HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-09/06/2012 Hearing 1
RECENED
1 1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEP 2 0 2012
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK
2 ------------------------------------------®A ®EAPPF.A
LS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
4 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
5 ------------------------------------------- X
6
7
8 Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York
9 -
10
11 September 6, 2012
10 : 04 A. M.
12
13 Board Members Present :
14 LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
15 GERARD GOEHRINGER - Member
16 JAMES DINIZIO, JR. - Member
17 KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member
18 GEORGE HORNING - Member (Left at 2 : 13 P . M. )
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
,l
1 INDEX OF HEARINGS
2
3
4 Hearing : Page :
5 Denise Geis , #6579 3-9
6 Margaret M. Gannon, #6587 9-18
7 Deborah Penney, #6484 18-29
8 Peconic Landing at Southold, Inc, #6591 29-57
9 Gloria R. Geslak, #6592 57-69
10 Mary R. Frausto, #6590 69-93
11 David Schultz, #6588 93-108
12 Mill Creek Partners, LLC, #6589 108-118
13 Constance Zahra, #6586 118-127
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 3
1 HEARING #6579 - DENISE GEIS
2 MS . GEIS : Again, my name is Denise
3 Geis . I live at 2250 Sigsbee Road,
4 Mattituck.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. You are
6 before the Board because - your existing shed
7 height, the code requires that it needs to
8 be 3 feet from a rear property line, and we
9 wanted to confirm that was the case . The
10 Notice of Disapproval indicated that it was
11 6 feet, and this survey was received in our
12 office August 23rd of this year, and it
13 shows the existing shed at a 3 foot
14 conforming -- 3 . 3 feet conforming side yard
15 setback and 1 . 6 foot nonconforming rear yard
16 setback, as written in the Notice of
17 Disapproval .
18 - MS . GEIS : Correct .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jim, did you
20 have any questions?
21 MEMBER DINIZIO: No . I just wanted
22 to make sure that we had something in
23 writing on that .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. I
1
25 believe the other shed was not on the old
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 4
1 survey either, and that is now on the
2 current one .
3 MS . GEIS : Everything is on it,
4 correct .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It was done by
6 John C. Ehlers . We took some critical
7 testimony previously. I don ' t have an
8 additional questions . I just wanted to
9 confirm what we have on the survey.
10 MS . GEIS : Sure .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George, do you
12 have any questions?
13 MEMBER HORNING: No . Other than the
14 one, seemed like we were in a bit of
15 suspense at the last meeting, there was
16 alleged possibility that the marker was
17 moved. Can you comment on that?
18 MS . GEIS : Well, the surveys are
19 exactly the same from 177 , as it was from
20 August . So it ' s the same place it was on
21 both surveys .
22 MEMBER HORNING : The lot marker, in
23 your mind, has never been moved, is that
24 what you say?
25 MS . GEIS : Oh, yes . The lot marker
September 6, 2012 Zoning' Board of Appeals 5
1 has been the same since -- yes, the lot
2 marker has been the same .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions .
5 MS . GEIS : Jim?
6 MEMBER DINIZIO : This confirms that .
7 This survey confirms that the marker is the
8 same, the building is where you said it was?
9 MS . GEIS : Right .
10 MEMBER DINIZIO: And nothing has
11 changed?
12 MS . GEIS : Nothing has changed.
13 MEMBER DINIZIO : Since nineteen --
14 whatever .
15 MS . GEIS : 177 .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The marker
17 might have been there before then because
18 the property was there since the 20 ' s . So
19 regardless of whether it is moved or not, we
20 know exactly where that building is on that
21 piece of property. Whether or not that
22 marker is in the same area, doesn ' t make a
23 difference, the survey confirms it .
24 MS . GEIS : Yes .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Moreover, we
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 6
1 wanted to make sure that the Notice of
2 Disapproval was accurate, and this survey
3 confirms that it is , and we can proceed.
4 Is there anyone else in the audience
5 that would like to address this application?
6 Please state your name?
7 MS . MORGAN: My name is Patricia
8 Morgan, and I live next door . I was the one
9 that was here the last time . The -- I never
10 saw the markers that is being measured. I
11 have mine too that agrees with Denise .
12 However, I have the letter that I wrote in
13 May 2004 , when Denise put up the fence
14 saying that -- well, I wrote to Helen .
15 Helen is Denise ' s friend, and I said
16 although the fence is ( In Audible) but the
17 property line is clearly blows out in the
18 middle and sits on my property. Please have
19 the fence moved to your side .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Excuse me .
21 Ms . Morgan, not only does this survey now
22 show the fence legally on their property,
23 the bottom line is, the fence is not before
24 this Board.
25 MS . MORGAN : There was a marker
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 7
1 there . That is what I am saying . At the
2 end of the fence that you are looking at,
3 the edge of the fence that I am looking at,
4 there was a marker.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is a
6 marker . There is a marker --
7 MS . MORGAN : Not at the end of the
8 fence but at a different place .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It is
10 irrelevant to this Board.
11 MS . MORGAN: Irrelevant that there
12 was a property marker that has to be moved.
13 There was a property marker that was a foot
14 and a half a part .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ma ' am?
16 MS . MORGAN: Okay.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We visited the
18 site . We got what we asked for, and we
19 really need to stick to discussions
20 pertaining to what is before this Board.
21 MS . MORGAN: Okay. My only problem
22 is, when my property was measured -- it ' s
23 only 48 point 'something rather than 50 feet,
24 using that marker, and I have mine .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, that is
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 8
1 fine, but that is what the property line is .
2 MS . MORGAN : It used to be 50 . I
3 would just like to submit my survey too
4 because I --
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This is really
6 not germane to this application . So I don ' t
7 believe the Board can accept it .
8 MS . MORGAN : All right . That ' s good.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is germane
10 is what is before us here, which is their
11 property.
12 MS . MORGAN : Fine .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anyone else in
14 the audience?
15 (No Response . )
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
17 further questions or comments, I will make a
18 motion to close this hearing and reserve
19 decision to a later date .
20 MEMBER DINIZIO : Second.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by
22 Jim.
23 All in favor?
24 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
25 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 9
1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye .
3 (See Minutes for Resolution. )
4 ************ *******************************
5 HEARING #6587 - MARGARET M. GANNON
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. This is
7 Margaret M. Gannon, #6587 . Request for
8 variances from Article III Section 280-15 ( F)
9 and Article XXIII Section 280-124 , and the
10 Building Inspector ' s July 10 , 2012 Notice of
11 Disapproval based on an application for
12 building permit to construct garage addition
13 with two bedrooms above and "as built"
14 accessory shed at : 1) in the case of
15 waterfront properties accessory buildings
16 may be located in the front yard, provided
17 that such accessory meets the front yard
18 principal setback requirements as set forth
19 by this code . Proposed location is other
20 than the code required front or rear yard,
21 2 ) lot coverage of more than the code
22 permitted 200 , located at : 350 MacDonalds
23 Crossing, adjacent to Peconic Bay, Laurel .
24 Is there someone here to represent
25 this application?
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 10
1 MR. FITZGERALD : Good morning . My
2 name is James Fitzgerald, and my hearing
3 aids are in the shop for a tune-up .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you want to
5 come forward?
6 MR. FITZGERALD: I would like to .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Why don ' t you
8 do that . Come on up .
9 Jim, we have a letter of local
10 determination from Suffolk County, which you
11 can have a copy of . The garage addition is
12 to be two bedrooms above existing family
13 dwelling toward the landward side . The "as
14 built" shed is in a side yard, and the code
15 permits it in the front yard. Okay. The
16 lot coverage as proposed is 24 . 3%; correct?
17 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the "as
19 built" accessory shed is in the side yard,
20 where it is permitted to be in the front
21 yard or in the rear yard.
22 MR. FITZGERALD : Yes .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It looks like
24 the existing accessory garage is to be
25 demolished?
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 11
1 MR. FITZGERALD: Correct .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. What
3 would you like to tell us?
4 MR. FITZGERALD: The main project was
5 the demolition of the existing detached
6 garage and in effect moving that facility to
7 an extension of the house, which as you see,
8 it increased the front yard setback to
9 twenty some odd feet . And Ms . Gannon and
10 the architect and I , think it looks a lot
11 better from the road side that way, in
12 addition to it being able to provide
13 additional living space . That is really
14 what this is all about . As a second floor,
15 and the addition, which has two bedrooms .
16 And I think it ' s so Ms . Gannon is able to
17 support this kind of change, because this is
18 the only way she could have gotten the
19 additional living space . With regard to the
20 accessory shed, it ' s really from the
21 standpoint of the mutualization of the
22 property, is in our Town or collective
23 opinion, it ' s the only logical place for it .
24 The provision in the code for being able to
25 use a front yard is a situation such as
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 12
1 this, is nice, but it really doesn ' t help
2 because I don ' t think anybody wants to have
3 an accessory shed, what will now be a better
4 looking and presented, as presented in
5 yours .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Do you
7 know what the existing lot coverage is on
8 the property?
9 MR. FITZGERALD : It ' s more than 20 .
10 I believe it ' s 22 or 21 , something .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 220, and you
12 will be increased it by 2 . 30 . That is after
13 removing the existing garage?
14 MR. FITZGERALD: That is correct . As
15 the project will be completed.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken, any
17 questions?
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
20 MEMBER HORNING: Drywell, are they on
21 the survey? The proposed drywell?
22 MR. FITZGERALD : No, they are not
23 shown. One of the things, you will see that
24 there is an existing cesspool next to --
25 east of the demolition site, and we are
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 13
1 going to look into of abandoning that, use
2 it for the roof drainage, or for one side of
3 the roof drainage .
4 MEMBER HORNING: You mentioned the
5 possibility of moving the shed but the
6 applicant is not in .favor of moving the shed
7 in an area that would be more obstructive to
8 their front yard?
9 MR. FITZGERALD: Yeah . I think those
10 of us on this side of the bench, would agree
11 that it would not look good in either the
12 front yard or the rear yard. Particularly,
13 the front yard doesn ' t seem like a good
14 place for an accessory shed and
15 particularly, Ms . Gannon was so thrilled
16 with the result of the improvement and
17 appearance of the property, with this
18 proposed expansion.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask you
20 a question. There is a proposed attached
21 shed on the side of the garage, the new
22 garage .
23 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why not just
25 make that a little bit bigger and get rid of
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 14
1 the small shed in the side yard?
2 MR. FITZGERALD : Good question, I
3 don ' t know.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I have to tell
5 you looking at it, it ' s not terribly
6 obtrusive . It ' s very small . And you still
7 have about a ten foot side yard, which isn ' t
8 bad. I just wanted to see if you had an
9 answer to that .
10 MR. FITZGERALD : It never came up .
11 Actually, when we originally submitted this
12 to the Building Department, it was unknown
13 to me that the accessory shed was
14 undocumented. So that this never came up at
15 the planning stage, and if it ' s important --
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, because
17 it ' s the side, it doesn ' t need a building
18 permit, but it does -- it is not in a
19 conforming location. That obviously came
20 out when you went into the --
21 MR. FITZGERALD : Yes .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This does need
23 to have a variance if it ' s in a
24 nonconforming location, the side yard, which
25 they obviously picked up on. I was just
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 15
1 asking why they couldn ' t just make it
2 bigger . If they did that, they would not
3 gain that much or rather reduce your lot
4 coverage, particularly. If you take one
5 away and add to the other, you would
6 probably come out the same, I would imagine .
7 Gerry, do you have questions?
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim?
10 MEMBER DINIZIO: Can you do without
11 the shed?
12 MR. FITZGERALD : She doesn ' t think
13 so .
14 MEMBER DINIZIO: There is nothing
15 there that can ' t go in the garage?
16 MR. FITZGERALD: I don ' t really know
17 what ' s in it, if anything .
18 MEMBER DINIZIO : Simply because it ' s
19 a shed, and I don ' t know why it wouldn ' t be
20 considered, why the side yard hasn ' t been
21 denied, because technically it looks like it
22 is part of the house . You have 10 foot
23 setback there . I am pretty sure you need
24 15 . I don ' t know what size it is .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s 11, 747
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 16
1 square feet .
2 MEMBER DINIZIO : The other side yard
3 is 16 . So it should have been denied.
4 Let ' s just see, if maybe we can eliminate
5 that .
6 MR. FITZGERALD: I think it ' s because
7 it is there, and it is apparently has been
8 for quite some time . You know, the old
9 story, it doesn ' t make it legal, it just
10 makes it practically speaking . Again, if we
11 are going to have the shed at all, then we
12 think that is where it belongs . The idea of
13 simply eliminating it or eliminating the
14 shed and adding to the attachment of the
15 garage, neither of those were ever
16 considered, because essentially this came up
17 after the fact . And Ms . Gannon and I were
18 in, a let ' s fix it and get going mode, and
19 so we end up now with two variances, two
20 kinds of variances needed, and here we are .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, I suppose
22 you can talk to them and say that the Board
23 was interested in exploring the possibility
24 of eliminating the shed altogether or
25 locating it in what is likely to be the
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 17
1 front yard some place . See how that goes ,
2 or we can just make a determination, I
3 guess .
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just wanted to
5 say for the record, we had a very similar
6 situation occur on West Road and in the
7 decision, it said that the shed had to be
8 moved to a conforming location, or eliminate
9 it .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The bottom line
11 is , because the garage is now going to be
12 attached, it is going to have to go up here
13 some place and, you know, in between the
14 drywell and the cesspool, if they want to
15 keep it, because it ' s still contributed to
16 excess lot coverage . It would be so
17 minimal .
18 MEMBER DINIZIO : You would end up
19 below 24 , which is at the high end of what
20 we have granted.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes . As you
22 know, Jim, the Board is required by law to
23 grant the minimum variances that we
24 reasonably can .
25 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes .
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 18
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So that is what
2 this line of questioning was about, to see
3 what we can do to make this as conforming as
4 possible . I don ' t have any questions . Does
5 anyone else have any questions?
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There is no one
8 in the audience .
9 MR. FITZGERALD : This usually happens
10 at the end of the day.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. So
12 hearing no further comments or questions , I
13 will make a motion to close this hearing and
14 reserve decision to a later date .
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
17 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
19 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
22 (See Minutes for Resolution. )
23 ********************************************
24 HEARING #6484 - DEBORAH PENNEY
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 19
1 application before the Board is for Deborah
2 Penney, #6484 . Request for variance relief
3 from the condition imposed in the Zoning
4 Board decision application #6484 dated
51 September 15; 2011 . Reduction in width of
6 the non-turf buffer . Located at : 160
7 Sailors Needle Road, adjacent to James Creek
8 in Mattituck.
9 Is someone here to represent this
10 application?
11 MR. BRESSLER: Yes , on behalf of the
12 applicant, Eric Bressler, of Wickham,
13 Bressler, Gordon & Geisa, PO BOX 1424 ,
14 Mattituck, New York. I would like to start
15 by having Ms . Penney step up and address the
16 Board in her application . We think it ' s a
17 reasonable application, and we . hope that you
18 will be, after listening to Ms . Penney.
19 MS . PENNEY: Good morning . I am
20 Deborah Penney. I reside at 160 Sailors
21 Needle Road, the property that we are
22 discussing today. I am sure you have seen
23 the letters of support from my neighbors
24 that are really supportive in keeping the
25 neighborhood the way it has been for many
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 20
1 years , since the 40 ' s actually. What I did,
2 I Google Earth, just so you can see what it
3 looks like, the way it is now .
4 MR. BRESSLER: Let the record reflect
5 that Ms . Penney is handing up six packets of
6 the Google Earth photograph showing the
7 subject property and the properties in
8 proximity thereto .
9 MS . PENNEY : So as you can see from
10 that map, there is several bulkheading
11 around the basin area where my home is ,
12 actually single bulkheading on one side . So
13 a 20 foot buffer would just be out of place
14 completely with the character of the
15 neighborhood. We also have a placement of
16 two huge drywell ' s on that side of the
17 property, from our building, for any runoff
18 that would come off of the gutters in or
19 near around the house to protect the
20 environment . We feel that since we already
21 have that five foot buffer with sand
22 underneath, that a five foot buffer would be
23 enough to keep the environment safe, the
24 water safe . What we would intend to do is
25 plant in the line there to hold whatever is
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 21
1 there . Is there any other information that
2 you need from me?
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well , I think
4 you have submitted as much material previous
5 to this hearing, as you possibly can. One
6 thing that I am aware of, at the time, as
7 you may recall, the reason for the non-turf
8 buffer was a recommendation from the LWRP
9 coordinator . I believe at that time, there
10 was not an awareness on his part, that the
11 dock or the boardwalk really, that you have
12 in place, was on sand, and the ( In Audible)
13 device for any runoff into the creek. On
14 that basis , because that can be considered
15 technically a part of the buffer, the board
16 on sand, I believe the Board was willing to
17 reconsider the size of the buffer . I will
18 say that, although I completely understand
19 your argument about character of the
20 neighborhood, when it comes to the LWRP and
21 sound environmental best managing practices,
22 the character of the neighborhood does not
23 fall under the same kind of considerations
24 as it is in an area variance . I just wanted
25 the record to reflect that because these
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 22
1 laws have been upgraded, the sole purpose of
i
2 protecting the health of the creek, and
3 signs say, the biggest single factor in
4 preventing runoff are non-turf buffers .
5 Granted, we have been out to the site since
6 you made your request, and all of us have
7 reviewed it again. We have seen the house
8 under construction . So I believe that we do
9 understand that most of the other properties
10 really just have grass . Is that the best
11 way to prevent runoff, no . We know that,
12 and I know you know that, because we have
13 had ample reason to understand that you are
14 very sensitive to environmental
15 conservation. So I just wanted to state
16 that . We will see if any other Board
17 members have questions , or if Mr . Bressler
18 wants to make comments, that ' s fine .
19 Does the Board have any questions
20 about what was submitted to us?
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I don ' t .
22 MEMBER DINIZIO : No .
23 MEMBER HORNING: No .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Would
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 23
1 you like to make some comments?
2 MR. BRESSLER: I think the Board is
3 correct with their concern . You know, the
4 issues are here, and I think by way of
5 mitigation, the existing substantial
6 construction of the bulkhead and the sand
7 buffer goes a long way towards preventing
8 the runoff . I think that the manner of the
9 construction of this new residence with the
10 large drywell ' s,. also mitigate any potential
11 environmental harm and the third item, of
12 course, is what you mentioned, Madam
13 Chairperson, which is the nature of
14 Ms . Penney' s use of fertilizer, pesticides ,
15 things that people normally use, she ' s
16 extremely sensitive at, and minimizes the
17 use of any substances . Now, we recognize
18 the character of the neighborhood does not
19 deserve the same level of consideration .
20 Nonetheless, it is a factor that the Board
21 can take into account . It ' s a long
22 standing, well regulated nicely maintained
23 community. We think when you take
24 everything unbalanced, the applicant ' s
25 request is a reasonable one, and strikes a
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 24
1 fair balance between the necessity
2 environmental protection, and granting to
3 the applicant in which she desires, and we
4 urge to the Board to approve her
5 application .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Any
7 other comments or questions?
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I would just like
9 to ask Ms . Penney a question on just to
10 reiterate some of the things she has said in
11 her original memo dated May 29, 2012 .
12 During the hearing, with the construction on
13 the house, I did elude to that I have grown
14 up on a subdivision on Plymouth Bay. I have
15 spent my better part of my life enjoying
16 coming out of that creek and visualizing all
17 those houses, which has nothing to do with
18 my question, but when we went over there on
19 the most easterly portion or northeasterly
20 portion of the hay bales, we measured
21 approximately nine feet from those hay
22 bales , and I am not asking you to
23 particularly agree with me, but I am just
24 mentioning to the walkway. So you are
25 looking for a reduction of the buffer from .
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 25
-- 1 20 feet landward of the hay bales, to 5
2 feet . So thereby having a 5 foot buffer and
3 then the 5 foot buffer of the walkway; is
4 that correct?
5 MS . PENNEY : Yes, sir . It ' s a total
6 of 10 , which I see from my neighbor ' s who
7 have had new construction, that was required
8 by them. They were required to have a 10
9 foot buffer. I have some pictures of
10 various houses, who have had new
11 construction and bulkhead put in, single
12 bulkhead, and they were required a 10 foot
13 buffer.
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So there is no
15 controversy that the walkway will continue
16 as a buffer for as long as you own the
17 property?
18 MS . PENNEY: Yes . There is not going
19 to be any change at all . Just to reiterate,
20 I do not use any chemicals . As president of
21 Salt Lake Village, you can see from my
22 minutes , we recommend to any one that lives
23 in Salt Lake Village, to minimize the
24 runoff. I feel very strongly about that
25 myself .
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 26
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: At one point, you
2 have informed your neighbor ' s in any new
3 construction, they will also be' required to
4 go to the LWRP and they may have a similar
5 process?
6 MS . PENNEY: Yes, I have made them
7 aware .
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George?
10 MEMBER HORNING : So we have the LWRP
11 recommending a 20 foot buffer . We have the
12 Board of Trustees submitting a letter
13 stating that they are not in favor of
14 reducing the 20 foot buffer . Can you
15 comment on that?
16 MS . PENNEY: My only comment to that
17 was when I originally placed my application
18 to the Zoning Board, they were not able to
19 get me into the meeting; before I filed my
20 amendment with the Trustees for the change .
21 And so the Trustees would not change
22 anything without your approval first, and
23 that is why they stuck with the original
24 decision . My plan after this meeting, and
25 whatever your decision is, to reapply for
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 27
1 the amendment of the Trustees and I know
2 that they take what you have to say very
3 seriously, and they will look at that again .
4 That was the only reason why they said that
5 at the last close meeting, it was asked
6 about this decision, and the Trustees
7 decision was continuing as the same because
8 I hadn ' t been able to have this meeting with
9 you yet . That was very clear at the
10 meeting .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Certainly one
12 thing in my mind that is fairly clear, is
13 that the very minimum, the existing board
14 and sand of 5 feet, should be considered
15 part of the buffer.
16 MR. BRESSLER: We agree .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : , The minimum of
18 5 feet at a consequence of the existing
19 board and the sand, which is a buffer . So
20 that is the minimum.
21 MR. BRESSLER: I would also like to
22 comment on what Ms . Penney said about the
23 Trustees , the holding was around what the
24 Zoning Board did. That was their actual
25 holding . And we are going, depending upon
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 28
1 what this Board does , we would go back and
2 make a further application, if we get some
3 sort of relief, we will go back and talk to
4 them about the substance, rather than simply
5 the procedure, whereby, they believed that
6 their hands were tied.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Anything
8 from anyone else?
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
11 in the audience who wishes to make any
12 comments or chime in on this?
13 (No Response . )
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
15 further questions or comments from the
16 Board, I am going to make a motion to close
17 this hearing and reserve decision to a later
18 date .
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by
21 Gerry .
22 All in favor?
23 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
25 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 29
1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye .
3 (See Minutes for Resolution. )
4 ********************************************
5 HEARING #6591 - PECONIC LANDING AT
6 SOUTHOLD, INC .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right, the
8 next application before the Board is for
9 Peconic Landing At Southold, Inc . This
10 application is #6591 . Request for variance
11 from Article V Code Section 280-23 ( Bulk
12 Schedule) and the Building Inspector ' s July
13 9, 2012 Notice of Disapproval based on an
14 application for building permit for
15 construction of- a three story apartment
16 building addition, at; more than the maximum
17 number of 2 1/2 stories, located at : 1500
18 Brecknock Road, adjacent to Long Island
19 Sound in Greenport .
20 Good morning .
21 MR. CUDDY: Good morning. I am
22 Charles Cuddy, 455 Griffing Avenue,
23 Riverhead, New York . I represent Peconic
24 Landing . And with me today is Randolph
25 Bennett who is the architect from Perkins
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 30
1 Eastman, who built this building and other
2 buildings at the site, and also Daryl
3 Volinski, who is director of environmental
4 services at Peconic Landing, and is also a
5 past fire chief for Village of Greenport and
6 is also a EMT, and well recognized.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to
8 ask you quickly, do you have a copy of the
9 Planning Board ' s comments?
10 MR. CUDDY : Yes, I do .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you don ' t
12 need them.
13 MR. CUDDY: Just a little background
14 on Peconic Landing. What we have is two
15 preexisting units . We have 250 existing
16 units . There is 139 apartments and 111
17 cottages . We have approximately 350 people
18 at Peconic Landing, and what we are looking
19 to do is add 40 more units, for about 50 or
20 60 people . I want to tell you what type of
21 person comes to Peconic Landing because it ' s
22 'important for the application . Most of the
23 people, and I do the closings , so I know the
24 type of person that comes . Most of the
25 people that come to Peconic Landing, come at
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 31
1 the age of Mid 70 ' s , 73, 74 , 75 . Some of
2 them come in their early 80 ' s, 82 , 83, and
3 there are a number there that are in their
4 90 ' s . It is important to note that because
5 one of the things , for us at Peconic
6 Landing, that is significant is to have the
7 people close to the services, and instead of
8 having a two-story building, as opposed to a
9 three-story building, because that allows
10 the people at Peconic Landing to get to
11 anybody who is in need of assistance, and
12 each one of them has a bracelet that they
13 can press if they need assistance . So
14 having a unit that is closer, not extended
15 out is important to us . It is also
16 important for the people that are there,
17 because as they age, other things ' become
18 more difficult . Elevators , and they can go
19 up and down very easily. They can also get
20 to the part that they need -- if you look at
21 your maps, you will see the center is
22 adjacent to the existing apartment and this
23 apartment . We have made the apartment right
24 into the community center, so the people
25 could get to -- that is the residents can
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 32
�- 1 get to it quickly. So it ' s a lot easier for
2 the service people to get to them, and to
3 get to the heart of the building . I will
4 point out to you, since I am talking about
5 existing apartment building, that it is
6 three-stories . That it is more than 30
7 units on the third floor . That they all
8 have CO ' s . They were approved by the Town
9 by the Building Inspector . Each of those
10 units on the third floor has had a resident
11 in it for ten years or more . And there have
12 been no incidents as a result of having a
13 third floor . I also note that the Board has
14 on different occasions , approved the use of
15 the third floors . One of them is judge in
16 Cutchogue where I recognize they use the .
17 area on the third floor as a study. I know
18 also that Sea-Tow had added to it . So I
19 know that it is not unusual for the Board to
20 at least consider adding a third-story. In
21 this case, as I said, we have had a
22 third-story for at least 10 years, and it
23 operates completely without any problem.
24 And I would also point out to you that the
25 height of this building is really not much
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 33
1 different than the height of a one and half
2 story building. The place were the trussers
3 are, the bearing, is only 29 feet high. The
4 height of the building in the midline of the
5 roof is 35 feet, because it ' s, a little over
6 40 feet at the peak. So we are really not a
7 great deal different than a normal building
8 would be . As I have said to you, I think
9 there is really very little impact in the
10 community. Certainly the interior of this
11 building is really 144 acres, it ' s not going
12 to hurt anybody in the surrounding
13 neighborhood. There is also no
14 environmental impact . We have stayed away
15 from the wetlands, which are at our site .
16 So I don ' t know that there can be any
17 environmental consequence to this at all . I
18 would point out to you again, that the
19 alternative to the two-story building, which
20 extends out -- which would extend virtually
21 out into the back of some of the cottages ,
22 and we are trying to avoid that, in keeping
23 at least 40 feet back from those cottages,
24 but they still are close . But we are trying
25 to not go into the cottages . So it becomes
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 34
1 important to us to keep the building just
2 the way it is at a three-story level . I am
3 aware too of the yield question that was
4 posed to the Planning Board. I have looked
5 at the yield. I have looked at it with an
6 engineer . I can absolutely tell this Board
7 that I have done the calculations, that
8 there is no question that we have a proper
9 yield. We are going to add 40 apartment
10 units . We are going to add 16 dementia or
11 memory care units . We are going to add 17
12 skilled nursing. homes . That will fit -- all
13 of that will fit in the yield. There is no
14 question that it does . If necessary, I can
15 get the Board the calculations, but we will
16 -- the yield map as requested by the
17 Planning Board.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They needed it
19 anyway.
20 MR. CUDDY : They needed it for the
21 site plan . Again, Rudolph Bennett is here .
22 He can answer any question about the
23 architecture . I would ask Daryl just to
24 assure you, besides the sprinklers that we
25 have to have in the third floor, that there
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 35
�- 1 won ' t be a problem with any fire or
2 emergency incidents happening at the site .
3 MR. VOLINSKI : Daryl Volinski, 35
4 Washington Avenue, in Greenport . I work for
5 Peconic Landing and represent Peconic
6 Landing, but also a past fire chief of
7 Greenport Fire Department . I was on the
8 original construction of Peconic Landing at
9 the time . I wasn ' t working for them at the
10 time, but back in that area of time, we
11 talked about having specific roads that can
12 hold the equipment . So me being involved
r 13 with this project, is making sure that we
14 can get the fire trucks into the locations
15 that we need. To have the access roads that
16 we need to have for the building to take
17 care of the emergency situations . Also, in
18 the past, noting being an EMT at being at
19 Peconic Landing, noticed some of the
20 situations that we had with the original
21 building, such as the size of the elevators
22 and hallways and access, I have been running
23 through the problems and making sure that
24 this is not a problem for the building, and
25 making sure that safety comes first at
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 36
1 Peconic Landing. So I just wanted to make
2 sure that you all are aware that I am
3 working through these plans with the
4 architects and changing things and making
5 sure it is safe and secure for our
6 residences to be easy access and getting
7 them out, okay. Thank you .
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there a backup
9 generation system if the lights fail?
10 MR. VOLINSKI : For this unit here?
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there one for
12 this unit and is there one planned for
13 Peconic Landing?
14 MR. VOLINSKI : There is one for the
15 secondary units , which is assisted Living
16 and Skilled Nursing . The other one is just
17 going to be emergency only. Basic hallway
18 lights . It ' s not going to be fully
19 generated like the other side is, just
20 emergency lighting at this time .
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Your generator
22 runs on --
23 MR. VOLINSKI : Diesel . We were
24 looking at diesel . I think we were also
25 looking at the gas situation also . At this
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 37
1 time, it ' s just going to be diesel .
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How does this
3 building, apart from what you just eluded
4 to, change from the original one, which is
5 the most easterly building, the two and half
6 story building, is that actually two and
7 half story' s?
8 MR. VOLINSKI : Charles can answer
9 this for you.
10 MR. CUDDY: That building is
11 essentially the same side of this building.
12 The same height and the same number of
13 stories .
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So that two and
15 half story' s as written on the site plan is
16 really --
17 MR. CUDDY : Three story building .
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The second one
19 has an underground garage in it?
20 MR. CUDDY : Yes , and so will this
21 one . It will essentially be the same
22 building .
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you .
24 MEMBER HORNING: Mr . Cuddy, when was
25 the two and half story building put up?
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 38
1 MR. CUDDY: The buildings were
i,
2 constructed in 2000-2001 and they were
3 opened in April 2002 . And they have been
4 lived in since April 2002 .
5 MEMBER HORNING: I am curious why you
6 need a variance for a three-story?
7 MR. CUDDY : I think when the Building
8 Department saw the plans, they believed that
9 it currently was a. two and a half story
10 building. It has always been the same .
11 There is no difference in the plans , and I
12 think that they test it, they approved it .
13 It was built, and I think after it was
14 built, they believed it could become a
15 concern as a three-story building, but they
16 approved the plans and they gave CO ' s for
17 each one of those units . There was never a
18 change . It didn ' t come in any different
19 than when it was built . And it was -- there
20 was probably some instances on both sides ,
21 and probably, but the architect who was not
22 Perkins Eastman, that time and by the
23 Building Department too . They looked at it .
24 They thought it was appropriate and at some
25 time and they decided that it was built and
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 39
1 it was built properly, and they gave the
2 CO ' s for it .
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: At that time,
4 Mr . Cuddy, what occurred .was, the difference
5 between commercial and residential . And so
6 the determination was made -- this is just
7 on my part, I think I was Chairperson of the
8 Zoning Board at the time, that commercial
9 was completely different than residential .
10 And based upon all of the issues that were
11 really taken care by the presentation and
12 all perspectives, the Building Inspector
13 felt it was within his purview. I think it
14 was Mr. Forrester at the time, who is no
15 longer with the Town.
16 MR. CUDDY: I think the CO ' s will
17 show, Mr . Verity signed most of the CO ' s .
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That was some
19 time later . Thank you .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken, do you
21 have any comments or questions?
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No .
23 CHAIRF2RSON WEISMAN : Jim?
24 MEMBER DINIZIO : I always knew that
25 was a pretty historic building. How it got
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 40
1 there, it ' s beyond me . There are
2 considerations , from what Daryl touched on,
3 he didn ' t go with the Rescue Department side
4 and it looks like you are going to add
5 another 83 people, is that right? You have
6 40 and then you have 17 --
7 MR. CUDDY : There are three different
8 buildings really being constructed. There
9 is the apartment building and then there is
10 the joint building, but is two different
11 functions . One of them is the skilled
12 nursing and one of the memory care . Those
13 are not three-story buildings .
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : I am not worried
15 about three-story building. I am worried
16 about the amount of people you are going to
17 have there .
18 MR. CUDDY : I think Daryl can address
19 that, and you are right, he didn ' t . It has
20 not been a problem as far as we are
21 concerned. Initially it was . We have
22 worked out different situations to see
23 people get notified in a different manner .
24 Daryl, can tell you that worked out quite
25 well right now?
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 41
1 MEMBER DINIZIO: Do you have an
2 agreement with the Greenport Fire
3 Department?
4 MR. CUDDY : Yes . He can address
5 that .
6 MEMBER DINIZIO : I would like to hear
7 that because that is a big thing.
8 MR. VOLINSKI : Daryl Volinski . Yeah,
9 we have been in contact with the Chief ' s and
10 the fire department and Rescue Squad. We
11 worked out some of the locations where we
12 are going to be picking up patients or
13 wherever coming out of the buildings, you
14 know locations and other . I know you are
15 concerned with how many people we are
16 adding. You know, in the overall theme, I
17 have talked to the Chief ' s about it . We are
18 working with out our pur system to be
19 better. The pur system is our notification
20 system. To get the residents -- one is to
21 cut down on our false alarms throughout the
22 building, such as just for transports, and
23 other situations , which are what mostly
24 small of the calls that happen. We worked
25 out an agreement with a local rescue -- not
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 42
1 a rescue but a transport ambulance to take
2 these residents on -- you know, just for
3 their check-up to the ,hospital, instead of
4 the rescue . So we have worked out some of
5 the glitches in the beginning. We were
6 getting a lot of calls that weren ' t
7 emergencies . We have worked out that
8 situations with the Chief ' s . We discussed a
9 secondary ambulance that we hire, that comes
10 and just picks up our residents and brings
11 them to the hospital or for check-up ' s and
12 not feeling well, and not just calling
13 ambulance to stretch them out . We work that
14 out very well with Pete Manwaring, on the
15 back and forth communications . We have been
16 working out with the chief ' s during.
17 emergency situations . We bring people from
18 the outside into our area and help the
19 outside community. We have opened up our
20 communications ; because the communications
21 back then when the first Peconic Landing was
22 opened and I was involved in it, there was
23 no communication . We didn ' t know how many
24 people were going to hit our emergency
25 situation. Right now, I think we have cut
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 43
1 back on our calls that we have had at
2 Peconic Landing. They are more of emergency
3 situations . We have educated our nurses on
4 the floor, not to call the ambulance for a
5 transport . Unfortunately we are just going
6 to get some of them. We get them in the
7 community, you know, the people are at the
8 door and ready with their baggage . The
9 bottom line is, we are cutting back. We are
10 trying to be more forward in getting our
11 residents to the hospital on a non-emergency
12 basis and using our own transport, our vans .
13 We have wheelchairs and things like that .
14 We are not totally on the 911 system. We
15 really strive forward to try and bring about
16 a good communication with fire departments .
17 One is, I communicate directly with the
18 Chief ' s now, if I am on the property, of
19 course I am not there 24 hours . It feels
20 dike I am, but I am not . What we do, we
21 communicate with them. We tell them what we
22 have and we tell them what we need. If I am
23 there, which reduces the stress , I am EMT
24 during the day, I am one more EMT on the
25 property, that they can role without getting
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 44
1 the amount of people that they need, because
2 I can work that out with them. I can go on
3 the ambulance with them. So we have worked
4 out a good communication. We have worked
5 out a good plan. We are partners with the
6 Chief ' s and the Board of Wardens and we have
7 been in contact with them.
8 MEMBER DINIZIO : Is any of this in
9 writing?
10 MR. VOLINSKI : No, we don ' t have it
11 in writing . Not at all at this time . It ' s
12 an ongoing communication. What would you
13 like in writing, an agreement with them?
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : You have set up some
15 policies and you know, most of the Board
16 members will tell you, I like things in
17 writing . You know, if we know how that
18 works out -- you know, you might not be
19 there tomorrow . You can be somewhere else .
20 Then they are no longer with that EMT on
21 that property and we are back to, you know,
22 not being able to roll the truck until three
23 guys are there, and where are we after that?
24 So I know that it has been a learning curve .
25 It has been ten years and it should be now a
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 45
1 policy that is written down, that you know,
2 you are going to commit to this and the
3 Greenport Fire Department commits to
4 something also .
5 MR. VOLINSKI : Okay.
6 MEMBER DINIZIO: I think you just
7 need to sit down and write what you just
8 described --
9 MR. VOLINSKI : We have sat down, but
10 we did not put anything in writing. We can
11 sit down --
12 MEMBER DINIZIO: I am not talking
13 about a legal agreement . I am talking about
14 a policy. You know, later on, we can say we
15 have been following this policy for twenty
16 years and now it is changing . What is the
17 problem?
18 MR. VOLINSKI : Right . Understood. I
19 think that is a good idea and I take that as
20 a good thing . We will go back and I will
21 discuss with the three chief ' s that are
22 there and the captain of the Rescue Squad
23 and sit down and discuss and come up with an
24 SOP of some sort, a procedure that we can
25 put in writing, which is a good thing. Like
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 46
1 you said --
2 MEMBER DINIZIO : Have you anticipate
3 just how many more calls are going to be
4 there, now that you are having more people
5 on the property? You know, how many did you
6 have last year?
7 MR. VOLINSKI : When I was Chief -- I
8 could be guessing, I don ' t have the
9 documents in front of me . I think it was
10 100-150 . Most of them are rescue calls .
11 Some of them are ambulance situations . When
12 I know, I am jumping around here, when I
13 took on Peconic Landing as the director of
14 environmental services, we were getting
15 calls for false alarms , and what the .
16 situation was, the bulbs ( sic) were causing
17 the false alarms inside the system. So we
18 clean in twice a year now and we cut that in
19 half . I know that for fact . We have cut
20 the calls for the fire department being
21 there, in half at least . Ambulance calls ,
22 we are trying to cut those down due to using
23 outside sources, such as the private
24 ambulances and that is working out very
25 well . We are cutting back on some of those
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 47
1 calls . I don ' t have those numbers in front
2 of me because I am not the Chief any more .
3 I don ' t know the count, but as I think last
4 year, they break it down, we are about 160
5 and 74 over there . .
6 MEMBER DINIZIO: So you were at 160 .
7 What do you anticipate now?
8 MR. VOLINSKI : I couldn ' t give you
9 that number off the top of my head. I would
10 have to do some calculations . I would hope
11 that it would stay more or so -- rise
12 slightly but not much. I don ' t know. I
13 couldn ' t give you that number right off the
14 top of my head.
15 MEMBER DINIZIO : I see a lot of
16 Peconic Landing over there at the hospital .
17 I see the van there .
18 MR. VOLINSKI : They transport .
19 MEMBER DINIZIO : I would just like to
20 see if you ,can have something now just to
21 kind of ancipitate what -- part of the
22 record, here is what it is . Here is what we
23 are going to add. You know, it ' s going to
24 be this much more .
25 MR. VOLINSKI : I think that can be
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 48
�. - 1 done with a warden. Maybe set up a meeting,
-" 2 you know with myself and Bob, and we will
3 sit down and discuss with the wardens and
4 the Chief ' s, and you know, maybe we will
5 come up with something we think is going to
6 happen . We go from year to year, and some
7 type of graph and see what we have been
8 doing . I do 'see -- I can ' t give you the
9 numbers, but we do see stress going there,
10 like it was in the past, and rehab . Like I
11 said, I think we have cut down at least 500
12 of the calls down to the fire department .
13 We can come up with some calculations and
14 sit down with them.
15 MEMBER DINIZIO : You know, I think
16 you can pretty much justify or get the
17 paperwork, at least consider this is not
18 going to be a big addition to it .
19 MR. VOLINSKI : That ' s not a problem.
20 Like I said, I am in communications with the
21 Chief ' s all the time .
22 MEMBER DINIZIO: I might be correct
23 about the yield, only 40 additional
24 apartment units and 16 dementia units . Are
25 they people that are going to stay they, or
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 49
1 are they people that have been --
2 MR. CUDDY : Those people are
3 ultimately from the complex itself .
4 Initially you can have some outsiders . This
5 is being built for people that are there . I
6 just want to address, it ' s not going to
7 change whether we have a three-story
8 building or a two-story building . Those
9 people are still going to be . We are really
10 just trying to talk about the three-story
11 because we think it ' s significant that they
12 can get services quicker and have them
13 serviced quicker . The State of New York,
14 the life care counsel, consist of the
15 insurance department, which is now a new
16 term, and the 'Health Department and the
17 Attorney General ' s office . Every
18 application that is made to expand, and just
19 as our original was, has to go through and
20 it is now going through that process . They
21 have to be satisfied that we can supply
22 services to those people . It ' s a really
23 rigorous long term thing. It ' s going to
24 take months and months to finish that . So
25 the Health Department look over exactly what
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 50
i
1 we are doing and they have to be satisfied
2 that we can service these people properly
3 with a hospital with in-house facilities
4 that we have . I will point this out to you,
5 and you may be aware of this, the skilled
6 nursing facility at Peconic Landing is one
7 of the top 15 in the entire country . It has
8 no deficiencies . It ' s an unusual event .
9 This is something very special and I am
10 proud of it . In Newsweek article, it list
11 all of the homes . We are in the top 15 out
12 of 4 , 000 . So they do a good job, and I
13 think they will continue to do a good job
14 and the Health Department is going to make
15 sure that we can take care of your concerns ,
16 and we will too .
17 MEMBER DINIZIO : Again, I agree with
18 all of that . I understand all of that . I
19 am glad that you are successful . Success
20 means more use, okay. It means more on,
21 this particular case, more calls no matter
22 how you look at it . The Health Department
23 can say all they want that the fire
24 department can handle it, but when you got
25 fire department members at 60 years old, and
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 51
1 receives four calls a day, that is going to
2 be a problem later on down the road. Now,
3 where do we go from there? I don ' t know . I
4 want to know what you are planning for the
5 future . You are, no doubt in my mind, one
6 of the best facilities on Long Island.
7 That ' s all I keep hearing is how successful
8 you are and success breeds use . That is a
9 good thing . I have no problem with that .
10 If we are going to stand up and say this is
11 what we do now, I just want to see it .
12 MR. CUDDY: That ' s fine .
13 MEMBER DINIZIO: Later on. Now, I
14 still have not gotten an answer to this,
15 hopefully I can get an answer . If 40 units
16 in the three-story building that is before
17 us, are there are 16 additional beds in
18 that?
19 MR. CUDDY : Yes .
20 MEMBER DINIZIO : So you can live in a
21 cottage story 39 and you get to the point
22 where you can ' t live in cottage story 39,
23 they go to the dementia room.
24 MR. CUDDY: It ' s different .
25 MEMBER DINIZIO : Now a new person
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 52
1 goes into 39 .
2 MR. CUDDY: That ' s correct .
3 MEMBER DINIZIO: So that ' s an
4 additional 16 people . And the 17 , is the
5 same thing?
6 MR. CUDDY: That ' s right .
7 MEMBER DINIZIO : They are coming from
8 wherever and they are going into the skilled
9 nursing?
10 MR. CUDDY : Yes .
11 MEMBER DINIZIO : Now, they may go
12 back?
13 MR. CUDDY : , It ' s possible .
14 MEMBER DINIZIO: With dementia, you
15 could probably do 20 years, and you are
16 going to be living there . So actually it ' s
17 83 --
18 MR. CUDDY : 73 is the number . Let me
19 tell you how that works . Peconic Landing is
20 144 acres . 50 of those acres are set aside .
21 12 of them are in what is called the R-80
22 District, as opposed to the Hamlet Density.
23 The Hamlet Density gives you an 1/4 of an
24 acre . 38 of the acres are scene easement
25 acres , that have been prescribed for the
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 53
1 site . It is up front towards the ocean --
2 towards the sound, excuse me . Some of it is
3 back where the old ( In Audible) used to be .
4 It is sort of a small pond. If you subtract
5 the 50, which I just talked about, you get
6 90 acres . If you take that times four, you
7 get 396 . We have 250 existing apartments
8 and cottages, we have 26 assisted care and
9 44 skilled nursing homes . If you take all
10 of those and adding these, and I will give
11 you a little caveat in 'a second. If you add
12 them altogether, you will still come under
13 396, but when the Town set up the nursing
14 facility, they said 5 of an acre, not a 1/4
15 of an acre . And when you take ; the acres ,
16 each acre is only 40 , 000 . We have 43 , 5 .
17 We have at least 10 or 15 acres right now
18 that are unused, even with this new yield,
19 and we have gone through that half a dozen
20 times . So it works . That is what I will
21 show you if you are interested in the yield
22 plan . There is no question that it works .
23 We have done it . I can sort of recite it
24 from memory at this point .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 54
1 application has to have approval from the
2 Site Plan --
3 MR. CUDDY: Yes . And they are very
4 much --
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am pleased at
6 what you are proposing. I think Peconic
7 Landing is a necessity out here . It is for
8 many of the community at large here .
9 Perkins Eastman, I know very well . I have
10 worked with them as a graduate student .
11 Having said that, I think Jim is right, that
12 the density that you are proposing is well
13 into the third-story, whether you consider
14 the possibility of emergency services . I
15 think it is thoroughly addressed and I think
16 if we can have some description of that
17 policy, the density will be changed, even if
18 it a third-story .
19 MR. CUDDY : Yes .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that if
21 we can get that information, I would like
22 even though it ' s really not our
23 jurisdiction, to have the yield
24 calculations . And since there is a
25 possibility of submitting some Peconic
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 55
1 Landing policy, which goes to the
2 infrastructure in place and the ability to
3 accommodate the impact on local emergency
4 services , then we should have that . I think
5 we need it in order to make an informed
6 determination.
7 MR. CUDDY : Okay.
8 MEMBER HORNING : The yield that you
9 are talking about is based upon the number
10 of units or acreage; is that right?
11 MR. CUDDY: Yes . You get four units
12 per an acre .
13 MEMBER HORNING: And Jim was
14 mentioning rescue trucks and things . You
15 have 250 existing units --
16 MR. CUDDY : That ' s right .
17 MEMBER HORNING: How many people
18 occupy each unit?
19 MR. CUDDY: The total population is
20 around 360-375 . It ' s like 1 and 1/2 if you
21 were doing it on mathematically. There are
22 some units with one person and some have
23 two . More one ' s than two ' s . It just works
24 out that way. There are people that come in
25 sometimes as couples . One dies and the
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 56
1 other stays for the rest of their life .
2 MEMBER HORNING: A person can come in
3 as a couple and one in a dementia ward and
4 the other --
5 MR. CUDDY : That ' s correct .
6 MEMBER HORNING: You are not putting
7 someone else in the other unit --
8 MR. CUDDY: That ' s right .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
10 in audience that would like to address this
11 application?
12 MEMBER DINIZIO : Can I just add
13 something?
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure .
15 MEMBER DINIZIO: My concern is that
16 if you just give us a hard number, I don ' t
17 need the calculations . Just so that when
18 the written decision is issued, we know that
19 we are not exceeding .
20 MR. CUDDY: Fine .
21 MEMBER DINIZIO : And the other one is
22 to have that procedure down and have that
23 part of the record.
24 MR. CUDDY : If I were to give you a
25 statement from Young & Young to show you the
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 57
1 yield, would that be satisfactory?
2 MEMBER DINIZIO : Yes . Just a number .
3 MR. CUDDY : What they did was that
4 every skilled nursing facility is 8 , 000
5 square feet . That is what they said.
6 MEMBER DINIZIO : Okay.
7 MR. CUDDY: Thank you .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any other
9 comments or questions?
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing none, I
12 am going to make a motion to close this
13 hearing, subject to receipt of, one, an
14 emergency management policy from Peconic
15 Landing and two, is a yield calculation.
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by
18 Gerry.
19 All in favor?
20 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
22 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
25 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 58
2 HEARING #6592 - GLORIA R. GESLAK
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
4 application before the Board is for Gloria
5 R. Geslak, #6592 . This is a request for a
6 Waiver of Merger under Article II, Section
7 280-10A, to unmerge land identified as
8 SCTM#1000-98-5-11, based on the Building
9 Inspector ' s July 11, 2012 Notice of
10 Disapproval, which states a nonconforming
11 lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming
12 or nonconforming lot which has been held in
13 common ownership until the total lot size
14 conforms to the current bulk schedule,
15 minimum 4.0, 000 square feet in this R-40
16 Residential Zone District, this lot is
17 merged with lot 1000-98-5-12 , located at :
18 215 & 125 Robinson Lane, corner Indian Neck
19 Lane in Peconic .
20 Pat, do you have any more green
21 cards , we have 3 out of the 6?
22 MS . MOORE : No . We haven ' t gotten
23 any. Today' s mail comes around two . So if
24 I get any more, I will give them to you.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please proceed.
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 59
1 MS . MOORE : Good morning.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning .
3 MS . MOORE : Patricia Moore on behalf
4 of the owner Ms . Gloria Geslak, and the
5 purchasers, Mr . & Mrs . Smith. It just
6 happens that they just walked in . Gloria is
7 to the right, and then the owners of the
8 property. Linda is one of the contract
9 vendee with her husband. Going with respect
10 -- you have the written application. What I
11 did was , I also put together my outline,
12 which I will submit to the Board, just so
13 you can have it for the record. What I did
14 was, I attached the map, because I was
15 driving down that street, I thought that
16 there was a vacant lot on the opposite
17 corner, and when I checked with the
18 Assessor ' s , it appears that every property
19 is developed on Robinson Lane . Just as a
20 point of fact . The properties are shown on
21 what is on a map of Peconic Bay Oak, which
22 was filed with the Suffolk County Clerk in
23 October 18 , 1961 as file number #3434 .
24 These two lots were separate and distinct
25 lots , and because it appears on the Peconic
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 60
1 Bay Oak subdivision, it is one of the exempt
2 properties that is grandfathered in since
3 1997 . So up until 1997 , these parcels could
4 have been developed without any issues or
5 merger . Gloria Geslak, the owner, received
6 the property from Rosemarie Gigglio Living
7 Trust . That was her mother ' s trust . They
8 were the original owners of the property,
9 John and Rosemary Gigglio who purchased the
10 property from the Smith, Henry Smith who
11 developed the subdivision . The deed from
12 the beginning when Mr. Smith transferred the
13 property to Mr . & Mrs . Gigglio, described
14 the parcels as Lot ' s #14 & #15 on the filed
15 subdivision map. At the community, as I
16 said, all the homes on Robinson ' s Lane are
17 developed and it is a very straightforward
18 consistent neighborhood. This particular
19 basic lot on the corner, has always been
20 treated and maintained as a separate
21 residential lot . When we go through the
22 standards of the Waiver of Merger, we have
23 all of the standards set forth, but as I go
24 through, I just pointing out the valiant
25 points, with respect to this application .
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 61
1 All the lots are Robinson ' s Lane are very
2 similarly in size . This particular vacant
3 lot on the corner is slightly larger,
4 because it ' s a corner lot . And it can be
5 developed. We did provide you with a survey
6 and they showed the building envelope with
7 the front yard setbacks that are applicable
8 from Indian Neck Road and Robinson Lane . It
9 provides for a very comfortable building
10 envelope and certainly adequate for the
11 Smith ' s plan. You will also see that the
12 Geslak home is very modest . It ' s a 30x3Ox36
13 building envelope, and it ' s pretty close to
14 the southerly property line . So the
15 property visually, it looks very big,
16 because of the separation between the
17 property. The Geslak ' s when she put the
18 property on the market, it was at that
19 point, apparent, that a merger occurs .
20 Until that time, she was not aware of it and
21 certainly her family was not aware of it .
22 And it was put on the market with the
23 brokers , until my client came along and put
24 the application or we did the single and
25 separate search and realized that that
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 62
1 merger had occurred. Ms . Geslak is here .
2 She is a young woman . The property is very
3 modern. She just did not have all the wear
4 with all to make this application and the
5 expenses of this application, so the Smith ' s
6 as part of this negotiation said that they
7 would pay for this application, Waiver of
8 Merger, which the contract is subject to
9 getting a building permit . From this point,
10 we will then get Health Department approval ,
11 which will then be a simple process . This
12 is a grandfathered parcel as far as the
1.3 Health Department is concerned. We just
14 have to show them the proposed location of
15 the sanitary system, which would be a normal
16 standard, four bedroom house sanitary
17 system, and there is public water both on
18 Indian Neck Road and Robinson Lane . So it
19 is a very straightforward from this point
20 forward, shall we hope that you will approve
21 this waiver . The waiver will maintain, for
22 the most part, the character of the
23 neighborhood. That is not in your Waiver of
24 Merger application, but it is something that
25 is always in mind. It is interesting that,
September 6, 2012. Zoning Board of Appeals 63
1 if this lot were merged, and not permitted
2 to be unmerged, you have the Geslak ' s home,
3 which becomes nonconforming. So the house
4 that has been constructed and in place, the
5 Waiver of Merger actually creates the
6 creation of a nonconformity on the improved
7 parcel . So that is something to keep in
8 mind.
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: In which way, the
10 side yard?
11 MS . MOORE : Front . The side yard is
12 27 . The front yard is a 50 foot setback
13 based on one acre side parcel, and it is'
14 37 . 5 , with the existing house . The entire
15 community has developed with the standard
16 setback applicable a 1/2 acre parcel . That
17 is pretty much it . The Waiver of Merger,
18 this one is relatively straightforward. The
19 lot is still wooded. It really does look
20 like a separate buildable lot . It took
21 everybody by .surprise that we have to go
22 through this process .
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Ms . Geslak is the
24 daughter of Rosemary Gigglio?
25 MS . MOORE : Yes, she is . Do you need
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 64
1 that on the record?
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what,
3 just because we don ' t have any
4 documentation.
5 MS . MOORE : That ' s fine .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can swear
7 you in under oath, and then you can testify,
8 that you are in deed the daughter .
9 Can you just state your name for me?
10 MS . GESLAK: Gloria Geslak.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you
12 please raise your right hand and repeat
13 after me? I, Gloria Geslak.
14 MS . GESLAK: I , Gloria Geslak.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Am the daughter
16 of --
17 MS . GESLAK: Am the daughter of --
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rosemary
19 Gigglio .
20 MS . GESLAK: Rosemary Gigglio .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And inherited
22 the dwelling as a consequence of that
23 relationship .
24 MS . GESLAK: And inherited the
25 dwelling as a consequence of that
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 65
1 relationship .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Is there
3 anything else that you would like to tell
4 us?
5 MS . GESLAK: No .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess that is
7 why you have an attorney.
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Thank you.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sometimes when
10 the names are different in the family and we
11 don ' t have the affidavit affirming that
12 relationship, we just like to make sure
13 that --
14 MS . MOORE : I understand.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The nature of
16 the relationship .
17 Ken, any other questions?
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No further
19 questions .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
21 MEMBER HORNING: No .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jim?
25 MEMBER DINIZIO : We have established
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 66
1 that the property hasn ' t changed hands out
2 of the family, why are they before us?
3 MS . MOORE : Because it was two
4 properties in the same name, and that is the
5 only reason . The Waiver of Merger gives
6 them the right to keep it in the family, but
7 it should be in two separate names .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Was this merger
9 upon death?
10 MS . MOORE : No . In the beginning, it
11 was acquired as I said, Lot #13 and #14 on
12 the subdivision map, and it was in the wife
13 and the husbands name . Then when the
14 husband passed away, it went into the trust,
15 and the trust was Rosemary. Rosemary was
16 the ultimate --
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Recipient?
18 MS . MOORE : Recipient .
19 MEMBER DINIZ'IO : ' I am not following
20 that .
21 MS . MOORE : I have to pull out the
22 Waiver of Merger Law, but it ' s interpreted
23 from at least the Building Department, when
24 you have those properties that have -- they
25 have been put in the same name, you have to
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 67
1 go through the process of Waiver of Merger
2 even though it has been transferred from the
3 family. That ' s the interpretation . If you
4 want to come up with an alternative theory,
5 that would be great . The only ones that had
6 to come here for a Waiver of Merger, where
7 it is a situation like this, where many,
8 many generations , acquisitions of the
9 property, typically from the original
10 developer, and it was put in the same name
11 because nobody thought any differently. It
12 was the grandfathers subdivision .
13 MEMBER DINIZIO: I thought that would
14 take care of all of that, when showing that
15 the lot never changed hands . Both lots have
16 really never changed hands out of the
17 family?
18 MS . MOORE : Right .
19 MEMBER DINIZIO : It is that case?
20 MS . MOORE : It is that case, yes .
21 MEMBER DINIZIO : So why is it before
22 us again?
23 MS . MOORE :. Because you taken an
24 application in the past where the property
25 -- because the property was placed in the
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 68
1 same name, you have accepted the
2 application . The Building Department sent
3 the application saying you need a Waiver of
4 Merger . You can ' t just do it by way of a
5 deed. That is just the way it was written.
6 Maybe it was not intended that way.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would have
8 been merged because it ' s husband and wife,
9 both lots, whether living or deceased, it
10 would have merged when the merger law took
11 effect, because it was the same name .
12 MS . MOORE : Yes .
13 CHAIRPERSON_ WEISMAN: According to
14 these facts , they were purchased, John and
15 Rosemary purchased this in 1963?
16 MS . MOORE : Correct .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the Waiver
18 of Merger was in effect -- not in effect .
19 MS . MOORE : Not in effect, correct .
20 It was grandfathered in 197 .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And after ' 97 ,
22 living or deceased, it would have been
23 merged. This is deeded over by a trust to
24 the surviving daughter .
25 MS . MOORE : Yes .
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 69
1 MEMBER HORNING: In 1997 , is that
2 when John died?
3 MS . MOORE : No, he died later .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right . I
5 think we have it . Any other questions?
6 (No Response . )
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
8 in the audience that would like to address
9 this application?
10 (No Response . )
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
12 further comments, I will make a motion to
13 close the hearing and reserve decision to a
14 later date .
15 MEMBER DINIZIO : Second.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
17 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
19 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
22 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
23 ******************** ***********************
24 HEARING #6590 - MARY R. FRAUSTO
25 Applicant requests a Special
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 70
1 Exception under Article III, Section
2 280-13B ( 13 ) . The Applicant is the owner
3 requesting authorization to establish an
4 Accessory Apartment in an accessory
5 structure, requests variance from Section
6 280-13B ( 13 ) (a) total square footage of more
7 than the maximum livable floor area of 750
8 square feet, at : 1425 Bay Avenue, adjacent
9 to Marion Lake .
10 Please state your name?
11 MR. HEARD: Peter Heard.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. Let
13 me just clarify one thing, first off, the
14 original Notice of Disapproval, indicated a
15 nonconforming square footage, however, I
16 know you have a copy of the Building
17 Department ' s calculations of livable floor
18 area, which is determined to be 712 square
19 feet, which would make it conforming.
20 MR. HEARD: Yes , I am aware of that .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that is
22 really not going to be heard, even though
23 the original notice has that stated. All
24 right, tell us what you would like us to
25 know about the application .
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 71
1 MR. HEARD: This property was owned
2 by Dr . Jeffrey Williams from Southold. The
3 existing certificate of occupancy refers to
4 the structures here, a single family
5 dwelling with a seasonal cottage . I think
6 the Board is aware, if not, I think you
7 would be by that letter, that both of the
8 structures on the property have been rented
9 for many years , as owned by Dr . Williams .
10 In 2006, as of the divorce settlement,
11 former Ms . Williams, now Ms . Frausto became
12 the owner of this property. From the time
13 she became owner, her intention was always
14 to make the primary residence structure
15 closer to the lake, the rear structure . As
16 the last five years have gone by, she does
17 not have the means to renovate and make the
18 place livable for her. So her son, also
19 Dr . Jeffrey Williams, who is agreeing to
20 finance her endeavors here . Aside from a
21 good feeling and helping out his mother, I
22 am sure he would want to recover some of his
23 money, therefore the idea is that we would
24 request permission from this Board, to make
25 this front structure to a legal rental
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 72
_ 1 accessory building. And then the rear
2 structure would be her primary residence . I
3 know that if I was a neighbor here or if I
4 was on the Board, I would have concerns
5 about this property. There is a lot of
6 things to be nonconforming according to the
7 survey. The intent is to make this property
8 conform as much as possible . This is really
9 the first step in getting permission to use
10 this structure as not just as seasonal
11 cottage, but as a rental accessory building .
12 The next step, would be to submit plans for
13 renovations of the structures . The purpose
14 is making these renovations result in a
15 conforming property as much as possible . So
16 now do you want me to detail those
17 intentions , as well, or just answer
18 questions that you have? What would you
19 like?
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me point
21 out, right now the cottage has a Pre-CO as a
22 seasonal cottage . Just so the record is
23 clear, and that you understand, should you
24 go ahead with this request and should the
25 Board grant this request for an accessory
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 73
1 apartment in an accessory structure, which
2 would be habitable year round and rented to
3 either a member of the family or someone
4 eligible through affordable housing
5 registry, while the principal dwelling is
6 occupied by either Ms . Frausto or the
7 accessory apartment, either way, it doesn ' t
8 matter which unit, you will be losing your
9 Pre-CO as a seasonal cottage . That is going
10 to happen. Are you aware of that?
11 MR. HEARD: Yes .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now, at site
13 inspection, it became pretty clear that the
14 existing principal building is going to be a
15 demolition and a new house that will be more
16 conforming and up to code?
17 MR. HEARD: That ' s right . Right now,
18 that structure -- this predated Mr . Williams
19 owning it . You know, it was a typical
20 cottage with additions, and additions over
21 years, and you can see just from the
22 footprint, it ' s a funny little thing . It
23 has a partial foundation, partially on post .
24 It doesn ' t conform to any setbacks . The
25 intention would be to completely remove that
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 74
1 and rebuild it in a conforming way.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And also the
3 accessory building which is dilapidated in
4 between --
5 MR. HEARD : On the survey, it shows
6 the front structure, which is referred to a
7 one-story frame house, behind it is a garage
8 and then a principal dwelling closer to the
9 lake and a metal shed on the property shed.
10 Currently the metal shed is gone, it doesn ' t
11 exist . And the garage between the two
12 structures, we would be intending to
13 completely remove that as well .
14 Interestingly, since the visit of the Board
15 to the property, I did have Mr . Metzer
16 calculate the lot coverage and amazingly
17 even with the structures, it ' s under
18 allowable coverage . So we would bring it
19 well under allowable lot coverage, if
20 granted, what they intend to do .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As you are
22 aware and your client is aware, this Special
23 Exception Permit is not transferable to
24 another owner .
25 MR. HEARD : I am not aware of that,
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 75
1 but I will make them aware of that . In
2 other words, if he were to sell it, they
3 would have to go through the same process?
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct .
5 MR. HEARD: I understand.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now, it ' s
7 fairly unusual for the Board to grant an
8 accessory apartment where there is no
9 principal dwelling . So the way in which
10 that is possible, is that you would need to
11 -- because you propose this first, rather
12 than knocking down and building a principal
13 dwelling first, having the applicant reside
14 there and then propose for a Special
15 Exception, and then for the accessory
16 apartment . Since you are doing it in the
17 opposite way, we would have to condition,
18 should we grant an accessory apartment, that
19 approval based upon the existence of a
20 principal dwelling and the occupancy of it
21 by the landlord.
22 MR. HEARD : Understood. That either
23 one would be the primary residence?
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Either one, but
25 we need both of them there, so in order to
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 76
1 grant it, in this particular order, that
2 would have to be a condition.
3 MR. HEARD: Understand.
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The cottage could
5 not be a primary residence?
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It could. It
7 doesn ' t matter . The law allows the -- since
8 it ' s the owner, to live in either unit .
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Right .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The principal
11 dwelling is still the dwelling.
12 MR. HEARD : If I may, in the
13 application although it is not a sworn
14 affidavit, which you have pointed out to me,
15 there is a letter from Mary Frausto, a
16 signed letter, indicating her intention to
17 make it her primary residence .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : After I thought
19 about it further, I realized that everything
20 would be null and void if she didn ' t live
21 there .
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want you
23 to know, Mr . Heard, that this is a
24 significant condition . This is not a
25 temporary. You either are, or you are not .
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 77
1 And if you are not, it doesn ' t exist .
2 MR. HEARD : Yes . I understand.
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The Special
4 Exception becomes null and void . It ' s just
5 gone .
6 MR. HEARD: If the owner is not
7 living there as a primary residence, I
8 understand.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So in other
10 words , if you go ahead and do this , this is
11 granted and you go ahead and the renovations
12 occur, it would have to remain
13 owner/occupied, until the principal dwelling
14 is rebuilt and occupied. You can ' t start
15 renting it out .
16 MR. HEARD : I understand.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We just want to
18 flush out all the issues because this is a
19 little unorthodox .
20 MEMBER HORNING: Leslie, is any one
21 living in the principal dwelling?
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, it ' s not
23 habitable really. The other question to
24 you, just want you to enter into the record
25 your opinion as a builder, on what you can
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 78
1 save and what is the extent of the
2 renovations and the repairs of in-place and
3 in-kind that need to be made on the existing
4 seasonal cottage to turn it into a code
5 compliant accessory apartment?
6 MR. HEARD: Yes . It looks pretty bad
7 from the outside . Structurally, it ' s
8 surprisingly sound. The framing, the roof
9 framing, even the support structure is
10 pretty sound. So a lot of it is cosmetic .
11 It ' s ratty. It ' s non insulated or totally
12 insulated. The wiring is not up to date . I
13 would like to put a real true crawl space .
14 I would like to lift the house and put a
15 crawl space foundation under it . Right now,
16 like the rear structure, it has a partial
17 foundation and posts . It ' s open to animals
18 to get under the floor structure . So it ' s
19 pretty sound structurally but needs a lot of
20 cosmetic work. So the intention would be
21 new siding, new wiring, new wall boards , new
22 insulation, and new roofing.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : New windows?
24 MR. HEARD : Yes , I would push for new
25 windows, energy efficient windows . The
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals. 79
1 windows are not broken. A couple of them
2 were taken out and boarded over . The ones
3 that exist are not broken, they are just
4 ugly.
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And a heating
6 system?
7 MR. HEARD: Yes . There is a -- it ' s
8 probably not functional . While it has been
9 called a "Seasonal Cottage, " am I correct in
10 understanding that seasonal cottage means
11 that you don ' t have heat? Is that what
12 seasonal cottage means?
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It means its
14 occupancy is seasonal . In other words, it ' s
15 not a year round rental .
16 MR. HEARD: Well, it has had a
17 heating system in it and it does have year
18 round residents .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have a
20 letter from the neighbor indicating that as
21 long as she has been there, which has been
22 for a very long, that seasonal cottage had
23 been renting out primarily to transient
24 males . You have a copy of it .
25 MR. HEARD: Yes . She sent one to me .
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 80
1 I have had no conversation with her, but she
2 sent me a copy.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: She has no
4 objection to it remaining as a rental . As
5 long as it ' s a one family.
6 MR. HEARD: Surely. I would too .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Clearly, that
8 is what will happen with an accessory
9 apartment .
10 MR. HEARD: Those terms would be
11 regulated by all the restrictions in place
12 for a legal rented accessory structure . The
13 same with the other letter there they gave
14 you. He says the same thing . He has no
15 objections for the use .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don ' t have
17 it .
18 MR. HEARD: Maybe since you all don ' t
19 have a copy, I can just read it . "I am the
20 neighbor at 1405 Bay Avenue . And I would
21 like the zoning to be changed so that the
22 property will be maintained. I don ' t object
23 to the rental of the property. I speak for
24 Jean Ruggiero and myself, Edwin J. Braun .
25 Thank you . " So again, they don ' t object to
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 81
1 the renting of it . They just want it done
2 right, which I am with 100% .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now, one of the
4 things that is required under the Special
5 Exception Permit, is sufficient parking
6 onsite . There is going to be two for the
7 dwelling and one for the apartment?
8 MR. HEARD : Yes .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And I don ' t know
10 that we have -- we have it on the survey.
11 MR. HEARD: I might mention that the
12 removal of that garage is going to make it
13 even easier .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes , of course .
15 So that ' s in place . We have basic support
16 from both neighbor ' s . Approval is an
17 upgrade . I think we have flushed out the
18 issues . So let ' s see if the Board has any
19 questions .
20 Jim?
21 MEMBER DINIZIO : No .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Other than the
24 fact that you relay that information to both
25 the doctor and his mother, that the
September 6; 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 82
1 information that we have told you about the
2 occupancy, I don ' t have any particular
3 issues, other than you understand that your
4 client is trading a seasonal CO or a year
5 round accessory apartment -
6 MR. HEARD: Yes . And so that I am
7 here, let ' s say, I don ' t know how they are
8 going to work out there situation.
9 Mother-son, who gets money. He gets the
10 rent, how it will go . Let ' s say he wants to
11 buy it from her or how would they legally
12 work it out through you that it would equal
13 out as a purchase . He would have to -- as
14 the new owner, he would then have to request
15 the same Special Exception as we are
16 requesting for Mary Frausto at this time, as
17 the new owner?
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And he would have
19 to live in the house .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That ' s right .
21 It would have to be a primary residence . It
22 can ' t be a seasonal principal dwelling . The
23 idea was that the Town Board approve this
24 code change, was to promote affordable
25 rental units to existing structures with
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 83
1 conditions . So that they were not open
2 market rate, just increasing density and
3 money for the owner, but allowing families
4 to age in place . Allowing someone on the
5 affordable registry to afford a rental .
6 Just because we don ' t have very, very many
7 in the town, so there are restrictions .
8 MR. HEARD : Sure .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We now have, to
10 help the public and the property owners,
11 placed in all of our decisions with a
12 Special Exception type of permit that it is
13 not transferable . It helps for the people
14 to see it in the decision . Just so long
15 your client understands . For the record,
16 why did you decide to go ahead with the
17 apartment first, rather than the dwelling
18 first?
19 MR. HEARD: I would like to submit a
20 building permit for the entire project . So
21 I would like to make a survey showing the
22 whole thing . Do it at one time . My -- when
23 you look at this property, you say nothing
24 here conforms . You know, I would imagine
25 that any one in the Building Department
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 84
1 would look at this, and say, rejection right
2 away, because nothing conforms . And, I am
3 -- we are asking for a complete demolition
4 of the rear house . Not just the renovation.
5 So you knock something down, you lose it .
6 You can ' t just rebuild it . We want -- I
7 guess , they are asking for the most that
8 they can get out of this property, and it
9 seems to me that it makes sense to get its
10 usage first, then renovate . If we don ' t
11 give them this , they are going to have to
12 think, will they make it just one structure
13 on the property. We will let it sit there
14 as it has .
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to go
16 back on one thing first, just so you are
17 aware of it . We have seen situations , where
18 people still reside and have an apartment in
19 New York City, but their permanent residence
20 is out here . You understand what I am
21 saying? And they come out all the time .
22 They spend six months out here and then they
23 spend four months in the city. So those are
24 the situations that are okay. As long as
25 they spending six months out of the year, if
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 85
1 there was a transfer and you were referring
2. to that .
3 MR. HEARD : Is that what the line is ,
4 six months?
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Primarily. I
6 am not sure .
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am not sure .
8 What I am saying, is that we have seen these
9 situations before .
10 MEMBER HORNING: Or where you are
11 registered to vote?
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Where you are
13 registered to vote, where your license is,
14 and so on and so forth .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A lot of people
16 live here all the time that they go to
17 Florida for a short time --
18 MR. HEARD: Sure . Sure .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Some people
20 have a second dwelling .
21 MR. HEARD : But it ' s primary?
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is the
23 primary. It ' s a legal residence and one
24 that is occupied. You know, not rented out
25 or vacant for most of the time .
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 86
1 MR. HEARD : I got ya .
2 MEMBER HORNING: Leslie, can I cover
3 a couple of details?
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure .
5 MEMBER HORNING : It ' s serviced by
6 Suffolk County Water Authority?
7 MR. HEARD : It sure is .
8 MEMBER HORNING: And the septic, I
9 noticed there is nothing on --
10 MR. HEARD: Yes . I in the midst of
11 that right now . I have been in touch with
12 Dr . Williams, the previous owner, and he has
13 shown me records of hiring Peconic Cesspool .
14 They have always maintained the septic
15 system there, and that they put in a new
16 system for both structures in ' 91 and one in
17 194 . I have been in contact with Peconic
18 Cesspool and they do not have those records .
19 So I am working on having someone come from
20 Peconic Bay and have to dig it up and
21 document what is there . So that we can put
22 it on the survey or building permit
23 application . This is also a concern of the
24 DEC, understandably, and in fact, I am
25 meeting with one of their field biologists
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 87
1 there tomorrow afternoon, and they are going
2 to flag the wetlands and see what we can see
3 about the septic, but I do know, and I have
4 no reason to think he is lying. He keeps
5 meticulous records on his property of all
6 his expenses, there is a separate system for
7 each of these houses, dwellings, structures ,
8 whatever you want to call them. The one by
9 the street is behind it . It ' s in the area
10 of the garage or the driveway area . And the
11 other one for the main dwelling is behind
12 it, closer to the bluff . So we are going to
13 see how that -- you know, if it was done in
14 ' 94 , that is not decades and decades ago .
15 So it would have to be approved. We would
16 have to document it and that is what I am
17 working on now.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, all of
19 this is going to have to conform to Chapter
20 236 anyway. The upgrade to drainage code
21 and stormwater .
22 MR. HEARD : Yes .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We will leave
24 that to the Building Department to sort that
25 out . Is it your intention to build a
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 88
1 conforming dwelling? The idea that you
2 would not be coming back to this Board for
3 additional variances?
4 MR. HEARD: No, I don ' t want -- not
5 that I don ' t like you. No . We want to take
6 this done, and rebuild it to a way that it
7 conforms . The side yards, conforms to lot
8 coverage .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The side yard
10 setbacks --
11 MR. HEARD : Yes . The DEC is very
12 aware of this property. They know this
13 property well, and in my conversations with
14 Mr . Lewis there, he feels that, as far as
15 construction, because it ' s so high and so
16 step above the wetlands . They are not too
17 much worried. The only think they are
18 concerned about is the septic . The
19 construction, they are not worried. And he
20 said it would be pretty easy, pending
21 septic. Yes, we would make it conform in
22 every way. Get rid of the garage and so --
23 I would think in the end, if everything that
24 is approved, the only thing that would not
25 conform is this little front cottage, as it
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 89
1 sits , which we would renovate in place .
2 That is too close to the property. It would
3 not conform, and it already exist there .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any other
5 questions before the Board?
6 MEMBER DINIZIO : Just so we can make
7 a decision, if you can maybe upgrade that
8 survey and renovate that metal building and
9 the garage, and take it off of there?
10 MR. HEARD : Sure .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What Jim is
12 requesting, and is a good idea, is to update
13 the survey with the proposed conforming
14 building envelope, lets say, for the
15 seasonal dwelling . To show what it would
16 look like, and to get rid of whatever you
17 propose to get rid of, and label it as
18 seasonal dwelling and proposed accessory
19 apartment in accessory structure .
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Have you spoken to
21 the Building Department and what you plan to
22 do with the proposed accessory apartment to
23 renovate it and raise it and all of that?
24 MR. HEARD: No .
25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I suggest you
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 90
1 perhaps discuss that with them. I don ' t
2 know what degree of demolition is involved
3 with that, percentage wise, which may be
4 difficult . Right now, I believe you are
5 allowed up to about 75% demolition
6 without --
7 MR. HEARD : I am trying to understand
8 what about the demolition?
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The Building
10 Department ' s demolition, I would suggest
11 that you speak to them about what you want
12 to do .
13 MR. HEARD : Okay.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have talked
15 to the Building Department about this ,
16 because I wanted to see what options existed
17 with the Pre-CO versus a seasonal cottage,
18 and they did not seem concerned about the
19 proposed renovations . That _is kind of why I
20 asked you what you thought you could retain
21 and to make sure that it really wasn ' t going
22 to be a demolition, that you can do framing
23 that you can keep in place .
24 MR. HEARD : I would like to -- you
25 know, try and keep the floor, floor framing .
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 91
1 All of the structure -- like I said, I don ' t
2 know legally when you say renovation, and
3 rebuild, so I don ' t know exactly what they
4 mean, so I am hesitant to use them, but I
5 can see it more as cosmetic and efficient as
6 a renovation than a structure itself.
7 Replace the windows, I don ' t see us -- I
8 don ' t know. I don ' t imagine them saying
9 let ' s open walls because that is the rental .
10 So I don ' t imagine them saying let ' s spend a
11 lot of money on it . Other than making it
12 habitable .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, the worst
14 that can happen, and I don ' t have any reason
15 that it would, the worst that can happen is
16 a Stop Work Order, because you exceeded the
17 scope of what you are allowed to do, and
18 that would be a Building Department call and
19 there would have to be inspections and --
20 MR. HEARD: I understand, just to
21 educate on what is the renovation and what
22 is the line .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, I think
24 that is a good idea .
25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I would suggest
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 92
1 that you talk to the Building Department and
2 so you don ' t have to come back for another
3 variance .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Exactly .
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: When you say you
6 planned to put a crawl space underneath it,
7 that might effect the degree of
8 rehabilitation or whatever the Building
9 Department and how they determine that, and
10 which I think is a great idea to do that ,
11 but -- I would just be frank with them in
12 what you want to do with that cottage .
13 MR. HEARD : Sure . I understand.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Anything
15 else from the Board?
16 (No Response . )
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Hearing
18 no further comments or questions , I am going
19 to make a motion to close this subject to
20 receipt of a survey showing the proposed
21 project, labeled appropriately with whatever
22 you are going to demolish, and what will be
23 gone from there, and if you can, will you
24 state how many drywell ' s or septics and its
25 location . Primarily, we want to see a
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 93
1 conforming building envelope and have a
2 better sense of the proposed titled project
3 on the property.
4 MR. HEARD: I understand.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And as soon as
6 we get that information, we will have 62
7 days in which to render a decision,
8 approximately starting from when we get .
9 MR. HEARD: That ' s fine .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The sooner you
11 can get it to us , the sooner we can start
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by
14 Gerry.
15 All in favor?
16 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
18 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye .
21 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
22 ************************************ *******
23 HEARING #6588 - DAVID P . SCHULTZ
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
25 application is for David P . Schultz , #6588 .
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 94
1 Request for variances from Article XXIII
2 Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector ' s
3 May 30 , 2012 Notice of Disapproval based on
4 an application for building permit to
5 construct additions and alterations to
6 existing single family dwelling at 1) less
7 than the minimum side yard setback of 10
8 feet, 2 ) less than the combined side yard
9 setbacks of 25 feet, 3 ) lot coverage more
10 than the code permitted 20o , located at :
11 2745 Wickham Avenue, corner of Grand Avenue,
12 adjacent to Long Creek, Mattituck.
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good afternoon .
14 MR. HERMANN : Good afternoon. Rob
15 Hermann from En Consultants . I am here on
16 behalf of the applicant of David Schultz.
17 David is also here in the audience . He is
18 the audience, and Mark Schwartz is the
19 architect of the project, who is also here .
20 The applicants are proposing to raise,
21 renovate, alter and expand an existing one
22 story dwelling on the site, with a footprint
23 of a little more than 1100 square feet, and
24 attach deck. Really for the purpose of
25 enlarging the kitchen and adding a laundry
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 95
1 room and a study and enabling the two
2 bedrooms, which will be relocated upstairs .
3 These goals can not be achieved without some
4 expansion of the existing dwelling, and due
5 to the existing nonconforming location of
6 the existing dwelling, any expansion here, .
7 upward or outward, would require a variance .
8 That is why we are before the Board today.
9 Specifically, the Schultz ' s propose to raise
10 their existing one-story dwelling 16 inches
11 to conform to the required flood elevation
12 of FEMA, and ( In Audible) required by New
13 York State Residential Code, ultimately
14 achieving an elevation for a first floor of
15 10 1/2 feet, where a minimum of 10 would
16 effectively be required. They are to add a
17 second story addition over the existing
18 first story and also construct a two-story
19 addition in the location that is currently
20 oc.cupied an unenclosed and attached deck.
21 As I mentioned, Mark Schwartz is here and he
22 can speak in more detail, if the Board has
23 any questions on construction methodology,
24 but generally the house is to be lifted.
25 Two sources of block will be added to the
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 96
1 existing foundation . A new foundation will
2 be -- go beneath the proposed two-story
3 addition, which again is going in place of
4 the existing deck. The house will then be
5 brought back down to a basement filled and
6 capped with a concrete slab, new block and
7 flood vents added, and then the existing
8 roof is to be ripped off and the new
9 addition constructed. At the end of the
10 project, is a preexisting nonconforming
11 coverage of 1 , 680 square feet or 23 1/20 of
12 the lot area . The wetlands, 23x20 square
13 feet, the 1700 square feet or 23 . 80 .
14 Basically increasing lot coverage by a few
15 tenths of a percent . Because the existing
16 dwelling footprint sits just 2 1/2 feet from
17 the side property line nearest, Wickham
18 Avenue, where 10 feet is required, and
19 because the existing total side yard will
20 decrease by 4 . 2 feet, from 20 . 9 to 16 . 7
21 feet, where 25 feet is required, as the
22 Board read in the opening . It is worth
23 pointing out, that the presence will
24 increase by 20 square feet, even though the
25 footprint of the proposed two-story addition
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 97
1 is actually smaller, slightly smaller than
2 the footprint of the existing deck at about
3 20 square feet . The proposed 6x10 porch,
4 will extend outside the existing footprint
5 of the existing dwelling, as does the
6 existing stoop and steps, but of course, the
7 porch constitutes as lot coverage, whereas
8 the existing stoop and step, do not . So
9 with respect to the decrease total side
10 yard, the proposed porch is actually located
11 likely farther from the side property line
12 then the existing stoop, but the porch
13 establishes the principal setback, whereas,
14 again, the existing stoop and steps do not .
15 The point is, while as the proposed finished
16 dwelling will of course stand taller and
17 larger, as a two-story dwelling, compared to
18 the existing dwelling, it will not create
19 any notable expansion to the overall
20 structural of the footprint property of the
21 proposed, perhaps the most significant
22 alteration that we offer in support of our
23 application and our position is to request
24 the relief granted without adverse impact on
25 the adjoining properties or character of the
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 98
1 neighborhood, is that the neighboring
2 factors potentially effected by the addition
3 of a second-story, consist of an undeveloped
4 vegetative right-of-way that adjoins Wickham
5 or Grand Avenue . The public is to the
6 northeast . It should have been demonstrated
7 in the photos stated with the application
8 and also, if any and all of you have visited
9 the site, the dwelling is barely visible
10 from the roadway, which is a fascinating
11 roadway as opposed to a ( In Audible) street,
12 for pedestrian traffic and passerby. There
13 is also no dwelling or potential for any
14 dwelling in the near or adjacent to where
15 the existing and proposed dwelling are
16 located. Therefore, we would argue that
17 none of the usual potential impacts to the
18 neighboring property owners or community
19 that might potentially be created by adding
20 a second story to a dwelling already located
21 so close to the property, for a roadway
22 would exist here, which makes it arguably
23 unique in that regard. With respect to the
24 environmental impacts of the project,
25 although we will result in a net 20% square
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 99
1 foot increase of lot coverage as defined by
2 Chapter 280 , the proposed dwelling expansion
3 will occur entirely within the footprint and
4 the existing structural areas . Thus neither
5 increase in ground coverage by impervious
6 surfaces , and wetland setbacks . Therefore,
7 the proposed structure will have no
8 additional impact on the adjacent tidal
9 wetlands or water with the Town, as compared
10 to the existing . The project will however
11 increase both groundwater and surface water
12 quality as a result of the increase
13 separation distance between the sanitary
14 system and Long Creek and will improve
15 treatment of onsite septic as a result of
16 the sanitary system relocation and upgrade
17 that there is proposed. The volume of roof
18 runoff will arguable be decreased as a
19 result of the installation of the drainage
20 and installation of gutters, leaders any
21 drywell ' s that is currently lacking at the
22 property. And there is also to be
23 established a naturally 10 foot wide of 450
24 square foot non-turf buffer adjacent to the
25 tidal wetlands . That will decrease the
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 100
1 volume of potential water runoff to Long
2 Creek and improve the quality of runoff by
3 replacing potential fertilizers to lawn
4 areas with native vegetation . As noted,
5 earlier in my presentation, it will also
6 result in the same structure achieving FEMA
7 compliance with respect to the required
8 flood elevations as a result of the first
9 floor being raised 16 inches . The
10 environmental impact of the project, we
11 argue therefore be an improvement of the
12 site with respect to the protection and
13 enhancement of the tidal wetland and
14 improvement of flood protection . We also
15 argue in our application that the difficulty
16 we are proposing to the expansion of the
17 existing dwelling here without getting the
18 variance relief is not self created due to
19 the preexisting nonconforming location of
20 the existing dwelling . I should note that
21 we have in hand a town DEC wetlands permit
22 from the Trustees , who most recently amended
23 their approval to reflect the proposed
24 raising of the house 16 inches . That that
25 was not included in the original design
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 101
1 project, and at one time, it was
2 contemplated whether we would seek relief
3 from the New York State DEC Board, but
4 Mr . Schultz and Mr. Schwartz and I , all
5 thought it was prudent to actually raise the
6 structure than seeking the relief. We also
7 have a New York State tidal wetlands permit
8 from the DEC and approval of the upward and
9 relocation of the sanitary system from the
10 Suffolk County Department of Health .
11 Therefore, we are here seeking your approval
12 of the project and the relief that is
13 requested so that Mr . Schultz can then
14 hopefully and finally move on to seek a
15 building permit for the projet, if you see
16 fit . Again, Mr . Schultz and Mr . Schwartz
17 are here if you have any questions , an I can
18 take any questions that the Board may have .
19 Thank you.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is one
21 thing that I would like you to address , and
22 Mr . Schultz to address , the impact on the
23 adjacent one-story frame house that is on
24 the property that is very, very close to the
25 property line?
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 102
1 MR. HERMANN : Yeah, there is the
2 house that is on the other side -- which
3 actually according to our survey contacts
4 our property line or either overshoots it by
5 a tenth of a foot . Basically, if you are on
6 that property depending on how you would
7 define your impact, basically to the
8 northeast would be towards that right-of-way
9 into the roadway, where as to the other
10 direction would be to the Long Creek. So
11 with respect to the potential for any view
12 shed to change as a result of the addition
13 of the second floor, we would argue that
14 there would be none because Mr . Schultz is
15 on the -- what I would call the right side
16 of the creek. Again, the structure will
17 actually move ever so slightly farther from
18 that house with the removal of the stoop and
19 steps , but with the addition of the porch,
20 it ' s a modest porch . It is proposed at 6
21 square feet by 10 . We have discussed the
22 possibility of making it smaller, but six
23 feet wide is about as small as we could go .
24 Six feet deep, I would say. There should
25 really not be any adverse impact to that
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 103
1 other dwelling. I don ' t know -- I know they
2 were noticed, I don ' t know if the Board
3 received any input from that neighbor . We
4 have not been in contact .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That ' s the only
6 residence --
7 MR. HERMANN : David, do you have
8 any --
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I 'm sorry, you
10 will have to come up and state your name for
11 the record.
12 MR. SCHULTZ : Hello . My name is
13 David Schultz . I am the property owner . I
14 have lived at this location for 34 years ..
15 It went by very quickly. And I bought my
16 property at about the same time as my
17 neighbor, Dr. Arabi (phonetic) and his wife
18 bought that property. And we have been
19 neighbors all this time and have lived quite
20 well . I have talked to them about this
21 project . I have talked to them at length
22 about it . I have talked about the plans
23 about it . They are going to let us cross
24 the property actually for building. We will
25 rebuild the lawn next to his house when its
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 104
1 done . Quite frankly, I have offered to buy
2 that house for many, many years and their
3 circumstances because it was tied to the old
4 marina, they didn ' t want to do that . So I
5 am sort of stuck with this . They would be
6 very supportive of this project . Thank
7 you .
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Schultz, who
9 has the right of way over that right-of-way?
10 MR. SCHULTZ : It ' s basically, I think
11 it was set up when they built the
12 subdivision across the street . My attorney
13 tried to figure out who owns it, and it ' s
14 very vague . Apparently in talking with
15 other residents who have been around for
16 quite awhile including my Dick Brandy, my
17 plumber . The only person he knows who used
18 to go down there is a fellow who lives in
19 the city. He would come back and go
20 swimming every day. Most people don ' t know
21 it ' s there . I don ' t know of any traffic
22 that has happened. I think most people use
23 the Grand Avenue bridge to get to the creek.
24 In other words , there are several people and
25 we tried to contact as many people as we
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 105
1 have, and none of them know.
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you .
3 MR. SCHULTZ : Sure .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am just
5 checking about green cards . I think all but
6 one came back?
7 MR. HERMANN : Yeah, I am not sure
8 which . I don ' t know if we received it back
9 from the Assessor ' s Office --
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have .
11 MR. HERMANN : Okay. We had one to
12 Christine Smith --
13 MR. SCHULTZ : She just recently
14 purchased a home across the street .
15 MR. HERMANN : That is the one that
16 looks like --
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, well if
18 it comes in --
19 MR. HERMANN : We always after the
20 hearing, one way or another forward it .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let ' s see if
22 the Board has questions . Ken, do you?
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No, I don ' t have
24 any questions at this time .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 106
1 MEMBER HORNING : Does the applicant
2 have a right to the right-of-way that is
3 there?
4 MR. SCHULTZ : It does not appear on
5 my deed.
6 MEMBER HORNING: And what is the
7 width?
8 MR. SCHULTZ : 8 feet . It ' s tough to
9 get around.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jim?
13 MEMBER DINIZIO : No .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don ' t have
15 any questions .
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have one more .
17 You said that the Schultz ' s were going to
18 live in the house during construction?
19 MR. HERMANN : I did? No, that would
20 not be right .
21 MR. SCHULTZ : No, we do not plan to
22 stay there .'
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is this going to
24 be a winter project?
25 MR. SCHULTZ : I am working more
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 107
1 towards early spring . I do not --
2 considering there is an existing building
3 that I am going to put some element into, I
4 don ' t want it exposed to the weather
5 element . In effort to preserve that, we
6 will start in the spring time as early as we
7 can .
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you .
9 MR. SCHULTZ : It will have less
10 impact on the environment as well .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
12 in the audience that wishes to address this
13 application?
14 (No Response . )
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any more from
16 the Board?
17 (No Response . )
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Hearing
19 no further questions or comments, I will
20 make a motion to close this hearing and
21 reserve decision to a later date .
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
24 MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye .
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 108
1 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
4 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
5 *********************** * ******************
6 HEARING #6589 - MILL CREEK PARTNERS , LLC
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
8 application before the Board is for Mill
9 Creek Partners , LLC . Request for Special
10 Exception per Article XIII Section 280-55 (B)
11 1 to operate a restaurant in a Marine II
12 (MII ) District . Located at : 64300 Route
13 25 , adjacent to Southold Bay, in Greenport .
14 Before we get started, Nancy, do you have a
15 copy of the Planning Board ' s comments?
16 MS . STEELMAN : I don ' t directly. I
17 was at their work session.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me give you
19 a copy so you have one and also Suffolk
20 County local determination . Would you like
21 to proceed?
22 MS . STEELMAN : Yes . Nancy Steelman,
23 from Samuels & Steelman Architects . I am
24 here to answer any questions that the Board
25 might have . This is as much as we know,
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of .Appeals 109
1 unofficially. This building has been used
2 as a restaurant anywhere from 30 to 50
3 years . We have CO ' s based on 1982 and we
4 have a card of information that stated it
5 was a restaurant back to 1980 , but in
6 talking to a lot of the local folks around
7 here, people heard it being there for years .
8 We currently have a building permit right
9 now for construction of a restaurant . That
10 was renewed at the time the new owners
11 purchased the property. Construction is
12 proceeding for that . We are also into our
13 site plan approval . We have seen the
14 Trustees , DOT and a variety of other
15 agencies for a restaurant .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I ' m sorry, I am
17 just asking, we have an internal policy now
18 in our office, where Special Exception
19 permits would be forwarded to ( In Audible)
20 not just the Planning Board or site plan,
21 but to also the fire marshal ' s . We have
22 determined that occasionally with Special
23 Exception Permits, the use or change of use
24 in occupancy may require a change in the
25 classification of occupancy, which has to be
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 110
1 looked at . So we tend to be forwarding
2 these things prior to a public hearing .
3 This one didn ' t go over . It ' s the same
4 occupancy and use that has been in existence
5 without the Special Exception Permit . I
6 doubt there would be any issues .
7 MS . STEELMAN : I think that has
8 probably already happened. The Planning
9 Board already has sent out our drawings to a
10 series of agencies, and I know that the fire
11 marshal ' s was one of them. So they have
12 already looked at it .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right .
14 MS . STEELMAN : On that point, you
15 should also know that as per New York State
16 Building Code, any occupancy with an A2
17 Zone, anything over 100 occupants requires a
18 certificate .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes . There is
20 one interesting thing here,, we all know from
21 the previous application about the leasing
22 of the adjacent property for parking, that
23 it ' s a 20 year lease . I would like to --
24 you know, Special Exception Permits include
25 appropriate parking . I don ' t know if the
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 111
1 Board has really addressed the situation, if
2 the parking is approved for the Special
3 Exception Permit, but not in propitiatory
4 because it ' s not on the subject property.
5 Can you address that for us? What I am
6 wondering is, you do realize that a Special
7 Exception Permit is not transferable to
8 another owner, however, beyond that, what do
9 you do at the end of 20 years? The lease
10 that you submitted indicated that the owner
11 would be requesting that all improvements be
12 abandoned and that all be returned back. So
13 what happens 20 years from now? It is just
14 something that we need to address on this
15 permit .
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I make a
17 statement on that?
18 MS . STEELMAN : Yes .
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only Special
20 Exception that we actually ever reversed was
21 the nightclub in Mattituck. During the
22 period of that lease, during the Special
23 Exception, gratuitously, Mr . Granshaw who
24 owned the property next door allowed the
25 nightclub to park there . He then
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 112
1 subsequently -- it was either a yearly lease
2 or every six months, and he then
3 subsequently just said that ' s it . You did
4 too much damage to my property., I am not in
5 any way eluding to that being the case here .
6 That was one of the grounds that we used for
7 terminating the Special Exception. So I
8' mean, you can probably put a term on the
9 Special Exception and renew it every five
10 years .
11 MS . STEELMAN : Right .
12 MR. BURGER: Eugene Burger, I am one
13 of the owners of the property. So I think
14 that -- going though something like this ,
15 you grant the Special Exception for the life
16 of the lease and if we take title to the
17 property prior to that, the Special
18 Exception lives, because that is our
19 intention. We are already in the process .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes . I think
21 what you need to do is come back and request
22 a condition be removed from the Special
23 Exception Permit . In other words, if the
24 condition is based upon the 20 year duration
25 of your current lease and you have acquired
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 113
1 the property prior to that, you have the
2 right to come back and request that the
3 Board remove the condition .
4 MS . ANDALORO : Nancy, I have not seen
5 the lease specifically. Normally when you
6 enter into a lease agreement, there are
7 instances where the lease would not last 20
8 years , if one of the parties were to
9 default . If the adjacent property owner
10 wanted to sell the property to someone else,
11 so you may want to say for the length of the
12 lease, 20 years or sooner .
13 MR. BURGER: That stuff is already
14 written into the lease . This is for 20
15 years with the property. It is already
16 written in the lease .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me see if I
18 have it with this application . It ' s
19 probably with the old application .
20 MS . ANDALORO : I don ' t think it says
21 anything about it . Talk to your attorney,
22 if you violate your lease agreement, or
23 somebody wants to terminate it, all they
24 have to do is give you notice . So I don ' t
25 know if you have executed the lease . You
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 114
1 may want to talk to your lawyer about it .
2 MR. BURGER: It was already asked.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have a copy
4 of it from the other variance application.
5 The point is, the Board has to figure out a
6 way, a legal way to proceed with granting
7 this but subject to, the appropriate parking,
8 and should that change, the life of the
9 lease or the termination of the lease .
10 MEMBER DINIZIO : My thought on that,
11 we write the decision, we write it based on
12 a certain amount of parking . And should
13 that parking no longer be available, the
14 Special Exception is --
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Either way you
16 word it --
17 MEMBER DINIZIO : You know, making
18 sure you have 120 whatever, which was going
19 to be my question . That I need to have that
20 number . What number do you have for
21 parking?
22 MR. BURGER: For the marina?
23 MS . STEELMAN : We have 124 .
24 MEMBER DINIZIO : That ' s with the
25 lease?
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 115
1 MS . STEELMAN : With the lease .
2 MEMBER DINIZIO : What is it without?
3 MS . STEELMAN : About 50 on the
4 property.
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It shows 111,
6 Nancy.
7 MS . STEELMAN : Right, 111 .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it ' s 111
9 parking spaces with the lease; correct?
10 MR. BURGER: Correct .
11 MEMBER DINIZIO: What is the total?
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: ill .
13 MEMBER DINIZIO: So we can all agree
14 on that now?
15 MS . STEELMAN : I just wanted to say
16 that we have added a little bit of
17 additional parking. Now we are at 124 . We
18 relocated the boat yard, as you recall that .
19 The Planning Board requested that we change
20 that slightly and we have additional parking
21 spaces . That is why there is a difference
22 in the numbers .
23 MEMBER DINIZIO: Let me ask you this
24 way. What is the minimum amount of parking
25 you need for those uses on that property.
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 116
1 MS . STEELMAN : 110 .
2 MEMBER DINIZIO : 110 . So that ' s what
3 we have to do . If you decrease that number,
4 you no longer have a Special Exception.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it ' s 110
6 parking spaces for marina and restaurant?
7 MS . STEELMAN : That ' s correct .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
9 MEMBER DINIZIO: And it ' s 50 for the
10 marina and 60 for the restaurant?
11 MS . STEELMAN : And that should be on
12 the site plan that you have in front of you .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, it is .
14 That was my only real question. It just had
15 to do with the technicality of the parking
16 on the premises, which you have addressed in
17 the variance application . Okay.
18 Jim, any further questions?
19 MEMBER DINIZIO : Yes . There is two
20 actually. One, can you get me a copy of the
21 green marina initiative?
22 MS . STEELMAN : Yes .
23 MEMBER DINIZIO : Certainly, you
24 mentioned that in your application . So I
25 want to see that . And there was a variance
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 117
1 issued in 2009, have the conditions of that
2 variance been met or are they going to be
3 met?
4 MS . STEELMAN : That primarily was
5 regarding the deck and some trees on the
6 westerly property line .
7 MEMBER DINIZIO : So you addressed
8 that?
9 MS . STEELMAN : Yes .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is part of
11 the site plan .
12 MS . STEELMAN : That is part of the
13 site plan.
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : That is all I have .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George?
18 MEMBER HORNING: No .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You?
22 MS . STEELMAN : No .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don ' t have
24 any questions either . There is no one else
25 in the audience . Hearing no further
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 118
1 comments or questions, I will make a motion
2 to close this hearing and reserve decision
3 to a later date, subject to receipt of the
4 green marina initiative documentation .
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 #6586 - CONSTANCE ZAHRA
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
16 application is for Constance Zahra, #6586 .
17 Request for variances from Article XXIII
18 Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector ' s
19 June 14 , 2012 Notice of Disapproval based on
20 an application for building permit for
21 demolition of "as built" deck addition and
22 reconstruction of same to existing single
23 family dwelling: 1 ) less than the code
24 required minimum rear yard setback of 35
25 feet , 2 ) lot coverage at more than the code
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 119
1 required 200 ; located at : 2085 Bray Avenue
2 in Laurel . Is there anyone here to address
3 this application? Please state your name
4 for the record.
5 MR. MILNER: My name is Fred Milner,
6 contractor . Hopefully I will be doing the
7 job .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
9 MR. MILNER: Basically that deck has
10 been there for 30 years and unfortunately
11 there was no building permit for it . It ' s
12 in total disrepair. It needs to be taken
13 down. It needs footings, brackets . The
14 whole nine yards to bring it up to New York
15 State Building Code, and like I said, it ' s
16 not a very big deck. It ' s only 16x20 . We
17 are looking to just take it down and rebuild
18 it as it is .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the existing
20 lot coverage with the as built deck is 250
21 and you are not proposing to change --
22 MR. MILNER: We would like to keep it
23 in the same footprint . You know, once the
24 furniture goes back on that deck, it ' s going
25 to get awfully small . It ' s really not that
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 120
1 big of a deck. It ' s just too small of a
2 building lot .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we are
4 looking at a rear side yard of 22 . 8 feet,
5 and the code requires 35 feet . And lot
6 coverage is 25% and the maximum is 200 .
7 Pardon?
8 MR. MILNER: Basically, there would
9 be no deck, if I take it back like 8 feet .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Well,
11 here is one of the issues . We have all been
12 out there to see it, by the way.
13 MR. MILNER: You have?
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Each Board
15 member individually goes out to inspect
16 every site of every application before us .
17 So we have seen where it is located, from
18 the neighbor ' s and all of that . However,
19 your existing survey is quite old. It does
20 not show the deck or the setbacks .
21 MR. MILNER: We do have a survey that
22 I believe shows the deck.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The site plan,
24 this one?
25 MR. MILNER: That came from the
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 121
1 designer, I think. The homeowner does have
2 a survey that shows the deck and there is
3 also a shed on the back corner of the
4 property. I thought that the Town had a
5 copy of that?
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What we have is
7 this . This survey is dated 1979 .
8 MR. MILNER: That was done by Michael
9 Hand.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes , that is
11 what we have . It is not stamped, because
12 only an architect who has a license or an
13• engineer or surveyor to corroborate the
14 setbacks .
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: We do have a copy
16 of a survey from 1979 . This does not show
17 the deck. This does not show the shed. So
18 this Board will require either a new survey
19 or a new site plan stamped by a
20 professional .
21 MR. MILNER: Professional surveyor?
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes .
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Professional
24 surveyor or an engineer that would verify
25 the calculations .
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 122
1 MR. MILNER: This site plan right
2 here is stamped by a professional engineer .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We don' t have a
4 stamp on ours .
5 MR. MILNER: Can I bring it up?
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure . This one
7 is stamped by James (In Audible) .
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And that is the
9 same one that we have in our copy?
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes .
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I don ' t need a
12 copy. I am fine that this is stamped.
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that took
14 care of that issue . Gerry, do you have any
15 questions about it?
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes . I just want
17 to ask questions of you and Ms . Zahra .
18 Ms . Zahra, you and your husband
19 bought this house in 1979?
20 MS . ZAHRA: That ' s correct .
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: From Mr . & Mrs .
22 Hill?
23 MS . ZAHRA: That ' s correct .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr . & Mrs . Hill
25 are both friends of mine . Mr. Hill has
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 123
1 passed away, but Mrs . Hill is still living.
2 MS . ZAHRA: Okay.
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not that that
4 makes it your concern. I am very happy that
5 she is . I hadn ' t been on the property since
6 they lived there . I realized that this is a
7 large ranch house on a relatively small lot,
8 okay. So your lot coverage is over even
9 without the things , meaning the deck and the
10 storage building . You know, I understand
11 the nature of your need for a new deck, and
12 I was unaware of the fact that your lot
13 coverage exceeded the 200, even without
14 those things . The house is very deep . You
15 don ' t realize how deep it is , until you
16 actually walk into it . The depth of the
17 house, I am just making that as a statement .
18 The lot is small . It can further create a
19 problem, the back property line skews , you
20 know, from one side to the other . So the
21 one side is 122 . 23 and the south side is
22 105 . 01 , which creates a further
23 nonconformity for the proposed deck. The
24 existing deck and the proposed deck that you
25 are requesting . I am just reading that into
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 124
1 the record.
2 MR. MILNER: So is that considered a
3 nonconforming building lot?
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not the
5 building lot, if there no deck, there would
6 be a conforming rear yard, because the
7 closest point is 22 . 8 , that 15 foot deep .
8 So 15 feet from that, you would have a
9 conforming lot . So no, the issue is not --
10 is certainly not -- the question is , the
11 Board is required by law to grant the
12 minimum variance reasonably possible, okay.
13 So we have 250 lot coverage and 22 . 8 rear
14 yard setback. Can the deck be slightly
15 reduced to decrease the lot coverage and to
16 increase the rear yard setback to make it a
17 little bit more conforming . That is
18 something that the Board would entertain .
19 MR. MILNER: Increase it to 15 feet
20 deep and --
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, a 12x15
22 deck is not tiny by any means . That is
23 going to give you a few more feet to the
24 rear yard setback, 25 . 8 , almost 26 feet . I
25 don ' t know if it will reduce the lot
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 125
1 coverage to be honest with you . It will
2 bring it down a little bit . What does the
3 Board think?
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I personally
5 don ' t have a problem with it as it exist in
6 that particular situation - and where the
7 property skews , which is a real hardship to
8 be honest with you. Based upon creating a
9 greater nonconformity of the deck, than you
10 are absolutely correct on the basis of the
11 square footage . It ' s not going to reduce it
12 insignificantly.
13 MR. MILNER: When you put a table
14 with an umbrella and chairs that seat six
15 and some lawn chairs, it becomes tight .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, it is
17 something that we have to explore . We can ' t
18 just let that go . The deck is not visible
19 at all from the street, and it ' s pretty well
20 enclosed. It is a wider and shallower lot
21 in the back. Member Goehringer is right,
22 it ' s not listed here but you can see at the
23 farthest point, what that setback is to the
24 property line . The closest is 22 . 8 but when
25 you get to the opposite corner, it increases
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 126
1 somewhat . So that makes it lesser .
2 Jim, do you have comments or
3 questions?
4 MEMBER DINIZIO : Well, if the lot was
5 squarer, I think nothing can be built on the
6 lot behind it . I shouldn ' t say that . I
7 don ' t have any trouble with it the way that
8 it is .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right .
10 Ken?
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I don ' t have any
12 problem with it . If it were squarer, they
13 might have the benefit of another 800 some
t
14 odd square feet of lot .
15 MR. MILNER: It has been there for 30
16 years .
17 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You can ' t see the
18 neighbor ' s .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, the
20 record has to explore the option fully.
21 MR. MILNER: They have been there for
22 30 years and they just want to do the right
23 thing. A lot of people wouldn' t do it .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, it ' s
25 true . It ' s much better to have it legalized
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 127
1 and have a CO on it .
2 Any other comments or questions from
3 the Board?
4 (No Response . )
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don ' t think
6 there is anyone else in the audience .
7 Hearing no further questions or
8 comments, I will make a motion to close this
9 hearing and reserve decision to a later
10 date .
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
13 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
17 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
18 ********************************************
19 (Whereupon, the public hearings for
20 September 6, 2012 concluded. )
21
22
23
24
25
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 128
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 ' i
13 Jessica DiLallo
14
15
16 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
17 PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
18
19
20 Date : September 17 , 2012
21
22
23
24
25