HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-04/05/2012 Hearing 1
1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
x^ COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW. YORK
2 ------------------------------------------- X
3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
4 ------------------------------------------- X
5
Southold Town Hall jtFCF D
6 Southold, New York
7 APR � 6 Z012
8 April 5, 2012 BARD Of:APPEALS
10 : 07 A.M.
9
10 Board Members Present :
11 LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
12 GERARD GOEHRINGER - Member
13 KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member .
14 GEORGE HORNING - Member (Left at 3 : 13 P .M. )
15
16 JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney
17 VICKI TOTH - Secretary
18 JAMES DINIZIO, JR. - Member (Absent )
19
20
21
22 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
23 P . O . Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
24 ( 631 ) -338-1409
' 25
2
_ 1
2 INDEX OF HEARINGS
3
4
5 Hearing : Page :
6
7 Kenneth Seiferth #6551 3-17
8 Oliver and Gloria Seligman #6555 17-50
9 David H. Thornton and Janet E . Davidson
10 #6543 50-94
11 Glyn and Michelle Weir #6546 63-72
12 Glenn Heidtmann, Jr . #6548 72-82
13 De Art Of Nature, LLC #6541 82-115
14 Justin Swartz and Joanna Weiner #6549 115-122
15 Thomas and Irene Kalogeras #6554 122-132
16 Philip Marco, #6552 132-.140
17 William Tonyes #6553 140-163
18 Kimogenor Point, INC #6550 163-201
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 3
1 HEARING #6551 - KENNETH SEIFERTH
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The first
3 application before the Board today is for
4 Kenneth Seiferth, #655.1 . Request for
5 variance from original ZBA Grant #6504 and
6 the Building Inspector ' s February 7 , 2012
7 Notice of Disapproval, based on amended
8 plans for accessory garage at; 1) the
9 demolition and reconstruction are a
10 deviation of the original ZBA grant
11 allowing additions and alterations , located
12 at : 2000 Nassau Point Road, adjacent to
13 Broadwaters Cove in Cutchogue .
14 Is someone here, to represent the
15 application?
16 MR. GOLZ , JR. : Good morning.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning .
18 MR. GOLZ , JR. : My name is Arnold
19 Golz, owner of Oakside Construction.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you please
21 spell your name for the record, sir, we ' re
22 tape recording?
23 MR. GOLZ , JR. : Arnold, A-R-N-O-L-D R.
24 Golz , G-O-L-Z, Jr .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you.
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 4
1 MR. GOLZ , JR. : You ' re welcome .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What would you
3 like to tell us?
4 MR. GOLZ , JR. : Well, when we started
5 the construction of the project, we started
6 to, you know, disassemble the building and
7 support it, so we could replace what was to
8 the original plan. We did the foundation,
9 and when we started to reconstruct the
10 walls and as we took it apart, more stuff
11 needed to be replaced then what we
12 originally thought . We didn ' t change the
13 footprint of anything that we did. I am
14 going to have to replace the rafters on the
15 side that wasn ' t on the plan, the dormer
16 that was supposed to stay. I received a
17 letter back that that was okay, and that we
18 needed to replace the ridge, so that it was
19 structurally sound. We did raise it
20 because of the window that we wanted to put
21 on the second floor . And they said that
22 the size of the header that was supposed to
23 support the new ridge, made the ridge get
24 taller . They actually -- after we were
25 done doing that, we wound up lowering the
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 5
1 window a bit . Because we ' re raising the
2 ridge, the pitch changed a little bit . All
3 the studs on both ends of the wall or the
4 rear wall that were supposed to stay, ( In
5 Audible) rafters, and we couldn ' t connect
6 it . You know, to meet the strapping
7 requirements . So therefore, we wound up
8 rebuilding the rear wall with all new
9 construction . And then this side wall, to
10 the south, was completely rotted and so we
11 wound up replacing that one .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What happened
13 with the foundation, sir?
14 MR. GOLZ , JR. : The one side, the
15 footing was at grade, so we had to dig down
16 three feet .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And is there the
18 original foundation --
19 MR. GOLZ , JR. : Yes, there is 2/3 ' s of
20 the original foundation, plus the original
21 concrete floor . We removed the concrete
22 apron because it was falling apart . Other
23 than that, we left two-third ' s of the
24 foundation, or I guess you can call it
25 concrete floor.
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 6
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George, would
2 you like to ask some questions?
3 MEMBER HORNING: What portion of what
4 is left, is not new?
5 MR. GOLZ , JR. : The foundation .
6 MEMBER HORNING: Just the foundation,
7 that is the only thing left that is not
8 new?
9 MR. GOLZ , JR. : Yes . Foundation and
10 the concrete floor .
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If I can just ask
12 a question . Standing in front of the
- 13 structure from the road side, Mr. Golz, is
14 it the left-hand side or the right-hand
15 side that is removed?
16 MR. GOLZ , JR. : Now or before? Now,
17 both sides are removed.
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Both sides are
19 removed.
20 MR. GOLZ , JR. : Yep .
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So is any portion
22 of the foundation old?
23 MR. GOLZ, JR. : Yes . The only thing
24 that changed on the foundation is the
25 original -- on the original plan . There is
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 7
1 nothing else . On the original plan and the
2 one that you have now, showed that you had
3 to go down three feet to get a proper
4 footing, and that is what we did.
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But where was that
6 three feet? Where did you go down the
7 three feet?
8 MR. GOLZ , JR. : At the lowest point .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : By the side
10 yard?
11 MR. GOLZ, JR. : If you are standing in
12 front of the building, it ' s to the right .
13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am just saying
14 this because when I went there, I thought
15 that all three walls were replaced, and
16 they were not?
17 MR. GOLZ , JR. : No .
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you .
19 MR. GOLZ , JR. : Yep. We did, because
20 to follow the strapping codes, the only
21 thing we did to the old block, was we put
22 the proper anchors in . There was no anchor
23 bolts there before . The wall was just
24 sliding in, because the dirt and the
25 leaves . Just after so many years, the
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 8
1 bottom of the wall , was actually starting
2 to push in .
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Did you stucco the
4 walls?
5 MR. GOLZ , JR. : No .
6 MEMBER HORNING : Structurally on the
7 wood portion, everything is new; is that
8 correct?
9 MR. GOLZ , JR. : Yes, but we tried --
10 we had supported everything as we took it
11 apart, and we have - the -- what was
12 originally supposed to stay. That was
13 still up before I asked for the letter to
14 raise the ridge and remove the roof
15 rafters .
16 MEMBER HORNING: What is above the
17 foundation, you could have removed
18 everything all at once?
19 MR. GOLZ , JR. : We were trying to
20 save .
21 MEMBER HORNING : But you saved
22 nothing?
23 MR. GOLZ , JR. : Yes . Once we wound up
24 raising the ridge because the studs -- on
25 the back wall, the studs went from the ( In
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 9
1 Audible) on the foundation to the rafters .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let ' s just
3 clarify something. Some of the things that
4 are significant to this particular
5 application . First I would like to say
6 that this is not without precedence .
7 Builders begin to build and realize that
8 there is a lot more rot than they ever
9 expected. They ' re trying to do the
10 possible thing, which is to build properly.
11 This does happen, however, what has
12 happened with a situation like that from a
13 legal point of view, is that this garage is
14 built prior to 1967 and has Pre-CO . Once a
15 structure is demolished, it loses its
16 preexisting nonconforming status .
17 MR. GOLZ , JR. : Okay.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So what that
19 means is that, we would have to revisit the
20 side yard location, which was -- it was
21 kind of grandfathered from the perspective
22 of a Pre-CO for a nonconforming structure
23 that was legally there, to what we have
24 before us now, which is a new demolition.
25 A new building, which will have to have a
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 10
1 new CO at some point, obviously. Where we
2 take it to the relative nonconforming side
3 yard.
4 MR. GOLZ, JR. : Okay.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know the
6 overall square footage of this structure?
7 We should be able to look at it from the
8 floor plan --
9 MR. GOLZ , JR. : Yeah, it should be
10 right on -- it is on the floor plan.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let us take a
12 look. I am looking on the plans .
13 MR. GOLZ , JR. : I think it was 428 ,
14 the lower .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would
16 probably be the footprint . There is a
17 second floor on here, which is meant to be
18 for storage and not liveable area --
19 MR. GOLZ , JR. : Yes . Correct .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have a roof
21 that was added to the original structure .
22 I am not sure if that is interior space to
23 be counted as the square footage or not .
24 You have 25 X 20 . 5 footprint and then a
25 second floor attic plan, it ' s pretty
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 11
1 similar in size . I just want to make sure
2 that it ' s not over 750 square feet, in
3 which point it ' s going to need to be looked
4 at as a nonconforming size .
5 MR. GOLZ , JR. : Okay.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It looks like
7 it ' s okay.
8 MEMBER HORNING: The building looks
9 completely different then the original with
10 that overhang porch .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That was
12 actually there already. On the decision
13 that we granted, that porch was on the
14 plan . I believe the only difference is the
15 window, that faces the street and the
16 garage . I think that was a porthole
17 window --
18 MR. GOLZ , JR. : Yeah .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If I recall
20 correctly, you now have a double-hung?
21 MR. GOLZ , JR. : Yes .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am assuming
23 that the intent, this is labeled as attic
24 space --
25 MR. GOLZ , JR. : And that ' s the way
i
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 12
1 it ' s going -
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is a lot
3 of headroom, which has two dormers on
4 there . And I just want to make certain
5 that there is no intent to put plumbing in
6 this structure . There is no intent to heat
7 it or create habitable space?
8 MR. GOLZ, JR. : No, ma ' am.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I believe at one
10 point, the family talked about a family
11 sitting room up on the top?
12 MR. GOLZ , JR. : Just going to keep it
13 as storage .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It ' s now
15 storage?
16 MR. GOLZ , JR. : Yes . They have now
17 gone over in spending money. So now we ' re
18 trying to keep it as simple as possible .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. The other
20 thing that is probably important to enter
21 into the record is, that there -- had this
22 been addition and alterations, actual
23 restorations , where it wasn ' t a demolition,
24 you would not have lost your Pre-CO,
25 therefore, the applicant might have been
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 13
1 able -- eligible or would have been
2 eligible in the future, to apply for an
3 accessory apartment for one floor in that
4 building . Since this is a new building now
5 that will need a new CO, that is no longer
6 the case . It is not eligible anymore for
7 an accessory apartment, because the law
8 requires that it be existing lawfully on or
9 before January 1 , 2004 -- I am sorry, 2008 ,
10 for an accessory apartment .
11 MR. GOLZ , JR. : All right .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I just want
13 the record to reflect that this garage has
14 lost it ' s right to apply for that use .
15 Ken, do you have a question?
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes, I do . The new
17 reconstruction, this structure will
18 maintain the existing side yard setback?
19 MR. GOLZ , JR. : Yeah . It actually got
20 a little bit smaller, because it was so out
21 of square before . It was kind of falling
22 down . On the foundation it was
23 overhanging, and now we ' re in line with the
24 foundation walls .
25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. Granted a
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 14
1 variance for a 3 . 6 foot side yard setback
2 and that would be maintained, on a previous
3 variance?
4 . MR. GOLZ , JR. : Yes .
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No further
6 questions .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not at this
9 particular time .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George?
11 MEMBER HORNING: Just seems to shame,
12 I had to reflect on this and at the time, I
13 asked questions as to why the foundation
14 couldn ' t be moved to make it somewhat more
15 conforming of a setback, because that is
16 our concern, and you couldn ' t do that
17 because you were only reconstructing a
18 portion of the garage and a putting a
19 couple of dormers in, and as it turns out,
20 you could have very well done that, because
21 you essentially tore the whole thing down.
22 And in fact, did foundation repairs as
. 23 well . So it ' s disturbing to me, as a Board
24 member, knowing what we approved and how,
25 you know, a 3 . 6 setback was a significant
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 15
1 variance to begin with and then to see what
2 actually happened, it ' s disconcerting .
3 MR. GOLZ , JR. : I apologize, and I was
4 just trying to do the right thing and not
5 slab ( In Audible) when I knew that we were
6 going to have to replace more, and I asked
7 for the letter . And I guess, I should have
8 been more clear from when I came into the
9 Town and should have had the inspector come
10 down and say that, you know, before we go
11 any further with this . Maybe a
12 miscommunication with this . I should have
13 said, "should we stop right now or are we
14 overstepping our boundaries?" And I
15 thought with the letter . that I gave you
16 guys , but I guess I wasn ' t clear enough in
17 the letter .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The letter
19 simply indicated, I believe it was a five
20 to seven inch increase in the proposed
21 height of the header . In no way was it a
22 suggestion fdr rafters and all framing
23 members . The dilemma happened when the
24 first inspection took place and (In
25 Audible) ripped up and there were old
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 16
1 framing members in place . Then when I went
2 out to take a look in regards to this
3 letter, it was pretty clear that it was all
4 new.
5 MR. GOLZ , JR. : Yeah, then we had the
6 stopping inspection --
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is when
8 the, I guess , the Building Department went
9 ahead and put a Stop Work, because it
10 exceeded the scope of the additions and
11 alterations . Okay. I think Member Horning
12 did express the concern that the Board did
13 have . The side yard variance is very
14 substantial and could have been and was in
15 fact justified on the grounds of the
16 preexisting nonconforming status, which of
17 course is no longer applicable . The Board
18 will have to handle this and hopefully we
19 will come to -- I am sure we will come to a
20 response .
21 MR. GOLZ , JR. : Okay. I would
22 appreciate that very much.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We will
24 deliberate and -- we have 62 days to decide
25 but the earliest would be two weeks from
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 17
1 today.
2 MR. GOLZ, JR. : I would appreciate
3 that . Thank you very much .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
5 in the audience that would like to address
6 this application?
7 (No Response . )
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Hearing
9 no further questions, I will make a motion
10 to close this hearing and reserve decision
11 to a later date .
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
15 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
18 (See Minutes for Resolution. )
19 *******************************************
20 HEARING #6555 - OLIVER AND GLORIA SELIGMAN
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
22 application before the Board is for Oliver
23 and Gloria Seligman, #6555 . Request for
24 variance from Article III Section 280-15
25 and the Building Inspector ' s
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 18
1 February 8 , 2012 Notice of Disapproval,
2 based on an application for building permit
3 to construct an accessory two-car garage
4 and an in-ground swimming pool at :
5 1 ) location other than the code required
6 rear yard, located at : 385 North Cross
7 Road, corner Holden Avenue, Cutchogue .
8 Would you please enter your name into
9 the record, and then I have a question for
10 you?
11 MR. LETKOVSKY: My name is Andres
12 Letkovsky. I have been working with
13 Mr. Seligman as the project architect . My
14 offices is at 229 Laurel Road in East
15 Northport .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And would you
17 please spell your last name, sir?
18 MR. LETKOVSKY: Sure .
19 L-E-T-K-O-V-S-K-Y .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you . Do
21 you happen to have any of the green cards
22 that are required?
23 MR. LETKOVSKY: Yes, I do . They all
24 came in .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And do you have
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 19
1 an Affidavit of Posting?
2 MR. LETKOVSKY: I believe the
3 Affidavit of Posting was submitted, but I
4 do have another one . I can give that to
5 the Board?
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please . Would
7 you come forward. Let ' s proceed. Go ahead
8 and tell us what you would like?
9 MR. LETKOVSKY: I would like to thank
10 the Board in advance for the cooperation
11 from receiving the application and putting
12 it together, between the Building
13 Department and the Zoning Board. We ' re
14 looking for permission to propose two
15 accessory structures . One being a swimming
16 pool and a detached garage on the opposite
17 side of the property. We ' re currently
18 completing an interior renovation, and we
19 have added a rear porch and a front porch
20 to the project . The house has been - is
21 currently about 100o complete and ready for
22 the C of 0 . And what we did now, we ' re
23 proposing the pool and the garage, as I
24 said. Some of the things that are
25 influencing the location of these entities ,
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 20
1 is on the southwest corner, we have very
2 tall existing Pine Trees . They' re acting
3 as a very constructive privacy buffer, and
4 the garage is there . My clients have a few
5 very important considerations for this
6 area . One is that the septic system for
7 this house is not located in the front
8 yard. It ' s located in the side yard. It ' s
9 a very unusual shaped house . It has two
10 rooms coming out . So the southern most
11 room is the master bedroom. And we believe
12 that the septic system is somewhere in that
13 particular area, that if you would go on
14 and walk the site, it has a slight
15 depression to 'it . There is lots of pine
16 needles given off the trees . They ' re very
17 mature, and they also have a shallow roof
18 system. So we ' re very concerned about not
19 relocating the septic system. It ' s very
20 expensive . We think it would be terrible
21 if the tree roots were disturbed, and we
22 would lose the trees . The mudroom for the
23 swimming pool is located on the side of the
24 house where we have located the pool . We
25 would rather not locate the pool where the
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 21
1 master bedroom suite is, due to the way the
2 house functions . We have considerations ,
3 you know the shadow that the trees cast on
4 the site, and it would cast shade where the
5 pool would go, in addition to the pine
6 needles . What we chose to do is locate the
7 pool in such a way that we could work with
8 some of these items on the site . And also
9 to, you know, address concerns with
10 privacy, by proposing a privacy buffer with
11 trees or shrubs . We obviously need to
12 follow through with moving the fence
13 correctly, so that it meets all the code
14 requirements . And those same items, by
15 large, are effecting the location of the
16 garage, where the pine needles are, we
17 don ' t want to disturb the roof system. And
18 another important thing, or we feel is
19 important, the house is very sculptural
20 identity that we think would be destroyed
21 if we attach the garage to the house . And
22 also, where the location of the septic
23 system is in the side yard, that we would
24 probably end up being forced to relocate
25 the septic system. So that being said,
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 22
1 we ' re going to present this application to
2 the Board, and if we could get approval for
3 this .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The reasons --
5 and I am glad that you clarified some of
6 your thinking here because the reasons in
7 the "actual reason for your appeal" as
8 stated in the application packet is
9 absolutely so vaguely written that , it was
10 completely unclear as to why these choices
11 were made . The Board has made site
12 inspection of the subject property. All of
13 us have been here . So we ' re aware of the
14 things that you are talking about . I have
15 some comments here . Your survey does not
16 show the location of the septic system.
17 MR. LETKOVSKY: No, it does not .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Why is that? If
19 that is one of the arguments of why you ' re
20 locating it in a nonconforming place?
21 MR. LETKOVSKY: The survey -- we have
22 an updated survey prepared but we didn ' t
23 notate it, but we know from down in the
24 basement, where the pipes are routed, the
25 foundation walls of where it comes out, it
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 23
1 is somewhere ' s immediately south of the
2 master bedroom. It ' s somewhere in that
3 area .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In what you ' re
5 labeling as a depressed area?
6 MR. LETKOVSKY: Yes, probably, if we
7 go 20 feet away from the house . That would
8 be the usual typical distance of where they
9 locate these things .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, I think
11 greater clarification would be significant .
12 In fact, one of the most important
13 arguments were the location, I would
14 certainly think you would want certain
15 information from a surveyor of where that
16 septic system is located, because that is
17 the -- cites the description of the mature
18 trees that we have seen there . Certainly
19 is creating very useful boundaries on that
20 part of the area . That is a logical place
21 for a conforming location . The Board is
22 required by law, as you ' re probably aware,
23 to grant the minimal relief deemed
24 necessary, if justified. So we are looking
25 to see what we can do . 12 feet from a
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 24
1 public road, for a setback of a swimming
2 pool, even with planted screening, is very,
3 very close . Very close . There is a
4 possibility of rotating that pool, so that
5 it is parallel to the side yard and pushing
6 it back further? I understand from an
7 aesthetic perspective, why you would want
8 it parallel to the shape of the house, and
9 locate it that way. It makes sense, but
10 from a Zoning perspective, it ' s a very
11 significant variance . And we have to, I
12 think, explore possibilities of doing
13 something -- very good. Our Board
i
14 assistant has just found a very old survey
15 that is part of the packet, that shows the
16 septic, not where you think it is . It is
17 actually, if you come forward, I would like
18 to show you. The Board already has this in
19 your packet . No, it ' s not part of the
20 packet . It ' s very far away the --
21 MR. LETKOVSKY : It ' s not that far
22 away. It looks about 15 to 20 feet, which
23 would -- if we ' re going to inspect the
24 location of the sytem, it would make it
25 very difficult to attach the garage to the
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 25
1 house .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : To attach the
3 garage?
4 MR. LETKOVSKY : Well, yeah, then we
5 would be proposing the garage right on top
6 of the septic system.
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: One of the
8 explorations regarding the swimming pool, I
9 would be considering ( In Audible) is to
10 create a swimming pool that has an existing
11 shape . If. you want to keep it ( In
12 Audible) . We have done -- every hearing
13 that I have been on this Board, exception
14 of the deadest of winters , difficult of
15 winters , that doesn ' t stop us from having
16 hearings, but we have gone through every
17 configuration of swimming pools that exist .
18 20 'x 40 swimming pool, has just about S
19 30, 000 gallons of water . It has nothing to
20 do with the water of the swimming pool, it
21 has to do with the size of the swimming
22 pool . And that would be one of the things
23 that .I would be looking for .
24 MR. LETKOVSKY: Thank you very much .
25 Obviously, if you look at the location of
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 26
1 the pool, there is some ( In Audible) 20
2 feet, so we would have a little bit of
3 flexibility there . How far away it is from
4 the screened porch that we added, indicated
5 23 . 5 1/2 . So we have a little bit of
6 flexibility there . We may be able to
7 constructively do away with the rear yard
8 setback. That is slightly nonconformance .
9 We can get that part to comply. That is
10 the setback on the west side of the
11 property that we are indicating that is
12 kind of off set .
13 MEMBER HORNING : That is referred to
14 as the side yard in the Building
15 Department ' s write up .
16 MR. LETKOVSKY: And then by kind of
17 moving this around, we may be able to do
18 better with the front yard. Is there a --
19 can I ask the Board, is there a number that
20 comes more acceptable than the 12 feet that
21 we ' re proposing?
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: These are all
23 going to be opinions of Board members . We
24 don ' t have a consensus . There is no magic
25 figure here . We ' re looking to . mitigate
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 27
1 adverse impact on the neighbors and the
2 road. So we ' re going to look for the
3 greatest possible setback, that is the
4 least variance from a conforming setback of
5 a principal structure . That is probably 35
6 feet . I know you ' re not going to manage to
7 do 35 feet . In my opinion, you need to try
8 and make it as significant as a setback as
9 possible . I know you can do 15, but I
10 would like to see more than that, if
11 possible .
12 MR. LETKOVSKY : Yeah, I --
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 15 feet is still
14 very -- even if with screening . There is
15 noise from the swimming pool . It ' s a quiet
16 neighborhood. I can anticipate the
17 neighbor ' s might have some concerns about
18 that . I certainly would want to see where
19 the septic is located on a survey, before I
20 would be confident in going ahead --
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And properly
22 state .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Including that
24 information in the decision, because we
25 need to have it verified by an engineer .
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 28
1 Those are my comments .
2 George, do you want to make any?
3 MEMBER HORNING: They ' re cited by the
4 Building Department because the proposed
5 location is required to be in a rear yard
6 area . Not even in the front yard. So 10
7 feet , 12 feet, you know, 15 feet, is still
8 in the front yard. Also you ' re cited for
9 the side yard, because it can ' t be in a
10 side yard either, according to the code .
11 We do want to see exactly where the septic
12 is also . The row of existing Pine Trees
13 that is shown on one survey that we have,
14 that we ' re working with, and the one on the
15 west -- the southwest corner that you ' re
16 talking about, are they on the neighboring
17 property?
18 MR. LETKOVSKY: Yeah, these particular
19 trees have been located by the surveyor,
20 and he located them on the neighbor ' s
21 property, but not on the owner ' s property.
22 MEMBER HORNING : And you ' re testifying
23 that you listed two reasons, two possible
24 reasons why you could not locate the pool
25 in the rear yard. For example, one was the
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 29
1 possibility that pine needles would go into
2 the pool, and the other one was the
3 possibility, in fact, the septic system is
4 there, which now, yet again -- these Pine
5 Tree ' s are on the neighboring property,
6 we ' re saying right now, and according to
7 the survey, and what you ' re proposing. Why
8 then would you propose Pine Tree ' s within a
9 matter of a few feet of the proposed pool
10 area, if the Pines Tree ' s are a problem?
11 MR. LETKOVSKY: I thought of maybe
12 Hemlock' s, which have a substantial privacy
13 effect, where the needles don ' t come down .
14 They act as a visual screen . They don ' t
15 get too tall .
16 MEMBER HORNING: So you are actually
17 proposing an Evergreen buffer, instead of
18 your proposed Pine Tree ' s?
19 MR. LETKOVSKY: Yeah, I think that
20 would be better language to use . Thank you
21 very much .
22 MEMBER HORNING : Well, it ' s confusing
23 to us, when you ' re testifying that the pine
24 needle ' s and you can ' t have- the pool where
25 the Pine Tree ' s are, and you ' re proposing
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 30
1 Pine Tree ' s .
2 MR. LETKOVSKY: My clients have
3 informed me that they would really like to
4 place a particular level of interest on the
5 pool and see how it might be approved under
6 certain conditions acceptable to the Board.
7 My opinion, at this point, I think we can
8 comply, at this point, with required 15
9 foot side yard. We ' re not indicating 10 ,
10 if I shift the pool . The 12 foot front
11 yard off set, I think we can by moving the
12 pool around, can reach 15 feet .
13 MEMBER HORNING : Again, sir, a pool is
14 not allowed in a side yard.
15 MR. LETKOVSKY: Yeah .
16 MEMBER HORNING : I will ask another
17 question while I am asking questions .
18 Regarding the proposed garage, and there is
19 the possibility that in fact it could not
20 be attached to the house, in the one, what
21 would be the southeastern corner. What is
22 in there? I noticed when I saw the site,
23 there was no windows on that wall . What is
24 inside there?
25 MR. LETKOVSKY: That is the master
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 31
1 bedroom. Largely occupies the entire area
2 there . There is an adjacent bathroom that
3 works with the master . There was a second
4 bathroom there that was removed, which I
5 think goes to substantiate the location of
6 the septic tanks, as you found on the
7 survey.
8 MEMBER HORNING: There is not to say
9 that you couldn ' t walk through a master
10 bedroom to walk to a garage, but is it
11 conceivable for you to walk -- locate the
12 garage on -- let ' s call it in the front of
13 a section of the house, somewhere ' s near
14 the existing driveway, attached to the
15 front of the house . Maybe not in that
16 southeastern side, but in the eastern side,
17 because once you attach the garage, it is
18 not subject to the Zoning Code, a detached
19 accessory dwelling being required to be in
20 the rear yard. It ' s possible that you
21 would need a front yard variance but not of
22 the same nature as a detached building in
23 the front yard.
24 MR. LETKOVSKY: We have done some
25 experiments before this was submitted of
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 32
1 the location of the garage . We ' re
2 obviously -- that it ' s a substantial 50
3 foot setback that a two-car garage would
4 never comply with, if attached to the
5 house, but we might be able to focus on the
6 required 40 foot front yard setback right
7 off of Holden Avenue . You know, we ' re
8 currently showing 25 . 11, what maybe that
. 9 number could be adjusted to -- be less
10 substantial, if I could use that word,
11 nudge it back a little bit . If we ' re
12 lucky, we might miss the septic system.
13 MEMBER HORNING: Well, I don ' t think
14 that you should rely on luck, sir, to
15 determine where the septic . system is .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is
17 something that we will explore, and this
18 Board has made it very clear that when that
19 becomes a problem for an applicant, we
20 certainly have to have an engineer or an
21 architect, state specifically to what we ' re
22 dealing with . It ' s not really adequate to
23 say that it is generally in that area .
24 There are some other options . I actually
25 want to know, you know, there is an
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 33
1 attached garage on one wing already, is
2 that going to continue to be used as a
3 garage or --
4 MR. LETKOVSKY : No -- that is a
5 two-car garage . It is going to be
6 continued to use for that . The owner has a
7 car collection. This is a permanent
8 full-time residence . They' re there seven
9 days a week. It is not a second home . The
10 proposed garage would only be used to put
11 antique cars in. If the Board needs extra
12 scientific data for the garage -- maybe
13 there is some way that we can find a
14 constructive way to approve the swimming
15 pool under certain conditions acceptable to
16 the Board? And, I would say likewise for
17 the garage, but if you feel you need to
18 know precisely where the tanks are, maybe
19 we can adjourn that portion of it?
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, we don ' t
21 deliberate in part . We deliberate on the
22 entire application before us . There are
23 other options . And clearly, this property
24 is referred to as two front yards . The
25 unusual shape that renders -- the rear yard
April 5, 2012 . Zoning Board of Appeals 34
1 is very, very small and already impacted
2 with structures and so on. So we do
3 understand that . You ' re not proposing
4 excessive lot coverage . You know, the fact
5 that you ' re proposing two accessory
6 structures is not an over extension of that
7 lot coverage . The interesting thing is, on
8 site inspection, the property that is
9 listed here, Toderbush (phenetic) right
10 where you 're trying to propose recess exist
11 where the garage might be located, that
12 kind of faces a very beautiful area . You
13 know, there is almost some possibility of
14 suggesting that an accessory garage may be
15 better off where you ' re proposing a
16 swimming pool . Certainly quieter,
17 especially since all you are doing in
18 storing antique cars . The possibility of
19 putting the swimming pool over on the other
20 side . There is some options . I understand
21 what you are saying about the dwelling and
22 the interior layout and what makes sense,
23 in terms of walking a farther distance or
24 closer distance, you know, they ' re
25 consequential . We ' re looking here to try
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 35
1 an mitigate adverse impact and to be as
2 conforming as possible . That ' s it in a
3 nutshell . Certainly moving that .garage
4 back from Holden somewhat, would depend
5 entirely where the septic is . If you want
6 to leave it there, from what
7 Mr . Goehringer has suggested, as I , some
8 possible changes to the pool, size, shape,
9 setback and so on.
10 Ken, did you have any questions or
11 comments, because I think I would like to
12 see if there is anyone in the audience that
13 would like to address this application?
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes , I do . Is
15 there a public water service to the
16 residence or is it well?
17 MR. LETKOVSKY: No, public water .
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The only thing that
19 I would like to see is a survey indicating
20 the septic system, and then we can make a
21 decision.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
23 in the audience that would like to address
24 this application? Please state and spell
25 your name for the record?
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 36
1 MR. HUNTINGTON : My name is Ray
2 Huntington . I am the neighbor to the west .
3 My name is H-U-N-T-I-N-G-T-O-N. I didn ' t
4 really intend to make a statement here
5 today, but I was in the building for some
6 other reasons and I thought I would sit in .
7 Now that I am here, I might be able to add
8 a little context . I am the neighbor to the
9 west . I have known the neighbor ' s for a
10 little over a year now. They have been
11 working on the place, and all during that
12 time, they have really demonstrated
13 extremely good taste and sensitivity to the
14 neighborhood. Their ideas have been well
15 thought out and some of the reasons that
16 they have advanced, are really quite sound.
17 While, I don ' t want to go further into that
18 in covering your job, we have a code for a
19 good reason and we want that upheld. It ' s
20 different when you have a contentious
21 situation, I think. I don ' t think we have
22 that here .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you.
24 Anyone else?
25 MR. SELIGMAN : Thank you . First I
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 37
1 want to thank Ray for coming. I didn ' t
2 know he was coming at all . Thank you for
3 your statement .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please state
5 your name, please?
6 MR. SELIGMAN : Oh, yes . I 'm sorry.
7 Oliver Seligman . Part owner with my wife,
8 Gloria of the property. We knew when we
9 purchased the property, it was corner
10 property. And corner properties are
11 difficult to work with . You know, the side
12 yard, back yard, and all those kinds of
13 things, I haven ' t figured them out . I am
14 not sure yet, but we ' re very conscious of
15 the neighborhood and the -- just like Ray
16 said . We ' re trying to fit in. Not do
17 anything that would harm the neighborhood.
18 In fact, I have another unsolicited note
19 from one of neighbor ' s also . If you wish,
20 I can submit . It ' s from another neighbor,
21 also supporting me . The main reason we ' re
22 putting the pool there, it ' s not just
23 because the fact that there is a cesspool
24 issue, that could very well be . I don ' t
25 know where it is , but know, the farther
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 38
1 away., the better . We ' re on the other side
2 of the house, so I don ' t have to think
3 about, at least as far as the pool is
4 concerned. You know, I don ' t want to mess
5 with that . Everything seems to work well
6 at this point . In addition, all those
7 large tree ' s that belong to the Toderbush,
8 and I know he asked for a variance a year
9 ago, for an existing structure . Anyway
10 that is neither here nor there . But those
11 roots to those trees, and they are quite
12 tall trees , we don ' t want to harm the
13 trees . I had to take down a lot of trees
14 when I bought the house, and I know what
15 roots do . That is one of the main reasons
16 why we can ' t really put the pool in that
17 corner . Those trees are quite enormous .
18 If you saw the property, they go quite high
19 up . And I remember when we had our
20 property cleared and all the roots that
21 remained there, we had Mr . Coffey from
22 Southold -- came in and took care of that .
23 The roots were deep . Those were from our
24 trees, not their ' s . So leaving the pool
25. there works out well for us . We really
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 39
1 can ' t put the pool there . I had several
2 pool people come and inspect the property.
3 Originally, where we were going to put the
4 pool is where you suggested to put the
5 pool, and it really didn ' t work out . I had
6 another pool man come in and re-sited the
7 pool for us into the current location that
8 you see on the map . And that seemed like
9 it worked out because my neighbor doesn ' t
10 have any ( In Audible) Mr . Huntington to the
11 west . And it ' s low . And I also have a
12 neighbor on -- his address is 3400 ( In
i
13 Audible) he is actually the Fire Chief, I
14 believe of Cutchogue . I forgot his last
15 name, but I am sure you know who I am
16 talking about . And he has a pool also . He
17 is also on the corner of Pequash and North
18 Cross, and he also has a pool that is quite
19 located on North Cross Road. I think it ' s
20 North Cross Road . Anyway, I felt that this
21 was the best location that would work for
22 us . I don ' t think we can put in a pool,
23 unless we can put it there . It just
24 doesn ' t make sense . And I don ' t really see
25 much other choice . I see where the choice
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 40
1 was originally, but they really aren ' t . If
2 we were to put a pool in and not have some
3 major problems . You know, certainly I
4 don ' t want to impact my friend over here or
5 Mr. Toderbush, who is also my neighbor . He
6 did not come . I did not see him by the
7 way. But anyway, it just seemed like that
8 would be the best place . You know, I am
9 even willing at this point, because we
10 would really love to get the pool in for
11 health reasons . My wife needs to work in a
12 pool, it ' s healthy for her. I can get
13 doctor ' s notes, which I don ' t have by the
14 way. That seemed like the only place that
15 we could put the pool on the property. We
16 are willing to make some minor adjustments
17 to it to suit the Board, but I don ' t think
18 there is too much choice . So I just wanted
19 you to be aware of that, and thank you for
20 your consideration and time .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, it is
22 relevant to the number of detached garages .
23 The number of front yards in the
24 neighborhood' s . These are the relevant
25 factors because one of the factors in the
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 41
1 character of the neighborhood.
2 MR. SELIGMAN : Sure .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If there are
4 other similarly situated accessory
5 structures , such as swimming pool ' s, it is
6 relevant to us . We do drive around. We
7 look around, but they ' re often behind
8 Evergreens and we can not trespass , unless
9 it ' s an applicant, on someone ' s property.
10 We ' re not always able to see them.
11 MR. SELIGMAN : Right .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does the
13 Board --
14 MEMBER HORNING : I have a couple of
15 comments . As Mr . Seligman ' s request, I
16 drove up North Cross Road, I did observe a
17 pool in a front yard in the neighborhood.
18 I observed only one . It was very well
19 screened. From my estimation, it was
20 certainly setback far greater than 10-12
21 feet from the road.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have any
23 rough idea of what that setback was?
24 MEMBER HORNING : I think we should ask
25 the applicant to provide some neighborhood
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 42
1 information, if possible . Otherwise we
r�
2 will get it on our own . I am guessing,
3 25-30 feet from the road. That would be my
4 guest . And I also want to say, why could
5 not -- not that we ' re trying to tell you
6 what to do, you came to us with a major
7 variance request, that I can ascertain . I
8 think my colleagues would agree . Could you
9 not expand your existing garage somehow and
10 have a new attached section of garage
11 attached to the house somehow? Perhaps you
12 need some type of a front yard variance
13 setback but not that you do now, because
14 code again, code does not allow you to have
15 a garage and a pool in a front yard. And
16 we ' re asking you to reconsider your plans
17 and come up with something that is more
18 code conforming requiring less variances .
19 Perhaps not a side yard variance for a
20 pool . And is there anyway you can attach a
21 new construction to an existing house? You
22 have a large driveway area . You have some
23 brick walkway, which could easily be
24 removed. You have a brick walkway on the
25 other side where you ' re proposing the pool,
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 43
1 which can easily be removed, and relocated
2 and redesigned in that area, if in fact, it
3 had to be in that area, rather then someone
4 suggested putting the pool in an area near
5 your master bedroom. You know, Pine Tree ' s
6 shed their needles at certain times of the
7 year . Perhaps that would be at the time of
8 the year that you would have your pool
9 covered.
10 MR. SELIGMAN : At this point, right
11 now, given the timing and everything else,
12 I am willing to forgo the garage entirely,
13 and go with the pool, as long as we can get
14 the pool where we would like to have it .
15 Reasonably close to where it is . Close as
16 possible . And we will table the garage for
17 now and worry about that at some future
18 date . That is as far as I am willing to
19 go .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you plan to
21 do that, that is what we call
22 impermissiblelism.
23 MR. SELIGMAN : What is that?
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That means one
25 variance and then you come back and sneak
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 44
1 in another one later on. Saying that these
2 are preexisting conditions . This Board
3 will not look favorable on that . Frankly,
4 if it is something that you really, really
5 want, the upfront planning now is probably
6 better . If you don ' t build it right away,
7 it is probably best to look at the whole
8 site as you have done, and try to propose
9 what it is that you want . However, did you
10 want to make some comments, Ma ' am? If you
11 do, you have to come to the mic .
12 MS . SELIGMAN : Good morning .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: State your name,
14 please?
15 MS . SELIGMAN : I am Gloria Seligman,
16 S-E-L-I-G-M-A-N . And I just want to go over
17 something that George might have just said
18 a few moments ago .' You had mentioned a
19 possibility to add onto the existing
20 garage? In other words, just bring it
21 forward?
22 MEMBER HORNING: If you attach the
23 garage, you ' re eliminating the need for a
24 variance for having a detached garage in a
25 front yard area .
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 45
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You would
2 probably have a front yard setback problem.
3 MEMBER HORNING: Right, possibly .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know, you
5 have an architect . I think you have heard
6 a lot of suggestions, maybe a carport
7 attached to the bedroom side . It would be
8 open with a roof . I understand, you know,
9 I have been a professor of architect for 38
10 years . So I can understand the symmetry of
11 a dual dwelling, roof structures and so on .
12 Visual impact is not insignificant, but you
13 know, you still have to look at the law and
14 what impacts on code . You have heard a lot
15 of suggestions . I think the best way to
16 approve them -- I am going to call on the
17 Board for this, since we need to see where
18 the septic is , and you have some
19 suggestions made and you ' re realizing that
20 you can do a little more conforming
21 setbacks here and there, and so on, and get
22 your priorities together . I am going to
23 make a proposal to adjourn this hearing to
24 May, so that you can come back with an
25 amended survey, and show the septic, and
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals. 46
1 any proposed changes that you would like to
2 make . You don ' t need to re-notice it .
3 It ' s going to be a carryover till next
4 month. That will give you some time to
5 address these concerns and come back with
6 what you feel is the best proposal you can
7 make for this Board.
8 MEMBER HORNING: Can I add to that?
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Does the Board
10 feel that is the right way to go?
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes .
12 MEMBER HORNING : Yes .
13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We need to have
15 an opportunity to make some choices, and
16 the Board doesn ' t want to design it for
17 ' you. That is not our function.
18 MEMBER HORNING : Leslie, can I also
19 request that the applicant, we must
20 consider the character of the neighborhood.
21 As the chairperson suggested, are there
22 other nonconforming garages in the front
23 yard in the area? Are there other pools in
24 the front yard, in the area? And also, we
25 look at what other variances have been
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 47
1 granted in the past . So we can determine
2 what variances have been granted. I am
3 going to ask the architect that we get that
4 information. We want to ask you, if you
5 can find out for us specific addresses, in
6 this immediate neighborhood, North Cross
7 Road, etcetera, Holden Avenue . What
8 locations have nonconforming structures in
9 the front yard.
10 MS . SELIGMAN : We have investigated.
11 We have found that pool .
12 MEMBER HORNING: Right .
13 MS . SELIGMAN : There is also a garage
14 on Pequash, right around Old Pasture .
15 MEMBER HORNING: We would like you to
16 provide that information .
17 MS . SELIGMAN : We can ' t find the
18 addr.esses .
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We granted that
20 garage . That is part of the house around
21 the corner .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It ' s a big
23 parcel .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Go all the way
25 around and you will find the house, close
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 48
1 to the water . Across from 100 , which is
2 one of the last houses before you make the
3 turn going down towards the marina .
4 MS . SELIGMAN : Thank you .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let ' s just make
6 it very clear . The reasons for -- it ' s the
7 applicant ' s responsibility to present their
8 case . The Board can not undertake research
9 on your behalf . So we ' re going to have to
10 ask you to do a little homework.
11 MS . SELIGMAN : Do I still have to
12 bring you that address , he knows where it
13 is?
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think your
15 architect understands what we will need,
16 which is something in writing to simply
17 provide us from your perspective that is
18 relevant to your application and relative
19 to existing attached garages in the area .
20 The setback? Are they in the front yard,
21 rear yard? We are looking for precedence .
22 In the same way that you may get a swimming
23 pool, someone down the line might come and
24 say well you granted it to this other one .
25 That ' s how precedence works, which is
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 49
1 again, why we ' re bound to be consistent in
2 our decision . To look carefully on how it
3 might impact the future, as well as what we
4 have done in the past . We ' re asking you to
5 strengthen your application .
6 MS . SELIGMAN : Okay.
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just offer
8 you something, Mr . Seligman . We recently
9 heard an application a little deeper, over
10 Southern Cross . That happened to be a tax
11 map number . You can get the adjoining
12 piece of that tax map number . It would be
13 much easier for you to fill in those
14 particular pieces . Then you go back to the
15 Assessor ' s Office and they will fill in the
16 person ' s name . That is exactly what that
17 gentleman did in his accessory garage . Not
18 the gentleman that you just referred to,
19 but another one . He color coded it and it
20 came out very nice . So it ' s easier way to
21 do that . So this happens to be my tax map
22 number . You can take that as a starting
23 point .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am going to
25 make a motion, hearing no further comments
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 50
1 from the audience or any Board member
2 questions , to adjourn this hearing to
3 May 3rd at 10 : 00 A. M.
4 Is there a second?
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
8 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
11 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
12 *******************************************
13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If I could make a
14 motion for a two minutes recess?
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure . I will
16 second it .
17 All in favor?
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
19 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
22 (Whereupon, a recess was taken . )
23 *******************************************
24 HEARING #6543 - DAVID H . THORNTON AND
25 JANET E . DAVIDSON .
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 51
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
2 application before us is, David H . Thornton
3 and Janet E . Davidson, #6543 . Request for
4 variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124
5 and the Building Inspector ' s
6 January 18 , 2012 Notice of Disapproval
7 based on an application for building permit
8 for additions to a single family dwelling
9 at : 1 ) more than the code permitted
10 maximum lot coverage of 200 , located at :
11 4205 Breakwater Road, corner East Road,
12 Mattituck.
13 Garrett, just state your name for the
14 record, and then I have some stuff for you,
15 that you probably haven ' t seen, possibly.
16 MR. STRANG: Yes, good morning .
17 Garrett Strang, architect for Thornton ' s .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes . We just
19 have the Suffolk County local determination
20 letter, and have you seen the letter from
21 the neighbor ' s, Ventura?
22 MR. STRANG: Yes, I have .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. All
24 right . Go ahead,. Garrett . As you know,
25 the letter requested that this Board
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 52
1 adjourn the hearing because the neighbor
2 can ' t be here . Generally, the Board is
3 quite cooperative with Request of
4 Adjournment ' s from applicant ' s or their
5 agent; however, we do have her consent in
6 writing, and I don ' t think the Board is
7 going to entertain an adjournment request
8 on the basis of a neighbor . Is that
9 correct, Board Members?
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not necessarily in
11 my particular case, because of my most
12 visual field inspections that, I just had.
13 I had two field inspections on this, and
14 the houses are relatively close together .
15 Of cou-rse being the newer one, I would
16 discuss that with Mr. Strang during the
17 hearing .
' 18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, I think
19 what maybe we should do, you can present
20 whatever you want, and maybe it would
21 behoove of you to address the issues made
22 by the neighbor .
23 MR. STRANG: I intend to . I think my
24 initial presentation, might bring some of
25 those concerns and how they ' re possibly
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 53
1 mitigated.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
3 MR. STRANG: As you aware, we ' re
4 seeking relief from the lot coverage
5 requirement, and that has to basically do
6 with the proposed stone terrace . You make
7 reference to the lot coverage calculations
8 shown in the site data, you will see that
9 if the proposed screen room were to be
10 built without the stone terrace, it is
11 compliant . It meets all zoning
12 requirements, including lot coverage . So
13 essentially what we are here for is relief
14 to construct this stone terrace, which is
15 an unusual situation, because unfortunately
16 the property slopes downward from the point
17 of the northwest corner to the point of the
18 southeast corner . And that is really why
19 we ' re here . Due to slope, the majority of
20 this terrace will be above grade, which by
21 definition of determination by the Building
22 Department, constitutes as a structure and
23 subject to the lot coverage requirements .
24 If the property were not sloped, obviously,
25 we would not be here, because we would have
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 54
1 the terrace at grade . But because the
2 property is sloped, it brings us before
3 you. For the record, I just want to make a
4 brief statement here, so it ' s not to
5 belabor the hearing . The terrace is going
6 to be open. It ' s not at grade . It ' s at
7 grade at one corner, and as we move towards
8 the south, it becomes out of grade . But
9 it ' s going to unenclosed and unroofed. It
10 will be open . The only other potential '
11 structures on that terrace is a counter
12 height elevated grill area, so there could
13 be a place to barbecue, with open seating
14 around the proposed fire pit . It would be
15 at bench height essentially. Once again,
16 by virtue of the natural slope of the
17 height, which brings us before you, and I
18 hope you can appreciate the fact that this
19 is an open terrace . It ' s not roofed over .
20 So although it does exceed the required
21 coverage renovation, I think it will be
22 unobstructed for the most part . Again, in
23 addressing the letter from the neighbor,
24 the screen porch is in fact compliant . The
25 reason that we ' re here for lot coverage, is
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 55
1 for the stone terrace .
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is the
3 difference in lot coverage?
4 MR. STRANG: It ' s on the map . Gerry,
5 under site data, under lot coverage --
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Oh, I am sorry. I
7 had it covered up .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Existing is
9 17 . 3, with the porch it ' s 19 . 2 .
10 MR. STRANG: That ' s correct .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When you add the
12 terrace, ' it ' s up to 24 . 8 . Is there anyway
13 that you can step that terrace down and
14 continue to keep it at grade? Rather then
15 just have it one continuous terrace that
16 creates a lot coverage issue?
17 MR. STRANG : I appreciate that thought
18 and would consider that, but the challenge
19 that is, it ' s meant for a -- I should say a
20 congregation of family members and for
21 entertaining purposes . And I have found
22 that it ' s really not such a great idea to
23 have two, if you will, party areas . Where
24 someone could misstep and fall off and hurt
25 themselves . I think it ' s all better if
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 56
1 it ' s at one level and safer .
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do we have a
3 survey on this property?
4 MR. STRANG: I believe there should be
5 one in your file .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there any way
7 that you can reduce that lot coverage,
8 proposed lot coverage down to 220 , for
9 example?
10 MR. STRANG: I would have to address
11 that with my client, Janet Thornton, who is
12 present . I can address that while we ' re
13 here .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have your
15 site plan, that is all we have .
16 MR. STRANG : I do have a survey. That
17 is the copy that I have . I can get the
18 Board additional copies . I can bring it up
19 for you to look at it for the moment .
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : While you are
22 trying to find that, what is the proposed
23 elevation of the stone terrace? How high
24 above grade are we talking?
25 MR. STRANG: Well, again, because of
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 57
1 the nature of the grade, at the corner
2 where the front of the screened porch,
3 okay, it would be at or at the most, eight
4 inches above grade . It depends on how we
5 work out the grading in that area . If you
6 move to the south, the southerly corner, we
7 are probably looking at 24 inches above
8 grade .
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: 22 you said?
10 MR. STRANG: 24 . Again, we don ' t have
11 a topographic map . We don ' t have a
12 topographic map .
13 MEMBER HORNING: What you are really
14 saying is that the whole stone terrace may
15 really be above grade?
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Oh, it will .
17 MEMBER HORNING: Not any of it at
18 grade .
19 MR. STRANG: The one corner, we can
20 probably make that at grade . If we were to
21 work the backfill there . The majority, as
22 I stated earlier, is going to be above
23 grade . There is no question about it . I
24 mean, it ' s just the nature of the way of
25 the land.
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 58
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It ' s kind of a
2 rigmarole, but you could re-grade?
3 MR. STRANG: Yes, we could. I don ' t
4 know if that would be aesthetically
5 pleasing, because you will have to bring in
6 fill --
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You will still
8 have a slope, you will have a backfill of
9 land coming off of those patio doors and
10 then sloping back down, after you no longer
11 require that flat level .
12 MR. STRANG: That could be done . We
13 were hopeful that we wouldn ' t have to
14 pursue it that way. It could be done . The
15 fact that it was an open patio would really
16 address not having to do that .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, I would be
18 interested to see if you could possibly get
19 that proposed 24 . 80 lot coverage down some .
20 MR. STRANG: I just conferred with my
21 client and she indicates that, yes, she
22 would be receptive to reducing the patio
23 somewhat in size, to reduce that lot
24 coverage .
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Garrett, can I
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 59
1 ask you a question about the screened
2 porch?
3 MR. STRANG: Certainly.
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The pitch on the
5 roof appears to be relatively steep . What
6 happens with the rain water -- the
7 applicant property and the neighboring
8 property, if the water comes off and over
9 shoots the gutters? There may or may not
10 be drywells there . This has been an issue
11 that has concerned me significantly on
12 small lots . And drywells, can be put in --
13 MR. STRANG: To answer your question,
14 presently all but one of the gutters or the
15 leaders from the gutters , go into drywells ,
16 from what I could see . Although, it is not
17 shown on this particular site plan, I had
18 included a drywell to the west side of the
19 addition, into which not only the one
20 existing leader that is not going into a
21 drywell, the new gutters and leaders from
22 the porch addition, will go into the
23 drywell . So we will be containing the roof
24 runoff .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would be
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 60
1 contained for the new water runoff for the
2 porch --
3 MR. STRANG: For the new proposed
4 porch and there is also a leader that exist
5 in the northwest corner of the existing
6 house, which is where the porch starts on
7 the north side . That is presently not
8 going into a drywell, and we will pipe that
9 into the drywell ' s also .
10 MEMBER HORNING : Could we get a
11 revised survey showing all of those?
12 MR. STRANG: I can certainly provide
13 that . That is not a problem. In fact, the
14 site plan is already showing the existence
15 of the coverage of the drywell, and of
16 course, if the Board directed us to reduce
17 the size of the patio, obviously the site
18 plan would be amended to reflect that as
19 well .
20 MEMBER HORNING : In our decision, we
21 need to refer to site plans , surveys and
22 such, and if it ' s all on one paper, it ' s
23 easier to understand then . If we have to
24 refer to any number of other surveys , you
25 know, just to get the information .
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 61
1 MR. STRANG: I understand.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Garrett, this
3 site plan doesn ' t have any drywell ' s on it .
4 MR. STRANG: No, it doesn ' t . That
5 particular map has just been generated this
6 very week actually, as I have been moving
7 along with drawings for the screened porch,
8 I added in the drainage .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is that a survey
10 or a site plan?
11 MR. STRANG: It ' s a site plan.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Is there
13 anyone else in the audience that would like
14 to address this application?
15 (No Response . )
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any more
17 questions from the Board?
18 (No Response . )
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Hearing
20 no further questions, I am going to make a
21 motion to close this hearing subject to
22 receipt of an amended plan, indicating
23 onsite drainage, and the Board will, based
24 on our conversations, consider alternative
25 relief on the lot coverage, if you would
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 62
1 like, between now and then, consult with
2 your client and propose an amended lot
3 coverage, we will consider .
4 MR. STRANG: Fine .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I can ' t
6 determine what that number will be .
7 MR. STRANG: Of course .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But we will
9 consider that and either grant an amended
10 or grant alternative --
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: On the plan, you
12 will show how much of the terrace you
13 intend to take off of it?
14 MR. STRANG: Yes . And I will have new
15 calculations as to the proposed lot
16 coverage based on the new proposal as well
17 as that drawing will' also have the drywells
18 on it .
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you .
20 MR. STRANG: Certainly. Thank you
21 very much .
22 MEMBER HORNING: Madam Chairperson?
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes .
24 MEMBER HORNING: We are just going to
25 have the one letter from the neighbor in
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 63
1 the file?
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right . We ' re
3 going to close subject to receipt of
4 additional information.
5 I made that motion to close subject to
6 receipt of an amended site plan .
7 Is there a second?
8 MEMBER HORNING : Second.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
10 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
14 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
15 *******************************************
16 HEARING #6546 - GLYN & MICHELLE WEIR
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
18 application before the Board is for Glyn
19 and Michelle Weir, #6546 . Request for
20 variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124
21 and the Building Inspector ' s
22 December 7 , 2011 Notice of Disapproval
23 based on an application for building permit
24 to construct additions/alterations to
25 existing single family dwelling : 1 ) less
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 64
1 than the code required minimum rear yard
2 setback of 50 feet; located at : 5200 Mill
3 Road, a . k. a . 5550 West Mill Road, Cox Neck
4 Road, Mattituck. Good morning .
5 MR. WEIR: Good morning . I am Glyn
6 Weir, the owner of the property, 5200 West
7 Mill Road, a . k. a, 5500 West Mill Road. So
8 the current property is a two bedroom, and
9 we ' re proposing to make it a three bedroom
10 with a den . And also to have the stairwell
11 be part of the addition to accommodate our
12 grown family. It ' s currently a two bedroom
13 house .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Are you
15 clear as to why you ' re before this Board?
16 Do you understand what the nonconformity it
17 is that you ' re proposing?
18 MR. WEIR: Yes , I do .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Essentially your
20 rear yard setback is 44 feet, where the
21 code requires 50 . You are not proposing to
22 change that setback?
23 MR. WEIR: I am not proposing to
24 change that setback. Not that I am aware
25 of. I am just proposing a variance for
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 65
1 that setback. I would like to add --
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The current
3 house exist at 44 feet ; is that correct?
4 MR. WEIR: Correct . And the -- I have
5 been told two separate things by the
6 Building Department . One was that the
7 setback requirement was 50 feet, because it
8 was considered a backyard. And it was
9 considered a backyard, because it must
10 obviously be a backyard because the main
11 road is in the front of the house and the
12 backyard would be in the back. But I was
13 told that it was a 40 foot setback
14 requirement another time because it would
15 be considered to have two front yards,
16 because of the right-of-way that went by
17 the back of the house . What appears to be
18 the backyard.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is the
20 driveway that goes around your property?
21 MR. WEIR: Yes, Ma ' am. I am not
22 proposing to change any of that, but I
23 think it is something that maybe of
24 interest to the Board, to the Tax
25 Assessor ' s Office, to try and find out more
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 66
1 about that, and whether it would be
2 considered a front yard or a backyard,
3 because I only found out from Mr . Horning
4 last night that that --
5 MEMBER HORNING: Uh-oh.
6 MR. WEIR: Well, he just mentioned
7 just in passing that some people ' s
8 interpretation change . . So I tried to find
9 out, you know, is it a front yard or is it
10 a backyard, just for your benefit and for
11 potentially mine . I wasn ' t able to find
12 out this morning for the Board, but I do
13 own part of the right-of-way. So I can not
14 imagine why -- I believe if I have access
15 to part of the right-of-way then that would
16 be considered potentially a front yard.
17 Since I own part of that right-of-way, I
18 assume that I would have access .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Board
20 legally can only grant relief, in terms of
21 a variance, based on the Notice of
22 Disapproval .
23 MR. WEIR: Okay.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it ' s a
25 Building Department interpretation.
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 67
1 MR. STRANG: Got it .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Clearly what is
3 going on here is that your property is over
4 a 34 foot setback and 10 feet for the
5 right-of-way. They have determined that
6 that is a rear yard.
7 MR. WEIR: Okay.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : However, what
9 you ' re doing, essentially is putting a
10 proposed addition from the footprint of the
11 existing building.
12 MR. WEIR: Yes .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The only reason
14 you are here is because you ' re increasing
15 the degree of nonconformity, by adding
16 bulk, which is already nonconforming
17 setback. You ' re not proposing to alter the
18 nonconforming setback of 34 feet, but
19 because of the putting on of bulk on, the
20 addition, technically it is increasing that
21 nonconformity. That is why you are here .
22 Okay. We have all visited the property.
23 It is a very unusual piece of property with
24 a lovely view of the creek, and a nice
25 pond. Anyway, Gerry, do you have any
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 68
1 questions?
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am very familiar
3 with the area . I actually live in the
4 area . I am actually a neighbor of yours .
5 Our house is up, about 1600 feet apart . I
6 live on Bayview Avenue, which is the last
7 right before we get down to your place .
8 MR. WEIR: Nice .
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the property
10 believe it or not, belonged to the County
11 of Suffolk. It was taken for nonpayment of
12 taxes . Mr . Buckingham was probably the one
13 that rebuilt the house in it ' s present
14 entirety when you probably bought it from
15 him. He is now a neighbor of mine . Okay.
16 A really very nice man . The Killian ' s live
17 up above the original situation was part of
18 Mattituck Marina at one time, and
19 Mr . Boscolo was the one who probably owned
20 Mr . Killian ' s house, who I know personally
21 and Mr . Boscolo and his wife, who have
22 since moved away. So we can say that the
23 right-of-way is probably used by two other
24 families at this time .
25 MR. WEIR: It ' s actually used by the
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 69
1 Boscolo ' s , the Killian ' s and the people who
2 own Mattituck Inlet Marina are -- have a
3 house on the property and his son, James
4 also uses the right-of-way.
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So it is a well
6 traveled right-of-way by those three
7 families . There is no doubt that the lot
8 is extremely interestingly unusual shaped
9 lot . No doubt about that . , What is also
10 interesting is the grading changes from the
11 house down and of course the elevation of
12 the house . So all those situations
13 involved, I can see why you ' re building a
14 bigger building, and that ' s basically it .
15 MR. WEIR: I think it ' s -- you know,
16 it could be more aesthetically pleasing . I
17 think it ' s very low or no impact on any of
18 the neighbor ' s . And I have actually been
19 congratulated by the neighbor ' s for taking
20 this leap for my family.
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The actual plans ,
22 which are showing -- we are shown internal
23 plans, but when we look at the external
24 plans, #7 and #6, we ' re looking at what
25 changes will be actually made to the
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 70
1 dwelling. Standing out on the
2 right-of-way; is that correct?
3 MR. WEIR: I 'm sorry, changes to the
4 plan standing on the right-of-way?
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And looking
6 towards the house?
7 MR. WEIR: Yes . So this, yes , this
8 view would be looking at from -- I would
9 say not quite on the right-of-way. If you
10 look at #9 , then you would be standing
11 right up on the right-of-way.
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. I don ' t
13 have any further questions . I am happy.
14 It ' s going to be the same setback
15 regardless of what we consider it to be .
16 It was a pleasure meeting you .
G•
17 MR. WEIR: Thank you .
18 MEMBER HORNING: Just to clarify my
19 involvement in terms of understanding
20 language and what the right-of-way
21 regarding the rear yard. I happened to ask
22 him whether he had use of the right-of-way
23 or not, and we had a generic conversation
24 about what constituted a front yard.
25 MR. WEIR: I hope I didn ' t get you in
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 71
1 trouble .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is why we
3 do site inspections when people are not
4 around. The plans are very skillfully
5 done, and it ' s not going to have much
6 impact . The right-of-way, it really
7 constitutes a second front yard.
8 Particularly that you have access to it .
9 It might be your rear yard if you had no
10 access to it . We ' re going to go with what
11 the Building Inspector determined to be the
12 variance before us .
13 Ken, do you have any questions?
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes, just a quick
15 one . The property to the south of you, on
16 the other side of the right-of-way?
17 MR. WEIR: Yes .
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What does that
19 consist of? Is there a dwelling right over
20 there?
21 MR. WEIR: There is no dwelling there .
22 It is owned by the owner across the street ,
23 Leo Grand, and, he is a summer time
24 resident . Weekends only. I have spoken to
25 him. They own approximately 36 acres in
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 72
1 that area . It is just an overgrown piece
2 of property that he has no intention on
3 putting a dwelling on .
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Your proposal then
5 will not impact anyone?
6 MR. WEIR: Correct .
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Very good. No
8 further questions .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Very good. Is
10 there anyone in the audience that would
11 like to address this application?
12 (No Response . )
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
14 further questions or comments, I am going
15 to make a motion to close this hearing and
16 reserve decision to a later date .
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
20 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
23 (See Minutes for Resolution. )
24 ********** ********************************
25 HEARING #6548 - GLENN HEIDTMANN, JR.
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 73
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
2 application before the Board is for Glenn
3 Heidtmann, Jr. , #6548 . Request for
4 variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124
5 and the Building Inspector ' s
6 January 30 , 2012 Notice of Disapproval
7 based on an application for building permit
8 for "as built" deck/hot tub addition to
9 existing single family dwelling: 1 ) less
10 than the code required minimum rear yard
11 setback of 50 feet ; located at : 600
12 Albacore Drive, Greenport .
13 Is there someone here to address the
14 application? Good morning.
15 MR. HEIDTMANN : Good morning. Glenn
16 Heidtmann, property owner .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I ' m sorry?
18 MR. HEIDTMANN : I am the owner .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And please state
20 your name .
21 MR. HEIDTMANN : Glenn Heidtmann, 600
22 Albacore Drive .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. Do
24 you have any green cards for us?
25 MR. HEIDTMANN : Yes , I do, but I don ' t
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 74
1 have them all on me .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, why don ' t
3 you bring us what you have and bring the
4 others into the office?
5 MR. HEIDTMANN : Sure . I believe
6 they ' re in my truck outside . Can I give
7 them to you after this?
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can submit
9 them after the public hearing.
10 MR. HEIDTMANN: Okay.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And we have a
12 letter from Suffolk County indicating that
13 this matter is for before this Board for
14 local determination . You can have a copy,
15 if you would like one?
16 MR. HEIDTMANN : Sure .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we have a
18 situation of a rear yard setback of 39 . 5
19 feet, when the code requires 50 feet . And
20 that is why you are before us . Sir, so you
21 have a drywell on your property to empty
22 the spa water?
23 MR. HEIDTMANN : Yes .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You do . Is that
25 indicating anywhere on there?
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 75
1 MR. HEIDTMANN : Oh, I 'm sorry . To
2 empty the spa, no I do not .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Where does that
4 water get discharged when you have to clean
5 it and empty it?
6 MR. HEIDTMANN : It would just run onto
7 the grass .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hopefully, not
9 into the pond --
10 MR. HEIDTMANN: No, correct .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The reason why I
12 ask is because onsite drainage is a
13 requirement by the Town, in other words ,
14 you can ' t just dump the stuff into the
15 street, or any other water, or body. So it
16 has become - State mandated. The Town issues
17 it for swimming pool ' s and spa ' s and so on .
18 Pool water especially, because it is filled
19 with chemicals . Mr . Goehringer is
20 suggesting to let it sit for a while and
21 let it dissipate .
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It ' s a lot easier
23 outside because the sun gets to it and it
24 just dissipates .
25 MR. HEIDTMANN : Generally, we try and.
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 76
1 do it once a season, but that is pretty
2 much the extent of it . It ' s not a
3 continual thing that we do .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How does this
5 deck and hot tub get seated?
6 MR. HEIDTMANN: On my own. I am in
7 the business and I was a little over
8 zealous in the decision. At the time, I
9 had an opportunity to buy the material and
10 I built it without the permit .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How is it that
12 you wound up coming to the Board?
13 MR. HEIDTMANN : I believe there was a
14 phone call possibly to the Building
15 Department that I was in violation of the
16 building .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right . What
18 is the size of the deck? We have seen it
19 but I just want to --
20 MR. HEIDTMANN: It ' s about 16 X 50 .
21 So it ' s roughly just under 800 square feet .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: When was the deck
24 built?
25 MR. HEIDTMANN: I believe it was built
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 77
1 in the Spring 2009 . Yeah, this would be
2 the third season, I think.
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: April 2009?
4 MR. HEIDTMANN: I believe so .
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Can you narrow it
6 down a little more?
7 MR. HEIDTMANN : I believe it was May .
8 MEMBER HORNING: Was the hot tub and
9 the deck all on the same time?
10 MR. HEIDTMANN: The hot tub was moved
11 at a later date . I would say probably
12 brought in about four months later because
13 it had to be moved from it ' s location to
14 it ' s current location .
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And you ' re in the
16 construction business? You are a
17 contractor?
18 MR. HEIDTMANN: Yes .
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So you ' re a
20 contractor and you didn ' t know you needed a
21 permit for this?
22 MR. HEIDTMANN: No, I was over zealous
23 and eyesight was 20/20 . And the amount of
24 time that had gone by with an unfinished
25 structure, pretty clear that this could --
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 78
1 this decision should have been made .
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Can you describe
3 your surrounding neighbor ' s of the
4 property?
5 MR. HEIDTMANN : To the east and west I
6 have no neighbor ' s . The association. owns
7 the property to the east . I guess you can
8 say southeast . And to the northwest, there
9 is a vacant lot that is owned by the Town.
10 And then behind me, there are two
11 neighbor ' s . Both of which, summer, that
12 may eventually be year round. That is the
13 extent of the neighbor ' s . Two neighbor ' s
14 behind .
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. No further
16 questions at this from me .
17 MEMBER HORNING : I have one question
18 on the LWRP . Do you have a copy of that?
19 Did you bring that with you?
20 MR. HEIDTMANN : I do not .
21 MEMBER HORNING: All right . I will
22 summarize it . There is an LWRP, that is a
23 local water resource program or whatever
24 consistency, to summarize, your Notice of
25 Disapproval for a deck, then you go on and
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 79
1 all the different areas of policies of
2 however many, 12 or 14 . To tell you
3 exactly 13 policies on policy questions .
4 Yes/No or Not Applicable . You put Not
5 Applicable for all of them except one that
6 caught my eye, which is Policy #4 , where
7 the goal is to minimize loss of life of
8 natural resources from flooding and
9 erosion, and it refers to LWRP Section 3
10 Policy Pages 8 through 16 for evaluation
11 criteria to determine how to answer it .
12 This is the only policy question that you
13 answered, no, and I am wondering if that is
14 an error somehow, since you answered Not
15 Applicable for all the other policy
16 questions, and somehow this one is
17 answered, no . In other words, I believe it
18 means the goal to minimize loss of life
19 structural resources from flooding and
20 erosion, to the question of a hot tub of
21 where it is drained to, or how you deal
22 with that, if you have some way of draining
23 it properly to minimize, let ' s say flooding
24 and erosion or pollution to that nice
25 pound, wouldn ' t you be answering, yes ,
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 80
1 somehow to that question?
2 MR. HEIDTMANN : It ' s quite possible
3 that I didn ' t read -- understand the
4 question. The grade is such that, any
5 water that does overflow the Jacuzzi, the
6 grade moves the water away from the pond.
7 It can not drain into the pond because
8 their is a slight berm. But at the rear of
9 the property, there is a bubbler, that
10 allows the water flow in the original
11 application before I build the house, it
12 feeds into ,there, because there is ( In
13 Audible) and clay in the area . So the
14 water does not drain very well . Any water
15 that is accumulating in the center lot
16 crosses the property into a bubbler and
17 then to the sump .
18 MEMBER HORNING: Then to the question,
19 what are you going to do to drain the hot
20 tub occasionally, even if it ' s once a
21 season . Where are you putting the water, I
22 think is the question?
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have one more
24 question here . I am looking at your
25 decking plan that was submitted with the
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 81
1 application. It doesn ' t really reflect
2 what exist there . For one thing, the hot
3 tub is not there, on the decking plan, and
4 I would imagine that you would need to
5 submit a plan to the Building Department
6 for a permit . So I would like to see a
7 plan that actually reflects what is there .
8 MR. HEIDTMANN : Sure, we can do that .
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The hot tub and I
10 guess the slab for the hot tub . You are
11 going to need anyway.
12 MR. HEIDTMANN: Sure .
13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Most of this
14 reflects it but this area where the tub is .
15 Do you know what I am talking about?
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s on the
17 survey, July 15th --
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I see it on the
19 survey, but I want --
20 MR. HEIDTMANN : We can certainly
21 incorporate it on the building plans .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They' re going to
23 require it . Any other questions or
24 comments?
25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I 'm done .
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 82
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right .
2 Hearing no further questions or
3 comments , I will make a motion to close the
4 hearing and reserve decision to a later
5 date .
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
9 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
12 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
13 ***************** *************************
14 HEARING #6541 - DE ART OF NATURE, LLC .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
16 application before the Board is for De Art
17 of Nature, LLC . , #6541 . Request for
18 variances from Article III Code Section
19 280-13A (2 ) , based on an application for
20 building permit and the Building
21 Inspector ' s December 29, 2011 Notice of
22 Disapproval concerning proposed
23 additions/alterations to existing
24 greenhouse structure and new office
25 trailers, at : 1 ) less than the code
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 83
1 required front yard setback of 60 feet, 2 )
2 less than the code required minimum side
3 yard setback of 20 feet, 3) more than the
4 code permitted maximum lot coverage of 200 ,
5 located at : 23423 Middle Road, Cutchogue .
6 MR. STRANG: Good morning, again .
7 Garrett Strang, architect for the De Art of
8 Nature .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, we have,
10 Garrett, Suffolk County for local
11 determination, but we also have comments
12 from the Planning Board. Do you have a
13 copy of this?
14 MR. STRANG: No, I do not . I did not
15 receive those .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then I will give
17 you those .
18 MR. STRANG: I actually have a
19 Planning Board hearing on Monday.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The comments are
21 -- well they come to us . They do this as a
22 courtesy, though we request applicant ' s to
23 review their file prior to the public
24 hearing to find out about additional
25 letters that may appear from different
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 84
1 agencies . In any way, to sum it up for the
2 public record, they are -- they indicate
3 that the application is supportive . They
4 support the process .
5 MR. STRANG: Okay. Thank you .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please proceed.
7 MR. STRANG: As you are aware, the use
8 of the property is agriculture, but due to
9 the nature of the produce, it must be grown
10 on the grass . We have looked at many
11 alternatives rather than have to seek these
12 variances , but the specifics of the
13 mechanics of the operation, necessitates ,
14 that there be a small addition on the all
15 four sides of the existing building. This
16 addition is primarily for the issue of
17 moving produce and trays around the
18 perimeter of the building, as well as
19 providing some protected shipping and
20 receiving areas . The side yard relief that
21 we ' re seeking from on the west side is for
22 15 . 8 foot at the south westerly corner .
23 The side yard however does increase to a
24 compliance 23 . 6 feet in the northwest
25 corner . The building actually becomes
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 85
1 compliant to a 20 foot setback at
2 approximately 130 feet back from that south
3 westerly corner . So that side of the
4 building ' s length in noncompliance but the
5 rest is complying . With respect to the
6 front yard setback, although appearing
7 substantial . It ' s a very unique situation
8 for this particular property. A couple of
9 years ago, the previous owners of the
10 property created by subdivision through the
11 Planning Board, two residential lots on the
12 north side of the property, which are both
13 owned by the Graebe ' s . And so it ' s a
14 family situation, but family and single
15 lots . In doing so, the Planning Board
16 required that there be a ten foot
17 right-of-way along the easterly side of
18 this property to access the middle lot .
19 Essentially the right-of-way is solely to
20 use for a driveway. In as much as the
21 northerly most lot, is a flag lot and does
22 have access to County Road 48 . That can be
23 seen on the tax map . That northerly lot is
24 a flag lot, and the middle lot does have a
25 right-of-way, the big parcel that we ' re
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 86
1 talking about today. When the right-of-way
2 was required, I think, and this is an
3 opinion on my part, speculation, the fact
4 that there may have been a nonconforming
5 front yard setback to the existing
6 greenhouse building having been created. I
7 think that was either overlooked or that
8 was not part of the intention, as part of
9 that subdivision, had that been considered
10 the front yard, but nothing more than a
11 driveway, if you will, to access the middle
12 lot . If you were to consider that that
13 right-of-way was not intended to be a front
14 yard, but to be in fact a side yard, the
15 required setback would be 25 feet, and as
16 such, we would be looking at a relief of
17 13 . 4 feet, not 48 . 4 feet, the difference
18 between the required side yard and required
19 front yard. Now, with respect to the lot
20 coverage, we have looked at numerous ways
21 to address this as well . My client has
22 even made overtures to the neighboring
23 property owners to -- that abut his
24 property, if he can purchase some
25 additional property to help mitigate this
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 87
1 situation, but he was unable to work
2 something out with regards to that . So the
3 end result, is that what we have proposed
4 here is the absolute bear minimum that is
5 needed for this facility to function
6 properly. One thing that I would ask be
7 considered is that the immediate area of
8 the building -- excuse me, in the area of
9 the immediate structure itself, the
10 abutting neighboring properties itself are
11 agriculture uses . Some of which their
12 property have had been put into
13 preservation . To take advantage of
14 preservation situation. It is my opinion
15 that this proposed addition to the building
16 will not have any significant impact on the
17 building or will be noticeable in it ' s
18 location because of the consistency of the
19 ( In Audible) that will remain . In closing,
20 I would also like to make the Board aware
21 of the fact that my client is making a
22 substantial commitment to agreeing, pardon
23 the pun, to installing solar energy
24 systems . Geo thermal systems, as well as
25 using recycled irrigation water, reclaimed
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 88
1 rain water . That is pretty much where
2 we ' re at this point . I thank you for your
3 attention and consideration of the
4 application.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you,
6 Garrett . As you know, we have all been to
7 the site to inspect the property. One of
8 the things that the Planning Board comments
9 refers to, is the condition that the fire
10 district finds that there is emergency
11 access that you are proposing to reduce
12 from the 25 feet .
13 MR. STRANG: Correct .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is a
15 gravel area on the side of the building --
16 MR. STRANG : Yes .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is the proposed
18 addition -- because you are actually
19 proposing a perimeter addition?
20 MR. STRANG: That ' s correct .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that going to
22 go in that area or is that going to go
23 beyond that area?
24 MR. STRANG: That is -- what the
25 gravel driveway?
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 89
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not the gravel
2 driveway. Right up against the existing
3 side of the building, the east side of the
4 building, is an area that is gravel . It is
5 right next to the paved.
6 MR. STRANG: Okay.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : On top of that
8 is some platform.
9 MR. STRANG: Oh, I see what you ' re
10 saying.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All I want to
12 know is , and I was trying to eyeball this,
13 is that where the proposed addition is
14 going or is the proposed addition going
15 into the paved drive?
16 MR. STRANG: No, we ' re not going into
17 the paved drive, no . We ' re not .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. That was
19 something that I wanted to confirm, based
20 on field inspection . Where are deliveries?
21 Where do they take place? Would it be
22 along that now ten foot wide access?
23 MR. STRANG: Well, that is a good
24 question, and I think at this point, what I
25 would like to do is introduce my client,
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 90
1 Mr . Eddy Creces , who is the applicant, and
2 who is day-to-day hands on, on what goes on
3 there . I will introduce him, and I think
4 he will better answer those questions than
5 I .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right . Can
7 you just please state and spell your name
8 for the record?
9 MR. CRECES : Eddy Creces , E-D-D-Y
10 C-R-E-C-E-S .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you .
12 MR. CRECES : Good afternoon, ladies
13 and gentlemen, Board Members . I am the
14 managing director of De Art of Nature,
15 owner of the specific property that we ' re
16 discussing today. The operating company is
17 Koppert Cress USA, of course we have the
18 same owners, it was just a technical thing
19 that we created. Koppert Cress USA is to
20 produce herbs , micro vegetables and edible
21 flowers and also produce wheat grass at
22 that facility. I am have been trying to do
23 that in the most natural way as possible,
24 through our marketing company, Koppert
25 Cress . We strive to use natural resources
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 91
1 in the most responsible way as possible .
2 We do practice state agricultural . We use
3 recycled water . We don' t use any
4 pesticides , nor herbicides . We recycle
5 water whatever we can . We collect rain
6 water . We ' re planning to put in a ( In
7 Audible) system to generate electricity.
8 Actually sunshine is the most important
9 ingredient in farming . And that is why we
10 chose this location four years ago . As you
11 know, Cutchogue is the sunniest place in
12 New York State . That is why we ' re here .
13 Wheat grass juice that we produce is liquid
14 sunshine, which is really the building
15 blocks of selling a structure in human
16 beings and plants . So we ' re very proud of
17 what we do . This facility in Cutchogue was
18 constructed about 25 years ago . At the
19 time it was a very modern facility;
20 however, it has not been updated over the
21 years . The structure however, is very
22 durable . So what we would like to do at
23 this point, is bring the facility up to par
24 with 21st Century agriculture . We employ
25 about 20 people at the facility. We felt
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 92
1 the need to improve the work facility, the
2 work area, so that the people can operate
3 in a more better place . In order to do
4 that, you have the plans in front of you of
5 what we ' re seeking the variances from the
6 Town . Over the past few weeks , the
7 majority of our immediate neighbor ' s, most
8 of them are in favor of this renovations .
9 Actually all of them area . In addition, I
10 would want to say that we ' re doing a
11 clean-up of the entire facility, and new
12 landscaping. To give a better curbside
13 appeal for the whole facility. And I can
14 answer any questions that you might have .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just wanted to
16 follow-up that I had asked your architect,
17 is access along that right-of-way, are
18 deliveries done -- are trucks in that area?
19 I would imagine that there is travel going
20 front and back. Do they have to stop along
21 that way? Would they ever be blocking that
22 right-of-way?
23 MR. CRECES : At this time, they would,
24 and that was one of the concerns that we
25 have had over the past couple of years . We
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 93
1 came up with this plan, and we ' re going to
2 build a loading dock -- actually there is a
3 loading dock there already. We need to
4 build a building at that loading dock, so
5 that we could easily load and unload
6 trucks . You will see that on the south
7 side, which indicates a two-bay loading
8 area .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So I see that,
10 but I don ' t see any particular driveway to
11 that loading dock. I see there is an
12 existing drywell here and two bays . That
13 says proposed office trailer, where is
14 that?
15 MR. CRECES : Right next to it .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Proposed
17 office trailer . That is an existing
18 loading ramp?
19 MR. CRECES : Yes .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you ' re
21 proposing something next to it, or no?
22 MR. STRANG: No .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, what my
24 concern is, especially with reducing the
25 width, that because there are residential
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 94
1 properties behind, even though the Planning
2 Board said a ten foot right-of-way is what
3 was necessary, that in and of itself might
4 not be an . issue, unless the fire department
5 determines that -- you know, emergency
6 equipment is a lot bigger than a car . My
7 concern is that vehicles would be blocking
8 that access . They would be stopping,
9 unloading, loading, parking along that
10 right-of-way. If this plan addresses that ,
11 and it can assure that that right-of-way
12 will remain open at all times and that
13 trucks will come onto the site, they can go
14 back and forth of course . They will not be
15 parked in the right-of-way, I think we will
16 find a good balance between the welfare of
17 the general community and the right ' s of
18 the property owner .
19 MR. CRECES : May I?
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please do .
21 MR. CRECES : The east facade, the
22 proposed addition will only have egress and
23 ingress for productions . There will be no
24 doors for ( In Audible) or vehicles or
25 traffic . Only emergency exit for people .
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 95
1 That is all that is going to be on that
2 facade . So that was the whole purpose to
3 do the loading and the unloading in the
4 front of the building .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What kind of
6 traffic from vehicles , you know, trucks,
7 let ' s say, would be on the front, going
8 along the side to the rear?
9 MR. CRECES : The only one ' s that would
10 be doing that is the garage removal and
11 possibly once in a while, some supplies .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And they would
13 be pulling off the right-of-way into that
14 general area?
15 MR. CRECES : Yes .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. You
17 understand what my concern is?
18 MR. CRECES : Absolutely.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You ' re a
20 firefighter, tell us about this ten foot
21 wide --
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You can not access
23 -- you know, I am a Mattituck Fire
24 Department Member, you can not access the
25 right-of-way with ten feet and the present
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 96
1 use, with the trucks that we have .
2 MEMBER HORNING: Doesn ' t the code
3 require 15 feet?
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes . The code
5 requires 15 feet .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You ' re proposing
7 a ten foot .
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The truck itself
9 measures -- they ' re just under 12 foot in
10 width. And more in particular, the larger
11 trucks . That is just my opinion . That is
12 part of the issue . My question to you,
13 sir, can you just give us a brief history,
14 or me a brief history, on the purpose of
15 creating this external floor around the
16 entire building that you ' re proposing, and
17 the additions there to? What is the
18 purpose of them?
19 MR. CRECES : The way that we grow our
20 products is on growing benches . Most
21 greenhouses are done that way. They
22 construct these modules and the benches fit
23 in these modules, or two or three benches
24 fit in a module . Depending on the module .
25 So we have that set up for that greenhouse .
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 97
1 Then you need people to walk to these
2 areas, and you also need benches to go
3 somewhere to ( In Audible) so that is what
4 we ' re trying to create . A space for the
5 ( In Audible) to travel, instead of in the
6 growing area . They ' re ready to harvest .
7 So we ' re trying to get all the other
8 traffic around the perimeter of the
9 building. Since we ' re living in New York
10 and have all this area, we have obviously
11 four seasons . So in the summer it becomes
12 too hot and the winter it becomes too cold.
13 Wind, rain, you know, the elements that we
14 have to deal with . So we ' re trying to
15 protect all of that, and . the people that
16 obviously have to work in the facility and
17 not have to go outside . In addition, food
18 safety is a major concern in our food
19 supply these days, which I am sure everyone
20 is aware of . Our facility is currently ( In
21 Audible) certified. Certification that is
22 more voluntary at this point, but it will
23 become law in the near future . We already
24 have it in place, but in order to comply
25 the rules, we will have to keep any
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 98
1 possible contaminated products away from
2 the growing area of the food. That is
3 another reason why we. would like to create
4 that corridor .
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why does that
6 corridor have to be so wide in the east
7 side of the property?
8 MR. CRECES : It ' s actually the size of
9 a bench, plus three feet in space, which is
10 to accommodate a person walking next to
11 that . But the bench size is 11 feet .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there any way
13 that that square footage can be realized by
14 enlarging the proposed addition on the
15 north or the south side?
16 MR. CRECES : Unfortunately, that is
17 not an option because of the flow of
18 things . We plant seeds and they germinate .
19 So they follow a certain path . It has to
20 be a round about path, in other words .
21 That is why we ' re trying to create that
22 flow .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is why we
24 have public hearings for the specific
25 nature of the application . A ten foot wide
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 99
1 right-of-way is fine . It ' s unobstructed.
2 It ' s for residential purposes . It ' s not
3 going to be obstructing. Nobody is going
4 to be parked there . People can come and go
5 from their residential property without the
6 inconvenience of having to wait for trucks .
7 The remaining concern that the Planning
8 Board raised in terms of site plan, and
9 what Mr . Goehringer has raised, is that the
10 code requires for emergency access a
11 minimum, 15 foot side yard. Now, you ' re
12 proposing a 15 foot side yard that expands
13 to a conforming side yard on the west side
14 of the property. So from an emergency
15 point of view, Gerry can you address that?
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, it ' s going
17 to be the Fire Chief ' s call .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It ' s unpaved.
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: When I am
20 referring to 11 . 6, I am referring to the
21 overall body of the vehicle . When I went
22 over to the site, I actually approached it
23 both ways . That I did approach it from the
24 west side, and I did notice that you had
25 more ( In Audible) . At the time that I was
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 100
1 there, you had a , machine working on that
2 side, grinding the property out . And I
3 certainly know Mr . Thompson, and he
4 mentioned to me that is what you were
5 doing .
6 MR. CRECES : Correct .
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: When I went to the
8 east side, I found it extremely tight . So
9 I don ' t know what to say to you other then
10 the fact that is the reason why I am
11 talking about that line of questioning .
12 MR. CRECES : We have already 14 feet,
13 which is there . We have that berm, but
14 obviously you don ' t want to drive on that
15 berm, unless it would be an emergency. But
16 the roadway itself, it would be 15 to 16
17 feet area .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is why 0
19 asked about the gravel area because what I
20 am looking at here, the site plan, and I am
21 also looking at the plot plan, that shows
22 the flag lot, it looks as though what you
23 are doing is proposing 11 . 6 feet from the
24 10 foot right-of-way, and then there is the
25 10 foot right-of-way. Does that count?
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 101
1 MR. CRECES : I am not --
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is two
3 different things that I am getting here .
4 That would make it 21 1/2 foot wide from
5 where the (In Audible) let ' s say, to the
6 proposed addition.
7 MR. STRANG: At the present time, from
8 the property line to the actual building is
9 24 and change, I believe .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right, 25 . 2 .
11 MR. STRANG: Right . I have to put my
12 glasses on. So once we come out the 13 1 . 2
13 feet with the addition, it will go down to
14 11 . 6, but there is also -- there is the
15 area adjacent, which is not part of our
16 property, part of Ms . Graebe ' s property
17 that is part of the traveled access to the
18 two lots . That is another 15 feet .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks like it
20 is 10 .
21 MR. STRANG: To the east .
22 MR. CRECES : Overall, we will have
23 26 . 2 feet .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Part is paved
25 and part is unpaved?
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 102
1 MR. CRECES : Correct .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, do you
3 happen to know whether the unpaved portion
4 ( In Audible) residential property owner in
5 the back, or are they traveling on the
6 paved --
7 MR. CRECES : They ' re traveling on the
8 paved area . That is on a slab .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is what I
10 thought . It might be a 10 foot
11 right-of-way, but it may not be a
12 functional access , is it?
13 MR. CRECES : Not at this point .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is what am
15 trying to get at . Is that a legal -- is
16 that property legally able to use your
17 asphalt driveway?
18 MR. CRECES : It is actually their
19 asphalt driveway. So we share that
20 driveway.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think you can
22 determine what I am trying to accomplish,
23 which is to get an unobstructed access to
24 the property, while at the same time
25 getting 15 foot accessible area for
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 103
1 emergency equipment, which of course it is
2 not only essential for the residential
3 properties in the back, but for your
4 property as well .
5 MR. CRECES : Sure . Ms . Graebe
6 actually came to me this morning with this
7 concern . I actually agreed, we have to pay
8 for widening that road of four feet . To
9 bring it into that berm and provide some
10 type of a retaining wall, so that that
11 driveway would become four feet wider .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What length?
13 MR. CRECES : I would say the length of
14 the building .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, that would
16 certainly help the residential property.
17 It ' s not going to ultimately help more
18 access all the way back for emergency
19 equipment . That is apparently not the case
20 now .
21 MR. CRECES : All the way back there is
22 no buildings on the west side of the
23 driveway, so respectfully, not an issue .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In particularly,
25 in a snowy situation, you have to follow
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 104
1 the tracks --
2 MR. CRECES : There is a deer fence
3 about 10 foot high.
4 MR. STRANG: Once you are in front of
5 or behind the building with this addition,
6 you have plenty of room for traffic .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Does this
8 require Site Plan approval?
9 MR. STRANG: Yes .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would have
11 thought so . So that is going to be
12 something that the Planning Board is also
13 going to address , but I think your
14 testimony shows us so far the cooperation
15 to create an accessible condition . The
16 safety, I think is, primary the concern for
17 your property and your neighbor ' s . I have
18 to go on record -- well, I don ' t have to,
19 but I would like to go on record and say
20 the product is wonderful .
21 MR. CRECES : Thank you.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The option for
23 us to purchase those wonderful organic
24 products . Who knew they were with such
25 amazing flavor .
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 105
1 MR. CRECES : Well, you are always
2 welcome any time .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let ' s see if the
4 Board has any other comments? George or
5 Ken?
6 MEMBER HORNING: Yes, just briefly on
7 the character of the neighborhood, signage
8 for your facility, do you have any? I
9 didn ' t notice any signs along the road?
10 MR. CRECES : Yeah, we have a small
11 sign on the farm stand that is there . It
12 is setback from the road. That is all we
13 need. We ' re not a retail outlet . We ' re
14 wholesale, although we will operate the
15 farm stand during the season.
16 MEMBER HORNING : So you have some
17 retail operations going seasonally?
18 MR. CRECES : In the farm stand.
19 MEMBER HORNING: And I did notice a
20 rather large -- Peconic Greenhouses,
21 they ' re your adjacent neighbor?
22 MR. CRECES : Yes . Diana and her
23 husband, they operate the Peconic
24 Greenhouses . Used to be the greenhouse
25 that we operate right now. So he still
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 106
1 works for us and provides labor for us,
2 and that is why the sign is still up there .
3 MEMBER HORNING: He is . Peconic
4 Greenhouse was the same site?
5 MR. CRECES : That is correct .
6 MEMBER HORNING: Okay. Thank you .
7 MR. CRECES : You ' re welcome .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Would you say the
10 additional coverage area is necessary for
11 governmental compliance with some possible
12 new requirements for -- you spoke to a
13 requirement to have all of your facilities
14 enclosed because of pollution or something?
15 MR. CRECES : Food safety.
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So what you ' re
17 doing, you ' re enlarging the building to
18 apply that food safety requirement?
19 MR. CRECES : Yes .
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: A part of it?
21 MR. CRECES : That ' s correct .
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: All right . I have
23 no further questions .
24 MEMBER HORNING : Leslie, can I ask
25 another question?
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 107
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes .
2 MEMBER HORNING : Yesterday, you had
3 these large storage trucks in this area,
4 that we talked about earlier, that had
5 compressors running . Are you going to
6 enclose those? That loading area, is that
7 going to be enclosed that these
8 compressorized trucks pull into those
9 areas? That has been a little bit of an
10 issue in some other locations with
11 neighbor ' s complaining of compressor trucks
12 running 24/7 . Is this going to be an issue
13 on this property or are they going to be
14 going into an enclosed structure where the
15 noise would not be released into the
16 general neighborhood?
17 MR. CRECES : That is kind of a good
18 point, and the reason for our application
19 and expansion. One of those trailers is a
20 storage trailer that runs as a refrigerator
21 on diesel fuel . We ' re going to eliminate
22 that, as soon as we can get this expansion .
23 That trailer will be eliminated. It ' s a
24 pollutant, so I definitely want to get rid
25 of that, absolutely. I 100o agree with
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 108
1 that . We do not want to do anything that
2 is pollutant . I always want to avoid that .
3 That is why we ' re going with the solar
4 panels as well . So we can produce soft and
5 easy by the sun .
6 MEMBER HORNING: Again, sir, if you
7 eliminate one, I saw, I believe, two . So
8 are there going to be trucks there with
9 running compressors any time of the day on
10 that property outside of an enclosed area?
11 MR. CRECES : They ' re definitely going
12 to be removed. The only time they will be
13 there is when they ' re delivering something
14 or picking something up . They have to
15 comply with the idling .rules of New York
16 State on a stationary vehicles . I need an
17 active loading and unloading dock.
18 MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
20 in the audience that would like to address
21 this Board? You need to come to the mic
22 and state your name .
23 MS . P . GRAEBE : Phyllis Graebe, . and I
24 own one of the property owners for Lot #1 .
25 The only thing I am curious about is , this
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 109
1 map was produced when De Art of Nature
2 purchased Peconic Greenhouse . It shows a 25
3 foot right-of-way, and all I am hearing
4 today is 10 and 15 . What happened to the
5 25 foot right-of-way that went with the
6 deal, that would be the best way to put it?
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If you look at
8 what the applicant is proposing, which is
9 this drawing, they ' re proposing an addition
10 on here .
11 MS . P . GRAEBE : I understand that .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Currently there
13 is a 25 foot space from when the existing
14 building is and they ' re proposing to add
15 more greenhouse space where they currently
16 have that gravel part now. And what that
17 will do, that will then become building .
18 So the 25 feet that you are seeing, you
19 can ' t ride on it --
20 MS . P . GRAEBE : It ' s right on the deer
21 fence .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that is what
23 we have been exploring . We have heard
24 testimony that the applicant is willing to,
25 at their own expense, for the entire length
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 110
1 of that building, side of the building, to
2 go wide --
3 MS P . GRAEBE: But --
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The paved
5 driveway that is still going to stay there .
6 They ' re proposing to widen it at their
7 expense with a retaining wall and grade it ,
8 so that emergency -- personal cars , and
9 also that emergency vehicles can come in
10 and go to the back.
11 MS . P . GRAEBE : I wasn ' t understanding
12 myself . I didn ' t know where the 10 feet
13 was coming from.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It ' s probably
15 not a two-way traffic situation.
16 MS . P . GRAEBE : Thank you.
17 MS . D. GRAEBE : Diane Graebe, I am Lot
18 #2 on the blueprint . Just want to go on
19 record and in talking with them today in
20 regards to building and that retaining
21 wall, and you know, he is doing a great job
22 with making all these vegetables and
23 everything is great, but we have always had
24 issues with the safety of driving up and
25 down the driveway, parking in the driveway .
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 111
1 The kids get off the bus in front of the
2 Route 48 . My kids are in Elementary,
3 Junior High and High School . They go down
4 that road as well, but I just want to make
5 sure that when he does widen it with the
6 condition of the variance and adding that
7 drivable surface . I know you said you were
8 going to go there and reevaluate
9 everything?
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is a
11 condition of a variance .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: When we make a
13 determination, we have an authority as an
14 appellate board to condition variances
15 based upon mitigating, what we call adverse
16 impact . That it ' s going to negatively
17 effect the health, safety and welfare of
18 any type of community. You can address
19 that with a variance but only if you do
20 such . So the issues of widening, which is
21 on the part of the applicant, that area,
22 the access road for emergency vehicles . So
23 they can have access to their property and
24 yours, is something that we can have the
25 choice of writing something specifically
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 112
1 into the decision . And they don ' t get a
2 Certificate of Occupancy, until all
3 conditions are met .
4 MS . D . GRAEBE : Well, you know, we ' re
5 in agreement with what they' re doing .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good. You are
7 _ working things out in a nonconfrontational
8 matter makes things a lot easier . I found
9 it fascinating to explore why the nature ,of
10 growing these particular crops is seasonal
11 sunlight from different angles requires the
12 modules of the actual rolling cart .
13 Requires perimeter additions on all four
14 sides, which logically one would say to put
15 it on the front or the back to get the
16 square footage of what you need. Which is
17 why we need to understand the authenticity
18 of the particular needs as a grower . Who
19 knew .
20 MS . D. GRAEBE : So in talking with
21 Eddy and Tom Thompson today in doing that,
22 we did talk in regards to building that
23 retaining wall, it ' s a big expense, but
24 just to have an 18 foot wide driveway, so
25 two cars can go by or a truck and a car,
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 113
1 and then we get propane back there . The
2 garbage comes back there . So that would
3 just be it and we kind of agreed to it but
4 like I said, I just wanted it to be a
5 condition of the variance .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would both of
7 you, and I am asking the applicant as well
8 as the attorney, be willing to sign a
9 letter of understanding about what the
10 applicant is proposing to do to address
11 safety issues with the right-of-way?
12 MS . D. GRAEBE : Absolutely.
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you both
14 be willing to get that, to your
15 satisfaction, sign that and so we can
16 attach it to the file?
. 17 MR. STRANG: Well, we still have to go
18 to the Planning Board.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is correct .
20 And that will probably be a very
21 significant part in your application, I
22 would imagine . Do you have an application
23 before the Planning Board?
24 MR. STRANG: Yes .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That ' s right,
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 114
1 you just said it .
t
2 MR. STRANG: Monday is the hearing .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
4 else in the audience that would like to
5 address this application?
6 MR. CRECES : I would like to say one
7 more thing in regards to the lot coverage .
8 I recently attended a meeting about the
9 Southold Comprehensive Plan, and a number
10 of things were discussed there, which were
11 a lot of valid points . One of the issues
12 that was pertaining to this application is
13 that, suggest to increase lot coverage up
14 to 60o for greenhouses in Agricultural
15 District, in this Town. This may never
16 happen in my life time, but maybe end up in
17 the neighborhood of 40 to 500 . I just
18 wanted to make this comment .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you are
20 saying they are proposing to up the lot
21 coverage of agriculture properties in the
22 Town?
23 MR. CRECES : Yes .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 200 lot coverage
25 of that sort, is sort of reducing your
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 115
1 yield as to make it financially unfeasible .
2 MR. CRECES : I just wanted to
3 apologize to the Graebe Family for
4 obstructing the driveway. It was not done
5 intentionally, but we hope to remedy that
6 soon, so that we can live together happily.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Certainly I am
8 sure they appreciate it and this Board
9 does . Anything that can come to a mutually
10 satisfactory agreement is always good.
11 I am going to make a motion to close
12 this hearing subject to receipt of a letter
13 from the applicant and neighbor with regard
14 to the right-of-way.
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
18 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
21 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
22 *******************************************
23 HEARING #6549 - JUSTIN SWARTZ & JOANNA
24 WEINER
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 116
1 application before this Board is for Justin
2 Swartz and Joanna Weiner, #6549 . Request
3 for variance from Article XXIII Section
4 280-124 and the Building Inspector ' s
5 December 20 , 2011 Notice of Disapproval
6 based on an application for building permit
7 to construct additions/alterations and deck
8 addition to existing single family
9 dwelling: 1) less than the code required
10 minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet;
11 located at : 275 Back Lane, a . k. a . Private
12 Road #5 in Orient .
13 State your name please, for the Board?
14 MS . THOMPSON : Yes , Elizabeth
15 Thompson, architect for the project .
16 . CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you have any
17 green cards?
18 MS . THOMPSON : Yes .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Great . Do you
20 want the Suffolk County local determination
21 letter for your file? Please proceed?
22 MS . THOMPSON : This is a small
23 project . Very simple, to wrap a deck around
24 a front door entrance of the house to the
25 back deck. And actually pin that rear yard
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 117
1 up a little bit, by relocating an existing
2 shed to the far side of the garage . We
3 have this 50 foot setback. The house is
4 only about a 20 foot setback. The garage
5 is 1 foot setback, so I am certainly not
6 increasing any nonconformity, and in fact,
7 that is the very back of a long rear yard.
8 The adjacent party, so they ' re not affected
9 in any way. In fact, it opens up their
10 view a little bit by relocating the shed to
11 the north side of the garage to the south
12 side . We ' re trying to connect -- we have a
13 • bit of a roof, just trying to get a
14 connection from the house to the garage
15 with the deck underneath it . And that is
16 pretty much it . Any questions?
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Elizabeth, I
18 think this is a consequence of attaching
19 the accessory garage to the dwelling, is
20 that why the Notice of Disapproval --
21 MS . THOMPSON : Yes .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now becomes a. 1
23 foot rear yard setback, because it ' s
24 attached?
25 MS . THOMPSON : Yes .
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 118
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Rather then a
2 preexisting nonconforming detached
3 structure?
4 MS . THOMPSON : Right .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just wanted to
6 be clear about that . Did everyone get
7 that?
8 MEMBER HORNING: Yes .
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes .
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, let ' s just
12 ask some questions so that you can answer
13 them into the record.
14 Okay. You have a new 10 X 20 roof
15 dormer to the porch . The deck is 34 X 8 .
16 Explain why the reason is that the deck is
17 needed along the side of the existing
18 detached garage? Is there a grade
19 situation?
20 MS . THOMPSON : It ' s a fairly level
21 grade . We ' re trying to connect the front
22 door around the back side and open up that
23 rear yard. It ' s not accessible . It ' s just
24 the chimney there . It ' s a very tight yard,
25 as you can see . The north side of the lot
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 119
1 or the entry side of the house, it ' s all
2 kind of driveway, trees and boulders there,
3 and then it does rise up to the lot in the
4 north . It ' s empty wooded, rocky lot, as it
5 approaches the sound. So we ' re just trying
6 to make a bit of a use out of the limited
7 yard that we have . Basically open up the
8 backyard, so that it is more useful . And
9 trying to put a deck on the south side,
10 that ' s the water view . It ' s -- the grade
11 drops . So you can look over the road and
12 see the farm stand, basically. We have a
13 new screened porch, which we ' re adding, and
14 which is conforming .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : From the field
16 inspection, it certainly looks like the
17 relocation of the shed is certainly going
18 to make it a little more functional for the
19 applicant .
20 MS . THOMPSON : Yes .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where is the
22 existing shed now? Is that also a foot
23 away?
24 MS . THOMPSON : Yes . It ' s actually
25 right on the property line . I have a small
r
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 120
1 site plan that shows the existing shed.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there a CO on
3 the shed?
4 MS . THOMPSON : The garage, yes . I am
5 not sure of the shed. It ' s just kind of
6 preexisting . I don ' t know. It doesn ' t
7 show upon any of the Building Department --
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Was it there
9 when the property owners bought --
10 MS . THOMPSON : Yes . They bought it
11 about two years ago .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Comments,
13 questions from the Board?
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
15 MEMBER HORNING: I just want to clear
16 up one little detail . The agriculture
17 statement that was recently submitted with
18 the file . Statement #7 , Is the parcel
19 within an Ag District? You answered, yes .
20 Ag District #1 . Statement #8 . Is the
21 parcel actively farmed and you also
22 answered, yes, which I think is an error .
23 MS . THOMPSON : Well, in that it
24 lengthens the Ag lot .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We didn ' t
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 121
1 generate those forms by the way.
2 MS . THOMPSON : You meant your own lot?
3 MEMBER HORNING: That is what it
4 refers to .
5 MS . THOMPSON : It is not actively
6 farmed, correct .
7 MEMBER HORNING: Sometimes I catch
8 those little details .
9 MS . THOMPSON : Thank you .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually, the
11 proposed additions and changes are not
12 going to have any impact at all on Back
13 Lane .
14 MS . THOMPSON : Correct .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I have no
16 further questions . Does anyone else have
17 any questions?
18 MEMBER HORNING : No .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
20 further comments , I will make a motion to
21 close this hearing and reserve decision to
22 a late date .
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 122
1 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye .
4 (See Minutes for Resolution. )
5
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I make a motion
7 to recess for lunch .
8 Is there a second?
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
12 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : ' Aye .
15 (Whereupon, a recess was taken at this
16 time . )
17 *******************************************
18 HEARING #6554 - THOMAS & IRENE KALOGERAS
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
20 application is for Thomas and Irene
21 Kalogeras, #6554 . Request for variance
22 from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the
23 Building Inspector ' s February 15, 2012
24 Notice of Disapproval based on an
25 application for building permit to
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 123
1 construct alterations and "as built" deck
2 addition to existing single family
3 dwelling: 1 ) less than the code required
4 minimum side yard setback of 15 feet;
5 located at :. 700 Sound Beach Drive, on Long
6 Island Sound in Mattituck.
7 MS . RIVERA: Good afternoon . Chris
8 Rivera, for Mr . And Mrs . Kalogeras .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. We have
10 side yard setback of 10 feet, while the
11 code requires 15 feet , that was granted
12 previously by this Board, and two dormers ,
13 that are added to existing garage .
14 Legalizing a small elevated wooden deck at
15 10 feet . The garage is in the side yard
16 for the breezeway.
17 MS . RIVERA: That ' s correct . Back in
18 2000 , when we built the garage, I was told
19 that we didn ' t .need a ZBA approval, because
20 Mr . Bruno made me move it in . I was
21 originally -5 feet in and then 10 . So when
22 we applied for the dormers up there, I was
23 told that I was noncompliant because it
24 needs to be 15 . I didn ' t need a ZBA back
25 then . So when we wanted to put the dormers
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 124
1 up, we were told that we were noncompliant .
2 So Mr . And Mrs . Kalogeras have just moved
3 out recently. This is their permanent
4 residence now, and unfortunately with the
5 gable roof, you can ' t stand up in there or
6 store anything. Therefore, they' re asking
7 that we put a 9 foot 7 inch dormer, so they
8 can accommodate storage up there . The
9 staircase was also back when we got the
10 final approval on the CO, that we have been
11 there to have access to that storage area .
12 There was no other way to build that, other
13 then the way it is, because it would have
14 been too steep going out one side .
15 Covering the breezeway entrance if we
16 brought it out . So basically pretty
17 simple, and the Building Department said we
18 can only dormer 400 of the roof, which we
19 have limited to . So basically that is
20 where we stand with that .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We all know . We
22 have all done site inspections . So we have
23 all been there . There are -- on the plans
24 itself, doesn ' t show -- it should show the
25 first floor of the garage . We don ' t see --
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 125
1 I only have plans for the first floor of
2 the garage . Assuming that there are no
3 interior steps .
4 MS . RIVERA: No, there is --
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is steps
6 on the outside?
7 MS . RIVERA: Correct . There is no
8 attic stairs on there at all . The garage
9 is built on pilings . It was in a AE-13
10 Zone and it has now changed -- I 'm sorry
11 within a VE Zone and now it ' s an AE Zone .
12 It was built on pilings back then.
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And how is the
14 space currently being used?
15 MS . RIVERA: It ' s basically storage ,
16 right now.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there any
18 plumbing in there? Heat? Electric?
19 MS . RIVERA: No . Just downstairs they
20 have a ( In Audible) tank. I am not sure .
21 I know they have a refrigerator and a
22 freezer in the garage . That ' s it .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. There
24 might very well be some plumbing because
25 there is a shower underneath that deck.
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 126
1 MS . RIVERA: Yeah . That is --
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The assumption
3 is that there is no existing habitable
4 space?
5 MS . RIVERA: No, they can ' t stand up
6 in there, except for in the middle . I
7 think you maybe have about three feet that
8 you can stand up in that place right now.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there any
10 plans right now to make that habitable
11 space?
12 MS . RIVERA: No, since this is their
13 permanent residence, they' re possibly
14 thinking about putting a second story on
15 the existing house right now. That is not
16 going to happen for a couple of years
17 maybe .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to
19 clarify something . I don ' t want to run
20 into a situation where we may assume that
21 they are going to use it for one thing and
22 now they have head room and they decide
23 that they can move the refrigerator from
24 downstairs , upstairs and start having
25 guests staying there .
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 127
1 MS . RIVERA: If they do want to
2 eventually use it, they have to come before
3 the ZBA.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have a whole
5 application packet that is online now .
6 They would need a Special Exception Permit .
7 MS . RIVERA: If they want to maybe
8 convert it to a den or a pool room or a
9 poker room --
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No habitable
11 space .
12 MS . RIVERA: I understand. They don ' t
13 want to do a kitchen or make another room,
14 habitable space, they have to come before.
15 the ZBA and they would be --
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If they want to
17 make it into an artist workshop --
18 MS . •RIVERA: Okay. I will let them
19 know that .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please so . I
21 want to make sure that we actually
22 deliberate on what is before us .
23 MS . RIVERA: Okay.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry,
25 questions?
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 128
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the dormers
2 that you are going to put on, as we speak?
3 That is what you ' re going to do?
4 MS . RIVERA: Yes .
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But that can
6 change based on this new information?
7 MS . RIVERA: I would imagine down the
8 road . I don ' t know what their intentions
9 are, but right now, their mother passed
10 away, who also lived in Mattituck. The
11 kids also live with them. So they have
12 quite a bit of storage that they would like
13 to pull out and stick upstairs, if they
14 could.
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the deck has
16 been there for some time?
17 MS . RIVERA: Yeah, the deck was
18 actually approved during the final walk
19 through . It was on the survey. It was on
20 the CO when we got the garage .
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In other words,
22 the Building Inspector missed putting that
23 on the CO?
24 MS . RIVERA: I guess so .
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And that was Bruno
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 129
1 at the time?
2 MS . RIVERA: Yes, it was . And they
3 also had me go before the DEC at that time,
4 I was exempt from the DEC because I was out
5 of their jurisdiction, but I still had
6 gotten a DEC permit, which I really didn ' t
7 need at the time .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The garage has a
9 CO but the deck does not?
10 MS . . RIVERA: Correct .
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you .
12 MS . RIVERA: You ' re welcome .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George,
14 questions?
15 MEMBER HORNING: Board of Trustees?
16 MS . RIVERA: I was out of their
17 jurisdiction .
18 MEMBER HORNING: And when the Building
19 Department refers to the "as built" deck,
20 that is the section behind the garage with
21 stairs?
22 MS . RIVERA: Correct .
23 MEMBER HORNING : That ' s it?
24 MS . RIVERA: Yeah . It ' s kind of
25 insignificant . If you look at the plans ,
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 130
1 the stairs go up and comes back in order to
2 get to the storage area over there .
3 MEMBER HORNING: And that was built
4 after --
5 MS . RIVERA: , No, that was built
6 simultaneously.
7 MEMBER HORNING: With the garage?
8 MS . RIVERA: With the garage, yes .
9 MEMBER HORNING: But without a
10 building permit .
11 MS . RIVERA: I know that it was built
12 with the garage and we got a CO for it .
13 They came for the final inspection . It was
14 on the survey. Apparently it was missed.
15 I don ' t know what would have happened, but
16 it was still done simultaneously.
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just so everybody
18 understands the information here, in 1974
19 the water was right up to the bulkhead.
20 Since then ( In Audible) took out all of the
21 proposed inlet that was occurring on
22 Jamesport #1 and #2 , actually across from
23 Uncle Bob ' s house on the Sound, which then
24 started to replenish all the sand coming
25 down . Now, they have been completed a
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 131
1 tremendous amount of beach area including
2 the Park District Beach, am I correct on
3 that?
4 MS . RIVERA: You are absolutely
5 correct, Mr . Goehringer.
6 MEMBER HORNING: But the Coastal
7 Hazard line didn ' t change?
8 MS . RIVERA: No .
9 MEMBER HORNING: Did it exist then?
10 MS . RIVERA: Not in 1974 , I don ' t
11 believe . It hasn ' t changed since then,
12 although the DEC Zoning from DE-13 to AE-12
13 now because of the build up of the sand.
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So today it would
15 probably be built on a regular foundation?
16 MS . RIVERA: They would require slope
17 route vents there, as oppose to the pilings
18 that the garage is on now.
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
21 MS . RIVERA: It ' s nice now.
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Just to be clear to
23 me, the Notice of Disapproval, the proposed
24 alterations are the dormers and the "as
25 built" deck?
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 132
1 MS . RIVERA: That is correct .
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. No further
3 questions .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is no one
5 else in the audience . Hearing no further
6 comments, I will make a motion to close the
7 hearing and reserve decision to a later
8 date .
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
12 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
15 (See Minutes for Resolution. )
16 *******************************************
17 HEARING #6552 - PHILIP MARCO
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
19 application before the Board is for Philip
20 Marco, #6552 . Request for variance from
21 Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the
22 Building Inspector ' s February 13, 2012
23 Notice of Disapproval based on an
24 application for building permit for
25 "as built" deck addition to existing single
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals. 133
1 family dwelling : 1 ) less than the code
2 required minimum rear yard setback of 60
3 feet ; located at : 4380 Indian Neck Road in
4 Peconic .
5 MS . MOORE : Yes , good afternoon.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please just
7 state your name .
8 MS . MOORE : Oh, I ' m sorry, Patricia
9 Moore on behalf of Philip and Pat Marco .
10 They had planned on being here and then
11 they had something that was interference
12 with their schedule . They apologized, they
13 would have liked to be here . This -- you
14 already have it all written out . It ' s
15 pretty straight forward, in that this
16 property has once been part of the Marco
17 Holding ' s and that a large part of it was
18 sold to the Indian Neck Lane Holdings, LLC .
19 And what ultimately -- they tried with
20 different ways of approaching this . The
21 deck had been built in some time -- at the
22 time that there were renovations to the
23 house, and they were under the impression
24 that there plans had been amended to
25 include the deck and somehow the timing
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 134
1 didn ' t work out . A portion of the deck
2 that encroaches on the rear yard setback
3 had not been included. So they were
4 actually -- they needed to replace their
5 deck, and they did some additional work
6 here on the property and that is when it
7 was discovered there was no CO on part of
8 the deck. So here they are trying to
9 clean-up, and that is why it was an "as
10 built" replacing/repairing the existing
11 deck. Some of the deck along the left side
12 where that bite is on the house, actually
13 has a C of 0 and the rest of it, that needs
14 a variance to complete the deck. If you
15 have gone out to the property, I am sure
16 you have, tucked in. The original house is
17 tucked in close to the rear property line .
18 There is a driveway but what is showing
19 still on the survey, is the stone roadway.
20 It ' s not a road anymore . Not an access
21 point . It has been access when the farm
22 was one piece of property. That is not
23 currently a road and hasn ' t been
24 revegetated. So the property on the side
25 yard has a side yard of 36 . 9 setback. to the
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 135
1 closest point of the house, and the garage
2 -- excuse me, the deck is somewhat of an
3 angle, it ' s the closest point, it does
4 encroach on the rear yard. I would be
5 happy to answer any questions you might
6 have . It ' s pretty straightforward. There
7 are no neighbor ' s, other then Indian Neck
8 Holdings, and those are the horses . I
9 understand that Wayne Bruin -- he did speak
10 to me and sent me a copy of the letter that
11 he sent to the Board. So you have that . I
12 acknowledge that you do have that in your
13 file .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken, questions?
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes . Looking at
16 the CO from July 18 , 2011, -it says window
17 replacement, mudroom and deck addition.
18 MS . MOORE : Right .
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The subject deck,
20 is that what is referred to here?
21 MS . MOORE : A portion of it .
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: A portion of it .
23 Can you give me a rough idea of how much?
24 Do you have any idea?
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Small portion .
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 136
1 MS . MOORE : Yeah. I think it ' s just
2 that portion where the cut out of the house
3 -- where the cutout is .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The step down?
5 MS . MOORE : Yes .
6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So the subject wood
7 deck had existed?
8 MS . MOORE : Yes , it had existed,
9 believing that it was legal, but it was
10 not .
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And they thought
12 that they could just replace it without a
13 permit?
14 MS . MOORE : Exactly.
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Or reconstruct it?
16 MS . MOORE : It ' s the same exact deck,
17 just boards were deteriorating .
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Things like that
19 happen over time . Okay, the backyard has a
20 nice horse farm there .
21 MS . MOORE : They did contact Indian
22 Neck Holdings and asked them if they might
23 be interested in a lot line change, to
24 avoid a variance and to meet the rear yard
25 setback, and they weren ' t interested.
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 137
1 There was no other method, other then this
2 variance .
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: We have a letter
4 from them. Do you have a copy of that?
5 MS . MOORE : Yes .
6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No further
7 questions .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George?
9 MEMBER HORNING: This was Holdings, is
10 that what you said before?
11 MS . MOORE : It was a separate piece of
12 property. It has always been a separate
13 piece, but it was always part of the
14 overall Marco Holdings . And so when they
15 sold the big house, they moved into this
16 little cottage there, that is their home .
17 Over time, they just needed to make it more
18 comfortable . It had been more of a
19 caretaker ' s house when they were in the big
20 house . Now it is their home .
21 MEMBER HORNING: And how did they get
22 the Notice of Disapproval? How did that
23 process work?
24 MS . MOORE : My understanding is, they
25 had gotten the building permit for some of
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 138
1 the renovations . The CO with respect to
2 the deck and window replacements, and at
3 the same time, we ' re not seeing this CO for
4 the deck, and after some months of trying
5 to look for it and an alternative for going
6 for a variance, it was finally decided to
7 go get the variance and move forward. So
8 that is how they ended up with a Notice of
9 Disapproval . The Building Department in
10 their research discovered that they didn ' t
11 have a C of 0 .
12 MEMBER HORNING: And can you put on
13 the site plan or survey, the exact area of
14 the conforming section? Is that possible?
15 MS . MOORE : You are talking about what
16 portion is conforming, the 60 foot?
17 MEMBER HORNING: Yes .
18 MS . MOORE : Well, actually, the house
19 at its closest point is 56 . 7 . So I believe
20 that the entire deck up to or very close to
21 the -- pardon me on this . If I can come
22 up . If you see this measurement. here . To
23 the house is 56 . 7 . 60 is the required rear
24 yard setback. So it ' s right about here .
25 This is a portion that has the CO .
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 139
1 MEMBER HORNING: We don ' t know what
2 the exact portion is .
3 MS . MOORE : Right .
4 MEMBER HORNING: But couldn ' t somebody
5 put it on scale?
6 MS . MOORE : (In Audible . ) So if you
7 want to use a ruler?
8 (Stepped away from the microphone . )
9 MS . MOORE : I think part of the
10 problem is , when the house was placed on
11 the property, they tried to create the
12 privacy. You can see at the entrance, it ' s
13 an entry way with a big berm and
14 everything . It ' s a very private area . You
15 don ' t see this . And I drove by several
16 times . I said the house was here . I never
17 saw the ZBA poster that was there . For
18 some reason, I drove right passed it . It ' s
19 tucked in the back.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry, any
21 questions?
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No . It ' s going to
23 remain open?
24 MS . MOORE : Yes .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Hearing
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 140
1 no further comments or questions, I am
2 going to make amotion to close the hearing
3 and reserve decision to a later date .
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
7 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye .
10 (See Minutes for Resolution. )
12 HEARING #6553 - WILLIAM TONYES
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
14 application before the Board is for William
15 Tonyes, #6553 . Request for variance from
16 Article III Section 280-15 and Article
17 XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building
18 Inspector ' s December 28 , 2011 Notice of
19 Disapproval, based on an application for
20 building permit for an accessory garage at :
21 1 ) location other than the code required
22 rear yard, 2 ) lot coverage more than the
23 code permitted 20% maximum, located at : 75
24 8th Street corner of Front Street, a . k. a,
25 717 Front Street, Greenport .
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 141
1 State your name for the record,
2 please?
3 MR. TONYES, JR. : My name is William
4 A. Tonyes, Jr .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hi , thank you .
6 Let ' s just go over a couple of things . The
7 proposal is for a 480 square foot, 18 foot
8 high 20 X 20 accessory garage in a front
9 yard, where the code requires a rear yard.
10 You have two front yards on your property.
11 That is the problem, and a 31% lot .
12 coverage, where the code permits a maximum
13 of 20% . So tell us what you would like us
14 to know about this application?
15 MR. TONYES, JR. : Well, I would like
16 to build a nice garage there, to try and
17 kind of replicate a nice carriage house
18 more or less . And I wanted Charlie to
19 build it for me and make it kind of match
20 the house . To have the same look of the
21 house . I am not really done with the
22 scroll look of the house but I am working
23 on it . Chipping away at it . I want to
24 replicate the garage to the house . Use it
25 for, like an accessory storage . Put an
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 142
1 antique car . You know, stuff,
2 paraphernalia that I would like to put in
3 there . You know, maybe boat hardware and
4 other things . That ' s about it .
5 MR. THORP : The lot coverage --
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Charlie, you
7 have to state your name .
8 MR. THORP : Hi, I ' m Charles Thorp,
9 contractor for Bill . The lot coverage here
10 on this survey shows 31% . I remember
11 somebody saying something about 32% they --
12 they would consider something under 32%
13 coverage because it ' s Greenport Village?
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No . The
15 Greenport Village has it ' s own Zoning Board
16 and it ' s own jurisdiction . You are in
17 Greenport and not Greenport Village . So
18 that comes under the Southold Town, and all
19 of Southold Code applies , which means a
20 maximum of 20% .
21 MR. THORP : Okay. I would also like
22 to mention that I spoke to every homeowner
23 and nobody had any problems with anything .
24 We ' re missing two green receipts that they
25 received. And that ' s about it . We have to
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 143
1 get two more cards , or at least track it
2 down by the Postal service . Return that to
3 you and we will find out .
4 MR. TONYES, JR. : All the neighbor ' s
5 that I have spoken to have no problem of
6 building a garage there .
7 MR. THORP : Chris Markel in the back,
8 he is our spackler . He will be doing the
9 sheetrocking and spackle . Everybody we
10 know also . It ' s a happy day.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You did a
12 beautiful job on renovating the house?
13 MR. THORP : Thank you .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any intent on
15 plumbing or heat?
16 MR. TONYES, JR. : No .
17 MR. THORP : Just electric, garage
18 door .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. The
20 proposal is three feet from the property
21 line, front yard, where there are other
22 accessory detached garages in the
23 neighborhood. We have driven around. We
24 also know the neighborhood. I doubt that
25 there is any as close to the sidewalk.
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 144
1 MR. THORP : The house in the back is
2 somewhat in line with it, I believe, behind
3 the garage . So the south side . Right
4 across the street going west, that garage
5 is right on the line to that property. I
6 did work on their house years ago .
7 MEMBER HORNING: I think she is
8 talking about the front yard setback.
9 MR. THORP : Front yard setback.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They are both
11 front yards .
12 MR. THORP : That ' s right .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Board is
14 required by law to grant the minimum
15 justified. So we need to look. It ' s a
16 small lot . We know . Right now the lot
17 coverage is already over the 20% . It ' s 23%
18 according to your application . The shed
19 contributes to that lot coverage and it ' s
20 also located in a place that makes it
21 pretty difficult or impossible to move the
22 garage farther away from that front yard .
23 From 8th Street . If the shed were not
24 there or moved, two things would happen .
25 One, you would be able to move it back
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 145
1 farther for more privacy. Maybe put up a
2 few shrubs or something, and the other
3 thing is you would reduce the lot coverage
4 by getting rid of the shed.
5 MR. THORP : Bill mentioned he wanted
6 to get rid of the shed anyway.
7 MR. TONYES, JR. : There is a -- I
8 believe it ' s about 20 feet from that where
9 the garage would go, a cesspool so I wanted
10 to keep that as far as I could from that
11 cesspool .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where is that
13 cesspool?
14 MR. TONYES, JR. : It ' s about 20 feet,
15 in the corner area .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Which corner is
17 that?
18 MR. THORP : The corner of the
19 southeast corner .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Right
21 there .
22 MR. THORP : That is where I would
23 build it, but it has a cesspool there .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Of course it is
25 not showing on your survey.
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 146
1 MR. TONYES, JR. : I would also like to
2 mention that there was a garage there
3 prior. I gave you a copy there . You know,
4 before we bought the place .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes . We have a
6 CO -- a building permit, sorry, from a
7 Linda Bellinger, 2002 . Demolition of an
8 accessory garage, that was applied for.
9 That is where it was torn down .
10 MR. THORP : Right .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What I would
12 like to know is , if you remove the shed,
13 how far over can you -- two questions then .
14 What is the proposed lot coverage without
15 the shed? It ' s not going to be a huge
16 difference, because the shed isn ' t all that
17 big, but it does reduce it somewhat . It
18 does reduce the number of accessory
19 structures on the property. It ' s a little
20 bit more of backyard.
21 MR. TONYES, JR. : The shed is 10 . 2 X
22 8 . 3, so that would be two square feet .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :' We are looking
24 at what is on your survey. The shed is
25 listed as 84 . 7 square feet .
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 147
1 MR. TONYES, JR. : Okay.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have to
3 subtract that . That would give you the
4 square footage . We have to try and figure
5 out what percentage that .
6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: 10 of lot coverage
7 is almost 62 square feet . It ' s not a lot
8 of coverage .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you are only
10 going to reduce it by 1 point something,
11 but it will bring it down from proposed, 31
12 to let ' s say 300 or 29 . 5% .
13 MR. TONYES, JR. : Excuse me . You
14 know, I wanted to leave a little grass for
15 the children when they come home .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure .
17 MR. TONYES, JR. : I mean, if I have to
18 move it over and you will give me the okay,
19 then it ' s no choice then really.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, we need to
21 know where the cesspool is in order to
22 determine how you can move the garage,
23 without getting in trouble .
24 MR. TONYES, JR. : Aren ' t we supposed
25 to stay within 15 feet of any cesspool?
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 148
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 10 feet . I
2 don ' t know about an accessory structure . I
3 know about a house .
4 MR. TONYES, JR. : It is a foundation .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would say
6 about 10 feet . So if we could figure out
7 where the cesspool is .
8 MR. THORP : We have 49 feet to that
9 line . 26 feet to the center where the
10 cesspool is 13 feet from the garage . So
11 the cesspool is to say 8 feet wide . Right
12 on 10 feet .
13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, if you say
14 it ' s 13, then we can go another 3 .
15 MR. THORP : Well, to the center of the
16 cesspool . So it might be right there,
17 within 6 inches .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, you know
19 what is interesting, according to the
20 survey, this PVC fence that you have up
21 there is not on your property.
22 MR. TONYES, JR. : When Linda sold the
23 house to me, she had that moved. She had
24 that moved and she had that taken down too .
25 It was too high or something . We needed to
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 149
1 do that . I believe, to close .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The one that is
3 along the rear, that is like on or
4 straddling . Look at your survey. And the
5 one that is along 8th Street, is along the
6 shoulder.
7 MR. THORP : Well, we had a surveyor
8 stake off the four corners of the garage
9 for us . We can actually move the fence .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, I think
11 the fence should be put on your property.
12 MR. THORP : That was moved.
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That PVC fence
14 is no longer there? What is the date of
15 the survey?
16 MR. TONYES, JR. : No, it ' s still
17 there . I believe at the closing, Linda
18 told me she had to move it to sell the
19 house .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : On your
21 property?
22 MR. TONYES, JR. : Yes . She told me
23 that .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When did you buy
25 it?
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 150
1 MR. TONYES, JR. : Approximately two
2 years ago .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me look at
4 the date of the survey.
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: July 30 , 2009 .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This says
7 December 7 , 2011 proposed garage . Whoever
8 did this survey is probably just added the
9 garage without resurveyed.
10 MR. TONYES, JR. : He was at the
11 property measuring . He was there .
12 MR. THORP : He surveyed the property.
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you believe
14 where he drew this fence is correct?
15 MR. TONYES, JR. : I believe so .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then it ' s not on
17 your property.
18 MR. TONYES, JR. : The stakes are three
19 feet from that fence and the fence is --
20 MR. THORP : Three feet from the
21 property line .
22 MR. TONYES, JR. : Right . And the
23 fence --
24 MR. THORP : The fence could be moved.
25 That is not a problem. If you guys need
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 151
1 that moved, I will move the fence . We
2 wanted to put some type of arborvitae ' s
3 there to make it look nice anyway. Some
4 kind of hedges to grow up and make it look
5 nice .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So you have no
7 problem with removing the shed?
8 MR. TONYES, JR. : No, I was planning
9 on moving it .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, removing it .
11 MR. TONYES, JR. : Removing it from the
12 property. Somebody had told me already
13 that would have to go . I already had it to
14 be taken off the property.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
16 MR. THORP : It would be the first
17 thing that we ' re taking out of there .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All right . So
19 let ' s assume that you have to move that
20 fence and put it on your property. You
21 have three feet that is proposed between
22 the property line and the fence . The fence
23 is going to take up at least a foot . You
24 know what I am saying?
25 MR. THORP : Uh-huh.
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 152
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I want to
2 know how far back you think you can move
3 that garage from 8th Street without messing
4 up -- you can move it up forward. In other
5 words, you can reposition it to increase
6 that setback. You can do it anyway you
7 want . I don ' t care . It ' s going to be in a
8 front yard anyway.
9 MR. THORP : So we have to get you
10 another survey showing that we moved it a
11 foot over and foot forward?
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I want to see
13 the fence proposed on your property and the
14 farthest possible setback from 8th Street
15 that you can create for the location of the
16 garage and the removal of the shed, gone .
17 MR. TONYES, JR. : Okay.
18 MR. THORP : Okay.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And we ' re going
20 to have to make sure that the surveyor puts
21 down what the proposed increased setback is
22 on the survey. It wouldn ' t be a bad idea
23 to have them locate the septic system as
24 well .
25 MR. THORP : I think I had that
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 153
1 originally drawn from an older survey.
2 MR. TONYES, JR. : Also with the shed,
3 I have a lot of things in the shed that I
4 just can ' t do anything with until I get the
5 garage built .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That ' s okay. If
7 you put down --
8 MR. TONYES, JR. : I will get rid of
9 that as soon as we can get the CO on the
10 garage .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That ' s okay. It
12 can be done as a condition.
13 MR. TONYES, JR. : Okay.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you won ' t be
15 able to get the CO until the condition is
16 met, but by then, the building can be built
17 and you can put your stuff in there, in the
18 garage . We have an old survey from 1975
19 showing the old garage in the corner . That
20 is not showing a septic . I thought maybe
21 it would be on an old survey.
22 MEMBER HORNING: Just a couple of
23 questions, sir . You have property footage
24 on two streets, Front Street and 8th
25 Street; correct?
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 154
1 MR. TONYES, JR. : Correct .
2 MEMBER HORNING: So then do you have
3 any designated rear yard area on the
4 property?
5 MR. TONYES, JR. : That corner where
6 the shed is basically.
7 MEMBER HORNING : You know, we work
8 with the differences between front yard and
9 rear yards and side yards, so we know you
10 have a lot of front yard. Do you even have
11 a rear yard? Is it tucked --
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He has none .
13 MEMBER HORNING : That ' s what I wanted
14 to know .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s only a side
16 yard. Because you have front yards , you
17 see what ' s the back of your house,
18 architecturally, because that house also
19 has frontage along street, it doesn ' t
20 matter where your front or your back door
21 is . That area is considered a side yard
22 because the side of your house fronts on
23 the street .
24 MR. TONYES, JR. : I understand .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that is a
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 155
1 side yard. You do not have a conforming
2 place for this garage, anywhere on your
3 property. So you have no alternative but
4 to get a variance for the location of the
5 garage .
6 MEMBER HORNING: So if you had a rear
7 yard, then we might be inquiring as to why
8 you didn ' t have it in your rear yard.
9 MR. TONYES, JR. : I understand.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have two
11 front yards and one side yard -- two side
12 yards . Okay. Let ' s do this . We can do
13 one or two things . I would like you to go
14 ahead and get this survey amended. So we
15 have the septic system there . So the fence
16 is on your property . You can show the
17 removal of the shed and recalculate the lot
18 coverage . A surveyor will do that for you .
19 You don ' t have to remove the shed; however,
20 until the garage is built . And then we
21 will know exactly how far according to code
22 you can shift the garage from 8th Street
23 over towards that corner without being too
24 close to your septic. And that would be
25 the maximum setback you can accomplish
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 156
1 without changing where your septic is . We
2 have to have that information from a
3 licensed surveyor . So what we can do is
4 get that information from you, as soon as
5 we can possibly can, and we have two
6 options . We can either close the hearing
7 today subject to receipt of that
8 information, and then proceed to
9 deliberate . We have 62 days after we get
10 that information, the clock starts on when
11 we have to decide . We will try and decide
12 it as soon as we can, but we meet twice a
13 month . So it just depends . From today, we
14 meet two weeks from today. A month from
15 today will be another public hearing . The
16 other option will be to adjourn this to
17 May, in case when you submit that stuff,
18 which will be before the May hearing, the
19 Board has questions . Because if the
20 hearing stays open we can talk to each
21 other again a second time, and then
22 conclude and go ahead and deliberate . I am
23 just going to poll the Board and see what
24 they think will be the best way we should
25 do this . You have to get us the
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 157
1 information one way or the other .
2 MR. TONYES, JR. : Does the Board -- I
3 have spent quite a bit of money on this
4 situation, and I have spent part of this
5 money on the house already. And if the
6 Board doesn ' t realty think that they ' re
7 going to approve this , I really don ' t want
8 to spend any more money on this project,
9 you know? I am going to move onto
10 something else that maybe the Board will
11 approve .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, I can ' t
13 second guess -- we ' re a democratic
14 organization . And we have actually five
15 votes, Member Dinizio was actually unable
16 to be here today.
17 MR. TONYES, JR. : Okay.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you know,
19 majority votes . I will say for myself, if
20 you can reduce the lot coverage and you can
21 build a one car garage rather then a two
22 car garage, that would then give you some
23 garage, and it would mean even less lot
24 coverage .
25 MR. TONYES, JR. : I would like to
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 158
1 build the size that -
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What you are
3 proposing is not an unreasonable size . The
4 problem is the location and you don ' t have
5 a big lot .
6 MR. TONYES, JR. : Right .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have a nice
8 size house on it .
9 MR. TONYES, JR. : I can go to the
10 Building Department right after this
11 meeting and find out the distance from the
12 cesspool . I will have Doug Morris come
13 down and dig it up and actually look
14 inside, so we actually know what it is .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The surveyor
16 will have to put it on your survey .
17 MR. TONYES, JR. : Right .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And have the
19 surveyor amend it to show what the lot
20 coverage is with the shed gone . The fence
21 on your property and what the new setback
22 is going to be based on the septic . My
23 question to the Board is , do you want to
24 adjourn just in case we have questions or
25 do you think we have covered enough
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 159
1 testimony in this hearing, and all we need
2 is an amended survey? What is your
3 opinion? Do you want to adjourn or close
4 subject to receipt?
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I would say subject
6 to receipt right now. I don ' t know what
7 else -- the only thing pertinent to me
8 would be where the septic system is . As
9 far as lot coverage goes, the option by
10 them reducing the shed, reduces it a little
11 more than 1% and whether this Board is
12 willing to grant such a large garage .
13 Since the garage itself comprises of almost
14 8% , which is quite a lot in the big scheme
15 of things .
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, that is the
17 whole issue . We should really leave it
18 open until such time we see where it ' s
19 going to be .
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. So adjourn
21 it?
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes .
23 MEMBER HORNING : I concur with leaving
24 it open . The other thing that would be
25 helpful for us to understand, how many
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 160
1 garages are in the front yard within the
2 neighborhood.
3 MR. TONYES, JR. : They are all there .
4 There is -- one guy can ' t even pull his --
5 MEMBER HORNING : So you can provide us
6 with such a breakdown, such as maps like
7 this with some parcels laid out and you can
8 identify the places with garages in the
9 front yard.
10 MR. TONYES, JR. : Right .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Bear in mind, if
12 other properties are not corner lots --
13 MR. TONYES, JR. : They are all corner
14 lots .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The one slightly
16 diagonal across the street, that is in a
17 side yard. That ' s not --
18 MR. TONYES, JR. : It has a front yard
19 too . He is on a corner as well .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Down a little .
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to
22 tell you that we deal with this all the
23 time . All the way up to Brown Street . All
24 the way around. Everything is exactly the
25 same . When you get by 6th, the lots are
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 161
1 even smaller . This is something that we go
2 through all the time . So we will do our
3 darnest best to assist you.
4 MR. TONYES, JR. : Thank you .
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We just want to
6 keep it open just in case we have any other
7 questions , so we can assist you .
8 MR. TONYES, JR. : I understand. I
9 understand you have to understand what is
10 fully going on. Okay. What I can do is go
11 to the Tax Assessor ' s Office and get tax
12 numbers .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The reason
14 being, if you look in your application
15 packet . For people who are really not
16 experienced --
17 MR. THORP: It was my first time doing
18 it .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, it said
20 reasons, the Board operates under the basis
21 of six State statutes, called a balancing
22 test . Which looks at whether the benefits
23 for the applicant is outweighed by any
24 particular detriment to the community. The
25 first of those statues talks about
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 162
1 character of the neighborhood. What you
2 are proposing will not adversey affect
3 negatively the character of the
4 neighborhood because, okay. You can say it
5 does not because these lots are all small
6 lots . They all have exceeded lot coverage .
7 They all have accessory garages in front
8 yards, or not all, but a percentage or a
9 number of them or whatever . That
10 strengthens , that helps your argument .
11 What I am proposing is keeping within the
12 neighborhood because that is what ' s going
13 on . Do you follow what I am getting at?
14 MR. TONYES, JR. : Yes .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The other one is
16 that you have no choice . The other one is
17 environmental impact . Gutters and leaders .
18 The other one has to do with the minimal
19 variance necessary, which is what we ' re
20 exploring here . Get the lot coverage done .
21 Increase the setbacks . This is the best
22 that you can do so that we can grant you a
23 garage . So we just don ' t decide off the
24 top of our head.
25 MR. TONYES, JR. : I understand that .
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 163
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what Member
2 Horning was suggesting is that you
3 strengthen your application by providing us
4 with more information . The burden is
5 always on the applicant to make the case .
6 MR. TONYES, JR. : Pictures?
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Pictures will
8 help, that can be for the character of the
9 neighborhood.
10 MR. TONYES, JR. : Okay.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So based on all
12 of that, I am going to make a motion to
13 adjourn this hearing to May 3rd at
14 2 : 00 o ' clock.
15 Is there a second?
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
19 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye .
22 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
23 *******************************************
24 HEARING #6550 - KIMOGENOR POINT, INC .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Kimogenor Point,
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 164
1 is the next application before us . #6550 .
2 Request for variances from Article XXIII
3 Code Section 280-123 and Article XXII
4 Section 280-116 and the Building
5 Inspector ' s January 19, 2012 Notice of
6 Disapproval based on an -application for
7 building permit for demolition and
8 construction of a new single family
9 dwelling at; 1) a nonconforming building
10 containing a nonconforming use shall not be
11 enlarged, reconstructed, structurally
12 altered or moved, unless such building is
13 changed to a conforming use, and 2 ) less
14 than the code required bulkhead setback of
15 75 feet, located at : 50 Jackson Street in
16 New Suffolk.
17 State your name, please .
18 MR. SAMUELS : My name is Tom Samuels .
19 I am the architect for Jackie and Dan
20 Bingham, on behalf of Kimogenor Point
21 Incorporation. And we are just hear to
22 answer questions . I can make a presentation
23 if it would be helpful . It is somewhat self
24 explanatory. This is the second replacement
25 house that we have done for Kimogenor
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 165
1 Point, which is a Co-Op, for by definition,
2 nonconforming single family single lot in
3 Southold. The site is configured in such a
4 way that the bulkhead of the waterfront is
5 extremely tight . We ' re trying to
6 reconstruct this house mostly in the
7 footprint . We have a proposed modest
8 expansion to that footprint . And I am hear
9 to answer any questions .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Before we get
11 started, do you have a copy of he LWRP
12 memorandum showing consistency? If you do
13 not, I will give you copies .
14 MR. SAMUELS : I do not .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is a
16 demolition of a seasonal dwelling, and to
17 construct a new single family dwelling. We
18 understand the nature of the nonconformity,
19 the fact that we have multiple dwellings
20 that is one residential lot . And a
21 consequence, even though it is a
22 residential lot, with a residential use,
23 it ' s considered nonconforming. The second,
24 . is the bulkhead setback is 57 . 4 feet, where
25 the code requires 75 feet . The reason that
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 166
1 this becomes difficult is because of the
2 demolition . Well, more difficult, if this
3 were additions and alterations , the
4 preexisting nonconforming status would
5 remain intact, but because a demolition is
6 proposed, we have a whole other board game .
7 The only tool we have available to us to,
8 we ' re discovering, to address this issue,
9 even though it is not technically, standard
10 use variance . The criteria as you know for
11 a use variance is very different then from
12 an area variance and it has to do with
13 economic hardship and so on, which is not
r
14 part of the standard for area variance .
15 The only way we can establish the
16 reestablishment and nonconformity is by
17 granting a use variance to reestablish it .
18 So that gets to be a lot more cumbersome .
19 So I suspect the first question, why a
20 demolition and not additions and
21 alterations?
22 MR. SAMUELS : In the project that we
23 did two houses down, the name was Archer,
24 we did that about five years ago, that was
25 the course that we took, renovations and
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 167
1 additions . In doing that, that process
2 that we actually -- there was no
3 foundation, we lifted the existing house,
4 build a foundation and put it down and do a
5 large assessment on the house . We kept the
6 floor structure and not much of, in order
7 to end up -- and build almost exactly the
8 way it had been but it was built with
9 2 x Vs . So when it came around to us this
10 time, we said why we ' re playing sort of
11 charades and unless there is a good legal
12 reason to do so, it seems more appropriate
13 just to tell you, no this is really what we
14 want to do, is reconstruct this house
15 because it is so inefficient . There is
16 some masonry foundation now but it just
17 seems like the more honest thing to do is
18 just say exactly what we really have in
19 mind. That presents an ( In Audible) legal
20 obstacle then we can certainly revise and
21 go back to that as an alternative approach
22 here .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, as you
24 know, a use variance is pretty difficult to
.25 obtain but normally that is because it ' s a
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 168
1 use not permitted in the zoned district .
2 So that becomes a rather different set of
3 concerns . We have a previous ZBA decision
4 for Unit #9, is that the one you were
5 referring to, March 2005?
6 MR. SAMUELS : Yes .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That was
8 considered a second floor addition and a
9 renovated first floor and 70 feet from the
10 bulkhead, but was not considered
11 technically a demolition . The proposal
12 here is also to consider the expand the
13 nonconformity. You are not building within
14 the same footprint . You have now a
15 one-story --
16 MR. SAMUELS : No, two-story.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is . It ' s
18 1899 square feet, two-story seasonal
19 dwelling.
20 MR. SAMUELS : Right .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: With 664 square
22 foot covered open porch, and you ' re
23 proposing a 2 , 555 square foot conditioned
24 two-story framed resident . It ' s not a
25 seasonal dwelling anymore . It ' s a year
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 169
1 round residence without a basement, and 866
2 square foot covered open porch . That will
3 then meet code for floods, hurricanes,
4 damage areas and so on . Okay. I am going
5 to turn this over to the Board. I think we
6 touched upon the issues, let ' s turn it over
7 to Gerry.
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think the
9 question is, can you renovate this house?
10 MR. SAMUELS : We certainly can . By
11 all means, of course . I think there is a
12 lot of frustration in the Town nowadays as
13 to what constitutes a demolition. In other
14 words how much -- there has been this kind
15 of unofficial standard out there that you
16 need to leave a few pieces of wood and it ' s
17 a renovation . I mean, I understand that,
18 and maybe we have even done it on occasion .
19 I don ' t think it ' s the appropriate way to
20 build a house, but we could do it . We
21 could take that floor plan -- basically
22 it ' s the first floor plan and then there is
23 a section of interior space with a tiny
24 little space on the other side . Whether. we
25 get that or not, I don ' t know. That is the
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 170
1 porch . Physically we can do it . It would
2 mean, you know, heroic means, unless we
3 have to do that for technical reasons
4 because of the nature of a use variance, I
5 wouldn ' t do it for any other reason then
6 that .
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The reason why I
8 ask that question, anything that I say is
9 not meant to be smart . You guys are a
10 tremendous , tremendous architect . I made a
11 statement to a person on the Sound side
12 down by the Boas (phenetic) Restaurant, I
13 said, how do you put pilings underneath it?
14 You take the roof off and drive pilings
15 through the -- you know, and he said, no,
16 not necessarily. So I mean, are the
17 pilings intact enough to do something like
18 this?
19 MR. SAMUELS : They ' re not pilings .
20 It ' s a mixture of locust post and masonry
21 piers that were built a few years ago . So
22 what we did on the other instance, was not
23 pilings . We ' re not sure here, you know,
24 that it will necessarily be piles .
25 Because, we ' re not -- I don ' t believe that
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 171
1 we ' re required by the zone to put this on a
2 pile foundation . So we ' re not sure whether
3 it would be on piles or not . We literally
4 had to lift it and wonder if those were
5 underneath and clear out, and pour a
6 foundation. It can be done . It ' s not --
7 the floors now are all uneven. It ' s
8 2 x 6 ' s . So does that make sense to say --
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I totally
10 understand what you ' re saying and I respect
11 the integrity and honesty that you bring to
12 the Board. But I know that you are
13 experienced enough with this Board, and the
14 code, to understand the problematic nature
15 of what we have jurisdiction to do and --
16 MR. SAMUELS : Right .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And we always
18 conjure yourself when we make the
19 determination, the existing bulkhead
20 setback 50 . 3 and you ' re proposing 57 . 4 .
21 That is an expansion of the footprint . Not
22 by much, but by some amount .
23 MR. SAMUELS : Right .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There are other
25 properties in Southold Town that are --
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 172
1 that they' re not common, but there are
2 other properties that have the same sort of
3 situation, where it ' s cooperatively owned
4 piece of land with dwellings on it . And we
5 have to be aware of the tendencies because
6 the properties are valuable, for people who
7 want to take a seasonal dwelling down and
8 build really large year round houses . The
9 property warrants such a thing . It changes
10 the historic character and also the degree
11 of nonconformity. You know the Town does
12 and tried very hard to eliminate
13 nonconformities other then to expand them.
14 And if you are going to tare it down, why
15 not at least maintain the same bulkhead
16 setback. You can create conformity.
17 MR. SAMUELS : Well, we have been
18 trying to maintain the front line . The
19 water side, the bay side, all is aligned.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes .
21 MR. SAMUELS : Technically, it should
22 be able to move closer to the Bay,
23 obviously we would need a Trustees permit
24 for that, but to expand it at all and if
25 you still have the little house that is
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 173
1 there, yes, it is charming. It was never
t
2 modified. Most of the other houses have
3 been modified and added to . This is pretty
4 much the same . as it was . They added one
5 little bathroom to where the porch is ,
6 otherwise it stayed the same . It ' s very,
7 very small, for a house that was probably
8 purchased for like $2 , 500 , 000 . 00 . Not that
9 -- I am not making -- well, we ' re making a
10 case for part of a use variance, but there
11 really isn ' t too much place to go to
12 expanding it in any fashion . They would
13 like to try and make it a little more
14 proper house . Now, you would have to walk
15 through this house to realize . You walk
16 through the kitchen and there is a hot
17 water heater there . There is no entry
18 hall . It ' s just a very awkward house .
19 This is a modest expansion that definitely
20 makes sense .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What would be
22 involved if the house came down and you
23 built within the existing footprint?
24 MR. SAMUELS : Exactly within the
25 existing footprint?
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 174
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes . No
2 expansion of the footprint . Same bulkhead
3 setback. Same front yard setback, well,
4 there really isn ' t a front yard.
5 MR. SAMUELS : Right . There is no
6 front yard.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The only setback
8 that we can really discuss is the bulkhead.
9 MR. SAMUELS : My client would see it
10 as a tremendous hardship because they ' re
11 trying to make a proper size -- I don ' t
12 want to say a proper size bedroom. You can
13 see from the plan, they' re still tiny
14 bedrooms . It ' s an existing five bedroom
15 house, believe it or not, and that tiny
16 bedroom is 6 foot wide, 9 feet long . We ' re
17 trying to at least get a 10 X 12 . They
18 would do that I am sure . I mean, I would
19 have to speak with them. I am sure they
20 would see that as kind of an owner
21 condition.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, shall we
23 have you proceed to talk to us about the
24 use variance standards then?
25 MR. SAMUELS : Sure .
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 175
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you need to
2 address economic hardship, you need to
3 prove of course for every permitted use of
4 that property, which is really nothing .
5 MR. SAMUELS : Well, one family.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, the only
7 thing that you could do is to establish
8 another residential use .
9 MR. . SAMUELS : It ' s a shame that when
10 the Town went through the master plan, that
11 they didn ' t give these kinds of sites
12 recreational -- there were some other zones
13 discussed for multi-family, I think, and it
14 never happened. Well at least not here,
15 but as far as use of concerns, six houses
16 on one lot, plus a club house that exist .
17 To recreate it, I understand what you ' re
18 saying . How shall I address this?
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: In your
20 application, you have a page that says use
21 variance, and there are standards there .
22 There are four strict tests, all of which
23 need to be met . The Board has no wiggle
24 room. We can not grant alterative relief
25 to a use variance . I mean, conditions,
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 176
1 yes , but not alternatives . So you need to
2 tell us about those four standards . Does
3 everyone have a copy of that? If you would
4 like, we can show you? It ' s in the packet .
5 Tom did .fill it out . So let ' s take a look
6 at it and see what you filled out . I am
7 certain you might want to amplify it a
8 little or even consult with an attorney in
9 this case . It ' s entirely up to you.
10 MR. SAMUELS : If we get to that .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Here we go .
12 Part B, Reasons for Use Variance .
13 MR. SAMUELS : You know what Leslie, I
14 don ' t think --
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You want a copy
16 of your own application?
17 MR. SAMUELS : For some reason it
18 didn ' t make it into my file .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have a two
20 page typed up addendum.
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Tom, you think
22 this is the house that has been located
23 there since 1915 and hasn ' t been much done
24 to it?
25 MR. SAMUELS : No, hasn ' t been much
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 177
1 done . I have some old photographs . I
2 mean, it may have had a little more beach
3 then. All of those houses are at least
4 started then, and I don ' t think any of them
5 have been completely replaced.
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think that low
7 water in the front actually helped those
8 properties .
9 MEMBER HORNING: I believe you
10 submitted an aerial photo of the point
11 there?
12 MR. SAMUELS : Yeah.
13 MEMBER HORNING: And then you put the
14 house numbers and then there was a prior
15 variance in 2005 , and that was -- you said
16 it was two houses down . I presume that was
17 #9, Archer?
18 MR. SAMUELS : Yes .
19 MEMBER HORNING: This one is #7 ?
20 MR. SAMUELS : Correct .
21 MEMBER HORNING : And I saw in another
22 location that there was a questionnaire
23 with the ZBA filing, "are there any
24 proposes to change or altar the land
25 contours and you said, yes . And you had a
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 178
1 comment, minimally contour changes . Now
2 you have a 5 ' 6" foot elevation there .
3 Describe what a minimal change of the
4 contour?
5 MR. SAMUELS : Yeah . It ' s for the
6 sanitary system, which of course has to
7 meet Health Department and the DEC . Need
8 to have a DEC permit for it . It ' s really
9 in that area between House #7 and looking
10 at the drawing to the right of it and to
11 put a sanitary system into there that meets
12 the standard. We have to take a contour
13 line that now is contour #5 and run through
14 there and take it up to #6 . So it ' s
15 probably a little more than a foot . Maybe
16 like 18 inches to get the height that we
17 need to put a sanitary system in . So
18 minimally meaning, you know when you dig
19 the hole and you put these rings in it, and
20 probably we put the same amount of dirt
21 back. Probably not adding fill . Putting
22 the rings into the ground and covering them
23 back up again .
24 MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
25 MR. SAMUELS : We ' re still talking to
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 179
1 the Health Department and they may want us
2 to put a little -- waterproof retaining
3 wall on one side in order to maintain their
4 regulations, the slope of the grade on the
5 top surface .
6 MEMBER HORNING: Right . I probably
7 missed it, but I know you mentioned the
8 application was locust post pilings in the
9 ground.
10 MR. SAMUELS : And some masonry repair .
11 MEMBER HORNING : And what are you
12 proposing' in terms of a new foundation?
13 MR. SAMUELS : I think we ' re talking
14 about a masonry foundation probably. It ' s
15 -- unless we were required to go to a
16 piling foundation, I don ' t think we would
17 probably do that . It ' s awkward in some --
18 but pilings are an option, if there is some
19 sort of a condition that warrants it .
20 MEMBER HORNING : Gerry mentioned about
21 storm conditions . Do you think that you
22 would be required to allow water to go --
23 flow through underneath the house, do you
24 think that will be one of your
25 requirements?
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 180
1 MR. SAMUELS : Because it ' s in a flood
2 zone, we can not have a slab . So yes ,
3 water will have to flow through. It ' s an
4 AE-6 Zone, so we have to maintain that
5 minimum flood elevation of 8 . Now, the
6 house is -- I am not sure exactly, but it
7 is probably now around 6 . So we would need
8 to lift it no matter what . And figure out
9 -- like I said, you lift the whole thing up
10 and build a foundation under it and put it
11 back down and then go through this process
12 of reconstruction/renovation or whatever .
13 It ' s to be called. It ' s a lot more
14 difficult then just starting from scratch
15 and reconstructing a house . But I
16 understand the reason why we ' re talking
17 about it and it doesn ' t have to do with the
18 practicality of the nature of a use
19 variances and restrictions that you guys
20 are facing as well .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask you a
22 couple of questions . In order to verify
23 economic hardship, primarily the most
24 difficult to prove but also most compelling
25 evidence in granting a use variance . We
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 181
1 need to have some sort of financial
2 substantiation. Do you have any kind of
3 recent appraisal on the property as it is?
4 MR. SAMUELS : No, I don ' t .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there a
6 mortgage of some sort? We need to have
7 something that addresses it ' s current
8 value, the value of the property, the value
9 of the other houses around it . Do you
10 follow what I am getting at?
11 MR. SAMUELS : Yeah. I mean, from what
12 it was purchased for, I can point that out
13 very easily. If you want me to find out
14 what it ' s value was on the market place, I
15 am not sure if that is what you are asking .
16 When we get into the 50% rule with the
17 Town, they usually looking for a market
18 value of a structure, which is very -- I
19 mean, you can have an appraiser do that .
20 You can have this structure without that
21 property, find out what it ' s worth, the
22 amount of money?
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes . I mean, I
24 don ' t want to suggest that you put your
25 client through a whole bunch of additional
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 182
1 costs , but we have to have -- the law
2 requires us to have substantiation of
3 economic hardship. We all may know that
4 the property is worth a lot of money, but
5 we have to have something in writing
6 indicating the necessity for a demolition
7 rather to the value of the property and the
8 current value of the structure .
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Which makes it
10 really worse, because it ' s just the posts
11 that stands underneath the house .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What they
13 essentially have in the way of ownership is
14 a footprint .
15 MR. SAMUELS : What they have in
16 ownership is a share of the corporation .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right .
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right, but it ' s
19 the right of that house being in that
20 location .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That footprint .
22 MEMBER HORNING: How many shareholders
23 are there?
24 MR. SAMUELS : I believe 12 . There are
25 two adjacent pieces of properties with six
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 183
1 houses on each. So this has six and that
2 one has six . The corporation has 12
3 members .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: To present such
5 an application that has potential for
6 yielding has very sufficient consequences .
7 And should this Board say go ahead and
8 demo, and build a bigger house, there is no
9 way that you can say no to anyone else ' s
10 request to tare it down . And the more you
11 do that, the more nonconforming
12 circumstances could come exaggerated. It ' s
13 like a domino effect . It would be
14 arbitrary and caprices to grant one
15 situation and completely deny --
16 MR. SAMUELS : Are there other Co-Op ' s
17 in the Town that are like this?
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There are .
19 There are . Breezy Shore ' s is one, and it ' s
20 before us also, which we are certainly
21 barred from talking about it . So we are
22 going to have to proceed with
23 thoughtfulness around this for everyone .
24 Not that we don ' t always give
25 thoughtfulness . We need to get some
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 184
1 financial documentation of hardship .
2 MR. SAMUELS : Just so that I am clear
3 on what exactly it is that you are looking
4 for, we can tell you what this . The value
5 of the structure . We can determine that .
6 How are you applying that -- where does
7 that number go? Let ' s say $500 , 000 . 00 ,
8 what does that mean to you next?
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s really not
10 the Board' s responsibility to kind of
11 direct the application? I understand --
12 MR. SAMUELS : I just want to know what
13 you ' re making of that?
14 MS . ANDALORO : Usually you have to
15 provide proof of dollars and cents and
16 under the law. And why you are trying to
17 do your job and describe the valuableness
18 generally, this Board will need proof .
19 MR. SAMUELS : Okay. So we can do
20 that . We can give a number? .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would assume
22 that you need to speak to some real estate
23 agents , appraisers , you know . Also,
24 looking at the rest of the dwellings . Is
25 this substandard for the rest of the
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 185
1 dwellings in Kimogenor Point? Is this a
2 burden to your clients in relationship to
3 the other --
4 MR. SAMUELS : Does that mean that you
5 want them all appraised?
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No . Certainly
7 not . You can be an constructive --
8 MR. SAMUELS : Okay.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It ' s really up
10 to you to discuss it with your client and
11 figure out on how to make the argument .
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Is this Board
13 talking about the- value of the structure?
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The value of the
15 structure, relative to the value of the
16 waterfront property. To that ownership
17 corporation.
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: When that owner
19 buys into the corporation, they buy into
20 the structure . If the structure didn ' t
21 exist, there would be no reason for the
22 applicant to buy into the corporation?
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure .
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I am just throwing
25 that out there . I am not making a
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 186
1 statement of fact . I am more or less
2 asking a question. So according to value,
3 I would say most of the value would be in
4 that structure .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s all in the
6 structure, but it ' s location, waterfront
7 property.
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: But what that
9 applicant buys is the structure .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That ' s right .
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Because he has no
12 right under the corporation .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He doesn ' t own
14 the land.
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You couldn ' t buy
16 the house without buying a share of the
17 corporation .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you aware of
19 -- I don ' t recall if you addressed the
20 application but you may have, are there any
21 covenants and restrictions on this
22 property? Is there a homeowners --
23 MR. SAMUELS : Well, it ' s not a
24 homeowners association, it ' s a corporate
25 Board. So they have to approve -- their
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 187
1 public Board has to approve this
2 application.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do we have
4 anything from them?
5 MR. SAMUELS : Yes , I think you do have
6 something in there . And they recently, I
7 don ' t have it, but they recently voted on
8 the project itself . So they have endorsed
9 the project itself, not just the actual
10 application .
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You know what ' s
12 interesting, Tom, when we get all this
13 information, probably something that would
14 behoove of the owner, just in case God
15 forbid, we ever had another crazy one of
16 those windstorms we had, you know, where we
17 had significant damage, fortunately it
18 missed Kimogenor, you know, there may some
19 great advantage to the collection of this
20 data .
21 MR. SAMUELS : Just so I understand
22 what it is that you are really looking for,
23 we find out that the structure "as is , " and
24 I think it ' s probably not going to be in
25 excess of $300 , 000 . 00 . So if you look at
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 188
1 this and say what ' s the value of this?
2 Just on what is there, it ' s not going to
3 have a particularly high value . In order
4 for them to live here, they paid
5 $2, 500 , 000 . 00 , which I think is about what
6 they paid for this, that is the kind of
7 relationship that would be germane to this
8 discussion?
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would think
10 that would be something --
11 MR. SAMUELS : Because they ' re going to
12 spend close to three quarters of a million
13 dollars to construct that .
14 MEMBER HORNING: Sir, do they pay
15 annual maintenance fees?
16 MR. SAMUELS : I am sure they do
17 because it ' s all communally maintained.
18 The lawns are all mowed. They share the
19 property.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything having
21 to do with the Board' s endorsement,
22 assessment of the overall value, the way in
23 which they have the entire property,
24 whatever you come up with. I can ' t
25 predetermine without spending the next half
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 189
1 an hour just brainstorming, but I think you
2 get the gist of it .
3 MR. SAMUELS : I think I do .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Two and three
5 are the same question . We ' re looking at
6 character of this parcel and the adjoining
7 areas . That is not difficult to prove .
8 You can get other tax maps, and say that ' s
9 it, without a four mile radius . You need
10 to be specific . This is why lawyers
11 usually do this . No . 4 , is that it speaks
12 to the character of the neighborhood. That
13 I think is also fairly clear. We
14 understand that character of that
15 neighborhood. I do not agree that it ' s not
16 a self created hardship, because if you
17 think about it, the applicant ' s knew fully
18 well what they were buying into . They had
19 knowledge of the limitations on that
20 property or should have had. And is it the
21 minimum relief necessary, a demolition and
22 a reconstruction of a house? You have to
23 answer that . You may not say it ' s the
24 minimum and it ' s the desirable lot, but you
25 want to base that on not that it ' s just
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 190
1 want they want, too bad, but the fact that
2 it is economically feasible . And you have
3 to demonstrate why you need to expand that
4 footprint . Why at the very least a
5 demolition will not increase the
6 nonconformity of what was removed and being
7 replaced. If you are proposing to reduce
8 the bulkhead setback even further, if you
9 are proposing to expand the footprint even
10 more, that is a much greater request, if
11 you were essentially to say we ' re taking it
12 down . It ' s not structurally feasible .
13 It ' s outdated in every way. It ' s a
14 valuable property. We want to rebuild the
15 footprint and that is the minimal we can
16 do . I don ' t know how to spell it out more
17 clearly.
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You really have to
19 define the whole uniqueness of this
20 property. I think that -- there is nothing
21 like this anywhere else?
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is where
23 you go to the Assessor ' s Office and you
24 find out how many parcels in the Town for
25 that matter --
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 191
1 MEMBER HORNING: There --
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There are a few
3 in the Town. Not in the immediate area .
4 It --
5 MEMBER HORNING : If I may be
6 excused --
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure . George
8 has to go catch a ferry.
9 MR. SAMUELS : Now so far we have been
10 talking about the use variance?
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right .
12 MR. SAMUELS : And so these issues have
13 to do with a --
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Demolition .
15 MR. SAMUELS : If my client were
16 willing to take, what I am taking heroic to
17 save a portion of this house and not
18 demolish it, I am not sure what that means
19 to you at this point . Means to me
20 similarly what we did at Archer, which was
21 keep a floor structure .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Tom, I would
23 suggest that the conversation take place
24 with the Building Department so that we are
25 very, very clear that if you are going to
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 192
1 pursue not to demolish because the easier
2 way to go is to get a brand new building --
3 our definition of reconstruction, by the
4 way, I already know that they do not define
5 reconstruction as rebuilding in-place and
6 in-kind. Something has to be left . What
7 exactly that is, as you know, the code is
8 being revised, even as we speak to try and
9 clarify what that means .
10 MS . ANDALORO: ( In Audible) .
11 (Not near a microphone . )
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have never
13 interpreted reconstruction to mean the
14 piece by piece removal of a dwelling and
15 the rebuilding of it all brand new. They
16 have viewed it and their interpretation of
17 the code, a substantial portion is left and
18 you are rebuilding in-place and in-kind
19 renovating, rather then demolishing the
20 whole thing . It ' s all kind of a gray area
21 at the moment, but we can only go by what
22 the law says at this point . We have to .
23 We are not a legislative body. We can not
24 change code . We don ' t write code . We have
25 to uphold what is there, but I would
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 193
1 certainly go and talk to the Building
2 Department .
3 MR. SAMUELS : Okay.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right now what
5 we have before us is demo, and if you are
6 able to say what would I have to save so
7 that this is not a demo? How much do I
8 have to build, you can make a better
9 decision and talk to your clients and see
10 what they think.
11 MS . ANDALORO: ( In Audible) last
12 meeting come in and speak to the structural
13 integrity. Have someone open up the walls
14 in these houses .
15 MR.' SAMUELS : They are actually open .
16 There are no walls . I can speak to that .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He is qualified.
18 He has a license .
19 MS . ANDALORO : Just checking .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But that is the
21 case too, we have had testimony where an
22 architect/engineer, somebody has really
23 managed to calculate the percentage of the
24 structure that can be sured up, what has to
25 be -- what has to come down and be
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 194
1 replaced. . And I understand exactly why you
2 proceeded this way, but I think now you
3 understand why the Board is kind of caught
4 in this difficult situation because of the
5 nonconforming, and why we ask you to
6 approach it from a new standpoint, because
7 that nonconformity is gone with the demo .
8 MR. SAMUELS : That ' s why it might be
9 helpful for us to pursue that direction . I
10 am also interested in the other Part B,
11 which is the reason for appeal, and this is
12 having to do with most of the setback from
13 the bulkhead.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is the only
15 thing --
16 MS . ANDALORO : I am wondering in the
17 instance that we can work out, you know,
18 renovations and additions project, if there
19 could be any additions . I know that it ' s
20 not before you right now, but is there any
21 guidance you can give me on that subject?
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you are
23 rebuilding in a way that it ' s not
24 increasing the nonconformity of what is
25 already there, it ' s certainly from a legal
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 195
1 perspective, from a variance perspective,
2 it ' s far less substantial request than
3 increasing or -- you know, increasing the
4 nonconforming bulkhead setback, expanding
5 the footprint of a nonconforming structure .
6 MR. SAMUELS : We would be increasing
7 the footprint .. There is no question . As
8 soon as we get pass the use variance issue
9 and the area variance issue, we are
10 certainly not anywhere close to the maximum
11 coverage on the site, would you -- can you
12 imagine giving us an additional footprint
13 in an area that does not increase the
14 nonconformity for the bulkhead?
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If it wasn ' t a
16 demo, I think the Board would entertain
17 that differently. You know, we all vote --
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It ' s a difficult
19 request .
20 MR. SAMUELS : I know, that ' s why I am
21 asking it .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have five
23 people and five different opinions and we
24 can ' t predetermine --
25 MR. SAMUELS : No, but I am learning
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 196
1 from your responses .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our area
3 variance standards require us to grant the
4 minimum relief necessary to avoid
5 unnecessary hardship . That is in a sense a
6 balancing act .
7 MR. SAMUELS : Understand, but in this
8 instance -- what I am really asking, the
9 primary addition is included here and is
10 conforming, and so why wouldn ' t you grant
11 us that?
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s conforming
13 to a --
14 MR. SAMUELS : Setback.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : To a setback,
16 although there are no setbacks other than
17 bulkhead on this property.
18 MR. SAMUELS : Then that is all that we
19 are talking about .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is why the
21 Building Department wrote it that way
22 because there is no front yard and side
23 yard, really.
24 MR. SAMUELS : If we can get by with
25 the use variance and somehow maintaining
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 197
1 part of, the structure, then why can ' t we do
2 -- are -- I mean, are we even here for a
3 variance?
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nothing here
5 would be as of right because it ' s a
6 nonconforming building with a nonconforming
7 use, and any alterations would -- or
8 expansion of any kind is going to increase
9 that nonconformity. Even if it ' s a foot .
10 MR. SAMUELS : If I am not mistaken
11 though, if we had a building that was in a
12 setback and we were adding to the opposite
13 side of that building, we would not require
14 a variance, am I wrong?
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If it ' s on the
16 land side --
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You ' re wrong .
18 MR. SAMUELS : I have done it before
19 and gotten a building permit for it .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He ' s not
21 completely wrong . Under a different
22 section of the code .
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: On a different
24 piece of property.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let ' s say it ' s a
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 198
1 waterfront property and you are adding on
2 the landward side, and the front yard is
3 still conforming and the side yards are
4 still conforming, then you are right, you
5 can do it as of right .
6 MR. SAMUELS : Because this is a larger
7 site, in a sense, is that what we are
8 talking about?
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That ' s the
10 problem. This is a really tough property.
11 MR. SAMUELS : I think we can run that
12 one up the flagpole again, if we can get
13 through the use variance issue . You know,
14 we will make a case for financial hardship,
15 and I think we can, you know, do a credible
16 job of that . In this instance, it ' s a tiny
17 little beach cottage worth millions of
18 dollars and to say you can ' t even add a
19 bedroom on the side, doesn ' t seem
20 appropriate to me, but I understand where
21 you are coming from at least . Okay.
22 MS . ANDALORO : ( In Audible) .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If there had
24 been a demolition, and the Building
25 Department you can ' t put that back, it ' s
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 199
1 gone . There may be a greater argument for
2 the restoration of a building on that
3 footprint because then there is hardship .
4 You have no value other then pitching a
5 tent .
6 MR. SAMUELS : Okay.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is no demo
8 yet .
9 MR. SAMUELS : Right .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I think we
11 are approaching this right, rather then go
12 and do something and it backfires .
13 MR. SAMUELS : Right, but I don ' t want
14 to do it fruitlessly.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nobody is trying
16 to waste time, however, we are trying to
17 offer a variety of strategies for you to
18 accomplish something for you and your
19 client, at the same time, protect the
20 integrity of the Board ' s precedence in
21 setting decisions , and you know, just
22 proceed here with a awareness of potential
23 consequences . That is about what we ' re
24 doing here . So I think the best
25 conversation is to go back to the Building
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 200
1 Department and look at options from their
2 point of view, because they are the one who
3 is going to look at amended Notice of
4 Disapproval ' s or anything else and then
5 talk to your client, and really see where
6 you want to go with this, and maybe even
7 talk to an attorney.
8 MR. SAMUELS : Okay.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And then decide
10 how you want to proceed. Today it just
11 appeared to flush out all the issues, so
12 that we can understand as a Board, and you
13 as an architect, where we might or might
14 not go with this . I am going to suggest,
15 if the Board so inclines to adjourn this
16 until June, because we ' re really clogged up
17 for May, and I think you are going to need
18 time to really get together and gather
19 information, depending on whatever way you
20 want to proceed. June 7th, at 1 : 30 --
21 MR. SAMUELS : That ' s a Thursday?
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Always a
23 Thursday. Motion to adjourn -- I 'm sorry,
24 I forgot to ask, is there anyone in the
25 audience that would like to address this
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 201
1 application?
2 (No Response . )
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So hearing no
4 further comments, I will make a motion to
5 adjourn this hearing to June 7th at
6 2 : 00 o ' clock.
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye .
12 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
13 *******************************************
14
15
16 (Whereupon, the public hearings for
17 April 5, 2012 concluded. )
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 202
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 urate record of the Hearings .
9 Law10 Signature •__
11 Jes ' ca DiLallo
12
13 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
14 PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
15
16 Date : April 22 , 2012
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25