HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-12/06/2012 Hearing 1
w' 1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK
2 ------------------------------------------- X
3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
4
5 ------------------------------------------- X
RECEIVED
6
DEC 24 2012
7 Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York BOARD OF APPEALS
8
9 December 6, 2012
10 : 25 A.M.
10
11
12 Board Members Present :
13 LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
14 GERARD GOEHRINGER - Member
15 JAMES DINIZIO, JR. - Member
16 KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member
17 GEORGE HORNING - Member
18
19 VICKI TOTH - Secretary
20 JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney
21
22
23 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
24 P . O . Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
r 25 ( 631) -338-1409
3
2 INDEX OF HEARINGS
3
4
5 Hearing : Page :
6
7 Michael & Emily Kavourias, #6606 3-40
8 Denis & Suzana Lipovac, #6607 40-47
9 Chloem, LLC, #6608 47-55
10 Robert Corazzini, #6609 55-71
11 Robert M. Schreiber, #6610 71-85
12 Daniel Devito, #6611 85-111
>; 13 127-135
14 John M. & Frances C . Divello, #6613 111-126
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 4
C"
1 HEARING #6606 - MICHAEL & EMILY
2 KAVOURIAS
3 MR. MACRINA: I apologize for not
4 being here last month. Just do to the
5 storm, I live in Stony Brook and we had no
6 power . I tried to contact the office and
7 just assumed that it would be --
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
9 MR. MACRINA: I would like to first
10 start off to talk about how we got there,
11 to where we are . Why we need a variance . We
12 spent a good year trying to avoid a
13 variance . As you can see, the way the house
14 is situated on the lot, and preexisting and
15 nonconforming, the front yard setback is
16 right to the middle of the house . It ' s
17 very difficult to try and design a
18 substantial renovation. My clients are
19 looking for more living space . The house is
20 a modest 1400 square foot ranch . They
21 wanted to add more square footage . They
22 wanted to add a nice master suite and just
23 more living space . The living room is a
24 very small . So we attempted to keep the
25 master bedroom on the first floor and even
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 5
1 attempted to keep all the space on the back
2 of the house to avoid a variance . When you
3 get to large additions , the roof line
4 becomes complicated, and if you look at the
5 existing house, and I do have a picture
6 here . So working with that and putting a
7 larger investment into a project and keep
8 that same facade, it just didn ' t make any
9 sense . We did many, many sketches for many
10 months . We decided that the procedure that
11 would make the most sense to do, is a
12 second floor addition. Where the second
13 floor addition of the house -- pretty much,
14 if I touch the roof line, then I would
15 require a variance . It is outside the
16 setback. So we decided to do a second floor
17 addition, which gave us an opportunity to
18 have panoramic water views, that the house
19 does not have now . So obviously that is a
20 big plus . So the second floor is to have a
21 nice master suite . We didn ' t go over the
22 whole entire footprint . We went over part
23 of it . Gave us a bathroom, bedroom, closet,
24 full loft area and a sitting area . But
25 mostly, a larger roof deck as well . And
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 6
1 also what it does, it creates a nicer
2 aesthetic from the street, from both
3 streets . And really started increasing the
4 value of that neighborhood. In that
5 neighborhood there is a lot more
6 renovations like this . The lot -- the
7 subdivision is most ranches . So by doing
8 this, the second floor -- we are not
9 increasing the level of nonconformity of
10 the existing setback. We are building on
11 top of what is there, but we are -- there
12 is an existing deck that is only about ten
13. feet from the property line . We are
14 looking to reduce that by two feet, pulling
15 it into the house, and increasing that
16 setback to 12 feet, but adding a roof on
17 top of it . That helps break up the scale
18 of the facade and helps keep that nice
19 cottagey feel to the east-end. That is
20 what we are looking to do, and increasing
21 the protection for the front of the house .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just
23 interrupt you for one second.
24 MR. MACRINA: Sure .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It looks as
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 7
1 though the existing, says proposed second
2 floor addition -- it looks like a setback
3 from Miriam Road, and the site plan is 21
4 feet?
5 MR. MACRINA: Yes , correct .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you are
7 proposing a new covered roof porch, which
8 would create a front yard setback of 11 . 11
9 feet; is that correct?
10 MR. MACRINA: That ' s correct .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You are proposing
12 to reduce the nonconforming front yard
13 setback?
14 MR. MACRINA: Yeah, the porch does, but
15 if you look at the existing survey, which I
16 am not sure if it was submitted to you or
17 not, I have a copy here that I can show you
18 if you want to see it?
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is the
20 survey that you ' re going to show us?
21 MR. MACRINA: The survey was prepared
22 by Joseph Ingegno Land Surveyor and it was
23 dated back in 2004 , August 30 , 2004 .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don ' t think
25 that we have that .
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 8
1 MR. MACRINA: What this shows is the
2 existing deck in the front of the house .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No . What we have
4 from you is this one based on the
5 surveyors . And I am showing 21 feet to the
6 existing dwelling and a reduction to 11 . 11
7 to the proposed porch. And the 25 . 1 stays
8 the same from the Inlet?
9 MR. MACRINA: Correct . What we are
10 doing there, we are just reinforcing the
11 roof . You know a new roof design over that
12 part of the house . We ' re not decreasing
13 that .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
15 MR. MACRINA: In this neighborhood, I
16 should say at the intersection of Miriam
17 and Inlet Drive, this is the subject house
18 right here . The house to the north on the
19 right side has a setback that is only --
20 the road down of 12 feet from the property
21 line . And a deck that looks like 8 feet
22 from the property. And as I go around the
23 area it appears to me that the majority of
24 the homes are, I would say about 25 of the
25 average setback. So we would be
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 9
1 completely out of context of the
2 neighborhood. Also I know, in this case,
3 the asphalt starts 15' feet pass the
4 property line . So it does appear to have _a
5 nice front lawn from the asphalt .
6 MEMBER HORNING: Sir, on what road are
7 you referring to?
8 MR. MACRINA: Both. I 'm sorry, the area
9 that we ' re encroaching on .
10 MEMBER HORNING: Miriam Road?
11 MR. MACRINA: Miriam Road.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the house to
13 the north on Miriam Road. You ' re showing
14 character of the neighborhood. Are we
15 talking about two different things?
16 MR. MACRINA: That would be the
17 northwest . The house to the northwest .
18 MEMBER DINIZIO : Would that be on Inlet
19 Road or Miriam?
20 MR. MACRINA: That would be on Inlet
21 Road.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You have to talk
23 very loudly. Okay . So the house to the
24 northwest, • has a front yard setback of 12
25 feet from the property line to Inlet?
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 10
1 MR. MACRINA: Yes .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You are now
3 talking about the character of the
4 neighborhood?
5 MR. MACRINA: Yes . I would also
6 mention, where we are proposing that front
7 porch on Miriam Drive, approximately 15
8 feet on the survey, from the asphalt to the
9 property line . It has that approach that it
10 has a nice frontage . In this proposed
11 application, there is also an existing --
12 preexisting nonconforming accessory
13 structure, detached garage . The Building
14 Department explained to me that that garage
15 should have been further back on the
16 property. It does not have a CO . We are
17 looking to remove it and build an attached
18 garage that meets current zoning . That is
19 something that to add to the application .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So let ' s just
21 look at the two variances that are before
22 us here . One is a front yard setback at
23 11 . 92 . The Notice of Disapproval says
24 11 . 11 .
25 MR. MACRINA: It ' s 11 foot 11 inches .
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 11
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And then a front
2 yard setback of 25 . 08 feet from Inlet,
3 where the code requires 40 . The site plan
4 shows 25 . 1 . So there are two front yard
5 setbacks . The one that is 25 feet from
6 Inlet is to be maintained. The one along
7 Miriam, you ' re proposing to reduce from the
8 21 feet to approximately 12 feet?
9 MR. MACRINA: Correct .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now, let ' s just
11 take a look at a letter that I am sure you
12 received from the Matti.tuck Parks District .
13 Did you receive a copy of that letter?
14 MR. MACRINA: No, I have not .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am surprised '
16 that you didn ' t get one . Let ' s make sure
17 that you get a copy. We need to address
18 some of the concerns that they voice in
19 that letter .
20 MR. MACRINA: So there is more than I
21 am not prepared for .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am just going
23 to go over three points in the letter and
24 obviously there will be testimony, and you
25 will have an opportunity to respond.
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 12
1 It would appear from this letter dated
2 October 26, 2012 , that part of your clients
3 chain link fence, about 20 feet, is off of
4 their property and on the Mattituck Parks
5 District property, and they are requesting
6 that it be removed,
7 MR. MACRINA: Correct . Okay.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That of course is
9 a fence enclosing an in-ground swimming
10 pool, that is required by code . They are
11 then proposing to regenerate an area that
12 was cleared by the applicant that they
13 consider to be Park property. And
14 thirdly, removal of a barrier fencing or
15 other obstruction that is erected at the
16 end of Miriam Road, which needs to be open
17 for emergency access . Those are the three
18 points that are brought up in this letter .
19 MR. MACRINA: Okay.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just so the
21 record is clear .
22 MR. MACRINA: Can I just ask for a
23 description of that Item 3 , I didn ' t
24 understand what we' re talking about
25 actually?
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 13
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am going to
2 actually -- since we now know that there is
3 someone here representing the Parks
4 District, what I think would just be best
5 is if he testified for a moment and explain
6 the details that --
7 MR. MACRINA: Details .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then perhaps says
9 what you would like to say.
10 If you would please just enter your
11 name into the record?
12 MR. PROKOP : I would be happy to . It ' s
13 David Prokop, with an office at 131 Route
14 25A, Rocky Point, New York.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you very
16 much.
17 MR. PROKOP : I work for the Park
18 District . In reverse order, the third item
19 relative the details of the construction,
20 I would have to consult with the
21 Commissioner' s . They perform the inspection
22 and then they advise me that there is an
23 obstruction there, erected. So I would
24 have to get more details and get back to
25 the architect . Otherwise, I was appearing
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 14
1 today to make sure the letter was received
2 and make myself available for any questions
3 from his agent or from the Board relative
4 to the request . The one relative to the
5 relocation of the fence that was on the
6 district property back to the property
7 line, 20 foot encroachment . Otherwise to
8 insure that there is some litigation with
9 respect to re-vegetation of the Park
10 District property that was cleared. And
11 thirdly, that the obstructions be removed
12 so that we could have emergency vehicles
13 access our property.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know it ' s
15 interesting because the old survey that the
16 architect has just given us , shows a
17 flagpole -- I don ' t know if that would be
18 an obstruction. It ' s not in Miriam Road
19 but it ' s along the -- outside the boundary
20 of their property.
21 MR. PROKOP : I don ' t know what that
22 is .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes . We are going
24 to have to find out what it is .
25 MEMBER HORNING: The fence is not
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 15
1 shown .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes , it is . Here
3 George . Not on the old one . This is what
4 the architect gave us . You have it in your
5 packet . Right here, it ' s off the property
6 line . This plan shows it .
7 MR. MACRINA: The applicant just needs
8 some direction in what re-vegetation is
9 necessary with respect to that area .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So we need to
11 know, A, what the nature of any obstruction
12 might be so that the applicant might
13 address it . I don ' t know what it is .
14 Secondly, we need to know what kind of
15 appropriate re-vegetation that you ' re
16 talking about . And --
17 MR. MACRINA: I just want to make sure
18 that whatever we provide is correct .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the surveyor
20 will have to show you exactly where to move
21 the chain link fence on the property.
22 MEMBER HORNING: Does the public have
23 access to that side of the property?
24 MR. PROKOP : Yes, they do . Not that
25 it ' s planned for public access there, but
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 16
1 to the extent there was a block on Inlet
2 Road, that is the road that accesses the
3 beach . This is a road for emergency
4 vehicle to reach that person .
5 MEMBER HORNING: And what is the
6 purpose of the chain link along Miriam? Is
7 that --
8 MR. PROKOP : Oh, the fence . That is
9 the property owner ' s fence .
10 MEMBER HORNING : I am talking about
11 it ' s blocked off access onto Miriam.
12 MR. PROKOP: That is part of what the
13 obstruction consist of . I have to find out
14 more information about what has been
15 erected there . What I could do is provide a
16 follow-up letter, CC ' ing the agent, and
17 indicate what it is that needs to be
18 removed.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. It could be
20 fairly minor . It might just be landscaping
21 for all we know.
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You think Gerry
23 would know?
24 MR. PROKOP : Yes ,
25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Why don ' t we ask
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 17
1 him?
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We could ask him
3 to come in testify.
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Why not?
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It will expedite
6 the process .
7 MR. PROKOP : He was one of the
8 Commissioner ' s that performed the
9 inspection. So he knows .
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: He has recused
11 himself from the application .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Prom the
13 application . He doesn ' t have to recuse
14 himself to represent the Park District .
i5 MR. PROKOP: He was a witness .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Vicki, would you
17 go out and ask him to come in .
18 MS . TOTH : Sure .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I also want to
20 point out and make sure that you are aware
21 of this . According to code, to have a legal
22 pool enclosure, it must be on the
23 applicants property. So even the swimming
24 pool enclosure is questionable because part
25 of that fence is not on their property.
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 18
1 That seems to be a relatively
2 straightforward thing. When I did
3 inspection, 1 wondered about that . There is
4 beautiful evergreens that give privacy.
5 It ' s really not on their property. Okay.
6 Gerry who is a Board member and who
7 has recused himself, and .is now appearing
8 before the Board, at the Board' s request to
9 testify as the Mattituck Park' s
10 Commissioner and to clarify the three
11 points that counsel who is representing the
12 park has brought to the attention of the
13 Board. So with regard to point #3 , the
14 applicant has some barrier that they own
15 obstructing emergency access at the end of
16 Miriam Road, and needs to be unobstructed
17 for emergency vehicles to access the Park
18 District ' s property.
19 Could you tell us what exactly is the
20 nature of that obstruction?
21 MR. GOEHRINGER: Well, I am not
22 positive that it ' s this particular
23 applicants obstruction on that aspect .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I 'm sorry, back
25 up a second. Just for the matter of the
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 19
1 public record, would you please just state
2 your name?
3 Nl ,. GI Gerard oehringer, T
4 am presently the acting Chairperson of the
5 Mattituck Park District .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you.
7 MR. GOEHRINGER: We have had over the
8 years significant problems with people
9 dumping at the end of Miriam Road. Excuse
10 me . What is at the end of Miriam Road as a
11 barrier, to my knowledge, what was put
12 there by the Town . So that is one of the
13 issues there . However, it was brought to
14 our attention, nor have I seen a survey,
15 that indicates that the fence is actually
16 on the neighbor ' s property. The one that is
17 applying for this variance at this time .
18 We were -- it has been the determination of
19 the Commissioner ' s that presently sit, that
20 the possibility is that there is
21 encroachment by this fence and some
22 shrubbery on that property. But in the
23 nature of the Park District, which is a
24 public entity, we aren ' t concerned by any
25 encroachments . I am not necessarily seen
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 20
1 the survey that has indicated that and that
2 is certified to any particular individual,
3 either the owners of this property or that
4 the Town has supplied to us by a certified
5 surveyor .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is clear about
7 the encroachment of the fence . That, I
8 think, you can see on the survey. And as a
9 Board, we ' re going to be concerned that all
10 of that ( In Audible) is on the applicants
11 property.
12 MR. PROKOP : Correct .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because there is
14 some of it that is clearly not on the Park
15 District, and on the shoulder or Inlet
16 Road . So that is that . There were two
17 other points . One was, any kind of a
18 barrier that prevents the access that is
19 owned by this applicant . We need to be
20 absolutely clear what that is and where
21 that is located.
22 MR. GOEHRINGER: I don ' t believe that
23 that is a possibility that that may exist .
24 Only the standpoint of the fence being on
25 our property, which would inhibit us or
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 21
1 fire vehicle -- and I am not speaking for
2 the Mattituck Fire District, which of
3 course, I am also a member of .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am just trying
5 to figure out how we can address point #3 .
6 Is that an issue or is that not an issue?
7 MR. GOEHRINGER: We don ' t know if the
8 fence was moved back onto the property,
9 it ' s a possibility that we would be onto
10 the neighbor ' s property. We wouldn ' t still
11 be able to gain access . Not necessarily by
12 truck, vehicular access, by the wild
13 shrubbery that exist on the District
14 property. We have had fires there based
15 upon -- not necessarily from this
16 applicant ' s property, but during the 4h of
17 July holidays .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let ' s take a look
19 at #2 , re-vegetation of an area that has
20 been cleared by the applicant . Let me see
21 what my notes say from field inspection .
22 You know, there is an actual fence with a
23 gate to it that goes over to that cleared
24 area .
25 MEMBER HORNING : At the end of Miriam.
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 22
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So my question
2 is , and I am now addressing the applicant ' s
3 agent, have you had any idea of what they
4 are using that cleared area for? I mean,
5 there is a gate in the chain link fence so
6 that they can access that area . Like a
7 clearing has been made . It ' s not shown on
8 your survey.
9 MR. MACRINA: No, this is -- this is
10 -- the gate that is facing the park? I am
11 not too sure what that is .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I believe it ' s
13 for the side yard. I am talking about, if
14 you look at the easterly property line,
15 there is a chain link fence there .
16 MR. MACRINA: I didn ' t see a gate
17 there .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But there is .
19 It ' s actually toward the rear yard, but
20 there is an actual gate in the chain link
21 that goes over to a cleared area . I believe
22 that must be what the Park District is
23 talking about .
24 MR. MACRINA: I mean, there is a
25 private property on the southeast corner of
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 23
1 the property, maybe they access . Maybe
2 neighborly. I don ' t know.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don ' t think
4 that it was in that lot line .
5 MR. MACRINA: You think it was on the
6 Park District side?
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes .
8 MR. MACRINA: Do you want me -- well,
9 the fence is getting relocated anyway. I
10 will have them eliminate the gate .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There shouldn ' t
12 be any gate enclosure because they
13 shouldn ' t be having access to Park --
14 MR. MACRINA: So no gate access .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Correct . However,
16 I still wonder what they are using it for .
17 It didn ' t appear to look like it was being
18 used for anything but it was a clearing,
19 and there wasn ' t any furniture in it . Just
20 empty, but what we need to understand from
21 the Park District is, what kind of
22 vegetation you are requesting . Do you want
23 to just let it go back to scrub or do you
24 want ' to actually to have some -- maybe some
25 plantings?
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 24
1 MR. PROKOP: I will send a proposal
2 with native plantings . I think that would
3 be the best way to go .
4 MEMBER HORNING: Can you clarify this
5 Statement. #3 in your letter. "Applicant to
6 remove any barrier fencing or other
7 obstruction they have erected at the end of
8 Miriam Road. "
9 MR. PROKOP : I can make it even
10 easier, we are going to withdraw #3 . In
11 discussing it with Mr. Goehringer it ' s only
12 a possibility that it was there and it
13 originated from the Kavourias property.
14 It ' s primarily a town structure that is
15 there, miscellaneous dumping. We can ' t
16 identify the Kavourias being the party for
17 that . So we will withdraw #3 .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what we need
19 from you is the specifics about -- actually
20 we don ' t need about which portions of the
21 fence because frankly, the whole fence has
22 to be on their property.
23 MR. MACRINA: So it will go to the
24 back corner of the house and meet with the
25 property line and then around.
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 25
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wherever it is
2 relocated, it all has to be on the
3 property, period. That will take care of
4 that . We just need from you on what kind of
5 vegetation .
6 MR. PROKOP : I will supply that .
7 That ' s fine .
8 MR. MACRINA: So re-vegetate up to the
9 property line; correct?
10 MR. PROKOP : I would like to show it
11 on the existing survey.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That ' s fine . As
13 long as it ' s a legitimate survey where it
14 is clear and we can all read it . So we know
15 specifically what you are talking about . So
16 they can conform to what the Park District
17 is requesting .
18 Is that all right with everyone?
19 MR. MACRINA: Yes .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We ought to get
21 back to the variance before us . It is very
22 clear that you are going to maintain the
23 preexisting 25 foot . Please address any
24 need to reduce the already nonconforming
25 front yard setback of 21 feet to 11 feet?
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 26
1 MR. MACRINA: That is something as I
2 propose to -- it helps create a better
3 scale for the home to have a porch, that
4 nice shadow line, the lower roof ease . It
5 works well with this area because there is
6 not large homes in the area . It ' s more
7 smaller . The covered porch helps bring in
8 the scale as they approach the home . Also
9 that side of the home is facing the Sound.
10 It helps bring in a little bit of
11 protection to the house as well . And that
12 was really the reason. It was more
13 aesthetic functionality. Unfortunately,
14 just to put a covered front porch on that
15 house, the way that the house was
16 positioned back in the 601s, you know, with
17 it being on an angle like that and
18 approaching Miriam Road, it makes it
19 difficult . The only thing that I can say is
20 that there was a deck there and was even
21 closer that 11 . 11 -- 11 . 92 . And we are
22 reducing that a little bit . The only
23 difference is , we will have a roof on top .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, the deck
25 isn ' t there now.
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 27
1 MR. MACRINA: . It is there now.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is there now?
3 MR. MACRINA: Yes .
4 MEMBER DINIZIO : It ' s a walkway .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s a walkway.
6 MR. MACRINA: It is elevated at that
7 corner.
8 MEMBER DINIZIO : Does it have a CO?
9 MR. MACRINA: I believe so .
10 MEMBER DINIZIO : Maybe we should see .
11 MR. MACRINA: That could be correct . I
12 don ' t know . I believe it did have a CO .
13 MEMBER DINIZIO : I didn ' t find one .
14 MR. MACRINA: The records were a
15 little vague . I was trying to find it .
16 MEMBER DINIZIO : It ' s only 1998 .
17 MR. MACRINA: The last time the
18 inspector was there was in 2004 for their
19 swimming pool .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I suspect that
21 you started to do something that could
22 enhance more, talking to us about the
23 character of the neighborhood relative to
24 the conforming front yard setbacks .
25 MR. MACRINA: Correct .
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 28
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Which is what the
2 Board would be looking at in reducing an
3 already nonconforming front yard setback.
4 MR. MACRINA: I understand.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You point out one
6 example, which T guess is the house to the
7 northwest . Are there others in that
8 neighborhood as well? Or would you like
9 time to go and research it?
10 MR. MACRINA: No, I have looked -- I
11 just looked at that intersection because
12 that is what you do see when you are
13 standing in front of the house . Pretty much
14 one property to the north was about 28
15 feet, and the one to the south -- southwest
16 is 22 feet to Miriam. They are all closer
17 to the existing setback. I do believe
18 that that one house to the northwest would
19 be the only one that is comparable to
20 reduce setback that I am proposing for the
21 porch .
22 MEMBER HORNING : Madam Chairperson, can
23 I ask something?
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Please .
25 MEMBER HORNING: Don ' t we have some
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 29
1 idea of an average setback given a certain
2 distance up and down the street?
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes , we do .
4 MEMBER HORNING: Can we ask them to
5 work with that and give us what the average
6 setbacks really are?
7 MR. MACRINA: My calculation, it would
8 be somewhere like 25 feet . That would be
9 the average setback.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So he has already
11 looked at that . In other words, the code
12 allows you to take along the street from
13 300 feet from either direction and average
14 setback and establish that --
15 MR. MACRINA: Right .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would be
17 relatively conforming to the neighborhood.
18 MR. MACRINA: Okay. On Miriam Road
19 itself, the short road, there is not many
20 homes on that road. Like the average
21 setback is maybe like mid-20 ' s . So it
22 doesn ' t help me . So the only one, was the
23 one on Inlet, the one house that we are
24 talking about is the one house on the
25 corner. You know, the most important part
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 30
1 of this application is the addition to the
2 second floor . To maintain the 21 feet . I
3 would just -- if the 12 foot is asking too
4 much, I could reduce the porch a little
5 bit . I can ' t do anything architecturally
6 that would look nice and cut it off . I
7 think it would not look good. So if the 12
8 feet is asking too much, then we can maybe
9 reduce the. porch another 2 feet maybe or
10 just eliminate it completely.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, the point
12 that when you are talking about, it ' s now a
13 one-story and it ' s 21 feet, give or take
14 from the road. When you talk about adding a
15 second-story and moving it closer. to Miriam
16 Road, you are establishing a much larger
17 presence on that road.
18 MR. MACRINA: Right .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then a one-story.
20 So I think, this Board is required by law
21 to grant the minimum amount reasonable .
22 MR. MACRINA: Sure . I understand.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So we would be
24 looking to do that, I think.
25 MR. MACRINA: The porch is a one-story
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 31
1 structure with a low sloping roof. The
2 two-story will start back at 21 .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, that helps,
4 but I would suggest that that setback
5 either be maintained and closely as
6 possible, and perhaps a shallow or walkway
7 or porch.
8 MR. MACRINA: I can do a large overhang
9 maybe . Maybe a large overhang . We just
10 don ' t -- you know, we want everything to
11 look blended. You want everything to look
12 like it was built this way. We don' t want
13 it to look like it was added or anything
14 like that .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I do understand
16 what you are saying . I think this Board
17 does at least from an architectural
18 perspective . But from a zoning perspective,
19 the setback that would allow you to
20 accomplish with an aesthetic or accomplish
21 the setback requirement . In other words
22 reducing it minimum to where it is now .
23 MR. MACRINA: If I was to put a two
24 foot overhang by the front door, when it
25 comes off on that angle, it will probably
December 6, .2012 Regular Meeting 32
1 decrease the setback from 12 feet to about
2 15 feet . Then after that, I would probably
3 have to eliminate that .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does the Board
5 have any other questions? Jim?
6 MEMBER DINIZIO : Yes, I have questions .
7 Let me ask you this . Is there any reason
8 why you can ' t take the second-story, and
9 leave the house the way that it is and put
10 it on the proposed garage, as well as the
11 one-story addition?
12 MR. MACRINA: I am sure I can. When you
13 have this -- the pictures are there --
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : Let me preface that .
15 The house has existed there for many, many
16 years . No one seems to be complaining that
17 it ' s an eyesore . I grant that you have
18 every right to do what you like to do on
19 your property but what you are asking for,
20 in my opinion, is a lot . Okay. Not only has
21 this Board made a decision for the 21 feet
22 but you also have to take into
23 consideration the bulk of the house .
24 Basically, this house sits, at least, 3/4
25 in a nonconforming area . And you are asking
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 33
1 us to double that side yard in that
2 nonconforming area . That ' s a huge variance
3 that you are asking us , when you look in
4 the context of what you are asking about
5 this Board. I am not too concerned about a
6 hip roof .
7 MR. MACRINA: I understand where you
8 are coming from, and I do agree that the
9 covered porch was a push. There is no doubt
10 about it, but I feel that the -- because
11 the position is very oddly location on the
12 site, to deny a homeowner to maintain that
13 setback and ( In Audible) square footage,
14 and give them good views of the water .
15 They have invested a large sum of money to
16 do this renovation, and at the end of the
17 day the house is still going to look the
18 same with that hip roof on one side and
19 that gable on the other . You want the house
20 to have nice curve appeal . I feel like the
21 only way to accomplish that is with the
22 second floor addition . The porch is
23 something that we would like to see, but is
24 certainly something that we can remove from
25 the application to allow us to build a
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 34
1 second floor where we are proposing .
2 MEMBER DINIZIO : I am not denying you
3 if you want to maintain the 21 feet . You
4 can have the second story. You know what I
5 mean, there is plenty of area to build on
6 this piece of property. I mean, there is
7 plenty of area . Basically you are building
8 the same amount of footage in the back of
9 this house . You can put a second-story on
10 and gain an extra room that you are
11 entitled to without the use of a variance
12 in any way.
13 MR. MACRINA: We have attempted that
14 in many different designs . At the end of
15 the day it really just looks horrible . The
16 balance is off . When you do a second floor,
17 you can just put to one side of the house
'18 and have a two-story element -- a ranch. It
19 would look like the ugliest house on the
20 block. You got to have balance . You have
21 to put all your weight and bulk in the
22 middle of the house . It just looks -- it
23 would destroy the value of the
24 neighborhood. We don ' t want to do that . We
25 want to increase the value of the
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 35
r
1 neighborhood. We are trying to do the right
2 thing . It ' s just unfortunate that the
3 house is in a very odd position. That is
4 the card that we were dealt with . The part
5 that is going to be two-story ' s, and just
6 keep that in mind. It ' s probably a little
7 hard to see on the drawing -- the part that
8 is 21 feet, that ' s a little open deck with
9 a balustrade . It is still an one-story. The
10 two-story is a little further back. So
11 like --
12 MEMBER DINIZIO : 23 .
13 MR. MACRINA: 23 is where it starts,
14 right .
15 MEMBER D2NILT0' : It' s supposed to be
16 40 .
17 MR. MACRINA: Just please understand
18 that we did try for years , 1 tried
19 sketching to make -- to keep this design --
20 when you build that addition to the east,
21 it staggers . The roof line were not coming
22 together . It looked like a mess . There were
23 some designs that could work but at the end
24 of the day, it didn ' t work. Not worth the
25 money to invest in this large renovation
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 36
1 and do the right thing for the
r
2 neighborhood.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me do this
4 because we are really running behind. Just
5 to summarize, you have two nonconforming
6 front yards, and the Board is looking at
7 the nature of those two nonconforming front
8 yards and recognizing by adding a second
9 story, you are creating a substantial
10 impact on those nonconforming front yards .
11 Our goal is to work with you and also to
12 respect the fact that we don ' t want to have
13 this huge impact . The second-story creates
14 the impact . Typically, if you can create a
15 porch that is going to reduce that front
16 yard, even though it ' s one-story, will have
17 a substantial impact .
18 MR. MACRINA: I understand.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just so the Board
20 is clear on what they are thinking . I want
21 to ask Ken if he has any questions on this?
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
24 else in the audience that wishes to address
25 this application?
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 37
1 MEMBER HORNING: I have a couple of
2 minor questions .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay..
4 MEMBER HORNING: I would like to see a
5 written down average of the setbacks on
6 Inlet Drive in reference to the
7 neighborhood taken from the real figures of
8 what adjoining properties are using for a
9 setback.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You want that in
11 Miriam?
12 MEMBER HORNING : On Inlet Drive .
13 MR. MACRINA: Please keep in mind, on
14 Inlet Drive, we ' re only replacing the roof .
15 So our second floor addition is 38 . 11 . To
16 work with the existing structure --
17 MEMBER DINIZIO: Again, there is not
18 much that you can do about that but there
19 are other factors that can be used. You are
20 asking us to increase the bulk of that
21 house and you are asking us to rely on some
22 things here that may not even have CO ' s .
23 MR. MACRINA: The deck?
24 MEMBER DINIZIO: The deck. Any other
25 variances that you are basing your setback
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 38
1 on, we would like to see that . You know,
2 you need to research that a little bit more
3 for us .
4 MEMBER HORNING : Jim and I are trying
5 to get to the root of this . The house was
6 built in what year, can you tell us?
7 MR. MACRINA: I believe in the early
8 601s , ' 61 maybe .
9 MEMBER HORNING: I thought 1 saw
10 something about building additions in 1958 ,
11 a building permit around then .
12 MR. MACRINA: You ' re right . In 7P 58
13 there was building with alterations . I
14 don ' t know --
is MEMBER HORNING: If you can submit
16 something that says when the house was
17 built, whether it was built prior to code
18 or not . And the house was purchased by your
19 clients in what year?
20 MR. MACRINA: I don ' t --
21 MEMBER HORNING: 1999, I would like to
22 have that verified too .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am going to
24 move this along. Is there anyone else in
25 the audience who would like to address this
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 39
1 application?
2 (No Response . )
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Rearing no
4 further questions or comments , I am going
5 to make a motion to close this hearing to
6 receipt of the following things : 1 ) we are
7 going to get from the Mattituck Park
8 'District a description of re-vegetation of
9 Park property. 2 ) we are going to get from
10 the applicant ' s agent, a listing of the
11 average front yard setback along Inlet
12 Drive and Miriam Drive, and 3 ) if you are
13 able to find any other front yard setback
14 variances that were granted in and around
15 that area . I believe the Board will have
16 sufficient information to proceed. That
17 should all be submitted to Vicki at our
18 office as soon as possible . Vicki is
19 saying, if you would like some assistance
20 with our office for variances in the
21 neighborhood, because we have the data
22 available to be of help .
23 MR. MACRINA: Sure . Thank .you very
24 much.
25 MEMBER HORNING: And if you could find
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 40
1 out whether the house was built before
2 1947 ?
3 MR. MACRINA: Sure .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Was it
5 pre-zoning?
6 MR. MACRINA: Sure .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That, believe it
8 or not is a motion on my part .
9 Is there a second?
10 MEMBER HORNING: Second.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
12 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
13 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye .
16 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
17
18 HEARING #6607 - DENTS & SUZANA LIPOVAC
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next hearing
20 before the Board is for Denis an Suzana
21 Lipovac . This is for #6607 . Request for
22 variances from Article . XXIII Code Section
23 280-124 , based on an application for
24 building permit and the Building
25 Inspector ' s September 4 , 2012 Notice of
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 41
1 Disapproval regarding proposed accessory
2 in-ground swimming pool, at; 1 ) more than
3 the code permitted maximum 20% lot
4 coverage; located at : 5220 Stillwater
5 Avenue, Cutchogue . Is there someone here to
6 represent this application?
7 Please state your name for the
8 record?
9 MR. LIPOVAC : Sure . Denis Lipovac,
10 L-I-P-O-V-A-C .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you . We
12 have no green cards . Is there anything that
13 you can submit?
14 MR. LIPOVAC : Yes , I am sorry.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Let ' s take
16 a look here . Sir, I believe you are
17 proposing at 16 ' x36 ' swimming pool?
18 MR. LIPOVAC : Yes .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That will create
20 a 250 lot coverage, where the code requires
21 20 o .
22 MR. LIPOVAC : We have -- actually
23 according to the survey, it will give it
24 28% .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It shows that the
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 42
1 existing house and deck is at 23% .
2 MR. LIPOVAC : It is . We would remove
3 the deck. With the pool put it, it would
4 actually increase it by 15 square feet .
5 That is if the pool goes in, and the deck
6 removed.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is what ' your
8 application says . It says that you are
9 going to remove the deck and increase the
10 footprint . It will be a trade-off by
11 putting in the swimming pool . It will go
12 from 23 . 3% , which is existing, to 22 . 1%?
13 MR. LIPOVAC : Correct . Yes .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Notice of
15 Disapproval shows a lot coverage proposed
16 at 25% but that is because --
17 MR. LIPOVAC : That was an estimate
18 before the survey was clone .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Before the survey
20 was done .
21 MEMBER HORNING: And what is the
22 correct figure?
23 MR. LIPOVAC : 23 -- with the pool, it
24 will be 23 . 1% .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it ' s a wash
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 43
1 really.
2 MR. LIPOVAC : Pretty much . And as far
3 as the pool, there is really not going to
4 be any masonry around it, just the coping
5 around it .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : On field
7 inspection, it is pretty clear that your
8 backyard has no trees . It ' s pretty much
9 grass . No land disturbance . You have a
10 completely enclosed backyard.
11 MR. LIPOVAC : Yes .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any questions ,
13 George?
14 MEMBER HORNING : He is going to remove
15 the deck; correct?
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes .
17 MEMBER HORNING : Okay. The LWRP, did we
18 get anything?
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It wasn ' t
20 required.
21 MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry, any
23 questions?
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: When you said you
25 are going -- you are not going to require
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 44
1 anything around the swimming pool, that is
2 usually not the case . You will be aware
3 that anything at ground level is not
4 included lot coverage . So if you decide to
5 put some patio blocks around it --
6 MR. LIPOVAC : My wife just wants a
7 coping around the pool . That is what she is
8 looking for . I will have to add grass .
9 MEMBER DINIZIO : Good luck to that .
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is why I am
11 brining it up . Anything that you do put
12 around it has to be at ground level, if you
13 decide to put anything .
14 MR. LIPOVAC : Yes .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 1 am not seeing a
16 drywell for pool de-watering on the survey?
17 MR. LIPOVAC : I guess the removal of
18 the water? I am not aware . I can find out
19 from the pool company. If that has to be
20 installed, that is not a problem. We are
21 putting in a filtration system, so we don' t
22 have to do the backwash or anything like
23 that .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Some pools don ' t
25 require it .
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 45
1 MR. LIPOVAC : The pool company, they
2 only use this one . There is no backwash. No
3 DE . It ' s not a sand filter .
4 MEMBER HORNING : You would never take
5 the water out of the pool?
6 MR. LIPOVAC : I am not aware of that .
7 They would handle the opening and the
8 closing of the pool for me . From what I
9 gather in the winter time, you would have
10 to reduce some of the water. If I need a
11 drywell put in for that, that is not a
12 problem at all .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can we do this?
14 It ' s not shown on here . We need to know
15 whether or not water is going to be
16 removed. If so, is it removed by your pool
17 company into a holding tank or will it
18 require a drywell to be installed. The
19 other question -- you can get that for us
20 in writing --
21 MR. LIPOVAC : Sure .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would be
23 helpful . The other question is, there is no
24 location for pumping here .
25 MR. LIPOVAC : That would be along the
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 46
1 house next to the a-track equipment .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Which is -- might
3 be this black box.
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is it by the bilco
5 door?
6 MR. LIPOVAC : Yes .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We usually
8 require, because it ' s near an adjacent
9 neighbor property line, that it be in a
10 sound proof enclosure .
11 MR. LIPOVAC : Okay.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just as well for
13 you . Just to mitigate any sound. It can get
14 noisy.
15 Okay. Any other questions from the
16 Board? Jim?
17 MEMBER DINIZIO : Nope .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in
19 the audience that wishes to address this
20 application?
21 (No Response . )
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Hearing no
23 further questions or comments , I will make
24 a motion to close this hearing subject to
25 receipt of information regarding the pool
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 47
1 de-watering circumstances from Arthur
2 Edwards, the installer of the pool .
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
5 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
6 MEMBER GOEHRINCER: Aye .
7 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
10 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
12 HEARING #6608 - CHLOEM, LLC .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
14 application before the Board is for Chloem,
15 LLC . That is #6608 . Request for Special
16 Exception per Article XIII Section 280-55B
17 ( 1 & 5) to operate a restaurant and fish
18 market in a Marine II (MII ) District .
19 Located at : 64755 Route 25, Greenport .
20 Is there someone here to represent
21 this application?
22 MR. KEIL : Yes . My name is Brett Keil,
23 I am representing the applicant .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let the record
25 reflect that there was a previous Special
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 48
1 Exception granted by this Board in 2009,
2 #6332 , which allowed a restaurant, and now
3 you are looking to have about 160 of that
4 building for a 509 square feet on the
5 restaurant portion, as a very small, kind
6 of take-out restaurant with 84% operating
7 as a fish market . Both of them are
8 permitted uses in the MII Zone .
9 MR. KEIL: That ' s correct .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We also have
11 information from the Planning Board
12 indicating this application will not
13 require a full site plan review by the
14 Planning Board. It had previously been
15 granted.
16 Do you have a copy of the current
17 Planning Board letter?
18 MR, KEIL : No, I don ' t .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We will get you
20 one . I did request that, so we had an
21 updated -- the applicant by the way,
22 submitted a very detailed explanation, an
23 affidavit of sort indicating exactly what
24 would be going on. We do have a letter --
25 an indirect letter from an adjacent
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 49
1 neighbor saying that at the moment, some of
2 the sound emanating from the dumpster at
3 the fish market, it ' s only -- a trailer
4 that is operating with a legal permit that
5 has been extended by the Board. You know,
6 causing some discomfort and smells and
7 odors . Requesting that we grant the
8 variance as quickly as possible .
9 MR. KEIL : I also have a letter from
10 Braun Seafood.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure .
12 MR. -KEIL : They have been working for
13 over 23 years and he does hire local
14 people .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That ' s nice to
16 have in the record. While Vicki is making a
17 copy of the comments from the Planning
18 Board dated November 27 , 2012 , let me just
19 mention for the record and for you as the
20 agent, it says , they ' re requesting that you
21 submit a photometric plan --
22 MR. KEIL : One has been submitted,
23 actually at the beginning of the week it
24 was submitted. I worked with the planners
25 upstairs and they thought everything was in
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 50
1 there . Showing the shields . The other thing
2 was, we put a thing in, within one hour of
3 closing, lights will be off around the
4 perimeter of the property. I think it ' s
5 only four or five lights itself around the
6 building will be left on for security
7 purposes only. And I think the other thing
8 that they had was the parking in the front
9 of the building, and we are going to put
10 parking signs in the front of the building
11 that is the parking area . We can ' t put any
12 striping on the road or on the pavement
13 because the State -- there is a tide line
14 in the front of the property, and if you do
15 anything to encroach that, you ' re basically
16 doing something on State road and you are
17 not allowed to .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. I also
19 noticed that on your site plan, you do have
20 egress and ingress marked to avoid problems
21 on that road.
22 MR. KEIL : Yes, that is why we did
23 that . We also made sure there is enough
24 room for breaking as you come around this
25 corner . We have also talked about clearing
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 51
1 some of back of the neighbor ' s property,
2 which would help cut down the overgrowth
3 and maintain the grass length . So that
4 people, when they pull out, they don ' t have
5 a problem seeing out .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that addresses
7 that concerns . I think they are all
8 satisfactorily taken care of . We do have
9 our prior decision, a couple of written
10 conditions of the Planning Board. It seems
11 that you are taking care of all of their
12 curb concerns . I am just seeing if the
13 Board needed to review it with you for the
14 public record, and see if there is a need
15 to carry over any of those conditions ..
16 Well, certainly #1 is moot . There is
17 no change to the site unless approved by
18 the Planning Board. That ' s fine . No
19 changes to the nonconforming setback or
20 height of the existing building. That is
21 fine . That is not being proposed.
22 MR. KEIL : Correct .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All garbage
24 generated by the restaurant shall be
25 contained on site and dumpsters that are
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 52
1 visually screened and fenced in area with
2 proper rodent control . That can be carried
3 over .
4 MR. KEIL: Yes . And to note that the
5 dumpster is going to be in the northwest
6 corner of the property.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the evergreen
8 privacy screening at a minimum of four or
9 five feet in height, planted along the
10 eastern and western property line .
11 MR. KEIL : Yes . We had on there because
12 of the proximity to the fence, at the time
13 we were going to put a 6 foot stockade
14 fence . We talked about putting in
15 arborvitae or something like that . Number
16 one, we have a deer problem. Two, the
17 vegetation on the back side, the north side
18 of the property would overgrow all the
19 plants and choke them right out . And if you
20 put them on the property line, it would be
21 encroaching on the neighbor' s property.
22 So I think the best way would be a six foot
23 fence, stockade fence down there for
24 privacy, so that they don ' t have to look at
25 all the lights . And they don ' t -- they have
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 53
1 a nicer view and it will stop the
2 vegetation . Once the vegetation goes to the
3 top, you can just cut it right off .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So if the Board
5 had indicated privacy screen or fencing
6 along the road --
7 MR. KEIL : That would be fine . Also the
8 lighting, from the original plan, I believe
9 we have reduced them from about five
10 lights . We reduced the number of lights
11 once we did the photo layout .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. And no
13 changes to setbacks --
14 MR. KEIL : No .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All right .
16 Anybody have any questions? Jim?
17 MEMBER DINIZIO : No .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
19 in the audience who would like to address
20 this application? Please come forward.
21 MR. ANDRUSRI : 1 am Nathan Andruski .
22 I am president of the Southold Town
23 Baymen ' s Association .
24 CHAIRPRRSON WEISMAN : Would you please
25 spell your name?
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 54
1 MR. ANDRUSKI : Last name?
2 A-N-D-R-U-S-K-I .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you .
4 MR. ANDRUSKI : I am a local Baymen who
5 does business with the applicant . Not only
6 myself, but also about 25 other Baymen who
. 7 do business with the applicant, and there
8 is probably another 20 or so that do
9 seasonal business . With these working
10 conditions , it has inhibited them to buy
11 full scale from us . Well, you have the
12 trailer for the cooling stations , it ' s a
13 little box . So he can ' t with his full
14 . intention buy what he wants to buy from us
15 right now. In April, when the season kicks
16 back up, it ' s really going to be inhibiting
17 him what to buy. I have been in the cooler
18 many times . Right now, he has very limited
19 space for storage . You know, it also
20 affects the guys that do business with .
21 That ' s basically all .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I take it that
23 you are supporting the application?
24 MR. ANDRUSKI : Absolutely, 1000 , as
25 well as all the other Baymen in the
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 55
1 association.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anything
3 else from the Board or from the audience?
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
6 further questions or comments, I will make
7 a motion to close the hearing and reserve
8 decision to a later date .
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
11 MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye .
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
13 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
16 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
17 *******************************************
18 HEARING # 6609 - ROBERT CORAZZINI
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
20 application before the Board is for Robert
21 Corazzini, 46609 . Request for variance from
22 Article III , Code Section 280-15 and the
23 Building Inspector ' s July 27 , 2012 , updated
24 November 1, 2012 Notice of Disapproval
25 based on a building permit application to
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 56
1 construct an accessory garage, at : 1 ) more
2 than the code required maximum square
3 footage of 660 square feet on lots
4 containing less than 20 , 000 square feet,
5 located at : 33195 Main Road, Cutchogue .
6 Good morning . Could you state your
7 name for the record, please .
8 MR. KELLY : Bill Kelly, agent for the
9 owner .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Mr . Kelly,
11 do you have any more green cards?
12 MR. KELLY : I do .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Could you please
14 bring them forward. Okay. So you are here
15 before us to create an accessory garage at
16 900 square feet?
17 MR. KELLY : That ' s correct..
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where the code
19 permits a maximum of 660 square feet on
20 lots that are up to 20 , 000 .
21 MR. KELLY : Yes .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And this is 788
23 square feet?
24 MR. KELLY : Yes .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. What would
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 57
1 you like to tell us?
2 MR. KELLY : The purpose -- he is going
3 to remove the existing structure that is in
4 disrepair and the intent is to build a
5 30x30 garage . The reason for that is, Bob
6 has collectible cars . He actually has them
7 at another location because he doesn ' t
8 really have the room for them, and the
9 ability to work on them, from a standpoint
10 of detailing . So it ' s to store his classic
11 cars . So typically when we do a building
12 for classic cars, you got to have enough
13 room for shelving and work space around the
14 vehicle . We ' re dealing with a vehicle that
15 is usually from 16 to 20 feet long. So to
16 try and do 660 square feet, it ' s just not
17 enough to move around the car without
18 potentially bumping it or scratching it .
19 All of that is a cost . He would rather not
20 have on a car like that . So that is the
21 reasons ..
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is proposed
23 on a two and a half car garage?
24 MR. KELLY : Basically, yes . Usually
25 anything over 22 feet long, it ' s two and a
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 58
1 half .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I should just
3 state for the record that the -- even
4 though we may certainly respect any
5 property owners hobby, the law does not
6 allow us to personalize variances, as it
7 runs with the land.
8 MR. KELLY: Right .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: As this can be
10 sold with the land. And then the arguement,
11 the garage goes away. Having said that,
12 let ' s see what the Board has to say --
13 MR. KELLY : Can I just back-up for a
14 minute?
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, you can .
16 MR. KELLY: For example, because the
17 code has changed since 2007 , and prior to
18 2007 , we wouldn' t even be here unless it
19 was over the lot coverage percentage .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct .
21 MR. KELLY: So if you can take that
22 into consideration. It ' s an undersized lot .
23 It ' s not what I would call an oversized
24 garage . It ' s a normal sized garage . If it
25 was an attached garage, it wouldn ' t be an
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 59
1 issue but we don ' t want to do that . So if
2 you could just take that into consideration
3 when making your decision.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, , I think we
5 can. I think the code was changed for a
6 reason because people were building huge
7 accessory structures that were size of the
8 their dwelling practically.
9 MR. KELLY : That ' s correct .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Accessory ' s are
11 supposed to be incidental to the principal
12 use .
13 MR. KELLY : In this case, we are under
14 lot coverage and we are not grossly
15 oversized.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, it ' s not
17 inappropriate to indicate that field
18 inspection indicated that the property that
19 is adjacent to it had a fairly large
20 structure . So the property to the east has
21 large metal storage containers . Their are
22 law offices that have substantial setbacks
23 from your clients property.
24 Jim, questions?
25 MEMBER DINIZIO : Number 1 , you could
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 60
1 probably build another garage on top of
2 here . You can build another one on there,
3 maybe three quarters of the size that you
4 are proposing now . Say you cut the building
5 down and you keep the existing garage,
6 build another garage, which you are
7 perfectly entitled to do .
8 MR. KELLY : Yeah.
9 MEMBER DINIZIO: You wouldn ' t be able
10 to do it if you kept the garage -- you can
11 build another two car garage without even
12 coming to us .
13 MR. KELLY: That ' s correct . The matter
14 is , we looked at that, that you could build
15 two garages there . In this case, we could
16 go to two garages on the property. We could
17 demolish the one that exist and build two
18 more and be over the square footage that we
19 are asking for now.
20 MEMBER DINIZIO : Right . It would be
21 under any needs for a variance .
22 MR. KELLY : Right . Ideally, I would
23 want to want that .
24 MEMBER DINIZIO : The cesspools that are
25 on the site plan, are they for the building
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 61
1 or are they for the house?
2 MR. KELLY : They are for the house .
3 MEMBER DINIZIO : They are?
4 MR. KELLY : Yes .
5 MEMBER DINIZIO : Do you intend to have
6 water?
7 MR. KELLY: No, there would not be any
8 water in the building . There will be
9 electricity.
10 MEMBER DINIZIO : Heat probably?
11 MR. KELLY : It ' s not an insulated
12 building at this point . It ' s a
13 non-insulated building .
14 MEMBER DINiZIO : What about an
15 upstairs?
16 MR. KELLY : There will be no second
17 floor . It ' s a trust roof building, so there
18 is no second floor. From the floor to the
19 bottom of the trust is 4 feet, the reason
20 is that is if he decides to put a lift in
21 there .
22 MEMBER DINIZIO : Yes . I am familiar
23 with this building. So it ' s a two and a
24 half car garage, and you are going about a
25 third over of what the law requires , and
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 62
1 that ' s the only thing . Do you know what
2 the lot coverage is?
3 MR. KELLY : You know what, I thought I
4 had that on my finger tips . I thought I had
5 jotted that down on the application
6 someplace .
7 MEMBER DINIZIO : I will take a better
8 look. If you can maybe get that to us?
9 MR. KELLY: Sure .
10 MEMBER DINIZIO : The back of the house,
11 you could attach it to the house --
12 MR. KELLY : We could do two things .
13 Attach it to the house and then we can make
14 it as big as we want, as long as we stay
15 under the lot coverage percentage, or we
16 can build two garages .
17 MEMBER DINIZIO : On the back of the
18 house, what ' s stopping you from not there?
19 MR. KELLY : I think the style of the
20 building and the architecture of the house .
21 MEMBER DINIZIO: The architecture of
22 the house, what is back there?
23 MR. KELLY : It ' s what they call --
24 MEMBER DINIZIO : No, what physically.
25 Are there bedrooms on the back?
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 63
1 MR. KELLY: That I don ' t know . Robert
2 is here, and he would be better to answer
3 that question .
4 MEMBER DINIZIO : Okay. I mean, I see
5 you have a grease trap there .
6 MR. KELLY : It ' s an old house and it ' s
7 an old system.
8 MEMBER DINIZIO : Let me just ask him
9 and get it on the record. That is what I am
10 trying to do .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please just state
12 your name .
13 MR. CORAZZINI JR. : Robert Corazzini,
14 Jr .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you .
16 MEMBER DINIZIO : There is a two-story
17 frame house on this property?
18 MR. CORAZZINI JR. : Correct .
19 MEMBER DINIZIO: You couldn ' t build a
20 garage on either side . You would have to
21 put it in the back. You can build
22 approximately the same size structure that
23 you are proposing in the back. What rooms
24 are on the back of that house?
25 MR. CORAZZINI JR. : There is a bathroom
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 64
1 on the first floor and a kitchen .
2 MEMBER DINIZIO : So the kitchen is
3 there?
4 MR. CORAZZINI JR. : Yeah, it ' s on the
5 back side of the house . The upstairs is
6 just two bedrooms .
7 MEMBER DINIZIO : The trap, that is just
8 your cesspool trap, sewage trap?
9 MR. CORAZZINI JR. : Correct .
10 MEMBER DINIZIO: Would that be moved
11 also?
12 MR. CORAZZINI JR. : I believe it would
13 be because that would be on top of it .
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : I see two rings for
15 the cesspool, do they exist? The one with
16 hash mark --
17 MR. CORAZZINI JR. : Oh yeah . What
18 happened was, that collapsed like about a
19 month after I purchased the house . So I did
20 not want that to happen again obviously.
21 So I took the steps to correct it, and that
22 is the suggestion that somebody had given
23 me to fix that . It was one of those things
24 that had to be fixed.
25 MEMBER DINIZIO : The one attached, is
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 65
1 that new? I am just trying to figure out .
2 Are you going to be driving over a cesspool
3 to get to the garage?
4 MR. CORAZZINI JR. : Yeah .
5 MEMBER DINIZIO : You are going to be?
6 MR. CORAZZINI JR. : Yeah, the front of
7 the building will be facing there . That is
8 where the front of the building will be .
9 MEMBER DINIZIO : That doesn ' t have
10 anything in it?
11 MR. CORAZZINI JR. : That ' s correct .
12 It ' s a highway dome cover, I believe .
13 MEMBER DINIZIO: This one here, does
14 this exist?
15 MR. CORAZZINI JR. : Yes, it does .
16 MEMBER DINIZIO : And the one attached,
17 is another one?
18 MR. CORAZZINI JR. : I see the one .
19 Yeah, there is another one there . I don ' t
20 know if that was ever on the survey because
21 it is there .
22 MEMBER DINIZIO : This is your survey.
23 It says proposed 8 foot diameter, four feet
24 drywell .
25 MR. CORAZZINI JR. : Okay.
r
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 66
1 MR. KELLY : Let me answer that . That
2 is not the cesspool . That is a drywell for
3 roof water runoff .
4 MEMBER DINIZIO : And that ' s going to be
5 there?
6 MR. KELLY : That will be there .
7 MEMBER DINIZIO : That is going to be
8 your drywell?
9 MR. KELLY: Yes . This does not exist
10 yet, and that would be installed.
11 MEMBER DINIZIO : Okay.
12 MR. CORAZZINI JR. : I 'm sorry, I
13 misunderstood.
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : It ' s okay. I just
15 wanted to be clear . So basically, you have
16 a kitchen and a bathroom on the back of
17 that house .
18 MR. KELLY : Yes .
19 MEMBER DINIZIO : The grease trappings ,
20 you would have to move that .
21 MR. KELLY: Right .
22 MEMBER DINIZIO : I think that is all I
23 have .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No .
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 67
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don ' t see that
3 there is a huge problem with dealing with
4 this application . It probably makes more
5 sense in building one large building . Since
6 you are destroying one . I kind of
7 understand the proposal and the purpose of
8 it, and I will leave it at that .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
10 George?
11 MEMBER HORNING: And simply again, what
12 is the reason for having a detached garage
13 rather than trying to attach it to the
14 house?
15 MR. CORAZZINI JR. : Well, my father and
16 I have classic show cars and we want to
17 keep them in a safe place . I think the
18 expenses of attaching it to the existing
19 garage, would be pretty extensive .
20 MEMBER HORNING : I mean, attaching it
21 to the house, could you do that?
22 MR. KELLY: One thing it would require
23 is removing the sanitary system and redoing
24 the sanitary system. The second thing that
25 it would require, if we were going to
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 68
1 attach it to the house, then we would
2 probably change the architecture of the
3 structure of the house, which would be a
4 lot more extensive then what we are
5 proposing to do now. So in a nutshell
6 those are the reasons for not attaching it
7 to the house .
8 MEMBER HORNING: You could attach it to
9 the house and not need a variance at all .
10 MR. KELLY: That is correct . Just like
11 we could ,build two buildings instead of one
12 and not need a variance .
13 MEMBER HORNING : Right . So can you give
14 me a compelling reason on why you would not
15 attach it to the house?
16 MR. KELLY: Yes . The number one reason
17 is that the client would prefer to have it
18 detached. The second reason is cost driven
19 if we were to attach it . We are going to
20 make it look like the house and get a lot
21 more involved with the reconstruction of
22 the house .
23 MEMBER DINIZIO : This is kind of like a
24 Morton building . Just so you know. It looks
25 really nice .
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 69
1 MR. KELLY: It would require cedar
2 siding, which is expensive to do and so on
3 and so forth.
4 MEMBER HORNING: Thank you .
5 MEMBER DINIZIO : I am just saying that
6 it would be very difficult for you to make
7 it look like a house?
8 MR. KELLY : Exactly.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anyone else in
12 the audience who wishes to address this
13 application?
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Bill , let me ask
15 you a question . Bill, I had discussed with
16 you my neighbors garage that you have very
17 tastefully did.
18 MR. KELLY: Yes .
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What do you think
20 the difference in price between the one
21 that Mr . Corazzini wants to do and the
22 other? It ' s almost the identical size .
23 MR. KELLY: Cedar siding for example .
24 Cedar siding and trim and everything goes
25 for about $10 and $12 a foot . So if you
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 70
1 take that number times 1800 square feet,
2 it ' s like $18 , 000 .' 00 . That is just the
3 siding component .
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So that is really
5 what pushed that one over?
6 MR. KELLY : Right . There are a lot of
7 cases when people just want it, they want
8 it and cost doesn ' t matter . If it ' s
9 something that you can ' t really afford,
10 then it does matter . I would say it does
11 matter in this case .
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So like $17 , 000 . 00
13 more?
14 MR. KELLY : Yes .
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Are there any
17 more comments from the Board or audience?
18 (No Response . )
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Hearing no
20 further questions or comments from the
21 Board, I will make a motion to close the
22 hearing and reserve decision to a later
23 date .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 71
1 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
3 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye .
6 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
7 ************************ ******************
8 HEARING #6610 - ROBERT M . SCHREIBER
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
10 application before the Board is for Robert
11 M. Schreiber, #6610 . Applicant requests a
12 Special Exception under Article III ,
13 Section 280-13B ( 13 ) . The Applicant is the
14 owner requesting authorization to establish
15 an accessory apartment in an accessory
16 structure, located at ; 6175 Oregon Road in
17 Cutchogue .
18 Please come forward. Would you just
19 please state your name for the record?
20 MS . O ' DONNELL : My name is Amy
21 O ' Donnell . I am the agent for the owner,
22 Robert Schreiber .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning .
24 MS . O ' DONNELL : Good morning.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Couple of
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 72
1 questions here . The Building Department
2 indicated that this is 620 square feet of
3 livable floor area . So that is within the
4 boundaries of the Special Exception .
5 However, there is two issues that I want to
6 talk about . The first is, we have no CO or,
7 Pre-CO on the subject barn . And we do have
8 a CO for the smaller building, which is
9 being called a 25x30 frame building defined
10 as an art studio, but we have no CO on this
11 barn building . And the second is, the
12 application states you are proposing a full
13 bathroom, another half bath.
14 MS . O ' DONNELL: No, that is incorrect .
15 We initially were asking for that and we
16 had it redrawn, and I believe you do have
17 the current drawings from Nancy Dwyer,
18 showing that the half bath has been
19 completely eliminated and it will only be a
20 storage closet . So it will only have one
21 bathroom.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, the
23 plumbing is in .
24 MS . O ' DONNELL : yes , that I know. And
25 it would be capped off and covered, prior
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 73
1 to any approval . The reason I believe you
2 don ' t have a CO or a Pre-CO, we also
3 couldn' t find one for the main structure of
4 the house, because and this was my
5 understanding when we were looking, because
6 of the age of the property. The house is so
7 old, there isn ' t a CO for it . The barn was
8 with the house when the property was
9 purchased. The art studio which
10 Mr . Schreiber did construct, he had a CO
11 for . I will certainly go back and look
12 again, but that is what I was told when we
13 were searching .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our offices show
15 that there is one that does not exist . So
16 you would need to apply for one .
17 MS . O ' DONNELL : There is not one for
18 the house either, do I do one for the main
19 structure as well?
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes .
21 MS . O ' DONNNLL : Okay.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What year did you
23 purchase this property?
24 MR. SCHREIBER: 1981 .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So it was
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 74
1 purchased in ' 81 and neither the house or
2 barn have Pre-CO ' s . The Board has to show
3 that t-he building existed with a Pre-Co or
4 CO prior to 2008 , which is when the
5 legislation was first approved to permit
6 accessory apartments in accessory
7 structures . As per the code, it requires
8 that the applicant must be living on the
9 premises, as you indicate . And that you
10 rent it to either a relative or an
11 individual qualified under the Affordable
12 Housing Registry.
13 MS . O ' DONNELL : The two sons would be
14 living in the accessory apartment .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This looks a
16 little bit unusual . There is no bedrooms
17 proposed.
18 MS . O ' DONNELL : No, it ' s more of a
19 studio space . It has sink. We are asking
20 for a sink in the main area, and there is a
21 refrigerator. There is no stove and then
22 the one bathroom. There is a microwave . If
23 it required something more than that, they
24 could go into the main house and use that .
25 It ' s more of a studio space, which is why
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 75
1 we were able to eliminate the other
2 bathroom. One is sufficient for someone .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, there is
4 also some discussion about part of this
5 being used as a pool house . So it ' s a
6 little unclear as to whether this is a
7 guest accomodation or sort of a
8 recreational thing associated with a pool
9 house, with use of the pool, which is right
10 off of the deck that is attached, or is
11 this in fact a year round living apartment?
12 MS . 0" DONNELL : We are asking for it
13 to be a year round accessory apartment . It
14 probably will only be about eight to nine
15 months a year that they will actually be
16 there . When we went to the Building
17 Department they approved the structure .
18 This space is within the barn . So they
19 approved that as a pool house, because that
20 is what it ' s called. George had come on the
21 site and done and look at the property and
22 said that we needed to get a C of 0 for
23 this and then we did. We applied for it,
24 for that area within the existing
25 structure .
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 76
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : For a pool house?
2 MS . O ' DONNELL : That is what he said
3 we have to call it . That is all that it
4 was . It was an area off the pool in the
5 back of the existing barn. We ' re not
6 changing the physical outward structure of
7 any of the barn at all . We ' re not adding an
8 outdoor shower or any of those things . So
9 in order for us to get a Certificate of
10 Occupancy for that, I was told -- for
11 people to actually live in the space, we
12 have to go and ask for an accessory
13 apartment . So that is obviously why we are
14 here .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because Special
16 Exception permits don ' t go to the Building
17 Department . They come directly to the
18 Zoning Board.
19 MS . O ' DONNELL : We kind of had to back
20 track because the space is already there .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So it ' s really
22 not a pool house?
23 MS . O ' DONNELL : No .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You are using it
25 as an accessory apartment with a storage
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 77
1 closet? But it ' s still listed as pool house
2 storage closet .
3 MS . O ' DONNELL : We are not using it as
4 pool storage at all .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you are
6 removing the half bath and using it as a
7 storage closet?
8 MS . O ' DONNELL : Correct . So that he
9 obviously has a place to hang his
10 belongings because it ' s one room.
11 MEMBER HORNING : In the applicant ' s
12 part of the description it also makes
13 reference to that also . You do say, we
14 would like to add a full bathroom, laundry
15 room and half bath, but you are revising
16 that?
17 MS . O ' DONNELL : We are revising that .
18 MEMBER HORNING : To an existing barn
19 with partial conversion to a pool house .
20 It is partial conversion of a pool house .
21 That is more correctly, right?
22 MS . O ' DONNELL : Yes . There are
23 drawings . We have removed that bathroom and
24 we are only asking for the one .
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How is this going
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 78
1 to be insulated?
2 MS . O ' DONNELL : It is not going to be
3 insulated. We ' re going to use a space
4 heater in the winter time when it gets
5 really cold. We ' re not going to insulate
6 and heat the space .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How are you going
8 to deal with the plumbing? Pipes burst . A
9 full bathroom and a laundry room.
10 MS . O ' DONNELL : It was on prior to this
11 and we have never had an issue with it . We
12 have left the water on and it has never
13 been an issue .
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : You are before us for
15 an accessory apartment in an accessory
16 building, and I think the confusion is
17 that , you are asking us for a concept not
18 necessarily an actual apartment . Because
19 for most of us , an apartment would actually
20 have a stove, and a kitchen. It would have
21 a bedroom and that kind of thing. Even
22 heat, one would think that an apartment in
23 the northeast, an apartment would have
24 availability of heat . You know, I am not so
25 sure we can grant an apartment to somebody '
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 79
1 that didn ' t meet the State Code for what an
2 apartment of livable structure would be .
3 MS . O ' DONNELL : Okay. Can it be used in
4 the months primarily that doesn ' t require
5 those things? Doesn ' t require heat from --
6 MEMBER DINIZIO : From my point of view,
7 I think you are asking us for the concept .
8 And you know, I have no objection to it . It
9 seems like you have enough square footage .
10 You seem to meet the code, with the
11 exception to the fact that it doesn ' t look
12 like an apartment in the State Code that
13 says what is an apartment . You say you are
14 going to use a space heater, for that
15 living space, I don ' t believe it is
16 allowed. .
17 MS . O ' DONNELL : Okay.
18 MEMBER DINIZIO : You know, you have an
19 apartment . You are supposed to have heat in
20 it somehow, a boiler or whatever . So that
21 just leaves me a little, you know, maybe
22 you have to make the concept a little more
23 apartment just to satisfy our needs to
24 grant an apartment .
25 MS . O ' DONNELL: If in fact we were
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 80
1 trying to get this application put through,
2 we are certainly willing to put in electric
3 heat . That would be the least expensive
4 option. I am guessing, I am not a builder .
5 That would be the least expensive option .
6 MEMBER DINIZIO : Go speak to the
7 Building Inspector and ask them what the
8 minimum requirements for an apartment would
9 be . I don ' t think that I would grant an
10 apartment that doesn ' t meet some State
11 Code .
12 MS . O ' DONNELL: Okay.
13 MEMBER DINIZIO : I am in the
14 security/fire alarm business . And I just
15 would hate to be standing outside this
16 building one morning after I got a call
17 that burnt down to ashes with someone in
18 there, on an application that I voted.. I
19 think about that problem. You know, I would
20 like to just have the Building Inspector
21 tell us that . If this meets it, I am happy.
22 MS . O ' DONNELL : Okay. I would be more
23 than happy to do that . More than willing to
24 do whatever it needs me to do .
25 Mr . Schreiber has this building and
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 81
1 eventually he will pass title of this
2 property. The same as we are looking for a
3 Pre-CO or CO for the house and barn, he
4 needs to have a Certificate of Occupancy
5 for all of these structures so that he can
6 pass title . That is really the ultimate
7 goal . He also has a son that needs
8 somewhere to live nine months out of the
9 year . Separate from Florida . So this will
10 fulfill both of his needs . So I am
11 certainly willing to have George come out
12 and tell us what we need to do and put in
13 electric heat . I have no problems with
14 that .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What you are
16 describing now, is called a seasonal
17 habitation . We can ' t call it a dwelling
18 because a dwelling is more than 850 square
19 feet . It ' s not a cottage . It ' s not
20 separate . So it ' s kind of a hybrid that is
21 being proposed. I think Jim has brought up
22 some good points about this Board being
23 able to grant an apartment if this doesn ' t
24 meet State Code, the standards of it .
25 MEMBER HORNING: Does the family member
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 82
1 occupying the structure, is a lease
2 required or not?
3 MS . O ' DONNELL: Yes .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It is . That is
5 handled through the Building Department .
6 We don ' t stipulate the amount of money . It
7 is your son .
8 Ken, do you have any questions?
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The plans show that
10 the exterior walls are insulated?
11 MS . O ' DONNELL : Yes, they are .
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So the proposed
13 accessory structure will be insulated?
14 MS . O ' DONNELL : Yes . The ceiling is
15 not .
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is an issue
17 that I have not discussed with the
18 applicant at this point .
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Is the ceiling going
20 to be insulated?
21 MS . O ' DONNELL: It ' s not at this
22 point . Not now.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is going to
24 be a lot of heat loss .
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is a difficult
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 83
1 thing. That is an issue that you need to
2 discuss with the Building Inspector . There
3 is no fire rating on this ceiling .
4 MS . O ' DONNELL : Okay.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any other
6 questions from the Board? We can ' t grant a
7 Special Exception without a preexisting CO
8 on a property.
9 MS . O ' DONNELL : I understand that . I
10 was under the impression that the buildings
11 were so old and the title obviously passed
12 to Bobby when he purchased them, it was --
13 we looked. There was nothing .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you will have
15 to apply for that . I think what we will
16 have to do is close subject to receipt of a
17 CO or have to adjourn without a date, until
18 such time --
19 MS . O ' DONNELL: Now if I go with
20 George and he gives us what the code is,
21 and we resubmit drawings showing all of
22 that --
23 MEMBER DINIZIO : We need the second
24 drawings for sure . Whatever the code is .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think given all
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 84
1 of that, the issues have been brought
2 forth, and we should probably adjourn
3 without a date . So that you can proceed
4 with what you have to do and contact the
5 office as soon as you possibly can . And
6 then we will schedule the next possible
7 date with the new information .
8 MS . O ' DONNELL : Okay.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
10 else in the audience who wishes to address
11 this application?
12 (No Response . )
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
14 further questions or comments, I am going
15 to make a motion to adjourn this hearing
16 without a date subject to receipt of
17 additional information regarding updated
18 plans, code requirements and Pre-CO ' s .
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
21 MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye .
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
23 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : " Aye .
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 85
1 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
2 *******************************************
3 HEARING #6611 - DANIEL DEVITO
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
5 application before the Board is for Daniel
6 Devito, #6611 . Request for variance from
7 Article III Code Section 280-15 and the
8 Building Inspector ' s November 2 , 2012
9 Notice of Disapproval based on an
10 application for building permit for an
11 accessory in-ground pool and pool house;
12 1) location other than the code permitted
13 front yard or rear yard on waterfront
14 property, located at : 750 Paradise Point,
15 adjacent to Shelter island Sound, Southold.
16 Would you please state your name for
17 the record?
18 MR. CICHANOWiC2 : David Cichanowicz,
19 representing Daniel and Gina Devito . To
20 start off with, I did get a copy of the
21 review from the ZBA dealing with some of
22 the inconsistencies of, I believe the LWRP
23 issue with the setback of the pool . So what
24 I have here is some elevations of the
25 property to show. And I also have letters
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 86
1 from the neighbor, Mark Miller .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Thank you .
3 MR. CICHANOWICZ : This is site
4 inspection of dealing with the actual pool
5 location proximity to the bluff, grade
6 differentials from the top of the bluff .
7 Actually the edge of the proposed patio,
8 which comes within the 50 foot area . As per
9 the LWRP was saying, the patio is part of
10 the setback of the pool structure . And this
11 is just showing that in most cases and
12 other projects, that patio is not affected
13 because it ' s at grade . I think the LWRP we
14 are dealing with more of the water runoff
15 then proximity to the bluff . whereas there
16 is a negative elevation. It is actually
17 going landward a substantial amount . There
18 is no issues as far as runoff from the pool
19 or pool patio towards the bluff area . So I
20 am requesting that the pool stay in the
21 proposed area . I think we do cover the
22 requirements needed by the LWRP .
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The proposed patio
24 around the pool, you propose at grade?
25 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Yes , at grade around
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 87
1 the pool . There will just be some minor
2 contouring around the pool, shaping, but
3 nothing raising. In this particular case,
4 this is one of the nicest bluffs that we
5 have in this neighborhood. Especially
6 after just going through Hurricane Sandy,
7 there was literally no erosion that was
8 done . Very well protected. And then with
9 the pool going in as an added feature, it
10 will absolutely have no effect at all .
11 Being that the top of the bluff is 50 feet
12 inward and pitched inward.
13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The fence
14 requirements for the pool, are they being
15 met?
16 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Yeah, that is
17 actually something that I need to discuss
18 with the Southold Town Trustees , because
19 part of the proposal , we are proposing
20 putting on a section of the bluff . So I
21 have to wait to see if that -- it certainly
22 will be a pool completely fenced in as per
23 the code requirements, as the Town
24 requires .
25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Will it require a
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 88
1 variance for that fenced in area?
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, because it ' s
3 within their jurisdiction and not ours . And
4 they will examine it for potential impact
5 and they may require that it be set not on
6 a bluff but closer to the house, on top of
7 the bluff .
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So landward?
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes , landward.
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Which would affect
11 the pool location?
12 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Not entirely.
13 Basically, as far as the Trustees are
14 concerned, simple planting is to be kept at
15 the top of the bluff, landward. That would
16 be fine with them. So we have in the past,
17 have had approvals from the Trustees with
18 pool fencing on the bluff with their
19 approvals . That is something that I just
20 need to kick back to the Trustees before
21 going forward.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Clearly, a lot of
23 trees are going to have to be removed
24 before anything is installed in the front
25 yard or the side yard. That does create
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 89
1 some degree of land disturbance, as well as
2 potential runoff . Very minimal .
3 MR. CICHANOWICZ : From my opinion on
4 the grading, it ' s pretty much in a straight
5 direction towards Paradise Point Road. Not
6 toward the house .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The reason for
8 the need to remove the trees is purely for
9 the ability to have a clear space for a
10 swimming pool?
11 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Correct . And to be so
12 that you are not swimming in a shaded pool
13 area as well .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : About how many
15 trees would need to be removed from the
16 area that you are proposing?
17 MR. CICHANOWICZ : I believe I counted
18 17 .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have a huge
20 front yard. Tell me why this pool could not
21 be located there in a conforming location,
22 as opposed to the side yard?
23 MR. CICHANOWICZ : A front yard is
24 conforming?
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes , it ' s a
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 90
1 waterfront property. Any waterfront
2 property can have it in a conforming front
3 yard. So why can ' t it be located in that
4 front yard? It ' s a relative front yard.
5 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Well, we are looking
6 to have it next to the screened in porch to
7 the south side of the house . There is a
8 huge screened in porch . So that has the
9 family as having there, and having the kids
10 in the pool . So they will be in eye view .
11 That is very important . The view of the bay
12 is beautiful . That is the best of both
13 worlds . It ' s a beautiful location and why
14 not be able to take advantage .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is a very
16 good point . It ' s a very natural vegetated
17 area .
18 MR. CICHANOWICZ : We don ' t have any
19 intention of removing any of the vegetation
20 on the bluff . I am always a big advocate on
21 not taking down that . But selective pruning
22 on the bluff, actually makes it stronger
23 and does enhance the stability of the
24 bluff .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I still would
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 91
1 like to know what happened with the front
. 2 yard, whether there is any septic system up
3 there? So it doesn ' t appear that there are
4 any mechanical underground systems that
5 would prevent conforming locations . It ' s
6 just for the -- your application does say
7 in Town Law #1 , the reason why you want it
8 in a side yard is there are other pools in
9 sides and front yards, which would address
10 character of the neighborhood. I don ' t show
11 any information submitted to show other
12 pools in side yards on Paradise Point Road.
13 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Okay. We are trying
14 to conform to -- building codes . We are
15 conforming to without your approval . What
16 is the big problem of having it set on the
17 side yard on size of a 3/4 piece of
18 property? A half acre property, I can
19 understand. Smaller space . Do you want to
20 put the poll further away from the pool . It
?1 becomes a bigger deal to use it . Why even
22 put it in? People want to have a pool that
23 is convenient and usable . The landscaping,
24 this is conceptual . We are going to major
25 screening around all of it , exterior
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 92
1 borders to address any of the privacy
2 problems of the adjoining neighbors . These
3 people are very considerate . They are not
4 looking to have wild parties . This is just
5 where they are proposing to have it . I
6 don ' t understand why it has to be such a
7 big issue in locating .it in this position .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, let me just
9 state for the record, that the law requires
10 the Zoning Board to grant the least
11 variance reasonably possible . And you are
12 now conforming with regards to a setback,
13 from when the law was changed from 100 feet
14 to 50 feet in Chapter 275 . Why that
15 happened, still baffles me . There are even
16 more environmental impacts on bluffs now,
17 given the changes from this weather and
18 with Super Storm Sandy.
19 MS . ANDALORO : I just want to make
20 sure that you read through the LWRP,
21 because it looks "like there may be an issue
22 of whether or not it complies with the 50
23 feet .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right . The LWRP
25 even if it ' s at grade, it ' s not clear of
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 93
1 the code . And as you recall, Mark Terry
2 talked to Jim King of the Trustees about
3 what they meant about incidental related
4 structures . That did even include at grade
5 patio . So that is why the LWRP recommends
6 that the whole thing go more landward. So
7 that the patio is within that 50 foot
8 setback. But again, if a variance -- one
9 of the standards that you said as a reason,
10 the applicant has no alternative but a
11 variance or relief from the code . And that
12 is why I am asking you, why you can ' t put
13 it in a front yard. You have that
14 alternative where it could be conforming
15 and not even require a variance . We ' re
16 obliged to explore that on the public
17 record.
18 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Understood.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just had a
20 couple of other questions . The pool house,
21 you are not proposing a shower? We don ' t
22 have any plans for the pool house .
23 MR. CICHANOWICZ : No, it ' s basically a
24 support building, where we plan putting the
25 pool equipment and storage in a small area .
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 94
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the equipment,
2 you are proposing to put in the pool
3 house?
4 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Correct .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does this require
6 a de-watering drywell?
7 MR. CICHANOWICZ : No, it ' s a
8 defiltering system, which by Town Code
9 Building Department does not require any
10 drywell . That is all relatively new in the
11 last few years . That is the way that the
12 pools are going. They find it more
13 effective and a lot less problematic .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What do they
15 actually have to do when they winterize it
16 and remove the water?
17 MR. CICHANOWICZ : No one ever removes
18 the water.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You want to swim
20 in that?
21 MR. CICHANOWICZ : After it is
22 filtered.
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It ' s a gunite pool?
24 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Yes .
25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What is the system
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 95
1 called?
2 MR. CICHANOWICZ : The swimming pool
3 systems have what is called a backwash.
4 That is pretty much everyone is familiar
5 with . It backwashes hundreds of gallons of
6 water through this thing to kind of clean
7 this filter . The new filter systems don ' t
8 require it . It actually goes through a
9 filter. After a period of time, it gets
10 taken out and replaced with a new one .
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Got ya . So you can
12 call it a cartridge filter system?
13 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Yeah . That is the
14 new designs . Relatively new.
15 MEMBER HORNING: I kind of concur with
16 the Chairperson. The question as to why it
17 couldn ' t be located in a more conforming or
18 a conforming location . And also the at
19 grade patio . You are proposing it to be
20 very nonconforming in a side yard, not
21 sufficient . Not even the 50 , feet from the
22 top of the bluff . But lets go through with
23 the submissions for the LWRP, Policy #1 ,
24 offer a pattern of development detecter and
25 you just put, "yes . " No script . There is
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 96
1 no reasons why you are actually adhering to
2 Policy #1 . Policy #4 , minimize loss of
3 life, structure, etcetera . You are not
4 giving any script why you are adhering to
5 Policy #4 . You just have a "yes, " checked.
6 And Policy #5 , the same thing . You just
7 have the "yes, " checked. The reason why I
8 ask that, in the LWRP he cites you as being
9 inconsistent and he goes through at least
10 Policy #4 and #5 on why he thinks you are
11 inconsistent . How do you comment on that?
12 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Well again, from my
13 past history in dealing with the LWRP, most
14 of the problems have been with control of
15 water from the improved structures . The
16 patio being attached to the pool structure .
17 The patio as proposed would cause
18 additional problems to the area of the
19 LWRP . This being concerned because of the
20 grade issues that exist which may have not
21 been clearly defined before, show a change
22 in the venue, I believe, to allow to occur
23 the way it is proposed. Now, as far as the
24 actual location, where we have it proposed
25 in the side lot, yes nonconforming . It is
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 97
1 where my customers would like it located,
2 or at least as located to this facility as
3 possible . So I am representing them to get
4 this location approved by you, and to you
5 for your comments and suggestions to make
6 this work.
7 MEMBER HORNING: Again, sir, in your
8 submission, Policy #4 , that is left blank.
9 You say you are conforming to policy and
10 yet LWRP says that you are not .
11 MR. CICHANOWICZ : I don ' t have that
12 form in front of you .
13 MEMBER HORNING: I am just going
14 through that because it ' s relevant . One of
15 his last statements in Policy #4 is
16 recommending that the Board relocate the
17 pool patio landward of the 50 foot setback
18 and you have already gotten -- the property
19 owners have already gotten substantial
20 relief in the past years from a 100 foot
21 setback requirement . Now it ' s only 50 feet,
22 but you are not even wanting a 50 foot . You
23 are wanting less than that . And the LWRP
24 coordinator is recommending to us that we
25 require the 50 foot setback. It ' s
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 98
1 relevant and significant to us . You have
2 covered Policy #4 and #5 with the pool
3 de-watering and saying it ' s not relevant .
4 With the setback, it ' s relevant .
5 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Okay. What is drawn
6 is a 15 foot patio seaward of the pool . So
7 in order to make it more conforming, or
8 shorten the patio or eliminate the patio,
9 then that would be acceptable to meet that
10 issue at least .
11 MEMBER HORNING : Yes, it would be .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Frankly, we are
13 overlapping the Trustees jurisdiction here .
14 They are really not before us for the 50
15 feet . Although it is in someways , because
16 we have to look at the LWRP ' s
17 recommendation . The other comment was the
18 removal of the 17 trees for the pool, which
19 is in the 100 foot setback of the bluff,
20 and does impact the natural vegetated
21 buffer. Whereas, in a conforming front
22 yard, you would be removing potentially 9
23 trees . I just want that to be reflected in
24 the public record. We may want to ask for
25 comments from the Trustees with regards to
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 99
1 this . It seems that Mark Terry clarified
2 that their intent was to include -- ( In
3 Audible) .
4 MEMBER DINIZIO : They can ' t get a
5 permit or a CO or anything if they don ' t
6 meet the Trustees .
7 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Right .
8 MEMBER DINIZIO : I think that whatever
9 they make of that decision, we should not
10 be involved with it . That is my own
11 opinion. I mean, I have done a lot of
12 decisions . I think the first one that I was
13 on the Board, I think we granted a pool in
14 a side yard in this general location. The
15 reason was somewhat similar . The house was
16 built closer to the water . They wanted to
17 take advantage of the views . They had
18 plenty of side yard. What we did, we made
19 them attach it to the house . You must
20 remember that Gerry?
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, I do .
22 MEMBER DINIZIO : Therefore, it was part
23 of the house . I mean, in -any case, if you
24 could. consider that . In other words , you
25 really wouldn ' t be before us if you were
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 100
1 denied for being a side yard. So if you
2 made it part of an accessory structure you
3 would no longer be considered in a side
4 yard for a principal structure . Can you
5 comment on that?
6 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Well, I would have
7 to talk to my clients . They are here . I
8 don ' t know if they would be opposed to
9 that . It could be a possibility. If you
10 give me a minute, I could talk to them?
11 MEMBER DINIZIO : Sure .
12 MR. CICHANOWICZ : I understand the tree
13 issue and the setback. I do feel as you do,
14 it ' s more of a Trustee issue, and that I
15 know I need to go before them as well . So
16 nothing is going to be done until I am all
17 signed off on it . But as far as connecting
18 the structure to the primary residence with
19 decking, like a wooden structure --
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is
21 considered attached.
22 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Interesting. Why is
23 that considered a difference?
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s the grade .
25 MEMBER DINIZIO : My interpretation is
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 101
1 that a deck is a structure because you have
2 to construct it . Concrete is poured on the
3 ground. That is basically it . They have to
4 look at that and look and see if it ' s
5 anchored correctly.
6 MR. CICHANOWICZ : If you raise the
7 patio --
8 MEMBER DINIZIO : I think you have to go
9 18 inches .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you raise the
11 patio then it ' s a structure .
12 MS . ANDALORO : There is two different
13 terms being used in two different codes
14 that may be interpreted different . I know
15 under the 280 , which is the Zoning Board of
16 Appeals and the Building Department, they
17 talk about structures being raised 18
18 inches or higher . Anything 18 inches or
19 higher under 280 , is a structure . Now under
20 this new term under Chapter 275, this new
21 structure, it appears that the Trustees may
22 consider at grade patios as a pool related
23 structure . I don ' t know . But that is for
24 them to look at . Not for us, and I don' t
25 know if the Building Department would even
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 102
1 look at it . It ' s solely within the Trustees
2 jurisdiction . So just so you understand the
3 distinction here . I know it ' s quite
4 confusing, because quite frankly, I am
5 confused as well . I think that is what it
6 is .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Our main concern
8 is the side yard location and why you can ' t
9 put it in a front yard, because that is a
10 legal requirement that we have to ask. That
11 is one of the things that we have to ask is
12 if there is an alternative . One of the
13 things that I have heard and please correct
14 me if I am wrong, that you want the
15 convenience of having it closer to the
16 screened porch, which sits on the dwelling,
17 which has a nonconforming setback from the
18 bluff . And that is about it, and a water
19 view . You would still have a water view
20 from a conforming location with pruning. So
21 what the Board needs to have is a more
22 conforming reason why you can ' t have it in
23 a conforming front yard. That is the reason
24 we need to have before we grant anything . T
25 wouldn ' t say that there is a huge precedent
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 103
1 in the neighborhood that there is all these
2 swimming pools in side yards along Paradise
3 Point . You did make that reference but
4 there is nothing there to verify it .
5 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Correct .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If you could do
7 that and submit that, and you can address
8 the character of the neighborhood that some
9 of those swimming pools are in the side
10 yard, then we have something in which we
11 can address the variance relief that you
12 are looking for.
13 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Or I can attach it?
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Or you can attach
15 it and do it as of right . Those are two
16 options .
17 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Okay.
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And maybe look at
19 the need for accessibility, is it better in
20 the front yard or side yard? You are
21 talking about the screened porch?
22 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Yes .
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I assume that there
24 is a door that leads to the side yard?
25 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Yes .
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 104
1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: If it was in a front
2 yard, what would be the access to the pool?
3 MR. CICHANOWICZ : There is a front
4 door that is remotely seaward of the
5 driveway and all of that . It would be
6 several hundred feet away from a proposed
7 pool in a front yard, compared to 50 feet,
8 60 feet from the side yard. S,o that is a
9 substantial difference, hardship if you
10 may, in using the area with the families
11 and the kids all of that -- yes, you have
12 the property and the right to put it there,
13 but it doesn ' t really work. I don ' t think
14 that most people would care for this
15 location . I am trying to use common sense
16 for this location . Although it doesn ' t
17 conform with the ZBA or zoning, it does as
18 the layout of the land and contours of the
19 land, beautifully. It fits their needs .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Dave, the
21 landscaped design plan that you submitted,
22 it says "not to scale . " About how wide do
23 you think that patio is --
24 MR. CICHANOWICZ : It ' s 15 feet .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Does the
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 105
1 Board have any other questions or comments?
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Other than the fact
3 if he wants to talk to his clients --
4 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Yeah, if you would
5 just give me a moment .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Why don ' t we just
7 do this, why don ' t we just leave this
8 hearing open and let you go out there and
9 talk to your clients and we will proceed
10 with the next hearing.
11 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Okay.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Then you can come
13 back.
14 MEMBER HORNING : If the pool was
15 located in a conforming location, i . e . , the
16 front yard, what would be the distance from
17 this side screened porch -- the closest
18 access, in comparison to the distance now?
19 MR. CICHANOWICZ : All right . I can get
20 that .
21 MEMBER HORNING: Thank you .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We recognize that
23 there is an attorney here representing the
24 neighbor. Maybe before we have you go out
25 and talk to your client, we can hear what
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 106
1 she has to say?
2 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Sure .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Why don ' t you
4 come to the podium.
5 MS . MOORE : Pat Moore . I am
6 representing the Macari family. The
7 Macari ' s are the owners of the property
8 directly to the south and most affected by
9 the pool location . 1 took photographs . You
10 have already stated on the record the
11 points of a basis for getting a variance in
12 a side yard to be shown . And aside from the
13 convenience factor, I guess from the
14 doorway, it doesn ' t seem to be much on the
15 record. Let me give you photographs, so you
16 can appreciate the concern that the
17 Macari ' s have .
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
19 MS . MOORE : The top page is the site
20 plan that is before you. Just to clarify
21 something, because I must have missed
22 something, and I seem to follow the code
23 very well . I know the Trustees have changed
24 the distance of accessory structure from
25 the top of the bluff . Did the Zoning Code
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 107
1 -- was that modified to be conforming?
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Zoning Code
3 wasn ' t changed.
4 MS . MOORE : So my interpretation and
5 understanding of what had been done was the
6 Trustees can consider it under their 275
7 jurisdiction. The Building Department still
8 has to cite structures within a 100 feet of
9 the top of the bluff, as --
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, on the sound.
11 MS . MOORE : Then is the 75 from the
12 top of the bay?
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think it ' s 76 .
14 MS . MOORE : From the top of the bay?
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes .
16 MS . MOORE : So why is that not cited
17 here as well?
18 MS . ANDALORO : It ' s not a variance . You
19 have to be 75 feet from a bulkhead on the
20 bay. It ' s a bluff, but it has to be from
21 the Sound.
22 MS . MOORE : I agree with you, but I
23 have come in for variances for accessory
24 structures on top of a bank, and was
25 determined by the Building Department that
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 108
1 I needed a variance .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It may have been
3 a rear yard setback.
4 MS . MOORE : Okay.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Trustees will
6 have to adjudicate that . Our concern is the
7 reason --
8 MS . MOORE : Why it can ' t conform. I
9 took photographs because in looking at the
10 Macari House from the street, you can ' t
11 appreciate that all of their living space
12 is all over by the water . The first
13 photograph, is their outdoor living area
14 where they spend most of their time . It ' s
15 just a little brick courtyard. That is
16 their living area . That is why they have
17 asked me to come in and ask you to move the
18 pool away from the structure in- a
19 conforming yard. To keep it away from this
20 area . This is their living space .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have a
22 copy of the LWRP?
23 MS . MOORE : No, I never got it .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because that
25 shows --
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 109
1 MS . MOORE : Okay. Do you have a copy?
2 MS . TOTH : Yes, come up, Pat .
3 MS . MOORS : So Photograph 1,
4 Photograph 2 , and 3 . Those are the ones
5 that show the property line . On Photograph
6 4 , you can see the space . Photograph 45, I
7 took from inside the house . You can see
8 Mr . Macari and my jacket and pocketbook.
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And the stockade
10 fence, whose is that?
11 MS . . MOORE : I don ' t know . There is a
12 stockade fence between them. It ' s there .
13 The concern that they have is -- and
14 Photograph 6 and 7 , I obviously didn ' t want
15 to trespass . I went up to the fence that is
16 there on the landward side of garage of the
17 Macari property. I took a photograph into
18 the property and I highlighted what I
19 thought I could see showing where the
20 proposed pool would be . I am very familiar
21 with this property because I have done a
22 subdivision for Miller ' s and I did a slight
23 change for Miller & Shift . Putting the pool
24 as close as to their house as possible
25 certainly makes sense . I don ' t know how
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 110
1 that impacts whether the existing setbacks
2 of the house, because then you are
3 increasing the degree of nonconformity.
4 That would be the only thing that I would
5 raise as an issue . Placing of the pool in
6 the front yard is very straightforward
7 here . It ' s more land. The Miller ' s have the
8 pool in the front yard with all of their
9 ancillary structures . They have a carriage
10 house and a pool house all in the front
11 yard. So the house that is very similar to
12 this has all their structures in the front
13 yard . So we would ask --
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We got a letter
15 from Mark Miller, is that the same?
16 MS . MOORE : Yes, Mark Miller . They
17 would have no problem. I can ' t imagine to
18 them having a pool in the front yard
19 because their pool is in the front yard.
20 That is the request of the Macari Family,
21 the pool, the pool house, everything as far
22 away from their private small area as
23 possible, because it would impact their
24 quality of life and their impact as
25 neighbors . Otherwise, they are entitled to
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 111
1 a pool . I am not against them having a
2 pool, just the location . Thank you .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
4 else in the audience that wishes to address
5 this application?
6 (No Response . )
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Hearing no
8 further comments , I am going to make a
9 motion to recess for a short while so that
10 the agent and his clients can confer and
11 then come back to this Board.
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I will second that .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
16 MEMBER HORNING : .Aye .
17 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
19 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
20 *******************************************
21 HEARING #661.3 - JOHN M. & FRANCKS C .
22 DIVELLO
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We are going to
24 move onto the next application before the
25 Board. It ' s for John M. And Frances C .
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 112
1 Divello, #6613 . Request for variances under
2 Article III Section 280-39 and the Building
3 Inspector ' s July 27 , 2012 , updated
4 October 31 , 2012 Notice of Disapproval
5 based on an application for building permit
6 for a lot line change, at : Proposed Lot #32
7 - 1) less than the code required minimum
8 lot size of 40 , 000 square feet, 2 ) less
9 than the code required front yard setback
10 of 50 feet; located at : 305 Hill Street,
11 corner Mary ' s Avenue & Wickham Avenue,
12 corner Hill Street in Mattituck.
13 Sir, you are not here representing the
14 Divello ' s, are you?
15 MR. PETRAUSKAS SR. : No, I am not . I am
16 Joseph Petrauskas .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. What I am
18 going to do is have the agent come forward
19 and at the end, there will be time for you
20 to address the Board after --
21 MR. PETRAUSKAS SR. : Okay. Sure .
22 MS . WICKHAM: Good afternoon . My name
23 is Abigail Wickham Mattituck, New York.
24 Representing the owners of the property and
25 the applicant . You have the application. I
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 113
1 just wanted to give you a brief overview
2 and I am sure there are a few comments that
3 we will try and help you with. This project
4 started, what I would like to call, the
5 Glory Days of Jean Cochran. In connection
6 with the Route 48 Zoning, the Town sought
7 fit in it ' s infinite wisdom to rezone a
8 portion of this property, which you all
9 know is not on Route 48 , to residential .
10 And what they did was take a section of the
11 property, which is approximately half acre
12 on top of Hill Street, which faces the
13 school property on Mary ' s Road. They zoned
14 it to residential . That property was or is
15 a half acre lot that has been zoned Light
16 Industrial for many, many years . When the
17 Town Board did .that in connection with the
18 Route 48 rezoning, the developer had a
19 problem because they now had a Light
20 Industrial lot that was bifurcating zoning
21 and they didn ' t really have an area in that
22 lot to accommodate either use under the
23 minimum square footage of the respective
24 zoning ordinances . The developer did bring
25 a litigation on the Town. It had gone on
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 114
1 for many years and fairly recently, in the
2 context of that proceeding, the Town
3 rezoned the portion of property, which is
4 now shown as the proposed Lot #2 on your
5 map, to Residential Office, rather than the
6 former R-40 Zoning. I will have to give
7 you another map because the map incorrectly
8 shows Lot #2 as R-40 Zoning. So that is not
9 correct . And I am sure your attorney will
10 tell you, that zoning has already occurred.
11 MS . ANDALORO : That is correct .
12 MS . WICKHAM : The Town has settled the
13 matter by agreeing to apply for permission
-14 to separate the RO Zoned portion of the
15 parcel, which is proposed Lot #2 to the
16 remainder of the Tax Lot #30 parcel . And in
17 the process of that, merged the remainder
18 of that tax lot #32 , which is still zoned
19 Light Industrial into the adjoining lot to
20 the west, Wickham Avenue, which is also
21 Light Industrial and contains large office
22 building . So as a result of this , the
23 zoning up at Mary ' s Road, will remain, and
24 the LI portion of the property will be
25 combined into one single lot of LI zoning .
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 115
1 The decision to have this complete, is not
2 a Town Board decision. It requires your
3 approval of the variance because the RO
4 portion of the property is less than the
5 40 , 000 square feet minimum that the code
6 requires, as the R-40 zoning. It also
7 requires Trustees approval and the Health
8 Department . In connection with the Health
9 Department application, we will be able to
10 complete what has essentially or preventing
11 a CO for the residence, which is something
12 that I would think you want me to address
13 today and tell you that we will be getting
14 CO ' s for the residence and the rest of
15 these buildings as part of the process .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because we are
17 aware that there are no CO ' s on any of the
18 buildings .
19 MS . WICKHAM: That all has to be
20 addressed.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Does public water
22 have to line up in the street or Health
23 Department approval --
24 MS . WICKHAM: We will have to address
25 that with the Health Department . Not
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 116
1 necessarily, I think that is the correct
2 answer.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see that you
4 are kind of caught in a Catch 22 with the
5 agencies trying to take action . Just for
6 the record, the code requires 40 , 000 square
7 feet and on the proposed residential lot,
8 would be 22 , 647 square feet; correct?
9 MS . WICKHAM: Yes . As you are aware,
10 it ' s a minor variance, the overhang on the
11 house is about 42 feet from one of the
12 front yards . The actual house, I think is
13 49 feet . So that is a de minimus variance .
14 That was on the Notice of Disapproval and
15 there was a subsequent verification by the
16 surveyor .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we have two
A variances of a front yard setback of
19 existing, 41 . 7 . And this is indicating
20 41 . 8 . So you are 1/10 of a difference . 41 . 8
21 feet from the property line .
22 MS . WICKHAM: So I would like to
23 submit, the variance part of it is
24 relatively small . It ' s in housekeeping of
25 what you would see on a corner lot because
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 117
1 we do have one front yard on a corner lot .
2 And also the requested area variance is not
3 only in connection with the proposed
4 settlement of the Town, but also it ' s not
5 out of keeping in the character of the
6 neighborhood, in terms of lot size . As well
7 as the fact, that that portion of the
8 property because it ' s a hill and a wooded
. 9 area and slopes down . ( in Audible) .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jim, do you have
11 any questions at this point?
12 MEMBER DINIZIO: No .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you like to
14 see if there is anyone in the audience who
15 would like to address this application?
16 MEMBER HORNING : Leslie, can I ask a
17 couple of questions?
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes .
19 MEMBER HORNING: When was the area
20 rezoned?
21 MS . WICKHAM: On August 2011 . The R-40
22 to RO was rezoned. then . The Route 48 took
23 place ten years ago or more . A long time
24 ago .
25 MEMBER HORNING: All right . Has there
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 118
1 been any physical changes on the property?
2 MS . WICKHAM: Not that I am aware of .
3 The house has been there for a long time .
4 In fact, I think you have in your records ,
5 a pool . I don ' t know if they have done any
6 other changes . That will all come up with
7 the application that we are making . To
8 give you a better answer on that, as I
9 said, this property is preexisting. On the
10 LI portion of the property, there used to
11 be an old storage bin . I think you can see
12 on the property card. It was a huge metal
13 structure . That was removed. I think they
14 put a shed behind the office building .
15 Certainly, there has been more taken off of
16 that property in terms of structures . My
17 client is outside talking to one of the
18 neighbors . I think I will ask him to come
19 in .
20 Do you have any other questions?
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not at the
22 moment . Let ' s see if there are any other
23 comments . Would anyone like to address this
24 application? Please come forward and state
25 your name and spell it for the public,
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 119
1 please .
2 MR. PETRAUSKAS SR. : Joseph W.
3 Petrauskas, P-E-T-R-A-U-S-K-A-S SR.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you . What
5 would you like to tell us , sir?
6 MR. PETRAUSKAS SR. : I have owned for
7 a long time the two lots that are on the
8 south side of Hill Street . Lot ' s #38 and
9 07 . I still own Lot #37 , which is going to
10 be grossly impacted by this application .
11 And as Gail has said to you, there was a
12 ( In Audible) there . I have no problem with
13 the Divello ' s . I have problems with the
14 business and how they would bend the
15 business , you know, with -- for example,
16 right across the street, there were trees,
17 you know where the bend was . And the
18 Divello ' s/Mattituck Sanitation took that
19 property. The home was built for the
20 mother and father, and that is the home ( In
21 Audible) . They have been removed. The
22 property has been extensively used over the
23 years , and now, even without permits .
24 Mattituck Sanitation has taken liberties
25 and encroachments on other properties . Even
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 120
1 the American Legion, and Gerry, you are
2 well aware, there was a berm all the way
3 along the south side of Hill Street and
4 Wickham. The berm was removed and
5 Mattituck Sanitation extended their use for
6 their trucks and their parking lots, and
7 ended up more or less destroying the
8 parking lot . So there has been a consistent
9 set of violations that were not brought or
10 recognized by the ZBA. And the worst being
11 the removal of those trees . My property is
12 definitely -- this has always been
13 residential . The other modular home, they
14 are not movable . They have roof ' s on them.
15 The other piece of property, Lot #38 , I
16 believe it is now in violation and there
17 has been complaints to the ZBA about their
18 commercial use and encroachment on other
19 properties, including my own . The property
20 looks like a junk yard. The Mattituck
21 Sanitation trucks are along the streets .
22 They are parked all over the place . You
23 have to go around them. That was a
24 persistent thing . They removed the trees
25 and started using what they are now calling
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 121
1 for. This property has already been used by
2 them. It ' s their storage for garbage bins
3 and trucks and everything else . There was a
4 complaint, as I recall, back years ago, and
5 nothing was ever done with that . Seems to
6 me like the Board has been remised in that .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Board does
8 not have jurisdiction to enforce code --
9 MR- PETRAUSKAS SR_ : They have. don-e
10 nothing . Code has done nothing . Now, you
11 have an application before you for an
12 extensive use of this property. I am
13 vehemently against the passage of this
14 permit in that. it has already been
1.5 extensive violations, and I don ' t think --
16 it ' s going to impact my property value .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me just ask
18 our attorney. This was before the Town
19 Board, and then there is a settlement there
20 in terms of the zoning . Could you just
21 clarify for the record, is the easterly
22 portion is now zoned residential?
23 MS . ANDALORO : I think it ' s Residential
24 Office .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Residential
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 122
1 Office . And the rest of the property is
2 zoned LI?
3 MS . ANDALORO : LI , yes .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The zoning is in
5 effect in consequence of the Town Board ' s
6 a-ction_
7 MS . ANDALORO : It was always Light
8 Industrial .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The easterly end,
10 be now zoned Residential . That is now
11 accomplished.
12 MS . ANDALORO-: Exactly.
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What we are now
14 doing is examining the lot line portion,
15 which is more of a residential parcel,
16 because all of that parcel is of
17 consideration for a lot line change, if in
18 fact zoned Light Industrial . It is not
19 zoned Residential any more . It is zoned
20 Light Industrial right up to where they are
21 proposing the lot line change, is that
22 correct?
23 MS . ANDALORO : Yes .
24 MS . WICKHAM: Can I clarify that? The
25 parcel was always zoned Light Industrial .
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 123
1 That was never changed. It was just that
2 end piece on Mary ' s Road.
3 MEMBER DINIZIO : The end piece was
4 changed to R-40?
5 MS . WICKHAM: Yes . By the Town Board.
6 MR. PETRAUSKAS SR. : Aren ' t the
7 property owners supposed to be notified?
8 MS . ANDALORO : Sir, there was . There
9 was a notice that was published in the
10 newspaper as required by the law. The Town
11 Board was required to do that . And the
12 hearing took place about a year ago .
13 MR. PETRAUSKAS SR. : I still feel like
14 this application is going to negatively
15 impact the value of my property. And on the
16 basis of that, I would like to ask the
17 Board to consider the impact on the
18 communities .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Are there any
20 mitigation of any sorts to take place to
21 reduce some of the impact on the
22 residential properties along Hill Street?
23 MS . WICKHAM: Is that a question for
24 me?
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes .
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 124
1 MS . WICKHAM: I would like to say that
2 impact is really a positive impact because
3 the litigation was, brought to restore LI to
4 the entire property. And if this lot line
5 change is not granted by all the applicable
6 agencies , then the litigating -- and I want
7 to be sure that I have this right, that the
8 Divello ' s potential zoning, which is RO, be
9 reverted back to LI . So what this scenario
10 does , it accomplishes two things . It ' s
11 keeps the residential character of the
12 easterly side of the property and it also
13 reduces the density -- I 'm sorry, maintains
14 the density of a two lot portion of
15 property, and thereby reduces what could
16 possibly be a second use on the remainder
17 of the two . So that is something that is
18 potential less extensive -- intensive .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you . Is
20 there anyone else in the audience that
21 wishes to address this application?
22 (No Response . )
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are there any
24 other questions from the Board members?
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Joe, and please, if
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 125
1 I am saying this incorrectly, the Planning
2 Board will be involved in the pieces across
3 the street from you . It is that venue that
4 you really need to discuss the questions
5 that you made at this particular point . All
6 we are doing with this , is the change of
7 the house on the corner, which is a
8 positive change because it ' s going back to
9 more of a residential nature .
10 MR. PETRAUSKAS SR. : Sure .
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just wanted you
12 to be aware of that . So watch it when the
13 Planning Board gets involved.
14 MR. PETRAUSKAS SR. : ( In Audible) .
15 (Stepped away from the micorphone . )
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right, but the to
17 that point .
18 MR. PETRAUSKAS SR. : Okay. If there
19 were some type of fencing or cover that
20 would at least to obtain the appearance --
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I brought it up
22 so that the counsel could address it from
23 an impact standpoint, and you heard that .
24 Those types of noise or abatement, you will
25 have a time where you can address those
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 126
1 concerns because the Planning Board, they
2 are the ones that do site plan approval .
3 MR. PETRAUSKAS SR. : Okay.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just so we are
5 clear on who gets to hear what .
6 MR. PETRAUSKAS SR. : Thank you for
7 your time and hearing me out .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for
9 appearing before the Board.
10 No other comments or suggestions?
11 (No Response . )
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. I am going
13 to make a motion to close this hearing and
14 reserve decision to a later date subject to
15 receipt of a revised survey.
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
18 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
20 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
23 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
24 *******************************************
25 HEARING #6611 - DANIEL DEVITO
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 127
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. So we are
2 going to resume then with the hearing of
3 Mr . Devito .
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
6 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
8 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
11 Okay. So what ' s up?
12 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Okay. We looked at
13 moving the pool to make it conforming .
14 Moving it towards the roadside of the
15 house . To make it conforming and not
16 needing any variance at all . There i-s a
17 generator and gas tank located, I believe
18 it should be noted on the drawing. It ' s on
19 the further of the driveway and south of
20 the house . It would force the pool to
21 continue to go landward quite a distance
22 -- do you need me to point it out?
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Fuel tank --
24 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Yes . So with that in
25 my -- and put it in any logical spot, it
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 128
1 would force it to go at least 50 feet if no
2 further landward. Probably about 200-250
3 feet away from the closest access to the
4 house to use the bathroom or any
5 facilities . They are not looking to put in
6 accessory bathrooms or structures or
7 whatever . They want a nice, clean simple
8 look. So we are trying to keep it as
9 simple as possible . They also have
10 handicapped people in the family. That
11 makes it easier for the family obviously.
12 It ' s closer to the pool . And then back to
13 the point with the young kids of the
14 family, that is for some people to keep an
15 eye on them from the screened porch . This
16 works out very nice for them. So these are
17 the points that we brought up . We
18 respectfully respect that you entertain
19 this . I would also like to get you a few
20 names and locations of other pools located
21 in side yard lots that I can follow-up . I
22 don ' t have them with me right now, but I
23 would like to submit them to you and ask
24 for your understanding of the circumstance
25 and consideration for the approval in this
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 129
1 circumstance . As far as the distance from
2 , the water, we are talking about that 50
3 foot . It seems to me to be more of a
4 Trustees issue and not a ZBA issue, in my
5 opinion . But if it ' s making a difference in
6 sliding it back 15 feet or 12 feet back
7 further from the bluff, that is not an
8 issue because it ' s not going to affect the
9 distance that much from the house to the
10 pool with that .
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Let me clarify this
12 a little more . You are proposing to move
13 the pool and the patio and everything
14 landward; correct?
15 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Correct .
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And still maintain a
17 proposed side yard?
18 MR. CICHANOWICZ : The side yard would
19 stay the same and come closely to the side
20 of the house, and helpful to neighbor who
21 wants a little more privacy to the area .
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And you discussed
23 possibly attaching the pool somehow, to the
24 house?
25 MR. CICHANOWICZ : We talked about it .
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 130
1 It would be something that we would have to
2 investigate to see --
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Sure .
4 MR. CICHANOWICZ : To see structurally
5 on how that is obtainable and ,how if the
6 Building Department .will even consider it
7 an attached structure built in such a
8 manner . So there is a lot of unknown .
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Sure . I understand.
10 MR. CICHANOWICZ : We couldn ' t just say
11 yes and whatever .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you like
13 some further time to investigate that as an
14 option?
15 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Yes , but I don ' t know
16 if you are ready to make a decision or
17 discuss this or what have you . They really
18 don ' t want to attach it to the house .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then that is
20 that . Then what we should do is close this
21 hearing subject to receipt of additional
22 information on the character of the
23 neighborhood, which you said you would like
24 to submit .
25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And possibly an
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 131
1 updated site plan?
2 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Yes . If you could
3 just hold until I can resubmit a plan of a
4 newly proposed location, which would make
5 it more landward then is . A little slightly
6 closer to the house that is . I need to do
7 some landscape magic to work. The way it is
8 now, it ' s easy. Now, I am throwing in a lot
9 of other things, but still may be
10 considerable easy then moving it way up the
11 front yard and more structures , which is
12 not the Devito ' s look to make more
13 structures on the property. They love the
14 native look, and they want to keep it as
15 pure and simple as possible .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What we can do is
17 close this hearing today subject to receipt
18 of information from you, an amended plan --
19 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Okay.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the sooner
21 that we get it, the faster that we can
22 move .
23 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Understood.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When we get it,
25 we will then start .the clock and have
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 132
1 deliberations . We have 62 days from the
2 closing to make a decision .
3 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Okay.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that if we
5 close it today, probably deliberate two
6 weeks from today. If you get it to us in a
7 week, we still may be able to make that . If
8 not, then at the next meeting, which will
9 be a month from today.
10 MR. CICHANOWICZ : My intention is to
11 get it to you this week.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does anyone else
13 on the Board have any other questions or
14 comments at this point?
15 (No Response . )
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Anyone else
17 from the audience?
18 MS . MOORE : If you could incorporate
19 giving my client an opportunity to view and
20 respond to it, since I couldn ' t get them
21 here . Mr . Macari has difficulty getting
22 around. Whatever timeframe you come up
23 with, if you can send it to me and give me
24 like another couple of days to meet with
25 the client and show it to them.
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 133
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am not sure
2 that is somewhat overstepping the
3 procedural -- you know, protocol of the
4 Board. We have done it before . What has
5 happened that they would submit it to the
6 office, and the office, as a courtesy will
7 let you know that it ' s in and you can have
8 a look at it .
9 MS . MOORE : That ' s fine . As long as I
10 can have some time for my client to submit
11 some form of written -- it may not
12 anything .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I will tell you
14 what I will do . Let me adjourn this to the
15 special meeting in two weeks . We will close
16 it then . Which means that both of you have
17 two weeks to do whatever you want to do . If
18 you can get it to us in like a week, then
19 they can have some time to respond and get
20 it back to the Board. I just ask that you
21 submit comments to them as a courtesy.
22 MS . MOORE : Absolutely.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Make sure that
24 everyone is on the same page and everyone
25 has the same information . Then we will
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 134
1 close it at the Special Meeting, which is
2 two weeks from today. Assuming we have no
3 additional questions . If we have more
4 additional questions , then we have the
5 right to adjourn this to the regular
6 meeting a month from today. So everyone can
7 come back and inquire and resolve this in
8 whatever way they think. Is that agreeable
9 to everyone?
10 MEMBER HORNING: Yes .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. So I am
12 going to adjourn this hearing to the
13 Special Meeting on December 20th, and we
14 will take commentary only in writing up
15 until that time .
16 MS . MOORE : That ' s assuming we have the
17 documents in time . I don ' t know how soon --
18 MR. CICHANOWICZ : We will get it to
19 you in 13 days .
20 MS . MOORE : I respect him, and I know
21 he can do it quickly.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the motion
23 before this Board is to adjourn this
24 hearing to the Special Meeting .on
25 December 20th subject to receipt of an
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 135
1 amended survey and information on character
2 of the neighborhood, subject to review
3 and comments by the neighborhood. Written
4 only.
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
7 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
9 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
12 (See Minutes for Resolution. )
13 *******************************************
14
15 (Whereupon, the December 6, 2012
16 Regular Meeting concluded. )
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 136
1
i
2
3 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
4
5
6 I , Jessica DiLallo, certify that the
7 foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public
8 Hearings was prepared using required electronic
9 transcription equipment and is a true and accurate
10 record of the Hearings .
11
12
13 Signature : 4vn ca"
14 Jes ica DiLallo
15
16 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
17 PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
18
19 Date : December 17 , 2012
20
21
22
23
24
25