HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-02/07/2013 Hearing 1
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
6 RECEIVE®
7 Southold Town Hall FEB 26 2013
Southold, New York
8 BOARD OF APPEALS
9 February 7 , 2013
10 : 12 A. M.
10
11
12 Board Members Present :
13 LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
14 JAMES DINIZIO, JR. - Member
15 KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member
16 GEORGE HORNING - Member
17
18 VICKI TOTH - Secretary
19 JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney
20 GERARD GOEHRINGER - Member (Excused)
21
22
23 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
24 P . O . Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
^ 25 ( 631) -338-1409
February 7, 2013 Meeting 2
1
2 INDEX OF HEARINGS
3
4
5 Hearing: Page :
6
7 New Suffolk Waterfront Fund, Inc . #6617 3-39
8 Robert Hoey, #6624 39-56
9 Shamgar Capital, LLC 56-58
10 (Daniel Buttafuoco) , #6620
11 MMMM Beer, LLC, #6621 58-82
12 Peter and Teresa Benotti, #6623 82-89
13 Breezy Shores Community, Inc . 89-113
14 (Naomi Mullman) , #6622
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
February 7, 2013 Meeting 3
1 HEARING #6617 - NEW SUFFOLK WATERFRONT FUND, INC .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Our first
3 application before the Board is for New
4 Suffolk Waterfront Fund, Inc. That is
5 #6617 . This was adjourned from
6 January 3 , 2013 . Request for Special
7 Exception per Article XIII Section
8 280-55 (B) 1 to operate a restaurant in a
9 Marine II District, located at : 650 First
10 Street, corner of Jackson Street, Main
11 Street, adjacent to Cutchogue Harbor in New
12 Suffolk.
13 Is there someone here that would like
14 to open with comments? Gail, would you
15 like to?
16 MS . WICKHAM: Yeah . My name is Gail
17 Wickham. I represent New Suffolk
18 Waterfront Fund, 13015 Main Road,
19 Mattituck. I just want to briefly go
20 through the Special Exception criteria that
21 you ' re considering today, and then I am
22 sure there will be other comments and
23 questions that we would want to spend our
24 time on. I wanted to quickly recite the
25 purpose of the MII Zone to provide a
February 7, 2013 Meeting 4
1 waterfront location for a wide range of
2 water dependent and water related uses .
3 This Special Exception for a restaurant
4 usually is appropriate under the standards
5 you ' re required under the code to consider
6 for a number of reasons . First, it will
7 store a long running use of the property
8 but on a much smaller scale, more in
9 keeping with the character of the
10 community. The Galley Ho had 95 seats and
11 24 slips approximately, and that is being
12 scaled down almost by 30 percent . It is
13 more realistic from an economic viability
14 perspective to -- just addressing the fact,
15 that our original application was a
16 slightly larger marina and slightly smaller
17 restaurant . We have come back to you with
18 a proposed approximate, 66 seats, 15 slips
19 because it is more realistic from an
20 economic viability pinpoint . It is
21 essential in order to keep this property
22 sustained, to have a viable economic use .
23 The restaurant seating is more productive
24 then a slip rental . The other reason that
25 this is appropriate for a Special Exception
February 7, 2013 Meeting 5
1 is , it establishes a waterfront venue or a
2 cafe . And there aren ' t even with all our
3 shorelines and all our restaurants, there
4 aren ' t really a huge number of waterfront
5 restaurants available in the North Fork
6 area . So we think it would be excellent
7 for the community and the Town as a whole
8 to have this waterfront dining opportunity.
9 We don ' t think that the additional
10 restaurant will be excessive to the
11 community. It is a destination community.
12 Both restaurants existed side by side for
13 many years and this is going to be a much
14 smaller and more limited hours of
15 operation . It ' s not going to be sort of an
16 all night honky-tonk. It will be an
17 excellent accompaniment to the many events
18 that the Waterfront Fund sponsors . They
19 have a chowder fest, art shows , craft
20 fairs, and all kinds -- the impromptu
21 Wednesday night races and beach going. It
22 would just be a nice accessory to people
23 who come to those events and want to stay
24 and have a snack or a bite to eat, or
25 perhaps a drink. We all know at the end of
February 7, 2013 Meeting 6
1 the day everyone is going to go over to
2 Legend ' s anyway because that is what they
3 do now . So don ' t think that it ' s going to
4 be excessive for the usage and the
5 community. Another important factor, it
6 will produce an actual parking lot, where
7 it faces and many, many more spaces that
8 have been available in this impromptu
9 gravel, random area . It will also provide
10 room to expand that parking shall that
11 become necessary or advisable . One other
12 very important factor is that this will
13 upgrade the sanitary system to something
14 that will be acceptable to Health
15 Department standards . It will protect
16 Peconic Bay and it will protect the
17 groundwater . The Waterfront Fund does now
18 have approval from the Health Department
19 for an upgraded septic system. It ' s a very
20 big crypt type system. They don ' t really
21 want to build because it would interfere
22 with this system and what not . So the
23 resulting scale down restaurant concept
24 will enable them to contour the land so
25 that with a sanitary system they can just
February 7, 2013 Meeting 7
1 put park like amenities and make it
2 attractive and improve and maintain that
3 vista that is all important to the
4 community and the Town, of looking towards
5 the bay. So just to reiterate the general
6 items that you have to consider on a
7 Special Exception, you have to consider is
8 this thing, land use patterns . The project
9 will conform to that . You have to consider
10 character . That will conform to this
11 project . Also, the natural environment and
12 beyond just upgrading the septic system and
13 providing parking, it ' s going to preserve
14 by creating this re-subdivision with
15 Robin ' s Island Holdings . It ' s going to
16 create a preserve of over one acre of prime
17 bay front, plus the park area with a
18 waterfront property, which will be a
19 tremendous enhancement to the environment .
20 However, without the ability to
21 economically use this 2 . 4 acre property,
22 that the Fund is going to maintain after
23 the transfer to -- it will be a Peconic
24 Land Trust nature . This tremendous plan
25 can not happen . So it ' s all connected.
February 7, 2013 Meeting 8
- 1 The transfer, the connection, the park and
2 the utilization of the property as a
3 restaurant marina . It ' s all tied together .
4 It ' s essential to th-e viability of the
5 project, to the fundraising of the project,
6 and we hope we will have your support on
7 it . Most importantly, from the perspective
8 of the Board ' s concerns , is that as a
9 Special Exception, your Board will have
10 continuing jurisdiction over this project .
11 Further, the Planning Board will fine tune
12 all the details when we get to the Site
13 Plan and construction process . I have a
14 few other things to say but they are more
15 in the way of a general overview. We would
16 like to remind the Board, and this is as
17 just much for the record as it is for you,
18 that this is the downtown area of New
19 Suffolk, such as New Suffolk has a
20 downtown . This is what business is
21 supposed to be . This is the MII Zoning,
22 which of course includes restaurant uses .
23 And in fact, years ago, there was not only
24 a marina and restaurant, they also had more
25 intensive services, marine service
February 7, 2013 Meeting 9
1 facilities, post office and general store .
2 The plan will allow the adjacent business
3 properties orderly and reasonable use of
4 their properties by improving the parking,
5 improving access, drawing people to the
6 area and giving them a destination. It ' s
7 going to allow the adjacent residential
8 properties orderly and reasonable use for
9 the same reasons . And also, giving them a
10 beautiful site near their homes that they
11 will have access to and be able to use as
12 community amenities . It will by it ' s
13 nature, have a seasonal character . And we
14 just think that there are probably
15 questions that you want to get to, but
16 those are the items that we would like you
17 to consider in making this review. Thank
18 you.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you,
20 Nancy. Just so that we can have a sense of
21 how many people are here . I would like to
22 see how many of you are here in support of
23 this application, would you raise your
24 hands , please? And how many of you have
25 some concerns about this application or
February 7, 2013 Meeting 10
1 opposition? Thank you. It gives us some
2 idea of where we ' re going time wise . We
3 have already addressed the change in the
4 original and proposed 55 and 24 , the
5 restaurant and the 24 boat slips . That was
6 a question that I had although none of that
7 is concrete . As for this Board, the
8 greater concern that we have is that it ' s a
9 less intense use that was historically on
10 the property. You have listed possible
11 future parcels on the survey along First
12 Street .
13 MS . WICKHAM: That is existing
14 parking, for overflow . It ' s not something
15 that we want to lay-out specifically when
16 we ask for a site plan. We think the
17 Planning Board is going to want to address
18 that, and tell us how they want to see it .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In your parking
20 yield, you ' re not including those?
21 MS . WICKHAM: That ' s correct .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Relative to the
23 two uses?
24 MS . WICKHAM: That ' s correct . As I
25 mentioned in my cover letter, the mass
February 7, 2013 Meeting 11
1 parking that is proposed on the site in the
2 main parking area, is sufficient under the
3 code to meet the proposed uses on that
4 site . All of them.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think for the
6 benefit of the public, I would like to
7 explain something without getting to
8 technical . The Board is very aware that
9 since we adjourned this hearing a month
10 ago, we have received at least 25 letters .
11 I may be off by a letter or two, and we
12 just got one this morning. So that is
13 going to be 26 letters, e-mails and so
14 forth. Of the 25 that we have received, 23
15 were in support of the application and two
16 had concerns and were in opposition . We do
17 have a new letter, and the author is in the
18 audience and may want to summarize for us .
19 Of course the Board will read this , but
20 certainly we ' re going to take additional
21 comments from the audience . And I would
22 like people -- we took a lot of testimony
23 last time on both of these applications .
24 So I would like for us to try and -- either
25 add something new or reiterate something
February 7, 2013 Meeting 12
1 that is essentially as essentially as
2 possible for the sake of time, and not
3 necessarily repeat things as people have
4 said. So let ' s see if the Board has any
5 questions at this point . And I would like
6 to open it up to the audience as soon as I
7 explain one of the things that I want the
8 public to be aware of . Many of the
9 concerns , understandably, as I am sure you
10 are aware, has to do with environmental
11 impact . We know that this is a private
12 piece of land, which (In Audible)
13 regularly. That has historically been the
14 case and likely continues to be the case .
15 And I think that a number of people have
16 grave concerns about how the property is
17 used relative to that flight . This Board
18 asked for a survey, that is a little bit
19 different from what we originally asked
20 for . And , the reason is, we are obligated
21 with Special Exception permits to look at
22 SEQRA. That stands for State Environmental
23 Quality Review Act . And that looks very
24 carefully usually with an environmental
25 specialist, at adverse impacts -- potential
February 7, 2013 Meeting 13
1 adverse impacts on a property. There is an
2 exemption for triggering SEQRA before this
3 Board that says if a proposal is of new
4 construction but is going to be rebuilt
5 in-place and in-kind, then SEQRA will not
6 be triggered and we can determine that to
7 be a Type II action, meaning no further
8 review by this Board is required. Had we
9 not done that -- we don ' t know fully that
10 your plans, and you said so, in the future
11 are going to likely move the restaurant
12 back farther away from the VE Zone, Flood
13 Zone, and into a less intense flooding
14 area . The second that that takes place
15 before the Planning Board, SEQRA will be
16 triggered. It will be thorough and
17 complete, by law, reviewed of all the
18 potential problems with septic, with
19 drainage onsite, which you must comply with
20 Chapter 236 of the Stormwater Drainage
21 Code, the Town. There is a whole range of
22 things . Traffic impact . All of those will
23 be covered under SEQRA. Had this Board not
24 done it this way, we would have been
25 required to undertake SEQRA our self . That
February 7, 2013 Meeting 14
1 would have delayed this particular
2 application by , a month and it would have
3 cost a good deal of money to hire a
4 consultant . So I want you to be all aware
5 of the fact that the law will require much
6 more intense and further review where there
7 will be numerous public hearings , where
8 people will be able to address issues on
9 septic, curve-cuts, ingress and egress , all
10 parking and so on and so forth . So I just
11 want you to be mindful of the fact that it
12 only begins at the next phase . It is not
13 concluded here today by any means . Having
14 said that, let me see if there is anyone
15 here on the Board at this point, who has
16 questions .
17 Ken, I will start with you?
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have no questions
19 at this point . There has been so much
20 material presented to us . I would like to
21 hear some comments . So I will preserve my
22 questioning .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Does the rest of
24 the Board feel that way?
25 MEMBER HORNING: I have a couple of
February 7, 2013 Meeting 15
1 questions .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George has some
3 questions .
4 MS . WICKHAM: I 'm sorry, I didn ' t hear
5 that . I didn ' t hear what Ken said.
6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have no questions
7 at this point . I would just like to
8 reserve my questioning.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Till after we
10 hear comments .
11 MEMBER HORNING : I have a technical
12 question for the Board on bulkhead
13 setbacks . How is that going to relate to
14 the future of when they move the building
15 and such?
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If the building
17 is moved to a nonconforming bulkhead
18 setback, meaning less than 75 feet away
19 from the existing bulkhead, closer to the
20 road, then you will be back here for the --
21 or the applicant ' s would be back before our
22 Board for an area variance, which would
23 need a setback variance . If it ' s placed in
24 a conforming area, which would be 75 feet
25 from the bulkhead, then there are no new
February 7, 2013 Meeting 16
1 nonconformities that have been created and
2 therefore, relief will not be necessary
3 from the Board of Appeals .
4 MEMBER HORNING: Thank you .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So it depends on
6 how they work with their final Site Plan
7 approval . Where you go with Planning Board
8 and where you decide to place all this and
9 parking and so on .
10 MEMBER HORNING: Gail, would you tell
11 us please, what the difference is now
12 between -- you got a county approval for
13 some proposed septic system and some sort
14 of an artifical elevation to have built
15 berms around also?
16 MS . WICKHAM: Some time ago earlier in
17 the project when this plan had not been
18 developed, an application was made to the
19 Health Department to reinstate the Galley
20 Ho where it is , as it is on the whole piece
21 of property. And there is a stamped Health
22 Department map but it involves building a
23 very large -- we call it a cliff . It ' s a
24 big pile of dirt with cesspools in it
25 between the Galley Ho and the road. And
February 7, 2013 Meeting 17
1 that would be ugly and horrible, and that
2 plan was discarded in favor of these other
3 plans, but it does illustrate the Health
4 Department has reviewed the property and
5 does understand that there are approvable
6 aspects of the sanitary systems, and we ' re
7 going to go right in, as soon as we get
8 through these preliminary stages to ask for
9 this type of system, which is a much more
10 ( In Audible) type of contours to happen in
11 the area . It will go to how far back the
12 building is and also those other things,
13 but certainly whatever we do is going to
14 require extensive Health Department review,
15 and they already do have quite a file on
16 it .
17 MEMBER HORNING: So on the latest
18 survey that you put in with the parking --
19 MS . WICKHAM: That is existing as we
20 understand it .
21 MEMBER HORNING: Right . You have
22 location of possible subsurface sanitary --
23 possible location, and yet it ' s possible
24 also that you have to move the building .
25 MS . WICKHAM: Yes .
February 7, 2013 Meeting 18
1 MEMBER HORNING: It doesn ' t show any of
2 these contours , even where --
3 MS . WICKHAM: The map that was
4 submitted originally to you by Barrett
5 Bonacci & Van Weele, shows the flood zone
6 lines . That particular map was intended to
7 be an as-built and it reflects the
8 restaurant building now and where either a
9 street, sanitary covers are in the parking
10 lot . Mr . Fischetti inserted the word,
11 "possible, " because he took it from the
12 surveyors map, which you have, and he
13 didn ' t actually get down there and crawl
14 around and ensure that they were . He is
15 relying on the surveyor ' s map . He did make
16 sure that they were there, which you have
17 on your file, and they are also repeated
18 here on his map . That is existing.
19 MEMBER HORNING: That is existing .
20 Are they in the flood zone?
21 MS . WICKHAM: You know --
22 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: They are .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The whole
24 property is a flood zone .
25 MR. FISCHETTI : Joseph Fischetti
February 7, 2013 Meeting 19
1 representing New Suffolk Fund. George,
2 those are existing . They will never be
3 approved. Those are existing cesspools in
4 the ground. They have no bearing on
5 anything . Once submissions are made to the
6 Health Department, all sanitary systems
7 have to meet current requirements . What
8 we ' re showing you there is older systems
9 that are in the ground, that I didn ' t even
10 inspect . So I don ' t even know what they
11 are . They ' re probably an old block or brick
12 cesspool . So I really don ' t think that it
13 really has a bearing on anything other than
14 they' re noncompliant and they ' re probably
15 sitting in groundwater .
16 MEMBER HORNING: So other than
17 addressing the parking, everything else is
18 in-flux, the location of the building, the
19 location of the septic system and perhaps
20 even the location of this barn, which may
21 get in the way of things .
22 MS . WICKHAM: Yeah . If I can answer
23 your question, and maybe at the same time
24 respond to my -- I am literally skimming
25 the letter from Ms . Harkoff . This project
February 7, 2013 Meeting 20
1 has a very long regulatory process ahead of
2 us . We ' re at the very beginning of what we
3 can do and types of uses that can be
4 maintained. We have a tremendous amount of
5 engineering . The DEC ' s and Trustees
6 approval . Health Department approval . FEMA
7 compliance, which will involve moving and
8 raising the main restaurant building . The
9 plan at this point is to leave the barn as
10 it is and the other building as it is .
11 There is also going to be inserted a New
12 York State Parks review because of the
13 conservation easement, and hopefully we can
14 spare you another variance if we can get
15 the building back enough from the bulkhead.
16 So that is a possibility. So really the
17 Site Plan construction phase is to zero in
18 on where everything is going to be . This
19 is what you ' re faced with today and just in
20 terms of uses . Any of those uses that you
21 do apply to Special Exception still have to
22 sit within the framework of all these other
23 regulatory criteria . And we think that
24 because of the sanitary system will be
25 designed to current code . It will be
February 7, 2013 Meeting 21
1 elevated. It will be secured. The
2 building will be raised and secured. There
3 will be additional bulkhead work done, for
4 which I believe you already have the
5 regulatory permit . We think that the site
6 will be safe and better protected from the
7 storms that are coming through our way and
8 it will most likely continue to . So that is
9 always going to be a concern, what is
10 built, is built to be safe .
11 MEMBER HORNING: Thanks for the update .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think the
13 audience ought to know from a legal
14 perspective, a Special Exception permit is
15 not granted perpetuity. It is subject to
16 revocation by this Board to a public
17 hearing process should the standards that
18 is required by law to approve or disapprove
19 such an application be in any way altered
20 in any dramatic way. In other words , if in
21 fact a Special Exception permit is granted
22 by this Board, and they ' re not able to
23 obtain the kinds of other permits or Site
24 Plan approval that is required by law to
25 proceed with the project as proposed, this
February 7, 2013 Meeting 22
1 Board has the right to revoke that permit .
2 Unlike an area variance, , which runs with
3 the land, once granted, it ' s granted. The
4 Special Exception permits are always
5 subject to further review. So be mindful of
6 the fact that this Board taking action is
7 linked to other actions that other agencies
8 will undertake, whether it ' s for the Health
9 Department or the Planning Board.
10 Jim, do you have a question or a
11 comment?
12 MEMBER DINIZIO : My concern as of° the
13 last date, is that we couldn ' t have
14 anything to stamp at the 'end of the process
15 to say that we were approving a restaurant
16 on this property. This certainly makes it
17 abundantly clear . That at this point,
18 what ' s on that piece of property is what ' s
19 there and of course knowing and for being
20 on the Board for 25 years, the process is
21 not complete here at all . You know, I
22 certainly agree with the concept of some
23 kind of restaurant there and you know, the
24 marina has always been there . I just want
25 to thank you for your hard work on giving
February 7, 2013 Meeting 23
1 me at least an idea of what is there .
2 MS . WICKHAM: Thank you.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I want to open up
4 this hearing to the public now . Perhaps
5 what we should do, is to have people
6 address concerns at this point . Give them
7 an opportunity to voice their opinions and
8 raise the issues that they think are
9 relevant .
10 Is there anyone here that would like
11 to do that?
12 We also have things in writing, by the
13 way, and that is sufficient, if people
14 would prefer to submit comments in writing
15 and have submitted comments . There is no
16 need to enter it into the oral transcript
17 of the hearing . They are a part of the
18 record. They ' re attached to our files . They
19 have all been read. The Board have copies
20 of every single memorandum, e-mail and
21 letter that anyone has written . We have all
22 read them thoroughly and will consider them
23 carefully. So let me just open it up to
24 anybody. Is there anyone in the audience
25 that would like to address this application
February 7, 2013 Meeting 24
1 in any way?
2 MR. MAUL : My name is George Maul . I
3 live in New Suffolk. I am going to stand
4 over here so I can address the audience as
5 well as the Board, if that ' s okay?
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Actually, you
7 need to address the Board.
8 MR. MAUL : Okay. I appreciate all of
9 the Board' s deliberations . I appreciate all
10 of the letters from the community. I
11 understand all of the support for this
12 project . It appears to me that in some
13 sense, this Board is taking opportunity to
14 kick the issue down the road. I understand
15 a lot of this is about Planning, the
16 Planning Department and it falls within
17 their purvey, but I want to say that I
18 think some extent, in my opinion, that this
19 Board is kicking the issue down the road.
20 As far as community support for this
21 application, I think that the Zoning Board
22 here should ask about -- besides asking
23 about support, a raise of hands, a call for
24 who supports this project and who doesn ' t
25 support this project, I think that the
February 7, 2013 Meeting 25
1 Zoning Board should also ask who -- when
2 Gail stood up, she spoke about how this
3 piece of property is downtown New Suffolk,
4 and that is just not true . There are other
5 business properties, hamlet business
6 properties in downtown New Suffolk. This
7 entire property is not the downtown New
8 Suffolk business community -- excuse me, I
9 am talking, Gail . If you call for a show
10 of hands from a (In Audible) on First
11 Street, adjacent to this property and who
12 is in favor of this project and opposed to
13 this project, you will get a very different
14 showing . There is a reason why these
15 applications come up, that notices are sent
16 out to people who live within 200 feet of
17 the property. The people who live adjacent
18 to this property are much more severely
19 affected by what goes on there . It ' s all
20 well and good if Barbara Schnitzler wants
21 to come out from another town or wherever
22 she wants to come from and say I want a hot
23 dog at the Galley Ho, and that is a
24 wonderful thing, but then she goes back to
25 where she is and we ' re all there every day,
February 7, 2013 Meeting 26
1 you know? And I think that is part of what
2 is going on here . It ' s not clear, or else
3 it seems like it ' s not clear to me . I
4 understand the support from the community
5 but there are businesses here -- parking
6 and that are really planning issues but
7 that is really all I have to say about
8 that .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You ' re right .
10 They are Planning Board issues . This Board
11 does not undertake SEQRA unless there is
12 infrastructure that is not to code . In
13 this case, , that is not the case . And so
14 for us to do so, would be at great length
15 and at great costs for this Board and for
16 the public to bear . Let me see if there
17 are other comments . Please come forward
18 and state your name for the public record.
19 MR. VICTORIA: My name is Ted
20 Victoria . I live --
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Spell your last
22 name, please .
23 Victoria, V-I-C-T-O-R-I-A. My house is
24 on First and Main Street . I am right at the
25 upper center . My father originally owned
February 7, 2013 Meeting 27
1 that place and he used to have the Sip &
2 Dip luncheonette there . It went out of
3 business because there wasn ' t enough people
4 to eat there . I am very concerned about
5 traffic . New Suffolk has very few
6 sidewalks . People walk in the street . On
7 Saturday ' s and Sunday ' s in the summer,
8 there is absolutely no place to park.
9 People come down, they want to go down to
10 the beach . A lot of them don ' t have parking
11 permits to park on the beach . So a lot of
12 them park on my lawn. Last summer, I had to
13 call three times because I had cars and one
14 trailer car up on my lawn. And I am
15 really, really concerned, that when you
16 open up a space that is possibly bringing
17 down 60-70 , possibly 100 more people down a
18 day, that off the top of my head, I am just
19 estimating could be 40 , 50 , 60 , 70 more
20 cars and bring more traffic into that town .
21 It could be a disaster . It could really
22 change that forever . I have been to a lot
23 of places . - I owned buildings in Soho . I saw
24 what happened to that community. And the
25 one thing that I learned from all the great
February 7, 2013 Meeting 28
1 things that happened to that community, it
2 turned into a shopping mall . And what I am
3 really afraid of, of this particular
4 building and this particular space and
5 putting in another restaurant, could make
6 a big change in the community. And what I
7 am afraid of, if you make that change and
8 if you approve this restaurant, if you
9 approve that many more people to come down
10 into community, along with the many other
11 things that they have planned or mentioned
12 at the last meeting, which is an
13 amphitheater, such. as a nautical museum,
14 plus this restaurant . You are going to
15 make drastic changes to that community,
16 where a lot of us live . I think you should
17 go through those 25 letters or 35 letters
18 that you received and try and determine how
19 many of those people live down at that
20 local corner . I don ' t -- It would be
21 interesting to see where those people live .
22 I will finish it up by saying that once you
23 make the changes like this , there is no
24 going back. There is no going back and
25 saying, "Hey, we want New Suffolk back the
February 7, 2013 Meeting 29
1 way it was before . " We 'could lose a private
2 hamlet . Even with a restaurant like
3 Legends, which is a destination restaurant,
4 brings a lot of people in, but they close
5 early and they serve good food. It ' s a very
6 quiet place, and I mean, it works for the
7 community, I think. And another thing to
8 have two opposites next to each other in
9 competition, I don ' t -- I am not too sure
10 that it ' s a good idea . So I just don ' t want
11 to see things happen that we can ' t change
12 later on . Thank you.
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you . Let me
14 just clarify some things relative to what
15 you said, sir . This Board is considering a
16 marine and restaurant use . No other uses
17 are under consideration, nor would they be
18 permitted without further action by this
19 Board . Just to reassure you that falls and
20 is considered by this Board.
21 Is there any other comments? Please
22 state your name .
23 MS . FRIEDMAN : My name is Joni
24 Friedman . We have lived in New Suffolk for
25 20 years . We live downtown and our very
February 7, 2013 Meeting 30
1 much passionately aware of how much just in
2 the recent years, have brought our
3 community together in terms of support and
4 fundraising, hopes and dreams to bring back
5 this area to a wonderful place . And my
6 memories of 20 years ago when the Galley Ho
7 was the only thing open in the entire area
8 during storms and it was everyone ' s port
9 during the storm. In the summer, we had
10 lovely classes and activities and events
11 that brought not only our community
12 together, but people from our area that
13 really love the idea of preserving a piece
14 of our area . And there are so much
15 destruction of our natural views . There are
16 houses and properties that are just being
17 devastated in our community that we have no
18 control over and taking control and
19 preventing this kind of construction and
20 destruction and trying to preserve a view
21 and a natural piece of our area, is so
22 important to all of us that has been
23 working so hard to support it, and I hope
24 that all of you can see that . Those that
25 live in the community that have lived here
February 7, 2013 Meeting 31
1 all these years, I hope that they can see
2 eventually the bringing of a community
3 together, and people supporting each other
4 and wanting to be in an event and community
5 project that really benefits all of us , and
6 I thank you for your time .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you .
8 Any other comments?
9 MS . SCHNITZLER: Barbara Schnitzler,
10 220 Old Harbor Road. I am the Chair of New
11 Suffolk Waterfront Fund. I would just like
12 to address a couple of parking things that
13 were brought up . We are aware that there
14 is a parking problem in New Suffolk. Ted
15 is talking about a parking problem that is
16 not caused by us . It ' s a preexisting
17 parking problem. We have provided the kind
18 of parking that the Zoning Code asked to
19 provide . We have also negotiated an
20 arrangement to seal one-third of this
21 property to somebody who is not going to
22 use -- create any kind of parking problem
23 at all . And that happens to be right
24 across the street from both of their
25 houses . So we ' re preserving an acre of
February 7, 2013 Meeting 32
1 property which will preserve our view and
2 will not require a parking place . We have
3 two other offers to sell that property.
4 There were two other groups that wanted to
5 buy that property. We opted for the one
6 that would not create any traffic . So that
7 one-third of our property is off the board
8 for creating like any traffic problem at
9 all . So we know by code and what Gail was
10 referring to, that is the downtown. That
11 is the whole street of downtown, not just
12 our property. We understand and are
13 willing to work with, and we have been
14 working with . We have been allowing use of
15 our parking for Legends and Summer Ball for
16 the last three years because we understand
17 if they park along that street they will
18 have one half of their spaces , if we allow
19 them to use ten feet of our property to do
20 parking. We understand that, and it took
21 us five years to raise money for this
22 property. So by giving away part of our
23 property for use by others , we are saying
24 that we understand that there is a parking
25 prolem, and we ' re trying to help with that
February 7, 2013 Meeting 33
1 parking problem. Thank you .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else?
3 (No Response . )
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does the Board
5 have any questions?
6 MEMBER HORNING: No .
7 MEMBER DINIZIO : I don ' t think that
8 we ' re kicking the can down the road quite
9 honestly. This property could be used for
10 high rack storage . It could be used for
11 many more intense uses, without the fact of
12 splitting it and preserving some of it,
13 from what I can understand, the community
14 again. To say that we ' re kicking it down
15 the road, it ' s not true . With all of that
16 said, I have been involved with the Zoning
17 Board for 25 years and, I have heard a lot
18 of things . A lot of people standing up,
19 you know, how they envisioned their piece
20 of property to be and see the metamorphosis
21 communicate into something different . I
22 can tell you that I sat on the first
23 Special Exception we granted for the winery
24 Christina Vineyards . There was opposition
25 to that . Mostly it was because as their
February 7, 2013 Meeting 34
1 lawyer said, we ' re putting barbs in their
2 residential zoning . You just have to read
3 the paper now to see the result of that
4 decision, okay. It wasn ' t because of that
5 decision, but it was how people envisioned.
6 And I am sitting up here envisioning wine
7 and cheese, with a piece of -- you know,
8 something else, and what do we get,
9 advertisements in the New York Times and a
10 lot more traffic now. The reason for that
11 is marketing . I have been skimming over
12 the Legend thing, and I think that you all
13 should read that . I am not trying to talk
14 you out of what you want to do because it
15 really sounds nice . I mean, I was against
16 the park in Greenport because our tax basis
17 was going to be affected by it . Something
18 I hold near and dear to my heart, because
19 Greenport School District has a ( In
20 Audible) . I can tell you that I am down
21 there every Friday night listening to the
22 band. And if my 60-year-old body would let
23 me, I would ice skate . But you really have
24 to serously think about -- you are going to
25 lease it to somebody who wants to make it a
February 7, 2013 Meeting 35
1 restaurant . He is going to want to make
2 money on that . It ' s the only way to do
3 business is to make money. Marketing is not
4 something that I am particularly good at,
5 but man, have I seen -- you think one thing
6 and they' re thinking another . You know, the
7 Legend thing is talking about that . I just
8 think you should think -- you ' re going down
9 a long road. We all know that that
10 restaurant -- even if it were in good shape
11 today, could not exist today. You would
12 need a building permit for a restaurant and
13 a marina . It just couldn ' t . No matter what,
14 even if the whole land was put together, I
15 just don ' t think that it could run as a
16 restaurant . So you ' re going to have to
17 comply to today' s standards and today' s
18 standards are much stricter . I mean, just
19 drainage alone and having to keep drainage
20 on your property, is going to be feat . So
21 you guys may just want to consider-- you
22 know I read all of your letters, they' re
23 nice . It seems nice that you can go out and
24 seems nice that you can maybe have a small
25 wedding and gatherings . That all really
February 7, 2013 Meeting 36
1 seems nice but that is a long road. I wish
2 you all the best of luck but I hope that
3 you ' re looking at it through more
4 businesslike mind then just hot dogs on a
5 Saturday afternoon. Thank you .
6 MS . WICKHAM: I do appreciate your
7 comments and I certainly understand the
8 regulatory and construction process . This
9 is going to be brutal . What I did want to
10 respond to quickly though, is that here you
11 don ' t have the typical landlord/tenant if
12 we do rent out the restaurant . You have the
13 community group that is going to be the
14 landlord. Not a private owner . It will
15 have to respond to its operating capacity
16 and behave as a business to the community .
17 So I think that is an important point that
18 the community needs to stay aware of .
19 Thank you.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, Gail .
21 We appreciate all of the comments and the
22 participation of this community of this
23 project . Just to reiterate what is
24 currently before this Board is a request to
25 renew what expires as a Special Exception
February 7, 2013 Meeting 37
1 permit for a restaurant use . That is all
2 that is before this Board. Public
3 commentary is part of the necessary
4 process . It ' s very important to us . We
5 consider it very carefully. However, the
6 Board has legal standards that we have to
7 use in deliberating as to whether or not
8 grant such an application. It isn ' t based
9 upon public opinion. It isn ' t a vote upon
10 the public . It ' s based upon what is set in
11 the code . Again, commentary is very
12 important to us . We consider it carefully
13 but we can not proceed one way or the other
14 by those comments because we have standards
15 that we defer to are the basis by which
16 this Board makes a determination. You
17 either meet them or don ' t meet them.
18 Having said that, is there anything else
19 that the Board wishes to comment on?
20 (No Response . )
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What I am going
22 to propose that the Board do is because
23 this is such an important application to
24 the community, rather then propose to close
25 the hearing today, I am going to propose
February 7, 2013 Meeting 38
1 that we close the hearing today subject to
2 receipt for one week of any other written
3 comment . We will close the oral record and
4 leave the written record open for one more
5 week in the event that you were not able to
6 be here or someone has something more that
7 they would like to inform the Board about .
8 That is in all fairness for anyone in the
9 community that wishes to further address
10 this . Do you understand what we ' re saying?
11 We ' re not going to take any more oral
12 testimony. We ' re going to close this
13 hearing but we will leave the written
14 record for one week. If any of you are or
15 neighbors wish to write anything, may do so
16 through the office of the Zoning Board of
17 Appeals to our secretary Vicki Toth . She
18 will make sure that the Board gets copies
19 of all of those . At the earliest onset, we
20 will be deliberating on this application
21 two week today -- actually it ' s going to be
22 Wednesday. The Board had to change it ' s
23 original meeting to Wednesday, the 20th of
24 February, over in the Annex, which is the
25 bank building down this way in the
February 7, 2013 Meeting 39
1 conference room. You are all welcome to
2 sit and listen for the deliberations .
3 There will be no testimony taken, but you
4 are all welcome to attend. It will be on
5 the agenda if we can have a draft by that
6 time . We can take up to 62 days , in which
7 time to deliberate . But I am sure that we
8 will act much more swiftly than that .
9 Is there any more comments?
10 (No Response . )
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing none . I
12 am going to make a motion to close this
13 hearing subject to a one week frame for
14 receipt of additional commentary.
15 Is there a second?
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
18 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
19 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye .
22 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
23 *******************************************
24 HEARING #6624 - ROBERT HOEY
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
February 7, 2013 Meeting 40
1 application before the Board is for Robert
2 Hoey, #6624 . Request for variance from
3 Article III Code Section 280-15 and the
4 Building Inspector ' s November 2 , 2012 ,
5 updated January 3, 2013 Notice of
6 Disapproval based on an application for
7 building permit for an accessory two car
8 garage with shed and loft, at : 1 ) accessory
9 building is proposed in a location other
10 than the code required rear yard located
11 at : Private Road, a . k. a . Treasure Road
12 Pond, off East End Road, Fishers Island.
13 MS . MOORE : Patricia Moore on behalf of
14 the Hoey ' s . This is what I would like to
15 describe as a technical application . This
16 property was or is directly -- it has water
17 view and it would be for all respects a
18 waterfront property. It is not a local
19 waterfront . There is a beach in front of
20 it or. the seaward side of it . So it does
21 not conform as a waterfront property
22 allowing a garage in the front yard. So
23 due to that, the only reasonable location
24 for this garage is in the front yard. The
25 property is sloped and the area where the
February 7, 2013 Meeting 41
1 garage is proposed is adjacent to the
2 circular driveway and the house . So the
3 placement of it is very carefully thought
4 through. And again, it ' s technical
5 application because this property, Wild
6 Waterfront views is not a waterfront
7 property. It does conform in square
8 footage . We have lot coverage . Everything
9 else is conforming other than placement . I
10 would be happy to address any questions
11 that you have . I think the application
12 speaks for itself .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first thing
14 that I need to do is talk about the
15 affidavit of posting, which we didn ' t
16 receive . We ' re going to have to have it
17 obviously.
18 MS . MOORE : Yes , of course . I believe
19 CMS, the contractor was right there on the
20 site and it would have been sent to him.
21 Hold on a second. I apologize, it didn ' t
22 get into my file . I will get it to you
23 today.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure . Thank
25 you .
February 7, 2013 Meeting 42
1 Actually, I would like to ask you the
2 proposed garage has a second-story loft, is
3 that heated, unfinished, finished?
4 MS . MOORE : To my knowledge, it ' s not
5 finished. It is -- let me see what the
6 plans show.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It has built in
8 cabinets and a window seat . So it kind of
9 looks like it ' s going to be a tenant . I
10 can ' t say, but it looks like it would be .
11 MS . MOORE : I don ' t have any details
12 on that . I apologize . It ' s not living
13 space or sleeping quarters, but my clients
14 intended use of it is whatever the code
15 would allow, which is non-habitable space .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, that is
17 the thing that popped into my mind on what
18 it was going to be used for . It looks like
19 a finished space . George did a site
20 inspection for us .
21 George, do you have any comments or
22 questions that you would like to raise?
23 MEMBER HORNING: Sure . Was there any
24 thought given to attaching the garage to
25 this structure?
- February 7, 2013 Meeting 43
1 MS . MOORE : That would have been
2 something -- I did talk to them about that
3 possibility but they did want to have it as
4 a separate detached garage . There is a way
5 that the design of the house wouldn ' t -- it
6 wouldn ' t make sense to have a connection.
7 I think the plans would have detracted away
8 from the design of the house . So they did
9 consider it, but as I said, they are not
10 planning on using the second floor as
11 living space or sleeping quarters . So I
12 know had they wanted to do that, I had
13 advised them to typically connect .
14 MEMBER HORNING: To the extent that
15 they could have attached 'it and not needed
16 a variance, and it ' s a self created
17 hardship to request a variance because they
18 did have a choice?
19 MS . MOORE : Well, no . Take a look of
20 the topography of the property. The
21 topography on the adjacent -- about the
22 only location that you can put it is in the
23 front of the house . Like directly in front
24 of the entrance, which would not be in
25 keeping with the design elements of the
February 7, 2013 Meeting 44
1 house . If you attached it to the side,
2 which is typically where you put a garage,
3 you see the topography falls off . So
4 designing an attached garage here, it
5 really wasn ' t -- the property is so sloped.
6 This is --
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is
8 generally true but this is a new house . It
9 could have been designed differently. You
10 know -- just wanted the record to show that
11 there was a choice that the applicant made .
12 This is not a preexisting dwelling . It was
13 designed from scratch on this property and
14 George ' s point is well taken --
15 MS . MOORE : I understand.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If they had
17 wanted to avoid a variance, they would have
18 designed the house --
19 MS . MOORE : Sure .
20 MEMBER HORNING: Because I want to
21 lead in the question because of the
22 differences of grade, because the garage is
23 at elevation higher than the house, from my
24 visual observation at the site at least . I
25 don ' t know how many feet higher but it ' s
February 7, 2013 Meeting 45
1 built on a hill side . I was wondering if
2 there is going to be any grading there to
3 have it at a different height then -- the
4 stakes are in the hill side so to speak? I
5 had a hard time figuring out where the slab
6 of grade was going to be looking at it .
7 MS . MOORE : You make some very good
8 point and questions . What I would suggest
9 is that I would bring the architect in and
10 explain the rational . Sincerely, there was
11 a lot of discussion between the architect
12 and the owner that I wouldn ' t have been .
13 privy to . So the location -- after a lot
14 of consideration because the first thing
15 that we try to do is avoid a variance as
16 possible . The only location would have
17 been down the slope around the house, as
18 you said. Placing the house where it was
19 proposed is where they could keep the
20 grades at a minimum. Changing the grades
21 of the entire property, you kind of start
22 working with the sanitary and work your way
23 around to the location of the house . So I
24 know there was a great deal of discussion,
25 but I would prefer to have the architect
February 7, 2013 Meeting 46
1 here . So if you would want those, I would
2 like to put on the record, the answers to
3 those questions . Why don ' t we -- you can
4 certainly give me as many questions as you
5 would like and I can -- we can adjourn this
6 to the time where I can get the architect
7 out . He ' s coming from Manhattan. So quite
8 frankly, I didn ' t anticipate that this was
9 going to be a problem application given the
10 character of the neighborhood and placing
11 it as a detached garage in the front yard,
12 where the code says itself, if this was a
13 typical waterfront property, and for all
14 intense purposes, it is a waterfront
15 property. Just not the technical
16 waterfront because of the little strip . I
17- don ' t know who owns -- I think it ' s open
18 space maybe . is there a house down there?
19 MEMBER HORNING: There is a house down
20 there .
21 MS . MOORE : Okay.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The elevations
23 do show that it is built into the grade .
24 It ' s clear from these drawings on what ' s
25 going on here .
February 7, 2013 Meeting 47
1 MS . MOORE : It ' s a one-story from
l
2 looking it at one area -- you know, from
3 one side and --
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Two --
5 MS . MOORE : Right . Two from the
6 other .
7 MEMBER HORNING : Is there any way to
8 provide the -- at least approximate
9 distances from neighboring houses?
10 MS . MOORE : Well, I think to the
11 property line, we have setbacks showing
12 there . If you wanted from adjacent homes,
13 I would have to see' if my surveyor can
14 provide that .
15 MEMBER HORNING: I think it might be
16 handy because it might be several hundred
17 feet from any adjacent neighbors house .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You could
19 probably do a Google alert thing .
20 MS . MOORE : Yeah.
21 MEMBER HORNING: And that might help
22 your argument .
23 MS . MOORE : It may be in the main
24 file . I can check. I will get the Google
25 maps for you .
February 7, 2013 Meeting 48
1 MEMBER HORNING: It may be several
2 hundred feet . And if you can provide
3 distances --
4 MS . MOORE : I can give you approximate
5 from the Google maps ; if that is all right?
6 MEMBER HORNING: Yeah. You can put it
7 in the area of several hundred or ,whatever
8 it is .
9 MS . MOORE : Sure .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jim, any
11 questions?
12 MEMBER DINIZIO : No . I would just
13 like to see the architect tell me why he
14 can ' t attach it to the house, I guess .
15 MEMBER HORNING: It is flat ground.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : My question is ,
17 do we need to hold this hearing open for
18 that, or can we have a written explanation
19 from the architect as well as Google Earth
20 map indicating the neighboring property, is
21 that sufficient for this Board or do you
22 think that you would want to question --
23 MEMBER DINIZIO: You said he ' s coming
24 out, right?
25 MS . MOORE : No . I would have to have
February 7, 2013 Meeting 49
1 him come out . If you really want to ask
2 him several questions , certainly I could
3 provide you with a written explanation of
4 their thought process . That is not a
5 problem. It could be as long or as short
6 as you would like or I could have him come
7 here and ask him whatever questions you
8 would like .
9 MEMBER HORNING: What utilities are
10 going into the garage?
11 MS . MOORE : Well, I don ' t believe --
12 we have the interior . I don ' t believe
13 there is any water because there is not a
14 bathroom. Typical -- yeah, there is no
15 bathroom.
16 MEMBER HORNING: Well, I am
17 referencing on the one Hoey project, from
18 Paul --
19 MS . MOORE : Yeah, I am looking at it .
20 MEMBER HORNING : Provide underground
21 utilities .
22 MS . MOORE : Yes , we have electricity.
23 MEMBER HORNING: It says provide water
24 service next to it also .
25 MS . MOORE : I believe that is to be
February 7, 2013 Meeting 50
1 able to put a hose . I don ' t see --
2 MEMBER HORNING: Electric?
3 MS . MOORE : Yes . Of course .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just checked
5 the fine print with my bible . It does
6 indicate in the loft, lx4 Oak flooring . So
7 certainly it is a finished space .
8 MS . MOORE : Okay.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Personally, and
10 I will just poll the Board to see where we
11 want to go . Personally, if the architect
12 is able to answer in writing why either
13 site was chosen and why not attaching,
14 which they could do as of right . What kind
15 of utilities will be in the proposed
16 building, and how the loft will be used?
17 The proposed use of the loft, you know,
18 finished space . Is it heated? Is it
19 unheated? We need to ' know that . And
20 obviously it needs to be a non-habitable
21 use . If I get that information, along with
22 what George is requesting, distances to
23 neighbors, the setback is quite substantial
24 as proposed from the property line, if this
25 building is very far away from other
February 7, 2013 Meeting 51
1 residences and we ' re satisfied with the
2 comments, I am okay with getting it in
3 writing, rather than adjourning it to a
4 another date and to talk to the architect .
5 Let me see if the Board feels differently,
6 and if that ' s the case, we will have a vote
7 to adjourn and have the architect come in .
8 Let ' s see how the Board feels?
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I am fine with what
10 you just said.
11 MEMBER DINIZIO : I am fine with it .
12 MEMBER HORNING : Me too . I will say
13 that just an aesthetic type of reasoning
14 and it is a hardship .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, that is
16 probably the case .
17 MS . MOORE : Exactly. That is what I
18 was just going to say.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Certainly, when
20 you buy a piece of property like this, you
21 have to be aware of the fact that you ' re
22 building against nature and not with it .
23 MEMBER HORNING : You ' re building with
24 nature . I take exception to that . I can ' t
25 believe that somebody would build a house
February 7, 2013 Meeting 52
1 and not have any forethought about having a
2 garage .
3 MS . MOORE : No, it has a zoned garage
4 there but they wanted an additional garage
5 for storage . So this is a detached garage
6 in addition to the garage that is in the
7 front of the house . Otherwise, they would
8 have had to put a four-car garage attached.
9 Then --
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Interestingly,
11 there is nothing on here that shows an
12 attached garage .
13 MS . MOORE : I think so .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have the
15 survey.
16 MS . MOORE : Let me see if we have the
17 construction drawings of the house .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have
19 photographs also . Did you notice one?
20 MEMBER DINIZIO : No . I mean, there
21 might be one .
22 MS . MOORE : Just give me a moment . I
23 have a lot of pictures of this .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There is no
25 driveway to it . I don ' t see -- there is a
February 7, 2013 Meeting 53
1 circular driveway .
2 MS . MOORE : You ' re right .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is no
4 vehicular entrance .
5 MS . MOORE : I stand corrected.
6 MEMBER HORNING : If we may, just going
7 quickly through the area variance reasons .
8 Change of character, probably minor, if no
9 change . Benefits sought by the applicant
10 cannot be achieved by a method feasible for
11 the applicant to pursue other than an area
12 variance . I am reading from the submission
13 here, because "the property is naturally
14 sloped and the location of the garage is on
15 a plateau, but the garage is not on the
16 plateau. The garage is on the hillside .
17 The location of the detached garage is
18 located at the gravel driveway and
19 maintained the natural vegetation along the
20 right of way . " That to me, is really not a
21 reason on why you need a variance . And
22 then Statement #3, the amount of relief
23 requested is not substantial, and yet it is
24 substantial , because you ' re asking for it
25 to be in a nonconforming location, which is
February 7, 2013 Meeting 54
1 a 100 percent relief from the way that we
2 determine it . It will not have an adverse
3 effect or physical impact on the
4 environment and it probably won ' t . It ' s
5 located away from wetlands . Statement #2
6 as to why you need the variance and why you
7 can ' t accomplish having the garage on the
8 property, either in a conforming area or
9 attached to the house, isn ' t addressed.
10 MS . MOORE : I actually have -- this is
11 what I put . When we were planning on where
12 to put the garage, I provided to the
13 architect what our considered rear yards,
14 front yards and side yards . I will give it
15 to you for the record . The house creates a
16 side yard, which would not permit the
17 placing the accessory structure on the side
18 further to the rear yard. It ' s hard to
19 describe .
20 MEMBER HORNING: This is what I have
21 here . I worked with Vicki to determine
22 that .
23 MS . MOORE : As you can see, you have
24 side yard that would have created a
25 variance . You have the rear yard in the
February 7, 2013 Meeting 55
1 back, which is the sloped area and has the
2 water views . And that is very sloped. You
3 have where it is proposed in the front but
4 meeting the setback, other than it ' s
5 placement . And then you have the front
6 yard, and as pointed out, the right-of-way,
7 so we would need to put the garage over
8 there as well . So this location seems most
9 appropriate out of the alternatives . Do
10 you want these for your file?
11 MEMBER HORNING: I mean, those things
12 make sense in the fact that if you needed a
13 variance .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any comments or
15 questions from the Board?
16 (No Response . )
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
18 in the audience that would like to address
19 this application for Robert Hoey?
20 MS . MOORE : Just very quickly, FITCO
21 was supportive and they had no issue with
22 this proposal .
23 MEMBER HORNING : And again, just for
24 the record, the proposed front yard setback
25 is 108 feet?
February 7, 2013 Meeting 56
1 MS . MOORE : Yes .
2 MEMBER HORNING: Thank you .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
4 further comments, I am going to make a
5 motion to close this hearing and reserve
6 decision to a later date, subject to
7 receipt of a letter from the architect for
8 the various questions that we have asked
9 and the Google maps indicating the
10 distances from residential homes .
11 MEMBER DINIZIO : Second.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
13 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
14 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye .
17 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
18 **************************** **************
19 HEARING #6620 - SHAMGAR CAPITAL, LLC
20 (DANIEL BUTTAFUOCO) .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
22 application before the Board is for Shamgar
23 Capital, Daniel Buttafuoco, #6620 . Request
24 for variance from Article III Section
25 280-14 and the Building Inspector ' s
February 7, 2013 Meeting 57
1 October 21, 2012 Notice of Disapproval
2 based on an application for building permit
3 for construction of a third story addition
4 at: 1 ) more than the .code required number
5 of stories 2 1/2, located at : 1165
6 Kimberly Lane, adjacent to Southold Bay in
7 Southold.
8 We have a request for an adjournment
9 on that application. Is there anyone here
10 that was prepared to address that
11 application today?
12 (No Response . )
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The architect
14 has submitted a letter dated
15 February 3 , 2013, requesting an adjournment
16 because of the date of posting and mailings
17 have not been completed. Hearing no
18 comments, I am going to make a motion to
19 adjourn this application to March regular
20 meeting, which is March 7th at 10 : 00 A. M.
21 Is there a second?
22 MEMBER HORNING: Second.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
24 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
25 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
February 7, 2013 Meeting 58
1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
3 (See Minutes for Resolution. )
4 *******************************************
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am going to
6 make a motion that we open the forum for a
7 ZBA File #6536, application for request of
8 the applicant ' s architect .
9 Is there a second?
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
12 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
13 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
16 That would be on for April 4th regular
17 meeting .
18 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
19 ****** ************************************
20 HEARING #6621 - MMMM BEER, LCC .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
22 application before the Board is MMMM Beer .
23 That is application #6621 . Request for
24 variance from Article XI Section 280-47 and
25 the Building Inspector ' s December 12 , 2012
February 7, 2013 Meeting 59
1 Notice of Disapproval based on an
2 application for building permit for
3 demolition and reconstruction of a portion
4 of an existing commercial building at :
5 1) less than the code required front yard
6 setback of 100 feet, located at : 42155
7 Main Road, a . k. a . State Route 25 , corner of
8 Peconic Lane, in Peconic .
9 Is there someone here to represent
10 that application?
11 MR. VANDENBURGH: Yes . Good morning .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : State your name
13 for the record, and spell it .
14 MR. VANDENBURGH : Good morning, Ladies
15 and Gentlemen . My name is Richard
16 Vandenburgh, and it ' s
17 V-A-N-D-E-N-B-U-R-G-H . I am the principal
18 for the applicant for the relief sought in
19 this application before the Board. I am
20 the principal for MMMM Beer . I have been a
21 resident for Southold for over 20 years . I
22 have been actively engaged in our community
23 in many forums . I have been a partner in a
24 local law firm for many years and have even
25 appeared before this Board with a client or
February 7, 2013 Meeting 60
1 two . I have been an active leader with the
2 Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts in Southold Town
3 and I am an active member on the Greenport
4 Business Improvement District, and have
5 also served as President of ( In Audible)
6 Insurance Property Owners Association for
7 multiple terms . I have two children in
8 Southold Public Schools , and have been
9 married to my wife Ann, for 20 years , and
10 she works at the Hampton Jitney in
11 Greenport . However, I stand before you
12 today not as an attorney but rather as a
13 business owner that has been attempting to
14 pursue my passion as developing a small but
15 growing brewery business on the North Fork.
16 Those of you that may not be familiar with
17 our business , my partner and best friend
18 John Liegey of more than 30 years , own
19 Greenport Harbor Brewery. We are in
20 Greenport next to the old jail on
21 Carpenter ' s Street . Just to give you a
22 little bit of a background on that, John
23 and I became best friends in college and
24 joined a lifelong passion of making and
25 enjoying well crafted balanced ales . We
February 7, 2013 Meeting 61
1 dreamed of opening our own brewery one day.
2 The opportunity arose in 2008 to purchase
3 the small abandoned firehouse in Greenport
4 on Carpenter ' s Street and we jumped at the
5 chance . We then worked every available
6 weekend and holiday vacation to renovate
7 the building with our own hands . And yes ,
8 we both have very understanding spouses .
9 After purchasing the building, we scraped
10 together enough of out own savings and
11 borrowed some money from family members in
12 order to purchase a small brewing system
13 that has been in Greenport for the last
14 three and a half years . This system allows
15 us to brew 465 gallons at a time . We then
16 hired DJ Swanson as our head brewer in 2009
17 and officially opened up our doors on
18 July 12, 2009 . We have been lucky to
19 receive high marks for our beer and have
20 brewed more than 30 different styles . We
21 started distributing kegs to our local
22 restaurants and pubs in the local Greenport
23 and Southold area, in fact, in the back of
24 my wife ' s car . Present, we only produce
25 draft beer and have not been able to offer
February 7, 2013 Meeting 62
1 any bottled because of our current space
2 limitations in Greenport . After opening up
3 in 2009, word got out and made it ' s way to
4 beer lovers and enthusiasts from Montauk to
5 New York City. We ' re lucky enough to join
6 forces with a well respected crew of beer
7 company that began distributing our beer to
8 across the Island, to New York City and
9 upstate New York. We have received
10 distinction for our well balanced and
11 distinctive styles from various
12 publications from the Wall Street Journal
13 and Time-Out and New York magazines . Our
14 brewery in Greenport became one of the most
15 famous stops people made when visiting
16 Greenport in order to see the brewing
17 process and taste the beers . Our fan base
18 grew and customers stopped regularly to
19 fill their growlers at the brewery and
20 enjoy a sampling of the various styles on
21 tap . Our ability to make the beer continues
22 to exceed our expectations and we hired
23 another brewer, Greg Durowsky (phonetic)
24 and a sales manager, Jeffrey Wisnowsky,
25 (phonetic) both of local families here in
February 7, 2013 Meeting 63
1 Southold. The space in Greenport was
2 getting really tight in Greenport and after
3 reaching our maximum capacity in 2010 . So
4 we made some short term physical changes at
5 the brewery in order to kind of keep up
6 with the growth of our small business . That
7 we realized that we would have to look for
8 additional space into which we could
9 expand. We wanted to keep our business on
10 the North Fork, and even though we realize
11 that it would be much easier and less
12 costly to move our operations to some
13 industrial park in western Suffolk County
14 or Nassau County, we believe strongly in
15 keeping our production and brewing
16 operations local and on the North Fork.
17 There is a photograph on the easel, which
18 you probably all recognize the Peconic
19 location, which is the subject of the
20 application . And for us finding this
21 location, 42155 Main Road in Peconic
22 appeared to be an ideal location .
23 Originally built in or about 1927 , by the
24 Vale Brothers as a Pontiac Car Dealership,
25 this property has seen a number of
February 7, 2013 Meeting 64
1 innovations , from car dealership, gas
2 station, service station and auto repair
3 facility. It is comprised of approximately
4 2 . 8 plus acres and it is zoned for General
5 Business . So as we maxed out our
6 production company in Greenport at the end
7 of 2002 , we envisioned renovating the
8 Peconic location to support our growth and
9 also into bottling our beer; however, it
10 was important to us to not only enhance the
11 visual appearance of the property but to
12 also create an efficient and sustainable
13 process that would support a growing
14 business . To that end, we feel that it
15 would be necessary to construct a new Cool
16 Room on the property to house our beers .
17 Based on the interior dimensions and the
18 cost of the renovation and the existing
19 footprint, we ' re seeking to locate this
20 building on the same footprint as the prior
21 structure . You will recognize this as Main
22 Road and Peconic Road. This would be the
23 production of the -- so this is the room
24 that would be the beer garden . The area
25 specifically talking about would be the
February 7, 2013 Meeting 65
1 rebuilding of the Cool Room. This is about
2 an eight foot high building with a block
3 structure . So it ' s not structurally sound.
4 (In Audible) .
5 MEMBER HORNING : Sorry, you ' re
6 proposing to take down that building then?
7 MR. VANDENBURGH : Yes . That building,
8 as we started to do some of the work to
9 prepare the site, there are portions of
10 that building that actually started to come
11 down already. So yes , we ' re proposing to
12 take down that building. So John and I
13 believe strongly on a positive impact that
14 this will have for the east end. It will
15 provide more opportunities for sustainable
16 jobs in the area . It will incorporate
17 sustainable practices and promote a level
18 of ecological harmony in a manufacturing
19 setting . We ' re looking to incorporate
20 environmentally technology and practices,
21 solar rays . We ' re going to have a 50
22 kilowatt solar system on the roof . A rain
23 water collection. We ' re planning to
24 install some systems for a (In Audible) in
25 a nonintrusive manner . Composting
February 7, 2013 Meeting 66
1 practices , we actually supply that to
2 several local farm practices that supply
3 that to their local cattle in Riverhead and
4 cattle in Cutchogue . So our objective is
5 to really reflect the green in the
6 Greenport Harbor Brewing Company. I am
7 actually going to defer you to this . ( In
8 Audible) .
9 (Stepped away from the microphone . )
10 MR. VANDENBURGH: This is all
11 pavement . This is recycled concrete back
12 here . I really want to make the property
13 softer in terms of softer from the road. I
14 want to make the parking lot all stone
15 parking area . Again, the solar rays on the
16 roof. This again, is the structure that
17 we ' re talking about here . This is going to
18 be the beer garden here . So I am extremely
19 excited about transforming the property.
20 So both John and I are extremely proud of
21 our Harbor Brand and are involved in the
22 hands-on development in our business as one
23 could be . I have personally spent and will
24 spend many days on the site with my tool
25 belt on and shovel in hand working to make
February 7, 2013 Meeting 67
1 this property as aesthetically pleasing and
2 acceptable to our local neighbors as
3 possible . We hope that our neighbors and
4 Southold Town will be proud to call home of
5 the finest locally made craft beer on Long
6 Island. We have never forget our humble
7 beginnings that has helped us build long
8 lasting and very friendly relationships
9 with all our neighbors in Greenport and
10 Southold. It is with that perspective in
11 mind that we ask the Board to approve the
12 application . That is a ( In Audible) .
13 These are the visual elevations of what the
14 property would look like . These actually
15 hold ( In Audible) .
16 (Stepped away from the microphone . )
17 MR. VANDENBURGH: We have taken steps
18 as to keep the building as much in a
19 physical state as possible in putting in a
20 recess area . There will be a garage door
21 about here . ( In Audible) in that location .
22 So more specifically, we submit and ask
23 that the Board grant the application
24 because we feel there will not be any
25 undesirable change as a result of what
February 7, 2013 Meeting 68
1 we ' re asking for . Our location relative to
2 our neighbors is surrounded by businesses .
3 You can see to the north and to the east of
4 the property is agricultural, vineyards .
5 Across the street is a large sod farm. So
6 there should be no undesirable change as a
7 result of us constructing at that location .
8 Secondly, the benefit that we ' re seeking
9 cannot be achieved by any method feasible
10 for us to pursue other than the variance
11 that we ' re asking for . Again, that is
12 really relative to the structure of the
13 building. It would not be feasible for us
14 to have it in any other location . We
15 submit that the amount of relief is not
16 substantial because it ' s relatively limited
17 in size and scope . Based upon the economic
18 and functionality of the structure, it is
19 going to be a structure that is extremely
20 efficient . It will be made of five inch
21 thick insulated ( In Audible) . You can see
22 the color depiction in that elevation. So
23 with the plantings that we plan to do
24 around as much as possible, it should
25 really fade into the back and into the
February 7, 2013 Meeting 69
1 other structures . We don ' t see any
2 negative impact on physical and
3 environmental conditions of the
4 neighborhood or the District . Certainly,
5 there is no sites of vegetation that we
6 want to perform this construction. We
7 really would be putting it back where that
8 building existed. And finally, we do feel
9 that it is the minimum that is necessary
10 while at the same time preserving and the
11 protecting the character of the
12 neighborhood and health, safety and
13 welfare . So thank you very much and I
14 would be happy to answer any questions that
15 you might have .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to
17 for the benefit of the public, that you
18 must be aware of the fact that these
19 variances before this Board are for a front
20 yard setback. The code requires 100 feet .
21 The building is preexisting nonconforming
22 in that, and you will be building 80 feet
23 from the front yard. That is the relief
24 that is being requested by this Board. It
25 is a B Zone . So the only thing that is
February 7, 2013 Meeting 70
1 before us is for that front yard setback.
2 I would also like the record to reflect
3 that we have received today comments from
4 the Planning Board. We have to
5 automatically send these applications to
6 them, and the application has been reviewed
7 and the Planning Board has no objection to
8 the requested area variance on the basis
9 that the building is existing, not
10 expanding its footprint and appropriate for
11 overall use of the building . The proposed
12 construction would appear to be screened by
13 the existing building and obstruction by
14 large views of Peconic Land.
15 May I ask you to move that easel over,
16 so I can please see everybody. Thank you
17 for the very lovely presentation .
18 All right . Let ' s begin with
19 questions . Jim, do you have any?
20 MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes . Could you
21 describe for me what a "Cold Room" does?
22 MR. VANDENBURGH : Sure . A Cold Room
23 is like a large refrigerator . Our beer in
24 the process of manufacturing the beer, it ' s
25 not pasteurized. So our beer has to be
February 7, 2013 Meeting 71
1 kept cold in order to ensure its shelf life
2 so to speak, freshness . So we maintain a
3 cold room at approximately 34 to 36
4 degrees .
5 MEMBER DINIZIO : So it ' s not -- you ' re
6 doubling the height of the ceiling?
7 MR. VANDENBURGH: Yes .
8 MEMBER DINIZIO : So it ' s not that
9 you ' re putting tanks in there, that is not
10 the case?
11 MR. VANDENBURGH : No . The reason for
12 the height of the building, again, trying
13 to stay within the footprint of that
14 existing structure, we -- right now we
15 produce about 3 , 000 barrels .
16 Theoretically, with all the approved
17 Suffolk County Health Department and
18 permits that we have, we can theoretically
19 generate almost up to 54 , 000 barrels of
20 beer in a year . The Cold Room has that
21 height because the stacking of the product .
22 You put stuff on the floor and then you
23 have the shelves, so that you can stock the
24 product of beer . The ingredients , we keep
25 hot and cold. All that is stored on racks .
February 7, 2013 Meeting 72
1 And the reason why the building is as high
2 as it is, is because it improves the
3 efficiency and be able to maintain all of
4 that in the accurate temperature that we
5 need. So we go up instead of going out
6 wider .
7 MEMBER DINIZIO : I thought I saw a
8 ramp there, could there still be a ramp
9 where you could back up trucks?
10 MR. VANDENBURGH: There may have been
11 when I submitted my original application.
12 There was a hand drawn site plan that my
13 sister had done, and the plans may have
14 also showed that there was a loading dock.
15 We do plan in the future at some point to
16 put a loading dock, so trucks would be able
17 to come off Peconic Lane and back up
18 because part of the process is while we
19 load the beer into the Cold Room, at some
20 point we ' re going to have to get it out
21 towards the truck. So the trucks can head
22 off to New York City or wherever . There is
23 a plan for some time in the future to put
24 that recessed loading ramp . You know,
25 right now we ' re counting our nickels and
February 7, 2013 Meeting 73
1 rolling our quarters to do what needs to be
2 done .
3 MEMBER DINIZIO : Is that by the Cold
4 Room --
5 MR. VANDENBURGH : It would be on the
6 back side of the Cold Room. Kind of the
7 idea of product in and product out . It ' s
8 an efficient process .
9 MEMBER DINIZIO : So now, when you want
10 to do it, how do you propose the truck?
11 MR. VANDENBURGH: I can show you --
12 MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes .
13 MR. VANDENBURGH: From this
14 perspective, to give you an idea, with this
15 being the Cold Room here, the truck would
16 be backing up here to the Cold Room.
17 MEMBER DINIZIO : So that is your
18 proposal now?
19 MR. VANDENBURGH : Yes .
20 MEMBER DINIZIO : So it ' s not going to
21 be effecting the parking or that side lane
22 there? Backing in and out?
23 MR. VANDENBURGH : Nope . There was one
24 lane right here that had an existing garage
25 door but that is not accurate because it
February 7, 2013 Meeting 74
1 talks about ( In Audible) . That essentially
2 blocks that .
3 MEMBER DINIZIO : So you don ' t
4 anticipate using that door?
5 . MR. VANDENBURGH : Absolutely not .
6 That door will not be used for any
7 deliveries .
8 MEMBER DINIZIO : Okay. That ' s all I
9 have .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George?
11 MEMBER HORNING : Just to make it
12 clear, referring to this Notice of
13 Disapproval permit to demo and reconstruct
14 a portion, that portion being shown on the
15 site plan as the area that has the raised
16 roof in this area?
17 MR. VANDENBURGH : Yes . In that area .
18 MEMBER HORNING : This area here?
19 MR. VANDENBURGH : Correct .
20 MEMBER HORNING: With an addition
21 added on?
22 MR. VANDENBURGH : Absolutely. If you
23 look at the old photographs , what we ' re
24 proposing to do is square that off .
25 MEMBER HORNING: And the 80 foot
February 7, 2013 Meeting 75
1 setback is to Peconic Lane?
2 MR. VANDENBURGH : That ' s my
3 understanding .
4 MEMBER HORNING : I just want to be
5 clear . Are you going to have some pathway
6 doors clear to go into the restaurant of
7 the structure besides the area to take
8 things out that. Jim was asking about?
9 MR. VANDENBURGH : That ' s correct .
10 This area is where the interior garage area
11 will be, that will allow us to take the
12 beers here and move the bottles here .
13 MEMBER HORNING: And the tasting room,
14 that is not the same thing as "brew pub" or
15 is it?
16 MR. VANDENBURGH: Well, each room
17 there is different licenses . We have a
18 tasting room in Greenport . We are allowed
19 to serve people four ounces of beer, per
20 style . If we have eight styles of beer, I
21 can serve you four ounces of each one of
22 those styles . ( In Audible) .
23 (Stepped away from the microphone . )
24 MEMBER HORNING: Okay. Thank you .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is way down
February 7, 2013 Meeting 76
1 the road.
2 MEMBER HORNING: I am not going to go
3 there because my doctor told me several
4 years ago, that I was drinking too much
5 beer . He said lay off the beer and stick
6 with wine .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not today.
8 Ken?
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No, I don ' t have
10 any questions .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
12 in the audience who would like to address
13 this application? Please come forward and
14 state your name for the record. You are
15 going to have to spell it too .
16 MR. LAFRENIERE : My name is Dave
17 LaFreniere, L-A-F-R-E-N-I-E-R-E . I own the
18 adjacent properties next to the brewery,
19 and I am not much of a speaker . I will
20 just stick to the point . I think that this
21 is a wonderful thing . It ' s a breath of
22 fresh air for Peconic and the Southold
23 Town, especially I am a beer drinker . I
24 think it ' s a wonderful thing . I do have
25 some concerns being on the corner there for
February 7, 2013 Meeting 77
1 30 years, trucking and limousines, and
2 Peconic Lane is a very dangerous corner in
3 the summer time . And we have one garage
4 door there that says "receiving . " And I
5 know that tractor trailer trucks are about
6 70 foot long, and that would be a very bad
7 situation into receiving anything into that
8 garage door . Especially when people are
9 darting down Peconic Lane without paying
10 attention sometimes . The other concern
11 that I have is with the parking on the east
12 side of the building, because it ' s a very
13 dangerous intersection and I was just
14 worried that the entrance and exit of that
15 parking lot is too close to Peconic Lane,
16 where it ' s a blind spot as it is . That is
17 my only concern . Otherwise, I am a
18 supporter of this whole thing. I think
19 that it ' s wonderful .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you.
21 Maybe I can ask a question just as a
22 follow-up . Do you propose to use the
23 Peconic Lane for ingress and egress for
24 anything other than commercial usage and
25 deliveries?
February 7, 2013 Meeting 78
1 MR. VANDENBURGH: The Peconic Lane
2 side is only going to be for the factory.
3 We have a couple of employees that will
4 park there cars back there and the trucks
5 that would come, which again, it ' s not
6 going to be a truck .everyday. It ' s going
7 to be a truck once a week kind of thing,
8 you know at best . Maybe a truck once or
9 twice a week. It will be no closer than
10 the larger structure that is the entrance
11 to get to the back would go up the Peconic
12 Lane side .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They are large
14 trucks?
15 MR. VANDENBURGH: They are tractor
16 trailer size trucks . I think that
17 accurately reflects the area that will
18 allow the truck to pull in and be able to
19 turn and then back up to the loading dock .
20 So there will be plenty of room to navigate
21 off Peconic Lane . Simply pulling in and
22 pulling out won ' t be a problem. The area
23 that they will be pulling in and pulling
24 out of is essentially directly across the
25 entrance from the Town Highway Department,
February 7, 2013 Meeting 79
1 and they have trucks pulling in and out of
2 there all the time . So that should not be
3 a problem.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you tell us
5 approximately how many feet it is from the
6 section to where that ingress and egress
7 is?
8 MR. VANDENBURGH : While this is not
9 necessarily to scale, I would say at least
10 175 feet down . It should be in this area
11 right around here .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you propose
13 any signage indicating where the public
14 entrance and exits will be, and --
is MR. VANDENBURGH : I really haven ' t
16 thought about that in detail . Just to
17 address Mr. LaFreniere ' s point, we do
18 envision -- (In Audible) . So Phase I is to
19 try and finish what we ' re doing here now.
20 We still have to go back to the Planning
21 Board and discuss what I want to do all
22 back here, which I am quite certain, is
23 going to necessitate additional entrances
24 and parking area. At that point, signage
25 -- you know, the public is going to be
February 7, 2013 Meeting 80
1 addressed to these areas . Maybe it makes
2 sense to have signage that says "employee
3 parking only. " Maybe someplace over here
4 direct public over here .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : At the moment,
6 Site Plan is not required for what you ' re
7 proposing but I believe that is an
8 important issue should there be any
9 additional traffic impact as a result of
10 standing operation that you would really
11 need to go back and change the scale . That
12 is usually part of the Site Plan process .
13 I think that it ' s an appropriate thing to
14 be brought up here . I think we all here
15 are aware of the traffic situation .
16 MR. VANDENBURGH : Absolutely.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any other
18 questions from the public? Please come
19 forward.
20 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Hi, Dave
21 Cichanowicz . Do I need to spell my last
22 name? C-I-C-H-A-N-O-W-I-C-Z . I am speaking
23 as a long time resident and business owner
24 in Peconic . Yes , I did help him put this
25 plan together but I am involved in the
February 7, 2013 Meeting 81
1 stakeholders project that we did for
2 Peconic and reviewing and looking back at
3 the time when our Board got together to
4 think about the integrity and the future of
5 what we see the little hamlet of Peconic
6 and in keeping up with the times in
7 allowing some growth of business for
8 Peconic to the areas that kind of work.
9 This fits perfectly into our future plans
10 that we saw Peconic Lane as a whole
11 developing . We do now have the recreational
12 areas in kind of the central part . We have
13 the rec centers now at the beginning . Now
14 we have a brewery . It ' s a nice improvement
15 over a car dealership, where all you see is
16 blacktop and cars lining the road. And
17 probably more hazardous and traffic
18 problems with a car dealership then a brew
19 pub . Maybe, maybe not . Just in my opinion
20 as a long time resident of Peconic . I just
21 live down the road from there and seeing
22 all the changes that have, I thought that
23 this was a really great change for the
24 area . Thank you.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. Does
February 7, 2013 Meeting 82
1 the Board have any questions?
2 (No Response . )
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anyone else in
4 the audience?
5 (No Response . )
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would like to
7 say one thing . It ' s very welcoming to see
8 the flourishing of a local business . It
9 goes well for all of us , and Peconic .
10 Hearing no further questions or
11 comments from the Board, I am going to make
12 a motion to close this hearing and reserve
13 decision to a later date .
14 Is there a second?
15 MEMBER DINIZIO : Second.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
17 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
18 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
21 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
22 *******************************************
23 HEARING #6623 - PETER AND TERESA BENOTTI
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
25 application before the Board is for Peter
February 7, 2013 Meeting 83
1 and Teresa Benotti, #6623 . Requests for
2 variances under Sections 280-105 II (A and
3 B) , based on the Building Inspector ' s
4 November 15, 2012 Notice of Disapproval
5 concerning "as built" 5 foot high fence and
6 "as built" 8 foot high fence around a
7 single family dwelling at : 1 ) fence height
8 at more than the code permitted 6 1/2 feet
9 in height when located in a front yard,
10 2 ) fence height at more than the code
11 permitted 6 1/2 feet in height when located
12 in the side and rear yards, at 930
13 Clearview Road, adjacent to Cedar Beach
14 Harbor, in Southold.
15 Is there someone here to represent the
16 application?
17 MR. BENOTTI : Yes . Good morning .
18 Good afternoon, actually. My name is
19 Dr . Peter Benotti . I am the homeowner and I
20 am representing myself .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Do you have
22 any green cards that you may have?
23 MR. BENOTTI : We have submitted all
24 that we have received . I have submitted a
25 tracking slip for one of the nonreturned
February 7, 2013 Meeting 84
1 envelopes . And the one that returned to
2 sender . And I have a letter for another
3 neighbor, which represents another letter
4 that was returned unopened.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. And I am
6 going to give you a copy of a memorandum
7 from the Local Waterfront Revitalization
8 Program from the coordinator indicating
9 that the action is exempt from LWRP review.
10 That is just for your records . Because of
11 the waterfront property, it ' s being
12 reviewed by the LWRP Coordinator and it
13 indicates that the fence that you built is
14 exempt from the LWRP . It ' s considered a
15 minor action . So it would appear that you
16 have built a fence at 5 foot high in the
17 front yard, where the code requires 4 feet .
18 And 8 1/2 feet partially in the front yard
19 because your house is setback. It ' s still
20 considered a front yard because of the side
21 of your property where your house is
22 setback -- it ' s , technically starts at the
23 side of your house .
24 MR. BENOTTI : I am not sure that there
25 is actually any 8 foot component on the
February 7, 2013 Meeting 85
-- 1 front of the house because on the west side
2 of the house, the fence is the neighbors
3 fence . He already had a deer fence . So we
4 did not put a fence there . His fence is 9
5 feet high. Well, the Notice of Disapproval
6 indicates 8 feet in the side and rear yard?
7 MR. BENOTTI : That ' s correct .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that would be
9 along the water side and east side of the
10 property and the side yard. Okay. So what
11 would you like to tell us about your
12 application?
13 MR. BENOTTI : Well, all I can say that
14 this was a result of an honest mistake on
15 our part . We submitted an application for
16 this fence and I believe the application
17 called for a 6 foot fence to the Town
18 Trustees . When the application was
19 accepted, I engaged a fence company. A
20 consultant came in for an estimate . He made
21 it quite clear that our only chance at
22 adequate deer protection was to put up an 8
23 foot fence, and a 6 foot fence would be
24 inadequate . This was corroborated with
25 some discussions by neighbors and I
February 7, 2013 Meeting 86
1 honestly never thought to go back to check
2 to see what the Town statutes were about
3 fence size . And didn ' t go back to check the
4 application . We went on and spent money and
5 built the fence, and then received -- and
6 when I had the Town come back for the
7 follow-up inspection, we were advised that
8 it was in error . So I really don ' t have
9 anything else to say other than it was
10 honest mistake . We live on a dirt road.
11 There has been no adverse harm or effect on
12 neighbors regarding the fence height . In
13 fact, it compliments as . you can see . Giving
14 the issues that we have had in our family
15 with regard to health related issues and
16 pets with deer problems , I was anxious to
17 get some deer protection . And I must say
18 that I overlooked it in going back and
19 checking the statutes .
20, CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. I must
21 say that I do understand given the, location
22 of the property why you would do this for
23 the deer and ticks and all of that . It ' s a
24 very wooded area and huge amounts of
25 activity of deer . The code when it was
February 7, 2013 Meeting 87
1 changed, to permit the fencing only did so
2 on agricultural properties to protect crops
3 essentially. And that code needs to be
4 looked at again, but it ' s not within the
5 jurisdiction of this Board to do that . We
6 grant relief from the code, but we don ' t
7 change interpretation of the code . The
8 5 foot high fence that exist, which is very
9 permeable, the wrought iron part is not as
10 a substantial of a variance from the 4 foot
11 height . Particularly since it ' s not
12 stockade and not opaque . You can see
13 through it in my mind. Once the Board
14 accepts an 8 foot high fence, we have to
15 consider the consequences and the other
16 types of consequences of setting a
17 precedent . Whereby every one of your
18 neighbors could be coming in to request
19 exactly the same thing. The fact that the
20 code changed and as to why that happened.
21 If you understand what I am saying.
22 MR. BENOTTI : I understand fully. I
23 have a letter which comments on the caliber
24 of the sided fence and the fact that it ' s
25 see through and doesn ' t cause any aesthetic
February 7, 2013 Meeting 88
1 issues in his view .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am just reading
3 the letter now. Okay. Well, I do have to
4 agree that you have done it certainly very
5 well . It ' s a beautiful installation . Most
6 deer fence are pretty tacky looking .
7 However, it is possible to cut down that 8
8 foot fencing to 6 1/2 feet to the side yard
9 and waterfront side . That would require
10 some work. That is something that this
11 Board will consider . I just wanted to
12 advise you of that .
13 Jim, do you have any comments or
14 questions?
15 MEMBER DINIZIO : No .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George, any
17 comments or questions?
18 MEMBER HORNING: I have a comment,
19 maybe . I thought while I was around there,
20 I thought I had seen one other location
21 nearby that had deer fencing. I don ' t know
22 who that was . I don ' t have any other
23 questions .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I just concur what
February 7, 2013 Meeting 89
1 you said.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Any other
3 comments from the audience?
4 (No Response . )
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Hearing no
6 further comments or questions, I am going
7 to make a motion to close this hearing and
8 reserve decision to a later date .
9 Is there a second?
10 MEMBER DINIZIO : 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 #6622 - BREEZY SHORES COMMUNITY,
19 INC . (NAOMI MULLMAN)
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
21 application before the Board is for Breezy
22 Shores Community, Naomi Mullman, #6622 ..
23 Request for variances from Article XXIII
24 Code Section 280-123 , Article XXII Section
25 280-116 (B) and the Building Inspector ' s
February 7, 2013 Meeting 90
1 October 22 , 2012 Notice of Disapproval
2 based on an application for building permit
3 for additions and alterations to a seasonal
4 cottage at; 1 ) a nonconforming building
5 containing a nonconforming use shall not be
6 enlarged, reconstructed, structurally
7 altered or moved, unless such building is
8 changed to a conforming use, 2 ) less than
9 the code required bulkhead setback of 75
10 feet, located at #11 Breezy Shores
11 Community, Inc . , 65490 Main Road, a . k. a .
12 State Route 25 , a . k. a . Sage Boulevard,
13 adjacent to Shelter Island Sound in
14 Greenport .
15 State your name for the record.
16 MR. HERRMANN : Good afternoon . Robert
17 Herrmann of En Consultants for the
18 applicants . We ' re here today, and knowing
19 that your last experience for a variance
20 request on one of the cottages here
21 representing something less than an
22 enjoyable experience for you all . And
23 knowing that, we have spent the better part
24 of last year, designing this project .
25 Considering feedback and any input from
February 7, 2013 Meeting 91
1 myself, from Joe Fischetti, from the
2 Building Department and from the Breezy
3 Shores Community and Architectural
4 Committee . It has indeed been our mission
5 to eventually end up here in front of you
6 today with a project and an application
7 before you today that you will hopefully
8 find in bright contrast to your past
9 experience . The project consists of
10 essentially of roughly structural or design
11 renovations . Some result of which will end
12 up with a cottage that will look remarkably
13 similar to what is existing, but with
14 deteriorating conditions, repairs to
15 improve aesthetic appearance, to improve
16 personality and to improve flood
17 protection. Specifically, the project
18 proposes first to replace the foundation of
19 the cottage, which is in bad shape . Two,
20 to raise the finished floor of the cottage
21 by 2 feet 5 inches to provide flood
22 protection. The area where this particular
23 cottage is located is in an AE-6 Zone under
24 FEMA which requires a first floor elevation
25 of 8 feet . That we ' re proposing to go up
February 7, 2013 Meeting 92
1 to a 10 foot elevation because if you look
2 at the FEMA map, this cottage and the ones
3 next to it are actually located just
4 landward of the LiMWA line . The line of
5 moderate wave activity. So to be cautious
6 in light of all the weather that we have
7 been having, we will continue to have very
8 soon, we would like to raise the cottage .
9 To reconstruct in place with the same
10 dimensions the water side room, which like
11 many other Breezy Shore cottages in that
12 area that have been worn down over the
13 years . They are the rooms that face the
14 Shelter Island Sound. To reconstruct the
15 existing bathroom, which is a 5 1/2 foot
16 roughly 6 foot bathroom and expand it by
17 3 1/2 feet . And in doing so, bring the
18 ceiling height and fixtures in that room
19 into conformance with New York State
20 regulations . From the first time that I met
21 David and Joe at the property, I can
22 personally attest to the fact that the
23 bathroom is not able to be used by a grown
24 man in a traditional way that a grown man
25 would use a bathroom. They would also like
February 7, 2013 Meeting 93
1 to replace the existing roof and raise the
2 roof about 1 foot higher to create more
3 reasonable head room inside the cottage .
4 There is a proposal to add a small eyelet
5 dormer that would allow increased lighting,
6 and there is also a proposed -- what will
7 be like a fenced in outdoor shower adjacent
8 to the back. I just handed up to Leslie
9 before we started, and I think you have if
10 you want to lay them out on the chairs ,
11 some of the photographs that we had
12 submitted with the application that show an
13 actual photograph of the existing cottage
14 and then a rendering of the proposed. The
15 application although you have not stated it
16 yet, is that we ' re under the understanding
17 that it is exempt from the LWRP waterfront
18 consistency review because all of the work
19 entails either in-place replacement of
20 existing structure or an expansion but an
21 expansion that is located more than 75 feet
22 from the bulkhead. Now, despite that, we
23 still need variance relief from this Board,
24 because like all of the Breezy cottages ,
25 the cottage itself is less than 75 feet
February 7, 201-3 Meeting 94
1 from wetlands . So under your usual
2 interpretation of that of the Building
3 Department, it ' s an expansion of a
4 nonconforming building with respect to
5 setbacks requires relief . And the Board had
6 also previously determined, I believe from
7 a similar case, that all of these seasonal
8 cottages are a nonconforming building and
9 nonconforming uses , which have been noted
10 on the onset, cannot be expanded without
11 relief, unless they ' re converted to a
12 conforming use . Now, as the Board knows,
13 the subject cottage is 1 of 28 seasonal
14 cottages that were established on the
15 property in the early 1900 ' s . When they had
16 workers of the former state brick factory
17 who later rented to summer guests in the
18 1940 ' s . The cottages have been individually
19 owned by shareholders along with the real
20 estate property known as 'Breezy Shores Inc .
21 As recognized in the matter of Hernan
22 Otano, ZBA case #6525, because each share
23 is governed by the cooperative that is a
24 proprietary lease, that permits only
25 residential uses on the property. The
February 7, 2013 Meeting 95
1 Board stated, "any other use permitted in
2 the Town Code is virtually impossible,
3 given the cooperative ownership . " Indeed,
4 if the use of the cottage were changed to
5 anything other than the existing
6 residential one is seasonal cottage, the
7 applicants ownership in the cottage would
8 be rendered without value . With respect to
9 whether granting these area variances would
10 cause a detrimental change to the character
11 of the neighborhood or a detriment to
12 neighboring properties, it was again
13 determined in the Otano case, is it ' s
14 unique properties that represents its own
15 neighborhood of more than 82 acres and is
16 far removed from adjoining owned
17 properties . Another adjacent property
18 could or would be adversely impacted by the
19 proposal . With respect to protecting the
20 interest of neighboring shareholders , the
21 adjacent cottages are of similar size,
22 larger, and similar setback from the
23 bulkhead. As a result of the proposed
24 renovation, there would be no change to the
25 preexisting 55 foot bulkhead setback and
February 7, 2013 Meeting 96
1 the overall degree of nonconformity. It
2 would be only changed minimally.
3 Specifically, the net result of granting
4 for the proposed renovation would be a
5 cottage standing approximately 3 feet
6 taller, which would come from the 2 feet of
7 the foundation and a foot higher from the
8 roof. Located at the same distance from
9 the bulkhead, but with a total floor area
10 of 677 square feet, rather than 657 square
.11 feet . We ' re in a 20 foot increase in
12 footprint, it would be restricted to an
13 approximately to a 3 1/2 by 5 1/2 foot bump
14 out located more than 75 feet from the
15 wetlands . That again is the back.
16 Therefore the character of the neighborhood
17 would not be substantially changed, nor a
18 change in a way that would adversely effect
19 shareholders . In fact, as it is required
20 within the cooperative, the proposed
21 construction plans have been submitted to
22 and approved by the cooperative Board of
23 Directors and their architectural
24 committee . We had submitted with our
25 application originally, an e-mail that was
February 7, 2013 Meeting 97
1 sent by the Board. Vicki had sent me
2 something to provide something more
3 formally from Breezy Shores Community and
4 so here I hand up to you now, I think I
5 e-mailed it to Vicki, but here is a
6 hardcopy of the letter . ( In Audible) .
7 (Stepped away from the microphone . )
8 MR. HERRMANN : Both Breezy Shores
9 Community and committee approve of the
10 renovations . Mathematically the variance
11 requested requires approximately 20 feet or
12 26 percent setback relief from the
13 bulkhead. The only proposed footprint
14 expansion would be the 20 square foot size
15 of the bathroom, which exceeds the 75 foot
16 setback. And again, it ' s to fix and come
17 in compliance with New York State, which is
18 to basically make it a usable bathroom.
19 Otherwise, the cottage will remain the same
20 location as it has existed since the
21 1940 ' s . None of it will result in any
22 substantial appearance or character of the
23 cottage . Any variance relief in this
24 community, in general , would not have an
25 impact on the physical and environmental
February 7, 2013 Meeting 98
1 conditions of the neighborhood for the
2 reasons described above with respect to
3 uniqueness and insulated location of the
4 project site . The relief would also not
5 have an adverse impact on the physical and
6 environmental conditions of the immediate
7 site or the larger subject of the property.
8 The location of the cottage with respect to
9 wetlands will remain unchanged. The
10 footprint will increase only minimally, by
11 3 percent, as a result of the 20 square
12 foot addition to the bathroom. And thus as
13 a result of the proposed renovation, a)
14 there will be no change in wetland setbacks
15 of the cottage, b) the structural footprint
16 of the cottage will only increase by 20
17 square feet, c) the presently lacking
18 drainage of leaders, gutters and drywells
19 will be added to the house to install and
20 capture roof runoff from the cottage, and
21 d) the finished cottage will exceed the
22 FEMA base law flood elevation Ito provide
23 improve future protection against potential
24 flooding damage . The project has been
25 determined to be out of the jurisdiction,
February 7, 2013 Meeting 99
1 both for freshwater and the wetlands for
2 the New York State Environmental of
3 Conservation, a) because the titled
4 wetlands is separated by the pre-1977 storm
5 line bulkhead and it ' s 600 feet from
6 freshwater wetlands and other sides of the
7 property that are opposite of the water .
8 And finally speaking to the variance
9 standards, the need for relief is self
10 created pursuant to the argument that the
11 owner invested in the cottage with full
12 knowledge of the zoning code . That without
13 the proposed renovations , no relief would
14 be necessary; however, to the extent that,
15 a) any dwelling would ultimately and
16 unavoidably .require some reconstruction
17 and/or structural alterations to allow for
18 reasonable improvements and modernization,
19 and b) that any accessory structural
20 alteration here, would be deemed to require
21 area variances . The relief of need is not
22 -- solely not self created but also by the
23 fact that the Zoning Code simply now
24 prohibits activities that were at one point
25 not prohibited. I am not going to go
February 7, 2013 Meeting 100
1 through this . We included a few addendums ,
2 one relates to the construction process and
3 how the work would be done . The sequence
4 in how the work would be done . That
5 construction methodology has been designed
6 together between Mr . Fischetti as the
7 engineer and David Mullman as the
8 architect, and we ' re filing for the
9 records, so there is an enforceability as
10 what we ' re proposing to do . We have noted
11 as Addendum B, the approval process of
12 Breezy Shores and with that submitting of
13 that letter, we ' re hoping to ensure the
14 Board that the Breezy Shores Community is
15 in fact supporting the Mullman ' s in their
16 effort here . And then finally, an
17 addendum, that I am sure you are familiar
18 with, we have added some information from
19 the New York State Residential Code with
20 respect to fixture clearances and ceiling
21 height from the bathroom. So with that, I
22 will complete my presentation. I think
23 there are some folks here from the
24 community who might to say a word, if you
25 would give them a chance to do so . And
February 7, 2013 Meeting 101
1 then return it back to the Board with any
i
2 questions , that either I, or Joe or David
3 can help with .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Who else would
5 like to address the Board?
6 MS . ZARKA: Good afternoon . My name is
7 Helen Zarka, and I am on the Board of
8 Breezy Shores , and I just wanted to say
9 that we ' re in full agreement that the
10 Mullman ' s are doing. In fact, we ' re very
11 excited about the project because now a lot
12 of the cottages are not exactly in fine
13 condition. And the improvements that they
14 are making are improvements that would
15 benefit the community. All of the
16 shareholders are on Board with this
17 project . Mr . Herrmann has mentioned that
18 the Architectural Committee has approved
19 it . Our job, as a Board, would be to
20 monitor the Mullman ' s work and make sure
21 that everything is done that is approved by
22 you . We ' re going to keep on top of this and
23 make sure that they aren ' t any problems ,
24 and we certainly don ' t expect to have any.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you .
February 7, 2013 Meeting 102
1 MR. WILSON : Good afternoon . Donald
2 Wilson is my name . I am the president of
3 the Board this year . I would just like to
4 agree with everything that Helen has said.
5 I would like to say something too about the
6 size of the bathroom. Mine has a big sign
7 on there that says , "hard hat required. " So
8 I can understand the reason to increase the
9 size both up and out . It ' s true, we have
10 been through a few unfortunate instances
11 and the Mullman ' s have done things
12 according to the code . We have been on top
13 of all of this . Thank you .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. Anyone
15 else?
16 MS . PETSKY: Hi, I am Mary Beth Petsky
17 and I am on the Board of Breezy Shores .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you state
19 your name again?
20 MS . PETSKY: Mary Beth Petsky. Do you
21 need me to spell?
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you spell the
23 last name, please?
24 MS . PETSKY : P-E-T-S-K-Y . And I just
25 wanted to say that we wholeheartedly
February 7, 2013 Meeting 103
1 support the Mullman ' s . They are not only
2 wonderful neighbors but they have been
3 forthcoming with all information with
4 regards to this project . So we fully
5 support them.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you .
7 Anyone else?
8 (No Response . )
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let ' s see if we
10 have any questions from the Board.
11 Ken?
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes . I guess this is
13 for the architect or for Rob, the expansion
14 for the bathroom is a result of compliance
15 to the New York State Building Code?
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you please
17 just state your name?
18 MR. MULLMAN : David Mullman, architect .
19 Yes , the New York State Residential
20 Building Code . The diagrams that were
21 copied and are part of your application are
22 from that . And they' re called out what the
23 numbers of the sections are .
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. No other
25 questions at this time .
February 7, 2013 Meeting 104
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George?
2 MEMBER HORNING: Can you describe the
3 foundation? The new foundation, are you
4 going to achieve putting it in place? And
5 it ' s going to be 2 feet higher out of the
6 ground, I believe that is what you all
7 said? And my last question would be, you
8 also state in here in your arguments, that
9 it ' s going to be higher than what the FEMA
10 requirement is . You might have said 2 feet,
11 I am not sure . What is the FEMA
12 requirement, and how much higher is. it
13 going to be? Those are my questions .
14 MR. HERRMANN : George, we will give
15 the answers in the reverse order that you
16 asked for . FEMA is -- based on the format
17 that I printed out from FEMA' s website,
18 there is a good portion of Breezy Shores
19 that is AE-6 . So that based flood
20 elevation, plus the 2 feet, that is
21 required by New York State Residential
22 Code . The Building Department requires the
23 first floor elevation to be less than 8 . In
24 looking at that format, there is a very
25 large portion that has a limit of moderate
February 7, 2013 Meeting 105
1 wave energy, the "LiMWA line" as they call
2 it, on this property, which without getting
3 into a whole discussion about LiMWA, what
4 it does is basically, that there is going
5 to be the possibility of -- say a storm
6 event like Sandy, where the property is
7 going to get flooded over the bulkhead.
8 And what the Mullman ' s proposal has been
9 would be to bring the first floor elevation
10 to 10 . So they would be exceeding by 2
11 feet, that the Building Department would
12 require by a minimum. The number that you
13 may have heard when I mentioned 3 feet , is
14 when I was talking about what the final
15 product would look like, that the top of
16 the building would be 3 feet than it is
17 now, in addition to raising the elevation
18 2 feet, and it ' s also to put an adequate
19 headroom at the top . The answer to your
20 question is 8 , and the proposal is 10 .
21 MEMBER HORNING: So the current
22 elevation is 8 ?
23 MR. MULLMAN : The current elevation is
24 8 . To replace the foundation, which is in
25 poor condition at the moment . To replace
February 7, 2013 Meeting 106
1 it, unless we can demolish the house, which
2 I know we can ' t . The replacement that you
3 have to put steel underneath it and raise
4 the house . We just thought that it ' s
5 prudent after going through the trouble to
6 raise the house and build a new foundation,
7 to make it a little bit higher .
8 MEMBER HORNING: And what is the
9 material of the foundation?
10 MR. MULLMAN : Joe, do you want to tell
11 him?
12 MR. FISCHETTI : Just to clarify -- Joe
13 Fischetti, engineer . The limited wave
14 action actually changes an A Zone to a
15 V Zone . That is basically what it does . So
16 just to give you a background, that is
17 where you get the other 2 feet . So now if
18 you ' re actually in a V Zone, you want to
19 put the bottom 2 feet higher .
20 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: ( In Audible) .
21 MR. FISCHETTI : It ' s not . I was
22 clarifying that the logic of the numbers is
23 -- I just wanted to make sure . We don ' t do
24 that in the Town of Southold. The concrete
25 -- because it ' s in a A Zone, we ' re using a
February 7, 2013 Meeting 107
1 stem wall foundation, which is concrete .
2 Standard footing, concrete walls and some
3 reinforcing, and would add flood vents that
4 are required by FEMA code to allow flood
5 waters to go in and go back out of there .
6 MEMBER HORNING: So is it like a crawl
7 - space in there?
8 MR. FISCHETTI : Yes .
9 MEMBER HORNING : How high?
10 MR. FISCHETTI : The crawl space can ' t
11 be any higher than the existing grade
12 because it would have to allow the water to
13 go right back out . I don ' t have those
14 numbers on my mind.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Excuse me . I just
16 want to make sure that we get you on the
17 record.
18 MR. FISCHETTI : I don ' t have it in
19 front of me .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you please
21 just speak into the microphone .
22 MR. FISCHETTI : I know I worked this
23 out with David. The lowest point outside
24 on the grade is 5 . 7 . So it ' s about 6 . We
25 have a finished floor of 10 and then we
February 7, 2013 Meeting 108
1 have a foot after that and about 3 feet of
2 crawl space . Those numbers just happen to
3 work because we have to allow the water .
4 That it goes into the crawl space and back
5 out . The bottom of that crawl space has to
6 be no higher than that .
7 MEMBER HORNING : One final question .
8 Does the building remain seasonally
9 occupied?
10 MR. MULLMAN : Yes . The building has
11 no heat . No one at Breezy has heat, it
12 will be insulated but it will remain
13 seasonal . Not for winter use .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Could you
15 or either Joe, describe for the record, you
16 will use the documented plans and a
17 detailed description of the what you have
18 proposed? The Board would be interested in
19 noting for the record, the existing
20 condition of the cottage and what impact
21 that will have it when you raise it to the
22 new elevation?
23 MR. FISCHETTI : The south area has
24 some conditions that need some improving,
25 the front side . A lot of the support
February 7, 2013 Meeting 109
1 posts , but that is the reason why we ' re
2 raising it . Generally, when they ' re lifted
3 they get supported inside . The lifting of
4 this structure will have no bearing on
5 anything that will damage the house . It
6 will not .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Board has ,
8 as you know, frequently looked at things
9 that were not supposed to be demolished and
10 there are no walls .
11 MR. HERRMANN : Just again, and I know
12 this has been stated, the walls in the
13 bathroom are in fact coming apart .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes . And the
15 proposal of a landward expansion of 20
16 feet .
17 Jim, questions?
18 MEMBER DINIZIO: Is there any way that
19 he cannot do the 20 square feet? In other
20 words , if you can fit that bathroom inside
21 the square footage?
22 . MR. MULLMAN : When you look at the
23 plans, the rooms inside are fairly small .
24 Basically, it ' s 13 feet wide . The bedrooms
25 are 9 feet . The kitchen is like 10 and 11 .
February 7, 2013 Meeting 110
1 So to take the bathroom and put it inside
2 the cottage, I think it would make the use
3 of the cottage much worse for us .
4 MEMBER DINIZIO : It ' s only a cottage?
5 MR. MULLMAN : It ' s only 600 square
6 feet . It ' s small .
7 MEMBER DINIZIO : It ' s only a cottage
8 and not a house .
9 MR. MULLMAN : Right, but we use it for
10 the summer. We use it for weekends .
11 Sometimes we spend a couple of weeks there .
12 And we like sitting in the living room. We
13 have a very small bedroom. I just think
14 that it ' s too small to put the bathroom
15 inside the cottage . It ' s already very,
16 very tight . I was fine with it when we
17 bought it . To put a bathroom inside of it,
18 I think that would be difficult for us .
19 MEMBER DINIZIO : You bought it and it
20 was there .
21 MR. MULLMAN : We did.
22 MEMBER DINIZIO : Maybe you can come
23 back with something and show me where that
24 is , why you can ' t just fit it inside the
25 house that exist?
February 7, 2013 Meeting 111
1 MR. MULLMAN : Anything could be done,
2 but I would object to that . It would take
3 away from our current use of the house .
4 MEMBER HORNING : Is the bathroom
5 outside of the house now?
6 MR. MULLMAN : Yes .
7 MEMBER HORNING: And is the new
8 bathroom going to be in the exact same
9 place?
10 MR. MULLMAN : Exactly where it is .
11 Instead of it being 5x5 , it will be 5x8
12 essentially.
13 MEMBER DINIZIO : The house is already,
14 according to the Notice of Disapproval,
15 it ' s not according to the code .
16 MR. MULLMAN : The house on one side of
17 my cottage, I have a three bedroom cottage .
18 A much bigger cottage . On the other side,
19 I have an identical cottage . So when the
20 cottages are between sizes , I am not asking
21 to make mine one of the grander cottages .
22 There are cottages that are much larger .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually, I have
24 a question for one of the Homeowner ' s
25 Association . If one of you can come to the
February 7, 2013 Meeting 112
1 microphone? Your Board has reviewed this
2 application, you have placed restrictions
3 on the property that limits or prohibits
4 expansion of the existing cottages? Is
5 that true?
6 MR. WILSON : Can you repeat that
7 again?
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I will rephrase
9 it . According to the restrictions that are
10 imposed on all of your properties, limit
11 the expansion of the cottages --
12 MS . ZARKA: Those are our By-Laws .
13 It ' s in the Rules and Regulations . We
14 allow expansion .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do they define
16 expansion?
17 MS . ZARKA: It doesn ' t . That would be
18 something that would be determined by the
19 Architectural Committee and the Board. It
20 just states that expansion will be allowed.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right .
22 MS . ZARKA: Thank you .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any other
24 questions from the Board?
25 MEMBER DINIZIO : No questions .
February 7, 2013 Meeting 113
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
4 else in the audience that would like to
5 address this application?
6 (No Response . )
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
8 further questions or comments , I will make
9 a motion to close this hearing and reserve
10 decision to a later date .
11 Is there a second?
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
15 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
18 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
19 *******************************************
20 (Whereupon, the February 7 , 2013
21 Regular Meeting concluded. )
22
23
24
25
February 7, 2013 Meeting 114
1
2 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
3
4
5 I , Jessica DiLallo, certify that the
6 foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public
7 Hearings was prepared using required electronic
8 transcription equipment and is a true and accurate
9 record of the Hearings .
10
11
12 Signature .
(-
13 J sica DiLallo
14
15 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
16 PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
17
18 Date : February 18 , 2013
19
20
21
22
23
24
25