HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-05/02/2013 Hearing l
1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK
2 ------------------------------------------- X
3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
4
5 ------------------------------------------- X
6 RECEIVED
7 Southold Town Hall MAY 4 2013 .
Southold, New York
8 90ARD OF APPEALS
9 May 2 , 2013
9 : 40 A. M.
10
11
12 Board Members Present :
13
14 LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
15 ERIC DANTES - Member
16 GERARD GOEHRINGER - Member
17 GEORGE HORNING - Member (Left at 2 : 00 P . M. )
18 KENNETH SCHNEIDER - ,Member (Left at 2 : 44 P . M. )
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
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 2
1
2 INDEX TO HEARINGS
3
4 Hearing Page
5
6 Kimogenor Point, Inc . 3-10
7 (Bingham) , #6550
8 Mattituck Plaza, Plaza #6635 10-40
9 Fehim and Sevgi Uyanik, #6644 40-70
10 Richard Zahra, #6647 70-80
11 Roman Catholic Church of the
12 Sacred Heart, #6645 80-89
13 Ralph and Carmelo Constantino, #6643 89-93
14 Nick Palumbo, #6646 93-101
15 James Scully, #6650 101-110
16 Michael Mantikas , #6641 110-124
17 David Schiff, #6649, 124-126
18 BABS Corporation, #6651 126-146
19 James and Susan Brown, 46652 146-171
20 Steve Condos , #6648 171-175
21
22
23
24
25
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 3
1 HEARING #6550 - KIMOGENOR POINT,
2 INC . (BINGHAM)
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first
4 application before the Board is for
5 Kimogenor Point, Bingham, #6550 . This
6 was adjourned from the April 4 , 2013
7 Public Hearing . This was an application
8 that was re-opened by Board Resolution,
9 based on the Building Inspector ' s
10 March 5 , 2013 Notice of Disapproval based
11 on the work performed was beyond the
12 scope of the ZBA decision, 1 ) deemed a
13 demolition and construction of new single
14 family dwelling, located at : 60 Jackson
15 Street, adjacent to Great Peconic Bay in
16 New Suffolk.
17 What I would like to do is read into
18 the record, the findings of fact that the
19 Zoning Board gathered from the Public
20 Hearing process, and to the scheduled
21 site inspection that we asked to have
22 done . This is the third amended
23 application on this particular property.
24 And on February 28th, a verbal Stop Work
25 Order was issued by the Building
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 4
1 Inspector to the applicant . On
2 March 5 , 2013 , a new Notice of
3 Disapproval was issued stating the
4 proposed demolition and construction on
5 this nonconforming lot is not permitted.
6 The work performed is beyond the scope of
7 the ZBA decision #6550 . By Resolution
8 dated February 28 , 2013 , the Zoning Board
9 voted unanimously, to reopen the Public
10 Hearing for the sole purpose of
11 determining if the demolition had taken
12 place, and if the application had
13 therefore exceeded the scope of the
14 relief granted in the decision #6550 .
15 The Public Hearing was scheduled for
16 April 4 , 2013 , at which time additional
17 testimony was taken from the applicant ' s
18 builder and architect, and photographic
19 documentation of the demolition
20 construction and reconstruction process
21 just to show the method use to preserve
22 at least 25% of the original structure as
23 required in the original instructions of
24 the code and ZBA decision #6550 . The
25 Board requested the builder to submit
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 5
1 construction photographs, time dated and
2 submit it to the Board, which we did
3 receive . A calculation of the exact
4 percentage of the remaining original
5 dwelling by the applicant ' s licensed
6 architect be completed and submitted,
7 which we did receive, and that an
8 interior inspection be scheduled for the
9 purpose of inspection by the Members of
10 the Board, which did take place . In
11 addition to both, Pat Conklin and Mike
12 Verity, also participated independently
13 in that inspection. The Public Hearing
14 was adjourned until May 2nd, which is
15 today. On April 15th, a requested site
16 inspection took place and the
17 photographic documentation was received.
18 On April 17th, the ZBA received a written
19 information from Tom Samuels , architect,
20 showing plans for the first floor and
21 roof of the original structure of the
22 Bingham Residence, and confirming that
23 26 . 20 of the original structure remained
24 in place . All right . So based upon all
25 of those facts , which we have gathered, I
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 6
1 am going to read to you what the Board
2 has found. Evidence was submitted by the
3 applicants architect, that indicated that
4 the renovations project left 26 . 2% of the
5 original structure in tact . A figure
6 that the Building Department does not
7 refute . I met with them personally to
8 discuss this and they are as a matter of
9 course, always accept calculations from
10 professionals , whether they are
11 surveyors, architects, or engineers . The
12 applicant maintains that the project
13 should not be considered constructional
14 demolition as defined by Town Code 280-4 ,
15 which states that any removal of a
16 structure or portion thereof that exceeds
17 750 of the total square footage of the
18 existing structure before the start of
19 removal . Based upon site inspection by
20 members of the Board, which confirmed the
21 photographic evidence of the portions of
22 the original structure remained and the
23 applicant ' s license architect
24 calculations, that 26 . 20 of the original.
25 structure remained. The Board of Appeals
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 7
1 determined that a demolition as defined
2 as 280-4 has not occurred and that the
3 applicant ' s project continues to be
4 within the scope of the work as in
5 decisions #6550 . As I said that, we are
6 prepared to listen to anyone who wishes
7 to make additional comments , at which
8 time we will close the Public Hearing and
9 we are prepared to deliberate on this
10 application based upon the facts as
11 described to you .
12 MS . MOORE : Madam Chairman and
13 Board, thank you very much . We do want
14 -- I 'm sorry, Patricia Moore on behalf of
15 the applicants and everyone else there
16 is, contractors . We want to thank the
17 Board for your review and for the
18 diligence that you have taken . We really
19 have no comment . I think the facts speak
20 for them self and we appreciate your
21 willingness to move this along so they
22 could continue . So we do really want to
23 extend our thanks .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right . I
25 have neglected to do something, which I
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 8
1 should have done for any of you who are
2 not familiar with the Zoning Board. We
3 do have a new member, which we would like
4 to welcome, Eric Dantes who has been
5 appointed by the Town Board. We welcome
6 him to his first Public Hearing. One of
7 many, I am sure .
8 All right . Is there anyone else in
9 the audience who wishes to comment on
10 this application?
11 (No Response . )
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
13 further comments , the Board has already
14 made a comment by entering this into the
15 public record. I am going to make a
16 motion to close this hearing and reserve
17 decision .
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
20 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
22 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
25 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 9
1 ******* *********************************
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I am now
3 going to amend my agenda here, and I am
4 going to ask the Board -- we all have
5 copies of the draft, which I have read
6 into the record, and I am prepared to
7 bring this to a vote now so this
8 applicant can proceed with their work on
9 this project . Every one has read this ,
10 it is an old decision . It was amended.
11 So I am going to make a motion to grant
12 the applicant the right to proceed with
13 their project as described in their
14 original decision based upon our
15 determination that this is not a
16 demolition. One should note that the
17 difference between 25% and 26 . 2% is
18 extremely small . And so we were very
19 close there . We wanted to let everyone
20 know that this Board was aware and told
21 the Building Department that this was a
22 judgement call, without calculation but
23 was very close to what actually is
24 permitted by the Town Code .
25 MEMBER HORNING: I second that . And
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 10
1 Leslie, it ' s 26 . 2 --
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 26 . 2 , not
3 26 . 4 . Sorry.
4 All in favor?
5 MEMBER DANTES : Abstain .
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
7 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
10 The motion is carried, unanimously
11 with one abstention . I will sign this
12 tomorrow and then it will be filed with
13 the Town Clerk and then become an
14 official document .
15 ( See Minutes for Resolution . )
16 ************ ************ ***************
17 HEARING #6635 - MATTITUCK PLAZA, LLC .
18 The next application before the
19 Board is for Mattituck Plaza, LLC, #6635 .
20 Request for variances from Article III
21 Code Section 280-15 and the Building
22 Inspector ' s December 17 , 2012 Notice of
23 Disapproval based on an application for
24 building permit for an as-built accessory
less than the
25 building, at 1 ) located at
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 11
1 code required 25 feet from any property
2 line, 2 ) more than the permitted lot
3 coverage of 300 ; located at : 10095 Main
4 Road, a/k/a New York State 25 , corner of
5 Factory Avenue in Mattituck.
6 Is someone here to represent this
7 application?
8 MR. GOGGINS : Yes . Good morning .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning .
10 MR. GOGGINS : William Goggins . Law
11 Office of Goggins and Palumbo, 13235 Main
12 Road, Mattituck, New York. For the
13 applicant Mattituck Plaza .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . Let me
15 just indicate for the record that
16 specifically the as-built construction of
17 an accessory is partially completed on
18 the property line, where the code
19 requires 25 feet . And 36 . 01% lot
20 coverage, where the code permits a
21 maximum of 30% lot coverage . The
. 22 Planning Board in their 1971 Site Plan
23 approval, required a 40 foot buffer on
24 this approved Site Plan, and on the
25 northern property line that was to be
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 12
1 made of grass and planting to mitigate
2 adverse impact from adjacent residential
3 property, and have lots of questions .
4 The as-built property from the rear
5 property line eliminates this 38 . 6 feet
6 of that buffer . We did get a letter .
7 Did you get a letter from the Planning
8 Board ' s Memorandum from March, 2013?
9 MR. GOGGINS : I did.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. We have
11 a letter from -- this is just a letter
12 from Suffolk County for local
13 determination . So let me just enter into
14 the record some of the concerns so you
15 can address them. The first that I
16 indicated was the as-built construction
17 and the property line eliminating 38 . 6
18 feet of that buffer . Other comment was
19 that Code Enforcement responded to a
20 complaint in September, 2012 in regards
21 to type of discharging liquids that went
22 to the property to the north. It would
23 appear that has been eliminated, but I
24 would like you to address that . There is
25 no amended Site Plan from the Planning
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 13
1 Board as to date . And the Site Plan that
2 we have in our packet is a Site Plan that
3 is by a design firm that does not have on
4 it a stamp by a licensed professional, be
5 it an architect, engineer or surveyor .
6 And so we ' re probably going to need
7 something that is more official on it
8 just to -- how we can interpret exactly
9 what things are on the property line,
10 buffers and parking spaces are and so on .
11 I think I should stop at this point . I
12 think there will be questions that I am
13 sure you will answer . So why don ' t we
14 let you go ahead at this point and
15 proceed with however you like to the
16 Board.
17 MR. GOGGINS : All right . This
18 shopping center was built sometime in
19 1971-1972 . It is part of the two major
20 areas of Commerce that are in Mattituck.
21 We have the Love Lane area and we have
22 this shopping center . A little over 40
23 years , this shopping center has developed
24 from mostly empty stores to what it is
25 today. It has fully rented. The parking
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 14
1 lot is full all the time . There is a lot
2 of commerce happening at that location .
3 As far as the Site Plan back from 1971 ,
4 they required a water tower, and to
5 provide water for the facility. It used
6 to be that ( In Audible) in Greenport and
7 the theory was , you had to have a water
8 tower because it creates 23-24 feet of
9 size ( In Audible) elevated from
10 sea-level . That would create the
11 pressure . As time went on, residential
12 homes had their own wells and pumps . In
13 the commercial setting in the 70 ' s or
14 early before, they would build these
15 large water towers in conjunction with
16 the commercial property to make sure
17 there would be water supply to commercial
18 property . So what they would do is , they
19 would have a giant pump -- pump house,
20 and then that pump would pump the water
21 from the ground into the tower . So the
22 tower always has water and the tower
23 would supply water . Now in 2013, we have
24 public . water throughout the Town . The
25 site has public water . There was no need
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 15
1 for the water tower any more . If I could
2 back up for a moment, the reason why I
3 believe, and I wasn ' t there, I was
4 ten-years-old at the time . But when they
5 put this water tower in and the giant
6 pump to supply it, they put in it the
7 east-end corner of the property away from
8 the residential and put it close to the
9 cemetery, where it would be away -- the
10 noise would be away from the
11 neighborhood. So we had this tower that
12 they put in the back. It was kind of
13 unsightly from the road. Because of the
14 public water, they didn ' t need it
15 anymore . So they knocked it down . They
16 removed the pump . So there is no more
17 noise . There is no unsightly tower .
18 Since the 70 ' s it had become crowded.
19 Parking areas are needed. They can ' t
20 have storage anymore . So now they want
21 to use the same exact location of the
22 pump and tower was located, for a storage
23 area . So put their storage items away
24 for the shopping center . So -= and that
25 was their idea . So what they did, in
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 16
1 that exact area, they had built the walls
2 and now they want to put a roof on it and
3 have a full storage facility for the
4 complex. So they didn ' t comply with the
5 proper at the time of the Site Plan . And
6 so there is really no change . The rest
7 of the property does comply on the north
8 side . So I think it is about a 42-43
9 foot buffer as exist, along the whole
10 north side of the property except where
11 the water tank was . It was the idea of
12 the owners of Mattituck Plaza to more
13 effectively use it for the shopping
14 center and keep it clean . To put the
15 equipment that they need in that area, so
16 they could have a more effective way of
17 running the plaza . So the thought
18 process is really not changing anything
19 because the same setback as the tower and
20 the pump . All we are doing is removing a
21 noisy pump or an unsightly tower and
22 putting in basically some walls and a
23 roof for storage . So I hope that kind of
24 answers your first question about the
25 buffer. The second question as to some
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 17
1 of the violations . On the east side
2 along the cemetery, near the main road,
3 they had parking spaces . They do violate
4 the buffer on that side, but apparently
5 25 years ago, the Building Inspector came
6 and said there wasn ' t enough parking
7 spaces . So they discussed it with the
8 owner and told them to go and put parking
9 spaces in this area, which is what they
10 did. They put parking spaces on that
11 eastern side of the property.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : May I just ask
13 a question?
14 MR. GOGGINS : Sure .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If there was a
16 need for storage building, and certainly
17 understand that once a nonconforming
18 structure is demolished, that ' s the end
19 of it . The preexisting nonconformity is
20 gone . There is no as-of-right ability to
21 reconstruct a nonconforming other
22 structure in its place . Why that was
23 necessary, was to assume that it was a
24 necessary use determined by the shopping
25 center, did you not -- why your client
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 18
1 did not come before the Zoning Board
2 or/and the Planning Board to seek
3 whatever updates on that Site Plan is
4 necessary. Parking spaces , surely anyone
5 understands that Site Plan approval
6 requires . We have no evidence of anyone
7 ever approaching the Planning Board or
8 coming to the Zoning Board. So
9 construction was clearly designed, and I
10 would like to know is how is it that you
11 came before this Board? When was a Stop
12 Work Order issued?
13 MR. GOGGINS : I don ' t know, b.ut I do
14 know they thought they didn ' t need
15 approval to replace the water tower and
16 the pump, until such there was a Stop
17 Work Order . I think they knew they
18 couldn ' t put a roof structure over the
19 walls . I think they knew that, and that
20 is why that wasn ' t done, but I don ' t know
21 at what point there was a Stop Work
22 Order . But I can answer that at the next
23 hearing .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Well,
25 the Planning Board is going to request
K
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 19
1 it, and so are we, a concordance
2 application to them for Site Plan Review .
3 So that any adverse impacts can be
4 addressed by both Boards .
5 MR. GOGGINS : Yes . I spoke with
6 Brian Cummings from the Planning Board
7 and he indicated to me that there wasn ' t
8 any Site Plans -- updated Site Plan .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right . Has
10 your client applied for a building
11 permit? We don ' t --
12 MR. GOGGINS : I don ' t know . I came
13 into this -late . I don ' t know.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is none
15 on record. So we would all understand
16 that any new construction would require a
17 building permit .
18 MR. GOGGINS : Sure . Sure . They put
19 up walls to be deemed a fence . They
20 didn ' t do construction . They put in
21 concrete walls .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : At this point ,
23 I would suggest that it is a massive
24 retaining wall . And a retaining wall is
25 visible from the cemetery property. By
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 20
1 the way, which all of us made personal
2 inspection of . And that retaining wall
3 is shooting into the buffer wall that
4 existed. And you are saying that it is
5 going to be used for storage purposes?
6 MR. GOGGINS : Cold storage purposes .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
8 MEMBER HORNING : You said, cold
9 storage?
10 MR. GOGGINS : Yes , sir .
11 MEMBER HORNING: Such as what?
12 MR. GOGGINS : No heat . No running
13 water .
14 MEMBER HORNING: Crates of things?
15 Boxes?
16 MR. GOGGINS : I think it ' s more like
17 lawn mower equipment . Stuff like that .
18 MEMBER HORNING: For what would the
19 equipment purpose be?
20 MR. GOGGINS : Well, they would need
21 to remove snow from the parking lot,
22 sidewalks . Lawn mower to cut the grass .
23 They need clippers and so forth, to clean
24 the property.
25 MEMBER HORNING : Storage of
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 21
1 maintenance equipment?
2 MR. GOGGINS : Right . Everything
3 that is related to keep it looking as
4 beautiful for the Town .
5 MEMBER HORNING : I just have a
6 couple of more questions . The parcel,
7 under different owners , I guess , has
8 applied for different variances at
9 various different times in the past,
10 which the current owners I am sure is
11 aware of, and yourself, as their
12 representative; is that correct?
13 MR. GOGGINS : Right .
14 MEMBER HORNING: There is three or
15 four of them. I don ' t have the exact
16 number but there has been at least three
17 or four variances granted to the
18 property . We have a stack of probably
19 45 Certificate of Occupancy statements .
20 So it appears as though the various
21 owners have been trying to comply with
22 Town Code over the years . By applying
23 for variances when necessary . Applying
24 for Certificate of Occupancy when they
25 needed to get them. Then we look at
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 22
1 this, we have a survey that is not
2 stamped . We don ' t have a building
3 permit . We have this as-built thing . We
4 don ' t have any dimensions on the Site
5 Plan building . There is no footage .
6 There is no setbacks given . It ' s really
7 insufficient . So it is sort of
8 astounding in a way that you would have
9 owners of the property who have a history
10 of doing things to be compliant and then
11 all of a sudden out of the blue, they are
12 doing something that is totally not
13 compliant . And they must have really
14 known it wasn ' t compliant . I can ' t
15 really imagine that what they were doing
16 wasn ' t compliant . In fact, they are
17 probably encroaching on the other
18 property. That is where we ' re at . We ' re
19 trying to figure out what are the facts?
20 We have a statement from the cemetery
21 saying that there is an encroachment .
22 MR. GOGGINS : Well, I hope that
23 there isn ' t . If there is , I am sure they
24 will take care of it . If they have a
25 survey showing that there is an
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 23
1 encroachment, then I am sure that it
2 could be taken care of . If the applicant
3 wasn ' t diligent in doing what they should
4 have done in this application, then they
5 need to be diligent and they need to find
6 the proper information and proper
7 setbacks and proper surveys, and get an
8 architect to stamp it . I agree . We have
9 to go through the process and we have to
10 make sure that what we ' re looking at is
11 accurate . To make sure that they comply
12 with all Site Plan approvals . There is
13 no question about it . And you ' re right,
14 they have always complied. There was a
15 time when they said they needed to have
16 sprinkler systems in this whole complex
17 and they went ahead and did it . They
18 have always been compliant . Everything
19 they did to make sure they have a safe
20 shopping center . And why they did this
21 in the back, I don ' t know. Maybe they
22 had a manager that thought that they
23 could do it . Who knows . It has been
24 owned by the Cardinale Family since
25 1972-73 and they have always done what
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 24
1 they needed to do . They have always
2 opened up themselves and said, what do
3 you need and we will do it . They have
4 always done that . Every time . When
5 there indicated that there was a
6 violation, water coming out . Apparently,
7 there was a failure in their drywell .
8 They didn ' t know about it . They only
9 found out about it because neighbors
10 complained about it and immediately
11 complied. You know, they put in a new
12 drywell and re-graded the property . And
13 they solved the problem. That is what '
14 they do . They are not here to play games
15 and to hide and to sneak around. You
16 know, they have always been compliant .
17 And I am not sure why this application is
18 the way that it is . You know, I got it
19 half way through .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, I am
21 sure that you will tell or advise your
22 client on how to proceed legally.
23 MR. GOGGINS : Right .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good. At
25 least we ' re on the same page, and we have
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 25
1 the facts in the record, and what
2 happened here and what is deficient . The
3 Board is not able to make a determination
4 given the lack of specificity and the
5 fact that there would have to be an
6 application made to the Planning Board
7 and there you would be required, of
8 course, to have a proper -- a complete
9 updated survey of the entire property .
10 And that way we can determine what
11 encroachment, if any does exist, and what
12 to do about it . I have already seen, the
13 so-called answer to the drainage problem
14 and what appears to be some timberland.
15 In the buffer zone by the way. There is
16 a grassy area that is on top of the
17 retaining wall . I am not an engineer but
18 I think you need to have an
19 interpretation from the Town Engineer as
20 to whether or not this complies with 236
21 of the Drainage Code . It doesn ' t look to
22 me as though it is proper and complete .
23 MR. GOGGINS : That ' s fine .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean, it ' s a
25 very important active shopping center in
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 26
1 our community. We want to make sure that
2 it is legal and safe and that it complies
3 with all the Town Code .
4 MR. GOGGINS : Of course . They are
5 also concerned with the cemetery and they
6 understand that there needs to be
7 screening, and they understand that .
8 They have always tried to be open and
9 friendly and let them know what they have
10 been doing, but the cemetery has never
11 really responded to them. I don ' t think
12 that they like the fact that it is there .
13 There really is no lines of communication
14 from the site . There have been attempts
15 by the Cardinale Family to try and work
16 out any issues that arises from the
17 property. They have always been
18 disappointed because of it .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: At the location
21 of where this structure is , there once
22 was a water tower and a pump to service
23 the water tower?
24 MR. GOGGINS : Correct .
25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have no further
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 27
1 questions but I would like to see a
2 stamped survey showing the location of
3 this structure with respect to the
4 property lines and owners and all of
5 that .
6 MR. GOGGINS : I agree .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Nothing at this
9 point .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric?
11 MEMBER DANTES : I don ' t have any
12 questions at this time .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there
14 anyone in the audience that would like to
15 speak to this application? Please come
16 forward and state your name for the
17 record and spell your last name .
18 MR. ROSE : Sure . John Rose,
19 R-O-S-E . And I am member of the Cemetery
20 Board. And I would just like to make a
21 couple of comments, especially the last
22 one that Mr . Goggins made, with lines of
23 communication made between Mr . Cardinale
24 and the Cemetery Association . Probably a
25 year and a half ago, we invited
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 28
1 Mr . Cardinale or a representative . On
2 several occasions we met with the Town
3 Board, supervisors, Mr . Ruland was there .
4 Mr . Cardinale never showed up or a
5 representative . And he has never
6 responded to any of communications that
7 we have had with him. It ' s like we don ' t
8 exist . In view of that, I would like to,
9 one, ask the Zoning Board, do you have
10 any record for a demo permit for that
11 water tower?
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No . We
13 checked.
14 MR. ROSE : The proposed building
15 that they are putting up, the one that
16 has the foundation up, is an extremely
17 larger than what the water tank was .
18 It ' s further to east and it ' s tucked
19 right into the corner, as you can see, on
20 the property line . There is no two ways
21 about that . So they made a larger
22 structure and they have also moved the
23 location . It ' s not even on the
24 footprint . So there are a lot of
25 concerns that need to be addressed by the
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 29
1 Zoning Board and a lot of paperwork that
2 they need revised, I feel . I thank you
3 for your time . If you have any questions
4 about the packet that was submitted to
5 you, Bob Johnson and myself would be more
6 than happy to answer any questions you
7 might have . Thank you .
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Did you say that
9 you were going to have a meeting with
10 Mr . Cardinale?
11 MR. ROSE : We asked a year and a
12 half ago .
13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What was the
14 subject of that?
15 MR. ROSE : We wanted to address the
16 pipes that were out in the cemetery
17 property. The drainage pipes , and also
18 when they started -- they paved the front
19 parking lot to make it safer . I don ' t
20 think it was 25 years ago . It was more
21 like 15 , but they encroached on the front
22 of our property. We never had any
23 communication .
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Where was this
25 encroachment?
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 30
1 MR. ROSE : On the front southeast
2 corner of the Plaza property. They kind
3 of squared off to get more parking spaces
4 as Mr . Goggins was talked about . But
5 they probably paved three or four feet
6 onto our property to get those parking
7 spots .
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Does that still
9 exist?
10 MR. ROSE : This still exist, right .
11 So if they had a survey of their
12 property, it would certainly show the
13 front parking lot and the back corner,
14 where their proposed building is
15 extremely close, it not, on our property.
16 We certainly would be -- it would appear
17 that they have . If appears that it
18 stands on our property right now .
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Do you remember
20 the water tower?
21 MR. ROSE : Yes .
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And there was a
23 pump there too?
24 MR. ROSE : There was a pump out that
25 was probably, half the size of that area
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 31
1 that you are in . Might have been 12 by
2 -- adjacent to the water tower .
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Was there a
4 retaining wall there to hold back the
5 soil?
6 MR. ROSE : There was a concrete
7 block wall . The property slopes down and
8 what they did, they brought the
9 foundation walls up and back filled to
10 it . I think one of the pictures that you
11 might have, might show the water tower
12 and the landscape around it .
13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That whole
14 operation was in the location that it is
15 in now?
16 MR. ROSE : Probably within 20-30
17 feet, yes . But the tower itself was a
18 little bit further to the west .
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Was the pump very
20 noisy?
21 MR. ROSE : We never noticed it but
22 it hasn ' t been in operation for at
23 least --
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Right . No
25 further questions .
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 32
1 MEMBER HORNING : Does the cemetery
2 have a survey of their property?
3 MR. ROSE : We do .
4 MEMBER HORNING : Can we use that?
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can ' t use
6 it . It ' s not going to show their parking
7 spaces on their property. A proper Site
8 Plan will be required from the Planning
9 Board. Just so everyone has the same
10 information . I would like to provide a
11 copy of what you submitted to us to
12 Mr . Goggins --
13 MR. ROSE : Certainly . He should be
14 made aware of it .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We are going
16 to make a copy for you.
17 MEMBER HORNING : Might I ask that I
18 be allowed to ask this fellow to go
19 through these photos very quickly and
20 orientate us to them? Some of them are
21 kind of blurry . I talked about a
22 monument --
23 MR. ROSE : Sure . What photo would
24 you like to start with? This one? This
25 is their retaining wall . This shows
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 33
1 their retaining wall and their excavation
2 on our property. They didn ' t get a
3 permit to do it .
4 MEMBER HORNING: How do you know
5 it ' s their property?
6 MR. ROSE : Their property marker on
7 the back would be -- on the northeast
8 corner of the Plaza property, there is a
9 cement monument in the ground. We had
10 our property surveyed two years ago . So
11 you can clearly see that that property
12 line goes right along the back side of
13 the property.
14 MEMBER HORNING: Photo B, can you
15 tell us briefly about that?
16 MR. ROSE : Can I just make one
17 comment, briefly about -- Photo B, shows
18 the cement block poured on top of the
19 poured concrete foundation with a rebar
20 going right through it .
21 MEMBER HORNING : Looking at Photo B,
22 is there any place where you can say the
23 old water tower or building was?
24 MR. ROSE : If you take a' look at
25 where that, I guess, tracker is , in the
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 34
- 1 front corner, that area would be --
2 probably be the area of where the water
3 tower was .
4 MEMBER HORNING: Photo C?
5 MR. ROSE : That shows the water
6 tower itself . As I said, you can ' t
7 really see too much of a retaining wall .
8 The pump house structure is -- probably
9 falling down where that cement block was .
10 The next photo, I guess when everything
11 was cleared out . When they took the
12 tower down, and they were getting ready
13 to excavate for their back wall .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask you
15 a question . At this time when there was
16 clearance and removal, were any trees
17 removed from that area? Or was that
18 part --
19 MR. ROSE : The trees that may have
20 been removed may have been on their
21 property. I don ' t think that they
22 removed any trees on our property but I
23 can ' t be certain .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don ' t see an
r 25 existing retaining wall in this
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 35
1 photograph . I am assuming that there is
2 a retaining wall that is there now?
3 MR. ROSE : The retaining wall is
4 part of that foundation .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What I am
6 saying is, if you were in the foreground
7 looking at this , back there would be
8 where the retaining wall --
9 MR. ROSE : Right . Through that
10 excavator you can see that white area
11 here, that is probably the part of the
12 retaining wall that went a certain
13 distance on the property. I don ' t know
14 if there was a retaining wall all the way
15 around that water tower or not . The next
16 photograph shows the rebar coming out .
17 You can see the top of the piers on that
18 particular photo .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next one
20 is the drainage pipe?
21 MR. ROSE : The next one is the
22 drainage pipe that goes to our property.
23 That has been removed. The next photo is
24 taken from the east side of their
25 property line looking toward that area
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 36
1 that they have for a recharge basin --
2 for their parking lot overflow, and you
3 can see the retaining wall that was built
4 on top of or whatever -- but they filled
5 that area in . The next photo will show
6 you the rain . There is one manhole cover
7 that didn ' t have anything on top of it .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Planning
9 Board is going to have to take careful
10 look at this because this is all within
11 the 40 foot buffer that was required in
12 1971 .
13 MR. ROSE : There were odors of
14 almost sewage, and you can see where that
15 puddle is . It almost looks to appear
16 that it was a sewage overflow but I can ' t
17 be certain of that . I am not an expert
18 of that . And then the last photo shows
19 the front corner of the parking lot . I
20 believe our property -- the Suffolk
21 County monument that is mentioned there .
22 That is not their property line . Our
23 property line is to the left of that
24 Suffolk County marker . Approximately
25 about three to five feet and goes back to
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 37
1 an angle . You can start to see that when
2 the parking lot starts to angle and takes
3 a shot to that monument . This line right
4 here -- if you take off that corner, it
5 will probably come off into this area
6 right here . I think a survey would show
7 that .
8 MEMBER HORNING : Thank you .
9 MR. ROSE : Thank you very much .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there
11 anyone else in the audience who wishes to
12 address this application? Not that we
13 don ' t know your name, but please state
14 your name for the record.
15 MR . RULAND: My name is William
16 Ruland and I live in Mattituck. In the
17 interest of disclosure, many of my family
18 members are residence of the Cemetery.
19 And I suppose I will be some day. Two, I
20 am the Deputy Supervisor of the Town of
21 Southold. My remarks are more concern
22 for the residents of the cemetery, both
23 pass , present and future . That is , we
24 did hear from Mr . Goggins presentation,
25 that how the shopping center has grown .
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 38
1 I am old enough to remember prior to when
2 it was a shopping center and how it has
3 grown but we have to remember that the
4 cemetery goes back 150 years more . And
5 certainly it was laid out in a way that
6 provided for, as it turns out, hundreds
7 of years of availability for the
8 community. And we have seen the cemetery
9 grow in population. We have seen the
10 cemetery deal with expansion. And what
11 many people didn ' t know and what is being
12 discussed today, is how the property
13 actually curves around and goes around to
14 Factory Avenue, and that someday, in the
15 future, will be used. My comments are
16 merely to the Board, on an official
17 point, several of the Town Board members
18 have received numerous complaints over
19 the years , which we have deferred to the
20 agencies and Code Enforcement, the
21 Building Department , and the Planning
22 Department about the issue at hand .
23 Certainly, what I would like and ask of
24 the Board, for consideration, is that all
25 of the issues that have come up that have
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 39
1 been defined in the documents that have
2 been presented to you, be addressed
3 either by your Board or by the Planning
4 Board. So that when the process is
5 complete, there will be assurances not
6 only to the Cemetery Association but also
7 the entire community that the shopping
8 center will be a good neighbor, not only..
9 in 2013 but 50 years from now, as it has
10 been successful in the last . Thank you .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
12 Thank you for your comments . Okay.
13 Anyone who wishes to address this
14 application?
15 (No Response . )
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN; Any other
17 questions from the Board?
18 (No Response . )
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing none .
20 I am . going to make a motion to adjourn
21 this hearing without a date subject to
22 receipt of the following, you are going
23 to need a complete survey of the entire
24 shopping center. We are going to need an
25 application to the Planning Board and we
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 40
1 are going to need comments from the
2 Planning Board so that we can address all
3 these issues . Working in collaboration
4 with both authorized Boards . So moved.
5 Is there a second?
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
8 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
10 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
13 Thank you very much.
14 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
15 *****************************************
16 HEARING #6644 - FEHIM & SEVGI UYANIK
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : With apologies
18 if I have butchered the name . The next
19 application before the Board is for Fehim
20 and Sevgi Uyanik. Request for variance
21 from Article XXII Section 280-116 and the
22 Building Inspector ' s February 27 , 2013
23 Notice of Disapproval based on an
24 application for building permit for
25 additions and alterations to a single
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 41
1 family dwelling at : Less than the code
2 permitted setback of 100 feet from the
3 top of the bluff, located at : 54875 CR
4 48 , a/k/a North Road, adjacent to Long
5 Island Sound in Greenport .
6 Pat, before we get started, do you
7 have a copy of the LWRP?
8 MS . MOORE : I do . Thank you.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Would
10 you like to state your name for the
11 record?
12 MS . MOORE : Patricia Moore on behalf
13 of Mr . & Mrs . Uyanik. And who are here .
14 And they are both here today. I also
15 have Angel Chorno who is the architect on
16 this project and is here as well . As I
17 go through the standards, I do want to
18 address the development of this property.
19 There will be no undesirable change in
20 the character of this neighborhood. This
21 property is three merged lots from the
22 subdivision from W. Young, which is a
23 1929 map . The property, as I said, is
24 three subdivision lots that have been
25 merged together . The original house was
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 42
1 built on the westerly lot and this
2 proposed addition is actually making the
3 house more centered on the property.
4 Visually, that is the logical location
5 for the addition . The house is staying
6 in place . The Uyanik' s want to make this
7 a very year round house and more
8 comfortable . So they are taking the
9 existing house and just relocating a
10 bedroom over to the addition . And extend
11 -- expanding the living space . You have
12 the floor plans there . We are connecting
13 the addition to the existing house and
14 the layout of the existing house . So to
15 a certain extent, we have moved the
16 addition back as far as it is practical,
17 where the living space, and the plumbing
18 and all the infrastructure of the house .
19 The proposed -- well the existing house
20 is certainly not moving . The concrete
21 patio is close to what the Board would
22 consider top of the bank, and about 20
23 feet -- 15 feet from the bulkhead. The
24 proposed addition is actually 54 feet
25 from the bulkhead. It is a lesser
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 43
1 distance to the bank. I would point out
2 -- with respect to measuring from the
3 bank, I think there is a -- I want to say
4 an error in the interpretation of the
5 bank and I will put that on the record.
6 There is really no difference in the
7 sense that we can ' t move the addition.
8 The house is in place, but with respect
9 to taking our measurements and the
10 setbacks, the accurate setback will be
11 from the bulkhead rather than the bank.
12 And I will give you the sections of the
13 code that I would rely on . And it ' s one
. 14 of those code provisions that is referred
15 to all the time, but you have to actually
16 read the code and see what specifically
17 it says in order to come to a conclusion
18 with respect to the bank. So I will give
19 you the sections of the code .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Before you
21 proceed, I want to clear up. We have a
22 survey and we have a Notice of
23 Disapproval .
24 MS . MOORE : Yes .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And things are
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 44
1 not adding up here . The amended Notice
2 of Disapproval dated February 27th, that
3 says that the proposed construction will
4 be setback 27 feet from the top of the
5 bluff .,
6 MS . MOORE : I understand that . That
7 amended application really did not - it
8 never came from the applicant . It came
9 through Zoning and the Building
10 Department . And that is why I would just
11 place this on the record, because I think
12 this issue -- that interpretation may not
13 be correct .
14 MS . ANDALORO : It sounds like you
15 just applied for a variance ( In Audible)
16 and appeal the Notice of Disapproval .
17 That is a different story. Do you know
18 what I am saying, Pat?
19 MS . MOORE : I understand that . I am
20 not trying to prolong this . I am just
21 trying to establish a factually and by
22 law what the code says . So that when
23 you ' re reviewing it, whether it ' s a
24 variance or reading the code and saying,
25 well, that is not really what the code
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 45
1 says, it should be from the bulkhead.
2 But the Board always has the right to
3 interpret whether or not -- you know --
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right now what
5 I want to do is a simple thing . We have
6 a variance before us . And the Notice of
7 Disapproval says 27 feet from the top of
8 the bluff, okay. The survey that we have
9 shows 54 feet to the bulkhead. And 30
10 feet to the top of the bluff, and a
11 Coastal Erosion Hazard Line showing the
12 existing dwelling and all proposed
13 structures/additions, landward of that .
14 MS . MOORE : Correct .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: But the
16 existing concrete patio is in the Coastal
17 Erosion Hazard Line area .
18 MS . MOORE : Yes .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the first
20 thing that we ' re going to need to do is
21 sort out this variance and what in the
22 world the correct setbacks are .
23 MEMBER HORNING : So the difference
24 in the two Notice of Disapproval ' s -- the
25 first one talked about 54 feet from the
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 46
1 top of the bluff --
2 MS . MOORE : No, the bulkhead.
3 MEMBER HORNING : It says "top of the
4 bluff . " I am reading it .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One second,
6 George . Because I believe Vicki was
7 involved in this process with the
8 Building Department, she is going to be
9 in a good position to help us understand
10 it a little better . So I am going to ask
11 her to enter that information into the
12 record.
13 MS . TOTH: The Board Members do not
14 receive a copy of the Notice of
15 Disapproval and associated documents that
16 we receive from the Building Department .
17 Initially, I reviewed those prior to
18 applicants applying . The survey that
19 came originally did not show the bank,
20 the bluff . Whatever it is labeled on
21 there . So I am looking at this and
22 somebody put it on here . This was an old
23 survey. So I asked for clarification .
24 We received a new survey and we used top
25 of the bluff or bank, that there was no
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 47
1 direct notation of the exact setback to
2 that bluff . So the Building Department
3 put in there what they kind of scaled
4 off, 27 feet . That ' s where it came from.
5 Prior to the submittal from the
6 applicant, I required a survey that
7 showed the exact setback because that is
8 what we need in order to proceed and have
9 surveys to stamp and send back to
10 Building .
11 MEMBER HORNING: So let me ask my
12 questions . So I am looking at a
13 February 21st Notice of Disapproval that
14 says the setback. 54 feet from, as it
15 says , "top of the bluff . " And a week
16 later or six days later there is an
17 amended Notice of Disapproval that says
18 the setback is 27 feet from the top of
19 the bluff . I am asking what changed?
20 Where did this information come from that
21 changed from the Notice of Disapproval?
22 MS . TOTH: What happened was,
23 George, let me show you the original .
24 George, this is the original survey that
25 we submitted to obtain a Notice of
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 48
1 Disapproval . This pencil stuff was done
2 by Building . Okay? When he came to me
3 this showed -- he took it to a bulkhead.
4 Meaning the Building Inspector ' s . I
5 believe he inadvertently put bluff where
6 he meant bulkhead, because there is your
7 54 . When I looked at this and saw the
8 survey, "TOB . " "TOB" means to me, top of
9 the bluff. So I requested an updated
10 survey which we received here .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let the
12 audience understand and --
13 MS . TOTH: This is what we have now.
14 As you can see, we have to take this
15 corner to the top of the bluff, which is
16 30 and not the 27 . The approximate that
17 they put in because they determined that
18 it was farther away.
19 MEMBER HORNING: So you are saying
20 it ' s actually 30?
21 MS . TOTH : Right . This is only what
22 he put in that he had available .
23 MEMBER HORNING: So the original
24 Notice of Disapproval dated
25 February 21st, he was talking about 54
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 49
1 feet from the bulkhead?
2 MS . TOTH : From the bulkhead.
3 MEMBER HORNING: That makes sense .
4 Okay. The attorney is just maintaining
5 the fact that they missed -- that they
6 should be taking the reading from the
7 bulkhead and not the top of the bluff?
8 MS . MOORE : That is all I am
9 addressing .
10 MEMBER HORNING: Understood.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now that we
12 have that sorted out . Now, we don ' t have
13 the updated survey in our packet .
14 MS . TOTH : Yes , you do . The one
15 that says, 30 .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. I
17 didn ' t see 30 because that is probably
18 . where the bank shifts . They took the
19 measurement from the center . From the
20 center of the new construction. All
21 right . I just want the record to reflect
22 the fact that Vicki had the authority to
23 review and approve applications as
24 complete . That is where she got involved
25 and that is why she understands and just
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 50
1 informed the Board of the process in
2 working with the Building Department as
3 to how those setbacks were determined and
4 where the amended Notice of Disapproval
5 came from. The Board does not get that
6 information until this is determined that
7 the application is complete and jives
8 with the Notice of Disapproval . That is
9 -- after that point, the application goes
10 forward. Okay . So we now are looking at
11 a bluff setback of 27 feet . Okay. From
12 the bank.
13 MS . MOORE : I think he said, 30? I
14 am confused .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well , 27 is
16 what he scaled off, from the Building
17 Department for the new construction,
18 because the bank goes to angle .
19 MS . MOORE : That ' s fine .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The 30 foot
21 mark is accurate for the existing
22 structure . All right . And it ' s 27 feet
23 to the top of the bluff. The code
24 requires 100 feet from the top of the
25 bluff . Just so we ' re clear on that .
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 51
1 Okay. Now, at least we know what we ' re
2 looking at . Just for the record, the
3 LWRP indicates consistency in the case
4 that the lot is 430 foot deep and
5 therefore has the capacity to site
6 additions further away than the Coastal
7 Erosion Hazard area . And it is also
8 arguing that the existing concrete patio,
9 which is not permeable, should be located
10 outside any of those kinds of --
11 non-permeable structure should be located
12 outside the Coastal Erosion Hazard area .
i 13 Pat, where are you with the Trustees?
14 Have you applied?
15 MS . MOORE : No . It didn ' t make
16 sense . May I proceed?
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes , please
18 do .
19 MS . MOORE : Sorry about the
20 confusion. That was the only record that
21 I have . So thank you, George, for
22 clarifying . You know, I have provided
23 you with the law with respect to that
24 definition . With respect to the LWRP
25 recommendation, we recognize that the
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 52
1 house where it is , is considered
2 inconsistent with"its placement .
3 However, typically, existing structures
4 are not -- they are not sounding
5 consistent because they ' re preexisting
6 structures . That is the whole point that
7 we have here . This is an addition to the
8 house . The existing house is remaining.
9 It ' s . a significant value of the addition
10 and my clients are not proposing a
11 demolition or reconstruction in any way.
12 They are taking their existing house and
13 making it all part of the new combined
14 - existing and the addition . So the fact
15 that the lot is very deep, if you look up
16 and down the photographs and the Google
17 map, you can see that all the homes that
18 are in this area, are in fact very close
19 to the shoreline . One, because they are
20 preexisting . Secondly, being on Route
21 48 , most of the houses want to stay away
22 from the home because of the noise and
23 activity of County Route 48 . So this
24 proposal is in fact consistent with the
25 character and the development along this
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 53
-_ 1 stretch of County Route 48 .
2 MEMBER HORNING: Pat, may I ask --
3 MS . MOORE : Go ahead.
4 MEMBER HORNING: There is a Pre-CO;
5 correct?
6 MS . MOORE : There is a CO . Yes .
7 MEMBER HORNING: Can you give us a
8 date when --
9 MS . MOORE : Oh, gosh . 1949 or so .
10 It ' s 40 ' s vintage . It ' s solid house .
11 The basement is made out of -- the poured
12 foundation, we ' re remembering it is
13 block. This is a two-story house . For
14 the most part it is -- it is staying
15 intact . I have the architect here . So
16 if you want to go through the plans with
17 respect to the renovation of the existing
18 house, we can look at that specifically?
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually, I
20 would like to ask a couple of specific
21 questions . So if Mr . Chorno would come
22 to the podium?
23 MS . MOORE : Okay.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you
25 state your name for the record, please?
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 54
1 MR. CHORNO: Angel Chorno .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you.
3 You indicate on your floor plan, the
4 first floor of the existing dwelling is
5 to be remodeled? Okay?
6 MR. CHORNO: Yes .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What, if
8 anything, is going to be done to the
9 existing exterior walls? And what is the
10 extent of --
11 MR. CHORNO : The exterior walls are
12 only -- we are going to modify. Just the
13 exterior on the west side, is just
14 different .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Different kind
16 of what?
17 MR. CHORNO : Of siding. Inside
18 obviously, we are putting the addition in
19 and everything will have to be modified.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And is that
21 what you are showing us? Is that
22 as-built or modified already?
23 MR. CHORNO: This is modified.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: But the
25 exterior --
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 55
1 MR. CHORNO: That was a bedroom
2 before . And that bedroom was eliminated
3 and we put the new bedroom in the
4 addition.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . We
6 don ' t have as-built. So I just wanted to
7 clarify what kind of renovation you were
8 doing in there .
9 MR. CHORNO: We are putting in -- in
10 a different location is a new stair . The
11 kitchen has changed location and the
12 master bedroom is left on the front . And
13 they are working business people and they
14 really need a den for business purposes .
15 MS . MOORE : Just for the record,
16 they run the Southold Beach . Motel . They
17 are local business people .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All right .
19 What about the expansion of the existing
20 basement?
21 MR. CHORNO: No, we are not
22 expanding the existing basement .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right . So
24 you are going to leave the existing
25 foundation in place?
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 56
1 MR. CHORNO: Yes .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the rest
3 of the addition will be ' on slab?
4 MR. CHORNO: Crawl space .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Crawl space .
6 Questions from the Board?
7 MEMBER HORNING: I will ask a
8 couple . Given the statement from the
9 LWRP coordinator that there is an ability
10 to site the additions further away from
11 the Coastal Erosion Hazard area and
12 minimize the potential of future
13 structure loss, given the large depth of
14 the property, 430 feet . And given the
15 fact that it is our job to issue the
16 least amount of variance as possible, how
17 far is that setback? Is it 9 feet
18 landward the addition existing building?
19 What is that dimension?
20 MR. CHORNO: 18 and 4 inches back.
21 MEMBER HORNING: Patios and
22 umbrellas?
23 MR. CHORNO: The center would be 18
24 foot 4'.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Further
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 57
1 landward?
2 MR. CHORNO : Further from where the
3 house is .
4 MEMBER HORNING : Now, they ' re
5 setting the setback not from that
6 particular area .
7 MR. CHORNO : Well, yes . I don ' t
8 know .
9 MS . MOORE : The measurement -- what
10 they did is, architecturally, the bedroom
11 as such is to the far east side . That is
12 identified as Bedroom #2 , extends out to
13 create a courtyard effect of the patio .
14 That area there we have talked, that is
15 the optimum, but if you want us to look
16 at it, there is -- I am going to call
17 polygon portion, which it could be
18 brought back by the 5 feet, which is the
19 equivalent of that polygon . That is an
20 area that could be -- the whole plan was '
21 proposed further back then the existing
22 house . Architecturally, you don ' t want
23 to create this straight line . One, it ' s
24 not architecturally desired. Secondly,
25 it ' s the way that this house would be set
.May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 58
1 up; however, there is a little bit of
2 room. After seeing the LWRP ' s
3 recommendation, there really is no place
4 to move the great room. Pushing that
5 back is very difficult because of it ' s
6 proximity. However, the bedroom we have
7 about 5 feet that is discretionary. Can
8 be pushed back.
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You ' re talking
10 about Bedroom #2?
11 MS . MOORE : Bedroom #2 . I am only
12 talking about Bedroom #2 . .
13 MEMBER HORNING: That is on the east
14 side?
15 MS . MOORE : That is on the east side
16 of the house . What we would then do is
17 fill in by -- where we ' re taking out some
18 of the bedroom, we could fill in, if it
19 would be permissible, the east side .
20 There is about the equivalent dimension
21 that could be filled in . It ' s not going
22 any closer to the water than what the
23 polygon was cut off . And it ' s moving on
24 the side yard. We have plenty of room.
25 We have an existing setback proposed of
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 59
1 48 . 6 feet . So taking that and filling up
2 and extending it towards the water,
3 diagonally -- horizontally going back to
4 the west .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s a little
6 difficult for most people to follow
7 the --
8 MS . MOORE : Yes . Do you want me to
9 show it on the survey?
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am looking
11 at the floor plan now. The new landward
12 entry is kind of tucked between the new
13 garage and the master bedroom as you have
14 now proposed.
15 MR. CHORNO : Correct .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there any
17 reason why that entire great room and
18 entry could not be pushed more landward
19 so that the door, the front door into the
20 great room, is parallel and continuos
21 width, the existing or the proposed
22 Master Bedroom #1?
23 MR. CHORNO : When you see the
24 existing house and Master Bedroom #1,
25 that has two large windows . The owner
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 60
1 very much would like to keep . So I began
2 the great room at the edge of that one
3 window. That is existing . If I push
4 that landward, I will be covering that
5 window that they wanted to preserve .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand
7 that, but one of the things that we ' re
8 trying to do is protect property from
9 loss . I guess since this is not a
10 demolition you don ' t have to worry about
11 being in compliance with foundation and
12 so on, and you ' re not in the AE Zone .
13 And this is all being pushed landward,
14 but it is still very close to the top of
15 the bank or bluff . So what we ' re trying
16 to do is to see how this new addition can
17 still make architectural sense . You
18 know, I understand and have a great deal
19 of empathy trying to make structures that
20 are aesthetically pleasing and logical
21 and layout as any architect would expect .
22 However; I do appreciate the desire to
23 have that, the other ones -- they would
24 only have windows on the front
25 elevation --
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 61
1 MR. CHORNO: They would like to
2 preserve .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Understand .
4 You know, again as George pointed out,
5 our job is to grant the least amount of
6 variance as possible . And I don ' t see
7 anything, other than the window, any
8 normal compromise, from the circulation
9 that you ' re proposing taking place than
10 moving that entire new addition closer to
11 -- more landward. I am looking at --
12 MS . MOORE : Let me say -- the
13 owner --
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have to
15 state your name for the record, please .
16 MS . UYANIK: My name is Fehim
17 Uyanik.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Speak up as
19 loudly as possible becaus.e we ' re
20 recording.
21 MS . UYANIK: I will . The reason
22 that we did like an "H" to the front, if
23 we take it back, then we ' re losing the
24 connection to the kitchen . Do you see
25 it? There is a Great Room that should be
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 62
1 connected with the house . If we pull it
2 up to the front to the level of existing,
3 then the kitchen will be all the way at
4 the other end of the living room or Great
5 Room, and I don ' t think that it is
6 practical because mainly -- I want in the
7 center. It will look ugly.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, if you
9 move that, you would still be connected.
10 The Great Room would be connected --
11 MS . UYANIK: But all the way at the
12 end.
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, not
14 necessarily. It depends on how many more
15 feet landward the whole thing --
16 MS . UYANIK: Well --
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am looking
18 at what you have here and the character
19 side . We are not going to count the
20 steps . What is the distance -- it looks
21 like it is almost the same .
22 MR. CHORNO : Maybe just a little
23 more under 15 .
24 MS . MOORE : You would actually lose
25 the -- is this open or is this a wall?
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 63
1 She doesn ' t like it .
2 MR. CHORNO: Wall .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The job of
4 this Board is not to redesign things . - h
5 What we ' re trying to do .is find out
6 either by moving more landward or by
7 cutting back the size of the Great Room
8 by another 5 feet . Your choice . The
9 point is, you cut the Great Room . back you
10 still have a bedroom to be not moved
11 back. You really need to move that whole
12 portion landward. You are proposing 27
13 feet . The Notice of Disapproval says a
14 new construction with proposal of 27 feet
15 bank.
16 MEMBER HORNING: And another foot is
17 required.
18 MS . MOORE : And I keep raising the
19 issue it ' s not -- if you look at .the
20 code, the bank is not a perceptive slope .
21 It ' s the -- this particular bank is 160
22 slope .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As a matter of
24 fact -- some part of that slope is well
25 vegetated. There is another part of the
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 64
1 slope that is in fact, to the east of the
2 septic, it ' s pretty bald. The rest of
3 the existing steps, it ' s pretty well
4 vegetated, but there is probably going to
5 be a little vegetation --
6 MS . MOORE : Certainly that is not a
7 problem. We are prepared to improve the
8 property. Also between the bulkhead and
9 the jetty, they would not be building if
10 they thought that this addition would be
11 compromised in any way. They have owned
12 this property for how many years? More
13 than 20 years . So they do know -- as far
14 as what risk development entails .
15 MEMBER HORNING: Can I ask a
16 question then? The proposed patio is
17 that at grade or above grade?
18 MS . MOORE : At grade .
19 MEMBER HORNING : I am trying to
20 figure out where this 27% is measured to .
21 Is it measured to the front of the patio
22 because that is a new construction or is
23 proposed area --
24 MS . MOORE : That would be considered
25 structure . Actually, I will tell you the
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 65
1 closest measurement is actually Bedroom
2 #2 is . So everything else is further
3 back. So we have given you the closest
4 point . The existing house is closer .
5 MEMBER HORNING: Looking at what we
6 have . The survey says 30 feet to the
7 corner -- I would call it the northeast
8 corner of the existing house .
9 MS . MOORE : Hold on . I have to pull
10 up the right survey.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look the
12 easiest thing that we can do, is we can
13 close subject to receipt or we can grant
14 alternative relief for the setback or you
15 can redesign it and submit, slightly more
16 landward. That ' s all . Doesn ' t change
17 the architecture very much . You can
18 figure out that dimension . We are going
19 to have to sort out some of these
20 numbers .
21 MS . MOORE : I do understand. The
22 Great Room where it is , and it ' s
23 relationship to the bedroom is important .
24 It seems that we ' re measuring -- the
25 closer point being the bedroom, and it ' s
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 66
1 that bedroom -- the east side of the
2 house, which is the bedroom and the
3 garage that we have more flexibility to
4 move back or cut off some of the square
5 footage of the bedroom. That is where we
6 thought the most flexibility of the
7 bedroom would be in the design. The
8 Great Room, there has been a lot of
9 thought for the Great Room. Quite
10• frankly, we designed this in such a way
11 that right from the beginning we designed
12 this so that we would be out of the
13 Coastal Erosion area . That was a must .
14 We designed so that it was further back
15 than the existing structure . So they
16 came here with what they thought was a
17 reasonable application as an addition to
18 an existing house . It should -- they ' re
19 trying --
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I respect all
21 of that and I do respect the design
22 process . And understand that there is a
23 lot of thought that goes into it .
24 However, I think in fairness , all the way
25 around, the best thing to do is to
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 67
1 adjourn this to next month and let you
2 have an opportunity to think it through
3 and come back to us . That way, you
4 understand what our concerns are .
5 Certainly we want to have the patio in
6 the Coastal Erosion Hazard area removed.
7 It should not be a burden at all because
8 you already have another terrace that
9 you' re proposing anyway.
10 MS . MOORE : That would not be a
11 problem.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would
13 take care of one of the concerns of the
14 LWRP recommendation .
15 MS . MOORE : You are allowed a 200
16 square feet --
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You are . Less
18 than 200 square foot . You can do that
19 but certainly, if you want to have a
20 small patio there, it should be pervious
21 and not just solid concrete .
22 MS . MOORE : Okay.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me see
24 what other questions the Board members
25 might have and see if there is anyone in
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 68
1 the audience .
2 MEMBER HORNING: I just want to
. 3 point out, I had asked a question earlier
4 about how far set back from the original
5 structure were you proposing new
6 construction, and I got an answer of
7 about 18 feet or something. But yet, the
8 Notice of Disapproval is citing you for a
9 27 foot setback, which is even more
10 nonconforming than the existing setback
11 and it appears as though the proposed
12 patio and trellis area is a part of the
13 new construction and it is not at grade .
14 So the 27 foot setback kind of includes
15 that area . So I don ' t see that the
16 proposed construction is set back from
17 the top of the bluff any greater distance
18 than the original construction. That is
19 all I really want to say.
20 MS . MOORE : I understand what you ' re
21 trying to say. I don ' t think that you ' re
22 reading the numbers correctly. On the
23 west side, because remember the bank is
24 -- is not a straight line . So on the
25 west side, the closest point was given,
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 69
1 which is 30 feet . Then the addition is
2 set back behind the closest point of the
3 house, the farthest --
4 MEMBER HORNING: The proposed
5 patio --
6 MS . MOORE : The patio will be on
7 grade .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We will solve
9 this . Have a licensed professional , he
10 can do a Site Plan and with his stamp on
11 it and verify the as-built ' s bluff and
12 the bulkhead, based upon the survey and
13 where the proposed construction is going
14 to be, and including the Coastal Erosion
15 Hazard Line . All right . I would request
16 that we adjourn until next month . And
17 then have you provide either an updated
18 survey by a licensed surveyor or at the
19 very least, a readable large enough Site
20 Plan .
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Perhaps you might
22 want to obtain the idea of the proposed
23 Bedroom #2 also .
24 MS . MOORE : Okay. Yes . As the
25 alternative relief, yes .
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 70
1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes . You might
2 be able to do something with that storage
3 area . So maybe show us something along
4 those lines also .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Are there any
6 other comments from the audience?
7 (No Response . )
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right .
9 Hearing no further comments, I am going
10 to make a motion to adjourn this hearing
11 to June 6th at 10 : 00 A. M.
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by
14 Gerry.
15 All in favor?
16 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
18 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye .
21 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
22 ******************* *********************
23 HEARING #6647 - RICHARD ZAHRA
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
r 25 application before the Board is for
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 71
1 Richard Zahra, #6647 . Request for
2 variances from Article XXIII Section
3 280-124 and the Building Inspector ' s
4 January 23, 2013 Notice of Disapproval
5 based on an application for building
6 permit for as-built deck and raised patio
7 addition to existing single family
8 dwelling,. at 1) less than the code
9 required minimum rear yard setback of 35
10 feet, 2 ) more than the code permitted
11 maximum lot coverage of 200, located at :
12 445 Marlene Lane in Mattituck.
13 Is there someone here to represent
14 that application? Please come forward
15 and state your name for the record and
16 spell it .
17 MR. ZAHRA: I am Richard Zahra . I
18 don ' t know if you --
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes . We need
20 those green cards . And Mr . Zahra from
21 neighbors that I would like to give you a
22 copy of . This is for you. This is an
23 application for an as-built deck and
24 raised patio addition to a family
25 dwelling, with a rear yard setback of
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 72
1 12 . 3 feet, where the code is 35 feet .
2 The lot coverage is 26 . 510, where the
3 code permits a maximum of 200 . Okay.
4 The lot is less than 20 , 000 square feet .
5 We have letters of support from
6 neighbors . And you have submitted
7 documentation of , property ' s in the area
8 with excessive lot coverage and rear yard
9 setback variances in this neighborhood.
10 What would you like to tell us?
11 MR.- ZAHRA: I am repeating what you
12 just said, if you would bear with me for
13 a minute . I would like to give the Board
14 some things for the Board to take into
15 consideration when making your decision.
16 As you know, I am applying for two
17 variances ., One for lot coverage of
18 23 . 50, which is 3 . 5 over . And a set of
19 12 feet . The setback is for a cement
20 patio that is 14 inches and that is to
21 grade . And no structure is going to be
22 built on that patio . That is just simply
23 a patio . I checked into past variances
24 that were approved in my area . I came up
25 with about four of them. File #5995, lot
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 73
1 coverage 24 . 2% . File #6239, lot coverage
2 28 . 6% . File #5961, lot coverage 21 . 29% .
3 And File #5843, lot coverage 21 . 5% and a
4 rear yard setback of 15 feet . I don ' t
5 have a file for a neighbor of mine,
6 Mr . Collins , whose house is at 225
7 Marlene Lane, but he has a small piece
8 of property with an extended garage,
9 which is approximately 5 feet off the
10 back of the property line . The other
11 point that I would like to mention is ,
12 is that the only one who would be able to
13 see my deck and patio is my neighbors to
14 the left, Ms . Rose Fioro and to the
15 right, Mr . Tim McGowan . These neighbors ,
16 plus three others submitted the letters
17 stating no objections to my project . As
18 to my neighbor to the rear of my
19 property, Mr . Gerald Flynn, his property
20 is 519 feet front to back. And then there
21 is about 300 feet of wooded property that
22 is between me and him, which means that
23 even in the winter time when there is no
24 leaves on the trees , you can ' t see his
25 house and he can ' t see mine .
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 74
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How big of a
2 buffer of vegetation is there?
3 MR. ZAHRA: About 250 feet , I
4 believe . This shows it basically now
5 with some leaves on it .
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Zahra, can I
7 just ask you on one of your exhibits that
8 you gave to us? You said one of them was,
9 28 . 66% in lot coverage . Which one --
10 MR. ZAHRA: That was File #6239 .
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you .
12 MEMBER HORNING: While we ' re asking
13 a little bit of questions . With these
14 letters of support from your neighbors
15 and using this very good information that
16 you submitted about neighborhood
17 variances, and your property showing on
18 there, could you just quickly go through
19 these letters of support and identify
20 where these people live . Val Azara?
21 MR. ZAHRA: Val Azara is right
22 across the street from my house .
23 MEMBER HORNING: All right . 445
24 Marlene --
25 MR. ZAHRA: That is my house . Val .
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 75
1 Azara is one of the people that I needed
2 to send the notice to . And I never got a
3 return back from him.
4 MEMBER HORNING: Richards?
5 MR. ZAHRA: Richards is the house
6 across from mine . Again, right next door
7 to Val Azara ' s house . And I did receive
8 a response back from him.
9 MEMBER HORNING: And Tim McGowan?
10 MR. ZAHRA: Tim McGowan, facing my
11 house, he is the neighbor to the right .
12 MEMBER HORNING: Okay. Is there a
13 tiny right-of-way?
14 MR. ZAHRA: Yes . That is the Town
15 -- that is the runoff for the water . You
16 know, because there is no water for
17 sewage . It ' s about a 25 foot wide piece
18 of property.
19 MEMBER HORNING : And Ms . Urist?
20 MR. . ZAHRA: Yeah. I believe -- I
21 think that is the people next -- They are
22 in the back. Because my property is 100
23 feet wide and the property immediately to
24 my rear. is 75 . So this other people . I
25 think there property comes in there too .
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 76
1 MEMBER HORNING: It says 300
2 Marlene, wouldn ' t that be across the
3 street?
4 MR. ZAHRA: What is the name again,
5 sir?
6 MEMBER HORNING: U-R-I-S-T .
7 MR. ZAHRA: Oh, Urist . That is
8 across the street . Yes . Right .
9 MEMBER HORNING: We have Rose --
10 MR. ZAHRA: Right . She is my
11 neighbor to the left of me .
12 MEMBER HORNING: Immediately to the
13 left?
14 MR. ZAHRA: Yes .
15 MEMBER HORNING: Thank you .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I should just
17 point out for the record that you are
18 putting in a -- it ' s all framed out , a
19 wooden deck as well with a conforming
20 setback. A portion of the poured masonry
21 deck, is about only 12 foot in width.
22 MR. ZAHRA: Right .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : ' So what we ' re
24 talking about is a nonconformance of a
25 rear yard setback of 12 feet?
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 77
1 MR. ZAHRA: Right .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does the Board
3 have any other questions?
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What is the
5 height of that concrete patio?
6 MR. ZAHRA: When the final grade, 14
7 inches . There is two steps down and the
8 steps are 7 inches each .
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And you ' re going
10 to put something on top of that?
11 MR. ZAHRA: Some patio blocks .
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And then what
13 would the height be?
14 MR. ZAHRA: I would say it ' s
15 probably another inch and a quarter .
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So less than 18
17 inches?
18 MR. ZAHRA: Oh, yes .
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Do you propose a
20 fence around that?
21 MR. ZAHRA: A fence?
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes .
23 MR. ZAHRA: No, we weren ' t , because
24 of the height, I don ' t think that it was
25 required.
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 78
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You don ' t have
2 to .
3 MEMBER HORNING : Couple of other
4 questions . How were you cited for the
5 Notice of Disapproval as-built? What
6 happened?
7 MR. ZAHRA: Somebody on my block. I
8 am the president of the block association
9 over there . And when you ' re the
10 president of the association, not
11 everybody is a friend. They don ' t go
12 along with everything that you say, and I
13 had somebody call up on me . I think I
14 know who the person is because he ' s
15 friends with other people on the block.
16 MEMBER HORNING: Right . People
17 shouldn ' t be constructing things without
18 a building permit .
19 MR. ZAHRA: Right .
20 MEMBER HORNING : On your
21 questionnaire that you filed with your
22 application . It ' s A through F and on
23 Question F, you say that -- the question
24 is , "Do you have any construction taking
25 place at this time concerning your
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 79
1 premises?" And you answered "no . " So I
2 am curious on --
3 MR. ZAHRA: Because the construction
4 was held up .
5 MEMBER HORNING : That is the reason
6 you ' re saying, no?
7 MR. ZAHRA: Right . I 'm sorry, I
8 can ' t make up his name . He came to the
9 house yesterday. When he came to the
10 house he observed that the work was done
11 quite a while ago . You can see that it ' s
12 starting to get aged and everything .
13 MEMBER HORNING: When did you stop?
14 MR. ZAHRA: Oh, boy. I can ' t
15 recall . It had to be last summer . Last
16 year .
17 MEMBER HORNING: Thank you .
18 MR. ZAHRA: Which means I can ' t walk
19 out my kitchen door . My wife can ' t walk
20 out the kitchen door . It was her idea .
21 Let me tell you, it wasn ' t my idea .
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There is never
23 any intention of putting any structure
24 over this concrete patio?
25 MR. ZAHRA: Oh, definitely not . No .
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 80
1 No . I have enough.
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there
4 anyone else in the audience who wishes to
5 address this application?
6 (No Response . )
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
8 further comments , I am going to 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 DANTES : Aye .
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
15 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
18 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
19 *** ********************* **************
20 HEARING #6645 - ROMAN CATHOLIC
21 CHURCH OF THE SACRED HEART
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
23 application before the Board is for Roman
24 Catholic Church of the Sacred Heart,
25 #6645 . Request for variance under
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 81
1 Article IV Section 280-14 and the
2 Building Inspector ' s January 28 , 2013
3 Notice of Disapproval based on an
4 application for building permit for a lot
5 line change, at : Proposed Lot #10 - 1)
6 less than the code required minimum lot
7 size of 80 , 000 square feet, located at :
8 3400 Depot Lane and 4200 Depot Lane in
9 Cutchogue .
10 Again, for the record, the subject
11 Lot, #12 will remain conforming at
12 1 , 546 . 4 feet . Lot #10 will become more
13 conforming from 75, 664 to -- more
14 nonconforming to 54 , 129 square feet,
15 which will also require Planning Board
16 approval . And we have our memorandum
17 from the Planning Board. Did you get a
18 copy?
19 MR. GOGGINS : No, I did not .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We will get
21 you a copy. Basically they support the
22 variance . They have the same concerns
23 that I believe this Board will -- I
24 certainly will . I would like some
25 consideration for potential adverse
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 82
1 impact on the property -- the residential
2 property that will be adjoining the rear
3 yard. Their rear yard will adjoin a
4 portion of the property for a grave site .
5 If you take out the survey you will know
6 what I am talking about . It ' s Lot # --
7 there is no lot number . There is just a
8 tax number . Isaac and .Isaac property,
9 which is adjacent to the subject parcel .
10 And that property will have part of their
11 rear yard lined impacted. So let ' s see
12 what you have to tell us .
13 MR. GOGGINS : Okay . William
14 Goggins . Law Office of Goggins and
15 Palumbo, 13235 Main Road, Mattituck, New
16 York for the applicant . Yes , we have
17 submitted a Site Plan to the Planning
18 Board. They do support the ' application .
19 Let me just give you a little history of
20 why we ' re doing this . When the cemetery
21 was laid out, it was probably unbeknownst
22 to the supervisor in setting up the lot,
23 the grave sites were right on the
2.4 property line behind the area . The
25 shaded area . So that the tombstones were
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 83
1 right on the property line.. We ' re not
2 sure if the ( In Audible) are right there
3 as well . It might even traverse the
4 property lines in some areas . So we
5 found out about that because people were
6 visiting grave sites in the area and they
7 were finding golf balls around the grave
8 site . Mr . Boliardi (phonetic) owns the
9 property behind it . His golf balls were
10 occasionally going into the cemetery .
11 Then people were visiting the cemetery
12 visiting their deceased loved ones .
13 There was an animal . There were animals
14 going into Mr . Boliardi ' s property and so
15 there was a little bit of an issue . As
16 the church went through the process of
17 trying to work things out, they realized
18 that the grave sites were right on the
19 property line . So they came up with what
20 they call a "reasonable solution" that
21 they do a lot line change . And along the
22 eastern part, they wanted to make it six
23 feet wide so they could ensure that all
24 grave sites are in the cemetery area . And
25 they could also put a screen there . And
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 84
1 then they also wanted to purchase that
2 additional property. It really didn ' t
3 make sense for the church just to buy the
4 six feet, and the owner, did not want to
5 sell the six feet . He wanted to sell more
6 and wanted the money for it . So we had
7 worked out -- I can give you a signed
8 real estate written contract where the
9 church is buying the shaded area from
10 Mr . Boliardi and part of the contract,
11 the parties agreed to put a buffer of
12 arborvitae ' s or Leland Cyprus trees along
13 the eastern boundary line . That is kind
14 of the history of where we got to today.
15 So 'we have a contract . I believe the
16 church paying $110 or $115, 000 . 00 --
17 $110 , 000 . 00 for this property, subject to
18 the approval . The concern that you had to
19 the Isaac ' s property. Isaac doesn ' t own
20 the property any more . The owners are
21 here . No . Isaac owns it . I understand
22 that concern . The church doesn ' t have any
23 problems to any restrictions that the
24 Board wants . Their main concern is that
25 eastern area of the grave sites .
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 85
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s 234 . 99
2 square feet, but what is the actual
3 length?
4 MR. GOGGINS : We have 82 along that
5 way.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 234 . 9 . Okay.
7 Okay. Ken, questions?
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes .
9 Mr . Goggins, would the church be in favor
10 of putting screening along that whole
11 property line?
12 MR. GOGGINS : If that is what the
13 Board wanted, yeah, they would have no
14 problem with that .
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Right now, the
16 agreement would be to the existing
17 property owner that you are buying this
18 parcel from, you ' re placing it on the
19 east side?
20 MR. GOGGINS : Correct .
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What about along
22 that southern section of the property?
23 Is he requiring that also?
24 MR. GOGGINS : No, he is not .
25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And then on what
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 86
1 we will call the Isaac ' s property, I
2 think that is what the Chairperson ' s
3 concern was , along their eastern side,
4 that 82 foot section. Is that correct,
5 Leslie?
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes .
7 MR. GOGGINS : The church would add
8 screening there . Whatever is
9 appropriate .
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Right now,
11 looking back at the Isaac ' s property
12 there is southern property line of 170
13 feet, is there any screening there now?
14 MR. GOGGINS : No .
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: But there are
16 grave sites to the south of that
17 property?
18 MR. GOGGINS : No . There are grave
19 sites there but there aren ' t any that are
20 being used at this time .
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: All right . No
22 further questions .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George?
24 MEMBER HORNING: I don ' t have any
25 questions .
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 87
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions .
3 MEMBER DANTES : No questions .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there
5 anyone else in the audience who would
6 like to address this application?
7 MS . MCCAFFERY : I am Virginia
8 McCaffery. M-C-C-A-F-F-E-R-Y . I am 4405
9 Depot Lane . I am across the street from
10 the cemetery. As a person who has lived
11 there all my life . We have no objections
12 to the way that the cemetery looks as it
13 is now. And I don ' t believe that
14 Mrs . Isaac does either . And even if she
15 did, she would have put something up of
16 her own . My only concern was how this
17 property was going to be used. I have
18 been reassured that it ' s probably going
19 to be used more as a cremation garden,
20 where the cremated people will be placed,
21 and the stones will be extremely low or
22 on the ground. My concern is was more
23 about mausoleum being built there and
24 that would really upset me . I am also
25 not too crazy about the way the diocese
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 88
1 is now putting in the stones in straight
2 lines . So I was glad to be reassured
3 that they were thinking about the
4 cremation gardens and that would be more
5 important to me . I have no objections to
6 that as long as it isn ' t changed that
7 much . Thank you .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for
9 your testimony .
10 Is there anyone else?
11 (No Response . )
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else
f 13 from the Board?
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Nope .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
16 further questions or comments, I will
17 make a motion to close this hearing and
18 reserve decision to a later date .
19 MEMBER HORNING: Second.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
21 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
23 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye .
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 89
1 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
- 2 *****************************************
3 HEARING #6643 - RALPH & CARMELO
4 CONSTANTINO
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
6 application before the Board is for Ralph
7 and Carmelo Constantino, #6643 . Request
8 for variance from Article IV Section
9 280-18 (Bulk Schedule) and the Building
10 Inspector ' s February 13 , 2013 Notice of
11 Disapproval based on an application for
12 building permit for additions and
13 alterations to existing single family
14 dwelling, at : 1 ) less than the code
15 required minimum rear yard setback of 50
16 feet, located at : 2105 Brown ' s Hill
17 Road, corner North View Drive and South
18 View Drive in Orient .
19 Please just state your name for the
20 record.
21 MR. BROWN : Robert Brown, architect
22 for the Constantino ' s .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is for
24 additions and alterations to an existing
25 single family dwelling with a rear yard
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 90
1 setback of 22 . 6 feet, where the code
2 requires 50 feet . We have all been out
3 there to inspect the site . The property
4 is on a very substantial curve and has
5 what looks like ( In Audible) --
6 MR. BROWN : That is exactly why
7 we ' re here .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is a
9 second floor addition with a new pergola .
10 What would you like to tell us?
11 MR. BROWN : Well, you pretty much
12 covered my talking points . It is an
13 unusual property and back yard and front
14 yard, which what would normally be a side
'15 yard is the rear yard technically. It ' s
16 an existing structure . It was a
17 single-story. Single family residence
18 with two bedrooms . And we have a
19 building permit to build a second floor
20 as-of-right . But in order to complete
21 the project, we ' re asking for a variance
22 to build something from the second floor
23 over the existing first floor area, which
24 is preexisting nonconforming, because of
25 the unusual conditions of the property .
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 91
1 Very little of any of the footprint can
2 be seen from outside the ( In Audible)
3 vegetation surrounding it . And if you
4 have any questions, I would be more than
5 happy to answer them.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The current
7 setback of the preexisting nonconforming
8 dwelling is 22 . 6 feet . And you are
9 proposing a second floor addition at 24 . 6
10 feet?
11 MR. BROWN : We are setting it back
12 two feet .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : From the
14 property line?
15 MR. BROWN : Yes .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This is the
17 neighbor, David and Judith Miller, are
18 they the ones that are adjoining that
19 rear property --
20 MR. BROWN : Yes . They would be the
21 most impacted neighbor . Everyone else is
22 across . If you would like, I can get a
23 letter from the Miller ' s if you would
24 prefer --
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is an
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 92
1 e-mail addressed to the architect,
2 Mr . Brown. We live at 270 Sound View
3 Drive in Orient Point . Right next to
4 Ralph and Cam Constantino . I understand
5 that ( In Audible) obtain a variance . Let
6 me make it clearly, that I have no
7 objections to the improvements that they
8 are making to their home . We have
9 carefully reviewed the plans and have no
10 objection whatsoever to those
11 improvements . If you have any questions
12 they left a phone number . Very Truly
13 Yours, David and Judith Miller .
14 Gerry?
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: At the end of
16 this entire construction, you are going
17 to have 22 . 6 feet clean that you can get
18 around this .house; is that correct?
19 MR. BROWN : Absolutely.
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. For fire
21 and emergency purposes .
22 MR. BROWN : We are not coming any
23 closer than the existing.
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George?
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 93
1 MEMBER HORNING : No . I have no
2 questions .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric?
6 MEMBER DANTES : No questions .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there
8 anyone in the audience that would like to
9 address this application?
10 (No Response . )
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
12 further comments or questions , I am going
13 to make a motion to close the hearing and
14 reserve decision to a later date .
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
17 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
19 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
22 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
23 ****************************** **********
24 . HEARING #6646 - NICK PALUMBO
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 94
1 application before the Board is for Nick
2 Palumbo, #6.646 . Request for variance
3 from Article III , Section 280-15 and the
4 Building Inspector ' s March 7 , 2013 Notice
5 of Disapproval based on an application
6 for building permit for construction of
7 accessory in-ground swimming pool, at
8 1 ) accessory in-ground swimming pool is
9 proposed in a location other than the
10 code required rear yard; located at :
11 1245 Gillette Drive and East Gillette
12 Drive in East Marion.
13 MR. BIRKMIER: Hello, how are you?
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning .
15 Good almost-afternoon. Please state your
16 name for the record .
17 MR. BIRKMIER: Bill Birkmier, North
18 Fork Pool Care .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. What we
20 have -- do you have any Green Cards?
21 MR. BIRKMIER: No, I brought
22 everything into the Town. To the
23 Building Department .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We ' re missing
25 four .
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 95
1 MR. BIRKMIER: I didn ' t get anything
2 back. Two, four -- actually one with no
3 mail receipt and one refused. The rest
4 was brought in signed.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
6 MR. BIRKMIER: Seven . I brought in
7 four or five . And the no mail receipt
8 and one refused. But I brought them into
9 the Town.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we have a
11 situation that we have seen a number of
12 times in that neighborhood because a lot
13 of those lots are -- have two front
14 yards . One on Gillette and one East
15 Gillette . We have all done a visual
16 inspection of the subject property. The
17 proposed pool, we sometimes refer to as a
18 architectural rear yard. It serves as
19 the backyard of the house though it
20 fronts a street . Just for the record,
21 it ' s (In Audible) landscaping along that
22 property line . And you have included a
23 proposed drywell and pump equipment on
24 your survey. So let ' s see who has any
25 questions . Gerry?
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 96
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What kind of
2 pool is this, sir?
3 MR. BIRKMIER: It ' s a vinyl pool .
4 Concrete with sand bottom.
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The proposed
6 drywell that you ' re showing, is that for
7 the house or is that for the pool and the
8 house?
9 MR. BIRKMIER: It ' s for both. He
10 asked for both . It ' s a very tight area .
11 That whole community. So he proposed
12 that we also do it for the gutters as
13 well . If the Board didn ' t want us to, we
14 would do whatever you need. I know we
15 have one dedicated for the pool, but I am
16 going to put in a cartridge filter .
17 There is no backwashing in that pool, but
18 I would run -- for the future, if anyone
19 wanted to use it . The way that the pool
20 is proposed now, we wouldn ' t need it .
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Except when
22 you ' re going to change the liner, you ' re
23 going to have to take water out of the
24 pool . What is the average life of a
25 liner?
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 97
1 MR. BIRKMIER: Ten years .
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. Does that
3 mean that the system that you ' re using
4 will not require any noise or where the
5 individual pool filter will be?
6 MR. BIRKMIER: It will be on the
7 side of the house .
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any
9 need to put any noise fixture around it
10 for any reason?
11 MR. BIRKMIER: Not in my opinion .
12 The motor that I am using is the quietest
13 motor there is right now. Every pool
14 within this situation, I have never had
15 to put any sound barrier in. You know,
16 they ' re quiet motors . You can speak over
17 the motor running, and have a
18 conversation .
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You may put that
20 in anyway because these lots can be kind
21 of small and that ' s the typical treatment
22 that we do and probably have done for the
23 last eight years or so . In my particular
24 opinion . The other issue is the
25 Evergreen screening that exist on East
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 98
1 Gillette Drive, are they planning to keep
2 that?
3 MR. BIRKMIER: Yes . The chain link
4 fence that is going t-o run on the inside
5 of that .
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric, do you
10 have any questions?
11 MEMBER DANTES : No, I don ' t have any
12 questions.
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
14 MEMBER HORNING: Not really. Other
15 than the fact that the lot is small .
16 Would you agree that you don ' t really
17 have a significant area to consider
18 placing the pool other than the area
19 MR. BIRKMIER: That is considered
20 the backyard. There is no other place to
21 put it . It ' s right off the deck.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He has a
23 conforming setback anyway.
24 MR. BIRKMIER: I am in position
25 because of the two roads . I felt like it
. May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 99
1 was a matter of the variances going
2 through the checks and balances of the
3 Town .
4 MEMBER HORNING: Would it be
5 difficult for you to get us the location
6 of the other pools?
7 MR. BIRKMIER: On that block? Sure .
8 I can get that for you .
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is unique
10 about this piece and I failed to mention
11 that to you, is that it has a conforming
12 front yard setback. Many of them, the
13 older houses, do not . So it ' s more than
14 conforming of the 53 . 5 feet, or that is
15 what it appears to be anyway. The house
16 -- the center of the lot, which places
17 the pool, definitely, on the other side
18 -- it would have much more room back
19 there . It ' s still fine .
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I would just like
21 to see an analysis of other property' s
22 that are similar to this with pools .
23 MR. BIRKMIER: Sure .
24 MEMBER HORNING: And variances for
25 other pools that were granted.
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 100
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anyone else
2 wish to address this application?
3 (No Response . )
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
5 further questions or comments, I am going
6 to close this hearing subject to receipt
7 of information regarding other pools in
8 that neighborhood, and variances that may
9 have been approved for those pools . And
10 what that means is, as soon as we get it,
11 the clock starts running . We have 62
12 days to make a decisions . We generally
13 do it very quickly. If you get that into
14 us within the next couple of days, then
15 we should be able to deliberate, the
16 earliest, two weeks from today at our
17 Special Meeting.
18 So I have made a motion to close
19 subject to receipt .
20 Is there a second?
21 MEMBER DANTES : Second.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
23 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
25 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 101
1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye .
3 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
4 *************** ********************** **
5 HEARING #6650 - JAMES SCULLY
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
7 application before the Board is for James
8 Scully, #6650 . Request for variances
9 from Article III Code. Section 280-15 and
10 Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the
11 Building Inspector ' s March 19, 2013
12 Notice of Disapproval based on an
13 application for building permit to
14 construct accessory in-ground swimming
15 pool , at : 1 ) accessory pool is proposed
16 in a location other than the code
17 required rear yard, 2 ) lot coverage at
18 more than the maximum code permitted 20% ,
19 located at : 615 Brown Street, corner of
20 Seventh Street in Greenport .
21 Please state your name for the
22 record?
23 MS . ROMANELLI : LeeAnn Romanelli .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you . So
25 we have the property with two front
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 102
1 yards, and the in-ground pool and sun
2 deck is considered to be in the front
3 yard. The code requires a rear yard.
4 Lot coverage -- actually says 220 on the
5 Notice of Disapproval and the application
6 says 21 . 70, so perhaps, LeeAnn you can
7 clarify that for us?
8 MS . ROMANELLI : The surveyor, when
9 we scaled back the pool taking off that
10 12 foot bump-out, our lot coverage was
11 21 . 7 0.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do we have the
13 right survey then? Yes , it ' s on here .
14 We have one saying March 12 , 2013 and
15 the --
16 MS . ROMANELLI : Yes . A rectangular
17 16x32 pool?
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes . Okay.
19 So the Notice of Disapproval is not up to
20 date, is it? The Notice of Disapproval
21 is March 19th. So they must have done it
22 off the March 6th .
23 MS . ROMANELLI : We went back and
24 forth with the lot coverage . That I do
25 know .
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 103
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we have a
2 licensed surveyor showing a 16x32
3 swimming pool, with setbacks from the
4 property line, and the total lot coverage
5 proposed is 21 . 7% . Okay. What else
6 would you like to tell us?
7 MS . ROMANELLI : Well, he did scale
8 it back quite a bit . He didn ' t want to
9 make the pool any smaller, the lot
10 requirement coverage of 20% . We kind of
11 figured we go consistency and go with
12 that small amount of lot coverage of
13 21 . 7% . He really doesn ' t have any where
14 else to put the pool except on the Brown
15 Street side in he side yard, which is
16 really the front yard. If you put it in
17 the back, he really doesn ' t have enough
18 room back there . And he wants to keep it
19 on the side because he thinks it sets it
20 off for safety reasons, secured. He
21 wants to completely fence it off . He
22 doesn ' t want to just have it off the back
23 of the house .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask you
25 a question about privacy. Because this
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 104
1 is close to Brown Street and pretty close
2 to the adjacent neighbor along Brown
3 Street . Has your client considered any
4 sort of visual screening, landscaping of
5 any kind?
6 MS . ROMANELLI : He is . He did ask
7 me . Right now, he has solid fencing for
8 the back yard. I --
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don ' t . know
10 if we have the picture but we have
11 certainly seen it . Everyone has done
12 site inspection.
13 MS . ROMANELLI : (In Audible) .
14 (Stepped away from the microphone . )
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Four feet and
16 that is the maximum in the front yard
17 anyway. But four foot is what is
18 required. They will determine if this is
19 suffice . This is more of a decorative
20 fence . And then there is a sort of a
21 lock on the gate that you have to have .
22 So does he have any objection to us
23 stating that they have to include a few
24 evergreen screening?
25 MS . ROMANELLI : No, because as I
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 105
1 said, he ' s already planning on doing
2 that . He already did make mention of the
3 lattice fence, because he was willing to
4 change that .
5 MEMBER HORNING : Are you talking
6 along the property line to the adjacent
7 neighbor?
8 MS . ROMANELLI : Yeah .
9 MEMBER HORNING: Or both?
10 MS . ROMANELLI : Both . He is going
11 to do both .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And the
13 plantings are going to have to be on the
14 property . If the fencing remains on the
15 property line --
16 MS . ROMANELLI : So inside .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then the
18 evergreens will have to go inside .
19 MS . ROMANELLI : I will tell him
20 that .
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There are no
22 cesspools there?
23 MS . ROMANELLI : No .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: He is on the
25 sewer system?
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 106
1 MS . ROMANELLI : Yeah. Sewer .
2 Otherwise, we would really have a party.
3 MEMBER HORNING : Can you tell us
4 about -= Gerry might ask about this too,
5 he did it the last time, about sound
6 defining or any pool equipment and a
7 drywell for back-flushing?
8 MS . ROMANELLI : He is going to have
9 a drywell .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It doesn ' t
11 show it on the survey.
12 MS . ROMANELLI : The drywell I will
13 have to find out where that is going to
14 go . He is going to put the pool
15 equipment in his shed, I believe . So
16 that will be enclosed.
17 MEMBER HORNING: In the other corner
18 of the property?
19 MS . ROMANELLI : I believe so .
20 Either he is moving that shed -- I will
21 have to clarify that with him. I will
22 have to find that out .
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is a liner
24 pool?
25 MS . ROMANELLI : Yes .
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 107
1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Could the
2 applicant consider turning the pool
3 90 degrees and having it 10 feet along
4 the adjoining property line?
5 MS . ROMANELLI : No . No we didn ' t
6 make any different plans on changing the
7 location . Do you mean, like angling it?
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No . Just turning
9 it 90 degrees . Counter clockwise . And
10 still have 10 feet off the property off
11 Brown Street . You would have 10 feet of
12 the adjoining property line . Then you
13 would have 10 feet off the house instead
14 of 8 feet off the house .
15 MS . ROMANELLI : This is the way that
16 he has always wanted it . We can always
17 go to him and ask him if he would be
18 willing to turn it that way.
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Well, I was just
20 asking if there was a reason why he was
21 using that location . I guess it ' s just
22 preference .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The impact --
24 MS . ROMANELLI : The 16 feet is still
25 going to be on the Brown side if we turn
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 108
1 it .
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: They would have
3 same side yard if they turn it .
4 MS . ROMANELLI : We didn ' t really
5 play around with it that way. I know
6 that he wanted to keep a fence . To keep
7 that backyard fenced off .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He wants to
9 use it for kids?
10 MS . ROMANELLI : Yeah, he has a
11 little kid. He is going to make a fence
12 from the back stockade fence to the
13 house .
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay . Along the
15 north-side --
16 MS . ROMANELLI : From the back . You
17 would have to go through another gate .
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So he wants to
19 put a fence from the southwest corner of
20 the house?
21 MS . ROMANELLI : Yes .
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Perpendicular to
23 the stockade? Is that what you mean?
24 MS . ROMANELLI : Yes .
25 MEMBER HORNING: We do need to know
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 109
1 where the pool equipment would be,
2 whether or not -- we would probably
3 require a drywell or whenever you had to
4 drain the pool .
5 MS . ROMANELLI : Okay. All right .
6 So the drywell, pool equipment .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the
8 fencing .
9 MS . ROMANELLI : Okay.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well , we have
11 an arraignment at 12 : 30 , so I am going to
12 see if there is anyone in the audience
13 who wishes to address this application?
14 (No Response . )
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I think the
16 best thing to do is close subject to
17 receipt to an updated survey showing the
18 proposed fencing .
19 MS . ROMANELLI : Okay.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Showing the
21 proposed Evergreen screening along the
22 shared property line, the neighbor and
23 along Brown Street . And the location of
24 the drywell .
25 MS . ROMANELLI : And pool equipment .
May 2, 2013 ' Board Meeting 110
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Then we will
2 have everything as proposed. - Then we
3 could stamp . So I am going to make that
4 motion that we close subject to receipt
5 of an updated survey.
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :. Seconded by
8 Gerry.
9 All in favor?
10 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
12 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
15 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
16 ****************** ****** ***************
17 HEARING #6641 - MICHAEL MANTIKAS
18. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
19 application before the Board is for
20 Michael Mantikas , #6641 . Request for
21 variance from Article XXIII Section
22 280-124 and the Building Inspector ' s
23 March 11, 2013 Notice of Disapproval
24 based on an application for building
25 permit to demolish and re-construct an
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 111
1 existing single family dwelling, at 1)
2 less than the code required minimum side
3 yard setback of 10 feet, 2 ) less than the
4 total combined side yards of 25 feet,
5 located at : 80 Oak Court, a . k. a . South
6 Lane, adjacent to Gardiners Bay in East
7 Marion .
8 MS . SANTORA: I am Eileen Santora,
9 Residential Designer . I am representing
10 Michael Mantikas .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let ' s take a
12 Took at what the Notice of Disapproval
13 says . This is a proposed second-story at
14 5 foot side yard setback, where the code
15 requires 10 feet . Two, a combined side
16 yard setback of -- it looks like 10 . 9
17 feet total . The code requires 25 feet .
18 And I think that is it . Okay. We just
19 received a letter from a neighbor that I
20 would like to give you a copy of . This
21 is a letter that is essentially objecting
22 to this application . So I would like you
23 to take a look at it in case there is
24 anything that you would like to address .
25 MS . SANTORA: If you look -- perhaps
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 112
1 photographs of both houses that are on
2 either side, and -- if I am` reading this
3 correctly, is Cynthia Thorp and I have
4 her house right here . That is a
5 two-family house . We have the Wolf house
6 that is on the west side . That is a
7 two-story house and that has been
8 re-done .
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ms . Santora, we
10 know all about Wolf ' s .
11 MS . SANTORA: The part of the house
12 that is closest to the water is not a
13 two-story. It will be -- as you can see
14 on the Site Plan that I have given you .
15 This is Cynthia Thorp ' s house . Now that
16 is a two-story house and it is much
17 closer to the water than Mr . Mantikas
18 house . If you look at the property, you
19 can see that there is a house and
20 Cynthia ' s is over -- I don ' t know why
21 there would be an objection because their
22 house is here . In fact, there is a
23 house, bungalow closer to the street that
24 is in between --
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We know all
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 113
1 about that .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You do realize
3 that we all do a site inspection?
4 MS . SANTORA: Okay.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we know the
6 surrounding area .
7 MS . SANTORA: Okay. So Mr .
8 Mantikas ' house will not be as massive as
9 Cynthia Thorp ' s . And it was a Thorp ' s
10 cottage that my client had purchased from
11 another Thorp .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask you
13 a question about the foundation . I know
14 this says additions and alterations but
15 on site inspection indicates that this
16 house is not in very good shape .
17 MS . SANTORA: Exactly.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So you ' re
19 going to demolish and rebuild another
20 house?
21 MS . SANTORA: Yes .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So since this
23 is a demolition, why not just make the
24 house parallel to the property line and
25 make a better side yard condition?
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 114
1 MS . SANTORA: Well, we have to deal
2 with cesspools also .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What does that
4 have to do with straightening the house
5 out?
6 MS . SANTORA: I guess , we could
7 straighten the house out, but the
8 property is so narrow, the side yard
9 still won ' t meet the zoning .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, it won ' t .
11 But you can also make a narrower house
12 and improve the side yard.
13 MS . SANTORA: The house is very
14 narrow. I mean, we ' re not adding
15 anything to the width of the house . The
16 house is 26 . 5 wide .
17 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Proposed. Okay.
18 MS . SANTORA: That is what it is now
19 and that ' s what it ' s going to be .
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The width of the
21 property of that location is?
22 MS . SANTORA: The house is the --
23 the width of the property is 47 . 44 feet .
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So if you
25 subtract the width of your proposed house
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 115
1 from the width of the property, what do
2 you have remaining?
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Approximately
4 21 feet .
5 MS . SANTORA: The 26 . 4 feet, that is
6 going to be only one-story. The second
7 in the back is only 22 feet . That is
8 going to be a two-story section .
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So we ' re talking
10 about approximately 21 feet of wiggle
11 room?
12 MS . SANTORA: Right . 10 feet on
13 each side .
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: If you could make
15 a conforming side yard of 10 feet, that
16 would eliminate one of the need for
17 variances, in which case, you would then
18 only need a variance for a combined side
19 yard.
20 MS . SANTORA: Okay.
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Would that be
22 something that is acceptable?
23 MS . SANTORA: That would be very
24 acceptable . The only reason we kept the
25 footprint is because we thought that was
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 116
1 more appealing to the Town. We can
2 definitely straighten it out on the
3 property. That would be no problem.
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And are there any
5 other issues of nonconformities , except
6 the single side yard?
7 MS . SANTORA: Well, maybe . The
8 original house had four bedrooms and
9 we ' re only putting three bedrooms in the
10 house .
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. Would you
12 like to submit another set of plans
13 indicated --
14 MS . SANTORA: You mean a Site Plan?
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: A Site Plan
16 indicating the location?
17 MS . SANTORA: That would be no
18 problem.
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ms . Santora by
20 doing what Ken wants you to do, would
21 allow a person to put a ladder against
22 the house . It ' s a positive thing .
23 Without being on your neighbors property .
24 It particularly obscures --
25 MS . SANTORA: Right .
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 117
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So that is a
2 good thing . Now you.' re telling us that
3 the second-story of the house is only
4 going to be -- from the mid-section to
5 the rear portion of the home?
6 MS . SANTORA: Yes . If you look at
7 the floor plan --
8 MEMBER HORNING : Is that the 20 foot
9 area right above that?
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So in other
11 words , you will have a cathedral ceiling
12 in the front of the house? Is that what
13 you ' re doing?
14 MS . SANTORA: Yes . And the living
15 room. The house -- if we straighten the
16 house out, it will be closer towards the
17 street end, to Cynthia ' s House .
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am interested
19 in the ability to have proper yard, so
20 that if you have to get around the
21 house --
22 MS . SANTORA: I understand.
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: For emergency
24 purposes, that is number one . Number
25 two, to just makes everything flow better
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 118
1 by having close to --
2 MS . SANTORA: I think my client
3 would be very happy.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would give
5 you a combined side yard of 21 . And the
6 code is 25 . So you ' re a lot closer to a
7 conforming side yard.
8 MS . SANTORA: That sounds great .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry, any
10 other comments?
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, the only
12 other thing that we need is to site the
13 house in it ' s present location --
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is what
15 we have on the survey. So what we need
16 is an updated survey. Showing the house
17 and the 10 foot or 11 foot side yard for
18 a combined 21 .
19 MS . SANTORA: Okay. That would just
20 straighten the house out and make it
21 parallel to the property line . That is
22 no problem.
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You ' re not
24 placing it closer to the buff?
25 MS . SANTORA: No . That is why we
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 119
1 were leaving it where it is .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And what is
3 that setback? It ' s not on the survey.
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, there is
5 no bulkhead there . That ' s the thing . We
6 are just calling it a bluff .
7 MEMBER HORNING: So ma ' am, when
8 you ' re demolishing the existing building,
9 that includes the foundation and
10 everything?
11 MS . SANTORA: Yes . The foundation,
12 well just some foundation and some
13 concrete blocks that are on the grade .
14 It ' s not structurally sound. It has to
15 be re-built .
16 MEMBER HORNING: What kind of
17 foundation will you put in?
18 MS . SANTORA: Concrete . It ' s poured
19 concrete .
20 MEMBER HORNING: With a full
21 basement?
22 MS . SANTORA: No . No . Just a
23 crawl .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does the Board
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 120
1 think that they will have any additional
2 questions? You ' re going to leave the
3 house plans as they are --
4 MS . SANTORA: Yes .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And just
6 change the survey to reflect what our
7 discussion has been . I don ' t think that
8 I would have any additional questions . I
9 still want to see the survey. Here is
10 what we can do . Let ' s leave this open to
11 the Special Meeting, which is in two
12 weeks . That gives you time to submit the
13 survey. If we get the survey and have no
14 questions, we will close it at the
15 Special Meeting .
16 MS . SANTORA: I am hoping that I can
17 get the survey in two weeks .
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Back logged?
19 MS . SANTORA: Back logged. Would it
20 be possible if Joe Fischetti, the
21 engineer if he made up a Site Plan?
22 Would that be acceptable?
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If it is
24 stamped and sealed, then we can accept
25 that .
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 121
1 MS . SANTORA: Okay.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: But it ' s just
3 going to have to look very close . I
4 don ' t think that we ' re going to have to
5 get an amended Notice of Disapproval .
6 MS . SANTORA: Because dealing with
7 Young & Young in Riverhead, they are very
8 difficult surveyors to work with . I
9 would like to bring to a local survey in
10 Town.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We will leave
12 that to you . As long as it shows what
13 the Board has requested. We always ask
14 the applicant to provide greater
15 conformity to the code, and you showed a
16 survey eliminating one of those side yard
17 variances and a greater side yard.
18 MS . SANTORA: Is there anything else
19 on the survey that you need to have,
20 except the drywell for the runoff?
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You want
22 septic in there or it doesn ' t matter?
23 Department of Health is going to do that
24 anyway.
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: They' re going to
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 122
1 do it anyway.
l
2 MS . SANTORA: Right . I have already
3 checked out the system and I know it has
4 to be replaced. So that is what I am
5 about to get taken care of .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As long as it
7 shows some drywell ' s on here . They are
8 not labeled.
9 MS . SANTORA: Okay.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And of course,
11 you know, you will have to comply with
12 Section 236 of the Town ' s Stormwater --
13 MS . SANTORA: Yes . Yes . We will put
14 the drywell ' s on the Site Plan .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody else?
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That ' s all . Just
17 remember, you have a 10 foot side yard
18 that you have to maintain .
19 MS . SANTORA: Right now, we have a
20 10 . 9 on one side and it gets bigger on
21 one end in the back. So as we straighten
22 out the house --
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s going to
24 be about a 10 foot on the side that is a
25 6 . 9 and about -- just shy of 11 , as it is
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 123
1 now. If that makes more sense to just
2 rotate the corner, so that it is
3 parallel --
4 MS . SANTORA: Yes .
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That reduces the
6 significance of the variance that is
7 being requested.
8 MS . SANTORA: That sounds great .
9 CHAIRPERSON' WEISMAN : The other
10 thing that the neighbor objects to
11 construction, is that there is not enough
12 room on either side to actually undertake
13 demolition and construction, without
14 having to have adverse impact on their
15 property. With having equipment on their
16 property, debris on their property and so.
17 on . The fact that you will have wider
18 side yards .
19 MS . SANTORA: My crews work very
20 neat . I never let it go too high. It
21 would be a clean site . I will make sure
22 everyone cleans up after their day is
23 done .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Being
25 that there is no one in the audience, I
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 124
1 am going to assume that there are no more
2 comments from the audience . So I am
3 going to make a motion to adjourn this
4 to the Special Meeting, subject to
5 receipt of a revised survey or Site Plan,
6 by a licensed professional describing the
7 changes that this Board has discussed.
8 MEMBER HORNING : Second.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by
10 George .
11 All in favor?
12 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
14 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
17 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
18 *****************************************
19 HEARING #6649 - DAVID SCHIFF
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am going to
21 open David Schiff, #6649 . We will read
22 the legal notice for the record, and then
23 we have a letter for an adjournment
24 requesting an open date . Request for
25 variances from Article IV Section 280-18 ,
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 125
1 Article XXII Section 280-116 (B) and
2 Article III Section 280-13C and the
3 Building Inspector ' s March 6, 2013 ,
4 amended March 14 , 2013 Notice of
5 Disapproval based on an application for
6 building permit for additions and
7 alterations to an existing single-family
8 dwelling and construction of a new
9 accessory garage with guest quarters, at
10 1 ) less than the minimum code required
11 side yard setback of 15 feet, 2 ) less
12 than the code required bulkhead setback
13 of 75 feet for additions and alterations
14 to the dwelling, 3 )' guest quarters are
15 not a permitted accessory use, located
16 at : 8425 Nassau Point Road, adjacent to
17 Little Peconic Bay in Cutchogue .
18 As I said, we have a letter
19 requesting an adjournment that came from
20 Eric Carrington who is the architect for
21 the applicant, David Schiff, requesting
22 an adjournment without a date . So they
23 didn ' t explain what they have in mind or
24 anything else . I certainly have no
25 objection to that . There is no one here
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 126
1 in the audience to let the record show
2 that is the case .
3 So I am going to make a motion that
4 we adjourn this application without a
5 date .
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
8 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
10 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye .
13 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
14 *****************************************
15 HEARING #6651 - BABS CORPORATION
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Board has
17 reconvened, and let the record reflect
18 that Member Goehringer is recusing
19 himself, for the following application .
20 BABS Corporation, #6651, request for
21 variances from Article III Code Section
22 280-15 and the Building Inspector ' s
23 March 14 , 2013 Notice of Disapproval
24 based on an application for building
25 permit for two as-built existing
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 127
1 reconstructed accessory building, at : 1)
2 one accessory building is located at less
3 than the code required minimum side and
4 rear yard setbacks of 10 feet, 2 ) second
5 accessory building is located at less
6 than the code required minimum rear yard
7 setback of 10 feet, located at : 13105
8 Main Road, State Route 25 in Mattituck.
9 Please come forward and enter into
10 the record, the agent for the applicant .
11 MR. CUDDY : Good afternoon . Charles
12 Cuddy, 445 Griffing Avenue, Riverhead,
13 New York. I am the agent for the
14 applicant . I understand that Mr . Horning
15 will participate by reading the minutes?
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, he will .
17 MR. CUDDY : If I may, I would like
18 to hand up some tax maps and also a
19 couple of letters that I have .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : While you ' re
21 doing that, I will just indicate that the
22 Notice of Disapproval says that one
23 accessory building has a 0 foot setback
24 from the side and rear property line,
25 where the code requires 10 feet, and a
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 128
1 second accessory building has a 0 foot
2 setback from the rear property line . And
3 the rear yard states as Mattituck Park
4 District property, which is at the
5 moment, a parking lot . So that should
6 save some time .
7 MR. CUDDY: Initially, I have handed
8 up some tax maps , which I believe will be
9 important to you . It is important that
10 you take a look at the tax maps because I
11 want to take a short tour of Mattituck.
12 Mattituck Central District is the HB
13 District, which is the district that
14 we ' re in here . And I have outlined on
15 these two maps, some yellow sites . The
16 first map, if you would look at, is
17 Section 140 . The one that has the yellow
18 mid point, which is our building by the
19 way. That is Lot #39 . The reason why I
20 am doing this is because I want to show
21 you in the HB District, how the principal
22 buildings as well as the accessory
23 buildings are laid out . If you would
24 start at the corner, which is Wickham
25 Avenue and Main Road, I have checked Tax
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 129
1 Lot #34 . The reason I checked that Tax
2 Lot is because there is a building there .
3 That building next to the smaller lot is
4 within 3 feet . This is a principal
5 building in an HB District . The next lot
6 over is a very small lot . That small lot
7 is 45 feet wide . The building was built
8 out 41 feet . That means on each side of
9 it, there is a 2 foot separation with the
10 next lot, which is contrary to code .
11 These buildings were built prior in time
12 to 1960 . The next building over is Tax
13 Lot #38 . 5 . That is a building that was
14 rehabbed recently by Mr . Goggins and
15 Mr . Palumbo . It ' s a law office . Next to
16 that building on the right hand side, Tax
17 Lot #36, is a small shed. An accessory
18 shed. It ' s right on the line . It ' s not
19 close to it . It ' s on the line . I would
20 also like you to look on what is called
21 Railroad Avenue, and Railroad Avenue is
22 -- that corner is Love Lane . The lot
23 that I have there, 3 . 4 , that is the
24 Orlowski Hardware Store . In 1970 ' s and I
25 was here at that time, that store
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 130
1 extended back on the line . On the line
2 in the HB District . Not off the line .
3 On the line . I will point out that all
4 of those buildings are wall-to-wall
5 buildings . There is no extension between
6 them. So in the HB District, and I think
7 it is historical, the buildings are
8 built . So they are virtually on the line
9 or on the line . Last year, in 2012 , the
10 building on the west side of Love Lane
11 was rebuilt . The difference between the
12 wall of the wine tasting store and the
13 building next to it, is less than 3 feet .
14 And the reason I am taking on this short
15 tour of Mattituck, is -- the HB District
16 covers all of that area and the principal
17 buildings are built on the line or right
18 next to the line . Just not the
19 accessory. There are very few
20 accessories because the buildings cover
21 most of the lots . The one I could find,
22 as I said to you, right next to the
23 Goggins and Palumbo building, is a small
24 shed and it ' s absolutely on the line . I
25 also gave you a second map because I
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 131
1 wanted you to look at the stores that are
2 on the corner of Main Road and opposite
3 Love Lane . All of those stores and
4 they ' re preexisting stores, are built
5 together . There is no separation between
6 them whatsoever . So the principal
7 buildings in the HB District, are all one
8 on top of the other . So we ' re here about
9 an accessory building that is close to
10 the line . A foot of the line . And I say
11 to you, that historically, this area,
12 this District has buildings on the line
13 and is part of what it is . The buildings
14 that we ' re talking about here, they are
15 over a 100 years ago . I get that
16 information from people telling me that .
17 One of those buildings is the old
18 Blacksmith shop . The building was
19 acquired by BABS Corporation . Albert
20 Brayson is here . He is the principal of
21 that corporation. Two years ago, when he
22 acquired the main building, he repaired
23 part of each of those buildings . He
24 didn ' t enlarge them. He didn ' t alter .
25 them. He reconstructed them. And to do
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 132
1 otherwise, to try and move them, not just
2 difficult, but virtually impossible . I
3 will put in some evidence into trying to
4 move those buildings . But I would also
5 like to bring to your attention, Abigail
6 Wickham who owns the property immediately
7 to the west of ours , has written a letter
8 on behalf of the applicant, indicating
9 she has absolutely no objection and is
10 happy that he was able to repair the
11 buildings . I also gave you a letter,
12 which was somewhat surprising today based
13 on the letter that you got from the Park
14 District, but in 2009 the Park District
15 attorney wrote a letter in favor of this
16 application . Just the opposite of what
17 we have received today. So I don ' t know
18 which group is to be heard from.
19 Certainly, the Park District at one time
20 did not find a problem with this
21 application. If I may, I would also like
22 to hand up to you an estimate of the
23 moving of the buildings, which shows that
24 the combine figures to remove the
25 building is --
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 133
1 (Stepped away from the microphone . )
2 MR. CUDDY: There is virtually no
3 alternative in keeping the buildings
4 where they are at this point . We have
5 gotten a letter, which I will give to you
6 in a minute, the engineer, who did work
7 on the buildings . Indicating that it was
8 done just to keep them structurally sound
9 and safe . The costs as I said to move
10 them is enormous, and we also have a
11 statement from a cesspool person who has
12 located the cesspools . On the map, you
13 will see that the cesspools would prevent
14 any movement of a building because you
15 would move them right on top of each
16 other .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So there are
18 two cesspools located in between the
19 accessory structures , and this would be
20 the one to the east?
21 MR. CUDDY: That ' s right, to the
22 east . By the way, if you would move these
23 buildings essentially a few feet, you
24 would be blocking the walkway that goes
25 from the buildings that has apartments ,
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 134
1 as well as offices . So you would be
2 blocking that area . Because there is not
3 a lot of room to move anything .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Mr . Cuddy, can
5 I ask you what are these two buildings
6 being used for currently?
7 MR. CUDDY: They' re used to store
8 the westerly large building lawn mowers,
9 seasonal supplies and furniture . And the
10 east building, the smaller one, has tools
11 and equipment that -- paint and that type
12 of thing. Building repair materials .
13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Are one of these
14 buildings your workshop?
15 MR.: CUDDY : Not a workshop . The
16 maintenance manager goes into that
17 building and takes tools and things from
18 that building. It ' s not a workshop .
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: There ' s not like
20 a bench there?
21 MR. CUDDY : I think there is a bench
22 there that he keeps tools on it . It ' s
23 for the main building .
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Is there any type
25 of commercial use out of that?,
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 135
1 MR. CUDDY : No . It ' s used entirely
2 -- and has been used for years . It ' s
3 storage for the main building .
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And the main
5 building is a rental unit?
6 MR. CUDDY : The main building is --
7 there is two parts to it . One of it is an
8 office area . The bottom floor and the top
9 floor is used as apartments .
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So there is a
11 need for a maintenance?
12 MR. CUDDY : Yes, there is .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are they
14 rental apartments?
15 MR. CUDDY: Yes .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And they ' re
17 accessed through the rear?
18 MR. CUDDY: They' re accessed through
19 the front and rear. Mr . Brayson would
20 know better than I . I think there are
21 stairs in the rear that you can go up and
22 down . I would also indicate to you that
23 the storage does not impact
24 environmentally to any one . There is no
25 hazardous waste there . So I don ' t think
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 136
1 the environmental impact is anything to
2 be concerned about . And I would say that
3 the character of the community, not only
4 based upon the letter from -- the old
5 letter from the Park District, but the
6 fact that all of the buildings are very
7 similar . That is the principal
8 buildings . Not just the accessory
9 buildings . The principal buildings are
10 located right on the lot . Not next to
11 it . On it . I think that is pretty
12 uniform. I said I have a letter from the
r 13 engineer I just want to hand that up .
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Was that the one
15 from James Cherkowski?
16 MR. CUDDY: Yes .
17 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It is dated
18 September 11, 2008?
19 MR. CUDDY : Yes . I think that
20 everybody would agree that this is not a
21 self created situation. This has been
22 there . Before Mr . Brayson was here or any
23 of us was here . That building was located
24 there . I was told by various amount of
25 people in the community that it has been
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 137
1 there for years . So that is where it has
If
2 been . And I think the reason for that is
3 very simple, if you move it any other
4 way, you either block the walk. You
5 block the cesspools . It doesn ' t -- from
6 my point of view, it doesn ' t impact
7 anybody. It is something that has been
8 there for 100 years .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask you
10 a question . The applicant went before
11 this Board in 2009 with an application to
12 do repairs in-place and in-kind. The
13 application before the determination was
14 withdrawn, I am told by the applicant .
15 Subsequent it would appear that repairs
16 were made on these existing structures .
17 When those repairs took place, how were
18 those structures accessed? Could it be
19 done on the subject property or did it
20 have to be done on the adjacent property
21 by Abigail Wickham or the Parks District?
22 It is a zero setback. So I am trying to
23 figure out how anybody could make repairs
24 without stepping on someone else ' s
25 property.
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 138
1 MR. CUDDY: I don ' t think that I can
r
2 answer it . I think that Mr . Brayson can .
3 I will say one thing. Our surveyor says
4 that they are one foot from the property
5 line .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So you have to
7 be one skinny person .
8 MR. BRAYSON : I actually did not
9 observe --
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I 'm sorry,
11 please just state your name?
12 MR. BRAYSON : My name is Albert
13 Brayson . I didn ' t observe the guys
14 working it in general . As Mr . Cuddy
15 pointed out, at least on , the west side on
16 the Wickham' s property, there is actual
17 room to get there . I believe it is on
18 the property line and not -much more than
19 that . To the best of my knowledge, they
20 didn ' t erect scaffolding or things like
21 that on the property in order to do the
22 repairs .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do either of
24 the accessory structures have gutters on
25 them?
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 139
1 MR. BRAYSON : No .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we may have
3 to consider some drainage remediation on
4 the property.
5 MR. CUDDY : May I be heard on the
6 sewer?
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes . Go
8 ahead.
9 MR. CUDDY: I was trying to figure
10 out how the Building Department rejected
11 the application . And in the code you
12 have to ( In Audible) Section 44 , 280-44 .
13 Then you go back and you go back to
14 Section 15 , which is the Ag District and
15 then you go to 13C for the accessory
16 uses . And I believe, I believe that all
17 of that is predicated on one assumption.
18 And I just want to bring it to the
19 Board ' s attention . I think the
20 assumption was that it ' s two
21 nonconforming buildings with two
22 nonconforming uses . I think that is not
23 correct . I am saying to you, is that,
24 this use is a conforming use which goes
25 to the very sections that I am talking
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 140
1 about . I think you will see under
2 Section 13-4 , that you can have a storage
3 building that is related to a residential
4 use . This is a residential use . I think
5 that the section that applies is
6 Section 122 . I wanted to bring this to
7 the Board' s attention because I think a
8 mistake was made .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Notice of
10 Disapproval cites Section 280-15 . So
11 it ' s strictly to accessory structures .
12 All they are referring to there is the
13 required distance from a property line .
14 MR. CUDDY : I think that won ' t occur,
15 if it ' s a nonconforming building with a
16 conforming use . You go through a
17 different section . The section that she
18 must have assumed is Section 123 . I think
19 it ' s Section 122 . And if it ' s Section
20 122 , you can reconstruct the building and
21 you don ' t have to have a variance
22 application .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is
24 correct but that refers to principal
25 structures .
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 141
1 MR. CUDDY : Well, it ' s hard to say
2 what it refers to because it doesn ' t say
3 what it is referring to, principal or
4 accessory structure .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When something
6 is referred to a building, it is a
7 physical building . 123 addresses
8 commercial buildings .
9 MR. CUDDY: I think she had to get
10 there some how. I think that you ' re
11 saying that 122 doesn ' t apply to
12 accessory and only applies to principal
13 use . It doesn ' t --
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That ' s
15 correct . And if in fact, you feel
16 strongly about this, you can then apply
17 for a code interpretation to this Board.
18 That is not what is before us .
19 MR. CUDDY: I am telling you this
20 because I think that has some meaning to
21 it . You ' re saying that it doesn ' t .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think
23 probably it doesn ' t to your situation .
24 MR. CUDDY : Okay. I understand.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Shall we hear
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 142
1 from anyone, Ken? Are you finished
2 Mr . Cuddy at the moment?
3 MR. CUDDY : Yes , I am.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Who else would
5 like to be heard on this application?
6 Please state your name for the record?
7 MR. PROKOP : It ' s David Prokop .
8 Representing the Mattituck Parks
9 District . With respect to the
10 application, there is really three
11 primary concerns , which are outlined in
12 the letter . Three of which are outlined.
13 One has to do with the water collection
14 issue . The drainage that we have been
15 working with that in that parking lot .
16 To do some type of gutter improvements .
17 Whether there is the need for a drywell
18 or not . So that would be number one .
19 Number two would be, on that property
20 line of the Park District, on the
21 accessory structure . There are some
22 trees that are dying, I would just need
23 to confirm the status of those, and to
24 the extent that they be removed, stumps
25 included, we ' re not stepping on someone ' s
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 143
1 toes as far as a protected status for
2 these trees . It would like to be
3 conditioned that the stumps be removed as
4 well .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : These trees
6 are on the subject property?
7 MR. PROKOP: They are on the line .
8 There is three of them. There is two by
9 the east building and there is one on to
10 west side .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You believe
12 that they are shared by the two
13 properties?
14 MR. PROKOP: Yes . And lastly, we
15 just wanted it to be conditioned on
16 either usage or improvements or any other
17 permits that are granted for the
18 structures, meaning compliance with the
19 setbacks of the accessory.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You ' re
21 basically saying no further usage other
22 than storage .
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Are the trees
24 limited to three trees?
25 MR. PROKOP : I have a survey that
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 144
1 locates the trees . They were not part of
2 the application. There is three .
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I think that is
4 an issue that can probably be resolved
5 with the applicant easily.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They ' re on the
7 Park District . There are two that are on
8 the property line, and then a third one .
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Mr . Cuddy, there
10 seems to be a request for some removal of
11 some trees?
12 MR. CUDDY : We don ' t have an
13 objection to Mr . Prokop ' s request . All
14 three of them. We don ' t have a problem
15 with the drainage . We don ' t have a
16 problem with the trees, and don ' t have a
17 problem with just keeping it as storage .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have a
19 question for Mr . Prokop . In your letter,
20 it would appear that someone has
21 indicated that the Park District must
22 somehow use the subject parking lot, that
23 you currently own as park land or it has
24 to be developed by the Park District . He
25 said that you have to --
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 145
1 MR. PROKOP : There has been
2 counseling advice and I have done my own
3 research, as to whether or not, this
4 constitutes as park land. I don ' t
5 believe that it does . It ' s not adjacent
6 to any kind of Mattituck Park District .
7 So we have been exploring as to what we
8 should do with the property and that is
9 where we are right now .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. I was
11 just curious as to where that decision
12 came from. Okay. Just out of curiosity .
13 MR. PROKOP : Thank you .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Any
15 other questions at the moment from the
16 Board?
17 (No Response . )
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there
19 anyone else in the audience that would
20 like to address this application?
21 (No Response . )
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don ' t have
23 any other questions . Ken?
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Mr . Cuddy says
25 the applicant would be in favor of
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 146
1 removing the trees that are outlined,
2 gutters and leaders and just maintain the
3 storage conditions .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. So the
5 three conditions that discussed. It is
6 Hamlet Business . Hearing no further
7 comments from the Board, I am going to
8 make a motion to close this hearing and
9 reserve decision to a later date .
10 Second?
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
13 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
16 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
17 ****** * **** **** **********************
18 HEARING #6652 - JAMES & SUSAN BROWN
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
20 application before the Board is for James
21 and Susan Brown, #6652 . Request for
22 variances from Article XXII Code Section
23 280-116B and Article XXIII Code Section
24 280-124 and the Building Inspector ' s
25 April 10 , 2012 , revised March 20 , 2013
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 147
1 Notice of Disapproval based on an
2 application for building permit for
3 demolition and reconstruction and
4 additions and alterations to an existing
5 seasonal cottage at; 1 ) bulkhead setback
6 of less than the code required 75 feet ,
7 2 ) less than the code required minimum d
8 setback of 10 feet, 3 ) less than the
9 total combined side yards of 25 feet, 4 )
10 more than the maximum code permitted lot
11 coverage of 20% , located at : 170 Oak
12 Creek, adjacent to Eugene ' s Creek in
13 Cutchogue . We have a bulkhead setback of
14 25 . 8 feet, where the code requires 75
15 feet . This is a demolition and
16 reconstruction of a seasonal cottage with
17 additions and alterations . We secondly,
18 have something with a similar side yard
19 setback of 4 . 9 feet, where the code
20 requires 10 . We have a combined side
21 yard setback 9 . 9 feet, where the code
22 requires 25 feet . We have lot coverage
23 at 25 . 1%, where the code permits a
24 maximum of 20% .
25 Pat, do you want to --
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 148
1 MS . MOORE : Patricia Moore on
2 behalf of the Brown ' s . I have Mr . &
3 Mrs . Brown here . I also have Mark
4 Schwartz . He is the architect on this
5 project . They are all here to address
6 any questions to the Board, if they come
7 up . What I have given to you, I did
8 receive the LWRP report . You didn ' t ask
9 me, but I did receive it . The LWRP
10 raised an issue which I strongly disagree
11 with, which is they felt this was -- this
12 project did not conform with the
13 character of the area . I don ' t believe
14 that is an accurate conclusion. What I
15 have done is given you a packet that is
16 bound together . What I did is, I went to
17 the code and reviewed how many properties
18 on Oak Street, within proximity to my
19 clients property has variances or have
20 received variance . And it is a very
21 prolific area for variance . The reason is
22 obvious that this is a subdivision of
23 Eugene ' s Heights, which is a subdivision
24 developed in the 50 ' s -- 40 ' s and 50 ' s .
25 They are very nonconforming . Actually in
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 149
1 the deliberations and decisions that are
2 all attached to the packets, that is the
3 general consensus on all of the
4 variances that have been issued with
5 respect to setbacks , whether it ' s front
6 yards , side yards , garages . Many of the
7 garages on the street required variances .
8 The law has changed. One of the
9 difficulties in using -- meeting the code
10 on a property as this one, we have 30
11 feet -- 30 . 49 along Oak Street . The
12 property then spans out to 50 . 08 along --
13 if that is not hard enough, the Town
14 adopted regulations that define buildable
15 area, which is that area that is landward
16 of a retaining wall or concrete retaining
17 wall . And so it ' s for many of these
18 property' s and this one included, if you
19 took the acreage of the property, in fact
20 which the Board considered when they did
21 a previous lot line change for the
22 adjacent property. There was a previous
23 lot line change that is listed here .
24 It ' s 2011 or 10 . That -- when the Board
25 granted that variance, they actually
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 150
1 looked at -- here it is . Excuse me, ' 01 .
2 In 2001 , Joyce Monk, the adjacent
3 property owner and this property had a
4 lot line change, and area variances with
5 respect to the properties to allow the
6 additional land to be transferred from
7 the Monk property to the south to the
8 Brown property . So this property through
9 your variance included the acreage that
10 goes out to the filed map, the water
11 mark. Now the code, what it essentially
12 did is cut off half of this property.
13 The lot coverage has become substantial .
14 Whereas if we were to use the dimensions
15 that the rest of the community has
16 enjoyed and used prior to the change to
17 the code, our lot coverage would be more
18 in line with the 14%, under the 20% .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I do want to
20 say something here . I know that you
21 brought this up, and with regard to other
22 applications . The code changed for a
23 reason, and I don ' t think that we can
24 revisit what was there . We have to go by
25 what the code says now . There are many
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 151
1 properties with different buildable areas
2 that define very differently when land
3 and underwater was included, and there
4 was a reason for that code change . I
5 actually have a question about the use of
6 that easement . We do -- we do have in
7 our packet that the property owner has
8 changed by Zoning Board resolution . What
9 is that easement actually doing?
10 MS . MOORE : The Brown ' s had been in
11 negotiations with the Monk ' s with another
12 lot line change to allow for greater
13 conforming setbacks because this was the
14 proposed plan. When I met with them, I
15 said, wow, a lot line change is such a
16 long tedious process and expensive
17 process , would the owner next door
18 consider rather -- with certainly getting
19 variances but with an easement that would
20 be binding on both parties . Especially
21 with the Monk ' s that that would be left
22 out for emergency purposes access . So
23 they would be prepared to keep the land
24 as part of their ownership . So that
25 there won ' t be structures made on it and
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 152
1 strictly be used for access . In a sense,
2 creating in practice, the setback -- the
3 greater setback from the south side . So
4 that is something that the owner was
5 willing to do with us . They were willing
6 to do a lot line change . As you know,
7 the lot line process is a very time
8 consuming process that would have
9 required variances again to the Zoning
10 Board, Planning Board and Health
11 Department . And the Health Department is
12 usually the most cumbersome process . So
13 we still needed the variances because
14 obviously we don ' t own the property . But
15 as far as the granting of the variances,
16 it could be with a condition that the
17 southerly portion of the property be
18 restricted in the sense of development .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So let me get
20 this straight because we don ' t have
21 anything in a deed.
22 MS . MOORE : Obviously it is all
23 contingent on a variance because we ' re --
24 they were ready to sell and do all the
25 transactions but it wouldn ' t make sense
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 153
1 if the variances are denied. It ' s a lot
2 of effort and a lot of expense for
3 nothing .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It ' s a
5 proposed easement?
6 MS . MOORE : It ' s a proposed
7 easement .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That clears
9 that up .
10 MS . MOORE : I would also clarify the
11 seasonal nature of the house . This house
12 is actually a year round house . The
13 Brown ' s -- the lineage of this property
14 is , in the 40 ' s, the house was brought
15 in. It was floating over . Put on
16 foundation and one of the -- a priest was
17 living there . Then Mr . Brown ' s father and
18 mother purchased the property in the
19 70 ' s . And this was their parents year
20 round residence . When their parents died,
21 the property went to both, Mr . Brown and
22 his sister . And he more recently
23 purchased his sisters interest and this
24 house will become -- or the new house
25 will become the retirement home for
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 154
1 Mr . And Mrs . Brown who are here today. So
2 that -- so as far as, I heard somebody
3 asking about a Pre-00 . I asked my client
4 and because the house was built in the
5 40 ' s , they never bothered getting a
6 Pre-CO. Their answer was if it still
7 prior to a certain date, it doesn ' t have
8 a CO . I explained that the Pre-CO ' s are
9 evidence that it was built prior to a
10 certain date . Since this house is being
11 proposed for demolition, again, we could
12 certainly go through the process of
13 getting it . This particular house, if my
14 clients wanted to make alterations and
15 construction to make it comfortable for
16 them in retirement, we risk the chances
17 of having issues on 25% demolition issues
18 that plague applicants and Boards . So
19 they thought they were doing the right
20 thing about having a demolition of the
21 existing house . Building back from the
22 existing footprint of the existing house .
23 Placing new house more centered on the
24 property, and further back from the
25 retaining wall . So as you can see from
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 155
1 the plans, the retaining wall, the
2 setback of the existing deck, is 11 . 6 .
3 The proposed covered porch is at 25 . 8 .
4 So it was a significant improvement to
5 the property.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat, I see
7 that you have submitted plans , that this
8 Board reviewed more recently --
9 MS . MOORE : Yes .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would like
11 to point out something . Indeed there was
12 a bulkhead setback variance obtained for
13 this property from this Board, but that
14 property was considerably larger in size
15 than the subject property is . And the
16 setback is 49 feet from the bulkhead,
17 which is almost double of what you are
18 proposing here as a setback. It has only
19 one nonconformity. All the side yards ,
20 lot coverage, front yard, those were all
21 conforming. So I can certainly
22 distinguish those two applications
23 dramatically in fact . One from the other .
24 It is certainly fair to say that in this
25 neighborhood there are a number of
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 156
1 nonconforming lots and a number of
2 nonconforming setbacks . I feel that those
3 two lots don ' t really have much to do
4 with each other in comparison . I will
5 give great prudence to the other ones
6 that you have submitted. Particularly
7 look at other bulkhead setbacks . There
8 are wetlands involved here . There are
9 serious environmental impacts , and this
10 is a large proposal on a tiny little
11 sliver of a lot . It ' s not large .
12 MS . MOORE : It ' s actually a small
13 modest house . I would actually point you
14 to the research that I did do that is in
15 your packet . The third sheet, which is
16 the tax map .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on one
18 second.
19 MS . MOORE: Sure . The first page is
20 the Google Earth. Since Google doesn ' t
21 give me tax lot numbers . I with
22 highlighter and pen, I was able to
23 identify the tax lot numbers . So you can
24 see how they relate with the Google . The
25 second comes from the Town records , all
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 157
1 the listing of the variances on this
2 particular block. The third page is where
3 we kind of get done to the specific
4 individual property. And in particular,
5 if you look at Tax Lot #44 , that one and
6 Tax Lot #46, both of those dealt with
7 very small properties . Very small -- the
8 properties were even before the code
9 change with the buildable area . And with
10 respect to #44 , the lot coverage is 42 . 8 .
11 And with respect to Lot #46, it is 240 .
12 So there has been a recognition of the
13 degree of lot coverage that is necessary
14 on some of these smaller parcels . I would
15 say that they are comparable in the sense
16 that my clients property is narrow, but
17 long . And the other properties are both
18 narrow and short .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can I ask
20 you --
21 MS . MOORE : Sure .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In the case of
23 the one that is 42 . 8 , and the other one
24 is 24 . I want to ask you, were those
25 demolitions or additions and alterations?
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 158
1 MS . MOORE : I don ' t think you had a
2 lot of demolition here . I think they
3 have mostly been additions . Deck
4 additions, alterations . Most of the new
5 construction has been in the garages that
6 they have built . They are two-story, two
7 car garages . Those tend to be the
8 structures that are built on this block.
9 Overall, it seems that the new house is
10 more confirming that the existing house,
11 the existing house if they were forced to
12 renovate the existing house . That was
13 certainly, I believe a very strong page
14 for granting the variances that are being
15 proposed.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am going to
17 look at all these things very carefully
18 for the variances that you have
19 submitted. Certainly, I will not be
20 considering accessory structures,
21 particularly a garage in the front yard.
22 It is nearly not the same scrutiny that a
23 demolition would warrant .
24 MS . MOORE : I think for lot coverage
25 that is actually not correct because lot
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 159
1 coverage regardless of how it is being
2 brought together, whether it ' s an
3 existing house or modified with a garage
4 or a new house, the lot coverage on this
5 property if you look at the actual square
6 footages , the footprint itself is only a
7 thousand-one-hundred -- it ' s on his plan .
8 It ' s on Mark' s plans , 1 , 197 . Certainly
9 it ' s not a large house . The proposed
10 house total -- Mark, do you want to make
11 sure that I am reading the right numbers
12 here .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please just
14 state your name for the record.
15 MR. SCHWARTZ : Mark Schwartz ,
16 architect for the project . The house
17 itself is 1197 . The garage is 290 .
18 MS . MOORE : It ' s a one-car garage .
19 So they are not asking for a very large
20 garage .
21 MR. SCHWARTZ : There is a covered
22 porch of 167 . So a total footprint is
23 1687 . The house itself is 1197 .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And what is
25 the square footage of the second floor?
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 160
1 MR. SCHWARTZ : Second floor is 819 .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. So the
3 total house is 1197 plus 819?
4 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you ever
6 consider the elimination of the garage
7 and moving this more landward?
8 MS . MOORE : I think they need some
9 form of storage .
10 MR. BROWN : Jay Brown, property
11 owner . The real thoughts are, as we get
12 older, a covered structure for a car
13 would be much easier, as opposed to
14 having to deal with out in the weather .
15 Any additional storage would be much of a
16 help .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, we ' re
18 attempting -- trying to have a reasonable
19 new house, on what I am sure we know more
20 than anybody is a an extreme difficult
21 piece of property to work with .
22 You have to come to the podium.
23 MS . BROWN : I am Susan Brown,
24 homeowner. Having had family live in this
25 house for almost 40 years, we ' re very
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 161
1 well aware of the limitations of that
2 lot . And the limitations of the house
3 that small . Essentially as people get
4 older, the house that exist creates a
5 tremendous challenge for someone with
6 disabilities and getting home health
7 people in. We would like to be able to
8 address that so that he could live in
9 this house .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. A
11 number of these dwellings have accessory
12 sheds in the front yard and accessory
13 garages in the front yards that are not
14 attached. I am not suggesting that you
15 eliminate that . You eliminate some of
16 the lot coverage problem. You are able
17 to create a greater setback from the
18 wetlands and the issues with the LWRP
19 coordinator has some concerns with . It ' s
20 just a suggestion .
21 MS . BROWN : As the lot narrows , we
22 went into additional difficulties with
23 the side setback. We thought we had
24 pushed it back as far as we could. The
25 current house actually hits the property
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 162
1 line on one side . We were hoping to
2 improve that . We were hoping to maintain
3 5 feet and then we thought perhaps with
4 the variance, to allow for emergency
5 access and so forth . That it wold be
6 something that would be acceptable .
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mrs . Brown, we
8 have sworn testimony to this Board from
9 an engineer in Mattituck, that says you
10 need 6 feet to put a ladder up on your
11 property to get to the second-story of
12 the house . The max you have is 5 . That is
13 on the northerly property line . It ' s too
14 tight . Something has to go . And it has to
15 be something . You have to come up with
16 abetter plan, in my particular opinion . I
17 am not speaking for the Board. The garage
18 has to go . Possibly, if you reconstruct
19 this house, you can be given a permit to
20 do so, but we have to do something . It ' s
21 just too tight .
22 MS . BROWN : So we need 6 feet?
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In order to put
24 a ladder up on your side yard to work the
`. 25 house, I have been a fireman for 45
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 163
1 years . I am going into my 46 year . Let ' s
2 just assume we couldn ' t get to the other
3 side of your house based upon the winds
4 blowing to get up to the second-story or
5 to even to do maintenance on the house,
6 you need 6 feet to put a ladder on your
7 property to get to the second-story.
8 MS . BROWN : Does it have to be at
9 every point of the house?
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No . You need a
11 minimum of 6 feet . Okay. That was
12 Mr . Notaro on a piece of property down on
13 the side, where the neighbors were
14 extremely concerned that he ws going to
15 go on their property with having to work
16 on the proposed demolition and
17 reconstruction of a home .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We want to make
19 sure, as we ' re obligated to do, when
20 variance relief is appropriate, as the
21 law requires us, the minimum that we can
22 reasonably grant . Not the maximum.
23 Everybody wants the maximum. The minimum.
24 That is what we ' re obligated to do . We
25 are exploring with you ways in which
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 164
1 you ' re proposing for more conformance to
2 the code to the maximum extent that is
3 possible .
4 MS . BROWN : Are you telling us that
5 we need to find 6 feet on both sides?
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 6 feet on the
7 northerly side . On the southerly side, if
8 the 6 feet exist, you may have a little
9 more wiggle room. Also the setback from
10 the retaining wall is entirely too close .
11 That would have to go in my particular
12 opinion. This is my opinion only. The
13 porch should be on the ground level with
14 pavers . Go with either these very, very
15 nice decorative seasonal types of screen
16 houses that you would put on the pavers .
17 It would give us more lot coverage . More
18 additional setback from the concrete
19 retaining wall .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The point is ,
21 even if it were at grade, it would cover .
22 It would be considered a structure --
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No . No . Just an
24 overhang of the house . A soffit overhang
25 straight across . This is the way that you
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 165
1 have to construct on these small pieces
2 of property. I can see why the LWRP
3 Coordinator did that in reference to his
4 evaluation, because it ' s 25 . 8 feet to the
5 retaining wall . This is like
6 unbelievable .
7 MS . MOORE : It ' s 11 feet now.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now, we have a
9 very small seasonal cottage . Whether
10 it ' s year round or not .
11 MS . MOORE : It ' s a small cottage but
12 it ' s not seasonal .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Fine .
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We need you to
15 reorganize it . That is what we need you
16 to do .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The two
18 drywell ' s that are being proposed are
19 entirely within the Zone X Flood Zone and
20 those drywell ' s, they should not be in a
21 flood zone .
22 MS . MOORE : I have read that and
23 that makes absolute sense . The drywell ' s
24 can go in the back or sides .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And certainly
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 166
1 we ' re going to have a non-disturbance
2 buffer.
3 MS . MOORE : Well, vegetated buffer .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No .
5 Non-disturbance means you don ' t touch it .
6 MS . MOORE : Yeah --
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Vegetated
8 buffer means you plant native plantings
9 that is non-turf .
10 MS . MOORE : I understand that, but
11 when you have such small properties,
12 non-disturbance, quite frankly starts
13 looking really bad. We already have a
14 non-disturbance area that is seaward of
15 the concrete retaining wall . That whole
16 area is non-disturbance and hasn ' t been
17 made but practically is . Making it
18 non-disturbance leaves properties
19 looking --
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, I think
21 what Mark was referring to here is a
22 non-disturbance buffer remain seaward of
23 the retaining wall --
24 MS . MOORE : Oh . That ' s fine .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A vegetated
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 167
1 buffer on the landward side be
2 established.
3 MS . MOORE : That ' s fine . That I
4 would expect through the Trustees .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Trustees
6 are going to make that happen anyway. I
7 think we have talked about a number of
8 issues and I would like to allow Mark to
9 meet with his clients and see what
10 alternatives we can come up with. If
11 that is agreeable to all, I think we
12 should adjourn this and offer the other
13 Board members -- we should adjourn this
14 to the June meeting .
15 MS . BROWN : Can I ask one more
16 question?
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes . Please
18 just state your name again --
19 MS . BROWN : Susan Denise Brown . If
20 we remove the garage and push the house
21 as close to the street as the side
22 setbacks would allow us to do with the
23 6 feet, would we be able to maybe save
24 the front porch?
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes . I would
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 168
1 say that you may be able to . Sure . That
2 is something -- you heard everything that
3 we said.
4 MS . BROWN : I just wanted to get a
5 feel .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Board,
7 there is five of us . There is three of
8 us sitting here . I can ' t speak for any
9 other person other than myself because we
10 each have one vote . I would simply take
11 into consideration everything that we
12 have said and come back with what you
13 believe to be the most conforming you can
14 make it without compromising what you
15 feel worth something to investing in.
16 That is a fair way to put it .
17 MS . BROWN : Thank you .
18 MR. SCHWARTZ : I realize that the
19 ( In Audible) are much larger than the
20 setbacks . Just to show that . That is
21 just another example of it .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They ' re very
23 distinguishable . We all have seen other
24 dwellings . That as you well know more
25 than anybody, did not start out as a
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 169
1 demolition. Only when, you know, Sandy
2 did her magic work that you became aware
3 of the fact that the -- that they needed
4 to keep it elevated and at that point,
5 proposed to build under other
6 circumstances .
7 MR. SCHWARTZ : Right .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But again,
9 it ' s a much more bigger property.
10 MR. SCHWARTZ : Right .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So if you want
12 to compare a new structure to a new
13 structure, they are pretty far apart .
14 All right .
15 MS . MOORE : I think he has --
16 MR. BROWN : Just one more quick
17 point again . Jay Brown . Before you
18 mentioned when you were talking about
19 eliminating the garage, you were -- and I
20 just want to clarify so I understand, an
21 auxiliary structure in the front?
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Accessory.
23 MR. BROWN : Accessory. What did you
24 mean?
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything that
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 170
1 is detached is considered an accessory.
2 If it ' s attached, it ' s part of the
3 principal structure . Like what you have
4 now. You will see all up and down your
5 neighborhood, decks and --
6 MR. BROWN : Garages .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Full garages .
8 We ' re not suggesting anything that
9 creates greater nonconformity. If you
10 need a storage shed at some point or the
11 other in the front yard, that is
12 certainly a reasonable thing to do for
13 gardening tools and you know --
14 MS . MOORE : I would have to have my
15 Notice of Disapproval amended if we ' re
16 going to add, because I think we need a
17 variance for a front yard setback.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right . If you
19 can live without it or you can attach a
20 small storage area to the house rather
21 than a garage, that is an option that you
22 can pursue with your architect .
23 MR. BROWN : Understood. Thank you.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. I am
25 going to make a motion to adjourn this
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 171
1 hearing to June 6th at 10 : 20 .
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
4 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
7 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
8 *************************** ************
9 HEARING #6648 - STEVE CONDOS
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The last
11 application before the Board is Steve
12 Condo, #6648 . The request for variance
13 from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and
14 the. Building Inspector ' s
15 February 27 , 2013 Notice of Disapproval
16 based on an application for building
17 permit for as-built deck addition to
18 exiting single family dwelling: 1 ) more
19 than the code permitted maximum lot
20 coverage of 20% , located at : 1350
21 Bayview Avenue in Greenport .
22 So we have an as-built deck at 22%
23 lot coverage and the code permits a
24 maximum of 20% . The lot size is 2 , 250
25 square feet . 75x150 long . The deck was
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 172
1 built about 20 years ago without a
2 permit and now is in contract to a new
3 owner who wants to retain it . So there
4 you are?
5 MS . MOORE : Yes . Here we are . My
6 client tells me the neighborhood got
7 together and built a deck with his
8 neighbors on a weekend. So it has the
9 support of his neighbors at the time .
10 And certainly they ' re still supporting
11 it . They have no problem with it . As
12 you have already stated, the house is in
13 contract . The buyers would like to keep
14 the deck. It is as a summer part and an
15 integral part of the seasonal enjoyment
16 of the house . It is a year-round house
17 but for the buyers, it ' s going to be a
18 second home for them. So the property,
19 the adjacent property to the northeast is
20 14 acre property. That is actually in
'21 the process of being subdivided. It is a
22 subdivision of -- I think at least five
23 homes . I am going by my memory. The
24 land adjacent to .all of these small
25 homes , the subdivision will have a buffer
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 173
1 area, an open space area that is going to
2 be abutting these areas . So I hope the
3 _ other property won ' t bother the other .
4 So it won ' t impact the property directly
5 to the rear . The variance that is -- I
6 take it back, the variance with lot
7 coverage . It ' s moving towards the back
8 of the property.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat, do you
10 happen to know what the square footage of
11 that deck is?
12 MS . MOORE : Yes . Well, the surveys
13 -- well, it ' s 26 by -- 20x26 . I don ' t
14 have my --
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 20x26 .
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 520 square feet .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. That is
18 pretty much it .
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is going to
20 be open to the sky?
21 MS . MOORE : That ' s fine . Open to
22 the sky.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would
24 appear that there was a small storage
25 building there . If that were proposed to
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 174
1 be removed to reduce lot coverage, it
2 would be leaving a good amount of storage
3 for the house .
4 MS . MOORE : Yes .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. I don ' t
6 have any further questions .
7 Gerry?
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Eric?
10 MEMBER DANTES : No .
11 MS . MOORE : Did you get the letter
12 from Mr . Simikas (phonetic) ? It ' s a
13 letter in support? I will just give it
14 to the Board.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don ' t think
16 that we did .
17 MS . MOORE : He went as far as giving
18 it to me .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We will make a
20 note of that .
21 MS . MOORE : The survey didn ' t have
22 the adjacent neighbor .
23 MS . TOTH : 1350 -- no .
24 MS . MOORE : It should be on the
25 notices .
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 175
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A letter from
2 the neighbor in support . All right .
3 There is nobody else in the audience . So
4 I am going to make a motion to close this
5 hearing and reserve decision to a later
6 date .
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
9 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
12 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
13 *** ***** ************ ******************
14
15 (Whereupon, the May 2 , 2013 ,
16 Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of
17 Appeals concluded at 3 : 30 P .M. )
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 176
1
2 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
3
4
5 I , Jessica, certify that the foregoing
6 transcript of tape recorded Public Hearings
7 was prepared using required electronic
8 transcription equipment and is a true and accurate
9 record of the Hearings .
10
11 Signat( Viu
12 J sica DiLallo
13
14
15 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
16 PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
17
18 Date : May 17 , 2013
19
20
21
22
23
24
25