HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-04/04/2013 Hearing 1
-.., 1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK
2 ------------------------------------------- X
3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
4
5 ------------------------------------=------ X
RECEIVED
6 Z013
MAY 3
7 .
15®ARr)OPAPPEALS
8 Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York
9
10 April 4 , 2013
9 : 45 A.M.
11
12
13 Board Members Present :
14
15 LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
16 GERARD GOEHRINGER - Member
17 GEORGE HORNING - Member (Left at 2 : 27 P . M. )
18 KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member
19 VICKI TOTH - Secretary
20 JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney
21
22
23 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
24 P . O . Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
25 ( 631) -338-1409
2
- 1
2 INDEX TO HEARINGS
3
4 Hearing Page
5
6 Kimogenor Point, Inc . 3-69
7 (Bingham) , #6550
8 Thomas Spurge, #6615 69-77
9 Douglas C . & Kathleen M . Folts, #6536 77-81
10 Nicholas & Mary Antonucci, #6638 81-88
11 Leslie L . LaVecchia, #6634 88-111
12 Katherine Andreadis, #6639 111-121
13 Steven & Yvette Einczig, #6637 121-136
14 Richard Frizzi, #6640 136-147
15 Robert & Deana Finora, #6642 147-163
16 John Spiro, #6636 163-187
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 3
1
2 HEARING #6550 - KIMOGENOR POINT, INC .
3 (BINGHAM)
4 Re-opened per Board Resolution .
5 Based on the Building Inspector ' s
6 March 5, 2013 Notice of Disapproval based
7 on work performed is beyond the scope of
8 the ZBA decision, 1 ) deemed a demolition
9 and construction of new single-family
10 dwelling, located at : 50 Jackson Street,
11 adjacent to Great Peconic Bay, New Suffolk.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning,
13 please state your name for the record.
14 MS . MOORE : Patricia Moore on behalf
15 of the Bingham' s . And I have here today
16 with me, Mr . & Mrs . Bingham. I have also
17 North Fork Woodworks, who are the
18 contractors, who are working on the job .
19 It ' s Kyle Schadt and Scott Edgett . I also
20 have the professional architect, Tom Samuels
21 from Samuels & Steelman.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Before you get
23 started, I would like to do a few things .
24 One, I would just like to review, very
25 briefly, just for the record, the three
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 4
1 public hearings that we had prior to today ' s
2 hearing on this application . We have three
3 very lengthy transcripts , and I just want to
4 review them briefly and then I would also
5 like to .limit today ' s discussions to what
6 appears to be a request on your part to
7 uphold the -- to overturn the Building
8 Inspector ' s Notice of Disapproval issuing a
9 determination that this is a demo . That is
10 the first thing that we want to establish
11 today, whether or not in fact this is a
12 demolition . That is what the Board is
13 prepared to address today. We don ' t want to
14 revisit any of the other issues about
15 enlargement or anything like that . We want
16 to do this first and get that out of the
17 way.
18 MS . MOORE : Before you do start, I
19 want to put on the record our objection to
20 the re-opening of the hearing, to this whole
21 proceeding. We believe that we have
22 followed all of the decisions . Followed all
23 the procedures and at this point, even
24 though not a standard under the area
25 variance criteria, it has been a financial
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 5
1 hardship for the owners that have gone
2 through an extensive expense and delay in
3 proceeding with every step of this project .
4 So I do want to state our objection to that .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So noted .
6 MS . MOORE : I also -- I 'm sorry. I
7 also want to place on the record, I checked
8 with Tom Samuels and I checked with the
9 contractors, we do not have a Notice of
10 Disapproval even though your basing it --
11 the notice does say there was one issued in
12 March .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can provide
14 you with that .
15 MS . MOORE : I would put on the record
16 that no one on the applicant ' s side ever
17 received a Notice of Disapproval .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Well, we
19 will make sure that you have that .
20 MS . MOORE : Yes . I would like it
21 right now so we --
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All right .
23 Fine .
24 MS . MOORE : Thank you .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Again, it states
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 6
1 exactly what the legal notice stated that is
2 dated -- . I am just going to enter it into
3 the record, March 5 , 2013 . It is actually a
4 Notice of Disapproval that is issued to Tom
5 Samuels for being at Kimogenor Point . I am
6 surprised you didn ' t get a copy. But in any
7 case, it says for demolition and
8 construction of a single-family dwelling and
9 obviously the tax lot and the address . Was
10 disapproved on the following grounds of
11 proposed demolition and construction on this
12 nonconforming lot is not permitted since the
13 work performed is beyond the scope of the
14 ZBA decision #6550 . Okay.
15 MS . MOORE : So we ' re dealing with the
16 issue that the work being done exceeded the
17 scope of the decision?
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was
19 determined to be a demolition .
20 MS . MOORE : Okay.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that is why
22 today we wanted to address that issue . . Now
23 let me -- let me just refresh everyone ' s
24 memory so that we ' re all on the same page .
25 We have had two public hearings on this
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 7
1 application . The very first one, if you
2 recall, was for a proposed demolition . And
3 at that time, that was April 5th of last
4 year . At that time, the Board made it very
5 clear in the minutes of that meeting, that
6 if this building were to be demolished,
7 because this is on such a unique piece of
8 property, it would lose it ' s preexisting
9 nonconforming use . And again the use, it ' s
10 a nonconforming building with a
11 nonconforming use . And the nonconformity
12 has to do with the fact that the code does
13 not permit more than one dwelling on a
14 single piece of property. It ' s still a
15 residential use in a residential zone, but
16 because of the multiple dwellings , the use
17 is nonconforming . There are a couple of
18 properties throughout Southold Town that are
19 in the same situation . We made it clear
20 that if that was extinguished by the
21 demolition, you would need to apply for a
22 use variance to reestablish the
23 nonconforming use in order to proceed. That
24 the precedent that we had for that would was
25 in-place and in-kind. It was also made very
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 8
1 clear that that is not what the applicant ' s
2 wanted. The applicant ' s wanted to enlarge
3 the footprint, even though the code does not
4 really address that, it permits enlargement
5 up to a certain percentage for
6 non-residential structure . Not residential
7 structure . The Board, in cooperation,
8 proceeded to explain all the issues . They
9 were all flushed out . At the second
10 hearing, which was on June 7th, the
11 architect came back with an attorney and
12 said that they were going to drop the use
13 variance application . We do want to enlarge
14 the footprint and we would be able to use
15 the existing foundation in order to do that
16 and we ' re requesting -- you know, porch and
17 some habitable space 17o. expansion on the
18 grounds level and additional habitable
19 space on the second floor with two
20 additional dormers . The Board in its
21 belief, believed that was okay to do on
22 the basis that it was -- had really strong
23 arguments that it had to do with strong
24 reflection of the character of the
25 neighborhood and proceeded to grant that
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 9
1 variance for a bulkhead setback as well .
2 Then it was determined, by my looking at
3 the LWRP recommendation more carefully and
4 the initial site plan, that there was an
5 error made that this was in a DE Zone and
6 not an AE Zone and the house was going to
7 have to be raised for FEMA compliance
8 standards because the map was going to
9 change . We then opened the hearing again to
10 address the new foundation. That hearing
11 took place on November lst of last year . At
12 that point, we discussed the possibility of
13 a demolition and it was again made clear,
14 that the applicant -- the architect said,
15 well, we ' re not going to have to
16 necessarily move it from the site . We will
17 have to raise it but we won ' t have to move
18 it off the site by using helical screw
19 piles . We will be able to jack it up and we
20 will be able to save the structure, as was
21 determined in our decision that it should
22 be saved. Subsequent to that, construction
23 began. We saw the building up on privings
24 (phonetic . ) Apparently, and this is what we
25 want to review, the first floor walls fell
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 10
1 away. What was left and what was up on
2 privings was the second floor with the roof .
3 We all saw that . The assumption was , the
4 Building Department, based on two conditions
5 within our amended application to permit the
6 FEMA compliant foundation, the Building
7 Department determined that there was
8 probably 25% left in that second floor . All
9 right . Assuming it was all to be used as it
10 was . Now, we had a color-coded floor plan
11 originally that was submitted to this Board
12 indicating what would be preserved and what
13 would be demolished, and what new walls
14 would be added, when T asked in the
15 transcript in the minutes of the hearing, on
16 what basis was that structural analysis
17 done? As to what would remain and what
18 would be removed. The answer was , "it ' s not
19 based on a structural analysis but rather on
20 where we want the floor plan to go . " Okay.
21 So that is exactly what ' s in the minutes .
22 So we ' re going to leave those walls
23 primarily exterior walls in place . And we
24 will be able to preserve more than 44% of
25 the existing structure . That wasn ' t 25% .
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 11
1 The Board proceeded on that basis to grant
2 all of the various rights to proceed with
3 making this new construction . And we did
4 stamp drawings with an enlarged footprint .
5 Whether we ' re permitted to do so or not, we
6 made the determination that under our
7 variance powers we would. And the problem
8 now that is before us , is that the Building
9 Department has determined that the scope of
10 work done on the property has exceeded the
11 variance relief granted by this Board and
12 has determined this to be a demolition . So
13 what we would like to do today is take
14 testimony from those who are here as to
15 exactly what is left, what happened to the
16 first floor walls? What happened to the
17 second-story? What was preserved, and what
18 is no longer part of the original
19 structure? So now please proceed.
20 MS . MOORE : Okay. I would defer to the
21 transcripts and the prior hearings as part
22 of the record. We have incorporated
23 everything . So we will rely on the record.
24 If that --
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes . That ' s
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 12
1 fine .
2 MS . MOORE : To begin with, I want to
3 start with a point of fact, from the
4 original decision, which was adopted or
5 granted July 5th of 2012 , and at that point,
6 there really wasn ' t no consideration to the
7 change of the code, which had the 75%
8 analysis that had been codified at that
9 point . By the time that the second decision
10 came in when the helical piles had to be
11 used for the foundation, at that point the
12 decision does reflect the 75% , and which � is
13 correct . And I would just read for the
14 record the definition for demolition so
15 we ' re all understanding exactly what we ' re
16 being asked .to testify to . And the
17 definition of demolition, which is in the
18 code, added April 24 , 2012 , as Local Law
19 #6-2012 , says any removal of a structure or
20 a portion thereof that exceeds 75% of the
21 total square footage of the existing
22 structure before the start of the new one..
23 So that ' s something to keep in mind that
24 visually. And as you have stated on the
25 record, the plans have always reflected
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 13
1 expansion of the footprint, new dormers , new
2 portions of the building. So visually you
3 see the new from the outside and the -- and
4 we maintain through-- and we ' re going to
5 put on the record, that not more than the
6 75% was removed. So since this is mostly a
7 technical hearing, I would ask that the
8 contractors come up first and describe what
9 they did. And explain for you -- you know,
10 the mode of construction.
11 MR. EDGETT : Good morning, guys .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning .
13 MR. EDGETT : My name is Scott Edgett .
14 I am the owner of North Fork Woodworks .
15 Just to start off, I want -- some of you
16 guys know us . You know, Kyle and I are
17 local Mattituck graduates, and we have built
18 ourselves off reputation. Not big
19 advertising or anything fancy. We have a
20 good reputation . And we really, really
21 strive to be as honest and truthful as we
22 can. And that no time did we ever feel --
23 we knew from the beginning of this, that 25%
24 of this structure had remained and at no
25 time did we ever, ever think that we came
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 14
1 close enough to not doing that . I think
2 it ' s obvious if you have watched the stages,
3 and we have plenty of pictures if you guys
4 would be interested in them, we went through
5 every extent to maintain this home, this
6 cottage . The original house was something
7 called "balloon framed. " 2x4 ' s were from
8 the first floor all the way to the second
9 floor . There was no "plates" per se on the
10 second floor . I mean, the floor framing .
11 The first floor, once the house was
12 elevated, you brought up and wanted to know
13 what happened with the first floor, it was
14 very minimally framed, and once the house
15 was elevated to 20 feet, it was off balance
16 and caused for a very dangerous
17 situation . That is why we ended up removing
18 the first floor, confident that -- we were
19 well over . The second floor was 440 of the
20 whole existing structure . So we felt that
21 we had plenty of room to frame and adjust
22 the structure to fit within that . Once we
23 -- Again, we have plenty of photos showing
24 the time frame . Once we framed the first
25 floor, we met with Mike and ( In Audible)
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 15
1 lowered the entire second floor back down on
2 the first floor structure . At that point,
3 we basically stripped all the accessories
4 off it and left that entire framed
5 structure . We modified it from there . That
6 is where we cut in and added plates .
7 Wherever there was a 7 foot wall and needed
8 to be a 8 foot wall, we basically sistered
9 everything up with new materials . When you
10 are in the second floor of the house, you
11 could see the entire back side of the
12 existing structured roof, still si.stered
13 with new. It definitely appears to look
14 new, but it ' s there . The whole back wall of
15 the house was there . All you see is studs
16 next to each other . And it ' s been hundreds
17 of hours for Kyle and I in managing and
18 putting this together, and really carefully
19 and thoughtfully trying to build a structure
20 up to code and something that we can all be
21 proud of at the end of the day and follow
22 that 25% . So that -- if you have any
23 questions or if Kyle has anything else to
24 add?
25 MR. SCHADT : One thing that I would
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 16
1 just like to really add --
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have to just
3 enter your name . This is recording.
4 MR. SCHADT : My name is Kyle .Schadt,
5 North Fork Woodworks . I would just like to
6 add one thing about the original structure
7 and the balloon framing, and just to bring
8 you up to speed, if you ' re not familiar with
9 how it is and how it was done back in that
10 time . Basically vertical studs , which would
11 carry the weight of the wall and the weight
12 of the roof, generally on conventional
13 framing, 16 inches on center . In this
14 structure, we had an upright vertical stud
15 at every window and door opening. A 40-foot
16 wall, which we have some pictures showing,
17 was only about 11 studs at that point, at 40
18 feet, which with additional framing, you
19 would have somewhere in upwards of 40 studs .
20 So with that said, in our frame of thinking,
21 25% of each wall, when we did cut the walls
22 and lift the house and keep what was there,
23 we have almost still 11 studs . So we felt
24 confident that was more than 25% in those
25 sections . So with that said, I just wanted
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 17
1 to make everyone aware of how many studs did
2 exist on the 40 foot wall on the back water
3 side of the house .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am looking at
5 your photographs and your explanations and
6 one of them says , any photos will convey ( In
7 Audible) existing studs on the second floor .
8 What else was preserved? You indicate on
9 another page, there is some flooring --
10 MR. EDGETT : As well as the other
11 floor joists beneath. And the roof rafters .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you ' re
13 suggesting -- what percentage of the
14 original framing members is , do you feel
15 that has been preserved?
16 MR. EDGETT : Again, each wall is
17 different . We definitely averaged well over
18 25% , because if we talk about the water
19 side and studs that still remain and 100%
20 there, we have 25% of the front fall . We
21 have over 50% of both gable walls still
22 remaining . And then 25% of the front wall
23 still remains . So it still averages well
24 over 25% that framing . Again, when you walk
25 in the building, you will still see these 11
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 18
1 studs that are black and old. Now you see
2 traditional lumbar every 16 inches on
3 center . It looks minimal at this point . That
4 was the reason for some of these pictures .
5 There is areas where there is a wall with 3
6 studs, and of course, now they have 15 or 20
7 studs . So it looks minimal , but it is well
8 without a doubt over 25% .
9 MR. SCHADT : And just one more
10 comment, when we cut the walls on the second
11 floor, we added new plates . Scott and I
12 both felt that it was our way -- it is a
13 fire stopper from the first and second floor
14 intersection, and we felt comfortable that
15 is where we could add that block, to be
16 altered used as plates .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have another
18 photograph that indicates that -- in looking
19 at the existing second floor walls , gable
20 and ( In Audible) 44% or 880 square feet .
21 Although sheathing did not remain (In
22 Audible) the new structure as planned. What
23 would be helpful to the Board if Kyle and
24 Scott or Tom, if you could submit to us a
25 color coded framing diagram showing exactly
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 19
1 what is new and what was preserved, and what
2 percentage was preserved. That will really
3 give us a blow by blow explanation . This is
4 a good start of what you have provided. We
5 have in our records that goes back -- in our
6 original determination, which was amended .
7 strictly to change in the floor -- change in
8 the foundation, indicated that the public
9 hearing on June 7 , 2012 , the applicant ' s
10 agent abandoned the total demolition of a
11 dwelling and submitted a revised Notice of
12 Disapproval dated May 3 , 2012 . A site plan
13 and floor plan showing approximately 50% of
14 the dwelling would be demolished and then
15 reconstructed with enlargements to the
16 existing footprint . The change removed was
17 in considerations of a use variance
18 requested and allowed the Board to proceed
19 with the original area variance
20 application. Clearly what happened was , the
21 Board assumed based on these drawings , I
22 am not sure if you ' re familiar with this
23 one, that it was considerable more than the
24 25% was going to remain. Now, technically,
25 the definition of a demolition, yes, 25% .
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 20
1 Nevertheless , this is the scope of work that
2 we actually endorse in the drawings of this
3 set-up . So that is why we really wanted to
4 explore what happened. Why were the first
5 floor walls removed?
6 MR. EDGETT : The first floor walls
7 were removed, again, once we went to these
8 helical piles and the house had to be lifted
9 20 feet in the air -- And again, I can show
10 you an enlarged photo if you would be
11 interested in seeing actually what the first
12 floor walls consisted of . And as we began
13 to lift the house, we first lifted the house
14 about a foot off the foundation, the whole
15 house started unsafely teetering and being
16 off balance . Because there are so many
17 pieces mixing, the accessories were ripped
18 off outside the building. And became a very
19 unsafe situation. So again, for Kyle and I ,
20 what we did was, we went around, we looked
21 at the studs . We looked at what we were
22 doing upstairs and we determined that there
23 was nothing really to be saved.
24 Especially after -- as you can see on the
25 approved plans, all the new door and
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 21
l window layouts .almost laid out exactly the
2 way that it was with the stud. There
3 would have been absolutely nothing left .
4 And again, most of this stuff was hidden .
5 So once we got inside the shell, that is
6 when we realized that there is really no
7 structure in this building. And again, we
8 went way over and above to say, well, we ' re
9 going to save more of it . If you want to go
10 through this house and count the studs, you
11 would realize that we saved a tremendous
12 amount of this house . And again, it was
13 hundreds of hours, a ton `of time . It was
14 never taken for granted what we needed to
15 do, and we really thought that we went way
16 over and above to do it .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, I am going
18 to state two things at this point . Number
19 one, as you know, I know your work and I
20 respect it, and I have no questions in my
21 mind knowing your reputation, knowing that
22 you did what you diligently could to
23 preserve the structure . I wanted to request
24 the addition of a color coded framing
25 diagram verifying a percentage of what is
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 22
1 left with regards to the framing. This
2 Board would like to set-up an inspection
3 with you present, so we could do a
4 walkthrough and you could point out -- and
5 Tom could be there, the two of you . We
6 won ' t do it as a group because we have to
7 observe the Open Meetings Law. We have to
8 do it in a timeframe, a Saturday from 10 to
9 12 or something and no more than two of us
10 at a time will be going through the dwelling
11 to avoid having a quorum so we adhere to the
12 Open Meetings Law. That would both be a
13 good deal to us . That could be very helpful
14 in our proceeding. Let me ask the Board
15- here if anyone has any questions for the
16 contractor .
17 MEMBER HORNING: Is there anything in
18 the application that was submitted, probably
19 the most recent one, I am not sure, but
20 there are a series of photos at the end that
21 you folks submitted including one that was
22 showing what was left of the existing second
23 floor after you lifted it up . Were all
24 these photos taken at the same time? I
25 presume that they were .
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 23
1 MS . MOORE : They actually come from
2 the report that was submitted by the
3 contractors . So what Leslie was referring
4 to when she was asking the questions , are
5 those photographs of the report . You
6 probably have the report attached. I am not
7 sure if it ' s a photocopy or an original
8 copy. You probably have it as a photocopy .
9 MEMBER HORNING : What are the basis of
10 the photos?
11 MR. SCHADT : The photos are taken by
12 myself and guys that work for us throughout
13 the project that are pretty much photo
14 logging on their phones or whatever . This
15 is a bunch of photos that were sent to us
16 from people that we knew were watching, our
17 wives included in taking pictures . We kind
18 of put together as a photo log . They were
19 taken from Day 1 all the way to when we were
20 stopped.
21 MEMBER HORNING: They are not all
22 taken at the same --
23 MR. SCHADT : They are not .
24 MEMBER HORNING: You can ' t provide a
25 date as to when, let ' s say this one was
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 24
1 taken --
2 MR. EDGETT : That was the day of our
3 inspections . That was the second time that
4 we met Mike outside showing what still
5 remained and where we began construction on
6 the first floor and lowered it .
7 MS . MOORE : If I could interrupt for
8 one moment? In your decision of November
9 2012 , you placed the following conditions .
10 The first one being stormwater management
11 compliance, that is standard. And then the
12 second is, "once the house is raised and
13 secured above the existing foundation, the
14 applicant or agent must call the Building
15 Department to schedule an inspection to
16 confirm the amount of demolition will not
17 exceed 75% of the structure before
18 additional construction commences . " So that
19 was in fact one of the inspection points ,
20 and who was there? Who did the inspection?
21 MR. EDGETT : Mike Verity.
22 MS . MOORE : Thereafter it says , "the
23 applicant or agent must call the Building
24 Department for a second inspection once the
25 new foundation has been placed and prior to
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 25
1 lowering the house . " And who did that
2 inspection?
3 MR. EDGETT : That was Mike Verity
4 again,.
5 MS . MOORE : I would just point out
6 that one of the comments that you are
7 making, we were talking about the 44% under
8 the decision, but in fact by the time that
9 the decision was ever an issue, you actually
10 are stating and confirming that the amount
11 of demolition will not exceed 750 of the
12 structure . So you ' re comparison of this
13 construction and the colored coded plan of
14 the first hearing is not quite accurate, in
15 a sense that the law had changed at that
16 point, and the 25% hadn ' t been retained.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I will just
18 make one addition . That law was prior to
19 our writing this determination. It wasn ' t
20 changed after .
21 MS . ANDALORO: The first decision was
22 in July 2012 . So the 75% was already in
23 place .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right .
25 MS . MOORE : I understand that , but as
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 26
1 a matter of law, the code now defines
2 demolition .
3 MS . ANDALORO : That code was in place
4 when the first decision was written .
5 MS . MOORE : I understand that but --
6 MS . ANDALORO : It may not have been
7 referenced but it was utilized by the Board
8 in coming to that decision. We don ' t need
9 to argue that .
10 MS . MOORE : Well, we might be --
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The only reason
12 why I brought it up at all was because we
13 were given certain representation as to how
14 this construction would be preserved and how
15 it would proceed . And it is not infrequent
16 that when construction commences, things
17 that are -- that you assume you can do, you
18 find out are not good building practices .
19 At that point, you come back to this Board.
20 You come back to the Building Department and
21 you explain it .
22 MS . MOORE : But I think --
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait a minute .
24 This Board has bent over more than backwards
25 to cooperate at every ste.p despite a number
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 27
1 of errors that were made throughout this
2 process in granting this applicant and what
3 they wanted on this property. Even to the
4 extent that despite a prohibition in the
5 code, we used our various powers granted
6 through the State to permit and enlargement .
7 Not a de minimus enlargement, but a 170
8 enlargement of the first floor and
9 additional enlargement, and I have the
10 square footage but I don ' t want to bother
11 and look it up, but it was more habitable
12 space on the second floor . We did it in
13 part based upon the other variance standards
14 that discussed Kimogenor Point, and the fact
15 that unlike other properties that are
16 seasonal cottages, these are dwellings that
17 have been enlarged, rightly or wrongly, they
18 have been enlarged over time . And you made
19 a good presentation, and the Board based its
20 determination upon some of those facts . So
21 I just want the totality that we have been
22 through and how we have attempted to
23 cooperate again and again . I mean, we could
24 have stopped this dead in the water on a
25 number of occasions by not re-opening the
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 28
1 hearing and let it just sit there . You
2 know, what we were trying to do -- with the
3 foundation, when that error was discovered
4 and with this application now was to allow
5 the applicant to reasonably proceed with
6 . creating their home on this property. So I
7 want us to have some recognition now --
8 MS . MOORE : I --
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Board has
10 done way more for this property that it has
11 to do on many others .
12 MS . MOORE : We understand that .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There are so
14 many anomalies . I mean, you probably would
15 have had the right to rebuild in-place and
16 in-kind. That is not what you wanted to do .
17 So you know, all of the things that have
18 been represented to us are in fact part of
19 the record and part of what we considered
20 when we made our determination. I just
21 needed to state that .
22 MS . MOORE : That ' s fine . I just -- I
23 understand the contractors and everybody and
24 the Bingham' s side of this . Their
25 understanding was with the new decision of
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 29
1 75%, that that was the number that they were
2 having to follow. So if it was something
3 less than 75%, it just wasn ' t clear to
4 anybody that you were going by a 44% ratio,
5 even though they have quite a bit of more if
6 in fact the 75% number, that was the new
7 number based on the decision that was
8 written and the reopening of the hearing,
9 because obviously there had to be a new
10 foundation, and the process of getting that
11 new foundation, there were less expensive
12 ways then helical piles but to maintain the
13 integrity of the original decision, they
14 were willing -- the owners were willing to
15 spend more and just raise it and put the
16 helical piles . So everybody here was
17 working in good faith, both sides to get
. 18 this project moving and forward. None of
19 us are trying to impune your character in
20 any way. We ' re just -- understand that our
21 position is, that we have never -- we have
22 not exceeded that 75% figure .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is why
24 we ' re here to find out exactly what
25 happened. There are all kinds of rumors
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 30
1 indicating that the hurricane knocked
2 everything down .
3 You ' re objecting to the fact that you
4 got a Stop Work Order for a demolition?
5 You ' re going to be objecting because I asked
6 you to submit a framing diagram?
7 MS . MOORE : Well, I am --
8 MS . ANDALORO : That is kind of what
9 you ' re saying .
10 MS . MOORE : I am objecting the -- the
11 way that you presented it, you are going to
12 compare the new colored coded framing
13 diagram --
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Don ' t make
15 assumptions about what I 'am going to do with
16 the information --
17 MS . MOORE : That is the way that my
18 brain is analyzing.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You are making
20 assumptions about how the Board --
21 MS . MOORE : That is fine . I just
22 wanted it on the record to be clear that
23 we ' re following, at least in our minds , we
24 have maintained the code compliant
25 demolition definition .
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 31
1 MEMBER HORNING : If I may, because I
2 sort of got interrupted. I was trying to
3 follow my own train of thought here too .
4 Your argument would be that it ' s not a
5 demolition, I presume, and that is what
6 we ' re trying to elicit from you, in fact .
7 And going back to this application that you
8 have made in March based upon maybe the
9 latest Notice of Disapproval or Stop Work
10 Order or based on something --
11 MS . MOORE : Your phone call .
12 MEMBER HORNING: Okay. There are some
13 photos in here and all I am trying to say is
14 that it would be helpful, if you could, it
15 would be helpful to me and my colleagues if
16 you can somehow provide some dates with
17 these photos so that we can match up
18 approximate dates with the pictures . And
19 then I want us to walk through this process
20 of -- we made a decision, then we amended
21 the decision in November, and then at some
22 point, you got a Stop Work Order and there
23 is a new Notice of Disapproval, and I wanted
24 to cover that ground. But before I do that,
25 you also submitted a diagram --
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 32
1 MS . MOORE : Yes . Tom Samuels, the
2 architect provided that .
3 MEMBER HORNING: Okay. I had to base
4 some questions on this . In the original
5 construction, you had these balloon timbers
6 --
7 MS . MOORE : Why don ' t we get Tom on
8 because he is going to discuss the balloon
9 framing .
10 MEMBER HORNING : I want to go through
11 the process here . It went from the
12 beginning of the first floor, the first
13 floor to the edge of the rafters, and they
14 . were of a certain length and then apparently
15 to separate them, you cut them to separate
16 the two, and if a site inspection was done
17 right now on what remains of the second
18 floor, you are going' to find those original
19 pieces of balloon framing; is that
20 correct?
21 MS . MOORE : That ' s correct .
22 MR. SAMUELS : That ' s correct .
23 MEMBER HORNING: And then on the first
24 floor, those are not there or -- because you
25 rebuilt the entire first floor?
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 33
1 MR. EDGETT : There is nothing . We
2 actually did reuse it from blocking off
3 little things . There was really -- we did
4 use it for the sake of saying, we did not
5 just throw it out . We really went -- again,
6 we used all of it to have more and more --
7 to save as much as we could with this house.
8 MEMBER HORNING : You started out, the
9 attorney started out objecting to the
10 reopening of the hearing and I have always
11 -- because I really wasn ' t totally
12 supportive of opening the hearing up myself,
13 and I should have told my colleagues that
14 more adamantly, I guess, because I thought
15 we were doing you folks a favor. And I
16 didn ' t necessarily want to go that route,
17 and so tell us how you would have handled
18 this -- let ' s say we were not sitting here
19 right now, let ' s say you have a Stop Work
20 Order that is in effect --
21 MS . MOORE : That is the first
22 assumption that we would like to refute .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: How do you
24 refute that? Do you go to the Building
25 Department and argue it or do ,you come
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 34
1 before the Board for argument to make an
2 interpretation?
3 MS . MOORE : Before I start, I want to
4 put on the record, how you advised that to
5 stop at this point --
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can we just put on
7 the record who this gentleman is?
8 MS . MOORE : Well, both of them are
9 standing --
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, when they
11 speak, they have to pull the mic over, so
12 it ' s heard by both of them, please .
13 MR. EDGETT : We were just -- Mike came
14 by for an inspection. We were under the
15 impression that someone told him to come
16 again, and this would be the third time, to
17 look at it . He left and didn ' t say anything
18 wrong. He just left at that time, and I
19 guess spoke to whoever asked him to go look
20 at the house again . And then Mike just
21 verbally asked us to just hold off . Don ' t
22 send anyone over at this time, you know,
23 until we figure out what ' s going on at this
24 time .
25 MEMBER HORNING: Can you provide dates
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 35
1 or approximate dates or as accurately as
2 possible as to when --
3 MR. EDGETT : Right off the top of my
4 head, I can ' t . Maybe February, early March,.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mike Verity did
6 a site inspection on February 28th . That
7 was the day before he got back to us and
8 placed a formal Stop Work Order .
9 MEMBER HORNING: Can I ask one other
10 question? My question being the site
11 inspection and the nature of it , was that
12 one of the required site inspections based
13 on the decision in November or was this --
14 MR. EDGETT : It was not .
15 MS . MOORE : Were you ever given a
16 written Stop Work Order?
17 MR. EDGETT : Not this time, no .
18 MS . MOORE : Just so you understand,
19 the reopening of this hearing, I understand
20 you ' re going back to the #6550 decision,
21 because you keep re-opening that decision.
22 I understand in theory, you ' re saying that
23 this is something better in having to come
24 back and reapply in total, okay. My
25 objection is that there was no reason to
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 36
1 come back to relitigate in a sense the whole
2 application or even the technicall aspects
3 of this application because we ' re complying
4 with the previous decision as amended in
5 November, and as the inspections that were
6 part of the condition of that inspection,
7 both of those objections are passed and we
8 proceeded to continue . So that is my
9 objection on the record. My objection is to
10 this entire proceeding and having to come
11 back. Now you ask procedurally how do I
12 object, well,, my understanding is , you were
13 reopening the hearing in order to
14 incorporate whatever it is that you felt may
15 or may not have been done here into the
16 original decision . That is how I understood
17. the appeal to be .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don ' t know how
19 you reach your understanding . I am going to
20 state it again. We felt that we were doing
21 the applicant ' s a favor . If you had gotten
22 this Notice of Disapproval indicating that
23 this was a demolition, you would have no
24 where to go with it . No where . You ' re dead
25 in the water . You would have had to appeal
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 37
1 back to this Board to overturn the Building
2 Inspector ' s determination that this was a
3 demolition . We thought that it would be
4 helpful to continue and try and resolve the
5 problem and take testimony from you to find
6 out what happened.
7 MS . MOORE : Understood. I understood
8 it that . way. I understood it as a positive .
9 You know, maybe you --
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Then why are you
11 objecting?
12 MS . MOORE : Because if you deny this
13 and I have to go to an Article 78 , one of my
14 arguments is , this was not authorized stop .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let it not go to
16 litigation. Stop jumping the gun.
17 MS . MOORE : Understand. My role is to
18 raise the objection so that I can appeal .
19 Just like you ' re putting in the record
20 your synopsis on the record, I too have to
21 put objections .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I understand
23 that .
24 MS . MOORE : So please understand that
25 we ' re all here with appreciation for what
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 38
1 you ' re doing . We do understand that we ' re
2 all trying to make this project continue so
3 that these poor people can continue to
4 finish the project . We have the summer
5 coming on. Kimogenor Point is a very active
6 place, and you ' re going to have lots of
7 kids there . Having a house like this in
8 this condition, stopped, is really
9 detrimental to the Kimogenor Point
10 community . None --
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just wait a
12 minute . The Building Inspector stopped it
13 because at his estimation, and we need to
14 hear from him also, but we wanted to give
15 you first crack and explain what happened.
16 It is only fair . We wanted to understand
17 why you -- why we should in fact overturn
18 his determination or not . All right . And
19 in order to do that, the first step is to
20 find out what happened. That is all we ' re
21 doing here .
22 MEMBER HORNING : Can I continue then?
23 Picking up in the February 28th site
24 inspection by the Building Department, can
25 we pick up from there for a minute? In your
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 39
1 estimation, what did that mean? A verbal
2 Stop Work Order, a written Stop Work
3 Order, a new Notice of Disapproval?
4 What did this February 28th site inspection
5 by the Building Department mean too?
6 MR. EDGETT : So the last time that
7 Mike Verity came out for what -- for a
8 surprise inspection or a request, someone
9 asked him to go and come out to the house
10 and see about a complaint, at that point --
11 I mean, he has clearly asked us to no
12 longer go to the project and do any work.
13 He said do what we need to do to protect it
14 via tarp, but no further construction
15 could go further . And we were clear about
16 that .'
17 MEMBER HORNING : Is there a written
18 Stop Work Order?
19 MR. EDGETT : No, sir .
20 MR. SCHADT : Mike had mentioned to me
21 on that day, that we could finish that day
22 out . Do the necessary things to protect .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you ever ask
24 Mike Verity for a written Stop Work Order?
25 MR. EDGETT : No .
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 40
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, obviously
2 they issued a Notice of Disapproval and it ' s
3 to Tom Samuels , and you ' re saying, you never
4 got one .
5 MR. SAMUELS : No, I did not receive
6 one . Basically to add to their discussion,
7 Mike called me and said we have some
8 problems . I want you to come down . So we
9 all went into the office and that would have
10 been March 1st, that Monday, I guess it was .
11 Maybe Friday.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And this Notice
13 of Disapproval is dated March 5th.
14 MR. SAMUELS : Right . It was somewhere
15 between the 28th and the 5th .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That ' s fine .
17 MR. SAMUELS : -- to see what the story
18 was . At that point, they submitted
19 photographs and a timeline of their own and
20 I submitted a document and a certification
21 that I believed that 25% remained. Mike
22 said he would take it into consideration .
23 Three days later, he called me again to say,
24 we would have to come back here . So I don ' t
25 believe there was an actual Stop Work Order .
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 41
1 We never saw the Notice of Disapproval
2 either, but that ' s how that happened.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thanks, Tom.
4 Actually, while you ' re there, you might talk
5 about the diagram that you submitted?
6 MR. SAMUEL.S : Yes, to explain it a
7 little bit . The concept of balloon framing,
8 vertical structure goes. from foundation to
9 roof, and that the intermediary floors are
10 framed into the walls, as opposed to the
11 modern platform frame where you build the
12 floor and build the floor on top of it, and
13 each floor is self supporting . In a balloon
14 frame, the second floor is hung on the walls
15 of the two-story studs . So there is a gap
16 of spaces , which by modern standards are not
17 considere.d appropriate . I am not sure of
18 the history of why the balloon frame -- I
19 think the balloon frame is probably a
20 depravation of heavy timber framing, where
21 you would have used big posts and there
22 would have been big structural elements ,
23 whereas a platform frame was predicated on
24 the idea of stick framing 2x4 ' s . So the
25 original house was balloon frames . There
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 42
1 was no plates at the second floor level, and
2 there gaps . And by means of explaining,
3 trying to explain how lightly framed the
4 house originally was .
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask a
6 question? Did you anticipate the framing to
7 change in the house, asides from everything
8 else?
9 MR. SAMUELS : As far as the balloon
10 versus platform framing? I knew that a lot
11 of new framing was going. to have to be
12 added. I did not think that we -- I can
13 say that this whole issue of balloon versus
14 platform was an issue to me . Although, I
15 knew we wanted to in approved drawings
16 increase the ceiling height of the first
17 floor by replacing the first floor framing,
18 that was always part of the approval . Part
19 of the building plan. We were going to add
20 structures to the bottom of the existing
21 first floor in order to achieve that extra
22 height . When I saw that the first floor
23 was no longer there, basically, we went
24 through the first series of discussions
25 with the Department and Michael Verity, it
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 43
1 became clear that we were going to attempt
2 to reframe the first floor then obviously,
3 we were going to put a double top plate and
4 drop that down, which is all we did. So at
5 that point, this changed from balloon
6 framing to platform framing .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken, do you have
8 questions?
9 MR. SAMUELS : I would also like to
10 recognize your willingness so far to work
11 with us and to help achieve this project . I
12 know that it ' s very complicated and back and
13 forth, and things have come up . We are
14 looking for a clear process forward here .
15 You have been willing to work with us on
16 here . I hope that continues . There has
17 been tremendous effort, I can not overstate
18 that, has been taken on the part of the
19 builder, my part, the owner, to achieve this
20 project within the confines of your original
21 variance, amended variance to us . We really
22 have gone out of the way by lifting the
23 house and securing it . It ' s a great expense
24 and effort and concern with having it up in
25 the air for two months , through storms and
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 44
1 all kinds of floods , has been very stressful
2 for all of us . A lot of effort and concern
3 has gotten into this . We ' re incredibly
4 humble to be here before you again and have
5 the ability to continue, but I just want
6 to make sure that it is clear to you that
7 we did not go in -- and these guys did not
8 go in there, and certainly it ' s not my
9 intention to go in there and throw out
10 your instructions to us . We have tried
11 very hard to do the right thing throughout
12 and end up for the Bingham' s sake, would
13 probably end up with a properly constructed,
14 hurricane sake, code compliant residence on
15 what is a peculiar piece of property. . From
16 my perspective at least, common sense would
17 say we have gone through a huge effort to
18 achieve this and we preserved whatever we
19 could. They have preserved whatever they
20 could and I respect their, Kyle and Scott ' s ,
21 intentions here . And to achieve this
22 project under the very difficult
23 circumstances that have been presented to
24 them.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you very
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 45
1 much, Tom.
2 MEMBER HORNING : Can I ask a question?
3 Based on the timeframe and chronologically
4 of the whole thing, the last hearing was
5 November 1st and the Board rendered a
6 decision, an amended decision and amended
7 the previous decision, which I presume
8 allowed for the elevation of the building
9 for getting the right flood zone
10 requirements in place and install the
11 helical pilings . And that was the beginning
12 of November and I think the decision was on
13 the 15th or something like that in
14 November . Then you got notice that we made
15 a decision and proceeded to continue with
16 the plans, your plan, of elevating the
17 building and putting that helical pilings in
18 place?
19 MR. SAMUELS : The plan was already in
20 place when you gave us your approval . We
21 submitted to you those drawings .
22 MEMBER HORNING: I mean, continued
23 exercising --
24 MR. SAMUELS : Well, we got a building
25 permit at that point .
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 46
1 MEMBER HORNING : When did you start
2 raising the building?
3 MR. SAMUELS : The exact date -- it was
4 early in December, because of the holidays ,
5 it was up in the air .
6 MEMBER HORNING: How high up did you
7 lift it before you realized that this is
8 unsustainable? We can ' t lift it any
9 further because of safety issues, as the
10 contractor has been talking about, and then
11 what did you do next?
12 MR. SAMUELS : I am going to give you
13 my understanding of it but this is really
14 their view . I would say that we raised it
15 no more than 18 inches higher then we
16 needed to go . This was the second floor .
17 The first floor and what happened there,
18 it ' s in their court . I would say the house
19 was raised in their supervision. They were
20 there . It didn ' t get raised much more
21 then it needed to go . They didn ' t put it
22 down very far . It only came down about 18
23 inches . So not much higher than it needed
24 to but it appeared to be up way much higher
25 in the air, which was -- the way it was
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 47
1 explained to me, in order to install the
2 foundation .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just to be
4 clear, I want to acknowledge for the record,
5 Tom, your letter indicated that -- there is
6 all kinds of documents because Suffolk Times
7 was going out and taking pictures . You
8 indicated that there had been some erroneous
9 reporting about what was going on there was
10 a consequence of Hurricane Sandy and storm
11 damage, and in fact this was based solely on
12 foundation building practices and nothing to
13 do with --
14 MR. SAMUELS : There was storm damage
15 to the house but that didn ' t specifically
16 affect our plans . There was water in the
17 house from Hurricane Sandy before the house
18 was left open but we ' re not here today
19 because of the storm. And there was --
20 there appeared to be and you referenced,
21 Leslie, about some rumors and what not and
22 maybe there were or maybe there have been a
23 lot of affected people from the storm that
24 have issues that are a concern to them and
25 you, but our issues were not specific to
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 48
1 Hurricane Sandy.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you.
3 MR. EDGETT : Again, the first day,
4 when we started the cribbing and after the
5 demo, what we did was we sprung the house
6 about a foot off the ground. This was done
7 strategically because we actually had to add
8 more steel structure and we had to be able
9 to bring the house back down on top and be
10 able to remove the steel . The building went
11 up 19 1/2 feet off grade, and we couldn ' t
12 pull that steel out at 19 1/2 feet . We
13 actually had to -- once we construct the
14 first floor, we had to lower it back down to
15 the first floor deck. But after we rose
16 that house one foot and between us and the
17 house movers who was doing house moving, we
18 decided that it was very unstable -- because
19 there was really only two and half walls
20 that existed that were going to be adjusted
21 on the first floor . And because they were
22 off centered and it was a very light
23 structure to put so far in the air in a
24 vulnerable area being right off the beach
25 and high winds that it was very unsafe to
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 49
1 keep those walls . That is why we removed --
2 and again it was minimal . I do have some
3 colored photos of actually how that first
4 floor was structured. It was minimal . And
5 that is when we removed that . The day
6 after, that is when Mike came down . A few
7 members of the Trustees came down . That is
8 when we worked out at that time, why we
9 removed the first floor, you know, a couple
10 of walls .
11 MEMBER HORNING : So the question then,
12 you said that the Building Inspector came
13 down in February, so --
14 MR. EDGETT : It was before then. It
15 was shortly after . Before the holidays .
16 MEMBER HORNING : I 'm sorry. I got
17 that wrong . It would be nice if somehow you
18 guys can date these photos .
19 MR. EDGETT : I did make a note . We
20 will definitely do that for you .
21 MEMBER HORNING: So sometime after the
22 November lst decision, which was actually
23 decided sometime around November 15th,
24 sometime right after that time period, you
25 folks tried to lift the building up, so this
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 50
1 would be in the second half of November
2 2012 , you started lifting it up . You lifted
3 it up about 18 inches --
4 MR. EDGETT : Or less .
5 MEMBER HORNING : Or less . Off of the
6 existing foundation . Subsequent question
7 the house has never been moved other than
8 lifted up?
9 MR. EDGETT : Just up .
10 MEMBER HORNING : Is that correct?
11 MR. EDGETT : That ' s right . We would
12 have definitely liked to have moved the .
13 house in a different location . It would
14 have been a lot easier .
15 MEMBER HORNING: Understood. So you
16 lifted it up about 18 inches and you deemed
17 it to be unsafe .
18 MR. EDGETT : That ' s correct .
19 MEMBER HORNING : Continue filling us
20 in .
21 MR. EDGETT : Can I show you a couple
22 of pictures?
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes .
24 MR. EDGETT : So right before this
25 structure was lifted, you could see the road
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 51
1 side and again, you can see how many studs
2 there actually are . This is actually an
3 internal picture . You see this corner
4 structure . There is one stud in the corner .
5 And the way that the house was constructed,
6 on either side of the window -- this wall
7 had 11 . This is the same day. As you can
8 see once we did the cribbing and started to
9 lift, you can see how this was unsafe
10 because there was all these open space .
11 There was actually no open structures tying
12 this together . When you talk about balloon
13 framing, this stud actually went to the top .
14 We actually had to cut these, which is a big
15 part when you walk through the house . That
16 is where we cut along this line and removed
17 basically this . This . And that ' s really --
18 there really wasn ' t a ton of structure .
19 MEMBER HORNING : So in this photo, you
20 have not touched any of the balloon --
21 MR. EDGETT : We did. We touched a
22 couple of the balloon framing -- we
23 basically cut it to that height . And that
24 is where we now have leveled around. We put
25 a plate underneath and now lowered it . I
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 52
1 will grab one more .
2 MR. SCHADT : If I could make one more
3 comment , Kyle Schadt, North Fork Woodworks .
4 When we sprung it to the first 12 to 18
5 inches, to kind of point on that, we did
6 that in order to -- the house movers set-up .
7 Spring it up 18 inches for you . You come in
8 and demo the first floor floor system
9 because he couldn ' t get in there to bring in
10 the cribbing and then go up 20 feet and find
11 solid ground. So that was the first time
12 that he lifted it .
13 MR. EDGETT : In the next picture here,
14 and so the next picture you will see the
15 size of the new construction next to the old
16 house . It is dramatically different . And
17 again, now that you look at this it looks
18 minimal . But you will see that we lowered
19 this onto all new steel and framing, while
20 maintaining. this entire floor and slipped in
21 some steel and timbers in there . You could
22 see the shingles and the dormer still on
23 there . And this is exactly what we worked
24 off of, which even on the new structure, you
25 take this on four corners, you know, it ' s
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 53
1 well more than 250 . You go through the
2 house, all the joists upstairs . That is why
3 we felt that we left so much more of this .
4 When you walked around this house, there
5 were 15 studs that did exist . And that is
6 basically the timeline in how that all
7 worked.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you, based
9 on those photographs --
10 MR. EDGETT : I think I can.
11 MEMBER HORNING: And the helical
12 pilings are in place?
13 MR. EDGETT : That is correct .
14 MEMBER HORNING: And how high did you
15 have to raise the structure? That is what,
16 about an 8 foot lift?
17 MR. EDGETT : Can I get one more photo?
18 MEMBER HORNING: Sure .
19 MR. EDGETT : The reason why I had to
20 lift the house 19 feet, I had to actually
21 put a machine under this building for this .
22 If we moved over, we could have done driven
23 piles, but I had to get a small machine to
24 screw in the pilings .
25 MEMBER HORNING : And you are going to
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 54
1 provide us with some dates?
2 MR. EDGETT : That ' s right . I think it
3 would be better, I am not sure if you have
4 any of the colored ones that I originally
5 submitted, it gives a better look. Where
6 you could see the dark colors . To see
7 exactly what stands there --
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The black and
9 whites are more difficult .
10 MR. EDGETT : It ' s harder to see .
11 MEMBER HORNING: Let me ask you this
12 then .
13 MR. EDGETT : Sure .
14 MEMBER HORNING : This picture here
15 which represents the elevated to the highest
16 --
17 MR. EDGETT : That ' s right, the second
18 floor of the building .
19 MEMBER HORNING: Does this, in your
20 estimation, represent a greater than 250 of
21 the structure that is still remaining?
22 MR. EDGETT : If you -- no matter how
23 you measure this house, no matter what is
24 sitting here right here, this whole second
25 floor, which was two bedrooms and a bathroom
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 05
1 --
2 MR. SCHADT : Three bedrooms .
3 MR. EDGETT : Three bedrooms , I 'm sorry
4 and a bathroom, it ' s 44% of the existing
5 structure . There is a lot more than 25% in
6 this structure alone .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And what do you
8 think remains of that structure?
9 MR. EDGETT : Here is a very good --
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Material wise --
11 MR. EDGETT : No, that is not the case .
12 If you look at the plan, every wall -- on
13 the second plan that is attached, that is
14 supposed to remain, which in fact remain .
15 Now, you can say that this wall is to
16 remain . These two six foot doors cut into
17 it . There is not a lot of material there to
18 work with . So this is what we have dealt
19 with . Again, for Kyle and I , this is what
20 you are going to look at there except for
21 these little rafters because that would be
22 in the ceiling . But all this and this back
23 side still remains . The flooring of the
24 existing staircase still remain . All the
25 flooring will underneath .
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 56
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So 'what will be
2 helpful in addition to those photos , some
3 dates on other photos, if you could also
4 provide -- Vicki will call you and we will
5 set up a time or when you can walk us
6 through . We all have been out there again
7 to inspect the site, but you can appreciate,
8 it ' s a construction site -- and nobody is
9 crawling up on ladders to do an inspection
10 --
11 MR. EDGETT : I do not have stairs
12 going up .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As long as you
14 can secure it enough for someone with gray
15 hair that can get up -
16 MR. EDGETT : I managed.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don ' t you
18 put dates on that in sequence and then
19 submit them, so we have that?
20 MEMBER HORNING: . Can you give us at
21 least one other copies of those photos?
22 MR. EDGETT : Absolutely. So two sets
23 of colored photos .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Before we
25 continue, Tom, did you have anything else
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 57
1 that you would like to add?
2 MR. SAMUELS : No .
3 MR. EDGETT : The only thing that I
4 would like to add, is that this has cost
5 Kyle and I a tremendous amount of time and
6 it has been very difficult and expensive for
7 us . I don ' t know if this is too much or out
8 of line, but if you could take that into
9 consideration, and that it ' s kind of just a
10 small hometown builder, if we could just
11 kind of take that into consideration and
12 just kind of understand that this is a lot
13 for us in a lot of different ways and I do
14 appreciate everyone ' s help with that .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Board will
16 move in an expeditious way as it possibly
17 can. We always do that with every
18 applicant .
19 MR. EDGETT : Thank you.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We always try
21 and do that timely. We try and proceed in
22 the way that makes sense . We ' re going to
23 look at some of the information that you ' re
24 going to submit . Please just state your
25 name for the record.
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 58
1 MR. BINGHAM: Good morning . Dan
2 Bingham. I am the owner with my wife
3 Jackie . I just want to make a couple of
4 comments . One of which was, we bought this
5 house seven years ago in a condition that
6 was very dilapidated. And I will say that
7 we bought it with "eyes wide open . " Knowing
8 that this was going to be a challenge and
9 knowing that this was going to be some bumps
10 in the road going through the potential
11 rebuilding it . I did want to appreciate
12 your time and efforts and everything and
13 going through this and recognizing that
14 everyone has put a lot of time into it . I
15 did want to recognize, Pat, in her help in
� 16 the legal side . Tom, for going over and
\ 17 above his efforts on the construction side,
18 Kyle and Scott as well . They touched on
19 some of the costs . I went -- we went into
20 it knowing that this is going to be a
21 challenge . Knowing that there is going to
22 be expenses . We went into it eyes wide
23 open . I think some of these guys got pulled
24 into it . But you know, just for the record,
25 I wanted to show my appreciation for
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 59
1 everyone ' s time and effort in going through
2 this and hopeful and eventual positive
3 outcome .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you.
5 MEMBER HORNING: Can I ask the
6 attorney some quick questions then?
7 Regarding your objections to reopening the
8 hearing and with regard to this March 5 -- I
9 just wanted to ask you when were you aware
10 of the new Notice of Disapproval?
11 MS . MOORE : I didn ' t -- actually, I
12 don ' t recall ever seeing it . I must have
13 been given a date because my application
14 refers to it, but when I went looking for
15 it, we didn ' t have it . So much so, I called
16 Vicki, I said, "What am I appealing?"
17 Because I didn ' t know what the basis of the
18 appeal was for . So what we thought was
19 based on -- or our understanding of what the
20 Board wanted to do, was to reopen to really
21 review the construction technique and review
22 the construction to make sure that we were
23 within the scope of the law, which now
24 required retention of the 250 . That is why
25 I wrote it that way. It wasn ' t -- that
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 60
1 really was the issue . Are we complying with
i
2 the . Board ' s directive? Again, I go by the
3 Board' s amended application and by the
4 amended application, we had different plans
5 submitted and the 75% was reflected in the
6 decision. So I know --
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just give me one
8 second. The only additional plan that we
9 had was a foundation plan. The house plans
10 were exactly the same on that amended
11 decision. Right?
12 'MR. SAMUELS : Yes .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The architect
14 said, yes . The plans didn ' t change . It was
15 just the foundation plans that was requested
16 in the amended decision. And the conditions
17 were put into place partly in collaboration
18 with the Building Department to ensure that
19 the intentions upon what we based were met .
20 MS . MOORE : Exactly. And they passed
21 those inspections . I want to emphasize
22 also, both of those inspections they passed
23 on and they were permitted to continue .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, we ' re
25 going to do a , site inspection. We have done
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 61
1 a walk through. We have taken lots of
2 testimony. It is much clearer now then it
3 was at the prior hearing, which is why we
4 re-opened.
5 MS . MOORE : Exactly.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that you are
7 not delayed anymore and sitting there with
8 tarps .
9 Let me ask if there is anyone else in
10 the audience who wishes to address this
11 application?
12 MR. SAMUELS : Can I just address
13 George ' s question with the timeline? When
14 Michael Verity told me that we were going to
15 have to come back here, I told Pat . That
16 was probably March 5th . Even though we
17 didn ' t get the physical paperwork in the
18 hands, that was how .
19 MS . MOORE : Yes .
20 MR. SAMUELS : That was the timeframe .
21 MEMBER HORNING : And if you legally
22 objected to the opening of the hearing, were
23 you intending on doing that or not?
24 MS . MOORE : I did it here . On the
25 record, I am just stating that we think that
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 62
1 this hearing was not necessary because we
2 have complied with both of the decisions and
3 the code .
4 MS . ANDALORO: ( In Audible) her first
5 stop is here . That is what she is saying .
6 MS . MOORE : Yes .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You didn ' t
8 really have a choice .
9 MS . MOORE : I had no choice .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And we decided
11 to cooperate --
12 MS . MOORE : You had a choice of either
13 making me apply or reopening the hearing .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was a lot
15 cheaper for you to just reopen --
16 MS . MOORE : Absolutely. That is why I
17 took it to mean a very positive favorable
18 message . So understand, that the way that I
19 described it to the clients was , "well, it
20 could have been a lot worse . " The reopening
21 of the hearing is -- everybody is trying to
22 work together . My objections are purely for
23 the sake of the -- our legal rights . One
24 thing that I did want to say is that after
25 you have done that inspection, if you feel
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 63
1 at that point that everything is fine and
2 we ' re in good shape, I would ask that maybe
3 we avoid having to go to continue this
4 hearing and continue the whole process,
5 because at that time, the Board would have
6 been satisfied we have abided by the
7 decision .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand why
9 you have asked that, however, the Board has
10 some expertise with constructions but we ' re
11 not experts . They are experts . The
12 Building Department is experts . The
13 architect of record is an expert . So what
14 we will do and what I am going to propose
15 that we do subject to receiving the things
16 that we have talked about, is to adjourn to
17 next month, which is the next reasonable
18 time that we can examine this because we ' re
19 going to have to have Mike Verity make
20 comments . Now that you have testified,
21 we ' re going to need to have him take a look
22 and examine . We have to offer him an
23 opportunity of what he wants to say, and I
24 am going to request that our transcriber do
25 these minutes from this hearing as quickly
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 64
1 as possible .
2 MS . MOORE : Thank you.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that he will
4 have benefit to be able to read all this
5 testimony . We will notify him of the
6 building inspection that the Board wants to
7 do and if he or Pat Conklin wants to come
8 down and do a walkthrough with you guys,
9 that ' s up to them. That has been done
10 before . He may find different information
11 when that happens . I don ' t know. I am
12 going to ask you to submit as soon as
13 possible -- Vicki will call you and Tom, to
14 set up a Saturday from like 10 to 12 or
15 something like that, as soon as possible .
16 And then again, I am going to reiterate that
17 diagram, color coded diagram of what is new
18 and what remains . Both the floor plans and
19 framing . Whether it ' s the roof framing or
20 wall framing, would be very, very helpful to
21 us . If you so wish, do an inventory list --
22 a list of materials that remain in the
23 structure, and try and give us a percentage .
24 And then you ' re going to submit construction
25 photos of the ones that we saw today, color
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 65
1 and time and date . Sequence them in some
2 sort of construction. They were very
3 helpful by the way. They are much more
4 clearer then what we see before us today .
5 So that is going to be extremely helpful to
6 this Board. So I am going to -- hearing no
7 further comments, make a ,motion to adjourn
8 this hearing to May 2nd.
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let ' s get a
11 time .
12 MR. EDGETT : Can I ask one thing?
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes .
14 MR. EDGETT : Would it be okay to
15 weather in the roof? It may be another
16 ' month before we get to meet again? I would
17 like to move forward and at least tar paper
18 the roof, to weather it?
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know, I am
20 not sure if we have authorization to do
21 that . It ' s not unreasonable to request
22 through the Building Department . We can ' t
23 do that but we can let Mike know exactly
24 where we are with this and he will be having
25 the transcript as soon as possible . That we
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 66
1 are going to be dong a site inspection . I
2 just want to clear this up as soon as
3 possible .
4 MR. EDGETT : I understand.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the Board
6 has no objection I am sure to securing the
7 property, so there is no damage to the
8 property while we ' re getting this sorted
9 out . I will let Mike know that but it ' s not
10 our call, it ' s their call .
11 MS . MOORE : Thank you .
12 MR. EDGETT : Thank you.
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we ' re going
14 to adjourn this to May 2nd at 9 : 30 .
15 Just hold on one second, please . We
16 have a second, but we haven ' t voted. yet .
17 MS . BINGHAM: Hi, I am Jacqueline
18 Bingham. I am very frustrated because, you
19 know, it looks like we have not done
20 anything wrong here, as far as I could tell .
21 And Mike Verity was at the last meeting.
22 Why isn ' t Mike Verity here today? Why do we
23 have to wait a whole other month now? Every
24 time we wait, this is like an expense for
25 all of us . This is crazy.
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 67
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, he is not
2 here . I am not sure why he is not here . He
3 wasn ' t probably called to be here . We were
4 not interested in a confrontation . We
5 simply wanted to hear your side of the
6 story. Maybe we can do this with simply
7 getting written comments from him without
8 having to take further testimony.
9 MS . BINGHAM: Because it sounds like
10 to me he knew he was going to have to
11 approve one way or the other -- I mean, if
12 he had to make his comments on it, why
13 wasn ' t he asked to be here?
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, you know,
15 look, the problem is the Zoning Board only
16 operates twice a month, and we do things as
17 quickly as we possibly can. We have a
18 special meeting in two weeks and then the
19 next hearing . When I tell you we have an
20 agenda, an incredibly heavy schedule for
21 May, and I still made room to hear you in
22 May and not make you wait any farther . It ' s
23 a very busy time right now for the Zoning
24 Board. You know, spring is coming . We ' re
25 trying to move these applications as quickly
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 68
1 as we can for the sake of the property
2 owners . So the best that we could possibly
3 do and I understand your frustration, but
4 the best we can possibly do is adjourn this
5 and we will do as expeditious as possible,
6 if there are things that we can do between
7 now and then, we will do but that is really
8 all we can do . Those are the only two
9 legally noticed meetings we have in a month .
10 MS . BINGHAM: Well, you could possibly
11 have a special meeting --
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We will probably
13 discuss it at the special meeting but I am
14 not sure that we will have a determination .
15 I want to leave the hearing open, in case
16 there are additional questions . If we close
17 it, then we would have to reopen it again,
18 if we had more questions .
19 MS . MOORE : We don ' t want that . I
2.0 guess the concern --
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I really do
22 understand the concern .
23 MS . MOORE : No . No . As a matter of
24 law, you have asked us to bring our experts
25 to testify. So we presented the case --
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 69
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We understand
2 that and that is what we ' re going to move
3 forward on; however --
4 MS . MOORE : But you don ' t need Mike
5 Verity at that point --
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not true . I
7 disagree . This Board disagrees . We need to
8 resolve this . If you are going forward with
9 the Building Department, this is what you
10 need to do . We need to resolve this . That
11 is what we ' re attempting to do as quickly as
12 possible .
13 Having heard a second to adjourn to
14 May 2nd at 9 : 30 A. M.
15 All in favor?
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
17 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
20 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
21 *******************************************
22 HEARING #6615 - THOMAS SPURGE
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
° 24 application before the Board is for Thomas
25 Spurge #6615 . Re-opened per Board
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 70
1 Resolution . Request for Variance from
2 Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the
3 Building Inspector ' s October 12 , 2012
4 updated March 5 , 2013 Notice of Disapproval
5 based on an application for building permit
6 to demolish and construct a new
7 single-family dwelling : 1 ) less than the
8 code required minimum rear yard setback of
9 35 feet, located at : 3135 Manhasset Avenue
10 in Greenport .
11 Good morning . State your name for the
12 record.
13 MR. BROWN : Good morning . Robert
14 Brown, architect for Mr . Spurge .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So we re-opened
16 this because in the original determination,
17 this was going to be a renovation on the
18 existing foundation with expansion of the
19 foundation, and it was going to be additions
20 and alterations . And then it became clear
21 that you sent something in to us indicating
22 -- actually it wasn ' t clear . So I asked to
23 let us know if in fact this was a demolition
24 now . We determined that it was and we needed
25 you to show us additional drawings and to
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 71
1 come back to the Board.
2 MR. BROWN : In the course of
3 developing the site and asking for the
4 permit, we came to the realization that in
5 real terms , nothing would be left for the
6 existing house except for the basement .
7 Except for the foundation, in order to do
8 proper, safe, code related construction . At
9 that point, in order to avoid issues in the
10 middle of construction, as per some of our
11 conversations with the people at the
12 Building Department, I sent a letter trying
13 to, obviously not very well, clarifying
14 exactly what was happening with the project
15 at that point . We followed that up with
16 another letter and here we are . The intent
17 of the project, the final building map, as
18 it were, is the same as you approved
19 originally. It ' s just at this point, we
20 feel in order to construct it properly,
21 especially in the area of nonconformance,
22 because of the number of doors and windows
23 we would be changing, it would be nothing
24 left of the existing wall .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, I applaud
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 72
1 you for taking the course of action that you
2 did. Your right, better before, rather than
3 during. Let me just clarify. According to
4 the new plans that we have, the site plan
5 and elevation, you ' re proposing to use the
6 existing foundation; correct?
7 MR. BROWN • Yes .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What condition
9 is the existing foundation in?
10 MR. BROWN : There is an issue in the
11 rear -- one of the rear corners of the
12 existing foundation that needs repair, but
13 the foundation as a whole will be less than
14 tact .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And you are
16 going to put a new foundation under the
17 proposed --
18 MR. BROWN : Under the proposed --
19 there is an attached garage on the side .
20 Just a few feet of additional living space
21 in the front, which is -- as of right .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just for the
23 record, so we can understand what is
24 involved here . What would you estimate it
25 would cost to remove the existing foundation
April 4,. 2013 Regular Meeting 73
1 and put in a new one and make the whole
2 thing a conforming front yard and rear yard?
3 MR. BROWN : I don ' t know that we can
4 move it forward without infringing on the
5 front yard.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, actually
7 you can because what you ' re showing here --
8 if I could get a cost and an economic
9 hardship into the record, indicating that
10 it ' s economically necessary to use the
11 existing foundation, then we have a strong
12 justification in doing so . Because
13 according to this site plan, the proposed
14 new portion is not on the existing
15 foundation, is going to be a conforming "
16 25 foot rear yard and 35 foot front yard.
17 So in theory, you do have a building
18 envelope to move the foundation to both a
19 conforming rear and front yard. So I just
20 wanted to ask you what would be involved?
21 MR. BROWN : Off the top of my head, I
22 would estimate between $30-$40 , 000 . 00 .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. All
24 right . Well, I do want to note that the
25 proposed new two-story addition that is not
. April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 74
1 over the existing foundation, does have a
2 conforming rear yard.
3 MR. BROWN : Yes . In order to maintain
4 that little area of courtyard at the back of
5 the garage along the side of the existing
6 house, that would be lost .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where is the
8 courtyard?
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right here .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That ' s the
11 courtyard? It looked to me like a setback.
12 MR. BROWN : It ' s off the existing
13 outdoor dining area .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. There is
15 a foundation plan . There is a floor plan.
16 Bilco door . Okay. I don ' t have any further
17 questions .
18 George, questions?
19 MEMBER HORNING : Yes . The existing
20 front yard setback is how many feet? Can
21 you tell us?
22 MR. BROWN : The required setback is 35
23 feet .
24 MEMBER HORNING: The existing right
25 now?
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 75
1 MR. BROWN : I don ' t have that off the
2 top of my head.
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It ' s 50 . 7 .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s still a
5 conforming setback.
6 MR. BROWN : If I may, I have an aerial
7 photograph of the existing block?
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure .
9 MEMBER HORNING: And the proposed
10 front yard setback is 35?
11 MR. BROWN : Yes .
12 MEMBER HORNING: But the garage is
13 attached?
14 MR. BROWN : Yes .
15 MEMBER HORNING : So again, it seems
16 like in a demolition, the questions becomes
17 why can ' t you make the building conforming
18 with a front yard and 35 foot rear yard
19 setback?
20 MR. BROWN : Well, I think there are
21 two issues that we addressed in that . One
22 is , to maintain the existing foundation . To
23 save a considerable amount of money. And
24 the other is to avoid -- well, in order to
25 make a more architecturally front existing
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 76
1 of the house . Avoiding having the garage
2 door in the front or the same plane .
3 MEMBER HORNING: The proposed second
4 floor doesn ' t cover the entire foundation
5 either?
6 MR. BROWN : Yes, it does .
7 MEMBER HORNING : It does . Okay .
8 That ' s it for me .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken, any
10 questions?
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Do you plan on
12 maintaining the existing nonconforming
13 setbacks?
14 MR. BROWN : That ' s correct .
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have no further
16 questions .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If at any
19 particular time you decide that you can ' t
20 use the existing foundation, I realize that
21 this is a demo situation, you will let us .
22 know?
23 MR. BROWN : Oh, of course . I have
24 taken a close look at this . It does appear
25 to be sound except for that one corner, as I
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 77
1 mentioned.
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
4 in the audience who would like to speak to
5 this application?
6 (No Response . )
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
8 further questions or comments, I will make a
9 motion to close this hearing and reserve
10 decision to a later date .
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
14 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
17 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
18 ***** *************************************
19 HEARING #6536 - DOUGLAS C . & KATHLEEN
20 M. FOLTS
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
22 application before the Board is for Douglas
23 and Kathleen Folts , #6536 . Re-opened per
24 Board resolution . Request for variance from
25 Article XXII , Code Section 280-116B and the
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 78
1 Building Inspector ' s February ll, 2013,
2 Notice of Disapproval based on a building
3 permit application for demolition and
4 construction of a new single family
5 dwelling, at : 1 ) less than the code
6 required riprap setback of 75 feet, located
7 at .90 Oak Street, Harbor Lane, adjacent to
8 East Creek a/k/a Eugene ' s Creek in
9 Cutchogue .
10 Good morning, Mark.
11 MR. SCHWARTZ : Good morning . Mark
12 Schwartz . Architect for the project .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. So the
14 previous determination granted you the right
15 to do additions and alterations to an
16 existing family dwelling, and now, you ' re
17 requesting to re-open the case on the
18 proposed demolition and construction . We
19 approved additions and alterations in ZBA
20 Decision #6536 . And you ' re indicating that
21 the applicant ' s property was damaged by the
22 Hurricane and want to raise the height 24
23 inches higher than approved by the previous
24 ZBA decision to prevent flood damage?
25 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 79
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What else would
2 you like to tell us?
3 MR. SCHWARTZ : The design hasn ' t
4 changed. Just really to looking . to raise it
5 up a couple of more feet because for storm
6 and being as high as we need to be . The
7 existing foundation, although we ' re not
8 going to use much of it, will remain . We
9 are going to build a new foundation
10 underneath the expanded area .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks like
12 you want to add three courses of block to
13 some new poured walls and bring it up a bit?
14 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the setback
16 is previously approved at 49 feet . And the
17 alterations and additions are going to be
18 the same as also approved previously. Is
19 that right?
20 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You also are
22 indicating that you will be able to use some
23 of the existing foundation?
24 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Questions? Ken?
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 80
1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Again, all things
2 equal to the previous decision, you ' re just
3 raising the house by two feet?
4 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes . We have gone back
5 to the Trustees and the DEC and we have
6 gotten the approvals to raise it .
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay .
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Now, are you
9 raising the topography around the house or
10 are you just leaving the block --
11 MR. SCHWARTZ : We ' re going to be
12 raising the grade of the existing only, and
13 the rest will remain the same .
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
16 in the audience that would like to address
17 this application?
18 (No Response . )
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
20 further comments , I make a motion to close
21 the hearing and reserve decision to a later
22 date .
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 81
1 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
4 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
5 *******************************************
6 HEARING #6638 - NICHOLAS & MARY ANTONUCCI
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
8 application before the Board is for Nicholas
9 and Mary Antonucci, that is #6638 . Request
10 for variance from Article XXIII Section
11 280-124 and the Building Inspector ' s
12 February 21, 2013 Notice of Disapproval
13 based on an application for building permit
14 additions and alterations to an existing
15 single-family dwelling : 1) less than the
16 code required minimum front yard setback of
17 35 feet, located at : 770 Shipyard Lane,
18 corner of Landon Road in Southold.
19 Good morning .
20 MR. ANTONUCCI : Good morning.
21 Nicholas Antonucci and this is my wife, Mary
22 Antonucci . We ' re advocating for ourselves
23 today..
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That ' s perfectly
25 fine . You want to make additions and
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 82
1 alterations to your single-family
2 dwelling?
3 MR. ANTONUCCI : Yeah .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You ' re proposing
5 a 23 . 3 foot front yard setback on Landon
6 Road. You have a corner lot . And the lot
7 size is 11 , 250 . You ' re adding a
8 second-story. Proposing to do that . There
9 is a 1972 prior variance for an accessory
10 building at 23 feet from Landon Road, and a
11 1970 CO for the single-family dwelling and
12 garage .
13 MR. ANTONUCCI : And that is correct .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now, you ' re
15 building over the first floor footprint?
16 MR. ANTONUCCI : Yes .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there
18 anything that you would like to add?
19 MR. ANTONUCCI : Yes . I would like to
20 mention at this time the building plans that
21 you see in front of you, we ' re probably not
22 using those plans any more . Just because
23 it ' s cost prohibitive for us to do that, but
24 we do plan on moving forward with plans to
25 build, but we will be staying within the
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 83
1 envelope of the building right now . That ' s
2 what we want to do . So I wasn ' t sure,
3 being somewhat of a lay-person what to do .
4 Should we withdraw those building plans and
5 not come here for the variance but after
6 speaking to a couple, and doing some of my
7 own research, they said that once you get
8 the variance, the envelope, I will have that
9 variance . So I don ' t know if that is true
10 or not . I wanted to make that known .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well , thank you
12 for bringing that to our attention, because
13 we would have run into problems . What
14 happens is , when you have a variance we
15 stamp the drawings that have been submitted
16 and we base our decision based on those
17 drawings . But if you ' re going to change the
18 drawings, let me just pole the Board and see
19 what they want to do . What we need to do is
20 adjourn., which would be more cost effective
21 then reapplying, so that you can go ahead
22 and get the new plans and come back to us .
23 How long do you think it would take to get
24 those plans?
25 MR. ANTONUCCI : I am hoping within the
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 84
1 next two to three weeks .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. We ' re
3 really filled up for May, but we could
4 adjourn this to June so that you could have
5 the new plans and take it back to the
6 Building Department, and say, "do you need
7 to do an amended Notice of Disapproval or is
8 the original one fine?" And then submit
9 your new plans to Vicki . She will make
10 copies for us and then we can just proceed
11 with your request . You will provide the
12 copies to the Board and she will give them
13 to us .
14 MR. ANTONUCCI : We apologize . We ' re
15 sort of new to this . We do have to expand
16 our house because our family is growing and
17 we ' ve just -- after we got the plans , we
18 didn ' t realize how much it would cost to
19 rebuild. We had a price in mind, but when
20 we went out to bid, it was like, okay. So I
21 apologize for wasting your time with
22 everything that we had to do up until this
23 point .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, it ' s not
25 a waste of time . I think what we will just
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 85
1 do, if the Board agrees, to just make a
2 motion to adjourn to June, and giving you
3 the time you need to get the plans that you
4 really want to propose to us . That way we
5 can get it done all properly.
6 MR. ANTONUCCI : That sounds
7 reasonable .
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What do you plan on
9 changing?
10 MR. ANTONUCCI : We may not be doing a
11 second floor at all .
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So you will be just
13 adding on to the first floor?.
14 MR. ANTONUCCI : Absolutely, and just
15 reconfiguring . For instance, our bathroom
16 is much larger than what it needs to be for
17 our needs . So we can make the other
18 bedrooms larger, so my other children can
19 have a larger bedroom. And expand our
20 kitchen into -- we have like a little
21 breezeway --
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I saw that .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then it may or
24 may not require an amended Notice of
25 Disapproval . Just take the plans back to
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 86
1 the Building Department and with your
2 Notice of Disapproval, and just say we have
3 changed our plans . This is what we ' re
4 proposing now . He will either say this is
5 fine or he will give you an updated date or
6 change the Notice of Disapproval to a new
7 one . If the Notice of Disapproval is the
8 same, then we won ' t have to re-advertise or
9 do another mailing or anything because it ' s
10 all the same . If in fact, the Notice of
11 Disapproval changes, then Vicki will call
12 you and you will have to do a new mailing
13 and post it .
14 MR. ANTONUCCI : Okay . I 'have the
15 average setback information. So when I
16 do reapply, I bring back all that
17 information --
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you
19 talking about character of the neighborhood
20 and --
21 MR. ANTONUCCI : Yeah, all that
22 information.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think so .
24 That ' s excellent . That ' s exactly what the
25 Board is looking for, but I think it would
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 87
1 be best to wait and kind of look at the
2 whole package for what you are going to
3 finally propose .
4 MR. ANTONUCCI : Okay. So our next
5 step will be --
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, your next
7 step would be to go back and get the plans
8 and make sure that is good to go . That
9 you ' re satisfied . That you can afford it .
10 And then take those plans to the Building
11 Department with your old Notice of
12 Disapproval and old drawings . Tell him that
13 you changed the plans . Say, "do I need an
14 updated Notice of Disapproval? Is there
15 anything different from what you already
16 gave me?" And if so, request to amend the
17 Notice of Disapproval . Take all that stuff
18 into Vicki in our office, and we will review
19 the whole thing .
20 MEMBER HORNING: If you can find out
21 when the house was build?
22 MR. ANTONUCCI : It was 1933 .
23 MEMBER HORNING: All right . Thank
24 you .
25 MR. ANTONUCCI : Thank you .
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 88
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you.
2 All right . There is no one else in
3 the audience to address this application .
4 So I am going to make a motion to adjourn
5 this hearing to June 6th at 9 : 30 A.M.
6 Are you clear on how to proceed?
7 MR. ANTONUCCI : Yeah .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there a.
9 second to the motion?
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
13 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye .
16 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
17 *************************** ****************
18 HEARING #6634 - LESLIE L . LaVECCHIA
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
20 application before the Board is for Leslie
21 L . LaVecchia, #6634 . Request for variance
22 from Article III Code Section 280-15 and the
23 Building Inspector ' s January 23 , 2013 Notice
24 of Disapproval based on an application for
25 building permit for an accessory in-ground
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 89
1 swimming pool, at : 1 ) accessory in-ground
2 swimming pool is proposed in a location
3 other than the code required rear yard,
4 located at : 908 Private Road #2 , a/k/a Birds
5 Eye Road in Orient .
6 Good afternoon.
7 MS . GIGLIO: Good afternoon . Jody
8 Giglio of Bennett Enterprises . With offices
9 at 1101 Scott Avenue Calverton, New York
10 here on behalf of the applicant . I believe
11 you all have a copy of the survey of where
12 the proposed pool is supposed to go?
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes .
14 MS . GIGLIO : The subject premises
15 known as Suffolk County Tax Map No :
16 District 17 , Section 2 , Lot 1 . 5 otherwise
17 known as 908 Birds Eye Road, is partially on
18 a private road. The Town Zoning is AC R-80 .
19 The subject premises has some of it on a
20 private road, known as a minor subdivision
21 of Jonathan D . Sterne . The application is
22 seeking approval from the Zoning Board of
23 Appeals to allow for the installation of a
24 22x42 in-ground pool . There was a previous
25 ZBA decision, which I have provided you all
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 90
1 a copy of that, it ' s dated March 10th of
2 1983, Appeal #3097 in the name of Mr . &
3 Mrs . Robert DeVoe . The Zoning Board
4 determined at that time that it was an
5 application to reconfigure the lot in a
6 subdivision that a right-of-way previously
7 discussed was in question by the Board and
8 they granted the application . So the
9 question becomes where is the front yard on
10 a private right-of-way. The parcel is
11 unique and the subdivision is unique . As
12 mentioned in the findings of the previous
13 ZBA decision, the front of the house faces
14 south . There is a circular driveway for
15 access to the front door . The rear of the
16 home faces the Long Island Sound, yet it ' s
17 not a waterfront lot . We believe that the
18 positioning for the proposed location of the
19 pool is suitable considering the location of
20 the home and the uniqueness of where the
21 placement of that home took place when the
22 home was built . As I said, it ' s a unique
23 application and the front and rear of the
24 home has to keep access to the home in the
25 front . We have maintained the setbacks from
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 91
1 the side yard, and pushed the pool as far
2 away as possible from the wetlands based on
3 the positioning of the house . Across the
4 un-improved right-of-way is a wetland, as
5 you see on the survey . So you can clearly
6 see that we have pushed the pool as far away
7 as we can . I also have a contour map that I
8 can pass out to all of you because as the
9 property, as you get further east to the
10 house, the property slopes down
11 significantly. I wanted to stay away from
12 that slope in order to avoid disruptions or
13 any -- you know any detriment to the
14 adjoining wetlands . The applicant has no
15 objection to a buffering of arborvitae
16 screening to the west of the property and on
17 the northerly property, where the fence is
18 located to the north, if need be . The
19 driveway, as you -can see in the front yard,
20 it ' s one that is used regularly by guests
21 and residents of the house . So we can
22 really not put it in the front yard where
23 that circular driveway is . We believe that
24 the granting of this variance will not be
25 detrimental to the adjoining properties , nor
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 92
1 will it diminish the values thereof . The
2 granting will not have an impact on the
3 environment . This is not a waterfront lot .
4 So we will seek approval from the Southold
5 Trustees to ensure protection of the
6 wetlands to the north . The applicant will
7 adhere to all requests of the Trustees for
8 the purposes of installation and maintenance
9 of the pool, if this Board should grant the
10 application. This is not a self-created
11 hardship . The home was placed on the parcel
12 in' 1987 , with different ownership . The
13 front of the house was determined at that
14 time . The application is unique, in that it
15 is situated on a private right-of-way and
16 the position of the home on the lot is
17 preexisting prior to the prior ownership .
18 we respectfully request the granting of this
19 variance . There is -- there are alternate
20 locations where the pool could be placed. I
21 guess you could say the rear yard, but that
22 would bring it closer to the wetlands or
23 closer to the slope, which is why we chose
24 these elevations and this location thinking
25 that this would be the best . I did have' an
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 93
1 opportunity to speak with counsel for the
2 objection letter for some of the issues that
3 you have, and I also received a copy of it a
4 few minutes ago . Said that maybe you want
5 to talk to the property owner to the west,
6 because if the pool is situated closer to
7 the right-of-way and a screen landing, which
8 is this, you probably wouldn ' t see the pool
9 from the residence that would be built to
10 the west . So that is something that I- have
11 asked counsel to go over with their client ,
12 to discuss . We have no objections to moving
13 the pool to the center of the property or
14 the rear of the property, or moving it over
15 another 10 or 20 feet, as they request, but
16 that would move it closer to the wetlands
17 and closer to the slope that I was talking
18 about previously. And I will pass up a copy
19 of that map so you can have a better idea of
20 what the topography is on this property.
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So in this
22 particular point, you are in the talking
23 stage with the neighbor?
24 MS . GIGLIO: Yes . We have spoken to
25 neighbor ' s counsel who has recommended that
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 94
1 we move the pool over another 10 to 20 feet .
2 We have no objection to, however, we will be
3 required to cut into the slope in order to
4 provide for the pool, as you can see of the
5 topography that I have submitted to the
6 Chair .
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So is it going to
8 be 10 or 20 feet, or do we know what we ' re
9 going to do?
10 MS . GIGLIO: Well, it ' s up to you if
11 you like where the location of the pool is
12 now, based on the slope and those distance
13 to the wetlands , or whether you would like
14 it moved over 10 to 20 feet or 5 feet ,
15 whichever you want to decide on, in order to
16 approve this application, we would be
17 amenable to any recommendations that you
18 have .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, what would
20 happen -- because you really can ' t move it
21 towards the north. If you moved it over to
22 the east, you are going to come smack into
23 the wood steps o-n the landing, which would
24 probably require a redesign of those steps .
25 MS . GIGLIO : I don ' t think that would
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 95
1 be a problem. You have to really look at
2 10 feet around the pool in order to get
3 equipment in there . So there would have to
4 be some cutting into that slope, I believe .
5 MEMBER HORNING: Can I ask you this?
6 Did you receive a copy of the letter from
7 the neighbor?
8 MS . GIGLIO : I just got it a couple of
9 minutes ago . Vicki was kind enough to give
10 it to me .
11 MEMBER HORNING: And there is
12 something about a. map included. A copy of
13 the relevant Suffolk County Tax Map showing
14 the proximity of the proposed structure to
15 -- did you get a copy of that?
16 MS . GIGLIO : No, I certainly did not .
17 I did not receive any attachment or copy of
18 that, other than the two page letter .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We didn ' t
20 receive it either . They said that they were
21 attaching it but we didn ' t get it .
22 MEMBER HORNING: I am looking at your
23 survey and I see a road, Bird ' s Eye
24 right-of-way there . I don ' t see the other
25 property. I am asking, does the neighbor
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 96
1 own that right-of-way? Is that what the
2 situation is?
3 MS . GIGLIO: It ' s a deeded
4 right-of-way. So I believe that the County
5 will say that the owner does own it . My
6 client has ingress and egress on that
7 right-of-way, which is why they are claiming
8 that they are 10 feet away from the
9 neighbor ' s -- from the adjoining property
10 owner. The pool would be 10 feet away,
11 because they own the right-of-way.
12 MEMBER HORNING: And you use it? You
13 have two sort of driveways?
14 MS . GIGLIO: I have the map --
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have that .
16 But which are the two neighbor ' s?
17 MS . GIGLIO : I believe that the person
.18 that is writing the letter owns Tax Lot
19 #1 . 11, 1 . 9, 1 . 14 . Those are the three that
20 I believe they own .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Those are three
22 properties?
23 MS . GIGLIO : Correct . So it was --
24 because they owned the property and 1 . 9, the
25 front yard may not be a desirable location
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 97
1 for the pool . So -- and then if we could
2 just move it over a little bit, as I said,
3 we have no objections to, however, it ' s
4 going to be moving closer to the slope and
5 the wetlands .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on . I just
7 want to make sure . The two named property
8 owners in this letter that we received --
9 MS . GIGLIO : Yes .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. So it ' s
11 pretty much all of the surrounding
12 properties with the exception of 1 . 4 ; is
13 that right?
14 MS . GIGLIO: Yes .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Maybe it
16 will be useful at this point to hear from
17 the audience who submitted this . Please
18 come to the mic and just state your name for
19 the record and basically tell us what you
20 would like us to hear about your objections .
21 MS . QUICK: My name is Dolores . I am
22 a paralegal at Twomey, Latham, Kelly,
23 Dubin --
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you spell
25 your last name?
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 98
1 MS . QUICK: Q-U-I-C-K.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you brought
3 in this colored coded tax map to show that
4 these are your clients that have hired your
5 firm?
6 MS . QUICK: Correct . I apologize .
7 Mr . Dubin who signed the letter was unable
8 to attend today, and we wanted to make sure
9 that you had those documents . And
10 Ms . Giglio -- we did speak with her this
11 morning in regards to moving the location.
12 Our clients have no objections to the pool
13 itself, but they would like to see it moved
14 a little further than the property line .
15 More than the 10 feet . An additional 20
16 feet would be very appreciated by the
17 neighbors . Further east, the -- and they
18 also appreciate the offer to put up year
19 round Evergreens to the north for the
20 Masiano (phonetic) and on the left for the
21 ( In Audible) that is basically our clients
22 position, what the neighbors would like to
23 see . They have no objections to the pool
24 but they would just like to see it a little
25 bit further away from that property line .
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 99
1 Ten feet just seems a little too close .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are the
3 Gusterson ' s at 1 . 11?
4 MS . QUICK: They are on 1 . 11 --
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The one that
6 would be most affected would be 1 . 11 .
7 MS . QUICK: They own that lot and the
8 one immediately to the south and the one
9 south of that . And the Masiano ' s are to the
10 north .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the
12 applicant has no objection to Evergreen
13 screening on the north and the westerly
14 property lines to provide privacy. That was
15 stated by Jody.
16 MS . QUICK: Yes . And our clients are
17 very appreciative of that .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean, I don ' t
19 think that you can go over too much more,
20 another 10 feet . They have to redesign the
21 stairs . That would be doable . Of course
22 with enough room for Evergreen screening,
23 you ' re not going to see it at all . The
24 problem is , you are gong to have an adverse
25 environmental impact if there is too much
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 100
1 land contouring . That is not what anybody
2 wants because it ' s all downhill from there .
3 You go into other owners property. And yes ,
4 there is wetlands to absorb runoff, and we
5 will require, as proposed, a drywell for
6 pool de-watering. The pool equipment to be
7 in a sound proof container .
8 MS . QUICK: Yes . That will also be
9 very much appreciated. To keep the noise .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don ' t think
11 that you can go 10 feet more beyond that .
12 You ' re going to get into really big slopes
13 and then you ' re going to require retaining
14 walls and then you will have a drainage
15 issue . Of course, if everyone is willing,
16 you can just be granted alternative relief
17 with the setback requirements . A total of
18 20 foot . If that is the only objection --
19 MEMBER HORNING: Well, we are going to
20 call out Evergreen screening and -state the
21 height requirement .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :. Now the only
23 other thing that I do want to ask about, I
24 am looking at the survey. This is probably
25 for Jody. The survey is showing an existing
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 101
1 fencing that surrounds the property and not
2 being on the owners property. It is
3 encroaching on the right-of-way in some
4 areas . The Board really has problems .in
5 granting variances for properties that have
6 nonconformities like that . Come back to the
7 mic --
8 MS . QUICK: There was a number of
9 encroachments . There was the fence that we
10 noticed. The gate in the front . There was
11 a little bit of a wooden arbor . We couldn ' t
12 really see to well from the survey that we
13 had.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A fence or a '
15 gate that needs to be moved onto the subject
16 property. So if we condition this based on
17 the encroachment, other than the driveway,
18 really that is the road. But just moving
19 the gate and all fencing . Do you see what I
20 am talking about Jody --
21 MS . GIGLIO : Yes . I think that the
22 applicant would prefer to have all of her
23 property on her property now .that it has
24 been brought to her attention . I don ' t know
25 why it was not done prior to closing . All
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 102
1 of those things are usually done prior to
2 closing . That the fence is on the subject
3 property, otherwise the Title company won ' t
4 certify it . They have no objection to
5 putting the fence on the property. They
6 will probably want to upgrade the fence . I
7 am sure that is probably going to be the
8 case . There are certain requirements with
9 the pool enclosure and the Town Code, that
10 would require a new fence . So we have no
11 objections to that . And we have no
12 objections to moving it over 10 feet .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the
14 Evergreen screening is good too?
15 MS . GIGLIO: Correct . The only thing,
16 we had discussed the Evergreen planting on
17 the northern or on the western property line
18 and the northern property line, I just want
19 the Board to take into consideration the
20 slope as to the topography map that I have
21 provided you with, in the planting . So if
22 you could depict on a survey where you would
23 like the Evergreen planting on the north,
24 then we would certainly consider that . We
25 have no objections . We certainly have no
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 103
1 objections to the west, but to the north, we
2 can see a problem. So if we could just
3 adjourn and come back another date when it ' s
4 determined where you would like those
5 Evergreen plantings to the north.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don ' t know
7 that we need another public hearing to
8 consider .
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, not at all .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You don ' t want
11 to do planting in a hole . It ' s not going to
12 accomplish what you want or the neighbors
13 want .
14 MS . GIGLIO : Right .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So plant it to
16 the closest most flat, practical area .
17 Doesn ' t have to be totally flat . We don ' t
18 want to see a lot of land contouring .
19 MS . GIGLIO : We don ' t want to disrupt
20 the properties owners also by planting
21 arborvitae ' s to the north .
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What type of
23 decking are you putting around the pool?
24 Those are all the issues --
25 MS . GIGLIO: Minimal is what they are
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 104
1 saying .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Flat patio --
3 MS . GIGLIO: It would probably be a
4 patio type,.
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Anything facing
6 north really wouldn ' t be a real practical
7 issue because of the sloping .
8 MS . GIGLIO: Yes .
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am not telling
10 you what to do . I am only suggesting .
11 MS . GIGLIO : Understand. One of the
12 reasons why they bought this house was
13 because of the view . So they are interested
14 in keeping the view to the north. So we
15 would have no objections to planting
16 arborvitae ' s to the north, but if height
17 could be specified at this time, so we could
18 determine, you know, something that would be
19 acceptable to the applicant .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s hard to
21 figure that out with this survey. You would
22 have to go out into the field and stake
23 this , in order to really figure it out . And
24 I am not sure that --
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only other
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 105
1 thing is to have is a landscaped architect
2 submit us a plan . They will take into
3 considerations all the contours that you
4 have .
5 MS . GIGLIO: Okay.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We could close
7 subject to any receipt to a plan that
8 incorporates -- puts the fencing back on the
9 property, that ' s code conforming.
10 MS . GIGLIO : Okay.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And where you
12 would like to put the Evergreen screening.
13 I can understand you wanting to preserve the
14 view, but I can also understand the
15 neighbors reluctance to want to be -- see
16 people. walking around the swimming pool . So
17 the height becomes an issue, because if you
18 put in (in audible) or something like that,
19 it ' s very tall .
20 MS . GIGLIO : As you can see, as the
21 land contours down towards the sound, that
22 residence will be at a much lower level .
23 They ' re not going to be seeing a lot of
24 people walking around from their backyard,
25 because their house would be at a much lower
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 106
1 topography, then the current . --
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That ' s why a
3 landscape artist would be able to tell you
4 the topography and down from that elevation,
5 how the view would be screened without
6 certainly blocking the LaVecchia ' s view .
7 The other thing, the Building Department
8 might determine, depending on how much
9 contour you have down there, a hard place in
10 the way of a retaining wall . It ' s now
11 considered more of a structure than a
12 swimming pool . They don ' t require
13 particular setbacks, because it ' s a hard
14 structure, but if you start putting in
15 retaining walls and so on -- you want to
16 find out --
17 MS . GIGLIO: That ' s why I was
18 concerned and keep it opened rather than
19 from closing it, but we wouldn ' t have to
20 reapply if it was determined that a
21 retaining wall would be necessary.
22 MEMBER . GOEHRINGER: The last question
23 that we always ask is , is it a gunite pool
24 or a --
25 MS . GIGLIO: I believe it ' s a gunite .
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 107
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That alleviates
2 some of the problem for the issue with the
3 retaining wall, because the poured concrete
4 is a retaining wall in and of itself .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, you know
6 what, maybe we should just adjourn to get a
7 landscaped plan, and that way, the neighbors
8 get a chance to look at it . And you get a
9 chance to look at the property. Then if the
10 Board has any questions, we could ask --
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Excuse me, I don ' t
12 mean to cut you off . These plantings have
13 to sustain the winds of the winter . So the
14 plantings have to be on that basis . It ' s an
15 unprecedented view but you do get some
16 pretty heavy north winds .
17 MS . GIGLIO: The plantings to the
18 north would be low level Evergreens . I
19 don ' t think as of right now, as you are
20 driving down the north, looking up, you are
21 not going to see the pool . So I would think
22 that a low hedge or something to that effect
23 might be appropriate but we will consult
24 with a landscaped artist and check, and
25 hopefully they will be able to have their
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 108
1 pool and maintain the view .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All right . Why
3 don ' t we do that then. I think we are all
4 on the same page . So we accept another
5 survey that shows the proposed drywell and
6 pool equipment and the relocation of 20 feet
7 from the westerly property line . The
8 removal of the encroachment . I mean, I
9 don ' t even care if you put on a fencing
10 afterwards, that is code required.
11 MS . GIGLIO : We can put a note on the
12 survey to say that the fence is to be
13 relocated prior to the Certificate of
14 Occupancy of the pool .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And submit the
16 landscaped plan. I "would be very interested
17 to see how high the retaining walls have to
18 be, if any. You know, to try without any
19 retaining walls at all . If there has .to be
20 some, then we would like to see what that
21 looks like .
22 MS . GIGLIO: So we ' re going to move
23 the pool over for an additional 10 feet, for
24 a total of 20 foot setback; right?
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes . And at
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 109
1 that time, you are going to provide planting
2 to the north and the west, and the removal
3 of the encroachment . And you are confident,
4 at whatever expense it might be, whether
5 it ' s a landscaped architect or nursery
6 person, as long as it comes from plant
7 materials and grades and sloping. It can
8 even be done in conjunction with whoever you
9 are going to use the pool .
10 MS . GIGLIO : Their current landscape
11 artist who has done some plantings in the
12 yard owns a nursery . So they are going to
13 ask him. I am sure they are going to get
14 something back that will be pleasant to both
15 the surrounding property owners and also the
16 applicant .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jody, do you
18 think that you could have this within two
19 weeks?
20 MS . GIGLIO: Absolutely. We ' re hoping
21 for that, because they would like to enjoy,
22 the pool this summer .
, 23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let ' s just do
24 this, if you can have it in next week some
25 time, we will leave this open to the Special
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 110
1 Meeting and we will close it in two weeks at
2 the Special Meeting, after we have received
3 it . That gives us the option, if we have
4 any questions, then we can put it back on
5 for May for a real quick hearing . The
6 likelihood, if you can give a copy for the
7 attorney that is representing the neighbors?
8 MS . GIGLIO: Absolutely . I may even
9 be able to get a letter of support that the
10 surrounding neighbors have seen the
11 landscaped plan and they have no objection
12 to it, then maybe you -- I don ' t know, it
13 might not be protocol for you to approve
14 applications the same day, but as I said,
15 they would like to get the construction
16 started -- they are going to be coming to
17 their home for the summer and don ' t want to
18 have pool equipment and dirt for people ' s
19 Memorial Day.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If we have what
21 we need, we can close at the Special
22 Meeting, and you know, if you get it in
23 within a weeks time, it ' s likely we can have
24 a draft decision available to deliberate on
25 and get the whole thing done within two
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 111
1 weeks time .
2 MS . GIGLIO : We will get that to you
3 as soon as possible . Thank you .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in
5 the audience who wishes to address this
6 application?
7 (No Response . )
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
9 further comments, I will make a motion to
10 adjourn to the Special Meeting .
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
14 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
17 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
18 *********************************** ********
19 HEARING #6639 - KATHER:INE ANDREADIS
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
21 application before the Board is for
22 Katherine Andreadis , #6639 . Request for
23 variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124
24 and Article III Section 280-15 and the
25 Building Inspector ' s January 22 , 2013 Notice
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 112
1 of Disapproval based on an application for
2 building permit for construction 'of a new
3 single-family dwelling and accessory
4 in-ground swimming pool : 1 ) less than the
5 code required minimum front yard setback of
6 35 feet, 2 ) less than the code required
7 minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet, 3 )
8 more than the code permitted maximum lot
9 coverage 'of 20%, 4 ) accessory in-ground
10 swimming pool proposed in a location other
11 than the code required rear yard, located
12 at : 300 Fiddler Lane, corner of Meadow Lane
13 in Greenport .
14 MR. SCHWARTZ : Hi, Mark Schwartz,
15 architect for the project . I handed you up
16 copies of surveys and photographs of houses
17 that are nonconforming houses in the area
18 and I attached the tax map in red. To the
19 best that I could tell that they are
20 nonconforming existing structures . Either
21 front, rear or side yard nonconformities .
22 So that is something for you to take a look
23 at some point . The first one on that sheet,
24 was the best that I could find as a similar
25 project . I am not sure if that is a ZBA
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 113
1 approved or not . It is certainly
2 nonconforming.
3 MEMBER HORNING: Mark, did you
4 research variances at the same time in that
5 neighborhood?
6 MR. SCHWARTZ : No, I did not .
7 MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let ' s just
9 review for the record, what the variances
10 actually are . This is for a new
11 single-family. This is an unimproved lot .
12 It ' s a corner lot . And the -- new home and
13 a new in-ground pool . The front yard
14 setback of 15 feet from Meadow Lane,
15 proposed, the code requires 35 feet . There
16 is a rear yard setback of 30 feet proposed .
17 The code requires 35 feet . A lot coverage
18 with the pool, 21 . 5%, where the code permits
19 a maximum of 20% . And the pool is 15 feet
20 from Meadow Lane, considered to be a front
21 yard, however as proposed, it would
22 considered a functional side yard. Now,
23 let ' s see, the house is 898 square feet,
24 which 15 . 2% of the lot coverage . Okay. You
25 did argue in the application that the house
AprilA, 2013 Regular Meeting 114
1 is consistent with other nonconforming lot
2 sizes and setbacks . You provided some
3 stuff . You provided a bunch of photos, but
4 I don ' t see relevant to those photos, any
5 nonconforming lot coverage ' s, lot sizes or
6 nonconforming setbacks or prior variances .
7 So does this packet do any of those
8 things?
9 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes . They are photos
10 of the houses and there is a survey of each
11 one .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we have to
13 study this as character of neighborhood?
14 MR. SCHWARTZ : . Yes .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now, there is a
16 white fence . It looks plastic or something .
17 Now, is that the neighbor ' s property?
18 MR. SCHWARTZ : That corner?
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes . Well,
20 there is two things . There is a shed that
21 looks like it ' s actually on the applicants
22 property.
23 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes , there is . His dad
24 lives next door and I think he put that on
25 the property, and I think he put that shed
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 115
1 there . That would have to be corrected.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes . That would
3 have to be removed and applied for once
4 there is a principle dwelling there .
5 MEMBER HORNING : Would that affect the
6 lot coverage?
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would if the
8 shed remains . Sure .
9 MR. SCHWARTZ : It won ' t remain .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. I did see
11 one swimming pool across Meadow Lane, which
12 looks to be a conforming rear yard. Let ' s
13 see what the Board has to say. Does anyone
14 have any questions?
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The pool is to be
16 5 feet from the property in the back?
17 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is that the father
19 of the applicant?
20 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes , it is .
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And then 5 feet
22 from the south property line?
23 MR. SCHWARTZ : That would be
24 considered the side yard.
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: My only question
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 116
1 is, what is the possibility of getting any
2 more footage and I realize that there is a
3 diagonal on Meadow Lane, 15 feet . I realize
4 it falls away at the closest corner . Can
5 you askew the house in any way, just turn it
6 a little, to get a little more footage?
7 MR. SCHWARTZ : What we tried to do
8 there is that since Meadow Lane is a
9 secondary road, and actually from the actual
10 property line to the actual is about another
11 6 feet deep . So it feels like you have over
12 30 feet from asphalt to where the house and
13 pool would be .
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay.
15 MR. SCHWARTZ : And on the adjacent
16 lot, there is a garage that would pretty
17 much line up with that 15 foot corner of the
18 house . Somewhat in keeping what is there
19 now.
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If you just turn
21 it a little bit, you would get a little more
22 footage on this. side, and would only cock
23 out this corner . That is the only reason
24 why I said it . Usually, in that particular
25 situation, usually people ( In Audible) . Do
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 117
1 you know the actual dimensions of the
2 swimming pool?
3 MR. SCHWARTZ : It ' s approximately
4 15x25 . And those setbacks actually could be
5 3 feet instead of 5, but I wanted to keep it
6 from the property line as much as I could.
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do we have a
8 drywell for the swimming pool?
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s not shown
10 on the survey.
11 ' MR. SCHWARTZ : It ' s not shown on the
12 survey but we have room for it .
13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the last thing
14 is, where is the mechanics going to be for
15 the swimming pool?
16 MR. SCHWARTZ : Probably on the south
17 property line .
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only problem
19 is you have -- or will have a neighbor over
20 there . So you are going to have to make
21 this some sound proofing .
22 MR. SCHWARTZ : Okay.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George, do you
24 have any?
25 MEMBER HORNING: Sure . The Notice of
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 118
1 Disapproval doesn ' t specifically say it .
2 It does say that the swimming pool is
3 proposed at 15 feet from Meadow Lane, which
4 means that it should be in the rear yard and
5 it ' s in a place other than the rear yard .
6 MR. SCHWARTZ : Well, actually that is
7 what I was told rear yard . So it ' s in the
8 rear .
9 MEMBER HORNING : So turning the pool
10 wouldn ' t really have any bearing other than
11 making the setback from Meadow Lane a little
12 more, if you could -- say more than what it
13 is now.
14 MR. SCHWARTZ : I do think we can move
15 that a little bit a few feet on the front
16 yard. I say we could move it to 3 feet to
17 the property line .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : By the time you
19 put in a fence and any kind of screening,
20 which may be beneficial to the neighbor, I
21 am sure you don ' t want less than 5 feet .
22 MEMBER HORNING : The northeast corner
23 is what, a 15 foot setback to the
24 pavement --
25 MR. SCHWARTZ : To the pavement, it ' s
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 119
1 actually 31 feet . It ' s about 15 feet of
2 grass .
3 MEMBER HORNING: Would it be roughly
4 the same distance from the pool, 15 feet?
5 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
6 MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have
10 Department of Health approval yet?
11 MR. SCHWARTZ : No, not yet .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No public water
13 in there --
14 MR. SCHWARTZ : No, there is .
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have a question.
16 Is there any reason why you didn ' t build the
17 house at 24x36 as opposed to 26x36? Again,
18 to gain a little more?
19 MR. SCHWARTZ : I am sure we could have
20 did 24x36 . We can alter that .
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You can go 24x36?
22 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And while
24 retaining that 10 feet side yard?
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes .
April 4, 2013 .Regular Meeting 120
1 MR. SCHWARTZ : I think we can do that .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you want to
3 submit alternative plans or grant
4 alternative relief? You know, that way you
5 can just proceed?
6 MR. SCHWARTZ : I will have to give you
7 an updated survey. I should also do a
8 landscaped plan .
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So it ' s not 24x36,
10 it ' s going to be 26X34?
11 MR. SCHWARTZ : . 24x34 we can work with.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 24x34 . Okay.
13 And then you can calculate the lot coverage .
14 Is there anyone else in the audience
15 who wishes to address this application?
16 (No Response . )
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
18 further comments . I am going to make a
19 motion to close this hearing subject to
20 receipt of a revised survey and plans and
21 with a revision on lot coverage .
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
25 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 121
1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
3 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
4 ********************************************
5 HEARING #66.37 - STEVEN & YVETTE EINCZIG
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
7 application before the Board is for Steven
8 and Yvette Einczig, #6637 . Request for
9 variance from Article XXII Section
10 280-116 (B) and the Building Inspector ' s
11 January 9, 2013 Notice of Disapproval based
12 on an application for building permit for
13 demolition and reconstruction of an existing
14 single-family dwelling at; 1 ) less than the
15 code required bulkhead setback of 75 feet,
16 located at : 3055 Wells Avenue, adjacent to
17 Jockey Creek in Southold.
18 Good afternoon, Pat .
19 MS . MOORE : Good afternoon. Patricia
20 Moore on behalf of Steven and Yvette . I
21 also have with me Eileen Santora who is the
22 design professional on this project, and I
23 -- I guess I will start with a point that
24 the proposed project here is not a
25 demolition . It ' s taking the existing house
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 122
1 and putting additions and putting a second
2 floor . The client certainly hasn ' t paid ,for
3 nor anticipates a demo of this house . We
4 hope that we don ' t get a surprise at the
5 end, but hopefully that is not the intention
6 of the application that has been made, or at
7 least the plans that have been drawn by
8 Eileen . They are not for demolition . The
9 foundation is certainly going to be used.
10 The existing house -- much of the existing
11 house is going to be used. I will have
12 Eileen testify as to what is in fact the
13 reuse of the existing house . But just to
14 start off with the standards , we do have --
15 this house was built with a CO from the late
16 50 ' s . It has -- for the most part, not been
17 improved since the 601s . Yvette Einczig is
18 the granddaughter of the owner who built the
19 house . Her grandparents built the house .
20 Ultimately it went through the family estate
21 and she bought out her other siblings . So
22 she is now -- she and her husband are now
23 the owners . She wanted to keep it in the
24 family. Her plan right now, they are still
25 not old enough to retire . This hopefully
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 123
1 will be their retirement home . So you
2 understand, this house, is one that they
3 want to. keep and preserve and certainly with
4 the improvements . The surrounding homes,
5 this is in subdivision that is from 1927 .
6 Many of the homes were built later than
7 that . They were quite lovely. It ' s a
8 really nice neighborhood year round.
9 Established home . I would say at this
10 point, majority of the homes there are
11 year-round residents, who are actually --
12 they live out here in Southold. Many of our
13 local professionals live on this block. It
14 really is a lovely block. The homes have
15 all been renovated or expanded over the
16 years . This is really maybe one or two
17 homes now that are left in their 60 ' s motif .
18 And so this will certainly an improvement
19 and in conformity with the character of the
20 neighborhood. The rest of the neighborhood
21 has been improved and is really very nice .
22 This house, if you have done the
23 inspections, the storm left behind roof
24 shingles and the house is really in --
25 aesthetically not very attractive .
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 124
1 Structurally it is still sound. There is
2 condition of sound, and I will have Eileen
3 again, put that on the record. The existing
4 setbacks of the house are preexisting . The
5 setbacks, again, we ' re using the foundation .
6 Because we ' re using the house where it is,
7 the proposed deck will encroach into that
8 75, but that is understandable : Certainly
9 the house and the decking -- actually
10 everything is behind the neighbors home . We
11 have two neighbors . One did a beautiful
12 renovation facing the water on the east .
13 You gave an approval not to long ago, Marin,
14 I think it is . I pulled the decision and
15 they really did have several variances .
16 These poor people first came out with a
17 demolition and reconstruction . They
18 couldn ' t take it . They came back to you and
19 took the project down and ended up with a
20 third variance that I don ' t recall for what .
21 In any case, it ' s a very lovely home . And
22 they have both the decking and the patio
23 that is really well done with beautiful
24 landscaping in the back. On the opposite
25 side, the west side, the home again is
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 125
1 lovely. That is more traditional . It ' s
2 older . I did not see variances as for that
3 house . The existing house is actually
4 protruding further to the water . Their
5 property is actually longer and their
6 bulkhead is further out to the water . It ' s,
7 a little deceiving, while their house is
8 closer to the shoreline, their bulkhead is
9 further out because of earlier billing --
.10 you know, the good old days before the
11 regulations changed. So I have an aerial
12 photograph and a Google map that I will
13 provide for your filing, although your
14 probably have them already. You can see the
15 existing house and the proposed house is in
16 keeping with the character of the
17 neighborhood. My clients pointed out that
18 the existing house is about 1200 square
19 feet . Again built by Ms . Einczig ' s
20 grandfather in the 501s . The house now has
21 one small bathroom. Inadequate bedrooms .
22 No air- conditioning . The proposed deck is
23 going over the existing patio .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that
25 elevated? Is that a raised deck?
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 126
1 MS . MOORE : Yeah, because the egress
2 from the back sliders is about two steps up .
3 Three steps up . So yes, it would be at the
4 height of the back slider . _
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is the
6 current setback? I know right now it ' s a
7 flat patio .
8 MS . MOORE : Let me look --
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You are
10 proposing to the raised deck?
11 MS . MOORE : The raised deck. 39 . 1 ,
12 because the house is angled towards the
13 east, facing the northeast . That is the
14 shortest . From the end of the deck, it ' s
15 39 . 1 , and from the larger portion of the
16 deck, it ' s 41 feet .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But do you know
18 what it is to the existing dwelling?
19 MS . MOORE : 39 plus 8 . It would be 8
20 feet more or less . It ' s a little bit of an
21 angle . So if that is precise enough for
22 you.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first floor
24 and the foundation will remain?
25 MS . MOORE : The first floor -- Eileen,
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 127
1 can come up and explain.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have to
3 state your name .
4 MS . SANTORA: My name is Eileen
5 Santora . I am the residential designer .
6 The foundation is sound and the -- the
7 garage will move forward, towards the
8 street . So we ' re going forward with the
9 garage a little bit as you can see on the
10 plans . And we will put a second-story over
11 the existing house .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: One other thing,
13 we received from the LWRP this morning,
14 indicating inconsistency . Do you have a
15 copy?
16 MS . MOORE : No .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They are
18 recommending; however, a 15 foot nonturf
19 landscaped buffer along the existing
20 bulkhead including retention of the large
21 ( In Audible) trees that are along the
22 property because it does slope very
23 dramatically.
24 MS . SANTORA: That would be no
25 problem.
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 128
1 MS . MOORE : There are a couple of
2 trees within the foundation and you see
3 them in the photographs . So some of those
4 trees really shouldn ' t be kept because they
5 are growing --
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is not what
7 he is referring . The ones closer to the
8 bulkhead.
9 MS . MOORE : Yeah . That ' s fine .
10 MS . SANTORA: They plan on new
11 landscaping. They are going to be putting
12 the new electric lines that come to the
13 house that come underground from the street .
14 They are going to switch from oil heat to
15 gas heat . To be more eco-friendly. They
16 plan on using more green products . They are
17 planning to make this house a house for
18 today and their children and grandchildren
19 to keep .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
21 MEMBER. GOEHRINGER: I understand the
22 utilization of the home and of course the
23 foundation and so forth. Without the
24 additions, you have a front yard of 96 . 6
25 feet . With the addition that you are
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 129
1 putting on in the front yard, you have a
2 89 foot front yard setback. I can ' t
3 understand why you can ' t get 41, 42 , 43
4 setback from the bulkhead. My request and
5 it is only my request, is to reduce the deck
6 to 3 feet across . I looked at the plans
7 and it has to do with the dining room area
8 and a guest suite . I just don ' t think that
9 it is prudent to reduce the front yard --
10 MS . MOORE : What you are asking for is
11 certainly a consideration . May I just --
12 certainly I think that ewe can reduce that
13 area . Certainly more of access that we ' re
14 talking about . French doors and so on, for
15 opening purposes , maybe 4 , rather than 3 .
16 MS . SANTORA: Especially the mom is
17 handicap and she needs to get out onto the
18 deck. So 3 feet wouldn ' t be much .
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. So we ' re
20 looking at 43 . 1?
21 MS . MOORE : Plus 4 .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 39 plus 4 --
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 43 . 1 .
24 MS . MOORE : With your permission, if
25 that is ultimately what the Board wants , I
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 130
1 can give you a survey that shows that
2 because I want to make sure -- because it ' s
3 at an angle, I want to make sure we do the
4 numbers right . Sometimes the numbers
5 tend to make sense but then when you ' re
6 doing it on a survey, it might be off a bit .
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You want to verify
8 that? Is that what you want to do?
9 MS . MOORE : Yes . Whatever that number
10 is, we will agree to that setback. Is that
11 all right?
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That ' s fine with
13 me .
14 MS . MOORE : Only for that portion.
15 MS . SANTORA: Good. That will work.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George,
17 questions?
18 MEMBER HORNING : If we could just go
19 through some of this paperwork, the file .
20 The Notice of Disapproval that we are
21 working from dated January 9, 2012 , that is
22 more than a year ago, right?
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No .
24 MEMBER HORNING : Is that a typo?
25 MS . MOORE : It ' s a typo .
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 131
1 MEMBER HORNING: 2013 . Looking at
2 this , the Notice says for demolition and
3 reconstruction. And then we look at the
4 applicant ' s description, and statement #1,
5 calls for a demolition of existing building
6 area . We are looking at the environmental
7 assessment form, calls for a demolition and
8 reconstruction of an exiting family
9 dwelling. It looks like the applicant maybe
10 filled that in . And we ' re looking at the
11 building permit dated November 20 , 2012 ,
12 which calls for alterations and additions .
13 So we have three documents that are calling
14 for demolition, and we have one building
15 permit application calling for additions and
16 alterations, upon which the Building
17 Department issued their Notice of
18 Disapproval citing demolition. And you ' re
19 saying that it ' s not a demolition?
20 MS . MOORE : Well, the EIF was the
21 worse case scenario, demolition and
22 reconstruction . It ' s still a Type II
23 actions regardless . So the SEQRA short
24 form, certainly I can give you a revised
25 short form that says renovation .
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 132
1 MEMBER HORNING: We don ' t work with
2 beliefs . We work with facts . The Notice of
3 Disapproval is citing a demolition. I am
4 asking you, is it a demolition or --
5 MS . MOORE : Well, because we ' re
6 retaining certainly more than the 750 of th.e
7 structure, and in fact that is something
8 that the Building Department should have
9 noticed from the plans but for whatever
10 reason --
11 MEMBER HORNING: Why do you think that
12 they have cited it as a demolition?
13 MS . SANTORA: Probably in their eyes ,
14 it would be easier to knock it down and
15 build it again. The homeowners don ' t want
16 that . They want to keep the existing house .
17 MEMBER HORNING : Wouldn ' t it be easier
18 to have an amended Notice of Disapproval
19 getting rid --
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have
21 requested to be clear about this, that the
22 Notice of Disapproval when it ' s a partial
23 demo, indicates partial demo, because if
24 they wrote it as a demolition. Your
25 application does call it a demo . It calls
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 133
1 it a couple of different things . However,
2 we just want to clarify that is not your
3 intent and make sure that the paperwork is
4 consistent with what you ' re proposing to do .
5 You know, if you ' re asking fora demo
6 because that is the worse case scenario, and
7 once you get in there oh, it might wind up
8 that way, that is one thing . What you are
9 saying is , you have done thorough
10 inspection . Foundation is structurally
11 intact . The first floor existing walls can
12 be rehabilitated without being demolished,
13 then we need to know that . All we ' re really
14 trying to do is get the facts consistent .
15 That ' s all . We can do either . We want to
16 make sure it ' s consistently presented.
17 Otherwise, we can have one set of drawings
18 and they come back to us , and it went beyond
19 the scope . Perhaps you can go into the
20 Building Department and talk to Pat Conklin,
21 since you ' re going to be doing an updated
22 survey showing that increase bulkhead
23 setback with a reduction of the deck size,
24 just to go back and say that we perceive
25 this to be a partial demolition . Renovation
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 134
1 and reconstruction or enlargement or
2 whatever . Let ' s clarify what we ' re really
3 trying to do . She will rewrite it as a
4 partial demo maybe . When the code changed,
5 a lot of people were calling it demolition
6 and they were preserving a whole lot more
7 than 250 . So we said in that case, write it
8 up as a partial demolition. So we don ' t get
9 confused. We just looked at the plans, but
10 it would appear that because of the entire
11 roof and the back wall are all windows ,
12 which certainly needed to be replaced, she
13 perceived that was to remain on the first
14 floor foundation was less than 250 . She is
15 very, very careful in calculating the
16 building envelope and foundation and so on .
17 So I would think the best way to proceed is
18 to go back and have that discussion with
19 her . And if it needs to be a demo and you
20 just need to tell us what you ' re preserving
21 and so on, so be it . As long as you can
22 verify that you want to use that foundation,
23 fine . But we really need to make sure that
24 we ' re all on the same page .
25 MEMBER HORNING : The proposed plan
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 135
1 calls for making a larger slab for the
2 garage and then using part of the existing
3 garage for kitchen pantry or extension of
4 the kitchen, would that be on the existing
5 slab?
6 MS . SANTORA: Yes . It ' s going to be
7 raised. There will be a crawl space . They
8 raise the floor up . That will be a laundry
9 room/pantry.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken, do you have
11 any questions?
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
14 else in the audience that would like to
15 address this application?
16 (No Response . )
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What we ' re going
18 to do is get a survey with the new bulkhead
19 setback. We ' re going to sort out the Notice
20 of Disapproval to confirm that it isn ' t a
21 demo . That you ' re are using the existing
22 foundation and it ' s a partial demo . The way
23 that the plans look now, I can understand
24 why Pat Conklin determined it to be a
25 substantial demolition . If that is the way
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 136
1 that it is, then that is the way it is . We
2 just don ' t want you back here again. And
3 also showing the nonturf buffers .
4 So we ' re going to close subject to
5 receipt of a revised updated survey showing
6 a 4 foot deep width deck. Portion of which
7 is now 8 feet . Showing a landscaped buffer
8 or a nonturf buffer and confirmation of a
9 demo or a new notice indicating partial
10 demo .
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by
13 Gerry.
14 All in favor?
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
16 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
17 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye .
19 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
20 *******************************************
21 HEARING #6640 - RICHARD FRIZZI
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
23 application before the Board is fro Richard
24 Frizzi, #6640 . Request for variances from
25 Article XXIII Section 280-124 and Article
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 137
1 XXII Section 280-116B and the Building
2 Inspector ' s March 1, 2013 Notice of
3 Disapproval based on an application for
4 building permit for construction of a new
5 single family dwelling : 1) less than the
6 code required minimum single side yard
7 setback of 10 feet, 2 ) less than the code
8 required minimum combined side yard setback
9 of 25 feet, 3 ) less than the code required
10 minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet, 4 )
11 more than the code permitted maximum lot
12 coverage of 20% , 5 ) less than the code
13 permitted bulkhead setback of 75 feet,
14 located at : 680 Rabbit Lane, adjacent to
15 Gardiners Bay in East Marion .
16 Pat, I want to make sure you have a
17 copy of the LWRP . While she is doing that ,
18 let me just enter into the record, the
19 variances, which there are five, are a rear
20 yard setback of 28 feet, where the code
21 requires 35 . A single side yard setback of
22 6 feet, where the code requires 10 . A total
23 side yard setback of 16 feet, where the code
24 requires 25 . Lot coverage is 29% , where the
25 code permits 20% . A bulkhead setback of 70
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 138
1 feet, where the code requires 75 feet . This
2 is a demolition and a construction of a new
3 single-family dwelling, consequences to
4 their storm damage . The intent is to leave
5 the existing accessory garage . The rear
6 yard setback and lot coverage -- the lot
7 coverage was 36% and when proposed is 290 .
8 It is less than what was originally there .
9 What the Trustees letter that we just got,
10 confirmed exactly what the LWRP indicates,
11 that the proposed patio within the coastal
12 erosion hazardous area is inconsistent, and
13 they are suggesting to reduce it to 200
14 square feet . And it is not practical, and
15 the LWRP confirms that it is consistent with
16 regards to everything else because due to
17 the size of the parcel, it is not practical
18 to relocate the structure outside of the
19 hazardous space . We are all very familiar
20 with Rabbit Lane, and the problems with
21 building on Gardiners Bay. The Trustees
22 actually confirmed what the LWRP said. We
23 just got that yesterday actually. So you
24 have a copy of that too, Pat . I just want
25 to make sure that you have all the
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 139
1 correspondences that we got .
2 MS . MOORE : Okay.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Looks like there
4 is a new bulkhead in place .
5 MS . MOORE : Yes . Mr . Frizzi and of
6 course everyone else there that lost their
7 bulkhead. That was the first order of
8 business , which was to put the bulkhead back
9 in .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat, let me ask
11 you, is the intent to have a heated
12 year-round house?
13 MS . MOORE : Yes .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it looks like
15 the existing front yard of the house is
16 conforming . All right . Gerry, did you want
17 to ask any questions?
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Wer.e there any
19 variances on this prior?
20 MS . MOORE : I think there was a
21 variance for the garage and I think there
22 was a CO. Maybe, I am mistaken on the
23 variance but there is definitely a CO for
24 that . That should be in your packet . You
25 know what, the variance is 280A. I
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 140
1 remembered something .
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes . One family
3 dwelling and one accessory building.
4 MS . MOORE : Right . An accessory
5 building.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken, do you want
7 to ask some questions?
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes . What was the
9 original side yard setback?
10 MS . MOORE : Oh, boy. I think it was
11 like a 2 foot . 4 . 7 on the east side . From
12 a walkway, 6 . 5 . On the upper side, 4 . 5 . On
13 the opposite side --
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you are
15 increasing that?
16 MS . MOORE : Yes . We ' re mindful of the
17 side yards .
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So you reduced the
. 19 nonconformity?
20 MS . MOORE : Reduced the nonconformity
21 and also provided better access point on one
22 side to 10 feet .
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: There was a
24 question about the septic system. Where , is
25 that going to be located?
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 141
1 MS . MOORE : Well, right now, it ' s
2 always on the street side . It has been on
3 the street side . Right now, it is just
4 northwest of the deck. So we have to
5 replace it because it was built -- because
6 the Sandy Storm filled it . Also, there was
7 some compromising of it . Not only from the
8 storm, but there was, I think when ( In
9 Audible) came in, it might have effected it
10 as well .
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Between the house
12 and the bulkhead?
13 MS . MOORE : No . No . It has always
14 been on the street side . But now, since we
15 are moving the house back, we have to move
16 the sanitary back. So we ' re going to --
17 it ' s probably going to be under the
18 driveway. We ' re going to have to get a
19 covenant from the Health Department allowing
20 -- you know, a driveway cover .
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I understand. So
22 that is a Health Department issue . So you
23 don ' t have to build any elaborate tank
24 systems or things?
25 MS . MOORE : I don ' t believe so . We
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 142
1 haven ' t gone there yet . We have to figure
2 out where the house is going to go first .
3 This area does have standard sanitary
4 systems . Also, Mr . Frizzi pointed out to me
5 because my concern was the sanitary and the
6 driveway, but he pointed out, Sandy brought
7 sand to his property and elevated their
8 property. So in a way, that is a positive .
9 You know, we have more distance between the
10 sanitary and the water .
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And you are
12 reducing the lot coverage?
13 MS . MOORE : Yes .
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Any issue with
15 conforming with the deck requirements?
16 MS . MOORE : Patio requirements .
17 That ' s fine . That is not a problem.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s pervious .
19 It ' s going to be on sand anyway, but that is
20 a recommendation of the LWRP .
21 MS . MOORE : What ' s interesting and I
22 will just put on the record, I have been to
23 Trustee hearings where this is the
24 recommendation on Rabbit Lane, but in fact
25 the contractors , Costello and the others , it
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 143
1 really is beneficial to have that patio
2 decking, whatever, to cover the slash-pad
3 and be behind the bulkhead and give that
4 extra amount of protection. Hoping that
5 maybe after they are built, they realize a
6 better practice based on the contractors
7 recommendation, essentially put a lid behind
8 the bulkhead. So I would say that if that
9 opportunity becomes available, that it be
10 considered De Minimus and we can abide by
11 the recommendations of the contractors .
12 Because it --
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Abide by the
14 recommendations of the Trustees , because at
15 the moment --
16 MS . MOORE : Right now, of course . If
17 we had to change it, they would have to
18 change it . Yes .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They are
20 recommending what the LWRP recommends . That
21 is the basis upon which we will proceed.
22 However, for that feature, you have a right
23 to request a change of the provision .
24 MS . MOORE : Okay. Well, if you don ' t
25 make that a condition, we just abide by --
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 144
1 the Trustees are going to require it,
2 unless they change it .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have to
4 address the LWRP in our determination, and
5 how it is viewed to them and recommended as
6 consistent . The patio is inconsistent .
7 MS . MOORE : I understand that , but . you
8 guys don ' t recommend patios .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But it ' s in a
10 Coastal Erosion Hazardous Zone where nothing
11 is permitted.
12 MS . MOORE : Well, I disagree with that
13 analysis of the Coastal Erosion Line, but
14 that ' s okay. That ' s a different Board. I
15 am just putting on. the record that they may
16 be a possibility.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand
18 that generally at-grade patios --
19 MS . MOORE : Right .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is why we
21 requested in addition to the LWRP comments
22 in addition to the Trustees . They confirmed.
23 the same recommendation. We have both
24 letters . I. just wanted to bring that up
25 here .
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 145
1 MS . MOORE : Okay. That ' s fine .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
3 else in the audience that wishes to --
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have one more
5 quick question.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: My other concern
8 is, with the houses very close to each
9 other, how will the other properties be
10 protected from other damage during
11 demolition and construction? That is from a
12 neighbor, Joseph and Joanna Canusa . Can you
13 address that, please?
14 MS . MOORE : Sure . I have the
15 contractor here . I spoke with Mr . Traniska
16 (phonetic) and as soon as we know that we
17 are okay, we ' re ready to remove the -- my
18 client is certainly not happy with something
19 not safe .
20 MR. SPITILLAIRE : Joe Spitillaire,
21 Spitillaire Construction Management, Main
22 Street, Southold. We ' re presently doing
23 something similar to this on the Sound side .
24 I 'm sorry, Sound View Avenue . Similar
25 situation . The houses are very close
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 146
1 together. Six foot to the property line .
2 To use a better word than "demolition, " we
3 disassemble the house . So if that is the
4 technique that we have to use, then we can .
5 We can -- I can pretty much guarantee there
6 will be no damage to the neighbors property .
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. That sounds
8 good to me .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We just wanted
10 to address the neighbors concern.
11 MS . MOORE : Sure .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
13 else in the audience who wishes to address
14 this application?
15 (No Response . )
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else
17 from the Board?
18 (No Response . )
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
20 further comments or questions from the Board
21 or from the audience, I am going to make a
22 motion to close this hearing and reserve
23 decision to a later date .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 147
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye,.
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
4 ( See Minutes for Resolution . )
5 *******************************************
6 HEARING #6642 - ROBERT & DEANA FINORA
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
8 application before the Board is Robert and
9 Deana Finora . That is #6642 . Request for
10 variance from Article III Code Section
11 280-15 and the Building Inspector ' s
12 February 15 , 2013, Notice of Disapproval
13 based on an application for building permit
14 to construct accessory building, at : 1 )
15 accessory building is proposed in a location
16 other than the code required rear yard,
17 located at : 165 Orchard Street in New
18 Suffolk. Good afternoon .
19 MS . FINORA: Hi, how are ya?
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The accessory
21 building proposed in the front yard, where
22 the code requires a rear yard location . It
23 shows that there was a previous garage now
24 removed. The photographs indicate that
25 there was a ( In Audible) and demolished.
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 148
1 And it is prop.osed to be replaced in-kind.
2 It has a gable roof; is that correct?
3 MS . FINORA: That ' s correct .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Attic
5 loft . Are you proposing to use it as an
6 actual garage?
7 MS . FINORA: Storage shed. No
8 vehicles .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I did notice
10 upon site inspection that that is a very
11 heavy traffic right-of-way into the marina .
12 MS . FINORA: Orchard or?
13 MS . MOORE : Not Orchard. The one that
14 runs alone side your property.
15 MS . FINORA: It ' s not really heavily
16 traffic . Those boats, I don ' t even know if
17 they are really used. We don ' t hear a lot
18 of traffic .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Maybe it ' s a
20 coincidence that when I was there, there
21 were cars going back and forth.
22 MS . FINORA: We actually received some
23 letters in the mail . I believe they are
24 rebuilding those docks .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Maybe that is
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 149
1 what it was .
2 MS . FINORA: Those were damaged as
3 well .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Since it ' s not
5 going to be used for vehicular storage, you
6 won ' t have to worry about egress and ingress
7 at all on this property. Your application
8 states that it is located near Schoolhouse
9 Creek and proposed flooding the back and
10 side yards .
11 MS . FINORA: That ' s correct .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And you have an
13 old survey showing a framed garage in the
14 same location as proposed. There is
15 demolition permit from the Building
16 Department dated 1/02/13 to demolish the old
17 garage . There is a CO from 1984 for a one
18 family dwelling and one-car garage . It is
19 now not going to- be used for a garage .
20 MS . FINORA: I don ' t know how they
21 ever got a car into there .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right . That
23 is all that is in the application . Is there
24 anything else that you would like to tell
25 us?
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 150
1 MS . FINORA: I would just like to
2 point out, if there was any other spot on
3 the property where we could relocate the
4 garage, we would. We do have a sizeable
5 piece of property. We not only flooded
6 during Super Storm Sandy but Irene, we had
7 water come up to basically where the garage
8 was . So there is --
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I forgot to ask
10 you for the transcript and the minutes of
11 the hearing, we have to ask you for your
12 name for the record.
13 MS . FINORA: Oh . Deana Finora .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken, questions?
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes . Was your
16 house damaged at all during the flooding?
17 MS . FINORA: Luckily, no . We don ' t
18 have a basement . That is why we need a
19 storage shed. So the water came up to the
20 bottom floor boards , like within a half an
21 inch. Minor electrical damage . Nothing
22 significant like trees through the garage .
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Is there any way
24 you can move this garage more towards the
25 back towards the street?
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 151
1 MS . FINORA: There really isn ' t . I
2 mean, it floods . I guess the slope of the
3 property, that is the highest point . And
4 then I am sure we ' re going to still get
5 water coming up to that point as well . That
6 is why we showed the specific shed that my
7 husband showed, so that if it floods, it
8 won ' t get damaged.
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Gravel?
10 MS . FINORA: I believe so . I am not
11 really an expert .
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What is the
i
13 distance between your property line and the
14 edge of the pavement on the street? In
15 other words , you have a wood picket fence
16 there?
17 MS . FINORA: There is a wood picket
18 fence there and probably, I don ' t know, a
19 foot of two of grass, and then the street
20 starts right there with the sidewalk. It ' s
21 close . And the garage is set back from the
22 picket fence .
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I would like to see
24 it set back more . I don ' t know how the
25 Board feels about that . To make it a little
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 152
1 bit more conforming .
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think you might
3 want to ask her what it might cost to
. 4 elevate the building more, back more . That
5 is the question. If she doesn ' t want it to
6 flood, she would have to elevate it more .
7 MS . FINORA: I mean, just a little
8 background here . We purchased this home in
9 New Suffolk, it was charming little
10 on-cloud. We new about the condition of the
11 house and its location to the wetlands .
12 It ' s a tiny little house . This garage -- I
13 mean, shed is to store everything, a lot of
14 our belongings in there throughout the
15 summer . This is the place that we intend on
16 retiring to . We spend a lot of our summers
17 out here . To have to elevate it or move the
18 shed back, just seems a little bit excessive
19 at this point . Because like I said, we
20 purchased the property with the structure
21 right there . And if we would have just
22 removed the tree and built around the shed,,
23 we wouldn ' t have this issue, but because of
24 the safety of our neighbors and because of
25 that access road and because of the school,
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 153
1 we had a jack-knife tree in the middle of
2 this shed. So we demolished it as soon as
. 3 possible . We have received letters from our
4 neighbors as such, to please remove it as
5 soon as possible . We ' re very kindly in that
6 way in removing the hazards . And at this
7 point, to elevate the land there, I don ' t
8 know if that is going to solve our issue .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The garage was
10 there with a CO previously. New Suffolk has
11 an incredible amount of nonconformities . To
12 put it mildly --
13 MS . FINORA: Yes . We have a neighbor
14 with his couch on his front lawn. So
15 hopefully the barn in front of our house .
16 will be a little bit more appealing .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you aware of
18 other accessory structures or sheds in front
19 yards?
20 MS . FINORA: I have seen sheds and
21 barns close . The street that is right off
22 of -- that you get to go to the beach, the
23 last street . I am forgetting the name .
24 Where those three beautiful houses are .
25 There is one that has a barn-like structure,
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 154
1 which is where we got the idea for ours .
2 That is right in the front or the back of
3 their house . Very close to the street .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You think you
5 can drive around the neighborhood and maybe
6 photograph some of those accessory
7 structures , because one of the things that
8 we need to address in our determination, is
9 the character of the neighborhood, and we
10 have some documentation showing that this is
11 not atypical structure of that sort in the
12 front yard that would help the
13 application .
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: To give us the
15 idea of where the pavement actually starts ,
16 okay, from where the shed is going to start .
17 In other words, if you come up here, I can
18 show it to you .
19 MS . FINORA: ( In Audible ) .
20 (Stepped away from the microphone . )
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We want to know
22 where the street starts . I suspect, he
23 wants to know if you can actually open the
24 doors , if you were putting something in it,
25 would you be in the street doing that? That
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 155
1 is one of the aspects . No . 2, it actually
2 shows that it exist and that is why he is
3 asking that question .
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Like a survey of
5 the setback, like a real world buffer . . The
6 difficulty --
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is going to
8 appear that the setback is farther from --
9 hold on. If you are going to -- please come
10 forward and state your name for the record.
11 MR. FINORA: Hi . My name is Bob
12 Finora . I am the father-in-law. The
13 existing structure has two doors on it, and
14 when you open them, they didn ' t come near
15 the street at all .
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The fact that you
17 can actually back into it without
18 obstructing any traffic, and still get into
19 the structure itself . These are certain
20 issues that we ask all the time in these
21 small communities .
22 MS . FINORA: We ' re putting up -- we ' re
23 matching the exact same -- two doors with
24 the same exact swing open on the existing
25 footprint . It was never an issue before .
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 156
1 Like, we have a CO . .We purchased the
2 property with a CO for this structure .
3 We ' re putting the exact same structure in
4 the exact same location. If we got a CO,
5 why do we have to go through this again?
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me explain
7 why. Once a structure is demolished, it
8 loses its preexisting CO, because it ' s gone .
9 It ' s distinguished. The code requires --
10 the variance relief that the Board, State
11 statute states what we ' re required to do by
12 law, is to grant the minimum variance
13 reasonably possible, once the argument is
14 compelling . So the reason why we ' re asking
15 for these setbacks and trying to tweak them
16 a little bit, is because we want to show in
17 our determination that we have explored
18 other options . That the setback is what it
19 must be and it cannot be increased for
20 specific reasons . In other words , it needs
21 to remain the way that it was for a series
22 of reasons . That is why I asked you if you
23 can go and show us --
24 MS . FINORA: I only know of one, and
25 would that change the Board ' s decision, if I
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 157
1 showed you other homes with garages --
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s not
3 changing our decision, it ' s about having
4 documentation that ' s saying, yes, there is
5 another structure in the front yard or there
6 are dwellings that are set back from the
7 road, very, very, close to the road. Please
8 don ' t misunderstand that we ' re not
9 attempting to undo what you are proposing .
10 We ' re trying to amplify the argument for
11 justification of approving it . Vicki just
12 mentioned, you can do a Google Earth, and
13 see what is in the surrounding streets and
14 submit that to the Board. It ' s very simple
15 to do . If you ' re having trouble to do it, I
16 am sure our Board assistant will help you
17 and explain to you on how you can go about
18 doing it .
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Just one more thing
20 that I would like to address . The location
21 of the proposed garage, at that corner,
22 inhibits a little distance from people
23 coming out of that right-of-way. To make
24 that turn into Orchard. So that is
25 something --
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 158
1 MS . FINORA: It is set back enough
2 that when you make that turn -- I mean, my
3 kids ride their bikes on dirt path . There
4 is no danger there .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you stop at
6 the intersection, you have at least
7 proposed --
8 MS . FINORA: Perhaps a stop sign would
9 assist in that . I mean it ' s not even a
10 road. It ' s a dirt path. I am just saying,
11 it ' s not a road.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s a
13 right-of-way.
14 MS . FINORA: I 'm sorry, that becomes
15 my issue as a homeowner, because people are
16 using that dirt path as a road.
17 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No . I am just
18 saying if we have an opportunity to make the
19 road a little safer . If you can move your
20 garage back another 5 feet or something,
21 would give people more sight distance to
22 see, or even the kids on the bike . You can
23 see cars coming .
24 MS . FINORA: Like I said before, we
25 would be happy to move the garage if we
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 159
1 didn ' t flood. We were there for two major
2 storms . Both of which, water came to the
3 front of our property. That is pretty much
4 the crux of my argument here . I have an
5 existing structure here . I bought this four
6 years ago -- five years ago . We bought it
7 with a CO for this structure . Technically,
8 we wouldn ' t have removed the structure if we
9 knew that we were going to run into these
10 problems . We would have just removed the
11 trees and fixed it, which in hindsight,
12 would have been a better path, but I am now
13 at the point, where we made a decision for
14 the community to remove the structure which
15 was hazardous , and remove the tree, which
16 our neighbors has asked us . Even after the
17 tree was removed, we received letters from
18 neighbor citing, please, what are you going
19 to do about this? You can see that we
20 removed it in January . That is not far off .
21 We did -- we ' re concerned about the
22 aesthetics and the safety of the community.
23 That is exactly why we bought there and we
24 want to put up a barn-like structure that
25 goes with the aesthetics . So from our
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 160
1 standpoint, I guess that is my argument
2 here . We did the right thing by removing a
3 hazardous situation post storm. All we want
4 to do is be able to put our kids bikes and
5 some sun-fish in there for the summer . So if
6 we could --
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I -am just not to
8 keen on the location.
9 MS . FINORA: Trust me . So are we . I
10 am not keen about the location too . If I
11 could move that garage to the back corner of
12 our property, I would be more than happy to
13 do it . It would be better for everybody
14 involved. We would be able to get into our
15 garage without going through the front of
16 house to get to the garage . That is where
17 the garage was when we bought the house .
18 And we realize why it was put there because
19 of the flooding .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that is a
21 hardship?
22 MS . FINORA: It is a hardship because
23 to now raise the elevation and to go around
24 and take pictures, we don ' t even live
25 locally. I mean, you ' re talking about
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 161
1 another project here . We want to be able
2 to move in by the end of June, even . And the
3 house is too small and we don ' t have enough
4 storage to do so without this structure .
5 You know, this was the result of the storm.
6 It was hazardous . The tree was there . If we
7 would have known this, by all means, we
8 would have removed the tree and built around
9 the shed. And we probably would have had it
10 done by now. So we tried to do the right
11 thing. We got new surveys of the land and
12 we played by the rules .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How do you think
14 that your neighbors are going to feel about
15 this? Do you think they will all be
16 supportive?
17 MS . FINORA: Well, they are sent back
18 right away. We know all of our neighbors .
19 We speak to them all the time . Our
20 neighbors across the street, we ' re very
21 friendly with . Everyone sent back their
22 green cards right away, except for one,
23 because that is the wetlands behind us, and
24 some sort of an estate .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you think
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 162
1 that you can ask your neighbors , if they can
2 even scribble two sentences on a piece of
3 paper and fax it over to our office, a
4 letter of support for the new
5 construction?
6 MS . FINORA: Absolutely. I know that
7 Michelle will do it, who lives across the
8 way and probably our neighbors as well . I
9 know all those three . Our closest three
10 properties .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is why we
12 sent green cards to the closest neighbors
13 and --
14 MS . FINORA: And nobody is here .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would be
16 helpful for the record if you had some
17 letters of support from your neighbors .
18 MS . FINORA: Sure . I will get that .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Again, it
20 doesn ' t have to be formal or long . It can be
21 e-mails .
22 MS . FINORA: Okay. Thank you, Vicki .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
24 else in the audience who wishes to address
25 this application?
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 163
1 (No Response . )
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
3 further questions or comments, I am going to
4 make a motion to close this hearing subject
5 to receipt of letters from neighbors and any
6 other visual documents that the applicant
7 will provide .
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 #6636 - JOHN SPIRO
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The last hearing
17 of the day is for John Spiro, #6636 .
18 Request for variances from Article XXIII
19 Section 280-124 and Article III Section
20 280-15 and the Building Inspector ' s
21 February 14 , 2013 Notice of Disapproval
22 based on an application for " building permit
23 for additions and alterations to existing
24 single family dwelling and to construct an
25 accessory shed: 1 ) less than the code
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 164
1 required rear yard setback of 50 feet for
2 single family dwelling, 2 ) accessory shed
3 proposed in location other than the code
4 required rear yard, located at : 340
5 Glenwood Road in Cutchogue . State your name
6 for the record.
7 MS . INDELMAN : I am Alta Indelman,
•8 architect for John Spiro . And if I may --
9 received late, after the green cards were
10 sent back, this is from the other adjace.nt
11 property owner who neglected to send back
12 her card, but sent a supportive e-mail . If
13 I could give you --
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure . May I
15 enter into the record, a letter from
16 Maryanne William-Pittman indicates unable to
17 be at the hearing . I am happy to wish you
18 luck on your new project and say that we
19 have no objection to your proposed plans .
20 MS . INDELMAN : What happened is, John
21 had not received the green card back and
22 reached our by- e-mail to his neighbor and
23 said, did you receive it and so on and she
24 didn ' t know that she was supposed to send it
25 back.
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 165
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let ' s just look
2 at what is before the Board. We ' re looking
3 at a rear yard setback for additions and
4 alterations to the existing single family
5 dwelling 7 . 1 feet where the code requires
6 15 feet . And the shed is proposed in a side
7 yard where the code requires a rear yard.
8 The lot is 26, 149 square feet . The
9 existing garage is at 2 . 6 feet from the rear
10 yard setback and that is to be demolished.
11 And the existing house is 7 . 1 feet from the
12 rear yard setback, which is to be retained.
13 We ' re looking at a new two-story addition
14 with a 14 foot rear yard setback and a
15 one-story porch at 8 . 5 . And the deck is at
16 10 feet from the rear yard setback?
17 MS . INDELMAN : No . The one-story is
18 10 feet . The deck is basically 7 . 1 . The
19 property slopes a little bit . That aligns
20 with the rear of the existing house .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the deck is
22 at 7 . 1 feet; is that correct?
23 MS . INDELMAN : That is correct . The
24 property line slopes slightly. So the 7 . 1
25 is probably our best dimension and that
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 166
1 location is close to that .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. The record
3 should reflect the fact that all of the new
4 construction is to be more conforming that
5 the existing garage, and to be no less than
6 the existing house at 7 . 1 feet . The shed is
7 proposed at a 9 x 18 . 6 feet . And that is in
8 a side yard?
9 MS . INDELMAN : This is in a side yard;
10 however, I later learned that your, Southold
11 Town calculation yard is actually what is
12 behind the house, as opposed from the
13 property forward. So at first, I was
14 compliant with the shed and the Building
15 Department explained to me that even though
16 the setbacks of the shed would be compliant ,
17 the house were not there creating the rear
18 yard to be -- I thought that the rear yard
19 was defined by 50 feet . I said, "oh, good.
20 My shed is compliant . " However, the facts --
21 it ' s in the place that it would be if that
22 were the yard. But by the technicality of
23 the Town ' s definition of rear yard, we ' re
24 now in a side yard.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There are a
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 167
1 couple of issues . At one point , lots were
2 merged. They were owned by the same family .
3 Then they were unmerged in 1998 by ZBA
4 Waiver of Lot Merger . Explained in the
5 reasons because the family continues to own
6 that property that is undeveloped.
7 Obviously, if the property ' s were merged,
8 you wouldn ' t have an issue whatsoever .
9 However, they were unmerged. Can you
10 address that a little bit?
11 MS . INDELMAN : I will address that
12 briefly and then I may ask my client to
13 discuss it . They know more about the
14 subject . It ' s my understanding that the
15 lots were always separate, and that there
16 was an application filed and approved to
17 define that . To have better clarity and
18 differential circumstances of ownership,
19 that I am not well versed in but it ' s my
20 understanding and my clients will
21 corroborate this , it was never a merged lot
22 but rather a definition of a non-merged lot
23 in 1998 .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I think
25 they were merged by virtue of the code .
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 168
1 Many people were very confused about that .
2 MS . INDELMAN : I guess I am not up to
3 date on that terminology. I do have -- if
4 that ' s the --
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The only reason
6 why I bring it up is because the Board has
7 to explore all options of nonconformity. We
8 like the record to reflect the unmerger and
9 the subsequent consequences of the rear yard
10 setback.
11 MS . INDELMAN : Understood.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The other thing
13 that I would like you to do is , you give a
14 rather elaborate explanation, why you could
15 not reasonable add additions to the front
16 yard to avoid additional nonconformities in
17 the rear yard. And I would just like you to
18 review that with the Board so that it is
19 reflected in the minutes . But lets take a
20 look --
21 MS . INDELMAN : I would be happy to do
22 that .
23 MS . SPIRO : So when my parents bought
24 the house -- well, actually my mother bought
25 that lot . The house and the land as a
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 169
1 single and separate lot . In. the early 80 ' s,
2 it was an ( In Audible) one acre lot . My
3 parents at that time bought that lot . So it
4 was bought at a different time, decades
5 later actually. It was to be held as a
6 single and separate lot . Sometime in .the
7 80 ' s we -- the Town created the lot merger
8 recognition and the lots became merged
9 because - of the way that they were in
10 ownership . We did go before the Zoning
11 Board and have that unmerged. And to be
12 held as two single and separate lots . My
13 sisters and I would like to keep that as
14 single and separate lots . So the house in
15 1968 was on that almost zero lot line, at
16 that corner .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The code changed
18 and caused a great deal of havoc because
19 people still continued to get separate tax
20 bills and may have appeared to be separate .
21 Only when someone wanted to go and do
22 something, did they then find out that they
23 had been merged by virtue of this code
24 change, which they then had to come back
25 before us . If someone died, a spouse died,
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 170
1 let ' s say, it went to one person, it was
2 then held in the same name, then that
3 changed. If you would please tell us why
4 you find it troublesome to create the
5 addition in the front yard?
6 MS . INDELMAN : I would be happy to do
7 that . I assume that you are familiar with
8 the materials that I have submitted, actual
9 diagrams that show some of the elevations of
10 it .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes . I should
12 let you know, everyone on the Board and
13 George who lives on Fisher ' s Island who has
14 to leave at a certain time to catch two
15 ferry ' s to get home . So that is why he is
16 not here . All of us have made site
17 inspection. Every one of us . We visit the
18 site . We look around the property and so on
19 and so forth . Go ahead.
20 MS . INDELMAN : We took a look quite
21 seriously at siting the addition in various
22 different ways . With the exception of the
23 deck, which is somewhat sort of a connective
24 piece, because it steps out any way and it ' s
25 rather small . I have taken a bunch of great
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 171
1 lengths to ( In Audible) the house,
2 particularly the two-story component of the
3 house . Progressively back from the property
4 line as much as I could without encroaching
5 some of the rather large trees that are on
6 the property. I believe that you are
7 familiar with those . We have three major
8 trees on the north side of the house on
9 various locations, that for environmental
10 reasons , practical reasons, for beauty
11 reasons , for every reason we can think of
12 and financial reasons , not to leave them,
13 the Spiro Family would like to retain . And
14 it becomes a curious chess game to try and
15 avoid them. To be moved to the north .
16 There are also a few other factors that are
17 not insignificant . We have Town water and
18 Town gas coming into the house on the north
19 side and it ' s -- logistically, financially
20 and construction purposes , it is our desire
21 to keep those things without disrupting
22 them. And the electricity and the phones are
23 also coming into the house, where in the
24 cellar is the boiler and the front,
25 utilities of the house . And you know, just
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 172
1 to retain all of that . One of the issues
2 that ' s particularly important is keeping the
3 existing basically as it is . We ' re doing
4 very little work on the existing house for
5 several reasons . One, the family loves the .
6 house . It ' s charming . It ' s their house .
7 Secondly, the house is old. It has had some
8 structural work done on it in the past . Not
9 necessarily anything that any one of us
10 would have done now in that way, but I would
11 leave it alone and start structuring again
12 and changing the roof . It was a dormer
13 popped up in 1985 to effectively legalize
14 became a sleeping quarters for the kids and
15 the family. It just now, legal bedrooms . The
16 roof was changed. It is now gables and
17 pitches and down in the cellar there are ( In
18 Audible) brought down on it ' s own. I kind of
19 don ' t want to touch that . So leaving the
20 house intact, and for financial reasons, not
21 to wreck it, is greatly beneficial . And by
22 leaving it intact, we ' re able to leave the
23 front windows . We ' re able to leave the
24 fireplace . We ' re able to leave the chimney.
25 The living room, everything where it is,
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 173
1 with a couple of exceptions . One is to open
2 up one opening between the living room and
3 the current dining room to make a -larger
4 living room and that is as easy structural
5 removal . There is a line of structure
6 there . There are posts down below. It ' s
7 quite direct . It ' s not creating what I call
8 and you ' re probably quite aware, "a basket
9 case" where you don ' t know what anything is
10 being held up . Upstairs we ' re making two
11 very small bedrooms into one usable bedroom.
12 We ' re making some relatively minor revisions
13 to create a bedroom suite for the eldest
14 Spiro ' s to use without having to climb the
15 stairs . So by leaving the existing house in
16 tact and the trees and the roads and the
17 chimney and the fireplace, we ' re saving a
18 structural problem. We ' re saving a utility
19 problem. We ' re saving some trees and saving
20 the house as it is and saving a lot of
21 money, basically.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : ( In Audible) and
23 that total is how much?
24 MS . INDELMAN : We have an estimate for
25 the total construction of the house for
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 174
1 close to $430 , 000 . 00 and we estimate -- I
2 had a contractor and I had our landscaped
3 architect and civil engineer identify the
4 tree types and what it cost to replace and
5 remove and apparently, there is an option to
6 relocate trees but they don ' t recommend
7 because of the size and the age of the
8 trees, that one could move them, basically .
9 You would be paying twice . Paying to
10 relocate it and paying to place it . So that
11 didn ' t look like that was such a good idea .
12 So we came up with a tally of approximately
13 $170 , 000 . 00 and of course the extra expenses
14 that would be incurred for the trees --
15 something with the trees . Placing it to the
16 north is extremely awkward because of the
17 nature of the house . It ' s messy and
18 awkward. But that issue aside, the cost
19 factors that came into effect is that we
20 have to redo the utilities in the house,
. 21 both the gas and the water. We would have
22 to redo sone of the storm drainage . And
23 just as a side, we ' re in the process of
24 working out the septic system and working
25 out the appropriate information about that,
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 175
1 and we will be going to the Health
2 Department and so forth . We did our testing
3 and so on. But there are some drywell ' s
4 that are there, that can be reused for
5 stormwater drainage . So we would like to be
6 able to retain those . Telephone service,
7 electrical service, there is a secondary
8 egress and access to the existing cellar
9 under the house, through a cellar door and
10 steps that go down . And there are some
11 utilities in that area . There is some stuff
12 in that area would have to be redone and
13 cost money and some foundation work that
14 would have to be done there . And the roof,
15 I guess the upstairs bedrooms on the second
16 floor of the existing house, the windows
17 that are the only ones that are large enough
18 that are considered to be emergency egress
19 are on the north side . These are real low
20 on the east side of the house . So we can ' t
21 get those . Those are old and part of the
22 1920 ' s architecture . They' re old windows
23 and tiny. So we would be sort creating some
24 sort of a noncompliance if we had to redo
25 the roof there and compromise those on the
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 176
1 north side, where we would have to connect
2 to the house . That would really compromise .
3 We would have to do something new with the
4 roof and dormer and skylight or whatever . So
5 the cost of that is reflected in here . And
6 then the fireplace, rather substantial brick
7 fireplace and accompanied chimney. The
8 chimney is structurally integral to the
9 exiting house and we can ' t take that away.
10 That is staying no matter what . The
11 fireplace is visible in its location, if we
12 are using that north side of the passage way
13 to get in . It basically blows out the
14 existing living room and completely redo .
15 Consequentially add another fireplace in
16 another room to have the same benefit as the
17 fireplace that currently exist as a focal
18 point in the family room, and they like
19 very, very much . I think that is- pretty much
20 the list . There are some minor other
21 reconfigurations of roof lines . There is
22 some complicated roof lines and connection.s
23 that would cause additional framing and
24 costs . And that also went into that cost
25 analysis .
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 177
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I noticed on
2 your proposed site plan, that the two parts
3 of the additions that are closest to the
4 rear yard setback of one-story --
5 MS . INDELMAN : That is correct .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : , So you can go
7 around the nonconformance of making it
8 one-story instead of two-story. And the new
.9 two-story addition is set back at 14 feet
10 from the rear yard property line .
11 MS . INDELMAN : Actually, it ' s 14 feet
12 for one of them and the other is 18 feet .
13 So we have to be able to -- I have to be
14 able to connect to the existing house to get
15 in . There is -- we pushed back that one
16 story link, that becomes part of the
17 kitchen, as far as I could go . And then I
18 am stepping back from there in plan and as
19 you mentioned from the elevation.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there
21 anything else that you would like to tell us
22 before I ask my colleagues if they have any
23 questions?
24 MS . INDELMAN : I think my- presentation
25 has all the information in it . I feel
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 178
1 comfortable that I have presented it with
2 everything that I had but I would be happy
3 to answer questions .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. I do want
5 to commend you on a very thorough
6 application. We are very pleased to see
7 such details . Let me turn it over to Ken,
8 and see what questions he has .
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes . I have a
10 question on Sheet #2 , proposed site plan . I
11 am seeing where the existing house is, there
12 is a one-story and then it looks like ( In
13 Audible) from the property line?
14 MS . INDELMAN : That is an existing.
15 If you look at the existing site plan, you
16 will see that the existing house is
17 identical on both site plans . It has a
18 little thing sticking out on the house . It
19 is part of what is there . So we ' re not
20 changing that .
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Right . But that
22 rear yard setback is 5 . 8 feet?
23 MS . INDELMAN : That is existing and it
24 is 5 . 8 feet . That is correct .
25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And then your new
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 179
1 proposal for the deck, with all the new
2 work, you require 7 . 1?
3 MS . INDELMAN : 7 . 1 is where the best
4 -- the furthest away from the property line
5 the existing house is . I need to come in --
6 I am coming in about 3 1/2 - 4 feet to get
7 my one-story link. If you look at my first
8 plan, I think, it clarifies that . Let ' s get
9 a good look at that . That is A. 101 . It ' s
10 the actual floor plan of the house . So if
11 you look at the -- you want to look at the
12 proposed deck plan --
13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: There is a little
14 piece of deck.
15 MS . INDELMAN : Where I put those
16 french doors , we ' re actually taking them
17 from the existing living room, that is where
18 my opportunity is in terms of structural
19 framing. If I go down to the cellar, I have
20 posts there and that is a good spot for me
21 to come in . And so I pushed that to get to
22 that point and then stepped back from there .
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Now that deck
24 continues which way, I guess to the west?
25 MS . INDELMAN : It goes to the west,
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 180
1 right .
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It looks like it ' s
3 going to be a little less than 7 . 1 .
4 MS . INDELMAN : That ' s correct .
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Do you know what
6 that is going to be?
7 MS . INDELMAN : I would have to scale
8 it .
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The issue for the
10 rear yard setback would be to that corner,
11 no'? Do you see what I am talking about,
12 Leslie?
13 MS . INDELMAN : 8 . 5 is the porch. I
14 have accessed the porch at 8 . 5 back. That
15 piece of deck is what it is and I could
16 scale that for you . I know exactly what you
17 are looking for . I would have to scale it
18 off the survey. It ' s probably, I am going
19 to guess it ' s 6 feet . 6 something . I would
20 have to scale that for you but if you look
21 at my A. 101 I have a line that I am just
22 pulling across .
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I don ' t have a
24 problem with it, it ' s just that we can --
25 MS . INDELMAN : I guess I need a tiny
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 181
1 scale for that . Let ' s call it 6 . 6 or
2 somewhere in that ballpark.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Notice of
4 Disapproval, I just looked at the dimensions
5 that you just called out and it was cited at
6 7 . 1 . They are just probably taking the
7 average .
8 MS . INDELMAN : You know what the
9 problem is , when Mr . Ehlers did our survey,
10 that is the point that he gave on our
11 survey. They probably looked at the survey,
12 which you have a copy of, the land survey.
13 I can have someone calculate it in my
14 office .
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That would be the
16 actual setback variance that you would need.
17 MS . INDELMAN : I can get you that
18 answer in like 10 minutes . I can call my
19 office and have someone scale it off the cab
20 drawing . So yes , I can get that for you .
21 It ' s probably at 6 feet . I would say that ' s
22 a probably accurate estimate .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s closer .
24 It ' s not for the whole property line . It ' s
25 for X number of feet .
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 182
1 MS . INDELMAN : That number of feet I
2 can tell you right away and that is 14 . 8 , is
3 the length of the deck.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But at one
5 corner it ' s 10 feet?
6 MS . INDELMAN : No . I 'm sorry, the 10
7 feet is to the one-story addition . There is
8 sort of a blurry line there . That ' s right .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes . Okay. We
10 just want to make sure that when we write or
11 determination that the numbers are accurate .
12 MS . INDELMAN : Of course . And I have
13 people in my office who are sitting there at
14 their computers that can get us that
15 information, but I will give them a call .
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That would be what
17 I am requesting, to the corner of that deck.
18 MS . INDELMAN : Understood.
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And then we have
20 8 . 5 feet to that porch . Is that a screened
21 porch?
22 MS . INDELMAN : That is a one-story
23 screened porch.
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The proposed
25 second-story would have a 14 foot setback?
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 183
1 MS . INDELMAN: Yes , a 14 foot . And
2 then there is an 18 foot that steps back.
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes . And you ' re
4 maintaining the existing nonconforming
5 setback to the two-story of the existing
6 home, at 5 . 8 feet?
7 MS . INDELMAN : The two-story is 7 . 1
8 setback and the one-story is at 5 . 8 . Right .
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Gotcha . That is
10 what I am going to need and I have no more
11 further questions .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All right . So
13 let ' s take a look at just the shed in the
14 side yard for a minute . Now you understand
15 why they are calling it a side yard.
16 MS . INDELMAN : I do . I would have to
17 say that I was somewhat surprised. I
18 interpreted that the house was in the rear
19 yard and not that it starts behind the
20 house . I get it .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. But the
22 bottom line is, a fraction of its size is
23 proposed at a 15 foot side yard.
24 MS . INDELMAN : Basically, what I was
25 doing is following the regulations as if I
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 184
1 was in a rear yard. Figuring that I --
2 understanding that I was not in a rear yard,
3 but if that was the clearance that was
4 desirable between the property line and the
5 neighbors , I would, certainly try to honor
6 that . So that is what I did. it ' s pretty
7 straight forward.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s not going t
9 be used as a garage?
10 MS . INDELMAN : No . It ' s certainly not
11 large enough to be used as a garage . We
12 have made provision for parking outside .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Out of curiosity
14 you ' re going to propose to use the same
15 driveway?
16 MS . INDELMAN: No . The driveway is
17 flipped to the other side of the property.
18 The current driveway is very narrow and in
19 strange proximity .to the intersection and we
20 believe that the other location is far
21 better than various reasons .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : For one thing,
23 you ' re not going to hit the tree --
24 MS . INDELMAN : It ' s a very abrupt turn
25 and it ' s right at the intersection of
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 185
1 Hamilton Avenue, and you have to back out .
2 So we ' re correcting that . It does not
3 require the removal of any trees . It ' s a
4 very minor landscaping . And we will in fill
5 the old opening with plants .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Gerry do
7 you have any questions?
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, I don ' t .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Is there
10 anyone in the audience that wishes to
11 address this application?
12 (No Response . )
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
14 further comments , I am going to make a
15 motion to close this hearing and reserve
16 decision, subject to receipt of more
17 information regarding the specific points of
18 setbacks from the rear property line .
19 MS . INDELMAN : Now, I can get you that
20 information now, if you want to enter it
21 into the record. I mean, I can literally
22 call them and tell them to pick it off the
23 computer, and tell you what it is?
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I suppose we can
25 wait a few minutes or the other thing that
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 186
1 we can do, is -- we have to have it in
2 writing . You know, let ' s wait a minute .
3 MS . INDELMAN : Let me give it a try
4 and if for any reason, it becomes
5 complicated, I will sketch it and write it
6 and fax it to you tomorrow.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You can fax it
8 tomorrow. Really. It ' s not going to delay
9 anything .
10 MS . INDELMAN : Then I will do that .
11 That makes sense . I don ' t want to cause a
12 panic in my office . That ' s fine . And just
13 to be scrupulous here, that 14 feet is sort
14 of an average because it ' s more than 14 feet
15 at one end and then slightly less than 14
16 feet on the other . So what I could do is
17 pick the exact corner point of the pieces
18 and get you that, so that it ' s totally
19 clear .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Anything
21 else that the Board wants?
22 (No Response . )
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . Hearing
24 no further comments or questions, I am going
25 to make a motion to close this hearing and
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 187
1 reserve decision to a later date subject to
2 receipt of the information requested.
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
8 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
9 *******************************************
10
11 (Whereupon, the April 4 , 2013 ,
12 Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of
13 Appeals concluded at 3 : 38 P . M. )
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 188
1
2 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
3
4
5 I , Jessica, certify that the
6 foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public
7 Hearings .was prepared using required electronic
8 transcription equipment and is a true and accurate
9 record of the Hearings .
10
11 Signatur : _
Tj Lv
12 Jessica DiLallo
13
i
14
15 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
16 PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
17
18 Date : April 20 , 2013
19
20
21
22
23
24
25