HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-10/04/2012 Hearing 1
1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK
2 ------------------------------------------- X
3
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
4 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
5 ------------------------------------------- X
6
7 RECEIVED
8 Southold Town Hall OCT 2 2 2012
Southold, New York
9 BOARD OF APPEALS
10 October 4 , 2012
9 : 35 A. M.
11
12
13
14 Board Members Present :
15 LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
16 GERARD GOEHRINGER - Member
17 JAMES DINIZIO, JR. - Member
18 KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member
19 GEORGE HORNING - Member
20
21 VICKI TOTH - Secretary
22 JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney (Excused)
23
Jessica DiLallo
24 Court Reporter
P . O . Box 984
25 Holbrook, New York 11741
( 631) -338-1409
2
1 INDEX OF HEARINGS
2
3
4 Hearing: Page :
5 Solution East LLC, #6595 3-21
6 Daniel McGovern, #6599 22-29
7 Alan Fidellow, #6578 29-51
8 John Pitman, #6594 51-58
9 Renee Poncet-Fitzpatrick #6596 58-60
10 Richard Downing, #6593 60-69
11 Patricia Walker, #6597 69-76
12 Paul A. & Elizabeth L .
13 Reinckens , #6598 76-82
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
October 4, 2012 3
1 HEARING #6595 - SOLUTION EAST LLC
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first public
3 hearing before the Board is for Solution
4 East LLC, that is application #6595 .
5 Request for variances from Article XXIII
6 Code Section 280-124 , based on an
7 application for building permit and the
8 Building Inspector ' s August 9, 2012, amended
9 August 30 , 2012 Notice of Disapproval
10 concerning proposed addition and alteration
11 to a single family dwelling, at; 1 ) less
12 than the code required front yard setback of
13 35 feet for both front yards on this corner
14 lot, 2 ) more than the code permitted lot
15 coverage of 20o maximum; located at : 1060
16 Second Street, corner of King Street, New
17 Suffolk.
18 Good morning .
19 MS . GIGLIO: Good morning, Madam
20 Chairperson and Members of the Board. My
21 name is Jody Giglio of Bennett Enterprises ,
22 with offices at 61 Baiting Drive in
23 Calverton, New York, here on behalf of the
24 applicant ' s Solution East . We are here --
25 MS . TOTH : Do you have any more green
October 4, 2012 4
1 cards?
i
2 MS . GIGLIO:. No, they have not come in
3 yet . The Post Office said that they were
4 sent back to me on September 24th. I have
5 not received them as of yet .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please proceed.
7 MS . GIGLIO: Okay. The subject
8 premises is located at 1060 Second Street in
9 New Suffolk. It ' s on the northeast corner
10 of Second Street and King Street . It has
11 65 . 51 feet of frontage on Second Street, and
12 101 . 22 feet on King Street, and a lot area
13 of 6, 642 square feet . The applicant is
14 requesting permission to repair the existing
15 porch and extend it -- actually replace the
16 porch and extend it to a wrap-around porch .
17 The front yard setback on Second Street,
18 which is the existing nonconforming, will be
19 maintained at a distance of 15 . 1 feet from
20 the road. The front yard on King Street
21 will be reduced from 23 . 7 to 16 . 7 feet, to
22 allow for the proposed wrap-around porch .
23 The reestablishment of the porch in its
24 current location and addition on King
25 Street, we believe will be an improvement to
October 4, 2012 5
1 the lot . Additionally, the applicant is
2 requesting permission to install an outdoor
3 shower on the north side of the dwelling,
4 thereby reducing the side yard setback from
5 11 . 2 feet to 8 . 2 feet . The neighboring home
6 to the north is situated 3 . 9 feet from the
7 property line . The shower will be at a
8 greater setback, used during seasonal months
9 and we believe will not be a detriment to
10 the surrounding property owners . The
11 applicant is also proposing a second-story
12 rear addition of a deck that will not have
13 stairs . Due to the preexisting
14 nonconforming status of the lot, the
15 improvements proposed would require the
16 approval of this Board, in accordance with
17 Chapter 280-9 and 280-10 of the Southold
18 Town Code, as stated in the Notice of
19 Disapproval by the Building Inspector dated
20 August 9, 2012 . We believe that the
21 granting of these variances will not create
22 an undesirable change in the neighborhood
23 and will not be a detriment to the
24 surrounding properties . There is an
25 existing porch on Second Street , and the
October 4, 2012 6
1 proposed addition on King Street does not
2 abut any properties or dwelling . The repair .
3 and addition will add value to the home,
4 thereby creating a positive effect on the
5 community and property value . Additionally,
6 it will meet all site distance required for
7 a corner lot . The benefits sought can not
8 be achieved by any other means than an
9 approval from this Board, as per Section
10 280-9 and 10 . The lot is preexisting
11 nonconforming with existing homes on the
12 north and east, and roadways to the west and
13 south . Additional property can not be
14 acquired to achieve conformity. The request
15 can not have a detrimental impact on the
16 environment . The lot is currently improved
17 with single family dwelling . The variances ,
18 if granted, would not pose a detriment to
19 the health, safety and welfare of the
20 neighborhood or community. The use will
21 continue as a single family dwelling . The
22 approval from the Board will allow for much
23 needed repair and improvements to this
24 structure . The hardship is not self
25 created. The improvements that are
October 4, 2012 7
1 proposed, we believe will make a nice
2 addition to the neighborhood and the
3 surrounding community. We respectfully
4 request the Board consider this testimony
5 and grant favorably to allow for the
6 improvements to this preexisting
7 nonconforming lot . If the Board has any
8 questions?
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know what
10 the current lot coverage is?
11 MS . GIGLIO: You know, I am looking at
12 that, that was not on my current denial that
13 I got from the Building Department . So I
14 can, get that information and report back to
15 the Board.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Because
17 the proposed is 210, according to the Notice
18 of Disapproval .
19 MS . GIGLIO: Right .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have a site
21 plan. This is a site plan by the architect
22 with setback information . There is a lot
23 area, but it doesn ' t say lot coverage .
24 MS . GIGLIO: I have a survey, but it
25 doesn ' t show the lot coverage . I have one of
October 4, 2012 8
1 the owners from the agency here . Maybe he
2 can answer some questions .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This isn ' t
4 showing lot coverage either .
5 MS . GIGLIO: We can get that
6 information for you.
7 MS . TOTH : We did receive something
8 from Liz Thompson in regards to the lot
9 coverage .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let ' s see if we
11 have anything in there . The amended Notice
12 of Disapproval, and it says on the 4th,
13 address the lot coverage issue .
14 MS . GIGLIO: It ' s a 1% increase . We
15 feel that it ' s minimal in character .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just wanted to
17 get a sense of the increase coverage and
18 what it might be . It may well be that the
19 existing is 21% for all we know. So that is
20 why I am trying to find out that
21 information. So if you could get that for
22 us, I am sure you can calculate it from the
23 survey.
24 MS . GIGLIO : Sure .
25 MEMBER HORNING : The proposed open
October 4, 2012 9
1 deck in the back is adding quite a bit .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So --
3 MEMBER HORNING: I would venture to
4 say that it ' s under 200 .
5 MS . GIGLIO: I agree .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Since we
7 have this as a site plan stamped by the
8 architect and its identical to the survey, I
9 don ' t know that we really need to have the
10 survey. It ' s exactly the same .
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We can take a
12 copy.
13 MS . GIGLIO: The existing would be the
14 survey and the site plan would be everything
15 that is proposed. It just doesn ' t give us a
16 number of the lot coverage on the survey.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, the survey
18 is showing concrete steps .
19 MS . GIGLIO: Yes .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And also an open
21 deck in the front . We probably should have a
22 copy of this although it ' s pretty clear of
23 what is being proposed on the site plan .
24 This will give us the as-built and make it a
25 little bit clearer, if that is all right
October 4, 2012 10
1 with you? Did you want to keep this copy?
2 Do you have another copy for yourself?
3 MR. KITZ : ( In Audible) .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don ' t we do
5 that . Gerry, you had a question.
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We had some
7 interesting situations occur particularly in
8 this wonderful area of New Suffolk, mainly
9 because of the size of the properties , with
10 showers . This is not a freestanding shower .
11 I don ' t understand why the shower can ' t be
12 incorporated within that deck area .
13 MS . GIGLIO : Yeah . You know, I had
14 mentioned that to the applicant prior to
15 appearing before you and asked if the shower
16 could be in the nook in the front yard,
17 which would be right here .
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I see where it is .
19 MS . GIGLIO: It would be on the
20 southwest corner on the front of the house .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would seem
22 best .
23 MS . GIGLIO: They have no objection to
24 moving the shower location to this location
25 here .
October 4, 2012 11
1 MEMBER HORNING : The Notice of
2 Disapproval doesn ' t even mention this other
3 request for a variance .
4 MS . GIGLIO : Okay. We can put it into
5 the setbacks that currently exist on the
6 property. The applicant is stating that he
7 would have no objection to moving the
8 shower .
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is where most
10 of them area .
11 MS . GIGLIO : And that would also
12 eliminate the lot coverage .
13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Maybe . Some of it .
14 Thank you .
15 MEMBER HORNING: Otherwise, you will
16 need another amended Building Department
17 Notice of Disapproval for the shower itself .
18 MS . GIGLIO: Right .
19 MEMBER HORNING : The shower is 18?
20 MS . GIGLIO : 3x6 .
21 MEMBER HORNING: So you will get us
22 updated lot coverage figures?
23 MS . GIGLIO : Absolutely.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They will give
25 us an idea .
October 4, 2012 12
1 MEMBER HORNING: And you know there is
2 applying for another variance for the
3 shower?
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The Building
5 Department looks as these, and we learned
6 this is Nassau Point with some of these deck
7 additions that included fixed areas, such as
8 barbecue ' s and so forth. They don ' t
9 necessarily deny it on that basis, okay. If
10 this is strictly a lot coverage issue, you
11 might not see an updated Notice of
12 Disapproval . Now that it ' s incorporated
13 into the deck, there is no need for it .
14 MEMBER HORNING : We are not
15 considering the shower?
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No .
18 MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We were
20 considering the lot coverage . Now we are
21 not, because it ' s incorporated into the
22 deck.
23 MEMBER HORNING : Right .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken, do you have
25 questions?
October 4, 2012 13
1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes . Who
2 calculated the 21%?
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Building
4 Department .
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The Building
6 Department did that .
7 MS . TOTH : It ' s in your file . There is
8 a signed sheet .
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Oh there is . I 'm
10 sorry, I missed that . She says 21% . Okay.
11 So then that ' s done .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: But we want to
13 know existing .
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I actually have
16 a question that has to do with how much of
17 the house will be salvaged? To what extent
18 does demolition have to take place? New
19 siding? New decking? How is the foundation?
20 If you please come to the mic and state your
21 name for the record.
22 MR. KITZ : Charles M. Kitz .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you please
24 spell the last name?
25 MR. KITZ : K-I-T-Z . Yes , it would be
October 4, 2012 14
1 new siding, new windows . Interior, removing
2 all the interior walls . Reinstallation of
3 all interior walls . Sheetrock. New doors .
4 There is the proposal of two gables, front
5 and back. And then that small porch area out
6 the back on the second-story. The floors are
7 all remaining .
8 MS . GIGLIO: You should have a copy of
9 all the elevations , of all sides of the home
10 in your packet .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We do .
12 MS . GIGLIO : Okay. I just wanted to
13 make sure .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We do .
15 MEMBER HORNING: Has it been vacant
16 for a long time?
17 MR. KITZ : It has . I don ' t know to
18 what extent but I think over a year and a
19 half . It ' s a mess .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What work do you
21 have to do on the foundation?
22 MR. KITZ : The actual foundation is in
23 good shape . I do have to sister some floor
24 joists inside . Three or four floor joists
25 that are starting to rot . And then I wanted
October 4, 2012 15
1 to propose to pour a scratch concrete floor
2 on one section there, it ' s about three feet
3 of crawl space where there is dirt in there .
4 We wanted to seal that off, but the existing
5 block foundation is in good shape .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
7 MEMBER HORNING : So the fuel tank is
8 sort of laying on top of the ground in the
9 back area there . You are going to have to
10 move that?
11 MR. KITZ : We are removing that and
12 taking it out totally because there is gas
13 in the basement now . Natural gas is coming
14 in, and proposing there is going to be a gas
15 hot air furnace . So that would be taken out
16 completely and removed.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else
18 from the Board? Questions?
19 (No Response . )
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
21 in the audience who would like to address
22 this application?
23 MS . BONDACHUCK: I am the neighbor to
24 the north, Cheryl Bondachuck, how do you do?
25 My house is very close to the line, three
October 4, 2012 16
1 feet as was mentioned previously. My only
2 concern is with the grading, both during and
3 post construction. I have two basement
4 window well ' s that are there that are
5 counter-sunk. Very flat . Very close to my
6 foundation . I am worried about run-off. I
7 think that is the side the shower is on,
8 which I really don ' t care if you move that .
9 I am just worried about where the water is
10 going to go? I guess when you are working
11 with the foundation and whatever you got to
12 do, I have some valuable items stored in my
13 basement . I am worried about water and dirt
14 coming in.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I can say this ,
16 that the Building Inspector will require
17 that the applicant meet all of the drainage
18 codes that are in place in the Town Code .
19 The MS-4 and onsite drainage enforce .
20 MS . BONDACHUCK: I thought I read
21 something .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So the
23 applicant, no matter what they are doing,
24 they have to comply with making sure all
25 drainage is retained on site .
October 4, 2012 17
1 MS . BONDACHUCK: My other question is
2 regarding the siding that is just going to
3 be removed.
4 MEMBER HORNING : Asbestos?
5 MS . BONDACHUCK: Correct .
6 MS . GIGLIO: The applicant would have
7 no objection to installing a silk fence
8 during construction to retain the water and
9 the soot, so that nothing should run into
10 the basement .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
12 MS . GIGLIO: Along that side of the
13 property line .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is good.
15 And what was the question about siding, the
16 removal of asbestos siding?
17 MS . BONDACHUCK: Yes . How is that going
18 to be handled? I don ' t know much about it
19 other than it can be dangerous when it ' s
20 disturbed.
21 MS . GIGLIO : That is not my area of
22 expertise .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Then we
24 will ask the Building Department .
25 MS . BONDACHUCK: Thank you .
October 4, 2012 18
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You ' re welcome .
2 MS . BONDACHUCK: Other than that, they
3 have our full approval . It ' s going to look
4 beautiful .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let ' s address
6 the removal of asbestos siding. Any specific
7 preparation required? Any kind of hazardous
8 precautions?
9 MR. KITZ : I thought the way I read the
10 law, as far as being the owner of the
11 property, that I am allowed to remove the
12 asbestos siding . Is that the law?
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually, I
14 don ' t know. Does anybody on the Board know?
15 MR. KITZ : If I am not the owner, a
16 contractor doing a job for someone, I can
17 not remove it without some kind of
18 abatement, but I thought the way the Town
19 Law read, if I am the owner of the property,
20 that I am allowed to, and then discard it
21 properly.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Remove it at your
23 own risk?
24 MR. KITZ : That ' s the way I thought
25 the law read.
October 4, 2012 19
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jim?
2 MEMBER DINIZIO : Can you give us a
3 copy of that law?
4 MR. KITZ : I will find out from the
5 Building Department .
6 MEMBER DINIZIO: We would like
7 something in writing .
8 MR. KITZ : Yes . There is wood siding
9 underneath the asbestos siding. So right
10 now, you know, it ' s out . For me to go over
11 that again, you know, to put the nail
12 through asbestos siding, it ' s impossible .
13 They crack. They fall apart . It ' s more
14 damaging that way in trying to remove it
15 than get rid of it .
16 MEMBER DINIZIO : Well, whatever it
17 says, this lady would like to --
18 MR. KITZ : Yes .
19 MEMBER DINIZIO: That you are doing it
20 by the code .
21 MR. KITZ : Yes .
22 MS . GIGLIO : We will get clarification
23 on that . I am sure that the Building
24 Inspector prior to issuing any building
25 permit ' s will make sure that the proper law
October 4, 2012 20
1 is applied, because the application states
2 that they are going to remove and replace
3 siding .
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I make one
5 suggestion?
6 MS . GIGLIO : Absolutely.
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Particularly for
8 the neighborhood, and I suspect that you
9 wouldn ' t do this anyway, the old method of
10 replacing asbestos shingles was smash it in
11 the center, and let the shingles fall to the
12 ground. That I think is one of the issues
13 that the neighbor is possibly eluding to,
14 and I wouldn ' t suggest that in this
15 environment and 2012 or 2013 . I would
16 suggest the normal practice of jimmying the
17 shingle away from the building, and then
18 just putting it in a containment area . So
19 that is my suggestion .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Is there
21 any other comments or suggestions?
22 (No Response . )
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Hearing no
24 further comments or questions from the
25 Board, I am going to make a motion to close
October 4, 2012 21
1 this hearing subject to receipt of the
2 following, the existing lot coverage, some
3 letter pertaining to the removal of asbestos
4 siding, and a new survey showing new
5 location of the shower or site plan .
6 MS . GIGLIO: Very good.
7 MR. KITZ : From the architect?
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If it was a site
9 plan, it would be from the architect and a
10 survey would be a surveyor, but that would
11 be taken into consideration in calculating
12 the proposed lot coverage .
13 MR. KITZ : Okay.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there a
15 second?
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
18 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
20 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
23 (See Minutes for Resolution. )
24 ********************************************
25 HEARING #6599 - DANIEL MCGOVERN
October 4, 2012 22
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
2 application before the Board is for Daniel
3 McGovern, #6599 . Request for variances from
4 Article XXII Code Section 280-116 (B) and
5 Article XXIII Section 280-124 based on an
6 application for building permit and the
7 Building Inspector ' s May 9, 2012 , amended
8 September 6, 2012 Notice of Disapproval for
9 deck addition to single family dwelling at;
10 1 ) less than the code required bulkhead
11 setback of 75 feet, 2 ) ; less than the
12 minimum side yard setback of 10 feet,
13 located at : 830 Oak Avenue, adjacent to
14 unnamed Street & Goose Creek, Southold.
15 Please state your name for the Board.
16 MR. - MCGOVERN : Good morning everyone .
17 My name is Daniel McGovern. I am the owner
18 of the property at 830 - Oak Avenue in
19 Southold.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mr . McGovern,
21 before you get started, I would like to
22 provide you with a copy that the Board has
23 received, of the LWRP . Recommendations,
24 which shows the proposed action is
25 consistent with the LWRP, and a notice from
October 4, 2012 23
1 Suffolk County for local determination. The
2 Board of Trustees Administrative permit .
3 That is for your records . This came into our
4 office, we want to -- pardon?
5 MR. MCGOVERN : This is --
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Your architect
7 submitted that . Okay.
8 MR. MCGOVERN : Basically I am looking
9 to put in two side-by-side ground level
10 decks . I want to make them the -- close to
11 the ground as possible . One would be 8x12
12 coming from an existing 8x8 deck. It comes
13 out the sliding doors of the rear . And the
14 one next to it would be approximately 12x26 .
15 We are really just putting these in -- just
16 a table and chairs so we can put out in the
17 back and enjoy the property. Actually, it ' s
18 my in-law ' s , they are quite elderly now and
19 they can ' t even walk on the grass anymore .
20 My wife asked if we could put in some
21 decking so that they could have better
22 footing . It is not obstructing any views or
23 access by any other homes on either side of
24 us or across the street . The deck size and
25 shape is minimum. Very basic . Like I said
October 4, 2012 24
1 sufficient for tables and chairs . And we
2 evidently are proposing to be too close to
3 the water, so that is why we needed one of
4 the variances . And the other one is the deck
5 is too close to the neighbor on my right
6 side . The materials would be pressure
7 treated lumbar . And they would not even be
8 attached to the house . That is basically the
9 variance that we are looking for.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Did you say the
11 deck is not to be attached to the house?
12 MR. MCGOVERN : No . There will be
13 footings in the ground and attach it to" the
14 footings .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: However, it will
16 be abutted against the house?
17 MR. MCGOVERN : It will be about an
18 inch from the house .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
20 MR. MCGOVERN : So there will be that
21 much space between it .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. That is
23 still going to be considered --
24 MR. MCGOVERN : There will be a header
25 on the house itself .
October 4, 2012 25
- 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right . Let ' s
2 see if the Board has any questions . Jim, did
3 you want to start?
4 MEMBER DINIZIO: I don ' t have
5 questions .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any
8 reason why that stairway can ' t be turned
9 around, if I am looking at it from the right
10 side, and you can ' t enter the deck from that
11 side rather than go all the way around to
12 6 . 7 on the property side .
13 MR. MCGOVERN : That stairway -- coming
14 off that way, was the deck was . That was
15 just it . If I came off the front or directly
16 from the south, we would require more space .
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right, but you
18 have 8 feet at the bottom of the stairs .
19 Can ' t that be reduced to 4 feet or to a
20 conforming distance of 10 feet?
21 MR. MCGOVERN : Then you would have to
22 step off onto grass and than onto the other
23 deck part .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The 8 feet , is
25 that to the bottom of the stairway' or the
October 4, 2012 26
1 bottom of the house?
2 MR. MCGOVERN : You see the stairs . If
3 you are walking down the stairs starting on
4 the right side of the stairs, there would
5 simply be a 12 foot piece coming parallel to
6 that . That would bring it out 4 feet
7 further from the stairs towards the water .
8 And then starting at the back of the house,
9 I would put 12 foot footers going straight
10 back towards the water . It would be a 4
11 foot section where they could walk and
12 remain on wood and get to the larger part of
13 the deck. There wouldn ' t even be railings
14 on this deck.
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: When you have 18
16 inches above the ground, you don ' t need
17 them.
18 MR. MCGOVERN : This won ' t be anything
19 near that .
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I still think you
21 can shrink that deck, but that is my
22 opinion . From the bottom of the stairs, but
23 that is just my opinion. I mean, to create
24 a greater side yard that is all I am saying .
25 This is just my suggestion .
October 4, 2012 27
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George?
2 MEMBER HORNING: This is not exactly
3 at grade, correct, but it may not be as high
4 as 18 inches?
5 MR. MCGOVERN: No, it ' s not going to
6 be 18 inches of anything .
7 MEMBER HORNING: What can you tell us
8 about the unnamed street?
9 MR. MCGOVERN : I was going to ask you .
10 That is -- nobody can really explain that .
11 There certainly is no street there . You
12 were there this morning, that ' s water . It
13 always has been water but for some reason,
14 on old maps it says unnamed street . Nobody
15 in the neighborhood has a clue .
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: They have the same
17 thing down at Nassau Point .
18 MR. MCGOVERN : It has always been
19 water .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s a strange
21 anomaly.
22 MR. MCGOVERN : That it is .
23 MEMBER HORNING: Is there any way you
24 would consider, as Gerry was mentioning,
25 giving us greater distance on the side yard,
October 4, 2012 28
1 greater than 6 . 7 feet?
2 MR. MCGOVERN : If I have to .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Really, you have
4 a generous side yard on the other side, but
5 the Board is obliged to look at the least
6 nonconformance --
7 MR. MCGOVERN : Oh, I have trees
8 between my neighbor and myself . That area
9 there will have a barbecue and that ' s about
10 it . It would be the other deck that has the
11 tables and chairs . I don ' t believe in any
12 way would bother Jim, our neighbor . He is
13 actually looking forward to it .
14 MEMBER HORNING : He would be invited
15 over for the barbecue .
16 MR. MCGOVERN : He would be invited
17 over for the barbecue, exactly.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken, questions?
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
21 else in this audience that would like to
22 address this application?
23 (No Response . )
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
25 further comments or questions, I will make a
October 4, 2012 29
1 motion to close this hearing and reserve
2 decision to a later date .
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
5 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
7 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
10 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
12 HEARING #6578 - ALAN FIDELLOW
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
14 application before the Board is for Alan
15 Fidellow, #6578 . Request for variances from
16 Article XXII Code Section 280-116 (B) and
17 Article IV Section 280-18 based on an
18 application for building permit and the
19 Building Inspector ' s February 17 , 2012
20 amended August 16, 2012 Notice of
21 Disapproval for partial demolition,
22 reconstruction and addition to single family
23 dwelling, at : 1) less than the code require
24 bulkhead setback of 75 feet, 2 ) less than
25 the minimum side yard setback of 15 feet,
October 4, 2012 30
r 1 3 ) less than the combined total side yards
2 of 35 feet, located at : 4030 Great Peconic
3 Bay Boulevard, adjacent to Great Peconic Bay
4 in Laurel .
5 Good morning .
6 MS . MOORE : Good morning. I was
7 brought in, Patricia Moore, on behalf of the
8 Fidellow family. I am working with Bruce .
9 Bruce is still the agent . I am assisting and
10 being brought in to review the file . What I
11 did is, I reviewed all the transcripts .
12 Procedurally, we opened this hearing . So I
13 would ask that all the prior transcripts ,
14 all the prior testimony and information be
15 certainly incorporated and provide the
16 complete file . When I reviewed the
17 transcript from the file, I thought it would
18 be helpful to identify the issues that I saw
19 that had popped up during the hearing . I
20 don ' t want to rehash the entire hearing .
21 Certainly, we are here to answer any
22 questions, but the one thing I did do, I
23 prepared an affidavit for Barbara to sign. I
24 brought it over yesterday. So I don ' t know
25 if all of you had a chance to review it . I
October 4, 2012 31
1 just want to go through it all and read it
2 on the record, and discuss it as we go . The
3 affidavit is Barbara Berkelone . We start off
4 with paragraph one . I will just read
5 through . She is 64-years-old. She has spent
6 the summer and the holidays for the past 64
7 years with her family on the property. She
8 is co-owner in with Ellen and her sisters ,
9 Judith Fidellow and Beth Fidellow. They are .
10 the, owners of 4030 Peconic Bay Boulevard.
11 What I did is , Exhibit A, as attached,
12 provided a copy of the deed so you would
13 know everyone that is the owner here . Most
14 of these documents, I believe, have already
15 been in your file . I was just organizing it
16 and just trying to put it into a packet .
17 Historically, what I did see was some
18 confusion, the historic ownership of this
19 property. So I am just trying to clarify
20 this record. In April 1947 , the grandfather
21 and grandmother Leon and Ida Munier,
22 purchased the property at 4030 Peconic Bay
23 Boulevard. They had rented several years
24 prior to this purchase this property itself .
25 The house was constructed prior to zoning,
October 4, 2012 32
1 and they believe based on their knowledge of
2 the house, it was built around the 1920 ' s .
3 Nevertheless , there is a pre-CO . I have
4 attached that as Exhibit B . That was
5 provided to the family in 1993 or to Leon,
6 actually, her brother . On October 20 , 1950
7 their grandfather, Leon -- two names are
8 very similar . So that is why I identify as
9 the grandfather . He obtained a variance to
10 build an addition, which 4 feet 6 inches
11 from the property line . That is in the ( In
12 Audible) 15, you certainly were aware of it ,
13 and I have attached it as Exhibit C . That
14 variance was granted for that pop-out . It
15 was added to the house, and in the
16 transcript of that hearing, and the variance
17 of that year, the Board at that time
18 conceded that granting the variance would
19 not change the character of the area . And
20 that many homes in the neighborhood,
21 although closer than the 10 feet the code
22 required at that time . Ida and Leon Munier
23 had three children . That is Leon L . Munier
24 Jr . , and Neil Munier and Barbara ' s mother,
25 Elise Munier . Their grandparents passed away
October 4, 2012 33
1 in 166 and ' 67 , and upon their death, the
2 property went to their uncle Leon . Uncle
3 Leon did not have any children, and was not
4 married. So it gives you an idea . In ' 74 ,
5 there is a building permit for a deck. That
6 is the same dimension, that is the same deck
7 that is presently there today. From her
8 memory, she knows that that deck -- there
9 was a deck on the property prior to that
10 date . The pre-CO refers to a beach shack and
11 deck, but of course when you are dealing
12 with old documents you -- we just have to
13 look at the documents from their words and
14 conclude that the Building Inspector saw
15 that there was a deck there . We don ' t have
16 any dimensions prior to the 174 permit
17 application . In 193, that same deck was
18 rebuilt in place, and in 2007 , Uncle Leon
19 was using a walker . He was at that point
20 elderly and the family was taking care of
21 him. He had retained -- the house ultimately
22 went to the family and retained the life
23 estate . He enjoyed living in that house
24 until his death . So we have the deck that
25 was there prior to 174 , according to the
October 4, 2012 34
1 family. It was rebuilt in ' 74 with a
2 building permit . Rebuilt again in 193, and
3 then again in -- rebuilt again as you see it
4 today in 2007 . Again from observations , the
5 house is fully protected from erosion . The
6 deck is landward of marine bulkhead. The
7 bulkhead has handrails with wood walkway.
8 There is a second bulkhead retaining wall,
9 which is between the marine bulkhead and the
10 non-turf buffer . That non-turf buffer was
11 added by the Trustees . In fact, it is
12 existing. It is approximately 25 feet of
13 width of vegetation, and again, that ' s
14 between the upper, we call it the bulkhead
15 -- the retaining wall and the seaward
16 bulkhead. The Trustees issued permits for
17 all the structures for this project and
18 because the project was there prior to their
19 jurisdiction, they included the deck into
20 the permits to make sure everything had
21 permits at that time . What I did see in the
22 transcript of the hearing was that
23 Mr . Goehringer asked a question about
24 loading, and I wasn ' t satisfied that when I
25 read the transcript that it was answered. It
October 4, 2012 35
1 was raised and then kind of dropped. So what
2 I did is, Exhibit E, is Mr . Fischetti, who
3 is the structural engineer. I asked
4 Mr . Fischetti to please review the file, and
5 review the conditions of the deck and the
6 bank, and he supplied a professional opinion
7 with respect to loading, that there is no
8 issue of loading here . The deck is not
9 creating any stress on either the upper
10 retaining wall or the bulkhead. Certainly,
11 there is no stress on the upper retainer
12 wall, there is certainly no stress on the
13 bulkhead. So I thought that that was really
14 some of the few issues that I saw. I wanted
15 it to be thoroughly analyzed and I wanted to
16 be sure that you had this on the record. We
17 also talk about the waterfront deck. Again,
18 it was described and rebuilt . Then we go to
19 the issue of the garage and studio . That
20 structure predates the code, but there was a
21 permit in 1993 to get a permit -- a
22 retroactive as-built permit for work that
23 was done between 1970 and 1977 . The permit
24 itself, Leon Munier states this is a permit
25 for work that has already been done . That
October 4, 2012 36
1 structure was identified as a studio and
2 storage building . It provided, you know,
3 extra living space . It was habitable space
4 just not a dwelling . That documentation, I
5 guess, has been corrected or confirmed by
6 way of the survey notations , and it ' s legal
7 at this point .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you saying
9 there is a pre-CO for a habitable accessory
10 structure?
11 MS . MOORE : No, there is a CO for a
12 habitable -- habitable means that it is
13 usable . A studio is usable space .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, habitable
15 is usually sleeping quarters .
16 MS . MOORE : What is the term -- I
17 apologize .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is allowed to
19 have a 1/2 bath as of right .
20 MS . MOORE : Occupied. I ' m sorry, I
21 misspoke . It ' s occupied space versus
22 habitable space . Pardon me . Thank you for
23 correcting me . Bottom line is, that studio
24 has a CO. So that structure is legal and the
25 alterations are legal as well . Again, the
October 4, 2012 37
1 final conclusions are, the family is here .
2 Some of the family members are here as well .
3 Really, the house is very important to them.
4 It ' s not only third or fourth generation
5 that is enjoying this house . The
6 renovations as you thoroughly analyzed in
7 prior hearings is a renovation, and just
8 merely trying to fix the existing house, and
9 get everything legal, and permitted to
10 continue for more generations to come .
11 Do you have any particular questions?
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Several of the
14 questions that came up at the last hearing,
15 I think were okay done in the affidavit,
16 and I appreciate that . I just want the
17 owners of the property to be aware of the
18 fact that, I was neighbor ' s of yours across
19 the street . I lived there from 1971 to 1978 ,
20 and I did have the privilege of having the
21 right-of-way to the beach, adjacent to your
22 property. Not contiguous , but one lot away.
23 And I did mention that one of the greater
24 concerns that we had was the 1983 , both upon
25 the inspection, and during this period of
October 4, 2012 38
1 time . I appreciate the engineers ' s report
2 from Mr . Fischetti, as we are all aware of
3 the fact that he has testified before this
4 Board, many, many times .
5 MS . MOORE : And he is a structural
6 engineer too .
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: At this particular
8 point, in my opinion and I am speaking for
9 myself and not the chairperson, when we are
10 in receipt of a new Notice of Disapproval we
11 only have one choice, in my particular
12 opinion, opening the hearing up to accept
13 that new Notice of Disapproval and to deal
14 with this new setback aspect . I will tell
15 you this, it is my recollection in the past
16 four to five years , the minimum setback
17 granted by this Board, on this piece of
18 property was in this magnificent area of
19 Peconic Bay Boulevard from the Laurel line
20 to the Bay Avenue, was 57 . 5, okay. And that
21 is basically what I have seen, and I am not
22 challenging anything that is going on here .
23 I am just mentioning, so that we could see
24 the waterfront setbacks throughout the town,
25 but I am very, very well aware of what they
October 4, 2012 39
1 have been and what this Board has granted in
2 the past, and I am not speaking for the
3 Board. It is just my opinion . The most
4 recent one was the Stork application,
5 which is 800 feet from here, maybe, and it
6 was an entire replacement of a house, with a
7 new house . That is my opinion . So unless you
8 had a postage stamp piece of property in
9 1983 when I am talking about something
10 60x100 , which was on a private road and was
11 done by the only road that intersects, I
12 think it ' s Birch, where we lost houses , I
13 mentioned that in 1983, were the setbacks
14 are extremely tight on very small cottages ,
15 that is the only one that we might have seen
16 with a smaller setback.
17 MS . MOORE : Okay. Thank you . Bruce was
18 kind enough to provide for us aerials of the
19 area,, and I was waiting to here what your
20 commentary was to submit it, and I think
21 it ' s appropriate at this point . Let me
22 provide you with these at this point, and
23 then we can talk about it .
24 Just from hearing your comments , I
25 think we do have a distinguishing
October 4, 2012 40
1 circumstance from what you have described as
2 other variances and setbacks and bulkheads .
3 We have an existing preexisting
4 nonconforming structure, which has been
5 maintained. Has been -- the only issue
6 really being the replacement of the deck,
7 but with within -- it still had the same
8 footings . They added footings . So it was
9 repair/reconstruction. And again, remember,
10 this was all done prior to the code ' s
11 definition of demolition and reconstruction,
12 when it ' s a permitted use, the code was
13 clear that you can reconstruct . I think the
14 code is much clear now, as far as the degree
15 of reconstruction. Nonetheless, if you look
16 at -- the photographs are easier to look at .
17 They are pretty much the same thing . It ' s
18 the larger version . Bruce provided a 75 foot
19 setback by that yellow line, and you can see
20 that every single house -- well, there may
21 be one, #5 , is conforming . Obviously
22 conforming from this aerial . All these other
23 homes are within the 75 feet . The subject
24 property, you can also see that the way that
' 25 the land is configured, all the houses face
October 4, 2012 41
1 sideways towards the views because of the
2 angles of the properties . You can see that
3 the houses, I am assuming to the west or the
4 left, houses one through six, their
5 properties have a lot more frontage by
6 virtue of the way the bulkhead has been cut
7 out, and extended out, creating larger
8 setbacks . You can also see that the pool on
9 Lot #4 , that is quite close to the bulkhead.
10 What we are talking about, the house as it
11 sits today, this is being renovating . So
12 obviously, we are not dealing with a
13 situation where the house is being
14 demolished and they need to rebuild the
15 house exactly in the same footprint . Then I
16 would say, knowing this Board, I would
17 persuade people to move the house back a
18 little bit, if it ' s possible . In. this case,
19 it ' s a renovation . They are maintaining a
20 significant portion of this house, and from
21 the testimony of Mr . Filer (phonetic) , it ' s
22 anywhere from 25 to 50 percent demolition
23 and the code allows up to 75 percent . So
24 it ' s clear that this house is remaining .
25 With respect to the deck, the deck has been
October 4, 2012 42
1 part of this house since the 70 ' s . There is
2 no impact of this deck. It has a permit .
3 It got a permit in ' 74 . It was built
4 structurally sound. It lasted a long time,
5 and now, it will last for another hundred
6 years the way it is . Really it makes no
7 sense -- it makes sense to grant the
8 variance and keep the deck exactly where it
9 is in the same place . Most homeowners in
10 front of the water, put decks on the sunset
11 side of the house . That is common accessory
12 use to any home . Again, you look at all the
13 other homes -- you look at all the other
14 homes around Peconic Bay Boulevard and the
15 homes themselves are within 75 feet . Here we
16 are talking about a deck, and I provided you
17 with the affidavit that it is not creating
18 any stress on the bulkhead. So there is no
19 real reason to force the deck to come down .
20 In fact, to cut back the deck or remove the
21 deck, would be more disturbance to the land
22 than just leaving it alone, because the
23 footings are there, and really it would be
24 an irrational act to remove structures so
25 well constructed. So I appreciate your
October 4, 2012 43
1 right-of-way and knowing the waterfront
2 here, but despite your longevity on this
3 Board and your age, this house is older than
4 you are .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let ' s see if we
6 have any questions . Are you done Pat?
7 MS . MOORE : Yes . I didn ' t want to
8 belabor it . I think there is a lot of
9 testimony on the record already.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have a
11 substantial amount of testimony on record
12 about this house . It should be noted that
13 your amended Notice of Disapproval in
14 addition to including the setback of the
15 bulkhead to the deck, is included in
16 recognition that this is a partial
17 demolition, not a demolition, which is
18 important for the consideration.
19 MEMBER HORNING: I have a question
20 about the Notice of Disapproval . Why does it
21 say that it is approximately 30 feet? And
22 the survey, I am a little confused with the
23 survey and the "approximately" is . Is that
24 fairly accurate, Pat? How much is the
25 approximate?
October 4, 2012 44
1 MS . MOORE : It looks like -- if, you
2 see the survey, are you looking at the
3 survey?
4 MEMBER HORNING: Yes .
5 MS . MOORE : The survey has the
6 bulkhead that runs the wider part of the
7 survey. Than the bulkhead cuts back on the
8 eastern wood jetty. It cuts back beyond the
9 property line into the adjacent property
10 line . All the homes here, as I said, are
11 facing on an angle .
12 MEMBER HORNING: That ' s the 37 ?
13 MS . MOORE : The 47 -- the house is 47
14 to the bulkhead at its width. Then it ' s
15 taken from the adjacent bulkhead 37 to the
16 house, and then that is approximately, the
17 deck on that side is approximately 7 feet .
18 So that is how they came to the 37 .
19 MEMBER HORNING: It kind of looks like
20 on that corner from the wood jetty, to the
21 distance to the house, it looks like it was
22 30 . 9 feet .
23 MS . MOORE : No, remember, you have the
24 retaining wall that is behind, but the wood
25 jetty, that is the seaward jetty, your
October 4, 2012 45
1 setbacks come from the waterfront jetty .
2 There are a lot of lines here and I can see
3 how it can be confusing, but at least on my
4 survey, the print is 37 to th corner of the
5 house . And that corner is well protected.
6 You can see the upper retaining wall has
7 curves around it, and cuts back -- remember
8 we are looking at a two dimensional . And a
9 three dimensional, you see more slopes --
10 elevations differences here .
11 MEMBER HORNING: If everything else
12 was measured accurately, why do we have an
13 approximate measurements?
14 MS . MOORE : I can ' t answer that . That
15 was before me . The surveyor -- rather than
16 in the field, he did it based on paper and
17 he is relying on his drawings to provide
18 that measurement . If you want to go out and
19 just do a measurement of the width of the
20 deck there, we can provide that after the
21 fact . We can take a tape measurer and see
22 what the depth is .
23 MEMBER HORNING: Well , that would be
24 accurate, because then you have a 47 --
25 MS . MOORE : 37 .
October 4, 2012 46
1 MEMBER HORNING: You pointed out the
2 47 foot mark, and --
3 MS . MOORE : I 'm sorry, Bruce has that
4 answer . That is a pre-me answer .
5 MR. ANDERSON : Bruce Anderson, Suffolk
6 Environmental for the applicant . When we
7 were here on the prior hearing before the
8 Board decided that they wanted to see an
9 amended Notice of Disapproval, Mr . Dinizio
10 asked that the survey reflect non-habitable
11 accessory structure, which was done . The
12 issue of the deck came up, and so there was
13 a question on how close the deck was to the
14 . bulkhead. So on that same survey, you will
15 see a distance of 30 . 9 feet to the bulkhead,
16 the nearest bulkhead. That happens to be on
17 the next door neighbor ' s property. So I
18 think you are looking at the survey that was
19 submitted prior to that .
20 MS . MOORE : August 30th, we gave at
21 the top -- if you look at the revisions that
22 we gave you, August 30th .
23 MEMBER HORNING: Let ' s review then,
24 you said the deck had a building permit in
25 1974 when it was built?
October 4, 2012 47
1 MS . MOORE : Yes .
2 MEMBER HORNING: The deck was totally
3 rebuilt in 2007 ?
4 MS . MOORE : Well, in 2007 , the deck is
5 on grade . So moisture gets to the wood
6 product and anything that had deteriorated
7 or rotted had been replaced. So at that
8 time, they added additional footings . The
9 footings, you have the construction
10 drawings, the as-built ones that show the
11 number of footings . So they added footings
12 to stabilize the deck, and also converted it
13 to a non-wood material, which is now a Trex
14 material . At that time, Leon was still
15 alive . As I pointed out in the affidavit,
16 they were taking care of him. He was elderly
17 and was using a walker at that time . So it
18 was necessary for him to have a safe surface
19 that was his home, and so at that time, it
20 was rebuilt, repaired.
21 MEMBER HORNING: It did not require a
22 building permit?
23 MS . MOORE : You know, that is
24 something for the Building Inspector . At
25 this point, we want to make sure that is all
October 4, 2012 48
1 included. Whether or not it needed a
2 building permit at that time, I have no
3 answer to that .
4 MEMBER HORNING: And one other thing,
5 the deck, in the context of the law that
6 requires the 75 foot setback, do you know
7 when that law was put into effect? We can
8 look it up .
9 MS . MOORE : Yeah, you would have to
10 look it up .
11 MEMBER HORNING: ' 91 .
12 MS . MOORE : It was in the 90 ' s as I
13 recall, yeah .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken, questions?
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jim?
17 MEMBER DINIZIO : I don ' t have any
18 questions .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think in
20 recognition of the substantial testimony
21 that we have had on this, this hearing has
22 clarified some of the issues that arose at
23 the previous hearing, and I can ' t think of
24 any additional information .
25 Is there anyone else in the audience
October 4, 2012 49
1 that wishes to address this application?
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have one more
3 thing and I wanted to be clear . I think
4 there was a discussion with the Building
5 Inspector that he is going to review the
6 construction of the first story, or the
7 reconstruction of the first story. So
8 upon --
9 MS . MOORE : I believe he already has .
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, it ' s going to
11 be during construction.
12 MS . MOORE : Monitor it?
13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: He is going to
14 monitor it, and he had mentioned on the
15 record, and I am not speaking for him. I am
16 only reiterating what I think he said, and
17 that is that he said that the entire first
18 story needs to be re-sheathed. And so the
19 decision, I suspect is going to mirror that
20 testimony on the fact, that for any reason
21 he finds any replacement necessity of the
22 first story, then whatever the decision of
23 the Board, could be modified based on those
24 inceptions . Is that properly presented?
25 MS . MOORE : I am not sure if I
October 4, 2012 50
1 understand.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : At the previous
3 public hearing, and there was no objection
4 from the applicant and the family, the
5 Building Inspector indicated that during the
6 construction, it would ensure that the
7 partial demolition as proposed, that he
8 would be going out once the second floor was
9 removed and the structure was exposed, he
10 would be going out to do an inspection.
11 That ' s all .
12 MS . MOORE : Okay.
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s strictly
14 procedural method of ensuring that all the
15 information that the architect supplied and
16 Mr. Anderson supplied is adhered to . So it ' s
17 not atypical for an inspection .
18 MS . MOORE : Their budget doesn ' t
19 account for much more than that .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was just a
21 procedural --
22 MS . MOORE : Okay.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So is there
24 anyone else in the audience who would like
25 to address this application?
October 4, 2012 51
1 (No Response . )
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
3 further comments or questions from the
4 Board, I will make a motion to close this
5 hearing and reserve decision to a later
6 date .
7 MEMBER DINIZIO: Second.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Jim.
9 All in favor?
10 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
12 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
15 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
16 ********************* **********************
17 HEARING #6594 - JOHN PITMAN
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
19 application before the Board is for John
20 Pitman, #6594 . Request for variance from
21 Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the
22 Building Inspector ' s August 7 , 2012 Notice
23 of Disapproval based on an application for
24 building permit for demolition and
25 construction of a new single family dwelling
October 4, 2012 52
1 at : 1 ) less than the code required combined
2 side yard setbacks of 25 feet, located at :
3 1100 Ruch Lane, adjacent to Hashamomuck Pond
4 in Greenport .
5 MR. ANDERSON : Good morning. Bruce
6 Anderson, Suffolk Environmental for the
7 applicant . I guess the first thing I will do
8 is handout some aerial photographs . This is
9 an application brought by the Pitman ' s who
10 propose to demolish an existing dwelling,
11 and build a new dwelling . The property is
12 located at 1100 Ruch Lane . Ruch Lane, as you
13 know, is a private road. And this as well as
14 several lots are kind of dual lots . In some
15 cases, up and down Ruch Lane, you will have
16 a principal dwelling, which will be on one
17 side of Ruch Lane and the waterfront side,
18 and on the opposite side, not uncommon a
19 driveway. So it ' s kind of an unusual area in
20 the town in that respect . It is an R-40
21 Zone, but it is a preexisting nonconforming
22 lot . And from what we gathered, the Town
23 views it as an overall one lot, but in fact,
24 with both the waterfront part of the lot,
25 the south of Ruch Lane contains 9, 078 square
October 4, 2012 53
1 feet . The lot on the other side of the
2 garage contains 7500 square feet . So this is
3 a preexisting nonconforming lot . Existing
4 dwelling is constructed in the early 1900 ' s
5 and is supported by locust posts, that has
6 served this family well . I believe this has
7 been in the family for many decades . The
8 Pitman ' s are here today, if you have any
9 questions of the historical use of this
10 house . They came to me about a year, year
11 and a half ago with a modular plan to
12 replace the house . So the house would be
13 removed. There would be a foundation that
14 was dug . There would be a poured foundation
15 of concrete . The home would sit . One
16 unusual feature, the house was served by an
17 existing cesspool, as you can see on your
18 survey, on a common lot line, between the
19 Pitman property and the property adjacent to
20 west of it . That cesspool actually serviced
21 both homes . In this application, we would be
22 disconnecting from that existing cesspool .
23 The westerly home would continue to use it .
24 We would be constructing a new septic system
25 up by the road, as shown on the survey. Both
October 4, 2012 54
1 homes are served by public water . And so
2 this is something that this permit process
3 of what we are doing, creates conformity
4 where we have some non-conformities . The new
5 dwelling is 1145 square feet, which occupies
6 the same footprint . It would be for four
7 bedrooms and be served by the new septic
8 system. We have already been approved by the
9 Trustees and the DEC . And the individual
10 side yards which exist today are 11, 11 . They
11 will be maintained. The reason for the
12 variance is that we require a total side
13 yard of 25 feet . So we are 3 feet short of
14 the total side yard, which in, our opinion,
15 is de minimus . The aerial photographs that I
16 passed up, depicts all the houses up and
17 down . They line up .with respect to the
18 water. They are all sufficiently set back.
19 Some are closer to the street than the
20 Pitman ' s house . There has been a
21 considerable amount of redevelopment that
22 occurred in the neighborhood. So there are
23 other two-story houses, and also depicts
24 some of the accessory houses on the side of
25 Ruch Lane . In some cases , you have opposite
October 4, 2012 55
1 principal dwellings . So we submit that we
2 comply. with the zoning standards and that
3 due to the way that this area has been
4 developing, that it would be consistent with
5 that development . Therefore, it will not
6 produce an undesirable change in the
7 neighborhood. The benefit that we seek can
8 not be achieved by any other method than a
9 variance because we have a house that has
10 two 11 foot side yards and we are asking for
11 is not substantial, a 3 foot total side
12 yard. The variance will not have an adverse
13 effect on the physical environmental of the
14 neighborhood that it is located in, and it
15 is actually an upgrade, from the standpoint
16 of an upgraded septic system, and creating
17 conformance with the Town ' s stormwater
18 regulations . So ultimately, the balancing
19 act between the applicant if the variance is
20 granted, should waive in favor of the
21 applicant . The benefit for the applicant is
22 that the Pitman Family will enjoy their
23 house considerable to their needs . And
24 really there is no detriment to the
25 neighborhood, as the setbacks remain the
October 4, 2012 56
1 same, and the two-story houses are common in
2 the neighborhood. And that concludes my
3 presentation.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you,
5 Bruce . I would presume that since this is a
6 modular house, this is a standard size?
7 MR. ANDERSON : That ' s correct .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can ' t do too
9 much --
10 MR. ANDERSON : That is correct .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That ' s to me, a
12 reflection of the maintenance of the
13 existing side yard' s . That it is not
14 available . I really don ' t have any
15 questions on this . It ' s pretty thorough and
16 straightforward application, but let ' s see
17 what the other Board members have to say.
18 Jim?
19 MEMBER DINIZIO : I agree with you,
20 Leslie .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I guess the trees
23 have to come down?
24 MR. ANDERSON : The two trees have to
25 come down, because we can ' t put the septic
October 4, 2012 57
1 system in with those trees .
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George?
4 MEMBER HORNING: Tell us about the
5 foundation?
6 MR. ANDERSON : The foundation is a
7 standard poured foundation.
8 MEMBER HORNING: What is it right now?
9 MR. . ANDERSON : ( In Audible) .
10 MEMBER HORNING: And it ' s going to be
11 a full --
12 MR. ANDERSON : Full basement, yes .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
16 else in the audience who would like to
17 address this application?
18 (No Response . )
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
20 further comments from the Board, I will make
21 a motion to close this hearing and reserve
22 this decision to a later date .
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by
25 Gerry.
October 4, 2012 58
1 All in favor?
2 MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye .
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
4 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
7 ( See Minutes for Resolution. )
g ********************************************
9 HEARING #6596 - RENEE PONCET-FITZPATRICK
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
11 application before the Board is for Renee
12 Poncet-Fitzpatrick, #6596 . Request for
13 variance from Article III Section 280-15 and
14 the Building Inspector ' s August 27 , 2012
15 Notice of Disapproval based on an
16 application for building permit for addition
17 to a single family dwelling at : 1) upon
18 construction of the addition to the dwelling
19 the legally existing in-ground swimming pool
20 will be located in a location other than the
21 code required rear yard, side yard, located
22 at : 415 Wiggins Lane, corner of Wiggins
23 lane, Greenport .
24 Did you get any green cards in?
25 MR. SAMUELS : Yes, I handed them in
October 4, 2012 59
1 already. My name is Tom Samuels . I am the
2 architect for the applicant . Basically, in
3 this instance, an addition was proposed and
4 doesn ' t meet all the conforming side of the
5 setbacks . It technically violates the
6 existing pool, which is in the rear yard
7 corner lot . Basically, a violation of a side
8 yard . That ' s really just it . I can answer
9 any questions .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Everyone
11 has been to the site . It was hard to even
12 see the swimming pool . It was so beautifully
13 landscaped. Really completely invisible from
14 adjacent properties , which are undeveloped
15 properties anyway. I think this is more of a
16 technical thing . I don ' t have any questions .
17 Jim, do you have any?
18 MEMBER DINIZIO : No .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George?
22 MEMBER HORNING : No .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
October 4, 2012 60
1 in the audience who wishes to address this
2 application?
3 (No Response . )
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
5 further comments or suggestions from the
6 Board, I will make a motion to close this
7 hearing and reserve decision to a later
8 date .
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
11 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
13 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
16 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
17 ********************* **********************
18 HEARING #6593 - RICHARD DOWNING
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
20 application before the Board is for Richard
21 Downing, #6593 . Request for variances from
22 Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the
23 Building Inspector ' s June 26, 2012 Notice of
24 Disapproval based on an application for
25 building permit for demolition and
October 4, 2012 61
1 reconstruction of a new single family
2 dwelling at : 1) less than the code required
3 minimum side yard setback of 15 feet; 2 )
4 less than the code ,required combined side
5 yard setbacks of 35 feet, located at : 1280
6 Bayberry Road, adjacent to a lagoon,
7 Cutchogue .
8 MR. SCHWARTZ : Mark Schwartz,
9 architect for the project .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have the
11 LWRP letter?
12 MR. SCHWARTZ : No .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me give you
14 a copy of it . It indicates that it is
15 consistent .
16 MR. SCHWARTZ : When we started this
17 project, the main reason why we designed it
18 the way it was, is actually we wanted to
19 leave the ridges on both sides of the house
20 the same height, because you have a -- on
21 both sides, there is -- the existing house
22 slightly goes over the setback lines . On
23 the north side there is about a 63 square
24 foot area that goes over the setback line .
25 On the south side, there is about a 15 foot
October 4, 2012 62
1 area that goes over the setback line . The
2 plan was to do additions and alterations to
3 the foundation. As the Building Department
4 reviewed the application, they reviewed it
5 as a demolition. So that is why the notice
6 was issued as a demolition, but part of the
7 foundation, first floor will remain.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What part of the
9 foundation are you going to be able to
10 salvage?
11 MR. SCHWARTZ : About two-third' s of
12 it, and I can provide a foundation plan .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And what part of
14 the existing dwelling is going to be
15 salvageable?
16 MR. SCHWARTZ : The first floor and
17 sub-floor .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : About
19 two-third ' s of the existing foundation and
20 first floor deck. Are those the same as the
21 existing side yards?
22 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes . There is no
23 encroachment with the proposed additions,
24 you know, beyond what is already there .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. You are
October 4, 2012 63
1 proposing minimum of 9 . 5 feet . The code
t
2 requires 15 . And that is what I didn ' t see
3 anywhere . The existing side yard ' s are 9 . 5
4 -- all right, thank you.
5 MR. SCHWARTZ : If you look on A-1 , you
6 can see the existing elevations that are
7 proposed.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. The
9 existing lot coverage is 17 . 3 and you are
10 proposing 19 percent, which is conforming.
11 You indicated in your application, in Town
12 Law II, that the benefit can ' t be achieved
13 without it because of use of occupancy. I
14 am not sure what you mean by . that .
15 MR. SCHWARTZ : The way the house is
16 situated, to take best advantage of the
17 water view. That is the reason why. They
18 didn ' t want to demolish completely because
19 of the view that is there now .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you are
21 saying that you need a variance because you
22 were unwilling to sacrifice the current
23 orientation on the site, which establishes
24 water views?
25 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
October 4, 2012 64
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just wanted to
2 be clear, because I didn ' t understand what
3 you meant because of use of occupancy.
4 Let ' s see what the Board has . Jim?
5 MEMBER DINIZIO : I had that same
6 question . I couldn ' t quite figure out that
7 same sentence . You are saying that the
8 orientation now is to take the best
9 advantage of the sight that you have?
10 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
11 MEMBER DINIZIO : It existed there for
12 how long? Do you know?
13 MR. SCHWARTZ : Since the 60 ' s .
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : And it looks like, if
15 you straighten that house out, you probably
16 would be conforming .
17 MR. SCHWARTZ : We actually started
18 that way, but that didn' t get to what they
19 quite wanted to .
20 MEMBER DINIZIO: The pool is going to
21 stay and pretty much the rest is the same?
22 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
23 MEMBER DINIZIO : It says the amount of
24 relief requested is not substantial because
25 the proposed addition is not beyond the
October 4, 2012 65
1 existing structure outside the building
2 envelope . Can you just explain that?
3 MR. SCHWARTZ : If you look on A-1,
4 which shows the existing elevation and
5 proposed. So the intent was not to knock
6 down those sides . The Building Department,
7 since they decided that since this was a
8 demolition, and we won ' t save them, we will
9 just rebuild them.
10 MEMBER DINIZIO : It looks like you
11 have to raise the roof --
12 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes . That is
13 conforming .
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : The ceiling height
15 now, is it nonconforming?
16 MR. SCHWARTZ : The second floor has
17 sufficient headroom.
18 MEMBER DINIZIO: So you are going to
19 bring it up to today ' s standards?
20 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
21 MEMBER DINIZIO : I think that is all I
22 have .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mark, just
24 quickly. We just got this letter from the
25 Trustees and I want to see how you addressed
October 4, 2012 66
1 it with them, if you have . One is that, the
2 points that the neighbor makes is that you
3 currently have to walk on their property to
4 access their boathouse . Have you managed or
5 has your client done anything to access that
6 boathouse without going onto the neighbor ' s
7 property?
8 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes . They don ' t have
9 to access the neighbor ' s property to get to
10 the boathouse . There is stairs that go down
11 right to the lower level there . They
12 mentioned something about cutting the lawn .
13 They have to get around to cut that lawn
14 area . They have been going on her property .
15 There is a big Evergreen on the south side
16 of the Downing property that stops the
17 lawnmower from going down to the fence of
18 that area .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right . This
20 is something --
21 MR. SCHWARTZ : And I did speak to that
22 woman. She did call me prior to the
23 Trustees . We did discuss it .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And concerns
25 about construction debris on her property,
October 4, 2012 67
1 which I am sure you are going to take care
2 of in one way or another . And doesn ' t mind
3 the generator that you are proposing, but
4 where is it going to go? Do we have it on
5 this site plan?
6 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes . It ' s going to be
7 in the garage .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see . That
9 shouldn ' t really be a problem. There is a
10 discrepancy between her survey and the
11 neighbor ' s survey, that sounds familiar, of
12 a setback? I mean, they could be different
13 setbacks . The property is angled.
14 MR. SCHWARTZ : It ' s on the north side .
15 The high water to the point, almost to the
16 corner of the pool, is different on her
17 survey by a half a foot or something . I
18 assume it is different high water marks .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right . Since
20 we got this letter, I thought we should
21 address it .
22 Gerry, do you have any questions?
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, not
24 particularly.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George?
October 4, 2012 68
1 MEMBER HORNING: I want to ask about
2 the new foundation . Is there anything that
3 is going to be remaining of the old
4 foundation?
5 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes . I can provide you
6 with a foundation plan . There is a partial
7 basement in the middle that is going to
8 remain, and there are some areas of the
9 foundation where the new areas are going to
10 go .
11 MEMBER HORNING: So you are saying
12 approximately two-thirds of the existing
13 foundation will remain with some structural
14 reinforcements?
15 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
16 MEMBER HORNING: Okay. Thank you .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions . My
19 questions were answered previously.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. George, is
21 Mark' s testimony adequate about the
22 two-third' s of the remaining foundation, or
23 would the Board like to close subject to
24 receipt of a foundation plan?
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, he is going to
October 4, 2012 69
1 give it to us . So let ' s close it subject to
2 it .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Fine . Just
4 asking .
5 Is there anyone else in the audience
6 who wishes to address this application?
7 (No Response . )
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
9 further comments , I will make a motion to
10 close this hearing subject to receipt of a
11 foundation plan .
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 #6597 - PATRICIA WALKER.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next hearing
25 before the Board is for Patricia Walker,
October 4, 2012 70
1 #6597 . Request for variance from Article
2 XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building
3 Inspector ' s August 21 , 2012 Notice of
4 Disapproval based on an application for
5 building permit for addition and alteration
6 to a single family dwelling at : 1 ) less
7 than the code required total combined side
8 yard setbacks of 25 feet, located at : 1020
9 Ruch Lane, adjacent to Hashamomuck Pond,
10 Greenport .
11 Please state your name for the record?
12 MS . WALKER: Hi . I am Patricia Walker,
13 the new owner and the one proposing to do
14 all this work. As you can see, there is -- I
15 think a 2 . 5 foot difference off of the 25
16 feet setback on both sides . As there is
17 right now, there is a deck that you come out
18 on the sides, that you come out, which I
19 will be moving, which will make the setback
20 better . That will be moving into the inside .
21 So I am not really sure what you want me to
22 say. It will be smaller, the setbacks to the
23 property line . I am not changing any of the
24 existing structures other than removing that
25 part of the deck, which will give more
October 4, 2012 71
1 obviously to that . The reason for the
2 construction is , I have a handicap child in
3 a wheelchair, and there is no way for me to
4 get him into this home, as of right now. So
5 I will be. doing this work, and moving this
6 over, so that I can make access to the home
7 for him and myself . Any questions? I am not
8 sure if you need more explanation than
9 that .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The code
11 requires a combined side yard setback of 25
12 feet, and your proposed side yard setbacks
13 are combined at 22 . 2 feet . I just want that
14 to be in the record.
15 MS . WALKER: That is -- Apparently,
16 there was no property. It was sold. The
17 neighbor ' s said their setbacks would be
18 okay. They did not take into consideration
19 that that messed up this one . That was
20 interesting but that was before me . I will
21 not be changing any of the structures .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would appear
23 from the application that you will be
24 creating a new one story garden room
25 connecting the existing accessory garage,
October 4, 2012 72
1 right?
2 MS . WALKER: Correct .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Partial
4 conversion of living space to be used as an
5 art studio with alterations to deck. Old
6 deck to be removed, and master bedroom deck,
7 adding a wheelchair ramp to an elevated
8 deck. Did I summarize the proposal?
9 MS . WALKER: Yes . I don ' t think that
10 the deck that is there now is structurally
11 sound. My son is quadriplegic . So he is in a
12 -- the wheelchair weighs about 400 pounds .
13 So I am concerned about that structure being
14 sound. So we will make sure that the
15 footings are sound enough to hold that
16 weight . Also what it is now, it is two feet
17 lower than the floor . So the reason that I
18 am doing it now, is to raise it level and
19 come up . Right now, there is stairs that is
20 going down to the deck.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Let ' s see
22 what the Board has to inquire about .
23 Jim?
24 MEMBER DINIZIO : You are adjoining the
25 garage to the house; right?
October 4, 2012 73
1 MS . WALKER: Yes .
2 MEMBER DINIZIO : That piece of
3 construction of the house, is that going to
4 be heated?
5 MS . WALKER: I would imagine it would
6 be heated. I am not sure if that would be a
7 floor heat or -- I haven ' t --
8 MEMBER DINIZIO : It will be part of
9 the house?
10 MS . WALKER: It will be part of the
11 house .
12 MEMBER DINIZIO : Will there be doors
13 in between?
14 MS . WALKER: Yes . There would be a
15 door to the bedroom. A door to -- let me
16 just double --
17 MEMBER DINIZIO : I have the plan .
18 MS . WALKER: A door to the garage and
19 that would just flow into the house, where
20 there is -- so it will all be level . I am
21 trying to make this all level so that a
22 wheelchair can go through it . So there will
23 be a door to the bedroom and there will be
24 an open door -- not a closed, an open
25 hallway into the other part of the main
October 4, 2012 74
1 house, and that will be eliminating one of
2 the bedrooms . And then the downstairs, there
3 is no access to the cellar right now, except
4 for outside . So there will be a staircase
5 put into the cellar .
6 MEMBER DINIZIO : And you are removing
7 the other stairway on the other side, so
8 that makes it a little bit better?
9 MS . WALKER: Yes .
10 MEMBER DINIZIO : The deck is to the
11 front of the house?
12 MS . WALKER: That would be the front
13 to the water side, yes . The backyard if you
14 are going to the road side .
15 MEMBER DINIZIO: How does that
16 actually get into the house?
17 MS . WALKER: Right in the . front there
18 is a garden room there . That will be the
19 access there, and that would be able to take
20 him into the bedroom and also into the main
21 part of the room. As you can see, if you go
22 straight into the door from the part of the
23 road, you go straight out, that will take
24 him to the deck, and also have access to --
25 there will be a sliding door, that would be
October 4, 2012 75
1 wide enough. I just wanted to make sure that
2 I had two exits .
3 MEMBER DINIZIO : I see all these
4 stairs and --
5 MS . WALKER: It looks like stairs but
6 it ' s not . Because there is a slow grade,
7 that will be built up to the level .
8 Basically, it is to make everything level to
9 the first floor . Right now, it ' s
10 eh-er-eh-er.
11 MEMBER DINIZIO : Okay. That ' s all .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, Jim.
13 Gerry?
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, I think Jim
15 answered all the questions . Thank you.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. George?
17 MEMBER HORNING: I don ' t have any
18 questions .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have no
22 further questions .
23 Is there anyone else in the audience
24 who wishes to address this application?
25 (No Response . )
October 4, 2012 76
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
2 further comments or questions from the
3 Board, I will make a motion to close this
4 hearing and reserve decision to a later
5 date .
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
8 MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye .
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
10 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
13 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
14 ************************************** *****
15 HEARING #6598 - PAUL A. AND ELIZABETH
16 L . REINCKENS
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
18 application before the Board is for Paul and
19 Elizabeth Reinckens , #6598 . Request for
20 variances under Article IV Section 280-18
21 and the- Building Inspector ' s August 27 , 2012
22 Notice of Disapproval based on an
23 application for building permit for a
24 subdivision, at Proposed Lot 1 ; 1 ) less than
25 the code required minimum lot size of 40 , 000
October 4, 2012 77
1 square feet, 2 ) less than the code required
2 lot width of 150 linear feet and Proposed
3 Lot 2 ; 1) less than the code required
4 minimum lot size of 40 , 000 square feet, 2 )
5 less than the code required lot width of 150
6 linear feet; located at : 955 & 1065 Hummel
7 Avenue, Southold.
8 Is there someone here that would like
9 to address this application?
10 MS . REINCKENS : Hello . My name is
11 Elizabeth Reinckens . I am one of the owners
12 of the property.
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hello, again .
14 MS . REINCKENS : Hello . I would like to
15 say that when Paul and I bought the property
16 in 1997 , we actually didn ' t think that we
17 had two lots . The reason why of course was
18 because of the two tax bills . Paul and I
19 always respected the integrity of this
20 property. During the years, we could have
21 put up a shed or a pool, but we didn ' t and
22 the reason was because the plan was
23 basically money in the bank for any family
24 at any point . And that it was we thought . I
25 can say that this is a mixed neighborhood.
October 4, 2012 78
1 The north side of Hummel Avenue, has mostly
2 small and single residential lots . The south
3 side is commercial . And the northerly side,
4 behind the homes is preserved property with
5 the vineyard. Our application really is
6 nothing, but all we are asking for is to
7 allow is to build a home . Only one more
8 house will be in this neighborhood. There
9 are no other available lots . Therefore,
10 there is no undesirable changes and will not
11 effect the neighboring properties . In fact,
12 we have spoken to our neighbor ' s, the
13 Hodgebots (phonetic) , they did supply us
14 with a letter .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Vicki will make
16 copies for all of us .
17 MS . REINCKENS : Thank you. As you all
18 know, the lots were merged, and the only way
19 that we can build a home is for you guys to
20 grant us a variance . Our request is not
21 substantial because the request is zoned
22 R-40 . None of the lots on the north side of
23 Hummel Avenue are 40, 000 square feet . My
24 house, tax lot 46, which is average size .
25 It ' s a 10 , 000 square foot . The lot in which
October 4, 2012 79
1 we wanted to build a home for ourselves is
2 12, 000 square feet . Like all the other lots
3 in the neighborhood, there is sufficient
4 front and side yard ' s . Each lot is 200 feet
5 long. We can ' t build a house without any
6 other variances . One more house, will not
7 change nothing . So it will not have no
8 detrimental effect on the environmental
9 conditions . Unfortunately, our problem was
10 self created because we didn ' t take care of
11 Lt in 1997 . So you know, we thank you, and
12 you taking the time and letting us share
13 this with you .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you,
15 Ms . Reinckens . Just so the public hearing
16 transcript reflects exactly what the
17 variances are that you are requesting, once
18 subdivision is accomplished, you will be
19 creating two nonconforming lots . Lot #1 will
20 be at 12 , 000 square feet . Lot #2 will be at
21 10 , 000 square feet, where the code requires
22 40, 000 in the R-40 Zone, and lot width of.
23 both of those lots will be nonconforming .
24 In R-40 , the lot width is supposed to be 150
25 linear feet . And the proposed Lot #1 will be
October 4, 2012 80
1 60 feet wide and Lot #2 will be 50 feet
2 wide . Just so we are clear on exactly what
3 the variances are that are being proposed.
4 Okay. Let ' s see if the Board has any
5 questions . Gerry?
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I actually
7 physically rode down both sides . There is no
8 reason to drive down the north side of the
9 street because it ' s basically one owner . But
10 I observed every single house on the block,
11 and you know, some of the lots in looking at
12 the tax map, 1, 2 , 3 and 4 are a little bit
13 larger than yours, and the majority of them
14 are either small or about the same size . The
15 one ' s down closer to Railroad Avenue tend to
16 be a little bit smaller, but what we are --
17 what I am looking at it is basically the
18 largest lot, which is 16 . 4 down to your
19 property. So in that case, there is only
20 three lots that are a little bit larger than
21 yours .
22 MS . REINCKENS : If it helps any, I
23 think two out of those three are not single
24 family. They are a double family.
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes , we have had
October 4, 2012 81
1 variances on a couple of those . Thank you.
2 The proposed lot that you are requesting an
3 area variance certainly conforms to the
4 neighborhood . That is what I wanted to say.
5 Thank you .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
7 MEMBER HORNING: I look at it similar
8 to what Gerry described and if you put the
9 houses on the tax map to see what parcel had
10 a house, and they all have houses . I was
11 curious as to whether or not you could tell
12 us, have there been any other merged lots on
13 that side of the street? Or is yours the
14 only one that ended up being merged?
15 MS . REINCKENS : I would not know that .
16 MEMBER HORNING: It doesn ' t look like
17 it . Sometimes the merged lots show a
18 separate parcel on the tax map, but that is
19 why I looked at how many houses were there
20 and I put a house on every lot, there is a
21 house on each lot .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the lots are
23 all developed.
24 MS . REINCKENS : I would not know that .
t 25 They have been there since I moved there in
October 4, 2012 82
1 1997 .
� 2 MEMBER HORNING: Thank you .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken questions?
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jim?
6 MEMBER DINIZIO: No .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
8 else in the audience that would like to
9 address this application?
10 (No Response . )
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
12 further questions or comments from the
13 Board, I will make a motion to close this
14 hearing and reserve decision to a later
15 date .
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
October 4, 2012 83
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
2 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
4 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
7 ( See Minutes for Resolution . )
8 ********************************************
9
10 (Whereupon, the public hearings for
11 October 4 , 2012 concluded. )
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
October 4, 2012 84
1 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
2
3
4
5 I , Jessica DiLallo, certify that the
6 foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public
7 Hearings was prepared using required
8 electronic transcription equipment and is a
9 true and accurate record of the Hearings .
10
11'
12 Signature :
-- - --/
. 13 Jessica DiLallo
14
15
16 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
17 PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
18
19
20 Date : October 15, 2012
21
22
23
24
25