HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-08/02/2012 Hearing 1
1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK
2 ------------------------------------------- X
3
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
4 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
5 ------------------------------------------- X
6
7
8 Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York
9
10
11 August 2 , 2012
10 : 09 A. M.
12
13 Board Members Present :
14 LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
15 GERARD GOEHRINGER - Member (Left at 1 : 30 P .M. )
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
2
3
4 Hearing: Page :
5 Alan Fidellow, #6578 3-43
6 Murray Gaylord, #6585 43-64
7 Brewer Yacht Yard, #6568 64-77
8 Francis D ' Haene, #6580 77-83
9 Vincent & Eileen Flaherty, #6583 84-126
10 Christopher M. & Patricia F. McCarthy
11 #6582 126-134
12 Denise Geis , #6579 134-169
13 Colleen McDonough & Helen Hooke, #6584 169-178
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 3
rr
1 HEARING #6578 - ALAN FIDELLOW
2 MR. ANDERSON : Bruce Anderson,
3 Suffolk Environmental Consultants for the
4 applicant, The Fidellow ' s . As you recall,
5 we were here last month, and during that
6 hearing, we put in the four corners of our
7 zoning case . The concern that arose during
8 that hearing as to whether or not the
9 project that is proposed which entailed the
10 (In Audible) and squaring off the second
11 floor . The question arose as to whether or
12 not those activities constitute a
13 demolition as that term has been recently
14 described and rendered in the Town Code .
15 The definition for demolition states that a
16 demolition is -- an activity that is
17 considered demolition is when more than 750
18 of the structure is removed. As part of
19 that investigation, we uncovered portion of
20 the foundation, and we also took out some
21 vertical sheetrock, so that the vertical
22 studs could be preserved. I understand
23 that each of the Board members have been
24 there . The architect, Don Feiler, who is
25 here today, walked you through that . I am
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 4
1 also going to put in the record a statement
2 from Don that reads as follows . It says
3 "I have examined the above mentioned
4 structure as part of my investigation. I
5 certify that , the existing first floor and
6 foundation is structurally sound and would
7 be adequate to support the proposed second
8 floor addition. " In addition, on Tuesday
9 of this week, we met with Mike Verity, who
10 I understood would be here today. We met
11 with Mike Verity in the field on Tuesday at
12 2 : 30 and Mike also observed the foundation,
13 and also exposed an interior studs .. So we
14 walked around the building and the
15 downstairs, etcetera . We have initially
16 calculated that the amount of structure to
17 be removed came in at about 28% and Mike
18 informed us that the calculation should not
19 include the crawl space . So what we have is
20 a full basement underneath the -- what
21 would be the northerly wing of the
22 building, which is located, 5 . 7 feet from
23 the lot line . The westerly structure
24 underneath it is a crawl space . So it would
25 be the -- he asked us to recalculate that .
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 5
1 We did some preliminary calculations in the
r
2 house while we were there . Don revised his
3 area of demolition subtracting out the
4 crawl space, but leaving in the foundation .
5 I am going to give you a calculation of
6 this also for your record.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It is now
8 determined to be 500?
9 MR. ANDERSON : That is correct . We
10 took out the crawl space . There is not
11 much guidance . We ' re all sort of going
12 through this definition of demolition that
13 was recently adopting . So we ' re trying to
14 get a better understanding of how that is
15 go,ing to work in the Town . That was the
16 instruction that were given to us . It was
17 fortunate for us that this is not a
18 demolition.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have
20 more than one of these?
21 MR. ANDERSON : That can be done, and
22 I can certainly provide that to you.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am going to
24 pass this around.
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just make
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 6
1 a statement . I think you were incorrect in
2 determining, unless I heard it incorrectly
3 for some strange reason . The actual
4 foundation that we looked at, okay, was
5 somewhat in the center of the home on the
6 westerly side .
7 MR. ANDERSON : That is correct .
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I thought you
9 said northerly?
10 MR. ANDERSON : No . No . What I said
11 was, that the addition that was built to
12 the house on the northern side is --
s 13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay.
14 MR. ANDERSON : That is a poured
15 foundation, and that was built pursuant to
16 the 161 Zoning variance that was granted
17 the owners . Incidentally, this is a summer
18 house that was originally constructed in
19 1950 , by Leon Vaneer . Leon passed away and
20 his son Leon Jr . , actually applied for that
21 addition and constructed that addition,
22 which became a full poured foundation.
23 Leon Jr . , passed away last year and the
24 Fidellow ' s and the owners now have passed
25 it to the next generation. So this is now
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 7
1 a fourth generation, I assume, living in
2 this house from its initial construction .
3 With me today is Nick Vercollone and his
4 fiance Nicky, and Barbara and Mark
5 Fidellow. So this is part of the family --
6 you have the reason for this whole project .
7 Just to give a reasonable accomodation of
8 bedrooms for his family that have owned
9 this house since its initial construction
10 in 1950 or there about .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You mentioned
12 that part of the foundation was poured
13 foundation?
14 MR. ANDERSON : Yes . That was
15 underneath --
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where it says
17 "basement" over here?
18 MR. ANDERSON : Yes .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That looks
20 like block?
21 MR. ANDERSON : I 'm sorry, block. I
22 misspoke . That is the full basement . I
23 guess the only other thing you might have
24 noticed if you walked around the house,
25 it ' s a block, and it has a stucco finish to
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of 'Appeals 8
1 it . It ' s all very sound condition, and
2 that is why I was able to certify this was
3 adequate to support the activity. Keep in
4 mind, you already have a second floor . So
5 this is a one and a half story cottage as
6 it is . Of course the studs were found to
7 be sound . Don is here, he can answer any
8 further questions that you have . That
9 pretty much completes our case .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Maybe
11 this would be useful to ask Mike to come
12 forward, so he can possibly answer this
13 question . Mike, would you come forward,
14 who is the Building Inspector? Mike would
15 you come forward so we can ask you a couple
16 of questions?
17 MR. VERITY: Michael Verity, Chief
18 Building Inspector for the Town of
19 Southold.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you.
21 When the Building Department makes a
22 determination for demolition, does that
23 include the mechanical --
24 MR. VERITY : Based on the
25 definition, no . Based on State Code that
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 9
1 would be a, yes .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And then if
3 State Code is stricter than Local Code, I
4 would assume State Code prevails , or not?
5 MR. VERITY: I had a whole game plan
6 all set up. You caught me off guard with
7 that one . No, I wouldn ' t say it would
8 prevail when it comes to constructions
9 purposes , but not for zoning purposes .
10 It ' s two different categories . Two
11 different discussions .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. The
13 architect, based upon discussions with
14 people in the field, indicates that you
15 have a 50% removal?
16 MR. VERITY: That is what I saw,
17 correct .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you
19 corroborate that that is the case?
20 MR. VERITY: Correct . I am basing
21 it on his numbers .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you
23 explain to the Board, please, why this
24 Notice of Disapproval was determined to be
25 a demolition, with reconstruction and
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 10
1 additions?
2 MR. VERITY: When was the Notice of
3 Disapproval written?
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This
5 Disapproval was written on April 26th after
6 the new code was in effect .
7 MR. VERITY : It ' s pretty close to
8 the same time . Is it close to the same
9 time, that might have been the reason
10 being . I think it was around the end of
11 April when that was approved.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was
13 aprproved before then . I believe that this
14 Notice of Disapproval was based on the new
15 code .
16 MR. VERITY: I can ' t say that for
17 sure . I couldn ' t answer that without
18 having to check the timeline .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The notice is
20 signed by Pat Conklin, and she is on
21 vacation and couldn ' t be here .
22 MR. VERITY: That ' s correct .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just for the
24 record, I want the record to reflect a
25 conversation that I did have with her that
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 11
1 the Trustee application did not look like a
2 demolition. It would have appeared to be a
3 replace and additions in place and in kind.
4 So I went to ask her why it was written
5 that way. Her answer was, that virtually
6 the existing first floor building on the
7 lower, had new windows going in. That wall
8 was being sort of gutted on the interior .
9 That all new mechanical systems were going
10 in . The cost of construction was
11 substantial . The removal of the half
12 story, which we could not find a building
13 permit for, but that is another story, it
14 being removed. The entire second story was
15 being added. It conflicted somewhat . It
16 conflicted with the LWRP recommendation,
17 which really was based not on a demo . It
18 was based on the events as stated, a
19 consequence of being a replacement on the
20 existing footprint in kind and with no land
21 disturbance, because the foundation was
22 being kept . There is no excavation going
23 on . So it was therefore considered to be a
24 minor action, which would then be exempt,
25 and a new septic system is recommended and
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 12
1 then is consistent with LWRP . So I was
2 trying to sort out all the facts so that we
3 can bring them into the public record and
4 see how all this played out . Any comments
5 on now having received this?
6 MR. VERITY: It ' s hard not to call
7 it a demo, because it ' s a demo . Pat ' s
8 description is correct . And I think once
9 something is demoed they tend to agree on
10 that . I have explained this before . If
11 you take a roof system off, it ' s a
12 demolition . You ' re demoing the old roof
13 and then putting one on . You hear that all
14 the time in the building world, the
15 building code world. So that is why that
16 description is there . Probably will always
17 be there . To get beyond that conversation,
18 you then have to use the hard numbers . The
19 site visit, the percentages from the
20 architect . We ' re starting a conversation
21 by just saying it ' s a demolition . Every
22 alteration and every addition, as I
23 explained in the past, has some form of
24 demolition . It ' s the level of demolition,
25 and it ' s different when it comes to the
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 13
1 Town zoning compared to State zoning . So
2 that ' s why -- it ' s really hard to have that
3 conversation . To stay on track, you slide
4 one way and the zoning you slide another
5 way, because of State Code requirements .
6 So there ' s really no hard fast track you
7 can take when you ' re having a conversation
8 with us . With you, yes . You ' re talking
9 zoning . We ' re spinning our hats from
10 zoning to State Code and back and forth .
11 There could be multiple conversations .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One thing Pat
13 did not have the benefit of, was any
14 foundation plans . We have one . It ' s very
15 basic, but we have one . I wish there was a
16 term that we could use as a partial
17 demolition. The Board sees the word
18 "demolition, " we ' re now going on the basis
19 of code, which is 750 or more . When that
20 is the case, it lost it ' s previous existing
21 nonconformity status, and the Board will
22 look for greater conformity within the
t
23 code . So it would be very helpful to this
24 Board if the Building Department in writing
25 these notices did not see this as a total
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 14
1 demolition. Then the code will state it as
2 a partial demolition. Because then that is
3 going to tell us that, yes , things are
4 being removed, but it ' s not totally
5 MR. VERITY : We can be more specific
6 and say removal of a roof system and
7 addition of a roof system. Demolition of a
8 second floor --
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes .
10 MR. VERITY : If that is what you
11 would like? I think, again, the time frame
12 was April and April . So the new definition
13 and I am pretty much certain about that,
14 that it was all around that April time . It
15 was written in April . The , approval came in
16 the end of April . So like Bruce said
17 before, it ' s kind of the first one with the
18 definition, as far as I am concerned. So
19 we need a little bit of time to adjust to
20 it, and we can do the best that we can with
21 that . If you have any recommendations,
22 feel free to throw them out there and make ,
23 it easier for you .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you be
25 prepared to write an amended Notice of
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 15
1 Disapproval?
2 MR. VERITY: If you have to have it .
3 I think the facts state otherwise . I mean;
4 that happens all the time in the Zoning
5 Board. We may consider one thing, and you
6 can say well, obviously it ' s not . And I
7 agree based on the numbers now and based on
8 the site visit, it ' s probably a 50%
9 renovation. They were told that if they go
10 beyond and take the first floor walls down,
11 then they ' re going to get into that 75% .
12 So they have to be very careful with that .
13 We don ' t mind, beefing up the structure
14 underneath, but when the walls start to
15 come down on the first floor, now it ' s a
16 whole different ball game . I think that is
17 Pat ' s concern, and that has always been our
18 concern, and the Board as well . We approve
19 one thing and then it turns into something
20 else . Termites or water damage, that you
21 can ' t see . That ' s why I wanted to go
22 further and ask them if they can unearth
23 the foundation and look at the walls . What
24 I took a look at, looked like it was in
25 good shape . Between that and the
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 16
1 certification, we have to rely on that
2 statement . The code does not require us to
3 put in a new foundation . The walls appear
4 to be fine . The only thing that they have
5 mentioned that they might have to because
6 of the type of construction is sheath the
7 exterior of the first floor . So if someone
8 sees that, they need not to be alarmed.
9 It ' s part of it . I mean, technically, the
10 walls are still there . It ' s basically
11 what ' s there with sheathing on top, which
12 is what was there at the time of
13 construction . Now, it ' s going to have to
14 be re-sheathed. So it ' s going to appear
15 like the first floor is gone, but I was
16 told that is not going to be the fact .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They ' re going
18 to have to structure it up because there is
19 probably not enough depth for a proper
20 cavity. So I mean that in and of itself is
21 going to have to happen.
22 MR. VERITY: The portion that I
,23 looked at seems structurally sound, and
24 then the architect is basically certifying
25 that .
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 17
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the
2 footing is to code?
3 MR. VERITY : It ' s not to code, but
4 if the architect certifies that, again the
5 State Code does not require them to do
6 that . It ' s not the proper depth, but it
7 met the criteria or the requirement at the
8 time . Today, it would not meet the poured
9 requirements .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you
11 believe that the structure and the bearing
12 walls of the first floor combined with the
13 foundation, are structurally sound enough
14 to support a second story?
15 MR. VERITY: That is not a call that
16 I would make . That is up to the architect
17 or engineer to make that call .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Gerry,
19 do you have any questions?
20 MEMBER HORNING: I have a couple of
21 questions for Mike .
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mike, in the
23 past, I have been on this Board for a quite
24 a number of years . You know, we have done
25 so many building inspections .
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 18
1 MR. VERITY: I know I am your
2 favorite, Gerry. You don ' t have to tell
3 everyone that . Thank you.
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Many of which
5 have never testified before this Board.
6 You are the kind one that is able to be
7 present . Where was the interior wall
8 exposed?
9 MR. VERITY: The east wall .
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is that the wall
11 farthest from the bluff?
12 MR. VERITY : Actually, it was pretty
13 close to the water . It ' s probably a large
14 amount of stone would go through there and
15 hit that wall . Not to say, I had only
16 checked one area, and I had explained that
17 to them. If something else happens , and
18 it ' s a deviation from the decision that was
19 made, then they are going to have to talk
20 and come back to the Board. They ' re aware
21 of that . We have had that discussion. So
22 without taking off all the sheetrock on the
23 entire first floor, there is no way to
24 really tell .
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: From the
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 19
1 standpoint of knowing that things can
2 change drastically, if they had to do that .
3 But not at this specific time here, because
4 they' re utilizing the house to do that . So
5 that we understood exactly where we were
6 going at that particular point . The
7 percentages didn ' t change . Do you know
8 what I am saying? If they chose that they
9 were not going to use the house after
10 September 1st or Labor Day on, I mean, I
11 would think that would be a way to go . The
12 reason why I say that, as you know, take
13 the house on Graffill (phonetic) and New
14 Suffolk Avenue, specific issues on that
15 particular house, which was a two-story,
16 which was being totally rebuilt . The house
17 looks absolutely gorgeous today. You
18 started construction on that house and the
19 builder had to come in and explain to us
20 how they assisted up the beams and what the
21 purpose of that was . This is a very
22 similar situation, this was on the water
23 and that one was not . This one was
24 adjacent to the water . This one is on the
25 water . Number 2 , I can not take any
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 20
1 cr.edence on that front deck area . As far
2 as I am concerned, it does not exist .
3 There are no permits on it . Nothing to
4 tell me when it was built . When it was
5 constructed. It is just too close to the
6 bluff . So that is it for that situation.
7 MR. VERITY : That is not even a
8 conversation I would need today.
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The particular
10 situation is, I don ' t like to particularly
11 see any further loading in that 5 . 7 area,
12 even though there was a variance for that
13 particular point . I think the loading
14 should be in the back of the house . Away
15 from that area . Meaning, on the new
16 portion of that house . In this particular
17 area here . That is my particular opinion
18 on the whole situation. Again, not
19 withstanding the fact that there was a
20 variance on it . The last thing is, and
21 this is somewhat a difficult one . I don ' t
22 think that I have ever asked you that
23 question . If this was your house or this
24 was your job, you were still a builder
25 doing this job, wouldn' t you suggest that
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 21
1 we basically, and this is a respectful
2 question, that we expose those walls so
3 that we know exactly what has to be done?
4 MR. VERITY: I am not going to
5 answer it as a builder. Contractor
6 whatever you want --
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am not trying
8 to put you in a situation. The amount --
9 MR. VERITY : You as the Board can
10 request that . I have no reason to request
11 that . Like I said, I don ' t have to put
12 them on notice, but I did mention to them
13 that I have seen it happens , where you
14 think you ' re going to save walls and you
15 can ' t . There is too much damage, water
16 damage or whatever else . They ' re
17 definitely aware of it . They know they
18 would have to go back to the Zoning Board.
19 Again, that is a decision that you would
20 have to make as a Board. If you want to
21 see it with the walls open up, I am not
22 going to make that statement as the Chief
23 Building Inspector or previous contractor
24 or whatever . That is not for me to say.
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It ' s so easy at
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 22
1 this time of year, five weeks to Labor Day.
2 So you ' re holding the hearing in abeyance
3 until such time . This is a learning
4 experience for me, and possible for some of
5 my fellow Board members . As you know in
6 the past, the situations that we have to
7 have Stop Work Orders and so on. That
8 becomes very, very difficult . I know I was
9 throwing it at you, and I apologize .
10 MR. VERITY: That ' s all right .
11 MEMBER HORNING: Mike, you were
12 saying there is sort of an overlap in the
13 writing of this decision, in effect of an
14 old law and it was replaced by a new law.
15 If you wrote this today, you would not be
16 calling it a demolition? You would be
17 calling it a renovation or something else?
18 MR. VERITY: If you wanted me to be
19 a little more specific, I probably would be
20 -- basically go through first floor system,
21 second floor system and break it down that
22 way. I see that happening in the future.
23 We will probably break it down a little but
24 more . 20 years ago, it was a simple one
25 line for all Notice of Disapproval ' s . It
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 23
1 has pretty much evolved. It is another
2 time in the Town of Southold where the
3 Disapproval is going to have to evolve
4 again. It is really going to help out the
5 applicant, as well as the Zoning Board, to
6 make the determination. So I would write
7 it the same way, but it would be probably a
8 little more specific in reference to a roof
9 system, a mechanical system, second floor
10 system, whatever.
11 MEMBER HORNING: It was not a
12 demolition as was --
13 MR. VERITY: As per the information
14 and based on the architects information,
15 based on what I was told, I would say, no,
16 it ' s not a full demo, based on the new
17 definition, which is 750 of the gross --
18 MEMBER HORNING: It might be helpful
19 to get a new Notice of Disapproval just for
20 our decision making benefit .
21 MR. VERITY: That is fine . That is
22 just for semantics . If that is what the
23 attorney and the Board would like us to do .
24 I have no problems . Whatever needs to be
25 done to move this forward for the
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 24
1 applicant .
2 MEMBER HORNING: How many times has
3 the Building Inspector during this process
4 visit the site?
5 MR. VERITY: How many times?
6 Probably five to ten .
7 MEMBER HORNING : Are you halfway
8 through the visitations, would you say?
9 MR. VERITY: Well, yeah, but even
10 when we get an application we try and do a
11 site visit . So I have been there twice .
12 So that ' s two of the ten that I am talking
13 about .
14 MEMBER HORNING: I am talking about
15 when you go back and they start taking down
16 walls , the Building Department will be on
17 top of that? You would know fairly soon
18 that that was going on?
19 MR. VERITY: We would hope that the
20 contractor would give us a call and say,
21 hey, listen, I think that we ' re outside the
22 scope of our work. Can you come down and
23 take a look? We would not schedule that .
24 The only way that we would find out if it
25 was demoed would . be from a neighbor or from
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 25
1 the contractor or concerned citizen. That
2 is usually how we get most of our calls .
3 We wouldn ' t have that in our radar unless
4 it was brought to our attention or just for
5 some routine inspection .
6 MEMBER HORNING: So there is a
7 possibility --
8 MR. VERITY: There is always a
9 possibility, but most of the contractors,
10 you know, they do the right thing and they
11 give us a call . Even if it ' s over the
12 phone and looking at a plan or coming down
13 and taking a look.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What we don ' t
15 want to have happen, which has happened
16 infrequently, and I am sure that the
17 applicant ' s don ' t want that either, is to
18 wind up with a Stop Work Order because of
19 unanticipated things that come up . It can
20 happen, which is why Member Goehringer was
21 interested into looking more further into
22 the walls on the first floor . As long as
23 the applicant is fully aware the
24 consequences are significant, if in fact
25 you make representations to this Board and
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 26
1 at this public hearing on the record, and
2 then what is represented doesn ' t happen .
3 We ' re now hearing that this is not a total
4 demo . We ' re hearing that this is
5 alterations in place and in kind with a
6 second story addition and demolition of a
7 roof and a second story addition with
8 bearing walls on the first floor that are
9 structurally sound and could take that
10 load. I just wanted to make everyone aware
11 of the fact that, it happens all too often,
12 unanticipated problems that a good
13 contractor is going to make, and say,
14 "look, I didn ' t realize that this was going
15 to happen . Financially, where do you want
16 to go? This is not repairable . " What the
17 contractor does if they do something that
18 is contrary to what a decision is based on,
19 and what the public record shows that is
20 not something that the applicant can blame
21 the contractor over. You will be back
22 before this Board with a Stop Work Order .
23 So we just want to make sure that they ' re
24 confident, that you are confident, that the
25 ability to keep that foundation and those
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 27
1 interior walls, as described, is in fact
2 what will happen, so everyone comes out
3 okay.
4 Jim, do you have questions?
5 MEMBER DINIZIO : No .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then let ' s
9 proceed and perhaps, did you want to make
10 some comments or have Don come forward and
11 corroborate the structural soundness of the
12 existing dwelling and foundation?
13 MR. ANDERSON : I just want to say
14 that we were asked to undertake the various
15 investigations and we did so . That is to a
16 conclusion, that the foundation and
17 vertical members are sufficient . I think
18 that burden is too high, but I don ' t think
19 that it is appropriate to say that if it
20 becomes a demolition that you have to come
21 back to this Board, it ' s an inappropriate
22 condition to be placed on a zoning
23 determination because we ' re not applying
24 for a variance to demolish a house and
25 rebuild it in its footprint . That is not
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 28
1 on the table . I spoke at length with
2 Mr . Fidellow about this and explained to
3 him that there was this new definition of
4 demolition, and I said there would be great
5 efforts made to relocate the house further
6 to the west, from the bulkhead. His
7 response was, if I -- if the property
8 entailed a demolition, I wouldn ' t even
9 undertake the demolition . In other words ,
10 there will be no building project . They
11 would simply live with what they have .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Don, do you
13 wish to come forward and tell us about your
14 inspection on this?
15 MR. FEILER: Don Feiler, architect
16 for the Fidellow ' s . I was hired, I believe
17 in March, 2011 and proceeded to meet with
18 the family members .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you just
20 pull the mic up a little bit?
21 MR. FEILER: The family members are
22 spread out . I want to just tell you the
23 history of it . From day one, I have been
24 meeting with the Town Board, Zoning Board,
25 Building Department, everyone, to start out
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 29
1 as an addition . Mostly improving the first
2 floor as you saw from the plans . Pretty
3 much relocating stairs, at this point, is
4 pretty much a ladder up to the second
5 floor . Make it a real conforming stair,
6 and kitchen and bathroom, in the same
7 location . New windows . New siding . The
8 first inspection, . I was there, I saw that
9 it was a real foundation . The house is
10 still standing, gravity keeps it from
11 blowing away, but this was a real
12 foundation underneath it, which was really
13 a big plus . And it was never an intention
14 of the homeowners to build more than that
15 on the first floor . The project that
16 they' re undertaking is based on budget . On
17 a limited budget . They wanted to expand,
18 which is all up on the second floor . There
19 was no first floor footprint expansion -- I
20 guess the major expenditure would be on the
21 second floor over that -- where the entry
22 is on the street side . That is a roof
23 there now. There will be a second floor
24 over that and that is where the real
25 basement is . So that is easier to see what
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 30
1 was under that . The discussions early on
2 were, it was not necessa,ry, hopefully not
3 necessary for amy demolition of this first
4 floor because budget constraints . It
5 wouldn ' t be a project if we had to go that
6 far just because of their trying to
7 accomplish what it was in their budget .
8 It ' s like swearing in church, but I am
9 going to say knockdown. It ' s not
10 knockdown . We ' re not trying to -- define
11 on paper, if we ' re not changing anything
12 just to accommodate what it is in the code .
13 It ' s pretty much following suit from the
14 beginning .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any more
16 questions?
17 Jim?
18 MEMBER DINIZIO : No .
19 MR. FEILER: We do have some of the
20 family, if they have any questions?
21 MR. ANDERSON : I do want to say
22 this, that it is our hope that the hearing
23 can be closed today and a decision rendered
24 at the next meeting so that we would be
25 able to construct, make our building permit
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 31
1 application and construct construction in
2 the later part of September . Please be
3 advised of that .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jim, go ahead?
5 MEMBER DINIZIO : I just have a
6 couple of questions . One is on the survey.
7 That survey is dated August 16, 2011 . I
8 assume that is the latest survey?
9 MR. ANDERSON : No, I don ' t think so .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is June
11 2012 .
12 MR. ANDERSON : That would be the
13 latest one .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : While we ' re
15 here, we should enter into the record some
16 information on what happened with the deck.
17 MEMBER DINIZIO: Am I looking at the
18 right survey now, this says it ' s been dated
19 June 6th?
20 MR. ANDERSON : The survey that you
21 are acting on is dated June 6, 2012 .
22 MEMBER DINIZIO : It says accessory
23 building with one and a half bath?
24 MR. ANDERSON: That is correct .
25 MEMBER DINIZ1O : Now, do you have a
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 32
1 CO for that?
2 MR. ANDERSON : Yes .
3 MEMBER DINIZIO : Can you present
4 that to us?
5 MR. ANDERSON : It ' s in your
6 application packet .
7 MEMBER DINIZIO : Is that the one
8 dated 1993?
9 MR. ANDERSON : As you recall, we
10 went over this --
11 MEMBER DINIZIO : I 'm sorry. I do
12 not recall that . That is not your fault .
13 That is my brain . Not yours .
14 MR. ANDERSON : What we s,aid in last
15 months hearing, we spoke about the
16 accessory structure and what I stated to
17 the Board then and I will restate it now,
18 is that we ' re aware of the Town ' s accessory
19 apartment law, which requires that this be
20 a year round residence in order for the
21 accessory structure to be a apartment . I
22 also stated to the Board that of course
23 they could waive that, but in my opinion,
24 there would be no compelling reason to
25 waive the principal residence requirement
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 33
1 because it would open up all kinds of other
2 issues that the Board and the Town at large
3 might not want to do . So we stated for the
4 record, that this can not be used as an
5 accessory apartment . So that was the
6 testimony given last hearing. Now, I did
7 ask --
8 MEMBER DINIZIO : Just in reference
9 to that, can we just state on the survey
10 that it ' s a garage?
11 MR. ANDERSON : It ' s not a garage .
12 You can ' t pull a car into it .
13 MEMBER DINIZIO : But in 93, that is
14 what you were issued a CO for it . I am
15 saying for the purposes of us making a
16 decision based on you know, the record.
17 MR. ANDERSON : It says construction
18 alterations to a garage . That was building
19 permit #21189 . The deck, according to the
20 property record card was built pursuant to
21 a building permit #7437z, deck that was
22 issued in 1974 . And that appears in your
23 application package . As I said, the
24 original house was built, I think in 1950 ,
25 with the addition built on the north side
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 34
1 facing the water in 1961 . So that was sort
2 of the sequence of that .
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: First of all,
4 Bruce, excuse me for jumping in. That Trex
5 is brand new on there .
6 MR. ANDERSON : Well, it may have
7 been resurfaced but what I am saying is
8 that the -- there- was always a deck there
9 as far as I know. I don ' t know that -- it
10 seems -- I think we all understand, for
11 years, this Board has seen, and you having
12 seen for the last couple of years , people
13 have resurfaced decks routinely without a
14 building permit . It ' s an upgrade anyway.
15 In the old days as I recall, you used to
16 say, if you can run a lawn mower over a
17 carpter, it didn ' t even warrant a building
18 permit . Then that became if it was within
19 one foot it doesn ' t warrant -- it was
20 always sort of evolving issue . I think
21 nowadays, if you were to pull off the
22 planting and put new planting down, you
23 would need probably to ask the Building
24 Department as to whether or not you can do
25 that . So I think that is the best
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 35
1 explanation that I can give you.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, perhaps
3 someone from the family can tell us about
4 when that was done? That had a permit from
5 1974 . It is unlikely that all these years
6 later when the Trex was put on, it was most
7 likely replacement of joists as well . I
8 can ' t testify 100% . I don ' t know . Perhaps
9 on of the family members may have some
10 sense of what actually happened. I guess
11 what we ' re trying to do is clear up any
12 other odds and ends that are on the
13 property, so that we can be fairly
14 competent in addressing all of the
15 situations that may have arise .
16 MR. ANDERSON : I can ' t speak for
17 that .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, maybe
19 someone in the family knows what happened.
20 MR. VERCOLLONE : Hi, I 'm Nick
21 Vercollone . My mother is one of the
22 owners . Al is --
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Spell your
24 last name, please?
25 MR. VERCOLLONE :
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 36
1 V-E-R-C-O-L-L-O-N-E .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
3 MR. VERCOLLONE : That deck -- I grew
4 up there . All of us grew up there . That
5 deck was there for -- obviously not the
6 deck in question but that exact footprint,
7 everything of that deck has been there
8 since, whenever 1973 . There were pressure
9 treated boards there in a grid pattern,
10 3x3 . And what I remember growing up is
11 splinters being pulled out of our feet on a
12 regular basis . We resurfaced the deck.
13 Some of the joists were replaced. I am a
14 builder too . It was done properly. We
15 probably should have went for a permit as
16 you look at a house . If we need to certify
17 the deck, we will . Whatever we need to do .
18 MEMBER DINIZIO : When did you
19 replace the joists? 1980?
20 MR. VERCOLLONE : No, I was one then .
21 MEMBER DINIZIO: That ' s what I
22 thought .
23 MR. VERCOLLONE : But I did work on
24 the original deck -- another deck when I
25 was five . It was probably ten years ago, I
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 37
1 think. It was in this century .
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Nick, let me
3 just clear this up . The first treated
4 lumber that existed out here was
5 approximately 1980 . The house that I
6 constructed in 1970-1978 , there was no
7 treated lumber . So it is between ' 80 and
8 ' 82 that they started using it . The
9 original deck must have been somehow
10 re-enhanced.
11 MR. VERCOLLONE : Yes .
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Because the
13 original lumber would have rotted away,
14 within a five or ten year period.
15 MR. VERCOLLONE : Well, that is why I
16 said I remember when I was five and pulling
17 a nail out of the original decking. I took
18 a tumble down the bank. Sothis is the
19 second time that deck has been reworked on,
20 I guess .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There was
22 reference made to that deck, that was part
23 of the Trustees action. Is there a
24 Trustees ' permit on this?
25 MR. ANDERSON & You have a Trustees
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 38
1 permit that covers the deck .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is why I
3 wanted to make sure that the record
4 reflects that the Trustees made that
5 determination . This is a letter from Lisa
6 Laurence from the Trustees Department
7 requesting that they think about -- that
8 Mr . Fidellow think about reconstructing the
9 existing rear decking because it ' s in
10 disrepair . He has been advised of the
11 project description and it sent to the
12 office . That was dated December 7 , 2011 .
13 So at that point, was that Trex there?
14 MR. ANDERSON : No .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is holding
16 up a whole lot better than my Trex decking .
17 MR. ANDERSON : No, we added that
18 because they had no record of a deck.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We just have
20 to make sure everything is picked up on the
21 tape recorder . In the revised project
22 description that went to the Trustees,
23 which is in our packet, the applicant
24 proposes to renovate the existing single
25 family dwelling 1 , 100 square foot footprint
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 39
1 and construct a second story addition to
2 same . Additionally the applicant proposes
3 to reconstruct the existing deck, in kind
4 and in place measuring 490 square feet .
5 That was the revised --
6 MR. ANDERSON : That is correct .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That was
8 already accomplished?
9 MR. ANDERSON : Yes .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We just have
11 to clear this up .
12 MEMBER DINIZIO: I personally, and
13 this is no detriment to your application .
14 I think the survey should reflect the as
15 built ' s, the Pre-CO, which is basically
16 nonhabitable accessory garage . I mean, if
17 that wording can be put on the accessory
18 building with half bath, put in place of
19 that . It reflects more what exists on that
20 property. I understand about your
21 compromising . I was not here for your
22 application last month . It would more
23 reflect what actually exists there, because
24 you know, accessory building with a half
25 bath for me is something that you know,
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 40
1 could be used as an apartment, and I
2 understand it may very well be . But when
3 you put it on a survey, it changes the
4 language of the fact it may be habitable .
5 So if we can have that survey says
6 nonhabitable accessory building. I would
7 be happy with that .
8 MR. ANDERSON : Fine, because that is
9 what it has to be . That it is a
10 nonhabitable accessory structure .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I actually had
12 a question, while going back and forth,
13 Mike, can I ask you a question about the
14 record and the deck? You saw it obviously?
15 MR. VERITY: Yes .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Does the code
17 require that the railing be established on
18 along the bank on that deck?
19 MR. VERITY: Based on the height of
20 it, on the deck itself, no .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would it be
22 advisable? It would have to be more than
23 30 inches above grade, and I think the
24 grade --
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not on the
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 41
1 sides?
2 MR. VERITY: Not on the sides but
3 from what I recall , I didn ' t want to get
4 too close to the edge, because I didn ' t
5 know if he was going to push me over or
6 Don. I stayed back at these steps .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just wanted
8 to know.
9 MR. VERITY: I would have to take
10 another look at it . Months ago, if it
11 needed a rail, I would probably argue that
12 it did not based on State Code .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
14 Any other questions that the Board has?
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just that we ' re
16 going to close this hearing pending two
17 things . That is Number 1 , what Jim was
18 requesting regarding the accessory
19 structure and a updated Notice of
20 Disapproval .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that
22 acceptable for everyone?
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes .
24 MEMBER DINIZIO : Yes .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I will make a
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 42
1 motion to close this hearing subject to
2 receipt of an amended updated survey
3 showing the accessory structure as
4 nonhabitable accessory structure with 1/2
5 bath and an amended Notice of Disapproval
6 specifying what kind of demolition is about
7 to take place . At what levels , the
8 alteration .
9 MR. ANDERSON : A partial demolition?
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A partial
11 demolition would suffice . If that is the
12 way that you want to word it .
13 MR. ANDERSON : That is up to the
14 Building Department?
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is up to
16 the Building Department, however, they want
17 to write it but I think the Building
18 Inspector has heard us and the record, I
19 think they understand what we ' re trying to
20 accomplish. So that is the motion. Is
21 there a second?
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
24 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 43
1 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
4 (See Minutes for Resolution. )
5 *******************************************
6 HEARING #6585 - MURRAY GAYLORD
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
8 application before the Board is for Murray
9 Gaylord, #6585 . Request for variances from
10 Article XXII Code Section 280-116 (B) and
11 Article XXIII Section 280-124 based on an
12 application for building permit and the
13 Building Inspector ' s June 21, 2012 Notice
14 of Disapproval for demolition and
15 reconstruction of single dwelling, at
16 1) less than the code required bulkhead
17 setback of 75 feet , 2 ) less than the code
18 required minimum side yard setback of 15
19 less than the code feet, 3 ) less than the
20 code required rear yard setback of 50 feet,
21 located at : 765 Beechwood Road, adjacent
22 to Great Peconic Bay, in Cutchogue .
23 MR. ANDERSON : Bruce Anderson,
24 Suffolk Environmental Consultants for the
25 applicant, Murray Gaylord. Mr . Gaylord
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 44
1 owns a piece of property that is at the end
2 of Beechwood Road, which is a private road.
3 That terminates at the end of the marsh in
4 Cutchogue . They also, for your information
5 own the vacant lot that is adjacent to the
6 north of the property, which is wetlands
7 and will remain undeveloped- The
8 Gaylord ' s, the application here, when
9 asked, I responded, should this be by this
10 Board for a demolition? We ' re going to
11 walk you through exactly what is going to
12 take place in this house, with the walls,
13 interior spaces, etcetera . You should know
14 though that the existing property contains
15 a single family dwelling, which is a one
16 and a half story single family dwelling .
17 It contains an accessory garage, which is
18 nonconforming in that it is within 4 to 5
19 feet from the side lot line, and 10 feet of
20 the front lot line . You should know that
21 that accessory garage will be demolished or
22 removed, thereby enhancing zoning
23 compliance for the overall property. The
24 survey before you shows that garage to be
25 removed. It will not be reconstructed as
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 45
1 part of this or any subsequent application
2 that we ' re contemplating . You should also
3 know that existing dwelling, is that
4 individual cesspool, and has been a great
5 deal of problems , because when the
6 groundwater is very high, the cesspool
7 overflows, I think once and that was last
8 summer, or last fall perhaps . And so we
9 would be putting in a compliant septic
10 system. In order to do that, we will be
I
11 raising the elevation of the property to do
12 that . That compliant septic system has
t 13 already received approval from the Health
14 Department . This property has already
15 received approval from the Trustees, the
16 DEC and the Health Department, and so this
17 is our last stop before commencing
18 construction . As with our prior hearing,
19 it is our hope to commence construction
20 this fall . We have up here on the screen,
21 which shows you what the house will look
22 like . James , if you will, will you run
23 them through that . Right now, we ' re facing
24 the front entry court . And we will bring
25 you around the back of the house . You can
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 46
1 see how this looks . You see there, that is
2 going to be the screened porch deck that
3 extends to the left . And then you see the
4 decking that sort of surrounds and squares
5 off the house . The house itself is of
6 similar size to what exists , and the reason
7 for the application that we make today is
8 because the foundation that supports this
9 house is in good shape . So we wanted to
10 utilize that . And also, whether it ' s
11 considered a demolition or not, doesn ' t
12 change the effect because even if we were
13 to demolish the house including its
14 foundation, we would wind up essentially in
15 the same spot that we are today. So I
16 don ' t think this is an application that we
17 have to spend a great deal of time
18 troubling ourselves over on that issue . We
19 now enter the inside of the house . Give
20 you some idea of what the interior house is
21 going to look like . ( In Audible) the houses
22 all line up . I believe most of the
23 shoreline is bulkheaded. And so what we
24 seek to rebuild this house, the effect of
25 it will be to comply and fit in with the
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 47
1 character of the neighborhood.
2 Environmentally it will be an upgrade
3 because the septic system will be upgraded
4 and will comply and does comply with Health
5 Department regulations . The Trustees and
6 the Town will require that all appropriate
7 drainage be controlled and will be
8 installed on the site . We fully intend to
9 comply with the Town stormwater rules .
10 There is a part of the application, an
11 increase buffer that will be established
12 along the wetland boundary, which is
13 something consistent with both our Trustees
14 and DEC permits . The overall environment
15 of the neighborhood and the area will be in
16 fact improved. We can ' t -- we need to be
17 here, because the benefit that we seek,
18 would be (In Audible) this property in a
19 suitable condition, a variance due to its
20 proximity to the wetland boundaries and
21 this particular lot is relatively small .
22 As I said, the granting of this variance
23 will not adversely effect or impact the
24 environmental and physical conditions of
25 the neighborhood. The part that is not
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 48
1 self created . This is a legally existing
2 house . It has been expanded several times
3 over the course of the year by the prior
4 owner. What I would like to do at this
5 point is turn the presentation over to Joe
6 Fischetti . He is our engineer on this
7 project, and he is going to walk you
8 through the structural aspects of -- the
9 design aspects of what we ' re doing. He is
10 going to describe the foundation, etcetera .
11 It is also important to know that part of
12 what we ' re doing here, is that we are a
13 flood plain . And what we ' re talking about
14 in the world of FEMA is a substantial
15 addition and alternations, as that is
16 defined in that box of regulations . And
17 that requires us to elevate the house and
18 comply with the regulations . This
19 application complies with all the specs to
20 the applicable flood plain regulations .
21 MR. FISCHETTI : Good morning Madam
22 Chairman and Members of the Board. I am
23 Joseph Fischetti, engineer, I am for the
24 applicant . I would like to give you a
25 handout here .
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 49
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Joe, while you
2 are doing that, I have a copy of the LWRP
3 recommendation . I don ' t know if you have
4 one? Do you have one, Bruce?
5 MR. ANDERSON : We had one with our
6 Trustees permit .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is
8 relative to the zoning at our request . I
9 will just indicate here that the
10 recommendation that it is consistent with
11 the LWRP and that is based upon that sites
12 of relocation of an existing structure is
13 not practical, is the basis upon its
14 consistency, the partial demolition of the
15 existing structure lot simulation and
16 environmental activity, relocation of the
17 existing structure is not practical . The
18 structure is located with an AE-E16 flood
19 zone and the applicant proposed to raise
20 the site and elevate the structure for
21 potential impact . The Board of Trustees
22 (In Audible) the natural vegetative and
23 buffer along the bulkhead, under Permit
24 #7765 , issued March 12, 2012 . Maybe you
25 want to address this or Joe . Let ' s start
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 50
1 with due to the environmental sensitivity
2 of the parcel and water body, it is
3 recommended that the Board --
4 MR. ANDERSON : That ' s fine . I will
5 tell you that is a matter of ( In Audible)
6 when you were out there you might have
7 noticed that the lawn area was brown . The
8 reason for that is occasionally floods over
9 the surface of the land. So this is a
10 property that can ' t really sustain any
11 formal land statements .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
13 MR. FISCHETTI : Okay. The Gaylord ' s
14 when they came to me with this project .
15 The first thing I did was design a
16 sanitary. To do that, you could not fit it
17 in the contexts of the land with the
18 buildings there . That requires a
19 demolition of the front setback because
20 we ' re raising the grade, the structure can
21 not be there . The existing home is a
22 single family home of three bedrooms on one
23 floor . They used that structure in the
24 front as their storage . They had crawl
25 space and they had no attic . I think I
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 51
1 gave you a little drawing in there, a
2 little colored drawing . This house has
3 been added over the years in probably six
4 stages . As those stages and additions were
5 added, new roof structures were added on
6 it . So when you go into the attic, you
7 find old roof ' s on top of old roof ' s . So
8 there. is no attic . There was no attic
9 spaces up in there . So there only storage
10 for anything was that structure in the
11 front . So they were very upset when I told
12 them that we could not do this new sanitary
13 system and raise the FEMA requirements
14 without demolishing that structure in the
15 front . Now, when you raise this house --
16 this house will be raised 4 1/2 feet . So
17 you would have storage vacant in a crawl
18 space . That is wet storage . You can ' t put
19 clothes . You can ' t put books in a crawl
20 space . You need attic space . So when we
21 redesigned this house, we redesigned the
22 roof structure so that there would be attic
23 storage . That is the essence of the thrust
24 of this design, was to get them storage in
25 the attic, once we lost the storage in the
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 52
1 front . Now, when we looked at the -- I
2 actually said, if they' re going to consider
3 this a demolition and not approve this, I
4 can actually put a roof structure over this
5 thing without demolishing the old roof ' s
6 but that is not going to give them any
7 storage . So the real -- even though it
8 says that we ' re demolishing this structure,
9 the truth is, we ' re going to try and save
10 as much as we can . We ' re going to save the
11 foundation. The first floor framing, which
12 is great . The walls of the front structure
13 are fine . We have to -- one other
14 requirement was that the bedroom in the
15 back was too small . There was a fireplace
16 structure between the bedroom and the
17 living room, for me to now make the bedroom
18 bigger, I would have to demolish the
19 fireplace and move that wall five feet into
20 the living room. Now, once you do that,
21 the roof structure that is already over
22 there comes down . So that demolition will
23 happen . We will demolish the living room
24 area and the bedroom area, but pretty much
25 the rest of the structure will stay. There
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 53
1 is an existing deck that is there now, and
2 we ' re expanding the living room into that
3 deck. So in essence, we ' re building this
4 structure in the same footprint that is
5 there . In essence, we ' re putting a new
6 roof structure on. We can look at some of
7 those elevations picture, you will see what
8 the red -- the red lines are actually the
9 existing house, underneath the old one . So
10 we ' re pretty much in the context of the old
11 footprint and building a higher roof
12 structure for storage .
13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How high will
14 that second story deck be?
15 MR. FISCHETTI : To code .
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 7 1/2 -- the
17 ceiling height?
18 MR. FISCHETTI : There is no second
19 floor . It ' s an attic space . It ' s attic
20 storage . It ' s not habitable . I have a
21 pull down stairs in there . It ' s only for
22 storage . This is a single story house .
23 The bedroom count has not changed. The
24 footprint hasn ' t changed. The roof
25 structure has changed to give them the
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 54
1 storage space they -- we lost in the garage
2 in the front . We ' re -- I evaluated the
3 existing foundation. The existing
4 foundation is concrete block, which is not
5' reinforced. What we ' re going to do is add
6 -- we ' re going to put reinforcing and make
7 this all solid and raise that grade with
8 new block on top of what is there now. So
9 it ' s basically -- the wall structure is in
10 good shape .
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You are going to
12 raise the deck?
13 MR. FISCHETTI : I am going to raise
14 the house . As I said -- from your last
15 application, as I told you, it ' s just the
16 opposite . While you guys are trying to
17 figure out how much we are not going to
18 take down, we are going to keep up a lot .
19 We ' re going to say it ' s a demolition, but
20 we ' re going to keep as much as we can. I
21 am working the opposite way. I am probably
22 going to keep the floor structure, probably
23 the whole front walls structures . I will
24 , keep whatever I can . I don ' t want to take
25 down whatever I want to take down . I don ' t
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 55
1 want to spend money where I don ' t have to .
2 We have to say it ' s a demolition because I
3 don ' t want to go around in circles with you
4 guys and say, oh, you ' re taking down more
5 than we want . We think of it as a
6 demolition.
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You don ' t mind
8 if we go down and watch this little process
9 because this is going to be really
10 interesting?
11 MR. FISCHETTI : It ' s going to be
12 cool . It ' s going to be really interesting .
13 We will take down probably part of the
14 structure in the back. So we can get
15 underneath there . We will lift this house
16 up and then we will put it back down on the
17 foundation, and then we will start to do
18 the demolition at that point . We will
19 probably keep as much as we can. We will
20 change some windows . So we will have to
21 take down some studs . I don ' t want people
22 to come and tell me, you took down four
23 studs , you were only supposed to take down
24 three . No, this is a demolition . The
25 house is in the best place it can be .
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 56
1 We ' re taking down a structure and making it
2 less conforming than we are now. Great, I
3 would love to have you down there .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Have you
5 looked at -- given the constraints of the
6 lot , size and so on, have you looked at how
7 you might create additional conformity
8 since it seems to be a demo?
9 MR. FISCHETTI : I did. We ' re taking
10 down the structure in the front . We are
11 conforming to that .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you ' re
13 increasing the lot coverage to 20?
14 MR. FISCHETTI : I didn ' t hear that?
15 MR. ANDERSON : I think the answer to
16 that is increased coverage relates to a
17 very small screened porch addition.
18 MR. FISCHETTI : The screened porch
19 is actually part of the structure now.
20 That is there now .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is what
22 was said in the application .
23 MR. FISCHETTI : The physical house
24 is -- the footprint of the house has not
25 changed. There is a side porch that moves
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 57
1 to the front .
2 MEMBER DINIZIO : The back is mostly
3 dead --
4 MR. FISCHETTI : Yeah .
5 MEMBER DINIZIO : That would add to
6 lot coverage .
7 MR. FISCHETTI : That is where we
8 would probably square off that deck. We
9 would add to lot, similar to the neighbors
10 on the east .
11 MEMBER DINIZIO: I didn ' t go around
12 to the front . I came to the house
13 yesterday and I saw a lady running around
14 in the house . She didn ' t answer, so I
15 didn ' t want to go any further . Are you
16 saying that the porch on the water side is
17 actually covered now?
18 MR. FISCHETTI : Yeah. There is a
19 covered porch. That we are using as part
20 of the living room. It is a covered porch
21 that is correct .
22 MEMBER DINIZIO : Is there a deck
23 that parades out to that that isn ' t being
24 covered?
25 MR. FISCHETTI : Part of that deck is
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 58
1 covered. Yes , we put a roof over the back
2 deck because that is the south facing.
3 Once we take that off the deck there is no
4 place that they can sit in the shade . So
5 we put a small covered porch --
6 MEMBER DINIZIO : But does that exist
7 now?
8 MR. FISCHETTI : No . That actually
9 is old.
10 MEMBER DINIZIO: If you look on the
11 first page on the left, you will see a new
12 small porch covered --
13 MR. FISCHETTI : Yes .
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : And I am assuming
15 that is enclosed also?
16 MR. FISCHETTI : Yes, that is a
17 covered porch.
18 MEMBER DINIZIO : And then on the
19 back of the house, on the back of the
20 drawing, if I follow the red line, goes to
21 a deck. Is that structure there now?
22 MR. FISCHETTI : No . That is a roof
23 structure just going over the deck.
24 MEMBER DINIZIO : So further out that
25 does not exist right now?
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 59
1 MR. FISCHETTI : Yeah .
2 MEMBER DINIZIO : Then you ' re
3 squaring off the house with the deck in the
4 front?
5 MR. FISCHETTI : That ' s correct .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, while
7 we ' re here, let me mention some concern of
8 regarding the elevations . Joe, tell us how
9 you ' re going to verify that all stormwater
10 will be verified- on site, and that it will
11 not have an impact on the adjacent
12 neighbor? That neighbor is very, very
13 close . The side yard, I 'm sorry. I am
14 looking at information from the LWRP .
15 MR. FISCHETTI : It ' s the drywell,
16 those are on the site plan that was
17 submitted in the pack. We have contained
18 the two inch rainfall with all that .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The concern
20 was , showing the spill and how it will
21 effect the adjacent neighbor to the
22 northeast .
23 MR. FISCHETTI : Actually what is
24 happening with that, is that the adjacent
25 property is higher . If you see the sign at
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 60
1 that top, Mr . Raynor did the same thing .
2 He was installing his sanitary system and
3 he had to raise the grade to install his
4 sanitary system. So he put a retaining
5 wall along that east wall . So in essence
6 our grade goes right to his wall . So that
7 wall comes out and actually levels with
8 Mr . Raynor ' s property.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That ' s okay.
10 I just want to hear it all on the record.
11 Jim, any other questions?
12 MEMBER DINIZIO : No .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George?
14 MEMBER HORNING: To accomplish
15 raising the house four feet, you ' re going
16 to increase the grade?
17 MR. FISCHETTI : Well, we can ' t do
18 that . The only reason why we ' re raising
19 the grade in the front is for the sanitary
20 system. The sanitary system has to come
21 out of the groundwater. Right now that
22 sanitary system is in the groundwater . So
23 the grade of the sanitary around the front
24 is at grade with around the house . So we
25 can ' t grade around the house . The flood
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 61
1 waters for it come in and go out , south.
2 The east corner is left natural . That is
3 where our flood gates are . That is where
4 the water comes in and goes out . So we
5 soften the lines around the grade in the
6 front, so that when you ' re looking at the
7 house, you don ' t see 12 feet of foundation .
8 MEMBER HORNING : And then
9 accomplishing the raising of the house to
10 meet regulations, you are going to put more
11 concrete block and reinforced everything
12 and then lower the house down, as you
13 described?
14 MR. FISCHETTI : That is correct .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just
16 confirm, that the proposed reconstruction
17 has exactly the same setbacks as the Notice
18 of Disapproval . In other words, that would
19 be a bulkhead setback of 45 feet, where the
20 code requires 75 . A side yard setback of 3
21 foot 7 inches from the bulkhead. A side
22 yard setback of 12 foot 7 inches , where the
23 code requires 15, and a rear yard of 45
24 feet, where the core requires 50 . That is
25 what is currently there and that --
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 62
1 MR. FISCHETTI : That is correct .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the only
3 other question, this is still a one-story
4 house or a one and a half story house?
5 MR. FISCHETTI : It ' s a one-story
6 house with an attic . That is what is there
7 now. That is what will be there .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does the Board
9 have any other questions?
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The only concern
11 that I had again, with the neighbor to the
12 east, with respect. to the retaining wall,
13 that the new fill that you would be
14 bringing in would be meeting the top of the
15 retaining wall?
16 MR. FISCHETTI : That is correct .
17 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The adjoining
18 property owner, he is the one that
19 constructed that retaining wall?
20 MR. FISCHETTI : Yes . He is actually
21 the one that constructed that .
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That is fine .
23 That is not my issue . My issue is that
24 there would be no detriment to that
25 neighbor as far as grade --
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of 'Appeals 63
1 MR. FISCHETTI : Not at all . That
2 was done specifically that way.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there
4 anyone else in the audience that would like
5 to address this application?
6 MR. RAYNOR: Yes . Good morning.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good morning .
8 MR. RAYNOR: My name is Henry
9 Raynor . I am the adjacent resident . Just
10 to the wast of the Gaylord ' s , and we have
11 looked at the plans . We have discussed the
12 plans with the Gaylord' s . My wife and I
13 are in total agreement of what they ' re
14 trying to do . I think they are going to
15 have a great improvement in the
16 neighborhood of what they' re trying to
17 achieve . We hope that this Board will look
18 favorably on this application . If you have
19 any questions for me, I would be happy to
20 answer them.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you.
22 Any other questions?
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any further
t 25 comments from the audience?
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 64
1 (No Response . )
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
3 further comments, I will make a motion to
4 close this hearing and reserve decision to
5 a later date .
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
8 MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye .
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
10 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
13 ( See Minutes for Resolution . )
14 * *** *************************************
15 HEARING #6581 - BREWER YACHT YARD @
16 GREENPORT, INC .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Brewer Yacht
18 Yard, #6581 . Request for variance from
19 Article XXII Code Section 280-116 (B) based
20 on an application for building permit and
21 the Building Inspector ' s May 24 , 2012
22 Notice of Disapproval concerning permit to
23 demolish and construct a boat storage and
24 office/storage, at; 1) proposed structures
25 at less than the code required bulkhead
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 65
1 setback of 75 feet, located at : 1410
2 Manhasset Avenue, adjacent to Sterling
3 Creek and Sterling Basin, in Greenport .
4 MR. ANDERSON : Bruce Anderson,
5 Suffolk Environmental Consultants for the
6 applicant, Brewer Yacht .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As I was
8 saying the LWRP memorandum indicates
9 consistency. That they issued a permit for
10 it . Site Plan Review and pursuant to
11 Chapter 268 , the Board shall consider
12 recommendations fo.r preparation of written
13 determination for the proposed actions .
14 Comments from the Planning Board indicates
15 that the proposed boat storage building and
16 office/storage appears to not cause concern
17 to the proposed area and the marina . The
18 above referenced proposal will further the
19 goal to enhance ( In Audible) while
20 maintaining its fundamental character of
21 the neighborhood. Let me give you a copy
22 of that for your records . And I will turn
23 this over to you to tell us what you would
24 like us to know about .
25 MR. ANDERSON : I hope that some of
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 66
1 you, and the owners were able to take a
2 quick look around. When you visited the
3 property, you see sort of a hodge-podge
4 buildings, plastic building that is
5 connected to a metal building . If you went
6 inside the metal building, you will see
7 concrete floor below it, it ' s actually dorn
8 on two levels, which suggests that that
9 building was probably expanded at some
10 point many, many years ago . This is . a
11 building that has been in existence for
12 many, many years . It ' s now owned in
13 Mattituck for a yacht yard. Very run well
14 marina business . To give you a more of a
15 comprehensive idea of what is going on
16 here, we ' re of course replacing various
17 floating docks that are adjacent to the
18 existing bulkhead. That is not before you
19 but it is part of what is proposed there .
20 We ' re also replacing two sections of
21 bulkhead. One is directly adjacent to the
22 existing, although deteriorated storage
23 building . We ' re going to demolish that
24 metal building and attach a plastic
25 building . This here, that is all going to
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 67
1 be removed on the site, as with the
2 existing office area . We ' re going to take
3 all this and consolidate this into one
4 building . That building will be 9, 000
5 square feet . That will be a metal building
6 and will contain an attached for boat
7 storage . It will attach -- attached to
8 that will be a 2500 square foot
9 office/storage with a shop room adjacent to
10 the one-story portion of that building . At
11 the peak, the soffit or the gutter area
12 will be at 33 feet it slopes there and the
13 gable runs parallel to the road and
14 parallel to the bulkhead. The new
15 building, we have had John Connor design a
16 foundation for it . The new building will
17 be supported by piles and have a ( In
18 Audible) cap . The bulkhead will be
19 independently supported by tie-rods , that
20 way we don ' t have that standard poured
21 foundation because we have the nearby
22 bulkhead that is approximately three feet
23 from the edge of that building . You should
24 know that the existing metal building is
25 more like 18 inches from the base of ' the
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 68
- 1 bulkhead. We ' re trying to push it away but
2 we have these metal buildings that are used
3 for marinas , they ' re bulky because the
4 storage of what ' s in them. In order for us
5 to implements this overall project, we need
6 permits and approval from the US Department
7 of State of Engineers, Trustees , DEC, this
8 Board, the Planning Board. The Health
9 Department and finally the Building
10 Department . You should know that the
11 Department of Engineers was granted on
12 June 7 , 2012 . An approval from New York
13 Department of State was granted on
14 June 11, 2012 . We received a DEC permit
15 for the project on July 10 , 2012 . You
16 should be aware that the existing upland
17 feature . That is the building itself, it
18 actually outside of their jurisdiction . We
19 also received a permit from the Trustees on
20 June 20th, authorizing all of the proposed
21 activities that are before this Board. So
22 we ' re here before the Zoning Board, because
23 we require a setback variance from the
24 bulkhead. Although technically we ' re more
25 conforming today then we are -- we would be
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 69
1 more conforming as implemented today. We
2 meet site plan approval from the Planning
3 Board. The application has been filed and
4 it is pending review . And also, approval
5 from the Health Department . That
6 application has been filed. The project
7 has been engineered to fully comply with
8 the Health Department and also comply with
9 the Town ' s stormwater standards , overall
10 for a matter of record. We submit that
11 this benefit can not be achieved by any
12 other method other then the Zoning Board
13 variance because there is a limited
14 distance between the bulkhead and the road.
15 You will notice that it is slummed up
16 against the bulkhead, as the existing
17 building, to provide some -- a traveling
18 around the building. That is between the
19 building and the road, and that is
20 reflected in the plans . Of course, there
21 would be no undesirable change in the
22 neighborhood because we have the structures
23 already on the property that provides for
24 boat storage and office, etcetera . Really
25 this is an upgrade to the site, and so, to
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 70
1 the south of us is another marina . To the
2 north of us is water, and across the street
3 is a cemetery. And so we ' re not -- we
4 believe that our work is not substantial
5 because we ' re actually increasing
6 compliance with respect to your bulkhead,
7 although by increasing the setback to 18
8 inches and 3 feet . We do not have -- we
9 will not cause an adverse effect on the
10 physical environment of the neighborhood,
11 because we ' re bringing the site into
12 greater conformance with the sanitary
13 system, and with respect to stormwater
14 regulations adopted by the Town .
15 Obviously, our hardship is not self
16 created. The site is the way it is . The
17 property boundaries are the way they are .
18 The bulkheads are the way they are and the
19 street is where it is . And that concludes
20 my basic presentation of this application .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you .
22 Jim, any questions?
23 MEMBER DINIZIO : I just want to
24 state for the record that Brewer Yacht is a
25 customer of mine . They send me a check
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 71
1 every month for $25 . 00 . This particular
2 building is -- we have tried to maintain a
3 fire alarm system for the past ten years
4 and unfortunately roof leaks were too much
5 for me to keep up with it . That would be a
6 welcome addition to have a nice dry place .
7 I can tell you that the front of that
8 building, I should say the roadside from
9 that building and that distance, the reason
10 for the distance is that they use these
11 travelers to bring the boats in. If anyone
12 has seen any of those travelers, they ' re
13 quite wide . They have quite large boats
14 that they bring them in on the back side .
15 Right now the front of that building, you
16 can ' t bring them in because it ' s actually
17 to -- there is a workshop in the front of
18 that building. They take boats around and
19 they put them in through the back of that
20 building . Again, the redesign, it would
21 help make the movement of that piece of
22 property more consistent for the boat yard.
23 It has always been there . I can ' t remember
24 when it was built . I can remember when it
25 wasn ' t there . In the past 50 years , there
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 72
1 was not something there . And then, I know
2 they added some stuff to it . Back then, it
3 was just a building. You know to keep the
4 boats drive . Since they have been a
5 customer, they have not added onto that
6 building, I can tell you from my own
7 experience . I think I have concerned it
8 all . I just have a little bit of problem
9 with how you ' re going to reinforce that
10 bulkhead, but you know, engineer is an
11 engineer, and I am sure they' re going to do
12 what they need to do . The bulkhead to me,
13 it is good there now. I don ' t see that it
14 is deteriorating, other than the poles
15 probably. You know, while you ' re taring
16 everything that is there . I know it ' s on a
17 slab . I believe there is no foundation on
18 that building now . I think it ' s just
19 cement on grade .
20 MR. ANDERSON : If you were going to
21 go and do the kind of work that we ' re
22 proposing in that area, even though the
23 bulkhead clearly still functions , it is a
24 wise decision to remove it and replace it .
25 What it is being replaced with, is the
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 73
1 fiberglass, which is very, very strong
2 material . And that is a smart thing to do
3 because if we were to go with the existing
4 bulkhead and proceeded to construct the
5 building, we might harm ourselves for the
6 future, if we were to replace -- the
7 regulations tend to discourage putting new
8 bulkheads up against existing bulkheads .
9 Now, I am not saying that I couldn ' t get a
10 permit to do that, but it complicates
11 things . As a percentage of the overall
12 work that is being contemplated here, there
13 is the bulkhead replacement, it is
14 reasonable additional specs to incur . The
15 ( In Audible) was put in to support this
16 building . We don ' t just put in slabs and
17 build stuff . We have foundations now and
18 this one sits on pilings and a piling cap,
19 and it does that for a reason . So that
20 there is no relationship to the support of
21 the building and the vertical and lateral
22 support to the bulkhead
23 MEMBER DINIZIO: Certainly the
24 weight of that building is pushing out .
25 When you replace that building and put it
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 74
1 on pilings, the weight of that building is
2 going directly down --
3 MR. ANDERSON : That ' s true .
4 MEMBER DINIZIO: That is a good
5 thing .
6 MR. ANDERSON : Yes . Even today the
7 bulkhead is pretty safe .
8 MEMBER DINIZIO : I agree . You have
9 approval to do what you need to do as far
10 as that bulkhead is concerned. I am
11 assuming that the ( In Audible) are going to
12 go underneath the piling cap .
13 MR. ANDERSON : Right .
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : They can be gotten
15 to just by cement in there and you wouldn ' t
16 upset the structural integrity of that
17 building one bit .
18 MR. ANDERSON : That ' s correct .
19 MEMBER DINIZIO : You know, if 40 or
20 50 years from now --
21 MR. ANDERSON : To be honest with
22 you, if 50 years from now, this is a
23 fiberglass sheathing material . So its even
24 more stronger and long lasting then what
25 you see in the bulkheads . Even if I had to
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 75
1 replace it, I wouldn ' t jack-hammer through
2 the floor . I would position it, you know,
3 in between the pilings that support the
4 foundation. It wouldn ' t even be that
5 difficult .
6 MEMBER DINIZIO : So we ' re looking at
7 a much better environmental situation then
8 what we have currently?
9 MR. ANDERSON : Yes .
10 MEMBER DINIZIO : That ' s all I have .
11 The drywell, you ' re going to do the
12 drywell?
13 MR. ANDERSON : Yes .
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : That ' s all I have .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, we have
16 all inspected the site . It ' s preexisting .
17 It ' s the only logical place that you can
18 put that storage/office . You will still
19 have to go through site plan approval for
20 other aspects of this application . I don ' t
21 have any questions .
22 Does anyone else on the Board have
23 any questions or comments?
24 MEMBER HORNING: Are there restroom
25 facilities in there for the employees?
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 76
1 MR. ANDERSON : Yes .
2 MEMBER HORNING: And that has its
3 own septic system?
4 MR. ANDERSON : Yes, we ' re proposing
5 it ' s own septic system. Quite honestly,
6 the septic system is way oversize for the
7 use, that is because in the Health
8 Department world. There is a design flow
9 that is assigned to the storage components ,
10 the shop components . What in real life,
11 the storage of boats doesn ' t generate
12 sewage . It ' s just dry storage . There is a
13 restaurant on the property. It ' s actually
14 access the line in the Village, and that is
15 served by its own septic system.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken, -any
17 questions?
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anyone in the
22 audience that would like to address this
23 application?
24 (No Response . )
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 77
1 further comments , I will make a motion to
2 close this hearing and reserve decision to
3 a later date .
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
6 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
8 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
11 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
12 *******************************************
13 HEARING #6580 .- FRANCIS D ' HAENE
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
15 application before the Board is for Francis
16 D ' Haene, #6580 . Request for variance from
17 Article III Code Section 280-15 and the
18 Building Inspector ' s May 21 , 2012 Notice of
19 Disapproval based on an application for
20 building permit for an "as built" accessory
21 in-ground swimming pool : 1) "as built"
22 in-ground swimming pool is located in a
23 location other than the code required rear
24 yard, located at : 8555 Main Bayview,
25 Southold.
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 78
1 Hello .
2 MR. LAIRD: James Laird for the
3 applicant .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Spell your
5 last name, please?
6 MR. LAIRD : Laird, L-A-I-R-D.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you . We
8 have some green cards missing . Do you have
9 any more? Five is actually what we ' re
10 missing.
11 MR. LAIRD : I have two .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Then we will
13 take those two then. The Notice of
14 Disapproval indicates that the "as-built"
15 accessory swimming pool is actually in the
16 side yard and is required to be in the rear
17 yard.
18 MR. LAIRD: Right .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Tell us what
20 you would like us to know?
21 MR. LAIRD: Francis D ' Haene and his
22 wife bought the property in March 1 , 2002 .
23 They then built a swimming pool on the
24 property directly behind house without a
25 building permit obviously. He built the
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 79
1 pool in what he thought was a compliant
2 matter . There is plenty of space between
3 the pool and the rear lot line, but in
4 order for the pool to be parallel to the
5 back of the house, and therefore, ended up
6 building the pool partially in the side
7 yard. Less than 500 of the pool is in the
8 side yard. He is now seeking to legalize
9 the pool in order to put the property on
10 the market .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken, '
12 questions?
13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Can you describe
14 the adjoining properties and their location
15 of their houses?
16 MR. LAIRD : The lot lines are very
17 well forced. The property to the east of
18 the D ' Haene ' s, there is a framed garage and
19 a food area that is right up next to the
20 lot line, but the house is approximately 75
21 to 100 feet away from the lot line to the
22 east . To the west, I couldn ' t see a house
23 from the property itself . I drove past it,
24 but I couldn ' t really see it .
25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: To the rear?
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 80
1 MR. LAIRD : And to the rear, there
2 are two properties . Both probably have
3 about 20 feet of trees in the way, but the
4 properties are probably 50 feet from the
5 lot line .
6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No further
7 questions at this time .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
9 MEMBER HORNING: In this 2002 time
10 period is when you say the pool was built,
11 how is it that they did not consider that
12 they needed a permit to build a pool?
13 MR. LAIRD : I am not particularly
14 sure .
15 MR. ANDERSON : Bruce Anderson,
16 Suffolk Environmental . Pools are often
17 built and without a permit, they ' re usually
18 are done -- a contractor is hired and the
19 contractor will advise -- should advise and
20 should have advised the applicant that a
21 permit was required. Apparently that
22 didn ' t happen. I do not think that we
23 should expect these property owners to be
24 experts in zoning . Quite honestly, the
25 noncompliance that we ' re talking about
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 81
1 here, for purposes of zoning, is really an
2 issue of technical noncompliance, and it ' s
3 because there is a deck off the back of the
4 house . When you draw a line parallel to
5 the northwest corner of that deck, you will
6 find a portion of this pool falls within
7 that area . And that is what makes it a
8 technical side yard. I have a drawing here
9 to share with you . Probably, a greater
10 importance here is the fact that the pool
11 more than complies with the applicable
12 setback of the property lines . If you look
13 at this survey, you will see that that deck
14 is one step up to the deck. So that is
15 what causes this ( In Audible) .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would
17 appear from this survey, although you just
18 testified that it ' s less than 50o in the
19 side yard. It ' s not that much -- it looks
20 as though it ' s tecnically in a side yard,
21 what we would call the architectural rear
22 yard. The dwelling itself is not very wide .
23 The other way, the pool would probably be
24 more in the rear yard. Most of the pool is
25 in the side yard.
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 82
1 MEMBER HORNING: How do you
2 determine what angle to put that line?
3 MR. ANDERSON : It runs parallel to
4 the property.
5 MEMBER HORNING : Parallel, okay.
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Bruce . When I
7 was there, I noticed the survey, which
8 indicates a wire fence where the deck of
9 the fence is, does that fence exist? Is
10 the pool fully enclosed?
11 MR. ANDERSON : Yes .
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I could not see .
13 MR. LAIRD: Yes . There is a
14 relatively new wrought iron fence that
15 surrounds the pool .
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is it all
17 wrought iron now? It says on the survey
18 that it ' s wire?
19 MEMBER HORNING: The wrought iron
20 runs along the front of the pool facing the
21 house .
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But the portion
23 that you can ' t see, is it existing?
24 MR. ANDERSON : Yes .
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you .
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 83
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just for the
2 record, I am going to correct what I just
3 said. I now see how the Building
4 Department has decided where the rear yard
5 lot line is from the corner of the house .
6 So based on that determination, it would be
7 as you stated about 500 . Does anyone have
8 any questions?
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there
11 anyone in the audience that wishes to
12 address this application?
13 (No Response . )
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
15 further comments , I will make amotion to
16 close the hearing and reserve decision to a
17 later date .
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
20 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
22 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye .
25 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 84
2 HEARING #6583 - JAMES AND EILEEN
3 FLAHERTY
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
5 application before the Board is for Vincent
6 and Eileen Flaherty, #6583 . Request for
7 variances from Article XXII Code Section
8 280-116 and Article III Code Section 280-15
9 based on an application for building permit
10 and the Building Inspector ' s April 30 , 2012
11 Notice of Disapproval concerning permit to
12 construct additions and alterations to a
13 single family dwelling, at 1 ) proposed
14 construction at less than the code required
15 bulkhead setback of 75 feet, 2 ) upon
16 construction accessory garage will be
17 located in other than the code required
18 rear yard, located at : 470 Inlet Way,
19 adjacent to Fairhaven Inlet, the Inlet and
20 Little Peconic Bay, Southold.
21 MS . MOORE : Good afternoon .
22 Patricia Moore on behalf of Mr . & Mrs .
23 Flaherty . Mrs . Flaherty was hospitalized,
24 so they couldn ' t be here . They were
25 planning on both being here . I have Tom
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 85
1 Samuels who is the architect professional,
2 and he and I , are both available to answer
3 questions .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Before you get
5 started, I just want to make sure you have
6 a copy of the LWRP?
7 MS . MOORE : No, I don ' t .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me give
9 you that .
10 MS . MOORE : Thank you . Okay. This
11 is what we can do, we can talk about it and
12 address --
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure . I think
14 that would be a good idea .
15 MS . MOORE : If I may start, their
16 application is six alterations of what
17 appears to be the permit history, of this
18 property. Beginning in 178 , it most likely
19 was a preexisting summer cottage, summer
20 occupancy. One family dwelling, summer
21 occupancy. I am not sure what that exactly
22 means , but nonetheless, that is what the
23 first permit appears . Then in ' 86, the
24 in-ground pool and deck add was
25 constructed. I 'm sorry, 183, there were
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 86
1 two permits . One for alterations and
2 repairs and another add to a one family
3 dwelling under two separate permit numbers .
4 Thereafter -- I 'm sorry, in ' 98 , they
5 enclosed an existed unheated porch and was
6 screened, and then finally in 2001 , an add
7 and alteration to an existing dwelling . I
8 believe at that point, the third floor
9 space, the standard -- may have been added.
10 The results of those permits is that the
11 existing house really is a -- I am going to
12 use a previous applicant ' s description, a
13 "conglomeration" , I think we used before .
14 Permits and construction kind of seasonal
15 -- I don ' t want to say "seasonal, " because
16 it ' s heated. Additions to the
17 architectural design . They ' re trying to
18 correct that now. They have Tom Samuels,
19 who I am sure will do a beautiful job .
20 They have a design plan that tries to
21 correct some of the additions and put it
22 all under a properly designed structure .
23 The parcel itself is unique in the Cedar
24 Beach Park subdivision. This is a 1927
25 map . This property consist of the end of
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 87
1 the road to the inlet, which is Lot Number
i
2 on the subdivision, 92 , and then from part
3 of Lot 93 , 94 and 95 . So it is the end of
4 the line of lots that go from midway of
5 the road to the inlet, midway inlet . The
6 property has bulkheads along the waterfront
7 portion, that is inlet portion . Then it
8 has -- on the Cedar side, it ' s natural
9 beach . A natural beach that has developed
10 along Peconic Bay. Along Fairhaven Inlet,
11 it is mostly natural . There is a small
12 wood deck in the Fairhaven Inlet, which is
13 used by this property owner. That is a
14 very natural landscaped and very natural
15 looking . The -- this proposal will not
16 change the character of the neighborhood.
17 The neighborhood is an older neighborhood
18 of renovated homes , newer homes, and some
19 older homes that have been over the years
20 converted to year round homes typically
21 from their summer occupancy to year round
22 homes . The use of this property and the
23 feasibility of this project was -- what was
24 brought to light was the flood zone issues .
25 That became the problem child of this
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 88
1 project . When I got involved, I began by
2 reviewing the flood regulations . The flood
3 zone regulations, and what was the --
4 complication here is the existing house is
5 in flood zone X, which means it is not in a
6 flood zone . The elevation flood zone
7 bisects the existing garage, and the --
8 when a flood zone -- there are two flood
9 zones . One higher than the other . Under
10 the flood regulations , it brings the entire
11 regulations to the more restrictive flood
12 zone . So with the not being in a flood
13 zone, is put into an AE-6 flood zone, due
14 to the fact that the line is bisecting the
15 garage, which happens to be a connected
16 garage to the existing house . Any project
17 that deals with zoning issues, let ' s avoid
18 going to the Zoning Board. Let ' s avoid
19 variances . So I began with contacting the
20 DEC flood zone guru who is Erick Starr -- I
21 take it back. I began by looking at my
22 Town Code, noticing that under Town Code
23 145 , if you look at their old applications
24 under 145 , when the flood zone was first
25 adopted in the 801s, and I think
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 89
1 Mr. Goehringer will remember some of the --
2 I don ' t know if Mr . Dinizio was part of the
3 Board at that time, but in the early 80 ' s
4 when the flood zone ordinance was adopted,
5 there was a provision in the ordinance for
6 variances , and it appears that on several
7 occasions, people came in -- particularly
8 with existing homes that somebody put
9 themselves -- got themselves into a flood
10 zone, came into the Zoning Board and sought
11 variances for it . For the most part given
12 the fact that we ' re presented here,
13 typically, a variance would be granted. So
14 I approached that possibility first, but
15 before I advised the client on should we go
16 to the Zoning Board and ask for a variance
17 in the flood zone in order to keep the
18 structure just as it is , but the client
19 would prefer to keep the garage and the
20 house connected. That was the -- if they
21 could raise a magic wand, that was the
22 . preference . My job was to see if there is
23 any way that they could accomplish that .
24 Before I start to advise the client, I
25 contacted the DEC, and that is when I
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 90
1 contacted Mr . Erik Starr, who is the guru
2 of Flood Zone Regulations, and he and I had
3 a nice conversation, and he said, yes,
4 there was a possibility of variances but
5 the variances would not only be under Town
6 Code 145 , I ' d also have to go for State
7 variances under the State Code, Building
8 Code, because it ' s all interrelated. And
9 while it would be possible to make that
10 application, he and I had a theoretical
11 discussion about right now, having a
12 variance on the Flood Zone, you could still
13 obtain flood insurance, but given the state
14 of the economy, insurance is becoming more
15 and more difficult, and budgets are
16 becoming more and more tight . It is very
17 likely that flood insurance is going to
18 start getting tighten, and to the extent
19 that a home gets flooded with variances , it
20 would be very likely, and given the
21 scenario if things remained the way that
22 they are, that certain homes may be taken
23 out of the flood insurance program, that
24 subsidizes flood insurance . All of us or
25 anyone who lives near the water has flood
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 91
1 insurance and the flood insurance rates are
2 subsidized and are very reasonable . If
3 that was not in place, flood insurance
4 would have to be gone to the private market
5 and would be extremely expensive, if at all
6 available, and even the federal program,
7 they' re looking at the regulations and
8 looking at the pricing of flood insurance,
9 the pricing may change . So that was our
10 theoretical discussion . Obviously, he does
11 not have the crystal ball, but given the
12 scenario and the economy, and the insurance
13 regulations as they were, I think the end
14 result of our conversation was, wow, we
15 could get a variance but we could really
16 hurt the client . We could really impact
17 their ability to finance down the line .
18 Financing is dependant on getting flood
19 insurance . It is a really uncertain
20 scenario . So that option really came off
21 the table . And I said, you know what, I
22 know I can do the variances and they would
23 be significant basis for it . That is
24 really not an option . That is against my
25 part as an attorney to advise a client in
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 92
1 the right direction. So that being said,
2 and I apologize for the long winded, but it
3 is really a complicated scenario . That
4 brought us back to the initial application,
5 which Tom and the Building Department have
6 approached, which was to disconnect the
7 existing garage, which is in the flood
8 zone, which the owner does not intend to do
9 anything with the garage . Carry this
10 structure as a garage with living space
11 above . That connection of the roof line
12 that connects the garage, which is a very
13 formal significant roof, would have to be
14 cut off from the existing house . That I
15 actually approached, again with Erik Starr
16 to verify and he said, yes . You could --
17 as long as you disconnect it, they don ' t
18 care what the disconnection entails . It
19 could be a foot . It could be an inch. As
20 long as its physically, structurally
21 disconnected, we ' re all right with the
22 flood insurance regulations . So what we
23 have requested at this time is to
24 disconnect the roof and I think we -- Tom
25 can talk about the different alternatives
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 93
1 on that . If you want to have it looked
2 ' with the trellis not being physically
3 connected to the structure but visually,
4 retaining that look. Nonetheless , because
5 it ' s not a physical structure connection,
6 we feel the garage is in a technical side
7 yard. As far as the improvements to the
8 house and the setbacks to the bulkhead, the
9 house is remaining . It ' s a renovation, and
10 I think Tom is to provide you with the
11 details of the alterations and renovations .
12 At least from my understanding, the Board
13 felt comfortable that the work that was
14 beng done was not a demolition but a
15 renovation. I think -- I am happy to
16 address any additional comments with
17 respect to the granting of an area
18 variance . I believe we have -- at least
19 in my writing, I present all the basis for
20 it . I am sure you have questions, and I
21 rather address your questions then
22 elaborate on what is already written . So I
23 am happy to proceed with questions?
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we
25 should begin by simply looking at what is
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 94
1 the proposed, a 15 ' 0 . 8 " setback from the
2 bulkhead where the code requires 75 feet .
3 Th-e removal between the house and the roof
4 creates an accessory garage in a side yard,
5 where the code requires this in a rear
6 yard. So that is what is in the Notice of
7 Disapproval . The removal of the
8 attachment, although the attachment is
9 pretty flimsy, but back in the day that was
10 considered an attachment, the roof that is
11 there . Once that is removed, not only is
12 the garage in the side yard, but we have to
13 address the fact that there is habitable
14 space above it , which comes into a -- I
15 want to say a two bedroom, full bath and
16 sitting room on the second floor and a
17 1/2 bath and laundry space on the first
18 floor, which was deemed to be acceptable
19 with a CO when it was attached.
20 MS . MOORE : Correct .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now, however,
22 that preexisting is a question as a
23 consequential removal of that attachment,
24 because the code is different . The other
25 thing that I would like to take a look at
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 95
1 is the fact that the survey shows the
2 corner of that accessory garage is
3 apparently located in some sort of a
4 right-of-way, and we need to understand
5 what is going on with that right-of-way .
6 Who owns it?
7 MS . MOORE : Okay.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: How does that
9 work?
10 MS . MOORE : Okay. Well --
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let ' s start
12 with those two .
13 MS . MOORE : Okay. Let me start with
14 the access of the road. The property --
15 Cedar Beach is an old subdivision . As I
16 said 1927 , subdivision . I have the 1926
17 map . I think you might I have -- I printed
18 it and it ' s in your packet . It ' s a reduced
19 version, if not, I can certainly provide
20 it . Cedar Beach Road is a private road,
21 and the roads -- it ' s always been a
22 question of whether they remained private,
23 all the homeowners be attached to the
24 center line of the road, but the roads , if
25 you go back and search the title history,
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 96
1 still remained in the original developers,
2 but the homeowners couldn ' t get a hold of
3 that original developer . That developer,
4 long gone and died and disappeared. I
5 actually know this for a fact because I did
6 the research and tried to find the
7 ownership of the roads of Cedar beach. We
8 were able to find one, the developers were
9 two gentlemen. When they passed away, by.
10 way of inheritance, the wives became the
11 owners of the corporation . I actually
12 found one of the wives and got a quick
13 claim deed to the association under one of
14 the developers wives . For the sake that
15 the association will own more -- will own a
16 portion so that there is some ownership
17 interest in the road. So at that time,
18 there were private roads in a subdivision
19 and certainly the homeowners, the roads are
20 maintained privately. They ' re maintained
21 by the association and the association was
22 created some time after the development
23 occurred. In the meantime, the homeowners
24 in their deeds still had ownership at some
25 point . How -- this was done . This was
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 97
1 provided a CO. It was my clients who bought
2 the property. It has been in place -- I am
3 thinking which CO may have built the house
4 and the garage . Certainly, I think it was
5 the 1983 permits that ultimately built the
6 garage . I don ' t have the whole packet in
7 front of me, but I believe that is when the
8 garage may have been built . So the garage
9 has been there and it continues to be
10 there . As I said, the roof connection, the
11 breezeway connection that was built and is
12 what takes this garage and creates a
13 nonconformity. I don ' t know what the
14 Building Department wants us to do . We
15 have a building permit to disconnect it .
16 The original structure is not having any
17 alterations being made to it . There really
18 is no building permit associated with any
19 changes to the garage . It ' s -- I think
20 it ' s one of those very unique situations
21 where the Zoning Board may have to put some
22 language in there due to the fact the
23 garage was built . It ' s been there and it
24 hs a C of 0 and that the intended use will
25 continue as before . There is not much more
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 98
1 we can do about it, without alternatively
.2 abandoning this project, which means that
3 the house for the most part, we could be
4 looking at a completely different project
5 and that -- they have tried to keep this
6 project to a relatively reasonable
7 renovation. If you seen the pool and the
8 deck and so on, the entire property outside
9 is beautifully landscaped patio . They
10 don ' t want to touch that . They don ' t want
11 to create such disturbance around the house
12 that would disturb the very expensive
13 landscaping, pool and renovation that was
14 done in the last few years , I would say.
15 So aside from each property owner owning to
16 the half way point, Inlet Way is the
17 roadway that ends , but that road was
18 intended for access to Lots 94 , 95 and 92 .
19 At this point, it is all owned by the same
20 individual . So the intense of this
21 roadway, it ' s limited access . Dead-end
22 access . The community beach is the road,
23 which shows a 50 foot going to Peconic Bay.
24 So as a matter of what the laws are with
25 respect to roads in a subdivision, they
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 99
1 give access to the property owner to a
2 public road, and the only ones who would be
3 using this end would be this property
4 owner . There would be no way building a
5 road on Inlet Way -- either now or in the
6 last 20 years, due to the environmental
7 regulations . You just wouldn ' t be able to
8 do it . The paper road was a dead-end.
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It ' s really an
10 existing driveway.
11 MS . MOORE : Well, it ' s the clients
12 driveway.
13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But it ' s on a
14 plat . So this would be on a plat as part
15 of the subdivision . Just because people
16 don ' t use it, it still exist . What is also
17 very interesting about this is that these
18 roads are not taxed. So therefore if
19 they ' re not taxed, there is a particular
20 reason why the Tax Assessor ' s have not
21 taxed them.
22 MS . MOORE : Actually, yes there is .
23 The homeowners , when you have a subdivision
24 home, rather than have the road be taxed
25 and licensed to be lost if they were
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 100
1 failure to pay taxes, each homeowner is
2 assessed their proportionment road lineage
3 --
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Very similar to
5 a condo project .
6 MS . MOORE : Yes .
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Like a co-op .
8 That all changed about 10 or 12 years ago .
9 MS . MOORE : So it ' s to not create
10 these roads -- to create more problems .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In the field
12 you wouldn ' t be able to find --
13 MS . MOORE : Right . It ' s all
14 wetlands .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Very
16 vegetated.
17 MS . MOORE : Right . And in fact,
18 Fairhaven Inlet, for the most part
19 encroaches onto what would be Inlet Way.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : My question
21 is, and if I heard you correctly, your
22 argument would be that regardless of
23 whatever details would be about ownership,
24 the corner of the garage is in that portion
25 of the right-of-way that would have been
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 101
1 deeded over to private ownership -- to the
2 property owner anyway?
3 MS . MOORE : Correct .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So even that
5 portion --
6 MS . MOORE : Yes , it ' s in the center
7 line portion of the road. And again, as
8 you point out, it ' s a paper road without
9 any possibility of being approved due to
10 the environmental constraints .
11 MEMBER HORNING: Who is maintaining
12 it?
13 MS . MOORE : The driveway portion?
14 This is maintained by this property owner,
15 the driveway.
16 MEMBER HORNING : The whole thing?
17 MS . MOORE : Yes, it ' s - if you look
18 at the survey, the private entrance begins .
19 where -- actually, there is an existing
20 utility pole probably at the beginning of
21 the property, and the gravel driveway runs
22 from Inlet Way, south into the Flaherty
23 property, then the circular driveway with
24 the rest of the property of the north,
25 adjacent to Fairhaven Inlet , flagged
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 102
1 wetlands and natural vegetation .
2 MEMBER HORNING: That half of the
3 right-of-way, is that deeded to the Cedar
4 Beach Association?
5 MS . MOORE : It was never deeded.
6 That was the problem. Cedar Beach, I want
7 to call it, assumed ownership through
8 membership . They wanted to collect money
9 for the road improvements and insurance
10 like that, but they have had problems with
11 some of the owners in the subdivision not
12 contributing . There was -- there was no
13 deed into Cedar Beach . I was able to get
14 one of the owners of the developer, to give
15 a deed of Cedar Beach . It only occurred in
16 the last five years .
17 MEMBER HORNING : Who is maintaining
18 the bulkhead to the dock and everything
19 like that?
20 MS . MOORE : The owners are
21 maintaining their own bulkhead and docks .
22 So Mr . & Mrs . Flaherty maintain their
23 own water, bulkhead. Their own gravel
24 driveway. And the only areas-- the roadway
25 system to the extent that they ' re not
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 103
1 absorbed by a property, are maintained by
2 the association dues . The Water Authority
3 actually came in and put public water in
4 and they actually benefitted. The water
5 was able to repair the roads . The
6 association does collect dues for the
7 maintenance of the roads and that kind of
8 thing .
9 MEMBER HORNING: Down to this little
10 50 foot wide right-of-way going down to the
11 bay, the Cedar Beach Association maintains
12 that and beyond that is considered --
13 MS . MOORE : Private .
14 MEMBER HORNING: Private .
15 MS . MOORE : That inlet, when you go
16 up there, you see the little access way bn
17 the right,. It ' s a little retaining wall,
18 the bulkhead. You step over it to get to
19 the beach. So even that area is not a road
20 per se, like the Town road. This is
21 bulkheaded and then the community beach is
22 there .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat, let ' s
24 just go back to the habitable space for a
25 moment .
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 104
1 MS . MOORE : Yep .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I read in your
3 application that the applicant is not
4 interested in applying for an accessory
5 apartment in an accessory structure . You
6 know, I understand the family generally
7 uses it when the family is visiting it .
8 MS . MOORE : There is lots of
9 children .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We need to
11 explore what consequences of that action
12 would be, because again, this is
13 attachment . There is habitable space . You
14 know, unless we can find some reason for
15 continuing, other than the fact that the
16 applicant would like to have it . I do
17 understand what you ' re saying that it would
18 put an economic hardship if it remains
19 attached. I am sure the building will look
20 aesthetically pleasing whether it ' s
21 attached or detached, either way. This
22 Board has to look at what that would mean,
23 and the potential consequences with regard
24 to precedent . There are probable other
25 circumstances in the Town ( In Audible)
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 105
1 it ' s unusual but I know that it is out
2 there .
3 MS . MOORE : I am sure .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So where do we
5 go with that? Have you discussed with the
6 applicant about the removal of that space
7 on the second floor as habitable space?
8 MR. SAMUELS : Yes . Tom Samuels,
9 architect for the applicant . Yes, they ' re
10 not interested in removing that space, if
11 they can avoid it in any way. I will
12 address the idea, although we ' re removing a
13 breezeway covering by the code, that is not
14 considered an attachment . It would need to
15 be a heated attachment now. I know they
16 have a CO that predates . We ' re not
17 substantially changing that situation, as
18 far as attachment is concerned. It does
19 not meet the code today for attachment, and
20 not in the future . We ' re just altering
21 that roof covering. These two structures
22 are not connected by code .
23 MS . MOORE : That is a very good
24 point . If it doesn ' t meet the code as an
25 attachment, then we ' re not changing its
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 106
1 status . Then it ' s preexisting and stays
2 preexisting. I guess in a sense, we ' re
3 making it more nonconforming as we ' re
4 taking away the appearance of it being an
5 attachment, but we couldn ' t build it today
6 as an attachment . It would have to be
7 breezeway that is not more than ten feet .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That ' s right .
9 MS . MOORE : Or an enclosure .
10 MR. SAMUELS : For that reason, I
11 don ' t think that we ' re increasing the
12 nonconformity. To the same extent, we
13 would, if we were literally attaching a
14 house to the two . They are not
15 fundamentally attached.
16 MEMBER HORNING: I think the issue
17 is , when it was built, it was conforming.
18 MS . MOORE : Exactly.
19 MEMBER HORNING : Didn ' t you say you
20 have a CO on it?
21 MS . MOORE : Yes .
22 MEMBER HORNING : By doing what
23 you ' re doing, you ' re removing the CO .
24 You ' re detaching the building and you have
25 no CO for it anymore . So you ' re changing
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 107
1 it?
2 MR. SAMUELS : Correct, but we ' re
3 also trying to make a point that in
4 rational terms, we ' re not changing the
5 situation, even though yes --
6 MS . MOORE : But also keep in mind
7 there is a balancing act in the standards
8 and there are compelling reasons under the
9 flood regulations to support the yes, we ' re
10 turning an existing garage into a
11 nonconforming garage,. but the balancing of
12 the weight of the interest are to make
13 improvements to a house that definitely
14 need improvements . Alternatively, we have
15 to demolish the house, because you would
16 have to raise the house to the AE-6 Flood
17 Regulations .
18 MEMBER HORNING: Even though you say
19 to yourself, the house is not in the flood
20 zone?
21 MS . MOORE : Right .
22 MEMBER HORNING: But the attached
23 garage is .
24 MS . MOORE : Correct . A portion of
25 it .
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 108
1 MEMBER HORNING: A portion of it .
2 Even though you ' re calling it on a survey
3 an accessory building already, when
4 actually it ' s an attached garage?
5 MR. SAMUELS : I think by that level
6 of attachment, FEMA considers it attached.
7 And alterative, what we have explored was
8 to raise the house or reconstruct, to meet
9 the requirements of the flood plain . Just
10 to raise that house, I think we would be
11 back here, and I think you would say we ' re
12 just trying to avoid the CO and it ' s not
13 really attached. We ' re saying, no, we
14 don ' t want to touch this . We want to leave
15 it the way that it is, but we need to
16 detach it in order to make it FEMA
17 regulations . And then you ' re going to say
18 you need a variance for that . So we
19 understand that we probably need a variance
20 either way. I am just saying -- just
21 bringing that to your attention from a
22 logical standpoint . I think that we ' re
23 making less of an impact here .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just
25 ask a question . When you own the rights to
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 109
1 the middle of the road in right-of-way in
2 the community, it ' s my understanding the
3 community still has a right to use it .
4 Now, do you think that you can get a letter
5 from the Homeowners Association of some
6 sort indicating that they ' re okay that the
7 garage is partially in that right-of-way or
8 can we get a copy of the deed or title of
9 the road?
10 MS . MOORE : With permission of the
11 association, because I was representing
12 them at the time, I can contact them. I
13 have the titles that say who the owners
14 were . There is a deed. It hasn ' t been
15 recorded because we ' re aren ' t in agreement
16 yet . I had both Westlake and Cedar Beach
17 get it, because they were both out of the
18 same developers . There is never an
19 agreement . So you have a deed. The fact
20 that it ' s not recorded, is irrelevant .
21 It ' s a deed. So yes , I can ask them if
22 it ' s all right, if I share that with you .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Because at
24 least we would have some documentation .
25 MS . MOORE : Right .
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 110
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where it sits
2 at the moment .
3 MS . MOORE : I will do what I can to
4 get something. Something from them.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let ' s take a
6 look at some of the environmental --
7 MS . MOORE : What I can also do is
8 give you their title report, because they
9 bought it .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That ' s fine .
11 MS . MOORE : I don ' t know if there
12 was an exception or not, but nobody noticed
13 it . Put it that way.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The only
15 thing, the deed ( In Audible) the middle of
16 the road.
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Couldn ' t you do
18 a blanketed ( In Audible) action as an
19 association against the developer? Saying
20 that we have adverse --
21 MS . ANDALORO : They' re not around
22 anymore .
23 MS . MOORE : He ' s gone . I was able
24 to get a deed from Toter, I think is the
25 name . Toter is the wife of one of the
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 111
1 developers . So I was able to get a deed
ti
2 for the association.
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You could still
4 do it even though that person is no longer
5 living?
6 MS . MOORE : Yes . But chasing it
7 down, getting children involved. The fact
8 that I spoke to the woman. This developer
9 in 1927 had done other developments in the
10 Town. Every once in a while they would get
11 a telephone call, "hey, do you have a deed
12 over the road?" And she would say, talk to
13 my lawyer . I don ' t want to bother . I was
14 able to talk to her and Cedar Beach is
15 familiar with it . We would like to
16 maintain the road. We want to have more
17 legal title than just an association
18 because you know, people don ' t want to pay
19 their association dues . Then they start
20 coming up with excuses on why they
21 shouldn ' t pay. "You don ' t own it . So why
22 should I pay you. " That kind of thing . So
23 to avoid that issue . I said one deed is
24 better than none .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there any
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 112
1 proposal to change the existing bulkhead?
2 MR. SAMUELS : No, except for these
3 two little sections that you have noticed
4 on the left hand side, which are far away
5 from the bulkhead as we constructed them.
6 The only place in where we alter that to an
7 open porched roof, which is not intending
8 to be closed in any way facing the bay,
9 which you see there to some existing deck.
10 So we ' re within the existing footprints .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : While you ' re
12 up there Tom, the drywell, is that in the
13 flood zone or not?
14 MR. SAMUELS : They' re in the X as
15 well . They' re supposed to be within the X.
16 Of course there would be a complete slip
17 with anything of this new project .
18 MS . MOORE : Actually, I would say we
19 have to move some to the north side . They
20 appear to be on the line . But do drywell ' s
21 matter in the flood zone?
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes . It is
23 one of the things that is in the LWRP that
24 I wanted to clarify. Clarify the location
25 of the waterline to the proposed drywell
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 113
i
1 location and relocating the drywell ' s out
2 of the AE-16 flood zone .
3 MS . MOORE : That is not a problem.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right . So
5 we need you to do that . Is there a pool
6 dewatering drywell on the property?
7 MR. SAMUELS : Not aware of it .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : On the site,
9 there is none shown.
10 MS . MOORE : The in-ground pool was
11 built in ' 86 . Probably not, given that it
12 was built in ' 86 . We can ask, maybe the
13 one that is to the north, as providing for
14 an overflow.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is going
16 to come up anyway.
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: One of the big
18 issues here is that this a gunite pool, I
19 didn ' t investigate that . If it ' s a liner
20 pool, you ' re not taking this pool out
21 because of the hydrostatic pressure of the
22 water coming up . That is one of the issues
23 that you have to figure out .
24 MR. SAMUELS : We can get you an
25 answer . I am not sure either .
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 114
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: A
2 recommendation of the LWRP because the
3 environmental is sensitive, is prohibition
4 of applying fertilizer, herbicide and
5 pesticide on the lawn area?
6 MS . MOORE : I don ' t see that as an
7 area . The landscaped plan that they have
8 is amazing and natural . It ' s very natural .
9 Mr . Tricano (phonetic) uses it as his
10 advertisement in the Suffolk Times . I
11 don ' t know if you have noticed.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The property
13 has a 15 foot buffer; however, taking into
14 consideration that you ' re proposing, though
15 there was no recommendation to decrease the
16 existing vegetative buffer . Okay. Does
17 the Board have any other questions or
18 comments at this time?
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have a couple
20 of clarifications . With respect to flood
21 insurance, because part of the dwelling
22 exist in an AE-6, that brings the whole
23 house into the AE-6?
24 MS . MOORE : Yes . I couldn ' t believe
25 it . I even asked Mr . Starr .
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 115
1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So you propose to
2 sever that part of the dwelling and then
3 make it as an accessory structure?
4 MS . MOORE : Yeah.
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Now, part of that
6 proposed accessory structure will be in a
7 AE-6?
8 MS . MOORE : I think you still have
9 to keep flood insurance in place .
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: But you would
11 have to get flood insurance for that
12 particular piece of the property?
13 MS . MOORE : Typically, if it
14 touches . If there is a bank involved, they
15 make you have flood insurance . I have to
16 believe that -- I am sure they have it now .
17 I am sure they would keep it to the extent
18 that it is available to them for what would
19 become of an accessory building .
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And then that
21 proposal, that would reduce the premium
22 charge on the main dwelling, right? But
23 you would still have to get flood insurance
24 for this new accessory structure?
25 MS . MOORE : Yes . I would assume .
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 116
1 Flood insurance is so subsidized. I have
2 no -- my property touches the flood zone
3 and I know my house is out of it . The
4 flood insurance rates are like $400 . 00
5 year. It ' s really minimal, for me . I
6 don ' t know what they would have to pay.
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: They would still
8 have to get flood insurance for that
9 proposed accessory structure?
10 MS . MOORE : I would think so .
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Separate and
12 distinct from the dwelling?
13 MS . MOORE : Yes .
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So the real
15 difficulty here is the up charge in the
16 premium by having part of this existing
17 dwelling in the AE-6?
18 MS . MOORE : No . It ' s just the
19 premium. That ' s just a little extra money
20 to pay on the premium. The difficulty is ,
21 you can ' t make improvements to an -- to the
22 house . It makes the house an X, which is
23 out of the flood zone . It treats it as an
24 AE-6 . So now your finished floor elevation
25 must be elevated above two feet above the
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 117
1 flood elevation, which essentially your
2 house has to be elevated to AE-8 .
3 MR. SAMUELS : Yes .
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. So that
5 little portion of the dwelling is the
6 hardship?
7 MS . MOORE : Yes . The house making
8 it conform to flood elevations would
9 trigger a completely degree of
10 improvements . They would be limited in
11 what they were planning on doing . It would
12 be more than the 50% , but less than 100% .
13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: There is nothing
14 proposed for the proposed accessory
15 building, separate from the dwelling, so
16 therefore it would not be required to meet
17 the AE-6?
18 MS . MOORE : Yes .
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The Board' s
20 concern the livable space that you have in
21 that newly created structure .
22 MR. SAMUELS : Right . There is no
23 kitchen. I will make that point . It is
24 not a stand alone dwelling .
25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Two bedrooms,
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 118
1 sitting room, bathroom and no kitchen?
2 MR. SAMUELS : Correct .
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Is there one
4 proposed?
5 MR. SAMUELS : They don ' t want a
6 kitchen . That is not what they' re looking
7 to do .
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I just wanted to
9 be clear . Thank you. I have no more
10 questions .
11 MR. SAMUELS : I just wanted to be
12 clear one thing that had to do with the
13 tower, it was originally constructed and
14 intended to have a mezzanine, less than 30%
15 of the area of the space, and it was after
16 the fact, with the previous owner, that was
17 imposed. That was enclosed and this became
18 an illegal first story. It is now a
19 proposal to remove that complete . To
20 remove that nonconformity complete . Not to
21 open up and just to get rid of it . I just
22 wanted to make that clear . That has been
23 used as a bedroom in the past . And so
24 we ' re in fact decreasing the number of
25 bedrooms . So we ' re in a sense, we ' re
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 119
1 maintaining the legal number of bedrooms .
2 We' re not increasing the number of
3 bedrooms . I just wanted to make that
4 point .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you,
6 Tom.
7 Is there anyone else in the audience
8 that would like to address this
9 application?
10 (No Response . )
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
12 further --
13 MEMBER HORNING: I do .
14 MS . MOORE : Do you have another
15 questions?
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sounds like he
17 does .
18 MEMBER HORNING: In looking through
19 your area variance reasons , and again it
20 just mentions eliminating the third room,
21 which is part of your reasoning in number
22 one . Eliminating a nonconforming third
23 floor is beneficial to your application .
24 You have a comment, the existing structure
25 has "little curve appeal . "
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 120
1 MS . MOORE : It ' s ugly. Really, the
2 house is a vinyl siding . It ' s all gray
3 vinyl siding . Very little character,
4 architectural design. That third floor box
5 on top really has no relation to the rest
6 of the house . Probably the best looking
7 part of the house is the garage because you
8 know, that has a more normal roof line and
9 attractive .
10 MEMBER HORNING: And then it says
11 the proposed renovation is intended to
12 improve the architectural style of the
13 existing house and it will be made to
14 conform to the character of the
15 neighborhood.
16 MS . MOORE : Yes .
17 MEMBER HORNING : So would you
18 describe the character of the neighborhood?
19 MS . MOORE : Sure . Yes . Cedar Beach
20 has -- it ' s just driving around it, you
21 probably noticed, because it ' s a 1920
22 subdivision, you have some small cottages
23 that over time have been made into .ranch
24 houses and larger homes . Most houses -- it
25 mostly was a summer community, but a lot of
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 121
1 people who bought these as summer homes are
2 retiring there . I have several people who
3 have converted it to retirement and year
4 round houses . So if you drive around,
5 you ' re seeing the material, the
6 architectural design . Really a good
7 attractive improvement to the community.
8 Some of the older owners have passed away .
9 The estates are selling the properties . I
10 think overall, is an attractive community .
11 So the plan is to renovate the house so it
12 has natural shingles . A normal roof line .
13 Nice detail . Personally, it ' s a house that
14 I think is going to be an attractive house .
15 This is my personal opinion right now, it ' s
16 really not that attractive, but I will let
17 you draw your own conclusion, if you think
18 it ' s attractive or not . It ' s a matter of
19 opinion.
20 MEMBER HORNING : Now the house
21 predates zoning?
22 MS . MOORE : By far, yes .
23 MEMBER HORNING : The house was built
24 -- was it built in 1983 or before that?
25 MS . MOORE : The first CO was issued
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 122
1 in ' 78 , and it says private one family
2 dwelling .
3 MEMBER HORNING: Prior to 1957 ?
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As you drove
5 into this driveway, in the back, the house
6 across the across the right-of-way, was
7 built in the shape of a ( In Audible) , so
8 you had a complete view. That house across
9 the street, okay, existed approximately in
10 the same time, and that was approximately
11 between ' 72 and ' 74 .
12 MR. SAMUELS : I have a property card
13 here and it refers to a date 1965 ,
14 alterations and repair damage . In 1960
15 there was a transfer as well .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me read
17 this into the record.
18 MS . MOORE : I appreciate it because
19 I don ' t have it right in front of me .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There is a CO
21 dated June 17 , 1978 , and what it ' s
22 referring to requirements for one family
23 dwelling and housing cobuilt before
24 April 23 , 1957 . Pursuant to a Certificate
25 of Occupancy dated June 17 , 1976 was
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 123
1 issued. So there is a Pre-CO on the
2 subject property.
3 MEMBER HORNING : Then what I am
4 getting at, the garage add was built around
5 1983 ; correct?
6 MS . MOORE : I believe so . You know
7 my notes, I attached the -- I have the
8 construction plans that come with the
9 building permit and my memory, I think it
10 was in 183 .
11 MR. SAMUELS : I have again on the
12 property card, 1980 building permit
13 alterations to garage and living room.
14 Presumably there in 1980 also..
15 MEMBER HORNING : And then I am
16 little confused about this ZBA variance
17 from Chapter 145 that you mentioned. I
18 found a Chapter 144 . Where do we find
19 Chapter 145?
20 MS . MOORE : Well, it was the old
21 code 145 .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It has all
23 been renumbered.
24 MS . MOORE : If you look at the -- I
25 think it ' s Zoning Actions under Zoning
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals, 124
1 Board -- on the website, if you go to flood
2 applications there are probably ten or
3 twelve that are listed there and that is
4 where I was reading through the different
5 applications that were granted, and most of
6 them were to the finished floor not being
7 in compliant and people wanting to do more
8 and renovate the house and it wouldn ' t
9 comply with the flood zone .
10 MEMBER HORNING: Well , how do you
11 get a variance from a chapter that doesn ' t
12 exist?
13 MS . MOORE : Well, it has been
14 renumbered. It still exists . I don ' t know
15 what it used to be .
16 MEMBER DINIZIO : We should have a
17 copy of that . It used to be 100-whatever .
18 So if you look under 100-142 , you would
19 probably find it . You have to go back.
20 MEMBER HORNING : I was confused
21 because I was trying to find the chapter .
22 MS . MOORE : I 'm sorry. That is how
23 I researched it and found a whole section
24 of your Zoning Actions in the website that
25 dealt with this . I have not seen an
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals ' 125
1 application. I think the last one was in
2 the 80 ' s . I wasn ' t aware that you guys were
3 granting variances at the time .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just for the
5 record --
6 MS . MOORE : In all the time that I
7 have been practicing, more than 20 years .
8 I have never made an application .
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just for the
10 record, here is what happened. When I was
11 instituted the supervisor at the time was
12 Bill ( In Audible) . He wanted us to deal
13 with ( In Audible) and the only thing ( In
14 Audible) so what we ended up doing, we had
15 approximately some four to six
16 applications . Believe it or not, the
17 majority of those applications were over
18 20, okay. And then when the federal
19 government came to inspect them, they said
20 we think you are granting too many
21 applications . We would respectfully
22 request you not to grant any more . So they
23 kind of self distinguished. That was kind
24 of the end of it .
25 MS . MOORE : Right . Okay.
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 126
1 MS . ANDALORO : We have no authority
2 to do that today.
3 MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay in the
5 interest of time . There were no comments
6 from the audience in this application. I
7 was going to make a motion subject to
8 receipt of two things . One, an amended
9 site plan and/or survey showing the drywell
10 not located in the flood zone and a pool
11 dewatering drywell . Secondly, title search
12 or deed, or homeowners association letter
13 saying that it ' s okay for the garage to be
14 on the right-of-way. So there is some
15 evidence that is an acceptable situation .
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 #6582 - CHRISTOPHER M. &
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 127
1 PATRICIA F. MCCARTHY
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
3 hearing before the Board is for Christopher
4 M. And Patricia F. McCarthy. Request for
5 variances from Article IV Code Section
6 280-18 , based on an application for
7 building permit and the Building
8 Inspector ' s May 23 , 2012 Notice of
9 Disapproval concerned proposed construction
10 of an add to a single family dwelling at,
11 1 ) less than the code required front yard
12 setback of 50 feet on this corner lot,
13 located at : 1460 Peconic Bay Boulevard,
14 adjacent to Private ROW, Laurel .
15 MS . MOORE : Patricia Moore on behalf
16 of the McCarthy ' s . They wanted to be here .
17 They' re actually in Denver . You had a
18 prior application on the second floor
19 addition over the garage, which is on the
20 west side of the house . My clients have
21 moved into this house as their permanent
22 residence, and Ms . McCarthy realized that
23 she has no eating area . The kitchen worked
24 fine when it was their summer home, but now
25 there is differences with their family now .
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 128
1 So they' re proposing a new dining area,
2 kitchen modification that is on the east
3 side of the property and the setback to the
4 -- the Peconic -- well, the right-of-way,
5 but it ' s actually owned by an Association,
6 which gives access to the beach for the
7 properties on the opposite side of the
8 road, south side of the road. This
9 property as you recall, are three lots that
10 were merged, therefore all the setbacks
11 were increased due to the merging of the
12 properties . We do plan to come back and
13 ask to un-merge the properties . The back
14 is an acre, the front house is less than an
15 acre . The timeline, they have no intention
16 with doing anything with those properties
17 'at this point . The house is their living
18 area . So as far as priorities ,
19 Mr . & Mrs . McCarthy want to renovate and
20 make their house comfortable before they
21 sometime in the future provide a lot for
22 their family in the back. We ' re -- because
23 of the setbacks of the side property, the
24 setback from the front is 50 feet, even
25 though the house is actually at 20 . 1 . It
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 129
1 brings the addition within the 50 foot
2 setback. The proposed setback from the
3 road is 44 . 9 . From the right of way, it ' s
4 20 . 7 . I did provide you with a new drawing
5 because . I want to be sure you have Charles
6 Thomas . If you look at the second page, on
7 the original proposal there was a bilco
8 door on the front side of the house . The
9 bilco door didn ' t affect setbacks or
10 anything . The owners wanted to put the
11 access to the basement on the opposite
12 side, which steps down from a door to the
13 proposed dining area . I wanted to be sure
14 you have the most current plan . I don ' t
15 want to have other issues later on. It ' s
16 the access point for the basement . The
17 client did not want to have a bilco door
18 facing the front . So your drawings now are
19 dated July 2012 , rather than the previous
20 submission . Other than that , there are no
21 other submissions .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is a
23 small addition to the kitchen . It ' s
24 virtually considered a corner lot, by
25 virtue of the right-of-way. You have two
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 130
1 front yards .
2 MS . MOORE : Yes . Correct .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Does the Board
4 have any questions?
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no
6 questions .
7 MEMBER HORNING: I have a question.
8 Looking at your area variance reasons, and
9 Reason #2 , you ' re discussing less than
10 feasible, etcetera, and the fact that there
11 are these un-merged lots , Lots 14 , 15 and
12 16, I guess , they are all merged?
13 MS . MOORE : Yes . Well my client
14 owns it in two separate names . The back
15 piece is owned by Mrs . McCarthy. The front
16 lot is owned by Mr . & Mrs . McCarthy, but
17 the merger occurred prior to their
18 purchase . Technically they are merged.
19 MEMBER HORNING: 14 , 15 and 16 are
20 all merged?
21 MS . MOORE : Yes .
22 MEMBER HORNING: So then Statement
23 #3 , amount of relief not substantial . Then
24 you say, significant to the combined
25 parcels . The property is nonconforming . I
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 131
1 am wondering if that is a correct statement
2 because the Notice of Disapproval talks
3 about a conforming parcel . So what is
4 that?
5 MS . MOORE : Well, I guess the --
6 because the Building Department merged the
7 property before the three independent lots
8 merged them, they are now more than an acre
9 in size . So the combined area of the lots
10 makes them conforming because they are more
11 than one acre . The individual front lot
12 when separated from the back lot, is of
13 nonconforming. It ' s a preexisting
14 nonconforming, but again, it ' s merged. By
15 area it ' s conforming because of it ' s
16 merging but the house was built here under
17 the assumption that this was a 103 x 175
18 foot lot . That is when the house was
19 developed.
20 MEMBER HORNING : Again, looking at
21 reason for Area Variance #3 , Statement #2
22 was covering the fact that they are all
23 merged. 14 , 15 and 16 are all merged.
24 Statement #3 , the amount of relief
25 requested is not substantial because "while
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 132
1 the variance is significant due to the ,
2 combined parcels of property is
3 nonconforming, " and yes the Notice of
4 Disapproval says they are conforming . So is
5 it conforming or nonconforming?
6 MS . MOORE : My opinion is that it ' s
7 nonconforming because of the width of the
8 lot is 175 . The development of the house
9 is based on the front parcel, but the
10 Building Department is using the --
11 claiming the area is conforming by size
12 because the area exceeds the one acre . So
13 I guess my point on this argument is, is
14 this variance substantial? Well, if you ' re .
15 looking at a 1/2 acre parcel, yes, because
16 your setbacks are 20 feet from a
17 right-of-way, however, given the
18 circumstances of this property and how the
19 area of the lot has been -- has been
20 combined, I don ' t believe it ' s significant
21 because -- we would be at a 35 foot setback
22 dealing with the front lot . Based on the
23 setbacks of the front lot, you have
24 setbacks of 35 , 35 on the other side and 15
25 on the opposite side . If you go back and
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 133
1 look at the Area Variances that were
2 granted previously, I think that was an
3 argument that came out of your decision .
4 MEMBER HORNING : I don 't get it,
5 whether they ' re conforming or
6 nonconforming.
7 MS . MOORE : More or less,
8 technically they' re conforming .
9 MEMBER HORNING : Thank you . I am
10 all done .
11 MS . MOORE : I think I will leave it
12 to you whether it ' s conforming or
13 nonconforming .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand
15 your argument . The Building Department
16 made a determination that it was
17 conforming.
18 MEMBER HORNING: Then why do you say
19 its nonconforming?
20 MS . MOORE : Because I tend to ( In
21 Audible . )
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there
23 anyone in the audience that wishes to
24 address this application?
25 (No Response . )
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 134
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 : All in favor?
7 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
9 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
12 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
13 **************** **************************
14 HEARING #6579 - DENISE GEIS
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
16 application before the Board is for Denise
17 Geis , #6579 . Request for variance from
18 Article III Code Section 280-15 , based on
19 an application for building permit and the
20 Building Inspector ' s May 1 , 2012 Notice of
21 Disapproval concerning "as built"
22 reconstruction of .an accessory shed at;
23 less than the maximum code required rear
24 yard setback of 35 feet, located at : 2250
25 Sigsbee Road, Mattituck.
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 135
1 MS . GEIS : Good afternoon. My name
2 is Denise Geis . I live at 2250 Sigsbee
3 Road in Mattituck.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Vicki just
5 told me I read into the record at less than
6 the minimum code required of 35 feet . It
7 should be 3 feet . I don ' t know where the 5
8 came from.
9 MS . GEIS : Okay. Should I start?
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Please do .
11 MS . GEIS : First --
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Please state
13 your name for the record?
14 MS . GEIS : Sure . My name is Denise
15 Geis . I live at 2250 Sigsbee Road, in
16 Mattituck. First off, I would like to
17 apologize for not realizing that we needed
18 a building permit to do reconstruction on
19 my shed. The subject property is 2250
20 Sigsbee Road in Mattituck. It ' s the fifth
21 house on Peconic Boulevard on the west side
22 of the public road. The subdivision is
23 named Mattituck Park Properties and was
24 developed in the 20 ' s , prior to zoning in
25 the Town of Southold. The plot line is 50
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 136
1 feet by 545 , give or take . The entire road
2 is divided into three sections . The base
3 portion of the street is Section 126 . The
4 top of the subdivision adjacent to Route
5 35 , is zoned 145 and lower portion, is 144 .
6 The ( In Audible) but all three sections
7 follow the tax map properties of all three
8 sections ( In Audible) setbacks , which I
9 gave everybody. First, I would like to
10 just reiterate two points of my variance
11 reasons . Number 2 , the benefits sought by
12 the applicant can not be achieved by some
13 method feasible for the applicant to pursue
14 other than an area variance because my
15 backyard, the sanitary system where the
16 cesspools, they are right there . And I only
17 have one tree in the back yard. Both of
18 which prohibit the movement of that shed, I
19 didn ' t have any clue that it was ' only 1 . 6
20 feet off the back line anyway. The only
21 tree that we have in the back, we had to
22 trim up to even repair the shed. The
23 amount of relief requested is not
24 substantial because the adjoinment of the
25 accessory structures down the street has
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 137
1 specific nonconforming setbacks . Several
2 of these structures have been converted to
3 single family dwellings . Many of which are
4 approximately one to two feet from the lot
5 line . Number #4 , the variance will not
6 have any adverse effect on the impact of
7 the physical environmental conditions,
8 based on the nonconforming lot and
9 restricted area and the backyard. The
10 applicant may have a significant hardship
11 in leaving the 1956 structure from the lot .
12 I also have -- everybody has a survey. The
13 survey is 1977 . Nothing has changed on
14 that survey except a small shed was added
15 on the roadside . This is not showing on
16 that survey but everything else is the
17 same . I also have to hand in, I -- made a
18 form letter . I will just read the first
19 one who . This is addressing the Board
20 members , this is from Shawn ( In Audible)
21 lives at 2400 Sigsbee Road in Mattituck,
22 regarding the variance application for
23 Denise Geis, #6579, I have considered this
24 application and offer my full support .
25 Sigsbee Road has been in existence for many
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 138
1 years . It ,consist of single lots that are
2 very small in size and lot in width . Thank
3 you for your opportunity to comment on this
4 very important variance application . I
5 have it signed by a bunch of neighbors that
6 are the -- ( In Audible) .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : These are all
8 the same letter basically?
9 MS . GEIS : The form of the letter .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Six letters .
11 And where would these people be located?
12 How close to your --
13 MS . GEIS : They are two or three
14 houses across from the street . All very
15 local . I could have had more signed. I
16 also have -- the street, it ' s a lot of the
17 buildings on the street, because it was
18 built so early before zoning, there is a
19 lot of nonconformities . I just picked out
20 five examples, which you all have here in
21 your packet . The first one is 1930
22 Sigsbee, if you look at the survey, you can
23 see that the garage in the back that is
24 nonconforming . It ' s only two feet off the
25 line . That is the first one . The second
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 139
1 one is 1530 Sigsbee -- the first one was a
2 garage . I don ' t know if I said that . The
3 second one actually used to be a garage,
4 which they have turned into a house . That
5 one is only 1 . 5 feet off the back lot, or 2
6 feet on the other side .
7 MEMBER DINIZIO: Excuse me . We ' re
8 looking at these?
9 MS . GEIS : Correct .
10 MEMBER DINIZIO : You are saying that
11 is the house?
12 MS . GEIS : That is the house .
13 MEMBER DINIZIO : That is the back
14 property line?
15 MS . GEIS : It used to be a garage .
16 That has been converted into a house . The
17 house is 1 . 5 feet off the lot line and 2
18 feet off the other lot . So it ' s very -
19 close --
20 MEMBER DINIZIO : There are no
21 structures on that lot now?
22 MS . GEIS : A shed. I just picked
23 out a couple . There are many examples . I
24 just wanted to pick out five examples on
25 the block. The next one is 1920 Sigsbee,
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 140
1 and that is a house . It is only ( In
2 Audible) off the side lot, which is
3 nonconforming. The next one 540 Sigsbee .
4 That is nonconforming on both the side , and
5 the back of the house . That one I believe
6 used to be a garage at one point and then
7 was converted to a house . Then number five
8 is 2850 Sigsbee, which is , if you look at
9 the survey, it has a nonconforming garage
10 and a side yard and front yard setback. I
11 believe all three . There are -- they are
12 on Sigsbee Road. There are about 80 lots
13 and 66 houses, and I counted 52 of them
14 have some kind of nonconforming aspects . I
15 do have these pictures for you as well . ( In
16 Audible . ) This house right here (In
17 Audible) fence behind it . This is the
18 house and this is the --
19 MEMBER HORNING: Ma ' am, you gave us
20 this today?
21 MS . GEIS : Right .
22 MEMBER HORNING: How do we cross
23 reference these?
24 MS . GEIS : To be honest, those are
25 all the ones --
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 141
1 MEMBER HORNING: Number one, where
2 is that on this map?
3 MS . GEIS : I didn ' t necessarily ( In
4 Audible) they are not necessarily.
5 MEMBER HORNING: So you didn ' t cross
6 reference?
7 MS . GEIS : No . I just used this to
8 show how many houses are nonconforming .
9 MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
10 MS . GEIS : And those are at least
11 five that happen to stand out . Basically,
12 when I am inspecting my inside of my shed,
13 over the last couple of years, has been
14 leaking more and more . This year, when I
15 went to get out my flower pots and saw
16 further, it was leaking even more . There
17 was more water in the flower pots than
18 there was outside . So we realized we
19 needed to redo the roof, which started out
20 to be a small project and has become a
21 bigger project then we anticipated. We
22 decided to change the roof . I apologize, I
23 did not realize that I would need a permit
24 to do that, because the structure itself is
25 sustained. Those pictures are all marked
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 142
1 on the back, by the way. So the -- we
2 decided to change the roof from a flat roof
3 to a peak roof because I never want to have
4 to rebuild a shed again . Ever . And the
5 flat roof was ( In Audible) another problem
6 with rain getting in. We also wanted to
7 leave the rafters the way it is, but at the
8 same time for additional storage . Right
9 now, there is no outside entrance to our
10 basement . There is no bilco door . There
11 is no door whatsoever . So we can ' t put any
12 of our outside furniture away. That is the
13 need for the storage . When we started on
14 the roof, we then realized how rotted the
15 sides were . So we re-sided it and whatever
16 studs were rotted, we replaced. And we had
17 to shore up some of the others . So the
18 structure is the same . It has been the
19 same since 1956 . Like I said, there is
20 only one tree back there in which we had to
21 cut a whole bunch of branches off just to
22 do that . It has been a much more costly
23 endeavor thought to repair, but as well as
24 the whole variance procedure . So that ' s
25 about it for me . Do you have any
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 143
1 questions?
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes . Is there
3 any heat in this structure?
4 MS . GEIS : No .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any plumbing?
6 MS . GEIS : No .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is the
8 actual height from grade to the peak of the
9 roof?
10 MS . GEIS : I think it was 14 feet .
11 MEMBER HORNING : Is that the new
12 height?
13 MS . GEIS : Yes . The other one had a
14 flat roof on it . I think the other one was
15 like 10 feet .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. This
17 would be for storage and equipment?
18 MS . GEIS : Just for storage .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You are not
20 using it for a car?
21 MS . GEIS : No . The lady in the
22 back, Susan, I don ' t remember her last
23 name, but I spoke with her, and she is
24 absolutely fine with the 6 feet off of her
25 property. She has no problem with that
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 144
1 whatsoever, as long as it ' s not encroaching
2 on her property, and it ' s not .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. And
4 that is the same location it has been in --
5 MS . GEIS : My grandfather has 3 feet
6 of cement underneath there . It would be
7 something that would last forever .
8 Literally there is 3 feet of cement under
9 the structure itself .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you made
11 repairs --
12 MS . GEIS : We really just started
13 out with the roof, which got more involved
14 when everything was rotted.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jim?
16 MEMBER DINIZIO : Just to
17 congratulate you on all the work that you
18 obviously did.
19 MS . GEIS : I never wanted to be
20 before this Board and I don ' t want to do it
21 again.
22 MEMBER DINIZIO : Well, I am sure you
23 had some sleepless nights . Thank you.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George?
25 MEMBER HORNING: I don ' t mean to be
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 145
�. 1 sarcastic, but the foundation, I was going
2 to ask you about . You said it was
3 concrete, at least you think some of it is
4 at least 3 feet thick --
5 MS . GEIS : Yes .
6 MEMBER HORNING: It ' s not feasible
7 to move this structure?
8 MS . GEIS : It ' s not feasible at all .
9 First off, because the way the cesspool;
10 so, it ' s not a very big lot . And the one
11 and only tree on the property, like I said,
12 has to be trimmed back significantly on one
13 side just to review the roof. There is
14 easily 3 feet of cement .
15 MEMBER HORNING: So if you were to
16 even entertain the idea of moving the shed
17 to make it more conforming with a 3 foot
18 setback and moving --
19 MS . GEIS : A foot and a half .
20 MEMBER HORNING : A foot and a half .
21 What are the options for this?
22 MS . GEIS : A tree would have to come
23 down.
24 MEMBER HORNING: The septic is in a
25 .foot or so of --
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 146
1 MS . GEIS : It ' s very close in the
2 backyard. I think it ' s 64 . It ' s literally
3 right there . The tree is literally in
4 front of it . So we would have to cut down
5 our only tree that we have in the backyard.
6 Actually, there is two in the front -- but
7 it ' s our only tree we have in the backyard .
8 MEMBER HORNING: And you produced
9 evidence the shed was built prior to 1957 ,
10 that is correct?
11 MS . GEIS : Correct .
12 MEMBER HORNING: And you just have
13 done maintenance on it?
14 MS . GEIS : Yes .
15 MEMBER HORNING: And in terms of
16 maintenance in the back there where it
17 abuts against that Ag property, you haven ' t
18 had any problems to put a ladder?
19 MS . GEIS : We had 1 . 6 feet . There
20 is a slate patio, and there is just a
21 couple of ladders, but there is nothing --
22 we use the part that we have . There is no
23 reason to use anything else than what our
24 property is . It ' s just that -- there is no
25 reason to encroach on the other persons
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 147
1 property.
2 MEMBER HORNING: If you were to put
3 a ladder up?
4 MS . GEIS : I had the roof done and
5 there was no problem. First off, there is
6 nothing physically there . It is just
7 woods . There is no problem with putting a
8 ladder up .
9 MEMBER HORNING: On the character of
10 the neighborhood, it ' s a very densely
11 populated area . I was kind of curious that
12 it ' s actually in the R-80 Zone according to
13 the documentation . Low density residential
14 with this big Ag property in the back. Do
15 you have any comment as to why you think
16 it ' s in the R-80 Zone?
17 MS . GEIS : I would have no idea .
18 MEMBER HORNING: That is what the.
19 Notice of Disapproval says . And that is
20 about it, I would say.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there
24 anyone else in the audience that would like
25 to address this application? Please come
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 148
1 forward and go to either one of the
2 microphones . State your name for the
3 record, please?
4 MS . MORGAN : Patricia Morgan, 2230
5 Sigsbee Road.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you.
7 What would you like us to know?
8 MS . MORGAN: Oh, I would like to
9 show you some pictures that I took.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what,
11 just so we can get you on the record. So
12 perhaps you can just tell us what these
13 pictures are and then we can take a look?
14 MS . MORGAN : The pictures have --
15 some of them have measuring tapes on them.
16 First of all, I would like to say that I am
17 a summer resident . I am not here all the
18 time . I don ' t know anything about the
19 Zoning Board. Initially, when I opened my
20 house in the spring I saw this very large
21 structure . So I went to the Town and asked
22 if there were any regulations about the
23 size of anything? No one would talk to me .
24 They said, "who are you? Where do you
25 live?" And no one would give me a simple
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 149
1 answer . So this hearing is taking place
2 because the lady at the Zoning Board or
3 whatever it is , would not even speak to me
4 and give me a piece of paper that says you
5 can do this . You can ' t do that . It ' s this
6 tall or that tall . So I said, okay. They
7 asked me who I was and where I lived. I
8 gave them all my information, and then I
9 went away.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Excuse me, can
11 I just ask you a question, please?
12 MS . MORGAN: Yes .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Are you saying
14 that you called the office of the Zoning
15 Board of Appeals?
16 MS . MORGAN : No . I walked into the
17 other building and stood at the counter .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That ' s the
19 Building Department .
20 MS . MORGAN : Okay. . I don ' t know .
21 Like I said, I don ' t do this a lot . So the
22 shed pictures are from the early 90 ' s, the
23 original shed. Those pictures I took, I
24 know from the roll, they' re from the early
25 90 ' s . About a month later, I am here
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 150
1 basically because I am mildly afraid. Lugs
2 were taken off the tires of my car, and I
3 reported that to the police . I have a
4 police report from May 18th or something of
5 this year . And it was sort of like, that
6 -- investigating . I never did another
7 thing, from talking to someone and asking
8 to please tell me how big the shed can be .
9 That was my input . I never said you can ' t
10 do this and dah-dah-dah . I found very
11 disturbing . I never thought about it until
12 things started happening .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I will take a
14 look at that, but I am not sure this kind
15 of information is relevant to our
16 proceeding .
17 MS . MORGAN : ( In Audible . ) If you
18 look at the fence that was put up, all this
19 was done with ( In Audible) on the house .
20 It is kind of offensive . It moves all the
21 time . It sits there because I said to
22 Denise that I am going to put up a fence
23 because all the hedges that you see die .
24 They were infested with bugs . So we had no
25 divider between our property. You have the
August 2, 2012 .Zoning Board of Appeals 151
1 pictures . I said, Denise, I am going to
2 get a fence and she said, "why?" The next
3 thing that thing went up, and around 2004 .
4 I wrote letters -- I thought Helen owned
5 the house . Gerry Goehringer ' s mother, who
6 is the best person in the world, was . I
7 wrote letters to her that said, do you see
8 how bad the fence is? Would you please
9 straighten it out? No one ever answered.
10 When I was gone, it changed . Then it
11 changed back. So I am concerned, I wanted
12 to be heard because things happen to me . I
13 say something, and I am threatening in a
14 way. Things go missing when -- I can go on
15 for two years but it wouldn ' t do any good .
16 I don 't care what happens -- by the way, I
17 don ' t like the way I was treated when I
18 asked a simple question. I got the notice,
19 which is funny. I got the notice in the
20 city that this was taking place . Not where
21 I would normally get it, but incidentally I
22 drove into the city and I picked --
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that your
24 legal mailing address? That is why you got
25 it there .
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals .152
1 MS . MORGAN : But I get mail here .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am sure you
3 get mail in both places , but it ' s where
4 ever you --
5 MS . MORGAN : Okay. I got the
6 notice .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is your
8 legal residence .
9 MS . MORGAN : Okay. I assume that --
10 it ' s huge . You can see from the pictures .
11 It ' s 14 feet high . It has no relation to
12 the shed that was there before, as you can
13 see in the pictures . That shed was no more
14 than 6 1/2 , 7 feet high. And you can see
15 by my structure, the structure in the back
16 of my yard, that has the tape next to it,
17 it ' s like 3 1/2 feet, and that is right
18 next to the old shed. So I certainly know
19 it was not 14 feet high . It was a
20 perfectly normal nice little shed.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you for
22 your testimony. What is before this Board
23 now is not the height of the shed. That
24 was not in the Notice of Disapproval . It ' s
25 the property line --
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 153
1 MS . MORGAN: Right . Look at the
2 tape, from my property it is less than two
3 feet . I have a measuring tape and --
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is less
5 than two feet . It says 3 . 5 feet, yet it is
6 not . That is why it is before me . Your
7 property is on the side --
8 MS . MORGAN : On the side .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand.
10 MS . MORGAN : Do you see 3 . 5, that is
11 what is on mine? It is not 3 . 5 it ' s less
12 than 2 . Also the property marker, when my
13 car was ( In Audible) the property marker
14 went missing and in my pictures , I can show
15 you three property markers and the fourth
16 one -- they call them monuments . The
17 fourth one is missing. It ' s just me there .
18 Every time I go there, I look around and
19 make sure everything is fine . I look at
20 the back. So what I would like to ask
21 since there is confusion and there is no
22 property marker there, that you at least
23 delay your decisions , until I can have my
24 property surveyed because something is
25 wrong . If I can -- I can ' t -- I am a big
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 154
1 girl, I can not fit between the fence which
2 is -- it is their fence but it is on the
3 property line and the shed. It is
4 certainly not 3 . 5 feet . I have a picture
5 that measures it at 2 feet . When Denise
6 says 1 1/2 feet in the back, I think it as
7 1 1/2 inches . Not one 1 1/2 feet . I mean,
8 it was on the line . I have been there for
9 30 years . Anyway. It is not a big deal
10 except you ought to know what is going on .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for
12 your information.
13 MEMBER HORNING: Ma ' am, are you
14 getting your property surveyed in the near
15 future?
16 MS . MORGAN: I will . This is being
17 too confusing . ( In Audible) she blew it up
18 for me, and I couldn ' t believe the numbers .
19 These are incorrect . The property marker
20 was there in the spring . There on
21 April 18th when I opened the house, because
22 I looked.
23 MEMBER HORNING : I have a question
24 on the property marker . You are talking
25 about the rear yard corner property marker?
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 155
1 MS . MORGAN: Yes . The other three
2 that are there are fine . The one picture
3 that shows the shed has been removed.
4 MEMBER HORNING : And you are asking
5 us to wait on the decision until you have
6 your property surveyed?
7 MS . MORGAN : Yes .
8 MEMBER HORNING : We would encourage
9 you to get your survey done as soon as
10 possible .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What we have
12 to go by, from my understanding, is the
13 survey of the property owner, because what
14 we ' re going by, is that there surveyor
15 determines what has belonged to them and
16 the location of the shed, relative to their
17 property line . The fence that is in your
18 side yard, that is adjacent to your
19 property?
20 MS . GEIS : Pat Morgan -- and we --
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Both of you
22 have to address the Board.
23 MS . GEIS : -- there would be a hole
24 and we didn ' t want people to fall in, and
25 sue . That happens much to often . So we
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 156
1 would cover it up .
2 MEMBER HORNING: How big is the hole
3 that you are talking about?
4 MS . GEIS : Probably about six
5 inches . Multiple times I have covered it
6 up . I did not call the cops then .. There
7 are other instances, which I did, but don ' t
8 really apply to this situation. So what we
9 did, we talked with some people, and
10 covered it up with just a little bit of
11 dirt . You can only find it, if you have
12 the survey. Because I know, unless I
13 measure it out . I have trouble finding it .
14 It ' s right where it belongs . It has always
15 been there . When we put up the fence, we
16 didn ' t exactly know where the back property
17 marker is . We couldn ' t find it until we
18 had the survey. So I knew that my
19 grandfather had shrubs that were on our
20 property, so I just put it to where I knew
21 it was legally on our property, and so we
22 didn ' t have any issues . Pat complained
23 numerous times that it was on her property.
24 The couple of things that she complained
25 was that it was moved over a couple of
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 157
1 times . Just to be a good neighbor . You
2 know, I didn ' t need to have it back and
3 forth . You know, bickering back and forth .
4 I put up the fence not because she said she
5 was going to put up a fence, because like a
6 lot of summer people, they don ' t rake their
7 leaves when they leave . So then every time
8 we rake our property, the leaves would come
9 back, which has nothing to do with this
10 either, but that is why the fence was put
11 up . It cost me over $500 . 00 . I don ' t have
12 $500 . 00 just to throw away any time that is
13 necessary. And the fence was -- it was put
14 up for that purpose . You can see from our
15 front property marker, that it is on our
16 fence . It is right on our property.
17 Literally, I can walk through that fence
18 and my shed, that space is not 3 feet from
19 the shed. It is more than 3 feet from the
20 property marker and the shed. The back is
21 1 . 6 feet . Not 1 . 6 inches . The cement is
22 more than 1 . 6 inches that my grandfather
23 made sure there as cement outside of the
24 building. So things wouldn ' t rot . It is
25 not laying on any ground.
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 158
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And it is
2 exactly in the same footprint where it
3 existed in --
4 MS . GEIS : Yes . There is 3 feet of
5 cement there . I would be glad to show
6 anybody who wants to come --
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have all
8 been out there .
9 MS . GEIS : It ' s in exactly the same
10 footprint . I can ' t move 3 feet of cement .
11 It ' s impossible . There is no cement added
12 on . You can see where it has always been .
13 MS . MORGAN : She said one of the
14 interesting things, if you look again at
15 the fence line, Denise says that she
16 generously gave me a foot and a half of her
17 yard when she put up her fence . Now, that
18 is terrific . If you take a look at the
19 front marker, it is an eighth of an inch
20 from the front marker . So either it went
21 back like this or someone moved the marker .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand.
23 The fence is a legal fence . On their
24 property, it ' s doesn ' t matter if it ' s 8
25 inches or 80 inches or 8 feet . That is not
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 159
1 what is before us .
2 MS . MORGAN : Absolutely not .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We ' re not here
4 to discuss a fence .
5 MS . MORGAN: Absolutely not . That
6 was --
7 MEMBER DINIZIO : That fence is not
8 on the survey.
9 MS . GEIS : It ' s not .
10 MEMBER DINIZIO : We ' re arguing about
11 something that we really can ' t confirm.
12 MS . MORGAN : That is why I said,
13 will you wait for my --
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : Ma ' am. I am not a
15 surveyor . You know, I am going to ask that
16 you get an updated survey.
17 MS . GEIS : It ' s $600 . 00 . I don ' t --
18 MEMBER DINIZIO : Ma ' am, I understand
19 that . I quite honestly understand that but
20 this survey was done in 1978 . You have
21 since added some things . You have
22 certainly rebuilt a building . Maybe in
23 place . Maybe in kind. That is fine . It
24 would need a variance no matter what . Even
25 you would admit that .
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 160
1 MS . GEIS : Sure .
2 MEMBER DINIZIO: We need to verify
3 those setbacks . I would prefer to have --
4 I mean, if you had the old building there,
5 I would probably take this survey, but when
6 there is a new structure and we have a
7 fence . A new fence, I need to see that on
8 the survey. I realize that there is a big
9 expense but you know, most people in the
10 Town, when they run into the problem, this
11 is what happens . I am going --
12 MS . MORGAN : So my survey doesn ' t do
13 it good?
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : I need a survey of
15 your property with all of the structures on
16 it . I 'm sorry we need that . If you can
17 get that to us --
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want o
19 say one thing . Not that I am disagreeing
20 or anything. Is this a new structure or
21 was this is a structure roof?
22 MS . GEIS : The structure has a new
23 roof and new siding .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay . I just
25 wanted to be -- if it ' s refurbished --
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 161
1 MS . MORGAN : -- we don ' t have -- the
2 2 feet to the property which is now 2290 ,
3 which is my parents . And mine is 2250 , as
4 four corners markers , it does not divide
5 the property in half, but there is a corner
6 marker . It ' s 2290 and it -- it ' s 100 feet .
7 We have measured it . My husband and I
8 literally took a tape measure out . So the
9 (2 ) 50 foot lots , it ' s 100 feet . I can
10 show you where the markings are . 50 and 50
11 is 100 feet . No matter which way you add
12 it . I don ' t know what else to say.
13 MEMBER HORNING: I believe I heard
14 the neighbor more or less allege that
15 perhaps this marker was moved.
16 MS . GEIS : Yes .
17 MEMBER HORNING: How do you respond
18 to that?
19 MS . GEIS : The marker has been there
20 since it was surveyed in 1977 . I don ' t
21 know, because my grandparents -- all I can
22 say is the property marker has been the
23 property marker shown on the survey ever
24 since it was put in.
25 MEMBER HORNING: So when she digs
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 162
1 out 6 inches around it, she knows where it
2 is?
3 MS . GEIS : She doesn ' t know where it
4 is . What happened is , she knew where it
5 was in respect to -- she was digging in the
6 wrong location. It was not moved. She was
7 digging the wrong location . She kept on
8 making a hole that was like 6 inches deep
9 and the size of this podium, and my concern
10 was because there is kids in the back of
11 the woods all the time, and so the point
12 is , and why the marker is covered now, so
13 we wouldn ' t continue with this cat and
14 mouse game . Digging it up and burying it .
15 Digging it up and burying it . Digging it
16 up and burying it . I have a lot more
17 important things to do then come to a home
18 numerous times and do what Pat will do --
19 whatever she has to do with the property,
20 it will be done . And then she will go back
21 to the city for two or three days , so she
22 doesn ' t have to deal with any of the
23 situations that have to occur . Then my
24 husband and I will cover up the hole or
25 whatever it is . She put cat litter right
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 163
1 by our door on the other side of the fence,
2 which it doesn ' t have to do with any of
3 this . She is very devious , which I was
4 reported and I have a police report for
5 that . The point is, the fence not --
6 MEMBER HORNING: The hole that is
7 being dug, is in your rear yard?
8 MS . GEIS : Yes .
9 MS . MORGAN : No .
10 MEMBER HORNING : These holes are not
11 uncovering the lot marker?
12 MS . GEIS : No, she has digged
13 different holes to look for the lot marker,
14 because the point was -- I personally think
15 she was trying to move it, if you want my
16 honest opinion . That has nothing to do
17 with this situations it is , but --
18 MEMBER HORNING: In your estimation
19 what would it take to move it?
20 MS . GEIS : I have no idea . I have
21 never dug up . I can ' t tell you that . I
22 can ' t tell you what . I don ' t know.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me find
24 out from the rest of the Board how they
25 feel about an updated survey?
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 164
1 MEMBER HORNING : I think it is
2 necessary.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I 'm afraid so .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. The
6 consensus of the Board is a more current
7 survey would end all of this once and for
8 all problematic relationship . It would
9 show exactly where your fence is on the
10 property. Exactly where your footprint is .
11 on your existing shed and what the setbacks
12 of the side yards are . The height is not
13 an issue that the Zoning is addressing .
14 We ' re addressing setback. You can add the
15 shed in there . This doesn ' t show the
16 little shed that was added either?
17 MS . GEIS : No, it does not . It was
18 not on the survey.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If the Board ' s
20 consensus is that an updated survey would
21 be useful, then for us to be confident in
22 the decision that we ' re making that it
23 reflects the --
24 MS . GEIS : Right .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is not
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 165
1 uncommon. We do wind up getting old
2 surveys but if there is a survey that
3 reflects exactly what is there, that is one
4 thing . When other things have been added,
5 like a fence and a shed, it is not uncommon
6 for this Board to request an updated
7 survey. I understand that it is an added
8 expense, but it would certainly be added
9 value for you to add it .
10 So is there anyone else in the
11 audience that would like to address this
12 application?
13 MS . MORGAN : Excuse me, would it
14 still be practical for me to get -- we
15 bought the house in the 80 ' s, would it be
16 practical in case there was a discrepancy
17 in the survey?
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I --
19 MS . MORGAN : I couldn ' t believe it .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If they hire a
21 licensed surveyor, to survey their
22 property, then we can rest assured because
23 that is what their license is , that it will
24 be properly identified. Your property is
25 not before us . This would be for your own
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 166
1 comfort and it works then --
2 MS . MORGAN : Yes, yes . I understand
3 that .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can do
5 that at any time . This Board is looking at
6 this property and we have to accept the
7 word of a licensed surveyor .
8 MS . MORGAN: Will I be notified?
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No . You can
10 come in and get a copy of that survey.
11 MS_. MORGAN : Okay.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Under the
13 Freedom of Information Act, once we have
14 it, you can obtain a copy of it by
15 requesting it as part of a public document .
16 MS . MORGAN: Sure .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And you need
18 to come into the Zoning Board of Appeals to
19 request that . Other then that, there will
20 be no notice sent out .
21 MS . MORGAN: Got ya .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don ' t think
23 any additional testimony would be
24 necessary, unless any Board member thinks
25 that is the case?
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 167
1 MEMBER HORNING : Depends on what the
2 survey shows . If it verified what we have,
3 we don ' t need any testimony.
4 MEMBER DINIZIO : We should keep it
5 open .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I tell you
7 what, I am sure you can contact the
8 surveyor before you leave vacation and they
9 can do what needs to be done . If we carry
10 this till September, that will give the
11 surveyor at least a month to get it done .
12 If it ' s not done, then we can carry this
13 over again, till October just to resolve
14 it . The other option is , we can close the
15 hearing subject to receipt of the survey.
16 The only problem is, if the Board has any
17 questions about the survey, then we can ' t .
18 MS . GEIS : Sure .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So I think the
20 safest way for us to proceed is to carry
21 this over till September subject to receipt
22 of a survey, and then if it ' s not available
. 23 then, then we will carry this over to
24 October.
25 MS . ANDALORO : They are putting this
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 168
1 on for another meeting, Ma ' am. They are
2 going to give you the date so you know when
3 the hearing is , okay?
4 MS . MORGAN : Okay. Thank you . You
5 can use my 2260 Sigsbee Road address
6 because --
7 MS . ANDALORO : There is no notice .
8 You have to write this down and come .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : September 6th .
10 MS . ANDALORO : You can call the
11 Zoning Board office to see what time to
12 come .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I am going
14 to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to
15 September 6th at 10 : 00 A.M. , and we would
16 respectfully request, if you can expedite
17 this . If you can get the surveyor to get
18 this information to --
19 MS . GEIS : So as soon as I get this ,
20 I can bring it to you?
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Absolutely.
22 We would like to get this expedited, and I
23 am sure you do too?
24 MS . GEIS : Yes .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 169
1 contact whatever licensed surveyor you
2 choose to do this .
3 MS . GEIS : Okay.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is entirely
5 up to you . As long as it ' s a licensed
6 surveyor, we ' re okay with that .
7 MS . GEIS : Okay. Thank you .
8 MEMBER DINIZIO : I just had one done
9 and I think I paid $750 . 00 .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Board
11 can ' t obviously make a recommendation.
12 MS . GEIS : I understand .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So I made that
14 motion . Is there a second?
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All I favor?
17 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
18 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
21 (See Minutes for Resolution. )
22 *******************************************
23 HEARING #6584 - COLLEEN MCDONOUGH &
24 HELEN HOOKE .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our last
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 170
1 application before the Board is for Colleen
2 McDonough and Helen Hooke, #6584 . Request
3 for variance from Article III Code Section
4 280-15 based on an application for building
5 permit and the Building Inspector ' s
6 May 15 , 2012 Notice of Disapproval
7 concerning permit to construct accessory
8 garage at : 1 ) accessory garage will be
9 located in other than the code required
10 rear yard; located at : 27752 Main Road,
11 Robin Road, Orient .
12 Hi . State your name for the record,
13 please?
14 MS . ROMANELLI : Leeann Romanelli .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks as
16 though this is a proposal to locate an
17 accessory garage in a parcel side yard and
18 parcel rear yard; is that correct?
19 MS . ROMANELLI : Well, partial front
20 yard and partial side yard.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. I 'm
22 sorry, parcel front yard and parcel side
23 yard, yes . Do you have any green cards?
24 MS . ROMANELLI : Yes, I do .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. So tell
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 171
1 us why the applicant wants to put this in a
2 nonconforming location?
3 MS . ROMANELLI : Well, they would
4 like to put it in the front . Do you have a
5 copy of the old survey?
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have this .
7 What is the date on this?
8 MS . ROMANELLI : Joe Ingegno .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :
10 January 5 , 2003 .
11 MS . ROMANELLI : Yes . It shows a
12 proposed location of a rear yard garage,
13 which as you can see is right behind their
14 existing septic .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, I don ' t
16 think so .
17 MS . ROMANELLI : It ' s penciled in.
18 It is showing the location of where they do
19 not want to have the garage . If they did
20 put it in the back yard, they would have to
21 go over the septic line with the driveway.
22 They would be right next to the leaching
23 pool and the corner of the garage, and then
24 we ' re getting too close to the wetlands in
25 the back. They really do not want to have
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 172
1 to touch the septic or get into any kind of
2 a wetland issue, permit issue . What ' s in
3 the setback of a front yard and a side yard
4 with the proposed 22 x 26 garage, they ' re
5 proposing to put a pergola in between the
6 garage and the house to have and make it
7 look natural with the planting .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Very natural
9 looking.
10 MS . ROMANELLI : Very natural
11 looking . Along the right side has very
12 extensive gardens . They wouldn ' t have the
13 side yard setback to have the garage put
14 over there . If they went into the back,
15 they -- I believe at least 60 feet from the
16 house, which would make it very difficult
17 to keep the driveway clear and farthest
18 from the house to get to the garage .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When I went
20 where, I saw that there were solar panels
21 on the house?
22 MS . ROMANELLI : Yes . They ' re ( In
23 Audible) between each property on the side .
24 They ' re on a private road. So you can ' t
25 see the house from the main road . You
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 173
1 can ' t even see the other houses from their
2 house . You know you have hedges and trees .
3 So it ' s pretty well hidden in there . To
4 the left of there, there is a big open
5 field and I think it ' s a residence closer
6 to the main road, but it is not visile from
7 their house .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the reason
9 they can ' t attach it to their house?
10 MS . ROMANELLI : Where on the side?
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes .
12 MS . ROMANELLI : If they attach it to
13 the side, then it would be on the other
14 side of the house and I don ' t think they
15 would have the required side yard. They
16 don ' t really want to have to tare up the
17 existing gardens that are there . So they
18 have less of a side yard setback on that
19 side . That would be the only side .
20 Otherwise, they would be attaching it to
21 the front and closer to the other side .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am also
23 looking at orientation, it seems , I am just
24 putting on my architectural hat . It looks
25 as though it was attached, although from
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 174
1 the layout of the existing house, it
2 probably doesn ' t make much sense on the
3 side that you ' re proposing it on.
4 MS . ROMANELLI : I think if it were
5 attached, I think it would have something
6 to do with the solar -- the angle of the
7 house, the way the sun hits the house for
8 the panels .
9 MEMBER HORNING: In your argument of
10 reasons, you state Reason C, a garage
11 attached to the house would be a hardship
12 because it would put the garden that is now
13 behind the house completely in the shade .
14 So I was going to ask about that in regard
15 to the pergola, because wouldn ' t the
16 pergola do the same thing?
17 MS . ROMANELLI : It would be opened
18 on the sides .
19 MEMBER DINIZIO : There are four
20 reasons .
21 MEMBER HORNING : Yes . That was one
22 of them.
23 MEMBER DINIZIO : They are all pretty
24 much reasonable reasons . If I could just
25 ask a question, on the east side of that
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 175
1 house, there is a bilco door that I see .
2 What is in there?
3 MS . ROMANELLI : I actually don ' t
4 know the answer to that . I know there is a
5 mud room, and then you go to the kitchen .
6 I think it is just a living room.
7 MEMBER DINIZIO: So the living room
8 is on the right hand side of the house?
9 MS . ROMANELLI : I am not positive .
10 MEMBER DINIZIO : I didn ' t see a
11 floor layout .
12 MS . ROMANELLI : I actually don ' t
13 have the whole layout . I don ' t know for
14 sure .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there
16 anyone else in the audience who wants to
17 address this application? Please come
18 forward and state your name?
19 MR. GIBBONS : My name is William,
20 Gibbons . I am the property that is
21 adjacent --
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Spell your
23 last name, sir?
24 MR. GIBBONS : Gibbons .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you.
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 176
1 MR. GIBBONS : I have no objection as
2 to where the garage is built . My only
3 question is , property line? If it ' s being
4 built to close to my property line? I have
5 the --
6 MS . ROMANELLI : They are 40 feet off
7 the west side side yard .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It shows that
9 the proposed garage is 40 feet away from
10 their property line .
11 MR. GIBBONS : ' Thank you . That was
12 my question . I didn ' t know where the
13 property line was . They did put a post in
14 the ground a while back, but --
15 MEMBER DINIZIO : We ' re basing it on
16 the survey. Not a stake in the ground.
17 MR. GIBBONS : There seems to be that
18 there should be a property marker in the
19 ground.
20 MS . ROMANELLI : The closest corner
21 to the proposed garage is 40 feet .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The code
23 requires a minimum of 25 feet, and they' re
24 proposing it at 40 feet .
25 MEMBER HORNING : And your house is
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 177
1 on Main Road, sir?
2 MR. GIBBONS : Yes .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What we ' re
4 looking at, they ' re proposing it at 40 feet
5 from the property line, and your house is
6 quite far away from that property line .
7 MR. GIBBONS : As long as it is
8 correct . I have no problem with it .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Good.
10 MR. GIBBONS : Down the road, if a
11 question came up, I just wanted to make
12 sire I was doing the right thing .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure .
14 MS . ROMANELLI : Just to go back to
15 your question, as to why they don ' t want it
16 on the back. It ' s very wooded in the back .
17 They would have to do a lot more clearing .
18 They don '.t want to deal with clearing.
19 It ' s too much clearing .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is
21 significant shrub .
22 Does the Board have any other
23 questions?
24 (No Response . )
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 178
1 further questions or comments , I will make
2 a motion to close the hearing and reserve
3 decision to a later date .
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
6 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
7 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
10 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
12
r
13
14 (Whereupon, the public hearings for
15 August 2 , 2012 concluded. )
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 179
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 Jes ca DiLallo
14
15
16 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
17 PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
18
19
20 Date : August 24 , 2012
21
22
23
24
25