HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-07/05/2012 Hearing 1
1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD .OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK
2 ------------------------------------------- X
3
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
4 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
5 ------------------------------------------- X
6 RECEIVED
7 JUL 2 7 2012
8 Southold Town Hall
BOARD OF APPEAL
Southold, New York
9
10
11 July 5, 2012
10 : 10 A.M.
12
13 Board Members Present :
14 LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
15 GERARD GOEHRINGER - Member
16 ' JAMES DINIZIO, JR. - Member (Left at 2 : 53 P . M. )
17 KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member
18 GEORGE HORNING - Member
19
20 JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney
21 VICKI TOTH - Secretary
22
23 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
24 P . O . Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
25 ( 631 ) -338-1409
2
1 INDEX OF HEARINGS
2
3
4 Hearing: Page :
5 Richard Meyerholz, #6556, 3-33
6 D. F. & J. M. Harris Children ' s Trust,
7 #6570 33-47
8 Mill Creek Partners, LLC, #6575 47-77
9 Alan Fidellow, #6578 78-92
10 8925 Bay Avenue, LLC, #6577 92-103
11 Vincent and Carol Manago, #6576 103-108
12 Brian Ziegler, #6572 108-122
13 Paul A. & Elizabeth L . Reinckens , #6573 122-139
14 John & Angela Reinertsen, #6574 139-170
15 Edward J. Conner, #6566 170-176
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 3
1 HEARING #6556 - RICHARD MEYERHOLZ
2 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Good morning again.
3 For the record, Richard Meyerholz . I am
4 here to represent Meyerholz property,
5 request for zoning variance . Okay. Back
6 in May when we first met and we submitted
7 original plans that drew some concern
8 around a variety of items . I also had an
9 individual -- my next door neighbor make
10 some commentary that can go on the record,
11 regarding the hot tub and shower . The
12 Board also still maintained some concern
13 around the side yard boundary, the front
14 yard setback and the lot coverage as
15 originally proposed. Subsequent to that
16 meeting in May, the Board received a
17 revised set of plans, drawings I should
18 say, and a site plan. Before we continue
19 any further, there were -- there were two
20 minor omissions from the drawings . One
21 was the actual location or the relocation
22 of the shower for the front, which is on
23 the site plan, and the drawings did not
24 include a staircase that was off of the
25 deck that was originally proposed. So
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 4
1 from the initial time, those were the only
2 two minor changes on the drawings . Okay.
3 So let me start with the two concerns by
4 Robert Swing from our May meeting, that
5 was the location of the hot tub, and the
6 shower . You will note here that on the
7 new site plan, there is a smaller proposed
8 tub on the north corner of the property
9 that measures around 5 feet across . The
10 shower, as I mentioned, which was also on
11 the southern line of the property line,
12 was relocated to the southern front corner
13 of the house, tucked in along side the
14 stoop area .
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a
16 question, Mr . Meyerholz? That is the
17 little box that you ' re showing there?
18 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Yes, it ' s difficult
19 -- where it says, "proposed FL 3 . 0
20 elevation, " that is to the left of it . So
21 it ' s in that corner .
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Now, the oil tank
23 is in the ground?
24 MR. MEYERHOLZ : The oil tank is
25 currently above ground, which will be
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 5
1 removed.
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So. there will be
3 no encroachments on that side?
4 MR. MEYERHOLZ : No, sir .
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That will be a
6 clean 5 feet?
7 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Correct, sir .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mr . Meyerholz,
9 I just have a question about that hot tub .
10 I don ' t see any drywell for the discharge
11 of the water that you occasionally require
12 to be removed, and replaced?
13 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Yes, ma ' am.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You ' re
15 proposing a hot tub seaward of the
16 dwelling?
17 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Yes, Ma ' am.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Which is quite
19 close to your setback, and you ' re going to
20 need to mitigate that, I think.
21 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Mitigate the
22 discharge or mitigate the tub?
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, the fact
24 that the tub requires discharge .
25 MR. MEYERHOLZ : It will be down
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 6
1 graded.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: But we will
3 need to see something on how the water
4 will be discharging onsite .
5 MR. BROWN : That was an omission on
6 my part . I apologize . There was a
7 drywell for the discharge in a previous
8 location . That would of course be
9 relocated.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So if we ask
11 you to submit an amended survey showing
12 the location of the drywell for the hot
13 tub --
14 MR. BROWN : Sure .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Did you want
16 to --
17 MR. MEYERHOLZ : If I could just
18 continue on with the changes? To address
19 the side yard issues, the Board had
20 concerns with the 3 1/2 foot side yard on
21 the south side of that corner near the
22 shower -- where the shower is going to be
23 located, in that corner there . It was
24 3 1/2 . We went and made that 5 , by simply
25 shifting the house 18 inches off of the
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 7
1 north -- off of the northeast corner . So
2 taking that off the northeast corner and
3 basically shifting the house 18 inches to
4 give us 5 feet of relief on that side
5 versus the current 3 1/2 feet that exist
6 today. That essentially is 5 feet on both
7 sides, equal . Now the previous plans also
8 had a combined of 5 feet . As you may
9 recall also that there was a 3 1/2 foot
10 and 6 1/2 side yard setback previously.
11 So it ' s effectively having shifted the
12 house 18 inches between the two property
13 lines .
14 MEMBER HORNING: Do we need an
15 amended Notice of Disapproval?
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have that,
17 yes . Let me just go over the variances
18 for the record. So we ' re clear on what is
19 happening.
20 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Okay.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have a
22 front yard setback at 32 . 5 feet, it was
23 previously 31 . 2 . The code requires 35
24 feet . We have a previous side yard
25 setback of 5 feet, which was previously
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 8
1 3 . 4 feet . The code requires 10 feet . And
2 there was a 10 foot, and there is now a 10
3 foot side yard, as well as another one of
4 9 . 9 feet . Combined side yard setback of
5 15 feet, where the code require 25 feet .
6 Lot coverage of 26 . 9 percent . Original
7 application was for 28 . 9 percent . The
8 code permits a maximum of 20 percent . So
9 there are the variances .
10 MEMBER DINIZIO: ( In Audible) .
11 MR. MEYERHOLZ : The combined side
12 yard is 10 .
13 MEMBER DINIZIO : So it ' s 5 and 5?
14 MR. MEYERHOLZ : That ' s correct .
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a
16 que,stion?
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, of course .
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In my particular
19 opinion, the planning is getting better .
20 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Thank you.
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am trying to
22 figure out what that jet out is .
23 MR. MEYERHOLZ : The jet out from the
24 old road to the --
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The one-story
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 9
1 frame to the -- what is that? Is that
2 1 foot 6 inches?
3 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Yes . That ' s correct .
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: About 18 inches?
5 MR. MEYERHOLZ : About 18 inches .
6 That ' s correct .
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want you
8 to -- I can ' t express to you the need to
9 have as much as of a setback on one side
10 of this house to get something to the
11 waterfront, if you really needed to do so .
12 In the past, in my particular situation,
13 it was always 8 feet, okay. 6 foot 6
14 inches , is definitely a relatively good
15 start, okay, but then when you drop it
16 down to the 5 , you know, it just kind of
17 -- I have to be honest --
18 MR. MEYERHOLZ : The use of the garage
19 space is to accommodate the fuel tank, a
20 staircase to get into the home, and a
21 heating system. So it makes it difficult
22 to narrow -- the narrower you make the
23 garage, it makes it difficult to move
24 something back out . 6 inch beam is
25 effectively 15 1/2 material . So it gets
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 10
1 kind of narrower as I propose . If I cut
2 it back any more than, I am not -- it ' s
3 going to be unusable space almost . It ' s
4 to use for the cars . I don' t think I
5 would be able to open the doors easily .
6 In addition, just to your point, sir, on
7 the lot coverage side of this, the
8 original plans had called for a 4 foot
9 overhang to the garage doors all the way
10 wrapping around the front door . That has
11 all been taken out; however, I was able
12 to, if you will, and if you would allow me
13 to, extend that garage out 18 inches . So
14 I effectively increase the length of the
15 garage from 21 feet to 22 . 5 feet . It was
16 20 feet or so, and now it ' s 21 .
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Here is the
18 problem also . We can ' t really put a
19 ladder on your property in a two-story
20 situation on that side at 5 feet . We ' ve
21 had significant testimony over the years
22 regarding that . I can personally -- this
23 is not my application, in reference to
24 Board members , 60 was the max if you
25 needed to put a ladder up two and a half
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 11
1 stories, or two plus stories . The
2 minimum, excuse me . That ' s the most
3 difficult thing. The 5 feet on . the south
4 side is pretty good, but that ' s the major
5 problem that I have with the 6 foot or the
6 5 feet on the garage, and I am just
7 throwing it out to you, okay.
8 MR. MEYERHOLZ : The jet out, that
9 area that looks over the current one-story
10 frame house, that portion, it ' s 6 1/2
11 feet . So just the jet out portion is
12 proposed one above it . There are no
13 windows designed on it, on that face .
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is where the
15 ladders is going to go then?
16 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Well, would it -- if
17 there is a need for evacuation, because I
18 think what you ' re probably referring to,
19 the windows on the western side, which is
20 the side facing the street, and the window
21 facing the south side, are easily
22 reachable . So those would be the exit
23 points if there is ever an issue .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It ' s not only
25 evacuation issue, it ' s maintenance of the
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 12
1 house . That is one of the issues that I
2 looked at . The other situations ,
3 because I have gone back down and looked
4 at the beach area, and for you to get any
5 of your equipment around -- because you ' re
6 only the second parcel from Island View
7 Avenue, would be very difficult also .
8 Even at 6 . 6 feet, you could get a small
9 backhoe back there if you had too . You
10 know, meaning to the waterfront area, but
11 I am looking at it as access to that area .
12 MR. MEYERHOLZ : If I may, to address
13 that issue of access to the beach side?
14 The only alternative that I could offer
15 here, is that any equipment that need to
16 come into the beach come in by barge .
17 They float it in, truck load it in, if
18 there is any maintenance work required. I
19 propose no seawall or any such
20 construction here . Minimal if any access
21 is going to be required to this side of
22 the home, but in the event there is severe
23 beach erosion or some other issue, I would
24 propose then my access option would be
25 barge, and bring a small piece in, in that
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 13
1 way. Not to disturb any properties on the
2 north and south side . So that would be an
3 option .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is an
5 option. The difference here, you ' re
6 demolishing this and building pretty much
7 from scratch . So the Board is obligated
8 by law to create the benefit -- it ' s not
9 just for you, it ' s for your neighbor
10 emergency access and so on . It ' s
11 important that we try and make this as
12 conforming to code as possible . That is
13 what our obligation of the law is . So
14 we ' re exploring with you the possibility
15 of expanding that side yard. It ' s easier
16 to expand that side, than it is on the
17 other side, because the angle of the
18 property line . Mr . Goehringer is
19 referring to the fact that when you have
20 very limited access to both side yards --
21 you ' re not a typical, that one side yard
22 is nonconforming . In fact, sometimes
23 there are both side yard ' s that are
24 nonconforming. One of them has to be more
25 conforming than 5 feet . That is what the
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 14
1 Board is talking about . I actually had a
2 question with regard to the LWRP
3 inconsistency, and you have a copy of
4 that .
5 MR. MEYERHOLZ : I 'm sorry, the LW --
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The LWRP . We
7 have a decision, a recommendation from our
8 Local Waterfront Revitalization
9 Programmer, Mark Terry. You do have a
10 copy of that?
11 MR. MEYERHOLZ : I don ' t .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That was from
13 the previous hearing .
14 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Okay. I will have to
15 check my records . My apologies .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, the Board
17 needs to address this . Because it ' s
18 inconsistent with the policies set forth
19 in the Town LWRP document . We need to
20 look at ways you can either make it
21 consistent . Mitigate some of the issues .
22 Move the structure . I think you have
23 already addressed moving the structure .
24 Let me show you in particular . There is a
25 recommendation here that landscape, is
July 5; 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 15
1 going around existing trees and area could
2 be filled with 18 inches of beach
3 material . I presume -- there is not that
4 many trees that are going to remain on
5 this property once you ' re done with this .
6 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Unfortunately,
7 because of the septic system, numbers of
8 trees -- the trees that you ' re referring
9 to, there is only one tree that grows
10 slightly through the deck that has to be
11 removed. The other trees that I am
12 proposing, in fact, I want to leave alone .
13 I want to protect those trees .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The way in
15 which the coordinator recommends
16 protection of those trees is to install
17 landscape wells around those trees .
18 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Okay. I am perfectly
19 comfortable with following those
20 guidelines . I think I was on record the
21 last .time I was here, those trees I would
22 really like to save .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Those are on
24 the seaward side that we ' re talking about?
25 MR. MEYERHOLZ : That ' s correct .
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 16
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken, do you
2 have any questions that you would like to
3 ask the applicant?
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes, I do . I
5 would defer to Mr . Goehringer ' s comments
6 also . I am particularly concerned with
7 the neighboring parcel to the south, and
8 the location of that dwelling. It ' s also
9 a two-story structure, and your ' s would be
10 similar to that . And I feel that a 5 foot
11 setback to your structure would be bring
12 those structures too close together . I
13 would like to see more distance between
14 that . Mr. Goehringer had mentioned 8
15 feet, is there any reason why you could
16 not locate your house at an 8 foot side
17 yard on that southern part?
18 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Why would I shift it
19 northward, and then that would be a 2 foot
20 side yard on the north side, which would
21 create an issue, I think, regarding any
22 ladders or maintenance access to that
23 second-story.
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: This is going to
25 be a demolition, I assume, and you ' re
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 17
1 willing to build a new foundation, because
2 you wrote down the structure on a
3 property. So that would require a new
4 foundation . So basically it ' s going to
5 require --
6 MR. MEYERHOLZ : I would have to defer
7 to the architect because I don ' t know
8 exactly how this is going to be
9 accomplished.
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Sure .
11 MR. BROWN : There are of course two
12 options . One is tare down everything and
13 rebuild from scratch. The other is to
14 maintain as much of the structure as
15 viable, and turn it on axis, to sit down
16 on the foundation, which is something that
17 our office has done in the past . In one
18 instance, we picked up a house and put a
19 new foundation under it and turned the
20 house 180 degrees , and put it down exactly
21 where it was . So those are two options .
22 , So when we get to the point of talking to
23 contractors to find out the most
24 economically feasible in doing this , we
25 would be making that decision, but I do
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 18
- 1 hold out the possibility that we would be
2 maintaining some of the structure .
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, actually,
5 Ken makes an important point . If you look
6 at the copy of the LWRP that we received
7 from our Board assistant, you will see in
8 bold on the first page, "the site plan
9 dated as last revised, February 21 , 2012 ,
10 does not reference the demolition of the
11 structure . It is recommended that the
12 Board clarify the structure to be
13 demolished. "
14 MR. BROWN : That of course goes to
15 the ongoing conversation with the Town
16 with the definition of "demolition, " which
17 of course is entirely up to you .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, it ' s
19 really up to the Building Department .
20 MR. BROWN : When I say "you, " .I
21 really mean the Town.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s now 75
23 percent .
24 MR. BROWN : When --
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 19
1 question, Mr. Brown?
2 MR. BROWN : Sure .
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This was a viable
4 situation on this plan to almost square
5 the house off on the property. In other
6 words , turning the house a little bit . In
7 doing so, we would assume that the
8 existing structure that is there is still
9 in the same position . So it ' s probably
10 going to affect some of the demolition
11 issues, is it not?
12 MR. BROWN : I am not sure I
13 understand.
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, if you have
15 a house that is not square to the
16 property, in other words, it ' s cocked a
17 little bit .
18 MR. BROWN : Yes .
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And you ' re now
20 going to build a new house,
21 super-implanted or a renovation of the
22 property line, doesn ' t that affect the
23 whole aspect of it, by just rotating it
24 just 18 inches on one side? I mean, I
25 think it would because now those
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 20
1 particular lines are not in sync . They ' re
2 not parallel to .
3 MR. BROWN : Well, the structure is
4 self contained . The entire structure
5 rotates -- pivots along the central point .
6 That structure can be maintained in its
7 integrity, if that is what you ' re asking .
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It can be?
9 MR. BROWN : Yes . As I said before, I
10 have been in situations where we have
11 lifted a house -- in this case, it was a
12 perfectly rectangular house, there was new
13 foundation underneath it, and rotated 180
14 degrees , and it was still the same house,
15 just with better views .
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, we can keep
17 on investigating this situation . As I
18 said, this plan -- you know, I think is a
19 better plan . I just think the side yard ' s
20 are extremely nonconforming. I mean, if
21 you take percentages and give you
22 percentages, it ' s nonconforming, but
23 they ' re significant .
24 MR. BROWN : I would offer that it is
25 an improvement over the existing --
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 21
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not withstanding
2 that .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:. Ken?
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The only issue
5 that I have is the side yard on the south
6 side . I believe 5 feet is just not
7 enough. Those two dwellings, the
8 neighboring dwelling and what you ' re
9 proposing is too close together .
10 Two-story buildings within 20 feet of each
11 other, it ' s just too close .
12 MR. MEYERHOLZ : I am not happy by
13 that either . It ' s a tight side yard. The
14 plans that were approved for that
15 property, with it being 6 foot on that
16 gentleman ' s property, with zero setback on
17 the southern side, at least one corner of
18 the property. I know, that it comes in on
19 the new construction some distance, but
20 effectively, the property has a zero side
21 yard on the southern side and a 6 foot
22 side yard on the north side of the
23 property, which is common to my property.
24 Now, the original plans that I mentioned
25 back in May,, I looked at those plans that
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 22
1 were submitted, it did not include those
2 staircase that goes up to the side door .
3 That staircase was subsequently installed,
4 which I don ' t believe was considered as
5 part of the side yard calculation . I may
6 be wrong, but from my understanding of the
7 Building Department , it didn ' t count . So
8 effectively, there is 18 inches of that,
9 between the outside plane of the staircase
10 and the gentleman ' s property line . Now,
11 how that happened, why that happened? I
12 wasn ' t aware of the distance . There has
13 been a preexisting home, as you know . The
14 6 foot side yard extended it back,
15 understanding the restriction of these
16 neighbors and the size of the lot . I
17 wasn ' t overly -- there wasn ' t much concern
18 that could be done about it . You know,
19 having this huge dispute, and involving
20 myself with another property ' s owner and a
21 debate with the Village . Not knowing --
22 had I known that there was a staircase
23 there, then I would have been here . That
24 clearly creates an encroachment on my
25 property that, again, I am not too happy
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 23
1 about . And you will notice in my plans,
2 there is no. windows on that side . It ' s
3 like, "hello, hello . " I can ' t change
4 what ' s already in place there, nor could I
5 change the dimension of this property. I
6 am trying to make the necessary changes so
7 that we can improve what is now a rather
8 very nonconforming piece of property on a
9 short piece of land, but there are only so
10 many things that I can do to try and make
11 those improvements . In each case that we
12 had discussed back in May, your concerns
13 and the concerns of Mr . Swing, were
14 incorporated into this latest design. So
15 if I could buy more land. If I could
16 create more, I certainly would, but I
17 can ' t . So that leaves me with my options
18 the way that they' re now. The original
19 , plan had 6 1/2 feet on that other side,
20 but because I am having to turn the house
21 about 18 inches, I am now losing a foot
22 and a half on the north side . So it ' s a
23 give and take . You know, short of
24 stripping that garage to 14 feet or
25 basically 13 feet, once I got an inside
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 24
1 diameter, I can ' t do anything with that
2 because I still have to incorporate in
3 that area, if I can ' t find a place to
4 locate it, a fuel tank, a heating system
5 and a staircase . I am out of ideas when
6 it comes to fitting all of that into that
7 confined space and still have room to
8 effectively use the garage as a parking
9 space . So having consulted with
10 Fairweather, Brown and reviewing these
11 documents at length, we thought this was
12 an alternative that -- isn ' t a perfect
13 plan, but it ' s a heck of a lot better than
14 it was, and still maintains the character
15 of the neighborhood. You know, I can ' t
16 speak for my neighbor to the north, their
17 house is sitting much closer to their
18 northern boundary, northern side because
19 of the way that house was built . I don ' t
20 know what is going to happen there, nor do
21 I have any control of what happens on the
22 other side of the property. I am just
23 trying to make a -- draw a plan here that
24 is going to be sensitive to the Village ' s
25 issues, my neighbor, and yet allow me to
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 25
1 build something that is going to be a
2 full-time residence and --
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right .
4 Let ' s see it the other Board members have
5 any questions . Jim?
6 MR. MEYERHOLZ : I am out of ideas .
7 MEMBER DINIZIO : No, other than the
8 fact that 5 feet for the side yard is just
9 too small . I understand ( In Audible) . .
10 MR, MEYERHOLZ : Sir, I am not
11 offering a reason . I am just offering a
12 fact .
13 MEMBER DINIZIO :_ ( In Audible) that is
14 one of those setback issues . Honestly,
15 that is not anything that I am going to
16 consider . It ' s very hard for me to agree
17 with you there . I think you ' re just
18 trying to put a lot of house onto a small
19 piece of property. You have a lot of
20 other things to live up too . The
21 drywell ' s now . The septic system is
22 probably much larger than it needs to be .
23 I know that all makes a difference to
24 setbacks and how you can position your
25 house . That I understand, but if you ' re
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 26
1 just going to take this thing and demolish
2 it, get at least 8 feet on that one side .
3 The architects are expensive . I know
4 that . Honesty, you have to consider the
5 laws of . the Town and the setbacks of the
6 Town when you do this . You know, "as
7 built ' s" or when you ' re building in place,
8 think of the Town when it comes to
9 nonconformity. Don ' t just put that
10 setback because you have it already.
11 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Is that what the
12 entire Board recommends that I go back and
13 shorten it, cutting back another 5 feet?
14 I don ' t know how I would do that . It ' s a
15 relatively narrow house to begin with .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, the Board
17 has to deliberate . We don ' t do that here .
18 You get a feel of what some of the
19 concerns are from the Board.
20 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Gotcha .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We aren ' t going
22 to be doing that here . We do at a Special
23 Meeting two weeks from now, that ' s
24 assuming we close the hearing today.
25 Before I carry on, George, I think you had
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 27
1 a question?
2 MEMBER HORNING: I should have asked
3 that at the original hearing, perhaps .
4 You did submit some photos?
5 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Yes , sir .
6 MEMBER HORNING : And they' re not
7 dated, and it looks like they may have
8 been taken perhaps at different times or
9 something. All different angles .
10 MR. MEYERHOLZ : No, they were taken
11 within a one to two hour period. I just
12 went up and down the block and snapped
13 photos . Those were probably snapped in
14 April .
15 MEMBER HORNING: I just want to ask
16 about the visual, I am losing myself in
17 it . Where is that in relationship --
18 MR. MEYERHOLZ : This is the north
19 side . This is the south .
20 MEMBER HORNING: Right . There is one
21 tree there?
22 MR. MEYERHOLZ : I took that out . You
23 can ' t see it here . This is the front
24 door . The window . Window .
25 MEMBER HORNING: The tree --
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 28
1 MR. MEYERHOLZ : This is the big one .
2 This is the big one here . This is the big
3 one that is here . This one -- there is --
4 see where this driveway turns? This was
5 taken -- you can see how far back the car
6 is .
7 MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Leslie, I just
9 have a couple of questions?
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, sure .
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have a question,
12 I guess this would be for Mr . Brown . I
13 have a question for you, please . Looking
14 at the survey, the existing finished floor
15 is 7 . 5 , at elevation . I am looking at the
16 original survey from Metzer .
17 MR. BROWN : We ' re proposing to finish
18 the elevation at 8 feet .
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: 8 feet . Okay,
20 that is 6 inches?
21 MR. BROWN : Yes .
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And we had had
23 discussions and you explained to us how
24 you were going to raise it 2 feet or 3
25 feet higher . If that is 7 1/2 feet now,
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 29
1 and you ' re going to 8 , that is only 6
2 inches . Where is the extra? I don ' t
3 understand. The foundation has to be two
4 courses of cinder block. Are you
5 following me?
6 MR. BROWN : I am not sure .
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You were going to
8 add to the existing foundation?
9 MR. BROWN : Yeah.
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Two courses of
11 cement block?
12 MR. BROWN : I believe so .
13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So that is 18
14 inches . So 18 , plus 7 1/2 , that would be
15 9 feet . So the finished floor would be 9
16 feet? All of being equal, I am assuming
17 that this structure technique would be
18 similar .
19 MR. BROWN : Yes, I have to double
20 check. I don ' t have the background
21 information with me . I would have to
22 double check. The point of the exercise
23 was to raise it to comply with FEMA code .
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Which is 8 feet .
25 So you only really had to raise your house
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 30
1 6 inches because --
2 MR. MEYERHOLZ : Yes . I see what you
3 are referring to, and that would be my
4 mistake, not the architect . It was my
5 understanding that there was two courses
6 because I just used my neighbor to
7 measure . That was my mistake .
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: There were a few
9 incongruities there, where one stated you
10 were raising it 3 feet, and then two
11 courses of block.
12 MR. BROWN : The courses are to raise
13 it to FEMA standards .
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Fine .
15 MR. BROWN : And we haven ' t done the
16 construction drawings yet .
17 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That ' s fine . I
18 just had a question because I was a little
19 confused on that .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Is there
21 anyone else in the audience that wishes to
22 address this application?
23 (No Response . )
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I believe we
25 have had ample testimony. I don ' t think
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 31
1 the Board needs to have any more hearings
2 on this . So to avoid any further delays
J
3 to you, the Board will write a draft and
4 will very likely suggest alternative
5 relief to the side yard setback that you
6 have proposed. We will deliberate and
7 determine what we think is a responsible
8 dimension, taking into consideration all
9 of the testimony that you have provided.
10 Then what will happen, once we deliberate,
11 it will probably be two weeks from today,
12 and you will then be asked to., assuming
13 that it is alternative relief, which means
14 that you don ' t have to submit more plans
15 and have another hearing. When you
16 comply, when you redesign the plans to
17 comply with whatever that relief might be,
18 you will then have to submit that to our
19 office, and we will stamp it as approved
20 by our office based upon the decision.
21 That goes to the Building Department and
22 you go and get your building permit .
23 MR. MEYERHOLZ : All right .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. So
25 hearing no further comments , I am going to
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 32
1 make a motion to close this hearing and
2 reserve decision to a further date .
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Subject to
5 receipt -- we will put that down as a
6 condition, and then when you amend the
7 plans, you can submit it .
8 MR. BROWN : (In Audible) .
9 (Not near a microphone . )
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right . So
11 let ' s not let that happen again .
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Your plans are
13 well documented because you refer to a
14 survey.
15 MR. BROWN : Not a survey, it ' s a site
16 plan .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Understand.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So no further
20 comments, I will make a motion to close
21 this hearing and reserve decision to a
22 later date ..
23 Is there a second?
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN; All in favor?
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 33
1 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
3 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
6 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
7 ******************************************
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to
9 recess for five minutes .
10 Is there a second?
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
13 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
15 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
18 (Whereupon, a short recess was taken
19 at this time . ).
20 ******************************************
21 HEARING #6570 - D. F. & J.M. HARRIS
22 CHILDREN ' S TRUST
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
24 application before the Board is for D. F.
25 and J.M. Harris Children ' s Trust, #6570 .
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 34
1 Request for variance from Article III Code
2 Section 280-15 and the Building
3 Inspector ' s March 28 , 2012 Notice of
4 Disapproval based on an application for
5 building permit for an accessory barn at :
6 1) accessory barn is proposed in a
7 location other than the code required rear
8 yard, located at : No number Clay Point
9 Road, off East End Road, Fishers Island.
10 Mr . Hamm, good morning.
11 MR. HAMM: Good morning . Steven
12 Hamm, 38 Nugent Street, Southampton, for
13 the applicant . I have the posting .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you.
15 MR. HAMM: I will be brief . I have
16 given the legal argument in the memo that
17 I am circulating, but I will describe the
18 project involved and the demolition of an
19 existing house, which has been completed.
20 The garage is still standing . It ' s used
21 for storage now, but it will be removed.
22 And you will see from the chart or the map
23 actually, that I have given you, in red,
24 is the available front yard. The
25 waterfront line and the street line are at
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 35
1 such an angle that this proposed
2 structure, which really is in a front
3 yard, except for Zoning Code definitional
4 purposes, throws it in a side yard, just
5 due to the angles of the two front and
6 rear property lines . One of which is a
7 waterfront line . And the point is , we ' re
8 -- at the completion of the project, the
9 very nonconforming garage, which is in
10 blue, I have just distributed, will be
11 removed. Some of the same functions will
12 be served by the barn, which will be well
13 off the street line now and close to an.
14 adjoining property, but meeting the
15 setback requirement of that adjoining
16 property. A key point of that adjoining
17 property is the fact that it ' s owned by
18 the Henry L . Ferguson Museum, and it ' s
19 dedicated to open space . So it will never
20 be improved. Attached to the memorandum,
21 Exhibits A as the declaration, with
22 respect to this property that was filed by
23 the Ferguson Museum, showing that it ' s
24 completely incumbered. So the impact here
25 on the neighborhood will actually be an
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 36
1 improvement, because this very
2 nonconforming garage that doesn ' t meet any
3 setbacks in the front, will be torn down .
4 The barn will serve the. same function. in a.
5 location, which is for all intent
6 purposes, is a side yard but due to the
7 anomaly of the angled of the streets and
8 the waterfront line, it ' s thrown into a
9 side yard. So it ' s a technicality in a
10 way. So if you have any questions , I will
11 be happy to try and answer them?
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is the barn
13 going to have in it, Mr . Hamm?
14 MR. HAMM: That is going to be used
15 for storage . It will have a workshop in
16 it . There is a workbench, I think, it ' s
17 showed on the plans . In the winter it
18 will probably be used to store a car and
19 those are the basic functions . It ' s a
20 typical accessory building . It ' s called a
21 "barn, " I am told by that architect for
22 schematic purposes . It ' s a country
23 setting and so forth . It won ' t have any
24 tractors in it and so forth .
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Will it have
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 37
1 electricity in it?
2 MR. HAMM: It will have electricity
3 in it and a half bath, and a sink.
4 Unheated.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Our attorney
6 and I were thinking the same thing . It
7 would be best schematically if it was
8 referred to as an "accessory structure" or
9 a "garage, " simply because by being a barn
10 it becomes an Ag structure, with no Ag
11 property here .
12 MR. HAMM: No .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So
14 technicalities matter here, I guess .
15 MR. HAMM: I asked the architect
16 about that .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don ' t want
18 to grant something --
19 MR. HAMM: Then please, make the
20 application amended to reflect that
21 accessory structure for storage and other
22 permitted uses , in this R-120 Zone
23 District . And if you need us to have the
24 nomenclature changed on the survey --
25 rather the site plan, let me know, and I
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 38
1 will have that arranged?
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, because
3 the Notice of Disapproval will suggest
4 that it ' s for an accessory barn . So it is
5 a technicality but again, the Board
6 doesn ' t want to create a precedent here .
7 MR. HAMM: Aren ' t there some
8 agricultural uses permitted in a
9 Residential District?
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There are .
11 MR. HAMM: Let me know what you need
12 me to do on that .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know, why
14 don ' t we just get an amended Notice of
15 Disapproval stating a garage or an
16 accessory structure .
17 MR. HAMM: And I will have the
18 surveyor change it on the site plan .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just making
20 some notes here .
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The max we can go
22 is 18 feet right?
23 MR. HAMM: In height?
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is --
25 MR. HAMM: It ' s conforming in height ,
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 39
1 I know. You can go to 22 , I think. It
2 has enough lot area . So the permitted --
3 there are two permitted places, basically
4 each of them is really not feasible .
5 MEMBER HORNING: And can you explain
6 in detail why that is?
7 MR. HAMM: The rear yard location is
8 undisturbed and very slopping, and would
9 require permitted from the environmental
10 authorities , and disturbance of more or
11 less a pristine area . Where the front
12 yard location has been disturbed, as has
13 the side yard location where the barn will
14 be . So that is not so much a factor, as
15 the fact that the available front yard,
16 that is a sliver of about 14 feet, as you
17 can see from the map that I have
18 distributed at the beginning of the
19 hearing, and that is really insufficient
20 to support this structure, which is fairly
21 modest . It ' s larger than existing garage,
22 but the new house is actually fewer square
23 feet than the former one . It ' s not
24 unreasonable for the applicant to have a
25 structure of fairly modest size there and
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 40
1 the available front yard not really
2 supported. Another factor that I didn ' t
3 mention, but it ' s mentioned in the
4 memorandum, is the fact that they want to
5 take advantage of the existing driveway,
6 which is another disturbed area . So that
7 would interfere as well, trying to enforce
8 it into a front yard. It will also --
9 putting it in there, would have more
10 impact on the only other nearby property
11 that uses the same street, which is the
12 Walsh ' s property. So this is more of an
13 advantage to Walsh. It ' s more away from
14 the street and it ' s closer to a lot that
15 will never be disturbed, or never be
16 improved, I should say.
17 MEMBER HORNING: Which you have on
18 both sides?
19 MR. HAMM: Exactly . Well, we were
20 here a few years ago .
21 MEMBER HORNING: How about the --
22 it ' s going to be used as a garage, did
23 they consider attaching it to the
24 principal house?
25 MR. HAMM: That I am not sure of the
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 41
1 design feature . I think in the summer
2 it ' s not going to be used so much as a
3 garage . It ' s going to be used for storage
4 of a car in the winter . It ' s right off
5 the -- the existing situation had a
6 nonconforming accessory structure that was
7 detached, and this is becoming more of a
8 conforming situation.
9 MEMBER HORNING: What kind of
10 foundation does the accessory building
11 have?
12 MR. HAMM: It ' s a slab of 4 inches
13 above grade .
14 MEMBER HORNING: And then it ' s going
15 to be tied into new septic system also?
16 MR. HAMM; I believe so . I would
17 have to refer again to the site plan. I
18 think that is shown on the site plan .
19 CHAIRPERSON. WEIS.MAN.:_ Yes . There is.
20 a half bath shown in the structure .
21 MEMBER HORNING: I went out there
22 without the Board a couple of times , and
23 the first time I went there, there was
24 nothing staked out and no notices posting
25 of a hearing or anything. The second
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 42
1 time, I went out there, which was a week
2 ago, last Friday, actually arrived in the
3 middle of the day. I had a chance to go
4 there, and the contractor was actually
5 carrying the Notice of Disapproval sign
6 out to the street to put it in place, and
7 then they gave me something on how they
8 had been advised not to put it up until
9 the very last minute, and take it down
10 immediately after the hearing and such .
11 MR. HAMM: That wasn ' t advice from
12 me, no .
13 MEMBER HORNING: I am just mentioning
14 that to you . And then the accessory
15 building staked out, was still not made
16 and the contractor basically showed me
17 where it was . I had been to that property
18 many, many times through my line of work
19 anyway. So I am familiar with the house
20 and the old folks that live there, and now
21 their children have it . There is a giant
22 Oak Tree right in the middle basically,
23 where this accessory building is going to
24 be, and the contractor went on to kind of
25 say -- and there was a (In Audible) soil
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 43
1 and this was the reason why they couldn ' t
2 stake it out . And then he went on to
3 mention, digging up the tree and trying to
4 move it . Are you aware of any --
5 MR. HAMM: No, that has not come up
6 in any of my discussions with the owner or
7 the architect . I -- In terms of when he
8 posted the property, he told me on the
9 19th, and so the affidavit --
10 MEMBER HORNING; $o the 19th of?
11 MR. HAMM: Of June .
12 MEMBER HORNING : I can guarantee you
13 it was not then . I was there last Friday
14 and the guy had it in his hands . I
15 already explained what I saw, and it got
16 me a little bit concerned, because I am
17 thinking of my fellow colleagues or
18 anybody would go there to do an
19 inspection --
20 MR. HAMM: I agree with you, but he
21 had it from me, well in time to do it in
22 time, and had instructions as to when to
23 do it .
24 MEMBER HORNING: Probably did.
25 MR. HAMM: I put it in a transmittal
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 44
1 letter and I sent him a copy of the notice
2 from the Board, and I highlighted it . And
3 Mr . Shillow (phonetic) has done many of
4 these for me in the past . I think he is
5 aware of what ' s going -- what it should
6 be .
7 MEMBER HORNING : Be was not on the
8 site, but the same man that I have known
9 for many, many years was there carrying
10 the sign . A few other contractors were
11 there . They scoped out a lot of the work,
12 and I didn ' t know them, but I did know the
13 main onsite person, and he ' s the one that
14 told me what I related to you .
15 MR. HAMM: Well, I am making a mental
16 note for myself to put it in bold face
17 next time I send it to them.
18 MEMBER HORNING: Keeping the peace,
19 don ' t involve me too much, but just
20 mention that there was some question from
21 ZBA about whether it was posted properly
22 and staked out for the accessory building .
23 Thank you.
24 MR. HAMM: Thanks .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The accessory
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 45
1 will have no heat?
2 MR. HAMM: No heat .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Ken,
4 questions?
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry,
7 questions?
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jim?
10 MEMBER DINIZIO ; No, not at the time .
11 Just to go on record, is there any reason
12 why it ' s not going to be attached to the
13 house? You wouldn ' t need a variance for
14 it .
15 MR. HAMM: That did not come up . So
16 I can ask the architect . Z think for
17 architectural purposes . Visual purposes .
18 Keep it away from the house .
19 MEMBER DINIZIO : On the survey, is
20 there some sort of right-of-way?
21 MR. HAMM: Let me see . Which side
22 are we on? Oh yeah . What happened was,
23 two years ago, and this was before your
24 Board, David Harris had given the Ferguson
25 Museum land to the north, and gave too
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 46
1 much . We came back to your Board for a
2 lot line change, and added both to the
3 south and north of this property. So that
4 was a Citg.o road spur on a paper road that
5 they acquired from Citgo . That part of
6 it . It ' s part of their property and
7 adjoins Ferguson now .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there any
9 other questions?
10 (No Response . )
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Is there
12 anyone in the audience that would like to
13 address this application?
14 (No Response . )
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
16 further comments, I will make a motion to
17 close this hearing and reserve decision to
18 a later date subject to receipt of a
19 Notice of Disapproval and survey to amend
20 the language from "barn" to "accessory
21 structure" or "accessory garage . "
22 MR. HAMM: Thank you .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there a
24 second?
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 47
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
2 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
4 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEI'SMAN : Aye .
7 (See Minutes for Resolution. )
g **** *************************** ********
9 HEARING #6575 - MILL CREEK PARTNERS, LLC .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
11 application before the Board is for Mill
12 Creek Partners , LLC, #6575 . Request for
13 variance from Article XXII Code Section
14 280-116 (B) based on an application for
15 building permit and the Building
16 Inspector ' s February 29, 2012 , revised
17 May 7 , 2012 Notice of Disapproval
18 concerning permit to construct a dock
19 master ' s building and addition/alteration
20 to existing restaurant, at; 1 ) dock
21 master ' s building at less than the code
22 required bulkhead setback of 75 feet,
23 2 ) additions/alterations at less than the
24 code required bulkhead setback of 75 feet,
25 located at : 64300 Route 25, adjacent to
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 48
1 Southold Bay, Greenport .
2 Is there anyone here that would like
3 to address this application?
4 MS . STEELMAN : Nancy Steelman,
5 Samuels & Steel Architects . I think the
6 first place to start is the proposal, we
7 have for the existing restaurant that
8 really wasn ' t very clear, I feel, on the
9 Notice of Disapproval, but we ' re planning
10 there, there is a new entry, which is
11 going to be on the eastern end of the
12 building. We felt that most of the
13 parking was further down on the site on
14 the marina area . For people to walk all
15 the way around to the very front of the
16 building, that faces the street, really
17 didn ' t make a lot of sense . So what we ' re
18 proposing is a new entry on the side . The
19 existing will stay, "as is . " Most of the
20 area in the front of the building will be
21 used for handicap parking, there is an
22 existing ramp there . So part of that is
23 one-story portico covered entry area that
24 we ' re asking for relief on. That is
25 set-up at 45 feet from the existing
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 49
1 bulkhead. Actually we ' re in construction
2 now of that new bulkhead area . So that is
3 45 feet in that area . So that is a new
4 stone terrace and covered entry. The
5 secondary variance that we ' re asking for,
6 is for a new dock master ' s building . This
7 is primarily for the marina to the south,
8 with two handicap bathrooms on the lower
9 floor, and a dock master ' s office, an
10 administration office on the second floor,
11 with a small deck that faces the marina .
12 This building is really only for support .
13 It ' s very small . We were really tight on
14 parking . So we created a building, maybe
15 the size of a one-car garage,
16 16 1/2 x 20 feet, and that was really
17 because of the bulking restrictions that
18 we have on this property. So that is our
19 basic proposal to the Board, and we ' re
20 here to answer any questions or concerns
21 you might have .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN ; There is a
23 couple of things that we should sort out
24 on the record. With regard to the
25 entrance, the side entrance .
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 50
1 MS . STEELMAN : Yes .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The LWRP -- you
3 have copies of the LWRP?
4 MS . STEELMAN : Yes , I do .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the
6 Planning Board memorandum?
7 MS . STEELMAN : Yes , I do have all of
8 them.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And we just
10 received a copy from the DEC .
11 MS . STEELMAN : Yes .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You also
13 have --
14 MS . STEELMAN : I have it .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The LWRP
16 indicates that the entrance, the side yard
17 entrance is consistent with the LWRP .
18 MS . STEELMAN : Yes .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The dock
20 master ' s building is not consistent
21 because it doesn ' t show sanitary systems .
22 And the cesspool or the leaching pool, is
23 supposed to be 100 feet from the wetlands ,
24 and the septic tank is supposed to be 25
25 feet from the wetlands . Had that been
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 51
1 shown, and had that been the case, then it
2 would have been consistent .
3 MS . STEELMAN : Okay. I --
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The other issue
5 -- let me just flush them out and then you
6 can address them any way you would like .
7 There is some notice from the Planning
8 -Board that the proposed parking is on the
9 adjacent property, that may require
10 another variance . We need to determine if
11 the applicant leases that property or owns
12 that property, and we need a Notice of
13 Disapproval because obviously, if it ' s a
14 property that doesn ' t have a principal use
15 on it, then it is accessory to nothing .
16 So you' re going to need to address that
17 also . So let ' s address those comments .
18 MS . STEELMAN : Okay. At the time we
19 submitted our application to the Board for
20 our variances, we were in the process of
21 having an engineer design that sanitary
22 system, that is why that is not on our
23 drawings . Those drawings have been
24 submitted now to the Health Department for
25 review. We know we may need a variance
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 52
1 for that system because it ' s less than
2 100 feet from surface water . That has
3 been part of the Health Department
4 process . So we ' re very aware of this .
5 There has been proposals . The DEC
6 actually acknowledged to newly locate just
7 some form of a system where we can connect
8 into the existing system, which is up
9 towards the street, but that is
10 approximately 300 feet away, and it would
11 need probably a pumping station to do
12 that . So we ' re sort of taking -- we have
13 been working with the Health Department
14 and DEC on this issue . We can provide you
15 any additional drawings on that, if that
16 would be helpful? The design of that
17 system, so you can have that as part of
18 your record. Until we really start
19 working with those two agencies, it ' s
20 going to be really difficult to tell you
21 how we ' re going to finalize that
22 application .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The reason it ' s
24 important, is because this Board will be
25 looking at ways of mitigating, what would
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 53
1 likely be inconsistencies . So we would
2 like to see on how you can make work it
3 work through mitigation, because the DEC,
4 right now on this application, the letter
5 that we just got, indicates what you just
6 said, which was to eliminate the new
7 septic system and try and plug into the
8 existing .
9 MS . STEELMAN : Correct .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN ; ARd the other
11 was to replace rip-rap with a low sill
12 bulkhead instead of extending the rip-rap
13 out into the vegetative wetlands . To turn
14 the low sill bulkhead landward ' s and make
15 rip-rap at the bank. This should provide
16 erosion protection for the intertidal
17 marsh without cutting off tidal flow
18 rip-rap . Would you like to address that?
19 MS . STEELMAN : Actually, we can
20 address that . Bruce Anderson has been
21 handling all the permits for the DEC, and
22 he can speak a little bit about this .
23 This is very new to us , in terms of when
24 it was actually written.
25 MR. ANDERSON : Bruce Anderson,
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 54
1 Suffolk Environmental, for the applicant .
2 We ' re working with DEC, as Nancy has told
3 you . The reason for the rip-rap, prior to
4 making, this application, we met the DEC in
5 the field before we actually designed it .
6 It was their suggestion that we in fact
7 use the rip-rap. So what ' s happened here,
8 they have had a change of heart,
9 apparently, and now prefer low sill
10 bulkhead over the rip-rap . I don ' t think
11 we have a problem with amending our
12 project plans for that, and so we will
13 just proceed accordingly. So whether it ' s
14 rip-rap or low sill bulkhead, for us , the
15 purpose is the same, and that is to
16. atabilize the side banks to a dre.ade.d
17 channel . So it doesn ' t constantly fill-in
18 and create issues as part of our
19 application . So we ' re just trying to put
20 an entrance to that basin, that is
21 sufficiently deep and that can maintain it
22 at that depth with minimal maintenance
23 dredging while protecting the onsite
24 intertidal marsh. The low sill will
25 accomplish that, same as the rip-rap did.
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 55
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
2 Questions from the Board, George?
3 MEMBER HORNING: I have a hands on
4 survey and it shows like a wooden deck,
5 and then we have the site plan and it
6 shows the proposed new dock master ' s
7 building. Are they in the same location?
8 MS . STEELMAN : Actually the proposed
9 dock master ' s building is just to the
10 south of that dock area . We had staked it
11 out . We have photographs which I think
12 show those stakes in there . They probably
13 weren ' t in there at this point .
14 MEMBER HORNING: They weren ' t there
15 yesterday.
16 MS . STEELMAN : Yeah, because they
17 have parking . It was right in that
18 parking area . It is just to the south of
19 that deck area . That deck area is going
20 to be demolished. That is currently what
21 they ' re using right now for the marina .
22 They have several port-a-potties up there .
23 That is the only toilet facilities the
24 marina has . We ' re basically trying to
25 upgrade from that condition.
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 56
1 MEMBER HORNING: And what type of
2 foundation are you proposing for the
3 proposed dock master?
4 MS . STEELMAN : This is going to be
5 slab on grade . So we will have a
6 perimeter crawl foundation, 3, 3 1/2 feet
7 deep . We would be making it handicap
8 accessible . We really don ' t have steps .
9 So it will come right off the grade .
10 MEMBER HORNING : And as you stated,
11 you ' re going to be working with the Health
12 Department and the DEC to come up with
13 some sort of a plan for the sanitary
14 system?
15 MR. ANDERSON : Yes .
16 MEMBER HORNING: And the proposed
17 location?
18 MS . STEELMAN : Yes .
19 MEMBER HORNING : You submitted some
20 covenants and restrictions , what is that
21 all about?
22 MS . STEELMAN : From my understanding,
23 I think the covenants and restrictions
24 were something that were put in place many
25 years ago, and that it could no longer be
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 57
1 used as a brick yard . John, do you want
2 to come up?
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: He has to come
4 up and state his name for the record.
5 MR. INGRILLI : I am John Ingrilli . I
6 own --
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Spell your last
8 name .
9 MR. INGRILLI : John Ingrilli,
10 I- -G- - -I,-L-I ,
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
12 MR. INGRILLI : I only know what I
13 have been told. Basically, that site some
14 time ago was used to manufacture bricks
15 and I guess after a hurricane some time
16 back, the owner moved his site down
17 towards, I guess where Brick Cove Marina,
18 down in that area, and the new owner of
19 the property, the purchaser of the
20 property bought the property under a
21 condition that it would not be used to
22 continue what the prior owner did,
23 manufacture and develop bricks .
24 MEMBER HORNING: So they basically no
25 longer apply is what you ' re saying, the
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 58
1 covenants and restrictions that you
2 submitted a copy of?- , They are no longer
3 applicable?
4 MR. IN.GRIL.LI I don ' t believe.
5 they ' re applicable . We are not planning
6 on developing brick. No brick.
7 MEMBER HORNING: Let ' s go on to the
8 main structure on the site there .
9 Approximately when was it built?
10 MS . STEELMAN : The restaurant that is
11 there now?
12 MEMBER HORNING: Right .
13 MS . STEELMAN : Probably 2005, I
14 believe . I am not really sure . I know we
15 all watched it under construction . It ' s
16 hard for me to actually date it .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 2009, the Board
18 provided a variance for the deck addition .
19 MEMBER HORNING: Well, in 1995 ,
20 another variance, for a shed, an existing
21 shed. So this building goes back --
22 MS . STEELMAN : Yeah .
23 MR. ANDERSON : This -- As far as I
24 can recall, the Mill Creek Inn, brick
25 construction and then a marina , There
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 59
1 were two apartments upstairs . There was a
2 cooler that was attached to the -- meat
3 locker, that was attached to the west side
4 of the building. The property was
5 purchased by Princeapeed (phonetic) and
6 they proceeded to build it from the inside
7 out, and I am going to say that that
8 construction was commenced around 2005 ,
9 2006 . There came a point when it was no
10 longer feasible to do that . So they wound
11 up knocking down the building and
12 reconstructing it , which is what you see
13 today. The previous meat locker then
14 integrated into the overall structure and
15 that happened after the fact . I have
16 handled the wetland permits and the
17 building permits for that . Mark Schwartz
18 had done the design for the building in
19 2005 -- I ' m sorry, 2007 , 2008 . So I
20 believe Gail Wickham had to come back
21 after the fact , after the building permit
22 had issued and the construction was
23 ongoing, then legalized what would have
24 been the conversion of the west side
25 building from what was once a meat locker .
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 60
1 MEMBER HORNING: Let me back track a
c
2 little bit . Was there a building there
3 for a long, long time?
4 MR. ANDERSON : Yes .
5 MEMBER HORNING: Then a new operation
6 went in, new owners . They started
7 renovating, the ended up demolishing?
8 MR. ANDERSON : Yes .
9 MEMBER HORNING: Right to the ground?
10 MR. ANDERSON : Yes .
11 MEMBER HORNING: Got a building
12 permit for a new structure?
13 MR. ANDERSON : That ' s right .
14 MEMBER HORNING : Built it . Is this
15 right, about 2006?'
16 MR. ANDERSON : Well, I am going to
17 say maybe 2007 is more accurate .
18 MEMBER HORNING: Around 2007 . Then
19 it was vacant since then; is that about
20 right?
21 MR. ANDERSON : It hasn ' t been used
22 s.inc.e. -- it hasn ' t be.e,n an active.
23 restaurant since about 2005, I would say.
24 MEMBER HORNING: Okay. So it ceased
25 being a restaurant in 2005?
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 61
1 MR. ANDERSON : There is existing
2 foundation . It was rehabilitated under
3 that existing foundation. What makes this
4 confusing is the way they tried to rebuilt
5 it, which had a lot of us scratching our
6 head, because they were attempting to
7 rehabilitate the building from inside out .
8 The best way to describe it . So they
9 utilized the foundation . They utilize
10 some of the existing structural features
11 of that existing building . As they
12 entered the building to remove more and
13 more, and there was a point, and I drive
14 by there everyday, that you can look
15 through the building and see the bay from
16 the street as you ' re driving by. At that
17 point, the Building Department had made a
18 finding that the building was unsafe, and
19 then at that point, we came in with
20 revised plans and rebuilt the overall
21 existing foundation, albeit, rehabilitated
22 it .
23 MEMBER HORNING: So it stopped being
24 a restaurant in 2005?
2.5 MR. ANDERS.ON : I believe, so ,
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 62
1 MEMBER HORNING : And it ' s been vacant
2 basically since that time?
3 MR. ANDERSON : Well, it has been
4 under construction since that time .
5 MEMBER HORNING: Right .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : While you ' re
7 looking, George . Let me just clarify for
8 the public record exactly what the
9 variances are . The dock master ' s building
10 is proposed at a 15 . 25 foot setback from
11l the bulkhead, where the code requires 75
12 feet . And the addition of the one-story
13 entry to the restaurant, and the side yard
14 is open at two sides, is at 45 feet from
15 the bulkhead, whereas the code requires 75
16 feet . The restaurant is about 6 feet from
17 the bulkhead. So those are the two
18 variances, and again, an awful lot of
19 environmental issues that have to be
20 resolved through various agencies . The
21 other thing that I do want to ask you
22 about is, what is the situation with
23 regard t.o the parking? That is on an
24 adjacent piece of parcel . Do we need to
25 get a new Notice of Disapproval, etcetera?
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 63
1 MS . STEELMAN : I notice that the
2 Planning Board had made that
3 recommendation in their letter . At the
4 time parking has been proposed in the
5 adjacent site . That is eastern parcel .
6 It is zoned Marina II . The owners now
7 have acquired a lease for twenty years for
8 that adjacent parcel, for parking and also
9 for a boat yard. A boat yard is
10 considered a principal use on a property
11 with accessory parking too, and that has
12 now been discussed with Brian Cummings
13 from the Planning Department, and Mike
14 Verity, and we have all agreed that that
15 would be acceptable . We would not need a
16 variance .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. I think
18 we ' re going to need something in writing,
19 either from Building or from Planning .
20 MS . STEELMAN : We can do that .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Updating their
22 recommendation .
23 MS . STEELMAN : Okay.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that we ' re
25 aware of the fact that there is now a
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 64
1 principal use on that property, and it ' s
2 not a concern to us as long as there is a
3 principal use on the property. So we ' re
4 going to need that information . We ' re
5 also, I guess going to need a copy of that
6 lease .
7 MS . STEELMAN : We can get you a copy
8 of the lease . We have that . Sure .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we have that
10 for our file .
11 MS . STEELMAN : Sure . We have that .
12 MEMBER HORNING: And how much of that
13 is going to be onsite parking --
14 MS . STEELMAN : There will be a total
15 of -- on both properties, I think we have
16 a total of 140 spaces total now. We ' re
17 needing 120 for the restaurant and the
18 marine use that is required by the zoning .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you need 120
20 total?
21 MS . STEELMAN : Yes , total . For the
22 marina and also the restaurant .
23 MEMBER HORNING : And that would be a
24 combination onsite and the additional
25 parcel?
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 65
1 MS . STEELMAN : Correct .
2 MEMBER HORNING: Can you give us a
3 breakdown of that?
4 MS . STEELMAN : Yes . We have part of
5 that now . On your plan now. We didn ' t
6 show the use of the adjacent parcel . That
7 was still in the works when we submitted.
8 So your plan shows just the Mill Creek
9 property. It does not show the lease . I
10 can submit that drawing for you . So that
11 we can show both parcels and get the whole
12 picture?
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes . So we
14 need an updated site plan showing the
15 parking on the adjacent parcel . We ' re
16 going to need a copy of the lease
17 agreement . We ' re going to need something
18 in writing from Planning --
19 MS . STEELMAN : Yes, we can do that .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Probably from
21 Planning . That would be more appropriate .
22 MS . STEELMAN : Okay.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the adjacent
24 parcel is an accessory to a boat yard?
25 MS . STEELMAN : Boat yard, which is
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 66
1 all a permitted use within that Marine II
2 Zone .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Another
4 question, whatever is going on with your
5 relationship with the DEC and the Health
6 Department, so this is no extra variance
7 required. That will clear that up . We ' re
8 going to need an amended LWRP review once
9 we have the information.
10 MS . STEELMAN : Okay.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can find it
12 on our own . Okay . It ' s the Health
13 Department ' s determination .
14 Ken, do you have any questions?
15 MEMBER HORNING : I just want to ask a
16 couple of more questions just from the
17 historical perspective . You stopped off
18 at around 2007 when the building was
19 rebuilt . It had a variance granted in
20 2009 allowing for a one-story addition on
21 a crawl space, some decking and some
22 as-built decking. Can you mention
23 anything about that variance and the
24 circumstances?
25 MS . STEELMAN : I think the first
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 67
1 thing that we would just like to put on
2 the record, Samuels & Steelman was not
3 involved in any of the original building
4 or the variances . We have new owners ,
5 Mill Creek Partners , LLC, they were not
6 involved in that either . Bruce would
7 probably be better to answer that .
8 MR. ANDERSON : Bruce Anderson . After
9 the fact, inclusion of the meat locker is
10 ( In Audible) and the decking, I believe,
11 is the -- refers to the other decking on
12 the other side of the building, which was
13 also built pursuing to a building permit
14 and subsequently legalized. My
15 recollection is that there was always a
16 deck in that area .
17 MEMBER HORNING : So anything new
18 going on is not going to infringe upon
19 these variances that were already granted?
20 You ' re not doing anything beyond that?
21 MR. ANDERSON : No . I believe that
22 whole process was like a housekeeping,
23 because it wasn ' t picked up at the time
24 the building permit ' s were issued.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The survey
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 68
1 shows the landscaped buffer, the screening
2 on Evergreens on the westerly side of the
3 property, that was conditioned on the
4 previous variance . So that has been
5 brought up to date .
6 Nancy, I do have a question that you
7 can answer .
8 MS . STEELMAN : Sure .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is no
10 second floor plan submitted in the
11 application . There is a second floor?
12 MS . STEELMAN : Yes .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I believe there
14 is an elevator in the building too?
15 MS . STEELMAN : There is an elevator .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just wanted
17 to find out what is planned for that
18 second floor?
19 MS . STEELMAN : We have planned a
20 second floor of the restaurant .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Will that
22 affect the site plan? Will that affect
23 the capacity of the parking?
24 MS . STEELMAN : That has all been
25 factored in, in the parking requirements
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 69
1 that we had to meet .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. So it ' s
3 just additional restaurant?
4 MS . STEELMAN : Yes . And the Planning
5 Board has the plans , and they know what
6 we ' re proposing for a second floor .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You know me, I
8 like --
9 MS . STEELMAN : Yes , I know.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim, do you
11 have a question?
12 MEMBER DINIZIO : I just ( In Audible ) .
13 MS . STEELMAN : Actually, we ' re going
14 to be removing that deck and this is going
15 to the southern edge of it . It ' s not in
16 the same exact location .
17 MEMBER DINIZIO : Not necessarily
18 require a variance, other than what you ' re
19 asking for today? You say that it ' s an
20 entrance, but you have an entrance that
21 follows ( In Audible) . Now you ' re trying
22 to accommodate entry into this building
23 where most of your parking is going to be .
24 MS . STEELMAN : Right .
25 MEMBER DINIZIO : And therefore you
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 70
1 need a variance, simply because anything
2 you put anywhere on that building, you ' re
3 going to need a variance?
4 MS . STEELMAN : Correct .
5 MEMBER DINIZIO : So those really ( In
6 Audible) parking just states that you ' re
7 building a building here and you ' re going
8 to have two bathrooms on the first floor,
9 and where is the septic?
10 MS . STEELMAN : Exactly. That ' s it
11 very much.
12 MEMBER DINIZIO : Thank you.
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Just a question,
15 do you have a projected opening, assuming
16 everything goes well? Just next year?
17 MS . STEELMAN : Yeah .
18 MR. BURGER: Eugene Burger, I am the
19 owner of the property. Getting the work
20 done is really not the issue . It ' s just
21 really getting through this process .
22 Getting all the "I ' s" dotted and no
23 issues .
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And the proposed
25 dock master ' s building, that will also
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 71
1 serve as any transient diner ' s with
2 boat ' s , boater ' s, who would come to the
3 marina to have dinner or whatever?
4 MR. BURGER: Right . Exactly. There
5 is 50 slips , and we ' re anticipating people
6 coming off the boat, maybe a shower . You
7 know, they can use the facility. We
8 wanted to make sure that it was handicap
9 and it was right there for them.
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: There is no fuel
11 service there, right?
12 MR. BURGER: We ' re not anticipating
13 fuel service .
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: At this time?
15 MR. BURGER: We ' re trying to keep a
16 Green marina . You know, that is kind of
17 the thinking at this time .
18 MS . STEELMAN : Would there be
19 portable pumps --
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Back to the
21 mic, because we have to get it into the
22 transcript .
23 MS . STEELMAN : There will be a
24 portable pump-out system for all the
25 boats . So it won ' t just be onsite .
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 72
1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Thank you.
2 MEMBER HORNING : Can I ask about the
3 Green marina? It was mentioned or
4 whatever . Can you give us quickly some
5 details?
6 MR. BURGER: Few things about it, you
7 need to have a pump-out requirement . No
8 fuel . Those are two things that we have
9 mentioned, and then all the people leasing
10 the dock need paperwork, no oil discharge .
11 That ' s pretty much -- we ' re just educating
12 boaters what not to do .
13 MEMBER HORNING: Do they sign a
14 paper?
15 MR. BURGER: I would imagine we would
16 have them sign it ; right?
17 MR. INGRILLI : Actually, the --
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please state
19 your name, again?
20 MR. INGRILLI : John Ingrilli . I am
21 not sure at this point exactly what the
22 requirements are . With the lease
23 agreements , the requirements for the
24 marina will be sent out with each lease
25 agreement . There will be a signature cage
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 73
1 for the tenants to just sign that it is
2 there intention to follow it as we go
3 forward. We actually, this year sent out,
4 a list of -- I think they were 20 year --
5 I don ' t recall the exact number, of the
6 requirements to them, and letting them
7 know it is our intention to comply with
8 that, and that we will give them further
9 information as we get that information,
10 and the requirements to them in the
11 future .
12 MR. ANDERSON : I want to make a point
13 that I have not heard yet, and that is
14 this Board is Town like very well, viewed
15 the dock master building as a water
16 attendant use, and therefore, is actually
17 consistent with the LWRP . So I am not
18 entirely clear it would be inconsistent,
19 because it seems to me it would be a water
20 attended use .
21 MEMBER DINIZIO : It showed a
22 bathroom, but it didn ' t indicate any where
23 you were going to put it .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The septic .
25 MR. ANDERSON : Okay. Then that will
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 74
1 be self corrected.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry, is there
3 a questions?
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think the
6 side yard entrance is very practical and
7 aesthetically pleasing, and I don ' t think
8 there is too many issues around that .
9 It ' s primarily straightening out the
10 environmental impact, which you are
11 working on . So I will ask the Board how
12 they want to proceed. We can just hold
13 the hearing open to a later date so that
14 you can obtain that information and submit
15 it to us, and just schedule it for a later
16 time . Do you have any idea on how long
17 this will take, because you ' re not going
18 to be able to do anything until you get
19 it? Until you get Health Department
20 approval, and when we see where the septic
21 is, we will need another -- well, we won ' t
22 need another LWRP, but we will have the
23 information if they find it consistent and
24 look at that . How does the Board feel
25 about that, and how do you feel about
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 75
1 that?
2 MS . STEELMAN : I would -- I think
3 because the Planning Board now is waiting
4 for some sort of determination on the dock
5 master ' s building and the entry, because
6 they ' re doing a major review, to leave it
7 open will kind of delay that to a certain
8 degree . The variance process for the
9 Health Department can be any where from
10 three to four months . So I potentially
11 could request that you write a
12 determination, you know, that Health
13 Department is required, DEC approval is
14 required on that sanitary system, and if
15 you ' re accepting to give us those
16 variances, then we would proceed. So we
17 can get that back to the Planning Board,
18 and everybody is working together .
19 MS . ANDALORO : ( In Audible) we ' re
20 waiting for X, Y, Z .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, we often
22 get comments from the Planning Board
23 saying we generally support the
24 application; however, such and such is a
25 concern . And we get that from Planning .
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 76
1 I am just polling the Board to see what
2 they want to do .
3 MEMBER HORNING: We ' re going to ask
4 for review from the LWRP, No . 1?
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, because we
6 have one, and the main concern is the
7 inconsistency review of the dock master ' s
8 building. They were addressed by what we
9 received by the applicant and the
10 applicant ' s agent . And we can proceed
11 without another review. We can indicate
12 that these concerns have been mitigated by
13 whatever .
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes , I say we do
15 that, and we condition .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Fine . You ' re
17 going to give us some additional
18 documentation?
19 MS . STEELMAN : Yes .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can just
21 condition a variance . It would be Health
22 Department, DEC approval and then with
23 regard to the parking, it would be
24 Planning Board approval and so on . I am
25 just making notes .
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 77
1 Okay. Is there anyone else in the
2 audience that wishes to address this
3 application?
4 (No Response . )
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
6 further comments, I am going to make a
7 motion to close this hearing and reserve
8 decision to a later date, subject to
9 receipt of a copy of the lease agreement
10 for parking on the adjacent property, the
11 site plan showing that parking . Comments
12 from the Planning Board indicating that no
13 extra variances are required because now
14 it ' s a an accessory to a principal use,
15 and do not need a new LWRP . Okay. I
16 think that is it .
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry seconded .
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 . )
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 78
2 HEARING #6578 - ALAN FIDELLOW
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
4 application before us is for Alan
5 Fidellow, No . 6578 . Request for variances
6 from Article XXII Code Section 280-116 (B)
7 and Article IV Section 280-18 , based on an
8 application for building permit and the
9 Building Inspector ' s February 17 , 2012 ,
10 updated April 26, 2012 Notice of
11 Disapproval for demolition, reconstruction
12 and addition to single family dwelling, at
13 1 ) less than the code required bulkhead
14 setback of 75 feet, 2 ) less than the
15 minimum side yard setback of 15 feet, 3)
16 less than the code combined total side
17 yards of 35 feet, located at : 4030 Great
18 Peconic Bay Boulevard, adjacent to Great
19 Peconic Bay, Laurel .
20 Good morning . Good afternoon, now.
21 MR. ANDERSON : Good afternoon.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just
23 quickly go over the three variances that
24 are before us . A bulkhead setback at 37
25 feet, where the code requires 75 feet, and
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 79
1 a minimum side yard at 5 . 7 inches , where
2 the code requires 15 , and a combined side
3 yard setback of 25 . 1 feet, where the code
4 requires 35 feet . Okay?
5 MR. ANDERSON : Yep .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me start
7 with couple of questions to clarify for
8 the record. When I was reviewing the
9 plans that were submitted, it would appear
10 that there were no changes to the first
11 floor, other than interior changes .
12 MR. ANDERSON : That is correct .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There was no
14 foundation plan. It is pretty clear that
15 the half-story is going, and a whole new
16 second-story coming; however, this was
17 deemed to be demolition by the Building
18 Department .
19 MR. ANDERSON : Okay.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the first
21 thing that I would like you to do is
22 address that .
23 MR. ANDERSON : Okay. As you know,
24 this application entails essentially
25 pulling the roof off and creating
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 80
1 additional bedrooms on the second floor.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don ' t know
3 why, but I am having trouble hearing you.
4 Can you come on over .
5 MR. ANDERSON : Is that better?
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: A little bit .
7 MR. ANDERSON : What we ' re talking
8 about doing is essentially pulling the
9 roof off the house and creating that
10 second floor to house the rooms, for the
11 Fidellow Family, which is a big family.
12 This particular house and property has
13 been in the same family, owned as near as
14 I could tell since 1960 . In fact, it came
15 before the Board in 1964 , for an addition
16 that was subsequently built in 1961, a rip
17 off of the left side of the house . And
18 you should know that, and I believe that
19 is in your application packet . At that is
20 what created the 5 . 7 foot setback from the
21 westerly side lot line . The reason why it
22 is being done this way, because it sits on
23 an existing foundation that is sound. The
24 vertical structure members are sound. So
25 it ' s a relatively easy and inexpensive
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 81
1 construction project for the applicant .
2 Had there been structural problems with
3 the foundation on the existing house,
4 might very well be looking at a situation
5 where we would be in fact demolishing the
6 house . Here there is no need to demolish
7 the house, and there is no intent to
8 demolish the house . It is merely, lift
9 the roof off the house and create the
10 additional bedroom space that is needed
11 for this family.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So how much
13 renovation would be happening with the
14 foundation or the --
15 MR. ANDERSON : None .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What kind of
17 foundation is it?
18 MR. ANDERSON : I believe, it ' s a
19 block foundation, I believe .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there a
21 basement or a crawl space? Do you know?
22 MR. ANDERSON : I am not sure .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You know, I see
24 there is a deck. There was something in
25 the Trustees -- a note from Trustees about
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 82
1 including the deck in your permit --
2 MR. ANDERSON : There was a deck
3 there . I gather it was refinished years
4 ago, and --
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don ' t think
6 so . It looks really, really new. Pretty
7 new.
8 MR. ANDERSON : I thought it was Trex .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, Trex
10 material .
11 MR. ANDERSON : So the Trustees when
12 they looked at it, they said, well, we
13 didn ' t know . So they said, we will
14 include it in the permit as paperwork --
15 sort of a housekeeping measure . I do
16 believe there was always a deck in that
17 area .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We couldn ' t
19 find a building permit for the deck.
20 MR. ANDERSON : There may not be one .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We looked, but
22 we couldn ' t find one .
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can we do an
24 interior inspection of the house, Bruce?
25 MR. ANDERSON : Sure .
.July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 83
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can we make an
2 appointment and do one?
3 MR. ANDERSON : Yeah. I would suggest
4 to do it with the architect to point out
5 some of the features, because he will be
6 better equipped to addressing the
7 structural questions you might have
8 regarding the foundation, crawl space,
9 what have you.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually, it
11 would be better to get a letter in
12 writing . The drawings are about a year
13 old, and they ' re not working drawings .
14 MR. ANDERSON : Correct .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They look --
16 the first floor looks as though not much
17 is being changed at all .
18 MR. ANDERSON : The first floor, the
19 plans show no change .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, no .
21 There are some changes . There is
22 reorientation of the bathroom. There is a
23 staircase being added in the interior .
24 MR. ANDERSON : Okay.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: But that is all
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 84
1 interior stuff . That is not going to
2 have any land disturbance or anything
3 like that . The building envelope
4 appears to be remaining the same, but it
5 would be very good to get from the
6 architect, a letter indicating that
7 foundation is structurally sound and will
8 not be excavated. It will be able to
9 support the weight of a full second-story.
10 That the existing exterior walls, remain
11 in place . That they will not need to be
12 replaced, or if they needed to be
13 sured-up, they will be minimal . That kind
14 of information will be very helpful,
15 because we do have something that says
16 "demo" on the Notice of Disapproval . So
17 we need to balance that out with some
18 information that says that it is not a
19 demo . What questions does the Board have?
20 Gerry?
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is the
22 nature of the building in the back?
23 MR. ANDERSON : The building in the
24 back is an accessory building . It
25 contains a bathroom. I was told the
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 85
1 bathroom -- Mr . Fidellow, who is -- has
2 personal knowledge as to many, many years,
3 his father-in-law, obtained a variance in
4 1960 . So this has been there, we can go
5 back at least 25 years , and the property
6 record card, indicates that the bathroom
7 was improved in 1995 . So there are rooms
8 back there that are presently being used
9 for storage . There is a half bath back
10 there, because we were upgrading the
11 septic system, the house and the half
12 bath, was previously served by an
13 individual, possibly a block type
14 cesspool . So that cesspool would be
15 removed . A septic tank would be installed
16 with a compliance septic system, as per
17 the Health Department . So the line coming
18 from the half bath in the accessory
19 building to the septic tank is part of
20 this application as well .
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So there is going
22 to be a new septic, which will be used for
23 the house?
24 MR. ANDERSON : Yep . Both use the
25 same septic system. That is about all I
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 86
- 1 can say . I have spoken to the applicant,
2 and I have advised him that it can ' t be
3 used as a living as a dwelling unit,
4 unless you apply for an accessory
5 apartment, which the code revised;
6 however, the code provides for that, in
7 the event that it is a principal year
8 round residence . Now, I suppose the Board
9 could bury that requirement if they so
10 chose to . My thinking is that, they
11 wouldn ' t want to entertain such an
12 application because of the present setting
13 nature that is . If not principal owned
14 and occupied, you can create a situation
15 where you could have rentals . So I have
16 explained to him that it can ' t be used as
17 an accessory living quarters . And it
18 can ' t be legalized for that purposes,
19 unless are occupied by principal
20 residents .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you for
22 clarifying that . I did see that there was
23 a bed. There was a lot of storage stuff
24 in there .
25 MR. ANDERSON : Yes .
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 87
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But there was a
2 cot or a small bed in one of the rooms .
3 MR. ANDERSON : Right .
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So it ' s my
5 understanding, you want us to get in touch
6 with Mr . Fidonfire (phonetic) , to make an
7 appointment to go into the house, and if
8 we have further questions that we want on
9 the record, do we continue the hearing
10 regarding the -- because of the way the
11 drawings are and so on and so forth --
12 MR. ANDERSON : The drawings will not
13 lead you to a conclusion to the structural
14 integrity of the house .
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, no . We ' re
16 not saying that . The problem is load.
17 Load on the bulkhead.
18 MR. ANDERSON : Right . I will say
19 this , if you can accommodate that, the
20 applicant ' s hope to commence construction
21 this Fall . So if we could expedite that,
22 and leave it open to any questions that
23 come up, to say -- the next meeting, I
24 believe is in early August; is that
25 right?
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 88
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes .
2 MR. ANDERSON : We would greatly
3 appreciate that accomodation.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don ' t think
5 that is a problem. We could fit you on
6 for August, next month.
7 MR. ANDERSON : What is the date of
8 that?
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: August 2nd .
10 That way, we can meet with the architect,
11 if you can do that for us?
12 MR. ANDERSON : Yes , sometime between
13 now and then .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And then you
15 can also ask him to provide in writing a
16 structural analysis of the foundation.
17 That it is stable --
18 MR. ANDERSON : Right .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And strong
20 enough to support a second-story addition,
21 as are the exterior walls on the first
22 floor, and that footprint is remaining the
23 same .
24 MR. ANDERSON : Right .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just for the
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 89
1 record, the LWRP exemption, is based upon
2 that, despite the Notice of Disapproval
3 calling it a demo, said in fact everything
4 was remaining in place and in kind and
5 would be rehabilitated from there .
6 Therefore, would be no land disturbance,
7 nothing seaward of the existing building .
8 MR. ANDERSON : That is my
9 understanding.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is what
11 it looks like in the application, but I
12 want to get it on the record for
13 clarification of the Notice of Disapproval
14 on calling it a demo .
15 Any other questions?
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jim?
18 MEMBER DINIZIO : Yes .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jim has some
20 questions .
21 MEMBER DINIZIO : While you ' re talking
22 about the demo part, this is going back
23 to February ( In Audible) on that survey,
24 you have that garage --
25 MR. ANDERSON : Right .
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 90
1 MEMBER DINIZIO : It ' s not improved
2 upon .
3 MR. ANDERSON : That is correct .
4 MEMBER DINIZIO : The survey should
5 reflect that .
6 MR. ANDERSON : We did.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes , this one
8 says "accessory building. "
9 MR. ANDERSON : The reason why we did
10 that was , I can ' t speak to what is going
11 on in there since 1960 , okay. But what I
12 can say, and what I have advised, is that
13 it can ' t be used as a dwelling unit . And
14 so the idea was to make clear on this
15 record that by labeling it accessory
16 building with a half bath, so it ' s clear
17 to everyone and it ' s clear for purposes of
18 this Board ' s records, that it is just
19 that . It can only be used as an accessory
20 building .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes . They ' re
22 going to be a resident full-time?
23 MR. ANDERSON : Right . Now, I have
24 also said, if you retire out here, then
25 you can make an application at that time .
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 91
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As long as it ' s
2 occupied by a family member or someone on
3 the Affordable Housing Registry --
4 MR. ANDERSON : Right .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then they could
6 apply for a Special Exception Permit .
7 MR. ANDERSON : Right .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else
9 from the Board, comments or questions?
10 (No Response . )
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anyone in the
12 audience that would like to address this
13 application?
14 (No Response . )
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, hearing
16 no further questions or comments , I am
17 going to make a motion to adjourn this
18 hearing to August 2nd at 10 : 00 A.M.
19 Between now and then, we will do an
20 interior inspection with the architect,
21 and receive written analysis of the
22 structural sound of the foundation and the
23 first floor walls .
24 Is there a second?
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
I
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 92
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
2 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
4 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
7 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
8 **************************** ******** ** *
9 HEARING #6577 - 8925 BAY AVENUE, LLC .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. The next
11 application before us is for Bay Avenue,
12 LLC, No . 6577 . Request for variance from
13 Article III Section 280-15 ( F) and the
14 Building Inspector ' s May 15, 2012 Notice
15 of Disapproval based on an application for
16 building permit accessory tennis court at :
17 1 ) in the case of waterfront properties
18 accessory building may be located in the
19 front yard, provided that such accessory
20 meet the front yard principal setback
21 requirements as set forth by this code .
22 Proposed location is other than the code
23 required front or rear yard, located at
24 8925 Skunk Lane, adjacent to Little Creek,
25 in Cutchogue .
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 93
1 Good afternoon.
2 MR. SCHWARTZ : Hi . Mark Schwartz,
3 architect for the project . On our site
4 plan, we have shown the setbacks , building
5 setbacks and some of the environmental
6 setbacks . Show what is available for a
7 tennis court . We ' re able to meet the
8 front yard and side yard setbacks . The
9 location of the house, as it exist, we
10 only have a space to put this tennis court
11 in the side yard. There is really -- the
12 rear yard is very tight for the setbacks
13 from the water, and certainly visually in
14 that location . Wouldn 't be good for the
15 owners or the neighbor ' s to the west . So
16 we ' re asking 'for the side yard variance .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mark, I asked
18 Vicki to ask you to stake the location,
19 and it was a little hard to understand.
20 There was like four really tiny yellow
21 flags like you use for sprinkler, and I
22 did find them, not easily. And somehow,
23 you know, maybe the survey looks like one
24 thing and the field inspection is
25 something else . Did you stake the court
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 94
1 or the fence? You must have staked the
2 fence .
3 MR. SCHWARTZ : Michael, who works
4 with me in my office staked it . I assume
5 he did all four corners .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It has to be
7 fence .
8 MR. SCHWARTZ : It should be the four
9 corners where the fence would be .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks as
11 though that was closer to the wetland than
12 what is -- that 75 feet, that ' s the
13 setback from the wetland, that you ' re
14 talking about?
15 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. That ' s
17 not a buffer?
18 MR. SCHWARTZ : No, it ' s just a line
19 to show you where the 75 feet is .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You ' re a little
21 bit closer than 75 feet to the wetlands?
22 MR. SCHWARTZ : Correct .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And it started
24 to slope a little bit . There are a couple
25 of trees or so in that area . So talk to
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 95
1 us a little bit about mitigating any
2 environmental impact and so on?
3 MR. SCHWARTZ : Well, we would
4 certainly have drainage for the tennis
5 court . We would pipe in some drywell ' s .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is
7 obviously not shown yet on the site plan,
8 so . What about any sort of buffering from
9 the edge of the wetland. Right now, it
10 looks like it ' s cut grass that is going
11 right to the wetland.
12 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yeah. Generally, when
13 we go through the Trustees process , they
14 will require a setback also, a buffer . So
15 we didn ' t delineate that at this point .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well , we were
17 interested in that also . We tend to try
18 and coordinate their determination with
19 ours , as we possibly can . It would be
20 easier for the applicant .
21 MR. SCHWARTZ : They seem to want us
22 to come to you first .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That ' s fine .
24 MR. SCHWARTZ : To try and figure out
25 the best way to go about it .
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 96
1 CHAIRPERSON . WEISMAN: Okay. Who has
2 questions?
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I will just say
4 that I think it ' s a positive place to put
5 it, where you ' re suggesting from the past
6 hearing. We really need to see how you ' re
7 going to catch the run-off . As the
8 Chairperson just said, this whole issue of
9 environmental buffers, are issues that
10 really effect us Boards , as the
11 Chairperson just said. But we still need
12 to see what the Planning Board is going to
13 -- what the local Trustees are going to
14 say in reference to that, if at all .
15 That ' s it .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You ' re
17 proposing a 4 foot high fence, obviously
18 this is in a front yard -- well, it ' s a
19 side yard. Partly in a front yard too,
20 but substantially in a side yard. How is
21 that going to work with a tennis court, a
22 4 foot high fence?
23 MR. SCHWARTZ : Well, we may re-buff
24 it, a couple of feet, to get a little bit
25 of a height . Last time we came to you
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 97
1 with a number of variances , and we ' re
2 trying to eliminate as much as we can . We
3 thought we would drop the tennis court
4 down 18 inches and 24 inches . So we
5 should have a 6 foot barrier in the
6 meantime .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, that is
8 fine . That would be information that we
9 want to have in front of us . Certainly, I
10 would, anyway.
11 MR. SCHWARTZ : Okay.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I can
13 understand that, but then a number of
14 times and a number applications , where the
15 fence could not be as high as you would
16 need to play tennis . That information
17 would be very helpful to the Board,
18 especially when we ' re looking at drainage .
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So then any
20 change of grade on the property would be
21 completely taken care of by dealing with
22 what you just said?,
23 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes, it would.
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So all we would
25 really see from the road is fence and
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 98
1 possibly some whatever composite or
2 rubberized surface .
3 MR. SCHWARTZ : We would like to do a
4 hard surface .
5 MEMBER DINIZIO : I am looking at (In
6 Audible) .
7 MR. SCHWARTZ : The standard size
8 tennis court is 60 X 120 . The tennis
9 court surface that you need in order to
10 run around. Those are really just lines .
11 MEMBER DINIZIO : ( In Audible)•.
12 MR. SCHWARTZ : It is still part of
13 the tennis court surface .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Has your client
15 spoken to the neighbor that ' s most
16 impacted, the 25 foot side yard setback?
17 MR. SCHWARTZ : No, they have not .
18 We have sent them the notices that this
19 was --
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The green
21 cards?
22 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What would be
24 the difficulty in moving that side yard a
25 little bit further, maybe to 35 feet?
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 99
1 MR. SCHWARTZ : I don ' t think it would
2 be too much difficulty, except for the
3 flag pole and I would have to look at
4 maybe where the trees are, because there
5 are some pretty good size trees there .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think the 50
7 feet from the road is not a problem at
8 all . I mean, it ' s green and it ' s far away
9 and it ' s not going to have much impact .
10 The 25 foot is fairly close, by the time
11 you get an Evergreen screening of any
12 size, and it grows a little bit . It looks
13 like it ' s going to be a hardship to move
14 it over a little bit more, closer to the
15 driveway. So what we ' re going to need is
16 an updated site plan and perhaps a site
17 section showing how you ' re proposing to
18 install this tennis court, to drop it down
19 below grade .
20 MR. SCHWARTZ : Okay.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You ' re going to
22 have to show how you ' re going to mitigate
23 runoff during land disturbance, and we ' re
24 going to need to see whether or not some
25 sort of vegetative buffer is required or
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 101
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the
2 audience who would like to address this
3 application?
4 (No Response . )
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
6 further comments, I will make a motion to
7 close this hearing and reserve decision to
8 a later date subject to receipt of an
9 updated site plan showing an increased
10 side yard setback, proposed drainage for
11 the tennis court, and a section showing
12 the actual height of the fence and depth
13 to which the court will be excavated.
14 And, for landscaping along that property
15 line and then some sort of buffer. What
16 would the Board suggests along there?
17 There is plenty of room.
18 MEMBER DINIZIO : What is the normal,
19 20 foot?
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 20 foot buffer .
21 MR. SCHWARTZ : Okay.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 20 feet is
23 good, at least for the area adjacent to
24 the creek, where the tennis court will be .
25 We will consider that an amended
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 100
1 whether or not the drainage that you ' re
2 proposing would be sufficient, which may
3 be the case, if it ' s going into a drywell .
4 The possibility of moving it over a little
5 bit from the side yard. I think that
6 ought to do it . Maybe it would be good to
7 actually locate the trees on the survey.
8 MR. SCHWARTZ : I can do that .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So we can see
10 what you ' re going to retain and what
11 you ' re going to cut down?
12 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And that
14 restructure would not have an impact on
15 soil drainage and so on . Okay. Any
16 comments or questions from the Board?
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s a
20 perfectly feasible location for a tennis
21 court . It ' s just a matter of tweaking it
22 and getting information we need of
23 potential adverse impact . Anything else,
24 Jim?
25 MEMBER DINIZIO : No .
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 102
1 application, and the process will start
2 as soon as we get that information from
3 you.
4 MR. SCHWARTZ : Okay. We will give
5 you information on the site section as to
6 contour of the land as it drops down to
7 the water.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good. It ' s
9 quite flat for a while and then it starts
10 to slope down . It ' s hard to really see
11 with those little flags to determine
12 exactly where the slope is and so on.
13 Okay?
14 MR. SCHWARTZ : Okay.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So motion to
16 close the hearing and reserve decision to
17 a later date subject to receipt of the
18 documents stated.
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 'Second.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
21 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
23 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye .
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 103
1 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
2 *********** ******************************
3 HEARING #6576 - VINCENT & CAROL MANAGO
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
5 hearing before the Board is for Vincent
6 and Carol Manago, No . 6576 . Request for
7 variance from Article XXII Code Section
8 280-116 (B) based on an application for
9 building permit and the Building
10 Inspector ' s April 6, 2012 Notice of
11 Disapproval concerning proposed additions
12 and alterations to a single family
13 dwelling, at 1 ) less than the code
14 required bulkhead setback of 75 feet,
15 located at : 8225 Nassau Point Road,
16 adjacent to Little Peconic Bay in
17 Cutchogue .
18 MR. SCHWARTZ : Mark Schwartz,
19 architect for the project . The owners are
20 here also, Vincent and Carol Manago .
21 We ' re asking for a variance . There are a
22 number of roofing changes that we ' re
23 proposing on the site plan . There is only
24 one area that requires a variance, the
25 distance from the bulkhead. We need 75
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals , 104
1 feet . If it was beyond 75 feet, we
2 wouldn ' t be here before the Board. The
3 existing screened porch on the first floor
4 -- currently it is one-story . The owners
5 are looking to expand their bedroom to
6 create some office space, a little more
7 space in their master bedroom. Also to
8 free up the middle room, so they could use
9 that as a bedroom for their children and
10 grandchildren . So we propose a
11 second-story addition over the screened
12 porch, which is about 69 feet from the
13 bulkhead, and we ' re asking for
14 approximately 6 feet .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I think it is
17 pretty straightforward, I have no
18 questions .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right .
20 Just let the record reflect that the LWRP
21 evaluation indicates it ' s consistent with
22 LWRP policy. A couple of dormers
23 extensions going on here .
24 George, do you have any questions?
25 MEMBER HORNING: No, I don ' t .
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 105
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It ' s a beautiful
3 piece of property.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jim?
5 MEMBER DINIZIO : Nope .
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I guess I will
7 ask a verbal question, how long has the
8 apartment been in the garage?
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hi, just please
10 come up to the mic .
11 MR. MANAGO : Hi, Vincent Manago . I
12 believe you looked at that Mr . Goehringer .
13 Maybe -- it ' s probably around the year
14 2000 , and when we had to refurbish it, it
15 was you who came there and inspected it .
16 In fact, you walked in the garage with me .
17 You looked at all the rooms . So it ' s been
18 there since the year 2000-2001 .
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there a teat
21 CO on that building?
22 MR. MANAGO: C Of 0 .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : For a second
24 dwelling?
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don ' t know, I
July -5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 106
1 didn ' t see it . Of course, we don ' t issue
2 CO ' s .
3 MR. MANAGO : I can send that to you,
4 if you would like?
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Please .
6 MR. SCHWARTZ : I think that should be
7 in the package .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You need to
9 come to the mic and address the Board,
10 please .
11 MR. MANAGO: I believe it says -- you
12 have it there?
13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes . It says
14 additions and alterations existing
15 accessory garage was applied for as ZBA
16 #4618 . The date on this is 11/24/99 .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One-family
18 dwelling with accessory two-car garage and
19 attached guest cottage with two rooms and
20 half bath. That ' s the way the CO reads
21 from 1996 .
22 MR. MANAGO : There is another one .
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The ' 99 one,
24 additions and alterations to existing
25 accessory garage was applied for as per
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 107
1 ZBA #4618 , okay. That is the one that
2 you ' re referring to . I have to say, I am
3 usually pretty good on this . I was so
4 enamored with the beauty of the property
5 and the day that it was , I have no idea
6 why I don ' t remember you. I usually do
7 that , and I apologize .
8 MR. MANAGO: That ' s okay.
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That answers that
10 question.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just again, to
12 reiterate, we have - a 69 bulkhead setback,
13 where the code requires 75 . The
14 construction also proposes a new existing
15 footprint . The house already sits -- it
16 predates zoning. It sits at 69 feet from
17 the bulkhead. So it ' s just a small
18 second-story addition above an existing
19 porch on the water side, two dormer
20 extension with a roof alteration?
21 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that a good
23 summary?
24 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes , it is .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any other
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 108
1 questions?
2 (No Response . )
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
4 else in the audience who wishes to address
5 this application?
6 (No Response . )
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I will make a
8 motion to close this hearing and reserve
9 decision to a later date .
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
12 MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye .
13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
14 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
17 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
18 ********** *******************************
19 HEARING #6572 - BRIAN ZIEGLER
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
21 application before the Board is for Brian
22 Ziegler, No . 6572 . Request for variance
23 from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the
24 Building Inspector ' s May 3, 2012 Notice of
25 Disapproval based on an application for
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 109
1 building permit for a deck addition to
2 existing single family dwelling at : 1 )
3 less than the code required minimum side
4 yard setback of 15 feet; 2 ) less than the
5 total combined side yards of 35 feet,
6 located at : 1165 Saltaire Way in
7 Mattituck.
8 Hi, would you state your name for the
9 record, please?
10 MR. OLIVER: Dennis Oliver, 924 New
11 Bridge Road, Bellmore .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
13 Mr . Oliver, we have a Notice of
14 Disapproval that indicates that the deck
15 addition as proposed, and we have a side
16 yard setback of 10 . 5 feet, where the code
17 requires 15 feet , and a 33 . 7 foot combined
18 side yard, where the code requires 35
19 feet .
20 What would you like to tell us about
21 this proposal?
22 MR. OLIVER: First of all,
23 Mr . Ziegler ' s property is located in the
24 R-40 Zone, which requires a lot width of
25 140 feet . The existing lot is only 100
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 110
1 feet . So if this lot was in compliance
- 2 with the code, we wouldn ' t be here in the
3 first place . We would have sufficient
4 side yards . In addition, this proposed
5 will be built, if this should be approved,
6 in line with the deck that has been
7 existing -- had been existing on the
8 property since 1985 . There was a permit
9 and a CO issued for that deck, on
10 February 14 , 2011 . I have copies of the
11 CO and of the survey dated
12 November 12 , 1985 , showing that existing
13 deck, and pictures of that existing deck
14 for the Board . Again the proposed deck
15 will be built in line with that . With
16 this deck being built, the distance from
17 this deck to the nearest property, which
18 is the property to the north, would be
19 approximately 143 feet . It should be
20 noted that Mr . Ziegler ' s property is lower
21 than his neighbor ' s to the north . So
22 there wouldn ' t be any intrusion, as far as
23 privacy or anything else on their
24 neighbor ' s property. In addition to that,
25 the deck itself will be built in level
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 111
1 with the first floor, because of the
2 change in grade on the property, the deck
3 goes from 20 inches high to a lowest of 8
4 inches . So it ' s really not a second floor
5 deck . It ' s not going to be overlooking
6 anybody ' s property or imputing on
7 anybody ' s privacy. There is one other
8 house on the same street, 550 Saltaire
9 Way, it appears to have a similar setback
10 condition to what we ' re requesting . That
11 condition appears to be for a Mudroom. I
12 have pictures of that from the street, and
13 an aerial photograph of that, which I will
14 submit to the Board. And just to prove
15 that Mr . Ziegler ' s property would not be
16 the only one in the area that has a
17 similar condition, it should also be noted
18 that from the street, from -- of
19 Mr . Ziegler, when you stand in the street,
20 you wouldn ' t even notice that it is even
21 there . The landscaping, the topography,
22 location of the fence, really there is
23 privacy as far as the construction of this
24 deck goes . Should the Board see fit to
25 approve the application, Mr. Ziegler,
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 112
1 would agree to of course, never enclosing
2 the deck at all or turning it into living
3 space .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just have one
5 question. There is a very large mature
6 hardwood tree .
7 MR. OLIVER: Yes, sir .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that coming
9 down?
10 MR. OLIVER: No, ma ' am. It is
11 actually going to be built around it .
12 That tree is standing -- that is actually
13 part of the design.. The deck designer
14 took that into account . There is a
15 seating area that goes around that . That
16 tree is staying .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just so you ' re
18 aware, for every application before the
19 Board, all Board members do personal site
20 inspection. So we have seen the existing
21 vegetation on the property, and so on .
22 Ken, do you have any questions?
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What was the
24 reason why you can ' t have a conforming
25 setback?
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 113
1 MR. OLIVER: Well, the lot width
2 existing is only 100 feet . And again,
3 according to the zoning in the area, the
4 lots have to be 150 . So the lot is
5 nonconforming to begin with. Now, if the
6 lot width were 150 feet, we wouldn ' t be
7 here . I would have been able to get the
8 permit as a matter of right .
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Or if your lot
10 square footage was less than 20 , 000 square
11 feet, you would only be required to have a
12 10 feet side yard?
13 MR. OLIVER: Right . And
14 unfortunately, he is 20 , 273 . So he is
15 just over.
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No further
17 questions at this time, for me .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George?
19 MEMBER HORNING: I have the same
20 questions, differently then Ken, I guess,
21 but same question. Why couldn ' t the deck
22 be at a 15 foot setback?
23 MR. OLIVER: Well, given the design
24 layout, the way the deck design, the
25 anticipation of a barbecue and an outdoor
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 114
1 cooking space, and space limitations,
2 pushes to asking the Board go to this
3 variance, because we were trying to stay
4 in line with the deck that is already
5 there .
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any
7 anticipation of closing the deck in at any
8 portion of time?
9 MR. OLIVER: No, sir . Mr . Ziegler
10 would stipulate that he would not close
11 any of it at all .
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I did go there
13 and no one was at home, and I believe the
14 gate -- if there is a gate . There may not
15 be a gate on the north side . So I went to
16 the opposite side . Carrying all my
17 paraphernalia in hand, as usual, nobody
18 said anything to me, so I simply entered
19 into the rear yard. It ' s a very beautiful
20 yard. Very nice . And I am sure that it
21 would look very nice with this deck.
22 Thank you.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I realize that
24 you wanted to extend this deck along the
25 existing setback. There are steps that
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 115
1 go up to that deck that are 3 . 8 inches in
2 width, okay. Since this is being rebuilt,
3 and you ' re agreeing to that, if you were
4 to simply go out from that line, and you
5 can still incorporate steps there, you
6 could add another 3 . 8 feet and bringing it
7 up to 14 something in feet, and it would
8 be very much closer to code . Are you
9 following what I am getting at?
10 MR. OLIVER: Yes . Yes . I see what
11 you ' re saying .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What hardship
13 would be involved in doing that?
14 MR. OLIVER: Well, the way this deck
15 designer had it laid out, that areas that
16 we would be cutting back, is where he is
17 proposing to put the outside kitchen area,
18 and based on the location of the barbecue
19 and everything else, we would need that
20 extra square footage to push it out, this
21 way we have enough seating capacity.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, you know,
23 I respect the design, but a design can be
24 done a many of ways , and the code does --
25 the law does require us to grant the
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 117
1 saying that you have to do that, but that
2 certainly would have been possible if the
3 whole thing was coming down. You would
4 have had more conforming .
5 MR. OLIVER: Correct .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It wouldn ' t
7 have been before us at all . What I am
8 trying to do is discuss with you the
9 possibility of looking at increasing that
10 single side yard and if you can make a
11 convincing argument as to why you can not
12 do that, it ' s not feasible for you to do
13 that, then the Board will certainly
14 consider it .
15 MR. OLIVER: Again, the argument that
16 we have is that the previous deck that has
17 been in existence since at least 1985 , we
18 feel that it is an established drawing.
19 Building to that established drawing, at
20 least in our opinion, it would seem to be
21 that much of an intrusion, since it ' s been
22 in existence to that length of time .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . Jim?
24 MEMBER DINIZIO : ( In Audible) even
25 the tree itself, you can still build
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 116
1 minimum variance feasible, should there be
2 a grant of a variance at all . I am
3 looking at the plan before us . This is a
4 deck plan, and I don ' t know -- I see a
5 hole . I see that is where the tree is .
6 Do you see what I am looking at on the
7 deck plan? It doesn ' t look like it would
8 be that big of a deal to move that over .
9 It ' s quite a substantial deck and a very
10 large backyard. And it looks as though
11 it ' s going to be all new deck; is that
12 correct?
13 MR. OLIVER: That ' s correct . The
14 existing deck is being removed.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The framing is
16 not the issue . If you were going to talk
17 about maintaining the existing joist or
18 something like that, but you ' re not . This
19 whole thing is going to be replaced?
20 MR. OLIVER: Yes .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If the house
22 were there, and you were taking the house
23 down, then that is another story . You ' re
24 taking the whole deck down, you could have
25 lined it up with the house . I am not
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 118
1 around the tree . If you were trying to
2 avoid the tree, then ( In Audible) .
3 MR. OLIVER: The Town water . There
4 is no well .
5 MEMBER DINIZIO : If you can just come
6 back with something that is a little more
7 ( In Audible) .
8 MR. OLIVER: Can the Board just give
9 me a few seconds to consult with my
10 client?
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure .
12 MR. OLIVER: Okay. As far as the
13 setback goes , would the Board be willing
14 to consider if we took an additional foot
15 and a half and at least met at the
16 aggregate side yard? Instead of the total
17 3 feet, can we meet at a foot and a half?
18 The aggregate would still be short on the
19 required minimum?
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would have
21 a conforming side yard.
22 MR. OLIVER: Correct .
23 MEMBER DINIZIO : The whole decking?
24 MR. OLIVER: The whole deck. Around
25 the whole side . This way we conform with
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 119
1 the aggregate, but we ' re still short of
2 the required minimum.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, you
4 propose at the moment, 10 . 5, you want to
5 add 1 . 6?
6 MR. OLIVER: Yes . So it would be 13 .
7 MEMBER HORNING : Are you saying --
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No . 12 .
9 MR. OLIVER: 12 , I 'm sorry.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 12 . 1 . The
11 other side is 33 . 7 . So if you add 1 . 6 --
12 no wait a minute .
13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 23 . 2 .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 23 . 2 , okay .
15 MEMBER HORNING: Sir, are you saying
16 that the deck was put on the building at a
17 time and then zoning was changed? The
18 setbacks were changed?
19 MR. OLIVER: That is my
20 understanding, yes .
21 MEMBER HORNING: That is your
22 understanding .
23 MR. OLIVER: The permits and the CO ' s
24 for the deck wasn ' t issued until 2011 . So
25 apparently the deck was built in sometime
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 120
1 after the house was built without any
2 proper filing .
3 MEMBER HORNING : So it might have
4 been nonconforming the whole time?
5 MR. OLIVER: Possible, yes .
6 MEMBER HORNING: I mean, unless you
7 have some documentation that showed us
8 that the code changed and the setbacks
9 were increased over a certain time?
10 MR. OLIVER: Over a certain period of
11 time .
12 MEMBER HORNING: See if it was
13 nonconforming, and you were issued a
14 variance for the deck for a nonconforming
15 setback, then as soon as you demolish the
16 deck, you lose that variance . So we are
17 looking at in from the perspective that
18 you ' re going to make a whole brand new
19 deck and you should be able to have some
20 flexibility with that deck, rather then
21 just artistic design, which we all
22 appreciate .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: A 12 foot side
24 yard setback is a reasonable size,
25 particularly when it eliminates the
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 121
1 nonconformity for the combined side yard.
2 MR. OLIVER: Okay.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So let ' s do
4 this, do you want to submit to us an
5 amended survey? A site plan?
6 MR. OLIVER: Yes , ma ' am.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Showing what
8 the proposed -- We don ' t need an amended
9 Notice of Disapproval .
10 Is there anyone else in the audience
11 that wants to address this application?
12 (No Response . )
13 MEMBER HORNING: I just want to note
14 for the record, and I think I asked the
15 applicant this on site inspection, the
16 nearest neighbor on that side, the east
17 side, north side, on the proposed deck
18 side, the nearest neighbor is
19 approximately how many feet away?
20 MR. OLIVER: 140 .
21 MEMBER HORNING: Thank you .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So you ' re going
23 to do that, I would suggest that that gets
24 submitted to our office as well, as well
25 as an amended survey, that we can stamp
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 122
1 them. So we can send them over the
2 Building Department at the same time, and
3 we can save time for your client . So you
4 have heard what alternate relief, and you
5 agreed to, with the deck. So I am going
6 to make a motion to close this hearing
7 subject to receipt of a amended deck plan
8 and an amended survey indicating minimum
9 12 . 2 foot side yard setback, and then by
10 eliminating the nonconformity of the
11 combined side yard setback.
12 Is there a second?
13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
15 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
17 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
20 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
21 ******************************************
22 HEARING #6573 - PAUL A. & ELIZABETH
23 REINCKENS
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
25 application before the Board is for Paul
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 123
1 and Elizabeth Reinckens, and that is
2 No . 6573 . This is a request for a Waiver
3 of Merger under Article II , Section
4 280-10A, to unmerge land identified as
5 Suffolk County Tax Map #1000-63-2-25,
6 based on the Building Inspector ' s
7 April 27 , 2012 Notice of Disapproval,
8 which states adjoining conforming or
9 nonconforming lots held in uncommon
10 ownership shall merge until the total lot
11 size conforms to the current bulk
12 schedule, minimum 40 , 000 square feet in
13 the R-40 Residential Zone District, this
14 lot is merged with lot #1000-63-2-26,
15 located at : 955 & 1065 Hummel Avenue,
16 Southold.
17 MR. LARK: Hi, Richard Lark, Main
18 Road, Cutchogue, I am here for the
19 applicant . I just have a few comments .
20 By way of background, when
21 Mr. & Mrs . Reinckens came to see me, they
22 were trying to -- and I will refer to it
23 as Tax Lot ' s 25 , which is subject, and the
24 lot next door, which is Lot #26, they
25 wanted to give Lot #25 to their son Paul,
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 124
- 1 and they went to the Building Inspector to
2 take out the necessary paperwork. They
3 were going to submit some plans , and they
4 said, "no, " because it was merged, and
5 that is the reason why we ' re here . I
6 believe the application before you is
7 complete . I believe it ' s got everything
8 that. you need to make a decision; however,
9 I will make a few comments . The subject
10 property is at 955 Hummel Avenue in
11 Southold. Hummel Avenue is the northerly
12 boundary, which separates business from
13 residential in that area . In fact . The
14 property immediately to the south is zoned
15 -- north of the railroad, but on the south
16 side of Hummel Avenue, is zoned
17 Industrial . Light Industrial . And
18 everything from Hummel Avenue to the north
19 is zoned Residential . So from my own
20 knowledge, this particular section from
21 the Zoning Law, which we appear today
22 before, is probably one of the most
23 misunderstood in the Town of Southold
24 Zoning Code, it causes a lot of
25 unnecessary problems . The Reinckens truly
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 125
1 believe that they have two lots . We had
2 two deeds, but unfortunately one of them
3 was for a life estate, because it really
4 came out of an estate and that is how they
5 wound up purchasing the property really
6 from the Dickerson Family. They get two
7 tax bills since they bought the property.
8 They have a preexisting CO for tax lot
9 #26, which refers to it as a one-family
10 residence . The property cards when you
11 look at them, Lot #25 is described as a
12 vacant lot . Lot #26 is carried with the
13 preexisting house on it . So the two lots ,
14 #25 and #26 are very, very similar, size
15 and shape, but they ' re merged under the
16 Zoning Code into one lot . Whether that is
17 unfair or not, that is what the code says .
18 That is why they ' re here seeking relief
19 from the Board. Looking at some of the
20 merits from the Board, all of the lots
21 basically on the northerly side of Hummel
22 Avenue in this particular section are
23 nonconforming . None of them are 40 , 000
24 square feet . I submit, and I think if you
25 look at the tax map, they all have the
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 126
1 same depth . It ' s just a question of lot
2 width . This lot is a average lot in that
3 area . I think there are six or seven of
4 them when ' I last counted, that were
5 smaller . One being proposed, and the rest
6 of them were slightly larger, but none of
7 them met any of the code . I think to
8 unmerge them, it will not create any
9 adverse impact on the physical or
10 environmental conditions of this
11 neighborhood. I know they want to say a
12 few words to the Board in substance, but
13 that is relay all I have to say, unless
14 you have any questions . Yes , George?
15 MEMBER HORNING: I have a question .
16 You spoke about the character of the
17 neighborhood and adjacent industrial
18 neighborhood, or whatever .
19 MR. LARK: Right .
20 MEMBER HORNING : You also spoke about
21 the average size on Hummel Avenue . Are
22 any of the other lots merged?
23 MR. LARK: I don ' t think so .
24 Mr . Reinckens is going to be able to
25 answer that a lot better than I do,
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 127
1 because when I asked about the other
2 larger lots , he said it had some kind of
3 approval for a two-family. I don ' t know
4 which one it was, but I was not looking at.
5 them from that point-of-view. I think
6 they ' re all preexisting lots . That is the
7 point . This in effect was a preexisting
8 lot, and unfortunately, you can ' t argue
9 with the law. It ' s merged. That is the
10 way it is under the statute . So here
11 we ' re, and we ' re doing what we have to .
12 MEMBER HORNING: Let me rephrase it a
13 little differently then . Of those lots
14 that are shown on the tax map, the one lot
15 is vacant . The one that is now merged.
16 MR. LARK: #25 .
17 MEMBER HORNING: The other parcel,
18 there is a lot of other houses on that
19 street . I would imagine then that every
20 single parcel has a house?
21 MR. LARK: It will if this
22 application is granted. Every parcel will
23 have a house .
24 MEMBER HORNING: So all of these
r
25 lots --
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 128
1 MR. LARK: I think this is the only
2 vacant lot .
3 MEMBER HORNING: That is what I am
4 asking .
5 MR. LARK: That is correct .
6 MEMBER HORNING: So none of the other
7 houses are merged because if they were,
8 then they would have two principal
9 dwellings?
10 MR. LARK: Right . I misunderstood
11 your first question there .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim?
13 MEMBER DINIZIO : ( In Audible) . The
14 lots that have been merged have not been
15 transferred; is that true?
16 MR. LARK: No .
17 MEMBER DINIZIO: ( In Audible) .
18 MR. LARK: It came out of the estate .
19 MEMBER DINIZIO : Out of the
20 Dickerson ' s?
21 MR. LARK: Yes .
22 MEMBER DINIZIO : ( In Audible) .
23 MR. LARK: Right .
24 MEMBER DINIZIO: ( In Audible) .
25 MR. LARK: Right .
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 129
1 MEMBER DINIZIO: ( In Audible) the
2 lot?
3 MR. LARK: The day they bought it . I
4 will get you it in just a second.
5 MEMBER HORNING: 1997 , to my
6 knowledge .
7 MR. LARK: I can tell you from the
8 title search. They took title on
9 June 4 , 1997 . Excuse me . May 7 , 1997 .
10 It was recorded on June 4 , 1997 .
11 MEMBER DINIZIO : Okay. ( In Audible)
12 Town of Southold ( In Audible) building
13 permit .
14 MR. LARK: The house is there . It
15 was built by the Dickerson ' s way back, I
16 think in the 40 ' s .
17 MEMBER DINIZIO : All right . So it
18 was preexisting . So that has to be the
19 lot .
20 MR. LARK: #26, that is correct .
21 MEMBER DINIZIO: There is no
22 building .
23 MR. LARK: No .
24 MEMBER DINIZIO : ( In Audible) .
25 MR. LARK: No, not at all .
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 130
1 MEMBER HORNING: So it would not be
2 creating a nonconformity? ( In Audible) .
3 MR. LARK: Yes, because it ' s on the
4 other lot .
5 MEMBER DINIZIO : I think that is all
6 I have .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No . No questions .
11 MR. LARK: Okay.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would like
13 you to be aware, if you don ' t have copies ,
14 that the Board has received two letters
15 from your neighbor ' s , and we have copies
16 for you . One letter is from Elizabeth and
17 John Asco (phonetic . ) The other is from
18 Aaron and Mary Doyle .
19 MR. LARK: That is the neighbor
20 immediately to the west .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Both of these
22 letters are letters of support .
23 MR. LARK: Okay.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any other
25 questions from the Board?
July 5, 2012 'Zoning Board of Appeals 131
1 MR. REINCKENS SR. : Hi, I am Paul
2 Reinckens, Sr . , and I just wanted to say
3 that I have only owned two homes in my
4 life . So when I went to the second
5 closing, I was unaware that the two lots
6 would automatically be merged. So at that
7 time, I wasn ' t informed of it . Being at a
8 closing for the second time, you know how
9 it is . It ' s signing hundreds of papers
10 and people talking back and forth, and
11 boom, you ' re done . So that is basically
12 the reason why we ' re here . So that is the
13 circumstance at that time, otherwise we
14 might have done something about it then .
15 Now that my son is older, usually they
16 want to run, but he wants to stick around
17 and he loves the Town. He ' s with the fire
18 department and everything . So we thought
19 that this would be a good start .
20 MEMBER HORNING: I have one other
21 question. Do we have a date as to when
22 they were merged?
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, the
24 merger law predated that .
25 MEMBER HORNING : 1997 . So when you
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 132
1 signed at the closing, the merger went
2 into effect?
3 MR. REINCKENS SR. : And I literally
4 had no clue .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And you ' re not
6 the only person in this Town who is
7 unaware of the merger law, and how to
8 handle it .
9 MEMBER DINIZIO : ( In Audible) .
10 MR. REINCKENS SR. : No, it wasn ' t .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is the code .
12 Any other questions from the Board?
13 MEMBER HORNING: No .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
15 else in the audience that would like to
16 address this application?
17 MR. FROHNHOEFER: Good afternoon,
18 Ladies and Gentlemen.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : State your name
20 please?
21 MR. FROHNHOEFER: Joe Frohnhoefer,
22 Southold, Hummel Avenue . Sea tow is the
23 company that owns the block and ( In
24 Audible) . That entire block is made up of
25 very small houses, and lots . There are
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 133
1 none that are empty except for this one .
2 We would like to keep our kids in the
3 Town . I think it would be very good of
4 you sending a message and getting it back
5 to the way that it was, because we want to
6 keep our kids in Town. It ' s hard to get
7 people ( In Audible) and right now, I have
8 52 over there . And it ' s difficult to find
9 places to live, if I don ' t hire locally.
10 So of course we want to hire locally. So
11 to keep our kids in Town, that ' s kind of
12 important . Pauly got Proby of the Year .
13 He is in my firehouse . In my company. He
14 just became an EMT . We don ' t want to lose
15 our kids . We want to keep them. Thank
16 you. See what you can do to help.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
18 else?
19 MR. T . REINCKENS : Good afternoon .
20 My name is Tom Reinckens and I am Paul
21 Jr ' s uncle and Paul ' s brother. I am also
22 a owner of property in Southold. I own
23 the vineyard behind the property that
24 stretches to all the way to Young ' s , over
25 7 acres . Paul helps me out by keeping
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 134
1 some of the varmint out of the vineyard,
2 and it ' s important for me that he is here,
3 and hopefully some day we will all become
4 residences and in my second career when we
5 hopefully start to make some wine . Right
6 now, we ' re just selling grapes . It ' s
7 important to me . Family is very important
8 to us . Both my brother and I are close,
9 and my nephew, and I think -- as Joe has
10 well said, I think and believe that it ' s
11 important that Town ' s look at their young
12 people and hopefully allow them to stay as
13 prosper . That ' s pretty much it . Thank
14 you.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you very
16 much .
17 MS . REINCKENS : I am Elizabeth
18 Reinckens . I am one of the owners of that
19 property. I am quite nervous . So this is
20 a little hard for me, but I do want to
21 speak my mind and say my peace . Up until
22 a while a go, Paul and I were really under
23 the impression that we had two separate
24 properties . And unfortunately with two
25 different tax bills and everything else --
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 135
1 we moved out here . We set our roots to
2 come and belong to a community and
3 hopefully one day retire . And you know,
4 we found our roots . We ' re very much
5 involved in our community. We found a
6 perfect home -- and to raise a family, and
7 next door was something that we were
8 hoping to use for our future . And you
9 know, I am quite sad at this point . When
10 we purchased the lot, I kind of feel that
11 we were deceived. You know, if this merge
12 information at the time of us trying to
13 obtain the property, was it even mentioned
14 to us in any way. Knowing that there was
15 an auction, I mean, anybody in their right
16 mind would have tried to stop this merger
17 and it really blows my mind, but I am kind
18 of embarrassed. You know, maybe we should
19 have been aware of this prior to
20 purchasing . The home that we purchased
21 was an estate sale and had been on the
22 market for a very long time . There was 12
23 people involved. It was very hairy. Our
24 closing of our house took place and it
25 closed almost immediately . I am not
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 136
1 blaming my attorney in any way. There
2 were a lot of other things involved, and I
3 just feel bad that we weren ' t really
4 informed and did not have the knowledge of
5 this . As Paul ' s parents, we don ' t know
6 what our children ' s future is going to
7 hold. And you know, even prior to my
8 husband, he became disabled and was
9 operated on ( In Audible) that is not
10 doing very well . You know, my son had
11 already set down his own roots right here
12 in Southold. You know, he is determined
13 to remain . He is continuing to work in
14 the community. A lot of his friends have
15 gone and now some of them are coming back.
16 As much as I love my son, I would like him
17 to move, even if it ' s right next door . We
18 need our peace and quiet . My husband and
19 I are here, and we really want to help our
20 son remain in Southold. This is very
21 important . You know part of my sons
22 future . If something should happen to me
23 or my husband and with his condition, and
24 has taken a turn, it ' s kind of helpful to
25 know that my son is going to be right next
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 137
1 door and nearby to help with whatever is
2 going on at that time . I am actually
3 going to be a little selfish because I
4 would like to be able to see and hug my
5 grandchildren . I would really like it if
6 they lived next door, so that I could do
7 it every day, whether my son likes that or
8 not, but it ' s going to happen hopefully.
9 We ' re not looking to unmerge the property
10 and sell it in any way. We ' re not looking
11 to make money . We would like to keep it
12 in the family. You know, we want him to
13 very much remain here and support the
14 community and grow with us . I pray to the
15 Board that you take all the bits of
16 information that was presented and really
17 think about it, and the future of the
18 community. And to unmerge the property.
19 Like Joe says , we really need younger
20 generations staying and growing with us .
21 So I hope you guys take it into
22 consideration and really think about this .
23 We appreciate your time . Thank you.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You ' re very
25 welcome .
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 138
1 Anyone else?
2 MR. REINCKENS JR. : Paul Reinckens
3 II , Hummel Avenue . They pretty much
4 summed it up . I grew up around here and
5 went to Southold High School . I graduated
6 in ' 06, and I have always considered where
7 I am going to go to college and what not
8 and I am just trying to stay local . To
9 hopefully one day build a house for myself
10 and my family. Other than that, I have
11 been involved in the ( In Audible) which I
12 think is a big part of the community out
13 here . Everybody helps each other and it ' s
14 very great . House prices has been on the
15 rise in the last few years . Rentals are
16 expensive . So it ' s very tough being a
17 young adult trying to find a place to
18 live . That ' s pretty much it . I hope you
19 guys consider granting this application.
20 Thank you.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You ' re welcome .
22 Any other comments or questions from the
23 audience or the Board?
24 (No Response . )
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Hearing
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 139
1 no further questions or comments, I am
2 going to make a motion to close this
3 hearing and reserve decision to a later
4 date .
5 Is there a second?
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 HEARING #6574 - JOHN & ANGELA REINERTSEN
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
17 application before the Board is for John
18 and Angela Reinertsen, #6574 . Request for
19 variance from Article III Code Section
20 280-15 and the Building Inspector ' s
21 March 29, 2012 Notice of Disapproval based
22 on an application for building permit for
23 an accessory pergola and in-ground
24 swimming pool/spa at : 1) accessory
25 pergola is proposed in a location other
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 140
1 than the code required rear yard, 2 )
2 accessory in-ground swimming pool/spa is
3 proposed in a location other than the code
4 required rear yard, located at : 590
5 Arrowhead Lane, Peconic .
6 Who ' s here to represent this
7 application? Please go to the microphone
8 because this is being recorded. So
9 everyone speaking has to go to the mic and
10 state your name for the transcript and
11 spell it for us .
12 MR. LAURO: My name is Anthony Lauro,
13 A-N-T-H-O-N-Y- L-A-U-R-O.
14 MR. REINERTSEN : John Reinertsen,
15 R-E-I-N-E-R-T-S-E-N .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you .
17 This application, I am just going to go
18 over the variances . The pool is in a side
19 yard proposed location, where the code
20 requires a rear yard location, and the
21 in-ground swimming pool/spa is in the
22 location of the front and side yard, where
23 the code requires a rear yard location .
24 What would you like to tell us about this
25 application?
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 141
1 MR. LAURO : Well, the rear yard only
2 has a full depth of 24 feet, with the
3 setback of the property line from the
4 house . So there is no way that the
5 structures would fit in that area . Okay.
6 And the property is 316 foot long, and
7 only 124 foot total depth . There was two
8 lots combined and now is combined to one .
9 So the density of the lot was brought
10 done . The only place that where this
11 would work is in the side yard, where
12 there would be enough room to put the
13 project together . Okay.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me just ask
15 you a question, so that it reflects in the
16 record. I am sure that you ' re aware of
17 the fact that. this Board granted an
18 application under application No . 5973 in
19 2006, a variances for a home, as well as a
20 pool, and so I would just like to clarify
21 why you ' re before us again?
22 MR. LAURO : Well, when that pool was
23 approved, the homeowner wanted to just get
24 the house built and was considering a
25 pool, but didn ' t really think about it
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of� Appeals 142
1 yet . Now that the house is finished,
2 we ' re readdressing the issue and
3 redesigning it on how they want to use the
4 property. The pool that was approved was
5 very close to the house . The pool was
6 right up on the house . There was room for
7 only pavement . It would give a very
8 commercial look. The property, they
9 wanted a little bit of space to move the
10 pool back a little bit and have some
11 plantings and make it more of a country
12 look than just of a rectangular look, a
13 20x40 pool .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That clarifies
15 that . So you have specifically changed
16 the design that had been approved
17 previously. In looking at your survey,
18 the proposed pool and that was
19 accomplished -- we observed the site and
20 looked at it . We can see where the pool
21 is proposed and the property at the, moment
22 is not clear cut .. It ' s still a lot of
23 scrub and hardwood trees . This particular
24 site plan from Platinum Site Development
25 is showing a green screening between the
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 143
1 pool; and the adjacent property --
2 MR. LAURO : We ' re proposing another
3 set of screening to make it even more that
4 the pool can not be viewed from the
5 street, and from the neighbors .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am not going
7 up in tick country. I don ' t know where
8 the adjacent neighbor ' s property line is .
9 So my question is, will you be clear
10 cutting all the way to edge of the
11 property line or will you be leaving a
12 buffer of natural vegetation?
13 MR. LAURO : That is to the edge of
14 the existing infrastructure proposed.
15 Right to the edge and that ' s it .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the rest of
17 that is going to remain --
18 MR. LAURO : Untouched.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: As it currently
20 is?
21 MR. LAURO : Yes .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry,
23 questions?
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not really at
25 this time . It ' s pretty self explanatory.
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 144
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right .
2 George?
3 MEMBER HORNING : Are there rather
4 large trees along the border of the one
5 end of the side yard where the pool is --
6 to the south?
7 MR. LAURO : There is about two trees
8 that would be affected. It would just be
9 minor scrub and brush . We were removing
10 those two, and that is why we deiced to
11 put another green buffer, and all the way
12 around. From the pool side, you would not
13 see anything . We just wanted to make that
14 no one from the street or the neighbors,
15 that it could be visible from the street .
16 MEMBER HORNING: And there will be
17 trees remaining along that boundary line?
18 MR. LAURO: Yes .
19 MEMBER HORNING: Rather large trees?
20 MR. LAURO : Yes .
21 MEMBER HORNING : And how about the
22 root structure of those trees , will that
23 be impacted by anything that you,' re doing?
24 MR. LAURO : Only those two, other
25 than that, we will box around it . And we
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 145
1 will put temporary protection up so that
2 the root system is not disturbed.
3 MEMBER HORNING: All of those trees
4 are on your property?
5 MR. LAURO : Yes .
6 MEMBER HORNING: And you ' re not
7 concerned about leaves falling in the pool
8 or things like that?
9 MR. LAURO: No, the filtration
10 system, should be able to handle all of
11 that . That should not be a problem at
12 all . The pool is not going to be open
13 during the fall .
14 MEMBER HORNING: I only mention it,
15 because we have assisted on a
16 nonconforming location, and thought that
17 the tree leaves would be a problem --
18 MR. LAURO : As long as the filtration
19 system is running, it should take the
20 leaves off, but most of the time, it would
21 be closed up and have a full safety cover
22 on it and won ' t allow anything to get on
23 the pool .
24 MEMBER HORNING: All right . That ' s
25 it .
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 146
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken, questions?
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jim?
4 MEMBER DINIZIO : No .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let ' s see what
6 happens here . Is there anyone here who
7 would like to address this application?
8 Please come forward to the mic and state
9 your name .
10 MR. J. MURPHY: Good afternoon . I am
11 Jim Murphy. This is my son Adam. My wife
12 and I live at 890 Arrowhead. We ' re the
13 house directly south of the Reinertsen ' s .
14 I would like to start off with, we went
15 through this four or five years ago, if
16 you remember, in 2006 . Maybe six years
17 ago . And its stressful . So why would the
18 Board be entertaining this thing once
19 again? That is our one concern . I ask
20 the Board what is their rights to a
21 continuos appeal?
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If the
23 applicant changes the proposed locations ,
24 then they ' re legally obligated to come
25 back before the Board to reconsider .
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 147
1 Where else are they going to put it? We
2 still have to grant --
3 MR. J. MURPHY: But there is never --
4 I 'm sorry, I interrupted you . Someone can
5 move it closer a foot every year .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If they wanted
7 to -- if it was a very minor change, then
8 it would be up to the Building Department
9 to determine that it would be in keeping
10 with the previous variance granted;
11 however, if it ' s a substantial change,
12 then the Building Department will not
13 issue a permit, because it is not what the
14 Zoning Board permitted.
15 MR. J. MURPHY: I just want on the
16 record that it is stressful to go through
17 this again . Our concerns six years ago
18 have not changed . The noise level that we
19 may have to deal with. In six years ago,
20 there was a compromise to put the pool
21 from the north/south, east/west and to
22 give us more of a buffer . I believe it
23 was 45 feet to our property line . We
24 shook hands on it and it all went away.
25 Now he comes back, and we ' re back to 35
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 148
1 feet again . So our concerns have not
2 changed. We ' re still concerned about
3 noise level and we would like the Board to
4 consider that we go back to the 35 feet --
5 I 'm sorry, 45 feet from the pool to our
6 property line, as the Board did six years
7 ago .
8 MR. A. MURPHY : Right now -
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you state
10 your name, please?
11 MR. A. MURPHY: Adam Murphy.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
13 MR. A. MURPHY: Previously -- right
14 now, it ' s 35 feet from our property line
15 to the pool and 45 feet from the pool to
16 the house . I believe those two should be
17 switched. It should be closer to their
18 property than our property. So I think
19 that is sort of the major crucks of our
20 concern around the variance . I think the
21 rest of it has to do with ordinance . With
22 respect to the tree planting, we would
23 like to get some assurance on when these
24 are going to occur . They have had this
25 property since I guess 2006, because that
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 149
1 is when the first variance was filed. I
2 mean, the property still doesn ' t have a
3 driveway. It ' s been very little
4 improvement or if any improvement to the
5 ground of the property when they built it .
6 It ' s a very nice house but no improvement
7 to the ground. You do have some
8 reasonable concerns around the expeditious
9 of the tree planting associated with the
10 building of the pool . I also had some
11 concerns -- are there any ordinances with
12 respect to a lockable fence around the
13 pool for safety concerns?
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes .
15 MR. A. MURPHY: And are there
16. ordinances with respect to noise levels
17 with the pump?
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : With regard to
19 the fence, yes . There are codes that
20 anybody who owns a pool has to adhere to
21 safety. Definitely. With regards to
22 noise levels, it is not infrequent that
23 this Board is in consideration of any
24 adverse noise impact of the neighbors
25 would require that pump equipment be
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 150
1 placed in a sound proof container . It ' s
2 also for the pump -- it ' s proposed behind
3 a conforming shed. This is pretty far
4 distance away. Let ' s ask the applicant to
5 address those two concerns . Let ' s start
6 with the pump equipment .
7 MR. LAURO : Well, we have opted for
8 the ( In Audible) pump, which at 70 feet on
9 a quiet night and no obstructions and
10 clear air, at 70 foot it ' s max decibel
11 rating is 54 . And at best, it would be 56
12 to 57 . It ' s very quiet . It ' s the
13 quietest one of the market as of now. It
14 uses the least amount of electric too . It
15 will also be in a sound proof box, and
16 there should -- with the trees , the buffer
17 and the screening, it shouldn ' t be heard
18 at all . And I have a print out right here
19 from the manufacturer showing that .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you
21 submit that to us, please?
22 MR. LAURO : Sure .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Talk to us a
24 little bit about the side yard setback
25 that was originally granted at 45 feet,
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 151
1 and now it ' s 35 .
2 MR. REINERTSEN : Well, Anthony wasn ' t
3 in the picture at that time . I will
4 address that . We were building the house .
5 We applied for the variance at the same
6 time, as we did for the variance on the
7 house . We didn ' t know how we were going
8 to build the pool . When we get a pool
9 person involved, they tell us what is
10 normal and what is correct and the same
11 way you build a house, you have ideas .
12 You then have a person like, Anthony, as
13 an architect and a landscape artist to
14 tell you what works, and if you put
15 something too close to your house, there
16 is really no room for planting beds .
17 There really is no room to create what you
18 want to create . So at the time, we just
19 had no focus on the pool . We were just
20 worried on the house . The house is built,
21 and now we have a pool person involved,
22 and Anthony said, look, this is what you
23 should do . At 35 feet off the property
24 line, Jimmy' s house is 120 feet, basically
25 a half a football field away from the pool
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 152
1 and the neighbor from the south . I don ' t
2 see with trees , shrubs , plantings and what
3 have, the pool itself is not going to make
4 noise . You know, we ' re going to be noisy,
5 as if I had a patio or anything else in
6 that area. So we ' re not looking to have
7 wild parities, which was stated six years
8 ago . We had no knowledge at the time what
9 a pool could look like, would look like .
10 Anthony gave us the envision of what we
11 believed the pool to be and kind of a
12 tranquil setting . Not 20x40 , commercial
13 pool like he said, with sliding doors and
14 what have you . That is not what we ' re
15 looking for .
16 MR. LAURO : Basically what we ' re
17 looking for is a nature setting bed, with
18 a natural patio, with a lot of space in
19 between .
20 MEMBER HORNING: What is the status
21 of the variance that was already granted?
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, they
23 reapplied for a change . They can still
24 build what they were granted. We should
25 also reflect upon the fact that the code
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 153
1 does not require that kind of a setback
2 from an accessory structure to the
3 property line . You know, swimming pool ' s
4 can be built quite close to a property
5 line . If this had been a conforming yard,
6 let ' s say, you could be 10 feet away from
7 the property line . It is the fact that
8 this is in a side yard, that is the
9 problem. The setback is of some concern
10 because we ' re also aware of the neighbor ' s
11 concern to be able to try and create a
12 condition where everyone is satisfied. We
13 will keep these for the file?
14 MR. REINERTSEN : Yes .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Other comments?
16 Just come to the mic .
17 MS . MURPHY: The way --
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We can ' t hear
19 you, Mrs . Murphy .
20 MS . MURPHY: I ' m sorry. The way our
21 house is built, our bedrooms is closest to
22 the property line . Are close to the
23 property line, and our concern is the
24 planting, you know, because they could run
25 out of money and they could be issued --
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 154
1 MR. A. MURPHY: We want to ensure that
2 the plantings are being done with the
3 pool . There has been a history with no
4 planting on the property. I think that- is
5 still on your to-do list to talk about
6 here .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They ' re
8 proposing the planting .
9 MR. A. MURPHY: Right, but what could
10 we do to ensure the plantings --
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, I would
12 like to tell you.
13 MR. A. MURPHY : Okay.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Board can
15 make a determination in which we condition
16 the decision, should the Board decide to
17 approve it . Based upon the drawings and
18 plantings as proposed. Which means that
19 they will not get a Certificate of
20 Occupancy from the Building Department
21 until the plantings are accomplished.
22 MR. A. MURPHY : Okay.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And I don ' t
24 know that it would be an issue because
25 it ' s being offered on the survey, but we
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 155
1 could enforce their proposal . We can put
2 a condition on there whereby they must
3 continuosly maintain the planting. It is
4 not uncommon for the Board to do this .
5 MR. A. MURPHY: So they can do the 35
6 as opposed to the 45?
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They ' re not
8 really before us with a side yard setback.
9 They ' re before us because it ' s in a side
10 yard. They legally could be much closer .
11 We listened to them and they have
12 explained why they would like to move it
13 farther from the house .
14 MR. A. MURPHY: Then basically, we ' re
15 not going to contest the variance unless
16 there is a 45 foot setback. And if there
17 isn ' t, and it ' s a 35 foot, then we will
18 continue to contest it .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If the Board
20 determines that that is the best course of
21 action to proceed, then you are allowed to
22 proceed with an Article 78 .
23 MR. A. MURPHY: Right . I am just
24 trying to say with the planting and the
25 required gating, we don ' t really have any
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board- of Appeals 156
1 issues at all at 45 feet from the pool .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
3 MR. A. MURPHY: I just wanted to make
4 sure that it was clear .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, it ' s quite
6 clear .
7 Does anyone have any questions?
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don ' t think 10
9 feet is going to make much of a
10 difference .
11 MR. A. MURPHY: Six years it did.
12 Why would you reverse yourself?
13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why would I
14 reverse myself?
15 MR. A. MURPHY : I don ' t know if you
16 were here six years ago, with all do
17 respect .
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was here six
19 years ago .
20 MR. A. MURPHY: So why would you
21 reverse yourself?
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I live in a place
23 where there are two swimming pools back to
24 back. In fact that neighbor is higher
25 than mine, and I can ' t hear them at all .
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 157
1 And I am just telling you in my particular
2 opinion, I don ' t think 10 feet is going to
3 make a difference . That is my
4 professional opinion.
5 MR. A. MURPHY: Fair enough, and
6 we ' re here to give our opinion as well .
7 MEMBER HORNING : Let me ask him a
8 question. Where does the 45 feet come
9 from?
10 MR. A. MURPHY: The 45 feet -- it
11 used to be 45 feet, not it ' s 35 feet from
12 the property line to the the house .
13 MEMBER DINIZIO : They got approval;
14 six years ago to build a swimming pool in
15 the side yard at 35 feet . That is where
16 it comes from, George .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They ' re not
18 before for a --
19 MR. A. MURPHY : I understand that
20 completely.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They ' re before
22 us because they changed the plan . It
23 still is in a side yard. They changed the
24 plan, and therefore the Building
25 Department determines that they ' re not
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 158
1 complying with what was previously
2 granted. They have to come back before
3 us . They have to go through the process
4 again, and pay for it again. We ' re here
5 to hear all interested parties . We ' re
6 unbiased.
7 MEMBER DINIZIO : They were granted
8 45 , and now they want 35 . I can see that
9 they want it further away from the house .
10 ( In Audible) . Six years ago, it was
11 agreed upon. I think that it ' s not -- ( In
12 Audible) . What do you need with that
13 extra 10 feet?
14 MR. REINERTSEN : Because with the
15 shape of the pool, and the improvement
16 that is involved now, it put us over the
17 envelope .
18 MEMBER DINIZIO: And if you put it on
19 the other side?
20 MR. REINERTSEN : You put it on the
21 other side of the pool, it ' s closer to the
22 house and will shorten up where you can
23 walk again.
24 MEMBER DINIZIO : ( In Audible) .
25 MR. LAURO : Well, they' re going to be
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 159
1 adding planting beds that is almost 10
2 feet . They want it to be very
3 professional . It is a grey area . There
4 is also one central filtration system
5 instead of two, and the point is to be
6 able to see the water feature over the
7 spa .
8 MEMBER DINIZIO : ( In Audible) .
9 MR. REINERTSEN : I will tell you the
10 truth, six years ago when we agreed to
11 this , Jimmy was sick, and I didn ' t want to
12 create a lot of problems . It was a
13 consideration at the time .
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : The thing is why now
15 are you asking for the 10 feet? What I am
, 16 getting from you is that you want to put a
17 hot tub .
18 MR. LAURO : There was no landscape
19 design originally. He knew he wanted a
20 pool . He just didn ' t know where he wanted
21 the pool . After doing his research, he
22 realized that he wanted a free-form pool,
23 and required a little more patio space,
24 and he said he didn ' t want a commercial
25 square paved look. He wanted a more
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 160
1 country feel, which is more buffers
2 softening it . Planting beds does require
3 more space .
4 MEMBER DINIZIO : ( In Audible) .
5 MR. LAURO : Yes , basically what it
6 was patio space when you step out of the
7 doors . If we went with the pool that was
8 approved with the house, there is almost
9 no chair and table space . This is the new
10 one .
11 MEMBER DINIZIO : ( In Audible) .
12 MR. LAURO: By adding 10 foot on each
13 side, we ' re adding more patio, which is
14 more for the tables and chairs, rather
15 than the 15 foot . We will leave the five
16 foot walking space on each side . It ' s
17 more of an aesthetic look.
18 MEMBER DINIZIO : ( In Audible) there
19 is still plenty of room for you to be able
20 to move around. I understand why you want
21 to . ( In Audible) .
22 MR. LAURO : We kept it facing the
23 direction that it was approved. We did
24 not turn it back. We ' re are keeping it
25 north/south, and not east/west . The 45
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 161
1 feet is achievable for what they would
2 like to have movable space and planting
3 beds that would be enough to be
4 aesthetically pleasing to them.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The biggest
6 concern is noise and the privacy; right?
7 MR. A. MURPHY : Yes .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Your
9 explanation is that you ' re not cutting
10 down any of that buffer by the pool, and
11 you ' re going to put in an additional
12 planting beds and continue with
13 Evergreens , and together they will create
14 no visual intrusion and create a noise
15 barrier?
16 MR. LAURO: We can also build them up
17 on a berm to raise them up a little bit,
18 if desired.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That helps .
20 MEMBER DINIZIO : That requires a
21 variance .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : For a berm?
23 MEMBER DINIZIO : I believe so, yes .
24 MR. LAURO : That is just something
25 that we ' re offering to them.
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 162
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You ' re now
2 proposing a 35 foot setback from the
3 property line . What would happen if it
4 was 40 feet, and not 45 or 35, 40 feet?
5 It ' s a compromise .
6 MR. LAURO: I think that is okay.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You will have
8 your usable patio and you will compromise .
9 Is that reasonable?
10 MR. REINERTSEN : Yes .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Board members?
12 MEMBER HORNING: I just have a couple
13 of questions still . There are a couple of
14 Board members now that are not on the
15 Board when this other variance was
16 granted, and we don ' t have a copy of your
17 site survey at that time showing anything .
18 We do have a survey and a site plan
19 survey, with your existing house on it and
20 the setbacks on it and everything else,
21 and your proposed pool . The house that is
22 on the survey that you submitted, is that
23 exactly in the same place as you will be
24 proposing to put it when you got the
25 variance before?
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 163
1 MR. REINERTSEN : Uh-huh .
2 MEMBER HORNING: You didn ' t move the
3 house any way? In other words the house
4 is identically situated --
5 MR. REINERTSEN : That is what we did.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The previous
7 condition, and George, not to interrupt
8 you. It speaks to what you ' re talking
9 about, can require, and we will do the
10 same thing again about screening . The
11 pool and accessory structure will be
12 screened from the road and the adjoining
13 property to the south by Evergreen
14 plantings planted at a minimum height of
15 five feet . These plantings must be
16 maintained and in place so their
17 functional use is compromised. Are you
18 okay with that?
19 MEMBER HORNING: Except not to be
20 contentious , Madam Chairperson, and I am
21 looking at No . 1 , of the variance granted.
22 Grant the front and rear yard reduction
23 does apply except that placement of the
24 pool shall be rotated east/west of it ' s
25 location and set back at a minimum -- this
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 164
1 one says 70 feet from the southerly
2 property line .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This was for a
4 dwelling and the pool .
5 MEMBER HORNING: The description is a
6 little bit confusing .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes .
8 MEMBER HORNING: I am still not clear
9 as to why they can not have it as detailed
10 in the original variance at 45 feet . I am
11 certain about that .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just so that we
13 don ' t go on repeating ourselves, it ' s a
14 design proposal . It has to do with usable
15 patio area that was not considered in the
16 original application . That is why it is
17 coming back before us to reconsider the
18 setback being proposed -- that is not to
19 close to that property line, and it will
20 be buffered substantially by the natural
21 vegetation and trees . We will incorporate
22 in the decision to have that Evergreen
23 screening to be continuously maintained.
24 The applicant has discussed with this
25 Board alternative relief, which would be
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 165
1 setback at 40 instead of 35 feet, and I
2 think that is all of the issues that were
3 flushed out, as far as I could see .
4 Just for the record, when is the
5 timeframe that you will want to begin
6 construction for the pool?
7 MR. LAURO : As soon as possible .
8 They ' re ready to start construction.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And how about
10' the planting?
11 MR. LAURO : They will go in as soon
12 as pool is out of the way, because the
13 pool is going to be gunite, because when
14 the concrete is shot, it can affect the
15 plant material . We wanted to make sure
16 that was all of that way. So as soon as
17 construction is done, we will put in the
18 screening .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would the Board
20 entertain a condition that this variance
21 will be granted in a particular time frame
22 for a year, is that feasible?
23 MR. LAURO : That this be completed in
24 a year, yes .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 166
1 Typically variances don ' t have timeframe,
2 but sometimes timeframes do become
3 significant and the Board has the option
4 to do this .
5 MR. LAURO : Which part of the
6 construction are we ' re talking about?
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The pool and
8 the planting .
9 MR. LAURO : Okay.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right .
11 MR. LAURO : I think the pool can be
12 constructed in a year .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You wanted to
14 address the Board, please come before the
15 mic and state your name?
16 MS . MCNAB : Hi, I am Yvonne McNab . I
17 live at 65 Arrowhead Lane .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you just
19 spell your name?
20 MS . MCNAB : Yvonne, Y-V-O-N-N-E
21 McNab, M-C-N-A-B .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you.
23 MS . MCNAB: I live directly across
24 from the Reinertsen ' s and we have no
25 problem with wherever they want to put
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 167
1 their pool . And I just wanted to say that
2 I think -- it ' s a 140 feet from their
3 property to the edge of their house?
4 MR. REINERTSEN : 120 .
5 MS . MCNAB : Well most of that
6 property is wooded, heavily wooded. So
7 they wouldn ' t see a pool if they were all
8 the way to their property line . All those
9 pieces are very long and narrow. So I
10 just wanted to say that for the record,
11 that they wouldn ' t even be bothered
12 really, and they ' re not there full-time .
13 They ' re there full-time, really.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have to
15 address the Board.
16 MS . MCNAB : That ' s all I wanted to
17 say. I have no problem with it, and our
18 property is exactly right across from
19 theres . So we ' re all for it and very
20 happy for them. There you go .
21 MR. A. MURPHY: With respect to
22 wooded area, it is not our responsibility
23 to maintain the woods to maintain a buffer
24 between the proposed pool and our house .
25 Yes , there are woods there now, but if all
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 168
1 of those woods become necessary for the
2 pool, then it restricts our ability. Yes,
3 there is wood there now --
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How much of the
5 property --
6 MR. A. MURPHY: Well, we just said
7 120 feet , right? Apparently our house is
8 120 feet from the property line . I don ' t
9 know. I haven ' t measured it . I haven ' t
10 seen any plans .
11 MR. REINERTSEN : It ' s about 120 feet
12 from their property line . They have
13 another 35 feet to their house .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So with regard
15 to noise and intrusion, your house is
16 setback from your own property line . The
17 bottom line, you don ' t need to maintain
18 anything on your property. Your property
19 is not before this Board. There is about
20 a 35 foot vegetive natural; landscaped
21 buffer that will not be clear cut by your
22 neighbor . In addition to the planting of
23 Evergreens . Even if you did clear cut ,
24 you ' re going to have a very substantial
25 buffer .
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 169
1 MR. A. MURPHY: I don ' t think it ' s
2 going to be 35 feet .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The patio is
4 not before this Board. They can put stone
5 pavers down . They can clear cut the
6 property. They can put down stone pavers
7 till their heart is content . It does not
8 require any action before this Board.
9 We ' re now saying that they ' re proposing
10 the pool to be 35 feet . We just discussed
11 with them to making. it 40 feet, okay. And
12• I think the Board has heard ample
13 testimony from all concerned parties .
14 They have attempted to address everybody ' s
15 concern fairly and accurately.
16 Is there anyone else in the audience
17 who wants to address this application?
18 (No Response . )
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
20 further comments , I am going to make a
21 motion to close this hearing and reserve
22 decision to a later date .
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
24 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 170
1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
i
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
3 ( See Minutes for Resolution . )
4 ******************************************
5 HEARING #6566 - EDWARD J. CONNOR
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This is an
7 application for Edward J. Connor . That
8 was reopened before this Board to address
9 lot coverage that was not previously
10 discussed in the application . Let me read
11 it, because it is slightly a different
12 application . A request for variance from
13 Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the
14 Building Inspector ' s March 20 , 2012 ,
15 amended June 12 , 2012 , Notice of
16 Disapproval based on an application for
17 building permit to construct a deck
18 addition to existing single family
19 dwelling; 1) less than the code required
20 minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet, 2 )
21 lot coverage at more than the code
22 permitted 200 ; located at : 1200 Gillette
23 Drive, East Marion.
24 So would you like to come forward and
25 state your name?
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 171
1 MR. PANETTIERI : My name is Vincent
2 J. Panettieri .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All right .
4 Mr . Panettieri . What happened was after
5 we closed the hearing, and just so the
6 record reflects it, that we recognize that
7 the survey that was submitted to the
8 Building Department was different than the
9 survey that ws submitted to our
10 department, the Zoning Board of Appeals
11 Department . The one that was submitted to
12 the Building Department does not show lot
13 coverage on it . Your existing lot
14 coverage is already beyond what the code
15 permits . Previously we were looking at a
16 proposed rear yard setback to the deck,
17 with a 16 foot depth, and we talked about
18 making it 14 . You said it would probably
19 be okay. Then we closed the hearing and
20 then we discovered the lot coverage issue .
21 The survey dated April 17 , 2012 , shows
22 your existing lot coverage of 24 . 4 percent
23 and a proposed lot coverage of 26 . 8
24 percent . Now that lot coverage is
25 probably the greatest in the neighborhood.
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 172
1 Many of them are nonconforming lots and
2 many of them have excessive lot coverage
3 because they' re fairly narrow lots . We
4 did this so that we can legally address
5 that issue and square everything away. So
6 the proposal would be if the deck would be
7 to 14 feet, alterative relief, instead of
8 16 feet . You ' re going to increase the
9 rear yard setback to 21 . 5 where the the
10 code requires 35 feet instead of 19 . 5 ,
11 which would mean that it is a little bit
12 more conforming to the code . We can then
13 grant the lot coverage . It will be
14 reduced a little . Very, very little, like
15 . 2 percent . So it ' s almost -- but the
16 intent is to bring this into greater
17 conformance . The lot coverage properly
18 and legally so that it doesn ' t come up as
19 an issue again. Are you clear on this and
20 all of that?
21 MR. PANETTIERI : My answer to you is
22 that I am not the owners .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know you ' re
24 not .
25 MR. PANETTIERI : I understand. All
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 173
1 you ' re saying is that the deck has to be
2 smaller?
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: By two feet .
4 MR. PANETTIERI : By two feet . Back
5 to the 14?
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Back to the 14 .
7 In case you ' re explaining this to the
8 owner . We had to do this because the lot
9 coverage should have been addressed in the
10 first hearing, and it wasn ' t .
11 MR. PANETTIERI : Okay.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And we bent
13 over backwards to do this , and do this
14 quickly and without under hardship for the
15 applicant .
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Because what
17 could have happened, you could have gone
18 to the Building Department with a building
19 permit and they could have said to you we
20 need to give you a Notice of Disapproval
21 for lot coverage and you would have say,
22 "what?" And so that is the reason why it
23 was facilitated in this particular matter,
24 because we know how important it is to get
25 this deck built . And that is why we did
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 174
1 that .
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And we waived the
3 fee .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now, and our
5 office staff prepared mailings and
6 notices . I should note that however, we
7 were under no obligation to do that
8 because the error was not in our office .
9 The error was that the application for the
10 Building Department was different than the
11 application to the Zoning Board, but as a
12 great courtesy we extended to your
13 consideration .
14 MR. PANETTIERI : Which is
15 appreciated.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Board is
17 very familiar with this and we have all
18 done site inspection . I am going to ask
19 the Board if there are any questions?
20 MEMBER HORNING: I have one question .
21 What is the actual lot coverage going to
22 be?
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 26 . 5 percent .
24 MEMBER HORNING: 26 . 5, okay. With a
25 14 foot deck.
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 175
1 _. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 14x16 .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If we close the
3 hearing today, we can deliberate and we
4 know you want to get going on this . Once
5 the Board closes the hearing, the Board
6 can start to deliberate on this . It has a
7 draft decision before it . Again, we
8 rushed this through . We could have waited
9 for two weeks but we have a draft in front
10 of us , a decision, and the Board can close
11 this hearing now and proceed to deliberate
12 so that you can have an answer by the end
13 of the day?
14 MR. PANETTIERI : Yes .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So any comments
16 or questions?
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: None .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I make a motion
19 to close this hearing and reserve
20 decision .
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
24 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 176
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
2 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
3 ******************************************
4
5
6 (Whereupon, the public hearings for
7 July 5, 2012 concluded. )
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 177
1
2 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
3
4
5
6 I, Jessica DiLallo, certify that the
7 foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public
8 Hearings was prepared using required
9 electronic transcription equipment and is a
10 true and accurate record of the Hearings .
11
12
13 Signature :
14 essica 1Lallo
15
16
17 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
18 PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
19
20
21 Date : July 22 , 2012
22
23
24
( 25