HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/07/2013 Hearing 1
1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
k COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK
2 ------------------------------------------- X
3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
4
5 ------------------------------------------- X
6 RECEIVED
7 Southold Town Hall MAR 2 7 2013
Southold, New York
8 BOARD OF APPEALS
9 March 7 , 2013
9 : 57 A.M .
10
11
12 Board Members Present :
6
13 LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
14 GERARD GOEHRINGER - Member
15 KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member
16 GEORGE HORNING - Member (Excused)
17
18 VICKI TOTH - Secretary
19 JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney
20
21
22 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
23 P . O . . Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
24 ( 631) -338-1409
25
2
1
2 INDEX OF HEARINGS
3
4
5 Hearing: Page :
6
7 Laura Yantsos, #6631 3-20
8 Shamgar Capital, LLC
9 (Daniel Buttafuoco) #6620 20-46
10 Harbor View Farm, LLC,
11 dba 8 Hands, #6625 46-69
12 George and Lisa Haase, #6626 69-73
13 RJJ Properties, LLC, #6633 73-84
14 Gregory and Carol Karas, #6630 84-98
15 George Likokas, #6632 98-124
16 Daniel Mahoney, #6628 124-132
17 Raymond Strong, #6629 132-138
18 Vicki Toth, #6627 138-143
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 3
1 HEARING #6631 - LAURA YANTSOS
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first
3 application before the -Board is for Laura
4 Yantsos , #6631 . Request for variances from
5 Article XXIII Code Section 280-124 and the
6 Building Inspector ' s October 10 , 2012 ,
7 updated January 3 , 2013 Notice of
8 Disapproval based on an application for
9 building permit for additions and
10 alterations to existing single family
11 dwelling at ; 1 ) bulkhead setback of less
12 than the code required 75 feet, 2 ) less
13 than the code required minimum side yard
14 setback of 10 feet, 3 ) less than the total
15 combined side yards of 25 feet, 4 ) less
16 than the code required front yard setback
17 of 35 feet, located at : 3455 Bayshore
18 Road, adjacent to Shelter Island Sound in
19 Greenport .
20 MS . YANTSOS : Yes . Good morning .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: State your name
22 for the record?
23 MS . YANTSOS : My name is Laura
24 Yantsos . I am the owner and applicant on
25 this application . I have been --
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 4
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Excuse me for
2 one second.
3 MS . YANTSOS : Yeah .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would like to
5 give you copies for your records and
6 review, memorandum from the Local
7 Waterfront Revitalization Program
8 Coordinator . We ' re required to get review
9 and recommendations on all waterfront
10 properties from that agency, which is the
11 LWRP Coordinator, Mark Terry. Just for the
12 record, his review indicates that the
13 proposed actions are consistent with the
14 . polices and standards and therefore
15 consistent with the LWRP, and he states the
16 section of the code . Also we have a letter
17 from Suffolk County indicating that this is
18 a matter for local determination. So ,we
19 can give you copies .
20 MS . YANTSOS : Thank you very much . I
21 was here before . I was here ten months
22 ago . This was the house that I lived in
23 since 1956, since my parents owned. I
24 inherited it . The house is essentially in
25 the same condition its been in since it was
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 5
1 built . My father enclosed the carport in
2 the 70 ' s and I came here ten months ago to
3 get a variance on that . , Now, I would like
4 to make some modest expansion and
5 renovations on the house . It would not
6 affect the present side yards and setbacks
7 or whatever they are, they will remain .
8 Except the house will be at that -- will
9 have that setback and side yard. I
10 essentially want to square the house . When
11 I was here last, I did mention that I was
12 going to do these renovations and
13 expansion, and that I did want to square
14 off the house . And you know, you had
15 reminded me that I did have to come back
16 here . So the purpose of the expansion and
17 renovation is so I could better insulate
18 the enclosed carport by digging a crawl
19 space and to have a more sensible interior
20 design of the house . And thirdly, to
21 create a more aesthetically pleasing
22 appearance . Especially on the road side,
23 because when these waterfront homes were
24 first built in the 50 ' s and 40 ' s , the back
25 of the house was the road. Essentially,
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 6
1 the back of my house faces the road. I am
2 basically the last person on the road to do
3 a renovation. Most of the houses have been
4 renovated and the character of the
5 neighborhood of those houses are very close
6 together. So essentially I would not be
7 disrupting the character of the
8 neighborhood in any way. My expansion is
9 very modest comparing the renovations and
10 expansions that have been done in the rest
11 of the neighborhood. My setback of the
12 waterfront is probably setback more than
13 anyone else on that road, and that will be
14 the same because I am only going out two
15 feet on one side of the front -- front of
16 the waterfront side and just to square it
17 at the waterfront side .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : May I just ask
19 you, since you brought that up, because
20 that would be one of the things that the
21 Board would be interested in . Can you
22 provide us with an average bulkhead setback
23 on a 50 foot wide lot along Bayshore and
24 the water side?
25 MS . YANTSOS : As a matter of fact,
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 7
1 one of the girls in the office came out to
2 give me the ZBA applications made by some
3 of the people in the neighborhood, but I
4 can tell you that my setback from the
5 bulkhead is -- I think 60 or over 60 some
6 odd feet . I would say that most of the
7 setbacks are between 10 and 40, from the
8 roadway.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you ' re
10 basing that assessment on what?
11 MS . YANTSOS : My visual and just
12 knowing the neighborhood. I have lived
13 there since ' 56 . I am very familiar with
14 everybody ' s house . I do have these ZBA
15 applications where it does mention the
16 setbacks from the water . And I also would
17 like to mention that after Hurricane Sandy,
18 the bulkhead was breached and I did replace
19 it and put up a very formidable bulkhead
20 between -- I think my application and now,
21 since Hurricane Sandy.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Actually when I
23 did a site inspection, a tractor was out
24 there in the backyard and also the
25 neighbors I see .
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 8
1 MS . YANTSOS : Yes, we both did it .
2 And the neighbor next to me on the other
3 side, did his about five years ago . So all
4 three of us have relatively -- we have a
5 brand new one and one has a relatively new
6 bulkhead.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you also
8. address the average front yard setback?
9 MS . YANTSOS : The front yard setback,
10 I would say that about half the
11 neighborhood has about -- the same setback
12 as me, which is about 30 . I think 30 feet,
13 between 3.0 and 40 feet . I think the
14 setbacks are in the neighborhood. Now, I
15 know I am building this little overhang
16 porch, but this porch would not extend out
17 any more than the bilco door . It would be
18 next to it because that is on the road side
19 and that would camouflage that bilco door
20 and wouldn ' t extend out -- I don ' t think
21 that it would extend out any further than
22 the bilco door .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It appears
24 that, the front door on the landward side
25 is 6 feet by 9 1/2 feet in dimensions .
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 9
1 MS . YANTSOS :; Yeah .
2 CHAIRPERSON ,WEISMAN: And it will be
3 diminishing the nonconforming front yard
4 setback of 31 . 3 feet, which is what it is
5 to your house now .
6 MS . YANTSOS : To the house, yes .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you ' re
8 proposing that length or a length of 9
9 feet?
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes .
11 MS . YANTSOS : At 24 . 8 . I did want to
12 mention that most people -- many people
13 have garages on the roadway that are built
14 between 2 and 5 feet from the road. So I
15 think there are about 6 or 7 , at least, who
16 have garages that are very close to the
17 roadway. So I don ' t have a garage but this
18 kind of provides me some shelter, you know
19 from the elements and getting into the
20 house .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s basically
22 an open porch --
23 MS . YANTSOS : Yes .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : With a portico
25 over it?
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 10
1 MS . YANTSOS : Yes .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It would be
3 helpful for the Board if you can provide in
4 writing, some assessments of what would
5 amplify a little bit of what you just said
6 and testified to about the applications
7 that you managed to find, that indicates
8 bulkhead setback --
9 MS . YANTSOS : Yes . Would pictures be
10 sufficient?
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes . Google
12 Earth would work.
13 MS . YANTSOS : I have these
14 applications, can I give them?
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You most
16 certainly can .
17 MS . YANTSOS : Oh, I just wanted to
18 mention and I don ' t know how significant
19 this is but, I just noticed on my plans as
20 I was looking at them outside, I saw that
21 my architect has the house backwards . It
22 has one page with the elevations . He has
23 the chimney side facing south when --
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes .
25 MS . YANTSOS : You noticed that?
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 11
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am a
2 professional architect, I know how to read
3 drawings .
4 MS . YANTSOS : I don ' t know -- I just
5 don ' t understand half the plans .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s okay. We
7 do .
8 MS . YANTSOS : Now, as far as the
9 setbacks from the water, would you want me
10 to bring you pictures in addition to --
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes . In the
12 application, it will help us look at the
13 character of the neighborhood with regard
14 to front yard setbacks , including the
15 accessory garages that are closed to the
16 road and the bulkhead setbacks, because
17 those enable the Board to consider the
18 non-conformities that you ' re proposing
19 within the content of other
20 non-conformities that are within the
21 character of the neighborhood, which is one
22 of the standards that we have to review in
23 granting relief from the code .
24 MS . YANTSOS : All right . How would I
25 do that?
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 12
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just submit to
2 the office, to Vicki, that information .
3 Whether it ' s based on looking at other
4_ people ' s surveys or whether it ' s based on
5 previous ZBA determinations or Notice ' s of
6 Disapproval that cites those setbacks or
7 simply making observations, with
8' photographs indicating how many accessory
9 structures are next to the road.
10 MS . YANTSOS : Yes .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It simply
12 enhances the strength of your application .
13 MS . YANTSOS : Thank you . I will do
14 that . Is there any other --
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes . I want to
16 give the other Board members a chance to
17 ask some questions .
18 Gerry?
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why don ' t you let
20 Ken go first?
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Go ahead, Gerry.
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As you know from
23 your previous application, I was very
24 unsettled about the side yards at 5 feet .
25 Do you remember that discussion that we
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 13
1 had?
2 MS . YANTSOS : Yes, I do . I wanted to
3 say this . In 1956 when the house was
4 built, i.t had a carport with gabled roof, a
5 foundation . Everything was there except
6 the walls . They did have a gable . So they
7 had a half wall coming down . So it was a 5
8 foot side yard setback there to begin with.
9 The walls -- putting up the walls on the
10 enclosed carport really didn ' t change
11 anything as far as that side yard is
12 concerned. Although I saw the reason why I
13 had to come and get the variance . I just
14 wanted to mention that what existed there
15 in 1956, is -- was created with a problem
16 with the side yard, which wasn ' t a problem
17 then, but became a problem over the years
18 because of .the wall . What I am doing now,
19 that is not going to change except that
20 it ' s going to be extended . to the side of
21 the road to meet the other side, and it
22 would look -- it would look better then it
23 does now and it wouldn ' t be a greater side
24 yard. It would be the same, except
25 extended.
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 14
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The discussion
2 that I entered into at that particular time
3 was the issue in Southold Town by Kenny ' s
4 Beach, where I told you about Carol Road,
5 where we requested people putting in garage
6 doors on both sides so that they could gain
7 access to their rear yard.
8 MS . YANTSOS : I don ' t think that we
9 had that .
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, I am going
11 to enter into that now and enter it into
12 the record. I am telling you that I cannot
13 go at this point, because this is a
14 renovation, with '5 feet . I need -- for me
15 to vote on this application and I am not
16 predisposing or anything, I went back
17 there . I did my entire research of your
s
18 home again . That 5 feet has to be 7 feet .
19 You have got to be able to get some sort of
20 machinery to the other side of that house .
21 MS . YANTSOS : You couldn ' t get it
22 with 7 feet though .
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes . You could get
24 it with 7 feet but without restricting you
25 in any way, except taking the two feet off
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 15
1 of this carport, which is converted to a
2 room, which is going to be a dining room
3 and so on and so forth . I am suggesting
4 that the minimum of 7 feet at the rear of
5 the house basically. The rear right-hand
6 corner, standing in front of the house . And
7 I am just . telling you my feelings . And I
8 did go with it ten months ago based upon
9 the fact that the building did exist, but
10 now with a renovation aspect and a new
11 foundation and so on and so forth --
12 MS . YANTSOS : You have given it to
13 me . You have given me this variance .
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Only because it
15 existed. I am not the single person on the
16 Board. I am only one person. So what I am
17 saying to you, possibly I can be convinced.
18 So while you ' re doing your investigation of
19 the area, give me some pictures of side
20 yards , okay?
21 MS . YANTSOS : Okay.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Now, one thing
23 that the Chairperson said and I am not
24 correcting her in any way, I am only adding
25 to her discussion, and that is the majority
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 16
1 of those garages that exist, except for the
2 old ones that face Bayshore Road, were
3 granted by this Board after renovations
4 were done on houses . So we ' re going to be
5 aware of some of those front yard garages
6 that you ' re going to be taking pictures of .
7 The majority of those houses that those
8 renovations were done, were granted
9 specific actions on those houses , . were what
10 we refer to as a "front to back house . "
11 Okay. And that is usually a house where the
12 bedrooms are in front and the house runs
13 length wise along the property line, okay.
14 This way. Your ' s is across . I am just
15 saying to you, that they have access to
16 their rear yard, the waterfront side . The
17 majority of the ones that we have done . So
18 I am just saying that I need pictures of
19 houses with significantly reduced side
20 yards, as your property is, for me to be
21 able to visualize what is out there without
22 investigating every one of them. Please .
23 MS . YANTSOS : Yes . I will tell you
24 for me to change it and put 7 feet there
25 now, and change the house, there is no
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 17
1 point in making any kind of renovation at
2 all, because I can ' t do what I intend .to do
3 -- there is no purpose for the renovation
4 because the interior designs cannot be
5 accomplished if I want to do that .
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: One of the
7 positive things that you just testified to
8 and one of the elements that I can possibly
9 open my position on this, and that is that
10 you replaced the bulkhead. So we know that
11 the bulkhead is going to exist for a good
12 amount of years . That was one of the main
13 concerns that I had in all these situations
14 when people ask for to continue there with
15 their side yards, okay. So that is one
16 thing . Now, if you can get us some pictures
17 of some houses with some significantly
18 reduced side yards, we would appreciate
19 that . And I thank you.
20 MS . YANTSOS : All right .
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What I am telling
22 you is that I am not ( In Audible) . I
23 wasn' t ( In Audible) ten months ago when you
24 came before us .
25 MS . YANTSOS : I just want to mention
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 18
1 though that you can do a bulkhead from the
2 water .
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. Not every
4 area . You ' re in Pipes Cove, which is
5 really a great place to do it . There are
6 other places like Nassau Point, where you
7 have a high velocity of wind. It ' s very
8 difficult .
9 MS . YANTSOS : Thank you .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes . The proposed
12 ridge height of the house is 21 feet . What
13 is the existing ridge height?
14 MS . YANTSOS : The height of the
15 house?
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes .
17 MS . YANTSOS : It ' s 21 feet . The
18 height will not change .
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The height will
20 not change?
21 MS . YANTSOS : No .
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. I didn ' t
23 hear you if you said the reasons why you ' re
24 , proposing a new foundation here?
25 MS . YANTSOS : Because that enclosed
March 7, 2013 'Regular Meeting 19
1 carport is a little cool in the winter . I
2 cannot use the room because it ' s not --
3 it ' s on a slab . So I want to better
4 insulate it there and I also wanted to put
5 the kitchen in there because where the
6 kitchen is now, it doesn ' t make sense with
7 the carport on the one side and there is a
8 staircase in the middle of the house and a
9 living room on the other side . It doesn ' t
10 make any sense . I wanted to put the kitchen.
11 -- better insulated, I wanted to put the
12 kitchen in the carport area . And do it from
13 there .
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So the purpose is
15 for utilities , heating?
16 MS . YANTSOS : It ' s for insulation,
17 better warmth in the room.
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. Thank you .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
20 in the audience who would like to address
21 this application?
22 (No Response . )
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
24 further comments or questions, I am going
25 to make a motion to close this hearing
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 20
i
1 subject to receipt of additional
2 information about side yards, bulkheads and
3 front yard setbacks in your area, along the
4 water side .
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
6 MS . YANTSOS : Thank you .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by
8 Gerry.
9 All in favor?
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
13 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
14 ***** ******************************* *****
15 HEARING #6620 - SHAMGAR CAPITAL, LLC
16 ( DANIEL BUTTAFUOCO)
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
18 application before the Board is 'for Shamgar
19 Capital, LLC, Daniel Buttafuoco, #6620 .
20 Adjourned from February 7 , 2013 at the
21 applicant ' s request . Request for variance
22 from Article III Section 280-14 and the
23 Building Inspector ' s October 21 , 2012
24 Notice of Disapproval based on an
25 application for building permit for
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 21
1 construction of a third story addition at :
2 1 ) more than the code required number of
3 stories of 2 1/2 , located at : 1165 Kimberly
4 Lane, adjacent to Southold Bay, Southold. I
5 should add that the way that the legal
6 notice is written, it says "as code
7 required. " It should be "permitted. " Just
8 to make sure that is clear . Before you get
9 started, would you please just enter your
10 name into the record.
11 MR. MEYER: Sure . Gerard E . Meyer,
12 architect . I practice and reside at 14
13 Cobalt Avenue, Stewart Manor, New York.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you .
15 Welcome back.
16 MR. MEYER: Thank you.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have any
18 more green cards?
19 MR. MEYER: No, I do not . I had two
20 that I submitted. The other two I did not .
21 During my presentation, I will say that I
22 did hear and speak to one of the other
23 neighbors who had been informed of the
24 hearing, and I actually have a copy of the
25 e-mail and conversation that we had about
March 7, 2013 Regular-Meeting 22
1 this project .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. I want to
3 give you a copy of the Suffolk County
4 Planning Department . In this case
5 Department of Economic Development
6 Planning. Notice of local determination,
7 to indicate that our LWRP review indicates
8 that this action that you ' re proposing is
9 consistent with the LWRP . These are for
10 your records .
11 MR. MEYER: Thank you .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You ' re welcome .
13 Mr . Meyer, before we get started, I
14 just want to mention for the record that
15 you were before us previously for a
16 third-story habitable space .
17 MR. MEYER: Yes .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not sleeping or
19 cooking --
20 MR. MEYER: That ' s correct .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And that
22 application, according to the transcript of
23 the public hearing, was denied, as you will
24 recall . And it was based upon our
25 discussion of that and your indication that
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 23
1 that was not really an issue giving
2 something of the roof pitch that you could
3 accomplish . However, you were okay with
4 forgetting about it . I believe it was
5 Member Dinizio at the time, who said we
6 have two ways to go . One is a Notice of
7 Disapproval that was amended and
8 withdrawing that request and the other was
9 simply to deny it, which just makes it a
10 little less time consuming for you, and the
11 Board did that .
12 MR. MEYER: Correct .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the first
14 thing that we have to establish in our
15 record, since you ' re back here for
16 something that was previously denied by
17 this Board, we want to make sure that it
18 doesn ' t go with res judicata, which means ,
19 revisiting something that we have
20 previously determined. And so I would like
21 you to. explain to us , we have all seen the
22 plans, please begin by explaining how you
23 can distinguish between what you ' re now
24 proposing and what was previously denied?
25 MR. MEYER: If I may just start by
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 24
1 saying that, if I recall correctly, I think
2 part of our application was approved. All
3 of the other additions and alterations that
4 we were looking for --
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, they were .
6 MR. MEYER: Were approved by this
7 Board, with the fact that that third floor
8 occupancy being . removed.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes .
10 MR. MEYER: So it wasn ' t so much that
11 it was denied, it was amended. It wasn ' t
12 approved as a third floor .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The
14 determination granted all of the variances
15 that were required, the relief that was
16 required, with the exception of the third
17 floor .
18 MR. MEYER: I also happen to have with
19 me, Mr . Daniel Buttafuoco, who is the
20 manager of Shamgar, LLC . , and the owner of
21 the property or homeowner . Having some sort
22 of a third floor area is something that he
23 felt very strongly about, to the point that
24 we had talked to the Building Department
25 about amending that space so that it was
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 25
1 greatly reduced from- what we were seeking
2 earlier . We have done a couple of items , a
3 few things with discussion of the Building
4 Department . We have actually lowered .the
5 pitch of the roof from a 7 and 12 pitch, to
6 a 6 and 12 pitch, which not only brought
7 down the overall height of the house from
8 33 feet to 31 . 8" , but it also reduced the
9 overall attic of the home . If we were to
10 establish a 7 foot ceiling height
11 throughout the attic area, we would now
12 only have approximately 583 . 5 square feet
13 up there . Where as a part of our original
14 application, we were seeking approximately
15 780 square feet of finished space . Of this
16 583 . 5 square feet, we ' re seeking to finish
17 o-ff slightly less than half of that area,
18 with a 7 foot high ceiling . It would create
19 a room for a sitting room or a little bit
20 of a den, but primarily access to an
21 outdoor elevation deck of approximately
22 13 . 6 inches wide by 21 feet long or 283 . 5
23 square feet . We feel that this is greatly
24 reduced from what we were seeking before .
25 We have also eliminated -- in our previous
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 26
1 proposal, there were several dog house
2 dormers that adorned the roof on all sides,
3 we have removed all of those with the
4 exception of one reversed peak gable on the
5 easterly or water side of the house, to
6 allow some light into this space and more
7 primarily, access from this one finished
8 area out onto a observation deck. Again,
9 not only was this a desire of the
10 homeowner, it was partly a petition again,
11 based on -- we had gotten a transcript of
12 the former hearing, and I hope that I
13 pronounce his name correctly, I think it ' s
14 Goehringer?
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Goehringer .
16 MR. MEYER: He had mentioned during
17 that hearing that he personally might be
18 agreeable to something if it were
19 considerable smaller and we used kind of
20 like a den or a library, creating access to
21 this outdoor space . Again, we feel that we
22 have greatly reduced that area . Even to the
23 point where we feel that it could arguably
24 be considered a 2 1/2 story and no longer a
25 third floor . Last time, as a part of my
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 27
1 presentation, I had read the Town ' s
2 definition of a half-story, and again, it
3 is a half area one floor, then half of the
4 floor below that is deemed to be half-story
5 as being under the roof structure . That ' s
6 a little bit of a weird word, but in this
7 particular case, we have a room that we ' re
8 seeking to finish completely under the
9 roof, where the roof goes under the ridge
10 completely to the top of the plate of the
11 floor below . So there are no wall
12 extensions at what would be at a third
13 floor level . This would truly be attic
14 space that we ' re looking to finish off .
15 And percentage wise, the 283 . 5 square feet,
16 is less than half of the total attic area
17 and only about 12% of the second floor or
18 the floor below . So it doesn ' t even come
19 close to half of the square footage of the
20 floor below . The second floor of the house
21 is going to be 2247 square feet, and that
22 is how we get a little bit more than 12% .
23 Even the entire attic and everything other
24 than this one room that we ' re seeking to
25 finish off as a 7 foot high ceiling, all of
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 28
1 the other attic area is going to have a
2 maximum of 6 foot 8 inch high ceiling that
3 would be completely unusable, except for
4 storage . And even the total attic area is
5 only 26% percent of the floor area below .
6 So again, in our eyes, we pretty much see
7 it as being a half story, and we ' re only
8 seeking to finish off less than half of
9 that . The size of this room was determined
10 basically from the layout of the house that
11 we have . From the plans that you see, we
12 have a stair on the second floor that will
13 rise up to the middle of the home . The
14 length of the room being 21 feet, is
15 basically the distance from the top of that
16 stair to the easterly or back wall of that
17 house, and the 13 . 6 width, is basically
18 just aligning the two petitions . Again,
19 under the roof structure with two other
20 bearing walls below that can transfer some
21 of that weight down . That is strictly how
22 we arrived at the size of that room. And
23 again, that one reversed gable peak, all
24 within the normal height of the roof, that
25 would allow for some windows and a door
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 29
1 that would have access to that outside
2 habitable space . Also, we were trying to
3 achieve an aesthetical appearance of a
4 house, and' rather just have a fully pitched
5 roof over this entire second floor, this
6 little reversed peak breaks it up, as we
7 felt that the dog house dormers did before .
8 One of Mr . Verity ' s comments about trying
9 to make the rest of it non-habitable, was
10 to get rid of the dog house dormers , which
11 almost gave the perception that it might be
12 used -- being that it would bring natural
13 light into it . So that is why we have
14 eliminated those . I have a handout that I
15 would like to give to the Board, if I may.
16 One of the other comments in our previous
17 hearing was that we really didn ' t cite any
18 other examples in the Town locally that had
19 a third floor . In riding around, I was
20 able to, find at least a couple and I have
21 three examples that I would like to submit,
22 if I may?
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you very
24 much .
25 MR. MEYER: The first example that we
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 30
1 show you is actually the house next door .
2 The Hence Residence at 1325 Kimberly Lane,
3 is the adjacent property to the south of
4 the subject property. The drawings that I
5 have submitted to you, I have gotten from
6 the Town ' s records Building Department . The
7 drawings were done in March of 2000 . It
8 basically was constructed as a new dwelling
9 at that time with a very steep roof pitch
10 of 10 and 12 roof . And it actually has two
11 ' tiered attic space with four dormers . Each
12 of the two tiers have a 7 foot ceiling .
13 It ' s a little bit tough to read those
14 drawings from the way that they were
15 copied, but there does appear to be a
16 staircase from the second floor that goes
17 up to the lower tier of that attic space .
18 And there are two dormers at that level
19 that face front and back. And then when you
20 go up to another level, there is two more
21 dormers facing in the opposite direction .
22 So there is quite a bit of space for what
23 again, could or should, be considered a
24 third floor and possibly a fourth . The
25 second residence, we have given you a
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 31
1 couple of copies of the drawing, is for the
2 Starsick (phonetic) Residence, I believe it
3 is pronounced, at 205 Private Road, #3 .
4 This was also constructed as a new home .
5 The drawings that I have submitted, have
6 all been pulled from the Town ' s files and
7 were dated in September of 2010 . This
8 project appears to have a full attic with
9 front and back gabled roof ' s and windows ,
10 and four dormers . Two to the east and two
11 to the west . From my calculations , the
12 floor there greatly exceeds 500 of the
13 floor below, yet the record and the CO for
14 this property states that it is a two and a
15 half story dwelling . The drawings do
16 indicate that there is a pull down stair
17 but the location of that and the framing
18 plan, makes it look as that that full stair
19 could be installed. And there is also a
20' record of a fire sprinkler system being
21 installed in the home, which would openly
22 be required if it had three floors . In
23 addition, just as a side note for that
24 property, that house is also constructed
25 and located on a severe hill . And what is
. March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 32
1 shown as the foundation or the basement
2 plan, could easily be construed as another
3 floor and that it ' s suspect as to whether
4 500 of that floor is truly below grade .
5 Last but not least, I was able to find one
6 other residence, the Kelly Alegially.
7 (phonetic) Residence, I apologize for that,
8 mispronouncing it too, at 2725 Wells
. 9 Avenue . These drawings were from
10 December 1990 for additions and alterations
11 to that home . Again, they were copies that
12 were attained from the Town ' s records . It
13 shows alterations and additions to provide
14 a three-story stair tower that is
15 approximately 14 foot square with a third
16 floor level with stairs that rise up to
17 that level . Similar to an observation deck
18 or level with some windows that face out
19 for viewing. And then access from there to
20 the lower roof attic area for storage . So
21 these are some fairly good examples of the
22 area .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Board is
24 very appreciative of your careful research.
25 With regard to these precedents, do you
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 33
1 know whether or not variances were granted
2 for those examples that you are providing?
3 MR. MEYER: The only one that I was
4 able to find any evidence of a Board of
5 Appeals case was that last one, and it
6 really had not to do with the height of
7 that house or that third floor level, but
8 the fact that the garage on that property,
9 that is on the forward of that home and
10 goes into the front yard setbacks and such .
11 So it was unrelated to the stair tower in
12 itself.
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. I will say
14 that there are examples out there, where
15 this Board has granted modest finished
16 space on what would be determined to be a
17 third-story with obviously the State
18 requirements for sprinkling that area for
19 fire safety. Perhaps, if there is a way
20 that you could, and perhaps even our office
21 could, we ' re very capable of doing
22 research, if you could bring to the Board
23 some examples of variances that the Board
24 has granted for third-floor habitable
25 space . Even though again, they' re not
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 34
1 cooking and sleeping facilities, certainly
2 a use for what you ' re proposing, that would
3 be very helpful to us .
4 MR. MEYER: These properties that I
5 have assembled basically for this hearing,
6 were basically just driving around
7 observation . The one next door was readily
8 available . It ' s a beautiful community . I
9 like driving around here . Some of these
10 other homes have popped out . The other
11 thing is , we ' re looking at this observation
12 deck and level as kind of a modern day
13 widow floor and a lot of the older houses
14 along the floor, that would be the upper
15 most level , where the captain ' s wife would
16 go up and look out to sea and wait for the
17 ships to come back to shore .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I will buy that
19 as a balcony, but not -- there is no widow
20 that is walking indoors .
21 MR. MEYER: There is a beautiful old
22 home on Peconic Avenue, I believe it ' s
23 3070 , which has that upper most observatory
24 level . I also just happened to notice on
25 the way here this morning, the house
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 35
1 directly across the street, which is an
2 expanded cape has a third-floor where there
3 was a gabled roof . And obviously they have
4 created some oversized dormers on the rear
5 portion of that house, at the third-floor
6 level with some balcony 'and staircases that
7 wind their way down to the ground floor .
8 Sorry, I only noticed that this morning .
9 So I didn ' t have time to pull those
10 records . But in addition to researching as
11 you have suggested, I will also look into
12 that home .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, the Board
14 would no doubt agree that there are a
15 number of residential properties that have
16 an approved third-story. Our concern is,
17 were they accomplished with relief from
18 this Board or were they simply put in after
19 the fact . We can ' t clearly, as you can
20 understand, condone illegal, you know,
21 creations of a third-floor . Although we
22 will certainly acknowledge as people who
23 live here, have seen it for our self . But
24 of course you ' re approaching a Board to
25 legalize it . As far as I am concerned, you
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 36
1 have very carefully provided and answered
2 my questions on res judicata . So I think
3 that the Board can certainly put that to
4 rest . Is there anything else that you
5 would like to tell us before I ask the
6 Board --
7 MR. MEYER: Just a few more, if I
8 may?
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure .
10 MR. MEYER: Part of our presentation
11 is for an interpretation on the denial , in
12 that, again, by the letter and the
13 definitions of the law, in our mind, this
14 is actually a half-story. And there are
15 lots of applications within this Town, but
16 all of Long Island and the New York area .
17 Our request to the Board is to consider it
18 in that light . It could technically be
19 deemed a second and a half-story, as
20 opposed to a third floor . We intend to
21 sprinkler the whole house . It would be
22 required by the New York State Construction
23 Code, should we be able to achieve this
24 variance, but that is our intention. And
25 just two other things and I will try and be
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 37
1 brief . As I had mentioned earlier, I had a
2 conversation, I was contacted by Mr . Peter
3 Hafner who was one of the homeowners who
4 was in the list of the radius of homes that
5 needed to be contacted. He is currently
6 out of town but reached me via e-mail and
7 telephone and we had a telephone
8 conversation about the project . And I told
9 him I would follow-up with an e-mail and if
10 I may provide copies of that . I have heard
11 from him again . Basically confirming yes ,
12 that he did not have a problem with the
13 project . His general concern is that being
14 that he ' s across the street to the west of
15 the subject property, he was more concerned
16 that we did not provide additions to the
17 home that went either north or south or too
18 high that would restrict his view. He
19 still wanted to have a view still of the
20 bay. That was his general concern. And
21 not only to additions and alterations , but
22 also the landscaping of the property, that
23 would be considerable of him having to be
24 able to see pass Mr . Buttafuoco ' s home
25 across the bay.
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 38
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. The
2 Notice of Disapproval does not -- our
3 attorney has pointed out to us, since you
4 have brought it up, there is no request in
5 the Notice of Disapproval or in your
6 application for code interpretation . I
7 think it ' s just safer to say that this is
8 for a third-story . Unless you want to
9 adjourn it and go back and apply for a code
10 interpretation as to whether this is a
11 third-story or a second and a half-story .
12 MR. MEYER: I think we would like the
13 case to stay at it is . I was just
14 suggesting it for the Board ' s viewing on
15 this . It ' s similar to some of the
16 residences that I provided, one is a large
17 third floor . Again, I will investigate to
18 see if there were variances achieved in
19 this .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
21 MR. MEYER: I think if the Board were
22 so fit to grant and the Town will see it as
23 a third-floor, the New York State Code will
24 see it as a third-floor, we would treat it
25 as such for means of egress and
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 39
1 sprinklering and so on and such .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : By virtue of
3 changing the roof pitch and the dormer, the
4 exterior appearance would appear more as a
5 two and a half-story dwelling .
6 MR. MEYER: That is correct .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you.
8 MR. MEYER: Thank you . In my
9 closing, again, we tried to keep the
10 aesthetics . We ' re trying to be considerate
11 of the other homes in the area and the
12 neighborhood. We feel that we have done
13 everything that we basically can and just a
14 minimal area the would allow Mr . Buttafuoco
15 and his family some viewing of the bay.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This is a
17 lounge area .
18 MR. MEYER: That is correct .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Presumably when
20 we finish, sheetrocked and finished floor,
21 it will be heated as well?
22 MR. MEYER: That ' s correct .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That was my
24 question . The stairs that leads up to it,
25 is that an open rail from the second floor?
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 40
1 MR. MEYER: Yes . Until it achieves the
2 height of the attic area and then it would
3 be an open and closed off to the attic
4 area .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
-6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes, I have a
7 question . You said you were going to
8 sprinkler the whole house?
9 MR. MEYER: Yes .
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Does that include
11 the subject proposed or does that just
12 include the attic? `
13 MR. MEYER: It includes the attic area
14 that we ' re looking to close off . I don ' t
15 believe the code requires unfinished
16 unhabitable area to be sprinklered. I
17 believe it just includes the heated areas ,
18 similar to commercial work. If it were the
19 attic and unheated, it would just need a
20 dry system. I believe the code only refers
21 to the habitable areas, the access and the
22 means of egress out of the homes and all
23 the usable homes .
24 'MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It would help me if
25 I could see a cross section of that
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 41
1 proposed area .
2 MR. MEYER: Okay.
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: To see the height
4 of the ceiling. Is it a flat roof there or
5 will it be pitched down?
6 MR. MEYER: Actually, the entire roof
7 itself is one large dipped roof .
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I was looking for
9 something with that proposed attic area .
10 Something with those two proposed access --
11 MR. MEYER: Basically what we ' re
12 proposing, in that one finished room, there
13 would be a flat 7 foot high ceiling with
14 the roof rafters still going up above that
15 and more attic space and roof ventilation .
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The roof goes from
17 wall to wall?
18 MR. MEYER: That ' s correct .
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Those two proposed
20 access doors --
21 MR. MEYER: That ' s correct .
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It would be 7 foot
23 from wall to wall?
24 MR. MEYER: Correct .
25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The whole ceiling
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 42
1 would be 7 feet?
2 MR. MEYER: Correct . And then beyond
3 those doors , into what would be left as the
4 unfinished or unheated area, would be
5 power-ties , or members down to 6 foot 8 , so
6 that it could not be used. That was also
7 at the suggestion of Mr . Verity. To make
8 sure that it could not be habitable .
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: An eliminating
10 factor?
11 MR. MEYER: That ' s correct .
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No further
13 questions for me .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: My only question
16 is a statement, and that is, these
17 particular uses of -- it ' s really
18 non-habitable space . The first one that
19 came before us was almost like a widows
20 walk situation, okay. So this is what has
21 evolved out of this . That is what I was
22 eluding to at the last hearing . I think
23 the only thing that we have not done is
24 taken a cross section of the total square
25 footage of things that we have granted in
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 43
1 the past, to see what is the maximum that
2 we ' re willing to go, okay. So' that when I
3 made that statement on the prior hearing,
4 and you came up with a figure of similar
5 square footage, that was not a calculated
6 average of square footage, but in general
7 just a guess . I am happy that you reduced
8 the ceiling height . I am happy that you --
9 your aware of some of the neighbors
10 concerns . We hear this all the time . I
11 think it has taken great concern of what
12 you have done here .
13 MR. MEYER: Thank you . With respect
14 to the square footage, it was substantial .
15 We were looking for a 770 square foot room.
16 We had indicated that it was going to be a
17 family entertainment area, possibly with a
18 ping-pong table up there . Again, this is
19 more of just a sitting area . We have
20 greatly reduced the space .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there any
22 other questions from the Board?
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
25 in the audience that would like to address
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 44
1 this application?
2 Please state your name?
3 MR. DAVIDOFF: Lisa Davidoff . I am
4 the owner and neighbor at 1015 Kimberly
5 Lane . I absolutely understand my neighbor
6 wanting to enlarge and expand his home and
7 I have absolutely no issue with any of it .
8 The only thing that was a concern, I was
9 not here at the original hearing where it
10 was denied. My mother came in my place . So
11 I don ' t want to repeat everything that she
12 said. My only concern . is really the value
13 of the home and creating a situation on a
14 street, where" we start to see third floors
15 become the norm. And the values that it
16 would have on the existing homes .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you like
18 to address that comment?
19 MR. MEYER: Yes . I remember her from
20 the last hearing . I think we had made two .
21 comments at that time . One was just the
22 position of those two homes and how they
23 sit relative to the ' view and out towards
24 the water, is that Mr. Buttafuoco ' s home is
25 actually set a little further back. So the
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 45
1 view out towards the water and what is
2 available, is not going to be changed by
3 what we ' re doing . Also the third-floor that
4 we ' re going to be seeking is going to be
5 underneath the roof . If the Board does not
6 seek fit to acknowledge that, we will
7 perhaps eliminate the stair or it will just
8 be an attic or the whole attic will have
9 6 foot 8 inch high collar-ties . That door
10 that we ' re indicating on the balcony may
11 just become one single window and there is
12 no balcony. So it really doesn ' t change
13 the overall look of the home or how it
14 would effect anyone else ' s view up and down
15 the strip .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Thank
17 you for your testimony.
18 Is there anyone else in the audience
19 that would like to address this
20 application?
21 (No Response . )
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
23 further comments, I am going to make a
24 motion to close this hearing, subject to
25 receipt of information regarding prior
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 46
1 variances with third-floor habitable space
2 that this Board has granted.
3 Is there a second?
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
9 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
10 ******* ***************************** *****
11 HEARING #6625 - HARBOR VIEW FARM,
12 LLC, dba 8 HANDS .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
14 application before the Board is for Harbor
15 View Farm, LLC, db-a 8 Hands , #6625 .
16 Request for variance from Chapter 72 ,
17 Article II , 72-5 (B) , 72-6 ( 1 & 3 ) and the
18 Building Inspector ' s October 17 , 2012 ,
19 updated January 8 , 2013 Notice of
20 Disapproval based on an application for
21 building permit to convert a portion of an
22 existing barn to a farm stand, at : 1 ) less
23 than the code required setback of 50 feet
24 from the road, 2 ) the criteria of bona fide
25 agricultural production has not been shown,
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 47
1 located at : 5000 Cox Lane, Cutchogue .
2 Is there someone here to represent
3 this application?
4 MS . FESTA: Hi . I am Carol Festa .
5 MR. GEPPEL : I ' m Tom Geppel .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you spell
7 your name please for the --
8 MR. GEPPEL : G-E-P-P-E-L .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you very
10 much . So you ' re in agricultural production
11 with a herd of sheep?
12 MS . FESTA: Yes .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think it will
14 be our first sheep farm in Southold Town .
15 MS . FESTA: We want to do a
16 multifaceted farm operation but we chose
17 sheep as sort of our centerpiece .
18 Particularly, Icelandic sheep is what we
19 settled on . They ' re a multi-purpose breed.
20 For the meat primarily in Iceland. They
21 are one of the purest breeds in existence .
22 Quite valuable animal and we are attracted
23 to it because it ' s not only the fleece, but
24 the meat and also the milk that are
25 produced by this animal . Usually sheep can
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 48
1 be one or the other but not all three .
2 That is why we chose it . And our objective
3 is to basically build out a line of
4 products around the sheep . So currently
5 the sheep are in Mattituck on leased land
6 and we would eventually like to move them
7 over to the property on Cox Lane . Now
8 currently, there is a barn on the property
9 that is setback 17 feet from the road,
10 which we feel is currently not that
11 aesthetically pleasing or attractive .
12 However, with some work, it would be ideal
13 with a farm stand. So you have pictures to
14 show what it currently looks like . Instead
15 of having them on the front of the
16 structure north-facing, this would be out
17 to the future parking lot, and basically no
18 one really has to go to the street . They
19 can pull in directly in the parking lot and
20 have access to the farm stand.
21 MR. GEPPEL : And our application was
. 22 submitted for a use and not for the
23 building . We were told to submit a
24 building permit application to use it as a
25 farm stand. So any of the agricultural or
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 49
1 anything as far as the structure itself was
2 never submitted. So all I did was write
3 something that I wanted to use it for and
4 this came and we started the process . For
5 whatever that is worth.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You ' re
7 proposing 986 square feet of retail sales
8 as the farm stand portion of that existing
9 portion. There will also be animal
10 housing .
11 MS . FESTA: No . There will not be
12 animal housing .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What will
14 happen in the rest of it?
15 MR. GEPPEL: There will be storage .
16 The building, that side of the building is
17 separated. There is two structures in that
18 one barn. There is two pieces . The one is
19 2100 square feet . You ' re allowed up to
20 3 , 000 square feet in the farm stand. We ' re
21 going to reduce that because we can ' t fill
22 enough product with 3, 000 square feet . So
23 what we did was construct two storage
24 areas . There will be stuff for the
25 animals . It could be for feed. It could
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 50
1 be for storage of anything . So the space
2 that we would like it to feel comfortable,
3 is to be more like a farm stand and that is
4 roughly 1, 000 square feet . Towards the
5 back of the building .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right . I
7 would like to enter into the record, two
8 things . With regard to the setback that is
9 cleared off . It ' s an existing setback and
10 you ' re actually proposing to create a
11 parking area, and site plan approval by the
12 Planning Board is required for that . The
13 actual opening or door that you ' re
14 proposing are setback farther from the road
15 then where the elevation of 17 feet is set .
16 The Planning Board has submitted comments
17 to us on January 29 , 2013 supporting the
18 variances on the basis of the fact that the
19 proposal is consistent with the
20 comprehensive plan, and which supports
21 agricultural operations . You will be
22 converting the existing Ag building to an
23 Ag use, which is farming . Secondly, from a
24 land preservation committee has not
25 commented on this application but had
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 51
1 approved the request of February 7 , 2013 ,
2 to construct a new Morton building for
3 animal housing . That will take place in
4 the easement area, which also rights have
5 been sold from Peconic Land Trust to the
6 Town of Southold. The barn has a Pre-CO,
7 January 8 , 1992 . I wanted to ask you what
8 you propose to sell in retail? What other
9 products will you be producing on site and
10 what will they include?
11 MS . FESTA: Certainly wool . That
12 would be one of the principle products . We
13 estimate to have about 70 sheep, if all
14 goes well with the lambing season. So that
15 right there, we generate about $10 , 000 . 00
16 in yarn . So we would like to sell yarn .
17 We would like to sell meat , although we
18 would not be selling meat on the premises .
19 Not until we could have a USDA inspector
20 facility, where we could do that . That
21 would be the case . Eventually down the
22 road we might do that . And then
23 ultimately, we would like to produce sheep,
24 but that -- there is other steps involved.
25 There are other things that we would like
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 52
1 to do, vegetables and things of that nature
2 as well . So really a sustainable, local
3 facet farm operation.
4 CHAIR-PERSON WEISMAN : With regards to
5 vegetables , will you be growing some of
6 those on your property?
7 MS . FESTA: Yes . Absolutely.
8 MR. GEPPEL : We ' re going to set aside
9 roughly two acres, an acre and a half to
10 two acres for vegetables to grow . So
11 nothing overly large but enough to be able
12 to provide product .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Let ' s
14 address the comments from the Building
15 Department on bona fide Ag operations .
16 Thanks to our assistant town attorney ' s
17 excellent advice and search, we are aware
18 of the fact that Ag and Market ' s Law
19 requires information that indicates that
20 the property that you ' re going to be moving
21 to, has been in agricultural production, A)
22 is over 7 acres, which we know that to be
23 the case, but it ' s been operating preceding
24 for two years as an Ag property. Now in
25 your overview, you indicated that Fred Lee
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 53
1 had carved that property but the Board ' s
2 assistant did some excellent research for
3 us and produced a record, that in the year
4 2000 , the subject parcel had received an Ag
5 assessment, which indicates that it has
6 been in farm production . That should
7 suffice as an indication that it is indeed
8 a bona fide Ag operation. That was one of
9 the questions that I had. Since you ' re not
10 actually farming on the property and
11 proposed to move your operation to that
12 property, how long have --
13 MS . FESTA: We have farmed . We have
14 planted foliage in preparation for the
15 animals . However, what we harvested that
16 for, I think we estimated we would
17 generate --
18 MR. GEPPEL : Close to $40 , 000 in
19 foliage value . . We were not to put the
20 sheep there and harvest the hay. At two
21 times the acre, that is. what the underlying
22 value is . As soon as the spread leaf was
23 off the property, I spent the last summer
24 between plowing and discing the pasture,
25 which I planted in September and is growing
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 54
1 up nicely. Hopefully in May or June after
2 this time of lambing, we would be able to
3 get our sheep over so we don ' t get caught
4 up with the foliage getting too ( In
5 Audible) and not eating it and having to
6 mow it, but it ' s already planted for what
7 you would consider an agricultural product
8 right now.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That helps too .
10 MS . FESTA: The value of the flock is
11 $22 , 000 . 00 as it stands today. With the
12 land and everything else, it ' s in excess of
13 $40 , 000 . 00 .
14 MR. GEPPEL : We have 37 sheep
15 currently.
16 MS . FESTA: 37 sheep at a value of
17 $22 , 000 . 00 .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And the
19 lambing, you can ' t predict?
20 MR. GEPPEL : That will start next
21 week, by the way.
22 MS . FESTA: I would say, 70 , from the
23 way that we have experienced.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That value would
25 then increased to?
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 55
1 MS . FESTA: Forty-one .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
3 MR. GEPPEL: We have already gone
4 through one shearing season already. We
5 made wool . Carol is involved with a lot of
. 6 the spinning gills and getting the knitter
7 markets and spinners, and a lot of that . So
8 that would be a big part of our business as
9 well, but that has already been happening .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : On behalf of the
11 Board, we certainly welcome you into this
12 difficult and challenging business that we
13 certainly support wholeheartedly and
14 keeping in agricultural production .
15 MR. GEPPEL : The challenges that we ' re
16 running into is just cost ' s . It ' s just
17 amazing . $1 , 000 . 00 just to get a processor .
18 The value of that is a couple of thousand
19 dollars . There is a lot of work that goes
20 into the process . So we ' re going to
21 evaluate if we can do shearing and sell the
22 fleeces right there, instead of having them
23 processed. Maybe that is a better angle .
24 Maybe a combination of that . But the
25 interest level from the local market has
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 56
1 been tremendous but part of our challenge
2 is going to be costs . One of the folks on
3 Love Lane has a yarn shop .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Oh, yeah .
5 MR. GEPPEL : She gets stuff from
6 Argentina and it ' s like half the price of
7 what we can even -- what our costs is . So
8 that is what the challenge would be . But
9 hopefully, we can stick to it and people
10 can come out, which they have done, in this
11 latest knitting guild. So I 'm positive .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just as a side,
13 I might indicate to you . The Town of
14 Southold has put together an Economic
15 Development Committee whose tasks is to
16 welcome new businesses and provide all
17 kinds of assistance to start up new
18 businesses . A variety of things .
19 Basically, the members consist of local
20 business owners and so on and so forth . I
21 think the best thing you can probably do is
22 consult with Philip Beltz who is the
23 Special Project Coordinator . They ' re
24 beginning to put together brochures with
25 links to website ' s that can provide you
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 57
1 with useful information . And they' re
2 intending to provide a welcoming
3 environment for new businesses of all
4 kinds, which we certainly need economically
5 in our Town .
6 MS . FESTA: We would also love to do
7 education on that too . Teaching them about
8 the animals . We ' re all excited about doing
9 guided tours .
10 MR. GEPPEL: It ' s amazing how many
11 people don ' t know where their food came
12 from or anything comes from. I have heard
13 stories from Catapano ' s that people come in
14 and ask if their eggs are fresh from the
15 goat . No kidding. It ' s wonderful to have
16 people that are interested and be able to
17 teach them and educate them about where
18 their food comes from. And the whole side
19 of know where your food comes from and the
20 farmer is really the angle, and the FDA.
21 They already have their trademark. "No your
22 farmer . No your food. "
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, there is
24 a very good chance there is a slow food
25 movement here on the North Fork.
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 58
1 Certainly, we would be happy to have you
2 participate .
3 MR. GEPPEL : We ' re excited. We ' re
4 getting into the restaurants . Challenges
5 again, USDA slaughter . .Trying to get
6 animals slaughtered that are USDA clad.
7 The way that it has been configured is that
8 it ' s only for big businesses . You know,
9 you have to basically pay the full-time
10 salary of a USDA Inspector to have a
11 slaughter facility.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Wow.
13 MR. GEPPEL: We couldn ' t afford that .
14 So we can ' t run that many animals up the
15 North Fork to justify that . Yaphank 'is
16 already a USDA slaughter facility, but that
17 is just run by Suffolk County and Cornell .
18 That is very difficult . I would love to be
19 able to work something there . Right now,
20 our best case, it ' s to go to Jamaica,
21 Queens . And go to a slaughter house and
22 they give you their entire animal back.
23 Now, I have an entire animal and I can
24 probably sell it to North Fork Table and
25 Inn. They have a meat cutting. So they
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 59
1 can cut it and sell it , but other than
2 that , I can ' t sell meat until I can find a
3 USDA meat cutter and then package it . Then
4 ' what would be the cost? It ' s exciting .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No one said
6 farming is easy.
7 MR. GEPPEL : It ' s challenging and
8 exciting and I welcome it . It ' s just
9 amazing the amount of hurdles that have
10 been created to just get something that was
11 so basic 50 years ago .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, this
13 Board will do its best to give one hurdle
14 to you in two weeks time .
15 MR. GEPPEL: Thank you.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Which is when
17 we next meet to deliberate and give
18 decisions . Let ' s see if the Board has any
19 more questions . I don ' t .
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions . Good
21 luck.
22 MR. GEPPEL : Thank you .
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What kinds of
24 animals are these? Are they a specific
25 breed?
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 60
1 MR. GEPPEL: Icelandic Sheep. One of
2 the purest breed sheep ' s there are because
3 there is no other animal that was let into
4 the island of Iceland to breed, because
5 they would bring in cross-gene into their
6 gene pool . So they are as pure as they
7 could .come . It ' s been ten thousand years
8 since the Vikings came to Iceland. History
9 is really what intrigued us and also the
10 triple product of what Carol told you
11 before . That is wool, meat and milk. The
12 milk quality is higher with the Icelandic .
13 So sticking with the pure breed. They ' re
14 all registered pure breed .
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you for
16 mentioning that . I know you had mentioned
17 it in the beginning . Than you very much .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
19 else in the audience that wishes to address
20 this application? Please come forward and
21 state your name for the record.
22 MS . BRODERICK: Hi . Jane Broderick,
23 4845 Cox Lane . I am the property most
24 adjacent to their proposed property. I
25 have questions and a few concerns . I don ' t
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 61
1 want to be perceived as antagonistic
2 because I think they will improve the
3 property. But I do have some concerns that
4 I would like to share with the Board, so
5 that maybe some kind of resolution would
6 work for all of us . First off, I met with
7 Mr . Freta? Freeta?
8 MR. GEPPEL: Who me?
9 MS . BRODERICK: No . I don ' t know.
10 In the file, it ' s F-R-E-T-A, Carol .
11 MS . FESTA: Festa . That ' s me .
12 MS . BRODERICK: In any event, he was
13 discussing what he would like to do about
14 the property and he ( In Audible) over to my
15 house . I am on a tiny property. I bought
16 Mini Borrower ' s property, and that is what
17 shows up on the survey.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Excuse me . Is
19 that the property that is almost on the
20 corner of North Road or is that the other
21 way?
22 MS . BRODERICK: No . It ' s right up
23 next to them and it ' s on . 22 of an acre .
24 And he said, "I am going to run a road in
25 there right next to your property and then
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 62
1 swing it around here and then bring it
2 over . " And that upset me, quite frankly.
3 I am on Cox Lane . That ' s busy. I really
4 don ' t want to add to fumes , traffic . No
5 more going up there .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am trying to
7 determine that who it is that you spoke to?
8 Clearly, it was not the property owner . So
9 who would you be speaking to?
10 MS . BRODERICK: There is nothing --
11 Vicki Toth was kind enough to meet with me
12 yesterday and go through the files , and
13 there is nothing on the file .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : About what?
15 MS . BRODERICK: About a road going in
16 there .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then it ' s
18 not --
19 MR. GEPPEL : It doesn ' t exist .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You need to
21 talk to the Board and not to each other .
22 The point is, there is no road that is
23 being proposed. Nothing whatsoever is
24 going to be changed except the fact that
25 it ' s agricultural property that is next to
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 63
1 you with that sheep grading on it .
2 MS . BRODERICK: I don ' t have a
3 problem with anything that they ' re
4 suggesting, and I wish them well . I just
5 don ' t want to have a million cars pulling
6 in a quarter of an inch off my property.
7 That ' s all .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The cars will
9 be pulling in, according to what we have
10 before us, will be pulling in next to the
11 existing barn, which is on the other side
12 of the house that sits next to yours .
13 MR. GEPPEL : Over 250 feet away.
14 MS . BRODERICK: I am on the north
15 side .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes . There is
17 213 . 45 feet from the property line, which
18 would be where your house sits .
19 MS . BRODERICK: I don ' t have a
20 problem with any of that . I had a problem
21 with the man telling me -- and Vicki was
22 kind enough to spend time with me
23 yesterday. And she said, perhaps it ' s a
24 private road that they can access .
25 MR. GEPPEL : May I just add that that
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 64
1 property and the parking is preserved land.
2 So nothing can go there and nothing will go
3 in that property. That is 213 feet of
4 preserved land.
5 MS . BRODERICK: I am not allowed to
6 talk to you but that makes me feel better .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The point is,
8 there is no _ road that is being proposed.
9 That is. not before this Board. Whatever
10 information you got is not correct . And
11 Vicki confirmed that yesterday when she
12 showed you the application . The only thing
13 that is being proposed is to fence in that
14 area --
15 MR. GEPPEL : Right .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : To keep the
17 herd on the property, and a parking area .
18 That will be permeable . Probably gravel ,
19 and close to the barn. So that when cars
20 come in off the road, they will be doing it
21 right near the barn .
22 MS . BRODERICK: The only thing that
23 Vicki did mention to me is that they can ' t
24 do a public road there but they can do a
25 private road. And I was concerned about
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 65
1 that being opened to the public .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The only kind
3 of road that can be put in there legally,
4 because it ' s agricultural property and the
5 development rights have been sold to the
6 Town, would be a small farm road, which
7 would simply allow them to come off the
8 road for their own private use, through
9 their easement and maybe reach a barn
10 building or something like that . It would
11 not be for the public . That is not even
12 being proposed at this point . They have --
13 MR. GEPPEL : Nor being considered.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And as our
15 attorney pointed out, we don ' t have any
16 jurisdiction over that anyway.
17 MS . BRODERICK: And Vicki mentioned
18 that and I have no problem.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They' re
20 reassuring the Board that is not going to
21 happen.
22 MS . BRODERICK: I was just concerned
23 that if they were going to do a private
24 road that they leave it off my property a
f 25 little bit .
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 66
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, that is
2 not even being proposed.
3 MS . BRODERICK: I am glad to hear it .
4 My other concern is, and I am not getting
5 into the meat processing but I understand
6 that they want to do cheese . What kinds of
7 equipment? And more importantly, what kind
8 of ( In Audible) . I am out at work all day
9 myself . I am going to be listening to you
10 know, grinding at three o ' clock in the
11 morning?
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I can ' t answer
13 that because I don ' t understand what ' s
14 involved with the production of cheese, but
15 I don ' t imagine that it would be done
16 anywhere other than inside a building . And
17 I think that if it ' s inside a building, it
18 would be in a building that they already
19 have on the . property, and it would not be
20 very noisy because it would be indoors . Is
21 that correct?
22 MR. GEPPEL : It has to be inside an
23 inspected building. That is probably two
24 years down the road when we consider that .
25 And if we were to consider that, that
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 67
1 building is not part of an existing
2 building . It has to be on the reserved
3 space . A developable land. So that would
4 still give you the 213 foot cushion before
5 anything could be put up . We ' re looking to
6 add to the Town . To aesthetically clean up
7 this property . Make it a family farm.
8 We ' re not looking to intrude on anyone ' s
9 life or make it difficult . The cheese
10 making has to be indoors . It has to be in
11 a facility that is inspected and sealed and
12 closed. If it were outdoors , there is no
13 noise in cheese making .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you.
15 Anything else, Ma ' am?
16 MS . BRODERICK: Yes . I just wanted
17 to add. I wasn ' t here to complain . I was
18 just here as a concerned tax payer . I am a
19 single mother . I was like, "oh, is there
20 going to be 400 cars going up the hedges?"
21 But I do think that there plans , which I
22 did review, look absolutely beautiful . And
23 I wish them well . I think that they will
24 add to the community. On a serious note,
25 they will be adding jobs on a very troubled
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 68
1 economy. So I don ' t want any bad feelings
2 with neighbors . I was just concerned about
3 a lot of cars and a lot noise .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you very
5 much .
c
6 Is there anyone else that would like
7 to address the application?
8 MR. GLOVER: Good morning.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning.
10 MR. GLOVER: Robert Glover, 1865 Cox
11 Lane . I have not had a chance to meet my
12 neighbors yet . So this is the first . I
13 just want to welcome them to Cox Lane . I
14 just came because I know there is very few
15 homeowners on Cox Lane . I think I am one
16 of about eight on the whole road. So it ' s
17 important to all of us and I just wanted to
18 welcome them. I think it ' s a great idea .
19 I came first to talk about the setbacks and
20 that became not important .because -- you
21 know, I built my house . Had the property
22 about 15 years . Took a little cottage that
23 was on that location . Put up a new house .
24 Just recently, I got a permit for a garage .
25 You know, I understand that . I spoke to my
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 69
1 uncle who grew up here, you know 70 years
• 2 ago, Richard Glover . Anyway, I don ' t want
3 to go into that . I just want to welcome
4 them and hopefully it will be great . It ' s
5 a good addition . Welcome to the
6 neighborhood.
7 MR. GEPPEL : Thank you .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
9 else that would like to address the
10 application?
11 (No Response . )
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN.: Hearing no
13 further questions or comments , I will make
14 a motion to close this hearing and reserve
15 decision to a later date .
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
21 . (See Minutes for Resolution . )
22 ****************************** ************
23 HEARING #6626 - GEORGE AND LISA HAASE
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
• 25 application before the Board is for George
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 70
• 1 and Lisa Haase, #6626 . Applicant request a
2 Special Exception under Section 280-13b ( 4 ) .
3 The Applicant is the owner requesting
4 authorization to establish an Accessory Bed
5 and Breakfast, accessory and incidental to
6 the residential occupancy in this
7 single-family dwelling, with three bedrooms
8 for lodging and serving of breakfast to the
9 B&B casual, transient roomers . Location of
10 Property: 580 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue .
11 Welcome .
12 Please state your name for the
13 record.
14 MR. HAASE : I am George Haase .
15 Residing at 80 Skunk Lane .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Let the
17 record show that the Board, the three
18 members that were able to do so, have made
19 an interior inspection by appointment with
20 the property, and that the property had
21 been operating as a Bed & Breakfast
22 historically, and you ' re here . You have a
23 CO from 6-05-01 . And you have submitted
24 proof of residency as required by the
• 25 Special Exception permit . You have a prior
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 71
1 2001 B&B permit for three bedrooms . B&B
2 with five parking spaces . That was granted
3 to Jean and Louis Genovese, the previous
4 owner .
5 MR. HAASE : Yes .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You have two
7 guest bedrooms . I think it was one guest
8 bedroom on the first floor and two guest
9 bedrooms on the second floor . And you have
10 shown on your site plan where you propose
11 to park the required number of vehicles .
12 MR. HAASE : Correct .
:r 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What else would
14 you like to tell us?
15 MR. HAASE : Well, I will just say
16 that we have moved out here five years ago .
17 We have been coming out here for over
18 thirty years . We have purchased a summer
19 home in 198 in Southold. We moved out here
20 five years ago to that summer home . I was
21 traveling into the city a couple of days a
22 week. And we decided that we have made a
23 partial life change to move out here, and
24 then we wanted to complete that change and
• 25 we figured that the Bed & Breakfast route
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 72
1 would be a very pleasing avenue to go . We
• 2 would meet a lot of people and enable us to
3 stay out here full-time and not have to do
4 the traveling into the city. We started
5 looking at some places and when we found
6 the existing operating Bed & Breakfast ,
7 which was operating until shortly before we
8 closed in July of last year, would be the
9 perfect route to go .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Does the
11 Board have any questions?
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions .
13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not particularly.
14 We did an extensive inspection . We had
15 seen the parking area . I didn ' t park there
16 and nor did you . We observed our other
17 member right here parking in the proper
18 space .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You ' re doing a
20 beautiful job of renovating.
21 MR. HAASE : Thank you .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have a copy
23 here, this is just for your records . It ' s
24 not for -- it doesn ' t affect much. It just
• 25 tells us from Suffolk County Planning that
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 73
• 1 this is a matter for local determination,
2 and they ' re not getting involved. Let me
3 give you that . Also a site plan approval
4 is not required by the Planning Board.
5 Is there anyone else in the audience
6 who wishes to address this application?
7 (No Response .)
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
9 further comments or questions , I will make
10 a motion to close this hearing and reserve
11 decision to a later date .
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
17 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
18 ***************************** *************
19 HEARING #6633 - RJJ PROPERTIES, LLC .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our next
21 application before the Board is for RJJ
22 Properties , LLC. This is application
23 #6633 . Request for variance from Article
24 XXII Code Section 280-116 (B) based on an
• 25 application for building permit and the
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 74
• 1 Building Inspector ' s February 5 , 2013
2 Notice of Disapproval concerning a permit
3 for a 12 ' X 8 " accessory shed, at; 1)
4 proposed structure at less than the code
5 required bulkhead setback of 75 feet,
6 located at : 7225 Nassau Point Road,
7 adjacent to Peconic Bay in Cutchogue .
8 Is there someone here to represent
9 that --
10 MR. BLAKELY : Yes . John Blakely.
11 Good morning.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning .
13 Do you have all the green cards with you?
14 All right . We have a copy for you of the
15 Local Waterfront Revitalization Program
16 Coordinator ' s Review of your proposed
17 action, which is to reestablish a small
18 shed/bath house, sitting between a landward
19 and a seaward bulkhead. And he has
20 determined that this proposed action is
21 inconsistent with the LWRP Policy. I would
22 like to give you ,a copy for your review and
23 records . You can read it . And also a
24 Suffolk County Local Determination letter .
• 25 Okay. Apparently this shed was 9 . 3
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 75
• 1 feet by 12 . 3 feet destroyed by Hurricane
2 Sandy.
3 MR. BLAKELY: That ' s incorrect .
4 8X12 .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see 8X12 .
6 All right . What would you like to tell us
7 about this application?
8 MR. BLAKELY: We are trying to
9 replace a shed that was destroyed by Sandy.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And this is
11 your hand drawn survey that was taken
12 from --
13 MR. BLAKELY : Yes , it is .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That was taken
15 from an existing licensed surveyor showing
16 where you propose to relocate the shed.
17 Now, all I found in the records -- do you
18 have a CO or a Pre-CO for that shed?
19 MR. BLAKELY : No . We shared that
20 stairs and bulkhead and retaining wall .
21 Although all the rest were on the survey.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did see that
23 on the survey but I did find a
24 September 25, 1990 CO for an accessory shed
• 25 for ZBA Decision #3381 for an addition of
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 76
1 an 8X10 shed in the front yard at 170 feet
® 2 from Nassau Point Road.
3 MR. BLAKELY : Yes .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : . No closer than
5 five feet from the property line and for
6 storage use only. That is still in
7 existence?
8 MR. BLAKELY : That ' s still in
9 existence .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I didn ' t find
11 anything on the previous shed that was
12 destroyed by Hurricane Sandy. Have you
rWMk 13 applied for the Trustees for a permit?
14 MR. BLAKELY : Yes .
15, CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And what is the
16 status on that?
17 MR. BLAKELY : They approved everything
18 subject to the Zoning Board.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Shed and then
20 deck approved. You do have to make some
21 repairs to the stairs . We all did a site
22 inspection --
23 MR. BLAKELY: Yes .
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That was all
25 damaged in Hurricane Sandy?
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 77
1 MR. BLAKELY: Yes .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Was there any
3 electric or plumbing in that shed?
4 MR. BLAKELY : No .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The interior is
6 not shown on any of the plans . Storage
7 only?
8 MR. BLAKELY : Storage only.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have any
10 idea of when the shed was built ' and by
11 whom?
12 MR. BLAKELY : It was built by the --
13 they are just behind BP Gas Station on
14 North Road.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : North Fork
16 and --
17 MR. BLAKELY : Yeah . They are also the
18 people who will be building the new shed.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Obviously it was
20 done by the prior owner without benefit of
21 a building permit?
22 MR. BLAKELY : Yes , it was the prior
23 owner .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You ' re
25 indicating that there are some sheds of
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 78
1 that sort in the area?
2 MR. BLAKELY : Yes .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I didn ' t observe
4 any immediately new but can you address
5 that a little more?
6 MR. BLAKELY : Do I have photographs
7 with me that show that?
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have a
9 photograph in here that shows it prior to
10 the hurricane .
11 (Whereupon, Mr . Blakely stepped away
12 from the microphone . )
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, they
14 probably don ' t have a CO either . Thank
15 you . I just did want to mention that we
16 have in the past have had similar situation
17 where a bath house that came down from a
18 bluff, that was destroyed by fire, actually
19 by vandalism. And because it was sitting
20 where it was sitting, the Board and I don ' t
21 remember whether it had a Pre-CO or CO, do
22 you?
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don ' t think so .
24 It was preexisting.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the Board
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 79
1 did deny the applicants the rights to
2 rebuild. Once a nonconformity like that is
3 destroyed, it loses it ' s preexisting
4 nonconforming status by code . What that
5 means is , let ' s say, the roof was damaged
6 or some planking came off, and you were
7 going just making repairs to it, in-place
8 and in-kind, that is one thing . It ' s
9 another thing when it ' s completely
10 demolished and then to reestablish that
11 nonconformity. So the Board will have to
12 consider that very carefully. I just wanted
13 to bring that to your attention as
14 something that this Board will have to
15 really wrestle with . I can ' t recall
16 whether the previous example did have a
17 Pre-CO . If they did, then it would have
18 been a preexisting nonconformity. If it
19 doesn ' t have a Pre-CO, then it would never
20 conform to begin with. So it ' s a little bit
21 different . Given the special nature of the
22 weather incident and the damage that it is
23 causing to properties, the Board is being
24 more mindful of it ' s responsibility to take
25 environmental impact seriously and to
'March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 80
r
1 attempt, to the best of our ability, given
2 the standards that we have to make
3 decisions by according to the law, to grant
4 the minimal number of nonconformities that
5 we can reasonable argue or justify before
6 the code . I think that is how we will have
7 to proceed with this application .
8 Gerry, do you have any questions that
9 you would like to ask or comments that you
10 would like to make?
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, during the
12 period of time we were granting a few of
13 these applications, in and around the
14 nature of this application, the major
15 portion of the ones that we did deal with
16 were particularly sheds that did have CO ' s
17 on them. Okay. They were probably -- they
18 probably never had a building permit but
19 they were granted CO ' s . Those particulars
20 persons that came before us and
21 predominantly in the Nassau Point area, and
22 areas where there are relatively high
23 bluff ' s , people were not having to carry
24 the stuff up and down . They did say that
25 there was a problem. And so the Board
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 81
1 usually dealt with an in-kind, in-place .
2 Usually we alter the roof angle so that it
3 was really shed type roof . Rather than
4 going with a typical gable line roof . But
5 they did have CO ' s . Some of which we all
6 remember . We didn ' t see too many there .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s difficult
8 for the Board to justify reestablishing
9 something that wasn ' t legalized to begin
10 with .
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes . That is what
12 I am saying . The problem that we have is , .
13 it ' s very difficult for you to establish
14 the nature of these in the Nassau Point
15 area . Particularly in this area because we
16 really don ' t have the right to walk into
17 anyone else ' s property. So if you can
18 take any other visual or math or whatever
19 and tell us how many are down there, maybe
20 you can possibly do that for us so that we
21 can understand exactly where they may be in
22 reference to numbers .
23 MR. BLAKELY : In reference to other
24 buildings?
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes . Sheds along
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 82
1 your street . However, we need to know which
2 of those -- there may be a number of them.
3 We have no way of knowing unless you do the
4 research to find out which of those have
5 been legalized. Which have CO ' s and which
6 have variance ' s because again, there may be
7 a number of them but they may be illegal .
8 And unfortunately, again, that is a code
9 enforcement . Not a ZBA jurisdiction . We
10 appreciate your coming before this Board to
11 attempt to reestablish the shed where it
12 has historically been . But again, I want
13 to make sure that the Board is clear to you
14 of what we ' re up against in trying to grant
15 the relief that you ' re requesting .
16 Ken, do you have comments or
17 questions?
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No comments .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
20 else in the audience who would like to
21 address this application?
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to
23 mention to this gentleman, you don ' t have
24 to necessarily limit it to the Nassau Point
25 area . You can limit it to portions of
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 83
1 Cutchogue where the bluffs exist . So we
2 can understand what we have . It would be
3 very nice to know, each side of Nassau
4 Point had five or six of them.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Again, we have
6 to know whether those exist and with CO ' s .
7 The Building Department can give you that
8 information . They will be able to see
9 whether or not . You can just Google Earth
10 and take a look and say there is one here,
11 here and here . Figure out what the address
12 is . Check with the Building Department to
13 see if there is any CO or Pre-CO of record •
14 because one of the things that we do
15 consider is character of the neighborhood.
16 Okay. That is what Member Goehringer is
17 getting at is , if there are many of them in
18 that area that are legal, that will help
19 your application . But again, if they are
20 not legal and you can ' t find any records
21 for them, they did probably what the
22 previous owner did before you, and just
23 built it . Now that it ' s gone, it ' s gone .
24 And that nonconforming structure to be
25 reestablished when it was not legal to
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 84
1 begin with, is a very difficult task. The
2 Trustees has different jurisdiction . They
3 had the stairs and so on. We just have the
4 structure .
5 Is there anyone else in the audience
6 who wishes to address this application?
7 (No Response . )
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
9 further comments or questions, I am going
10 to make a motion to close this hearing and
11 reserve decision to a later date subject to
12 receipt of any information that you would'
13 like to provide the Board with regard to
14 the character of the neighborhood of sheds
15 in a similar bulkhead setback that are
16 legal and have Pre-CO ' s or that have
17 received variances from this Board.
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
23 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
24 *******************************************
25 HEARING #6630 - GREGORY AND CAROL KARAS
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 85
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
2 application before the Board is for Gregory
3 and Carol Karas, #6630 . Request for
4 variances from Article XXII Code Section
5 280-116A ( 1 ) and Article III Code Section
6 280-15 and the Building Inspector ' s
7 January 24 , 2013 Notice of Disapproval
8 based on an application for building permit
9 for an accessory in-ground pool; 1 ) top of
10 the bluff setback of less than the code
11 required 100 feet, 2 ) location other than
12 the code permitted front yard on waterfront
13 property or rear yard, located at : 135
14 Soundview Road, adjacent to Long Island
15 Sound in Orient .
16 Pat, would you just state your name
17 for the record?
18 MS . MOORE : Yes . Good morning .
19 Patricia Moore on behalf of the Karas
20 Family. Carol Karas one of the property
21 owners is here . It ' s really her project .
22 So her husband set her off in the weather .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat, before you
24 begin, let me just give you a letter for
25 local determination and the LWRP for
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 86
1 consistency and review .
2 MS . MOORE : Great . What I have
3 submitted to the Board in addition to the
4 documents that the application and the
5 accompanying documents typically request, I
6 know Mr . Horning always ask for this . So I
7 tried to provide it . I gave you one full
8 packet that has the decisions and the
9 surveys . for your files . I gave the Board
10 just the front as well as the Google maps .
11 Since you have all this information within
12 your own records . I did want to provide one
13 full set for your convenience . This
14 property is located in Orient by the Sea,
15 which is a development that was created in
16 1961 . At the time, there were no setbacks
17 from the top of the bluff . Environmental
18 regulations were quite different . The map
19 was approved and there were certain setback
20 requirements that they were really
21 measuring . Most of the time from the high
22 tide mark, other than the bluff -- the 100
23 feet from the top of the bluff . The most in
24 the 60 ' s what you got was kind of a general
25 character development . So that the homes
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 87
1 can go approximately 35 feet from the front
2 yard and then they could extend as close as
3 they wanted to as close to the bluff . Those
4 conditions are no longer in place . You
5 definitely have a lot of regulations . And
6 in particular, the zoning regulations to
7 keep structures just a 100 feet from the
8 top of the bluff . The house is an existing
9 house . There is an existing concrete patio
10 and the location of the pool -- the ideal
11 location for any waterfront property owner
12 to put the 'pool in the rear yard directly
13 behind the house . However, in light of the
14 environmental regulations and efforts to
15 maximize the distance to the top of' the
16 bluff, the appropriate location here was
17 placed at 83 . 6 feet, the closest point from
18 the top of the bluff . No closer then the
19 house that sits at 80 . 9 feet from the top
20 of the bluff . This proposal, while it
21 places the house technically in a side
22 yard, when we ' re dealing with a waterfront
23 property, often times that application is
24 made to you because it is the most
25 appropriate, if there is room, is to keep
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 88
1 it no closer to the environmental line,
2 whether it '.s on the bay or the sound, no
3 closer than the existing structures for
4 what was proposed here . We do keep the
5 pool at the appropriate side yard setback .
6 So we don ' t need a variance there . It does
7 not make sense on most waterfront
8 properties , unless there is waterfront on
9 all sides to put a pool in the front yard .
10 It wouldn ' t make sense in the character of
11 this community. None of the homes have
12 pools in the front yard. So that option
13 isn ' t really practical that the owner or
14 the community would favor . I did provide
15 you with a list of variances here because
16 the property was -- the properties in this
17 neighborhood were developed in 1961 . The
18 homes have variances of one type or
19 another . Whether they needed variances for
20 houses , decks or so on . I put a Google map
21 to show that there are pools located along
22 the sound here, interestingly none of them
23 needing variances because most likely those
24 came with the homes prior to the bluff
25 setback. I didn ' t find any variances for
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 89
1 the pools in most of these -- well, they
2 look like the pools are in the rear yard.
3 Most of them on top of the bluff . Some of
4 them are attached by decking . None have
5 been considered accessory structures . So
6 there is the design of the home, which is a
7 little different . I didn ' t see those
8 variances . I found a lot of_ others . That
9 is why I looked at only the variances that
10 were applicable to Sound front properties .
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Can I ask you a
12 question?
13 MS . MOORE : Sure .
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: While we ' re on the
15 subject . The first one that you have
16 handed us referencing the variances . The
17 first one, 137 Sound Avenue --
18 MS . MOORE : Yes .
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Where is that in
20 relationship to your applicant ' s property?
21 MS . MOORE : I just -- let me, if you
22 would like . I did for my own sake, the tax
23 map, just marking the variances . Directly
24 to the east of my clients property is the
25 first variance .
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 90
1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And they were
2 granted? What were they granted?
3 MS . MOORE : They were granted -- his
4 setbacks from the top of the bluff in --
5 this one actually has several variances
6 that it has received in the past . It has
7 three variances . The deck variance, I
8 pulled up and quite frankly, it was not
9 real clear to me . I gave you what I got .
10 It looks like the original deck was
11 replaced with the wood deck, because I
12 couldn ' t see the original deck of the
13 setbacks that were approved. The
14 replacement deck, which is , I believe it ' s
15 #6049 , because they have actually asked for
16 a second floor addition as well . The
17 application was denied with alternative
18 relief . So what ultimately was approved
19 was the deck at 36 . It was a covered deck .
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So the neighbor
21 was granted a setback from the bluff at 36
22 feet?
23 MS . MOORE : Right . There is a
24 significant variance . Partly because the
25 house is so close . It was all justified
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 91
1 but in comparison to the request that we ' re
2 making, it ' s a insignificant variance .
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. Thank you .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : . I want to ask a
5 question, Pat, if I might?
6 MS . MOORE : Sure .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Two things
8 actually. Of course we all did a site
9 inspection. The (In Audible) that is on
10 the survey that we observed there . That is
11 on the applicant ' s property?
12 MS . MOORE : Yes, it is .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It ' s obviously
14 ten feet from the property line .
15 MS . MOORE : Correct . Yes, it is .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The second
17 question that I had, I didn ' t see any
18 proposal for pool de-watering, drywell or
19 for a -- where the pump equipment is going
20 to go . We generally do have some concerns
21 about --
22 MS . MOORE : Yes .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So can you
24 address those?
25 MS . MOORE : I was actually asking,
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 92
1 because they needed the variance, they
2 haven ' t really gone to the next level of
3 getting the design and the contract with
4 the contractor . It would certainly make
5 sense, if you wanted to place a condition
6 on the approval that we would keep all
7 equipment on the landward side of the pool
8 -- nowadays , there are pools that don ' t
9 even require any drywell ' s . They' re self
10 contained. I don ' t know ultimately if she
11 needs a drywell . The Building Department
12 would make the applicant have a drywell if
13 it is necessary. And that would be
14 provided on the landward side of the pool .
15 Adjacent to the driveway. There is five
16 feet between the pool and the driveway. We
17 can put a drywell under the driveway as
18 another alternative . Once my client
19 decides on the design, we will work on
20 that . As far as the pumps go, I know that
21 they need to be ventilated. We can
22 certainly again place any pumps or wastes
23 away from the property line . Keeping it as
24 far as away and being a good neighbor or if
25 it has to be closer, we can encroach to the
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 93
1 extent possible without a fire hazard.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You would
3 probably -- I would assume that you would
4 probably want to do that to your own --
5 MS . MOORE : Exactly.
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you want to
7 give me a distance in what you were looking
8 for with the pump?
9 MS . MOORE : Well, we can certainly
10 say that we will make it no closer than ten
11 feet . The ten foot is the closest setback
12 of the pool . We can use part of the back
13 of the pool between the ten and the patio,
14 as the area where the pumps and any
15 equipment can go . Does that make sense?
16 Let me show you what I am volunteering .
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just
18 confirm the size of the pool? It ' s 15X26?
19 MS . MOORE : Yes .
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is it a vinyl
21 pool or a gunite pool?
22 MS . MOORE : They have not gone that
23 route either . I asked them if they wanted
24 a salt water pool or -- They want a very
25 nice one . We will -- I am not sure if that
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 94
1 makes a difference --
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, for
3 de-watering . If you have to change the
4 liner, you ' re going to de-water the pool .
5 MS . MOORE : Okay.
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: From
7 environmentally, a cement pool is better .
8 In my particular opinion.
9 MS . MOORE : Would you be okay with
10 that? Yes .
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: When you ' re on
12 the bluff and you have a problem with the
13 liner, it is going to be a significant
14 environmental hazard --
15 MS . MOORE : That ' s fine . Not a
16 problem.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, I do want
18 to say that I appreciate the effort to keep
19 this as far away from the bluff as
20 possible . It does not make sense in terms
21 of character of the neighborhood to have a
22 pool in the front yard. We know the
23 neighborhood very well .
24 MS . MOORE : The sanitary system is in
25 the front as well .
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 95
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think the
2 unique thing you have, we- know that- we have
3 -- a couple of significant subdivisions .
4 It ' s a cluster . They are extremely long --
5 MS . MOORE : Yes .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see that you
7 have already modified the existing -- looks
8 like cobblestone patio that you had there
9 already at grade . Bear in mind, if you
10 went to an attachment of a raised deck
11 to the house, you wouldn ' t even be before
12 us --
13 MS . MOORE : Yes . We went over that .
14 The design did not match the house .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You are
16 probably going to modify that patio or
17 rearrange it anyway. I would imagine that
18 you would not want grass on one side,
19 because of the mess .
20 MS . MOORE : Right .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you will
22 probably be putting pavers somewhere around
23 it at some point or another . At the moment,
24 it ' s the location that is before us for a
25 side yard.
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 96
1 MS . MOORE : Right . The next step for
2 us is that once we ' re approved with the
3 location, we ' re going to design more
4 carefully with any disturbed area so we can
5 go to the Trustees with a patio and the
6 final design, because that would be within
7 the jurisdiction of the Trustees .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure . Well, the
9 other thing that we have and based upon the
10 survey, the theoretical proposal condition
11 and subject to final review of the final
12 design by this Board. So we can stamp the
13 actual proposed final location and so on .
14 I am going to assume where you ' re proposing
15 it now .
16 MS . MOORE : Now .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You may decide
18 that you want to move it closer to your
19 house even more and have a patio?
20 MS . MOORE : Okay.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I would like
22 to really see -- we can grant the side yard
23 but I would like to have the option of when
24 your finalizing to see where if you may
25 need a de-watering drywell, where you ' re
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 97
1 going to locate the pump equipment .
2 Exactly what it is going to look at . So
3 that would allow us to grant the location
.4 so' you can proceed but have the right to
5 stamp the final drawings . Just so that
6 it ' s right and part of our final records .
7 MS . MOORE : That ' s fine .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It ' s a lot
9 better to do it that way.
10 MS . MOORE : Okay.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that all
12 right with this Board?
13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Wonderful .
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
16 else in the audience that wishes to address
17 this application?
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to
19 make one further comment, and that is , I
20 also like the maximum setbacks -- excuse me
21 side yards , this is not interconnected with
22 the house . So you still have 8 . 2 on the
23 side of the house to get to the rear yard.
24 Still the ability of the setback on the
25 easterly side .
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 98
1 MS . MOORE : Right .
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think that is an
3 extremely positive step .
4 MS . MOORE : Well, thank you .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right .
6 Hearing no further comments or questions, I
7 am going to make a motion to close this
8 hearing and reserve decision to a later
9 date .
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
15 (See Minutes for Resolution. )
16 *******************************************
17 HEARING #6632 - GEORGE LIKOKAS
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
19 application before the Board is for George
20 Likokas, #6632 . This is a request for a
21 Waiver of Merger under Article I.I, Section
22 280-10A, to unmerge land identified as
23 SCTM# 1001-31-3-23, based on the Building
24 Department February 1, 2013 Notice of
25 Disapproval, which states adjoining
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 99
1 conforming or nonconforming lots held in
2 common ownership shall unmerge until the
3 total lot size conforms to the current bulk
4 schedule (minimum 40 , 000 square feet in
5 this R-40 Residential Zone District ) this
6 lot is merged with Lot ' s #10 and Lot #9,
7 located at : 9775 Main Road, aka, State
8 Route 25 , corner of Stars Road, 425 Stars
9 Road, Lot #10 , and 455 Stars Road, Lot #9,
10 in East Marion .
11 State your name for the record.
12 MS . BISHOP: Stacey Bishop . East End
13 Construction Services for the Likokas
14 Family. Hi, How are you?
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good. Thank you .
16 MS . BISHOP : So basically what we have
17 here is an existing nonconforming . As the
18 Town knows, they have had the property on
19 the market trying to sell it without
20 success . So what they decided to do now is
21 make the application for the Waiver of
22 Merger with the intent of creating the two
23 conforming lots to the rear of the Main
24 Road property. They propose to construct
25 a modular home similar to the
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 100
1 characteristics that exist in the
2 neighborhood, and sell those lots with the
3 home . And use the money to rehab the
4 property that is on the frontage of . Main
5 Road, which they intend to keep for their
6 family.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you have any
8 green cards?
9 MS . BISHOP : I already turned it in to
10 the Town on the 5th and I didn ' t get any
11 postal cards yet .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . We have
13 just for your records a letter from Suffolk
14 County indicating this is for local
15 determination for this Board. That they
16 have no interest in this application .
17 MS . BISHOP : Okay.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you would
19 like a copy, you ' re welcome to have one .
20 The Board does have some questions . We do
21 know the history of the property. The
22 title search was very clear . Essentially
23 you merged because the entire family had
24 trusts with everyone ' s name . Now, I believe
25 there is a Life Estate situation . Okay.
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 101
1 Normally, when we review these Waiver of
2 Merger ' s , we have two lots . One held single
3 and separate of such thing or because it
4 was nonconforming in size . One that has
5 historically been kept vacant and one that
6 is to generally develop with a principle
7 dwelling .
8 MS . BISHOP : Right .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s a little
10 unorthodox in the sense that we have one
11 developed lot . One that is developed with
12 cottages . One that has a principle dwelling
13 with one cottage on it . And so we need to
14 see a few things . The records show that
15 there are no Pre-CO ' s for any of these
16 properties .
17 MS . BISHOP : That ' s correct .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. The
19 proposal here is to maintain the existing
20 dwelling and do some renovating.
21 MS . BISHOP : Correct .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the garage
23 and the accessory cottage .
24 MS . BISHOP: Correct .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just so you
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 102
1 realize, you ' re attempting, just by getting
2 rid of all the cottages, creating some
3 degree of greater conformity by
4 establishing the middle lot as vacant --
5 MS . BISHOP : Correct .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But I want to
7 talk to you a little bit about what is
8 happening on Lot #23, which faces the road.
9 Visual observation alone indicates that
10 aside from the fact that there are no CO ' s
11 or Pre-CO ' s, if you were eligible for a
12 Pre-CO on that cottage, you may have a
13 right to keep it even though -- as a
14 principle dwelling, even though you ' re over
15 the permitted lot coverage . The only way
16 you could keep that cottage if you
17 establish the CO ' s or Pre-CO ' s and then
18 apply for an accessory apartment in that
19 cottage, which now the law does permit .
20 Again, the accessory cottage would only be
21 permitted if you have a Pre-CO and if in
22 fact you are willing to have someone in it
23 who is either a family member or qualifies
24 for the Affordable Housing Registry.
25 Otherwise, at the very least, that cottage
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 103
1 will need to be removed as a second
2 dwelling . Right now, if you consider the
3 fact that it ' s viewed as one property, the
4 whole thing is anomalous and nonconforming .
5 MS . BISHOP: It is anomalous .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So can you
7 address that for us, please?
8 MS . BISHOP : Sure . In discussions
9 with the Building Department, the way that
10 we were kind of taking a look at this is
11 with respect to the lot coverage, based on
12 some quick calculations , it seems to be
13 approximately 28 or 29 square feet over the
14 200 , which that ' s my daughters closet .
15 It ' s not really a big matter of square
16 footage that we ' re referencing here . There
17 were not Pre-CO ' s . So what we kind of
18 decided that we would do is come here
19 before the Board for a determination of
20 Waiver of Merger under the conditions that
21 the cottage would not be -- it will remain
22 on the property but not used for any
23 rentals . We take that off the table --
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You ' re going to
25 demolish the cottage?
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 104
1 MS . BISHOP : No . It ' s going to be
2 strictly intended uses for family. The
3 intent is not to rent it or maintain part
4 of the business or maintain anything like
5 that . This is an extended family that has
6 a long history of visiting the North Fork
7 and just want to be assured that they have
8 the room to accommodate them.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is no way
10 they can legally do that .
11 MS . BISHOP : What the Building
12 Department thought, we can get the Waiver .
13 Keep that as strictly for family things .
14 Because there are no CO ' s , anything that
15 they have to do is obviously going to go
16 through the Building Department . At that
17 point , we would address the CO situation
18 and the actual rehabilitation of that
19 property because, we ' re not exactly sure
20 what it is that they ' re going to exactly
21 do . This existing structure is extremely.
22 It is one of those things that has been
23 added on over the years . So it might not
24 be feasible to fix it and maybe more cost
25 effective to knock it down and similarly
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 105
1 add a modular dwelling . The family ' s hands
2 are kind of tied right now from a monetary
3 standpoint, because they tried to sell the
4 property to no avail and they need the
5 funds from the sale of the other two lots
6 to have single family homes on it, to
7 really be able to address that front
8 property. So what we ' re speaking about
9 with the Building Department was my
10 discussions with them and just to submit
11 for this Waiver. Perhaps seek approval
12 from the Board under the conditions that
13 the cottage remains presently. It does
14 conform to the accessory .building code with
15 respect to the height and the setbacks and
16 what not . With the sole understanding that
17 it is solely for the. family dwelling, that
18 it ' s not to be rented out year round or
i9 otherwise . And then when they make an
20 application for the building permit for
21 what it is that they collectively decide to.
22 do with that property, then it can be
23 addressed through all the regulations of
24 the Building Department . If we need
25 another Notice of Disapproval and come back
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 106
1 before you at that time, then we can
2 address it collectively as an entire
3 project rather than lump it in with the
4 Waiver .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Again, this is
6 awkward.
7 MS . BISHOP : I understand.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The goal of the
9 merger was to upsell . Now we don ' t have
10 any issues with understanding and
11 recognizing lots that conform to the
12 character of the neighborhood and the side
13 yard. That is clear enough . You ' re
14 reducing the nonconformance by reducing the
15 cottages and proposing the benefit, which
16 is a substantial benefit--
.17 MS . BISHOP : Absolutely.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : _ A new principle
19 dwelling . However, my concern is with the
20 degree of nonconformity on Lot #23 . That
21 will be sort of sanctioned by unmerging
22 these lots . A family can use an accessory
23 structure for family use if they legally
24 apply and qualify for that use based upon
25 the now permitted the accessory structure
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 107
1 containing the accessory apartment , but it
2 has to be, you know, built prior to 2008 .
3 You' have to apply for a Special Exception
4 permit before this Board. And you have to
5 have a Pre-CO and CO for it, and that is
6 clearly not something that you have .
7 MS . BISHOP : No-.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it ' s quite
9 out of order .
10 MS . BISHOP : It is . And you know,
11 granted the whole thing and I understand
12 it ' s anomalous . In speaking with the ZBA
13 office and the Building Department, we were
14 trying to get the most done as effectively.
15 And then just leaving the rehabilitation of
16 Lot #23 for down the road. If it could
17 stay at status quo because really, it ' s not
18 looking to add anything that is going to
19 change the characteristic of the
20 neighborhood or integrity of the
21 neighborhood. As this is for such a long
22 time and it ' s really the effects as it is
23 now, it ' s not going to be a detriment to
24 the neighbors or anybody. And because it ' s
25 going to be strictly for familiar use, they
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 108
1 are not introducing another element . They
2 are not introducing any renters or
3 anything . It is strictly going to stay as
4 is . So you ' re not really necessarily
5 changing the characteristics as much. I
6 understand what you ' re saying with respect
7 to the code but this is basically why we
8 are here, to kind of talk about this a
9 little bit and try and come to a
10 compromise . They ' re willing to get rid of
11 the rest of the cabins and get rid of this
12 nonconforming use and this eyesore in this
13 community. To be honest . Just to allow them
14 to maintain that for the interim while the
15 family collectively decides how they ' re
16 going to address the use . They can ' t do
17 anything . This isn ' t something that they
18 can do as a weekend project . They have to
19 go back to the Building Department when
20 they address this to collectively decide
21 how they will address the existing
22 structures on the property. At that time,
23 because everything is the way that it is
24 now, just kind of thought that we could ask
25 the Board just to leave it as status quo
March 7, . 2013 Regular Meeting 109
1 and let ' s address that collectively decide
2 what it . is that they ' re going to do . We
3 will go back to the Building Department
4 and --
S . CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, the
6 problem that I see in doing that, is that
7 you ' re asking us address all of this
8 nonconformity . When you say status quo --
9 MS . BISHOP : Well, as it exist for
10 that one building .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, no it ' s
12 for the principle dwelling as well . Nothing
13 has a CO and nothing qualifies .
14 MS . BISHOP : And nothing is conforming
15 on this property because of the --
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What you are
17 asking us to do is to bless whether it ' s a
18 temporary basis or not, you know, all of
19 the nonconformities that exist on Lot #23
20 by unmerging them. I understand that this
21 is a greater nonconformity that will take
22 place on the other lot but the Board will
23 have to figure out how we can legally
24 proceed on this . One of the things that we
25 always have to consider is the
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 110
1 establishment of a precedent for other
2 nonconforming properties . And even though'
3 there is a long history on this, you know,
4 there are other properties that have a
5 second dwelling and seasonal cottage on
6 their property. You know, this is exactly
7 why the code was written. To reduce those
8 second dwellings on the property. So I am
9 not saying what the conclusion is going to
10 be . I just want to address all of these
11 impacts .
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We ' re suggesting
13 that maybe we have a discussion with
14 , counsel and go into Executive Session for
15 about ten minutes and discuss the options
16 that we have .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you want to
18 ask any questions before we do that?
19 MS . BISHOP : Excuse me . It seems to
20 be a CO issue as well, but there is nothing
21 that we can kind of do . With respect to
22 lot coverage again, we ' re not that far
23 over . Because it ' s existing as it is .
24 Again, you can kind of view it -- I
25 understand what you ' re saying from your
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 111
1 standpoint and a precedent . This is as it
2 has existed. It ' s already nonconforming
3 use .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand.
5 You do have an option, you realize, if that
6 cottage were demolished, you would still
7 have an accessory garage on the subject
8 property, which qualifies it to the same
9 degree as the cottage does . It qualifies
10 for it to be converted to an accessory
11 apartment, because it is an accessory
12 structure . If the applicant wanted to
13 apply to have an accessory apartment for
14 family use on that property, they do have
15 the option of doing that with the garage,
16 which is certainly less than the
17 establishment of the second dwelling .
18 MS . BISHOP : I understand your
19 concern . The problem that I would have
20 with that is the cottage is preexisting .
21 It ' s already there . And so to go back and
22 make applications to the Building
23 Department to rehabilitate a garage, you
24 know, you ' re doing everything as a piece
25 meal . This is a collective -- as you
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 112
1 mentioned, this is a trust . You know, more
2 minds have to know what is going to happen
3 with that place . So the premise is to
4 maintain it for the seasonal use . No one
5 lives there year round. It ' s not a great
6 impact on the community but just to
7 maintain that for the interim just so they
8 collectively decide how they will better --
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What we ' re saying
11 is that we have difficulty in dealing with
12 the Waiver based upon what exist and what
13 is left over . And that is the discussion
14 that we ' re going to have with counsel .
15 Okay. And that is where we are . Okay. I
16 will give you my take on it after it .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We ' re very --
18 we ' re attempting to be very open-minded
19 about. it . We 'want the record to reflect a
20 lot of the issues and concerns that the
21 proposed waiver offers . None of the
22 structures have Pre-CO ' s . Without any of
23 those in place, we ' re faced with a
24 different set of challenges . I am going to
25 respectfully and I apologize, it was just
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 113
1 requested, is to make a motion for
2 Executive Session for advice with legal
3 counsel for ten minutes or so, and then we
4 will come back into this . It will help us
5 to ask more questions and help the Board
6 come to some potential strategies that we
7 can pursue . So I am going to make a motion
8 to enter into Executive Session .
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
14 (Whereupon, the Board entered into
15 Executive Session . )
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Well,
17 we ' re not terribly much farther from where
18 we were . I want to ask you . Have you
19 applied for any CO ' s with the Building
20 Department?
21 MS . BISHOP : No .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you ' re not
23 sure if whether you ' re eligible?
24 MS . BISHOP: That ' s correct .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So the first
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 114
1 thing that we need to do is make that
2 determination of whether or not you ' re
3 eligible for a Pre-CO for the subject
4 seasonal cottage . That would be the first
5 thing . Because if you had not determined
6 that, you know, if you don ' t have a Pre-CO,
7 you ' re arguing before us to leave things
8 status quo, but in fact, you haven ' t
9 established any legal rights to do so . You
10 have no legal basis for making that .
11 MS . BISHOP : I understand.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that is the
13 first thing that we need to do, is to find
14 out how they' re interpret what is going on
15 on that property.
16 MS . BISHOP: We are going to wait and
17 see what the family is going to do .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right . Let
19 me see if Ken has some questions that he
20 would like to make .
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No . Each of the
22 Pre-CO, which is very important here . It
23 would be very difficult to grant the use of
24 that cottage .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The agent is
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 115
1 just confering with her client .
2 MS . BISHOP : Thank you for your
3 patience . So after speaking with one of the
4 family members , the cottage of #23 will
5 come down in conjunction with the other
6 cottages pursuant to an approval with the
7 Waiver of Merger . We will leave on
8 Lot #23 the existing garage the two-story .
9 As I explained to Mr . Likokas, if he wants
10 to add or make an application to the
11 Building Department at a future date for an
12 accessory building or something, we can
13 begin that process with the Building
14 Department . Following the building code ' s
15 of the Town . And if it ' s nonconforming for
16 the structure then we will come before this
17 Board.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just
19 clarify something . In order to be eligible
20 for an accessory apartment in an accessory
21 structure -- we know that the proposed
22 people who will be in - it will be family
23 members . That ' s fine . But in order to be
24 eligible, you have to have a Pre-CO .
25 Because the accessory structure has to have
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 116
1 existed prior to 2008 . He can do all kinds
2 of renovations to the garage --
3 MS . BISHOP: Well, that is something
4 that he can address at that time .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That ' s right .
6 MS . BISHOP : The immediate motion
7 before you here is for the Waiver of
8 Merger .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right .
10 MS . BISHOP : And down the road he can
11 discuss that --
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Absolutely.
13 Good. We ' re all on the same page . We want
14 to proceed with what is before us .
15 MS . BISHOP: Absolutely.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I wanted to ask
17 the current owner of that family, are you
18 proposing to inhabit the principle
19 dwelling?
20 MR. LIKOKAS : Correct . We have been
21 there for over 40 years .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you can just
23 come to the mic to enter that into our
24 transcript, please and just state your
25 name?
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 117
1 MR. LIKOKAS : My name is George
2 Likokas . . I am the son of ( In Audible)
3 Likokas who purchased the property in 168 .
4 We have been there for over. 40 years . We
5 want to continue that home in East Marion .
6 It ' s an ideal location . We would like to
7 keep that structure as a main 'house and.
8 have space for the entire family . It ' s
9 myself and my sister and her whole entire
10 family and my parents . We ' re dealing with
11 basically three separate families . We want
12 to rebuild to accommodate at least one of
13 the three families and the other two
14 maintain the main house for their own .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. That all
16 makes sense . We can "just also point out
17 that the accessory cottage and the garage
18 are not in conforming locations, because
19 unfortunately you ' re on a corner lot with
20 two roads . It ' s in a front yard where the
21 accessory structures are required in a rear
22 yard. It ' s just kind of riddled with
23 issues but we ' re all trying to make more
24 conforming and that is a good thing . So we
25 welcome the opportunity to proceed based
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 118
1 upon the removal of a nonconforming --
2 well , everything is nonconforming but the
- 3 existing accessory cottage .
4 MR. LIKOKAS : Right .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Which
6 constitutes a second dwelling . Then we can
7 proceed from there . Bear in mind, that
8 should you want to create an accessory
9 apartment in an accessory structure be
10 careful in how you proceed. Look at the
11 existing garage . You can ' t just build a
12 new one . It won ' t qualify.
13 MS . BISHOP : That ' s correct . I have
14 explained that they will - need to make
15 applications to the Building Department .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The application
17 for an accessory apartment comes directly
18 to the Zoning Board because it ' s a Special
19 Exception permit that you don ' t require a
20 Notice of Disapproval for . What you need
21 to get from the Building Department is the
22 eligibility of a Pre-CO and bring that to
23 us with your application and then we can
24 proceed. And then obviously any
25 renovations to the dwelling goes to the
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 119
1 Building Department .
2 MS . BISHOP : Right .
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I just have a
4 question . Why wouldn ' t you proceed with a
5 Pre-CO for the main dwelling and the garage
6 and that cottage and try and get a CO?
7 Apply for that, and if you can get that --
8 MS . BISHOP : I think what happened
9 was when they put it on the market, they
10 didn ' t research the CO issue . That is
11 something that should have been addressed
12 when the property was put on the market .
13 Then they would have had several years to
14 kind of go that route . Right now, with the
15 time constraints and the deterioration that
16 is becoming, and what the family is doing
17 now is to formulate a remedy to create a
18 better situation for the family.
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So just to be
20 clear, you ' re going to take down that
21 second cottage?
22 MS . BISHOP : That ' s correct .
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. And the
24 accessory apartment, later when you get a
r'' 25 CO on this property with the garage being
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 120
1 an accessory to the dwelling, you can
2 convert that to an accessory apartment,
3 providing that you get a CO .
4 MS .. BISHOP : Right .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Whatever
6 nonconformities that we have established in
7 the record, will be reduced by the removal
8 of that second dwelling . Then the issue is
9 to obtain Pre-CO ' s so you can obtain to
10 convert the garage . So that can give you
11 the flexibility and you will be able to
12 renovate the dwelling . That is with the
13 Building Department .
14 MS . BISHOP: That ' s correct . And
15 that gives them time in the future to
16 address that .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just for the
18 record, the survey is showing two proposed
19 modular dwellings . One on Lot #9 and one
20 on Lot #10 .
21 MS . BISHOP: Yes .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Are you
23 proposing to undertake those or are you
24 showing that there is a building? So are
25 you proposing to construct those to develop
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 121
1 those lots or just showing that it ' s
2 possible to place something like that in a
3 conforming location on two lots?
4 MR. LIKOKAS : No . That is our
5 intent . To build two modular homes in the
6 back and generate enough capital from the
7 sale and eventually put that into Lot #23
8 and be it a renovation or an actual
9 replacement of the structures . Ideally, it
10 would be nice to put new structures . I
11 think the amount of capital that is going
12 to be required to renovate those main house
13 and the accessory building is obviously
14 gone now . It ' s going to be absorbant . So
15 it just may make sense to put new
16 structures in there . For lack of a better
17 term, bypass the CO issue .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you ' re
19 saying that those are going to be the
20 developer of two properties .
21 MR. LIKOKAS : Right . Unless somebody
22 buys the vacant lots for a million dollars
23 and we get out . I think that is ideally
24 the game plan . I am not a developer . It
25 seems to make sense that if we invest a
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 122
1 little bit more money into the putting new
2 structures, we will be able to get the
3 return that we can use towards the main
4 house .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
6 MR. LIKOKAS : We ' re all getting an
7 education, or at least I am.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well , you know
9 what, it ' s challenging for the Board too .
10 Every time an application like this comes
11 before the Board, we learn something. It ' s
12 an ongoing process . This is not a straight
13 forward and I am sure you know, this is not
14 a straight forward Waiver of Merger because
15 of the history of these two properties .
16 MS . BISHOP : Of course .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just so we ' re
18 both on the same page .
19 MS . BISHOP : Just to speak on the
20 modular issue, it ' s really to put something
21 nice . It ' s not a mic-mansion project .
22 That we ' re looking to blow out the
23 neighborhood. It ' s a three bedroom, two
24 bath ranch or something comparable, a cape,
25 with a two-car garage and we would
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 123
1 strategically provide a buffer for both
2 properties . It ' s also a benefit of the
3 community because no prolonged
4 construction . You ' re in and out in 45
5 days . They can raise capital for the
6 renovation .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As long
8 withstanding members of the community,
9 we ' re glad that you ' re going to stay here .
10 MR. LIKOKAS : We want to be here,
11 yes .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We ' re glad to
13 see these buildings come into more
14 conformity .
15 MR. LIKOKAS : Thank you .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any questions
17 or comments from the Board or from the
18 audience?
19 (No Response . )
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Hearing
21 no further questions or comments , I am
22 going to make a motion to close this
23 hearing and reserve decision to a later
24 date .
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 124
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
5 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
6 ******************* ***********************
7 HEARING #6628 - DANIEL MAHONEY
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
9 application before the Board of Appeals is
10 for Daniel Mahoney, #6628 . Request for
11 variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124
12 , and the Building Inspector ' s
13 November 13 , 2012 Notice of Disapproval
14 based on an application for building permit
15 for partial demolition and construction of
16 a new single family dwelling : 1 ) less than
17 the code required front yard setback of 35
18 feet, 2 ) less than the code required
19 minimum side yard setback of 10 feet,
20 located at : 3930 Stillwater Avenue, corner
21 of Track Avenue, in Cutchogue .
22 Is there someone here to represent
23 this application?
24 MS . ROMANELLI : Leeann Romanelli .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. All
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 125
1 right . So we have a proposed partial demo,
2 a 1974 Pre-CO on the property . The front
3 yard setback is proposed at 10 . 3 feet . The
4 side yard setback is 3 . 7 feet . This is a
5 corner parcel and it appears that you ' re
6 proposing the renovations and additions
7 within the footprint as existing .
8 MS . ROMANELLI : Yes .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Raising the
10 house to 26 . 4 feet high by adding a
11 second-story. Is that all accurate?
12 MS . ROMANELLI : Yes .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask you,
14 is the entire house being demoed or removed
15 or is this --
16 MR. SCHWARTZ : Mark Schwartz,
17 architect for the project .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hi, Mark.
19 MR. SCHWARTZ : They are going to '
20 knock it down to the first floor deck and
21 build from the first floor up, rebuild.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And that has
23 been determined to be partial demolition
24 and 25% is remaining?
25 MR. SCHWARTZ : That is the way that
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 126
1 we ' re presenting it .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They ' re calling
3 it a partial demo . Actually, I asked the
4 Building Department if in fact 25% of the
5 structure is remaining and they referred to
6 it as a partial demo, rather than a total
7 demo, 100% wipe-out . The reason why I am
8 asking that is because obviously the code
9 has become extremely ingenious in how to
10 define a demolition and I just -- that is
11 why I am asking, what part is not being
12 demolished because to make sure it ' s not
13 being considered a total demo.
14 MR. SCHWARTZ : Okay. So the entire
15 foundation is going to remain and the
16 entire floor joists will remain and the
17 subdivision-floor will remain .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The deck?
19 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Entire
21 foundation . Floor joists . Small house .
22 Decking . Okay. All right . So I don ' t have
23 a foundation plan in the packet . So I am
24 going to -- the site plan shows a building
25 being moved . So obviously something is
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 127
1 going on. Is this an all new foundation?
2 No, you ' re saying, it ' s existing?
3 MR. SCHWARTZ : No, we didn ' t do a
4 foundation plan at this point for the
5 existing . We can provide you one if you
6 want that .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, if that is
8 what you ' re saying that you ' re preserving
9 the foundation for the basis for a partial
10 -- determination of a partial demo, it ' s
11 important to know what you ' re preserving .
12 MR. SCHWARTZ : Okay.
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So certainly
14 moving the bilco door around, we would want
15 to know any repairs or expansions of the
16 foundation or anything like . We would like
17 to know that .
18 MR. SCHWARTZ : Okay.
19 MS . ROMANELLI : Do you have the
20 existing floor print? I think you do .
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes . The bilco is
22 there on the south side?
23 MS . ROMANELLI : Yes .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That I noticed,
25 but it ' s not a foundation plan. It ' s a
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 128
1 floor plan .
2 MS . ROMANELLI : Well, I guess asides
3 from the bilco, the existing is exactly the
4 same .
5 MR. SCHWARTZ : Well, we will do the
6 foundation plan and we will submit it .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And show any
8 kind of new constructions or repairs . You
9 might want to show that both in plan and in
10 section .
11 MR. SCHWARTZ : Okay.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that we have
13 an idea . I just don ' t want to get into the
14 business if this is a demo or- not . We have
15 gone down that road too often . So let ' s
16 just try and clear that up immediately.
17 MR. SCHWARTZ : Okay.
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have a couple of
19 quick questions . What is the distance from
20 the property line to the pavement on Track
21 Avenue? Approximately?
22 MR. SCHWARTZ : About 30 feet .
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And can you
24 describe Track Avenue? Is it a main
25 traveled road?
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 129
1 MR. SCHWARTZ : No . It ' s more of a
2 secondary traveled road.
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It ' s the
4 strangest thing. If you follow Stillwater
5 down into goes into Track.
6 MS . ROMANELLI : It ' s confusing. You
7 can ' t follow the street signs back there .
8 I mean, Track Avenue is definitely not the
9 more traveled road.
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That answered my
11 question. And do you know when the
12 dwelling was built? We have a CO for 1974 .
13 Do you know when it was built?
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can check
15 the property card. There is another
16 question that I have, and it would appear
17 from the survey and site observation and
18 inspection, that there is a four foot high
19 picket . fence that is not on the applicant ' s
20 property. It ' s on the shoulder .
21 MS . ROMANELLI : Well, yeah. It ' s on
22 the grass part but over their property
23 line .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Even a tiny bit
25 of the fence on the shared yard that is
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 130
1 shared with the dwelling next to it, a
2 little bit of that is not on their property
3 either . The rear yard is .
4 MS . ROMANELLI : Yes .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would expect
6 that the applicant is going to be asked to
7 move the fence onto their property. I
8 mean, it ' s going to reduce their protected
9 backyard area . It really needs to be on
10 their property and not the Town shoulder .
11 There is a number of other houses in the
12 area that is two-story ' s .
13 MS . ROMANELLI : This is the smallest
14 . house .
15 MR. SCHWARTZ : They wanted to keep it
16 at cape style and add some dormers on the
17 side . To try and keep it on a small scale .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It looks about
19 like the house next to it . It has a
20 significant side yard. That is a good
21 thing. This property is pretty close to
22 the side yard but it shouldn ' t have a huge
23 impact visually on the adjacent neighbor
24 since they have a substantial side yard of
25 their own . And it looks like the front
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 131
1 yard setback on Stillwater is conforming .
2 MS . ROMANELLI : You know, I didn ' t
3 receive any phone calls . I sent the
4 mailings out . They are well within the
5 height requirement .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Ken, did
7 you have any more questions?
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions .
11 MS . ROMANELLI : Will they make the
12 comments about the fence?
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, I cannot
14 speak for anyone else on this Board.
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Everything has to
16 be relatively conforming. You have an
17 encroachment .
18 MS . ROMANELLI : The fence would not
19 hold up --
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It ' s subject to
21 the CO.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : At least we
23 cleared up what is going on with the
24 foundation .
25 Is there anyone in the audience who
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 132
1 wishes to address the application?
2 (No Response . )
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am going to
4 make a motion to close subject to receipt
5 of a foundation plan indicating the
6 preservation of existing and any new
7 expansion or repairs required.
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
13 ( See Minutes for Resolution . )
14 *************** ***************************
15 HEARING #6629 - RAYMOND STRONG
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
17 application before the Board is for Raymond
18 Strong, #6629 . Request for variance from
19 Article III Code Section 280-15 and the
20 Building Inspector ' s January 10 , 2013
21 Notice of Disapproval based on an
22 application for building permit for an
23 accessory in-ground pool; 1 ) location other
24 than the code permitted front yard on
25 waterfront property or rear yard, located
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 133
1 at : 2205 Bayview Avenue, adjacent to
2 Arshamomoque Pond in Southold.
3 Okay. Welcome back. Just state your
4 name for the record, please .
5 MS . ROMANELLI : Leeann Romanelli .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just let the
7 record show that the LWRP who indicated
8 that it was LWRP exempt . Do you have a
9 copy?
10 MS . ROMANELLI : Yes .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What would you
12 like us to know?
13 MS . ROMANELLI : Just the fact that
14 they would really like to put the pool on
15 the side, a 16X32 pool, where they ' re
16 proposing behind the existing garage, which
17 kind of blocks the view from the street .
18 They don ' t want to go farther in the rear
19 yard because there is a ( In Audible) issue
20 and getting closer to the water in the
21 back. So they ' re trying to avoid any
22 issues with waterfronts and that is it .
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any
24 landscaping that you are going to do on the
25 southeasterly side?
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 134
1 MS . ROMANELLI : Do you know of any
2 proposed?
3 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes . Mark Schwartz .
4 I believe they ' re going to put up a hedge
5 row on that property line .
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can you give us
7 some indication on what they ' re going to do
8 because it ' s really open there?
9 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yeah.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you ' re
11 standing at the garage, you ' re right, you
12 don ' t see straight back or any diagonal is
13 very, very difficult .
14 MS . ROMANELLI : They are also putting
15 a perimeter fence around. Obviously they
16 have to have that because of the pool . I
17 don ' t know .
18 MR. SCHWARTZ : Thinking back, there
19 was a landscaped plan that was done a while
20 ago . I forget who, but I can get you a
21 copy of that .
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, we just
24 had one that was proposed in a side yard.
25 This is even setback farther from the water
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 135
1 body. And quite frankly, given the
2 environmental impact, the problem that we
3 have encountered with horrible weather
4 events, it ' s probably a good idea to get it
5 away from the water . It ' s relatively flat
6 back there .
7 MS . ROMANELLI : There is a bit of a
8 slump .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes . When you
10 get to the water . I have a question . Your
11 application did not address why it cannot
12 be placed in a conforming front yard.
13 Could you do that now, please? Because the
14 front yard is a conforming yard on
15 waterfront property. I would like you to
16 address why it needs to be a side yard
17 instead of a front yard?
18 MS . ROMANELLI : Well, I would expect
19 that it ' s more concealed on the side yard.
20 They did just renovate the house . It ' s a
21 beautiful house to look at from the street .
22 However, they want to, you know, the septic
23 is in the front . The drainage is in the
24 front . So they don ' t want to get involved
25 with that .
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 136
1 MR. SCHWARTZ : Also, it still needs
2 to abide by the front yard setback, which I
3 believe is 40 or 50 feet . So you wouldn ' t
4 be able to put it in the front of the house
5 itself .
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right .
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And the septic is
8 in the front?
9 MS . ROMANELLI : Yes .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just wanted
11 to have that addressed for the record.
12 MR. SCHWARTZ : That ' s fine .
13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is it a gunite
14 pool or a liner pool?
15 MR. SCHWARTZ : I believe they ' re going
16 to do a gunite pool .
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is the drywell
18 here for that?
19 MS . ROMANELLI : The drywell ' s on here
20 are, I believe, for the roof runoff . I
21 think it ' s a self -- they don ' t need a pool
22 drywell for this pool, right, Mark?
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is it the new
24 system?
25 MS . ROMANELLI : I believe so .
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 137
1 MR. SCHWARTZ : I am not familiar with
2 it to be honest with you .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is a
4 drywell . I guess you ' re tying in both?
5 MS . ROMANELLI : I am not exactly sure .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The pool
7 equipment is located next to the garage .
8 That is a good place for it . Okay. All
9 right . I am good. I don ' t have anymore
10 questions .
11 Ken?
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No . Just that if
15 it ' s a not a new system, then they ' re going
16 to have to put a drywell .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, there is
. 18 a drywell .
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That could be for
20 the garage . I don ' t know.
21 MS . ROMANELLI : I guess , we will have
22 to clarify it .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The application
25 appears that it ' s one of those systems with
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 138
1 the pumps that doesn ' t require a drywell .
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It does?
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes . The
4 application states that .
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay.
6 MS . ROMANELLI : Well, we can clarify
7 that .
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It ' s #4 .
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All right . Thank
10 you.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
12 further questions or comments , I am going
13 to make a motion to close the hearing
14 subject to receipt of a landscaped plan.
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in. favor?
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
20 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
21 *******************************************
22 HEARING #6627 - VICKI TOTH
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
24 application before the Board is for Vicki
25 Toth, #6627 . The applicant request a
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 139
1 Special Exception under Section
2 280-13B ( 14 ) . The Applicant is the owner
3 requesting authorization to establish an
4 Accessory Bed and Breakfast, accessory and
5 incidental to the residential occupancy in
6 this single-family dwelling, with three
7 bedrooms for lodging and serving of
8 breakfast to the B&B casual, transient
9 roomers . Location of property: 425 Jacobs
10 Lane, corner Main Bayview Road in Southold.
11 Would you please state your name for
12 the record?
13 MS . E . TOTH: Emily Toth .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You ' re here to
15 present the application?
16 MS . E . TOTH : Yes . We ' re here
17 presenting an application for a three
18 bedroom Bed & Breakfast .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. We did a
20 site inspection, the members that are
21 present here today. The proposed guest
22 rooms are three upstairs . Two of them are
23 en-suite ' s and bathroom. And one will
24 share an existing bathroom. The survey
25 shows , though not in scale, six parking
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 140
1 spaces . And certainly observation would
2 indicate, that there is more than enough
3 room. The driveway is not specifically
4 wide enough for two lanes , but a little
5 jiggling, you would be able to deal with
6 that .
7 Gerry, do you have any questions that
8 you would like to ask?
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not at this time .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have no
12 questions .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask you,
14 because there isn ' t an issue with parking .
15 The lot is huge . So there isn ' t an issue .
16 You have every reason proceed based on the
17 standards there . I do want to just ask, if
18 you' re planning to park just in that
19 circular driveway, your house parking, or
20 are you going to be parking guests
21 someplace else?
22 MS . E . TOTH: Yes . We plan on up to
23 two guests parking on the circular
24 driveway. There is plenty of room that
25 they can get out or move around without any
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 141
1 issues . And then there is that other part
2 that comes out next to our garage, and
3 there is room for another three cars, if .
4 needed. But we park down by the barn
5 anyway, which there is plenty of room also .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just want to
7 indicate, you do have enough -- certainly
8 the ones that are perpendicular to the
9 house, certainly have enough room to
10 jack-knife and not have to back out of the
11 driveway.
12 MS . E . TOTH: Right . Yes .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I would
14 simply request that when the B&B is in
15 operation, that there a small sign put on
16 the premises for where guests parking will
17 take place .
18 MS . E . TOTH : Yes . We ' re fine with
19 that .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It just needs
21 to be clear so that there is no jostling of
22 vehicles in a way that is not safe . That
23 is not necessarily the busiest street in
24 the world but it does have some traffic on
25 there . So you probably wouldn ' t want to
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 142
1 have people backing up onto the street .
2 That is one way to avoid that . It ' s one
3 thing for a homeowner to do it because
4 you ' re used to it --
5 MS . E . TOTH : Right .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: But some guests
7 may not be as quite skilled in backing up .
8 Other than that, I really don ' t have any
9 comments or questions .
10 Any other questions?
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No . I think most
12 of the questions were answered by the
13 physical inspection .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
15 What are your plans for operating
16 this Bed & Breakfast? Is it full-time,
17 year round? Part-time?
18 MS . E . TOTH : We plan on full-time
19 year round. Mostly sticking to weekends .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right . I
21 don ' t have any further questions and there
22 is no one else in the audience .
23 So hearing no further questions or
24 comments , I will make a motion to close
25 this hearing and reserve decision to a
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 143
1 later date .
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye .
7 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
8 *******************************************
9
10 (Whereupon, the March 7 , 2013 Regular
11 Meeting concluded. )
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 144
1 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
2
3
4 I , Jessica DiLallo, certify that the
5 foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public
6 Hearings was prepared using required electronic
7 transcription equipment and is a true and accurate
8 record of the Hearings .
9
10
11 Signature :
12 Jessica DiLallo
13
14 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
15 PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
16
17 Date : March 17 , 2013
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
i
25