HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-06/07/2012 Hearing 1
--,_y 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 RECF ®
7 'AUG ® 2 2012
8 Southold Town Hall
WARD OF APPFALS
Southold, New York
9
10
11 June 7 , 2012
10 : 22 A.M.
12
13 Board Members Present :
f
14 LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
15 GERARD GOEHRINGER - Member
16 JAMES DINIZIO, JR. - Member
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
1
2
3
4 Hearing: Page :
5 Hernan Michael Otano, #6525 3-15
6 Southold Historical Society, #6567 15-23
7 Judith Greco, #6568 23-29
8 James Willse, #6569 29-37
9 Edward J. Conner, #6566 37-47
10 Lisa and Anthony Sannino, #6565 47-119
11 Richard Meyerholz, #6556 120-120
12 Anthony and Daniele Cacioppo, #6571 120-129
� 13 Kimogenor Point, #6550 129-179
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 3
1 HEARING #6525 - HERNAN MICHAEL OTANO
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our first public
3 hearing of the morning is for Hernan Michael
4 Otano, #6525 . It ' s a carryover . So there is
5 no need to read the legal notice . This is for
6 the application that was adjourned from
7 February, okay, which was an Area Variance .
8 We closed -- because this and the other
9 application is related, Pat, I ' d like the
10 Board to- be aware of the fact that we did
11 receive information on the Use Variance
12 application that was closed subject to
13 receipt . So the clock can now start ticking.
9
14 on this one, and I am going to suggest that we
15 look at these two applications simultaneously.
16 That is the only way that it would make sense .
17 Then we can proceed to see if there is any
18 additional testimony that you would like to
19 submit, with regards to the Area Variance,
20 then we can close that application, and then
21 the time would be running on both
22 applications . Is that acceptable to you?
23 MS . MOORE : Yes, thank you .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Go ahead, Pat .
25 MS . MOORE : Yes . Good morning . The
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 4
i
1 Breezy Shore homeowner ' s are here . Several
2 of them, including a Board member . Mr . Otano
3 is here as well . Very briefly, just outline
4 the Area Variance for you, because last time
5 we spoke on the record, it seems we got
6 sidetracked a little bit . So I want to be
7 sure that we have the points very clearly
8 outlined for your Area Variance consideration .
9 With respect to whether this Area Variance
10 will make an undesirable change to the
11 character of the neighborhood, a detriment to
12 nearby properties . We have already
13 established that the improvements were made in
5
14 order to maintain the character of the
15 neighborhood. Breezy Shore ' s operates under
16 their By-Law ' s and they require that the units
17 be maintained, and that the character of the
18 neighborhood equally be maintained, as is .
19 The existing cottage does maintain the "as
20 built" original location . I would ask you to
21 go back and look at the survey that was
22 submitted for the property, prepared by Young
23 . & Young. That the survey that was submitted
24 early in the process and resubmitted with the
25 Use Variance application shows the 82 . 63 acres
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 5
1 and the peninsula and basin . And it
2 accurately reflects the location of all --
3 comprise of all of the units, and their
4 setback to the bulkhead. As you note from
5 your own inspection, the bulkhead was
6 replaced. The bulkhead is functional . It ' s
7 in very good condition, and the setbacks of
8 the cottages are all -- for the most part,
9 uniformly along the bulkhead. Some are closer
10 by a few feet . Some are a little farther by a
11 few feet . Our unit is C5, and it is about
12 average with all the setbacks of the cottages .
13 The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be
14 achieved by some method feasible for the
15 applicant to pursue, other than the Area
16 Variance . As a co-op., we only have the right
. 17 to the proprietary lease area of the existing
18 cottage . The construction again was in-kind,
19 as far as wood goes . In-place, the exact same
20 location, with upgrades that the State
21 Building Code would mandate, as to the
22 improvements . Through the improvements , the
23 construction process , they were able to remove
24 asbestos, lead paint and other hazardous
25 substances . So overall, the improvement is a
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 6
1 benefit . It also leads to the benefit of the
2 environment as well . As well, as health and
3 welfare of the individual occupants of the
4 unit . The amount of relief that is requested
5 is not substantial, in that, it was in-kind
6 and in-place . There was no further
7 encroachment towards the bulkhead, than the
8 existing foundation originally maintained.
9 The foundation does have a Building Permit,
10 and that foundation establishes the setback.
11 The variance will not have an adverse impact
12 on the. various environmental conditions in the
13 neighborhood. Again, it ' s an environmental
14 improvement . Any time you have upgrades to an
15 existing structure, and between the
16 improvements of the foundation and the
17 environmental improvements to the structure
18 itself, all and all, it is a benefit . As far
19 as the setback to the bulkhead, there really
20 is no environmental impact, in that it is a
21 piece of property. The setbacks does not
22 impact the Shelter Island Sound, in that it is
23 adequately setback, as is . Was the allege
24 difficulty self-created? Well, we believe it
25 wasn ' t . Again, it was in-kind and in-place .
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 7
1 The method of doing this, we have all
2 established, there is better ways of doing it,
3 but it was for the exact same cottage that is
4 -- that was there previously. Are there any
5 covenants and restrictions concerning the
6 land? No, however, there is a co-op
7 agreement . It operates as a co-op and under
8 the terms and conditions of the management of
9 the co-op Board. So I guess, indirectly,
10 there are C&R' s that they have to follow, but
11 it ' s not the traditional C&R' s that fall as a
12 single-family dwelling in a subdivision, for
13 example . This is the minimum variance that is
14 necessary and adequate, to preserve and
15 protect the character of the neighborhood. We
16 believe that it is , and we hope that you will
17 agree with us . That this was the minimum that
18 was possible, given the conditions of the
19 structure, and previous to the construction.
20 And any less , would deprive the owner the use
21 of the 600 square feet of the unit, the
22 proprietary leased area . So being in-kind,
23 in-place, is really the minimum possible . You
24 know, cutting it back in any way would be a
25 real hardship to the owner, given that it is
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 8
1 only 600 square feet and some . You have the
2 dimensions . I don ' t have it in front of me,
3 but in the 600 square feet area . So it ' s even
4 less than a single-family dwelling minimum
5 State Code requirement . I would be happy to
6 answer any questions . I think you now have a
7 full record to address all of the issues that
8 were before you . Thank you .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You ' re welcome .
10 We have taken ample testimony on this
11 application .
12 MS . MOORE : Yes, you have .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am going to ask
14 if there is anyone in the audience that would
15 like to address this application?
16 (No Response . )
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do the Board
18 members have any additional questions?
19 MEMBER HORNING: What became of the
20 discussion as to whether or not it was
21 technically a demolition or not?
22 MS . MOORE : Well, in the interim, the
23 code changed to the 75 percent, but I think
24 the Board -- it ' s the Board ' s decision, and
25 you have the Use Variance application to cover
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 9
1 that issue . It ' s really in your lap .
2 MEMBER HORNING: Well, the Building
3 Department deemed it a demolition, in their
4 Notice of Disapproval, but then you had some
5 testimony that was indicating that it wasn ' t?
6 MS . MOORE : Well, we have given you
7 certification and so on, by the architects .
8 There is a weight in the evidence, and you can
9 decide whether or not it reflects -- at the
10 time, the testimony was that the code would
11 require less than 50 percent demolition. The
12 code now is 75 percent . We believe that
.13 50 percent, we were still maintaining the
14 existing structure, but again, you know, we
15 hope that we have given you enough testimony
16 that -- if it ' s not a demolition, then the
17 only other issue that you ' re dealing with is
18 the variances . If it is a demolition, then
19 you have asked me to address the Use Variance
20 criteria, and we think that there is ample
21 evidence that a Use Variance is appropriate in
22 this case, given that Mr . Otano ' s investment
23 in this property would be gone, if he were not
24 permitted to rebuild the existing structure .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else?
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 10
1 MS . ANDALORO: George, just the Use
2 Variance application is kind of closed.
3 MEMBER HORNING: Right . As of when?
4 It was on the schedule today?
5 MS . ANDALORO : This is on for the Area
6 Variance .
7 MEMBER HORNING: Right . That is what I
8 am asking about . At that Area Variance
9 hearing, they were -- they produced that it
10 wasn ' t a demolition. I was just wondering if
11 the condition has changed on that --
12 MS . ANDALORO : What is before you is a
13 Notice of Disapproval from the prior code .
14 Ms . Moore is well aware that if she wanted the
15 Building Department to take another look at
16 this , she would have to get a revised Notice
17 of Disapproval of the Building Code, and she
18 can come again before the Board under the new
19 code . Okay.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have had
21 testimony for two separate applications that
22 are related. I believe the Board has had a
23 number of hearings, and --
24 MS . MOORE : Those --
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have all the
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 11
1 information that we need to proceed on a
2 deliberation .
3 MS . MOORE : George I think typically
4 the Board -- Excuse me, Mr . Horning . The
5 Board is a fair Board. We think that we have
6 met all the standards for all the applications
7 that we have made . Should this end up in the
8 court, then obviously we would have our
9 testimony, with respect to arguing issues . At
10 this point, let ' s move forward with what you
11 have, just so that we can hopefully move
12 forward with the project . Right now, you
13 know, with all do respect, and I apologize, I
14 thought this was the closing out of the
15 expenses that you were requesting . For the
16 record, we sent it over on the 26th . We
17 didn ' t realize that the Town ' s computer
18 couldn ' t read it .' So fortunately, they did
19 alert us , and we brought the hardcopy over .
20 MEMBER HORNING: That is for the Use
21 Variance?
22 MS . MOORE : Yes . That is for the Use
23 Variance . So that closes out that hearing .
24 And we ' re now -- we ' re just closing --
25 wrapping up the Area Variance application,
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 12
1 and --
2 MEMBER HORNING: You ' re not contesting
3 the Building Department ' s determination that
4 it was a demolition?
5 MS . MOORE : No, we did contest it right
6 from the beginning .
7 MS . ANDALORO: That is all on the
8 record.
9 MEMBER HORNING: Thank you.
10 MS . MOORE : Think of it as two buckets .
11 We sort of put a lid on the Use Variance
12 bucket, and now we ' re dealing with the Area
13 Variance bucket .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It has been a
15 number of months, and we have transcripts on
16 everyone ' s testimony and the Building
17 Department --
18 MS . MOORE : Right .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there any
20 further questions or comments?
21 MS . MOORE : Just one very brief
22 request . This is a summer -- primarily a
23 summer community, and we would ask for -- and
24 I know, you. are all very diligent to get the
25 decision as quickly as possible . If there is
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 13
1 a way of communicating with the Trustees ,
2 because we have to go back to wrap up the
3 Trustees application . We were waiting to
4 finish up the hearing processes here, with
5 this Board. So if there is a way of
6 communicating with the Trustees Board, so we
7 can move forward, kind of get both approvals
8 in hand. So we can go straight to the
9 Building Department presumably with the
10 approvals, and continue the construction,
11 because he has a contractor ready to roll,
12 and we ' re trying to do it, so that it can be
13 the least obstructive to the summer community,
14 and the people that are going to be there
15 now.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We will do our
17 best to move as quickly as reasonable .
18 MS . MOORE : I understand.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s fairly
20 complicated. Clearly, we ' re not going to be
21 able to provide anything to the Trustees until
22 such time deliberations are completed.
23 MS . MOORE : I know it ' s not formal .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All we can say is
25 that we have concluded both hearings .
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 14
1 MS . MOORE : That ' s all right . Maybe we
2 could just wrap it up -- since they ' re both
3 independent applications and presumably we
4 could get the Trustees , and so we can finish
5 up . We missed the June hearing, but we ' re
6 hoping that we can get on the July calendar .
7 So we can move this along.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We will do what
9 we can from our end.
10 MS . MOORE : Appreciate it very much .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any further
12 questions or comments?
13 (No Response . )
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I make a motion
. 15 to close this hearing and reserve decision to
16 a later date .
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by
19 Mr . Goehringer .
20 All in favor?
21 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
23 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 15
1 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
2 ******************************* ************
3 HEARING #6567 - SOUTHOLD HISTORICAL SOCIETY
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
5 application before the Board is for Southold
6 Historical Society, #6567 . Request for
7 variance from Article X Code Section 280-46
8 (bulk schedule) , based on an application for
9 Building Permit and the Building Inspector ' s
10 March 9, 2012 Notice of Disapproval concerning
11 proposed front porch addition to existing
12 building located in the HB District, at;
13 1 ) less than the code required mi-nimum front
14 yard setback of 15 feet, 2 ) less than the code
15 required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet,
16 3) less than the code required total side
17 yards of 25 feet, located at : 54127 Main Road,
18 Southold.
19 Is there someone here to address that
20 application?
21 MR. FLEMING: Yes . Good morning .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning .
23 MR. FLEMING: I am Jeff Fleming. I am
24 the director of the Southold Historical
25 Society. We are here today to propose adding
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 16
1 a front porch to the existing building at
2 54127 Main Road . The front porch, which you
3 will see in the application, is a historical
4 photo from about 1900 . It was replaced about
5 the time of the 1937 hurricane when it was
6 damaged and removed, based on the 1941
7 photograph, which shows the present entrance
8 staircase, and that is there today. The
9 building known as the Bett ' s Hotel, was built
10 in the 40 ' s and by the Lester Family. It was
11 owned by a number of other families until
12 Sherman Bedwith (phonetic) acquired it in 1964
13 for his ship chandlery shop . It was later
14 occupied by Frank C . Wells and an insurance
15 agency, and about 20 years, Robert Galeski
16 purchased it, and had his North Fork Real
17 Estate office is there . The Society acquired
18 the building last summer, and begun work on
19 it . The porch was an integral part of the
20 front of the building when it was constructed.
21 You can see in the historic photo and the
22 present photos that you have, that the porch
23 roof remains intact; however, the four columns
24 and the actual structural base of the porch
25 are no longer there, and that is what we ' re
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 17
1 requesting permission to put back into place .
2 It would be restoring an original missing
3 aspect of the building, very similarly to what
4 the Society did about twenty years ago on the
5 Prince building, which is located opposite
6 Rothman ' s Department Store., which had also
7 lost its porch due to various storms in the
8 twentieth century . You know, one of the
9 things that we ' re very proud of with the
10 Society, we continue to restore and maintain
11 properties along Main Road, which in some
12 parts of the Village have seen better times .
13 One of the things that we ' re excited about
14 doing, is bringing this building back to the
15 way that it was and adding it to Main Road as
16 a way to revitalize some of the buildings that
17 are not in such good shape anymore . I think
18 that the architect and designer have come up
19 with a solution that meets the Society ' s
20 needs, basically replaces what was there
21 originally, and I think that it would be a
22 wonderful addition to the downtown . I would
23 be happy to answer questions about the
24 building .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to
June, 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 18
1 enter into the record what the actual setbacks
2 are that exist . The front yard setback is at
3 3 . 75 feet . The code requires 15 . The minimum
4 side yard setback is 2 . 2 . The code requires
5 10 feet, minimum, and the total side yard
6 setbacks are 17 . 5 feet, where the code
7 requires 25 feet . You propose basically
8 maintaining those setbacks . The porch will be
9 essentially no further toward the sidewalk
10 then where the steps are at the moment?
11 MR. FLEMING: No . It ' s going to be
12 right down to the original roof .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. For your
14 records, we have a letter from Suffolk County
15 indicating that this is a matter for local
16 determination, and I would be happy to give
17 you a copy, if you would like?
18 MR. FLEMING : That would be wonderful .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It ' s not terribly
20 significant, but you can have a copy. I did
21 want to ask what the Society intends to use
22 the building for?
23 MR. FLEMING: The building is actually
24 going to be our new exhibition gallery. We
25 have always been short on exhibition space for
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 19
1 years . Our original gallery is located at the
2 museum across from the firehouse, which we
3 only use seasonally during the summers . We
4 wanted to have a secondary gallery where we
5 could do shows in the Fall, Winter and the
6 Spring for local residents outside of the
7 normal summer season . This new building will
8 allow us to do that, and its close proximity
9 to the Prince building makes it really easy
10 for people stopping into the offices and
11 visiting downtown, to go right over and see
12 shows there .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Very good. Let
14 me open it up to the Board. George?
15 MEMBER HORNING: The roof that is there
16 now, you say is the original?
17 MR. FLEMING : It is the original
18 structure .
19 MEMBER HORNING : And then explain, to
20 my understanding, how a storm could knock down
21 a porch but not take out the roof too?
22 MR. FLEMING : In 138 , a lot of the Main
23 Street damage was caused by a lot of the huge
24 trees that came down, not necessarily across
25 the roads , sideways . So when it came down it
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 20
1 could have damaged the porch . We ' re not
2 really sure . We know that by 1941, the
3 replacement had occurred. And that was -- we
4 actually had a photograph of a World War II
5 WAC, standing in front of the porch of that
6 year, showing just the little step porch that
7 had been put in to replace it . It ' s actually
8 amazing how things get damaged . I am
9 constantly surprised. In 1954 , there was a
10 large hurricane that hit the Eastern end of
11 Long Island, even the Prince building. At the
12 . top of the Prince building there is a little
13 half round window. Originally that was a
14 round window, because in 154 apparently a tree
15 was picked up and thrown on top of the
16 building and crushed the front . And we
17 actually had to rebuild it to the roof line .
18 The owners did at the time . We always thought
19 that happened in the 138 hurricane, but who
20 knew it happened in ' 54 , when we found a
21 colored photograph in a slide collection
22 showing it right after the storm had passed.
23 So we ' re constantly surprised at how things
24 get damaged.
25 MEMBER HORNING: So again, you believe
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 21
1 at least the roof is original, predating --
2 MR. FLEMING: It is . Actually is
3 structurally joined with the structure . It ' s
4 pinned through the front of the building,
5 which is why it actually survived. Once the
6 original porch columns were removed, it would
7 have collapsed.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you ' re
9 proposing to now rebuild what was an original
10 porch area in the existing area that --
11 MR. FLEMING: It ' s underneath the
12 original roof, right . The four columns and
13 the actual roof base with the steps so that it
14 would look like it did, you know, a hundred
15 years ago .
16 MEMBER HORNING: Thank you .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually another
18 question, does this particular project require
19 approval from the Landmarks Preservation
20 Commission?
21 MR. FLEMING: No . We did speak to them
22 and it ' s not a town landmark.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Thank you .
24 Ken?
25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes . What is the
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 22
1 other building in the rear being used for?
2 MR. FLEMING : Currently it ' s a
3 nineteenth century barn . It ' s just there for
4 storage right now . We hope to consider a
5 reuse down the line, because it ' s a great
6 building, and we don ' t want to not use it for
7 something . We figure, we will get the front
8 first and then look at what the other options
9 are to do with the barn .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no
12 questions . I applaud you for doing it .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jim?
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : I have nothing .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Is there
16 anyone else in the audience that would like to
17 address this application?
18 (No Response . )
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Hearing
20 no questions, I will make a motion to close
21 this hearing and reserve decision to a later
22 date .
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
25 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 23
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
2 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye .
5 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
6 **********************************************
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to recess?
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
10 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
12 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
15 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken. )
16 ************************** *******************
17 HEARING #6568 - JUDITH GRECO
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is for
19 Judith Greco, #6568 . Request for variance
20 from Article XXIII Code Section 280-124 , based
21 on an application for Building Permit and the
22 Building Inspector ' s July 8 , 2011, updated
23 March 7 , 2012 Notice of Disapproval concerning
24 "as built" deck addition to existing single
25 family dwelling, at; 1) less than the code
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 24
1 required minimum front yard setback of 40
2 feet, 2 ) less than the code required rear
3 yard setback of 50 feet, located at : 2450
4 Laurel Way, Mattituck.
5 Is there someone here to address that
6 application?
7 MS . BISHOP : Good morning .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning .
9 MS . BISHOP : This is Stacey Bishop from
10 East End Construction Services . We made the
11 application. I also work with North Fork Real
12 Estate . I also have the listing agent, Gail
13 Marner Smith from Prudential . We ' re here to
14 seek an "as-built" variance . In going through
15 the paperwork, it was discovered that the
16 existing deck did not have a Certificate of
17 Occupancy. We ' re trying to figure out when
18 the deck was built . The homeowner believes it
19 was at least twenty years ago . Her now
20 deceased husband was involved in the project,
21 and she is not quite clear as to what
22 transpired. I did find in some more paperwork
23 in the Town, in reference to a slider, in 1974
24 inspection on the property, but there was no
25 mention of a deck. So again, we ' re just
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 25
1 trying to clarify when it was built .
2 Presumably, it has been there for at least
3 twenty years . The deck is in good shape . We
4 have the plans from local P . E . Joe Fischetti .
5 It ' s with the character of the neighborhood.
6 It ' s a private community with 14 residences .
7 I am not aware of any objections to approving
8 this "as is" variance, and we ' re hoping that
9 it will go through to help facilitate the sale
10 of the property, which is now on the market .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. You will
12 have to give us all extra credit for finding
13 the property .
14 MS . BISHOP : I know, right . How many
15 of us have lived here forever and didn ' t even
16 know it existed?
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just for the
18 record, there is 142 feet. of property on
19 Laurel Lake, and I don ' t know who owns it . If
20 you were to go straight in, okay, and it was a
21 very familiar swimming hole by all the young
22 people out here, at which time I was one of
23 those, and in graduating high school in 1966 .
24 MS . BISHOP : Did you notice the deck?
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And I have to tell
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 26
1 you, I think that deck was on that house, at
2 that time, because anybody that .did not make
3 the swimming hole went pass your house and
4 realized that it was a dead end. So they
5 turned around and said that swimming hole has
6 got to be here somewhere . It ' s actually a
7 beach area . It ' s not a hole . And so that is
8 . the story.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, the Board
10 has made site inspection just to let you know .
11 Let ' s see if there is any questions ,
12 Jim?
13 MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
17 MEMBER HORNING: I don ' t have any.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes . I just had
20 one . You said you found some reference to a
21 slider?
22 MS . BISHOP : Yes .
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I assume that ' s a
24 sliding glass door?
25 MS . BISHOP : Yes . This is off the
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 27
1 master .
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. Are there any
3 other sliding glass doors off this
4 residence?
5 MS . BISHOP : No .
6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So this is the only
7 one .
8 MS . BISHOP: The only one .
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Most likely a slider
10 in reference to a deck because of the
11 elevation?
12 MS . BISHOP : Yes .
13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Could you describe
14 briefly the character of this neighborhood?
15 MS . BISHOP : It ' s a private community.
16 It ' s mostly summer residents . This house was
17 actually a converted stable . So it did make
18 some hoop-la back in the day when it was
19 converted back in 1962 . There were long-term
20 residents in this community. I spoke with the
21 residents that have been there for thirty,
22 forty years , and she herself, has had the
23 property for thirty, thirty-five years . And
24 she is just looking forward to selling it and
25 the next transition of her life . So it fits
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 28
1 within the character of the neighborhood. If
2 you saw the house, it ' s really kind of
3 charming and quaint . It has a finished loft
4 and everything. So it fits in.
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Very good. Thank
6 you . I have no further questions .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just for the
8 record, let ' s read over what the actual
9 requests are . The front yard setback that
10 exist is 16 feet . The code requires 40 . And
11 the rear yard setback is 17 , where the. code
12 requires 50 ; is that correct?
13 MS . BISHOP: That ' s correct .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. And it ' s
15 about 162 square feet?
16 MS . BISHOP : Correct .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s a very small
18 deck. Actually seems to be in the side yard.
19 MS . BISHOP: Exactly.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The yard is
21 actually oddly shaped.
22 MS . BISHOP : It ' s like a curve street .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s triangular .
24 The house at the narrow end. Just so that we
25 have an accurate reflection on the public
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 29
1 record of these circumstances on the property.
2 Okay.
3 Anyone else in the audience or the
4 Board that wishes to make a comment or have
5 any questions?
6 (No Response . )
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing none . I
8 will make a motion to close this hearing and
9 reserve 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 46569 - JAMES WILLSE
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let ' s open the
21 hearing, James Willse, #6569 . Request for
22 variance from Article III Code Section
23 280-15 (B) , based on an application for
24 Building Permit and the Building Inspector ' s
25 March 14 , 2012 Notice of Disapproval
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 30
1 concerning addition to accessory garage at;
2 total square footage at more than the maximum
3 code allowable of 750 square feet, located
4 at : 1665 Mill Creek Drive, adjacent to
5 Arshamomaque Pond, Southold.
6 Good morning .
7 MS . SANTORA: Good morning . My name
8 is Eileen Santora, representing Shannon and
9 James Willse . We ' re asking for this variance .
10 They have owned the house since 1988 as a
11 summer house . Living in New Jersey. They ' re
12 moving here full-time . They ' re asking to
13 enlarge the small two-car garage, so that
14 they could have more storage and a workshop to
15 do wood working . The house is on the water .
16 The basement is very ( In Audible) . There is
17 not much storage in the house . So they would
18 like to use the garage for storage also .
19 Right now the car is outside the garage, not
20 inside . We ' re asking for 174 square feet over
21 the allowable 750 square feet . The roof line
22 will not go any higher . In fact, it is lower .
23 The addition is lower than the existing
24 garage . We ' re moving towards the street, not
25 near the water . It ' s going -- as you see on
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 31
1 the plans , it ' s keeping up with the same
2 design as before . And we would like to go
3 ahead with it, so they can become full-time
4 residents . They have been here since 1988 .
5 They have owned the house . That ' s it .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let ' s have Jim
7 have a shot at this . Jim, do you have any
8 questions?
9 MEMBER DINIZIO : Yes . Is any part of
10 this going to be heated?
11 MS . SANTORA: No .
12 MEMBER DINIZIO : Not at all?
13 MS . SANTORA: No .
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : So you don ' t mind if
15 we put a condition in there that it must
16 remain unheated?
17 MS . SANTORA: I don ' t think it would be
18 a problem.
19 MEMBER DINIZIO : Any bathrooms?
20 MS . SANTORA: No .
21 MEMBER DINIZIO : Water at all?
22 MS . SANTORA: No .
23 MEMBER DINIZIO : Outside faucet maybe?
24 MS . SANTORA: Well, right now, I think
25 there is an outside hose spickett .
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 32
1 MEMBER DINIZIO : Right . And is there
2 any reason why you have to build another? Why
3 you can ' t just attach it? The reason you are
4 here is because you ' re enlarging --
5 MS . SANTORA: Right, enlarging .
6 MEMBER DINIZIO: You could build
7 another building on your piece of property in
8 the same front yard area, twice the size that
9 you ' re asking for . Is there any reason why?
10 MS . SANTORA: They wanted to maintain
11 the look of the house . The cottage is small .
12 The house is small . They wanted to keep the
13 garage where it is, and not overbuild the lot .
14 They want to take down minimal trees on the
15 property. If you have been to the property
16 and seen the survey, they have a very big
17 front yard, and they like it that way.
18 MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. So it ' s going
19 to be storage and cars?
20 MS . SANTORA: Storage and cars .
21 MEMBER DINIZIO : What about electric?
22 MS . SANTORA: There is going to be
23 electric .
24 MEMBER DINIZIO: Just a few outlets?
25 MS . SANTORA: Right .
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 33
i
1 MEMBER DINIZIO : Okay. That ' s all I
2 have .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The existing
4 two-car garage is going to remain a two-car
5 garage? The drawings are unclear . It looks
6 as though you are going to be using part of
7 the existing garage as the woodworking shop?
8 MS . SANTORA: Right .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And adding on a
10 two-car garage?
11 MS . SANTORA: Exactly. We ' re adding
12 the garage towards the street for the car
13 area, and the area closer to the water, will
14 be the area where he pudders around. So he
15 can look at the water while he is puddling .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. I am sure
17 that he would like to hear that he is a
18 pudder .
19 MS . SANTORA: They ' re retiring here .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Understood. Is
21 there any reason why you need 174 square feet
22 more than what the code allows?
23 MS . SANTORA: It ' s just to be able to
24 put storage and two cars , and have this little
25 work area to be able to have this workbench .
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 34
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How big is the
i
2 work area?
3 MS . SANTORA: I would say about 13 to
4 about the length of the existing garage, which
5 is 26 .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 13X26?
7 MS . SANTORA: Yes, because that ' s the
8 length of the garage . We did get in the new
9 addition because side yards have changed over
10 the years . We thought we would do all the
11 requirements by the side yard. You know,
12 bringing it in, and then it was over the
13 square footage .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. I have no
15 further questions . Gerry?
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In the past, we
17 have had significant discussions with
18 neighbor ' s regarding noise from saws and so on
19 and so forth . All of which, my neighbor ' s
20 have complained about of me at certain times .
21 Is there going to be any of that problem?
22 MS . SANTORA: I don ' t think so .
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am raising that
24 issue because it ' s an open space . A
25 completely open all the way around this, and
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 35
1 noise can travel .
2 MS . SANTORA: The noise will be kept to
3 a minimum. He ' s not making ( In Audible) .
4 It ' s not even -- I don ' t think he ' s even going
5 to have a saw. It ' s just small hand tools , to
6 say the least . Not putting extra electric to
7 take a large saw .
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All right . Thank
9 you .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George?
11 MEMBER HORNING : You mentioned the
12 reasons why you needed to expand on the
13 existing garage built, rather than build a
14 second accessory building that would conform
15 to code, as not wanting to disturb the parcel
16 as much as possible?
17 MS . SANTORA: Right .
18 MEMBER HORNING: Including taking down
19 trees?
'20 MS . SANTORA: Right .
21 MEMBER HORNING: In your photos
22 submitted, there is one tree in the way . Are
23 you going to take that tree down?
24 MS . SANTORA: That one tree down .
25 MEMBER HORNING: As opposed to making a
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 36
1 second building and taking down more trees?
2 MS . SANTORA: Yes .
3 MEMBER HORNING : Okay. Thank you .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is no one
7 else in the audience . So hearing no further
8 questions or comments, I will make a motion to
9 close this hearing -- I ' m sorry, Jim.
10 MEMBER DINIZIO : Just to make note for
11 the record what time it is?
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All right . The
13 time is 11 : 10 .
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : We should probably
15 leave it open.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We will just wait
17 and see if someone happens to come in.
18 MS . SANTORA: Okay.
19 (Whereupon, a discussions were held off
20 the record. )
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to close
22 the hearing and reserve decision to a later
23 date .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 37
1 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
3 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye .
6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Note the time .
7 MEMBER HORNING: 11 : 12 .
8 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
9 ************************** *******************
10 HEARING #6566 - EDWARD J. CONNOR
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
12 application before the Board is for
13 Edward J. Conner, #6566 . Request for variance
14 from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the
15 Building Inspector ' s March 20 , 2012 Notice of
16 Disapproval based on an application for
17 Building Permit to construct a deck addition
18 to existing single family dwelling: 1 ) less
19 than the code required minimum rear yard
20 setback of 35 feet; located at : 1200 Gillette
21 Drive, East Marion .
22 Can you go to the podium please, and
23 state your name for the record?
24 MR. PANETTIERI : My name is
25 Vincent J. Panettieri .
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 38
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Could you spell
2 it, please?
3 MR. PANETTIERI : P-A-N-E-T-T-I-E-R-I .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you, sir .
5 We have a proposed deck addition at 19 . 5 rear
6 yard setback, where the code requires 35 feet .
7 The Board has made site inspection . We ' re
8 aware of what it looks like . It appears
9 you ' re proposing to replace a patio, a brick
10 patio . The application says it ' s an old deck
11 in need of repair of the same size and
12 location . The photos and site inspection
13 show steps down onto an at-grade patio with
14 pavers , and what you ' re proposing, a near
15 range attached deck; is that correct?
16 MR. PANETTIERI : I am a friend of the
17 family. From what I understand, there was a
18 deck there . -It deteriorated, and about
19 three years ago -- these people are in their
20 upper 80 ' s . So the daughter put the
21 application in and got it all done . And from
22 what I gather, one is in a walker and one is
23 in a cane . So that is why they ' re proposing
24 to put the deck right out over it .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Gerry? It
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 39
1 looks as though it ' s slightly bigger than what
2 the patio is .
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We have had a
4 significant amount of applications in this
5 area because of the nature of the depth of
6 these properties on Gillette Drive . So we ' re
7 not without understanding. I am not without
8 understanding. I am not speaking for the
9 Board, in these rear yard variances ; however,
10 we do ask the question all the time, if the
11 deck can be reduced a little bit based upon
12 the factors that we deal with in State Law,
13 and I don ' t know -- you know, if you can relay
14 that information to the applicant or .
15 applicants, or to the daughter . And I am not
16 referring to something that is a significant
17 reduction, but a moderate reduction .
18 MR. PANETTIERI : Which would be?
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 14 feet .
20 MR. PANETTIERI : Make it a 14 foot?
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes . As opposed to
22 16 feet .
23 MR. PANETTIERI : So you ' re talking to 2
24 feet .
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think it all has
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 40
1 to do with hardship on the applicant ' s part .
2 If they' re in need of that, 16 feet, they
3 should clearly tell us why they ' re in need
4 of that 16 feet . As I said, I am not without
5 understanding . We have had significant
6 applications on the Gillette Drive area based
7 upon the dwellings that exist out there today.
8 MR. PANETTIERI : What is the next step
9 for them?
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, the next step
11 would be for you to inform us of that, and we
12 would close the hearing at the regularly
13 scheduled meeting that we deliberate on in
14 two weeks . And just come up with a plan
15 showing the reduction .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not to interrupt
17 you . Let me clarify something so you
18 understand a little more . If you propose a
19 deck that is 14 feet deep and 16 feet deep,
20 what that means is that your rear yard setback
21 will be increased 31 . 5 and the code
22 requires 35 .
23 MR. PANETTIERI : Understand.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the reason
25 for suggesting that, is that the Board is
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 41
1 obligated by law to grant the minimum variance
2 necessary based upon the presentation of the
3 applicant .
4 MR. PANETTIERI : I understand.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If there is an
6 absolute reason why 16 feet is required rather
7 than desired, then you have to explain to us
8 why.
9 MR. PANETTIERI : Okay .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If that is not
11 the case, and they just want it, then Member
12 Goehringer is simply referring to simply
13 increase the setback to make it a little more
14 conforming to code .
15 MR. PANETTIERI : Okay.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you think that
17 is going to be all right, we can simply
18 continue to take testimony and close the
19 hearing today and possibly deliberate within
20 two weeks . If you think that you need to
21 speak to them about it, we can hold this open?
22 MR. PANETTIERI : I would like to make a
23 judgement, if it ' s 14 feet, than why not .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. George,
25 questions?
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 42
1 MEMBER HORNING : Okay. Going into the
r
2 character of the neighborhood, this Gillette
3 Drive is a residential --
4 MR. PANETTIERI :. One-family homes .
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right . All along
6 the road?
7 MR. PANETTIERI : Yes . Behind them is a
8 large pond. So it ' s all open space .
9 MEMBER HORNING: And I happen to notice
10 that it ' s in a Ag Zone in fact . Is it
11 agricultural zoned?
12 MR. PANETTIERI : I don ' t know, sir . I
13 would presume so .
14 MEMBER HORNING : Do you know anything
15 about the history of the house, the
16 applicant ' s house?
17 MR. PANETTIERI : In reference to what?
18 There is a CO on the home, I know .
19 MEMBER HORNING: The previous owners .
20 MR. PANETTIERI : The name Cherrico, I
21 think is the name . They were Polish. They
22 owned the home and all that land, and I
23 believe they built it . And then the Connor ' s
24 bought from them, the original owners .
25 MEMBER HORNING : That is what I am
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 43
i
1 asking . So the original owners is the one
2 that had the working farm --
3 MR. PANETTIERI : Right .
4 MEMBER HORNING: In the back there .
5 According to the survey map that we ' re looking
6 at, he sold the development rights,
7 apparently, to the working farm; is that
8 correct? Leslie, do you think the development
9 rights were sold on the Ag parcel?
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have no way of
11 knowing that .
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It indicates Suffolk
13 County Development rights .
14 MEMBER HORNING : That is what I wanted
15 to know. So this backyard, there will not be
16 a street there?
17 MR. PANETTIERI : No .
18 MEMBER HORNING: There will not be any
19 houses?
20 MR. PANETTIERI : No . It will be
21 nothing. In fact, you just see all the
22 beautiful deer .
23 MEMBER HORNING : All right . Thank you .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions .
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 44
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jim?
2 MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I don ' t have any
3 questions .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
5 else in the audience that would like to
6 address this application?
7 (No Response . )
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me just ask the
9 Board a question. This gentleman has been
10 very kind to us in his presentation . Does
11 anyone have an objection, and I very rarely do
12 this, to the 15X16 foot deck as applied?
13 MEMBER HORNING: I don ' t have any
14 objection.
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I don ' t have any
16 objection.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don ' t have any,
18 given the minimal impact that it will have on
19 any surroundings .
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: More so, that the
21 nearby property is a big Ag parcel -- would
22 have any development rights .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That ' s what we ' re
24 saying .
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So I will withdraw
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 45
1 my request to reduce it to the 14 feet , and I
2 thank you .
3 MR. PANETTIERI : Okay. What is the
4 next step, if any, for the Connor ' s?
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next step,
6 is --
7 MEMBER DINIZIO: Maybe I should say
8 something?
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
10 MEMBER DINIZIO : I would just be
11 cautious of writing this decision in saying
12 that the deck existed in its location, because
13 it did not .
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right .
15 MEMBER DINIZIO : Just so you know, it
16 didn ' t exist in that location .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. So noted.
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So what you ' re
19 saying is that the CO that was granted in 1987
20 for the deck --
21 MEMBER DINIZIO : It was for a deck that
22 was behind the garage .
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand that,
24 but it had a similar setback.
25 MEMBER DINIZIO : It was probably more
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 46
1 of a setback than this . If you look at the
2 property card you could see it . Then he
3 turned that into a garage at some point in
4 time .
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. More
6 importantly, that is a reason why I made this
7 request of polling the Board, which I very
8 rarely do .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just so you ' re
10 aware of the law. The variances that the
11 Board considers , we ' re not permitted to,
12 unless there is some rare exception, to
13 consider the personal circumstances of the
14 applicant, because it runs with the land.
15 When it ' s granted, they can sell the house
16 and there it is . So it ' s not personalized to
17 individuals . Though the Board does
18 certainly consider the fact coming straight
19 out, then down steps . It is certainly more
20 convenient for everybody, regardless of their
21 age . There is no drainage issues . It ' s
22 relatively flat . So what will happen now, if
23 the Board is so inclined -- if there is other
24 comments, anything else?
25 (No Response . )
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 47
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
2 further comments, I am going to make a
3 motion to close this hearing and reserve
4 decision to a later date .
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by
7 Gerry.
8 All in favor?
9 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
11 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
14 (See Minutes for Resolution. )
15 **********************************************
16 HEARING #6565 - LISA AND ANTHONY SANNINO
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
18 application before the Board is for Lisa and
19 Anthony Sannino, #6565 . Applicant request a
20 Special Exception under Section 280-13B ( 14 ) .
21 The applicant is the owner requesting
22 authorization to expand an Accessory Bed and
23 Breakfast accessory and incidental to the
24 residential occupancy in this single-family
25 dwelling with four ( 4 ) additional bedrooms for
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 48
1 lodging and serving of breakfast to the B&B
2 casual , transient roomers for a total of five
3 (5 ) bedrooms . Location of the property: 749
4 Alvahs Lane, Cutchogue .
5 Would you like to address the Board on
6 this? Please step forward to the podium, and
7 state your name for the record.
8 MS . SANNINO : Anthony Sannino . I am
9 just looking to expand our existing B&B .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. And do
11 you have some additional materials for the
12 Board?
13 MR. SANNINO : Yes . Just some parking
14 to make it a little bit better, we have
15 enlarged our survey, which I can give you guys
16 copies of . I should have enough for everyone .
17 We got an aerial view also, and of the
18 driveway.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right .
20 MR. SANNINO : We do have a Letter of
21 Recommendation from the President of our
22 NFBBA, if you guys want that?
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
24 MEMBER HORNING : Sure .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just so the
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 49
1 record reflects, we received a letter from the
2 North Fork Bed and Breakfast Association. The
3 Board secretary will make copies, basically
4 it ' s a letter of support .
5 MR. SANNINO : We did take some
6 additional notes there regarding the actual
7 entry and exit of the driveway. You will
8 notice that Alvahs Lane is actually the same
9 size as our driveway. So we can clearly get
10 two cars up and down it . And that is cleared
11 space -- the existing property line trees to
12 Vineyard Road, not property line . And I
13 believe we have between three and five feet
14 additional, if we were to hedge and enlarge
15 it, if we needed more entry space .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jim, have you
17 seen these photos?
18 MEMBER DINIZIO : Yes, I just looked at
19 them.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let ' s clarify
21 some things for the record. You currently
22 have a Special Exception permit from this
23 Board to operate a one bedroom?
24 MR. SANNINO: Correct .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And in that
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 50
1 decision, which was fairly recent, 2009, the
2 Board indicated in one of the conditions that
3 an annual harvesting of grapes was permitted.
4 Is that still taking place?
5 MR. SANNINO : Yes .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And how often is
7 that taking place?
8 MR. SANNINO: Usually Columbus Day
9 weekend we schedule it, and it could be two
10 days depending on the property and the season,
11 and weather permitting.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And how many
13 people participate in that harvesting?
14 MR. SANNINO : Anywhere between 50 and
15 75 people per day.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And who are these
17 people?
18 MR. SANNINO : Members that join our
19 membership program to learn how to grow and
20 then produce wine with us .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. And can
22 you please explain, I believe at one point
23 your garage was being used in relationship to
24 that wine club membership, what is the
25 situation now?
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 51
1 MR. SANNINO : Not being used for
2 anything right now related to that at all .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Where does that
4 take place then?
5 MR. SANNINO: Which portion?
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Your wine club
7 membership?
8 MR. SANNINO : Peconic Lane in Peconic .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That ' s the
10 tasting room also?
11 MR. SANNINO : Correct .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that the one
13 that ' s got your name on it, along -
14 MS . SANNINO : ( In Audible) .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And that ' s where
16 any kind of wine tasting or music --
17 MR. SANNINO: All of it .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What I am trying
19 to do is let the record reflect exactly what
20 is going on, on your site . It ' s your
21 residence . You have harvesting one or two
22 days out of the year . And you have one room
23 for B&B?
24 MS . SANNINO : Right .
25 MR. SANNINO : Correct .
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 52
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Also noted in
2 this decision, is that there shall be no
3 retail or commercial uses on the property.
4 related to the manufacturing of wine,
5 including but not limited to wine tasting,
6 educational programs , wine production or sales
7 without an application for approval by the
8 ZBA for an Area Variance for acreage related
9 to the proposed winery, which is a permitted
10 use but required a minimum of 10 acres .
11 MR. SANNINO : Right .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that ' s not
13 happening, has not happened since this
14 decision was rendered?
15 MR. SANNINO: No .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. So how are
17 you using the garage now?
18 MS . SANNINO : Just storage, freezer and
19 bicycles . Well, you saw it, both of you .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We need to state
21 it for the record. So you have to tell us .
22 That ' s all .
23 MS . SANNINO : Okay.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It has to be in
25 the record. The house is "as built . " It ' s a
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 53
1 little confusing -- Well, wait a minute . The
2 house has six bedrooms ; correct?
3 MS . SANNINO : Yes .
4 MR. SANNINO : Correct .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Five of them are
6 now being occupied by your family, and one is
7 being used as a B&B?
8 MS . SANNINO : Yes .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You ' re asking for
10 approval of the maximum number of bedrooms .
11 So one would always be your principle bedroom?
12 MS . SANNINO: Right .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the rest,
14 presumably, are your children? Unless you ' re
15 kicking them out early.
16 MR. SANNINO : We were thinking about
17 sending them to my cousins in Italy.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That could be a
19 win, win.
20 MR. SANNINO : It definitely is .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just wanted to
22 clarify it . That it is already "as built . " I
23 just wanted to see what kind of activities --
24 what other kinds of activities were going on
25 on the property.
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 54
1 Jim, any questions?
2 MEMBER DINIZIO : Well, I looked at your
3 plans here, and I did just see that you had
4 one bedroom as personal use . I was just
5 wondering how you and the kids --
6 MR. SANNINO : If you look at -- their
7 bedrooms are quite large . They' re like 15X15 .
8 So we ' re just going to bunk up two kids and we
9 will take one bedroom.
10 MS . - SANNINO : No, he is saying if we
11 use all of it . The children are still living
12 with us, if you mean?
13 MEMBER DINIZIO : Yes . It ' s supposed to
14 be unoccupied. I don ' t know how you are going
15 to live in the house, if you got five bedrooms
16 designated for Bed & Breakfast .
17 MR. SANNINO : The intent really now is
18 to operate with one additional room, not all
19 five . We don ' t want to go through the process
20 again in four or five years when they start
21 going off to college . It ' s costly, procedure
22 and time consuming . So we figured -- and it
23 was recommended to us for the first time .
24 Just get them all done at once . So we figured
25 we would go for all five, but the intent
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 55
1 really is to add one room currently, and all
2 joking aside, if we did decide to send our
3 kids to Italy next year, it would be okay for
4 us to rent . We would be home, and have the
5 additional rooms .
6 MEMBER DINIZIO : I don ' t know how
7 practical this is, quite honestly. You have
8 children . I understand that you can bunk them
9 up, but you only have one bedroom for
10 yourself . That ' s it . I don ' t see any
11 "Children ' s Bedroom' s . " I see "Guest Rooms , "
12 is that correct? I mean, you have six
13 bedrooms in the house .
14 MR. SANNINO : Right .
15 MEMBER DINIZIO : Five are guest rooms .
16 MS . SANNINO : Okay.
17 MEMBER DINIZIO : Are you going to live
18 practically in one Master Bedroom, all of you?
19 MS . SANNINO: No . This is for the
20 future . Right now, we ' re just converting the
21 Master Suite, which is on the plans , the first
22 floor . And that would be for guests, and the
23 rest of the main house, that would be for
24 family. But looking for the future, that we
25 would have the option to do that . When our
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 56
1 children are grown, out of the house, or
2 whatever . We could do that .
3 MEMBER DINIZIO : I guess what I am
4 trying to get at, we can give you permission
5 today, and you can have a Bed & Breakfast
6 there tomorrow, and how do we know you ' re not
7 living in the house? How do we know? You
8 have to be practical . You have to think that
9 I can ' t think that you have these children and
10 that they' re going to live with you in the
11 Master Bedroom, while you have five people .
12 MR. SANNINO : Our guests are looking
13 for a private stay.
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : Correct, and I agree
15 with .you. We ' re supposed to make sure that
16 it ' s owner/occupied. You ' re the owner, and
17 how many children?
18 MS . SANNINO : Four .
19 MEMBER DINIZIO : And you ' re trying to
20 make me believe that you are going to have
21 guests in there, and you can have them in
22 there two weeks from now, after we give you
23 approval .
24 MS . SANNINO : No, that ' s not the plan .
25 MEMBER DINIZIO : You can have your
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 57
1 times on Peconic, and have their wine . You
2 can have ten guests .
3 MS . SANNINO : No . No .
4 MEMBER DINIZIO : You know, I am just
5 trying to figure out how practically you think
6 that I would not think that is probably not
7 practical .
8 MR. SANNINO : Jim, just to clarify. We
9 live in the community. Our children go to
10 school here . Most of them began school here
11 in the community.
12 MS . SANNINO: I volunteer in the
13 community. Girl Scout ' s , Boy Scout ' s, PTA,
14 you name it . So there is no intention of
15 having us and our children cram into one room
16 and have parties at our house . That is not
17 our intention .
18 MEMBER DINIZIO: I just don ' t
19 understand how you can meet that criteria,
20 which is to be owner/occupied, which means
21 that you and your family are going to live
22 there .
23 MS . SANNINO : Right .
24 MEMBER DINIZIO: While you ' re operating
25 a five bedroom Bed & Breakfast . How do I --
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 58
1 MS . SANNINO: How do other B&B ' s do it?
2 They have five rooms and are owner/occupied?
3 MEMBER DINIZIO : Usually they ' re
4 retired.
5 MS . SANNINO : Right, and that is what
6 we ' re hoping for the future, that that is
7 going to happen, but to do the
8 application --
9 MEMBER DINIZIO : It would be practical
10 for you to apply for that then?
11 MS . SANNINO : But it ' s also a $1, 000 . 00
12 between the $750 . 00 fee, the photocopies, the
13 certified mail, the time . We ' re
14 self-employed. We ' re taking the days off of
15 work, and for all of that, it ' s costly.
16 MEMBER DINIZIO : But you can do that
17 five years from now . You don ' t have to do
18 that now.
19 MS . SANNINO : Right .. We would have to
20 do that again .
21 MR. SANNINO : It was recommended to us
22 the first time around, and we would be foolish
23 not to take advantage of it . If it stood in
24 the paperwork, that ' s fine . Then we would be
25 happy then, but we ' re just going through it
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 59
1 again.
2 MEMBER DINIZIO : I am only one member
3 of the Board. I am just trying to tactfully
4 think that in my head, how I can justify that,
5 as a family of six, that it ' s designated
6 owner/occupied, that they would be in one
7 room.
8 MR. SANNINO : We ' re not summerer ' s
9 trying to rent our house --
10 MEMBER DINIZIO : Sir, I am not accusing
11 you of anything .
12 MR. SANNINO: I know. I am just trying
13 to clarify that . Our business motto would
14 never exist . We could not do that anyway .
15 Not having kids in that type of community and
16 this set-up .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask a
18 question, because it was confusing when I went
19 to your house . You submitted your original
20 plan . You built your house this way. I guess
21 to have a long term --
22 MS . SANNINO : Right .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That ' s pretty
24 clear . At this point, it appears that what
25 you are proposing is to use the four bedrooms
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 60
1 and two bathrooms upstairs --
2 MR. SANNINO : For the family.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : With a central
4 family room?
5 MS . SANNINO : Right .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : For the two of
7 you and your kids?
8 MS . SANNINO: Right .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now, you already
10 have the one B&B?
11 MS . SANNINO : Right .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the Master
13 Bedroom suite that you currently occupy on the
14 first floor, you ' re proposing to rent out?
15 MS . SANTORA: Right .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you would be
17 operating two rooms?
18 MS . SANTORA: Yes .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And you and the
20 kids, all upstairs?
21 MS . SANTORA: Right .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just wanted to
23 make that clear . Now, the other concern that
24 certainly this Board is going to have to look
25 at is the B&B part .
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 61
1 MR. SANNINO : Right .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let ' s look at the
3 maximum build out . Let ' s say that it is a
4 five B&B, you would need two for the principle
5 dwelling and you would need one for each room.
6 So that ' s going to be seven spaces . Now, you
7 just submitted something here for us to help
8 us understand how you are going to get to
9 seven spaces . I see, five, six . Where is the
10 seven?
11 MS . SANNINO : On the other side of the
12 electrical box .
13 MR. SANNINO : By the electrical box,
14 there is extra use there and that is actually
15 going to be No . 7 .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. So six is
17 what? There is the electrical box, I gotcha .
18 MR. SANNINO : That is also not
19 considering the north side of their driveway
20 that we had discussed. It ' s actually 45 feet
21 and you can actually make a turn around there,
22 without making a three-point turn . So if we
23 need additional parking along the north side,
24 it ' s 35 feet wide . You know, we could clearly
25 make a full turn around without the
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 62
1 three-point turn.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you proposing
3 to remove the dumpster?
4 MR. SANNINO : The existing dumpster is
5 right outside that space . So I didn ' t even
6 remove it out of that drawing because it
7 really doesn ' t effect anything . I mean, it ' s
8 a possibility, if needed.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let ' s just be
10 clear, you ' re suggesting that even though you
11 are not going to be operating five bedrooms
12 now, you did it now because it was cost
13 effective to do that?
14 MS . SANNINO: Right .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Member Dinizio ' s
16 point is well taken though. There are a lot
17 of safety issues for the number of occupants
18 per square foot . And you and your family, I
19 am sure you don ' t want to put yourselves into
20 hardship?
21 MR. SANNINO: Right .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Or into harm' s
23 way regarding fire safety code and so on.
24 Having said that, should the Board say fine
25 with five bedrooms, leaving one for the two of
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 63
1 you, you still would have the issue of
2 potentially, not suggesting that you would,
3 that you could potentially have a lot of
4 people there . If you and all your kids
5 crammed in and rented it out, would you do
6 that? I doubt it . But, it is important to
7 have this noted for the record, because there
8 are implications . So we just want the record
9 to look at both points of view.
10 MR. SANNINO : Sure .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry, any
12 questions , comments?
r
13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It ' s very hard to
14 visualize this home without actually being
15 there . For the point of anyone who has not
16 been in it, and this is not a sarcastic
17 statement in any way, we did not see the
18 existing bedroom that we granted because it
19 was occupied at the time, and of course, it is
20 an extremely beautiful and large bedroom, from
21 what I recollect . However, we were shown
22 the Master Bedroom and it. is of equal size
23 and also pretty magnificent, I have to tell
24 you . For anyone walking up the stairs , at the
25 top of the stairs , from what I would refer to
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 64
1 as a "meeting area" or "an open guest area, "
2 of which the children utilize and then
3 standing at that point, to the left are these
4 two bedrooms, and to the right are two more
5 bedrooms . So you have this upper plateau
6 area, which basically overlooks the front
7 foyer, and it ' s very, very nicely done . And I
8 just wanted to point that out so everyone knew
9 the situation and that was my recollection of
10 it .
11 MS . SANNINO : Thank you .
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So that ' s that . I
13 think the total issue of the five is going to
14 go down to a deliberation and we will see what
15 that ends up to be at the meeting. So that ' s
16 the way I see it at this particular point .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just for the
18 , record, how old are your kids?
19 MR. SANNINO : 15, 14 , 11 and 8 .
20 MS . SANNINO : So yeah, we ' re looking
21 years from now. Not right now .
22 MEMBER HORNING: You mentioned earlier
23 today that you ' re planning for the future and
24 that the reasons that you are requesting a
25 five bedroom B&B capacity, not for the present
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 65
1 but for some undetermined time in the future,
2 and I think that ' s difficult for us to
3 persuade us when that would be . And one of
4 the reasons that you mentioned is because of
5 the cost of the application. What was your
6 cost to file the application?
7 MS . SANNINO: $750 . 00 and then
8 photocopies, eight photocopies of everything .
9 There was numerous pages . So that was another
10 $100 . 00 worth of making photocopies . And then
11 maybe about $50 . 00 , certified mail, the green
12 cards that go out to all the surrounding
13 properties .
14 MEMBER HORNING: So we ' re up to about
15 $800 . 00?
16 MS . SANNINO : No, probably about
17 $900 . 00-$950 . 00 , because it was $750 . 00 for
18 the application.
19 MR. SANNINO: This is our second visit
20 here and it would require us a third visit a
21 few years down the line . In actuality, if it
22 was a five bedroom room, and we really did
23 send our kids to Italy, which is really a
24 thought, we are owner/occupied, and if there
25 was no one in the house but us , we would have
June 7, 2012 Zoning .Board of Appeals 66
1 the liberty of doing that . If we had a year
2 like last year where we lost 80-90 percent of
3 our crop due to the vineyard, we can offset
4 that with two months of B&B use, if the kids
5 were in Italy. So there is that potential
6 that we could do that . But to operate with
7 everyone in the house, that ' s not our business
8 motto .
9 MS . SANNINO : No, and it ' s our quality
10 of life too .
11 MR. SANNINO : If you guys were to look
12 at our trip advisor reviews , they ' re all
13 quality people . There is a couple of dozen
14 reviews .
15 MS . SANNINO: There is some video ' s of
16 the suite .
17 MR. SANNINO : Our guests are completely
18 separate from our children . They don ' t
19 experience the playing or the noise . That ' s
20 separate . The bedrooms are set up that way.
21 MS . SANNINO: Yeah, that is not what
22 we ' re doing .
23 MEMBER HORNING: You would use your
24 kids bedrooms then for the B&B?
25 MS . SANNINO : Well, if the children
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 67
1 were not there .
2 MEMBER HORNING : What about their
3 possessions?
4 MS . SANNINO : The furnishings are
5 there .
6 MR. SANNINO: It would be a designated
7 time in the summer . That ' s it . It ' s a
8 seasonal thing .
9 MEMBER HORNING: Like for two or three
10 months , you mean?
11 MR. SANNINO : Or a month even.
12 MEMBER HORNING: A month . Curious, was
13 the weather responsible for your crops?
14 MR. SANNINO : Yes . We had a lot of
15 rain. It was an incredible crop . The year
16 prior to that, we had so much energy in the
17 plant, and then we got to harvest time and
18 things started going a part .
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: One of the pitfalls
20 of being a farmer?
21 MR. SANNINO : Right .
22 MS . SANNINO : Yes .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I don ' t have any
25 questions .
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 68
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jim, again?
2 MEMBER DINIZIO : Nope .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would like to
4 ask if there is anyone in the audience, please
5 step over to the mic .
6 State your name for the record, sir?
7 MR. SOMMERSTAD : My name is Alf
8 Sommerstad. I live at 7405 --
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you please
10 spell your last name, sir?
11 MR. SOMMERSTAD: S-O-M-M-E-R-S-T-A-D .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you . What
13 would you like to tell us , sir?
14 MR. SOMMERSTAD : Well, my western and
15 northern boundary abound his property.
16 Specially, his access road -- the first thing
17 that I want to ask you, have you people been
18 to this property and seen --
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes .
20 MR. SOMMERSTAD : Okay . So you know
21 it ' s a flag lot?
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes .
23 MR. SOMMERSTAD: And this access road
24 parallel to my boundary 50 feet from my back
25 door and my deck. So if I am sitting out
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 69
1 there trying to get a good day, there is
2 vehicle traffic . He has a lot of family,
3 workers, delivery trucks, sanitation trucks,
4 and now he wants to add to this traffic . I
5 think it ' s just a little too much . I think
6 you should come to this , the end of the
7 summer, when the weather is very hot and dry,
8 and every vehicle that goes down that road,
9 creates a lot of dust cloud, that goes right
10 over the whole property. Effecting my trees ,
11 my fruit trees . I can ' t even hang laundry on
12 the line or sit out and enjoy my property,
13 because I get dusted over . It ' s a classic
14 overuse of a property. This property consist
15 of a house, a vineyard. He ' s got his Lion ' s
16 Club . He ' s got a construction business there .
17 He has a one bedroom B&B and now he ' s going to
18 add to that B&B? Too much . Also, according
19 to the original deed when Mr. Watt ' s owned the
20 vineyard and planted the grape, there is a
21 covenant in there, that says this property is
22 supposed to be for agricultural use only. And
23 I don ' t see conducting an Inn or a B&B as
24 agricultural business . Mr . Sannino before he
25 engaged in all these properties, he should
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 70
1 have built a house on the road that has a
2 direct access . Not on a flag lot, which
3 adversely effects my privacy and my ongoing
4 life . Also, according to the original
5 agreement, two years ago, he was allowed to
6 have one event per year, and I don ' t think
7 that is the case, because every weekend he
8 has all kinds of cars showing up there . Back
9 and forth, late in the day. I don ' t know
10 what ' s going on . The other day I was sitting
11 around and I must have counted a dozen cars
12 going back and forth within an hour . Just a
13 couple of stretch limos and even a mini bus .
14 They can ' t turn around back there . There is
15 not enough room. So all you hear is beep,
16 beep, beep, beep, beep, all around the place .
17 So I don ' t think he has lived up to his
18 agreement to have his original one bedroom
19 B&B . In fact, you should take it away from
20 him. Okay. So he ' s going to have more people
21 back there and it ' s going to add to the
22 traffic . So more septic . More groundwater .
23 Does he have to increase his septic or is he
24 using his existing septic? And then on top of
25 that, the greenhouse has changed hands and
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 71
1 expanded and that adds to the chaos back
2 there . And what about the emergency vehicles?
3 It ' s a very narrow road. God forbid you had a
4 fire back there or even an ambulance try and
5 fit through .
6 MEMBER HORNING : Sir, while you are
7 submitting testimony, can I ask you to come
8 up here and please locate your property on
9 here . Right on the corner, okay.
10 MR. SOMMERSTAD : It ' s approximately 400
11 foot right-of-way.
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a
13 question, Mr . Sommerstad?
14 MR. SOMMERSTAD: Sure .
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You testified when
16 the original hearing occurred and you were
17 referring to the dust and so forth and so on .
18 Since, I have noticed that they put gravel
19 down on the driveway . Has that assisted --
20 MR. SOMMERSTAD : I admit it ' s not as
21 bad, but still in August when things are
22 really dried out bad, you still get a dust .
23 The gravel has helped it, but it hasn ' t
24 alleviated the problem.
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you .
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 72
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am going to ask
2 the Sannino ' s -- not to cut you off, but I
3 want them to make any comments in reference to
4 anything that you had to say.
5 MR. SOMMERSTAD : Sure . Ask away .
6 MR. SANNINO : I have them in order
7 here . Just recently, our 8-year-old had her
8 communion on a weekend. Just after that, my
9 14-year-old had her confirmation . It could
10 have been a weekend --
11 MS . SANNINO : It definitely was a
12 weekend, and family parties .
13 MR. SANNINO : Yes, just to be certain .
14 As far as limos coming down the driveway, it ' s
15 very common. Our guests, in fact today were
16 picked up by a private car, and taken out for
17 tours . We use Vintage Tours frequently. So
18 you know, giving local business to locals . We
19 have Mr. Keil here . If we have an issue with
20 emergency vehicles, Mr . Keil has offered to
21 allow an opening in our pass-through where our
22 property is . If vehicles ever had to get
23 through for an emergency .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mr . Keil owns the
25 greenhouses to your right?
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 73
1 MR. SANNINO: That ' s correct .
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Anthony, can I ask
3 you a question?
4 MR. SANNINO : Sure .
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have been a
6 member of the fire department of the hat that
7 I am wearing for over 44 years . We have had
8 several functions, off-site over the past
9 couple of years , including functions that the
10 Cutchogue Fire Department in concert with
11 Sacred Hearty Church . We have spent a lot of
12 time, and as in the case with the Strawberry
13 Festival of wettening of gravel driveways . As
14 we wet down the Strawberry Festival
15 property -- Is there a way that you can
16 possibly do that in the summer?
17 MR. SANNINO: We can do that, sure . We
18 do have irrigation real close to their
19 property that we use for the vineyards . We
20 can put an irrigation down low and we can just
21 spray the driveway.
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That would
23 certainly help the situation.
24 MR. SOMMERSTAD: It _would last about
25 ten minutes in the heat . What they need to do
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 74
1 is oil the road, like they do upstate . That ' s
2 another story and another mess .
3 MR. SANNINO : The least expensive way
4 would be to do water . I did consider oil, but
5 I opted for the easier version and put down
6 the stone, but the oil portion of it bumps up
7 the price pretty significantly.
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You - have a drainage
9 issue then.
10 MR. SANNINO : , Right .
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have to tell you
12 that when we do it at the Strawberry Festival,
13 it lasts for the entire day. So it may help .
14 It ' s only a suggestion.
15 MR. SOMMERSTAD: It doesn ' t help the
16 traffic going up and down everyday. It
17 doesn ' t help the noise .
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am just
19 addressing the dust issue .
20 MR. SOMMERSTAD: Well, hey, this should
21 be for only Ag, and it ' s not a wholly Ag
22 issue . You know, it ' s a shame that these
23 vineyards can ' t stand on the wine and grapes
24 like they do in other countries . Around here,
25 they have to resort to all sorts of gimmickry,
June 7,' 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 75
1 and I think they have worn our their welcome
2 in Southold. You know, the local people, they
3 get tired of all the big buildings . It ' s time
4 to put the hammer down on these people .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You wanted to
6 make a comment?
7 MS . SANNINO : Yes, about the driving up
8 and down . Between the four kids and all the
9 volunteering that I do, I am up and down my
10 driveway, not joking, about 15 times a day,
11 easy. Driving to school, back and forth to
12 activities . You can ask any family with four
13 children how many times they drive in and out
14 of their driveway. I didn ' t know there was a
15 limit to that .
16 MR. SOMMERSTAD: Not just once . There
17 are cars that go in and out, in and out .
18 You ' re talking about four or five passives per
19 vehicle and you ' re talking times four . That
20 runs into like 24 more passives . I guess I am
21 supposed to sit in my house all day. I guess,
22 I can ' t sit in my backyard and enjoy it .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you visually
24 see the Sannino property from your backyard?
25 MR. SOMMERSTAD: When the leaves are
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 76
1 down, yeah.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. When I was
3 there, I observed an incredible amount of
4 dense foliage --
5 MR. SOMMERSTAD : Yeah, and that' s
6 another issue . He ' s been cutting my foliage
7 too . He ' s not a good neighbor to me . He cuts
8 my trees . He over sprays me with pesticides .
9 I have had the DEC over there a couple of
10 times . Now he is talking about cutting some
11 more of my trees . Why don ' t you take away all
12 your grapes and make the road wider?
13 MR. SANNINO: Just to clarify, the
14 trees that he is talking about, were planted
15 on the property line . So 500 of them --
16 MS . SANNINO : Run onto our property..
17 MR. SANNINO : So we ' re nice enough to
18 leave some of the foliage there . So if we
19 needed more space, we can easily hedge them.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
21 MR. SOMMERSTAD: Those trees have been
22 there for forty years .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Your neighbor
24 suggested that you are operating a
25 construction company from your home; is that
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 77
1 something that you would like to comment
2 on?
3 MR. SANNINO : I do have a pick-up
4 truck. That ' s pretty much it .
5 MR. SOMMERSTAD : You have a big box
6 truck back there, full of tools .
7 MR. SANNINO : Right, and the box truck
8 is getting licensed with farm plates because
9 we ' re going to use it for the farm.
10 MR. SOMMERSTAD : Too much going on
11 there .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There was
13 reference made to the use of the property,
14 covenants and restrictions . You have not sold
15 the development rights, have you?
16 MR. SANNINO : No . The property was
17 purchased -- I believe the property was
18 previously subdivided with a building
19 envelope, and the covenants were maybe changed
20 when he read it to be a building envelope ( In
21 Audible) around it . It ' s 130X130 building
22 envelope, which we -- was approved on the
23 original subdivision, but we moved it further
24 to the west . Further away from the neighbor ' s
25 property. That is where we constructed the
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 78
1 house, the maximum distance away from Alvahs
2 Lane or the neighbor ' s .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. So you
4 maintain that fundamentally the traffic that
5 is going in and out of there -- how many farm
6 workers do you have?
7 MR. SANNINO : One .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So you have one
9 helping you?
10 MR. SANNINO: Yes . He is not there
11 everyday, maybe three or four days a week.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Thank you .
13 MR. SANNINO : The farm worker is
14 actually one of my construction workers .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any other
16 questions?
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just wanted him
18 to be aware that this will probably go down
19 to deliberations .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, well we will
21 obviously consider everyone ' s comments and
22 statements carefully.
23 MEMBER DINIZIO : There is something
24 that I am not clear on . You said you laid ( In
25 Audible) on your driveway?
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 79
1 MS . SANNINO : Gravel .
2 MEMBER DINIZIO : When did you do that?
3 MR. SANNINO : A year ago .
4 MEMBER DINIZIO : Did that follow the
5 original application or how did that come
6 about?
7 MR. SANNINO : No, there was a request
8 made to keep the dust down . After we got
9 approval --
10 MEMBER DINIZIO : But did the Town
11 contact you and ask you?
12 MR. SANNINO: No, there was no
13 requirement . We did that on our own .
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : It wasn ' t that you
15 were required?
16 MS . SANNINO : No . We did it on our own
17 pocket .
18 MEMBER DINIZIO : You ' re talking about
19 it being 35 feet wide, but it ' s really not 35
20 feet wide, all the way down?
21 MR. SANNINO : From our property line to
22 the grape vine is 35 feet . You will see on
23 the survey --
24 MEMBER DINIZIO: No, but I am talking
25 about from Alvahs Lane to your property,
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 80
1 that ' s not 35 feet?
2 MR. SANNINO: . From Alvahs' Lane, the
3 first entrance, the flagpole or the flag lot,
4 from the trees , not from the property line
5 now, from the hedge trees to the vineyard is
6 22 feet, which is the width of Alvahs Lane .
7 So two cars can clearly go down.
8 MEMBER DINIZIO : I just recall you
9 saying that you can use that for overflow
10 parking or --
11 MR. SANNINO : What I am saying is , the
12 other portion that is 35 feet wide, if we
13 were to park cars along the property line
14 between- the greenhouse company and us, there
15 is plenty of room there . That would be the
16 north side of the property . So aside from
17 what we are showing you of paved ground, we
18 have another 180 feet that is 35 feet wide .
19 MEMBER DINIZIO : And what would you
20 need that for?
21 MS . SANNINO : Making the parking more
22 adequate .
23 MR. SANNINO : Making the parking more
24 adequately for our guests . To show enough
25 turn around space . If they turned on that
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 81
1 north side, they can just make a full u-turn
2 and turn right out .
3 MEMBER DINIZIO : And you mentioned
4 something about your neighbor ' s --
5 MS . SANNINO : For emergency vehicles ,
6 they can turn right out . It would be an open
7 spot from our driveway into the greenhouse
8 driveway.
9 MEMBER DINIZIO : I went down the
10 driveway a couple of weeks ago and turned
11 around. That seems adequate for emergency
12 vehicles to get in, as long as you are not
13 using like a parking along the side . I
14 understand you got to trim those trees once in
15 a while, because it ' s pretty large and that
16 could be a problem. I just think that relying
17 on your neighbor for fire department access is
18 not something that the Town No . 1, would
19 accept . Each lot has to stand on its own .
20 You have the 35 foot right-of-way, you have
21 to maintain it for people to get in and out of
22 there .
23 MR. SANNINO: Our first house was on
24 our flagpole .
25 MEMBER DINIZIO : Do you own any other
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 82
1 houses in Southold Town?
2 MS . SANNINO: No, his --
3 MR. . SANNINO: No .
4 MS . SANNINO : His mom is in Cutchogue .
5 MEMBER DINIZIO : You own a house in
6 Cutchogue?
7 MS . SANNINO : Eventually. No, no . His
8 mom owns it .
9 MEMBER DINIZIO : I just wanted to know .
10 Thank you.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
12 else in the audience that would like to
13 address this application?
14 Could you please spell and state your
15 name for the record?
16 MS . SLEZAK: My name is Frances Slezak,
17 S-L-E-Z-A-K, and I live at 7405 Alvahs Lane
18 with Mr. Sommerstad. You know, it ' s very hard
19 to sit here and listen to some of the things .
20 I have prepared an outline that I would like
21 to speak and discuss , but I am very
22 emotionally upset and hurt already. Just to
23 let you know . I would like to give you this,
24 and speak about . You know, there are ways
25 that you can really introduce yourself to your
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 83
1 neighbor and care about the environment and
2 take your time to think about nature,
3 preserving the land, and all I keep on
4 hearing is that this is going to cost too
5 much money to reapply. Life happens . Things
6 happen. People get sick. You have to care
7 for your parents . You can ' t always anticipate
8 what is going to happen . So when I hear that
9 now, I just know I don ' t know what really
10 will happen . In thinking about coming today,
11 I picked up a pamphlet and read about what a
12 Bed & Breakfast is, and it says, "for loading
13 and serving breakfast . " Says that "the
14 providing of such renting of such rooms to
15 such purposes clearly incidental and
16 subordinate to principal use of the dwelling . "
17 Well, the application that was put in for this
18 dwelling was for a resident . What happened,
19 they quickly turned it into a winery. They
20 were making wine in their garage . Then they
21 opened a B&B . Let me tell you, cars were
22 coming all the time . All the time . I don ' t
23 think that they care . They didn ' t care what
24 the Town needs were. There are setbacks .
25 There are guidelines . Suffolk County was
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 84
1 concerned about their property. It was
2 supposed to be preserved. Now the wildlife
3 has changed. I used to have all birds in the
4 trees . They are not there anymore, because
5 his access road is the spraying road. So
6 when those cars go back and forth, those cars
7 -- Ms . Sannino says she goes here and there .
8 Multiply that and double that . He says there
9 is one worker. Well, there is more than one
10 worker . I have seen them. I know them. I
11 know who they are . They cut the lawn on the
12 other side of the property. I just really
13 don ' t know where to begin, but I will begin .
14 First of all, it ' s a flag lot . It ' s very
15 concentrated. Their house is directly behind
16 my house . Their property may stretch in the
17 direction, but their property -- their parking
18 is all behind my house . So we get the
19 concentrated traffic on the north side of 468
20 feet, minus the 35 feet . And the entire
21 background is also an entire spraying ground.
22 So we not only get traffic . We get spray,
23 which damages and threatens my trees . They
24 have been cited by the DEC on two occasions,
25 above and beyond warnings . One time, I mean
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 85
1 it ' s just -- just very hard to live near
2 neighbor ' s who don ' t seem to show concern .
3 It ' s over developed. It ' s excessive . It ' s a
4 residence . It ' s a vineyard, and they have --
5 they don ' t only have members come . They have
6 members that are invited to bring other
7 guests , and their children. They have
8 amplified music with live entertainment music
9 there . Not by the parking lot . Behind my
10 house . In the front -- in the area between my
11 property and their property. Very
12 concentrated. People, cars , parking . Their
13 business is too close to my residence with
14 ongoing problems . We enjoy our property and
15 like to be outside . We enjoy our property in
16 the winter time . We cross country ski on our
17 own property. I don ' t believe what they ' re
18 doing is not in the character of Southold
19 Town. We are looking to preserve open space .
20 They are looking to put more cars there .
21 What ' s next to the cars? The greenhouse . The
22 greenhouse is right on their property line .
23 What is this? Is this Wal-Mart parking lot?
24 They have a responsibility to not abuse other
25 peoples rights . Let it be known that Southold
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 86
1 Town ' s denied the previous owners of this
2 property, Mr. Watts ( In Audible) to establish
3 a winery on this site . This flag lot is
4 not suitable for bringing tourists on this
5 site . These people are respectable and
6 wonderful people that come? They have been
7 rude to me . They will say, "Hey, what are you
8 doing over there?" When they are walking up
9 and down the side . I don' t want to be talked
10 to like that . Leave me alone . This flag lot
11 has a 50 foot parcel of land sharing an access
12 road, which was discussed and aligning grapes .
13 This abuts my entire northern boundary. I
14 mention that the same access road is a
15 pesticide spraying road. One DEC man was so
16 nice . He came over -- I called the DEC
17 - several times and they don ' t always have the
18 people to come right out . It ' s very hard to
19 have them come when they are there . You know,
20 there is nothing that they can do if they
21 don ' t post a 24-hour pesticide sign or
22 something . Those folks aren ' t going to do it,
23 and any folks going up and down that road, pay
24 -- there is something going there within 24
25 hours . The man came from Middle Island. He
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 87
1 was .spraying at four o ' clock in the afternoon .
2 I called, and they said, I can ' t get there in
3 enough time . There is nothing that I can do
4 about it . I said, "please come . Just talk to
5 him. I would appreciate that because I can ' t
6 always get through on the phone . " The marine
7 guy who is out on the water, he can ' t always
8 get there . He came to my house at 6 : 10 . And
9 what would you know, Mr . Sannino came back and
10 did that spray twice and he was caught right
11 in the action . The police -- the guy was
12 sitting right there watching him, and he tried
13 to talk his way out of it . This is what has
14 been happening . We cannot sit outside and
15 enjoy our property and our privacy in our own
16 backyard . We tend to ourselves . We take out
17 our garbage . We don ' t have workers . We do
18 it . Our activities are interrupted by workers
19 that are 15 feet from our boundary, spraying
20 pesticide solution, which endangers our trees
21 and our health . We believe that the business
22 activities lessen the wildlife that we used to
23 have . The Bed & Breakfast brings multiple
24 noisy and disturbing cars, which we have
25 already discussed. Any one car, just one car
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 88
1 directly effects what ' s going on . When you
2 see the dust cloud following the car, it just
3 goes . It ' s a windy location there . What ' s
4 nice, is that in the summer there is always a
5 little breeze . The thing is, we get the
6 dust . We get the pesticides . It ' s not good
7 for our health . The stress is not good.
8 There is already necessary travel for the
9 family going to and from work. Of course,
10 that ' s expected. Shopping, vineyard workers ,
11 but guess what? The Mattituck sanitation
12 truck comes at 6 : 30 in the morning and it
13 can ' t go head on. It drives backwards . All
14 the way, 468 feet .
15 MEMBER HORNING: When you say that, do
16 mean it ' s going, beep, beep, beep?
17 MS . SLEZAK: Right, beep, beep, beep,
18 and it interrupts my sleep . Trucks have
19 parked on Alvahs Lane . Mr . Sannino would get
20 in his car and drive down Alvahs Lane, go to
21 the truck, put the stuff on his truck and go
22 back to his house . Why? Maybe because trucks
23 can ' t turn around. Cars can ' t turn around.
24 Why? Extra bedrooms bring extra services to
25 the public . As of now, they even have
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 89
1 available a masseuse . On the last page, I
2 took it out of the Wine Press . They offer
3 bicycles , Honeymoon Suite, weddings . What ' s
4 going to happen? There is going to be
5 weddings there now? Are we going to find
6 groups of people? Are they going to have
7 little themes? Before they were allowed to be
8 a B&B, they had three buses from Adelphi come .
9 I don ' t know what kind of program they were
10 offering, but they were sitting between their
11 house and my backyard. Three buses of Adelphi
12 people . This is the kind of activities .
13 Private parties . They also have
14 accommodations for 16-year-olds . What does
15 that mean? Are they going to maybe have
16 volleyball tournaments? What are they going
17 to do with them? You know, they have a
18 business mind. They' re very into the money.
19 A couple of times , it ' s going to cost this
20 much . It ' s going to cost that much . Well,
21 that ' s what businesses are . What are they
22 concerned about? They are not concerned about
23 protecting the environment . The Town of
24 Southold is to preserve the land. What kind
25 of natural resources are going to be developed
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 90
1 here . You know the road -- what ' s the word?
2 They had to reground the road and bring in
3 heavy machinery and put dirt down. I don ' t
4 mean gravel . I mean, dirt . The road got
5 holey and pitted. Do you know what happens
6 when it snows? A couple of years ago when the
7 snow was this high. They couldn ' t get
8 through . Of course it ' s understandable, they
9 had to get heavy machinery. Do you know how
10 long that took? All day. Maybe all day it
11 took. to move the snow. Where does the snow
12 go? It ' s piled up into access roads . The
13 drainage would go onto our property. As there
14 seemed to be an increase in number of cars
15 coming and going to Sannino ' s Vineyard. I
16 noticed some dates that seem to be most
17 indicative of activities with cars , stretch
18 limos and mini buses . A limo parking in front
19 of my house for hours . Waiting to pick-up
20 those brought to the vineyard. It ' s annoying
21 to hear the stretch limo driving backwards
22 with a beeping loud noise . I have noted the
23 following dates . Now, January 1, 2012 . Now
24 they mentioned communions . I don ' t think
25 that ' s January 1st .
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 91
1 MS . SANNINO : It ' s New Year ' s . I just
2 wanted to put that out there .
3 MS . SLEZAK: The day after New Year ' s
4 from 2 : 00 to 5 : 00?
5 MR. SANNINO : My whole family was
6 there .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have to wait .
8 Everyone will have a chance to be heard.
9 MS . SLEZAK: Sunday, January 29th --
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Both of you have
11 to be aware that when you give testimony,
12 you have to address the Board, and not each
13 other .
14 MS . SLEZAK: Okay. Sunday,
15 January 29th . There was ten plus cars from
16 1 : 30 to 3 : 30 . Saturday, February 4th, there
17 was approximately 15 cars . Started early in
18 the day and went to after dark. Sunday,
19 March 18 , 2012, I don ' t know what was going
20 on, but they were there all day. Back and
21 forth. Back and forth. Sunday, April 8th,
22 back and forth. Back and forth, all day.
23 Saturday, May 12th . That ' s when the limos
24 were parked in front of my property. All day
25 for two hours . Excuse me, 12 : 00 to 4 : 00 .
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 92
1 Friday, May 18th. That was a Friday morning .
2 I don ' t know why Friday morning. Usually they
3 have their other tours on the other
4 property .
5 MR. SANNINO : That was Easter Sunday.
6 MS . SLEZAK: May 18th? They have their
7 tours on the other property. So I -- maybe
8 on other days that I haven ' t noticed, they ' re
9 sending them over to the vineyard in Cutchogue
10 to look at . I don ' t know what ' s happening . I
11 don ' t know why these people are coming every
12 weekend. I just noted the ones that are
13 excessive . Even the 15 cars . Now, I have
14 always been concerned of the Sannino ' s
15 participation in the North Fork B&B Holiday
16 (In Audible) did I give you those two
17 bulletins?
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have them.
19 MS . SLEZAK: You have them there, okay.
20 I was always concerned when I saw them
21 participating in the Holiday House Tour
22 Progressive Tasting on the North Fork on
23 December 4 , 2010, from 1 : 00 to 5 : 00 . I was
24 wondering if it ' s in accordance with the ZBA
25 #6194 condition? And I recently called,
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 93
1 because of all this other things going on,
2 are they in violation or what? I didn ' t think
3 that they would be, but I called the ZBA and
4 they told me that they had no special
5 approval to participate in this activity. The
6 Special Exception for the accessory B&B was
7 subject to a 3B condition, that I believe was
8 violated as the condition states . "There
9 shall be no commercial or retail use on the
10 subject property relating to the manufacturing
11 of wine included but not limited to, of wine
12 tasting, educational programs, wine
13 production, sales without an application of
14 approval from the ZBA for an Area Variance . "
15 I submitted to you the pamphlet . It says on
16 Page 3 , "each B&B on the tour will be hosting
17 a prominent and local winery and guests will
18 be treated to a progressive food and wine
19 tasting with the tour of the five B&B ' s . " It
20 says a lot more . I am just quoting something
21 from there that you have . Each of the B&B ' s
22 on the tour will have refreshments and music
23 to their visitors . This will travel from one
24 B&B to the next , and will be treated to a fine
25 pairing of wines and foods from the North Fork
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 94
1 restaurants . Page 4 , list the Sannino
2 Vineyard B&B tour paired with Legends
3 Restaurant and the Bella Vita Vineyard.
4 Tickets were limited to 350 people, costing
5 $75 . 00 per person . Cars attending this, bring
6 noise and dust pollution. Cars would line up
7 in front of Alvahs waiting to the access the
8 lane, causing congestion. Cars would speed.
9 If they saw a little space, they would speed
10 to get to the parking space . You know, people
11 don ' t even go straight . They have to bend .
12 This could possibly cause vehicle and
13 pedestrian accidents . I had concern knowing
14 wine was available on the five locations .
15 That the drivers were close to my home and I
16 was witnessing erratic driving . What if there
17 had been a fire and needed emergency vehicles ,
18 would they have the open space to advocately
19 perform? I have serious concerns for the
20 safety of our groundwater . There is an
21 increase contamination of our groundwater due
22 to the increasing of septic waste from the
23 proposed bedrooms . Increased bedrooms brings
24 increased people . Possibly including land use
25 activities with the business mind of focusing
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 95
1 on self profit . The Town is interested in
2 preserving land, and there is land in this
3 meeting area . We must protect our
0
4 groundwater, and I think the foresight, we
5 should not allow the increase in bedrooms to
6 this property. It ' s stressful for one to know
7 the need that they need to do to fight for
8 their property. Their home should bring
9 comfort, and not worry from outside activity.
10 The Sannino ' s were bold to operate a B&B and a
11 winery without Town approval as cited by
12 Southold Town Zoning enforced by Mr . Damon
13 Rallis , and should not be allowed to increase
14 the requested bedrooms . I believe the codes
15 of 241 . 82 and 281 . 43 are not being met . I have
16 made a summary here but I have the codes and I
17 have everything -- I have it all listed down .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me point out
19 something .
20 MS . SLEZAK: Yes .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have done a
22 very thorough job of documenting your concerns
23 and handing it to the Board, and all of us are
24 going to read it word, for word. I think what
25 you are kind of doing is summarizing a lot of
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 96
1 the things that are in there .
2 MS . SLEZAK: I am not going to read
3 it .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In the interest
5 of -- the fact that we do have another hearing
6 coming up, and I don ' t want to cut anyone
7 short , but I do want to try and not focus on
8 too many things . I do want to ask you a
9 question . I am looking at this Google Earth
10 map, would you come forward, one of you or
11 both of you, I just want to confirm if this is
12 -- let ' s see the Alvahs is here . Is that your
13 house here?
14 MS . SLEZAK: Yes .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And what is this
16 on your backyard? Is that accessory
17 structures?
18 MS . SLEZAK: No . No . It ' s grass .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s hard to see .
20 So your property line starts here . Do you
21 have a rough idea of the distance of your
22 house to here?
23 MS . SLEZAK: Yes, this is 468 feet .
24 The house . is 80 feet from the front yard. I
25 even have the survey.
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 97
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And this is about
2 50 feet from here?
3 MS . SLEZAK: Yes .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just wanted to
5 understand of what is where . Let ' s just ask
6 the Sannino ' s if you would like to make some
7 comments on your neighbor ' s concern?
8 MR. SANNINO : Yes . There is a few
9 things . As far as being neighbor ' s, the first
10 time we met, in fact, the ( In Audible) when
11 they bought the property. So I guess spraying
12 was already taken place . The first time we
13 met, we introduced ourselves and said we have
14 four kids . Her comment was, "don ' t worry.
15. They ' ll grow. " So that was neighborly. As
16 far as the spraying goes, I was never cited by
17 the DEC, but I was warned. So in taking
18 procedures, I now spray three rows from the
19 driveway before they wake in the morning . So
20 that is how I alleviated that problem. So we
21 don ' t have issues . I think every one of these
22 dates repre.sents --
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You can ' t speak
24 unless you are at the podium.
25 MR. SANNINO : I think every one of the
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 98
1 dates here, represents something significant
2 in our family. New Years Eve, New Years Day
3 we had the family over .
4 MS . SANNINO: Your dad was sick and we
5 had family over . His dad had passed away this
6 winter . So that must have been one of these
7 dates . I don ' t have my calendar with me, but
8 one of these dates are Easter Sunday. We had
9 family over . We both have a large family.
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You can definitely
11 comment in writing .
12 MS . SANNINO : I don ' t even know. I
13 have to go back to my calendar to see what I
14 was doing .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We will give you
16 ample time to read this over, because we are
17 going to have to do it as well . We want to do
18 it, and we will give you time to provide any
19 additional written comments about the
20 documents that you would like us to consider .
21 It sounds to me like a lot of the current
22 traffic is the fact you have a large family,
23 and you have a lot of people coming and
24 going .
25 MEMBER DINIZIO : Well, can I just say
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 99
1 something about that?
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes .
3 MEMBER DINIZIO : That ' s not going to
4 stop with the addition of five additional
5 bedrooms . Well, four additional cars coming
6 up and down using the driveway. I have to ask
7 another question. There was a lot of talk
8 about the driveway and you know, cars , and
9 disturbing the neighbor . Those grapes that
10 you have planted along there, are they in your
11 right-of-way?
12 MR. SANNINO: They ' re on our flag lot .
13 The flagpole .
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : They ' re in the
15 right-of-way to the lot?
16 MR. SANNINO : What do you mean by
17 right-of-way?
18 MEMBER DINIZIO: A certain amount of
19 space aside . You know, to make it a flag lot .
20 I believe that 50 feet is what it is , and if
21 that ' s the right-of-way, that you get to over
22 that piece of property because you have the
23 piece of land, you own it . And you should
24 maintain it, and it sounds like you are
25 maintaining it . But I am wondering if
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 100
1 planting grapes on there, building
2 structure --
3 MS . SANNINO : They were there .
4 MEMBER DINIZIO : I understand that . I
5 knew how it was, very well . I have been on
6 that property a few times, but I was just
7 wondering if maybe you could move those
8 grapes?
9 MR. SANNINO: If we had a place for
10 them, we would move them. But if we were to
11 move those grapes then three years from now,
12 we would be required to move the two rows of
13 grapes --
14 MS . SANNINO : Right behind the
15 property.
16 MEMBER DINIZIO : Well, I am not so
17 sure, you can have grapes on there . I am not
18 sure that you can farm that flag . I am not
19 sure if that is something that is permitted.
20 I think I would like to find that out . Maybe
21 you can find out from the Planning Board?
22 They are the ones that made it . You know, if
23 you are supposed to use that part of your
24 property as a right to farm.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don ' t know
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 101
1 either, but we do, know that there is a minimum
2 width.
3 MEMBER DINIZIO : Yes , that I
4 understand. Have that set aside . I am saying
5 that that land shouldn ' t be used for farm, you
6 know?
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is
8 something that the Planning Board would know .
9 We can ask. I do want to mention -- I do want
10 to ask you, you started to say that if you
11 move those two rows, you would have to move
12 another two rows, why would that be?
13 MR. SANNINO : If we were to appease our
_14 neighbor ' s and move those grapes , shortly
15 after that, I am sure they would put a
16 complaint in that the ones behind their
17 property would have to be removed.
18 MEMBER DINIZIO : I am not concerned of
19 appeasing anybody .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s not their
21 complaint about that . We ' re inquiring about
22 the width of the parking, turn around, the
23 ingress and egress .
24 MR. SANNINO : Let ' s keep in mind,
25 they'.re grapevines . They' re not trees .
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 102
1 They ' re vines . Emergency vehicles can drive
2 right over them.
3 MEMBER DINIZIO: I would say that .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And I doubt that
5 they would do that . If they had no choice,
6 they would go over anything . We do recognize
7 that as a vineyard, you are not large enough
8 to be a winery, you need 10 acres , and I know
9 the code has changed to 7 . However Ag and
10 Market does protect the right to farm. It
11 incudes recognition that farming involve
12 equipment . It involves spraying and it
13 involves dust . And it is a fact of life that
14 residential properties, which there are many,
15 many in this town, that are adjacent to farms ,
16 are in fact infested by that farm activity .
17 Sometimes not in a positive way, but that is
18 the nature of this Town and State ' s
19 recognition of wanting to preserve rural
20 landscapes and farming activities , and
21 wineries are considered farms . It ' s a farming
22 activity. Having said that, I want to hear
23 what the neighbor ' s have to say. Let ' s let
24 you make a comment --
25 MS . SLEZAK: I just want to make one
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 103
1 comment .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just stand by the
3 mic because it ' s being recorded.
4 MS . SLEZAK: We moved to our residence
5 when the grapes were already planted in the
6 back. So we ' re not saying that the rows have
7 to go or anything . They ' re just jumping the
8 gun . We moved there because we enjoyed the
9 ruralness of it . The grapes were in the back.
10 We never said "boo" about that . The grapes on
11 the side are 50 feet from our home . That is
12 a totally different issue . And he says , well ,
13 I spray in the morning. So that ' s no issue?
14 There is a 24 hour pesticide period saying
15 that you should not go in that area . I can ' t
16 walk by the side of my property because for
17 supposedly 24 hours . He thinks because he ' s
18 done spraying before I wake-up it matters? It
19 doesn ' t matter . It ' s still in the air .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
21 MS . SLEZAK: Oh, one other thing . On
22 his property record card, it shows how the
23 original owner bought and sold that 50 foot
24 parcel .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The flag you are
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 104
1 referring to?
2 MS . SLEZAK: Yes .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I 'm sorry, the
4 pole and the flag?
5 MS . SLEZAK: Yes . That ' s the issue of
6 50 feet wide, and it was sold. It went back
7 and forth between Roseland Hall and
8 Mr . Watt ' s, and I understand what Mr . Dinizio
9 was saying is accurate, that there shouldn ' t
10 be grapes there . I will let you people find
11 that out . I was told by someone . So that is
12 why I brought this .
13 MR. SOMMERSTAD: With regard to the
14 flag l.ot as Mr . Dinizio pointed out, there
15 wasn ' t always grapes there . That was just a
16 wide open space . It was access to the lots
17 , behind him. Mr . Watt ' s put them in at a later
18 time in order to increase his acreage . So he
19 could try and get approval as a vineyard. So
20 they ' re not original to the property. The
21 spraying, this guy don ' t care about the
22 weather . You shouldn ' t be spraying in high
23 winds . That ' s the problem. I understand you
24 have to spray, but when the wind is blowing
25 from the northwest at 35-40 mph, it doesn ' t
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 105
1 stop him. It blows all over. That ' s my
2 concern about the spraying . He has no regard
3 for the spraying. He is just spraying .
4 MS . SLEZAK: I would just like to add
5 to that . The kind of spraying that he does,
6 does not help the grapes . You know how some
7 of them go like this? That ' s not the kind
8 that he has . He has the kind that goes way up
9 in the air. So when your trees are right next
10 to my property line, guess where it goes?
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Board will
12 look into this . I am not sure if we have
13 jurisdiction over farm practices, spraying .
14 We are just here for increasing the number of
15 bedrooms for a Bed & Breakfast that already
16 exist . All of this has environmental impact,
17 which is part of a standard that we have to
18 look at . I don ' t know if we have jurisdiction
19 over spraying; however, I do appreciate your
20 concern and the Board certainly listens to all
21 interested parties . I want to see who else in
22 the audience would like to --
23 MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I just say
24 something? What I was trying to get at in
25 accommodations , if you were to eliminate 200
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 106
1 feet of those . I know it ' s 468 . If you
2 eliminated half way down, then you are not
3 spraying near these people ' s homes . I mean,
4 you know, you got kids that are 16 . You
5 know, you ' re buying a car and now there is
6 another car . So now we ' re adding . Now we
7 have eight cars . Then we have nine, ten,
8 because you all are going to be sleeping in
9 the same room evidently, if the kids go to
10 college . You know, it ' s just not- practical
11 for me to think that you could just have seven
12 cars on that piece of property with the amount
13 of people you are going to have on it . So I
14 thought of maybe the problems that you could
15 eliminate to help in the neighborhood. You
16 know, that might be something that might go
17 along way towards, you know, addressing some
18 concerns .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask, when
20 you have people on the property for your
21 harvest, you know, one or two days, where do
22 they park?
23 MR. SANNINO : On Mr. Keil ' s property
24 right next door . So they drive in once, and
25 park in the back lot, and then they drive out
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 107
1 the other way because there is --
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That ' s okay. I
3 am just curious, because I know that has to
4 have a lot of cars .
5 MEMBER HORNING : I would like them to
6 comment on something that the neighbor said?
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then why don ' t
8 you do that .
9 MEMBER HORNING: Their documentation, I
10 don ' t know if you have a copy. They ' re
11 showing a listing of B&B ' s . You ' re telling us
12 that maybe you would rent out the kids room
13 when they ' re away for a month and yet on here,
14 you ' re listed as open all year . Now, are you
15 running a year round business?
16 MR. SANNINO : Yes .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One room, we
18 granted that .
19 MEMBER HORNING: And is the five
20 bedroom operation going to be year round also?
21 MS . SANNINO : In the future .
22 MEMBER HORNING : I am with Jim all the
23 way. I don ' t understand --
24 MEMBER DINIZIO : I thought that there
25 testimony was maybe two months maybe . You
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 108
1 know --
2 MEMBER HORNING: But they' re
3 advertising --
4 MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes , I saw that too .
5 MS . SANNINO : That is for the one room.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think what
7 we ' re really asking, and the Board has raised
8 some relevant issues to think about , and I
9 think you have some relevant issues to think
10 about, is the flexibility that you would like
11 to have as to when and how you ' re able to
12 operate the number of bedrooms you would like .
13 Whether when the kids are not there, you would
14 like to be able to rent them out . When the
15 kids are there, you want to have your family
16 privacy. That ' s unusual . I don ' t recall
17 having an application before us for a B&B, in
18 which the bedrooms are currently occupied by
19 family members . It ' s a little unusual in the
20 history of Bed & Breakfast ' s , but it ' s clear
21 on what you ' re asking, and why you ' re asking
22 it . That ' s the first thing I want to make
23 sure we understand, is why you ' re trying to do
24 what you want to do . Ken?
25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Mr . Sannino, have
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 109
1 you ever considered possibly removing the
2 vines along that right-of-way or pole section
3 and perhaps making a two-lane access to your
4 property?
5 MR. SANNINO: Just to make it clear,
6 what we have right now, can fit two cars
7 passing. It ' s the width of Alvahs Lane that
8 goes from the trees to the vines .
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay .
10 MR. SANNINO : So it ' s the same width as
11 Alvahs Lane . Two cars can go by. It ' s 22
12 feet .
13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
14 MR. SANNINO : They ' re unique grapes
15 that become part of a blend that we make .
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What ' s your
17 varietal?
18 MS . SANNINO: It ' s the only Cabernet
•19 Franc that we have on the property.
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Next question .
21 What ' s the necessity for the trash collector
22 to back down the driveway, because he can ' t
23 turn around?
24 MR. SANNINO : I don ' t know.
25 MS . SANNINO: We can call him and ask
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 110
1 him not to do that, if that ' s the case .
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Apparently back-up
3 buzzers is an issue here .
4 MR. SANNINO: Absolutely.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I will say that
6 having driven on the site, and depending upon
7 the number of vehicles that you have up near
8 your house and the garage, it ' s not always
9 easy to turn in and turn out . So that is why
10 parking is to be really safe and have
11 appropriate parking for the number of vehicles
12 including when the family members come and so
i 13 on is important . And it ' s probably -- it ' s
14 possible to look on how you could do that,
15 when you propose something that is more
16 specific than what you had before, but you
17 have to sacrifice a little of your backyard
18 or whatever or put in a circular turnaround
19 and someway to make it safe and accessible .
20 MR. SANNINO : If we were to take eight
21 fields of grapevines and park to the left --
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is a
23 subdivision . You haven ' t gone through Site
24 Plan approval, have you or haven ' t you?
25 MS . SANTORA: Regarding?
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 111
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything .
2 MR. SANNINO : Probably. We had the
3 building envelope moved.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : See they created
5 the subdivision and your scenic easement .
6 MR. SANNINO : Then we had to change it
7 together with the Planning Board to move the
8 building envelope further to the west .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, but they
10 would not have reviewed your property for
11 anything other than a residence at the time,
12 because you ' re under acreage for a winery. So
13 I think the only thing or part they would have
14 considered with regard to parking, would have
15 been residential property, and you have a
16 three-car attached garage .
17 MR. SANNINO : Just to make note, we ' re
18 members of the NFBBA. We visited at least 25
19 B&B ' s . All of which are on significantly less
20 property. If any of them are on more than an
21 acre, I would be surprised. If their parking
22 considerations were considered and we have
23 more than a few acres --
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You can ' t park on
25 land that is Ag property. You are certainly
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 112
1 not going to take out wines that are under
2 production for parking .
3 MS . SANNINO: Well, maybe .
4 MR. SANNINO : If it would be for us to
5 get what we want, then we would do what we
6 have to .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That ' s what I am
8 getting at . I think we need to get some
9 comments from the Planning Board. The
10 Planning Board does Site Plan approval .
11 They ' re the one ' s that really looks at
12 parking, egress and ingress . Usually wineries
13 required Site Plan approval, but you ' re under
14 acreage . I guess there are still some
15 considerable issues that we have to deal with .
16 This is a Special Exception permit . It does
17 not require Site Plan approval and go to the
18 Planning Board . It doesn ' t even have to go
19 to the Building Department . It goes right to
20 Zoning Board, but there have been issues
21 raised about emergency access , and I know that
22 you ' re aware of them. I think the Board has a
23 lot to think about and will do its due
24 diligence to find out what, if anything, is
25 missing.
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 113
1 I want to see if there is anyone in the
2 audience --
3 MS . SLEZAK: I have a paper from
4 Heather Lanza .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right . Okay.
6 MS . SLEZAK: It ' s a message to Kristie
7 Windsor . It ' s July 8 , 2008 at 3 : 42 P . M. It
8 says "the Planning Board would like to know
9 about the agricultural use . The small size of
10 this property raises the question of whether
11 this property can have reasonable use and meet
12 the description of a farm or agricultural
13 use . " This is from her .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We know that .
15 They' re -- that has . to do with the fact that
16 at that time a ( In Audible) property had to be
17 ten acres or more . And they' re not ten acres
18 or more . That is all that refers to . They
19 have a right to have a B&B as a residential
20 use . It has nothing to do with growing
21 grapes . It has to do with a distinction of
22 size .
23 MS . SLEZAK: They have four vehicles .
24 She has a SUV. He has a pick-up truck. They
25 have a hi-top van, and they have a box truck.
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 114
1 That has been parked there on a -- the
2 boundary line for over a year . On our western
3 boundary. And when the children get cars how
4 many -- okay. It ' s pretty clear that you have
5 a lot of vehicles on your property. You do
6 welcome the guest now. You ' re asking for more
7 cars, and it ' s definitely clear that as the
8 kids get older, they ' re going to want cars
9 too . So I think it ' s pretty clear to you why
10 we raised this issue . It ' s a fact .
11 MS . SANNINO : What about abandoned
12 vehicles on property. Is that zoning issue
13 or --
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It ' s a code
15 issue .
16 MS . SANNINO : Okay. That is who we
17 should get in touch with .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let ' s hear from
19 someone else from the audience, who has been
20 waiting very patiently. Please state your
21 name and spell it .
22 MR. KEIL : Eric Keil . The last name is
23 spelled K-E-I-L . I am a resident of Mattituck
24 and I am a co-owner of the adjacent property
25 next to the Sannino ' s . I just wanted to go on
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 115
1 record saying that I don ' t have any opposition
2 to them expending their B&B activities .
3 Listening to the neighbor ' s complaints, I
4 couldn ' t help feel that some of that driveway
5 dust might be coming from my operations
6 because as the Sannino ' s have stated, they
7 have put down gravel to control that . I still
8 have a dirt farm road that is right on the
9 other side of the Sannino ' s grapes . So some
10 of those dust issues could be coming from mine
11 as well . And all my trucks have back-up
12 alarms on them. So some of that "beep, beep,
13 beep" that they ' re hearing, could be coming
14 from my truck, which from naturally turning
15 around from the nursery operation and could be
16 generating some of that noise . I tried very
17 hard to be a good neighbor . That ' s some times
18 challenging to do . Agricultural uses and
19 residential uses, actually come into conflict
20 with each other . You have heard from the
21 Sannino ' s neighbor ' s some of the feelings that
22 they have on the subject . You know, when you
23 have all this discussion about the driveway
24 width and the neighbor ' s planting property
25 line trees to screen the Sannino ' s operations ,
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 116
1 they should screen the greenhouse because
2 either thing was there before I was even
3 there . The greenhouse operations has been
4 there since the 19701s . I would say that we
5 worked hard to create buffers with our
6 neighbor ' s . I am sure the neighbor ' s are
7 happy they have -those trees there . Taking out
8 the grapes vines to make the driveway bigger?
9 It ' s also true that the Sannino ' s could cut
10 their neighbor ' s vegetation rights all the way
11 back to the property line, and then use the
12 full 50 foot width that they have . They have
13 chosen not to do that because they want to
14 preserve that barrier of nature between
15 themselves . You know, it sort of a two-edge
16 sword. Also the grapevines actually act as a
17 barrier between my operations and the
18 neighbor ' s . So if those grapevines are
19 removed, they will actually see more of my
20 business operations taking place . So when the
21 grapevines are leafed out during the whole
22 growing season, they actually act as an
23 additional visual barrier . My business is an
24 intense use of the property when you were
25 there . So that ' s all I wanted to say.
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 117
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for
r'
2 coming .
3 MR. KEIL : Thanks .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does any of the
5 Board members have any questions or comments
6 that they want to make?
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We know of course
8 that the Sannino ' s just got this draft from
9 the neighbor ' s that they comment to whatever
10 they want regarding any of it, and at the same
11 time, let the neighbor ' s comment to anything
12 that they forgot . That ' s it .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, then based
14 on Gerry ' s comments, I am going to make a
15 motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special
16 Meeting in two weeks , at which time we will
17 close the hearing . Which means that you will
18 have two more weeks to think about everything .
19 Review everything, and submit in writing only
20 anything that you want the Board to consider .
21 Of course he should have an opportunity to
22 respond to anything that the neighbor ' s have
23 submitted and respond to anything that they
24 heard you say. So we will leave this open for
25 two weeks and then we will close it at the
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 118
1 Special Meeting, and then we will have 62 days
2 from that date to make a decision .
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We are closing
5 verbal testimony now. My motion is to close
6 verbal testimony now, and to adjourn this
7 hearing to the Special Meeting of June 21st
8 and to accept written testimony or
9 documentation up to that time, at which time
10 we will close . We won' t be deliberating . We
11 will be closing. So we won ' t be talking about
12 it . We ' re just going to close it for
13 additional information. We have a meeting
14 every two weeks . So we will start to
15 deliberate . The very next meeting will be
16 July 5th, which isn ' t terrible likely that we
17 will have a draft by then. It just depends on
18 the other drafts that we have to do . We try
19 and do it as quickly as we can . We try and do
20 it very carefully. We will probably ask the
21 Planning Board for any comments .
22 If you want to ask any questions , you
23 will have to come to the podium.
24 MS . SLEZAK: I was just wondering,
25 are the results mailed to the home, or do we
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 119
1 call --
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes . Once we
3 make a decision, you will see on the
4 agenda . You can always call the office . Once
5 the decision gets made, it has to be signed
6 by me . I have to do that in five business
7 days, and then it is mailed to the property,
8 but it is available by FOIL . You can have a
9 copy of it .
10 MS . SLEZAK: Thank you everybody.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You ' re welcome .
12 So my motion was to close the verbal testimony
13 today and adjourn to receive additional
14 written testimony on June 21st .
15 Is there a second?
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
18 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
20 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
23 (See Minutes for Resolution. )
24 **********************************************
25 HEARING #6556 - RICHARD MEYERHOLZ
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 120
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am going to
2 make a motion to open. the hearing on Richard
3 Meyerholz, #6556 . This is a hearing from
4 May 3rd. There is no one here to address it .
. 5 We have a request in writing to adjourn to
6 the July Public Hearing Meeting. A survey
7 was submitted to the Board by Mr . Meyerholz,
8 which was addressing some of our concerns,
9 particularly the location of the deck, and
10 the hot tub in the side yard.
11 So hearing no comments from anyone, I
12 am going to make a motion to adjourn to
13 July 5th at 10 : 00 A. M.
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
16 MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye .
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
18 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
21 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
22 **********************************************
23 HEARING #6571 - ANTHONY AND DANIELE CACIOPPO
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
25 application before the Board is for Anthony
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 121
1 and Daniele Cacioppo, #6571 . Request for
2 variance from Article III Code Section 280-15
3 and the Building Inspector ' s April 23, 2012
4 Notice of Disapproval based on an application
5 for Building Permit for an accessory shed;
6 1 ) front yard setback at less than the code
7 required 40 foot setback, 2 ) location other
8 than the code permitted front yard or rear
9 yard on waterfront property, located at : 1455
10 Inlet Way. Corner of Cedar Point Drive East .
11 Adjacent to Fairhaven Inlet, in Southold.
12 State your name for the record,
13 please .
14 MR. WEBER: Hi . My name is Fred Weber .
15 I am the architect representing the Cacioppo ' s
16 for their shed, with an attached pergola at
17 their site, 1455 Inlet Way. To start off, the
18 lot is a nonconforming lot . It ' s a little
19 over 20, 000 square feet in a 40, 000 R-40 Zone .
20 It is also on a corner . Having two front
21 yards, and it ' s a triangular shape, you know,
22 gives some kind of conversion setbacks at the
23 point . So based on all those situations, it
24 was difficult to locate a small shed. They
25 would like to build on the property for
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 122
1 storage of bicycles and some miscellaneous ,
2 tool equipment or whatever . It ' s a
3 13 . 8 X 8 foot shed, with one-story. Fairly
4 low in height . They' re also reconfiguring a
5 pergola, which they use to -- it has some kind
6 of a panel around it, that they use as sort of
7 a changing area for the pool . There is one
8 there already, which has an overhead aspect to
9 it, as well as a wood plantar . In doing this ,
10 they' re requesting a variance for a setback in
11 the front yard about 28 . 2 feet, instead of the
12 required 40 . Something also came to light, as
13 to the lot coverage . Originally, they had
14 applied for a variance, I guess that had been
15 given approval, to build a two-story -- fairly
16 large two-story garage . It ' s basically in an
17 overlapping location. This is the nature of
18 what we ' re proposing . This is it from the
19 pool . This is what was proposed. Now, they
20 got a variance for lot coverage, that I wasn ' t
21 aware, that they would need -- originally I
22 was not aware that they would need a variance
23 for lot coverage . But I guess in 2009, the
24 definition of lot area changed, and it now
25 does require a lot coverage variance as well .
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 123
1 We now have to back-out the area of the
2 wetlands , which wasn ' t part of the original
3 proposal . So we would also be asking for that
4 lot coverage variance, 20 . 9 .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Fred, lot
6 coverage is not in the Notice of Disapproval,
7 and based on your submission of the survey, it
8 would appear that they' re over the 19 . 5
9 percent that they originally were because the
10 change of code . Right now, it ' s 22 percent .
11 You ' re proposing to increase the existing lot
12 coverage by 0 . 2 percent?
13 MR. WEBER: Correct .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It certainly
15 would be considered de minimis by anyone ' s
16 standard, however, the question before the
17 Board is, does the Board want him to go back
18 with this amended information and get an
19 amended Notice of Disapproval, because I don ' t
20 know that we can grant the 22 percent lot
21 coverage without that, unless the Board
22 determines that the increase is only
23 0 . 2 percent, in which case, it ' s de minimis .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As long as the lot
25 coverage was less than one, it was considered
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 124
1 de minimis, by a letter from the architect or
2 engineer, indicating that is what the increase
3 is, I think we can make it .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is square
5 footage and this is proposed square footage
6 with the shed, and then lot coverage based on
7 the entire site, prior to the code change, and
8 now the new code . The new code has it at
9 22 . 9 .
10 MR. WEBER: Correct .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So if you look at
12 the proposed square footage, the increase in
13 the lot coverage from what is there now, is
14 0 . 2 percent .
15 MR. WEBER: Correct .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Depending whether
17 we define it under the old code or the new
18 code . So it ' s kind of caught in the middle .
19 MEMBER DINIZIO : It ' s de minimis .
20 Based on the old law, it ' s that, and based on
21 the new law, it ' s that .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I assume, we got
23 a letter that the shed was denied.
24 MS . ANDALORO : ( In Audible) .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right .
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 125
1 MEMBER HORNING: What happened to that
2 idea?
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The DEC wasn ' t to
4 kind with it .
5 MEMBER HORNING: Is that what happened
6 to you?
7 MR. WEBER: I think so . That was back
8 in 2006, I wasn ' t involved in the project at
9 that point . I think that is what they -- time
10 had lapse . They had somebody else working on
11 it . The project just came to a halt . When
12 they were ready with everything, they just
13 came to me, and I was moving that forward for
14 them. At this point, we do have DEC approval
15 and Trustee approval for what we ' re proposing .
16 Now, I think that is in the file?
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is .
18 MEMBER HORNING: What happened to those
19 other variances?
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think it ' s moot
21 at this point . We might make reference in the
22 decision to the previous variances, that the
23 law did change and is no longer an active --
24 MS . ANDALORO : What do they have to do,
25 a front yard variance?
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 126
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And lot coverage .
2 MS . ANDALORO : (In Audible) .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We don ' t know .
4 MR. WEBER: They would like to build a
5 shed. They ' re not planning to build a garage .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The bottom line
7 is , if you were , to get a Building Permit for
8 the garage, they would tell you to come back
9 to us anyway.
10 MR. WEBER: For lot coverage?
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Lot coverage .
12 MR. WEBER: Right .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So, the garage is
14 not before us . Let ' s look at the proposed
15 shed. Certainly unobtrusive . It ' s very much
16 in keeping with the style of the architecture .
17 You know, there is really no impact on
18 adjacent properties .
19 MR. WEBER: And not from the road.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And also not
21 visible from the road.
22 MR. WEBER: It ' s a dead-end. When you
23 get to them, it ' s only two or three houses
24 down where they ' re, then it ' s a dead-end.
25 MEMBER HORNING : I thought it was all
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 127
1 greens in there . I couldn ' t see the water .
2 MR. WEBER: There is water in there .
3 MEMBER HORNING : I couldn ' t see the
4 water, because there was foliage . But a boat
5 could drive-up?
6 MR. WEBER: Yeah, it ' s navigable, but I
7 think it varies with the tide . At low tide,
8 it ' s probably difficult to get a boat in and
9 out of there . At high tide, it could be
10 better .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Does anybody have
12 any questions on this?
13 MEMBER DINIZIO: No .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes . My question
16 is this, with the new decking, which . is above
17 ground. The lot coverage is 22 . 9 percent,
18 with the proposed additions?
19 MR. WEBER: Yes .
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And so, the pergola
21 and shed -- it ' s really only 22 . 7 , with them
22 it ' s 22 . 9; is that correct?
23 MR. WEBER: We ' re taking away -- first
24 off, it ' s being built over the same area .
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right .
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 128
1 MR. WEBER: And we ' re also removing a
2 deck that is in front yard, like an entry
3 deck.
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was unaware of
5 that .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it ' s an
7 increase to certainly what is on the site, but
8 the lot coverage is not nonconforming, because
9 of the change in the code .
10 MR. WEBER: Right . Right .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George or Ken?
12 MEMBER HORNING : I don ' t have any.
13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I don ' t have any
14 questions .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
16 in the audience that would like to address
17 this application?
18 (No Response . )
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
20 further comments, I am going to make a motion
21 to close this hearing and reserve decision to
22 a later date .
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
25 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 129
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
2 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
5 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
6 **********************************************
7 HEARING #6550 - KIMOGENOR POINT, INC .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We ' re going to
9 open up this hearing . I am going to read the
10 Notice of Disapproval, because it ' s an amended
11 Notice of Disapproval . This is an application
12 for Kimogenor Point, Inc . , (Bingham) #6550 .
13 Adjourned from April 5, 2012 . Request for
14 variances from Article XXIII Code Section
15 280-123 and Article XXII Section 280-116 and
16 the Building Inspector ' s June 19, 2012 ,
17 revised May 3, 2012 Notice of Disapproval
18 based on an application for Building Permit
19 for 1st and 2nd story enlargements and
20 alterations to a seasonal dwelling at; 1) a
21 nonconforming building containing a
22 nonconforming use shall not be enlarged,
23 reconstructed, structurally altered or moved,
24 unless such building is changed to a
25 conforming use, and 2 ) less than the code
June 7, 2012 Zoning ,Board of Appeals 130
1 required bulkhead setback of 75 feet, located
2 at : 50 Jackson Street in New Suffolk, New
3 York.
4 Pat?
5 MS . MOORE : Yes . Thank you . Good
6 afternoon. Patricia Moore on behalf of the
7 Bingham Family and also here for Kimogenor
8 Point . Tom Samuels is the design
9 professional . He and I are working together
10 on this application. Mr . & Mrs . Bingham are
11 here . So are some of the Kimogenor Point
12 owners in support of this application. I put
13 in front of you several items . So I just want
14 to refer to them. The first one is a May 26th
15 letter from William Archer, who is President
16 of Kimogenor Point Company. This reflects a
17 revised plan, based on the new Notice of
18 Disapproval for less than demolition to the
19 existing residence . So I have that for your
20 file . Also, I have given to you a packet, in
21 that packet, that is before you, I have the
22 first and second -- are the sales that have
23 occurred at Kimogenor Point . Many of the
24 people here are original owners . In fact, two
25 families that are here today are from the
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 131
1 original owners , that are from their
2 grandparents when they first planned out their
3 community. And that provides you with just a
4 cost estimate . This was relative in the Use
5 Variance application, but I thought the
6 information would be valuable to the Board,
7 with respect to those property values of this
8 community. The degree of improvements also
9 reflect the sale value of the property. The
10 second page I have, I used the same numbering
11 system that was already in your file, and it
12 is a Google map, Numbered 1 through 12 of the
13 individual homes . And then, what I did is ,
14 after that, are the photographs . So that when
15 we ' re presenting the application to you all, I
16 will have Tom go through the architectural
17 style and the improvements that have been done
18 over the years . Just so that it establishes a
19 record. I thought for character of the
20 community, the photographs could speak
21 volumes . I could describe the community to
22 you, but it is so unique and magnificent, the
23 homes are really unlike any others in the
24 Town. So by photographing it, I thought it
25 would be better description of the homes that
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 132
1 are in this community. And then finally at
2 the end of the packet is my outline that you
3 can share for transcribing the record. What I
4 will be doing is going through the Area
5 Variance criteria . Some of the points, which
6 I know that Tom has already in his application
7 packet, had completed many of the same
8 arguments . The Area Variance criteria, as
9 well as the Use Variance application, but
10 we ' re now focusing on the Area Variance
11 criteria . So I am just going through and
12 making sure that I have captured all of my
13 points that I think that are relevant, but the
14 whole record, we will rely on the entire
15 record in support of our application . So I am
16 going to begin with the standard, and then I
17 will defer to Tom to go through the
18 photographs and character of the community.
19 So the first standard is , there will be no
20 undesirable change to the character of the
21 community or detriment to nearby properties,
22 if this variance was granted. As you know,
23 there are 12 homes in total, in this
24 community, best known as Kimogenor Point
25 Incorporation . It ' s a co-op cooperate
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 133
1 structure that dates back to 1915 . This house
2 sits on 5 . 9 acres , and with 5 homes on the
3 5 . 9 acres . The remaining homes sit on
4 contiguous properties and the entire property
5 is considered Kimogenor Point, which also
6 includes the clubhouse in the center . The
7 addition on the east side of the house would
8 complete the footprint, and in keeping with
9 the architectural design of the other homes in
10 the community. We will have Tom discuss that .
11 Very importantly, we will see photographs . As
12 we go over the individual photographs, you can
13 see standing by the porch, you can see through
14 the porch at the alignment of the porches, and
15 the -- the importance of the alignment of the
16 porches . So this plan maintains that
17 alignment . Incorporates additional porches
18 and puts the -- places the architectural style
19 renovation in keeping with the homes that are
20 there . The better design homes that are there
21 today. The owner has modified their plans ,
22 and they will retain 25 percent of the
23 existing dwelling in order to meet the
24 renovation/alteration, rather than a
25 demolition. The existing walls to be
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 134
1 maintained, will require excessive
2 renovations to meet the required State
3 Building Code . Tom has provided to you, at
4 your request, a plan that shows the colored
5 rendering of the wall that needs to be taken
6 down. Those are to be modified and upgraded,
7 I guess, but in effort to maintain the
8 existing structure . As you know, from all of
9 these applications, dealing with old
10 construction, the improvements that you would
11 see -- the percentage under the State Building
12 Code and FEMA regulations, you would have to
13 bring the entire house into conformity, and
14 these -- the conformity under the State
15 Building Code, will require energy code
16 compliance . Upgrade to the windows . They
17 will be double paned windows, and hurricane
18 standards windows and the strapping
19 throughout . Would you prefer that we walk you
20 through the character of the community with
21 the photographs now, and I will continue with
22 the remaining standards? Will that -- so you
23 hear from someone else other than just me . So
24 is that all right?
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That ' s fine .
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 135
1 MS . MOORE : Tom, maybe this is a good
2 time for you to walk them through .
3 MR. SAMUELS : Hi . My name is Tom
4 Samuels, architect on behalf of Kimogenor
5 Point and Bingham' s . I am looking at Page 1
6 that comes directly after their aerial view,
7 and this shows the house labeled as No . 1 ,
8 which is the first house when you come off the
9 street . ' And this house was effectively
10 rebuilt about twenty years ago pretty much
11 from the ground up but in keeping with the
12 style of the neighborhood. The point is, it
13 was rebuilt . The next page, House No . 2 ,
14 house was largely modified. It is probably
15 the original structure, but was considerably
16 modified over a period of time . I am not sure
17 of the time, but you can see in the style of
18 the neighborhood, which was these big porches ,
19 generally wrapping around or at least on two
20 or three sides . Third house in, No . 3 , with
21 the green shutters . Original house . Pretty
22 much in original condition. They may have
23 filled-in a porch here or there but basically
24 that ' s an original house . Changed the dormer
25 on the back of the roof too . The fourth house
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 136
1 in with the yellow shutters, hip roof, largely
2 original, but you can see to the left on the
3 upper photograph there is an addition -- a
4 significant addition that was done to the one
5 side, at some point in the past, but might be
6 30 or 40 years ago . The fifth house in,
7 Keane, probably the largest footprint of all
8 these houses . It is just a simple gable but
9 has a porch on two sides, and a fairly
10 significant addition on the other side as
11 well . Sixth house in with the light blue
12 shutters , effectively rebuilt in the
13 footprint . As a full two-story. It ' s the
14 only two-story house in the community, but
15 largely rebuilt . There may have been some
16 original stuff . It was pretty much completely
17 redone . And the No . 7 , is our house . The .
18 house that we ' re talking about, which is
19 pretty much original . If you go to the second
20 page of this one, you will see that there is
21 no porch on the -- that side of the house .
22 The left side of the house, looking at the
23 house . The east side . My sense, there may
24 have been a porch there because it ' s the only
25 house that it does not have a porch wrapping
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 137
1 on those sides . So this is one two-story
1
2 section ( In Audible) sticking out on that left
3 hand side of the bathroom. It seems to me
4 that that was probably part of an open porch
5 and at some point was enclosed, because the
6 front porch goes all the way to that point and
7 otherwise would have stuck out and ended, and
8 that doesn ' t happen. So there very likely may
9 have been a porch on that side . I am not so
10 sure of the front , unless you guys know if
11 there was? So that ' s Bingham, the house in
12 question. The next house, No . 8 , dark blue
13 shutters, was expanded over time . The porch
14 you can see in that top picture, there is a
15 one-story that was infilled. Like when I talk
16 about these houses that have or had porches ,
17 most of them -- many of them have been
18 enclosed for interior space . Many of these
19 homes when you look inside, have these little
20 interior rooms , but that was the
21 case before No . 8 . No . 9, was a project
22 of mine that this Board gave approval to
23 about seven years ago . That was a renovation,
24 a heroic renovation I would say. The house
25 was lifted and largely reconstructed. We
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 138
1 saved parts of it, but in order to put a
2 second floor on it -- in this case a second
3 floor was added to the house . The footprint
4 reflects these porches that were infilled,
5 which is that typical section of a high
6 section in the middle and lower hipping sheds
7 on the outside . So that house was relatively
8 rebuilt, and fairly original in terms of the
9 central core, but in terms of porches, likely
10 infilled within the inside, and certainly
11 modified or improved over the years , as were
12 almost the houses with this -- with the one
13 exception that we ' re working on now . And then
14 finally No . 11, the last house, which is
15 the one that you see when you come around on
16 New Suffolk Avenue, which is a big shed
17 addition on the back. Clearly was not added
18 not to long ago . I ' m sorry, there is one
19 more . Pollio, recently renovated and was
20 added to, and I believe it was before your
21 Board to get some relief from -- an Area
22 Variance standpoint . So that house was
23 largely reconstructed also . Probably a little
24 newer that some of the others, but was
25 largely reconstructed also . I don ' t know the
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 139
1 percentage of these houses that are seasonal
2 versus non-seasonal, but many of them do have
3 heat . I am not sure how many of them do, but
4 I would say at least have of them have heat .
5 None of them are occupied full-time though
6 year round. They' re only occupied seasonally,
7 but many of them have been upgraded to include
8 heat and cooling conditioned space . The final
9 picture, is a picture of the beach. The
10 property is shared. So although you have a
11 lifelong leasehold on your house, all of the
12 property is shared and maintained jointly. So
13 the beach is shared. The property around the
14 houses , the space between the two houses,
15 which is used as a community. Access to the
16 beach, and that is the nature of the whole
17 community. There is no picture of the
18 clubhouse, but that is a small house . There
19 is a picture of the island that sits in the
20 jist of the creek on the north side, and
21 finally the last page, shows a beach view
22 with our project in the middle and the light
23 blue shutters behind it . The purpose here is
24 to get a sense of this alignment of front
25 porches . They were very consciously built to
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 140
1 align the front porches to the bay, so people
2 sitting on their front porches have a sense of
3 community. With the neighbor ' s you can just
4 look up and down the porch and see who is
5 sitting out . We have respected that of
6 course, because that is probably one of the
7 defining characteristics of all these houses ,
8 which have been -- which are different and
9 have changed over time, but this is one
10 feature that has been maintained over all
11 these years . And I think that is pretty much
12 it .
13 MS . MOORE : Thank you . I am sure you
14 will have questions as we go along, but I will
15 just continue on the standard with respect to
16 (In Audible) can not be achieved from a method
17 feasible, for the applicant to pursue other
18 than the Area Variances . The house right now
19 has a second floor and the second floor
20 additional space is over the existing
21 structure . To maintain the character of
22 Kimogenor Point, as Tom pointed out, wrap
23 around porches , the particular shape of the
24 house is key to the maintenance of the
25 character of this really unique and very
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 141
1 unidentifiable community. The footprint of
2 the house can ' t be kept in place . The typical
3 in-kind and in-place . There are structural
4 reasons for that . We went through the
5 individual State code requirements . The
6 square footage is required for several aspects
7 of it, and the first one is the rooms . Some
8 of the rooms are inadequate with respect to
9 the State Building Code . Room sizes have to
10 be a minimum of 66 square feet . Pardon me,
11 minimum of 80 square feet . The existing first
12 floor has rooms that are 66 square feet .
13 MEMBER DINIZIO: No, hold on. Your
14 application says, 70 .
15 MS . MOORE : Oh, I 'm sorry. I had 70 ,
16 thank you . Is it 80 or 70? I think we talked
17 about it being a minimum of 70?
18 MR. SAMUELS : 70 , is the minimum.
19 MS . MOORE : Okay. So we have minimum
20 requirements of occupied space for the
21 bedrooms and we have cited for you the
22 section of the residential code . The stairs
23 are being made conforming. So that too does
24 involve some additional square footage in the
25 area of additional occupied space . The
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 142
1 windows have to be converted to egress
2 windows . They' re not egress windows now, and
3 they also have to be energy code and
4 hurricane standards compliance . Finally,
5 with respect to the seasonal nature of this
6 house, we checked, and under the State Code,
7 if a house is occupied in September 15th and
8 May 15th, which the season does extend
9 beyond that period of time, the Building
10 Department cannot issue a permit that is for a
11 seasonal home . It has to be with heat . It
12 has to be heated space . So those are the code
13 requirements that we found would be
14 applicable to the renovation. The amount of
15 relief requested is not substantial . Again,
16 we ' re maintaining as what we have as the
17 setbacks . The variance setback from the
18 bulkhead. I would remind the Board, and you
19 can see it from the photographs, and when
20 you go there, you have the bulkhead and then
21 you have the interior driveways, and then
22 you have the homes and in this particular
23 case, the house . So you do have a disturbed
24 area that occurs from the bulkhead to the
25 house . So while we do not meet the 75 foot
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 143
1 setback, you do have -- it is not a pristine
2 undisturbed area . You have the driveway that
3 dissects that space . The more important space
4 that we do want to maintain in order to make
5 alterations to the house, if you have to pop
6 things out to adjust the square footage, we
7 don ' t have the luxury of being able to move it
8 towards the more environmentally sensitive
9 area, towards the beach . In the photographs,
10 you see the very natural more pristine area
11 for purposes of environmental issues, but for
12 alignment of the homes, and the porches all
13 line up evenly there . So we ' re somewhat
14 restricted in the space and the allocation of
15 space, and they have asked for the minimum
16 necessary to achieve their space goal and
17 achieve the architectural goals of this
18 renovation. As far as impacting any physical
19 environmental conditions, as I pointed out,
20 we ' re maintaining the setback, the porch side .
21 So that we do not have environmental impact,
22 adverse impact . This project does actually
23 have Trustee and DEC approval . So those
24 impacts were considered and because ( In
25 Audible) and he felt that this project was
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 144
1 approvable . The difficulty has not been self
2 created. As you can see from Tom' s
3 presentation, there have been variance
4 applications made to this Board in recent
5 years . Archer was mine, and Pollio was mine .
6 So I am very .familiar with them. These other
7 projects that were done may or may not have
8 required -- well, we know that they didn' t
9 require any variances , in part because of the
10 building interpretations that the Building
11 Department had during the process of these
12 renovations . Whether they got building
13 permit ' s, I believe that most of these did
14 get building permit ' s . I am not clear of the
15 history here because when you look at the
16 property card, less identified to which
17 building permit ' s belong to where, since it ' s
18 all one piece of property. I have to believe
19 that everybody was compliant with the
20 Building Department regulations . It just
21 did not --
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, we did have
23 variances on a few .
24 MS . MOORE : You did, okay. I couldn ' t
25 find it under the Tax Map Number, but --
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 145
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: One in particular,
2 the first one, let me just go back to the map .
3 Definitely No . 1 and No . 3 , I am not sure
4 about No . 4 , but Tom is correct about 20
5 years, he had the one on No . 1 . That was a
6 pretty significant reconstruction, and I mean,
7 we certainly could locate those .
8 MS . MOORE : That would be great . If
9 you could identify that into the .file . For
10 some reason when I looked it up by the Tax
11 Map, it didn ' t pop up . It could be human
12 error or it could be computer error .
13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In the 80 ' s it was
14 very shaky on the tax map numbers .
15 MS . MOORE : Yes . It always changes .
16 It could be on the contiguous parcels .
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have to go back
18 to the alpha names .
19 MS . MOORE : I didn ' t have the names of
20 the owners .
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If the names have
22 changed since, that makes things a little more
23 difficult .
24 MS . MOORE : Well, you can only add to
25 the record as the justification varies . So I
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 146
- 1 would be happy to have you insert --
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, I can ' t
3 insert anything if the Alpha is not the same,
4 okay, but if the situation is the same, it ' s a
5 possibility.
6 MS . MOORE : Good, that hasn ' t changed.
7 MEMBER HORNING: You said you have
8 represented a couple of clients with
9 variances --
10 MS . MOORE : Pollio and Archer, those
11 are the two applications .
12 MEMBER HORNING : And what was the
13 nature of the application?
14 MS . MOORE : Actually, Tom, you were
15 involved with Archer, so he would be able to
16 speak more . They were treated as Area
17 Variances , and Pollio too . They were treated
18 as Area Variances for setbacks .
19 MEMBER HORNING : Bulkhead?
20 MS . MOORE : No, I think Pollio was a
21 Side Yard Variance, because the addition that
22 he wanted was that little -- like a kitchen
23 foyer entrance, and it didn ' t conform to the
24 side yard.
25 MEMBER HORNING : My question would be,
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 147
1 how many of these residences, numbers one
2 through twelve have conforming setbacks?
3 MR. SAMUELS : Well, I can tell you
4 which one ' s don ' t . This was doesn ' t . The
5 next one over --
6 MS . MOORE : Tom, why don' t you get on
7 the record, so that it would be --
8 MR. SAMUELS : And it does show --
9 MS . MOORE : It is showing the overall
10 view . It ' s No . 2 on the site plan. So it ' s
11 the house next to --
12 MEMBER HORNING: What are you referring
13 to?
14 MS . MOORE : No . 1 .
15 MR. SAMUELS : I think it is by your
16 record, No . 11 . I am going left to right . So
17 No . 11 does not . 36 . 11 minimum setback. The
18 next one No . 10 .
19 MS . MOORE : Member Horning, do you have
20 the right drawing in front of you?
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have the right
22 drawing, but it doesn ' t denote what the
23 setbacks are .
24 MS . MOORE : Yes, it doesn ' t .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It just shows the
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 148
1 positions of the sites .
2 MS . MOORE : Well, actually it does .
3 CHAIRPERSON W.EISMAN: Yes, thank you .
4 MR. SAMUELS : The next one is No . 10 ,
5 67 . 10 . The next one to that is 70 . 2 . That
6 one is Archer that we worked on. That was
7 part of their issue . We filled in a little
8 tiny corner there . The next one beyond that
9 would be No . 8 , and that was -- has a 54 . 6
10 setback and then comes Bingham. Beyond that,
11 No . 7 , and that has 62 . 1 .
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 62 . 1?
13 MS . MOORE : 62 . 1, yeah .
14 MR. SAMUELS : And you can see on these
15 drawings where the 75 foot setback is . It
16 goes right through these houses . All of these
17 houses are nonconforming from the bulkhead.
18 Some of these are closer and some of these are
19 further . And then also, the clubhouse
20 structure is also nonconforming at 35 feet .
21 MS . MOORE : You ' re seeing the dash
22 line?
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes .
24 MS . MOORE : Okay. I was just making
25 sure .
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 149
1 MEMBER HORNING: Well, how about one
2 through four?
3 MS . MOORE : They' re -- I want to say
4 that they' re not the waterfront properties .
5 They face the bulkhead. They ' re all
6 conforming. It looks like the 75 foot setback
7 is put on the map and the road is actually
8 landward of the 75 feet .
9 MR. SAMUELS : The first house may not
10 be .
11 MS . MOORE : Right . Yeah, No . 1 .
12 MR. SAMUELS : But they ' re all on
13 another parcel . Another piece of property.
14 MS . MOORE : So let ' s clarify this . The
15 parcel that we ' re a member of, is the bay
16 front pieces . Those are all for the most
17 part, we have just gone through, are
18 nonconforming. Then you have the contiguous
19 northerly -- it ' s easterly parcel that starts
20 when you come into the road system. And we
21 have identified House No . 1 through No . 4 .
22 Those are on a separate parcel . Those look
23 like for the most of it, side angles of the
24 entrance way, that the bulkhead kind of cuts
25 back and seems to touch the entrance of
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 150
1 Kimogenor Point . That might be a short
2 distance, but the most part, the homes are
3 lined up and are landward of the 75 feet .
4 MEMBER HORNING: What is the building
5 behind Building No . 1 and No . 2?
6 MS . MOORE : That is an adjacent
7 home .
8 MR. SAMUELS : That ' s part of a shed.
9 MS . MOORE : I apologize .
10 MR. SAMUELS : They were sheds and
11 garages, and a little tiny house in the back
12 that they used as a rental, seasonal rental,
13 but it ' s owned by the corporation . It ' s
14 shared amongst . It ' s a guest cottage .
15 MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I want to ask
17 some quick questions . The new plans that
18 were submitted was color coding. I believe
19 the elevations are the same as the original
20 sets submitted?
21 MR. SAMUELS : No, they' re different .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, well we
23 don ' t have them. We have this , and then the
24 color coded one looks like the only change at
25 all between this one and this one, is simply
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 151
1 the color coding, a twisting of the bathtub .
2 The orientation of the bathtub on the second
3 floor, otherwise it is identical .
4 MR. SAMUELS : Well, we were originally
5 proposing to reconstruct the house mostly
6 in-kind. Now, we are proposing to keep those
7 walls and the foundation . So it hasn ' t
8 changed much from the original submission,
9 just that the walls aren ' t going to be
10 reconstructed, and we ' re probably going to
11 stick with those 2X41s .. The elevations are
12 slightly different . They have gotten a little
13 bit lower actually. It did modify slowly.
14 I am sorry that you didn ' t get those .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I compared them
16 and they ' re identical with exception of
17 the re-orientation of the second floor
18 bathroom.
19 MS . MOORE : So we can resubmit and
20 have you guys reprint some of the revised
21 elevations .
22 MR. SAMUELS : I can give you one now .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is not so
24 much the issue .
25 MS . MOORE : We don ' t want that to
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 152
1 come up later that somehow we have the wrong
2 plan.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If we ' re going to
4 stamp a set of drawings , we should stamp a set
5 of drawings .
6 MS . MOORE : Let ' s do that .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have a couple
8 of more questions . Can you tell me, the first
9 survey that you submitted shows an expansion
10 of the existing footprint .
11 MR. SAMUELS : Correct .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is the expansion
13 exactly the same as it is now, as it was
14 proposed?
15 MR. SAMUELS : No.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we ' re going
17 to need to see that as well, modifications on
18 the survey.
19 MR. SAMUELS : Okay. Yes, it was the
20 -- the additions were scaled back in order to
21 not encroach to the bulkhead as the existing
22 house . So I think by your way, we ' re still
23 increasing the nonconformity, but we ' re not
24 dimensionally decreasing the nonconformity.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The bulkhead
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board. of Appeals 153
1 setback as proposed now is 57 . 4?
2 MR. SAMUELS : No, it ' s 64 . 6 .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we have to get
4 this up to date .
5 MS . MOORE : So you got the colored
6 sheets --
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All we got was
8 the colored sheets of the first and second
9 floor .
10 MR. SAMUELS : Which is what Vicki had
11 asked me for .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Notice of
13 Disapproval that is amended now refers to the
14 survey indicating a proposed setback of 57 . 4
15 from the bulkhead. This is the one dated
16 May 3rd. So let ' s get our numbers right,
17 distance anyway.
18 MR. SAMUELS : 62 . 6 .
19 MS . MOORE : Well, 62 . 6 is that
20 staircase up, yes . Why don ' t we do a clean --
21 MR. SAMUELS : Yeah, that ' s , fine .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The question is,
23 I don ' t know what you submitted to the
24 Building Department for the Notice of
25 Disapproval . They ' re citing the same as the
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 154
1 old notice .
2 MS . MOORE : It could also be that they
3 didn ' t realize to change that number . .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What you ' re doing
5 is proposing to maintain the existing bulkhead
6 setback?
7 MR. SAMUELS : Yes .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Rather than
9 decreasing it?
10 MR. SAMUELS : That is correct .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, that
12 doesn ' t say that, and we don ' t have the survey
13 to show it . Another question that we might as
14 well get figured out, what expansion of the
15 existing building footprint are you proposing,
16 they' re going off to the sides? The landward
17 side?
18 MR. SAMUELS : The landward side . On
19 the bulkhead side . I mean, it ' s those two
20 attached areas .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What percentage
22 expansion is that? Your argument was not that
23 it was code compliant room sizes , so you need
24 to expand the size of the dwelling based on
25 the State Code?
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 155
i
1 - MS . MOORE : Right .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what
3 percentage are we dealing with?
4 MS . MOORE : Why don ' t you just go back
5 and double check before we --
6 MR. SAMUELS : Well, the footprint
7 increased to' 17 . 2 percent . That is the
8 definite increase .
9 MS . MOORE : So first floor we have a
10 square footage of 1 , 411 square feet . The
11 second floor we have 1, 059 square feet, for a
12 total house, but it ' s not footprint .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What I am
14 trying to find out is what the existing
15 footprint is and what the percentage of
16 expansion beyond --
17 MR. SAMUELS : The existing footprint
18 is 1, 796 square feet and then the new
19 footprint is 2 , 105 square feet .
20 MS . MOORE : No, that is not right .
21 Oh, sorry .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you give
23 that to me again?
24 MR. SAMUELS : The existing footprint,
25 which is first floor, plus stairs and covered
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 156
1 porch is- 1, 796 square feet .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
3 MR. SAMUELS : The proposed first floor
4 total footprint, porches and stairs , 2 , 105
5 square feet .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 2 , 105 square
7 feet?
8 MR. SAMUELS : Correct .
9 MEMBER HORNING: Not, 2 , 220 square
10 feet .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Existing
12 footprint first floor and porches and stairs,
13 1, 796; right?
14 MR. SAMUELS : Yes, that ' s correct .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Proposed
16 footprint, first floor, porches and stairs --
17 MR. SAMUELS : 2 , 105 .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right . So we
19 need to see what percentage that is of the
20 expansion .
21 MR. SAMUELS : 17 . 2 .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 17 . 2 percent
23 increase in footprint?
24 MR. SAMUELS : Correct .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But maintaining
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 157
�- 1 the existing bulkhead setback?
2 MR. SAMUELS : Correct .
3 MS . MOORE : Yes .
4 MEMBER HORNING: Of 57 . 5 feet?
5 MS . MOORE : No .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No .
7 MR. SAMUELS : 62 . 6 .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 62 . 6 .
9 MR. SAMUELS : 62 . 5 .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. So we
11 need to get the Notice of Disapproval
12 straightened out to reflect what you ' re
13 proposing . I have a feeling that they just
14 didn ' t look at the new or you didn ' t submit
15 the new --
16 MR. SAMUELS : No, we definitely
17 submitted the new one .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don ' t have
19 it . Question about remaining walls . Just so
20 we ' re not blind sided here, you have honestly
21 . stated that it meets State Code and ( In
22 Audible) to existing walls . How did you
23 determine which walls to leave?
24 MR. SAMUELS : If a wall is an existing
25 wall, then it ' s in the position to be -- if
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 158
1 the wall doesn ' t have to move, then it ' s an
2 existing wall that we maintain. So the plan
3 of the house is largely -- I mean all of the
4 exterior walls for example, and some of the
5 interior walls, just based on the
6 modifications that we were planning to make,
7 that we colored coded pink, those --
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There wasn ' t a
9 structure analysis of what is sound and what
10 is not sound. It ' s more of a matter of this
11 is the floor plan that we want?
12 MR. SAMUELS : Correct .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : These are the
14 walls that we can leave given the new
15 footprint?
16 MR. SAMUELS : Correct .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay . So when
18 you actually start to take this structure
19 apart, you ' re going to wind-up rebuilding
20 those exterior walls -- the walls in pink will
21 largely have to be rebuilt?
22 MR. SAMUELS : Or supplemented.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can
24 supplement some of those?
25 MR. SAMUELS : Absolutely. If you
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 159
1 are talking about rebuilding, taking down and
2 then reconstructing, no, we should not have to
3 do that .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay .
5 MR. SAMUELS : If the frame of the
6 house is basically sound and -- I mean, it ' s
7 sagging in places, we ' re going to be lifting
8 it, we ' re going to flatten it out anyway.
9 We put it back down onto a raised foundation
10 to meet FEMA, then there will be quite a bit
11 of structural work that will have to happen,
12 of course .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What increase
14 height do you have to meet FEMA?
15 MR. SAMUELS : It ' s about 18 inches .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 18 inches, okay .
17 Let ' s see who else has something to say
18 besides me for a change .
19 MEMBER HORNING: I want to ask
20 something about the seasonal use a little
21 bit?
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. You ' re
23 going to submit another survey and the
24 elevation?
25 MR. SAMUELS : Absolutely.
June 7,' 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 160
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And take care of
2 that incorrect Notice of Disapproval .
3 MR. SAMUELS : Yes .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The reference
5 to a nonconforming building and a
6 nonconforming use is standard and that will
7 remain the same because you ' re dealing with
8 multiple dwellings .
9 MEMBER HORNING: Is there heat in the
10 existing dwelling? There is not?
11 MR. SAMUELS : There is not .
12 MEMBER HORNING: Are you putting in
13 heat?
14 MR. SAMUELS : Yes, we are .
15 MEMBER HORNING: And are you adding the
16 heat because of this requirement that you say
17 if it ' s occupied after September 15th, it has
18 to be heated?
19 MR. SAMUELS : If in fact that is true,
20 but you can imagine that these people who have
21 this beautiful houses on the bay are going
22 to want to come out and use it more than the
23 season than just between June 15th or May 15th
24 and September 15th . You come out for
25 Thanksgiving or whatever, it ' s nice to have
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 161
1 some heat . If you ' re going to leave the water
2 on, you have to have heat .
3 MEMBER HORNING : If this proposal is
4 approved and after you finish, you ' re no
5 longer seasonal?
6 MR. SAMUELS : That ' s correct .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : According to the
8 State Code . Even if they don ' t use it year
9 round, by virtue of its size, and it will
10 have heat . I presume it will only be
11 mechanical systems?
12 MR. SAMUELS : Yes .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And electric?
14 MR. SAMUELS : Yes . Yes . Yes, to meet
15 code .
16 MS . MOORE : The walls itselves have to
17 meet energy code . I don ' t know --
18 MR. SAMUELS : Well, it will be foam
19 insulation. I mean, to fill in these
20 cavities , there is going to be a lot of
21 cavities . It ' s not going to be sufficient
22 to use that . I would like to use 2X4
23 framing as well, in order to get a little
24 extra space every where . We don ' t need to use
25 2X4 ' s .
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 162
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
2 MEMBER HORNING : By use of foam?
3 MR. SAMUELS : Foam insulation.
4 MEMBER HORNING: Right .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s just blown
6 in.
7 MEMBER HORNING: As long as it doesn ' t
8 blow the walls open.
9 MR. SAMUELS : As of now, there really
10 is no interior finishes . It ' s just the open
11 frame work.
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How do you
13 sister-up and old 2X4 ?
14 MR. SAMUELS : Just put another one
15 right next to it .
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It ' s called nailed .
17 MR. SAMUELS : Oh, because of the eighth
18 of an inch difference? Yeah. I guess you
19 would have to do that . You probably -- you
20 know, as long as you have a nailing surface
21 on the inside, it doesn ' t matter . It will
22 fill those cavities , which is the beauty of
23 foam.
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I ' d thought the
25 actual thought that the sistering was taking a
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 163
E
1 2X6 and cutting it down vertically.
2 MR. SAMUELS : Yeah . That may be a
3 better way. I mean, I don ' t know the exact
4 dimensions . You know, we might end up doing
5 that on the exterior walls .
6 MEMBER DINIZIO : Why would you have to
7 do that? Who cares if it ' s an eighth of an
8 inch?
9 MR. SAMUELS : Right . I would assume
10 that we use standard framing lumbar .
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, structurally,
12 you have the old lumbar .
13 MR. SAMUELS : Sure . We have new
14 headers coming in . It ' s modifications . The
15 windows we were replacing . You know, shifting
16 a little bit in some cases as well .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken, do you have
18 some questions?
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jim?
21 MEMBER DINIZIO : No, I have no
22 questions .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, let ' s see
24 if there is anyone else in the audience who
25 wants to address this application?
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 164
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You didn' t ask me .
2 So we ' re going to get all this new information
3 from you so that we have it all, which is
4 based upon the most updated?
5 MR. SAMUELS : Yes . Tomorrow morning .
6 MS . MOORE : Do you -- I guess, it will
7 go to you . Seven or five copies?
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, the office
9 has to have one, so six .
10 MS . MOORE : Okay.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : For the Board
12 members and the office .
13 MS . MOORE : Okay. And we want to give
14 one to the Building Department so that they
15 have the correct version .
16 MR. SAMUELS : I am sure they do .
17 MS . MOORE : You know what, when you
18 walk it into Vicki, you can have them pull
19 their file because it may have just gotten --
20 MR. SAMUELS : I can give them another
21 one, but I am sure they got it .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We ' re probably
23 going to need a new Notice of Disapproval
24 that reflects accurately, you know talk to
25 Mike or Pat or something .
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 165
1 MR. . SAMUELS : Sure .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Show them your
3 new setbacks, whatever it is --
4 MR. SAMUELS : 62 . 5 .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 62 . 5, rather
6 than the 67 whatever .
7 MR. SAMUELS : Okay.
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Tom, I just want
9 to ask you a hypothetical . When are you going
10 to actually start construction on this?
11 MR. SAMUELS : When we get all of our
12 permits . So if we could, we would start in
13 the Fall .
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay.
15 MR. SAMUELS : We ' re very close to the
16 Health Department, but we need this approval
17 before we get that . So we just need --
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have Trustee
19 approval?
20 MR. SAMUELS : And DEC .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And DEC .
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So it ' s really
23 Health Department?
24 MR. SAMUELS : Yeah, and they won ' t give
25 us approval until we have Zoning . Yes , they
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 166
1 want everything . It ' s a tricky system. We ' re
2 close to shallow water. We have to a little
3 fill there, to bring it up in height . It ' s
4 not easy to put a sanitary system in there .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you putting a
6 new septic in there?
7 MR. SAMUELS : That is what it was when
8 it was required for a demolition. What is
9 there now, for seasonal residence --
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s probably not
11 adequate .
12 MR. SAMUELS : And the Bingham' s I am
13 sure, they don ' t want to have back-up ' s?
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Probably not .
15 MR. SAMUELS : It would be better to
16 conform.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes .
18 MR. SAMUELS : And that is what the
19 Trustees and the DEC ' s permit says .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
21 MR. SAMUELS : In fact , the DEC ' s and
22 Trustees permit both offer reconstruction. I
23 don ' t think that would be a problem for them
24 if we renovate instead. I think I would go
25 back to them for an amendment .
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 167
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think it ' s
2 going to be interesting to see this
3 renovation. You know, for future situations .
4 MR. SAMUELS : Yeah.
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to say,
6 it was really touch and go in the Park' s
7 District in Mattituck, I don ' t know what the
8 difference in elevation is , because -- I
9 was the Commissioner, they had put something
10 like nine new cesspools in, making that west
11 wing basically a play room, so to speak.
12 That was it . It took a long time to get that
13 done .
14 MR. SAMUELS : I think this isn ' t going
15 to be so bad for the Health Department . I was
16 surprised that it took the DEC a long time,
17 which is actually more restrictive than the
18 Health Department is for dimensions below
19 septic systems and sanitary tanks .
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The history is
21 there .
22 MR: SAMUELS : Right .
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It ' s a little
24 different, I think.
25 MEMBER DINIZIO : I just have a
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 168
1 question . Gerry, because I wasn ' t here at the
2 last one . This is not a demo because you ' re
3 leaving up 25 percent of the building?
4 MR. SAMUELS : We ' re actually leaving
5 up more than that . We ' re certainly leaving at
6 least 25 , yes .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That was
8 actually a question that I was going to ask
9 you. Do you know what percentage you will
10 actually be leaving in place?
11 MR. SAMUELS : I don ' t, as a percentage .
12 I would say 50 percent, and just because if
13 you look at the pink here and compare it to
14 the green .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So that is your
16 guesstimate?
17 MR. SAMUELS : Even the roof structure
18 we can technically leave .
19 MEMBER DINIZIO : That decision, is
20 that a function because you apply for the --
21 I mean, after the new water?
22 MS . MOORE : It was the difference
23 between making this a straightforward Area
24 Variance application versus a Use Variance
25 application.
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 169
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The previous was
2 a complete demo?
3 MR. SAMUELS : Right .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You know, then
5 it lost its preexisting nonconformity. Then
6 it presented all those problems . So we
7 suggested a Use Variance would be the only
8 way to establish that nonconformity. And the
9 code did change, and we reconsidered and got a
10 new Notice of Disapproval .
11 MEMBER DINIZIO: So you reconsidered
12 and reapplied?
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes .
14 MR. SAMUELS : It was because of this
15 meeting, the previous hearing that we made
16 that decision. It wasn ' t because of the
17 demo . code . I mean, initially. It was because
18 of you guys .
19 MEMBER DINIZIO : You certainly benefit
20 from that?
21 MR. SAMUELS : Yes , definitely.
22 MEMBER DINIZIO : And the reason you got
23 a new Notice of Disapproval?
24 MR. SAMUELS : Right . I had to go to
25 that and therefore we were subject to that
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 170
1 change in the law.
2 MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes . That is what
3 I wanted to hear. Thank you very much.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let ' s just
5 explain for the record that, that despite the
6 setback of the bulkhead, it is not accurate
7 on the new Notice of Disapproval . It ' s not
8 referring it to a demo and reconstruction, but
9 rather to a first and second story enlargement
10 and alterations to a seasonal dwelling. While
11 you ' re there talking to them about this
12 bulkhead setback, discuss with them the terms
13 of the seasonal dwelling, just so we ' re clear
14 in how we have to word things, because
15 according to State Code it won ' t be a seasonal
16 dwelling, as soon as you install the required
17 heating and cooling system. It might be that
18 alterations to a seasonal dwelling to become a
19 dwelling; or whatever way the Building
20 Department says to word it, but lets make
21 sure that we don ' t get hung up on some
22 misrepresentation of, what is expected here .
23 MR. SAMUELS : Okay. The State
24 Building code is heavily favored towards
25 conditioned space . Nobody builds seasonal
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 171
1 residences anymore .
I
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: But this is such
3 an odd situation .
4 MR. SAMUELS : It is .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I want to make
6 sure this thing reflects what you intend to do
7 and act appropriately and get it in a decision
8 properly.
9 MR. SAMUELS : Gotcha .
10 MEMBER DINIZIO : The fact is, we ' re
11 making some of these decisions based on the
12 fact that this is a seasonal community.
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was .
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : But our decisions are
15 made and based on that . I mean, think about
16 it, we are looking at it being out there all
17 year round. You know, they got updated septic
18 system. You know, they ' re not really using it
19 all year round.
20 MR. SAMUELS : No .
21 MEMBER DINIZIO : They ' re not going to
22 be contributing to the School District . They
23 are not --
24 MS . MOORE,: But I think you are
25 using the seasonal definition as kind of
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 172
1 being applied two different ways . Seasonally,
2 this is a -- this community tends to be second
3 homeowners that are using the houses as you
4 say through the summer, sporadically
5 throughout the winter months , holidays and
6 things like that versus , as you said, a year
7 round dwelling and somebody living there with
8 all their kids . It has not been traditionally
9 a community that -- I think you might be able
10 to tell me better . Is there anybody living
11 there all year round?
12 MR. SAMUELS : No .
13 MS . MOORE : No .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seriously, we
15 just want to do it correctly.
16 MS . MOORE : Yes . Yes .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And traditionally
18 it was seasonal . There were a couple of
19 other properties in this town that were unique
20 and were also seasonal . Some of them remain
21 seasonal . In this case, they may be used
22 seasonally but the language is that they ' re
23 dwellings .
24 MS . MOORE : Correct .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They' re heated.
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 173
1 They' re air conditioned. They' re a dwelling .
2 Whether you use them year round or not . So we
3 just have to get the language correct in the
4 decision and in the Notice of Disapproval .
5 MS . MOORE : Yep .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can write in
7 additional information that the proposal is
8 relevant out of the public hearing transcript .
9 Whether it ' s with what Jim just pointed out
10 and not necessarily occupied all year round,
11 but once you ' re given this permission to have
12 a heated/air conditioned dwelling, it ' s a
13 dwelling. It ' s not seasonal, by definition .
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : And again, a lot of
15 the reason why this particular place is
16 allowed to exist with so many residences on a
17 single piece of property, is based in part of
18 the fact that it ' s a seasonal use . It ' s
19 certainly something to be said about . You
20 know, that in our decision . So you know I
21 think we ought to think long and hard about
22 creating year round residences in what we
23 consider to be seasonal residences . You know,
24 a condominium complex or whatever .
25 MS . MOORE : But I think that ship has
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 174
1 sailed many, many, many, many years ago,
2 because every single one of these houses, I
3 don ' t know of any that are not air
4 conditioned, heated space .
5 MEMBER HORNING : Leslie, could we get
6 a listing of variances granted in the
7 immediate neighborhood?
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure . Well, we
9 have Archer submitted here . You can make a
10 distinction between that determination . I
11 did a little homework on this actually. There
12 are some similarities . It ' s not referred to
13 as a seasonal dwelling at all in this . We
14 will have to look up the Notice of
15 Disapproval . To the best that we can figure
16 out, we being, Vicki and I , is that this
17 decision, which is 2005 was to renovate within
18 an existing footprint, and reconstruction of
19 an existing dwelling in that same footprint .
20 However, and that ' s what ' s referred to in the
21 Trustees and the ZBA' s decision. And in
22 Health Department and DEC, it ' s
23 reconstruction, new sanitary of one-story,
24 second-story addition. What the Building
25 Permit says was permit to demo and construct a
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 175
1 new dwelling. That is the only thing that
2 said demo and new constriction . Everything
3 else on here says reconstruction of first
4 floor and second-story addition and new
5 sanitary. That is DEC, Trustees and ZBA. So
6 it ' s kind of all over the place on Kimogenor
7 Point . If you start looking at all of them,
8 each one depending on what Board wrote that
9 decision and what Building Inspector wrote-up
10 the Notice of Disapproval, you can see the
11 inconsistencies . I have the Notice of
12 Disapproval, September 29, 2004 , for
13 reconstruction of an existing dwelling .
14 That ' s what Archer was referred to .
15 MS . MOORE : And reconstruction was not
16 defined as demolition .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes . So at this
18 point, what I would like -- I got part of the
19 transcript of it, because you submitted it .
20 So I wanted to find out what it really meant
21 and, No . 3 is this transcript says the house
22 will be renovated within the existing
23 footprint except a small corner of the house
24 will be squared off . That was the first
25 floor .
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 176
1 MEMBER DINIZIO : When was this?
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That was 2004 .
3 The decision was written in 2005 . So various
4 things happen. Sometimes it ' s referred to as
5 seasonal, and some referred to as dwellings ,
6 but the bottom line is, there have been over
7 many years changes to most of the dwellings .
8 From my part, I am prepared to close the
9 hearing subject to receipt of the information
10 that we requested so that we clarify the
11 correct bulkhead setback in the notice . We
12 have the survey showing the expanding
13 footprint and we have the elevations with
14 floor plans that preserve some of the walls .
15 Does the Board have any comments or
16 questions?
17 (No Response . )
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
19 in the audience that would like to address
20 this application?
21 MR. FISKER: Hello, my name is Fred
22 Fisker and I am a Kimogenor Point neighbor .
23 I am a member of the Kimogenor Point Board
24 of Directors . I am also a member of a third
25 generation of Kimogenor Point . My grandfather
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 177
1 was one of the original incorporators, and he
2 and my father have lived there their whole
3 lives, as seasonal residents, as do I . I just
4 want to let you know how much work the
5 Bingham' s did within the Kimogenor Point
6 community to get to this point where they' re
7 at with you, because they have been talking
8 about redoing, upgrading their house for
9 several years, and they have talked to all the
10 eleven other shareholders . They have gotten
11 feedback and input from many of us . We ' re all
12 concerned about maintaining community
13 character . It is a very unique community . It
14 is a very pretty community . We care about
15 that too, because when I walk out my front
16 door, I see their house everyday, and so
17 whatever they do, I wanted it in harmony with
18 the character of the community. And they
19 took all of our feedback, not just mine, and
20 the other ten shareholders as well, into
21 consideration when they did their plans .
22 And when they hired Tom Samuels , who has done
23 other architectural work on the community, you
24 will see various houses that have been
25 upgraded. It is still very pretty, and the
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 178
1 houses aren ' t identical . So we ' re very proud
2 of our community, and we ' re very proud that
3 the Bingham' s are our neighbor ' s . And we
4 support them 100 percent . Our Board
5 requested that every shareholder approve their
6 plans before we would deliver the Board
7 letters you have received. So I just wanted
8 to let you know that they have 100 percent
9 support from within our community to go
10 forward.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Thank
12 you very much.
13 Anything else from anybody? Yes ,
14 sir .
15 MR. FOX: I am Bob Fox. My wife and I
16 occupy Cottage No . 10 that you were referring
17 to earlier at Kimogenor Point . We two are
18 in full support . I echo everything that Fred
19 Fisker just brought to your attention. The
20 character of the Point is really -- have been
21 preserved and everything that has been
22 presented. The Bingham' s have done a very
23 good job for our community, and approaching
24 the renovation of this house in the way that
25 they have . So it ' s got our full support as
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 179
1 well .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you.
3 Anyone else?
4 (No Response . )
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anything from
6 the Board?
7 (No Response . )
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right . I am
9 going to make a motion to close this hearing
10 subject to receipt of the information that we
11 have described.
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
16 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
17 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
19 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
20 **********************************************
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am going to
22 make a motion to close the meeting .
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
25 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 180
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
2 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye .
5 **********************************************
6
7
8 (Whereupon, the public hearings for
9 June 7 , 2012 concluded. )
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 181
1 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
2
3
4
5 I , Jessica DiLallo, certify that the
6 foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public
7 Hearings was prepared using required
8 electronic transcription equipment and is a
9 true and accurate record of the Hearings .
10
11
12 Signature •__
13 Je s ca DiLallo
14
15
16 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
17 PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
18
19
20 Date : July 25 , 2012
21
22
23
24
25