HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-05/03/2012 Hearing 1
1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK
2 ------------------------------------------- X
3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
4 ------------------------------------------- X
5 RECEIVE®
6 MAY 18 2012
Southold Town Hall
7 Southold, New York BOARD OFAPPLVALq
8
9 May 3 , 2012
10 : 12 A.M.
10
11 Board Members Present :
12 LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
13 GERARD GOEHRINGER - Member
14 JAMES DINIZIO, JR. - Member
15 KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member (Left at 12 : 15 P . M . )
16 GEORGE HORNING - Member (Left at 3 : 13 P .M. )
17
18 JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney
19 VICKI TOTH - Secretary
20
21
22
23 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
24 P . O . Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
25 ( 631) -338-1409
2
1
2
INDEX OF HEARINGS
3
4
5 Hearing : Page :
6
7 Oliver and Gloria Seligman, #6555 3-18
8 Robert Sullivan, #6563 19-25
9 Linda Pizzolla, #6564 25-31
10 Elizabeth A. Gardner, #6560 32-45
11 Richard Meyerholz, #6556 45-81
12 Justin and Susan Smith, #6561 82-88
I 13 Laura Yantsos, #6562 89-99
14 Lisa and David Cifarelli #6488 99-164
15 William Tonyes #6553 164-179
16 George Schneider, #6558 179-188
17 Barry Root, #6559 188-193
18 Hernan Michael Otano 193-231
19 (Breezy Shores) , #6557
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 3
1 HEARING #6555 - OLIVER AND GLORIA
2 SELIGMAN
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first public
4 hearing before the Board is a carryover for
5 Oliver and Gloria Seligman. It was
6 adjourned from April 5th . Since this is a
7 carryover, there is no need to read the
8 Notice of Disapproval again . Would you like
9 to come to the stand and enter your name
10 into the record, please?
11 MR. SELIGMAN : Good morning . My name
12 is Oliver Seligman . I had met you all last
13 month. Yeah, it is carryover, and I am
14 hoping that we have satisfied all of your
15 requests . You should have received a packet
16 of materials . Did you all receive a packet
17 of materials?
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, we just got
19 it . So we ' re just going to need a second to
20 take a look at this .
21 MR. SELIGMAN : Okay, sure . If everyone
22 wants to just take a minute .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So why don ' t you
24 review with us, if you would, sir, the
25 changes from the original application? I
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 4
1 see the pool and the garage are essentially
2 in the same area .
3 MR. SELIGMAN : They are, but they have
4 been moved back. Both of them have been
5 moved back. We have increased the setback
6 for both of them. We pushed the pool back
7 as far as we could without pushing it into
8 the house . It ' s still a way that we would
9 like it, which is parallel to the house .
10 Taking advantage of the house and actually;
11 when the pool was parallel to the house, you
12 will notice now, we have like 17 foot from
13 our property line . It ' s actually much
14 further from the road. It ' s more like 25
15 feet at least . And if the pool were placed
16 parallel or, I should say perpendicular to
17 the road, you would have 20 feet of pool
18 much closer to the road. This is -- there
19 is only one little point that is close to
20 the road, and it ' s angled inward. And it
21 takes advantage of the way we -- the way the
22 house was constructed before we renovated
23 it . And it will look a lot nicer . We tried
24 to move the pool other ways , but we really
25 couldn ' t because it runs into the house . It
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 5
1 gets too close to the house . We also looked
2 around the neighborhood, and we were able to
3 find at least four properties , which are
4 included in your packet . We found at least
5 two pools , which are mentioned here . One on
6 Pequash. Right on the corner there of
7 Pequash, and one on the main road of Route
8 25, where the pool is only 15 feet from
9 Pequash, which is a much, much, more busier
10 street than North Cross . And right off of
11 .25, I understand that that pool could have
12 been placed to the rear of the house,
13 according to what I was told. But anyway,
14 you granted a right to build a pool there .
15 And then there is another pool over on
16 Stillwater, about 22 feet off of Stillwater
17 Avenue . We found a couple of garages too .
18 One is a brand new one that was just
19 constructed, I think in the last few months
20 with a 20 foot front yard variance . The
21 garage that we ' re proposing right now is 30
22 feet off of Holden Avenue, and then there is
23 a second garage that is further down right
24 near -- I think it ' s West Creek. West
25 Street, anyway, it ' s right on the road.
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 6
1 It ' s quite a larger garage . More than what
2 we ' re building, and that was also approved.
3 So I hope that we have satisfied your
4 requests . In addition, the architect also
5 located the cesspool and that in turns out
6 -- and I honestly didn ' t know where it was .
7 I think you provided that map, and he scaled
8 it - onto that larger paper, and it looks like
9 it, it forces us to put that garage in the
10 only spot that is possible, which is right
11 there . There is really no other choice,
12 because if you put the garage in the back,
13 it would require us to go over the cesspool,
14 which is really not a good thing to do . And
15 to it, it would also take up a rather much
16 large area of gravel, that we rather not --
17 keep it as green as possible . So I am
18 hoping that that satisfies all members of
19 the Board.
20 MEMBER. GOEHRINGER: I just would like
21 to ask you some questions , Mr . And
22 Mrs . Seligman .
23 MR. SELIGMAN : Sure .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Refresh my memory
25 regarding the pool . Is the pool on grade or
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 7
1 just about on grade?
2 MR. SELIGMAN : Yeah, it ' s pretty much
3 on grade .
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What type of
5 product are you using as the decking around
6 the pool?
7 MR. SELIGMAN : We ' re thinking of using
8 -- the decking around the pool that we ' re
9 thinking of using? We ' re thinking of using
10 -- I am trying to think -- it ' s not Trex .
11 Azek around the pool with a three foot
12 walkway on the left and right side, length
13 wise . And a patio closest to the house .
14 And on the far end, a three foot decking .
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The reason why I
16 ask the question, you show a proposed 12
17 foot setback and the decking is also to be
18 included in the setback because it is
19 literally a little bit above grade . Where
20 you were using stone pavers at grade, that
21 would not necessarily -- and I am not saying
22 this 1000, because I have made this
23 determination for many years on this Board,
24 that no property is really flat . And so
25 some portion or some area of that is going
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 8
1 to be above grade .
2 MR. SELIGMAN : Okay.
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And so really the
4 setback is not 12 feet . While I am looking
5 at this , and this is not meant to be a
6 sarcastic statement in any way or being
7 smart . So you really should show that
8 setback, okay, if you intend to use a
9 decking material as opposed to stone
10 materials . And of course we know the
11 difference between the two of them, the
12 stone gets hot, whereas, the decking doesn ' t
13 necessarily.
14 MR. SELIGMAN : Well, that is why we ' re
15 trying to do that .
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I need to know what
17 the actual distance is on the anticipated
18 decking that you are going to be putting
19 around the pool?
20 MR. SELIGMAN : I said, I am
21 anticipating three feet .
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, no . From the
23 property line?
24 MR. SELIGMAN : Oh .
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You can ask your
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 9
1 architect just to scale that for us .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just
3 clarify this . The proposed pool was
4 originally 12 feet, at the closest point .
5 You are not proposing 17 feet . This is a
6 very small survey.
7 MR. SELIGMAN : Would you like this one?
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would be
9 helpful . We just have this little guy. So
10 I am just double checking that I am reading
11 this correctly. So it ' s 17 feet at the
12 closest and then it looks like 27 feet at
13 the farthest point?
14 MEMBER HORNING : To the pool .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right .
16 MEMBER HORNING: Not to the deck.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, we can
18 simply say that anything surrounding the
19 pool must be at grade .
20 MEMBER DINIZIO : The Building
21 Department determines , you are just saying
22 stone on the ground, that is just patio .
23 You have to build a structure in order to
24 hold something . So that needs a variance .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Absolutely. That
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 10
1 is what I am saying. That is -- you ' re in
2 agreement --
3 MEMBER DINIZIO : Although we need to
4 get a revised Notice of Disapproval and at
5 least have a survey that shows that a
6 setback is -- like Gerry said, we need to
7 have that survey changed to what the actual
8 setback is going to be, to the edge of that
9 deck.
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The 12 feet is to
11 the pool .
12 MEMBER DINIZIO : That angle --
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That ' s the old
14 , one .
15 MEMBER DINIZIO : It could be six feet .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 12 foot side
17 yard. It was a 12 foot front yard setback.
18 You understand what we ' re talking about? If
19 you put down Trex or Apex or any of these
20 composite materials, you have to have joists
21 underneath it . You have to have some
22 structure underneath it . So you can ' t run a
23 mower over it . Therefore it ' s considered
24 part of lot coverage and you would have to
25 have -- it ' s a not a bad thing of what
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 12
1 feet, whatever that setback is , looks to be
2 about probably about 6 feet from the side
3 yard.
4 MR., SELIGMAN : You mean if you did a
5 deck?
6 MEMBER DINIZIO : Yes , if you did a
7 deck, that ' s right . All I am saying is that
8 I just want that correct number . The same
9 thing on the front yard. You know, it says
10 17 to the corner of the pool . What is it to
11 the corner of the deck? That is all I want
12 to know, in order for me to make a decision .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let ' s take a look
14 at testimony from the previous hearing. The
15 Board asked the Seligman ' s -- we carried
16 this over so that they could come back
17 because we were asking them to try and be
18 more conforming .
19 MR. SELIGMAN : Right .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In other words ,
21 even though it ' s really not the distance,
22 it ' s the fact that they both are in front
23 yards . Nevertheless, both were proposed
24 quite close to the road. It ' s a limited
25 rear yard. You have indicated where the
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 11
1 you ' re proposing from the pool . It ' s
2 whatever you put around it . If it ' s at
3 grade with a patio, than the setback would
4 have to be at the pool .
5 MEMBER DINIZIO : All we are saying is
6 you need to have -- in order for us to make
7 a decision, we need to have the right
8 setbacks .
9 MR. SELIGMAN : All I am trying to say
10 is, and I understand what you meant . I
11 understand that the structure will require
12 it . So in order to expedite this , I guess
13 we should give up doing the Trex and just
14 put something at grade level .
15 MEMBER DINIZIO : Honestly, sir --
16 MR. SELIGMAN : Yes , sir .
17 MEMBER DINIZIO : We ' re really not
18 saying that . I don ' t think Gerry is saying
19 that, and I know that I am not . All that I
20 want is, on the survey what the actual
21 distance is . You have 12 feet and that ' s
22 because whoever did the survey assumed that
23 the deck, it doesn ' t need a variance .
24 MR. SELIGMAN : Right .
25 MEMBER DINIZIO: It does . So that 12
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 13
1 septic is , as we requested. So as to show
2 why you can ' t put that swimming pool or
3 garage in the rear yard. That has been
4 done . And you ' re going to increase the
5 front yard setback from 25 to 30 . 11 .
6 MR. SELIGMAN : Right .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that ' s where
8 we left it . The attempt was to try and get
9 it away, you know the farthest away from the
10 front yard property line, as it ' s feasible .
11 To give you room for privacy screening.
12 MR. SELIGMAN : Right .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We also asked you
14 to, provide information on other pools and
15 garages that were in front yards that were
16 similar to what you are proposing, and you
17 have done that . We have the lot numbers and
18 so on. So when we say correct setback, the
19 goal here was to improve the setback . So I
20 don ' t want to see a deck there . I mean,
21 you ' re trying to push that pool back. And
22 if you put a deck on, you ' re going to defeat
23 the purpose of moving the pool back further
24 because you are going to wind up with a deck
25 that is really close to the property line .
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 14
1 Do you understand what I am saying?
2 MR. SELIGMAN : So I can ' t put a deck?
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is your
4 decision, but I believe if we were to grant
5 the setbacks for the pool that you are
6 proposing on this survey, then you are going
7 to have to use pavers .
8 MR. SELIGMAN : Right .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Because that is
10 the least setback the Board is going to
11 consider . Does that make sense to the
12 Board?
13 MEMBER DINIZIO : I understand that, but
14 I don ' t have any objection to a rail around
15 the deck, if that is what the gentleman
16 wants . My preference would be when we make
17 a decision, we have the proper setback. Not
18 what is on the survey right now.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what we
20 could easily do because this is very quickly
21 remedied. We can close this hearing today
22 subject to receipt of a survey showing that
23 the pool is as proposed and the surrounding
24 is an at grade patio .
25 MR. SELIGMAN : Let me look here .
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 15
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don ' t think --
2 MR. SELIGMAN : I don ' t think it says
3 any of that here .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, it doesn ' t .
5 It just shows a brick walkway and it shows a
6 rectangular area around the pool .
7 MR. SELIGMAN : That is correct .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I did notice that
9 you haven ' t proposed reducing the size of
10 the pool . That .was one thing that we talked
11 about . It ' s still 20x40 .
12 MR. , SELIGMAN : Right .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If that is what
14 you want to propose at this point, then the
15 Board will act on that .
16 MR. SELIGMAN : What we will do is just
17 do it at grade level .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What you need to
19 do is have it specified on the survey. So
20 that when we see that rectangle around the
21 pool, we know what we ' re looking at . Right
22 now, it ' s unspecified. It could be
23 anything . It could be a raised deck. It
24 could be anything.
25 Does the Board have any other comments
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 16
1 or questions?
2 MEMBER HORNING : I do .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George?
4 MEMBER HORNING: I 'm curious, because
5 again, I am looking at the tiny diagram.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Take the bigger
7 one, George .
8 MEMBER HORNING : What are the other
9 wider circles around it?
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That ' s a
11 depression .
12 MEMBER HORNING : That would be the
13 existing filled in area?
14 MR. SELIGMAN : Yes .
15 MEMBER HORNING: And the dotted line
16 circled around the leaching pool itself is
17 -- that ' s the ten foot radius . The
18 documentation that you provided with the
19 latest information, we can get the variance
20 case numbers for that and corollate that? I
21 am curious as to the dates when these
22 variances were granted.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don ' t see why
24 they couldn ' t do that .
25 MR. SELIGMAN : As far as I know, I know
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 17
1 one had a 16 page packet with it .
2 MEMBER HORNING : Well, you provided lot
3 numbers , and you ' re suggesting that
4 variances were granted .
5 MR. SELIGMAN : I have a packet for each
6 one .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can submit
8 it, that ' s all .
9 MEMBER HORNING: Thank you .
10 MR. SELIGMAN : I submitted this .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All we got was a
12 cover letter with a small survey. So you
13 know what, not a problem. Our Board
14 secretary will make copies .
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just have one
16 thing for the record regarding the variance
17 on Pequash . I personally voted against that
18 application because the pool should have
19 been placed in another area . There was a
20 particular reason why they needed that pool .
21 I don ' t remember if it was a medical reason
22 or what the situation was . I just wanted to
23 put , that in the record.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am going to
25 give all these to you . Give these all to
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 18
1 George . Okay.
2 Is there anyone else in the audience
3 that would like to address this application?
4 (No Response . )
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
6 further questions or comments , I am going to
7 make a motion to close the hearing subject
8 to receipt of a survey indicating that the
9 survey around the proposed pool is at grade .
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by
12 Gerry.
13 All in favor?
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
16 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
17 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
19 (See Minutes for Resolution. )
20 ********************************************
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I need to do a
22 two minute recess . So moved.
23 Is there a second?
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 19
1 MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye .
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
3 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
6 (Whereupon, a short recess was taken
7 at this time . )
8 ****************** *************************
9 HEARING #6563 - ROBERT SULLIVAN
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
11 application before us is for Robert
12 Sullivan, #6563 . Request for from variance
13 Article XXII Code Section 280-116 (B) based
14 on an application for building permit and
15 the Building Inspector ' s February 8 , 2012
16 Notice of Disapproval concerning proposed
17 additions and alterations to a single family
18 dwelling at; 1) less than the code required
19 bulkhead setback of 75 feet, located at :
20 2715 Nassau Point Road, adjacent to Hog Neck
21 Bay in Cutchogue .
22 MR. SCHWARTZ : Hi . Mark Schwartz,
23 architect for the project . The owners are
24 looking to create a screened in porch over
25 an existing deck. The deck is 38 feet from
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 20
1 the bulkhead. And the porch is proposed at
2 46 feet from the proposed setback of the
3 existing deck itself. And it ' s kind of in
4 between a u-shaped portion of the house . So
5 it ' s a one-story proposed porch, and they' re
6 really just looking to have their parents
7 that are in their 70 ' s and 80 ' s out of the
8 sun . This is the reason for the proposed
9 porch.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mark, I wanted to
11 ask you about the -- what is the proposed
12 drainage for the roof runoff on the porch?
13 MR. SCHWARTZ : We do plan to install a
14 drywell to pick up the drainage or ( In
15 Audible . )
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Because that is
17 not indicated here, and obviously you are
18 going to have to drain that roof runoff with
19 gutters and leaders that will go into a
20 drywell . So you have existing drywell ' s on
21 the property?
22 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : None of that is
24 noted on the survey.
25 MR. SCHWARTZ : I think that is on the
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 21
1 application.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me see . You
3 have a copy of the LWRP indicating it ' s
4 exempt?
5 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don ' t see any
7 -- I don ' t see anything noted on the survey
8 one way or the other . I am looking at this
9 survey. .
10 MR. SCHWARTZ : It ' s not on the survey.
11 I thought we had it on the application .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You may, but we
13 need to see it . I am just going to check.
14 I think you might have put it down there . I
15 am going to look and see . It ' s probably
16 under reasons .
17 MR. SCHWARTZ : It ' s actually under
18 No . 4 .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here we are . It
20 just says all stormwater will be retained on
21 site .
22 MR. SCHWARTZ : I will add that to the
23 survey .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. The Town
25 is getting the LWRP coordinator, who is also
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 22
1 MS4 Stormwater Management Officer, and has
2 brought to our attention certain additional
3 concerns that the Town is going to have to
4 start addressing because it ' s a State
5 requirement . So it ' s in the future and
6 going forward. So it ' s very useful to see
7 drywell ' s existing and proposed.
8 MR. SCHWARTZ : Okay.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George, any
10 questions on this?
11 MEMBER HORNING: Yes , I have a couple
12 of details . Looking at the property record
13 card, the house was originally built in
14 1971, around then? Does that sound about
15 right?
16 MR. SCHWARTZ : Sounds about right, yes .
17 MEMBER HORNING: And at that time there
18 was no variance necessary for the setback
19 from the bulkhead, would you say that is
20 right?
21 MR. SCHWARTZ : I am not certain.
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: George, that
23 variance came in some around the mid to
24 early 801s , at the request of the counsel
25 person . Who was a noted environmentalist .
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 23
1 So that is the reason why.
2 MEMBER HORNING: I am trying to get
3 into the record here that the house was
4 built before the requirement for the 75
5 foot .
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is correct .
7 MEMBER HORNING : And then it looks
8 like, incidentally, in 1978 , there was a
9 building permit to build an accessory
10 building, would you say that that was the
11 garage that is there now?
12 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
13 MEMBER HORNING : Even the garage goes
14 back a couple of years , but the house
15 predates the code requirement for the 75
16 foot . That is why it is where it is?
17 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes , I believe so .
18 MEMBER HORNING: Otherwise, you would
19 have needed a variance if it was built later
20 than that, and the code was in effect at
21 that time . Now, that it is there, it sticks
22 out closer than your proposed porch? The
23 existing house is closer to the bulkhead?
24 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
25 MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 24
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jim?
6 MEMBER DINIZIO : No questions .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the
8 audience that wishes to address this
9 application?
10 (No Response . )
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
12 further comments , I will make a motion to
13 close this hearing subject to receipt of a
14 survey indicating the location of an
15 existing or proposed drywell for roof runoff
16 of the proposed porch . Second?
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by
19 Gerry.
20 All in favor?
21 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
23 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 25
1 (See Minutes for Resolution. )
2 ********************************************
3 HEARING #6564 - LINDA PIZZOLLA
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
5 application before the Board is for Linda
6 Pizzolla, #6564 . Request for variances from
7 Article IV Code Section 280-18 , based on an
8 application for building permit and the
9 Building Inspector ' s January 24 , 2012 Notice
10 of Disapproval concerning proposed additions
11 and alterations to a single family dwelling,
12 at; 1 ) less than the code required front
13 yard setback of 50 feet to Carrington Road,
14 2 ) less than the code required front yard
15 setback of 50 feet to Nassau Point Road,
16 located at : 4800 Nassau Point Road, corner
17 Carrington Road, Cutchogue .
18 Mark, go ahead and enter your name into
19 the record?
20 MR. SCHWARTZ : Mark Schwartz,
21 architect . I did hand in a revised partial
22 site plan . The other lot is merged to it .
23 So I am going to have to give you some
24 additional information . We ' re proposing to
25 put on a second floor on the house, pretty
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 26
1 much over the existing footprint . There is
2 a slight 16 foot by 6 foot entry platform
3 that will have a proposed open porch above
4 it . That was not shown on the original
5 application . The distance to the road is
6 still the same . So it ' s not any closer than
7 what we proposed, the second floor proposed
8 addition.. The owners wanted to create
9 bedrooms on the second floor and open up the
10 first floor for living space . So we ' re
11 looking to remove the roof of the first
12 floor of the house and add an 8 foot wall
13 with a hip roof . The hip roof to some
14 extent minimizes the mass of the roof . So
15 it slopes on all four sides . And we ' re just
16 a few feet short of the 50 foot setback on
17 the front yard, which is Nassau Point Road.
18 It ' s a corner lot . Kind of a paper road to
19 the north, and our setback there is 20 foot .
20 So we ' re just looking to extend. over the
21 footprint and use a hip roof for this
22 structure .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the other lot
24 has merged with the developed lot . And
25 Carrington is also referred to as Carpenter
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 27
1 sometimes . It ' s actually a driveway to the
2 neighbor, is it not?
3 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And it is
5 screened from view with a stockade fence .
6 Ken, questions?
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Carrington Road, can
8 you just really describe for the record the
9 condition?
10 MR. SCHWARTZ : It ' s mainly a grass and
11 dirt road section. It ' s kind of flat but it
12 doesn ' t look like it is used much. It ' s an
13 accessory garage in that backyard there .
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And is open all the
15 way to the next street?
16 MR. SCHWARTZ : It appears to be fenced
17 Off .
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Who would really use
19 that road for any reason?
20 MR. SCHWARTZ : It appears just the
21 neighbor next door .
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. And is there
23 a garage proposed on this parcel?
24 MR. SCHWARTZ : No .
25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No further
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 28
1 questions .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George?
3 MEMBER HORNING: So you are describing
4 Carrington Road as a right-of-way, is that
5 right?
6 MR. SCHWARTZ : I am not sure if it is
7 or not . I am not sure if it ' s a Town road
8 or --
9 MEMBER HORNING: And yet someone did
10 put a gated fence around --
11 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yeah . It wasn ' t the
12 Pizzolla ' s that put that fence there .
13 MEMBER HORNING: It is at the edge of
14 the Pizzolla ' s property, right, the back
15 edge?
16 MEMBER HORNING: Yes .
17 MR. SCHWARTZ: I can find out how the
18 fence got there, if that is what you are
19 asking?
20 MEMBER HORNING: I am just curious if
21 it ' s a public road or a private
22 right-of-way.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is used as a
24 driveway access by the adjacent neighbor .
25 No one travels on it . If that is what you
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 29
1 are asking? Other than the property owner
2 who has a garage back there .
3 MEMBER HORNING: I don ' t have anything
4 further .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Gerry?
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the footprint
7 that you are actually using on the one-story
8 house is actually going to be the footprint
9 on the two-story house, with the alterations
10 that you are going to be doing on the
11 two-story?
12 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So basically what
14 is only that we ' re going to see, is mass? A
15 two-story house with a hip roof?
16 MR. SCHWARTZ : Correct .
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And looking at your
18 Plan Al, that porch area that you are
19 referring to on that most recent survey that
20 we had just gotten, has the same or similar
21 setback that we have in the Notice of
22 Disapproval; right?
23 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes , it is .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jim? -
25 MEMBER DINIZIO: It says a " 6x16
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 30
1 platform, " and to me, constitutes a deck.
i
2 Then it says "open porch above . " So this is
3 going to be covered; right?
4 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
5 MEMBER DINIZIO : Is it covered on the
6 open porch above also?
7 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes . It wasn ' t like
8 heated space .
9 MEMBER DINIZIO : I was just wondering
10 why. It ' s unusual . I never saw it like
11 that . And Carrington Road, it ' s a road if
12 everyone wants to know, but this is an
13 extension of that road . There is a couple
14 of them along Nassau Point . Probably
15 between Wunneweta Road and Nassau Point
16 there . I think they could be used as roads
17 if they chose . No one is paying any taxes
18 on those roads . I believe they are not
19 anyone ' s own private road. They are
20 right-of-ways that are on a map . We ' re. only
21 talking 20 feet on that side anyway. I
22 don ' t think that is really a huge problem.
23 That ' s all I have .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Is there
25 anyone in this audience that would like to
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 31
1 address this application?
2 (No Response . )
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
4 further comments , I will make a motion to
5 close this hearing and reserve decision .
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
7 CHAIRPERSON .WEISMAN : All in favor?
8 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
10 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye .
13 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
14 ********************************* **********
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to recess
16 for five minutes .
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
19 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
21 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
24 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken
25 at this time . )
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 32
2 HEARING #6560 - ELIZABETH A. GARDNER
3 Request for variance from Article XXII
4 Code Section 280-116 (B) based on an
5 application for building permit and the
6 Building Inspector ' s March 8 , 2012 Notice of
7 Disapproval concerned screen porch with
8 outside shower over existing deck to a
9 single family dwelling at ; 1 ) less than the
10 code required bulkhead setback of 75 feet,
11 located at : 1665 Shore Road, adjacent to
12 Pipes Cove, Greenport .
13 MS . MOORE : -- it ' s a Pre-CO . It had
14 received over the years permits for every
15 alteration and modification to the house .
16 In 1992 , the Zoning Board -- prior owner,
17 pardon me, applied for a variance to
18 construct the deck that is presently there .
19 That variance application was #4053 ;
20 however, there was a condition placed on
21 that variance, which stated that it should
22 remain open to the sky. , So we are here
23 before the Board due to that condition, even
24 though the screened in porch is within the
.1 25 structure, the deck structure . As you can
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 33
1 see the stairs are on the seaward side .
2 It ' s all occurring on top of the existing
3 deck. That condition does require us to
4 come back before the Board. We were
5 discussing out in the hallway, the
6 possibility that this is going to be roofed
7 in screened over porch and if th,e Board
8 would be willing -- the second floor, if we
9 could just keep the same roof, but just cut
10 into the roof for a second floor deck inside
11 the roof, which would allow the second floor
12 bedroom to have a -- to looking out onto the
13 bay. That is something that he may or may
14 not construct at this time, but we thought
15 best to ask now, because ultimately we would
16 have to come back again if there was a
17 modification to these plans . So if that is
18 agreeable with the Board, I could just have
19 Mark Schwartz make a small modification to
20 the drawings?
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is what we
22 would require .
23 MS . MOORE : Yes , it ' s all within the
24 roof, so I don ' t believe a Notice of
25 Disapproval would need to be revised since
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 34
1 it ' s the exact same variance . If you have
2 any questions, I would be happy to answer
3 them?
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, I do have .
5 The application again says , drywell ' s for
6 the screened porch runoff, but they are not
7 shown on the survey, and also the site plan .
8 And there is no location of where the
9 proposed shower is going to drain on the
10 property. Again, the MS4 is now requiring
11 us to be --
12 MS . MOORE : Right .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess we are
r
14 all going to have to get used to that .
15 MS . MOORE : Yeah. I didn ' t include it
16 because it typically doesn ' t require your
17 approval . It ' s part of the MS4 and the
18 Building Department would require it . So
19 ultimately where that drywell will be, I
20 thought the Trustees would have more to say
21 about it than this Board, but I have Mark
22 Schwartz here . I think for the purposes of
23 the Trustees , I will show it, because it ' s a
24 disturbance to the property, to the land. I
25 didn ' t want to hold up the application for a
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 35
1 drywell . It is something that we do have to
2 provide for under the building permit .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So if Mark is
4 going to give some revised architectural
5 drawings, perhaps the survey could als.o be
6 updated to show where the shower is going to
7 drain and gutters and leaders .
8 MS . MOORE : Not survey, the site plan?
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The site plan,
10 yes .
11 MS . MOORE : Yes . I will ultimately
12 need that site plan for the Trustees .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jim, questions?
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : I don ' t know . It just
15 looks like you ' re covering something up that
16 you got a variance for and we asked you not
17 to cover .
18 MS . MOORE : True . But the open to the
19 sky is typically a very common condition
20 that you all place so that you -- you know,
21 even way back when in the 90 ' s, you want to
22 see the application rather than
23 automatically think that you can put a cover
24 over it .
25 MEMBER DINIZIO : Well, I would beg to
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 36
1 differ with you, Pat . I seconded the motion
2 on that one . You know, we said open to the
3 sky because we didn ' t want to have it
4 covered. Once you cover it, it ' s more of a
5 problem.
6 MS . MOORE : Well, this would be a
7 screened in porch, so therefore it ' s not --
8 it just protects against the bugs and allows
9 for the use of the summer . This is a second
10 home . It given them the ability to use the
11 back deck more comfortably than -- and now
12 with the MS4 it ' s actually controlling the
13 runoff better than an open deck. The deck
14 right now has no need. It -- it was built
15 prior to the drainage requirement . I guess
16 the point is, I don ' t understand the
17 condition initially because if you walk up
18 and down the block there, the homes
19 generally have structures that are clearly
20 within the 75 feet . This is very -- to me
21 it seems like a very minor application.
22 Certainly requires your review, because the
23 issue of the setback of •the bulkhead being
24 -- you know the 75 feet . The deck already
25 establishes the setback and we are within
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 37
1 actually a couple of feet within that
2 setback. It ' s really minimal on top of the
3 deck. You know, it ' s also -- it ' s a very
4 small . It ' s only a 13x13 deck. So with
5 respect to the square footage of this
6 enclosure, it really is small .
7 MEMBER DINIZIO : That ' s all I have .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: A question to Mark.
10 The roof that you are now requesting is
11 going to be a flat roof. Will that have any
12 pitch to it?
13 MR. SCHWARTZ : I think what we have on
14 the plan --
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It ' s a hip roof
16 that is going to come out with a cutout?
17 MS . MOORE : Yes .
18 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes . Well, the way that
19 it was originally thought of, it ' s a hip
20 roof with a flat section on the top . So now
21 we are talking about -- if we are able to
22 get a second floor deck, it would kind of be
23 like a curve on top and then recess back
24 down with a deck up there . Maybe 8x8 or
25 something like that .
, May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 38
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So that has to be
2 drained, right?
3 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. So it will
5 be some sort of draining that goes through
6 the roof area and back down?
7 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the draining
9 will have to be calculated to accommodate
10 that deck and whatever draining is coming
11 off the new one?
12 MS . MOORE : The calculation would still
13 be the same .
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not necessarily
15 because usually in those cutout ' s you get a
16 lot more water in those than you would get
17 in the roof -- I just had seen that in the
18 past . That is just my opinion . As long as
19 . the drainage is big enough to accommodate
20 it .
21 MR. SCHWARTZ : We will make sure .
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George?
24 MEMBER HORNING : To wrap up a little
25 history of it . The house was built prior to
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 39
1 code?
2 MS . MOORE : Prior to zoning, yes . It
3 has a Pre-CO .
4 MEMBER HORNING : And then in 1991, they
5 requested a variance to build a deck, which
6 they were approved for, as long as the deck
7 remained open to the sky. Jim was tackling
8 that . I was wondering myself too, why that
9 condition was there . You ' re suggesting it
10 was somewhat sort of a standard . The ZBA
11 member stated that it was put there for a
12 specific purpose . And then you are saying
13 that the screened in porch is only going to
14 be erected over a small portion, less than
15 50%?
16 MS . MOORE : Yes . 13x13 portion. The
17 pictures are the easier way to look at this .
18 The back of the house contains three sets of
19 windows . This porch -- screened in porch is
20 only one set . So I guess it ' s 1/3 of the
21 overall deck. It screens in the small area
22 where the dining room area is right now, I
23 believe . Living room, dining room. It
24 allows for opening up of those windows and
25 using the screened in area, more flowing .
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 40
1 MEMBER HORNING : And the roof
2 alteration of this 8x8 -- where is that in
3 relation to the screened porch? It ' s going
4 to be in the vicinity of the screened in
5 porch; is that correct?
6 MR. SCHWARTZ : Right over the top .
7 MS . MOORE : Yeah . Not completely.
8 It ' s just a cutout . You have a small
9 opening. It just gives the second floor a
10 little more life .
11 MEMBER HORNING : Is there anyway you
12 can provide for us, Pat -- you mentioned
13 setbacks , and I want to talk about
14 neighborhood variances also . Can you
15 provide some background material for the
16 character of the neighborhood, variances
17 within six parcels , let ' s say, on either
18 side of this parcel , and setbacks? You
19 mentioned -- the photos show them almost
20 lined up .
21 MS . MOORE : You didn ' t do that work
22 Vicki? You attempt to do all of it already .
23 By chance, did you?
24 MS . TOTH : No, I didn ' t .
25 MS . MOORE : I can do that . That ' s
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 41
1 fine .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It might be
3 useful for the record to reflect that
4 typically what happens when you have
5 nonconforming setbacks , is that the granting
6 of the deck is considered less substantial
7 than enclosed space with regard to a
8 setback, because of the mass . So I think
9 the Board has often conditioned leaving
10 things open to the sky because it ' s a
11 reflection of the fact it ' s a lesser
12 variance, generally.
13 MS . MOORE : Right .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have in the
15 past, I can think of one example a couple of
16 years ago, we had the same situation . It
17 was a rear yard setback. It wasn ' t a
18 bulkhead. It was nonconforming and the deck
19 was to remain open to the sky. The
20 applicant wanted to put on a small extension
21 off the dining room, which would have just
22 taken a small portion of the existing deck.
23 So in that particular instance, the Board
24 granted it . Removed the condition and then
25 reapplied the condition for the deck that
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 42
1 remained.
2 MS . MOORE : That ' s fine .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is how it
4 was handled. I am not suggesting that is
5 what the Board is going to do here, but that
6 had happened previously. The point being,
7 we want to make sure, as you said, if there
8 is an alteration that would increase the
9 substantiality of the original variance,
10 that we have a chance to review it .
11 MS . MOORE : Understood.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Which is why you
13 are here .
14 MS . MOORE : Yes . I just have -- I
15 happen to pull up one of the photographs ,
16 which is in your packet . Maybe I can come
17 up . Actually I don ' t know if it ' s in your
18 packet . There is so many photographs here .
19 I have this one and I will submit it with
20 the request . Here is the house . Here is
21 the deck. The neighbor is the gray building
22 and you can see that it has a little bump
23 out and it extends beyond that . They also
24 have a hot tub here . So you can see that
25 the small 13x13 will almost mimic the
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 43
1 adjacent properties -- looks like it ' s more
2 of an enclosure living space . I think there
3 is also a window .
4 MEMBER HORNING : Pat, is that on this?
5 There is several buildings on here .
6 MS . MOORE : Let me see . This
7 photograph that is in your packet . This one
8 shows -- this portion of the house actually
9 extends over the area that would be
10 uncovered. It ' s a little more of an angle
11 but you see it more directly when you are
12 standing --
13 MEMBER HORNING: You mean, it ' s closer
14 to the bulkhead?
15 MS . MOORE : It ' s absolutely closer to
16 the bulkhead. It ' s much closer to the
17 bulkhead. It look like 50 feet closer to
18 the bulkhead.
19 MEMBER HORNING: That ' s why to
20 substantiate the character of the
21 neighborhood having nonconforming setbacks
22 from the bulkhead, we would like you to
23 provide as much information as you could.
24 MS . MOORE : That ' s fine . I will also
25 get you the Google map because that will
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 44
1 show you the setbacks with everyone else .
2 This is pretty much a preexisting
3 neighborhood, I can ' t be sure that these
4 other property owners have gotten permits in
5 the past that would give me --
6 MEMBER HORNING : Well, we could
7 research variances in the neighborhood.
8 Thanks'.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken, do you have
10 any questions?
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
13 else in the audience that would like to
14 address this application?
15 (No Response . )
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Hearing no
17 further questions or comments, I am going to
18 make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the
19 Special Meeting date, two weeks from today,
20 subject to receipt of the information that
21 we requested more on the character of the
22 neighborhood with regards to bulkhead
23 setbacks and the location of drywell ' s for
24 the drainage of the roof and shower . And
25 finally, alterations to the architectural
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 45
1 drawings that include a potential second
2 floor deck.
3 Is there a second to that motion?
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
6 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
8 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
11 (See Minutes for Resolution .)
12 ********************************************
13 HEARING #6556 - RICHARD MEYERHOLZ
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
15 application before the Board is for Richard
16 Meyerholz , #6556 . Request for variances
17 from Article XXIII Code Section 280-124 ,
18 based on an application for building permit
19 and the Building Inspector ' s
20 January 12 , 2012 Notice of Disapproval
21 concerning proposed demolition and
22 reconstruction of a single family dwelling,
23 at, 1) less than the code required front yard
24 setback of 35 feet, 2 ) less than the code
25 require minimum side yard setback of 10
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of- Appeals 46
1 feet, 3 ) less than the code required total
2 combined side yards of 25 feet, 4 ) more than
3 the code permitted lot coverage of 200
4 maximum, at : 4245 Bay Shore Road, adjacent
5 to Pipes Cove, Shelter Island Sound, in
6 Greenport .
7 . Please state your name for the record.
8 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Hi, I am Richard
9 Meyerholz . I made the application to the
10 Zoning Board for the issues that you just
11 stated. I also have with me Robert Brown,
12 architect from Fairweather & Brown . He and
13 I will be able to answer any questions that
14 you might have .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let ' s ask you if
16 you have any of the green cards back from
17 the mailing?
18 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Yes, I do .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you bring
20 those forward, please?
21 All right, variances in the
22 neighborhood. And this is to testify to the
23 character of the neighborhood. I am going
24 to give this to you, sir . This is a letter
25 from Suffolk County indicating that this is
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 47
1 for local determination. Just a formal
2 thing. And the memorandum from the LWRP
3 Coordinator, Local Waterfront Revitalization
4 Program, indicating that the actions that
5 you are proposing is inconsistent with the
6 LWRP, and making some recommendations on how
7 to mitigate for consistency. So let me give
8 you a copy. Perhaps, Mr . Brown is maybe
9 going to want to take a look at that .
10 Let me just characterize the
11 application in terms of what the basis of
- 12 this application is all about . You ' re
13 proposing to demolish and reconstruct a
14 single family dwelling on the parcel, which
15 is 7 , 526 square foot parcel . With a front
16 yard setback of 31 . 6 feet, plus or minus ,
17 where the code requires 35 feet . The side
18 yard setback minimum of 3 . 4 feet, where the
19 code requires a 10 foot minimum. A combined
20 side yard setback of 9 . 9 feet, while the
21 code requires 25 feet . Let ' s note that both
22 those side yards are what exist now . The
23 combined and the single . And a lot coverage
24 of 28 . 9%, where the code permits a maximum
25 of 20% . That is largely because of a new
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 48
1 attached garage and deck in the front yard.
2 So the current lot coverage, it would appear
3 as 19 . 3% . So let ' s see where we go . What
4 would you like to tell us about this
5 application?
6 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Just if I could give
7 you an overview . You probably know this
8 already. The Bay Shore Estates was
9 established in the 1920 ' s . The lot sizes at
10 that time, were on average of approximately
11 50 feet across each lot . There were several
12 lots that were purchased by individuals that
13 were combined . So there are lots that are
14 single . 50 foot lots . There are some that
15 are doubles and there are some that are
16 triples . So you have a 25 foot side yard
17 setback is a very difficult to near
18 impossible requirement to achieve . As you
19 can see from some of the photographs that I
20 have provided, some of the houses do not
21 qualify for that new updated code . In
22 addition the lot coverage that is now
23 required under the code of law, as you say
24 maximum 20% . There are properties , there
25 are homes on that street that were built
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 49
1 prior to 1957 , which is when the Zoning
2 Board was established here in the Town of
3 Southold. So it ' s very difficult to obtain
4 documentation on some of those homes that
5 are 1957 construction . As you mentioned the
6 building details , which will provide in your
7 application is a -- as you defined a
8 demolition, which is greater than 500 of the
9 structure . We had proposed to retain some
10 of the walls to stay within the current
11 footprint of the property, however, I would
12 like to make the Board aware, this is an
13 older home . The construction is not up to
14 current code, and may be difficult to keep
15 some of that structure . I don ' t know what
16 was damaged or disintegration . That will be
17 determined when the destruction takes place .
18 Of course I would come back to the Building
19 Department and inform them if we have to
20 make some additional tare downs , but I just
21 wanted to make you aware, the primary
22 concern is to maintain the current footprint
23 in its current location on the property,
24 with respect to the high water mark. I also
25 wanted to make everyone aware, and it ' s in
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 50
1 your packet as well, I have applied to the
2 DEC as well . I have submitted the
3 application and it was and has been
4 received. So that component of the process
5 is finished. I also put in an application
6 to the Health Department and received the
7 approvals from the Health Department for the
8 new septic system that is required. The
9 septic system is the new required system by
10 law, which is five rings plus an additional
11 two, if needed in the future .. That is three
12 feet above the water table .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay .
14 MR. MEYERHOLZ : To address the side
15 yard issues first, that is probably a little
16 bit easier . So just to make the Board
17 aware, at least three lots that are very
18 close, Lot 24 , Lot 15 and Lot 16 . Lot 24 is
19 to the south of my property. It ' s on the
20 corner of Bay Shore Road and Island View
21 Lane . The approval that the Board made back
22 in 2010 , was 5 . 7 . feet on one side and 5 . 0 on
23 the other, which was a total of about 11
24 feet . The original home that was on that
25 property, which you might be aware, was
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 51
1 ultimately destroyed and rebuilt . The side
2 yard on the south side was maybe a foot from
3 the property line . Lot 15 , which is the
4 Mayor property, that is also 7 . 5 feet and
5 3 . 9 feet, for a total of 11 feet combined.
6 And Lot 16, which is Bradford, 6 . 5 feet and
7 7 . 5 feet, for a total of about 14 feet
8 total . So as I mentioned earlier, due to
9 the limitation of the lot size, it makes it
10 very difficult to conform to the lot size
11 side yard requirements of today. On the
12 front yard setback, there is a number of
13 properties . Just to give you a small
14 handful, Lot 25 , Lot 2 , 20 , 19, 18 , 3 and 4 ,
15 that are in violation of the front yard
16 setback. You can see that . I have
17 photographs of those properties .
18 Predominantly, garages that just 15-20 feet
19 off the road, that have been constructed at
20 various times that exist today . So we are
21 not looking to do something that is out of
22 character to the neighborhood, with respect
23 to the 31 f"oot setback. I tried to keep the
24 house as close as possible and try to
25 maintain an aesthetic to the neighborhood
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 52
1 and to my own property. The lot coverage
2 issue is a little more difficult, but I do
3 have some three comps , one actually exceeds
4 my current request from the Zoning Board of
5 28 . 9 . That one is Lot 22 , that is just on
6 the north side . The property that is next
7 to me, which is 29 . 6% coverage . That house
8 was built prior to 1956 . I think it was
9 built in the 30 ' s and 40 ' s , and has a
10 two-car garage and a large porch on the
11 north side . The property directly to my
12 right, or the south side . That is Lot 24 .
13 That would be Swing . The Board approved the
14 reconstruction at 26 . 4% coverage back in
15 2008 . And there was a house interestingly
16 enough, Lot 15, Mayor, originally was a
17 27 . 3% . So you can see that there were homes
18 that were built with larger percentage, but
19 that was reconstructed based upon the new
20 design of the architect in 2001 at 24 . 8%
21 coverage . The Bradford property, which is
22 Lot 16, which was approved in 2001 , is also
23 24 . 2% , and another one, Thompson property,
24 Lot 64 , which was approved back in 1979,
25 which is 23 . 340. I also want to make you
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 53
1 aware of when we originally did the percent
2 for the lot coverage, we had did it without
3 the overhang . There are some parts of the
4 new design that have a rather large
5 overhang, so that you can walk without
6 getting wet, from the garage to the front
7 door, and without those overhangs, the lot
8 coverage would be approximately 26 . 50 , as I
9 recall . I can get that exact figure for you
10 because it ' s on the DEC survey. So it ' s
11 really comes down to the overhangs . From an
12 architectural perspective, it adds a nice
13 look to the house that we would really like
14 to try and maintain . As you can also see,
15 additions, front of the house, garage .
16 There is no garage on the property, and we
17 would really like to have a garage . As we
18 get older, it would be easier for us to get
19 in and out from the house . Without the
20 garage, it makes it very much more difficult
21 for my wife and I . This is the house that
22 we ' re retiring. That ' s necessarily -- you
23 know, part of your decision, but the fact of
24 life and that ' s where we ' re going with this .
25 It ' s not a house that is going to be built
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 54
1 to sold. It ' s a house that we ' re going to
2 have -- it ' s a house that has been in my
3 wife ' s family for the last 40 years . The
4 property directly to the north is my
5 brother-in-law. You know, these are
6 properties that have been in my wife ' s
7 family for the last 40 years, and now, you
8 know, the next generation, these properties
9 are going to be maintained in our family to
10 be passed on to my children . So this is not
11 a mission to make money. It ' s a family
12 investment, if you will . For my wife and I ,
13 and also my children for the future . I want
14 to remind the Board, the Health Department
15 with its current guidelines spells out -- we
16 didn ' t have to get an additional variances .
17 We were able to use the current design and
18 position of the house and put in the
19 required septic system with the overhang
20 still in the design . So that if there is
21 ever a need to come back and expand the
22 septic system or to replace the septic
23 system, there is no damage to the
24 construction process .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can I ask you a
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 55
1 question, please?
2 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Sure .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you address
4 the proposed -- I see that you are talking
5 about trying to obtain a part of the
6 existing seaward deck?
7 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Right .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Upon site
9 inspection, it would appear that it ' s pretty
10 spongy. It ' s likely with a new house, you
11 are going to want to put in a new deck, but
12 you are proposing to expand beyond where the
13 deck is at the moment to the side yard to
14 put in a hot tub?
15 MR. MEYERHOLZ : That ' s correct .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That ' s going to
17 be extremely close to the side yard' s . You
18 know, by extending that even farther into
19 the side yard, the side yard of the house is
20 one that is on the corner, is very, very
21 close .
22 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Yes, it is .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : To that shared
24 property line .
25 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Right .
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 56
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So can you please
2 address the necessity of that?
3 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Well, it would be
4 difficult for me to say that there is a
5 medical reason for this or any other reason,
6 other than this is what my wife wants , to be
7 candid. She always wanted to have a hot
8 tub . There is no other place to put that on
9 the property. It was put here, and I think
10 we ' re talking about extending the deck an
11 additional five feet to accommodate that hot
12 tub . There is a drainage facility just to
13 the -- off the south side of the deck. It ' s
14 a small circle there . That would allow for
15 any discharge of that tub to be placed in
16 the proper underground drywell . So we took
17 care to make sure there is no impact to the
18 environment . We also chose not to put in a
19 retaining wall or any kind of seaward
20 construction . If anything, we seeked
21 approval and asked the DEC to add beach
22 material to that area to make sure that it
23 provides some protection to the house . And
24 also when you raise the house up, you would
25 have some stairs to go down. You know, this
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 57
1 house had to be raised approximately three
2 feet, I believe . Rather than have those
3 additional steps , just raising the beach
4 from it ' s current footing of the house, out
5 15 feet seaward, which I think is some 74-76
6 cubic yards beach material, which the DEC is
7 allowing us to do . We also wanted to take
8 care, there are several trees on the
9 property, on the beach side, which are not
10 visible on this site plan . We ' re going to
11 take great care to maintain those trees .
12 We ' re going to lose some trees on the road
13 side because of the construction activity
14 and largely because of the septic system,
15 but we can not help that . But we do want to
16 take every care that we can to maintain
17 that . We ' re very concerned about disrupting
18 anything on the water side . Yes , you are
19 right, the current deck is in disrepair . In
20 the description, I made sure that whatever
21 goes into the ground is not going to be
22 contaminated with a CC8 type of material . I
23 want to make sure that that material is well
24 out of the ground, so that there is no
25 leaching into the water table .
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 58
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You are also
2 proposing a new outdoor shower on the south
3 side?
4 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Yes , we are . That is
5 the only place that it could go . It ' s a
6 standing shower just for rinsing saltwater
7 off your body as you are coming in from the
8 beach . Now, this side of the house now,
9 it ' s almost a "no man ' s land" right now .
10 With the new constriction that went on -- on
11 the south side, the Swing ' s property, that
12 whole side there is very tight . There is a
13 tank for fuel oil that will be removed and a
14 concrete pad that will be removed. That
15 would be located in a different place, to
16 allow us to walk through a little more .
17 There is practically no windows on that side
18 of the house . So --
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have all
20 visited the site . We have all seen it .
21 MR. MEYERHOLZ : So you see the
22 limitations, there -- we tried to design
23 something, you know, that was nice . The lot
24 coverage issue, I know, is probably your
25 most concern here, but we do have some
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 59
1 comps . If you notice, there is a small
t
2 cottage across the street that is on a piece
3 of land, I don ' t know, maybe the size of
4 this room. And it has to be half the house
5 that is sitting on the land. I can ' t even
6 think of the names of the folks , but there
7 are some cottages that have been built many,
8 many years ago . So it would be difficult
9 for us to get some information to
10 demonstrate that it is not so different than
11 what currently exist . Trying to maintain
12 care and not disturbing the environment .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I can
14 understand all the things that you. want, but
15 it ' s a really small lot . I know the Board
16 is very familiar with that neighborhood and
17 with the various issues that you have raised
18 and addressing the character of the
19 neighborhood. But you have two absolute
20 nonfunctional side yard ' s when it comes to
21 any kind of emergency equipment accessing
22 the side of your house, it ' s not going to
23 happen . Not with these side yard ' s . So
24 further obstruction to the already tight
25 side yard ' s that you are proposing, is
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 60
1 something that the Board will have to
2 consider very carefully, because the law
3 requires us to grant the minimum variance
4 reasonably possible . And you have to make a
5 very strong case on why you require those
6 variances .
7 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Let me also. point out
8 here that the side yard on the south side,
9 which is also the corner of the Swing
10 property, that was existing . That was
11 applied and approved by the Board. I have
12 don ' t have documentation . I have it written
13 down . I believe it was 1969 or even
14 earlier . It was a prior owner who put that
15 addition in. The proposed additions that we
16 are presenting here today, have setbacks off
17 that corner . So there -- we didn ' t even try
18 to come close to that corner . We ' re
19 probably about six feet from the edge of the
20 property for any addition that comes out to
21 the street side . It ' s a very difficult
22 property to manage here . I understand that ,
23 but it ' s already an existing corner here .
24 That ' s why we have it . I am not asking to
25 come closer, it already exist .
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 61
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It does exist,
2 however, you have already made mention of
3 the fact, that both the Building Department
4 and you have testified to the fact, that
5 it ' s possible that this will be a total
6 demo, based upon what you discover when you
7 do reconstruction?
8 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Right .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think that is
10 an accurate statement that you have made .
11 In fact, once that is demolished, the law
12 asks us to look at how to improve the
13 nonconformities that existed before . If you
14 were to look. You probably got a very tiny
15 cottage on this property with much greater
16 conformity, but to do a two-story house that
17 is the size of many other houses in the
18 area, is not feasible relative to the other
19 being conforming . So I just want you to be
20 aware of the kind of issues that the Board
21 has to examine when making a determination,
22 because if something is demolished, than the
23 previous CO is no longer applicable, nor are
24 the existing setbacks applicable . If it ' s
25 being maintained and being added onto, then
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 62
1 that is another story. Then, you can argue,
- 2 ' yes , it ' s existing . But if it winds up that
3 you have to do so much reconstruction, that
4 it ' s literally Building Department has
5 called a demolition, than those
6 nonconformities that are there now, are no
7 longer considered relevant . I do understand
8 the testimony. I think the whole Board
9 does . I want you to understand that those
10 are the circumstances that the Board has to
11 grapple with . I am going to turn this over
12 to Ken, and see if he has some questions?
13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes, I have a few
14 questions about the lot coverage . One, I
15 guess it ' s your second submittal, showing
16 2 8 . 9?
17 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Yes, I believe .
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It shows the
19 existing deck at 401 square feet and it
20 shows the proposed deck at 334 square feet .
21 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Yes .
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The site plan shows
23 and extension to the deck. So I am a little
24 confused, you ' re increasing the area square
25 footage of the deck --
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 63
1 MR. MEYERHOLZ : The only addition of
i
2 the deck that I am aware of is on the south
3 side where you see the proposed hot tub.
4 Everything else is existing. And there is a
5 second-story deck, which is that hash mark
6 on the second-story over the current
7 existing deck .
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The proposed new
9 deck, I should say the proposed deck will be
10 in the same place as the existing deck?
11 MR. MEYERHOLZ : That is correct .
12 Except raised by some three feet --
13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Oh, yeah . Okay.
14 Sure . So you plan, more or less, to rebuild
15 the existing deck in the same location?
16 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Correct .
17 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And add to it, a hot
18 tub?
19 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Correct .
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That is what you are
21 proposing?
22 MR. MEYERHOLZ : If we can save it, we
23 will save it . As you can see --
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I am just talking
25 about the footprint .
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 64
1 MR. MEYERHOLZ : The footprint will
2 remain the same .
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Whether you save the
4 material is another story. I am looking at
5 the lot coverage ' s and just the
6 calculations, the existing is 401 square
7 feet and the proposed is 334 . So it ' s 60
8 some odd feet less --
9 MR. MEYERHOLZ : I am going to defer to
10 Mr. Brown on that question because I am not
11 the architect .
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I am just missing
13 something here .
14 MR. BROWN : Robert Brown, architect .
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Hello, Mr . Brown .
16 MR. BROWN : Hi . This was a while back.
17 If my memory serves me correct, the area in
18 the lower right hand corner of the footprint
19 proposed balcony over the existing deck, we
20 put that calculation into the area of the
21 house . The additional square footage of the
22 house .
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That ' s a proposed
24 balcony over existing deck. So underneath
25 decking will still be balcony?
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 65
1 MR. BROWN : We included that into the
- 2 house .
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The house
4 calculation. Okay that is my answer to that
5 . question .
6 MEMBER HORNING : I want to follow up on
7 that because I am a little confused also
8 because I have these two site plans . They
9 are both dated that our office received them
10 on February 27 , 2012, and one calls for the
11 total proposed lot coverage of 26 . 8% , and
12 the other one calls for the total proposed
13 lot coverage of 28 . 9% .
14 MR. BROWN : The 28 . 9% is accurate . The
15 initial site plan that was sent to you in
16 error . We were not including the overhang
17 in front of the entrance of the house into
18 the square footage calculation of the house .
19 When we realized that was done in error, we
20 added the square footage of the overhang and
21 that brought it up to 28 . 9, which is the
22 accurate calculation .
23 MEMBER HORNING: Do you have more
24 questions , Ken?
25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes . The
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 66
1 Chairperson addressed it before and
i
2 explained it upon demolition, you will lose
3 existing side yards .
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And front yard.
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I don ' t have any
6 questions right now, unless any other Board
7 member has questions?
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just
9 reiterate the question on the deck, while
10 we ' re still on it . Just so we ' re clear on
11 it, especially while you are here, Rob . The
12 survey indicates the existing deck is 401
13 square feet, and we have just been told that
14 you are going to keep that footprint but add
15 to it in the side yard. So why is the
16 proposed structure of the deck listed as 334
17 square feet, which is less than the 401 that
18 you currently have?
19 MR. BROWN : Okay. The existing deck
20 was L-shaped. In the lower right hand
21 corner of the house, you see the hatched
22 area . That was deck that is being covered
23 by a balcony. So we removed that square
24 footage from the deck calculation.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gotcha . That
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 67
1 just needed to be clear on the record.
2 George?
3 MEMBER HORNING: I just have a couple
4 of questions . Referring to the variance
5 that was granted quite some time ago, 1961 ,
6 which from what I can tell, that is a
7 variance that actually established the
8 current setbacks on the side yard?
9 MR. BROWN : Yes, sir .
10 MEMBER HORNING : I just wanted to go
11 over a couple of statements from that
12 variance . And this statement here says,
13 "this residential area consists in the main
14 or mostly of summer cottages . Many
15 undersized lots with insufficient sides and
16 front yard areas . " At that time, was this a
17 summer cottage?
18 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Yes , it was .
19 MEMBER HORNING : And was it year
20 round --
21 MR. MEYERHOLZ : The home has heat, so
22 that would probably qualify it to be year
23 round. It ' s very small . It ' s antiquated.
24 The construction is interior . So I am
25 proposing 2x6 interior construction. So
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 68
1 that we have the integrity of the additional
2 thickness to accommodate the insulation and
3 any wind resistance .
4 MEMBER HORNING: It ' s going to be a
5 year round residence?
6 MR. MEYERHOLZ : It ' s going to be a year
7 round residence . My wife and I are --
8 MEMBER HORNING : That is what you are
9 proposing?
10 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Yes, sir .
11 MEMBER HORNING: So somehow between
12 1961 and now, which is a long time, this
13 building transformed from a summer cottage
14 to a year round residency?
15 MR. MEYERHOLZ : In effect, there was a
16 heating system that was added, but there was
17 no insulation added at the time . The story
18 behind it as , my in-laws put that heating
19 system in because my sister-in-law was
20 working in Riverhead, and she needed a place
21 to stay for a year or two, and she was there
22 while she was a young teacher. Up until
23 this day, there is no year-round living in
24 that house .
25 MEMBER HORNING : But there could be and
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 69
1 there will be?
2 MR. MEYERHOLZ : There will be . That is
3 the intent, sir .
4 MEMBER HORNING: The neighborhood is
5 addressing that in 1961, it consist in the
6 main of summer cottages . The house next
7 door, the Swing ' s, was that a summer
8 residence?
9 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Yes, it was .
10 MEMBER HORNING: Was it up until the
11 time that the Swing ' s got a variance?
12 MR. MEYERHOLZ : It ' s now a full-time --
13 three bedroom, heated, year round residence .
14 MEMBER HORNING: Has the character of
15 the neighborhood changed from summer
16 cottages to year round residences?
17 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Most definitely, sir .
18 Several of the homes, I would say at least
19 half . If not more than half, have been over
20 the years reconstructed. There was several
21 years ago a large vacant land across the
22 street, it ' s Lot 27 , 27 . 1, 27 . 2 , that was
23 subdivided. I have the documentation, I
24 can ' t remember the date . Right now, there
25 is two year round residences on that
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 70
1 property. So the area is transforming into
2 a year round living environment for
3 residents . So it was a new house built up
4 the street , that Mr . Swing actually wound up
5 buying . I think his parents own the house
6 next to me now, and he bought that house
7 about a quarter of the mile up the street,
8 to my understanding .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on, we will
10 be right with you .
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask you a
12 question? How are you today, sir?
13 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Good, how are you?
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In the evaluation
15 of the overall foundation of this house,
16 because that is one thing that I did not
17 necessarily take a look at when I was there .
18 Is there any portion of this that can be
19 saved? I understand it has to be raised
20 three feet?
21 MR. MEYERHOLZ : It does have to be
22 raised three feet to comply with
23 regulations . Gosh, I am trying to remember
24 now. I believe, if memory, serves , yes .
25 The intention was to add onto the existing
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 71
1 foundation .
2 MR. BROWN : We haven ' t done an
3 engineering study. That we believe from
4 what we see, that we can add onto the
5 foundation .
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Does your client
7 understand based upon the demolition, and
8 this is not a sarcastic statement, that all
9 bets are off on the side yards and setbacks
10 from the water? In my particular opinion .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we have
12 already stated that .
13 MR. MEYERHOLZ : I understand that .
14 MR. BROWN : The hope from the design
15 point of view was to maintain as much of the
16 footprint as possible . So going forward, if
17 it ' s deemed a full demolition . And we have
18 gone back and forth on that before . I
19 certainly understand that it creates a
20 different set of circumstance for you, but
21 in order to maintain as much of the
22 character as we could, we wanted to maintain
23 the footprint .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The problem that I
25 see that we have, we have had an application
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 72
1 in four different public hearings for a
2 property . over on another waterfront source
3 on the edge of Greenport, and we finally got
4 a recommendation from the engineer, and this
5 has nothing to do with you, that indicated,
6 yes , they are going to be able to do a
7 significant amount of under plaining to the
8 foundation, so that we could allow the major
9 portion of the house to be kept, but it took
10 four public hearings to do that . In this
11 particular case, you know we have an
12 existing cottage that has some sort of heat ,
13 that have a total setback of 10 . 3 , where you
14 should have 25, and I can ' t see the
15 possibility from my standpoint of being able
16 to get to the water, and as the Chairperson
17 has said, with at least a minimum of 8 feet .
18 So if you put 8 feet there and you increase
19 the setback a little on the side of the
20 Swing property to 5 , maybe 13 as total side
21 yard. I don ' t see it as it exists today,
22 that it can accommodate that situation . I
23 don ' t think there is ever a problem with
24 working with an applicant , but this is a
25 very, very difficult situation based upon
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 73
1 this particular project . And even more if
2 this is a total demolition. And I don ' t
3 know how you add onto a house, without
4 picking up a house, without placing the
5 whole situation into a demolition, and then
6 places the setbacks to more of a conforming
7 situation . So I don ' t see it at this
8 particular point, and I am certainly willing
9 as a member, to work with this fine
10 gentleman and you sir, and we have worked
11 with you tirelessly on all kinds of
12 applications over the years .
13 MR. BROWN : Yes .
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And a very, very
15 nice person.
16 MR. BROWN : Thank you .
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As the applicant
18 appears to be . In the past, I always
19 suggested that in my particular opinion, and
20 this has nothing to do with the Board, that
21 we take the garage away from the premises
22 first, and then worry about that later
23 because of the excess lot coverage and then
24 get the frame of the dwelling in place
25 first, then deal with the lot coverage for
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 74
1 the garage later. Unfortunately, in that
2 particular case as you see, many of these .
3 houses on this block have detached garages .
4 So that would be the case, in my particular
5 opinion. So we worry about how big the
6 garage is going to be after a finished
7 project of the dwelling first . I have done
8 that with swimming pools over the years and
9 so forth.
10 MR. BROWN : I understand your point of
11 view and my feeling in this particular
12 instance, is that due to the size of the
13 property, detaching the garage becomes more
14 problematic because of the lack of space .
15 That was why we had this specific design .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In the interest
17 of time, I want to see if Member Dinizio has
18 comments or questions at this point, and see
19 if there is anyone else in the audience has
20 any questions . Member Schneider has to
21 leave fairly soon, and I would like to make
22 sure that he has the full benefit of the
23 testimony on this application . So Jim, do
24 you have comments or questions?
25 MEMBER DINIZIO : Just a comment . That
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 75
1 I think 28 . 9 is a lot . I will leave that up
2 to you .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Is there
4 anyone else in the audience that would like
5 to address this application? Please come to
6 the mic and state your name, sir .
7 MR. SWING : My name is Robert Swing and
8 I am here with my wife Celia Swing,
9 C-E-L-I-A. We have been residents in
10 Greenport since 1971 . We have lived at 445
11 Island View Lane until 2007 . We bought the
12 house from my son just recently, and I have
13 some comments . We presently live at 4295
14 Bay Shore Road in Greenport . We are
15 permanent residents living adjacent to the
16 proposed variance application before you
17 today. We have reviewed the proposals and
18 have a few concerns regarding the
19 encroachment of the preexisting
20 nonconforming side yard setback at the
21 property of 4295 Bay Shore Road. The site
22 plan calls for the construction of a hot tub
23 by an additional 5 feet . At 5 feet
24 encroachment, this would be right outside
25 our bedroom window. In addition, the
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 76
1 proposal calls for an outdoor shower on the
2 same side . This would be outside our guest
3 bedroom window. This appears to leave only
4 about 4 feet between the two properties .
5 The above encroachments would make the
6 enjoyment and use of our property very
7 difficult . It addition, it would create a
8 problem for any emergency equipment . That
9 is our statement .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, sir .
11 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Can I just respond to
12 that?
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, you can .
14 MR. MEYERHOLZ : I understand Mr . .
15 Swing ' s comments and everything . It will be
16 taken into consideration . I just wanted the
17 Board to know that when the Swing property
18 was constructed, the original design did not
19 call for a elevated platform staircase on
20 that common property side, for the side door
21 of that residence . The construction of that
22 is a 6 foot area and now reduced the access
23 to that side of the property for both of us
24 really. Less than two feet to his property
25 line . So while I understand and can
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 77
1 appreciate his comments and his security, as
2 far as I understand, it is very important .
3 I have a family and I have children. Here
4 we are addressing a side yard issue, where
5 the concerns apparently wasn ' t there when
6 they built that staircase . My understanding
7 is that the stairs wasn ' t in the original
8 plans, but as I watched that being
9 constructed, I had expressed some concern to
10 the Building Department . The Building
11 Department said that that was going to be
12 approved. If there is an issue for fire or
13 emergency vehicles or access , it ' s already
14 impaired, at least on that side of the
15 property. It would difficult for me to just
16 physically move it to now address a concern
17 that Mr . Swing has , and I share that
18 concern . When I came down here it was okay,
19 and I say to myself, wow -- first of all,
20 how do I have a staircase right outside my
21 house and it being less than 2 feet from the
22 property line? So I am a little confused as
23 to how we reconcile that .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ma ' am, if you
25 wish to speak, you have to come to the mic
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 78
1 and state your name .
2 MS . SWING: My name is .Celia Swing and
3 -- we did not build the house . To my
4 understanding, and I can ' t attest to this
5 100o but my understanding that staircase was
6 turned around. So that it is parallel to
7 the house . That was the only comment that I
8 wanted to make . It doesn ' t go this way. It
9 goes this way, right on -- I guess , they are
10 the blue stones that are there . So it goes
11 this way.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have observed
13 it . We have been to the site . We look at
14 the surrounding neighborhood. That is part
15 of our job . We do that for every
16 application.
17 MS . SWING: Okay.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are there
19 comments or questions from the Board at this
20 point? How do you want to proceed? You
21 have given us some very significant
22 testimony about the character of the
23 neighborhood and so on . We would like to
24 take a look at the other various variances
25 that you have supplied. Is that information
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 79
1 all in the same with the notes that you
2 used?
3 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Yes, that is correct .
4 I used that information that I received from
5 your office .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You have heard
7 some concerns about lot coverage and
8 particularly about side yard, the deck, the
9 shower and the hot tub .
10 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Right .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Some suggestion
12 about a garage, lot coverage . How would the
13 Board feel and how would you feel, if we
14 gave you an opportunity to contemplate those
15 comments as we will yours , and to come back
16 before the Board, to see if there is some
17 way you can do some adjustments to make this
18 property a little more conforming?
19 MR. MEYERHOLZ : I would be happy to
20 look at anything that would allow the Board
21 to consider our application for
22 construction. So I will go back and address
23 the side yard.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, because you
25 are going to have to come before us .
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 80
1 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Sure, with some ideas .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And depending
3 upon the nature of the amendments , it may
4 need an amended Notice of Disapproval or it
5 may not . It depends on how you proceed.
6 MR. MEYERHOLZ : I assume I can get that
7 information from your office regarding a
8 second meeting?
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, what I am
10 going to do based upon this discussion is
11 make a motion to adjourn this hearing to,
12 June 7th?
13 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Is that a Wednesday or
14 a Thursday?
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s a Thursday.
16 It ' s always on a Thursday .
17 MR. MEYERHOLZ : I am not sure . I may
18 be getting back from a business . trip, an
19 oversees trip . So I may or may not be able
20 to do it .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next public
22 hearing date is July 5th .
23 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Let me first check. I
24 don ' t want to delay the procedures .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We can ' t delay.
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 81
1 There is formal procedures that we have to
2 do . I am going to make a motion to adjourn
3 to June 7th at 1 : 00 o ' clock; however, if you
4 are unable to be here, all you need to do is
5 write a letter requesting an adjournment
6 till July.
7 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Okay.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Write to the
9 Board and we can handle it that way.
10 MR. MEYERHOLZ : All right . Thank you
11 very much .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I am making a
13 motion to adjourn this application to
14 June 7th at 1 : 00 o ' clock to receive
15 additional information on revised plans .
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by
18 Gerry.
19 All in favor?
20 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
22 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
25 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 82
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am going to
3 make a motion to recess for two minutes . Is
4 there a second?
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
7 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
9 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye .
12 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken . )
13 ********************************************
14 HEARING #6561 JUSTIN AND SUSAN SMITH
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
16 application is for Justin and Susan Smith,
17 #6561 . Request for variances from
18 Article XXIII Section 280-124 and
19 Article III Section 280-15 based on an
20 application for building permit and the
21 Building Inspector ' s July 29, 2011, updated
22 March 20 , 2012 Notice of Disapproval
23 concerning additions and alteration to an
24 accessory garage attached by a breezeway,
25 at; 1 ) less than the code required front
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 83
1 yard setback of 40 feet, 2 ) more than the
2 maximum height allowable of 22 feet, located
3 at; 1040 Founders Path, corner Landon Road
4 in Southold.
5 Could you please just state your name?
6 MR. SMITH : Justin Smith . My wife
7 Susan.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What would you
9 like to tell us about your application,
10 Mr. Smith?
11 MR. SMITH : You guys have been around
12 the neighborhood. You drive around the
13 neighborhood. A lot of houses are closer .
14 So I am pretty much just asking for
15 approval .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So your front
17 yard setback is what is there now, of your
18 accessory garage of 34 --
19 MR. SMITH: I think it ' s 34 . 1 .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 34 . 1 , plus or
21 minus . The code requires 40 . The maximum
22 the new accessory code allows for a garage
23 on your size lot is 22 feet and you would
24 like it to be 25 feet . Can you tell us why
25 you would like it to be 25 feet?
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 84
1 MR. SMITH: Storage . I don ' t have any
2 basement in the house . It ' s a slab and I
3 have two kids, a growing family, and no
4 place to put anything .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I can certainly
6 understand that for storage, but you can
7 accomplish the same number of square feet
8 with a different configuration that wouldn ' t
9 be as high . You ' re proposing to change a
10 hip roof to a gable roof . Can you tell us a
11 little bit about why you want to do that?
12 MR. SMITH : So it matches the house .
13 The house is a gable roof . It would look a
14 little weird if the garage is -- being that
15 it has two front yard' s .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Jim, do
17 you have any questions?
18 MEMBER DINIZIO : Yes . Can you turn the
19 roof the other way? Meaning, make it
20 flat --
21 MR. SMITH : It would be the way we got
22 it . Gabled on each side . No matter what
23 side you turn it, it ' s going to be the same .
24 MEMBER DINIZIO : Like a pyramid?
25 MR. SMITH: Yes . It matches the house .
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 85
1 MEMBER DINIZIO : No dormers or anything
2 like that on there?
3 MR. SMITH : No . Inside the garage now,
4 the guy had a tac room before I bought it .
5 MEMBER DINIZIO : Do you keep your cars
6 there now?
7 MR. SMITH : Yeah .
8 MEMBER DINIZIO : Okay.
9 MR. SMITH: Classic cars .
10 MEMBER DINIZIO : It can be any car you
11 want . I am not concerned about it .
12 MR. SMITH : But it ' s not going to be
13 heated.
14 MEMBER DINIZIO: It ' s on a corner lot,
15 so that ' s limited to you also . The adjacent
16 property looks similar . You ' re a corner
17 lot, so you have some more restricted side
18 yard ' s . It ' s probably unique . It says area
19 gable roof is not substantial, can you just
20 reiterate on that? Explain that to me?
21 MR. SMITH: Like I said, it would be a
22 little weird if I put a hip roof back on it .
23 MEMBER DINIZIO : You ' re going to go up
24 on the sides of the garage --
25 MR. SMITH : Yeah.
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 86
1 MEMBER DINIZIO : And then you ' re going
2 to have this roof, right?
3 MR. SMITH : Yes .
4 MEMBER DINIZIO : The peak of that is
5 going to be 25 'feet; is that correct?
6 MR. SMITH : That ' s correct . The
7 maximum height would be --
8 MEMBER DINIZIO : Would be what you are
9 asking for?
10 MR. SMITH : Right .
11 MEMBER DINIZIO : All right . I think
12 that is all I have .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, Jim. We
14 did receive a letter from Mr . Fischetti who
15 is your engineer on your project .
16 MR. SMITH : Unfortunately, he is not
17 here .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Who is your
19 neighbor . Indicating that his house is 15 . 3
20 from Landon Lane and his garage is 34 . 5 from
21 Landon Lane, and yours is 34 . So you ' re
22 talking about five inches . In driving
23 around the area, it ' s just about every other
24 house has two -- on Landon, are corner lots
25 with two front yards . And in my
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 87
1 observation, a number of them are actually
2 closer to Landon --
3 MR. SMITH : The houses are . Not even a
4 garage . Some of the garages are too .
5 They ' re even much closer to the street .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You know it ' s
8 funny, I am looking at the picture of the
9 garage and I could understand why you want
10 to change it . The lack of overhang. The
11 lack of everything . I have been over there,
12 but it doesn ' t give you that impression when
13 you ' re standing on the driveway then looking
14 at it right here and there . So I really
15 don ' t have any further questions .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George?
17 MEMBER HORNING : Just one . On Sheet #2
18 of this drawings here, there is a 3 foot
19 height railing, is that on the second floor
20 exterior --
21 MR. SMITH : No . No . That ' s the
22 interior .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The railing for
24 the staircase .
25 MEMBER HORNING : All right . So this is
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 88
1 the interior view?
2 MR. SMITH : Right .
3 MEMBER HORNING: There is no little
4 deck outside?
5 MR. SMITH: No deck.
6 MEMBER HORNING : I was just curious .
7 MR. SMITH: I am not changing the
8 footprint at all .
9 MEMBER HORNING : Okay.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
11 else in the audience that would like to
12 address this application?
13 (No Response . )
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
15 further comments , I will make a motion to
16 close this hearing and reserve decision to a
17 later date .
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : . All in favor?
20 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
22 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
24 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
25 ********************************************
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 89
1 HEARING #6562 - LAURA YANTSOS
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next,
3 application before the Board is Laura
4 Yantos , #6562 . Request for variance from
5 Article XXIII Section 280-124 based on an
6 application for building permit and the
7 Building Inspector ' s March 6, 2012 Notice of
8 Disapproval concerning "as built" addition
9 to an existing single family dwelling, at;
10 1 ) less than the code required side yard
11 setback of 10 feet, located at; 3455 Bay
12 Shore Road, adjacent to Shelter Island
13 Sound, Greenport . Hi .
14 MS . YANTSOS : Here is my problem --
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Excuse me .
16 Please enter your name into the public
17 record, we ' re tape recording this .
18 MS . YANTSOS : Laura Yantsos ,
19 Y-A-N-T-S-O-S .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have some
21 things for you . One is a letter from
22 Suffolk County indicating this is a matter
23 for our local determination . Just a formal
24 letter . Thing that we have to go through.
25 The other is a memorandum from the Local
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 90
1 Waterfront Revitalization Program
2 coordinator, indicating that this is a
3 waterfront property, that what you propose
4 to do is exempt from regulations . So if you
5 would like to have a copy, we will be happy
6 to provide them to you .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. So please
8 tell us what you would like us to know?
9 MS . YANTSOS : My problem is, my parents
10 own this house from 1956, and both my
11 parents are deceased and now I have the
12 house . I went down to the Building
13 Department to look in the file and found
14 that there was absolutely nothing in this
15 file . I knew my father had enclosed a
16 carport that built in ' 56 . It had a roof,
17 gable, ceiling, a foundation and it was held
18 up by four posts . I don ' t know -- I
19 included a picture . I don ' t know if they
20 took it out .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, it ' s in here ..
22 We have all done a site inspection also . We
23 have seen your property and the neighbor ' s
24 properties .
25 MS . YANTSOS : So that ' s why I am here .
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 91
1 I went down to get a permit for the
2 enclosure and they told me to come here for
3 the variance .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just had one
5 question in your application . You indicated
6 in a letter that in future you were
7 considering a proposal to square off the
8 house?
9 MS . YANTSOS : I was thinking it would
10 look a lot better if it were squared, which
11 would mean it would come out that 6 feet . I
12 think it ' s 6 feet . I am not sure . If it ' s
13 6 feet, the den would come out to meet the
14 rest of the house .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want you
16 to be aware of the fact that since that is
17 not before us now, it is as built?
18 MS . YANTSOS : Yes .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What we ' re
20 looking at right now is a 5 foot variance --
21 MS . YANTSOS : Yes .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And that would
23 just bring you up to date . If you do
24 propose to do anything in the future, it
25 will increase the degree of nonconformance,
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 92
1 and you will have to come back before this
2 Board?
3 MS . YANTSOS : Yes .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just so you
5 understand.
6 MS . YANTSOS : I do .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Gerry,
8 questions?
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Situations like
10 this, we have many variances on a road
11 called Carol Road, and when you have a
12 diminished side yard in this particular
y
13 nature, the carport in those cases were
14 upgraded from a carport to a garage . The
15 Board at that time, requested you to put
16 garage doors on both sides, so in the case
17 of a firefighting situation, both doors
18 could be open . Now why I am emphasizing
19 that is because you only have one access and
20 that is the south access, from Shelter
21 Island to your waterfront portion property.
22 And that access has to remain open . The
23 pictures that you provided, which I did not
24 look at the opposite side of the house .
25 There is absolutely no way a fire person
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 93
1 could drag hose through the house to that
2 side .
3 MS . YANTSOS : That is the other side of
4 the house.
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand that .
6 I am just saying that it is absolutely
7 important to keep that side open.
8 MS . YANTSOS : Oh, yes .
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Because that is the
10 only access to your waterfront side of the
11 house for emergency purposes .
12 MS . YANTSOS : I understand that .
13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We understand what
14 went on and it ' s really conforming to your
15 house apart from the restricted side yard.
16 It is what it is .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jim?
18 MEMBER DINIZIO : Well , I had been in
19 this house when I was in high school . You
20 know, I don ' t remember the carport, but your
21 dad must have done this a real while ago .
22 MS . YANTSOS : Yes . It was the winter
23 of ' 76 or 177 .
24 MEMBER DINIZIO : I think I used to hang
25 out with your brother, Mike . I am Jolene
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 94
1 Dinizio ' s --
2 MS . YANTSOS : Yeah, I know .
3 MEMBER DINIZIO : You know, I have no
4 objection to it .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is a
6 comment that we got -- even though you are
7 exempt from the LWRP . The question that was
8 raised by the coordinator was, the gutters
9 that are on your house, do they go into any
10 type of a drywell, or are they just spilling
11 out? The leaders that come down .
12 MS . YANTSOS : They are just spilling
13 out, yeah .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The one thing, I
15 certainly am not going to suggest that you
16 go into the expense of putting in a drywell,
17 in order to connect the leaders to a
18 drywell . . The law requires the drainage from
19 roof and things like that to be contained on
20 the property. That it doesn ' t roll off your
21 driveway into a street . It doesn ' t roll off
22 into the bay. That is the current drainage
23 code, and that is really up to the Building
24 Department to address . But there is a
25 possibility of improving onsite drainage to
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 95
1 where the gutters and leaders are by putting
2 in a small buffer of native vegetation along
3 the water edge of property. Native grasses ,
4 rosa rugosa, things like that, that would
5 prevent rather than spilling onto your
6 driveway. It will filter and prevent runoff
7 from the driveway or the roofs into the bay.
8 He has raised that as an issue here . So I
9 am raising it here in the hearing to see if
10 you have any thoughts about planting a
11 buffer on the bulkhead.
12 MS . YANTSOS : Along the bulkhead?
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes . You have
14 just grass there, right?
15 MS . YANTSOS : Yes .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am saying that
17 the recommendations of the LWRP coordinator
18 has made is to improve drainage on the
19 property. To keep it on the property, is to
20 put a bed of native plants . Not tulips and
21 rose bushes and hydrangeas, but things that
22 are drop tolerant . There is a definition in
23 the code, I can provide it for you, of the
24 things that grow here that filter roof
25 runoff . You look confused?
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 96
1 MS . YANTSOS : Well, I don ' t see anyone
2 that has improved their property on my road,
3 everybody, except my mother . I don ' t see
4 anyone having that . I am setback from the
5 water further back from anyone on the road.
6 My next door neighbor and I are about 75
7 feet back. Everyone else is closer to the
8 water.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I bring it up not
10 to make judgement or suggest that you have
11 to do this . I bring this up, so you can
12 answer it the way that you just did. Which
13 it is your opinion that it is not
14 characteristic of the neighborhood.
15 MS . YANTSOS : It ' s not at all .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right .
17 MS . YANTSOS : I can ' t imagine the water
18 running that far .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That ' s all I
20 wanted to hear. I raise it because we need
21 to have the applicant to address it . So I
22 think she has adequately addressed it .
23 MEMBER DINIZIO : It ' s not really a big
24 huge deal . The LWRP coordinator is reading
25 from a book of best practices . Best
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 97
1 practices that on a bulkhead, is to buffer
2 that bulkhead. You haven ' t done anything
3 for 35 to 40 years, unless --
4 MS . YANTSOS : 60 .
5 MEMBER DINIZIO : They will tell you how
6 to do it . It ' s not drywell ' s . It ' s the way
7 it comes down . It ' s pretty simple .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George, did you
9 have any questions?
10 MEMBER HORNING : No, I didn ' t see that
11 one, the second memo .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Actually, it
13 wasn ' t a memorandum. It was an e-mail
14 e-mailed to me from Mark.
15 MEMBER HORNING : Okay. I would like to
16 see that .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It wasn ' t related
18 to the LWRP format, per se .
19 MEMBER DINIZIO : There is a couple of
20 applicants on that e-mail?
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes .
22 MEMBER DINIZIO : It wasn ' t just this
23 one?
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No . There is
25 three . He mentions three properties that
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 98
1 are exempt . Nevertheless, he put on his
2 stormwater management hat . The Town is
3 increasingly mandated to become State
4 compliant with new regulations that talk
5 about preventing pollution through
6 stormwater runoff . You know, our roadways
7 are full of oils and things like that . So
8 we ' re going to become more vigilant as times
9 goes on . Making sure that all property
10 owners contain all of the runoff from their
11 roofs and accessory structures, on their own
12 property into drywell ' s .
13 MS . YANTSOS : Okay. The deer have
14 eaten everything.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You are not the
16 only one . Okay. There is no one else in
17 the audience . I assume there is no further
18 comments . Is there anything else from the
19. Board?
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am going to
22 make a motion to close this hearing and
23 reserve decision to a later date .
24 Is there a second?
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 99
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
2 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
4 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye .
6 (See Minutes for Resolution. )
7 ********************************************
8 HEARING #6488 - LISA AND DAVID CIFARELLI
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am going to
10 open the next application before the Board .
11 This is for Lisa and David Cifarelli, #6488 .
12 Re-opened from August 4 , 2011 public
13 hearing . On August 18 , 2011 the Zoning
14 Board of Appeals granted a front yard, rear
15 yard and side yard variance to the applicant
16 based upon a Request for Variances from
17 Article XXIII Code Section 280-122 based on
18 a building permit application for additions
19 and alterations to a nonconforming building,
20 located at; 1335 New Suffolk Road,
21 Cutchogue . The Zoning Board of Appeals, at
22 its April 5, 2012 Regular Meeting, voted on
23 its motion to re-open the public hearing to
24 consider additional facts not in the record
25 concerning two principal uses on the site
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 100
1 and compliance with lot area requirements as
2 set forth in the memorandum from the
3 Planning Board to the Zoning Board of
4 Appeals dated February 15, 2012 and other
5 pertinent Town records . Before we begin on
6 this application, I would like to make some
7 opening comments . How many are here to
8 address this application one way or another?
9 Pretty much everybody. So for the benefit
10 of the public in general and the applicant
11 and agents , I would like to mention a couple
12 of things . The purpose here today is to
13 enter into the record the facts that were
14 not made part of the original record. And
15 we ' re not here to revisit the variance that
16 was granted to this applicant, but rather
17 we ' re responding to a letter from the
18 Planning Board that we received on
19 February 15th as a consequence of their Site
20 Plan Review process, and the public hearing
21 that was held at that time . Between that
22 time and April, the Zoning Board asked that
23 our assistant and others undertake research,
24 so that we may properly respond to the
25 concerns presented to us by the Planning
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 101
1 Board. And that research was quite
2 extensive . A copy was provided to the
3 applicants counsel, and to the Planning
4 Board and Planning Department, and that
5 established a timeline of the history of the
6 property, which we are here to look at . How
7 it evolved. How the structures appeared to
8 have evolved on the subject property. We
9 have collected copies of all the Building
10 Department records, all previous variances ,
11 all property record cards , all CO ' s and
12 Pre-CO ' s, and established a timeline of what
13 went on on that property. Not easily done .
14 Records were not always carefully kept . We
15 did a good deal of investigation, and feel
16 we have a better sense of what went on, on
17 that property . That is what we want to, in
18 part, enter into the record today. We
19 acknowledge the existence of the two CO ' s on
20 the property. That is not something that
21 we ' re questioning . And we want to look at
22 this history, probably back in the day when
23 things were done less formally. Two CO ' s
24 were issued. They likely, as it appears
25 were not necessarily looked at in
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 102
1 relationship together . Rather in terms of
2 individual structures . Had that not likely
3 been the case, there is a likelihood the
4 Building Inspector at the time, would have
5 issued a Notice of Disapproval for the two
6 uses on a substandard size property that
7 does not meet the code required bulk
8 schedule . That was not the case . We ' re
9 here to appropriately address that concern
10 and after reviewing all of that research .
11 This reopening was voted on unanimously,
12 without prejudice . So that we could hear
13 all pertinent testimony in order to how to
14 best understand how to proceed here . We
15 will not be making a decision on any of this
16 today. The Board -- we will see how this
17 unfolds based upon testimony from all
18 interested parties, but no decision of any
19 kind will be made today. I want to make
20 sure that you all understand. Let me review
21 for the record, so we understand what
22 happened on this property. And that would
23 also be for the benefit of the public . That
24 research is available to the public through
25 our office . It has appropriately already
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 103
1 been provided to counsel, so that they may
2 respond to it at this hearing or in any
3 future action. The Planning Board has
4 indicated that they will not proceed with
5 Site Plan Review until they heard from the
6 Zoning Board. So it ' s really our effort to
7 help -- the Zoning Board, to help the
8 process along and to address some of these
9 concerns for both the Planning Board and the
10 neighbor ' s . This is a diagram that kind of
11 summarizes the written research . And I am
12 going to just read into the record of what
13 that says . Now, the timeline incorporates a
14 full assessor ' s card with photos dated
15 approximately 1/19/62 . The card indicated a
16 structure with a guest room and a garage
17 along with a 50x24 garage .
18 March 29 , 1962 , the Building Department
19 issued a permit for removal of a portion of
20 Beebe ' s building. This is all Beebe ' s
21 property at the time, which was a shop
22 office, B . Tutle . To the west side of New
23 Suffolk Road, Tutle property, and convert to
24 a dwelling . A portion of the building less
25 than Beebe ' s property as noted on the
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 104
1 Assessor ' s card was the guest room garage .
2 This supported by the minutes of the
3 7/24 /1996 Zoning Board of Appeals public
4 hearing, wherein, Beebe had stated that he
5 had moved his shop years ago, and he was
6 constructing an addition onto the existing
7 foundation .
8 December 1, 1966, Beebe applies for a
9 special exception for a business ground
10 sign . It was granted and the Zoning Board
11 of Appeals noted in the decision, that the
12 business was in existence prior to zoning.
13 December 5, 1978 , Beebe applied for a
14 Pre-CO and indicated on the application that
15 the parcel is a business lot . The
16 inspection reports notes two structures on
17 the property as follows : Office and one car
18 garage, cement block foundation with a
19 partial cellar, oil fired heat and full
20 bathroom. 2 ) an accessory structure, four
21 car, with storage upstairs, cement block.
22 Other notations on the report is, "this
23 building is used for storage of building
24 materials and equipment used in contracting
25 business . "
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 105
1 Next, January 4 , 1979 the Southold
2 Building Department issues a Pre-CO #Z9374 ,
3 for an office building and one car garage
4 and accessory structure for the parcel .
5 September 1, 1982 , Beebe applied for
'6 and received a building permit, 11886Z, to
7 enclose in garage door and install new
8 windows . Within the file, it ' s noted that
9 amended plans are required for an addition .
10 An 8X13 addition was added and the floor
11 plan was -- reveals two bedrooms, kitchen
12 and a bathroom. The bathroom was existing .
13 A CO was issued on February 15 , 1989 .
14 Addition was noted on the CO .
15 June 20, 1996 -- sorry, the CO was
16 issued on February 15 , 1989 . The addition
17 was not noted on the CO .
18 June 20 , 1996, Building Department
19 issued a Notice of Disapproval to construct
20 an .addition to a dwelling. Lots selled
21 ( sic) in common ownership, need Waiver of
22 Merger . Zoning Board of Appeals hearing
23 4 /3/95 , granted the Waiver of Merger . The
24 Zoning Board of Appeals decision notes that
25 each lot is improved with single family
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 106
1 dwelling and separate septic system and "no
2 increase in density with the lot waivers
3 since the property has been improved with a
4 single family dwelling constructed prior to
5 1970 . "
6 June 7 , 1996, permit issued for an
7 addition to existing single family dwelling .
8 As noted in the transcript, the addition was
9 constructed on the existing foundation . See
10 No . 2 , above . The dwelling is now four
11 bedrooms . CO issued 11/12/97 for addition
12 to existing one family dwelling as applied
13 for .
14 That in summary, is the rather complex
15 history of the way in which the two
16 structures evolved on this property with
17 CO ' s or Pre-CO, and has been used for both
18 dwelling and for a business use . Not easy
19 to instruct, but important to construct .
20 Now, what I would like to do is ask the
21 applicant counsel, or the applicant, if they
22 have any comments that they would like to
23 make regarding this research at this time?
24 MS . MOORE : Patricia Moore .
25 Mr. Goggins is supposed to be continuing
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 107
1 with this hearing . I just heard from you
2 that he was delayed in the city. So I at
3 this time don ' t have any comments . I would
4 defer to him to review those documents . He
5 was just brought in yesterday or the day
6 before . So we have not had a chance -- in
7 fairness to him, I don ' t want to comment in
8 one way or another . So I just ask that the
9 record be left open, and I think this
10 hearing, is really to hear what you have to
11 say. What this is all about, and to give
12 the neighbor ' s an opportunity to voice their
13 concerns on the record. Thank you .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, fair
15 enough, Pat . Let ' s do this . There are a
16 number of you here that want to address this
17 application . So why don ' t you at least do
18 that at this point . Let ' s see who would
19 like to come forward. If you have anything
20 that you would like to say, to let us know
21 about, this is your opportunity. You need
22 to come up to either one of those podiums ,
23 and state your name and spell it for the
24 record. And then say whatever it is that
25 you would like us to' know.
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 108
1 MR. RICKABAUGH: Okay. I am Mark
2 Rickabaugh .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you please
4 spell that name for us?
5 MR. RICKABAUGH : Sure .
6 R-I-C-K-A-B-A-U-G-H.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
8 MR. RICKABAUGH : And I and my family
9 have owned the property that is the second
10 house north of the property under
11 discussion . And we have been there for
12 about thirty plus years . We have made a lot
13 of improvements and restorations over time .
14 The house is on the Southold Town Historical
15 Register . Pre-1700 ' s, and we note that the
16 character of New Suffolk Road is very
17 historical . Very pretty, in our view .
18 Almost prestige . There is at least two
19 other houses , Pre-1700 , and several other
20 houses that are historical nature . I only
21 say this to point out, that the road is not
22 commercial in our view . It is residential
23 and very pristine road. Everybody loves the
24 road. And it had improved greatly over the
25 years that -- I should say that it has
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 109
1 improved nicely over the years . It evolved.
2 I just want to make that point . We have
3 some concern with the business property.
4 Relating to myself, the visual impact that
5 can occur and has already occurred. I think
6 particularly as a result of the trees that
7 are no longer there . The visual impact is
8 now such that you see buildings that are not
9 that attractive, and it definitely has much
10 more of a commercial feel . There is also
11 much more activity than what was the case
12 for as long as I knew of the property. And
13 that includes vehicles, and from what I
14 understand about the proposal, that the
15 number of vehicles could increase . I know
16 that the previous owner, Bill Beebe was a
17 local builder and he primarily used the site
18 for storage and had two employees , since he
19 mainly subcontracted all the work for his
20 building business . It was relatively low
21 amount of activity. And while I have been
22 there, I have never noticed almost anything .
23 As I said, it was well shielded by a
24 continued tree environment . So you never
25 really felt that there was a break in that
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 110
1 situation . And to me, that is a very large
2 change . It seems difficult to understand
3 how a property, and I might not know the
4 Zoning laws accurately, but how a property
5 designated as "limited business" and where
6 the requirement under the Town Code is to
7 have 80 , 000 square feet, where there is
8 approximately 20, 000 on this property. It
9 seems difficult to understand how a full
10 commercial operation can be allowed in that
11 situation . To me that seems like a
12 tremendous intensity particularly
13 considering a -- the small size of the lot .
14 Also regarding the two uses, again, it seems
15 like the property is small . And the two
16 uses, again would increase the intensity of
17 the file a lot further . And also, if it
18 involves multifamily, it would seem that
19 would be inconsistent with general
20 residential structure or feelings that
21 encompasses New Suffolk Road. So my major
22 thought is that I would like -- it would be
23 wonderful to see some kind of
24 crystallization that would get to the point
25 that the business operated would be more
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 111
1 consistent with the size of the property.
2 And the one primary business would be
3 probably more than the -- or what the
4 property could handle . So that ' s
5 essentially my comments, and I would look
6 forward to your deliberations .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. Thank
8 you very much for your comments .
9 Who else?
10 MS . MCGRATH: Hi, I am Elizabeth
11 McGrath, M-C-G-R-A-T-H. I am one house
12 north to the property in question . And I
13 would just like to clarify the timeline,
14 that you were just mentioning. Essentially,
15 you are saying that that lot was a vacant
16 piece of property next to the primary house,
17 which is to the south, and Mr. Beebe has
18 asked to construct a garage, or the garage
19 was there with the property initially. Is
20 that kind of what you are saying?
21 MS . ANDALORO : It appears that there
22 were two structures on the property prior to
23 zoning . So we ' re talking 1956, okay? And
24 then from the first records that we have on
25 file with the Town, which I believe is 1962 ,
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 112
1 the tax card --
2 MS . MCGRATH: Okay.
3 MS . ANDALORO: It noted that this was
4 used for business purposes only. So those
5 structures were used for the business .
6 MS . MCGRATH: On the one site?
7 MS . ANDALORO : On the one site .
8 MS . MCGRATH: Which was attached to a
9 primary dwelling?
10 MS . ANDALORO: It appears that there
11 were two lot that Beebe ' s owned. The house
12 -- the lot , which now has a house, and the
13 four bay garage and the parcel immediately
14 next to it, which has another house on it .
15 At some point, those two lots merged, which
16 means they became one lot . And Mr . Beebe
17 applied to the Zoning Board for a Waiver of
18 Merger to separate those two lots . So that
19 it had the lot, with just the house on it
20 and then the lot in question here, which is
21 the lot with the house and the four bay
22 garage .
23 MS . MCGRATH : Right .
24 MS . ANDALORO : So from the records, it
25 appears that there -- there used to be one
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 113
1 use on this lot . The office business use,
2 and then at some point throughout time, it
3 looks like it happened in the late 70 ' s,
4 perhaps early 80 ' s, what was part of the
5 office or business use, became part of the
6 house .
7 MS . MCGRATH: Right .
8 MS . ANDALORO : And it would
9 acknowledge, given a CO, but there may have
10 been the necessity to get additional relief
11 from this Zoning Board because the lot was
12 so small .
13 MS . MCGRATH: Right.
14 MS . ANDALORO : Okay, and that is what
15 the summary shows .
16 MS . MCGRATH: Okay. And that is what I
17 wanted to address, as time went on, way back
18 when, when there was vacant lands , the use
19 was -- you know, he was using it as an
20 office and perhaps a garage housed with
21 equipment . And as time went on and the area
22 developed, it developed into a residential
23 area . So much so, that he ultimately, if I
24 am reading this correctly, obtained two CO ' s
25 for two primary dwellings that were wooden
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 114
1 structures that were homes . Is, that right?
2 MS . ANDALORO : I think the issue here
3 is that you have one lot with a business
4 use, and a residential use, that does not
5 have enough lot area .
6 MS . MCGRATH : Exactly.
7 MS . ANDALORO : The lot adjacent to it,
8 with the house on it, is not part of this -
9 proceeding .
10 MS . MCGRATH : I know it ' s not a part of
11 this proceeding, but entirety, the same
12 owner owns that house . They own both lots .
13 MS . ANDALORO : But they ' re separate
14 lots and that is not before the Board.
15 MS . MCGRATH: But my point is, as time
16 went on, the area has become -- it ' s a
17 residential area . It ' s no longer an area
18 that is peppered with, you know, businesses,
19 if it ever was . And Mr . Beebe, I have lived
20 there for 15 years, never ran any kind of
21 business even close to what we ' re talking
22 about . I don ' t think he ever had anything,
23 except use that cinder block structure as a
24 house for the equipment . So going forward,
25 just to get down what the bottom line is ,
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 115
1 the property does not conform to what code
2 is today. The code today is an 80 , 000
3 square foot piece of property -- I believe,
4 if I am right, have one principal use and
5 not two . So I think that is what the bottom
6 line is, you have to read what the code
7 says, and not to mention the fact that
8 Mr . Beebe ceased even having a business
9 there way prior to two years ago . He was
10 retired the whole time I lived in that
11 house, over ten years ago . So to go forward
12 to say it ' s okay to have a continued use on
13 that property, I mean, I don ' t even -- there
14 was a mistake made at the beginning of this
15 process as far as I can see at the Building
16 Department level, and I don ' t know how
17 exactly -- whether it was going for the
18 variance or what the procedure was , that
19 allowed us to get to this today, which is,
20 you know, kind of -- I can ' t believe that
21 we would be even entertaining -- allowing
22 this use on this site, being that there is
23 no continued use . You know, that the
24 business use, which was never even close to
25 what they wanted to do . Ever. And everyone
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 116
1 here in this room -- these people have lived
2 there much longer than I have . These people
3 are talking about -- at the last Planning
4 Board meeting, I think the first time there
5 was five parking spaces on the property.
6 The last Planning Board meeting, I think it
7 was ten . I am not sure, don ' t quote me .
8 And the other day, I went by there and they
9 have right now, I believe -- I know that I
10 can ' t prove this, but there were
11 multifamilies living there . There were four
12 cars just on the asphalt that is there now .
13 Four cars take up most of the asphalt on
14 that property. So you are talking about
15 putting ten cars on that property and taking
16 over -- I mean, what is the ratio of asphalt
17 to green space, you know, on that property?
18 I mean, that needs to be taken into
19 consideration for the character of the
20 neighborhood. And what also needs to be
21 taken into consideration, is that he was in
22 Planning Board -- site planning or whatever,
23 and he wasn ' t supposed to do anything to
24 that property and he removed three decades
25 old trees , that added to the character of
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 117
1 the neighborhood. And that it is forever
2 changed. It can never go back, and say
3 fine, I will plant a tree . And what ' s it
4 going to take? 50 years and I will be gone,
5 before our neighborhood is where it was six
6 months ago . And my point in bringing that
7 up, it has been my point that Mr . Cifarelli
8 is very uncooperative and he is not very
9 nice . And he does not plan to adhere to any
10 codes or restrictions that are put upon him.
11 As you can see, by his cutting down of the
12 trees, the week before Christmas . I think I
13 can speak for everyone here, we all thought
14 and felt it was an act of aggression,
15 because he was not getting his way, and I
16 might addition, after the last meeting, we
17 were not privileged to' see what the Planning
18 Board had recommended another five spaces or
19 two spaces or whatever it was, until we were
20 getting up to speak to you . I was very
21 like, I couldn ' t believe it . And I got a
22 call from him the next day. He called me up
23 and threatened me and told me that if he
24 gets pushed, he pushes back and if I don ' t
25 cease and desist, he is going to turn the
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 118
-- 1 place into a junk yard, and he is going to
2 tell everyone that I did it, and it was my
3 fault . I told Mr. Cifarelli that was very
4 negative of you, and if there is anything
5 else that you would like to say. You know,
6 and that is how that conversation went . So
7 I am not in any way comfortable with this on
8 any level . And I think there also is a
9 couple of other people that he said the same
10 thing to here . I would like to make sure
11 that this is deferred until we can really
12 get to the bottom of this , and how it could
13 even going forward with the code the way it
14 is .
15 MS . ANDALORO: I don ' t want anyone here
16 to be mislead about what we ' re here today
17 about . I think that there may have been an
18 error that was made in the Building
19 Department in the 80 ' s and unfortunately
20 that issue has perforated in two
21 Certificates of Occupancy that have been
22 issued for two uses on this site, for an
23 office use, which is allowed in the LB Zone
24 and a residential use, which is also a
25 permitted use in the LB Zone . The only
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 119
1 issue before this Board is the insufficient
2 lot area . That ' s it . I don ' t believe that
3 this Board is going to be in a position to
4 say -- unless they say the lot is too small
5 and it can not withstand an area variance,
6 that two uses are not permitted on this
7 site . In this Town, my understanding is ,
8 two uses are allowed on any site, as long as
9 there is sufficient lot area .
10 MS . MCGRATH : But they don ' t .
11 MS . ANDALORO: That is why we ' re here
12 today. With respect to the multiple
13 families, this Board did raise the issue
14 when they changed the original variance and
15 there is a condition on that variance -- is
16 there a condition?
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is
18 additional information made at a public
19 hearing about one family only in the
20 dwelling.
21 MS . ANDALORO : Which is -- that ' s a
22 requirement of the Zoning Code . And if it
23 is the case that there are multiple
24 families , it is a code enforcement issue .
25 That is not something that the Board can
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board .of Appeals 120
1 handle either . Finally, with the original
2 trees that are on the site, again, that is a
3 code enforcement issue . This Board can not
4 handle that . You know, you have to talk to
5 the code enforcement officer about those
6 things .
7 MS . MCGRATH : I --
8 MS . ANDALORO: If you want to speak,
9 you have to come back to the mic, because
10 we ' re creating a record here .
11 MS . ' MCGRATH : I was just bringing it up
12 because I think it ' s important to know in
13 its entirety. I know that you are
14 restricted by --
15 MS . ANDALORO: We all are .
16 Jurisdiction here is very limited. I don ' t
17 want there to be a misunderstanding with the
18 community about what this Board ' s role is .
19 MS . MCGRATH : Can I just ask one
20 question? If you do impose certain
21 restrictions upon them, whatever it may be .
22 If the Board does impose whatever the
23 restrictions are, a one family dwelling, it
24 can only have one -- or whatever, .going
25 forward, if they were to not adhere to that ,
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 121
1 do you have the right to remove the use?
2 You know, revoke -- this is what we ' re
3 zoning it for and you are not doing that --
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Only under
5 special exception permits . That is not what
6 they are here for.
7 MS . ANDALORO: However, they will be
8 going for Site Plan approval, which they can
9 be violated for and we just passed a
10 legislation, that says, if you violate any
11 conditions of your Site Plan approval after
12 a public hearing, the Planning Board can
13 revoke that approval . So the Planning Board
14 may have that jurisdiction.
15 MS . MCGRATH : Well, do they have that
16 jurisdiction because they removed the trees?
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That you would
18 have to ask the Planning Board.
19 MS . MCGRATH: Well, maybe that is
20 something that we need to look at . So we
21 need to go there, is that what you ' re
22 saying? We need to go into the Building
23 Department?
24 MS . ANDALORO: Well, I believe they
25 have already looked into the issue . I don ' t
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 122
1 know if there has been a violation issue . I
2 don ' t know what the status is . I do know
3 that the Town is aware that they moved trees
4 on that property.
5 MS . MCGRATH : Right .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the bottom
7 line is , unlike some municipalities that
8 actually have tree laws about tree removal,
9 our Town doesn ' t .
10 MS . MCGRATH: It doesn ' t?
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not on private
12 property.
13 MEMBER DINIZIO : They have Site Plan
14 approval -- if they are before the Planning
15 Board, that lot is supposed to be left alone
16 until the Planning Board has chance to take
17 a look at it, correct me if I am wrong?
18 MS . MCGRATH : I would like to believe
19 that you are right .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Has any
21 construction began on the property?
22 MS . MCGRATH: Not to -- well, they have
23 put up a fence and they took down the trees .
24 Nothing that I can see . I don ' t scrutinize .
25 MS . MOORE : Just so I can address the
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 123
1 tree removal . What happened is, I have a
2 letter from Russ Tree Service Inc . , dated
3 January 24th . It was due to the Planning
4 Board asking why did you take down the
5 trees . And it says -- it ' s a letter by the
6 owner and the tree company, and says this
7 letter is to certify of removal of two trees
8 located in the front of the above property
9 and also another tree from your property
10 located at 1455 New Suffolk Road. So that
11 is on the other property. The other house .
12 One of the trees had partially fallen on our
13 arrival . Once that tree had been removed,
14 it was noted two other trees were also in
15 danger of falling since they were dead and
16 hollow . Russ Tree .Service is not in the
17 habit of removing trees unnecessarily . We
18 have a trained and certified arborist on
19 staff . We believe that the trees should be
20 maintained and not removed, unless it ' s
21 absolutely necessary. It is in our
22 professional opinion that these trees needed
23 to be removed for the safety of the
24 property. If you should have further
1
25 questions, please do not hesitate to contact
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 124
1 us at the above number . And it is signed by
2 Russell Brisson, B-R-I-S-S-O-N . He is the
3 owner of Russ Tree Service, Inc .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Who was that
5 letter sent to?
6 MS . MOORE : This was a letter -- when
7 the issue came up with the Planning Board, I
8 asked Lisa, "why did you take down the
9 trees?" And she said, they were rotted.
10 They were dangerous . So I asked her to get
11 a letter from the arborist . I will send it
12 to the Planning Board so it explains that
13 there was nothing malicious . Nothing
14 intended to be out of order in any way. It
15 was not trying to be -- penalized the
16 neighborhood or react to the neighborhood
17 about this issue . It was purely safety
18 issue and I think on the record, she has
19 told you that she has her kids there on the
20 property. The house has a single family use
21 and they didn ' t want to have any issues with
22 having a tree fall on somebody that is
23 living in the house . So it was really
24 imperative that that be done . Certainly,
25 had that been provided to the Planning Board
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 125
1 in advance, I am sure they would not have
2 wanted to have the liability that would
3 develop if a tree fell on somebody and the
4 Town would refuse to allow hollowed out
5 trees to be removed. Hopefully that
6 addresses that issue .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, it certainly
8 does . Is there any other person that would
9 like to address the Board?
10 MS . PAETZEL : Hello . I am Stacy
11 Paetzel, P-A-E-T-Z-E-L . I will keep my
12 comments somewhat brief, because I did
13 submit a letter today. And I am going to
14 stick to things that this Board does
15 address, although I am not an expert at that
16 sort of thing . I do have questions about
17 this -- basically, it ' s my understanding
18 that this is a preexisting nonconforming use
19 lot area . That is a true statement?
20 MS . ANDALORO : No, that is the problem.
21 It ' s a preexisting nonconforming use .
22 MS . PAETZEL : So it ' s a preexisting
23 nonconforming use because of the lot area;
24 correct?
25 MS . ANDALORO : No .
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 126
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, not quite,
i
2 the structure .
3 MS . ANDALORO : The structure is
4 preexisting nonconformity and the use on the
5 property. The office use on the property
6 was a preexisting nonconformity.
7 MS . PAETZEL : So if the applicant were
8 to want to expand that, they would need to
9 get a use variance really, if they wanted to
10 expand that use or intensify it?
11 MS . ANDALORO : It appears that the
12 determination of the Building Department was
13 -- what was there was an office and a
14 business office . And professional offices
15 are now permitted in the LB Zone . So
16 whatever they proposed by the Cifarelli ' s is
17 a permitted use for the zone, and it falls
18 within the scope . It ' s not so much changed
19 to what was there, that would cause it to
20 lose it ' s preexisting nonconformity.
21 MS . PAETZEL : Right, but if you expand
22 upon a preexisting nonconforming structure
23 or use, they would need a variance for that?
24 This Board would, I believe, permitted to
25 grant up to a 50o increase?
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 127
1 MS . ANDALORO : That ' s what the law is,
2 but that has never been the determination of
3 the Building Department . The Building
4 Department did not -- was not of opinion of
5 what the Cifarelli ' s is proposing is not an
6 expansion of the use, of a nonconforming
7 use . And that issue is not going to be
8 before this Board.
9 MS . PAETZEL : Okay. One of my
10 questions , and I understand that may not be
11 the issue today, but one of my questions I
12 have is, how the storage of vehicles , how
13 does this not constitute as a contractors
14 yard? I have personally, and I do not speak
15 for my neighbor ' s . Obviously we would like
16 to see it as a nice quaint little house like
17 the rest of the houses are on the little
18 street but I understand because of what is
19 on that CO, that might not be an option .
20 But I have questions about how all those
21 cars fit on that property . I don ' t have a
22 problem with the office use, if
23 Mrs . Cifarelli wanted to have an office, a
24 corporate headquarters of some sort . You
25 know, but the problem that I have is the
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 128
1 amount of cars -- the amount of commercial
2 vehicles, vans that are going to be stored
3 on that site . I don ' t really understand how
4 that does not constitute as an expansion .
5 And that is my concern . And they were
6 before Planning Board, I think there were
7 five or seven spaces proposed, and then all
8 of a sudden that number ballooned up to ten
9 or twelve, I forget what it was . And that
10 is really where my concern comes from. I
11 think there are issues with the character of
12 the neighborhood, which inside of it, has a
13 lot of historic structures, a bike route . I
14 think the use that is being proposed does
15 intensify, clearly intensifies the use on
16 the site . Traffic should be looked at . I
17 know that is not something that this Board
18 does , but I think intensification of a use,
19 clearly when you look at the components that
20 are in the Site Plan and the parking, it ' s a
21 contractor ' s yard. I am also interested in
22 looking at that history. I hope that you
23 are going to leave the record open, I think
24' that you probably will, but I would be
25 interested to look at that work that you all
May 3, '2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 129
1 put together, because we have a lot of
2 questions . We ' re just really concerned that
3 this is an intensification of this use on a
4 very, very undersized lot . It ' s a very
5 quaint residential neighborhood. So we
6 thank you very much for taking another look
7 at it .
8 MS . HESTON : Prudence Heston,
9 H-E-S-T-O-N . And I live in the house that
10 is just south of the property -- of the
11 second Beebe property. Not the one you guys
12 are looking at today, but the other. To put
13 it out there, I think it ' s a mistake not to
14 be looking at them together, because I think
15 in the way this has developed over time, is
16 because it has been piece-mealed. This and
17 this and this , and it hasn ' t been looked at
18 as a whole, and that concerns with the two
19 houses . I think that they should be looked
20 at together, especially when we are looking
21 at the number of people that are coming into
22 a community. It is a lot more people that
23 are in there now. You know, I don ' t have a
24 problem with it being zoned like this . I do
25 have a problem, as we pointed out, the
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 130
1 intensity has changed with that, and it ' s no
2 longer a light business kind of a thing .
3 This is a much more intense kind of thing
4 for such a tiny little lot that we ' re
5 looking- at . The changes over time that have
6 been made to that have always been made with
7 a residential mindset in place, even with
8 Mr . Beebe . And every one of those changes
9 that were made over time, were made for
10 residential reasons . And it was because of
11 family problems . You put an extra apartment
12 in here because your son has terrible,
13 terrible problems . And so of course, the
14 Board is going to allow them to make an
15 exception with that . You have .a child who
16 has a place to live -in the community. You
17 ask for a change for that, but those
18 exceptions have always been made with a
19 residential mindset in place . This is
20 certainly not residential what we ' re looking
21 at . And that ' s okay, to have an office
22 there, fine, have an office there . You
23 know, this is really an intensely different
24 use on a very small lot that we ' re looking
25 at here . And I think that the Board needs
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 131
1 to be very aware of that . And our home is
2 on the National Historic Register, and so is
3 our one other home, also national . There
4 are also other homes on the street that are
5 on the local historic, and it has really
6 changed the build of everything .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you very
8 much for your comments .
9 Any one else that would like to address
10 this? The Board?
11 MR. CARTER: My name is Fred Carter . I
12 live up the street a little bit from where
13 this is occurring . And my wife has lived
14 there for a good many years, and I had lived
15 in Westhampton at one time . And I left that
16 place because the traffic got so bad and I
17 had a fellow drive right on my lawn here and
18 messed it up, because he was running through
19 a red light . Traffic is gettin heavy on
20 here, even on New Suffolk Road . People
21 going down to the restaurant and Legends and
22 like that , boats and stuff . It ' s bad
23 enough. This is like a farm country and
24 residential . The business, I thought they
25 had a plan for the businesses to go up by
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 132
1 the Route 48 . I thought they were going to
2 allow businesses up there . That ' s an ideal
3 place for this business here . I ' m real
4 sorry, if this man doesn ' t win out on these
5 thing, but if he lived here himself, he
6 would know how we all feel . It ' s a
7 residential and farm country and shouldn ' t
8 have that type of business . Too many cars
9 running up and down the road, and it ' s not
10 good. And you got to think about the
11 firemen too . All the cars going up and down
12 there, and these firemen got to cross the
13 road to that equipment and go to a fire .
14 And they ' re running like the devil . I ' ve
15 seen them with my own eyes . Running like
16 the devil to get to these equipment .
17 Running there to get their equipment on or
18 when they put their clothes on and stuff,
19 boots -- you know, I ' ve been there . I be a
20 fireman myself at one time . It obstructs
21 the firemen too . Even myself at times, I
22 got ' s to watch out too . That fire starts a
23 blows and give them a chance to get their
24 equipment on . People don ' t do that and they
25 don ' t give them enough room. That ' s another
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 133
1 thing, people don ' t move . When they see
2 these blue lights coming, get over to the
3 side of the road and help them, because they
4 may be going to your house, you never know .
5 Anyway, I am getting off the horse . I just
6 wanted to have my opinion . I feel sorry
7 that this man doesn ' t get what he likes but
8 if he doesn ' t get it, okay. I have done
9 what I can . I don ' t think it belongs there .
10 That type of business doesn ' t belong on New
11 Suffolk Road there . That is all I have .to
12 say.
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you very
14 much for your comments .
15 MR. CARTER: Thank you .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
17 else that would like to address the Board?
18 You need to come back up to the mic .
19 MS . HESTON: Actually, the only other
20 thing that I forgot to say when I was up
21 here was that I didn ' t point out that every
22 other business that has always been along
23 there, when Bill was there, you know, I run
24 a business along there, they are always
25 owner occupied. And that makes a huge
May, 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 134
1 difference when you ' re looking at how
2 intensely a lot is being used. And the way
3 that it feels for the rest of the community,
4 because you are part of the community. And
5 you care about that, and in this situation,
6 it is being used in a very, very different
7 way.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you.
9 Anything else? Please state your name .
10 MS . MCGRATH: Elizabeth McGrath. I
11 just wanted to say regarding the number of
12 vehicles on the property, and the traffic on
13 the road, that I was wondering why there
14 wasn ' t a traffic study done . I mean, we ' re
15 talking about -- I mean, anywhere ' s from 10
16 to 25 to 30 vehicles, that will be coming in
17 and out of this property . Between the
18 people that are living at these houses
19 already. Four vehicles already, which take
20 up most of the asphalt already, and we ' re
21 talking about trucks . He has different
22 vehicles from fair size vans , to trucks , to
23 cars , that are going to be coming in and out
24 of that .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That may be the
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 135
1 case, but that would be something that the
2 Planning Board has jurisdiction . The Zoning
3 Board doesn 't have jurisdiction over --
4 MS . MCGRATH how many cars could be
5 there or traffic?
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is Site
7 Plan . Anything on that lot is going to
8 require Site Plan approval by the Planning
9 Board and we ' re here because in our original
10 application, all that the Building Inspector
11 noted as nonconforming was the setbacks
12 required for additional alterations for the
13 garage . We were never given the opportunity
14 -- the Zoning Board is not allowed to act .
15 We ' re an appellate . A Board of appeal . You
16 have to have a decision that is appealable .
17 The Building Inspector has got to write a
18 Notice of Disapproval stating what is not
19 conforming to the code for us to act . We
20 don ' t even have a Notice of Disapproval
21 before us , nor have we had a Notice of
22 Disapproval before us for the two uses on a
23 lot that does not conform to the code .
24 required bulk schedule for those two uses .
25 We don ' t even have that . We didn ' t address
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 136
1 it in the first hearing because we were not
2 -- we did talk about what was going on
3 there, but we didn ' t address any area
4 variance for this substandard lot size
5 because we didn ' t have a Notice of
6 Disapproval in front of us , which would have
7 allowed us to that . Do you understand what
8 I am saying?
9 MS . MCGRATH : Because he didn ' t write
10 it?
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He didn ' t write
12 it because of two Certificates of Occupancy
13 for two structures that were issued and have
14 legal standing.
15 MS . ANDALORO: Just to correct you.
16 Had the Board discovered the issues during
17 the hearing, even though it wasn ' t written
18 into the notice, they could have requested
19 that . They got a new notice, which is what
20 we ' re looking at here .
21 MS . MCGRATH: A new what?
22 MS . ANDALORO : A new Notice of
23 Disapproval .
24 MS . MCGRATH : A new Notice of
25 Disapproval from Mr . Verity?
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 137
1 MS . ANDALORO : From the Building
2 Department . During the public hearing, they
3 could have looked at the issue and asked the
4 Building Department to issue another Notice
5 of Disapproval citing the two uses on the
6 property.
7 MS . MCGRATH: Right . And isn ' t that
8 kind of subject to his interpretation?
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes , it is .
10 MS . MCGRATH : Right . And he hasn ' t
11 done it yet . I was wondering, this has been
12 going on for months . Why hasn ' t that been
13 done? Why is it taking so long for him to
14 do that?
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What I am trying
16 to tell you, he didn ' t do it because it ' s
17 not his jurisdiction to make that decision .
18 We don ' t have that jurisdiction. We could
19 have requested it, as counsel said, and we
20 may wind up doing that; however, the
21 applicant will have to go to the Building
22 Department and make that request for an
23 amended Notice of Disapproval . We ' re not at
24 that place yet . We will see where that
25 goes . We really need to find out what the
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 138
1 issues are to let the Planning Board
2 understand what our research disclosed. To
3 let the public know, to hear what your
4 concerns are . So that we can respond
5 appropriately with an informed insight and
6 in substance . We ' re attempting to, I think,
7 address the deficiency and the history of
8 what happened on this property, okay. We ' re
9 here to do what our job is, which is to
10 balance the reasonable rights of property
11 owners with the welfare of the community .
12 That is also what the Planning Board is .
13 They have different jurisdiction. They
14 address traffic impact . Number of cars on
15 the site . I think that when you all are
16 done, the reason why the Chairman of the
17 Planning Board is here and the Director of
18 Planning is here, is to also listen . It is
19 their letter that we ' re responding to . So
20 we ' re equally concerned. And I am going to
21 ask them to make a few comments today for
22 our records also, when you all have had a
23 chance to speak. And then we will see where
24 we need to go here, okay.
25 Is there anyone else here from the
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 139
1 public that would like to address the Board
2 at this time?
3 MS . MOORE : Just responding to two
4 points . To try and keep the record clear .
5 The uses on this property have never been
6 owner/occupied, as the CO is actually
7 disclosed. Mr. Beebe when he was before the
8 Board asking to do a modification on what
9 was the house with the Waiver of Merger,
10 that was in order to have Paul Smith, his
11 grandson, be able to live in the house . And
12 he in fact, ran a window cleaning business
13 as well . He ran the window cleaning
14 business from the house at the same time the
15 other building was being rented out . It ' s
16 my understanding, I don ' t know if I have
17 this right, S&Z or Z&S Contracting . He was
18 the contractor . So the uses here on the
19 property have always been multiple uses .
20 And it has been a combination of residential
21 use, as well as commercial, a contractors
22 business . I would also like to point out
23 that we have also been going through the
24 Site Plan process . The Site Plan process
25 has been extremely vigorous . The parking
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 140
1 has been identified. The applicant is
2 prepared to comply with the Site Plan
3 requirements . Actually, after our Site Plan
4 public hearing, we met with Stacy. And
5 Stacy provided her input, as far as the
6 upgrading . Changing the landscape plan .
7 Removing the roadway. So my client did
8 agree and did try to appease the
9 neighborhood and modify the Site Plan to
10 incorporate as many suggestions,
11 particularly Stacy, as a design
12 professional . We respected her opinion . We
13 pretty much absorbed into the Site Plan and
14 did 99% of those matters that she
15 recommended. So I do want to emphasize
16 that . They have been very patient and have
17 been trying to cooperate throughout that
18 process . So I did want to addition that
19 information as the uses, since we did have
20 another window cleaning company there in the
21 past . Thank you .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you . At
23 this time, I think it would be appropriate
24 to ask either one or both of the folks from
25 Planning step forward . You have heard
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 141
1 comments, both in your own Site Plan
2 hearings and work sessions and today. What
3 I would like you to do is comment on what
4 you have heard and to let us know what some
5 of the tools you have available through the
6 Site Planning process to somewhat mitigate
7 any adverse impacts on the community .
8 MR. WILCENSKI : . First of all, Donald
9 Wilcenski, Chairman of Planning Board. My
10 first comment, and this is my own comment .
11 Being involved in this , I am very
12 disappointed that those trees were removed,
13 and we did seek action, but that will try
14 and help mitigate that with the additional
15 landscaping that we ' re going to request .
16 What we ' re basically contracting now, we
17 will look at traffic . We will look at
18 mitigating parking and more landscape
19 buffering . We realize it is a residential
20 area and I agree with a lot of -- almost all
21 of what your statements that were said. I
22 can just -- I can promise, you that we will
23 help do our best and try and mitigate that
24 area . And be sure that the applicant does
25 everything to keep the quaintness of the
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 142
1 neighborhood .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You will also, I
3 presume, be calculating what kind of parking
4 yield is reasonable on a property of that
5 size?
6 MR. WILCENSKI : Yes . The parking we
7 have discussed. We have gone back and forth
8 a few times with the parking . What we have
9 -- we have also made reference to keeping
10 all the commercial vehicles behind the
11 buildings . And we ' re going to try and seek
12 enforcement of that, because we know that
13 this is such a contentious situation . And
14 we ' re also working on that whole procedure
15 too . At the last plan that we had, the
16 parking was twelve . There was two for
17 residents and ten behind the homes for the
18 work vehicles . That is what we have .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Two for the
20 residents .
21 MR. WILCENSKI : And then ten parking
22 stalls in the back that could be used for
23 either residents or the vehicles . So I know
24 there is a lot of concern about the number
25 of vehicles and I do have concern with it
May 3, 2012 Zoning ' Board of Appeals 143
1 also . It seems that they do have a large
2 fleet, and I think that the applicant, once
3 it comes back to us from the Zoning Board,
4 will be put on notice that we will be
5 keeping an eye on the amount of vehicles . I
6 will assure you of that .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Member Dinizio
8 would like to ask you something .
9 MEMBER DINIZIO : I would just like to
10 ask you a question, if I could?
11 MR. WILCENSKI : Yes .
12 MEMBER DINIZIO: How did you determine
13 how many vehicles could go on that piece of
14 property?
15 MR. WILCENSKI : I will let Heather
16 speak on that . She has more . There is a
17 formula on that .
18 MS . LANZA: For this , a lot of
19 applications where the formula in the
20 code --
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please state your
22 name .
23 MS . LANZA: Oh, Heather Lanza, sorry.
24 It doesn ' t fit the actual use of the
25 property. We ' ll often interview the
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 144
1 applicant and ask how many they need. In
2 this case, we heard sort of various stories
3 about how many parking spots they would
4 need, and I think that ' s where we came up
5 with the twelve . Seemed like that was the
6 most that could fit there with also having
7 buffering in place, and that they also
8 needed. They told us ten vans and two
9 people to park for the office . And maybe
10 one car for the dwelling .
11 MEMBER DINIZIO : Can I ask you one
12 question? What if they said, twenty?
13 MS . LANZA: It wouldn ' t fit there .
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : That is what I am
15 trying to get at . What is the cutoff? How
16 are you justifying twelve and not justify .
17 twenty? Is there a formula?
18 MS . LANZA: It ' s not a formula per se .
19 Like I said, the Planning Board works with
20 the applicant to figure out their needs and
21 also what the site can accommodate . We have
22 buffers that have to fit on site . Buildings
23 are there obviously, the driveway, and the
24 landscape coverage requirement . We were
25 still in the middle of reviewing some of
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 145
1 that . We don ' t have -- for instance the
2 last letter that we did prior to all of this
3 happening, we wanted them to put the
4 landscape coverage on . We hadn ' t had that
5 on the Site Plan yet . So that was still a
6 matter for review. If that doesn ' t meet the
7 code, they' re going to have to change their
8 whole situation, and maybe their parking
9 number will come down .
10 MEMBER DINIZIO : Okay . I think that is
11 what I am looking for . The landscaping, is
12 that a formula? Is that --
13 MS . LANZA: That is a percentage that
14 is in the bulk schedule, 280 .
15 MEMBER DINIZIO : And even on a
16 nonconforming lot?
17 MS . LANZA: Yeah.
18 MEMBER DINIZIO: Do you know what the
19 percentage of the lot is? Just
20 approximately?
21 MS . LANZA: LB, I think is 35 .
22 MEMBER DINIZIO : And does that include
23 distances from the side yard ' s .
24 MS . LANZA: That is whatever has some
25 sort of vegetation on it .
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 146
1 MEMBER DINIZIO : Meaning that the whole
2 front of the place is green and the back of
3 the building is blacktop?
4 MS . LANZA: Yeah, it doesn ' t ' give you a
5 way to do it and lay it out . It just says
6 percentage . So it ' s whatever .
7 MEMBER DINIZIO : That will eventually
8 determine how many cars can go on it?
9 MS . LANZA: Absolutely. That usually
10 is definitely a factor in it .
11 MEMBER DINIZIO : All right . Thank you .
12 MEMBER HORNING : I have a question to? .
13 Regarding the parking area, the one diagram
14 that we have shows a porous surface .
15 Someone mentioned a paved surface . And if
16 it was paved, you would need some drainage
17 area for it . What do you think that your
18 Site Plan would call for?
19 MS . LANZA: I have it right here . The
20 Site Plan -- they proposed porous pavers in
21 the back. What they have in the front, I
22 think, you ' re saying asphalt, but I think it
23 might be gravel actually . No, it is
24 payment . So whatever is on the Site Plan is
25 what we go with . And we have drains, they
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 147
1 have drainage plans and it has to pass
2 through the Town Engineer .
3 MEMBER HORNING: So the main part of
4 the gravel area will be an open porous type
5 of surface?
6 MS . LANZA: Yeah, the main part in the
7 back.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The other thing
9 that has to be considered in Site Plan
10 Review, is safe ingress and egress . And no
11 backing out onto the street . That takes up
12 a certain turning radius . So in the end
13 what needs to happen is an analysis of the
14 -- there is a state of need, but if the need
15 can not be accommodated on a site that is
16 that size, then they' re going to have to
17 take some of their needs someplace else .
18 That is the way that that works . I mean,
19 there are such things as satellite parking
20 facilities . That is not within our
21 jurisdiction by the way, but I happen to
22 have planning in my background, also as an
23 architect . I am just letting --
24 MS . LANZA: For your knowledge, Leslie,
25 the last letter that we sent to the
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 148
1 applicant does have a limit . It says no
2 more than so many cars on site . And like,
3 you know, just to acknowledge what Mr .
4 Dinizio was saying, we -- you know, we ' re
5 still in the middle of evaluating this Site
6 Plan and reviewing it . So what that number
7 is , is probably not set in stone at this
8 point . We also said no on street parking .
9 We also wanted to make sure that did not
10 happen .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you can also
12 control. onsite lighting?
13 MS . LANZA: Absolutely. We have a
14 lighting code .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So it ' s not like,
16 you know, some security lighting is going to
17 be on the building 24/7 and waking people up
18 by shining in their bedrooms and things like
19 that . Are there any other comments that you
20 would like to make, from the Planning
21 Board ' s point of view, Planning Department ' s
22 point of view?
23 MS . LANZA: No .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They will control
25 signage . That is all part of their
May .3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 149
1 jurisdiction . So let me do this now
2 MS . PAETZEL : I hate to ask to make
3 another comment, but I would like --
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you would like
5 to make another comment, you need to come to
6 the microphone and state your name, please .
7 And please be very --
8 MS . PAETZEL : I will be very quick. I
9 just wanted to clarify the last statement
10 that was made by Mrs . Moore about the
11 meeting that I did have with the applicant .
12 Yes, it is true . We did meet and we did
13 have a lot of discussion. I offered some of
14 my professional advise as a landscape
15 architect to them. And at the time, I did
16 that, there , were either five or seven cars
17 proposed. And I gave them a lot of .feedback
18 and they incorporated some of the things
19 that I asked for . Not all of them, but when
20 we came back to the next meeting, I believe
21 that is when we saw the twelve cars and I
22 think that is really where this is
23 disjointed. It ' s not even probably what
24 they actually need . But it ' s closer than
25 what the five to seven was . But I don ' t
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 150
1 think any one of us in the neighborhood is
2 comfortable with that amount of cars . I
3 think the idea of having the contractors
4 yard for the fleet in a different location.
5 is a fabulous idea . I don ' t know how we
6 achieve that, but that would make a lot of
7 us happy. Thank you .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You ' re welcome .
9 Now --
10 MR. WILCENSKI : Leslie, just one more
11 comment . Everything that we have heard here
12 today, we will take back to our Board, and
13 we will obviously review all that
14 information.
15 MS . ANDALORO: , Don, do you want us to
16 send you a copy of these minutes when we get
17 them in?
18 MR. WILCENSKI : Yes . That would be
19 great .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We tape record
21 all of our hearings all the time . We will
22 ask our transcriber to do an expedited
23 transcription on this particular hearing for
24 all those reasons . And of course, that is
25 part of the public record, and you will have
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 151
1 a part of that to review. Anyone will have
2 a chance to review that record, whether they
3 were here today or not .
4 In order to figure out where to go from
5 here, I am going to pole the Board and ask
6 what your opinion is . We will not close
7 today, but we have a request from both the
8 public and counsel, to leave this open for a
9 while . I would like to ask the Board, if
10 we ' re clear enough where we agree, as to
11 whether we want to ask the applicant to go
12 to the Building Department to request an
13 amended Notice of Disapproval, so that this
14 Board can formally address the possibility
15 of an area variance for the two uses on the
16 subject property, since we ' re going to hold
17 it up anyway, is that something this Board
18 wants to consider asking --
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Here comes
20 Mr . Goggins right now .
21 MEMBER HORNING : I am in favor of it .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am still up in
24 the air about it right now.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jim?
S
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 152
1 MEMBER DINIZIO : No, because I didn ' t
2 hear anything that addressed that particular
3 issue here . I heard mostly complaints about
4 the intense use of that property, which is
5 not what we would be asking him. And I
6 didn ' t hear anything that would change our
7 record. I don ' t think that I would vote for
8 sending it back to the Building Department .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The advantage of
10 doing that is simply that we can then
11 formally address the area variance . If we
12 don ' t have an amended Notice of Disapproval,
13 we can close the record, and we can write a
14 letter of recommendation to the Planning
15 Board, which is what they requested. They
16 wanted us to provide them with comments, so
17 that they can go forward. Some of the
18 things that they want us to address, have to
19 do with the size of the lot relative to the
20 two uses on it . That is our jurisdiction .
21 We don ' t have authorization, legally, to
22 address it in a formal way, through the
23 granting of variance without the actual code
24 enforcement officer . So that is why I am
25 poling the Board to see where we want to go .
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 153
1 I see you have arrived, Mr . Goggins . We ' re
2 just about done, but we ' re going to get an
3 expedited transcript from this hearing and
4 give you an opportunity to review it . We ' re
5 not going to close . I think the public is
6 interested in research that we have provided
7 you a copy of . I think you have just come
8 on board here and you want to have an
9 opportunity to discuss that . Do you just
10 want to adjourn to next month then?
11 MEMBER DINIZIO : I think Mr . Goggins is
12 here --
13 MR. GOGGINS : Yes , I would like to
14 address the Board, if I may .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Absolutely, you
16 can .
17 MR. GOGGINS : Thank you for allowing me
18 to speak. My name is William Goggins on
19 behalf of the applicant. Sorry I didn ' t
20 have the benefit to hear what happened
21 before, just now, but I don ' t really
22 understand how this process happened. The
23 normal process is, a person applies for a
24 renovation or some kind of renovating to be
25 done . They go to the Building Department
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 154
1 and the Building Department reviews the
2 application. And if it meets the Zoning
3 requirements , then they go and look at the
4 building structure and so forth . If it does
5 not meet the Zoning requirements, than the
6 Building Department Building Inspector
7 issues a Notice of Disapproval . And it ' s
8 that Notice of Disapproval which gives
9 Zoning Board of Appeals authority, whichever
10 that Notice of Disapproval says is the
11 limited scope of the Board' s authority.
12 This Board on August 18th of 2011 made a
13 decision based upon a Notice of Disapproval .
14 And you approved a variance for this
15 property. That was eight months ago . Now,
16 as I understand it, the Planning Board is
17 now second guessing what the Zoning Board of
18 Appeals has done and has asked you to reopen
19 this hearing and you have .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, let me
21 clarify that .
22 MR. GOGGINS : Okay.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If I might, they
24 didn ' t ask us to reopen a hearing . They
25 asked us to address the area that we have
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 155
1 jurisdiction over with a Notice of
2 Disapproval, which we didn ' t have in terms
3 of the area variance and bulk schedule . For
4 two uses on a single substandard sized lot .
5 They asked us for comments . These concerns
6 were raised before the Planning Board. They
7 were not raised before us , because we didn ' t
8 raise them, because they weren ' t before us .
9 We didn ' t have a Notice of Disapproval for
10 an area variance of that kind. We had a
11 setback variance, which we granted. The
12 purpose in reopening this hearing was so
13 that we may properly address some comments
14 to the Planning Board that were not in our
15 public record . We are not here to revisit
16 the variance . We are not here to
17 questioning the two CO ' s . We are here so
18 that the public might be heard. Planning
19 might be heard and the applicant and their
20 agents might be heard . So that we best know
21 how to proceed with making comments to the
22 Planning Board.
23 MR. GOGGINS : With regard to what
24 issues?
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: With regard to
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 156
1 the fact that there are two uses -- we have
2 just gone through, prior to your arrival, an
3 extensive history on how the structures
4 evolved. What the uses were . What CO ' s and
5 Pre-CO ' s were issued. Our Board, at our
6 request, undertook extensive research when
7 we got a letter in February on the history
8 of this property and it will be in the
9 record, and you will have time to read it .
10 And in order to -- we wanted to enter those
11 facts into our record, so that we could
12 address them to the Planning Board. This is
13 not a predetermined outcome . What we have
14 concluded is that we have a couple of things
15 that we can do. We can accept this
16 information, close this hearing and write a
17 letter . The other option was to ask the
18 applicant to go back to the Building
19 Department and get an amended Notice of
20 Disapproval that does acknowledge the area
21 variance . We ' re not questioning the CO ' s .
22 We acknowledge that they are there . The
23 Board has a right to reopen the hearing, as
24 long as they see there is no prejudice to
25 the applicant ' s best of interest . To our
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 157
1 knowledge, they have not done construction
- 2 on variances that we have granted. And so I
3 think we are on safe grounds .
4 MR. GOGGINS : Well, they haven ' t
5 started construction, - but they have spent a
6 lot of money, and Site Plans and engineers ,
7 and architects and building plans and
8 landscape plans . They have already spent a
9 lot of money and it will prejudice these
10 applicants , if you were to reopen the
11 hearing .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, we have
13 reopened the hearing, and I believe we have
14 done so responsibly. If however, you
15 disagree with that, you know very well that
16 you and your clients have legal remedies
17 through the court system.
18 MR. GOGGINS : I understand.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : By filing an
20 Article 78 , we would hope that that would
21 not come to that . That was not our intent .
22 Frankly, there were deficiencies in the
23 history with a previus Building Department,
24 and our goal was to try and cooperate with
25 the applicant , the neighbor ' s and the
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 158
1 Planning Board in order to improve that
2 situation. In order to address those
3' deficiencies .
4 MR. GOGGINS : I understand that, but
5 the public had a point to be heard at the
6 prior public hearings . And now, if the
7 public wants input, they have to do it
8 through the Planning Board process , as far
9 as landscapes, screening, parking and so
10 forth.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Which they have
12 done and will do .
13 MR. GOGGINS : Which I am sure they will
14 do, but to reopen the hearing and try and go
15 through the process to amend a variance that
16 has been issued, I think it ' s improper, and
17 I don ' t think the Board has the authority to
18 do that .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We ' re not
20 amending the variance that we granted.
21 We ' re not even considering doing that . That
22 was done and we feel that we did -- this was
23 the decision of he Board, and we all stand
24 behind that . That is not what we are here
25 for .
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 159
1 MR. GOGGINS : All right .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How would you
3 like to proceed, do you want to give counsel
4 and the public and opportunity to look and
5 do some more re.search? Do you want to talk
6 to each other about whether you want to
7 formalize a procedure, whereby the
8 possibility of an actual area variance for
9 these uses or you don ' t want to go that
10 route, that really is the applicant ' s and
11 their attorney ' s decision . We can request
12 that you get an amended Notice of
13 Disapproval, but I don ' t believe there is
14 consensus amongst Board members as to --
15 MEMBER HORNING: Can we go into
16 Executive Session and come up?
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, we might do
18 that .
19 MS . ANDALORO : Well, do you guys need
20 my advice?
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes .
22 MS . ANDALORO : If you want to
23 deliberate the issue, you can do it in open .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can do it
25 before the public .
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 160
1 MEMBER DINIZIO : I think we should
2 digest what we have, Leslie . You know, you
3 asked me preliminary, my reaction is I don ' t
4 think it was addressed, but you know let ' s
5 go over with what we gathered today and make
6 -- you know two weeks we talk about it, and
7 we can make a decision about it one way or
8 another .
9 MS . ANDALORO : And that would give
10 everybody the opportunity to provide
11 additional comments .
12 MEMBER DINIZIO : You know, Mr . Goggins
13 wasn ' t here . Does he want the opportunity
14 to come back after reading the record and
15 commenting, or do you want to have input?
16 There is a possibility that we can wait for
17 two weeks and then listen to you, a month?
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, we can
19 certainly hold this -- the fastest way to do
20 that, would be to hold this open till our
21 Special Meeting in two weeks, to give the
22 public and to give counsel to submit and the
23 Planning Board for that matter, anyone here
24 or anyone interested, to submit additional
25 information to the Zoning Board . And we can
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 161
1 close this hearing in two weeks .
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That ' s fine with
3 me .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Or not, depending
5 on what happens in two weeks .
6 MR. GOGGINS : The applicant objects to
7 the whole process . So I have to put that on
8 the record. And I don ' t believe that the
9 applicant will go through a process of
10 amending its application. We put in the
11 application. We went through the process ,
12 and we don ' t think it ' s procedurally proper .
13 That is our position now. My client might
14 change his mind after I speak to them, but
15 our position is this thing has already been
16 done . It has already been decided. It ' s
17 been eight months , and we think it ' s
18 procedurally improper .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right . I
20 would just like you to be aware of the fact
21 that in voting unanimously to reopen this
22 hearing, the Board did not wish to burden
23 the applicant in any way. And as a result,
24 we have waived all fees . We took care of
25 the legal notice ourselves, internally, in
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 162
1 our department . The mailings , the postings ..
2 All of those were done at our expense,
3 because what we ' re trying to do, is clarify
4 the best outcome possible for all concerned
5 parties, because we have been asked to make
6 comments . The Planning Board provided us
7 with comments at the beginning of the
8 variance hearing for the dormers, and in
9 fact, supported it . As long as there was
10 one family in that dwelling, okay. That was
11 part of it . That there was some mitigation
12 for noise and things like that on the
13 property. The things that came out of the
14 Planning Board ' s hearing were different than
15 ours because we ' re addressing different
16 issues .
17 MR. GOGGINS: And that makes sense,
18 because you have different Boards .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right . All they
20 can do is mitigate, through Site Plan
21 Review, okay. That is why they came back to
22 us, because they have no jurisdiction to say
23 these are two permitted uses on this subject
24 property given the size of 'the lot . That
25 would be the ZBA' s jurisdiction . So we ' re
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 163
1 really trying to collaborate to remedy a
2 deficiency in the history of this property.
3 But I understand your point and the role
4 that counsel plays in this . Why don ' t we
5 just leave this open to the special meeting
6 to take in any further information or any
7 further comments , depending on what happens ,
8 we will close at that time --
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Written comments .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, written
11 comments . No more oral testimony, but
12 anything in writing that you want to respond
13 to we can do that . How does that sound?
14 MEMBER HORNING : Do we need a motion
15 for that?
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, I will make
17 that motion .
18 MEMBER HORNING: I will second that .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. I am going
20 to make a motion that we adjourn this
21 hearing to the Special Meeting on May 17th
22 and we will take it from there . So moved.
23 Is there a second?
24 MEMBER HORNING : Second.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 164
_. 1 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
3 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
5 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
6 ****************************************** *
7 HEARING #6553 - WILLIAM TONYES
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next hearing
9 is for William Tonyes, #6553 . This is a
10 carryover and was adjourned from the last
11 public hearing on April 5, 2012 . So there is
12 no need to read the legal notice .
13 MR. THORPE : Good afternoon, I am
14 Charlie Thorpe, representing Will Tonyes .
15 Trying to figure out if we can built this
16 garage or not . Last time we were here, you
17 asked us to take some pictures of the
18 adjacent houses in the neighborhood to get
19 an idea of the surroundings of the
20 neighborhood. Between 9th, 8th and 7th
21 Street, the houses are very tight . Blocks
22 are three or four houses long. They ' re back
23 to back. So everything is pretty much
24 tight . All pretty close to the backyard
25 setbacks, stuff like that . If I may
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 165
1 approach? I have a survey that I can hand
2 you of the ( In Audible) and the pictures .
3 On the Site Plan, if you will, I drew in on
4 the bottom right where the cesspools are,
5 the septic grease track runs out to his
6 cesspool in the back corner . It goes on a
7 45 degree angle to the garage . This is
8 another issue with the setback from the
9 cesspool . The code requires us to be
10 10 feet from a foundation, Mike said that he
11 would allow us to move the cesspool, swing
12 it over to the right, and have the cesspool
13 where the shed is right now . And the shed
14 is going to be taken away. So that was one
15 issue . We were able to work that out with
16 Mike . And so we are able to be 10 f.eet from
17 the foundation with the cesspool . The other
18 issue is taking down the fence, because it ' S
19 one foot over the line . No problem with
20 that . I have pictures of the fence put in,
21 installed there, assuming that the line was
22 there that the other existing fence that the
23 neighbor has . A lot of these grass on these
24 lawns grow anywhere ' s from 3 feet to 15 feet
25 into the road from their property . So there
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 166
1 is a lot of extended lawns into the roads .
2 A lot of the kids park over there, along the
3 side . It ' s right across the street from the
4 school . There is one picture across the
5 street where the -- there has been a Belgium
6 Block curb put in, and a dumpster across the
7 street . The garages are probably less than
8 20 feet from the actual road. The driveway
9 is on that side . The one across the street,
10 I believe is 15 feet because his truck
11 sticks out in the street when he parks it .
12 And that ' s about it . That is what you asked
13 me for .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: How was this
15 location of the cesspool and the -- these
16 were drawn by hand? How did you determine
17 the location?
18 MR. THORPE : I drew them in . He went
19 down and got -- as soon as we left here, we
20 got Doug Morris , the cesspool guy to come
21 down and we dug them up . We found out
22 exactly where they were . We measured -- the
23 existing one is exactly 5 feet off of where
24 we want to put the foundation . So we know
25 we have to swing that around to go under the
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 167
1 shed. That is what Mike suggested that we
2 put . Doug Morris has put this in years ago,
3 and gave us a number for moving it over,
4 and --
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay, and based
6 upon this discovery and putting that here,
7 are you now saying that you are going to
8 take the fence down --
9 MR. THORPE : Yes .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rather than
11 relocate it onto your property?
12 MR. THORPE : Take it all down, yeah .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. And were
14 you able based upon this , to set that
15 proposed garage any further back? It looks
16 like you still have it at three feet from
17 the property line?
18 MR. THORPE: It still is because Mike
19 said if we move it over -- move the cesspool
20 over 5 feet more, which would be 10 feet
21 from where we would like to put the garage,
22 it would be within 5 feet of the other pipe
23 coming -- the existing pipe from the house .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, which you
25 have also drawn in, I see .
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 168
1 MR. THORPE : Right .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All right . So in
3 other words, based upon where all these
4 other things are located, you have no code
5 conforming alternative but to propose this
6 at a 3 foot setback? You can ' t move it over .
7 closer --
8 MR. THORPE : Maybe we got a foot .
9 Maybe I can talk to Mike -- basically Mike
10 wanted that cesspool 10 feet away from the
11 foundation .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right .
13 MR. THORPE : So being as close as it is
14 to that pipe, I feel a little weary going
15 closer . I am comfortable where it is . The
16 circumference is 8 feet . It leaves us maybe
17 3 or 4 feet away from the pipe . So if I
18 move it a foot over -- I mean, we can find
19 out after we dig it, where the pipe is and
20 then dig up the pipe .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: See we don ' t have
22 full dimensions on the surveys because you
23 basically drew stuff in by hand.
24 MR. THORPE : Right .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A surveyor would
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 169
1 have actually calculated. However, I don ' t
2 know how far away that cesspool -- where the
3 shed is now that you are drawing in, how far
4 that is to the closest point of the garage
5 as currently proposed? In other words , you
6 know that side of the garage that is closest
7 to it .
8 MR. THORPE : If we move that cesspool
9 away from the garage, it would be right dead
10 center of where that shed is .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right .
12 MR. THORPE : That is marked where the
13 cesspool would go.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand
15 that . What I am saying is, how far is the
16 cesspool from the side of the garage?
17 MR. THORPE : Right now, it ' s 5 feet .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But you are
19 proposing to make it 10 by where you are
20 putting the cesspool where the shed is?
21 MR. THORPE : Right . Mike asked us to
22 move the cesspool over .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So in other
24 words, where the garage is on this survey
25 and where you are proposing to move the
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 170
1 cesspools 10 feet?
2 MR. THORPE : Correct .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Gotcha .
4 MR. THORPE : Mike wanted us to do that .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is all I
6 wanted to know. Because if it had been 15
7 feet, than I was going to say that you can
8 make your garage 8 feet from the property
9 line .
10 MR. THORPE : Right .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jim, do you have
12 any questions?
13 MEMBER DINIZIO : Well , I know the
14 n.eighborhood well, and I couldn ' t think of
15 another two-car garages here . Is there any
16 way you can make it smaller?
17 MR. THORPE : It really being 20 feet,
18 it ' s not a real full two-car . You are going
19 to -- it does have a small mini and a
20 motorcycle to try and get in there, within
21 that 20 feet . You have the 20 foot
22 garage --
23 MEMBER DINIZIO : It ' s 24 ?
24 MR. THORPE : 24 deep . See where we are
25 driving into the garage, it ' s narrower than
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 171
1 the depth. I also have a pick-up truck. To
2 be able to get them both in there and open
3 the car doors , 20 feet is -- the width is
4 really the minimal that you can get .
5 Generally a garage would be 24x24 .
6 MEMBER DINIZIO : Honestly, Charlie,
7 this is as big as some of the houses that
8 are on that street .
9 MR. THORPE : Not really, if you look at
10 some of the pictures .
11 MEMBER DINIZIO : I grew up at the other
12 end of this street, on 8th Street . The
13 house that used to be there, it ' s my wife ' s .
14 She had a single car garage . I mean, I
15 can ' t think of any on 8th . You know, the
16 old dog catcher, he had single car garage
17 that is on the next block. And then most of
18 them don ' t even have garages . And I am just
19 wondering why you need such a big one .
20 MR. THORPE : There is a garage on the
21 next block over, 7th Street, that is two
22 feet off the road and it ' s a four-car
23 garage . It ' s the red house from Main Street
24 to Front Street, all the way back to the
25 property.
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 173
1 was torn down . The previous owner had
2 gotten a permit to tare it down . And the
3 garages across the street, Steve Ryan ' s old
4 house with the barn . You know, he has a
5 little tiny garage right up on the property
6 there .
7 MEMBER DINIZIO: Single car garage .
8 MR. THORPE : Right . Single car garage .
9 Well, you wouldn ' t be able to put a two-car
10 garage there . There is no room at all .
11 Bill has a little more room on his property
12 to be able to squeeze that in there .
13 MEMBER DINIZIO : No, he doesn ' t . He ' s
14 on ' a corner lot . He ' s 3 feet away from a
15 front yard . So that ' s a fairly large
16 variance, and you know, I don ' t see any
17 reason there can ' t be a compromise on the
18 size of that building. Why does it have to
19 be 3 feet from a property line?
20 MR. THORPE : We wanted a pitch roof .
21 So we tried to keep it low. We didn ' t want
22 to put a flat roof . A flat roof is
23 something that doesn ' t make a lot of sense .
24 The gable in the front of the house, is
25 somewhat of a -- somewhat of a Victorian
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 174
1 look. It has a lot of gingerbread on the
2 front of the house . It ' s very nicely made .
3 We want to present it that way for the
4 garage to match the house . And we ' re going
5 to take the shed out of there . The shed is
6 going to be removed. All that other area is
7 going to be grass . If the cesspool wasn ' t
8 there, we would gladly move it towards that
9 end of the property. Then all the garages
10 on that corner would be sort of backed up .
11 There is another caddy corner to this
12 property in the backyard. We talked to all
13 the neighbor ' s and nobody had any problem.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know, in
15 removing the shed, you will be reducing the
16 lot coverage by 87 . 4 square feet . Did you
17 calculate what that reduction is because
18 currently you are at 23% and you ' re
19 proposing a garage with the shed on there
20 and that will be 31% lot coverage . Did you
21 calculate with the removal of the shed, what
22 the newer proposed lot coverage would be?
23 MR. THORPE : Probably about another 4
24 to 5 percent less . So I would guess
25 conservatively 28% lot coverage .
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 172
_ 1 MEMBER DINIZIO : Yes , it used to be a
2 barn. But it ' s a pretty big lot too .
3 MR. THORPE : Yes .
4 MEMBER DINIZIO: It ' s almost like it ' s
5 two different lots . It ' s not like this one,
6 where we are trying to cram everything on
7 here, 3 feet away from the property line .
8 MR. TONYES : If the Board doesn ' t want
9 to approve it then --
10 MEMBER DINIZIO : I want to mitigate it
11 some way. It ' s a pretty large building .
12 Three feet from the property line . A lot of
13 those houses are built right on the front
14 property line . I will grant you that .
15 MR. TONYES : There are other garages
16 over there that are bigger than what I have
17 in that general area . If you go deeper back
18 into the neighborhood, you go to the left
19 side of the neighborhood. If the Board
20 needs more pictures, and I got to come back,
21 I will gladly do that, but I just --
22 MR. THORPE : There was a previous
23 garage there years ago . I left the picture
24 in the file from the last time . That ' s a
25 1972 Suburban there with a garage, and it
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 175
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, I think
2 that ' s --
3 MEMBER DINIZIO : I think the Board
4 would want to have that calculation before
5 it makes its decision anyway.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, because what
7 you are doing is amending your lot coverage .
8 You are reducing it, which is good because
9 you are making it more conforming to code,
10 which is exactly what that is . I think the
11 surveyor has to sort of figure that out . We
12 talked about it last time . You have to take
13 the 84 . 7 off of the 1913 and see what
14 percent that is, and see what that total
15 percentage of that total figure is , 6, 178 .
16 MEMBER HORNING : Probably around 30% .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Probably about 1%
18 less .
19 MR. THORPE : I have 3 1/2% in my head.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That ' s a small
21 shed.
22 MR. THORPE : You go from 31% to like 28
23 or 27 1/2 .
24 MEMBER DINIZIO: This is not making
25 sense . Look, with the shed, a deck and a
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 176
1 house, you have 23 . You take 84 square feet
2 out of that --
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So 1826 --
4 MS . TOTH : 29 . 6 .
5 MEMBER DINIZIO : 29 . 6, that is a Lot to
6 ask for a lot coverage .
7 MR. THORPE : Our argument is that with
8 all the pictures , the lot coverage ' s on all
9 these other properties and houses, it is not
10 unlike the rest of the neighborhood, to have
11 that much lot coverage . As a matter of
12 fact, the houses that are around the
13 neighborhood, I would say half of them have
14 a lot more lot coverage . If you look at
15 Steve ' s across the street, that is a good
16 memory. He has that little tiny backyard.
17 His house -- you know, the guy across the
18 street he has a big house on that . I have a
19 picture of a house on 7th Street and from
20 where the road is, his house is only 3 feet
21 from the road.
22 MEMBER DINIZIO: He has a single car
23 garage .
24 MR. THORPE : But it ' s a small piece of
25 property.
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 177
1 MEMBER DINIZIO : Yes , I agree .
2 MR. THORPE : His percentage of lot
3 coverage is probably, you know 60% .
4 MEMBER DINIZIO : You don ' t want to
5 compound that . If you got a nice lot that
6 is fine . You are already 23% over and you
7 ' are asking now to go almost to 30% .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, I think we
9 have heard from you . You have given us the
10 information requested. And we do know the
11 neighborhood. You have provided some
12 evidence since we asked you to of these
13 properties relative to what they have . And
14 the Board can approve it, the Board can deny
15 it or the Board can grant what we call
16 alternative relief . We can -- all right,
17 we ' re going to offer you 29% lot coverage .
18 Do what you want . You know what I mean?
19 That is something that the Board will have
20 to deliberate on and come to some vote . And
. 21 I don ' t know, we ' re certainly not prepared
22 to do that now. We don ' t . We will do that
23 at the earliest two weeks from now. I don ' t
24 see that we need --
25 MR. THORPE : If we contact the surveyor
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 178
1 and we ask him to give us the lot coverage
2 when we remove the shed, we can give you
3 that information?
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is fine .
5 MR. THORPE : We will write it in a
6 letter .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That ' s fine .
8 MR. THORPE : Just the situation and
9 what he thinks to maybe help the .situation .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s better to
11 come from a surveyor . So a letter is fine .
12 And if you want to look at other -- you have
13 really addressed what we asked you for, but
14 if you want to look at other properties with
15 excessive lot coverage, that also speaks to
16 the character of the neighborhood. If in
17 the process you want to submit more
18 information, do you think in a weeks time
19 would be good?
20 MR. THORPE : Yes .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
22 else in the audience that wishes to address
23 this application?
24 (No Response . )
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I am going to
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 179
1 make a motion to close this hearing subject
2 to receipt of lot coverage information.
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
5 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
7 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
9 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
10 * * ****************************************
11 HEARING #6558 - GEORGE SCHNEIDER
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
13 application before the Board is for George
14 Schneider, #6558 . Applicant requests a
15 Special Exception under Article III, Section
16 280-13B ( 13 ) . The applicant is the owner
17 requesting authorization to establish an
18 accessory apartment in an accessory
19 structure, request variance from Section
20 280-13B ( 13 ) (a) total square footage of more
21 than the maximum livable floor area of 750
22 square feet, at; 1125 Pequash Avenue, corner
23 of Willow Street, in Cutchogue .
24 MR. SCHNEIDER: Hi, good afternoon.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Could you just
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 180
1 state your name, please, for the record?
2 MR. SCHNEIDER: George Schneider .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you,
4 George . Okay . What would you like to tell
5 us about your application?
6 MR. SCHNEIDER: Just that I am trying
7 to make the use legal to the now accessory
8 housing code .
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr . Schneider, who
10 is going to live in the apartment?
11 MR. SCHNEIDER: Currently there is a
12 tenant in there and he is in process of
13 qualifying for the affordable housing list .
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay, great .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How far along
16 have you gotten with that?
17 MR. SCHNEIDER: I spoke to Philip this
18 morning and said that he has to contact the
19 tenant to come in and verify with some bank
20 statements , but that if he can prove it, he
21 does qualify from the initial applications .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, we ' re going
23 to need something from Philip --
24 MR. SCHNEIDER: He said he could
25 provide something as soon as he meets up
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 181
1 with the tenant, which will be in the next
2 day or early next week.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . Fine . The
4 garage has a CO from early 1996 .
5 MR. SCHNEIDER: 196?
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 1996 .
7 MR. SCHNEIDER: 2006, I believe .
8 MEMBER HORNING: Is that when it was
9 built?
10 MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes , sir .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have
12 documentation on the insurance bill,
13 electric bill for residency. You are the
14 owner . You have seen on the application
15 that there is a series of questions that you
16 have answered. Pretty standard. That we
17 have to take into consideration . Terms -of
18 occupancy, square footage and so on. We
19 have a calculated area of livable floor area
20 of 800 square feet, rather than the 750
21 square feet permitted; however, that
22 authorizes us to also address that as an
23 area variance as code, and it is so stated
24 in the legal notice .
25 MR. SCHNEIDER: I am not sure how
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 182
1 Mr . Verity came up with that calculation .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I did check
3 the code, and the State code differs from the
4 local code, in that the local code does in
5 fact, does not exempt, does not exempt
6 bathrooms and closets from the calculations
7 of livable floor area .
8 MR. SCHNEIDER: I saw that as well, but
9 the knee walls would be taken into
10 consideration; correct?
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes , I believe
12 that is the part that is cut in, the two
13 L-walls .
14 MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes . Did he account
15 for the walls also, because if you are using
16 the outside dimension, I mean, there is six
17 inches between the walls . I know I am
18 getting petty, but isn ' t that livable space?
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Apparently, they
20 either add up the total of the separate
21 rooms, but in your case, you have no hallway
22 and you have no stairs . So it ' s perfectly
23 reasonable to calculate the perimeter of the
24 whole structure and we have to go by his
25 calculation .
. May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 183
1 MR. SCHNEIDER: Okay .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But it isn ' t
3 really a problem because it ' s already
4 written " as a variance from the 750 square
5 feet .
6 MEMBER HORNING: Is the property for
7 sale?
8 MR. SCHNEIDER: It is .
9 MEMBER HORNING: Does that have any
10 bearing on the tenant or the change of
.11 tenants?
12 MR. SCHNEIDER: To my understanding,
13 it ' s up the purchaser . I mean, they have to
14 reapply for the permit . I was looking to
15 get the CO, whether I stay there and don ' t
16 sell it . My real estate agent is familiar
17 with the Town Code . So should any potential
18 purchaser, they should have to apply for a
19 permit, that is the way I understand it .
20 MS . ANDALORO : ( In Audible) .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is correct .
22 If the legal notice reflects the calculation
23 of livable floor area --
24 MS . ANDALORO : I am saying that there
25 is no application for an area variance .
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 184
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is correct .
2 There is . none .
3 MEMBER DINIZIO : If you have determined
4 the square footage, can you give us those
5 calculations , can you give us what you think
6 it is?
7 MR. SCHNEIDER: Well, I was under the
8 impression when I applied that closets and
9 the bathroom would be deducted. But I
10 determined with the Town Code itself that
11 that is not the case . You know, I have few
12 different answers from a few different
13 people . So whatever you require .
14 MEMBER DINIZIO: How many square feet
15 is it?
16 MR. SCHNEIDER: Why I think if it even
17 -- going by the Town Code by saying the
18 bathrooms are included and so is the closet,
19 I mean the knee walls -- each of them are
20 4x6 . I was told by someone that -- and I am
21 not a builder . I don ' t have a lot -- you
22 know, this is not my area of expertise, but
23 they were telling me that livable space
24 would be the interior dimension . By just
25 going by an outside dimension, it would be a
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 185
1 six inch difference for the entire
2 perimeter .
3 MEMBER DINIZIO : I agree with that. We
4 have 800 . All I want from you, if you
5 dispute that, just give us your calculation
6 on how you think it should be calculated.
7 And that is not going against the Building
8 Department . That if you think knee walls or
9 whatever your interpretation of it is --
10 MR. SCHNEIDER: 728 square feet .
11 MEMBER DINIZIO : How much?
12 MR. SCHNEIDER: 728 square feet .
13 MEMBER DINIZIO : That is kind of what I
14 wanted. We do establish, you know, we know
15 that the Building Inspector has the final
16 say. He says it 800 . You differ from that .
17 All I wanted is that difference .
18 MR. SCHNEIDER: I am saying between the
19 six inch difference between the walls and
20 the two knee walls, I would say my
21 calculation is 728 square feet .
22 MEMBER DINIZIO : You couldn ' t possibly
23 live in a knee wall . So we ' re talking about
24 livable space, okay. Common sense says .you
25 can ' t live in a knee wall .
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 186
1 MR. SCHNEIDER: I don ' t think you would
2 want to live in a closet either, but I
3 didn ' t write the code .
4 MEMBER DINIZIO: I just wanted to get
5 that out there .
6 MEMBER HORNING : Leslie, I need to be
7 excused.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Member Goehringe.r
9 needs to leave --
10 MEMBER HORNING: Horning .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We ' ve had a long
12 day.
13 Gerry, do you have any questions for
14 this applicant?
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, I am still a
16 little confused about the square footage,
17 but we will deal with it . And you actually
18 -- I didn ' t see the interior, but I had a
19 very, very bad situation occur that day and
20 I am sorry that I didn ' t make it over .
21 MR. SCHNEIDER: Is there something that
22 I need to apply for my current addition for?
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No . Notice of
24 Disapproval ' s are not part of the Special
25 Exception permit . The Board has a right to
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 187
1 review those . They don' t go to the Building
2 Department, but with this particular Special
3 Exception permit, the Building Department is
4 given the application from us as a referral
5 and they have the jurisdiction to calculate
6 the livable floor area to make sure that it
7 is conforming, or that it is not conforming .
8 And that is our Notice of Disapproval . If
9 they say that it is nonconforming for that
10 section of the code, and we are authorized
11 to act, although it is our Notice of
12 Disapproval . So you don ' t need a separate
13 application.
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : That ' s why this
15 particular application is here . We had a
16 hard time getting from the- Building
17 Inspector any application at all . At least
18 this way, we have one person who knows at
19 least is the point person on our code, the
20 Building Inspector, that gives us a hard
21 number that should be consistent for every
22 applicant that comes to the Town, and then
23 we can go from there . We can grant a
24 variance .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What we will need
1
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 188
1 from you of course, is documentation from
2 Philip for the current applicant as
3 qualified for the Affordable Housing
4 Registry.
5 Is there anyone else in the audience
6 that would like to address this application?
7 (No Response . )
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
9 further comments, I am going to make a
10 motion to close this hearing subject to
11 receipt of information received regarding
12 the eligibility for the Affordable Housing
13 Registry of the current occupant .
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
16 MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye .
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
19 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
20 ******** ***********************************
21 HEARING #6559 - BARRY ROOT
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
23 application before the Board is for Barry
24 Root, #6559 . Request for variance from
25 Article XXII Code Section 280-116 (B) based
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 189
1 on an application for building permit and
2 the Building Inspector ' s February 14 , 2012
3 Notice of Disapproval concerning proposed
4 partial demolition and reconstruction with
5 additions to a single family dwelling, at ;
6 1 ) less than the code required bulkhead
7 setback of 75 feet, located at : 6315 Indian
8 Neck Lane, adjacent to Richmond Creek in
9 Peconic .
10 Please state your name for the record?
11 MS . ROMANELLI : LeeAnn Romanelli .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Thank you .
13 This is a partial demolition with additions
14 with a bulkhead setback of 62 feet , whereas
15 the code requires 75 feet .
16 MS . ROMANELLI : Yes .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. So please
18 proceed with what you would like us to
19 know .
20 MS . ROMANELLI : Well, he is adding on
21 to the existing structure, which I believe
22 has been there since 1957 . The two adjacent
23 dwellings are closer to the water than this
24 dwelling is . It ' s really the most feasible
25 for him to just add on and do the additions
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 190
1 to the house instead of move or tare down
2 the house and move the house forward. He is
3 upgrading his sanitary system. So that will
4 be applied for. And he ' s got all water
5 runoff contained on his property. There
6 hasn ' t been, I don ' t think any objections
7 from any neighbor ' s . The houses are so far
8 set back from the road, you can ' t see
9 anything from the street .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Set very far back
11 away from the street . A long right-of-way .
12 So this dwelling has existed in its current
13 location since prior to 1957 . There is a
14 Pre-CO on it .
15 MS . ROMANELLI : Yes, prior to 1957 .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I noticed that
17 there is a newly installed bulkhead with
18 rip-rap on the property.
19 MS . ROMANELLI : Yes .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Quite a few
21 cottages in that area that have had some
22 construction done to it, over time .
23 MS . ROMANELLI : He is going up . He is
24 not going out .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So there is no
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 191
1 increase in the proposed nonconformity?
2 MS . ROMANELLI : No .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And that 62 feet
4 is the closest part to the house?
5 MS . ROMANELLI : Yes . It ' s the closest .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : S.o it ' s just
7 really to the one corner that exist right
8 now. I don ' t actually have any more
9 questions . Gerry, do you have any questions
10 on this?
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: When you use the
12 word, "partial demolition, " why are those
13 words used? You ' re not demolishing the
14 existing structure next door, are you? I
15 mean, the part that you ' re adding onto?
16 MS . ROMANELLI : No, well I guess
17 partial for partial of the existing house .
18 I don ' t know .
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You are taking the
20 roof off the existing cottage that is there?
21 MS . ROMANELLI : Yes, I believe they are
22 just going to make it all conformed, and
23 make everything the same .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But the walls
25 themselves are not coming down?
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 192
1 MS . ROMANELLI : No . Actually, no .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not the
3 perimeter, but all the interior walls are
4 being reconstructed.
5 MS . ROMANELLI : Right .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And then there is
7 going to be a partial new foundation for the
8 addition?
9 MS . ROMANELLI : Yeah.
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We just sort of ask
11 that question, because it gets a little
12 confusing after a while . Thank you.
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jim, questions?
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : No, it ' s just a
15 bulkhead setback. The demolition is just --
16 you ' re going to add onto the house . You
17 know, make whatever is going to be there
18 bigger .
19 MS . ROMANELLI : Yeah .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
21 in the audience that would like to address
22 this application?
23 (No Response . )
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
25 further comments , I am going to make a
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 193
1 motion to close this hearing and reserve
2 decision to a later date .
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
5 MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye .
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
8 ( See Minutes for Resolution . )
9 ***************************************** **
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Our last hearing
11 is for Hernan Michael Otano . I am going to
12 make a motion for no more than five minute
13 break.
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s been a long,
16 long day and we just need to regroup .
17 All in favor?
18 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
21 (Whereupon, a short recess was taken at
22 this time . )
23 ********************************************
24 HEARING #6557 - HERNAN MICHAEL OTANO
25 (BREEZY SHORES)
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 194
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Our next
2 application before the Board is for Hernan
3 Michael Otano, Breezy Shores, #6557 .
4 Request for use variance from Article XXIII
5 Code Section 280-123 and the Building
6 Inspector ' s December 12, 2011, updated
7 March 6, 2012 Notice of Disapproval based on
8 an application for building permit for
9 demolition and construction of a cottage at ;
10 1 ) a nonconforming building containing a
11 nonconforming use shall not be enlarged,
12 reconstructed, structurally altered or
13 moved, unless such building is changed to a
14 conforming use, located at : #5 Breezy Shores
15 Community, Incorporated, Sage Boulevard,
16 adjacent to Shelter Island Sound in
17 Greenport .
18 We now have a request before us for a
19 use variance .
20 MS . MOORE : Correct . Patricia Moore on
21 behalf of Mr .. Otano, and Mr . Otano is here .
22 I think some representatives from Breezy
23 Shores are also here, for support . What I
24 did was , I took my previous use variance
25 application . I elaborated on it . It
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 195
1 incorporates some of what you already had in
r"
2 the application but I elaborated on it . Got
3 some additional documentation . So hopefully
4 it addresses all of your issues and all of
5 your questions . It ' s lengthy because I am
6 getting paid by the word here, and I
7 apologize . I don ' t really want to read from
8 this but going through the different
9 elements of the use variance, it ' s really
10 not a use variance . It ' s kind of more of a
11 directive of it, in a sense -- essentially
12 what the Board, I think was asking me to do
13 was to get the use variance to maintain and
14 preserve the cooperative unit #5 within the
15 Breezy Shores Community, and the reason I
16 say that is, as you know, my client owns 1
17 share out of the 31 shares that are
18 comprised out of the 31 shares of Breezy
19 Community. He is one share interest, but
20 has no authority to change the use . Any
21 other use that is listed in the zoning
22 ordinance . Nevertheless, what I did in
23 order to address all of the standards , what
24 I did was -- to begin with the principal of
25 equity that -- and I cited it, equity will
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 196
1 not do or require a vain or futile or
2 useless thing . That is from New York
3 jurisdiction prudence . And it seems that it
4 would be applicable here, in that, when I go
5 through the specific listed permitted uses
6 in the R80 Zoning, District, it presumes a
7 great deal . It presumes that we have
8 unanimity of the Breezy Shores community to
9 agree to sell or develop the property as a
10 whole, within the context of the permitted
11 uses . Again, my client has no authority to
12 do anything on this property other than what
13 is between the four walls of his unit . What
14 I did do is based on the history of this
15 property, I did start out with the permitted
16 uses . I also -- just based on my notes
17 here, to tell you about the property, my
18 client brought for me his original
19 documents . Obviously I can not give you his
20 originals , but I can provide copies of them.
21 You can tell me if you want any of these for
22 your file . What I have from him is a copy
23 of the Breezy Shores proprietary lease . He
24 purchased it in 2001 . I did correct one
25 place . I was under the impression that he
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 197
1 bought it in 2002 . So my correction of the
2 paperwork is 2001 . So he purchased the
3 property in 2001 . He had been renting the
4 unit for quite some time before that . I
5 have a Breezy Shores stock certificate here .
6 And we do have proof of the real estate
7 taxes . His share requires a payment of
8 $1, 613 . 04 , and the Assessor charges the
9 community one large tax bill and it gets
10 portioned amongst the unit owners . He also
11 provided me with a balance -- like a Quicken
12 sheet that shows all of the payout ' s that he
13 has made since September -- is it 2002?.
14 AUDIENCE SPEAKER: 2002 is when we
15 first started using Quicken .
16 MS . MOORE : Okay. Thank you . The
17 property manager started using Quicken in
18 2002 and was able to give me a print out 'of
19 all the payments that Mr . Otano has made
20 with respect to this unit and it reflects
21 three and five hundred dollar payments,
22 miscellaneous payments that were required of
23 him as a unit owner . This particular
24 Quicken program, does not have the total
25 balance but it ' s four pages in length and it
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 198
1 does amount quite a bit of money over the
2 years that he has paid in management fees,
3 co-op fees, "and that are his obligation as a
4 unit owner . So I will definitely give you
5 this sheet . The Quicken outline, I don ' t
6 know if you do care, and I will give you a
7 copy of the taxes . To show you that he did
8 pay his taxes . I also put it in my use
9 variance application. I did refer to it,
10 but you were asking for a little proof
11 behind it, and that ' s fine . We were able to
12 get that . When it comes to the actual price
13 of the unit, I can swear Mr . Otano in and he
14 can give you the price . Unfortunately he
15 does not have the paperwork, and the
16 attorney that was able to provide me with
17 the sales in the last two years, because
18 that is when they were the attorneys that
19 were exclusive agents to handle the
20 transfers . But Mr . Otano would be happy, if
21 the Board wants to swear him in or you can
22 accept my representation that he paid
23 $118 , 000 . 00 . So I will leave that up to the
24 Board, and at the end, you can tell me what
25 you prefer . So I will give this back to
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 199
1 Mr. Otano because I don ' t want to be
2 responsible for these very important
3 documents . So as you can see, I .have an
4 affidavit . The original is attached to the
5 original packet, from Les Cortes . She is
6 the original attorney at Cohen & Warren .
7 They have provided the proof of the value in
8 the last two years of the units that they
9 are aware of . Prior to that, she does not
10 have that information available, but
11 certainly in the last two years , the units
12 have sold from anywheres of $250 , 000 . 00
13 minimum to $350 , 000 . 00 max, for the
14 different units . Those units differ in the
15 square footages . What I did is, for
16 purposes of our application and what it
17 would take -- what the value is of the
18 property, I took an average of those numbers
19 and I came to the average being $309 , 000 . 00 .
20 With 31 units , I calculated that the
21 property would be worth one whole, that is a
22 unit owner, $9 . 58 million . For purposes of
23 determining if this property could be used
24 for anything else by any other user, you
25 have to -- again, we . have to look at it and
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 200
1 say will somebody come forward and buy the
2 property from the unit owners or the unit
3 owners themselves will agree, that 31 people
4 will agree to a common concept of
5 development plan, but we will give you that
6 hypothetical anyway. Many of these reasons
7 are not economically feasible on this
8 property, given the uniqueness of this
9 property. Over a thousand linear feet of
10 waterfront . There is open space involved
11 and so on . So some of those issues would be
12 really be Breezy Shores coming in for a use
13 variance for the whole because again, my
14 client only has a small 1/31 interest in the
15 whole . I was asked to elaborate on this ,
16 and I will . So with respect to the
17 permitted uses of the one-family detached
18 dwelling, there had been prior applications .
19 I know I had given that to you before but in
20 1987 Harper View Realty acquired the
21 property and they attempted a subdivision
22 application, which didn ' t really go too far .
23 That entity went -- I want to say bankrupt,
24 in the process of trying to subdivide . They
25 defaulted on the Town and County taxes and
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 201
1 the mortgage on the Sage property. So the
2 Sage Family recovered the property. So
3 there had been an attempt to subdivide here .
4 There was also -- Mr . Goehringer you have
5 the longevity on the Board. In 1985 , they
6 appealed #3320, Bayview Corporation who
7 purchased from the Sage Family in 1985 , also
8 attempted to redevelop the property in a
9 clustered environment, and the variances
10 were denied. There is a little unique to
11 that application but the effort was made .
12 So partializing and splitting this property
13 up has been attempted in the past and has
14 been unsuccessful . With respect to other
15 uses that are permitted uses in this
16 two-family dwellings . Not exceeding one
17 dwelling on each lot . Again, would require
18 the subdivision of the property. Places of
19 worship, including pastor houses . Those
20 developments certainly would be -- I don ' t
21 know many churches or places of worship that
22 could afford this property. It probably
23 would be a more significant financial impact
24 to the Town on adverse impact because it ' s a
25 church and it ' s related uses would probably
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 202
1 be tax exempt . So whether that is feasible
2 or not , again, we are creating a real
3 hypothetical that the property would be
4 redeveloped. Elementary or high school,
5 colleges or other educational institutions .
6 Again, that is most likely not a
7 possibility, because public funds are just
8 not there for those type of uses to acquire
9 the property. The philanthropic, health
10 care, continuing live-in facilities , I guess
11 if something like a Brecknock Hall would
12 want to buy the entire property, I think in
13 the long run, that would be a significant
14 intensification of the property. Even
15 though it ' s considered a preexisting
16 nonconforming use here . It ' s a very minimal
17 use of the property versus the redevelopment
18 of one of these properties and that would be
19 a significant intensification. Town
20 structures , I mean, if you would like me to
21 proceed, it ' s all in writing here . It
22 really is -- the uses -- the whole analysis
23 is really not feasible here . I am doing it
24 to comply with the standards under a use
25 variance . More importantly, the standards
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 203
1 of proof here would be the ( In Audible) the
2 price of the property. Mr . Otano knew that
3 one of the seven had sold for $385 , 000 . 00 ,
4 but more importantly, I have the affidavit
5 of the properties that were sold in 2010 and
6 2011 . So you can see that . Even that
7 number -- all the numbers are in the threes ,
8 and was consistent with what Mr . Otano was
9 hoping after he made improvements to his
10 property. His property would be worth
11 around the same range of three hundred' s ,
12 after the improvements were made to his
13 property. With respect to the maintenance
14 of the property. I will give you that
15 outline of all these expenses, and they are
16 significant . I think we calculated basic,
17 the $3600 . 00 for the taxes, plus the certain
18 maintenance fees were easily over
19 $36, 000 . 00 . Also importantly here, each of
20 these unit owners have made a significant
21 investment, without a mortgage . And
22 understand that without a mortgage, in some
23 cases would be an additional loss because
24 you owe the mortgage if the building is
25 there or not . You continue to pay. But
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals . 204
1 there is another way of looking at it, which
2 is that you have to come to the table with
3 your savings in place, you don ' t have the
4 ability to get a mortgage and pay it over
5 time . Because of the nature of the
6 ownership, these homeowners come in with a
7 bundle of cash and they have to invest their
8 life savings essentially into buying this
9 unit, which is what my client did. He took
10 his savings and bought a unit, and that is
11 what is at risk today. There has also been
12 the rental value of the property. He
13 himself rented this unit prior to his
14 acquisition, and other units here are able
15 to rent . So the rental value is also
16 applicable here . And then finally the
17 amount that he spent to date for all of his
18 expenses are in the range of $40, 000 . 00 , and
19 going up with all of the processes that he
20 has had to go through .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat, do you have
22 any documentation of those expenses?
23 MS . MOORE : The labor, material,
24 professional fees and so on? I mean, we
25 could -- could we do it by sworn statement?
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 205
1 I don ' t like to say that he has paid in
2 legal fees "x" amount and I just think that
3 that is ( In Audible) but I don ' t know -- do
4 you have something?
5 MR. OTANO : Hernan Otano . I have
6 invoices from Riverhead Building Supply that
7 easily come close to that . And then I have
8 at least two signed estimates up to this
9 work here with me . One for the lifting of
10 the house, which was $8 , 000 . 00 and the other
11 one was for the mason with the new
12 foundation . That was an estimate of
13 fifty-seven but I know that went beyond
14 that .
15 MS . MOORE : I can make copies and
16 provide it for the record, if that ' s all
17 right?
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes .
19 MR. OTANO : The invoices are RBS .
20 There is at least 50 pages there of
21 materials .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The reason that I
23 ask it, it ' s fairly obvious because the law
24 -- the first of the four tests that one must
25 pass for this type of variance requires that
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 206
1 the argument for financial information has
2 to be demonstrated by competent financial
3 evidence and it ' s not personally that I am
4 questioning what you have submitted but we
5 have to have in the record, you know, a
6 statement from counsel . Have to have some
7 evidence .
8 MS . MOORE : That is fine .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think you are
10 getting closer to that information . Sworn
11 affidavit, notarized affidavit is fine . I
12 assume it could be corroborated by the
13 association that these fees are what people
14 pay.
15 MS . MOORE : This actually came from the
16 Breezy Shores community directly.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That ' s fine .
18 MR. OTANO : I picked it up from Mary
19 Teers (phonetic) this morning.
20 MS . ANDALORO: Can they certify it? Is
21 it on their letterhead?
22 MS .. MOORE : It says Breezy Shores
23 Community Inc . Customer Balance Details , Old
24 Transactions .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let ' s see those .
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 207
1 I would have to look --
2 MS . MOORE : That ' s fine . We will
3 provide you those and he can put on the
4 record that he picked it up from --
5 MR. OTANO: Mary Teers who is the
6 property manager . When I asked for it last
7 night, I said to her, could it be in some
8 official form? She said, well it ' s
9 Quickbooks and I don ' t know Quickbooks, but
10 she said it ' s a standard --
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It ' s a printout .
12 MR. OTANO: Yes .
13 MS . MOORE : So take a look at it, if
14 you want it certified in some way, let me
15 know? So we will get you the documentation
16 on the labor materials and certain fees that
17 he has already incurred.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes . In view of
19 not having a contract of sale, we will need
20 a sworn affidavit .
21 MS . MOORE : We do have a contract of
22 sale?
23 MR. OTANO : I have a contract for the
24 whole Breezy Shores . The original sale from
25 the Sage ' s to Breezy Shores Community Inc .
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of 'Appeals 208
1 MS . MOORE : No, that is not his
2 contract .
3 MR. OTANO : Okay. I will shut up now .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see you have an
5 affidavit corroborating the transfer of
6 sale, you know prices were comparable .
7 MS . MOORE : Okay. Is that better for
8 you?
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Definitely
10 better . Do you want to move onto the second
11 test?
12 MS . MOORE : Yes, the allege hardship
13 relating to the property is unique . Are we
14 ready for that? Again, it ' s a cooperative
15 owned with multiple units . They have been
16 in existence since the 1900 ' s and were
17 constructed as worker housing for the Sage
18 Family Brickyard. And again the cooperative
19 is comprised of the 31 stock shareholders ,
20 where they are a designated unit . No change
21 is allowed to the property without consent
22 of the 31 shareholders . Each individual
23 shareholder has an obligation to the
24 corporation to pay their share their
25 maintenance and repair for their individual
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 209
1 unit . They can not independently -- they
2 can ' t act independently. They have one vote
3 of the 31 shares . So each unit has the one
4 vote . What I did describe is, the
5 uniqueness of this property is also that the
6 linear feet of bulkhead, which faces Shelter
7 Island Sound, the road is a private road and
8 maintained by Breezy Shores Inc . The
9 amenities come with the unit, and can not be
10 used independently of the unit . For
11 example, if the unit is rented the owner
12 can ' t use the amenities independent of the
13 rented unit . So if this unit were to not be
14 there, it would be questionable if he would
15 have any right to be on the property at all,
16 since the units gone and there is marinas
17 and other amenities of open space . Also,
18 the redevelopment of this parcel for luxury
19 homes or condos has been attempted and it
20 has been without success . So there is a
21 uniqueness here that this property --
22 probably it appears that this is the best
23 possible use .
24 Do you have any questions with respect
25 to that?
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 210
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, I think the
2 uniqueness of this property is well
3 understood by everyone on this Board.
4 Certainly you go to talk about it does not
5 apply to substantial ( In Audible) District
6 that is clear also . The request won ' t alter
7 the character of the neighborhood. I think
8 that is pretty clear also .
9 MS . MOORE : Right .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Cottages have
11 fairly uniformed bulkhead setbacks . They
12 have fairly uniformed sides . I would simply
13 make the point that the 82 acres that you
14 are referring to, much of that acreage is
15 unbuilt because of wetlands . That is not
16 really a major .point one way or the other .
17 MS . MOORE : I would also like to point
18 out in reading the R80 AC property purposes
19 section, that it was 'interesting in reading
20 that purposes section, it actually would be
21 consistent with the way that this property
22 is developed because it ' s -- the intention
23 here is to prevent the unnecessary loss of
24 those currently opened lands and those areas
25 with sensitive environmental features , which
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 211
1 is recharge areas . Also, these areas
2 provide open rural environment, so highly
3 valued by year round residents and those
4 persons who support the Town of Southold ' s
5 recreation, resort and second home economy,
6 which is essentially what this is . At least
7 in reading that, they ' re describing this
8 community. So I thought that -- I put it
9 into the memo because I thought it was
10 extremely relevant .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would actually
12 like you to address the self created or not
13 self created hardship issue .
14 MS . MOORE : Sure .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have
16 addressed it a little differently in what
17 you just submitted, relative to your first
18 brief .
19 MS . MOORE : Correct, because I
20 elaborated on it . He purchased the unit in
21 this community in 2001 . I did find another
22 place, it ' s 2001 . He has had to comply with
23 the community By-Laws to maintain the
24 structure, make the necessary repairs ..
25 Including reconstruct the structure as
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 212
1 needed. There was an action brought by
2 Breezy Shores Community Board threatening
3 that they were going to bring legal action,
4 if they did not replace the foundation
5 immediately. By immediately, obviously he
6 had to go through the permitting process .
7 Obviously nothing is as immediate plus
8 coming up with the funds and getting a
9 contractor, Breezy Shores was gettin
10 inpatient with Mr . Otano and he did finally
11 get that job done . He got the required
12 regulatory permits , and the Building
13 Department approved the replacement of the
14 new foundation. He, as he described before,
15 he raised the house to replace the
16 deteriorated foundation, and he made every
17 effort to preserve the existing structure,
18 but it was only after the foundation work
19 was completed, some walls were exposed.
20 That latent defects of the original
21 construction of the house were discovered.
22 We cite a case that the scope of the work to
23 make the existing house more conformed to
24 the minimum standards in the State Building
25 Code exceeded everyone ' s actions . His
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 213
1 actions are not self created hardship, which
2 would preclude the grant of the variance .
3 There was a case where I believe supports
4 what happened in this situation . In
5 addition, he and Breezy Shores always
6 believed that the continuation of the use of
7 the cottage was not threatened in any way by
8 making the improvements . Otherwise, only
9 Breezy Shores wouldn ' t have pushed so hard
10 for him to make the improvements -- because
11 it impacts Breezy Shores financial
12 investment and value of the property when a
13 unit is jeopardized. They were under the
14 impression that it was a permitted use . And
15 we had previous memorandum to that effect
16 and preserve our rights and that argument in
17 tact . I will not go over it all again, but
18 more importantly, building permit ' s had been
19 issued in the past . And to an outside
20 observer, Mr . Otano and Breezy Shores
21 Community, after he had purchased the
22 property in 2001, there were building
23 permits issued back from 2003, to as late as
24 2007 , for alterations and additional
25 improvements to the cottages . So he was not
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 214
1 -- neither side was under any impression or
2 notice that this was an issue and this would
3 be a problem. So with respect to the self
4 imposed hardship when he bought -- even
5 after he bought it, the building permit ' s
6 were being issued. So I believe that in and
7 of itself, would point out that he thought
8 he was doing everything right . Breezy
9 Shores thought no -- had no impression that
10 this was going to be a problem. And they
11 were quite upset when the Town came and
12 stopped him and now thought, "oh, what have
13 you done? You have done something wrong
14 here . " And we, as a community, and I have
15 heard this many times from the community,
16 they want a good relationship with the Town
17 and the Building Department . So I think
18 over -- now they understand the whole
19 concept of why it stopped and why it has
20 been such a difficult process because the
21 Town has been considering it a nonconforming
22 permitted use, but that was not the
23 understanding of the community or by
24 Mr . Otano throughout his ownership of the
25 property. Finally, I believe the new local
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 215
1 law may actually be relevant here . I am
2 raising it to preserve the argument,
3 preserve the issue . I spoke briefly with
4 Mike Verity and really wasn ' t sure how to --
5 how this particular application would fair .
6 However, as a matter 'of the proof that we
7 have given you, all of the new definition of
8 demolition, less than 750 of the structure
9 has been "demolished" and it ' s very
10 possible, that given the definition, we
11 don ' t need any variances or use variance,
12 but we are here . We are so far down the
13 process . I want to preserve that argument,
14 if we end up in Court . For now, let ' s move
15 forward. I think we have given you adequate
16 proof to grant the use variance and it would
17 benefit at this time for my client to have a
18 use variance . After all the money that he
19 has spent to cut the process out and you
20 know, it seems like a waste of money at this
21 point .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just make
23 a comment that you raise in your conclusion .
24 In your brief, you make a very important
25 point prior to that about the importance of
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 216
1 this Breezy Shores Community, culturally
2 important in Southold. It ' s uniqueness as a
3 cottage community. It ' s seasonal in nature
4 and so on . I think the Board understands
5 that . Does not take exception to that at
6 all . In your conclusion; however, you
7 indicate, should the use variance be granted
8 then, this structure in fact will become
9 conforming and as a consequence they may
10 therefore proceed to alter this dwelling in
11 the future without limitations applied to
12 nonconforming buildings . In that point, I
13 would like to put in the record, in order to
14 maintain the existing character of this
15 neighborhood, I disagree with that
16 statement . In fact, the cottages are all
17 seasonal cottages . And to suggest that it
18 could become larger than what it is now or
19 taller than what it is now, or expand the
20 footprint in any way without limit because
21 it is now "conforming, " would in fact
22 totally alter the unique historic seasonal
23 cottage type character of this neighborhood.
24 So I simply want to explain that I believe
25 that this Board recognized approaching the
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 217
1 strategy, the fact that we have a choice of
2 saying that it ' s demolished, go away,
3 good-bye, all bets are off or try to
4 approach it this way so as to recognize
5 Mr . Otano ' s investment and to try and find
6 some way of preserving the character of the
7 neighborhood instead of leaving a big hole
8 there . And so I simply want to state my
9 position here, which is that a
10 reconstruction of the footprint of the
11 seasonal cottage, I am comfortable with
12 going forward in that regard. To suggest
13 that it now becomes conforming and you can
14 do whatever you want with it, as a result,
15 is a flying in the face of what the actual
16 character of this property is .
17 1 MS . MOORE : I respect your opinion and
18 certainly there is no plan to expand or
19 anything else, but that seems to be the law .
20 MS . ANDALORO : I think she is talking
21 about the conditions on the variance .
22 MS . MOORE : Oh .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes . And I
24 believe the association --
25 MS . MOORE : Well, they have to approve
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 218
1 anything that gets --
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I am simply
3 saying that from my perspective, we ' re
4 reinforcing those kinds of decisions through
5 conditions on any type of Board action is
6 likely to be the case, from my point of view
7 anyway.
8 MS . MOORE : He has no problem with
9 that . He just wants his cottage back. I
10 think the community was always concerned
11 that they wanted to do some small
12 alterations, bathroom -- you know,
13 everything within the character of what they
14 had. Somehow or another, the interpretation
15 that comes through the Town is , you can ' t
16 touch this , you can ' t do this . And what I
17 think a use variance would allow is if the
18 community came back to you overall and asked
19 for a use variance for the entire facility,
20 maybe they could say to you, listen we -- if
21 we approve anything, it won ' t be more than
22 "X" percent of whatever . Whatever the
23 limitations are . That ' s not our argument --
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is not what
25 is before us .
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 219
1 MS . MOORE : No, no . But know -- the
2 reason I raise it, knowing how they felt, I
3 don ' t want to come later and say, you know
4 what , we just want a little more flexibility
5 when we have to fix something . To have some
6 percentage of allowed bump out because the
7 State Building Code may require it, or
8 hallways or whatever . That will be your
9 decision, but what I don ' t want to happen
10 is, that you give the blessing to the
11 community and because of we being the guinea
12 pig, the first one through the . shoot , that
13 the limitations places on us .-- that
14 everybody in the neighborhood can put in a
15 second bathroom or a hallway or something,
16 and now we ' re precluded.
17 MS . ANDALORO : I think what she is
18 saying is, if the Board were to any point in
19 time in the future to consider a global
20 variance --
21 MS . MOORE : Right .
22 MS . ANDALORO : -- for the entire
23 community, that Mr . Otano ' s property or any
24 other conditions thereon, be similar to
25 those .
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 220
1 MS . MOORE : That ' s would --
2 MS . ANDALORO: We could probably do
3 something like that . If the Board would
4 like to, I can do it .
5 MS . MOORE : I always think to the
6 future . Anything else?
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let ' s see if the
8 Board has any questions?
9 MS . MOORE : Yes, do you have any
10 questions because the rest -- again --
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jim, comments or
12 questions?
13 MEMBER DINIZIO : Yes . I would like to
14 see her explore the 75% rule . I would like
15 to see it, if you get a Notice of
16 Disapproval on that or an approval .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think in order
18 to do that, we have to deal with this
19 hearing . We left the previous area variance
20 open . We adjourned it in order to address
21 this , and said that we would revisit that
22 when this was concluded.
23 MEMBER DINIZIO : But the use variance
24 is such a drastic undertaking here . That I
25 -- I can see what Pat is saying . You are
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 221
1 giving a use variance and it seems like it ' s
2 going to be a conditioned use variance and
3 you know, that is going to be hard to
4 maintain in a place that you can ' t even see
5 from the road. I mean, you know, things
6 have gone on down there, knowing the place.
7 that I know, that cottages look different
8 then when I was a kid. And you know, I
9 don ' t anticipate that that will ever stop .
10 You know, just from your comments on wanting
11 to add a hallway or do something because the
12 State statute says, and quite honestly, my
13 approach would be, they stay rustic as they
14 are right now . And I think that if you
15 qualify for the 75% not having been
16 demolished, if you qualify for that, that
17 leaves the community right where they were
18 before he applied to us . And that is where
19 I would prefer that you be .
20 MS . MOORE : Well, how about I let you
21 guys deliberate on what the majority wants
22 me to do . You know, I made the phone call
23 to Mike, but I think it ' s just too fresh for
24 him to --
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is new law .
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 222
1 We have proceeded under an old law . I
2 believe we need to see this through under
3 the old law . Going forth, we have a
4 different set of conditions and we might
5 have approached that area variance
6 differently, had the new law been in effect .
7 We can ' t say what we would have done . All I
8 know is that this Board made it pretty clear
9 that based upon lots of testimony from the
10 Building Department and then plus, your
11 architect and all of us, that this was
12 considered a demo . It ' s a new foundation
13 and virtually an all new house . If there is
14 few roof rafters that remain and so on and
15 so forth. It was considered a demo and when
16 we decided to go and you ' re absolutely
17 right, this is not a conventional use
18 variance . But the closest thing of being
19 able to establish -- reestablish a use that
20 was there already. It ' s not like you are
21 going to put a restaurant there .
22 MS . MOORE : And reestablish one unit
23 out of 31 .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is
25 unorthodox, but it is a strategy that the
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 223
1 Board tried to meet the test, so that we can
-- 2 find a legally responsible way of finding
3 loss of equity. You know, other then saying
4 it ' s gone and you ' re done . You are out of
5 there . So I am happy that we have gotten to
6 this point, and we will see where we want to
7 go .
8 MS . MOORE : Jim, I had to put it on the
9 record because God forbid, you decide
10 against the client, and I am in court, the
11 change in the law with a architect
12 certification, would I think be beneficial
13 to my client .
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : I have no doubt about
15 that .
16 MS . MOORE : I don ' t want to necessarily
17 revisit everything . The building is subject
18 to the elements everyday and -it ' s -- you
19 know, I rather have it decided based on what
20 you got, because I have the sense that you
21 are trying to be helpful to the client . You
22 know, the equity is there . And we ' re so far
23 along, I appreciate it and I respect your
24 opinion, and I don ' t disagree with you, but
25 at this point, that should have been -- you
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 224_
1 know, months ago .
2 MEMBER DINIZIO : What does it take, two
3 weeks, to ask for a building permit? Based
4 on that . I am not going to argue the case .
5 I don ' t like -- and I know that the Board
6 senses that . I don ' t like to deviate from
7 the norm. I don ' t like these special things
8 that go on because they are -- to me, they
9 are just little ticking time bombs that
10 someone will misinterpret somewhere down the
11 line, ten years or twenty years from now,
12 and reach back in here and then all of a
13 sudden, we ' re right back where we started,
14 but only worse . And you know, if we have
15 laws and this falls under the law that we
16 currently have today, from the time that you
17 walked into this room, you know, I think
18 that is where we should be going . I mean,
19 we made the effort, the Town made the effort
20 to define demolition. They went through all
21 of that work. Granted they did it , during
22 the time that we had this hearing, but that
23 has no bearing whatsoever on this , other
24 than a lot of lost time, but you know, the
25 time is moving . You snap your finger and
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 225
1 it ' s not there anymore .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Here is the
3 point . We can conclude this proceeding
4 today and make a determination . Once that
5 is done . We will reopen -- we actually have
6 it schedule --
7 MS . MOORE : When is it?
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we
9 adjourned it till June 7th. Remember what
10 we said, we will entertain a request for an
11 additional adjournment, if needed.. We
12 scheduled it then, not really knowing how
13 long this was going to take, at your
14 request .
15 MS . MOORE : Because we didn ' t know this
16 was --
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct . So what
18 I am saying is, is that I don ' t feel that
19 there is any additional information that the
20 Board needs , other than what you said you
21 were going to submit .
22 MS . MOORE : Yes , but even as to the
23 other June hearing, I think that was pretty
24 much thoroughly heard.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right, but we
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 226
1 adjourned it in case there were additional
2 things to think about .
3 MEMBER DINIZIO: We didn ' t want to make
4 a decision on this but would have had to, if
5 this taken more than 62 days .
6 MS . MOORE : No, no . I agree . I asked
7 for it because I didn ' t want to be -- I
8 didn ' t want to have my time clicking on one
9 and knowing that this was running parallel .
10 So yes, absolutely. But you will tell me if
11 you want additional information on the other
12 variance?
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Fine . Is there
14 anyone out there who would like to testify?
15 Any comments that you would like to say on
16 this --
17 MR. OTANO : I would like to make one
18 more thing?
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just come back up
20 and state your name, Mr . Otano?
21 MR. OTANO: Mr . Dinizio you have had
22 the benefit growing up here and watching
23 this place, and I know Jim and everybody .
24 Before the community bought the place, yeah,
25 there was a lot of stuff that went on . Our.
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 227
1 community has and my case in particular,
2 this is uncharted territory for our
3 community. Some people have reacted to such
4 an extreme . I am the biggest villain of
5 this community. And all I ever tried to do,
6 was do it right . I was completely naive
7 going through this process . I love this
8 community very much, and you suggested that
9 things will continue to be done hazardly .
10 Let me assure you, this community has gotten
11 to a point, such a type of a point that they
12 don ' t want to do this . Like Pat suggested,
13 we want to be in good standing with the Town
14 of Southold people . Some people have said
15 you forced the community into such a
16 careless position against the Town, I was
17 just trying to do the right thing, and here
18 we are . I am still trying to do the right
19 thing. I appreciate that you guys are
20 working with me on this and our community.
21 Let me tell you this, and if I could speak
22 for the whole community, they are not doing
23 any kind of stuff that was happening 15-20
24 years ago . We are definitely doing it by
25 the book.
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 228
1 MEMBER DINIZIO : I have been on this
2 Board for 25 years and I have seen some
3 things and I have seen things come and go
4 and go around and around. And that lady
5 standing right next to you, has been before
6 the same thing, different, but many times .
7 MS . MOORE : And I must say in the last
8 25 years the Board has interpreted things
9 differently. Change is inevitable .
10 MEMBER DINIZIO : That is why I like to
11 do things by the written law . Let ' s go and
12 try and modify a use variance which is a
13 recent occurrence in Town, and you know, I
14 will work with you on and see where we could
15 go with it, and if not, we will try some
16 other stuff .
17 MR. OTANO : Thank you . Fair enough .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Hearing no
19 further questions or comments, I am going to
20 make a motion to close this hearing and
21 reserve decision to a later date, subject to
22 receipt of additional documentation of
23 financial evidence from counsel .
24 MEMBER DINIZIO : Second.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 229
1 MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye .
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
4 MS . MOORE : Just to simplify things ,
5 Vicki were you keeping track of things that
6 you want?
7 MS . TOTH: I really don ' t want a
8 hundred pages from Riverhead Building. I
9 know how they operate . If they can just
10 give us one statement . That and the -- what
11 was the other thing --
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me go back to
13 my notes .
14 MS . MOORE : Estimates .
15 MS . ' TOTH : That ' s what it was , the two
16 estimates from the foundation people,
17 invoice .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Affidavit
19 regarding the purchase price . Possible
20 certification of the Quicken spreadsheet, to
21 indicate that they are true and accurate .
22 MS . MOORE : So maybe we can just get a
23 certification .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, that will
25 work. See what I am trying to do is have
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 230
1 the proper evidence, so that when we are
2 writing a decision, we can refer back to
3 specific documentation . It isn ' t again,
4 that I question the voracity of the claims ,
5 but the claims have to be documented,
6 according to the law.
7 MS . MOORE : That ' s fine .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just look at all
9 the list of things . Frankly, not that every
10 single one of these points is valid, but I
11 am going to go through them anyway. One,
12 contract of sale or affidavit of price .
13 Two, you provided some -- you have a
14 notarized comparable sale document . Three,
15 those have to deal with the fees, that is
16 the spreadsheet that you ' re proposing . We
17 just talked about some sort of
18 representation for construction costs and
19 estimates on the foundation, materials. and
20 so on . The loss of revenue for potential
21 rental . You don ' t need anything on that .
22 That is just the point that you are making .
23 I can equally argue that although you have
24 paid the maintenance all these years , you
25 have also enjoyed the benefit of the
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 231
1 property and living there . So we all have
2 to pay our rent, don ' t we . So we are at a
3 wash at that point . So I am just trying to
4 gather information that will give us data
5 that we need in order to write a valid
6 decision .
7 MS . MOORE : For example, if the
8 building is not there, you still have to
9 continue to pay the maintenance fees ,
10 because you are a stock owner .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, I
12 understand. That is a self created
13 hardship. All right . We ' re done here . I
14 think we have already closed this . Do we
15 all know what we are doing?
16 MS . MOORE : Yes .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Have a
18 good evening .
19 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
20 ********************************************
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am going to
22 make a motion to close the Regular Meeting
23 of the Zoning Board of Appeals .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 232
1 Gerry.
2 All in favor?
3 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
6 ************************************ *******
7
8 (Whereupon, the public hearings for
9 May 3 , 2012 concluded. )
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 233
1 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
2
3 I, Jessica DiLallo, certify that the
4 foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public
5 Hearings was prepared using required
6 electronic transcription equipment and is a
7 true and accurate record of the Hearings .
8
9 Signature •_ 4Dia
Q'y
10 Je ic
11
12 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
13 PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
14
15 Date : May 14 , 2012
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25