely
19 we will recalendar .
20 MS . MOORE : Actually, I want to avoid
21 the publication notices of the area
22 variances because it ' s -- last time on the
23 area variance there was -- we had to serve
24 notice on some 50 people because you ' re
25 asking -- you ' re serving everybody around.
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 42
1 Not just this property . Just tell me the
2 date . I have already prepared this
3 document . Whether or not, you want
4 accompany forms , the forms you want, it
5 would just be a repeat of the other
6 file --
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is
8 something that you need to talk to Vicki
9 about in the office .
10 MS . MOORE : I was saying, that if you
11 want to give me a date, then I will have
12 the notice -- you give me the date for the
13 area variance and the same date for the use
14 variance .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What we need is
16 for you to do what you always do .
17 MS . MOORE : What I am assuring you is
18 that it will be done in the next week, it
19 will be in, because I have spent all my
20 time doing it . So it ' s done . I just have
21 to walk it in .
22 MEMBER HORNING : Pat, that includes
23 official notification that is necessary --
24 MS . MOORE : No, no, but I only do that
25 after you give me a date and it ' s ten
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 43
1 days --
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat,
3 procedurally what we have to do here is
4 adjourn this without a date, and as soon as
5 we have a completed application -- for this
6 hearing, as soon as we have a completed
7 application in office, we will put it on
8 the calendar as soon as we could possibly
9 accommodate it . We will do it as quickly
10 as we can. We realize the structure is
11 deteriorating . We don ' t want to hold up
12 the process any more then we need to . So
13 we will do everything we can to make this a
14 quick procedure, and then once we have a
15 date for that hearing, the use variance,
16 you can then decide if you want us to
17 schedule a rehearing on this application,
18 or wait until we see what happens with the
19 use variance application . Do you see what
20 I am saying? I know you want to avoid
21 re-noticing, but I don ' t see how we can do
22 that . Legally, we have to do that .
23 MS . MOORE : No . No . I am talking
24 about the use variance I will notice
25 because it hasn ' t had a re-notice . What I
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 44
1 am trying to do is avoid a third re-notice
2 on the area variance .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right . I
4 will tell you what we can do . Let ' s pick a
5 date --
6 MS . MOORE : Pick a date and we will
7 accomplish everything .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If we need to
9 change the date, we will change the date .
10 That is fine . We can schedule --
11 MEMBER DINIZIO : Well, no, I want to
12 say something. Vicki has to file all the
13 received information and tell us when that
14 application --
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We are not
16 talking about the use variance application .
17 That is a total separate thing.
18 MEMBER DINIZIO : The other one --
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can adjourn
20 without a date, which means we can
21 recalendar it . They have to re-notice . If
22 we pick a date, they don ' t have to
23 re-notice .
24 MS . MOORE : Exactly. That is the only
25' thing --
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 45
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They don ' t have
2 to send out 50 more registered letters .
3 MEMBER DINIZIO : Okay. Okay.
4 MS . TOTH : June 7th.
5 MS . MOORE : June 7th, okay .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let us do this .
7 We can always change the date . So let ' s
8 just -- I am going to make a motion to
9 adjourn this hearing to June 7th at
10 10 : 00 A. M.
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by
13 Gerry.
14 All in favor?
15 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
17 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
20 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
21 *******************************************
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We are going to
23 make a motion to recess for five minutes .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 46
1 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
3 MEMBER DIVIZIO : Aye .
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
6 (Whereupon, a recess was taken at
7 this time . )
8 *******************************************
9 HEARING #6539 - ROBERT V. LONGO
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next hearing
11 before the Board is for Robert Longo . This
12 is a request for variances from
13 Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the
14 Building Inspector ' s December 29, 2011
15 Notice of Disapproval based on an
16 application for building permit for "as
17 built" demolition and re-construction of a
18 new single family dwelling at : 1) less
19 than the code required minimum side yard
20 setback of 15 feet; 2 ) less than the code
21 required combined side yard setbacks of
22 35 feet ; 13 ) more than the code required
23 maximum lot overage of 200 , located at :
24 220 Sound Avenue, adjacent to Long Island
25 Sound in Peconic .
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 47
1 We need one green card, it would
2 appear .
3 MS . MOORE : I must not have gotten it .
4 We brought over what we got .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You got the
6 LWRP?
7 MS . MOORE : I just got it .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All right .
9 Please state your name .
10 MS . MOORE : Patricia Moore, on behalf
11 of Mr . & Mrs . Longo . With me today, I have
12 Mr . & Mrs . Longo, the property owners . I
13 have Nancy Dwyer, who is the design
14 professional on this project, and
15 Mr . Spidido (phenetic) who is the builder
16 on this project . Very simply, this project
17 has been a long process because originally
18 there was a building permit for the
19 foundation, and it was anticipated less
20 material would be required to be removed
21 from the house and therefore we could get a
22 normal building permit without triggering
23 the variance that is going to be before you
24 today. However, to avoid problems that
25 generally occur with surprises during
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 48
1 construction, the -- Nancy Dwyer, the
2 builder, wisely came in and asked the
3 Building Department or the Building
4 Department re-looked at this and called it
5 a demolition, and that way we can avoid the
6 interpretation of whether or not we have a
7 demolition . We will just say, fine, we
8 will call it a demolition even though we ' re
9 actually preserving a great deal of the
10 structure, in order to avoid complications
11 down the line . The variances are related
12 to the size of the property. It is only 50
13 feet in width, but it is over 400 feet in
14 length . The buildable area -- the landward
15 area from the coastal erosion hazard lines,
16 while the property is quite large by title
17 and by taxes and everything else, the
18 buildable area, the property has
19 historically -- the existing structure, and
20 all the improvements that are being made to
21 the structure now, are all consolidated
22 that it was in the buildable area, and it
23 triggers the lot coverage variance request .
24 And the setbacks , as a preexisting
25 nonconforming structure . I think -- I do
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 49
1 have in written form, my area variance and
2 the criteria, and I think that rather then
3 repeat myself during the testimony of the
4 hearing, I rather hear from Nancy Dwyer to
5 walk you through the project . So that you
6 understand what it is that we ' re doing, and
7 address any concerns you might have or
8 questions you might have . So I will sit
9 down and ask Nancy to walk you through the
10 project .
11 MS . DWYER: Hello, Nancy Dwyer, from
12 Nancy Dwyer Design Consultants . The
13 original project, we weren ' t anticipating
14 as much reconstruction as need be, until we
15 got the demo and everything was exposed,
16 and you could see the damages of the
17 existing structure . The most recent
18 portion is the most -- the current landward
19 side . That is the most recent and has
20 permit and a CO from 1968 . That structure
21 is of decent structure integrity. We ' re
22 actually going to work with that . So
23 that ' s going to remain . The footage, there
24 are some ( In Audible) missing, the backside
25 of the house, which is the original
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 50
1 structure . We ' re going to work with as
2 many as those as we can, and reframe all of
3 the floor . All of the walls , and the
4 entire roof of the whole structure . And
5 that is what our original permit was for .
6 It was for reconstruction and reconfiguring
7 of some walls and the roof over the entire
8 building .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Nancy,
10 what is the existing lot coverage?
11 MS . DWYER: The existing lot coverage
12 is 530 .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you ' re not
14 proposing to increase the lot coverage from
15 what is currently here?
16 MS . DWYER: No .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you changing
18 any of the setbacks , front yard, side yard,
19 combined yard?
20 MS . DWYER: Everything is staying as
21 existing .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And I believe
23 you said in your application, you ' re
24 proposing to leave the seaward and landward
25 deck currently?
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 51
1 MS . DWYER: Correct .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George, do you
3 have some questions?
4 MEMBER HORNING : Yes . I just would
5 like to clarify for the record. I would
6 like to walk through just the number of
7 variances . One is for a front yard
8 setback; correct? One variance?
9 MS . MOORE : Yes . The code requires
10 40 feet . The existing structure is 25 . 3 .
11 MEMBER HORNING : Each side yard,
12 you ' re requesting a variance for each side
13 yard?
14 MS . DWYER: Neither one is conforming .
15 MS . MOORE : I can remind the Board
16 unfortunately, and I have said this before
17 at other hearings , where we have similarly
18 constrained properties , the Town Code
19 changed the code to buildable -- to allow
20 within the area of buildable area,
21 construction in that area, we didn ' t change
22 the code to have the setbacks apply to the
23 buildable area in square footage . So on a
24 property like this, you ' re applying the
25 setbacks that the code states is required
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 52
1 for a half acre property, where we really
2 only have a buildable area that is , at
3 most, 75x50 . So you can see that if the
4 code were modified to make that
5 correlation, you probably have a lot fewer
6 variance applications because -- or at
7 least variance applications would be much
8 smaller because the setbacks , the side yard
9 setbacks would be 10 and 15 on a
10 nonconforming yard, and the front yard
11 would be a parcel that is less than 10 , 000
12 square feet, which is the minimum that the
13 code --
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I understand
15 that, let ' s do this in the interest of
16 time . A single side yard setback of
17 6 . 7 feet, when the code requires 15 feet .
18 A combined side yard setback of 15 . 7 feet,
19 where the code requires 35 feet . Lot
20 coverage at 530 , where the code will permit
21 a maximum of 200 lot coverage .
22 MS . MOORE : Correct .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the front
24 yard setback is 25 . 3 feet , the code
25 requires 40 feet . So those are the four
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 53
1 variances that are before the Board.
2 MEMBER HORNING : Are there four or
3 five? Two side yards --
4 MS . MOORE : Well, it ' s combined.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Combined side
6 yard, a front yard and lot coverage .
7 MEMBER HORNING : So it will count as
8 two side yard ' s, as one combined and one
9 single?
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That ' s the way
11 it ' s written in the notice .
12 MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry had a
14 question .
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How are we
16 replacing piers without replacing roof?
17 Are we doing it from the interior of the
18 building?
19 MS . MOORE : The roof is being
20 replaced.
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The rafters are
22 being replaced. Everything is being
23 replaced .
24 MS . DWYER: Everything is being
25 replaced .
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 54
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So everything
2 other then that little cube that you showed
3 us , encompasses the majority of the utility
4 area of the house --
5 MS . DWYER: The utility area of the
6 house and everything to the left of that as
7 well .
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the entire
9 house, which is probably three-quarters of
10 it , is being demolished?
11 MS . MOORE : No, if you look at Page 3
12 of the plans, do you see that? Look at
13 Page 3 , the drawing has the existing -- the
14 poured foundation, which was the latest
15 revision to the garage in -- it has a CO .
16 Then you have to the left of that, are
17 piers , and the structure that to, that is a
18 relatively new vintage construction . So
19 that is remaining .
20 MS . DWYER: Correct .
21 MS . MOORE : You start to need to add
22 piers to the back of that, which you see
23 the piers being identified . Those are
24 piers that need to be replaced, or they are
25 there but some of them are inadequate .
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 55
1 MS . DWYER: Exactly.
2 MS . MOORE : Because I remember seeing
3 them there .
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can you color code
5 those for us, so we can understand it?
6 MS . MOORE : I have a yellow
7 highlighter . She may have something . It
8 is still considered a demo .
9 MEMBER HORNING: Pat, in the meantime,
10 is there any kind of setback requirement
11 from the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line or can
12 you build right up to it?
13 MS . MOORE : No, you can build right up
14 to it . Are setbacks from the Trustees are
15 -- I am sorry, we were discussing it . I am
16 pretty sure you can go right up to the
17 Coastal Erosion Line . The Coastal Erosion
18 Line is a map line that is 25 foot width of
19 a marker because that is how it was
20 interpreted. But in this case, we have the
21 existing structure unchanged. That is
22 remaining .
23 MEMBER HORNING : I was just wondering
24 if there was a code that was concerned with
25 the setbacks -- can you build to the side
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 56
1 of the Coastal Erosion?
2 MS . MOORE : No . The seaward side of
3 the Coastal Erosion, you can ' t . On the
4 landward side, you can . And remember, here
5 is a beach . So our measurements are taken
6 from the -- I guess technically from the
7 end of the beach .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Pat, let me do
9 this . I think this will be more clearly.
10 Almost a 53% lot coverage is enormous and
11 we understand why it is defined that way,
12 based upon the buildable area . Can you
13 please speak about the character of the
14 neighborhood?
15 MS . MOORE : Yes . Soundview Avenue, I
16 am sure you have seen from your own
17 inspection, is predominantly seasonal
18 community of very small structures , like
19 this one . In fact, if you just look to the
20 right and to the left of this one, you
21 almost see identical architectural and
22 vintage -- same vintage construction . That
23 is the character of the area of this
24 particular -- the sea side of Soundview
25 Avenue . As you go further east and west,
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 57
1 you may get some larger homes and the
2 parcel sizes may differ a little bit, but
3 they tend to narrow and be very long
4 properties that go out towards the Sound.
5 So this property is very -- it ' s within the
6 character of that beach community, and you
7 see that the house to the right in
8 particular, looks like it was renovated
9 more recently, and the materials look
10 newer . I did not do the history of that
11 particular property. I don ' t know if it
12 had variances or not, because the
13 improvement may have been such that when
14 they were done, we had different
15 interpretations or whatever .
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you know if it
17 had a CO?
18 MS . MOORE : Who?
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The one to the
20 right?
21 MS . MOORE : I don ' t know . I can find
22 that out . You know, I didn ' t research the
23 development . I can give you the
24 development history on either side, if you
25 would like?
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 58
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It could also be
2 useful to have a sense of a look from
3 Google Earth of the typical -- the Sound
4 side of that road, what kind of lot
5 coverage and setbacks are we typically
6 looking at, so that the Board has that
7 comparison information .
8 MS . MOORE : Yeah, I did actually -- we
9 didn ' t look to see if the adjacent homes,
10 if we could come up with somewhat of an
11 average setback to give us the closer
12 setback as we have here . But many of the
13 homes are actually either at the same
14 setback or closer to the water, and
15 obviously we can ' t -- we ' re as moved
16 closest to the street for environmental
17 reasons , would be hard for us to persuade
18 you to build closer to the water in order
19 to maximize the front yard setback . So it
20 wasn ' t applicable in this instance .
21 MEMBER HORNING : In that character of
22 the neighborhood, were you going to look at
23 the setbacks of the adjacent buildings on
24 adjacent parcels, can you somehow show the
25 Coastal Erosion Hazard Line on those
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 59
1 properties too?
2 MS . MOORE : I do have the Google map
3 here . The Coastal Erosion Hazard Line, I
4 can guess , pretty much runs consistent with
5 this line because that is how the line is
6 typically drawn . I would have to go to --
7 maybe the Building Department flood maps
8 and see if it is shown there . Maybe the
9 FEMA maps would give it to me .
10 MEMBER HORNING : I am asking the
11 relative lot coverage .
12 MS . MOORE : Well, I do -- yeah . The
13 Google map is pretty obvious that the lot
14 coverage -- our properties actually is
15 smaller then the parcel -- the lot coverage
16 -- the house itself is smaller than the two
17 facing the house to the left, I am assuming
18 west , based on the way that this map is
19 situated. Our house -- Mr . & Mrs . Longo ' s
20 house is close to the size to the lots to
21 the east, but I would only be able to
22 calculate as to their survey at the
23 Building Department . Many of these homes
24 are older property developments, they may
25 not have surveys in the Building Department
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 60
1 files that can give me that information. I
2 can try and gather it but all I can tell
3 you is , it may not be there, because this
4 is an older community.
5 MEMBER HORNING: But if you could
6 supply --
7 MS . MOORE : I will give you what I
8 could find . I can provide as much
9 information as I could gather . I don ' t
10 want to charge my client --
11 MEMBER HORNING: In the interest of
12 time here, is there any changes in the
13 height here?
14 MS . DWYER: Nancy Dwyer . Our existing
15 roof height is approximately 13 . 3 to the
16 highest grid. There are five different
17 roof structures on there now . Now, based
18 on the different additions, we ' re proposing
19 one consistent roof over the entire
20 structure, at approximately 20 foot 6
21 inches at grade .
22 MEMBER HORNING : What is the highest
23 height right now?
24 MS . DWYER: 13 . 3 . You do have the
25 first pages of the plans , that show roof
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 61
1 heights and roof pitches , existing south
2 elevation . If you look to the left of
3 that, that has the existing 13 . 3 , which --
4 MEMBER HORNING: All right .
5 MS . DWYER: And then versus the new
6 roof pitch, which is the height of 20 . 6
7 being the final roof pitch .
8 MEMBER HORNING : Thank you .
9 MS . DWYER: And obviously the roof
10 pitch improves the drainage and the
11 aesthetics .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Ken, did
13 you have any questions?
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes . The roof
15 pitch, you brought that up in topic, when
16 in looking at the character of the
17 neighborhood, you indicated the new pitch
18 is 12 on 7 . It should really be 7 on 12 .
19 That ratio would probably be a higher roof .
20 Then again, in Town Law 2 , 12 on 4 , should
21 be 4 on 12 . In the same paperwork, in Town
22 Law 5 , the house maintains its historic
23 location, are you implying that that house
24 has some historic value to it?
25 MS . MOORE : No . No, historic being
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 62
1 it ' s been there for a very long time . It ' s
2 not another location . It ' s limited
3 location is right there .
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Thank you . No
5 further questions .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see the
9 Building Inspector is here . I was
10 wondering if you had any comments that you
11 would like to make in regards to this
12 application? I see that they have a
13 building permit for additions and
14 alterations, and -- Mike come forward and
15 bring us up to date .
16 MR. VERITY : Michael Verity, Chief
17 Building Inspector, Town of Southold.
18 Basically, there has been constant
19 conversation with this . That is why they
20 came in today. They had inconsistent plate
21 heights . They wanted to add to volume,
22 which is going to trigger -- I don ' t want
23 to say, walls . Walls . W-A-L-L-S . So there
24 was an intensification . That is why they
25 are here today. The only other thing, they
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 63
1 are very modest homes down there . And the
2 reason why we wrote the original ( In
3 Audible) because they were changing and
4 rearranging . Actually, believe it or not,
5 the lot that they are originally on is
6 becoming more conforming, but because of
7 the height of the walls , that ' s the reason
8 why they are here today. And it ' s
9 obviously going to be FEMA compliant and
10 whatever else .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does anyone have
12 any questions for Mr . Verity?
13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What do they have
14 to do to become more FEMA compliant?
15 MR. VERITY: Not much at all, if any.
16 What I mean by that, they are going -- the
17 elevation of the building itself is at the
18 proper height . So lucky for them, they
19 don ' t have to go much higher than they ' re
20 asking now . They ' re asking to clean-up the
21 roof pitches like they said. That is
22 something that we can ' t grant at the
23 Building Department . Again, you ' re
24 increasing the intensification of the wall
25 height .
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 64
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: One of my main
2 concerns with situations like this is , is
3 wood decking on both sides of the house .
4 As you know, you being involved in the fire
5 department, much more than I have, being
6 Chief several times , raising hoses over
7 wood decks , when the fire -- either the
8 house next door or this house, or whatever
9 the case might be, you need to be able to
10 get to the house from the water side . I
11 just think one side has to be a Nicolock
12 deck or a brick deck or walkway or whatever
13 the case might be .
14 MR. VERITY : I don ' t have plans in
15 front of me .
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And standing in
17 front of the house, the one to the west has
18 the greater difference . I think that one
19 should be the one of choice .
20 MS . MOORE : Are we talking about
21 possibly replacing decking with -- that is
22 what I was just talking with my clients
23 about actually. So it ' s funny, we were
24 thinking the same thing .
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In Mattituck, we
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 65
1 cut down on the Sound. There are some
2 openings between the houses . So some of
3 the decking can allow that, and I am not
4 speaking for the Board. I am speaking --
5 this is very, very tight, in this area . I
6 am just throwing it out to Mike .
7 MR. VERITY : From what I remember, I
8 think there was a deck on the east side .
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: West side . There
10 is nothing on the east side .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think Gerry
12 what you are getting at, is that that
13 boardwalk has to be replaced, because it is
14 at grade . You can ' t have planking really
15 at grade .
16 MS . MOORE : Actually, I was talking to
17 my clients about possibly replacing that
18 wooden effect and being able to get out of
19 the house -- when some of the foundation
20 was repaired, they raised the elevation
21 slightly. He will have to replace decking
22 with stairs . So that doesn ' t make a lot of
23 sense . But walkways, we can certainly
24 remove, and therefore reduce the lot
25 coverage and replace it with some brick
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 66
1 pavers .
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is where I
3 was getting at .
4 MS . MOORE : And that is fine with my
5 clients .
6 MEMBER HORNING: On the Notice of
7 Disapproval, how is it that it was not
8 cited for increasing the degree of
9 nonconformity? Is it because it ' s a
10 demolition?
11 MS . MOORE : Let me go to the
12 foundation .
13 MR. VERITY : Basically, it ' s the same
14 animal . It ' s the same thing . You are
15 reviewing the side yard setback . That is
16 why we are here . It doesn ' t make a
17 difference how tall a wall is . I mean, you
18 can add that in .
19 MEMBER HORNING : But the bulk of the
20 decision determined that you increased the
21 degree of nonconformity by building up --
22 MR. VERITY: Yeah, I probably -- can
23 we take that back. I hate to even mention
24 that . This is basically doing the same
25 thing . You are still addressing the side
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 67
1 yard setbacks . We don ' t put walls in
2 decisions any more, for good reasons . And
3 we are only addressing the side yard
4 setbacks . That is basically why we are
5 here . It ' s pretty much a demolition . Like
6 Pat said, it ' s a demolition and a
7 reconstruction . If it was alterations and
8 they were putting a second floor on, we
9 would probably say they are increasing the
10 degree of nonconformity. You know, but
11 again, we can attack it by saying, the
12 setback, you can do it that way but it
13 would be a little unorthodox . So that is
14 what we are talking about . We ' re only
15 talking about the setbacks .
16 MEMBER HORNING: I did see in some of
17 your decision here, you ' re citing that the
18 applicant wants to increase the degree of
19 nonconformity .
20 MR. VERITY: That ' s correct . This is
21 brand new. Just wipe it out . It ' s brand
22 new. It ' s a demo . So we are starting
23 brand new and there is no need to even have
24 that discussion .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, Mike .
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 68
1 MEMBER DINIZIO : You brought it up .
2 MR. VERITY : I did and I didn ' t mean
3 to .
4 MEMBER DINIZIO : I just want to ask
5 you a couple of questions . The site plan
6 shows a front yard setback of 25 . 3 feet, is
7 there an increase? That is on the Notice
8 of Disapproval .
9 MR. VERITY: Yeah, I am just looking
10 at the plan too . We are asking for that --
11 MS . MOORE : Why are you putting him on
12 the spot, since we are asking for front
13 yard variance anyway?
14 MEMBER DINIZI,O : I am asking because
15 you are beyond that . You are so far
16 above --
17 MR. VERITY: Well, I don ' t think you
18 really have to because you are already
19 saying we agree -- not we, I am not part of
20 the application. You are referring to the
21 front yard setbacks . You ' re covering
22 everything .
23 MEMBER DINIZIO : The front yard
24 setback hasn ' t changed .
25 MR. VERITY : Well, that is why they
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 69
1 are here, because it is going to change .
2 Otherwise, they wouldn ' t be here for it .
3 MEMBER DINIZIO : I rest my case .
4 Never mind. Let ' s move on .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have already
6 verified on the record and based on the
7 Notice of Disapproval that there are four
8 area variances before us . They ' re to
9 remain, "as built, " the same . The only
10 thing that we have discussed, which was not
11 in the application, is what we mentioned
12 about the roof . That the height would be
13 increased. So technically, yes , that is an
14 increase in the nonconformance because it ' s
15 higher . However, because it ' s a demo,
16 they ' re rebuilding where the as built is at
17 the moment . As long as the record is clear
18 on what ' s going on, the Board can just go
19 on .
20 In the interest of time, I want to ask
21 if there is anyone else in the audience
22 that would like to address this
23 application?
24 (No Response . )
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there any
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 70
1 other questions from the Board?
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just wanted to
3 thank Mike and Pat .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes , very much
5 so . We appreciate you being here .
6 MR. VERITY: Hopefully no confusion,
7 it ' s pretty -- never mind.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If there are no
9 further questions or comments, I am going
10 to make a motion to close this hearing
11 subject to receipt of additional
12 information from the attorney, with regard
13 to character of the neighborhood, in terms
14 of other nonconforming setbacks and lot
15 coverage .
16 Is there a second?
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
19 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
21 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
24 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
25 *******************************************
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 71
1 HEARING #6530 - LOUIS AND ELIZABETH MASTRO
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
3 application before us is for Louis and
4 Elizabeth Mastro, #6530 , and this was
5 adjourned from January 5th . So there is no
6 need to read the legal notice . Who is here
7 to represent the applicant?
8 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : That would be me .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hi .
10 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : My name is Steve
11 Christiansen, and Richard Boyd Architects ,
12 located in Massapequa, New York 11758 .
13 Obviously, I am here for clients , the
14 Mastro ' s . Location 1595 Bayview Ave, in
15 Southold. Section 52 , Block 9, Lot 5 , and
16 it ' s Zoned R40 . I won ' t pain you with a --
17 with the whole history of this project . So
18 just real quick, previously we did a
19 two-story home . Unfortunately, due to the
20 economy, not able to get the funding, we
21 restricted the extent of what was going to
22 be built . Stating that, we got away from a
23 two-story, that no longer exist . We ' re
24 just going to add on to the existing
25 structure . Now, the existing structure is
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 72
1 a nonconforming structure . We ' re here
2 today due .to the side yard setbacks . The
3 — previously when they were here, it was
4 back on January 5th . There was a stair
5 that was going down into the basement,
6 which they had mentioned some concern about
7 it and encroaching further into the side
8 yard . They actually took that off . They
9 said, you know, let ' s not -- that ' s not an
10 issue . So they took that off . The
11 addition is in the front of the house .
12 Again, I know you went through this last
13 time . So I won ' t go through it in depth .
14 But the addition is in the front of the
15 house . It is in lining with the existing
16 structure . The roof on the existing
17 structure is being removed . They ' re making
18 it a new structure so that in ties into the
19 new addition, with the front porch. Also
20 going back to the hearing in January, the
21 ZBA had requested moving the back of the
22 home back from the water, one foot, which
23 we did. So we pulled that back. And
24 that is pretty much the extent of the
25 addition .
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 73
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am looking at
2 the November 23, 2011 Notice of
3 Disapproval , do you have that?
4 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : The homeowner does .
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is not meant
6 to be anything but productive, okay?
7 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : Sure .
e
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We ' re trying to
9 understand between your site plan on your
10 documents and so forth, and what ' s existing
11 on that December 5 , 2011 . There are some
12 minor modifications on what we have today
13 on this Notice of Disapproval .
14 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : Okay .
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Reading that
16 Notice of Disapproval, we ' re showing -- you .
17 don ' t have it yet?
18 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : No, she is still
19 looking for it .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What . I would
21 like to do is go through the variances that
22 are requested because there have been some
23 minor changes .
24 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : Sure, go ahead.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : For example, the
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 74
1 side yard has increased. I believe one
2 side yard is 10 . 6 3/4 feet .
3 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : That ' s correct .
4 That ' s to the existing house .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right . So that
6 is a conforming side yard because the code
7 requires a minimum of 10 feet . I guess the
8 other one is to the east . The westerly
9 side yard is 8 . 8 ?
10 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : It ' s 8 . 8 .
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I think it ' s 17 . 11 .
12 MR. CHRISTIANSEN: No, it ' s 8 foot 8
13 is existing .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was 7 . 9 on
15 the Notice of Disapproval . That must
16 have --
17 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : That was with the
18 bilco door . The existing 8 foot 8 , if you
19 noticed the house is skewed a little bit .
20 It is actually at the grade or location .
21 Further towards the water . The side yard
22 on the existing would be less than the 8
23 foot 8 . If you notice the house is skewed
24 going towards the house . So the -- so on
25 the proposed addition where the front of
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 75
1 the existing house is, it ' s 8 foot 8 .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right .
3 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : At the furthest
4 point of the house, it ' s 9 foot 5 1/2 on
5 the proposed addition .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right .
7 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : It wasn ' t a bilco
8 door . It was a concrete stair . That is
9 completely removed.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what we have
11 is one completely removed single side yard
12 setback of nonconformity; correct?
13 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : Correct .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the total
15 combined side yard setback is 18 . 5 , where
16 the code requires 25 feet?
17 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : That is correct .
18 10 . 6 and 3/4 ' s is on the south side .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No . No . The
20 survey here indicates a clear side yard and
21 the clearest point is 7 . 11 .
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That ' s the
23 northerly, closest to the water?
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right . This is
25 just getting sloppy paperwork --
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 76
1 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : It ' s 7 . 9 , I just
2 looked at the actual survey. That is at
3 the worse case scenario .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 10 . 6 and 3/4 and
5 7 . 11 , for a total of -- add those two
6 together and see what the total side yard
7 is , that would be the combined, 18 . 5 . The
8 bulkhead setback, the existing is 36 1/2 .
9 The code requires 75 .
10 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : Actually, the
11 36 1/2 was the proposed. Previously, we
12 moved it back the one foot . On the plan
13 that says existing, it should have been
14 changed to proposed.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : See what I mean
16 about confusion?
17 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : Yes .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What are you
19 proposing for the bulkhead?
20 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : From the bulkhead
21 to the concrete block wall , it ' s 32 foot
22 and 11 1/2 . On the plan that you are
23 looking at, it actually says "existing . "
24 It should say "proposed. " So what happened
25 was, when we took the one foot off, it was
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 77
1 just not changed. The existing stayed on
2 there . It should have been changed to
3 proposed. From the new proposed wall that
4 is getting moved back more, one foot, to
5 the concrete block wall, it will be 32 foot
6 11 1/2 .
7 MEMBER DINIZIO : That is proposed?
8 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : That is what the
9 proposed is . It should not existing.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why do we have
11 -- so it should not say, "existing?"
12 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : It should not say
13 existing .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Finally, it
15 looks like the 35 foot required rear yard
16 in the original Notice of Disapproval cited
17 it at 34 feet, and you ' re not proposed
18 36 1/2 feet , which is now conforming;
19 correct?
20 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : To the high water
21 line .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Well,
23 that is the way that it is written . I
24 think we have more or less all sorted out .
25 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : I apologize for
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 78
1 that .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would be very
3 good if you could summarize it for us .
4 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : Absolutely, not a
5 problem.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we need a new
7 amended (In Audible) .
8 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : Basically the
9 survey that we currently have, it is
10 correct . The only thing that is not on
11 here, is the number that you stated 7 . 11 ,
12 which is on the north side of the house,
13 and that ' s on the rear of the house,
14 adjacent to the water . That is not
15 indicated on here .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just wanted
17 to make sure that when we deliberated, we
18 have really accurate information. And I
19 think --
20 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : If you would like,
21 I can actually take this survey and take
22 off where it says "existing" on the three
23 locations and put "proposed. " Then I can
24 add the additional side yard, which is the
25 7 . 11 that you are referencing . That does
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 79
1 not show on this , because I only put the
2 proposed side yard setbacks . That is why I
3 have the 8 foot 8 .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right .
5 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : If I can just add
6 that and hand you the one sheet --
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That ' s fine .
8 What I want to do is where your original
9 nonconformity ' s are and where you are
10 reducing or eliminating those
11 nonconformities . You can do it with dotted
12 lines . You can have it on one document . A
13 survey would be fine .
14 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : I can do that .
15 That will be fine .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The second would
17 be that we requested from the architect an
18 analysis of the soundment of the structure .
19 What we got was a letter that upon visual
20 inspection, "the existing foundation is
21 adequate for the construction proposed.
22 The existing crawl space will remain and
23 the existing house will go to a two-bedroom
24 home, to a one-bedroom home . " There is no
25 reference whatsoever to what the structural
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 80
1 soundment of the existing walls . We don ' t
2 know if this is a tare down of a foundation
3 or not .
4 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : The existing
5 foundation is staying right where it is .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The foundation?
7 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : That is not being
8 touched.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am not
10 questioning that . I am asking -- I simply
11 asked the architect to provide us with the
12 structural soundness of the exterior and
13 interior walls . We do have a familiarity
14 with this project . We know it has been
15 there for a very long time, and under other
16 circumstances , we have had amped testimony
17 to the fact that it was not salvageable .
18 It was first going to be a demo because
19 this house was so full of mold, and that it
20 was not salvageable . We do not have that
21 current updated information . It ' s very
22 hard for me to believe that it would be an
23 improved condition then a --
24 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : I understand.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I want to avoid
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 81
1 that when we ' re coming down the pipe .
2 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : Understood. Now,
3 just so you know from going back and forth,
4 the reason why I believe that they stated
5 that it was not sound, because going back
6 before they made it a new home, they wanted
7 to put a foundational, below the existing
8 crawl space . Once they wanted to go down
9 that far, the existing foundation really
10 wasn ' t that sufficient . The cost and
11 everything else, it just became not worth
12 it . So the structural instability, that is
13 most likely what they were referring to .
14 As far as the mold is concerned, which they
15 also had mentioned to me, when we were
16 there at the house, the mold on the
17 sheetrock. A lot of the mildew grew out,
18 and it was just on the sheetrock. So I
19 don ' t know what extent the mold was , but
20 you know, you see some mildew and mold, and
21 they, I guess , became concerned. The back
22 porch roof was actually -- when the
23 shingles were off and there was actually a
24 leak, and as far as the structure itself
25 goes , the floors are fine . The walls are
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 82
1 fine . All the perimeter walls are going to
2 stay. Obviously, except the rear wall
3 because that has to be moved in .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, the Notice
5 of Disapproval was for a demolition, which
6 triggered this application . And we don ' t
7 have the Building Inspector here any more,
8 but the bottom line is very important,
9 which is why we ask for this information
10 from someone with a professional license .
11 This is going to be taken down to the
12 foundation --
13 MR. CHRISTIANSEN: It ' s not --
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have already
15 acknowledged that you are going to be
16 putting on a new roof . I want to know why
17 this Notice of Disapproval says demolition
18 and your not responding to the questions of
19 this Board -- if you want to speak, it ' s
20 fine . You need to come to the microphone
21 and state your name .
22 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : Just real quick and
23 from my end, the existing house, the
24 foundation, first floor and walls are
25 remaining . The roof is getting torn off .
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 83
1 If there is anything -- and the back wall
2 is being moved in . So that will be new.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it ' s a
4 partial demolition? .
5 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : That is correct .
6 Now, we were told from the last meeting to
7 move that wall in and obviously that has to
8 come in . And the whole roof is coming off .
9 The floor and walls are staying .
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It has nothing to
11 personally do with this hearing, but we ' re
12 just trying to alleviate all of this stuff,
13 so we don ' t --
14 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : Absolutely . I
15 understand.
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What I am saying
17 to you as a member of this Board, I don ' t
18 know how the Building Department is going
19 to relate that foundation . That is the
20 reason why from an engineering standpoint,
21 we ' re just alerting you to say, you -- I am
22 alerting you to say, that you need an
23 engineering report to say this will be able
24 to withstand the new second story --
25 unfinished second story roof, because if
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 84
1 not, you ' re coming back to us again, for
2 the fourth time .
3 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : Let ' s say when the
4 new ridge goes on and ( In Audible)
5 obviously, that ' s a new load and have to
6 address it . So the foundation itself is
7 fine, with whatever additional we can add.
8 It would actually add an additional pier to
9 carry that load. It wouldn ' t go past the
10 perimeter of the home . We would just add
11 the pier to carry it .
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well , I think you
13 should just give us a letter indicating
14 that .
15 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : Okay.
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think that may
17 help the situation in your respect . No
18 offense, we hope this takes care of it . I
19 am making a statement myself, but --
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Have you
21 examined the studs on the perimeter wall?
22 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : Yes, I have .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And they ' re not
24 rotted?
25 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : They are not .
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 85
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. New
2 windows and doors?
3 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : Yes .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How about the
5 existing siding?
6 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : Tongue and groove .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you please
8 summarize exactly what is staying and
9 exactly what is going to have to be
10 replaced or . done from scratch in a letter?
11 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : Yeah . Sure . Not a
12 problem. I just want you to be aware as
13 far as the foundation goes , it ' s not really
14 the foundation, it ' s the whole structure,
15 any additional loads that we ' re putting on
16 that structure can actually pick those up .
17 We actually picked those loads up and add
18 additional supports .
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You testified in
20 the last hearing, when I see unpointed
21 blocks . When I know water can get into
22 unpointed blocks , and that is one of the
23 concerns that I have on the south side of
24 the house, okay. The integrity of the
25 foundation may be fine, but when I see
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 86
1 those types of situations -- I am not a
2 building insoector . I have just been here
3 for a long time and I know how these things
4 occur, and that is one of the reasons why I
5 am looking at it from that standpoint .
6 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : As far as blocks
7 go, blocks can stay under water . Block is
8 fine to be wet at all times . So it ' s not
9 an issue . The only time that it becomes an
10 issue, is if we had to ( In Audible) the
11 foundation, but obviously Long Island is a
12 big flood zone . So my foundation is
13 continuously on the water . I am on the
14 South Shore . As far as water penetrating,
15 that is fine . It ' s not a concern from our
16 end.
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have actually
18 dug down and looked at the foundation at
19 the pump --
20 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : Yes , we have . We
21 have dug done and it was fine . That is
22 correct .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do any of the
24 other Board members have questions? Jim?
25 George? Ken?
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 87
1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you like
3 to say something?
4 MS . MASTRO : Liz Mastro . I would just
5 like to say something about the demolition .
6 That was from the Building Department .
7 Mike wrote that . They were determining
8 what it was . I actually asked Pat why it
9 was written like that, and she said it was
10 determined by how much work is going to be
11 done . That is what she said.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
13 MS . MASTRO : She said if the Zoning
14 Board does not like that, then she will
15 change it . That is what they told me .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Is there
17 anyone in the audience that would like to
18 address this application?
19 (No Response . )
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
21 further comments, I am going to make a
22 motion to close this hearing subject to
23 receipt of a letter, a revised survey
24 showing existing and proposed setbacks .
25 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : Not a problem.
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 88
1 Once again, I apologize for that .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Lot coverage and
3 front yard setback has never been an issue .
4 And some sort of -analysis --
5 MR. CHRISTIANSEN: That ' s fine .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Addressing the
7 parts of the building that will remain .
8 Parts that will be removed and the
9 structural integrity.
10 MR. CHRISTIANSEN : That ' s fine, yep .
11 And how long should I have that to you? I
12 mean, I will get that right out to you
13 right away. I will send that out on
14 Monday, is that fine?
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is fine .
16 As soon as we receive it, we will start
17 deliberating .
18 MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Okay .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there a
20 second?
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
23 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
25 MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye .
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 89
1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
3 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
4 ***************************************** *
5 HEARING #6547 - DAVID STEELE
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
7 application before the Board is for David
8 Steele, # 6547 . Request for variance from
9 Article III Section 280-15 and the Building
10 Inspector ' s February 1, 2012 Notice of
11 Disapproval based on. an application for
12 building permit for accessory solar panels
13 at : 1 ) location other than the code
14 required rear yard, located at : 12500
15 CR 48 , corner of Elijah ' s Lane, Mattituck.
16 Is someone here to address the
17 application?
18 MR. STEELE : I am David Steele, the
19 owner of the property.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning .
21 MR. STEELE : Good afternoon .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Time does fly .
23 Okay . All right . So what would you like
24 to tell us?
25 MR. STEELE : I am just trying to put
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 90
1 some solar panels up on my side yard, and
2 it ' s not working out too good .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This Board -- so
4 it ' s in the side yard. I think the Notice
5 of Disapproval says the front yard . The
6 Board members -- just so you are aware of
7 it, did make personal inspection of this
8 property. The house of where you are
9 proposing to put the panels . And how far
10 is that from the line?
11 MR. STEELE : Seven or eight hundred
12 feet .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And it ' s also
14 very well tree ' d. It ' s an Ag property .
15 MR. STEELE : You will never see it .
16 From Elijah ' s , from the railroad, you will
17 never see it .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s a 38 x 15
19 1/2 concrete pad; is that correct?
20 MR. STEELE : Correct .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don ' t have any
22 questions . Let ' s see if the Board has any.
23 Jim?
24 MEMBER DINIZIO : Nope .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 91
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
2 MEMBER DINIZIO : You are not going to
3 make a shed out of it?
4 MR. STEELE : No .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George?
6 MEMBER HORNING : Yeah, I have a few.
7 We ' re accepting the site plan survey dated
8 September 2 , 1996 as the site. plan that we
9 are using?
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It has been
11 drawn in by hand. It ' s not to scale, but
12 it shows you the location .
13 MEMBER HORNING : More or less , yes .
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : Can I comment on it?
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can.
16 MEMBER DINIZIO : This is really not
17 ( In Audible) .
18 (Not near a microphone . )
19 MR. STEELE : Nothing has changed .
20 MEMBER HORNING : The lots were merged,
21 is that right?
22 MR. STEELE : Yes .
23 MEMBER HORNING : What made you put
24 your concrete pad right where it is?
25 MR. STEELE : Because it ' s the closest
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 92
1 that I could get to my LIPA panel .
2 MEMBER HORNING : Okay. And that has
3 some critical bearing?
4 MR. STEELE : Yeah, it ' s the side of my
5 house that has the meter on it . That
6 really raises a cost on how many feet you
7 have to be from the -- where your panel is .
8 If I had it way in the back where the barn
9 is , it would be a couple of hundred feet .
10' MEMBER HORNING : Because you ' re
11 going to be generated electricity and not
12 water --
13 MR. STEELE : Yep, just electricity.
14 MEMBER HORNING : How much electricity
15 do you think you ' re going to be generating
16 from the size of the panels?
17 MR. STEELE : It ' s a 10K system coming
18 right off the grid.
19 MEMBER HORNING: And the overall
20 height of the finished install from the
21 ground?
22 MR. STEELE : I don ' t think that I have
23 that paper with me . I think you guys
24 should have it . I think it ' s 6 or 8 feet .
25 It ' s no more than 8 feet .
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 93
1 MEMBER HORNING : The purpose of the
2 panels are to create electricity?
3 MR. STEELE : Right .
4 MEMBER HORNING : And attach itself to
5 the electric grid?
6 MR. STEELE : Yep .
7 MEMBER HORNING: And the reason why
8 you are putting it where you want to have
9 it is because that is the closest
10 attachment to your incoming power supply
11 right now.
12 MR. STEELE : Correct .
13 MEMBER HORNING: Thank you .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any other
15 questions?
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
18 in the audience that would like to address
19 this application?
20 (No Response . )
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
22 further comments, I am going to make a
23 motion to close this hearing and reserve
24 decision to a later date .
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 94
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
2 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
4 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
7 ( See Minutes for Resolution . )
g ** ****************************************
9 HEARING #6545 DOUGALL FRASER
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Dougall Fraser,
11 #6545 , request for variance from Articles
12 XXIII Code Section 280-124 , based on an
13 application for building permit and the
14 Building Inspector ' s November 10 , 2011 ,
15 updated February 2 , 2012 Notice of
16 Disapproval concerning proposed deck
17 addition to existing single family
18 dwelling, at : 1 ) less than the code
19 required minimum front yard setback of 40
20 feet located at : 7555 Nassau Point, corner
21 of Tuthill Road, adjacent to Little Peconic
22 Bay, in Cutchogue .
23 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Hi, Dave
24 Cichanowicz , acting as agent to Dougall
25 Fraser . I got some affidavits and such.
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 95
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Very good. Okay
2 what would you like to tell us?
3 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Well, as far as
4 Tuthill Road, which shows on the tax map,
5 you have taken a visit to the site, the
6 actual road is a right-of-way to the beach,
7 used by the community, or that portion of
8 the community . It is not . really
9 technically Town -- regular street . It
10 doesn ' t meet any of the criteria of the
11 street, thus should be treated in the same
12 fashion as a front road setback.
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We all went to
14 the site, and saw basically what you just
15 described. There is a grassy area, that
16 goes to the beach?
17 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Correct .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Who uses that?
19 Anybody?
20 MR. CICHANOWICZ : It ' s not vehicle .
21 It ' s just for the private owners, but it
22 does give legal right-of-way to that little
23 portion of the community. It ' s a selective
24 group that has it deeded to their
25 particular property. I think it does
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 96
1 affect the actual people that we sent
2 notices to but I don ' t know to what extent .
3 I don ' t think it ' s a big extent .
4 MEMBER HORNING : So you ' re saying it ' s
5 a private right-of-way?
6 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Private
7 right-of-way, yes . It would not be open to
8 us for us to go down and take a walk. It ' s
9 deeded in each individual ' s deed . Saying
10 that I have this particular right-of-way,
11 which is located where Tuthill Road is .
12 And it also serves as a driveway or access
13 for Dougall Fraser, as well as Mr . Stack.
14 The neighbor to the north . It feeds both
15 of those houses .
16 MEMBER HORNING : When the house was
17 built, can you give us a date on that?
18 MR. CICHANOWICZ : 1920-ish . That is
19 the old survey that I had done . I have
20 updated the information, but some of the
21 stuff shows that it was dated well back,
22 1920 .
23 MEMBER HORNING: 1920 ?
24 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Right .
25 MEMBER HORNING : Because we have some
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 97
1 paperwork on it for an addition in 1964 .
2 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Right .
3 MEMBER HORNING : And there has never
4 been any variances granted on it?
5 MR. CICHANOWICZ : No .
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is an old
7 name?
8 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Very old. I guess
9 Dougall and his sister now own the
10 property. It was given to them from their
11 parents .
12 MEMBER DINIZIO : When you look at the
13 property card, it ' s interesting .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Very . Just for
15 the record to reflect that the deck is
16 proposed about 8 feet by 34 . 3 .
17 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Correct .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Run along the
19 side of the house .
20 MR. CICHANOWICZ : It will actually be
21 along the road side of the house . One of
22 the reasons for the construction of this ,
23 is to make it easier for Mr . Fraser to
24 access his first floor house . I mean, he
25 has now an old garage that goes underneath
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 98
1 the house and he has to go upstairs to
2 get to that first floor . Unless you come
3 in from the water side, there is access
4 there . This deck is going to eliminate
5 that .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
7 MR. CICHANOWICZ : We are just looking
8 to rebuild the steps , and have the deck.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does anyone have
10 any further questions?
11 MEMBER DINIZIO : I do . I just looked
12 at your reasons you wrote down, and maybe
13 you can clarify them for me?
14 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Sure .
15 MEMBER DINIZIO : Under the undesirable
16 change, you say the proposed deck is going
17 to be built within the existing house,
18 that ' s really not so .
19 MR. CICHANOWICZ : You are right . What
20 I meant was , not further out passed the end
21 of the house on the right-of-way.
22 MEMBER DINIZIO : Okay. Do you have --
23 can you get a copy of the deed from the
24 Town?
25 MR. CICHANOWICZ : I would imagine I
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 99
1 can .
2 MEMBER DINIZIO : I just want to kind
3 of establish that road.
4 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Right .
5 MEMBER DINIZIO : You are saying that
6 it is restricted to certain types of people
7 on a deed. It would be nice for that to be
8 in the record.
9 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Okay.
10 MEMBER DINIZIO : So if we can get a
11 copy of it .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Vicki said she
13 can get it . Vicki will look into that .
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : You are not asking us
15 to make a determination about that
16 right-of-way?
17 MR. CICHANOWICZ : No .
18 MEMBER DINIZIO : Okay. And this is
19 all going to be within the building
20 envelope? You say it ' s not going to go any
21 further?
22 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Correct .
23 MEMBER DINIZIO : Okay . Thank you .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George?
25 MEMBER HORNING: No more .
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 100
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is no one
6 else in the audience . Then I am going to
7 make a motion to close this hearing subject
8 to receipt from our office, research
9 examining the right-of-way, and the deed .
10 Is there a second?
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 #6538 - 9105 SKUNK LANE, LLC .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
22 application before the Board is for 9105
23 Skunk Lane, LLC, #6538 . This was adjourned
24 from a public hearing in February. So
25 there is no need to read the legal notice .
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 101
1 MS . TOTH: It ' s a new notice .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That ' s right .
3 It ' s a new Notice of Disapproval , so we
4 will . They ' re requesting different
5 variances . So request for variances from
6 Article III Code Section 280-13 (C) 4 (b) ,
7 Section 20-15 ( F) and Article XXII. 280-105A,
8 and the Building Inspector ' s
9 December 20 , 2011 , amended January 19, 2012
10 Notice of Disapproval based on an
11 application for building permit to build a
12 tennis court with fence surround on a
13 vacant lot, at : 1 ) use of a tennis court
14 is not permitted on a vacant lot without a
15 principal dwelling, 2 ) accessory structures
16 at less than the code required principal
17 setback of 50 feet, 3 ) tennis court fence
18 at more than the code required maximum
19 height of 4 feet in a front yard, located
20 at : 9105 Skunk Lane, adjacent to Little
21 Creek, dredge canal, in Cutchogue .
22 MR. SCHWARTZ : Mark Schwartz,
23 architect for the project .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, go ahead,
25 Mark.
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 102
1 MR. SCHWARTZ : The applicant owns the
2 relative property to the east and west .
3 There was not enough space for the tennis
4 court . We ' re now placing it on the water
5 side of the property, which would have a
6 negative impact on the shoreline . The
7 applicant obtained the lot to use it for
8 recreational purposes . The applicant is
9 willing to put covenants and restrictions
10 on the property, similar to the Zoning
11 Board of Appeals decision #6359, which was
12 approved recently. And the front yard
13 variance is also requested, because they
14 would like to finish their driveway .
15 Wrapping around the property, and that kind
16 of obstructs the tennis court . The
17 proposed tennis court is 195 feet from the
18 wetlands . 30 feet off of the road. The
19 fence would be a black chainlink fence at
20 approximately 6 . 5 feet . No lighting is
21 proposed on the tennis court . The tennis
22 court will be used seasonally and enjoy
23 daylight hours . And what I just gave you,
24 describes some of the views across from the
25 creek. A view looking at the property,
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 103
1 which is currently vegetated along the
2 street line, with some pretty heavy ( In
3 Audible) , rock. And the last three photos
4 are the Zoning Board of Appeals decision
5 #6539, a tennis court on a vacant lot . You
6 can ' t really see it from the road. It
7 really doesn ' t have any effect on the
8 neighborhood.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mark, can you
10 explain to us, you recently just provided
11 us with a colored landscaped plan, of --
12 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Upon site
14 inspection, there was a brand new house, is
15 that the house that is on here?
16 MR. SCHWARTZ : No .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is being
18 called a guest house?
19 MR. SCHWARTZ : No .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In other words ,
21 there is another house in front of the
22 principal dwelling that is on the water?
23 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes , separate lots .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The way this is
25 drawn, I am not sure of the boundary of
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 104
1 these lots . You are saying that the owner
2 of the principal dwelling, let ' s call it ,
3 owns the two other lots?
4 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yeah, there is a vacant
5 lot where the tennis court is proposed.
6 Separate lots that are owned by the same
7 family.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A dwelling on
9 each?
10 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why can ' t the
12 applicant merge lots, with either one of
13 those residential lots , and then you can
14 have an accessory structure on it?
15 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes . Well, I think the
16 family, estate planning, they really don ' t
17 want to merge the lots . They would like
18- to, you know, down the road, they are not
19 planning on doing any building there, I
20 think they would like to have that as an
21 option down the road.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well , in he case
23 that you cited where we had covenants and
24 restrictions on the tennis court , that lot
25 is across the street . There was no way
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 105
1 they could merge the lots . Here you have
2 an obvious answer if you want to do . This
3 lot is for recreational purposes , it is a
4 lot for a principal dwelling . And I don ' t
5 know if the argument, to ensure equity and
6 so on, estate planning, you can put a
7 tennis court on a separate structure,
8 vacant lot . So I would like other
9 arguments, if you have them?
10 MR. SCHWARTZ : I don ' t understand why
11 a tennis court on a vacant lot is such --
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s not allowed
13 by code, that ' s why.
14 MR. SCHWARTZ : What ' s the negative
15 impact concernable for someone to see?
16 It ' s just a flat surface with a net?
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, I could
18 see a six foot fence from 20 feet away.
19 MR. SCHWARTZ : We are going to plan it
20 out properly, as you can see from some of
21 these photos, you can barely see it .
22 MEMBER DINIZIO : You know, we have
23 approved tennis courts over the years . We
24 have had some lots joined. Some not
25 joined, but still held in the same name .
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 106
1 Some of them get turned down . We just
2 turned down a guy who wanted a basketball
3 court .
4 MR. SCHWARTZ : Right .
5 MEMBER DINIZIO : It had a removable
6 backboard, and no fence . It was adjoining
7 his property. You know, he had the other
8 option. And another problem with having
9 them on vacant lots , is generally going
10 back and forth, and some people find it
11 annoying . It ' s a less impediment on the
12 lot line . Those are the reasons we have
13 turned them down . It ' s not allowed. Just
14 the code, it ' s not allowed. We can ' t do
15 it .
16 MR. SCHWARTZ : But if you wanted to
17 build a house and a tennis court, that
18 would be allowed?
19 MEMBER DINIZIO : Of course .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George?
21 MEMBER HORNING : Sir, what is the
22 compelling argument why it needs to have a
23 front yard variance? Why do you need it 30
24 foot from the road.
25 MR. SCHWARTZ : Well, yeah, when I got
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 107
1 the proposed landscape plan, the driveway
2 was a different shape that we had in our
3 plan .
4 MEMBER HORNING : How much of it is
5 proposed other then the construction on the
6 other lot of the guest house is there, the
7 other building is being built, how much of
8 a landscaped park area -- how much is
9 proposed and how much is going to be there?
10 It ' s not finished is it?
11 MR. SCHWARTZ : No, it ' s not finished .
12 MEMBER HORNING: It could be
13 relocated? The area for the vegetable
14 garden, couldn ' t that be swapped and put
15 near the road, where it wouldn ' t need . a
16 variance, and the tennis court is down on
17 that lot pushed back? So you wouldn ' t need
18 a variance either? You don ' t need a
19 variance for a garden in your front yard.
20 MR. SCHWARTZ : Correct .
21 MEMBER HORNING : The pond, does that
22 actually exist right now, or is that a
23 proposed pond, that they could put
24 something else? That they can put the
25 proposed tennis court for example?
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 108
1 MR. SCHWARTZ : The pond is existing .
2 MEMBER HORNING : Is it going to be --
3 MR. SCHWARTZ : There is no plans to
4 change it . We ' re trying to work around
5 it .
6 MEMBER HORNING : And in back of the
7 guest house, there is no room for a tennis
8 court?
9 MR. SCHWARTZ : There might be room
10 there, but it ' s going to take away from the
11 shoreline . There is a beautiful view from
12 the neighbor ' s property, across the creek.
13 I don ' t think that would be positive in
14 anyone ' s mind .
15 MEMBER HORNING: Even though you say
16 it ' s low profile?
17 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yeah, well --
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You are aware
19 that our job is to grant the minimal amount
20 of variance possible? You can decrease the
21 amount of variance by moving forward, more
22 towards the trees . Second, this Board ( In
23 Audible ) and we have in past seen tennis
24 courts where it ' s at two feet and the fence
25 is only four feet above grade . You know,
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 109
1 it seems to me that the applicant ' s want to
2 create a very beautiful compound with lots
3 of recreational activities , but a tennis
4 court is very large . Six foot high fence
5 is an obstructional visual . When there is
6 an option to merge a piece of property to
7 legalize it, you still have to get a
8 variance for the front yard, in regards to
9 the front yard setback, that ' s even if you
10 merge the lots .
11 MR. SCHWARTZ : If we were able to --
12 if we worked the driveway and push this
13 more towards the front yard, and if we
14 recess the tennis court, so that there is
15 not an issue with the fence height , would
16 it be a possibility to approve without
17 merging these lots?
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I can ' t -- I
19 think some of the other Board members can
20 address that . We would have to consider
21 it . We would have to close the hearing and
22 then deliberate . I can ' t guarantee what
23 anyone will do . We have to really go back
24 and see if there is substantial arguments ,
25 as to why the alternative of merging these
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 110
1 lots is not viable . I am sure the Board
2 will consider your arguments .
3 MEMBER DINIZIO : You know, you are
4 asking to put a use on a piece of property
5 that is not -- doesn ' t qualify for that
6 use . That is almost a use variance in my
7 mind. You are asking to use a piece of
8 property that the Town doesn ' t give anyone
9 permission to do . It ',s okay if you have a
10 house on it and you want to put a tennis
11 court on it . They can be screened, but to
12 actually put a use on an empty lot, seems
13 to be pretty important . You know_, from
14 past practices and how we handled it in the
15 past, with the exception of that one
16 notice, I can ' t think of one that we have
17 granted that was a separate lot . There was
18 a basketball court that was back to back,
19 even though they weren ' t side to side, and
20 the lot was probably only 300 foot and
21 adjoined by 100 feet . There was no proof
22 that there as any hardship to him. You do
23 have other pieces on this property that you
24 can do it . When we start granting use
25 variances on empty lots , then that ' s a
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 111
1 problem too .
2 MR. SCHWARTZ : So if we come back with
3 an application and we just go to the
4 Building Department with a proposed house
5 and tennis court , 50 feet and a 4 foot
6 fence, then we can get approved for the
7 tennis court without a variance?
8 MEMBER DINIZIO : Well --
9 MR. SCHWARTZ : That is not a good
10 argument to allow a tennis court then?
11 MEMBER DINIZIO : You don ' t have a
12 principal structure on it .
13 MEMBER HORNING: What is the
14 possibility of shifting the tennis court
15 with the guest house -- doesn ' t it seem
16 like it can go to the left of the proposed
17 volleyball court? You might not need a
18 variance .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You wouldn ' t .
20 MEMBER HORNING: So I mean, if you
21 just flip those around.
22 MR. SCHWARTZ : Well, it would still be
23 a side yard variance .
24 MEMBER DINIZIO : It wouldn ' t fit in
25 the front . Couldn ' t fit in the front .
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 112
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It ' s a pretty
2 narrow lot .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I think we
4 heard a range of comments . I am going to
5 ask if there is anyone else in the audience
6 that would like to address this
7 application?
8 (No Response . )
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are there
10 comments or questions from any other Board
11 member?
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Just a comment,
13 both of these parcels are zoned R-40?
14 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes , I believe so .
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The subject lot has
16 a buildable area over 40 , 000?
17 MR. SCHWARTZ : Buildable area?
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Buildable area is
19 40 , 472 . That is what it says here .
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay . If you were
21 to preserve that lot and merge, and then
22 un-merge it?
23 MEMBER DINIZIO : Not likely.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They could
25 apply.
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 113
1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: They could apply.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s a pretty
3 arduous process . Okay. If there are no
4 other comments or questions from anyone
5 else, I am going to make a motion to close
6 this hearing and reserve decision to a
7 later date .
8 Is there a second?
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
11 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
13 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
16 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
17 * ****************************** **********
18 HEARING #6535 - DAVID M. HALL
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, the next
20 application is for David M. Hall . This was
21 adjourned from a public hearing on
22 January 5th. So we will continue the
23 hearing now .
24 MR. . NOTARO : I am Frank Notaro,
25 representing the Hall ' s on this matter .
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 114
1 Just a quick recap, we had a drainage issue
2 on the project, which I hope to have
3 addressed. And we removed the concrete
4 patio, which acts as a shoot for any water,
5 and we put a drain right there and a dry
6 well . That should alleviate the problem.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We got your plan
8 here . I just want to confirm on what you
9 had submitted. In the notation of this --
10 where is it? It ' s not here . It ' s right
11 here . There is a drain and a dry well .
12 MR. NOTARO: Yes .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The roof runoff
14 for the proposed accessory garage --
15 MR. NOTARO : Yes . It ' s a drain right
16 there that is going to the dry well .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right . I
18 see it . I had circled that .
19 MR. NOTARO: And we also added the dry
20 well ' s for the proposed garage .
21 MEMBER HORNING: Mr . Notaro, in your
22 estimation, would the proposed dry well ' s
23 resolve the drainage problem of the water
24 running from the property to the neighbor ' s
25 property down hill? Not the common
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 115
1 driveway, but just from the property
2 itself?
3 MR. NOTARO: Right . Honestly, when I
4 looked at the photographs again, it appears
5 that the concrete sidewalk is not helping
6 the situation, because it goes onto their
7 property and they have quite a bit of
8 packed gravel . So there is not a lot of
9 absorption area, number one . I believe it
10 is alleviated .
11 MEMBER HORNING: Let ' s say if the
12 ground was frozen and you have rain --
13 MR. NOTARO : That is a lot of gravel
14 right up to their house . There is a
15 circular driveway. It would be better if
16 they would take that out --
17 MEMBER HORNING: But they ' re not going
18 to take that out, are they?
19 MR. NOTARO : What? The concrete
20 walkway, yes . The one that connects to the
21 edge of their driveway to the property,
22 we ' re going to take that concrete out of
23 there . There is no kind of a path of water
24 to run from that . They ' re going to plant
25 grass on that . We ' re actually going to
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 116
1 have a drain right at the cusp .
2 MEMBER HORNING: Right. And again, do
3 you think that will satisfactory address
4 drainage runoff from the property to the
5 neighbor ' s property?
6 MR. NOTARO : Yes, I believe so .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does anyone on
8 the Board have additional questions?
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
11 in the audience that would like to address
12 this application? Please, come up .
13 MS . HART : My name is Catherine Hart,
14 H-A-R-T, and I live at 1900 Westphalia . I
15 just wanted to ask you a question, because
16 I really didn ' t understand. Is that going
17 to be used as a catch basin?
18 MR. NOTARO: I don ' t know why it says
19 catch basin . It ' s really just a grill that
20 runs into a dry well .
21 MS . HART : How deep will the dry well
22 be? Can I ask that question?
23 MR. NOTARO : It would be a four foot
24 diameter . You have to put sand there, so
25 we should not get that much water
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 117
1 collecting there . We ' re getting rid of the
2 concrete sidewalk, because that is the
3 first conduit for the surface from the
4 driveway to your packed gravel driveway.
5 MS . HART : We don ' t have a packed
6 gravel driveway.
7 MR. NOTARO : Well, I am just going --
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am just going
9 to remind you both, that I am permitting
10 you to talk to each other but the fact is ,
11 the questions need to be asked to the
12 Board. Ms . Hart, I believe there had been
13 some conversation with you and your
14 neighbor, and your neighbor indicated that
15 you were satisfied with the proposed --
16 MS . HART : Yeah, it appears it will
17 take care of the problem. We removed part
18 of the sidewalk that was on our property,
19 which was the flow -- how fast the water
20 was flowing down. We obviously couldn ' t
21 remove a sidewalk that was not on our
22 property. So this dry well, should handle
23 the water that comes off the driveway.
24 Mr . Hall is going to redirect his leaders
25 away from our house to the dry well, and
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 118
1 that should help also .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good.
3 MS . HART : And then the leaders that
4 come off the new garage, will go to the dry
5 well , I guess that is the west side of the
6 garage . One other question, because I
7 always need to have a back-up plan, what if
8 it doesn ' t work? What do I do?
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Town
10 Engineer essentially has jurisdiction .
11 It ' s an impact, and as an adjacent
12 neighbor, your comments are very relative .
13 We really are not the authority on it . The
14 Town Engineer is the one . I do know that
15 we have a State mandate ( In Audible) for
16 all properties . So I would think it would
17 have to be essentially the Town Engineer
18 who would have to get involved.
19 MS . HART : Okay. I am sure that is
20 not going to happen, and this will work.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I hope it will
22 work well, but that would be the
23 appropriate --
24 MS . HART : Okay. Thank you .
25 MEMBER HORNING : I have one other
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 119
1 question, and I might have missed it at the
2 last hearing . Why is not the proposed
3 garage, being proposed of being attached to
4 the house, and therefore not needing a
5 variance?
6 MR. NOTARO : Because we had tried
7 that, and it comes into two bedrooms .
8 There is -- you know, there is an economic
9 value to what we ' re doing .
10 MEMBER HORNING: Right .
11 MR. NOTARO : It would be a lot of work
12 for them to put any kind of access .
13 MEMBER HORNING : All right . So we did
14 cover that ground at the last hearing but I
15 just wanted to ask that .
16 MR. NOTARO : Sure .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any other
18 comments or questions from the Board?
19 (No Response . )
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from
21 the audience?
22 (No Response . )
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
24 further comments , I will make a motion to
25 close this hearing and reserve decision to
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 120
1 a later date .
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
4 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
6 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
8 CHAIRPERSON, WEISMAN: Aye .
9 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
10 ********** ********************************
11 HEARING #6542 - PATRICIA MELE AND CHERYL
12 CHRISTIANO.
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our next
14 application is for Patricia Mele and Cheryl
15 Christiano, #6542 . Request for variance
16 from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and
17 Article XXII Section 280-116 and the
18 Building Inspector ' s January 6, 2012 Notice
19 of Disapproval based on an application for
20 building permit for demolition and
21 reconstruction, including first floor
22 additions and new second story at : 1 ) less
23 than the code required minimum side yard
24 setback of 10 feet; 2 ) less than the code
25 required combined side yard setbacks of
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 121
1 25 feet ; 3 ) less than the code required
2 minimum bulkhead setback of 75 feet,
3 located at : 1200 , a . k. a . 1140 , Deep Hole
4 Drive, adjacent to Deep Hole Creek,
5 Mattituck.
6 Is someone here?
7 MR. FOX: Yeah, hi . I am Rob Fox . I
8 am actually helping the clients, if you
9 will, with the paperwork procedure, and I
10 am also going to be acting as the project
11 manager on this project . I do have some
12 additional signatures on the mailing, if "
13 you need them?
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, we were
15 looking for those . And I would also like
16 to give you the LWRP recommendation, and
17 the Suffolk County notices, that this is
18 for local determination. This is for you
19 file .
20 Okay. So please, proceed.
21 MR. NIEMANN : My name is Kirk Niemann.
22 I am the architect on the project .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you please
24 spell your name?
25 MR. NIEMANN : N-I-E-M-A-N-N, last
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 122
1 name . And the property -- the house that
2 is existing currently, does not meet the
3 combined setback. And with that, the
4 family was looking to put an addition on
5 because they need the space . There is four
6 children that are also going to be moving
7 into the house as well, and with that, we
8 encroach on four of five setbacks . In any
9 case, we encroach within the 10 foot
10 minimum. On the other side, there would be
11 more than a 15 foot . In any case -- also
12 in the front, there is an existing septic
13 tank that we want to stay as far away as
14 possible . And that case, because it will
15 encroach on one of the setbacks .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let ' s just
17 review the details . I noticed that some --
18 the combined side yard setback is 19 . 5 ;
19 correct? And the code requires 25 feet?
20 MR. NIEMANN : Yes .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Your application
22 says 11 . 8 , 7 . 8 and 9 . 7 feet, was that
23 corrected?
24 MR. NIEMANN : I believe that was
25 corrected. It ' s 9 . 8 on one side and 9 . 7 on
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 123
1 the other .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right . So
3 the Notice of Disapproval is accurate but
4 the application is not, all right . Single
5 side yard setback is 9 . 7 feet, where the
6 code requires 10 feet?
7 MR. NIEMANN : Right .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Bulkhead setback
9 at 68 . 7 feet, where the Notice of
10 Disapproval 63 . 3 existing and proposed --
11 what is your proposed bulkhead setback?
12 MR. NIEMANN : It ' s the same . The
13 house is not getting closer to the water .
14 It ' s going up .
15 MR. FOX: There is a preexisting deck
16 there that the current setback is based on,
17 and the new proposed house will be within
18 that same footprint .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The bulkhead
20 setback that exist now is 68 . 7 feet and
21 will remain 68 . 7 feet?
22 MR. FOX: That ' s correct .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. DEC says
24 that there is no wetlands permit required.
25 MR. FOX : Right .
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 124
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry, how about
2 some questions?
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have been to the
4 site . It appears that the house is -- the
5 present house is well positioned on the
6 property. Almost in the center .
7 MR. FOX: It is , right .
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What ' s the reason
9 for bringing the driveway over 9 . 7 on the
10 southeast side?
11 MR. FOX: The distance, we wanted to
12 stay away from the septic . The septic is
13 brand new. Brand new being about
14 3-years-old.
15 MR. NIEMANN : They have five rings on
16 the north side . I don ' t remember off hand,
17 what the distance is required to be off the
18 property, but based on the individual who
19 installed them, his documentation of where
20 those rings are, the driveway edge is
21 almost against to those rings at that
22 point . So with a two-car garage and being
23 able for cars to pass through the driveway
24 there, that is basically ss tight as we can
25 get that point . But it would be an
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 125
1 impervious driveway. It would be gravel on
2 the driveway.
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So that was the
4 purpose of the little step in there?
5 MR. NIEMANN : Right .
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just to get that
7 distance .
8 1 MR. NIEMANN : Yes, just to pull it
9 away a little further .
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you know what
11 is the cost to replace or renovate that
12 septic system?
13 MR. FOX: Minimum of $ 6, 000 . 00 .
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me just go
15 back to the site plan for a second. It
16 gave me the impression in looking at the
17 entire building, that it ' s very big . It ' s
18 only because it includes the garage . It
19 encompasses the whole house . It ' s very
20 hard to visualize from this house how it ' s
21 going to mask, when you look at it .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It ' s unusual to
23 have a long house with a front entrance in
24 a side yard. The good news is , that the
25 garage -- the attached garage, which is on
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 126
1 the landward side is one-story.
2 MR. FOX: That ' s correct .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would, in
4 some respect, maintain the scale of what is
5 there now. The second-story was set back a
6 little bit from the water .
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I will say, I live
8 in Mattituck, and certainly aware of this
9 area . That there are several houses that
10 are not quite as broad as this .
11 MR. FOX: Again, if you take a look at
12 the site plan of the double garage, it
13 appears that the house is going to be
14 perhaps larger then it is . Most of the
15 additional work, will be above the existing
16 footprint . And then you have that little,
17 if you will, a wash room area or laundry
18 area, between the garage and the
19 preexisting footprint of the house .
20 MR. NIEMANN : The house that is there
21 now, doesn ' t even have a garage there at
22 all .
23 MR. FOX: Right .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Again, it ' s kind
25 of set back.
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 127
1 MR. FOX: Yeah, we had no problem as
2 far as the setback from the road.
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That ' s very
4 unusual by the way. Of course, when you
5 look at the depth . There are several lots
6 in the area that are even deeper than that .
7 The old areas of these -- probably they are
8 all nonconforming . The owner of this
9 entire area, lives in that very modern
10 house across the street, and I have known
11 Frank for a very long time . The waterfront
12 was developed first, and then everything
13 else was developed later .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So let ' s just
15 review, the existing dwelling has
16 nonconforming setbacks?
17 MR. FOX: Yes . The existing dwelling
18 has one side as well as nonconforming, the
19 side yard setback.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s the same --
21 MR. FOX: It ' s the same right . It ' s
22 replacing the existing back deck of what
23 will be a porch. A deck above that .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the existing
25 single side yard setback is?
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 128
1 MR. NIEMANN : . The existing on one side
2 is 10 . 9 and the other side is 11 . 6 -- 11 . 8 .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 11 . 8 and 10 . 9?
4 MR. FOX : That ' s correct .
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have 11 . 9 and
6 12 .
7 MR. FOX: It ' s so tiny. That is why I
8 am asking you to tell me .
9 MR. NIEMANN : The closest on the south
10 side is 10 . 9 and the north side is 11 . 8 .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is not what
12 they are proposing. I am asking them what
13 they ' re doing . And what you are doing, is
14 actually creating slightly more
15 nonconformance .
16 MR. FOX: That is correct . It ' s a
17 minimal difference as far as the overall
18 width of the house . It ' s probably, I think
19 18 inches in total . Again, the purpose of
20 that was just to try and get some available
21 living space up top because when you ' re
22 working with a structure that is 25 feet,
23 it is difficult to squeeze bedrooms and
24 hallways, just to make it in compliance
25 with the building code .
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 129
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there any
2 way you can get 9 . 7 feet to 10 feet, or is
3 that where you were telling us the septic
4 range?
5 MR. NIEMANN : Yeah, that would be the
6 septic range . Are you talking about
7 the --
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The single side
9 yard -- the bump out? The single side yard
10 setback, seems to me at some point, you can
11 probably create a conforming 10 foot side
12 yard setback, you know?
13 MR. NIEMANN : Oh, on the south side of
14 the property?
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We ' re trying to
16 obviously create the most conformance with
17 less variances --
18 MR. FOX: Right . It would be probably
19 be out four inches . One of the issues that
20 you will also have is because of the high
21 wind zone and the sheer walls , especially
22 on the corner here of the garage, I think
23 the minimal distance between the corner and
24 the garage has to be at least 14 or 15
25 inches , just for .the anchoring
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 130
1 requirements .
2 MR. NIEMANN : We would have done it,
3 if we were structurally able to do it .
4 MR. FOX: It is minimal, but it may be
5 an issue .
6 MR. NIEMANN : That is the minimal
7 amount that we could. It ' s very narrow .
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just briefly
9 explain the word, sheer or sheer walls for
10 us?
11 MR. NIEMANN : It ' s a prefabricated
12 panel that has metal in it . It is supposed
13 to address high wind loads . It is for
14 large openings where there is not a lot of
15 wall ( In Audible) say that people who have
16 houses on the water, people have glass
17 windows and doors , and the only way to
18 sheer up that section is not have some wall
19 surface is to put a sheer wall in, so that
20 allows you to have more window space and
21 less wall . But on the garage side, it ' s
22 not a matter of having window space . It ' s
23 a matter of having an opening just to put a
24 car there .
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is that composite?
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 131
1 MR. FOX: It ' s not composite . It ' s
2 Simpson. The people who make the joist
3 hangers . It ' s just a specific type of
4 anchoring system, if you will . Again, it
5 is used almost always with garages now .
6 Again, there is not that much anchoring
7 ability with a traditional piec& of plywood
8 and some 2x4 and 2x6 construction.
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So it ' s anchored
10 down into the foundation?
11 MR. FOX: It ' s bolted into the
12 foundation . It ' s also bolted into the
13 double plate above it and tied into the
14 roof .
15 MR. NIEMANN : So it ' s like a thin wood
16 rectangle and with a corrugated piece of
17 steel in between .
18 MR. FOX: Right . It ' s the same thing
19 but it ' s steel .
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And what did you
21 say it was made out of?
22 MR. FOX: It ' s a piece of steel .
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, I mean the
24 actual covering?
25 MR. NIEMANN : It ' s the side casings
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 132
1 that would --
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And what size are
3 they?
4 MR. NIEMANN : This is going to be a
5 2x4 .
6 MEMBER HORNING: The propose garage,
7 you are having a bathroom there?
8 MR. NIEMANN : No, that was the old
9 plan . That doesn ' t exist .
10 MEMBER HORNING: All right . I am
11 confused by that . It looked like the
12 proposed second floor went over the garage .
13 MR. NIEMANN : It used to .
14 MEMBER HORNING : Okay.
15 MR. NIEMANN : That is ' not how it is
16 now.
17 MEMBER HORNING : All right . My plan
18 is dated January 23rd.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can ' t get
20 your information on our transcripts, unless
21 you are by a microphone; however, there
22 seems to be a little bit of confusion, the
23 plans are very, very ( In Audible ) details .
24 So for the average lay person, it ' s a
25 little difficult to read. But having said
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 133
1 that, particularly the site plan, it is so
2 small, we ' re getting confused as to whether
3 or not this is a conforming side yard and
4 whether that has to go with this bump out
5 in there --
6 MR. NIEMANN : It does .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But you were
8 talking about this part of the garage .
9 Which part of the garage are you talking
10 about?
11 MR. NIEMANN : Right here .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think the
13 Board can certainly benefit from a larger
14 plot plan, which given is not too hard to
15 provide .
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I am looking on the
17 survey too, received January 19th, and
18 referred to the existing side yard on the
19 south of 11 . 9 feet . Do you see that?
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I do .
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And the lot plan
22 drawings look to show 10 . 9 in that same
23 location .
24 MR. FOX: Yes .
25 MEMBER DINIZIO : So there is a
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 134
1 discrepancy there .
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The architect said
3 that on January 23rd, it is no longer
4 valid?
5 MR. FOX: It ' s the same . That plan
6 that has the second floor on it .
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The one over the
8 garage .
9 MR. FOX: That is not there . That was
10 a mistake . That should not have been given
11 to you.
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So we don ' t have
13 the actual first and second floor?
14 MEMBER HORNING: I thought this was
15 it . That is why I was asking .
16 MR. NIEMANN : The footprint is the
17 same . That hasn ' t changed.
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: We would have to
19 ( In Audible . )
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, it sounds
21 to me that I think we need some updated
22 plans , that you have . You have them
23 available . We just don ' t seem to have them
24 at this time . And secondly, the floor
25 plan --
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 135
1 MR. FOX: Your version of the site
2 plan that you requested, I have that .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
4 While you are looking for that, let me
5 ask you to talk about the demolition, and
6 you know, the structure of a new dwelling .
7 The second-story addition .
8 MR. NIEMANN : Sure .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s a total
10 demo?
11 MR. NIEMANN : No .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Partial demo?
13 MR. NIEMANN : Partial . Just the roof
14 is coming off and some interior walls .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Some interior
16 walls?
17 MR. NIEMANN : Yes .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the existing
19 walls --
20 MR. NIEMANN : Are all staying with the
21 exception of the wall that is going to be
22 glass and everything else there . So three
23 sides virtually staying .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the three
25 walls are going to remain . Is the seaward
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 136
1 wall being removed?
2 MR. NIEMANN : Yes, that is going to be
3 glass and sheer wall .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. So the
5 foundation is --
6 MR. NIEMANN : No effect on the
7 foundation on the existing house. With the
8 exception of where we ' re going to be adding
9 a little bit of concrete for the piers up
10 against the foundation, where the piers --
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : For the
12 second-story?
13 MR. NIEMANN : Yeah, to take on weight .
14 MEMBER HORNING: Sir, do you know what
15 the minimum required distance is from the
16 edge of a building to a septic system?
17 MR. NIEMANN : I was told it was 5 feet
18 but, which is the code, but when I was at
19 the Building Department, he said make it as
20 far away as possible . He preferred 10 . So
21 I tried my best to keep as forward away as
22 I could, without encroaching too much on
23 that side .
24 MEMBER HORNING: I think we are having
25 a little bit of a hard time understanding
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 137
1 what needs to have nonconforming setback
2 when you could have a conforming setback,
3 and show us the distances from the leaching
4 containers , and also the corner of the
5 garage .
6 MR. NIEMANN : Do you want to see --
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The 10 foot
8 setback is generally the minimum required
9 by Health Department, I believe . I thought
10 it was from a property line .
11 MEMBER HORNING: It looks like there
12 is plenty of space .
13 MEMBER DINIZIO : The septic tank is
14 6 feet away.
15 MR. NIEMANN : Yeah, but he had wanted
16 10 . He said, give me as much as you an
17 give me .
18 MEMBER DINIZIO : If you give us a
19 foot, it still might not make a distance .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well , it ' s
21 important to establish what is remaining,
22 because if you are taking it down to the
23 foundation, that is a different story, then
24 if you are going to try and salvage some of
25 the existing structure and build onto it .
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 138
1 MR. NIEMANN : Yes, that is correct .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What does the
3 Board want to do? Do you want to get
4 some --
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let ' s get some
6 bigger plans.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Bigger plans
8 with the updated second floor . You have
9 all the stuff, but we have not had the
10 benefit of really seeing it, I would like
11 to see what the existing setbacks are .
12 What the proposed setback -- I know it ' s on
13 there, but it ' s just hard to see . Now,
14 this survey is obviously a size that is
15 readable . If you can provide a plot plan
16 of the existing and of the proposed, then
17 we could see -- even though it is not much,
18 you are proposing to increase the
19 nonconformity. And we need a kind of
20 explanation provided to us here, as to why
21 you must do that, relative to specific
22 conditions on the site . It will help us
23 understand exactly where we are going with
24 this . I am piecing it together now, with
25 testimony, but there looks like there was a
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 139
1 lot of conflicting, you know, redundant and
2 confusing pieces of information . Have I
3 addressed this properly in the Board' s
4 mind?
5 MR. FOX: How do I get this
6 information back to you at this point .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : On the survey,
8 that bump-out on here is not on the survey.
9 The one that is on your house plan -- floor
10 plan .
11 MR. FOX: Right . - That ' s correct . The
12 surveyor just did those changes to the plan
13 yesterday. I actually have them on me . I
14 could provide those to you, if it would be
15 of help . If you want us to bring in a full
16 size set of plans so you can clearly see
17 what we ' re doing, I can just give that to
18 you at that point as well .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well , we ' re
20 going to need six copies . Every Board
21 members needs to get one .
22 MR. FOX: Okay.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the office,
24 of course .
25 MR. FOX : I have ten copies with -- on
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 140
1 me .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let ' s take a
3 look. Why don ' t you hand them out .
4 MR. FOX: Okay.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Member Horning
6 needs to leave now. He has to take a ferry
7 to Fishers Island . He has a very long
8 commute, and he has no control over the
9 ferry schedule .
10 MR. FOX: Okay. This is a revised
11 footprint dated 2/29/12 . It shows the
12 bump-out on the north side of the --
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, that ' s not
14 the bump-out . It ' s not here . Shouldn ' t it
15 be on the house right over here some place?
16 It ' s not on here . Because they ' re going to
17 measure the setback from the second floor .
18 If that is overhanging --
19 MR. FOX: Yeah .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You should tell
21 them you want your money back. Tell them
22 to do it correctly.
23 MR. FOX: Well, we haven ' t paid them
24 yet .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Let me
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 141
1 se, is there anyone in the audience who
2 would like to address this application?
3 MS . CHRISTIANSON : Hi, I am the close
4 neighbor to the south --
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : State your name,
6 please?
7 MS . CHRISTIANSON : Oh, I 'm sorry..
8 Barbara Christianson, spelled like son of a
9 Christian. I am sorry, I am not going to a
10 Halloween party but I am teaching boating
11 safety for the kids at the Peconic Rec
12 Center in a few minutes . I just want to
13 say that we ' re thrilled with their plans .
14 We have owned a property. Our family has
15 owned the property to the south of where
16 they live since the late 40 ' s . I noticed
17 that Barbara, that you talk about across
18 the street, and watch that grow from a
19 potato farm to what it is today. We 're
20 thrilled with the way they ' re treating
21 their home and the way it ' s going to be
22 updated and look great . I honestly think
23 it ' s not going to make any difference from
24 the road at all . Being the closest
25 neighbor, we have no problems with their
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 142
1 plans .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As you are
3 facing it from the street, are you to the
4 right or the left?
5 MS . CHRISTIANSON : I am to the left .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
7 MR. NIEMANN : So you wanted an updated
8 of all the plans still?
9 MEMBER DINIZIO : We ' re looking at what
10 you just gave us, you need to put the
11 distance between the tank and the building .
12 And the bump-out --
13 MR. FOX: On the north side, right .
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : You have to put that
15 in there and what that is . And I guess
16 that is all . The patio is not covered;
17 right?
18 MR. NIEMANN : No .
19 MEMBER DINIZIO : The existing deck --
20 MR. FOX: You are talking about the
21 current or the proposed?
22 MEMBER DINIZIO : You are going to make
23 it a , porch?
24 MR. FOX: We ' re going to make it a
25 porch, right .
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 143
1 MEMBER DINIZIO : It ' s going to be cut?
2 MR. FOX: The lower level, is going to
3 be cut . That ' s correct .
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We should have
5 existing and proposed --
6 MEMBER DINIZIO : Yes .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The survey is
8 giving us information but not the stuff we
9 need. Do you understand?
10 MR. NIEMANN : Yeah .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We ' re just
12 trying to make sure we understand the
13 proposal accurately, completely and we have
14 the documentation . When we make a
15 decision, if we approve a decision, we
16 stamp those drawings as approved, and
17 that ' s what goes to the Building
18 Department . And that is what it will allow
19 you to do . So if it ' s not correct, then
20 you ' re not going to build what you intend
21 to build. So it ' s real important --
22 MR. FOX: So what would you recommend
23 as far as --
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you change
25 the layout, like the garage has no
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 144
1 habitable space above it . We just need the
2 updated stuff .
3 MR. FOX: Okay.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
5 else who wants to speak?
6 MR. FOX: Can I give this information
7 to you within the next couple of days?
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Absolutely.
9 What I think we should probably do, just to
10 make sure we are all on the same page, is
11 request this information from you . Does
12 the Board want to adjourn to the next
13 month, and see when we get the stuff, if
14 there is any questions?
15 MR. FOX: Is there any way not to do
16 that?
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, yeah, if
18 the Board wants to make a decision to close
19 the hearing today subject to this
20 information . It doesn ' t give us an
21 opportunity to ask you questions, if we
22 have them. Once the hearing is closed,
23 that ' s it . Whichever it is that we
24 requested of you .
25 MR. FOX: Right .
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 145
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don ' t know .
2 How does the Board feel? Would that
3 suffice?
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We really don ' t
5 know and that ' s the problem.
6 MR. FOX: Let me approach the --
7 Cheryl and Patricia, they ' re renting a
8 space as we speak right now. So it ' s
9 incumbent upon us to hopefully get this
10 done as quickly as possible . So we can get
11 them back into the house . So if we could
12 all avoid coming back, you know, whatever
13 the scheduled meeting is for April , you
14 know, that would be great . We would
15 appreciate it .
16 MEMBER DINIZIO : What about
17 eliminating the bump-out?
18 MR. FOX: Make it a little bit
19 smaller?
20 MEMBER DINIZIO : Make it 10 feet . In
21 other words, how would you --
22 MR. NIEMANN : We don ' t want it to look
23 to boxy. It ' s nice to have a little
24 misdirection in the side walls when you
25 have a little space like that .
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 146
1 MEMBER DINIZIO : ( In Audible) .
2 (Not near a microphone . )
3 MR. NIEMANN : We can probably make
4 that kind of a change .
5 MEMBER DINIZIO: Then we can probably
6 close the hearing .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry, just made
8 a suggestion. Let ' s do this . Let ' s get the
9 information . We will hold this hearing open
10 until our special meeting in two weeks . By
11 that time, we will have information from
12 you. We will have a chance to look at it .
13 If we have no questions , we will just close
14 it at that date . If we have questions, then
15 we will be in a position to ask, because we
16 have not closed the record . So I think that
17 is probably a ,good compromise, because we
18 can ' t even get you on for April . We ' re
19 totally loaded. We would have to go to May.
20 MR. FOX: That would be great .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We will try and
22 accommodate you.
23 MR. FOX: Thank you.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don ' t want to
25 close down and not get an opportunity to
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 147
1 make it right either . How does that sound,
2 Jim?
3 MEMBER DINIZIO : Yeah .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken, does that
5 work for you?
6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That ' s fine with
7 me .
8 MEMBER DINIZIO: ( In Audible . )
9 (Whereupon, the tape jumped. )
10 MEMBER DINIZIO : That is why you give
11 us all the measurements , the most extreme,
12 then we can make a decision .
13 MR. FOX : So you want us to, not
14 eliminate necessarily the bump-out on the
15 north side, just to make it a little bit
16 smaller, a few feet, if you will . And also
17 the other side, we can pull the garage,
18 again, towards that north side lot line?
19 MEMBER DINIZIO : You know --
20 MR. FOX: We can do it within a foot
21 but anything beyond that, we ' re going to
22 run into problems with the Board of Health .
23 MEMBER DINIZIO : You know, instead of
24 9 . 7 , another 5 inches --
25 MR. FOX : I guess all we can say is
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 148
1 that we will get it as close as possible
2 without then getting involved with issues
3 with the Health Department .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What would also
5 help in addition to the actual plans to,
6 and so, as we just discussed, is a letter
7 from you, summarizing any -- we didn ' t see
8 it in the application, coming out of the
9 hearing, fine, but it would be good if you,
10 as a professional, describe to us the
11 structural reasons, the Health Department
12 reasons , as to why nonconformity is
13 required, if indeed it is . If may be
14 conforming, then that is even better . If
15 it can ' t, then we need to understand why .
16 MR. FOX: Okay. If we make the
17 adjustments to make it conforming, you
18 don ' t need us to do that letter?
19 MEMBER DINIZIO: You can ' t make it
20 conforming .
21 MR. FOX: You can ' t, right?
22 MEMBER DINIZIO : No .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You still have a
24 bulkhead setback, that is remaining .
25 They ' re not mathematically substantial, you
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 149
1 know, really big but --
2 MR. NIEMANN : The setback that you are
3 requesting from the corner of the porch to
4 the property line, can that also be on the
5 proposed plot plan or does that have to be
6 done by the surveyor? Because obviously,
7 there is mistakes being made?
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know, you
9 are the one that has been here . You are
10 the one who has heard what we need, and see
11 where the information is a little mirky and
12 confusing. You have a license . You can
13 provide all these required information on a
14 plot plan or site plan, whatever you want
15 to call it . In scale and large enough so
16 we can read it . We want to see what is
17 existing, and we want to see what is
18 proposed. And where it is not conforming,
19 we want to have reasons why it can not be
20 made to conform.
21 MR. NIEMANN : Okay.
22 MR. FOX: Okay .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does that make
24 sense?
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And we ensure you
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 150
1 that you will not have a problem in the
2 construction of this property, or almost
3 assure, assuming that is the situation and
4 this comes with the plans .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And we ' re going
6 to get updated floor plans too?
7 MR. NIEMANN : Sure everything .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
9 else that has any additional questions or
10 comments that they would like to make?
11 MR. FOX: Sure . You had mentioned
12 about the special meeting between now and
13 the next scheduled meeting in April, two
14 weeks from tonight?
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We will be
16 meeting in the Town Hall Annex, conference
17 room, where we deliberate our decisions,
18 and we deliberate in public . We will at
19 that time, assuming -- the sooner we get
20 them the better, it gives us more time to
21 study them.
22 MR. FOX: Certainly.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We won ' t have a
24 draft decision that night . What we would
25 be looking at, is to close the hearing on
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 151
1 that date, because we don ' t have additional
2 questions . If we have additional questions ,
3 we can get answers from you, because the
4 hearing is open, and then we can close -- I
5 would imagine the worse case scenario, to
6 close at the April 5th . That would be the
7 latest, I would imagine that we could close
8 it . We could also have a decision on
9 April 5th. That would be the earliest we
10 could have a decision . To close it two
11 weeks from today, then we have two weeks to
12 write out a draft decision, and then we
13 will be deliberating in this room on
14 April 5th.
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just be aware that
16 we do not normally take testimony at that
17 special meeting, okay.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We never take
19 testimony at that special meeting.
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You eluded to the
21 fact that if we had any questions .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, we can
23 write them or have Vicki ask.
24 MR. FOX: We will just get you the
25 updated plans for the structure, as well as
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 152
1 just a larger version of the setbacks , that
2 are more easily read.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The reason why I
4 am asking for something in writing from you
5 is simple, we have a transcript but that
6 transcript goes out -- I am sorry, we have
7 a tape, which is required -- it takes a
8 long time for them to get them back.
9 MR. FOX: All right .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We don ' t want to
11 delay this in order to check back the
12 record today waiting for the transcript .
13 If you provide them to us in a summary of
14 what was heard today, then we ' re just going
15 to be able to do it faster .
16 MR. FOX: I just wanted to clarify one
17 thing . So Kirk can give you the
18 information on Sheer Walls , as to the
19 support and large opening, too much support
20 on either side of it, and the Health
21 Department , you just want us to get
22 something from -- some sort of document
23 that shows the recommendation is 10 feet
24 and would allow a minimum of 5? Is that
25 satisfactory?
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 153
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We just need to
2 see the setbacks .
3 MR. FOX: Okay. I thought you wanted
4 to see something that that is actually
5 code?
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, it would be
7 good for you to explain that it is there,
8 and it is too expensive to be remove --
9 MR. FOX: And Patricia just told me
10 it ' s a little less than two years old.
11 Essentially brand new.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The point is, we
13 need to have reasons in our decision . And
14 the more substance, you can give us , the
15 better it would be to write the decision .
16 MR. FOX: Okay.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is what all
18 public hearings are for, to gather
19 information . So if you can provide us with
20 some additional facts, we can provide them
21 in the public record.
22 MR. FOX: Okay.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else?
24 (No Response . )
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am going to
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 154
1 make a motion to adjourn this hearing to
2 the special meeting, which is March 15th,
3 at which time, we will -- prior to that
4 have received information to -- that we
5 have discussed several times .
6 MR. FOX: So what time is that on
7 March 15th .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We begin at 5 : 00
9 o ' clock. We may have Executive Session
10 prior to the beginning of deliberations ,
11 meaning, we will have an agenda and you
12 will certainly be able to get it . It ' s
13 also posted on our website .
14 Is there a second?
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
18 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
21 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
22 ** ************** *************************
23 HEARING #6540 - WILLIAM C . GOGGINS
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
25 application before the Board is for William
March 1; 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 155
1 C . Goggins , #6540 . Request for variance
2 from Article X Section 280-45 and the
3 Building Inspector ' s December 22 , 2011 ,
4 amended January 9, 2012 Notice of
5 Disapproval based on an application for
6 building permit to convert a dwelling to
7 multiple dwelling units ( 3 ) at : 1) one unit
8 at less than the code required minimum of
9 850 square feet, located at : 13200 Main
10 Road in Mattituck .
11 Mr . Goggins, we need green cards . We
12 need the pink slips .
13 MR. GOGGINS : Good afternoon, Members
14 of the Board. I just submitted the
15 affidavit of posting and mailing . The
16 affidavit of mailing has all the slips . All
17 the green cards came back, except for two .
18 I called Mr . Hamilton and he came in and
19 signed the card. The only person who didn ' t
20 get his was Mr . Orielis (phenetic) across
21 the street . I have not spoken to him about
22 the application but I am meeting with him
23 next week on a separate matter .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you just for
25 the record, state your name for the
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 156
1 transcription, please?
2 MR. GOGGINS : William C . Goggins,
3 13235 Main Road, Mattituck, New York, for
4 the petitioner, applicant .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We sent a
6 request to the Planning Board for comments .
7 Do you have a copy of that letter?
8 MR. GOGGINS : No, I do not .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me give it
10 to you . It ' s a letter to the Board,
11 essentially. That it is zoned Hamlet
12 Business , Hamlet Center, where the proposed
13 use of multiple dwellings is consistent
14 with Town Code and Town Comprehensive Plan
15 and so on and so forth .
16 MR. GOGGINS : Thank you .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken, do you want
18 to ask some questions?
19 MEMBER' SCHNEIDER: You have to go
20 through site plan approval . You have one
21 apartment at 686 . 3 square feet, and do you
22 want to talk a little bit about that?
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, I think it ' s
24 486 .
25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: 486 . What did I
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 157
1 say?
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 686 .
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Wishful thinking .
4 Can you talk a little bit about that?
5 MR. GOGGINS : Sure . Just to give a
6 little bit of background. This building --
7 when I first looked at the code, the
8 apartments are usually a minimum of 450 ,
9 maximum 750 square feet . So when I
10 initially went to the Building Department
11 it was going to be owner/occupied, and you
12 can have two accessory apartments there .
13 It would have been conforming . I wouldn ' t
14 have had to do anything, but I am not going
15 to live there, and owner/occupied, that
16 would mean that I would have to
17 specifically live there, not someone from
18 my family or so forth . That wasn ' t the way
19 to go . So I had to figure out a different
20 way and then I researched the code, and I
21 have to do it under a local dwelling. In
22 order to make at least two of three
23 apartments conforming, we would have to
24 close the porch that is on' the structure
25 now . So the application is for two
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 158
1 conforming apartments at 450 square feet,
2 and one nonconforming, which is . 486 . 3
3 square feet . And that is the application
4 that we have today for a variance . It ' s a
5 substandard apartment . And also, at the
6 same time we made an application to the
7 Planning Board. I met with them, and thank
8 you for that letter . They ' re for it . I
9 also made an application to the Town Board
10 for a sanitary flow credit . It ' s an
11 existing structure . I think it was built
12 some time before 1920 ' s . It ' s in a Hamlet
13 Business Zone . So it ' s all permitted, but
14 because of the size of the structure, we
15 don ' t have enough gallons per day. It
16 requires 600 galloons per day because the
17 acreage is . 23 acres or . 31 acres . We
18 don ' t have that . So we applied to the
19 Board for a sanitary flow credit, two of
20 them, which will give us what we . need for
21 the Health Department . We have already
22 made an application to the Health
23 Department with the same information. So
24 the key to having multiple dwellings here,
25 in this variance application . With the
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 159
1 sanitary flow credit, with the Planning
2 Board being for this application, it really
3 comes down to this variance . I make this. --
4 this is my third building that I am doing
5 on the main road. Actually, my fourth, but
6 the first one is very minor . When I do
7 these projects , I have a two-step analysis .
8 The first step is , can I make money over
9 the long term, which is renovate, rent and
10 hope within 15 years , it can turn into
11 profit? Can I do it in such a way that it
12 is good for the Town, as well? I am from
13 Mattituck. I like coming into Mattituck. I
14 like seeing good things happen. With 7-11,
15 what they did with the Dickinson ' s Marine,
16 a few buildings -- what Cardinelli has
17 done, Mattituck has changed drastically
18 over the last 20 years and it ' s nicer and
19 nicer . And I am going to do the same
20 thing with this building, if I get the
21 approval .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, I want to
23 just ask a couple of questions . Are these
24 units market rate?
25 MR. GOGGINS : Yes, actually they ' re .
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 160
1 Other then what the sanitary flow credit ,
2 the Town Board indicated to me that they
3 were going to approve them. If they do
4 approve them, it ' s my understanding that
5 two out of the three apartments will be
6 subject to the affordable housing standard.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is why I am
8 asking.
9 MR. GOGGINS : So with the two
10 bedrooms , will be at that standard.
11 Basically, it is a level at which you can
12 rent for . It ' s a monthly rental .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. So you
14 have answered that question . It ' s funny,
15 they are kind of calling it a multi-family
16 dwelling, which by virtue of the word
17 dwelling, it ' s requires 850 square foot as
18 a minimum, whereas 450 is a minimum for an
19 apartment .
20 MR. GOGGINS : Correct .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And these really
22 are apartments . I guess my question is,
23 and you may have answered this already, but
24 I am going to ask it, so that you can
25 repeat yourself . You could have made two
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 161
1 larger conforming apartments?
r
2 MR. GOGGINS : Correct .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Which would be
4 considered a dwelling?
5 MR. GOGGINS : Yes .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Instead you ' re
7 proposing to make three units?
8 MR. GOGGINS : Yes .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you once
10 again explain the reason why this
11 substandard size is being proposed when you
12 could just done two conforming apartments?
13 MR. GOGGINS : No . Whenever you do a
14 project , some projects take quicker then
15 others . If myself or anybody else is going
16 to go forward to make this building nice
17 and make it presentable to the Town, I am
18 asking in such a way that the project can
19 be made . As I said before, with the
20 estimate of how much work has to be done,
21 you know, with mortgage payments and so
22 forth, it would take about 15 years to
23 start earning a profit, with three
24 apartments . At two apartments, it would
25 not be feasible for this building to be
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 162
1 developed. Even, if you would make it as
2 an office live-in apartment, it still
3 wouldn ' t be able to do it, because you
4 wouldn ' t have the parking because of the
5 size of the lot . So that is my reasons why
6 we couldn ' t put an office there . That
7 would require so many parking spaces per
8 square feet . And it just isn ' t there . So
9 it really limits what can be done .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right .
11 MR. GOGGINS : So that is why we are
12 here asking for the variance . It ' s not
13 self creating, it ' s just what was there
14 prior . Back in the 1920 ' s most people
15 resided on the main road.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right .
17 MR. GOGGINS : Now, things have changed
18 and the Town Board has said that the hamlet
19 can be used for offices , businesses and
20 multiple dwellings, and that is what this
21 is .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any questions ,
23 Ken?
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: There is no way to
25 make that other side apartment side any
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 163
1 larger?
2 MR. GOGGINS : No, we can ' t . Not with
3 the size of the building as it exist . We
4 would have to go outside the footprint . If
5 we go outside the footprint, there would be
6 a problem with the east side, and make it
7 possibly nonconforming, if it was expanded
8 on that side . On the west side, you
9 couldn ' t do it because that was the
10 driveway. And the driveway would be
11 15 feet, and a buffer of 4 feet . And you
12 couldn ' t go backwards , because that would
13 interfere with the parking . So it ' s a
14 tough building to develop, and that ' s why
15 we wouldn ' t have been able to do it .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim?
17 MEMBER DINIZIO : You have to comply --
18 MR. GOGGINS : With the sanitary flow
19 credits , you have to comply. That is the
20 only way to develop this building.
21 MEMBER DINIZIO : You can still have a
22 smaller apartment , that would make it less
23 costly too?
24 MR. GOGGINS : Yes . Most people are
25 looking for one bedroom, in relatively.
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 164
1 It ' s really the single parents that have a
2 child. And they ' re looking for the
3 two-bedroom. There aren ' t that many people
4 like that .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, certainly
6 the Town very much supports rental units .
7 There is a real need.
8 MR. GOGGINS : Right . And we don ' t
9 just make apartments . We make them nice,
10 granite counter tops . We do high end
11 appliances . In the building that we are in
12 now, we did the same thing . Carpeting and
13 tile, we try and make it nice . We try and
14 always make the apartments below market .
15 And basically what ' s the HUD standard is
16 what we charge for the two bedrooms because
17 it ' s a reasonable rate .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anything else?
19 (No Response . )
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the
21 audience that wishes to address this
22 application?
23 (No Response . )
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Hearing
25 no further comments, I will make a motion
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 165
1 to close this hearing and reserve decision
2 to a later date .
3 MR. GOGGINS : Thank you .
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by
6 Gerry.
7 All in favor?
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
9 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: , Aye .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
12 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
13 ********* *** ***************** * ********
14 HEARING #6544 - ROMA BARAN
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Request for
16 variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124
17 and the Building Inspector ' s
18 January 17 , 2012 Notice of Disapproval
19 based on application for building permit to
20 construct a deck addition to existing
21 single family dwelling : 1 ) less than the
22 code required minimum rear yard setback of
23 50 feet ; located at : 395 Tuthill Road in
24 Southold .
25 Good afternoon .
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 166
1 MS . ROMANELLI : Good afternoon .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please state
3 your name for the record?
4 MS . ROMANELLI : LeeAnn Romanelli .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you . This
6 deck addition is a 25 foot rear yard
7 setback, when the code requires 50 feet .
8 MS . ROMANELLI : Yes .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And our research
10 shows the application was built back in
11 1994 with a CO .
12 MS . ROMANELLI : Yes .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it ' s a
14 legally existing 32x14 rear deck. You want
15 to replace it in-kind with a 32x12 foot
16 rear deck?
17 MS . ROMANELLI : Correct .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What else would
19 you like to tell us?
20 MS . ROMANELLI : I mean, it was a
21 permitted, like you said, legal deck. It
22 has CO ' s . Roma Baran purchased the
23 property in 2003 . You know, everything was
24 legal and it was all existing . And she
25 came to replace it, it ' s falling apart in
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 167
1 disrepair . So she is reducing the deck by
2 two feet . And I mean, I don ' t think she
3 has really adverse reaction from any of the
4 neighbors . It ' s in the rear of the yard.
5 It is not visible from the front, the
6 street . That ' s really it . I know it ' s
7 quite a variance but, like I said, it ' s an
8 existing approved, and she is actually
9 reducing the size of the deck.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We all went out
11 there and inspected the site and seen it .
12 There is no change that is being proposed
13 to the existing nonconforming setback;
14 correct?
15 MS . ROMANELLI : Correct .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Also, it is
17 pretty clear that the lot line is pretty
18 irregular?
19 MS . ROMANELLI : Yes .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That appears
21 that way from the survey.
22 MS . ROMANELLI : Yes .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken, do you have
24 any questions?
25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The proposed
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 168
1 nonconforming setback will be reduced from
2 what is there already or is it just the
3 same?
4 MS . ROMANELLI : It is being reduced by
5 two feet . The deck comes out 14 feet . She
6 is reducing it to 12 feet, making it now 25
7 feet .
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And it ' s a previous
9 CO, and the variance was for 25 feet also?
10 MS . ROMANELLI : There was no variance,
11 nothing .
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: They didn ' t need it
13 back then .
14 MS . ROMANELLI : It was built in 194
15 with a permit, and no variance required at
16 the time the original deck was built .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know you are
18 cutting the deck back by two feet but , that
19 is not going to change the current
20 nonconforming 25 foot rear yard setback; is
21 that correct?
22 MS . ROMANELLI : Yes .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you
24 understand that, Ken? The setback is
25 remaining the same, but the deck is being
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 169
1 cut back by two feet .
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And the
3 configuration is varying slightly. And
4 it ' s a reduction in square footage?
5 MS . ROMANELLI : Yes . Well , under the
6 lot coverage .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s a big lot .
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Speaking of the lot
9 coverage and in looking at the application,
10 the applicant project description, building
11 area . 090 , I believe it should be 90 .
12 MS . ROMANELLI : Okay.
13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It ' s just a
14 technicality.
15 MS . ROMANELLI : Okay.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry, any
17 questions?
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jim, any
20 questions?
21 MEMBER DINIZIO : Nope .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is no one
23 else in the audience . So I am going to
24 make a motion to close this hearing and
25 reserve decision to a later date .
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 170
1 Is there a second?
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
5 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
8 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
9 ************* ** **************************
10
11
12
13 (Whereupon, the public hearings for
14 March 1 , 2012 concluded. )
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 171
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
6 Public Hearings was prepared using required
7 electronic transcription equipment and is a
8 true and accurate re rd of the Hearings .
9
10 Signature .
11 J sica DiLallo
12
13 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
14 PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
15
16 Date : March 23 , 2012
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25