HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-11/01/2012 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 Southold Town Hall RECEIVED
Southold, New Yor 8 NOV 2:0 2012
9 November 1 , 2012 SOARD OF APPEALS
10 : 07 A. M.
10
11 Board Members Present :
12 LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
13 GERARD GOEHRINGER - Member
14 JAMES DINIZIO, JR. - Member
15 KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member
16 GEORGE HORNING - Member - Excused
17
18 JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney -
19 (Left at 10 : 55 A.M. )
20 VICKI TOTH - Secretary
21
22 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
23 P . O . Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
24 ( 631 ) -338-1.409
��� 25
2
1 INDEX OF HEARINGS
2
3
4 Hearing: Page :
5 Kimogenor Point, Inc . #6550 3-45
6 Michael & Debra Thompson, #6600 45-60
7 Emilia & Ilya Kabakov, #6602 60-78
8 Diane B . Ryan, #6601 78-95
9 David Korchin & Joan Rentz, #6604 95-106
10 Joseph M. Melly, #6603 106-117
11 Bee-Hive Development Corp . #6605 117-137
12 Michael & Emily Kavourias, #6606 137-138
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 3
1 HEARING #6550 - KIMOGENOR POINT, INC . (BINGHAM)
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Re-opened by
3 Resolution for the sole purpose of
4 reviewing the proposed construction method
5 for the foundation and the preservation of
6 portions of the existing dwelling as
7 described and granted in the original
8 decision #6550 , located at : 50 Jackson
9 Street, New Suffolk.
10 MR. SAMUELS : Good morning . Tom
11 Samuels , on behalf of the Bingham' s who
12 are here, and also Pat Moore who are
13 representing them. Yes, this was for the
14 sole purpose of addressing the foundation
15 and construction technique and elevation
16 of the house, and in the earlier
17 application that was granted by you guys ,
18 the flood zone was an error . It was an
19 older map . It was an older copy . My
20 fault . So unfortunately we had to come
21 back with obviously the correct
22 information and put this into a V Zone,
23 which requires a piling foundation . Even
24 though we thought and hoped to preserve
25 the remnants of the existing block
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 4
1 foundation, that will not be possible, as
2 we are renovating the house beyond 500 of
3 its market value, and therefore a pile
4 foundation is required. Obviously, under
5 the circumstances , it is clear, we want to
6 conform. We need to conform and it would
7 make no sense to do otherwise . Kimogenor
8 Point survived intact from the storm but
9 the water did rise, obviously, and if
10 there had been wind from that direction
11 for a long period of time, there would
12 have been scouring action and there would
13 have been worse problems down there . So
14 really our intention now is, if possible,
15 to use a simple timber piling foundation,
16 which would require moving the house to
17 the side during the demolition of the
18 existing and the construction of the new.
19 If that process is not acceptable to you
20 because of the use, multi-family use of
21 the site, then we are prepared to instead
22 use a helical screw pile foundation, which
23 is steel columns that are screwed into the
24 ground capped with concrete, which bears
25 the remainder of the timber pile
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 5
1 foundation above . It ' s a technique that
2 would allow the house to remain. It would
3 have to be lifted up but it would remain
4 in its exact location while that is being
5 installed. It is more expensive then a
6 typical timber foundation . We are
7 prepared to go that route, but I think we
8 would probably prefer the flexibility in
9 discussing with the contractor of going
10 with one or the other FEMA compliant
11 piling foundations .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is what I
13 thought you were proposing . We got a
14 letter from you with the foundation plan
15 showing the helical screws and the --
16 MR. SAMUELS : And that --
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : -- going to
18 remain in place .
19 MR. SAMUELS : Correct . Unless you
20 are willing to give us the flexibility
21 otherwise, that is what we are going to
22 do . And we had heard, I think, there was
23 that preference on your part . I am
24 stating it only now because there are
25 rational reasons to consider a timber pile
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 6
1 foundation . But like I say, if there are
2 objections to the moving of the house and
3 the replacing of the house, then we are
4 absolutely prepared to go with the helical
5 screw pile foundation.
6 MS . ANDALORO : You don ' t have that
7 application before you. I would prefer
8 that you just stick with what is before
9 you. You don ' t have anything else before
10 you other than the helical screw.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is
12 correct .
13 MS . ANDALORO: You should not
14 consider anything else unless they revise
15 their application .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, it ' s not
17 really an application. It ' s a submission
18 in writing with a foundation plan . The
19 Board was concerned originally with the
20 idea of preservation of the existing
21 foundation, though part of the basis of
22 our understanding for demolition and the
23 percentage that could be salvaged, so that
24 it wasn ' t deemed to be a demolition. The
25 foundation was going to be in part
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 7
1 preserved, and it would be raised, you
2 know, in place . So there is no where to
3 put this . I mean, on the beach?
4 MR. SAMUELS : No .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : On th road?
6 MR. SAMUELS : No . Okay. So we
7 understand that .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we wanted
9 to have in the record, an understanding of
10 a couple of things . First of all, in
11 using this alternative foundation method,
12 let ' s pursue that for a moment . I have
13 actually asked the Building Inspector to
14 be here to speak to the public record.
15 Also, Tom, what additional percentage of
16 demolition is going to be required now
17 because you are now going to have to use a
18 new foundation?
19 MR. SAMUELS : When we calculated the
20 percentage of demolition required,
21 initially we did consider the foundation .
22 So I would say no change, other than the
23 change itself, we were not looking at the
24 foundation at the time or we were not
25 considering the demolition of the
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 8
1 foundation as part of the demolition of
2 the overall structure when we gave you an
3 estimated percentage last time . So we are
4 absolutely still preserving the required
5 25% of that structure . In fact, we would
6 be preserving more than that . We are
7 certainly going to meet the minimum
8 requirement regardless of this change in
9 foundation.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. So
11 jacking this up and installing a new
12 foundation, will allow you to proceed as
13 originally granted with preserving those
14 portions of the dwelling and so on, that
15 we originally stamped as approved?
16 MR. SAMUELS : That ' s correct .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Which what was
18 going and what was being saved and so on?
19 MR. SAMUELS : That is correct .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let ' s look for
21 a moment in the change of elevation . That
22 was another issue . I understand there is
23 two things here . One, I think you are now
24 -- the new plans are at 11 feet, and that
25 you are involved with seeking a New York
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 9
1 State Building Code Variance for the 2
2 foot free board --
3 MR. SAMUELS : That ' s correct . That
4 is something that we do not have in hand
5 yet, although -- unless Michael has gotten
6 in hand anything beyond that on paper, a
7 verbal understanding from Ricard Smith
8 from the State that this was appropriate,
9 that we would -- in other words, satisfy
10 FEMA requirements, meet the code
11 absolutely, but have flexibility, so to
12 speak again, with the State ' s additional
13 two foot of free board, as they call it,
14 which they are -- it sounds like prepared,
15 although we don ' t have -- and I think his
16 hands are full now, even up to the last
17 few days when we were calling and trying
18 to get confirmation from him. I would ask
19 you again just for flexibility. They
20 obviously meet FEMA and do what they have
21 to do but those additional two feet are
22 still in play. In order to keep the house
23 as much as possible in line with and
24 consistent with the neighbors , we think
25 that the nine foot elevation is better .
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 10
1 The house that we recently did has as a
2 finished floor elevation of nine foot .
3 And that house was not effected by the
4 storm. There was still an additional two
5 feet of space below it in this storm. So,
6 you know, obviously this storm could have
7 been worse, but we were above where the
8 sea level came . So my request to you is ,
9 yes, we have to meet FEMA, which would be
10 plus nine . If the State requires us to go
11 to eleven, then. we will of course do that .
12 It ' s our desire to minimize the height of
13 the first floor and still be compliant
14 with the spirit of the law and also the
15 practical need to be above any predictable
16 flood tide .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Tom, at nine
18 foot elevation, where exactly above the
19 existing grade would the finished first
20 floor be?
21 MR. SAMUELS : Well, the greatest
22 sloping it comes to about 6 feet in the
23 front, on the dune side . And it comes
24 down to about 5, 4 1/2 , 5 on the back
25 side . The house now is at 6 . 84 foot .
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 11
1 That is the first floor elevation
2 currently as 6 . 84 . Just shy of 7 foot .
3 So for convenience, it is a little below
4 that . So we are actually looking to raise
5 it two additional feet . You know, there
6 was two inches of water in the house, in
7 this last storm. So the flood waters came
8 to about 7 foot in this last storm.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And at 11
10 feet, if you don ' t get the variance?
11 MR. SAMUELS : At 11 feet, I 'm sorry?
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : At 11 feet --
13 MR. SAMUELS : How high would it be
14 above grade? Well, that would be close to
15 about 5 foot above grade on the water side
16 of the house . So it would -- in other
17 words , I don ' t have submitted drawings of
18 that . It ' s just -- it would definitely
19 create more . We would still do the
20 . project . I think the owners are committed
21 to this, but it would just create the
22 impression of a bump in a row of houses
23 that are all relatively consistent . Most
24 of the original houses are at about 7 foot
25 probably. The new one that we had done a
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 12
1 few years ago, Archer, was at 9 flat, a
2 little bit . And the roof line was
3 designed in a way to minimize that look.
4 This is a full two-story -- one and a half
5 story house . So we are just trying to
6 work with the character of the
7 neighborhood.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the
9 pilings wouldn ' t be visible in either
10 case?
11 MR. SAMUELS : No, correct .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you please
13 just come forward and confirm that these
14 drawings that are here are the ones that
15 you are proposing? I believe this is at
16 11 feet .
17 MR. SAMUELS : Yes .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that the
19 right foundation plan?
20 MR. SAMUELS : I can give a detailed
21 one, but otherwise, yes .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
23 MR. SAMUELS : This is the same
24 drawing, but the flood line is
25 representing the red line on that .
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 13
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right .
2 Ken, do you have any questions? Before we
3 get to Mike, or Gerry or Jim, any
4 questions of Tom?
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just wanted to
6 speak to the gentleman that is doing the
7 job, if he is here?
8 MR. SAMUELS : Do you mean the
9 contractor?
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes .
11 MR. SAMUELS : He is not here . The
12 job was not formally awarded to the
13 contractor . We needed to get through this
14 before we could establish our timeline
15 appropriately, and really bring somebody
16 into it . The general contractor that is
17 favored at this time, has of course been
18 talking to marine contractors to work out
19 exactly these details .
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We have to find
21 out how high the building is going to be
22 elevated, and if the building is going to
23 be absolutely 100o elevated above the
24 existing foundation, just for the sole
25 purpose of FEMA. I mean, that ' s it, to
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 14
1 meet these FEMA requirements , and if there
2 is going to be any movement of the home
3 other than the additions that you propose,
4 you know on that basis .
5 MR. SAMUELS : What I think, Gerry,
6 would happen, because it is surrounded on
7 two sides by an open porch, it is very
8 likely that it was our intention to
9 replace that porch anyway. We would have
10 to remove that porch, and then reconstruct
11 that porch . The core of the building gets
12 raised straight up with steel -- like any
13 house --
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yeah, like any
15 house would.
16 MR. SAMUELS : Right . Then they get
17 a little bobcat or whatever, and they
18 remove what they can. And then they get
19 in there . The actual process of
20 installing pilings underneath the house, I
21 can ' t say I am familiar with that . I
22 haven ' t done it, but I am assured with
23 those that have, including my structural
24 engineer, that this is done all the time .
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But the point
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 15
1 and question, Tom, when you look at these
2 foundations , I spent a lot of time on the
3 South Shore looking at these based upon
4 the ( In Audible) that we had over in
5 Westhampton . I was responsible for
6 purchasing all of the easements that they
7 used. Every one of these are basically a
8 cross-bridge underneath. How are they
9 going to do that with steel? Are they
10 going to roll it? Are they going to put
11 steel across? You know, how are they
12 going to get it done?
13 MR. SAMUELS : This shows the piles .
14 This shows a pile foundation which is
15 attached to the top -- (In Audible) .
16 (Stepped away from the microphone . )
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you need a
18 copy of this back?
19 MR. SAMUELS : No, you could have it .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jim, do you
21 have any questions of Tom at the moment?
22 MEMBER DINIZIO: No .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Maybe, if you
24 would, the Building Inspector is here . We
25 thank him very much for taking the time to
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 16
1 come before the Board.
2 MR. VERITY : Good morning.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning.
4 MR. VERITY: Mike Verity, Chief
5 Building Inspector Town of Southold.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you very
7 much for being here .
8 MR. VERITY: Not a problem.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have been
10 involved in discussions with the applicant
11 about the New York State Building Code
12 variance for the 2 foot free board?
13 MR. VERITY: That ' s correct .
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : Can you address
15 that and also speak on the difference in
16 potential demolition, whether it has to be
17 11 or at 9? Is there any difference from
18 your original determination that you
19 include the foundation --
20 MR. VERITY : Can I just clarify the
21 flood zone? Is that a VE8 ; is that
22 correct?
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, it is .
24 MR. VERITY: So if that is a VE8 , we
25 are talking 9 over 11 .
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 17
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I need you to
2 be at the mic so we can get this into the
3 record.
4 MR. VERITY: The reason why I am
5 asking and so that everyone understands
6 this , I just want to make sure that
7 everyone is on the same level .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good.
9 MR. VERITY: Same playing field.
10 MR. SAMUELS : VE8 means that the
11 entire structure must be above that
12 elevation. So what we are looking to do
13 is flush frame the girders , with 3x8x12
14 girders running along the top of the
15 foundation with the floor framing of the
16 house . Again, obtain those heights that
17 we were required by FEMA but also you
18 know, trying to keep the house down to the
19 maximum extent possible . We are not
20 allowed to have mechanical systems below,
21 wiring. Nothing . It has to be completely
22 clear underneath the house . So that in a
23 VE8 Zone, that means that we need that one
24 foot of structure and then the floor
25 elevation would be about at 9 , probably a
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 18
1 little above 9 . Roughly speaking though,
2 at 9 .
3 MR. VERITY : Just making sure we
4 have the bench marker . I knew Tom
5 understood that . I just wanted everyone
6 else to be clear that it ' s a VE8 . So your
7 lowest horizontal member, according to
8 FEMA has to be at 8 . Okay. According to
9 the State, it has to be at 10 .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
11 MR. VERITY: And to answer your
12 question about the State variance . The
13 State, they' re still closed, but I spoke
14 to the State this morning via cellphone .
15 And the gentleman that is handling it
16 said, even if they had to go for a Board
17 review, there is almost 100o certainty
18 that they would get their 2 feet of free
19 board relief . So they are going to try
20 and do it on a local level but it depends
21 on the amount of -- I don ' t want to say
22 destruction, but on the amount of
23 reconstruction . So the amount of
24 demolition for lack of a better word.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Our
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 19
1 concern was two-fold. One, and that is
2 why we really wanted this in the record.
3 So that we are just clear and there
4 wouldn ' t be any problems in the future .
5 That no additional demolition would put it
6 into a total demo would be -- would result
7 as a consequence of this change of
8 foundation, from the original foundation;
9 is that correct?
10 MR. VERITY: Uh-huh . I think we can
11 really thumb this down, and the only
12 discussion that we should really be having
13 is whether or not it exceeds the 75% .
14 Whether we put the deck of cards
15 underneath, whether he puts the helical,
16 whether he puts the pile foundation,
17 shouldn ' t even be a discussion, because we
18 -- the Building Department can write that
19 permit . If this wasn ' t Kimogenor Point,
20 and it was a nonconforming house, a
21 single-family dwelling on one house and
22 one lot, we would write this permit
23 without any discussion . Because of the
24 uniqueness of that neighborhood and
25 Kimogenor Point area, we are giving you
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 20
1 the courtesy to look at this . We wouldn ' t
2 even consider it any other time . We could
3 have a house at a 3 foot property line and
4 we would write the permit . A foundation
5 underneath an existing house would be done
6 automatically. Again, not to repeat
7 myself, but the biggest question today is
8 whether or not they are going to maintain
9 less than 750 . Any other discussion, , it
10 really doesn ' t have to be had. I think
11 it ' s wasting everyone ' s time . So that is
12 the only thing that you have to consider .
13 It ' s not even required to have a height
14 variance . So that is even not a concern .
15 The biggest concern is that they maintain
16 the 750 . I think we can do that, as we
17 have did in the past recently. It ' s a
18 shut and close case, my opinion. You
19 handle it the way you want to handle it .
20 But again, whether they find a way to move
21 it --
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That ' s why
23 you ' re here .'
24 MR. VERITY: It ' s a very simple
25 project . It ' s a very simple process . It
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 21
1 is just how they have to handle it . I was
2 out at the project yesterday -- at the
3 property yesterday. There are areas that
4 they can move that house, and again, that
5 is not for me to say, but they have a
6 triangular area . They can possibly move
7 it to these possible areas of the side .
8 As long as they do not disturb the
9 neighbors sanitary system, but again, that
10 is for the engineer and the architect to
11 work out . And I don ' t think anyone else
12 has to get involved with that . The only
13 thing today that I think we have to get
14 involved with is for them to say, "yes , "
15 we are going to stay under the 750 . We
16 are going to comply with the State Code
17 and comply with under the 750, and done
18 deal after that . It ' s pretty simple .
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But Mike, the
20 original Notice of Disapproval was also a
21 setback from the water.
22 MR. VERITY: It ' s a setback from the
23 bulkhead.
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes .
25 MR. VERITY: That ' s correct, but
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 22
1 that is not changing .
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand
3 that, but I am just saying.
4 MR. VERITY : But that was already
5 granted regardless --
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, I understand
7 that .
8 MR. VERITY : If we were discussing
9 height --
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes , I know.
11 MR. VERITY: Gerry --
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We are trying to
13 gain the understanding of the new process
14 that they are doing .
15 MR. VERITY: Yes .
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And putting that
17 information in the record, and that was
18 the purpose of this .
19 MR. VERITY: Yes .
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And to clarify
21 the elevations .
22 MR. VERITY: Again, I think based on
23 the stuff that was submitted to us , it was
24 submitted to you -- I don ' t want to say
25 it ' s teetering on the line of de minimus ,
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 23
1 but it ' s teetering on the line of de
2 minimus in our eyes . Maybe not in your
3 eyes . So maybe that ' s why I am trying to
4 stress that point . As long as they ' re
5 maintaining that less than 750, there is
6 really no change, because the bulkhead
7 distance was already granted. You are not
8 with a height variance . You are not hit
9 with any other variances other than a
10 nonconforming building with a
11 nonconforming use because of the Kimogenor
12 Point make up . So it ' s really simple .
13 Really simple .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s simple
15 from your expertise . Before this Board,
16 it wasn ' t that clear because we don ' t
17 collectively have that expertise . And
18 when you ' re talking about from going from
19 jacking-up the existing foundation to
20 tearing out a foundation and putting in
21 pilings, that often elevates a building
22 beyond what is typical, and that is part
23 of our balancing test . It was important
24 for us to have the facts before us in the
25 record, for all concerned parties, so that
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 24
1 we can act accordingly, because we do have
2 a different set of standards than what you
3 look at .
4 MR. VERITY: No, I understand that .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is why we
6 appreciate you being here to clarify for
7 our record what the consequences would or
8 would not be . In this particular proposed
9 change, as a consequence of knowing that
10 this is a different flood zone .
11 MR. VERITY: I understand.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We didn ' t want
13 to revisit anything else . That has been
14 granted. No one had a problem with it,
15 but the Board needed to understand that
16 the house would still be preserved using
17 this method as originally granted.
18 MR. VERITY: That ' s basically what I
19 am trying to say.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Jim,
21 questions?
22 MEMBER DINIZIO : No .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes , I have a
25 question. In the Building Department ' s
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 25
1 opinion, is a pile foundation more
2 preferred or the helical sonotube --
3 MR. VERITY: We are going to leave
4 that up to the design professionals and
5 homeowners . That is really their choice .
6 Again, it ' s all about cost . It ' s all
7 about how they affect the environments ,
8 you know. There is a whole different
9 mindset from pilings to helical . There is
10 a huge difference . Like Tom said, it ' s
11 not something that they use everyday.
12 He ' s never used it before . I have
13 experienced it before . . Personally, would
14 I use it, and should I even comment on
15 that? No according to the attorney, so I
16 won ' t comment on that . Thank you. So I
17 can ' t really answer that question.
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Fair enough .
19 MR. VERITY: So either one shouldn ' t
20 make a difference, whether they use field
21 stone foundation for that, whether it ' s
22 FEMA compliant, it shouldn ' t matter to the
23 Board. It shouldn ' t matter to us . It ' s
24 really for the homeowner, and more
25 importantly to the designer of the project
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 26
1 on how that should be installed.
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The difference
4 is , if you put in wood pilings, the house
5 gets jacked-up but it has to be moved some
6 place .
7 MR. VERITY: But again, if they can
8 accomplish that through an agreement with
9 the neighbors . There is places . Again, I
10 can ' t comment on that . You know --
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Unless the
12 house is not only lifted but moved and
13 certainly there is weight and stress on
14 the structure that is there . And our
15 concern is , if that happens, do we begin
16 to see the domino effect of uh-oh, we
17 can ' t maintain these walls anymore --
18 MR. VERITY: Well, that was my
19 point . Then they would have to come back,
20 if they find that out -- either way it has
21 to be moved. It ' s going to be raised.
22 It ' s just a matter if it ' s staying here or
23 if it ' s going here or over to here .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The LWRP would
25 not want this on the beach.
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 27
1 MR. VERITY: That is what I am
2 stressing the most .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If you want to
4 come and address the Board, you have to
5 come to the mic . State your name please .
6 MR. BINGHAM: This is Dan Bingham.
7 I am the owner, myself and my wife,
8 Jackie . In regards to moving the house,
9 and we have thought about this . We
10 haven ' t gotten an official permit or what
11 have you for this , but there is a space in
12 between our house and our neighbors house
13 on the land that is co-owned in the
14 community where we could move it and
15 temporarily store the house, and/or on the
16 driveway. So there is some spots that we
17 can move it as opposed to bringing it onto
18 the beach, which we recognize would be
19 some sensitivity on that .
20 MR. SAMUELS : To address your.
21 question to Mike, I can be a little more
22 frank, I think, I hope .
23 MR. VERITY : Can I just comment on
24 that, again, I think it should be left up
25 to the homeowner and the designer on what
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 28
1 type of foundation that they want to use,
2 but if they do put it in the road, as long
3 as you put in the stipulation or
4 conditions , that they provide access for
5 emergency vehicles back and forth. That
6 all, I think can be achieved. And again
7 to stress the 75%, once they move it or
8 raise it or whatever, they have to
9 maintain it . And they have to understand,
10 if it goes beyond that, they would have to
11 go back before the Board. Two simple
12 things . Again, Tom, at my age, I start to
13 forget things . So I want to put that out
14 there before I forgot .
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Thank you, Mike
16 MR. SAMUELS : I understand that our
17 application for this re-opening does refer
18 to the use of piles , but I will state for
19 the record, that as a designer, I would
20 probably prefer the simple timber pile
21 foundation because it is simple . That it
22 is continuos . It doesn ' t involve joints .
23 You have a member which is pounded into
24 the ground. You know, inserted in a way
25 which will be there for some time . So I
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 29
1 would prefer the simple timber foundation .
2 Not just for cost reasons but for
3 structural reasons as well .
4 MEMBER DINIZIO: You know I have
5 been on the Board a long time . We have
6 had this discussion. You know, we have
7 gone back and forth whether or not after
8 you move a house, as to whether or not -you
9 have any right . In other words, you can
10 lose it all . It ' s not 75% anymore . It ' s
11 1000 of the existing setback, which is an
12 established setback. Realizing that we
13 have granted that setback. When we
14 granted that setback on the fact that the
15 house wouldn ' t be destroyed beyond 750 .
16 And what I am hearing now from both of you
17 is , you would prefer to move the house . I
18 understand the wood pilings, and as a
19 technician, I would like to have
20 everything forward. You are building
21 pieces here . I can see where that is
22 possible that at any point, that could be
23 weak. I understand, but we have turned
24 down homes where people have come and say,
25 look we are going to move the house across
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 30
1 the street or whatever . It was on North
2 Sea, I don ' t know if it was you or not --
3 MR. SAMUELS : Wasn ' t me .
4 MEMBER DINIZIO : But in any case, we
5 turned these things down based on that ,
6 and not withstanding Mike ' s all we need to
7 consider is the 75% , if we consider that,
8 and we consider what we have done in the
9 past, once you move the house, you have
10 100% with --
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, you do .
12 MEMBER DINIZIO : With the decisions
13 that this Board has made , in the past . I
14 think, if you can address that in some
15 way?
16 MR. SAMUELS : Jim, I understand what
17 you are saying, and that is why we came
18 back with helical piles , because we knew
19 that you had that sensitivity, and that
20 sensitivity is not in my professional
21 skill set . My attitude would be, the
22 house is still there on the property. It
23 still exist as a use, even though you
24 can ' t get up to it because it ' s going to
25 be 12 feet in the air, until it ' s put back
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 31
1 on its foundation . From my perspective,
2 the house still exist and has not been
3 demolished. It ' s been moved from its
4 site, but it is still on the property. It
5 actually exist . I don ' t know what
6 happened on North Sea Road, but, maybe it
7 was moved off the property . That is
8 something different . We came back with
9 the helical screws because we knew of that
10 sensitivity on your part . So we are
11 prepared to do that . But for the record,
12 telling you that if we could, a simple
13 pile foundation, in my opinion,
14 professional opinion, it would be better
15 in the long term for the Bingham' s and for
16 that house . Because of the simplicity of
17 the structural system, which has been --
18 over 500 years ago, that is the simple
19 technology. The helical screws work. I
20 have absolute confidence in it . The house
21 will be fine, but it is just a more
22 complicated technology. Plus we have to
23 then bring masonry onto the job, which we
24 don ' t have any masonry on the job . In the
25 timeframe that we are talking about does
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 32
1 make a difference, because here we are,
2 the first day of November . We would like
3 this project to get going . Concrete is
4 only going to be running for I don ' t know
5 how much longer. So you don ' t care about
6 that, and I understand that is not your
7 concern, and I am not asking you to think
8 about it at all . 'I am sort of telling you
9 a little bit of where I am coming from in
10 my stated preference for a simple pile
11 foundation .
12 MEMBER DINIZIO: I just wanted you
13 to be aware --
14 MR. SAMUELS : I understand.
15 MEMBER DINIZIO : In this case, it ' s
16 history, not necessarily our personal
17 beliefs .
18 MR. SAMUELS : I understand.
19 MR. VERITY: And Jim, mine is not a
20 personal belief . Mine is based on history
21 and zoning . If they were to come into us
22 today and put a pile foundation under an
23 existing house, it wouldn ' t be standing
24 here .
25 MEMBER DINIZIO: I understand that .
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 33
1 MR. VERITY: So whether they raise
2 it up or more it a little bit . The North
3 Sea, the attorney is here that
4 representing that property, it ' s not
5 apples to apples . It ' s apples to oranges,
6 but we can have that discussion another
7 day over a lemonade, if you want?
8 MEMBER DINIZIO : In all honesty, we
9 have had that discussion and it hasn ' t
10 gone the way that you think it has, you
11 know, honestly. Some of us on the Board
12 believe that if you move that house, you
13 move the setbacks .
14 MR. VERITY: Well, they don ' t really
15 have setbacks there . So that ' s where it ' s
16 different from many properties . The
17 setbacks that they only have is the
18 setbacks from the bulkhead, which was
19 already granted.
20 MEMBER DINIZIO: And I couldn ' t
21 agree with more . It carries on to this ,
22 this whole place is nonconforming .
23 MR. VERITY: That is sort of the big
24 thing .
25 MEMBER DINIZIO : You know, we are
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 34
1 going down that road --
2 MR. VERITY : You know, you can make
3 the argument that that is the whole
4 purpose of the nonconforming code, but I
5 think --
6 MEMBER DINIZIO: I realized
7 preferred method is these wood piles, but
8 I am going to tell you, we have made
9 decisions differently. Once you start
10 moving that house, I am not so sure we can
11 agree that is not -- you know, doing
12 something that shouldn ' t be done . We
13 granted a setback based on the fact that
14 the house was not going to be demolished,
15 and there is some disagreement as to what
16 actually is 75% and 1000 . I think I am
17 pushing . I know the preferred method,
18 but --
19 MR. SAMUELS : Jim, I am pushing too,
20 but I am pushing from the other side, and
21 we are prepared to accept your decision,
22 as long -- well, hopefully, will be at
23 least up to us, to put a new foundation
24 underneath this house . But hopefully, the
25 timber pile foundation, because it seems
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 35
1 like a simpler solution, but we are
2 prepared to accept based on the simple
3 lift and drop of this new foundation and
4 however you see that .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is what
6 you have presented?
7 MR. SAMUELS : That is what we have
8 presented. FEMA -- you know, we are going
9 to comply with FEMA, with the State of New .
10 York and Southold, and all other codes and
11 requirements .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, the
13 amended application is to do precisely
14 what you had originally proposed and what
15 we had originally granted, which is to do
16 repairs and additions and alterations , in
17 place and in kind. Just as you are
18 listing it and instead of repairing the
19 foundation, just replacing the foundation?
20 MR. SAMUELS : Yes .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is really
22 why we wanted to reopen . We wanted to
23 make sure that it was still going to be
24 height conforming and it wasn ' t going to
25 be changing a setback. It wasn ' t going to
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 36
1 be a full demolition because we went down
2 that road twice . So I think now the
3 record reflects accurately what the Boards
4 concerns were . Unless the Board has
5 additional questions or comments, or
6 anyone else in the audience who would like
7 to address this application?
8 (No Response . )
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Given the fact
10 that we have no computers and phones and
11 electricity, and Board Member Horning
12 could not be here . One second.
13 We have in the past conditioned
14 applications based upon a series of
15 inspections during the construction
16 process . What is your feeling about this
17 one?
18 MR. VERITY: I had recommended that
19 earlier . I said we would -- it would be
20 beneficial to the property owner, the
21 designer, as well as the Town .
22 MR. SAMUELS : So normally you have a
23 foundation inspection, and a survey
24 thereafter, and then there is a framing
25 inspection. Are you looking for something
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 37
-- 1 additional after the framing inspection?
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am asking
3 Mike .
4 MR. VERITY: Yes, basically it would
5 be the amount of demolition at that time .
6 To make sure that we are all on the same
7 page . That you are not going to exceed
8 that 75% and we would rather discuss .it
9 before, than after . That was part of
10 Jimmy ' s point .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In what phase
12 do you want to do this inspection?
13 MR. VERITY: After the house is
14 moved and the foundation is set , th.en we
15 could have that site visit .
16 MR. SAMUELS : Okay.
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You mean lifted?
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You mean
19 lifted?
20 MR. VERITY: Yeah, they can lift it
21 and see . I am sure they would know what ' s
22 good and what ' s bad. I can quickly see
23 with 20 minutes that I was there
24 yesterday, what is good and what is bad.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So when the
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 38
r'
1 foundation is done and the house. is
2 lifted --
3 MR. VERITY: If you want to back up
4 a sec, it ' s something that we can work out
5 right now? If you want to do it once the
6 house is raised and take a look at it .
7 You can do two inspections then . Once the
8 house is raised, with whomever is doing
9 the raising of the house, then after the
10 foundation is set, and before it goes back
11 on, it shouldn ' t be much of a change . I
12 can ' t see the house falling down once they
13 move that house back on the foundation .
14 You can do it in two inspections , if you
15 would like . Once the house is moved, and
16 whatever foundation you chose, which
17 again, I don ' t think is really that
18 important .
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We have
20 testimony from Tom that he inspected this
21 house and he has looked at some great deal
22 the foundation portion or the plate
23 portion of it or whatever you want to say,
24 and that you said that everything looks
25 good to you?
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 39
1 MR. SAMUELS : Yes .
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And that is what
3 we are addressing now.
4 MR. SAMUELS : There may be a lot of
5 framing and insulation that is going to go
6 into these walls .
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right .
8 MR. SAMUELS : We will comply with
9 whatever schedule inspections you guys
10 come up with.
11 MR. VERITY : I don ' t know if we can
12 discuss that after or if it needs to be
13 ironed out now, a two phase inspection
14 once it is raised and moved, and then
15 prior to going back on the foundation,
16 because there is probably going to be some
17 engineering stuff that is going to be at
18 that point in time . Once you move
19 something, you might see something that
20 has to be modified, and I think we have
21 the ability to handle that between the
22 Building Department and the owner and the
23 design professional .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Let me just clear
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 40
1 something up . So what is before us is the
2 sonotube helical design?
3 (No Verbal Response . )
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: . Okay.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Tom, I would
6 like to make sure that I have from you the
7 survey, foundation plan, elevations .
8 Let ' s assume that the elevation should be
9 at 11, as originally proposed --
10 MR. SAMUELS : Okay.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In which case
12 it would be less, but I would rather grant
13 more than less .
14 MR. SAMUELS : Okay. And not prevent
15 us from lowering though?
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of course not .
17 MR. SAMUELS : Okay. As long as we
18 meet the code .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes . If we
20 condition this based upon you getting
21 the variance, and you don ' t get the
22 variance --
23 MR. SAMUELS : Yeah, I 'm screwed.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Then we go
25 again . That is not what anybody really
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 41
1 wants to do . You may assume all kinds
2 of things and we are not instructing
3 anything on what anyone says, you don ' t
4 have it . So we don ' t know whether it ' s
5 9 or 11, we don ' t know . 9 would be
6 preferable to everybody, but we need from
7 you what you are proposing to us right
8 now?
9 MR. SAMUELS : Okay.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And I will
11 make a note that if the variance is
12 granted from the State, it won ' t interfere
13 with --
14 MR. SAMUELS : Okay. I will get you
15 all the drawings you need.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What I am
17 going to suggest, everyone is experiencing
18 with the electricity now from the
19 hurricane, I am going to make a motion to
20 close this hearing at the Special Meeting
21 in two weeks . That doesn ' t mean that we
22 won ' t necessarily have a draft prepared,
23 but if for some reason because the
24 computers and phones are not up and
25 running, we need a little bit more time,
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 42
1 strictly because of this crisis, then we
2 will have it . So I will make a motion to
3 close the hearing at the Special Meeting .
4 MR. SAMUELS : Okay.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It gives you
6 time to get the drawings in also .
7 MR. SAMUELS : Yes , and we can do
8 that very quickly, I hope . I am only
9 again going on the record to say that I
10 hope that at that Special Meeting that you
11 will have enough, and I am going to try
12 and get that to you in advance, so you
13 will be able to actually make that
14 decision that day .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We will try .
16 You see that is the goal . There is no
17 desire to delay this . The problem is ,
18 Vicki sends the draft out . Somebody has
19 to write the draft . Vicki and I review
20 them. They go back out to Board Members
21 for review, and then we review it . So the
22 problem is , some of us have computers and
23 some of us don ' t have computers . So we
24 can ' t all get them, and some of us can ' t
25 type them. You know, it just depends on
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 43
1 how quickly we get back up and running .
2 We will certainly do our best .
3 MR. SAMUELS : Thank you .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: To try and
5 accommodate all of the applicants before
6 us today. I think as a prudent procedural
7 caution, we are probably going to
8 adjourn --
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I ' ll second it .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : -- all these
11 hearings to the Special Meeting . Again
12 assuming we can have the drafts and just
13 take care of them that way.
14 So we have a second on the
15 adjournment to the Special Meeting, which
16 is two weeks from today.
17 Mike, you have concluded your
18 testimony?
19 MR. VERITY : Yes .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I want to
21 thank you again --
22 MR. VERITY: Not a problem. Any
23 time .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: -- for taking
25 the time .
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 44
1 MR. VERITY: And thank you for
2 listening to me .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We always
4 listen to you . We don ' t always agree, but
5 we always listen .
6 So motion and seconded to adjourn --
7 I guess it is subject to receipt of the
8 current proposed at 11 feet elevation .
9 Seconded by Gerry.
10 All in favor?
11 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
15 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
16 ******** *********************** ***** ***
17 HEARING #6600 - MICHAEL & DEBRA THOMPSON
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
19 application before the Board is for
20 Michael and Debra Thompson, #6600 .
21 Request for variance from Article XXIII
22 Section 280-122A and the Building
23 Inspector ' s September 20 , 2012 Notice of
24 Disapproval based on an application for
25 building permit for partial demolition and
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 45
1 second story re-construction to an
2 existing family dwelling at : 1 ) less than
3 the code required minimum side yard
4 setback of 15 feet, 2 ) less than the code
5 required combined side yard setbacks of 35
6 feet, located at : 9280 Nassau Point Road
7 adjacent to Peconic Bay.
8 MR. SCHWARTZ : Good morning . Mark
9 Schwartz for the project .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Did you get a
11 copy of the LWRP?
12 MR. SCHWARTZ : No .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don ' t I
14 give you a copy. Just for the record,
15 this is deemed by the coordinator to be
16 consistent with the LWRP, with a potential
17 buffer recommendation. And this is from
18 Suffolk County for local determination .
19 Okay, Mark, do you want to state your name
20 for the record, please .
21 MR. SCHWARTZ : Mark Schwartz,
22 architect for the project . We are looking
23 to extend the existing roof line
24 approximately five foot higher, ridge to
25 ridge than what is there now . The
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 46
1 existing floor is going to remain . We are
2 not extending the footprint on the
3 nonconforming side at all . This is
4 basically -- it started as a pitch roof,
5 now maybe a two-pitch or a three-pitch .
6 In the inside, we have some tie rods
7 holding them together, exposed tie rods in
8 the bedrooms . So we are trying to
9 eliminate those tie rods, restructure all
10 the walls and bedrooms . It ' s all going to
11 be basically the same . We are not
12 knocking down the whole second floor.
13 It ' s just a roof rip and a higher pitch.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. We are
15 looking at two variances, since side yard
16 setback at 9 feet, where the code requires
17 15 feet, and a combined side yard setback
18 of 25 feet, where the code requires 35
19 feet . You are not changing -- these are
20 preexisting nonconforming setbacks?
21 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes , they are, but I
22 can see on the enlarged footprint, we are
23 purposing a deck that does approach a
24 little bit more than the 16 feet, maybe
25 it ' s 14 feet .
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 47
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In the side
2 yard, it is a 16 foot setback. It is
3 changing from -- How deep is that deck?
4 Well, the existing garage is 15 feet . You
5 are encroaching in the side yard with the
6 house but not going beyond the 16 feet
7 that exist at the garage level; correct?
8 MR. SCHWARTZ : Well, the deck is
9 going to be about 15 feet off the side
10 yard, which is a legal side yard, but it
11 effects the total . So I guess that is why
12 there is a second variance in here .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Mark, I am
15 looking at your partial site plan, this
16 one here, the heavy wade dark line that
17 goes around, what does that represent?
18 MR. SCHWARTZ : Those are hay bales .
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay . The
20 building envelope on the lower side right
21 there, 20 feet off the property line, I am
22 a little bit confused.
23 MR. SCHWARTZ : That is a good point .
24 The dimension is to the hay bale and it
25 should be to the side yard.
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 48
1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So the existing
2 garage, would that be more than 20 feet?
3 MR. SCHWARTZ : I am just pulling out
4 the existing footprint . Yes , it is .
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So your building
6 envelope is 20 feet on the lower portion
7 of this drawing; correct?
8 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So would you
10 agree that that might be an error?
11 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yeah, the dimension
12 well -- well, it ' s a dimension to the
13 legal line . It ' s not a dimension to the
14 side yard.
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Did you submit a
16 copy of the survey or just put it on the
17 site plan?
18 MR. SCHWARTZ : I think I have it on
19 the existing conditions of the survey.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nope .
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I don ' t recall
22 seeing a survey.
23 MR. SCHWARTZ : Well, I have a copy
24 here if you want it?
25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes . So that
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 49
1 would reduce the combined side yard
2 setback.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don ' t have
4 a survey. Let ' s clarify what is going on
5 here . We need to have consistent
6 information . The survey is showing 22
7 feet for the garage . Your site plan, you
8 are showing 16 feet .
9 MR. SCHWARTZ : I am sorry about
10 that . It ' s drawn correctly. We just
11 didn ' t show the dimension , The 21 . 2 .
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER- So then to
13 address your comment about the proposed
14 wood deck, the wood is proposed in a
15 conforming location?
16 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes . Correct .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mark, I wanted
18 to ask you about one of your reasons here .
19 When you talk about the neighborhood,
20 character of the neighborhood, you are
21 talking about roof height, and you don ' t
22 have a height variance before us . Your
23 height is fine .
24 MR. SCHWARTZ : Except we are raising
25 the roof in a nonconforming side yard.
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 50
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, that is
2 true, but if you are talking about
3 character of the neighborhood, you need to
4 talk about other properties that also have
5 nonconforming side yards, you know that
6 sort of thing. Do you see where I am
7 getting at? And it ' s helpful to the Board
8 to have this information because then we
9 can say what you are proposing is
10 consistent with other setbacks of the
11 neighborhood. You are increasing the
12 nonconformity by raising the roof height .
13 The roof height itself is still
14 conforming .
15 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it ' s both,
17 it ' s true, but that would probably be
18 whether the relief was substantial because
19 the neighborhood does not consist of
20 comparable -- unless you can show us where
21 there are comparable setbacks with similar
22 height roofs . Then you are talking apples
23 to apples .
24 MR. SCHWARTZ : Okay.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is just
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 51
1 helpful to the Board, as well as any other
2 application, if applicants and their
3 agents can really make that comparison for
4 us . In other words, we will look at
5 whatever you want to use, but when looking
6 at other variances in the neighborhood, it
7 makes a stronger case before the Board .
8 And the allege difficulty, you say it is
9 not self created. I mean, the applicant
10 bought the house where it is at, right?
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It is self
12 created.
13 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So they were
15 aware or should have been aware of the
16 nonconforming nature of the property that
17 they purchased .
18 MEMBER DINIZIO : He said, "yes , " in
19 that .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I 'm sorry, you
21 are absolutely right .
22 MEMBER DINIZIO : Recently, we have
23 had discussions amongst the Board
24 concerning what Leslie is trying to
25 explain to you, that. it would be much
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 52
1 better for us to receive the information
1
2 from you . So it ' s kind of a new thing for
3 you, you know, you convincing us that it
4 fits in the neighborhood. I know it ' s, a
5 little bit more work.
6 MR. SCHWARTZ : I understand.
7 MEMBER DINIZIO : Then we are not
8 advocating -- we try to get away from
9 advocating, looking up information to
10 justify a variance .
11 MR. SCHWARTZ : I understand. I was
12 thinking more about the height .
13 MEMBER DINIZIO: It probably was
14 something that you weren ' t aware of .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, the
16 other thing for example, when we went out
17 and made a site inspection, the house is
18 already a large two-story house and has
19 decent bulkhead setbacks and the side
20 yards are very well screened on both
21 sides . The lot is extremely narrow, which
22 in someway explains why it has
23 nonconforming side yards . You have a
24 decent size house on a very narrow lot,
25 you are going to potentially have
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 53
1 nonconforming side yards . So if it is not
2 visible from the street and it ' s not
3 visible from the neighbors or having an
4 adverse impact, those are kind of the
5 things that certainly when I go out and do
6 a site inspection, that I am looking for .
7 It is helpful to the Board if those
8 arguments are made in the public record.
9 Gerry, do you have any questions of
10 Mark?
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, I don ' t .
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have a few
13 more .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken.
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Can we refer to
16 the survey that we just made copies? If
17 you can refer to that, to your site plan,
18 PS-2 .
19 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Looking at the
21 survey first, that would be on the
22 northern property line . The survey
23 indicates a side yard setback of 10 . 1
24 feet .
25 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 54
1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And as you move
2 easterly along that property line, the
3 dwelling gets further away from the
4 property line . Now, let ' s refer to your
5 site plan, the site plan shows 10 . 1 feet,
6 as does the survey in that same corner .
7 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yep .
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Then in shows 9,
9 at that other corner . Do you think that
10 it was some type of computer graphic?
11 MR. SCHWARTZ : Well, yeah. Yeah .
12 It ' s the dimension to the hay bale which
13 should have been the property line . The
14 10 . 1 is the closest point .
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So the 10 . 1 is
16 the closest point . On the other side, the
17 southern property line, we have 22 . 1 is
18 the closest point .
19 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So you have a
21 combined side yard of 32 . 2 . You are
22 maintaining that ; is that correct?
23 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: There is no
25 decrease in any side yard or any combined
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 55
1 side yard?
2 MR. SCHWARTZ : Correct .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken, what did
4 you say, 32 --
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: 32 . 2 .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the Notice
7 of Disapproval says 25 feet .
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Well, the Notice
9 of Disapproval was referring to, I believe
10 the site plan.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s basing it
12 on your site plan and not your survey. So
13 it ' s probably looking at the hay bales .
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So I guess we
15 need a new site plan.
16 MR. SCHWARTZ : Definitely.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And probably a
18 new Notice of Disapproval .
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Well, the numbers
20 have to be --
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Consistent .
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Corresponding,
23 yes .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That ' s easy.
25 So can you do that?
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 56
1 MR. SCHWARTZ : Definitely.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we have a
3 Notice of Disapproval that reflects the
4 survey.
5 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So the new
7 construction will be in a conforming
8 location with respect to side yards? I
9 mean, except for the roof?
10 MEMBER DINIZIO : Well , the roof is
11 the subject of the variance .
12 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And the roof
14 pitch is about between two and three
15 combined existing?
16 MR. SCHWARTZ : I believe so .
17 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And what is the
18 building code for that since it ' s not to
19 current code? That is the --
20 MR. SCHWARTZ : Well, generally you
21 want to have roof shingles where a roof
22 pitch is 3 or a 4 .
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: 4 or more .
24 MR. SCHWARTZ : Holding the roof
25 together is not ideal, and that is why
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 57
1 they want to do it .
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I am just saying,
3 structurally, you are not to current code .
4 I just wanted to comment on that . And
5 what are you raising the pitch to, you
6 said -- is it on the plan?
7 MR. SCHWARTZ : No, we don ' t show it
8 on the elevations , I don ' t think. It ' s
9 about an 8 or 9 pitch.
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You can show it
11 from a 2 pitch or a 3 pitch going to a 9
12 pitch, something, if we can get that
13 information?
14 MR. SCHWARTZ : Sure .
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Because you are
16 increasing the degree of nonconformance .
17 I have no further questions .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. So we
19 need information from you on the roof
20 pitch and a new Notice of Disapproval
21 showing a corrected -- the single side
22 yard at 9 foot is still accurate, right?
23 But it ' s going to be a nonconforming
24 combined side yard setback and it ' s not
25 going to be 25 feet?
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 58
1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No, the 9 is
2 inaccurate . It ' s 10 . 1 .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 10 . 1, and then
4 the combined is 32 . 2 ; correct?
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes . The deck is
6 going to be within the building envelope .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: . You know what,
8 what I think needs to happen, you need to
9 go back to the Building Department with
10 the correct information . I have never
11 seen hay bales drawn . But anyway, Mark,
12 just make sure you give them the exact
13 accurate survey and that they give us a
14 Notice of Disapproval that matches it .
15 MR. SCHWARTZ : I will do that .
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Vicki just
17 pointed out to me that on the southern
18 side it is proposed at a 20 feet side
19 yard .
20 MR. SCHWARTZ : Okay.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there
22 anyone else in the audience that would
23 like to address this application?
24 (No Response . )
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anything else
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 59
1 from the Board Members?
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
4 further questions or comments , I am going
5 to make a motion to adjourn this hearing
6 to the Special Meeting two weeks from
7 today subject to receipt of a proposed
8 roof pitch, and an amended Notice of
9 Disapproval and a corrected site plan or
10 survey reflecting the Notice of
11 Disapproval .
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
14 MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye .
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
18 (See Minutes for Resolution. )
19 *** ********************** ***************
20 HEARING #6602 - EMILIA & ILYA KABAKOV
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
22 application before the Board is for Emilia
23 and Ilya Kabakov, #6602 . Request for
24 variances from Article III Section
25 280-15 (B & C) and the Building Inspector ' s
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 60
1 September 24 , 2012 Notice of Disapproval
2 based on an application for building
3 permit to construct an addition to an
4 existing accessory building at : 1 ) more
5 than the code permitted maximum height of
6 22 feet, 2 ) more than the code permitted
7 square footage of 3% maximum, located at :
8 1700 Park Avenue, adjacent to Great
9 Peconic Bay in Mattituck.
10 Again, we have : LWRP showing exempt
11 and local determination . Do you want a
12 copy of this, Mark?
13 MR. SCHWARTZ : Sure .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we have
15 here two very large accessory buildings
16 that have received previous variances from
17 this Board. Let ' s just get the numbers
18 straightened out here. The propose height
19 of the addition is what the existing
20 nonconforming structure is, which is 25 . 33
21 feet high, where the code permits a
22 maximum of 22 . And the building will
23 measure 4 , 496 square feet in and in AC
24 Zone it ' s not supposed to be more than 3%
25 on lots over 60, 000 square feet, and the
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 61
1 as-built ' s already exceeds that .
2 December 6, 2007 was the ZBA variance that
3 denied the proposed additional
4 construction to the existing storage
5 building and granted variances for an
6 as-built accessory building. That is what
7 happened before this Board in 2007 . Your
8 proposed addition is 350 square feet; is
9 that correct?
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It says 322 on
11 the application .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What exactly
13 is the square footage that you are
14 proposing, Mark?
15 MR. SCHWARTZ : 322 square feet ,
16 increasing the footprint of the building .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And what is
18 the percentage of lot coverage that will
19 be increased? The existing structure is
20 40 of the parcel side . It ' s going to be
21 pretty small whatever it is . Some of it
22 is second story, which doesn ' t contribute
23 to lot coverage . Are you proposing to
24 remove the existing spiral staircase?
25 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 62
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Let ' s
2 see what questions the Board has . Gerry?
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Visually, I went
4 over and looked at this from the driveway
5 and this appears to be a fill-in
6 situation. Is there anything else that I
7 am missing in your plans?
8 MR. SCHWARTZ : No, that is what we
9 are intending to do . Continue with the
10 same roof line and tie it in, in between
11 the two structures .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Why is that
13 necessary? It ' s a huge .
14 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes , it is . I can
15 show you some photos .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mark, just so
17 you are aware, Gerry and myself on this
18 previous decision, did an interior
19 inspection . So certainly the two of us
20 are very well aware of what is in there .
21 However, I should say for the record
22 variances run with the land, as you know .
23 When .we grant something, the balancing
24 test does not permit to include what is
25 referenced to things that are customized
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 63
1 to a particular personal use, because it
2 could be used by anybody. They could sell
3 it . So the personal means of ' an
4 individual, in and of itself, are not
5 sufficient . We have to look at the other
6 reasons that are in the balancing test .
7 Personally, I have profound respect for
8 the Kabakov ' s . I know they work very
9 well . They have made wonderful
10 contributions . The one thing that I can
11 say about it, the scale is already been
12 accomplished. It ' s already in place .
13 They' re there . The proposed addition
14 fills in a very, very small portion that
15 is already there . If there is any damage
16 that is done, it has already been done .
17 Having said that, we need to look at what
18 the arguments are beyond that personal
19 need for additional storage .
20 MR. SCHWARTZ : I believe when the
21 building was built, the code for accessory
22 buildings was not changed to what it is
23 now . So I think the square footage and
24 the height of the building was not
'k 25 nonconforming when they did it .
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 64
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It was
2 certainly there before the accessory
3 structure law was changed. That ' s for
4 sure .
5 MR. SCHWARTZ : The reason is just
6 aesthetics to really tie the building
7 together, and their use .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, the
9 benefit cannot be achieved by a method
10 feasible because the proposed additional
11 will create an extension in the storage
12 area for arts and sculptures and is
13 critical to the owner. That is not why it
14 cannot be achieved without a variance .
15 It ' s because it is completely
16 nonconforming . And so, any addition is
17 going to create the necessity for a
18 variance . That is why you can not do it
19 without a variance . It ' s nonconforming
20 already. That is why I was confused. In
21 your application you say the amount of
22 relief is not substantial because the
23 proposed addition is only 315 square feet
24 and a total lot coverage of 11 . 40 .
25 Accessory structures are calculated in an
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 65
1 AC Zone based on the size of the structure
2 relative to the property, but Gerry just
3 pointed out it looks like a 322 square
4 foot addition .
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is that only on
6 the ground floor?
7 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The 22 is the
9 total?
10 MR. SCHWARTZ : No .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what ' s
12 accurate?
�. 13 MR. SCHWARTZ : I am not sure this
14 one is accurate .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We certainly
16 need to know that .
17 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yep .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We just need
19 accurate figures . When we have two
20 different sizes stated in two different
21 places, we don ' t know what is accurate .
22 So you need to just tell us what is
23 accurate .
24 Gerry, do you have any questions or
25 comments?
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 66
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No . The only
2 comment that I have is that it ' s an
3 expansion on a significant nonconforming
4 building . No question about it . It ' s not
5 the percentages as it stands right not .
6 It ' s the total of it . I certainly
7 remember the fact that we had a very
8 extensive inspection of the premises and
9 we understand the reasons for what they
10 have and what they need. We would hope
11 that the or whatever the Building
12 Department granted in 2007 would have been
13 the max that they are doing, and that is
14 not the case .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Can the applicant
17 look at placing another accessory building
18 somewhere else?
19 MR. SCHWARTZ : We haven ' t discussed
20 that at this point . We did generally talk
21 about it . They would rather not .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The total lot
23 coverage is only 11 . 4% . They certainly
24 have another option of building another
r 25 one, as long as it doesn ' t exceed 750
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 67
1 square feet . Actually, it can exceed more
2 than that, because it ' s in a AC Zone . It
3 can be up to 30 .
4 MR. SCHWARTZ : What they wanted to
5 do was connect the two structures together
6 to use it for what they need to use it .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is
8 happening underneath the staircases?
9 MR. SCHWARTZ : Just more storage .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They are not
11 changing the height and they are not
12 encroaching on the side yard. So it ' s
13 really a very, very small proposed
14 addition . Having said that, it ' s very
15 difficult to justify any expansion that is
16 nonconforming . That is what this is .
17 MR. SCHWARTZ : They are just looking
18 for a small addition . That is what they
19 are doing .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jim, comments
21 or questions?
22 MEMBER DINIZIO : Well, I mean our
23 existing law with respect to accessory
24 structures seems that the Town wants to
25 encourage smaller accessory structures on
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 68
1 properties . So adjoining these two
2 buildings together lies in the face of
3 that . You can attach it to the house and
4 not even need a variance . We had that
5 discussion the last time the Kabakov ' s
6 came before us , and I think the Town is
7 concerned about the size of the accessory
8 structures because they are large . They
9 want to inhibit that in some way. Asking
10 to adjoin these two buildings together
11 lies in the face of that . If you can give
12 us some compelling reason other than the
13 fact that these two large projects , and I
14 say that because if they sell the land and
15 the next owner is the owner of Nascar
16 cars . And he wants to store them in the
17 building, which appears to be big enough
18 to put garage doors and tune up cars, now,
19 we have our neighbors, one of which I
20 know, tuning up his Nascar, because we
21 encouraged a building that size . So I am
22 going to need some more compelling reasons
23 why. I . understand what they do . I know
24 Dave Kappel . He is a good friend of mine.
25 He represents these people on a different
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 69
1 side . I have seen their work. It ' s
2 really neat stuff, but there is a reason
3 why they make industrial zoning. So you
4 can do these things and show this kind of
5 art work. That is what it is for . To
6 show this kind of business . How far do
7 you take that? Whose an artist and who
8 isn ' t an artist? I think Gerry will
9 remember, we had a particular welder or
10 glass blower trying to convince us --
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I remember it
12 well .
13 MEMBER DINIZIO : Then we had someone
14 come and say that is not art . So I think,
15 you know, I personally, would like to hear
16 more compelling reasons why should we
17 increase an nonconformity that was already
18 granted. Increasing a nonconformity that
19 we have already granted . I think that
20 there is no compelling reason for that, in
21 your --
22 MR. SCHWARTZ : I can ' t tell you more
23 than we want to connect these two
24 buildings to have similar height . So that
25 when you are looking at it, it ' s not a
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 70
1 building and another building .
2 MEMBER DINIZIO: It will only be
3 conforming to the point where it would
4 look like a building but the building
5 itself is totally nonconforming. You
6 know, we granted a variance for that, and
7 for you now to add onto that, I don ' t see
8 any compelling reason certainly on what
9 you have written down. It says that .
10 Considering the next variance goes to the
11 next person.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Excuse me for
13 one second, Jim. I just see some minor
14 corrections that I want to check with you,
15 Mark. It is really one building . I think
16 they are just creating an in fill . They
17 are not two separate buildings . They are
18 already attached.
19 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You are
21 removing an interior stair and having an
22 exterior connection from one part of the
23 building to another part . It already
24 exist in place, is that correct?
25 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 71
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There are
2 other separate buildings on the property.
3 You are proposing to put a little bit on
4 the ground floor that fills in something
5 on the concrete pad, and then raise it up
6 to the existing roof height?
7 MR. SCHWARTZ : Correct .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just want to
9 be sure . It ' s just making a really big
10 building bigger by 322 or 315 square feet .
11 So we need to first of all know that, the
12 total square footage of the building and
13 as proposed .
14 Is there anyone in the audience that
15 wishes to speak? Come forward and give us
16 your name for the record.
17 MR. MAKUCEWICZ : John Makucewicz .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you
19 spell your last name, please?
20 MR. MAKUCEWICZ :
21 M-A-K-U-C-E-W-I-C-Z .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you,
23 sir . What would you like us to know? Are
24 you the neighbor?
25 MR. MAKUCEWICZ : Yes . The only
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 72
1 concern that I have, where they are
2 putting the second floor addition, there
3 is a power line that feeds our house and
4 two other homes . What are they going to
5 do with the power line?
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Where does --
7 MR. MAKUCEWICZ : It goes right over
8 the roof of the first floor . So if they
9 put a second floor, they can ' t have a
10 power line above that . So where would
11 they put a power line that feeds our house
12 and two other homes?
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Maybe you can
14 address that, Mark?
15 MR. SCHWARTZ : We plan on raising
16 the power line .
17 MR. MAKUCEWICZ : Again? This would
18 be the second time .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have to
20 come forward and state your name .
21 MR. BEEBE : My name is Sid Beebe . I
22 am a general contractor, and I do work at
23 the Kabakov ' s house . When we raised that
24 line to the first floor, we just felt that
25 in the future that they might want to put
November 1, 2012. Regular Meeting 73
1 a second story on there, but LIPA did not
2 approve, and did not raise it quite high
3 enough. So they have to raise it a little
4 bit further .
5 MR. MAKUCEWICZ : So you have to put
6 four new poles in again?
7 MR. BEEBE : I don ' t know. I have
8 not spoken to LIPA.
9 MR. MAKUCEWICZ : You have to raise
10 it above the roof at least 10 feet . It ' s
11 not even supposed to be across the roof
12 with power lines .
i
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just one
14 second. I do need to let you know that
15 you are not allowed to address each other .
16 You have to address the Board.
17 MR. MAKUCEWICZ : I 'm sorry.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s okay.
19 You are not aware . You don ' t. do this very
20 often . So you have to ask questions .
21 MR. MAKUCEWICZ : LIPA came to me two
22 years ago and said why is that power line
23 across that roof, and I said it is not
24 mine . And they said that is not according
25 to code . So if they put two new poles in,
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 74
1 one on my property and one on the
2 Kabakov ' s, and raise it up 25 feet -- so
3 my concern is that if they raise it 22
4 feet -- still only going to be a couple of
5 feet below the power line . So do they
6 have to put all new poles in again, and is
7 that going to affect my house and my
8 second house, whether I have to put new
9 poles in .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don ' t know
11 that anyone can answer that .
12 MR. BEEBE : We asked them -- there
13 is power on the main road as far as the
14 road . We asked them about eliminating the
15 power through there but they refused. I
16 guess it is too big of a job for them to
17 do .
18 MEMBER DINI"ZIO : Well, it ' s their
19 easement . It ' s probably their easement .
20 They are not going to give up an easement .
21 They might put them underneath the ground.
22 MR. BEEBE : The electrician that was
23 dealing with them could answer better than
24 I can. I can only say we raised the lines
25 -- the lines were raised a foot, if that,
November 1, 2012' Regular Meeting 75
1 above the original roof line as it was .
2 And the pole that was changed on the
3 Kabakov ' s property was old and she was
4 concerned that it was going to fall over
5 at some point and rot . So she wanted a
6 new pole . So we had asked them to raise
7 it above the roof line of the existing
8 second story structure . I can ' t tell from
9 where it is, whether it ' s above it or not .
10 That is what they were asked to do . I
11 don ' t know what is the height point from a
12 ridge to a power line .
13 MR. MAKUCEWICZ : I have been in the
14 business for over 30 years and you are not
15 allowed to put a line over an existing.
16 roof .
17 MR. BEEBE : I certainly didn ' t put
18 the structure there .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One of the
20 things that might be possible is you, as
21 the builder, to investigate with LIPA what
22 is possible and what they ' re proposing to
23 do should a variance be granted, what are
24 the consequences .
25 MR. MAKUCEWICZ : I have no trouble
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 76
1 with the variance at all . I am just
2 worried about the power line and how that
3 is going to effect everybody, me and two
4 other persons next to us .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right . So
6 that is a very important point you made
7 and certainly something you would want to
8 know regardless what the Board does here .
9 You would want to know.
10 MR. BEEBE : I would prefer that the
11 lines were higher .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is it possible
13 for you to find out?
14 MR. BEEBE : I can do my best .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You would need
16 to know. If you are going to build that
17 addition, you would have to know . Find
18 out now rather than later .
19 MR. BEEBE : Right .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there
21 anyone else in the audience who wants to
22 address this application?
23 (No Response . )
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
25 further questions or comments , I am going
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 77
1 to make a motion to adjourn this hearing
2 to the Special Meeting two weeks from
3 today, subject to receipt of additional
4 information from Mark, relative to the
5 square footage and any other arguments
6 that you would like to make in regards to
7 the impact of the proposed addition and
8 information regarding the height of these
9 poles and what would have to happen .
10 Something from LIPA.
11 Is there a second?
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
18 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
19 ******************************************
20 HEARING #6601 - DIANE B . RYAN
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
22 application before the Board is for Diane
23 B . Ryan, #6601 . Request for variance from
24 Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the
25 Building Inspector ' s September 18 , 2012
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 78
1 Notice of Disapproval based on an
2 application for building permit for
3 partial demolition and
4 additions/alterations to an existing
5 single family seasonal dwelling at :
6 1 ) less than the ' code required front yard
7 setback of 40 feet, both streets on this
8 corner lot, located at : 320 Fleetwood
9 Road, corner Hamilton Avenue in Cutchogue .
10 Is someone here to represent the
11 application?
12 MR. MCGAHAN : Hi, my name is Doug
13 McGahan. I am the agent and general
14 contractor for the project . I live in
15 Cutchogue in the neighborhood. Close to
16 the subject property.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you have
18 some additional green cards?
19 MR. MCGAHAN : Yes , I have one
20 additional card and one --
21 (Stepped away from the microphone . )
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. We have
23 a proposed front yard setback of 12 . 9
24 feet, and that would be on Hamilton, and
25 31 . 11 feet . The code requires front yard
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 79
1 setbacks of 40 feet in both locations .
2 MR. MCGAHAN : Yes .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It looks like
4 you are going to maintain the existing
5 setback on Hamilton, which is the 12 . 9
6 feet and to encroach 8 . 6 feet to
7 Fleetwood, to construct a small front
8 porch, one-story for a water view. Is
9 that accurate?
10 MR. MCGAHAN : Yes .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is going
12 to be a year round home?
13 MR. MCGAHAN : It is in an effort to
14 create a more year round home . I think it
15 was depicted at 30 . 11 inches , which is --
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, what I am
17 saying is that you are going to be
18 decreasing --
19 MR. MCGAHAN : Yes .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The existing
21 front yard setback by 8 . 6 because that is
22 the depth of the porch --
23 MR. MCGAHAN : Yes , that is correct .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right . So
25 tell us what you would like us to know, if
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 80
1 you would?
2 MR. MCGAHAN : This obviously is a
3 corner lot and the house has been there
4 since at least my time . The only view
5 that they have towards the water is the
6 view off the side that is presently facing
7 the Fleetwood Road. And I think the main
8 concern she wants to have a porch there is
9 so she can sit out there and enjoy the
10 view . It is the only side of the house
11 that she has that view from. The house is
12 built very close, the 12 . 9 feet from
13 Hamilton Avenue, which is the way it has
14 been and the way it will be . The
15 architect didn ' t want to encroach any
16 further . Obviously we would never get the
17 variance and the only reason why we are
18 encroaching this is for a porch. One of
19 her real desires is to have a front porch
20 to sit on and enjoy the views . There is
21 no other way to put a porch on that house .
22 Ascetically, the porch should be on the
23 front of the house, a covered porch to
24 still have that cottage style look to it .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When I looked
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 81
1 at the size of the Lot , which is pretty
2 substantially, it is a lot of wooded area
3 to one side there . Why not just demo the
4 thing and just build something that you
5 want that is a little more conforming with
6 regard to Hamilton, at least?
7 MR. MCGAHAN : A lot of it was a cost
8 issue . She didn ' t have the means for
9 doing that and it was beyond her budget .
10 She has been in the house for quite a
11 while and she loves the charm of the
12 house . The kitchen area and the side area
13 of the house on the Hamilton side has been
14 renovated, and she just feels if she can
15 achieve her goals with your blessing, it
16 would be so much easier for her
17 financially and help accomplish her goals .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you going
19 to preserve the foundation?
20 MR. MCGAHAN : The existing house has
21 no foundation. It was built on pilings .
22 The new addition over towards the wooded
23 bedroom area will have a crawl space
24 foundation under it .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So ' there is no
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 82
1 foundation existing and a proposed crawl
2 space .
3 MR. MCGAHAN : Correct .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jim?
5 MEMBER DINIZIO: I had a real hard
6 time with your A. 1 drawing .
7 MR. MCGAHAN : Most of that, Jim, is
8 deck footing.
9 MEMBER DINIZIO : I was trying to
10 make heads and tails out of it . Let me
11 just ask you a question . Why can ' t you
12 take that piece that is nonconforming and
13 move it to the other side and not even ask
14 for variance? Is there a reason?
15 MR. .MCGAHAN : You mean to demo the
16 house?
17 MEMBER DINIZIO : No . I mean, you
18 can keep the 12 . 9, because the house exist
19 there . You are adding on to the back of
20 the house from Hamilton .
21 MR. MCGAHAN : Yes .
22 MEMBER DINIZIO : The piece that you
23 want to add on of the porch, why can ' t you
24 do whatever is not increasing the
25 nonconformity, just move it to the other
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 83
1 side? Is there a reason?
2 MR. MCGAHAN : That side, it ' s really
3 just bedrooms . I have the blueprint for
4 the house, if you would like to see it .
5 MEMBER DINIZIO : I just wanted to
6 know if there was a compelling reason .
7 MR. MCGAHAN : She wants to have the
8 porch off the general living area of the
9 house, which is already existing on that
10 side of the house . The only addition she
11 is putting on is bedrooms and one bathroom
12 for those bedrooms . The existing living
13 area, existing kitchen area and porch
14 right there -- to have a new porch over
15 there by the new bedrooms , it certainly
16 wouldn ' t be the most logical place for a
17 porch . I understand your point, we could
18 have pushed the whole house back, but
19 again, that is just a cost issue .
20 MEMBER DINIZIO : This lot, is that a
21 conforming lot?
22 MR. MCGAHAN : Yes, it is .
23 MEMBER DINIZIO : That is 40 feet?
24 MR. MCGAHAN : Yes .
25 MEMBER DINIZIO : What about a patio
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 84
1 instead of a deck?
2 MR. MCGAHAN : Well, she is going to
3 have a deck out back. Her real desire was
4 to have a covered front porch which adds
5 to the charm of the house . She really
6 liked the cottage charm of it . The house
7 is a good elevation from the ground. So
8 to walk down five or six steps to a patio,
9 at her age, she would rather have a front
10 porch with a rocking chair, and I don ' t
11 have any other real reason other than
12 that .
13 MEMBER DINIZIO: How many square
14 feet is actually going to be from the 40
15 foot line? How many square feet is that?
16 MR. MCGAHAN : It ' s on a diagonal .
17 So maybe about 100 , at guest .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know the
19 way you have this drawn, Jim has a point .
20 You have an existing screen porch which is
21 within that setback.
22 MR. MCGAHAN : Actually, on that side
23 of the house, it ' s not a screened porch .
24 It ' s an existing -- it just has windows in
25 it .
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 85
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But it ' s
2 labeled existing screen porch, okay.
3 MR. MCGAHAN : That is mislabeled.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The question
5 is , could that not be converted to the
6 porch that you are proposing, and then be
7 within the right location for its
8 relationship to the other floor plan? I
9 am looking at the site plan right now.
10 The proposed new porch, the part blackened
11 in that would be encroaching the front
12 yard setback and to the left of that, I
13 can ' t read what it says . What is that
14 proposed, or is that existing? It looks
15 like existing? I am reading the plan . Is
16 that an existing bedroom?
17 MR. MCGAHAN : The dark area is the
18 proposed new area .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. I got
20 you . It is not on this plan, it ' s just a
21 void.
22 MR. MCGAHAN : That empty square
23 room?
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The one that
25 is adjacent to the proposed porch?
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 86
1 MR. MCGAHAN : That is the existing
2 glass-in area .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, we are not
4 looking at the same thing . Proposed
5 porch, look at the floor plan and to the
6 right of that, that space . It looks like
7 a covered porch and it ' s not labeled, and
8 I can ' t really tell . That is within
9 the --
10 MR. MCGAHAN : Can I take a look at
11 yours?
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, please .
13 Do you see what I am talking about?
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : It ' s confusing .
15 MR. MCGAHAN : This is the glassed-in
16 room. This is the new porch that we are
17 adding on. The line goes through here .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So what I am
19 trying to point out, the piece to the
20 right is within a conforming setback?
21 MR. MCGAHAN : Yes, it is .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And that is a
23 proposed porch, a much smaller one, and
24 the steps don ' t count .
25 MR. MCGAHAN : Right .
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 87
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim, other
2 questions?
3 MEMBER DINIZIO: I guess you are not
4 going to move it . It should be where you
5 want it to be . I thought it was easier
. 6 for her to get out and not go down a bunch
7 of stairs --
8 MR. MCGAHAN : That side of the house
9 is a bit higher. It ' s like six steps .
10 MEMBER DINIZIO : Okay. Six steps .
11 Okay. I just wanted to --
12 MR. MCGAHAN : I understand . The
13 architect, I am sure he explored a lot of
14 options . I was not involved in the design
15 phase .
16 MEMBER DINIZIO : I think if you had
17 positioned the drawing the same as the
18 survey, then I would have been able to
19 figure it out .
20 MR. MCGAHAN : Right .
21 MEMBER DINIZIO : You say in your
22 reasons that the existing dwelling and the
23 sides of the Ryan property have setbacks
24 equal or less than that which is proposed.
25 Can you supply us with that information?
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 88
1 MR. MCGAHAN : I don ' t have surveys
2 for those properties . When I was there
3 looking things over, I measured the
4 distance of the house to what appears to
5 be the road. There is a fence there .
6 There is a monument on Diane ' s side .
7 There isn ' t a monument on the other side .
8 I don ' t think the garage has the same
9 requirement .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, it
11 doesn ' t .
12 MR. MCGAHAN : In that neighborhood,
13 the houses are very close to the road. It
14 was built way back when . Seasonal
15 cottages without heat .
16 MEMBER DINIZIO : That is what I am
17 getting at, if what you say is true, this
18 is how it works and it ' s within 300 feet,
19 then I am wondering why you even need a
20 variance?
21 MR. MCGAHAN : Because it ' s been
22 there forever, I believe .
23 MEMBER DINIZIO: There is an
24 existing setback on the 12 foot side .
25 MR. MCGAHAN : I was talking about
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 89
1 the side that faces Fleetwood. The houses
2 that face Fleetwood are close to the road
3 just like what we have here .
4 MEMBER DINIZIO : The Fleetwood side,
5 right now you are 40 feet away.
6 MR. MCGAHAN : Right .
7 MEMBER DINIZIO : You are just asking
8 for =-
9 MR. MCGAHAN : 8 feet .
10 MEMBER DINIZIO : Right . Is the
11 house next door, because I didn ' t look --
12 MR. MCGAHAN : The house next door is
13 situated in a very similar .--
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : 40 feet or --
15 MR. MCGAHAN : No, it ' s less than 40
16 feet .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you
18 talking about the cottage on the other
19 side of Hamilton?
20 MR. MCGAHAN : Yes .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks to
22 me, that both the Hamilton and Fleetwood
23 side, the cottage with the white and green
24 on it, is a little bit bigger than the
25 existing .
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 90
1 MR. MCGAHAN : Hamilton is a little
2 bit bigger . I didn ' t measure it . The
3 house is what it is . Towards Fleetwood,
4 the houses are all about the same distance
5 from the road.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think along
7 that side, but on the other side of
8 Fleetwood there is a couple of large
9 houses .
10 MR. MCGAHAN : Yes .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They have very
12 big front yard setbacks . So what would be
13 helpful to the Board, if you could go
14 along Fleetwood, on the side your client
15 lives on, and give us some of those
16 setbacks .
17 MEMBER DINIZIO: Even if you hand
18 draw them, you know, something to have in
19 our records . You know, to justify that
20 additional 8 feet .
21 MR. MCGAHAN : Okay. Sure . I am not
22 a surveyor, but I will certainly take
23 pictures and show you which ones are
24 close . There is really only that one
25 cottage and a couple of lots that are set
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 91
1 further back, and towards the other side
2 is just the garage on her vacant lot
3 there .
4 MEMBER DINIZIO: Even if you do the
5 little maps there and you draw it in, it
6 doesn ' t have to be really accurate .
7 MR. MCGAHAN : Sure, I understand .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The proposed
9 new entry porch, you don ' t count the
10 steps, it looks a little bit more than --
11 50o would be nonconforming?
12 MR. MCGAHAN : I think a little bit
13 less than 50% .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So it would be
15 good if maybe we had the square footage or
16 the percentage of that . You know, the
17 less the impact, the better it is with
18 regards to nonconformance . It ' s not like
19 -- 700 square feet makes a difference .
20 This is a small percentage . So if you
21 could provide that and some other examples
22 of nonconforming or comparable setbacks .
23 MR. MCGAHAN : Along that same road?
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes .
25 MR. MCGAHAN : Okay.
. November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 92
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And one of the
2 standards that we have to apply is the
3 character of the neighborhood.
4 MR. MCGAHAN : Okay. I did go down
5 the road and that is why I stated that in
6 my application that it is similar to the
7 neighborhood.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can go on
9 Google Earth and scale it out . It ' s not
10 as accurate . You can draw a line where
11 they are relative to what you are
12 proposing .
13 MEMBER DINIZIO : To make what you
14 propose useful, you have to have it on a
15 part of the house you can enter it . You
16 are not going to enter a bathroom. You
17 are not going to enter into a bedroom.
18 MR. MCGAHAN : They want to have it
19 so they can have it open from the living
20 room of the porch .
21 MEMBER DINIZIO : Yes . I just wanted
22 to establish that .
23 MR. MCGAHAN : Yes .
24 MEMBER DINIZIO : Thank you .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 93
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Hamilton is a
4 dead-end there?
5 MR. MCGAHAN : No . Hamilton goes
6 between the Fleetwood Road and Glenwood
7 Road.
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there
10 anyone in the audience who wishes to
11 address this application?
12 (No Response . )
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am going to
14 make a motion to adjourn this hearing to
15 the Special Meeting subject to receipt of
16 the square footage of the proposed porch,
17 the percentage of the proposed porch
18 encroaching and the examples of other
19 nonconforming setbacks from Fleetwood .
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
22 MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye .
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 94
1 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
2 ******************************************
3 HEARING #6604 - DAVID KORCHIN & JOAN RENTZ
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
5 application before the Bo.ard is David
6 Korchin and Joan Rentz , #6604 . Request
7 for variances from Article XXIII Section
8 280-124 and the Building Inspector ' s
9 July 27 , 2012m updated October 4 , 2012
10 Notice of Disapproval based on an
11 application for building permit for "as
12 built" shed and deck addition to an
13 existing single family dwelling at : 1 )
14 less than the code-required minimum side
15 yard setback of 10 feet ; 2 ) less than the
16 code required rear yard setback of 35
17 feet, located at : 2085 Bay Avenue,
18 adjacent to Marion Lake in East Marion .
19 State your name for the record,
20 please .
21 MS . KRAMER: Hello . My name is
22 Meryl Kramer . I am a architect for the
23 owner . I am actually -- I have been hired
24 to do some interior renovations and
25 replacing windows and doing a small wood
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 95
1 lattice type screen on the entry porch and
2 extending the covered porch on the end
3 lightly. But before I do that, I wanted
4 to get the house into compliance . The
5 owners had done some of the work. There
6 was a shed 8x12 shed on the back of the
7 house in place of where the wood deck is
8 now. That was moved or removed and the
9 deck was built . And they built the shed
10 and the outside shower on the side yard.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we have an
12 "as built" shed and a 3 . 3 foot setback
13 from the side yard, where the code
14 requires 10 . And we have a deck addition
15 at 24 . 9 feet rear yard and the required
16 setback is 35 feet . We also have
17 consistency determination from the LWRP
18 coordinator reminding us that the Trustees
19 permit was only for the deck on
20 July 18 , 2012 , and they established a
21 non-disturbance buffer from the picket
22 fence to Marion Lake, and the LWRP
23 recommends that the buffer be shown on the
24 survey.
25 MS . KRAMER: I was just reading that
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 96
1 because I just received that now from
2 Vicki, I am not sure when they say "picket
3 fence?"
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes , there
5 used to be a low white picket fence that
6 is now brick looking.
7 MS . KRAMER: The one right in the
8 wetlands area? So it ' s in -- there is
9 nothing on the survey and they are asking
10 us to show it on the survey?
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes , because
12 the Trustees, and he recommends
13 maintaining it, is that they require that
14 and it is non-disturbed now. They ' re not
15 asking for anything else now . Mark is
16 just suggesting that we show that as a
17 non-disturbance buffer on the survey and
18 that the fence be located on the survey.
19 Also that the applicant meets with
20 compliance of Chapter 236, which they are
21 going to have to do anyway.
22 MS . KRAMER: Right .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gutters and
24 leaders as you know. And no use of
25 fertilizer, herbicides or pesticides on
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 97
1 the lawn area . Would you like to address
2 that in any way?
3 MS . KRAMER: I will forward the
4 information to the owners . And I need to
5 check my application to the Trustees which
6 was not a public hearing . It was an
7 administrative permit . I thought the shed
8 was on there, but I will take care of it .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The shed is
10 probably not within their jurisdiction .
11 It is landward of the house . So they
12 would probably be only addressing the deck
13 addition .
14 MS . KRAMER: Okay.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You can check
16 with Elizabeth from the Trustees . I am
17 not sure it ' s within their jurisdiction.
18 So Ken, do you have an questions?
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes , sure . What
20 is the use of the shed?
21 MS . KRAMER: Storage . I mean, right
22 now the house is incredibly small as you
23 know, and there are no closets in the
24 house . I believe that they put furniture
25 or whatever fall items , lawn furniture,
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 98
1 pillows . Things like that in shed.
2 Rakes , hoses . That type of thing .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The survey is
4 really tiny.
5 MS . KRAMER: Would you like a
6 larger?
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would
8 certainly be helpful .
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: To serve the same
10 function, could one be placed somewhere
11 else on the property in a conforming
12 location?
13 MS . KRAMER: I suppose it could.
14 The thing that is nice about this shed is
15 that it is only about 5 foot tall, and
16 it ' s -- so it is nonobtrusive visually.
17 And as you can see, the neighbors property
18 has a shed on it and it ' s only -- I think
19 it ' s only 4 . 1 -- no, 1 . 4 from the property
20 line . I find that much more visually
21 invasive because it ' s a higher, 6 or 7
22 foot tall structure . Whereas this is kind
23 of nestled up on the side of the house,
24 because visually goes away. Rather than a
25 separate shed that would be in the middle
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 99
1 of the small property. I mean, it ' s only
2 30 foot side yard but the whole house is
3 20 feet and the whole property is 60 feet .
4 Anything you put there, although it might
5 conform, would be visually more offensive .
6 I think that is my opinion . That is just
7 my observation .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It would have
9 to be in a front yard. Is this an extra?
10 Can we have that?
11 MS . KRAMER: Sure .
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The shower stall ,
13 could the shower stall be located in
14 another location?
15 MS . KRAMER: I think it ' s the exact
16 same -- to be up against the house, it
17 would be on the -- you have pictures, it
18 would have to be on the public side of the
19 house on the side yard, is that what you
20 are referring to?
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I am just asking
22 a question .
23 MS . KRAMER: Potentially it could
24 be . It would be on the entry approach
25 side of the house . So there wouldn ' t be
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 100
1 the privacy.
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Could it be
3 incorporated into the deck somehow?
4 MS . KRAMER: Well, it kind of is
5 now. It ' s wrapped around the side but the
6 walkway kind of continues . It steps down .
7 Right now it ' s landward of the rear of the
8 house . We wouldn ' t want to put it by the
9 water any further, correct? So the only
10 place it would either have to go would be
11 on the front of the house attached to the
12 front porch, which would be odd or on the
13 western side of the house, which is -- it
14 feels like a front yard but there is real
15 no front yard.
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. I have no
17 further questions at this time .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no
20 questions .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I will say
22 that there is in place a stockade fence in
23 the side yard and the house -- adjacent
24 house is quite far away from . that . And
25 because the shed and the shower are very
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 101
1 low profile in height, it really doesn ' t
2 have -- it has no visual impact at all .
3 The deck is also very low to the ground.
4 There is a huge side yard on the other
5 side for emergency equipment . Frankly,
6 given the size of the lot, seems to me
7 putting in a very compact location of the
8 side yard that isn ' t very useful in
9 keeping much anyway. It doesn ' t have, in
10 my mind, again, the Board members have
11 their own perception, but in my mind it
12 really isn ' t problematic. Not very
13 intrusive on anybody.
14 Jim, do you have any questions or
15 comments that you would like to make?
16 MEMBER DINIZIO: Why can ' t you make
17 it a patio?
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You mean the
19 deck?
20 MEMBER DINIZIO : Yes . I mean I know
21 it ' s there . If you put it on the ground
22 you don ' t need a variance .
23 MS . KRAMER: I suppose it would take
24 -- the deck is fairly small, and it would
25 take -- you would need at least three feet
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 102
1 for a landing to get out . So this is only
2 8 foot in change, the deck itself . So you
3 would still need -- I guess you would gain
4 five feet, a landing is exempt and you
5 would need to have the french doors . So
6 it would be marginally better, I suppose .
7 You would want to be at the level of the
8 house, and that is the advantage of the
9 deck.
10 MEMBER DINIZIO : So you just want to
11 be able to walk out from the house onto
12 the deck instead of stepping down,
13 correct?
14 MS . KRAMER: Yes . Stepping down and
15 I think marginally you would be improving
16 the situation because you would need to
17 have a substantial size stoop, which is
18 exempt from the code because it ' s not --
19 MEMBER DINIZIO: The stoop is 10x10
20 regardless .
21 MS . KRAMER: A 10x10 is allowed.
22 MEMBER DINIZIO : Yes .
23 MS . KRAMER: Let ' s just round up and
24 say about 9 . So it ' s about double .
25 MEMBER DINIZIO: It ' s 100 square
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 103
1 feet . I just wanted to establish that . I
2 needed to ask that question because you
3 could just lay stones on the ground. I
4 wanted to establish what you are gaining
5 aside from the fact of leaving it just the
6 way it is .
7 MS . KRAMER: Well, right now, I need
8 to ask the -- because of the storm that we
9 just had, the deck has actually been
10 uprooted somewhat . The footings , the 3
11 foot sonotube ' s have been uprooted.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Really. That
13 was the surge .
14 MS . KRAMER: Yes .
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Wow .
16 MS . KRAMER: It must have been
17 uplifted. So the owners would like to put
18 it back the way it was . Obviously, if we
19 are getting the variance that won ' t be a
20 problem but we want to make sure . I think
21 they would want to make sure before they
22 did the work again .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes .
24 MS . KRAMER: And for the record, I
25 did work on the house directly adjacent to
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 104
1 it years ago, and they do have a very
2 similar configuration with a shower on the
3 same side as -- because they are also very
4 close to the property line . This survey
5 doesn ' t show the house but it is
6 configured very similarly.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The house with
8 the shed or the other side?
9 MS . KRAMER: The house with the
10 shed.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
12 MS . KRAMER: The shower is in a
13 similar location.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Well,
15 this is a seasonal cottage .
16 MS . KRAMER: Yes .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think of it
18 a little differently than a seasonal
19 house .
20 MEMBER DINIZIO : Well, setback is
21 setback whether you live there or not .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Is
23 there anyone else in the audience who
24 wishes to address this application?
25 (No Response . )
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 105
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
2 further comments, I am going to make a
3 motion to adjourn this hearing to the
4 Special Meeting which we are doing,
5 because we are not sure what we are going
6 to be able to accomplish without power,
7 with the computers and so on .
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That gives us
10 two weeks . We will try and have this in
11 place anyway.
12 MS . KRAMER: Okay.
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
14 Seconded by Gerry.
15 All in favor?
16 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
20 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
21 ******************************************
22 HEARING #6603 - JOSEPH M. MELLY
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
24 application before the Board is for Joseph
25 M. Melly, #6603 . This is a request for a
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 106
1 Waiver of Merger under Article II, Section
t
2 280-10a, to unmerge land identified as
3 SCTM# 1000-104-2-24 , based on the Building
4 Inspector ' s June 14 , 2012 , updated
5 September 10, 2012 Notice of Disapproval,
6 which states adjoining conforming or
7 nonconforming lots held in common
8 ownership shall merge until the total lot
9 size conforms to the current bulk schedule
10 (minimum 40 , 000 square feet in this R-40
11 Residential Zone District) this lot is
12 merged with lot #1000-104-2-23, located
13 at : 1375 and 1475 Sterling Road, corner
14 of Horton Road in Cutchogue .
15 Good afternoon.
16 MS . ROMANELLI : Good afternoon .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you
18 please state your name for the record?
19 MS . ROMANELLI : Sure . Leann
20 Romanelli .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, Leeann,
22 so this one is rather unusual . We are
23 going to need you to explain what
24 happened. There was of course a Waiver of
25 Merge granted by this Board in 1997 ,
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 107
1 Decision #4508 .
2 MS . ROMANELLI : Yes .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The lot was
4 created by deed on February 6, 1967 . The
5 present owner purchased this property on
6 October 9, 2009 . Somehow due to improper
7 estate planning, these lots remerged. So
8 can you explain what exactly happened
9 here?
10 MS .• ROMANELLI : Yes . It has been
11 owned by the same family, both lots since
12 170 , by the father . I don ' t know when it
13 was merged the first time . Like you said
14 ' 97 was a Waiver of Merge and since then
15 and all the estate planning, they were
16 transferring everything to Joseph M.
17 Melly, in which they had that all in deed .
18 And then the father got sick and the
19 paperwork never got to where it was
20 supposed to get to file it or do --
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Both lots
22 or --
23 MS . ROMANELLI : Both lots .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Both lots that
25 were unmerged?
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 108
1 MS . ROMANELLI : Yes .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Was
3 transferred to senior or junior?
4 MS . ROMANELLI : They have always
5 been in senior ' s name and then transferred
6 through the estate to .Joseph M. , from what
7 I understand from the deed.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So both
9 lots --
10 MS . ROMANELLI : Transferred to
11 Joseph M. , in 2010 .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Joseph M.
13 Melly, that must be the son?
14 MS . ROMANELLI : Who is currently the
15 owner by deed.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And that was
17 through the estate planning?
18 MS . ROMANELLI : Yes .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And why was
20 that done, for what purpose?
21 MS . ROMANELLI : Well, I guess the
22 father just wanted to transfer everything
23 over to his son, you know, both lots in
24 the family. Both lots . The corner lot,
25 is the vacant lot, the one unimproved lot .
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 109
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
2 MS . ROMANELLI : And then I guess the
3 father got sick and became ill and nothing
4 was ever done with the filing of any of
5 the papers . They want to keep it in the
6 family.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The filing of
8 what papers , the transfer of deed?
9 MS . ROMANELLI : Yes . I guess to
10 change the name of the deed so that they
11 didn ' t get merged the second time .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So here we are
13 again . How was it discovered that they
14 merged?
15 MS . ROMANELLI : Actually, I am not
16 sure how . I don ' t know how he found out .
17 MEMBER DINIZIO : He had a life
18 estate . You have to really look at this
19 thing . It seems to me, lot 22-023 which
20 is the vacant lot?
21 MS . ROMANELLI : 23 is the improved
22 lot . 24 is the vacant lot .
23 MEMBER DINIZIO : He had a life
24 estate on that? Or Joseph J. Melly Jr . ,
25 owned it and granted a life estate to
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 110
1 Joseph M. Melly, that is the father,
2 right?
3 MS . ROMANELLI : Joseph M. , is the
4 son . Junior is the father .
5 MEMBER DINIZIO : Junior is the
6 father?
7 MS . ROMANELLI : Joseph M. , is the
8 one who is making the application now .
9 MEMBER DINIZIO : There is two Joseph
10 M ' s -- one is Joseph A, I see . That is
11 the father .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Joseph J. Jr .
13 MS . ROMANELLI : It.' s confusing .
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : It looks like
15 Joseph J. , Jr . , granted the life estate to
16 Joseph M. Melly.
17 MS . ROMANELLI : In 2010 on both
18 lots .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Say this
20 before everybody, so we can figure out
21 what is going on here .
22 MEMBER DINIZIO : Honestly, I think
23 we should have somebody legally take a
24 look at this, Jennifer or somebody and
25 explain it to us .
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 111
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I agree with
2 you. In determinations, we have to get
3 the technical legalities correct, so that
4 they are not challenged. So we need to
5 know exactly what happened and what
6 transpired on what date . And if you could
7 provide us with a timeline and what
8 happened and what, went, where, that would
9 be very helpful . We could have our
10 attorney check it . I have never seen a
11 re-merger before .
12 MEMBER DINIZIO : The last thing on
13 both of them say the exact same thing .
14 MS . ROMANELLI : I am guessing the
15 2010 is when they discovered it was
16 remerged, because that is the latest . The
17 deed was ' 97 and was not merged yet . So
18 they went to go rewrite the deed, like you
19 were just reading on the 2010 . Joseph
20 Jr . , to the life estate interest to Joseph
21 M, and that must be when they discovered
22 it was merged again . And then the whole
23 application went in some time after that .
24 And then sometime this summer he filed an
25 application to unmerge it again to get all
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 112
1 this deed and estate planning taken care
2 of .
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Because it ' s a
4 life estate -- all that means is that it ' s
5 a cloud on a title, but it is not the
6 transfer aspect of it . The transfer
7 aspect is the aspect of whose name it is
8 in . Somehow they convoluted both of them
9 into the same name and that is the reason
10 the Building Department is looking at it .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It says being
12 in the father ' s name and in the son ' s name
13 and winded up being in the son ' s name and
14 subsequently merged.
15 MEMBER DINIZIO : In 196, it looks
16 like they started splitting with the
17 interest . Joseph M. , got 10% . Joseph J. ,
18 got 90% , and then ' 96 is before the
19 variance .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The variance
21 was 197 .
22 MEMBER DINIZIO : And then on 2000 ,
23 Joseph M. , had 10%, which is the same .
24 Joseph J. , had 90% to Joseph M. Melly
25 subject to life estate . So that is when
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 113
1 Joseph M. , the son had that, and that was
2 in 2001 . So it was in 2001, after they
3 unmerged them, they merged them again .
4 That was to Joseph M. Melly that was
5 subject to a life estate from the father .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So in 2001
7 both lots became the property of --
8 MS . ROMANELLI : Joseph M.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And were
10 remerged. So my question is , something
11 must have triggered an awareness of this
12 merger --
13 MS . ROMANELLI : Yes, and I honestly
14 don ' t really know what that was .
. 15 MEMBER DINIZIO : It could be that
16 they want to sell the lot .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean, I am
18 trying to figure out .
19 MS . ROMANELLI : That is not what
20 their intention is, as far as I -- as far
21 as he was telling me . They want to keep
22 it in the family. He wants to keep it in
23 the Melly family .
24 MEMBER DINIZIO : They probably have a
25 surveyor come in and do a title search and
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 114
1 all of that . So that is probably how it
2 came about . The title search is dated
3 when?
4 MS . ROMANELLI : The title search we
5 just did for this application.
6 MEMBER DINIZIO: 2012 . I was
7 wondering if they had another one?
8 MS . ROMANELLI : They didn ' t . We
9 checked to see if there was anything on
10 record and there wasn ' t .
11 MEMBER DINIZIO : So either a
12 surveyor may have done it or --
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Some action
14 triggered this awareness so that they
15 could --
16 MEMBER DINIZIO : Estate planning
17 too . It could figure out how much worth
18 he is . A bank could have .
19 MS . ROMANELLI : This is just a
20 guess . I am guessing it was through the
21 estate planning. I don ' t think they had
22 any intentions of selling that lot or
23 improving it . Like I said, they wanted to
24 keep it in their name and in the family.
25 MEMBER DINIZIO : So it ' s going to
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 115
1 stay in the family no matter what way you
2 look at it . It never left the family?
3 MS . ROMANELLI : No . It has always
4 been single and separate and they have
5 always gotten separate tax bills .
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So what do you
7 want from Leeann?
8 MEMBER DINIZIO: I don ' t want
9 anything .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess Jim
11 helped us go through it . So we probably
12 don ' t need this . I just think we should
13 probably have our attorney take a look at
14 it . That ' s all .
15 MS . ROMANELLI : And if you need
16 anything else from me, I mean, I can get
17 whatever we need. I don ' t know what else .
18 Maybe they will be able to shed light on
19 something that we don ' t know .
20 MEMBER DINIZIO : I think the title
21 search tells it all .
22 MS . ROMANELLI : Yeah .
23 MEMBER DINIZIO : Obviously you did
24 record that lot as being a separate lot .
25 Four years later you merged it for
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 116
1 whatever reason .
2 MS . ROMANELLI : Right . Like I said,
3 there is no intention of selling it off
4 now or improving it at this point .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Is
6 there anyone else in the audience that
7 wishes to address this application?
8 (No Response . )
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
10 further questions or comments from the
11 Board, I am going to make a motion to
12 adjourn this hearing to the Special
13 Meeting two weeks from today.
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
16 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye .
20 ( See Minutes for Resolution . )
21 ****** ***********************************
22 HEARING #6605 - BEE-HIVE DEVELOPMENT CORP .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
24 application before the Board is for
25 Bee-Hive Development Corp . , #6605 .
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 117
1 Request for variance from Article XXII ,
2 Section 280-116 (B) , based on the Building
3 Inspector ' s August 14 , 2012 Notice of
4 Disapproval concerning an application for
5 construction .of a new single family
6 dwelling at : 1 ) less than the code
7 required minimum setback of 75 feet from a
8 bulkhead, located at; 400 Old Cove
9 Boulevard, corner Beverly Road, adjacent
10 to Arshamomaque Pond, aka Mill Creek,
11 Southold.
12 MS . MOORE : Good afternoon, Patricia
13 Moore on behalf of Bee-Hive . I have the
14 principal of Bee-Hive here . We have the
15 neighbor ' s , the Papas here and the most
16 direct neighbors to the southeast . I have
17 given you a couple of documents just to
18 bring the property back up to date given
19 the fact that we have had some significant
20 storms . I did -- the day before yesterday
21 or the yesterday, I am losing track of
22 days , I did go back and go see that there
23 are no changes to the property. The
24 property was -- withstood the storm
25 beautifully. The first photograph I
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 118
1 showed you is the cement wall, the
2 retaining wall, the seawall has been there
3 for -- .certainly prior to ' 77 , when Haas
4 developed that community. So it ' s a
5 significant and very well built structure .
6 You can ' t build them like that anymore .
7 The second photograph I show you is from
8 the land side of the fence that goes along
9 the retaining wall . You can see the
10 vegetation . There is a very nice
11 vegetative natural buffer from the water
12 to the seawall, that helps protect that
13 structure . The third photograph is a
14 staking, which actually the water must not
15 have come up onto the property because the
16 staking is still there when the storm had
17 hit . So that cove area is a very
18 protective site and the property is really
19 a desirable piece of property given the
20 fact that it withstood the storm really of
21 the century. The next photograph I give
22 you is just the neighbor to the waterfront
23 side . It is a two-story house . That
24 house is actually one of the newer houses .
25 It looks like it was built in conformity
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 119
l with the FEMA standards . Any new
2 construction really requires FEMA
3 compliance . Similarly the construction of
4 this house has to be FEMA compliant . What
5 I also have given you is an updated survey
6 dated October 16th . All that was changed
7 on that survey is provided additional
8 drywell details . The surveyor provided
9 the drywell ' s of the corners . And since I
10 got it, I am sharing it with the Board.
11 We obviously have to meet the code with
12 respect to drainage . It used to be that
13 the Board conditioned everything on
14 drywell ' s and drainage, but that is the
15 code . That doesn ' t change anything .
16 Finally, the last photograph -- excuse me,
17 not photograph, survey, which I believe is
18 already in your packet, shows the setbacks
19 of the waterfront homes that abut this
20 property seawall and you can see the
21 average setback of homes in -- are less
22 than 30 feet . We have the Papas home
23 which is 33 feet from the bulkhead. Then
24 you have the home from the west of this
25 site which is 20 feet from the bulkhead
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 120
1 and further west 20 feet, and finally 30
2 feet . What the applicant has proposed is
3 a 50 foot setback from the bulkhead, which
4 is significantly more conforming than the
5 rest of the community. We were able to
6 accomplish that by providing a building
7 envelope . One that conforms in all other
8 aspects by providing setbacks from the
9 properties . With the Building
10 Department ' s assistance, we have the front
11 yard setbacks from Beverly Road and Old
12 Cove Boulevard that are both conforming
13 setbacks . So leaving only a variance from
14 the 50 foot -- excuse me, a variance from
15 the bulkhead. There is no way of
16 constructing on this property without a
17 variance from the bulkhead given the
18 dimensions of this property. This
19 subdivision was created prior to
20 regulations and all the other homes were
21 built within that period of time and
22 ultimately under the code that didn ' t
23 require variances . We don ' t anticipate
24 any problems with the development of this
25 site . I provided you with a letter from
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 121
1 Mr . Fischetti just to confirm that this
2 would be built in a standard way, hence
3 FEMA would be required. It allows
4 construction with the grate system, other
5 than piles or much more elaborate
6 construction . With respect to the DEC,
7 they have no jurisdiction here . Given the
8 fact that the seawall was in existence
9 prior to ' 77 . The Trustees -- an
10 application will be made to the Trustees .
11 I don ' t anticipate a problem there because
12 50 feet is a very generous setback for
13 structures . And as you know, the Trustees
14 want to see the ZBA variances prior to
15 variances . So that would be the next step
16 in the process . Health Department again
17 is not a problem, and is permitted to be
18 developed by the Health Department . Our
19 design to the sanitary -- we have a
20 preliminary design but the ultimate design
21 would be up to the Health Department . We
22 have made an application to the Health
23 Department but they want some additional
24 information because they do have public
25 water and they want the location of the
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 122
1 water lines on Beverly Road underground
2 and the process of getting that
3 information, the surveyor has to go. out
4 with metal detectors and identify the
5 location of those water lines . Otherwise,
6 it is just a standard process with the
7 Health Department .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have a copy
9 for you, if you don ' t have one of the
10 LWRP .
11 MS . MOORE : No, I don ' t have one .
12 Thank you .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is for
14 local determination . In the case that it
15 is consistent, recommending a 10 foot
16 non-turf landscaped buffer be established
17 landward of the concrete seawall . I am
18 just reading it out so that you can
19 address it, if you care to .
20 MS . MOORE : Yeah. Certainly a
21 non-turf buffer would be required by the
22 Trustees . Whether it ' s going to be
23 vegetative or non-vegetated, we will leave
24 that up to the owner . We do have the
25 Bayberry which is a significant buffer on
'November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 123
1 the seaward side of the seawall . You
2 start reducing the yard with a lot of
3 vegetation. Just want to leave room. So
4 I would prefer to leave that up to the
5 owner in whether they want to put
6 vegetative on the landward side of the
7 seawall . Certainly we have no problem
8 with non-turf . I anticipate the Trustees
9 will require that but aside from that, I
10 think my preference is to leave to the
11 owners the vegetation.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There are two-
13 other comments . It ' s obvious, the
14 required stormwater --
15 MS . MOORE : Yes . Sure .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Finally, that
17 the sewer ( In Audible) used on the survey
18 is a few years old and it is recommended
19 that the Board verify the depth of the
20 water distance . It has probably not been
21 updated, even though we have an updated
22 survey that you just gave us, it ' s
23 probably the same soil board.
24 MS . MOORE : Oh, I am sure . The
25 Health Department did not ask for anything
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 124
1 more current . I think --
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s 2008 .
3 MS . MOORE : Right, but we have an
4 application to the Health Department and
5 they would have asked for something more
6 current if they felt that it was
7 necessary. This is pretty much a sandy
8 filled land. This whole area was filled.
9 The bay was dredged. There really are no
10 issues with respect to the impervious
11 natures of the soils here .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jim?
13 MEMBER DINIZIO: I think a boring is
14 a boring and I don ' t think you are going
15 to get much more out of it . I am just
16 going to go over your reasons . You have
17 quite a number of setback that are set by
18 avid front yard setbacks .
19 MS . MOORE : Correct .
20 MEMBER DINIZIO : That the Building
21 Inspector uses . That is your established
22 setback?
23 MS . MOORE : Correct .
24 MEMBER DINIZIO : And even the
25 setback to the bulkhead itself, 50 foot,
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 125
1 far exceeds, and that is obvious just by
2 going down there, far exceeds everyone
3 else ' s setback. It is mostly do because
4 it has to be mechanical?
5 MS . MOORE : There was a previous
6 application and a previous design that
7 really didn ' t make use of the property
8 properly. And I believe that it was
9 Mr. Goehringer that recommended the
10 caddy-corner design --
11 MEMBER DINIZIO : I remember that
12 decision . I am looking at this --
13 MS . MOORE : Yes , but it was a
14 completely different design.
15 MEMBER DINIZIO : The setbacks have
16 been established by normal business in the
17 town . I mean, the front yard has been
18 established. The rear yard has been
19 established -- although, I don ' t believe
20 we have established bulkhead setbacks .
21 Certainly this --
22 MS . MOORE : Well, as far as the
23 character of the neighborhood, this is
24 much better . It is more conforming than
25 the rest of the neighborhood .
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 126
1 MEMBER DINIZIO : The last question,
2 a lot of the preexisting nonconforming
3 setbacks , what do you mean by preexisting
4 nonconforming --
5 MS . MOORE : No, no . A preexisting
6 nonconforming that is less than one acre .
7 So it doesn ' t conform with the one acre
8 setback requirement or even when you go to
9 the undersized lot provisions , this
10 property is just over 14 . So we are using
11 the preexisting nonconforming setbacks of
12 a lot that is under 20 , 000 square feet .
13 MEMBER DINIZIO : And is it anyones
14 opinion that the seawall is okay?
15 MS . MOORE : Oh, the seawall is
16 perfect .
17 MEMBER DINIZIO : I looked at it and
18 it seemed to be okay.
19 MS . MOORE : Yes .
20 MEMBER DINIZIO : Some parts were a
21 little shaky.
22 MS . MOORE : Not on this property
23 though.
24 MEMBER DINIZIO: No . The seawall
25 was just put so they could make the
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 127
1 development .
2 MS . MOORE : Yeah. They kind of
3 created these lots, I forget the year,
4 ' 50 ' s . I have the old deed and the Haas
5 survey of the development . They were one
6 of the first to bring public water . The
7 water lines had been there since that
8 development .
9 MEMBER DINIZIO: Looks like 1954 .
10 That looks like all I have .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Looking at the
13 survey, it appears that the lot goes into
14 Old Cove Road by approximately 10 feet ; is
15 that correct?
16 MS . MOORE : Yes .
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And it
18 encompasses the whole entire section of
19 Beverly Road by 20 feet?
20 MS . MOORE : Correct .
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Now, what is the
22 established front yard setback in the
23 area?
24 MS . MOORE : Well, I actually took
25 under the code, I have to use the
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 128
1 right-of-way, the property line . So I
2 took from the most conservative, which is
3 from, as the code requires, from -- we
4 actually have -- on Old Cove we have 26 . 3
5 plus 10 to our property line . And on the
6 opposite side, we have 24 . 8 plus 20 to our
7 property line, but that really is
8 irrelevant because the code speaks from
9 the right-of-way.
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: From the street?
11 MS . MOORE : Yes .
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So in other
13 words, you were not denied setbacks on
14 either road?
15 MS . MOORE : Correct . I calculated
16 based on the code requirement . The
17 average setback is taken from the road and
18 not the property line .
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So there is no
20 way to push this back any farther?
21 MS . MOORE : From which direction?
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: From the
23 bulkhead to the roadway?
24 MS . MOORE : Not without a variance .
f 25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is that the
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 129
1 minimum distance from the septic tanks and
2 the pools or could the house go back
3 further?
4 MS . MOORE : Towards the road?
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Towards the
6 corner of Beverly and Old Cove? ,
7 MS . MOORE : The problem is the depth
8 of the house more than anything else . S.o
9 we have -- we are working within a
10 triangle . If I went any where else, I
11 think I would have to get a front yard
12 variance . Given the previous decision and
13 what was written in that decision, I
14 assumed -- felt that it should not go
15 closer to the road. If it was my
16 misunderstanding from the road, it ' s all
17 on me . Your goal is typically to reduce
18 the number of variances that are required.
19 So I have actually reduced it down to one .
20 So the one that I really can ' t and as you
21 can see from the staking, the surveyor
22 actually put the 75 foot on -- that puts
23 the 75 feet about midway on the house . It
24 just doesn ' t make sense . You start
25 designing something that becomes really
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 130
1 unattractive too to the character of the
2 area .
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The reason why I
4 say that is because you have setbacks on
5 the surrounding houses that you furnished
6 us with at 19 . The former pastor house .
7 The greatest one of the two to the western
8 part of the property is 25 and 27 . 9, but
9 once you go across the street to Old Cove
10 Boulevard, you got 17 . 9, 12 . 2 between Old
11 Cove and Beverly. And they look like they
12 are pretty close . The reason why I ask
13 and this is in your statement, and this is
14 not a derogatory statement at all . You
15 say that the 50 feet is more than what the
16 other areas are . Certainly, these -- a
17 majority of these houses except for one,
18 the big brand new one over there, were all
19 constructed prior to any --
20 MS . MOORE : Even that one shows 36
21 feet to the bulkhead. I thought this one
22 was being generous . Any one of the
23 Trustees consider this to be reasonable
24 distance .
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am just
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 131
1 looking at the whole picture .
2 MS . MOORE : I know. Believe me, we
3 wrestled with this before coming into you .
4 _ Ideally I would like to have come up with
5 an average setback that could have been
6 closer, but the way that we calculate the
7 average setback on this site is the
8 conforming 35 feet . So we are using 35
9 plus 14 . 6 as an average setback on Beverly
10 Road. That brings us to 24 . 8 . If we, use
11 just that house as an average setback we
12 could have been closer . And I think the
13 first application considered it that way.
14 They looked at the closeness of the Papas
15 House . They thought they could push it
16 back the other direction but the Board
17 didn ' t like that . So I can ' t read
18 decisions better than the way that I read
19 it .
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I will say
24 that I think this is a very big
25 improvement . I think you did a great job
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 132
10 1 bringing this to the Board. Your reasons
2 are well thought of . When did the owners
3 purchase th-e property?
4 MS . MOORE : 197 .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess the
6 only thing that I would just point out is
7 that the Board has taken the stance that
8 once an owner or applicant purchases this
9 property, once the zoning is in place .
10 They would have previous knowledge of what
11 they were buying into . So in that sense,
12 the Board has argued that it was self
13 created. If they had purchased this prior
14 to zoning being in place, then I
15 understand. The Town would have been
16 responsible .
17 MS . MOORE : I was going to say, as
18 far as an area variance is concerned, it ' s
19 not as standard to deny a variance .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is
21 correct, and no one is suggesting that it
22 is . I am just pointing out that the Board
23 has determined that to be the appropriate
24 response on whether it is self created or
25 not . I really don ' t have any questions on
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 133
1 this . I will see if there is anyone in
2 the audience -- if you come to the podium
3 and state your name for the Board.
4 MS . FEDER: My name is Virginia
5 Feder . I live to the west of the
6 property .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ms . Feder,
8 would you please spell your last name for
9 us?
10 MS . FEDER: F-E-D-E-R.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you .
12 What would you like to tell us?
13 MS . FEDER: I live in that house . I
14 was there on Monday at eleven o ' clock.
15 The water filled up to the top of the
16 bulkhead. The water came over the
17 bulkhead. The water came 10 inches over
18 the bulkhead. I measured the tide on my
19 garage door . My garage was flooded . A
20 little room off the garage was flooded.
21 My furnace in the house was flooded. My
22 house is on cinder blocks . So it ' s three
23 steps up, and the house was okay. I left
24 it for one night and came back the next
25 day. The tide line was on the far west
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 134
1 north side of Old Cove Boulevard. The
2 washout is considerable . I haven ' t gotten
3 to it yet but someone is coming out
4 tomorrow to work on it . Two large cracks
5 on the bulkhead. This is obviously very,
6 very fragile land. It was taken from the
7 sea and probably eventually the sea will
8 take it back. My other concern is that my
9 water lines and my gas lines come under
10 this piece of property. The main line for
11 the water line is on the other piece of
12 property north of Old Cove Boulevard, the
13 water line comes from there and goes
14 across this piece of property to my house .
15 The same with the natural gas . On one
16 other occasion, when a house was built, I
17 got sand in my appliances because my water
18 line was severed. Needless to say, I
19 would not like to have a two-story next to
20 me . I am sure that this is probably going
21 to be a two-story house, but it ' s the bulk
22 area of the water . That ' s all I have to
23 say.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you.
25 And good luck with the clean-up with your
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 135
1 house .
2 Any other comments that anyone would
3 like to make?
4 (No Response . )
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any questions
6 from the Board?
7 (No Response . )
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Hearing
9 no further questions or comments , I am
10 going to make a motion to adjourn this
11 hearing to the Special Meeting on
12 November 15th . Pat, as you heard earlier,
13 we are not closing the hearing because
14 many of the Board members -- some of the
15 Board members don ' t have electricity or
16 access to computers to work on drafts .
17 MS . MOORE : Our office, we don ' t
18 have internet . We have computers
19 internally. And I gave Vicki my cellphone
20 number . So if anything comes up, you can
21 certainly get a hold of me . Thank you .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Motion
23 is to adjourn to November 15th.
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 136
1 MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye .
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
5 (See Minutes on Resolution . )
6 ********** *******************************
7 HEARING #6606 - MICHAEL & EMILY KAVOURIAS
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . The
9 final application before the Board is for
10 Michael and Emily Kavorias , #6606 .
11 Request for variance from Article XXIII
12 Section 280-124 and the Building
13 Inspector ' s October 2 , 2012 Notice of
14 Disapproval based on an application for
15 building permit for additions and
16 alterations to an existing dwelling at :
17 1 ) less than code required front yard
18 setback of 40 feet, both streets on this
19 corner lot, located at : 1240 Inlet Drive,
20 corner Miriam Road, in Mattituck. Being
21 that there is no one here to address this
22 application, I am going to make a motion
23 to adjourn this application to the
24 December 6th Regular Meeting of the Zoning
25 Board of Appeals . Let ' s put that on at
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 137
1 10 : 00 o ' clock. Is there a second?
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Before there is
3 a second, I will be recusing myself on
4 this application . This is Member
5 Goehringer and I am, as my elected
6 position in Mattituck as Park District
7 Commissioner, this is contiguous to this
8 process, and this is a substantial beach
9 front area adjacent to this property and
10 contiguous too .
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Well said, Gerry.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. So
13 there is a motion to adjourn . Is there a
14 second?
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
17 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
21 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
22 **** *************************************
23
24 (Whereupon, the November 1 , 2012
25 Regular Meeting concluded. )
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 138
1
2 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
3
4
5
6 I , Jessica DiLallo, certify that the
7 foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public
8 Hearings was prepared using required
9 electronic transcription equipment and is a
10 true and accurate record of the Hearings .
11
12
13 Signatu4issica
14 DiLallo
15
16
17 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
18 PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
19
20
21 Date : November 12 , 2012
22
23
24
25