HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-07/11/2013 Hearing 1
1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK
2 ------------------------------------------- X
3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
4
5 ------------------------------------------- X
6 Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York
7
RECEIVED
8 July 11, 2013 AUG 2 2013
10 : 03 A. M.
9 BOAR®OF AFPEAS
10 Board Members Present :
11
12
13 GERARD GOEHRINGER - Member
14 ERIC DANTES - Member
15 GEORGE HORNING - Member
16 KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member
17 JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney
18 VICKI TOTH - Secretary
19
20 LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member (Excused)
21
22 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
23 P. O . Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
24 ( 631) -338-1409
25
2
1 INDEX TO HEARINGS
2
3 Hearing Page
4
5 Timothy McManus, #6657 3-8
6 Ido Mizrahy (Breezy Shores #25 ) , #6660 8-26
7 Graham Willoughby (Breezy
8 Shores #13 ) , #6661 26-36
9 Ralph M. Carbone, #6664 36-67
10 Dina Masso, #6665 67-74
11 Kevin Gallagher & Dorothy
12 Gallagher, #6662 74-103
13 RATSO, LLC, #6666 103-111
14 John Abbott, #6663 111-140
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 3
1 HEARING #6657 - TIMOTHY MCMANUS
2 MR. GOGGINS : And we ' re still doing
3 that . It appears that probably -- Well,
4 the research that I did, I had gone around
5 to Nassau Point and other areas, and the
6 Chairman of the Board had asked if there
7 were other structures similar to this and
8 that had gotten variances, and clearly
9 there was none as far as we could see .
10 Other than, we did see a lot of structures
11 that were renovated or rebuilt - or built
12 that were -- had no permits, and they
13 exist . So the McManus ' are going through
14 the right process by applying for a
15 building permit and trying to, you know,
16 save their structure that was damaged
17 during the hurricane . Yet, there are
18 several other homeowners that have built
19 new structures and never got permits . So
20 it ' s kind of an unequitable situation . But
21 be it as it may, we would like to adjourn
22 it today -- what is probably going to
23 happen, we had an engineer look at the
24 structure . It appears that they can --
25 it ' s not a full demolition, that they would
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 4
1 be able to save a substantial part of it,
2 depending upon what they want to do and how
3 they want to build it . They can certainly
4 save 300 of the structure and maybe more
5 depending upon how they want to renovate
6 it . We ' re exploring that right now . If
7 we ' re able to do that, we might withdraw
8 this appeal and do a new Notice of
9 Disapproval for a rebuild as opposed to a
10 total demolition . And I think if we do
11 that, I am hoping that the Board would be
12 more acceptable to allowing this cabana to
13 exist . Is my reasoning correct? Would
14 this Board consider if it ' s not a total
15 demolition and it ' s a rebuild, more than
16 the 25% required?
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Should I wait
18 before I answer that?
19 MS . ANDALORO : You should wait until
20 you see the application .
21 MR. GOGGINS : Okay. As I said, as a
22 general sense, if the application shows
23 that they' re renovating 600 of it, there is
24 precedent here, that the Board has
25 permitted those types of renovations . I
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 5
1 just don ' t want the McManus ' spending a lot
2 of money going through a process that --
3 yes, sir?
4 MEMBER HORNING : That one has a CO;
5 correct?
6 MR. GOGGINS : Correct .
7 MEMBER HORNING: And the one in the
8 neighborhood that you looked into, you
9 didn ' t find any other with a CO; is that
10 correct?
11 MR. GOGGINS : There are some others
12 that do not have CO ' s , correct .
13 MEMBER HORNING: Some of them?
14 MR. GOGGINS : Yes .
15 MEMBER HORNING: Did you find any
16 others with CO ' s?
17 MR. GOGGINS : Yes . There are some
18 that were preexisting.
19 MEMBER HORNING: Preexisting?
20 MR. GOGGINS : Yes . There were some
21 others . They have a. preexisting CO here
22 that they received back in, I think 1990 --
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 196- 197 ?
24 MR. GOGGINS : 1992 . We have pictures .
25 We submitted them in the photo packet . So
6
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting
1 this is a preexisting building .
2 MEMBER HORNING : And so in our logic,
3 when you demolish something, the
4 preexisting condition vanishes .
5 MR. GOGGINS : Yes .
6 MEMBER HORNING: If you renovate
7 something, correct me if I am wrong, folks,
8 you ' re in a different status?
9 MR. GOGGINS : Right . Yep . Okay.
10 That is exactly.
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Let me just ask a
12 question . . Are you just going to start with
13 the bulkhead or are you going to wait to
14 see --
15 MR. GOGGINS : Well, I think they ' re
16 going to try and wait but depending upon
17 the time, they may need to build the
18 bulkhead before this work. They ' re hoping
19 to do it at the same time . We have Samuels
20 & Steelman working on plans right now . And
21 you know, hopefully, we ' re going to take
22 this process , we ' re going to withdraw this
23 appeal and file a new Notice of Disapproval
24 and go forward again .
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So you ' re going to
July. 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 7
1 withdraw it now or you ' re going to wait?
2 MR. GOGGINS : I am going to wait . I
3 am going to do it in writing that I
4 withdraw it . So there is no question that
5 we withdrew it . And then we will proceed
6 that way. Thank .you for your time and I
7 appreciate it . Have a good day.
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you . So are
9 we adjourning this?
10 MS . ANDALORO : Yes .
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We ' re adjourning
12 this to when?
13 MR. GOGGINS : To the next meeting .
14 Whenever that is . We will adjourn it to
15 August but I anticipate sending a letter
16 next week withdrawing. Thank you.
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We ' re going to
18 give you a generic time . Hold on.
19 August 8th at 2 : 30 .
20 MR. GOGGINS : Thank you .
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I will make the
22 motion to adjourn this .
23 MEMBER HORNING : Second.
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All in favor?
25 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 8
1 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
4 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
5 *******************************************
6 HEARING #6660 - IDO MIZRAHY (BREEZY
7 SHORES #25 )
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is Appeal
9 No . 2 of the day. This is Ido Mizrahy, and
10 our illustrious clerk will read the legal
11 notice .
12 MS . TOTH : This is a request for
13 variance from Article XXIII Code Section
14 280-123A and the Building Inspector ' s March
15 7 , 2013 Notice of Disapproval based on an
16 application for building permit for
17 additions and alterations to an existing
18 seasonal cottage at; 1) a nonconforming
19 building containing a nonconforming use
20 shall not be enlarged, reconstructed,
21 structurally altered or moved, lunless such
22 building is changed to a conforming use,
23 located at : #25 Breezy Shores Community
24 Incorporated, 65490 Main Road, also known
25 as Route 25 and Sage Boulevard, adjacent to
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 9
1 Shelter Island Sound in Greenport, New
2 York.
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Proceed.
4 Mr . Uellendahl . Can you please state your
5 appearance?
6 MR. UELLENDAHL : I am Frank Uellendahl .
7 I am representing Ido Mizrahy. You asked me
8 to contact all adjacent neighbors and they
9 were 39 of them. I did receive 31 back,
10 which I gave to Vicki . I picked up 3 that
11 were not deliverable and I am still waiting
12 for 5 , which I will submit .
13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you .
14 MR. UELLENDAHL : You ' re familiar with
15 Breezy Shores , mostly you have dealt with
16 two cases . I think Cottage No . 5 , Otano and
17 this year you dealt with the Mullman . That
18 is Cottage No . 11 . Our cottage is the last
19 cottage on the landward side of the
20 community. It is on the left-hand side .
21 It ' s a two bedroom cottage and we ' re
22 probably doing something very similar to
23 what the Mullman ' s were asking for, but
24 we ' re not going to put in a new foundation
25 with a crawl space . Mr . Mizrahy likes the
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 10
1 cottage actually the way that it is . He
2 would like to change the inside with the
3 exposed rafters, floor boards and the
4 studs . There is no insulation. We
5 probably will put some minimal insulation
6 on top of the roof and the siding, because
7 we ' re going to reside and new roof . But
8 the one problem that we have with this
9 cottage, in particular the porch areas .
10 The entrance door is 5 ' 8 , so the headroom
11 in these areas are 519 . I am 6 ' 4 . I am
12 crawling . So I had to be careful to not
13 bang my head. So that is why we 'would like
14 to raise the ceiling by approximately 16
15 inches . So we could get a 6 ' 8 door in with
16 a header . So that actually raises the
17. structure by 6 inches . I am planning to do
18 this , not at the top because I like the
19 appearance of the interior, but I would
20 like - to install a 16 inch high perimeter
21 beam along the footprint . The footprint
22 itself stays the same . We ' re not
23 increasing the actual living space . Most
24 of the changes are really interior . We
25 would like to put in new windows . Better
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 11
1 windows . The site plan says additions . We
2 would like to relocate the water tank to
3 the outside, so that the -- for square
4 feet . And we have a couple of entry wooden
5 decks that the Building Department requires
6 a 3 foot -- minimum 3 foot deep landing.
7 And so, basically -- most of the changes
8 are on the inside . We would like to open up
9 the floor plan to recreate an open kitchen .
10 Living, dining situation. And then one of
11 the front porches can become a guest room.
12 That is basically the extent of it . If you
13 have any questions, I would be happy to
14 answer them.
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to ask
16 you one question . I forget, is the shower
17 deck -- the outside shower --
18 MR. UELLENDAHL : Right .
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was over there
20 twice and I forgot and it just didn ' t dawn
21 on me, is that there?
22 MR. UELLENDAHL : Yes . This is there
23 and we ' re going to keep it . We ' re going to
24 redo the floor . There was a bend, and we ' re
25 going to make it a little bit smaller .
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 12
1 There is no room to actually take a shower .
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How large is that?
3 MR. UELLENDAHL : This is -- I think
4 the plan shows -- let me just check. There
5 is an existing "as-built" floor plan, it ' s
6 about 3 x 4 . 7 -- no . It ' s about -- let ' s
7 call it 4 . 6 x 4 . 6 .
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 4 . 6 x 4 . 6?
9 MR. UELLENDAHL : Correct .
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So that exists?
11 MR. UELLENDAHL : That exists, and
12 we ' re not increasing the shower . We ' re
13 replacing possibly the floor .
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. The front
15 porch, I see you have two of them. One out
16 of the bedroom?
17 MR. UELLENDAHL : Yes . The bedroom will
18 become -- if you turn to the proposed floor
19 plan, you will see that becomes the dining
20 area . Right now, there are two small
21 windows up high. So the cottage really
22 doesn ' t have a great view of the water .
23 This is like what the people bought it for .
24 So we would like to take this off and put
25 in a double door, 6 ' 8 and that requires a
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 13
1 wood deck. So this is basically -- this
2 will probably become the new entrance .
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay . And that is
4 how large?
5 MR. UELLENDAHL : The deck again is 3 '
6 x 6 ' wide .
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And that does not
8 exist?
9 MR. UELLENDAHL : That does not exist .
10 That ' s proposed.
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So is the
12 situation -- when you ' re referring to the
13 existing steps in Bedroom #2 , does that
14 exist? I am aware of the situation but I
15 am just putting it on the record.
16 MR. UELLENDAHL : Correct . This is a
17 new entrance and deck.
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And how wide is
19 that?
20 MR. UELLENDAHL : You ' re talking about
21 the sun room; right?
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am talking about
23 Bedroom #2 .
24 MR. UELLENDAHL : In the existing --
25 there is nothing right now. This becomes a
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 14
1 dining room. In the proposed plan, it
2 shows a wood deck, 3 feet deep and 6 foot
3 wide .
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I have that
5 again?
6 MR. UELLENDAHL : 3 feet deep and 6
7 feet wide .
8 MEMBER HORNING: What is the one next
9 to that in the sitting room?
10 MR. UELLENDAHL : Right now, there is a
11 couple of steps, as you can see . Again,
12 the Building Department will ask me to
13 enlarge the landing, the top step, to 3
14 feet . So this becomes a little bit --
15 . MEMBER HORNING : There are no
16 dimensions on that . r
17 MR. UELLENDAHL : Okay. I can give you
18 dimensions . They are -- the existing width
19 is 5 feet wide and 3 feet deep .
20 MEMBER HORNING: Was that just an
21 omission that the dimensions are not on
22 the --
23 MR. UELLENDAHL : Yes , I guess .
24 MEMBER HORNING: So that is an
25 additional . You ' re asking for basically
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 15
1 four additional landings, let ' s say .
2 MR. UELLENDAHL : Only three .
3 MEMBER HORNING: You ' re asking for a
4 hot water heater --
5 MR. UELLENDAHL : Yes .
6 MEMBER HORNING: And three landings?
7 MR. UELLENDAHL : Yes . Three small
8 little decks . Always in relation to an
9 exit or an entrance door .
10 MEMBER HORNING : I mean, is there any
11 reason you need to have two entries , one in
12 the dining room and one in the sitting
13 room?
14 MR. UELLENDAHL : No, not really. I
15 could certainly leave the sitting room
16 situation the way that it is, and not
17 enlarge it .
18 MEMBER HORNING: What is the code
19 requirement, you told us this , for landing
20 and code entrance steps?
21 MR. UELLENDAHL : Three feet . The
22 Building Department keeps asking me when I
23 present a two foot little step out of a
24 room, to make it three feet, because that
25 is the code .
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 16
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: To make it what?
2 MR. UELLENDAHL : Three feet . 3 x 3 .
3 MEMBER HORNING: That is the
4 minimum?
5 MR. UELLENDAHL : Yes .
6 MEMBER HORNING: The code requires a
7 minimum 3 x 3?
8 MR. UELLENDAHL : Yes . The width is
9 usually, the width of an entrance door and
10 then you have a 3 foot wide length.
11 MEMBER HORNING : And the one that is
12 there now does not meet code?
. 13 MR. UELLENDAHL : No . Well, nothing
14 really meets code there . The ceiling
15 heights are below seven feet . That is the
16 minimum residential clear ceiling height .
17 So by raising the roof, I am proposing 713"
18 to get the structural header in there, we
19 actually have a minimum of 7 ' 3" . That is
20 code compliant .
21 MEMBER HORNING: I think the Board' s
22 major concern is the actual degree of
23 increase of nonconformities . And we have
24 tried to limit any increases in any of the
25 'degree of nonconformities , which is why I
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 17
1 was asking you about the three feet landing
2 and the sitting room, which increases the
3 degree of the nonconformity, as well as the
4 other proposed structures too .
5 MR. UELLENDAHL : Right .
6 MEMBER HORNING : Back up a moment .
7 The 16" beam that you ' re proposing on top
8 of the foundation, is that the only
9 foundation work?
10 MR. UELLENDAHL : We do need, I think
11 in the elevations, you will see -- we ' re
12 replacing the foundation, which partially
13 consist of concrete blocks , just put on the
14 grade and a partially locust posts . Some
15 of those locust posts are rotten . So we do
16 need to replace individual footings . I am
17 not suggesting -- I don ' t like the look
18 really of a continuance across the
19 foundation . I would like to actually see
20 the individual footings and raising this up
21 a little bit. more above grade to really
22 make it look like it used to be, as the
23 case before .
24 MEMBER HORNING: Will you put skirting
25 or --
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 18
1 MR. UELLENDAHL : Well, there is no
2 need really for skirting because it ' s still
3 relatively close to grade .
4 MEMBER HORNING: I thought I saw
5 reference to something on the foundation
6 being damaged, is --
7 MR. UELLENDAHL : Yes . Some of the
8 locusts posts are in really bad shape . I
9 noticed this when you walk through the
10 cottage, it ' s very spongy. Very soft .
11 MEMBER HORNING: So the damage is
12 through the longevity --
13 MR. UELLENDAHL : Correct .
14 MEMBER HORNING: Of the existence?.
15 MR. UELLENDAHL : I don ' t think this
16 cottage has been really touched. No
17 renovations .
18 MEMBER HORNING: No damage?
19 MR. UELLENDAHL : No .
20 MEMBER HORNING: No recent damage?
21 MR. UELLENDAHL : No . Even during
22 Sandy, I was surprised. This cottage
23 didn ' t have any damage .
24 MEMBER HORNING: So are you going to
25 raise, lift the building off --
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 19
1 MR. UELLENDAHL : Yes . Unless we find
2 a way to do it individually, but by
3 installing, call it the "grade beam, " the
4 16" beam, I think we will have to actually
5 lift it up to install the footings and then
6 the beam, and then bring this down again,
7 and install the floor . Now, I can actually
8 see the grade through the floor boards .
9 The gaps are -- you know, half an inch
10 wide .
11 MEMBER HORNING: That would be
12 pressure treated timber ridge --
13 MR. UELLENDAHL : Yes . It has to be as
14 proposed.
15 MEMBER HORNING : So there is no intent
16 to move the building, other than lift it
17 up?
18 MR. UELLENDAHL: Correct, and bring it
19 down again .
20 MEMBER HORNING : So no moving of the
21 structure . You ' re not demolishing the
22 structure to any degree?
23 MR. UELLENDAHL : No, we would like to
24 hold onto the existing roof, which we like,
25 and also the walls . So basically the
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 20
1 cottage itself . We may have to -- there
2 are two porches, in the sun-room and the
3 enclosed porch. Since we ' re replacing the
4 windows, . we ' re probably going to end up to
5 reframe the walls of the porch, because I
6 don ' t think anything will stay in place .
7 MEMBER HORNING: Couple of more
8 questions for me . But you do intend to
9\ altar and enlarge the structure; correct?
10 MR. UELLENDAHL : Correct .
11 MEMBER HORNING : Can you actually
12 provide the actual square footage of the
13 structure including the shower? Anything
14 the Building Department will consider part
15 of the structure --
16 MR. UELLENDAHL : Absolutely.
17 MEMBER HORNING: And give us the
18 square footage, total square footage of all
19 the proposed additions? Add that up for us
20 and give us a rough percentage of the
21 increase that you ' re proposing?
22 MR. UELLENDAHL : Yes, I will do that .
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And Frank,
24 anything that you would consider to be
25 exempt, you may want to run it by the
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 21
1 Building Department and find out what
2 they ' re going to consider exempt as opposed
3 to --
4 MEMBER HORNING: In other words, . I
5 think what Gerry is saying, if you had a
6' 3 x 3 entry way, that is exempt . Is that
7 correct, guys?
8 MR. UELLENDAHL : Right .
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There may be one
10 exemption.
11 MR. UELLENDAHL : Right, and not two .
12 Right . Okay. Yes, I will check with the
13 Building Department .
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And I can ' t tell
15 you how important this is , because as you
16 know, we only grant a 3% increase on --.
17 MR. UELLENDAHL : Yes .
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So that is the
19 issue .
20 MR. UELLENDAHL : Very well . Will do .
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Any questions?
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes, I have a
23 question . What condition is the septic
24 system in?
25 MR. UELLENDAHL : I do not know the
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 22
1 condition of the septic system in this
2 case, but I was told, he ' s not sharing a
3 septic system with another cottage, which
4 is the case in some of those adjacent
5 cottages . The existing bathroom, there is
6 a toilet and wash basin. We ' re adding an
7 interior shower. So there is an interior
8 change as you can see on the drawing, but
9 it ' s in the same -place . So there is no
10 problem in hooking up to the exiting waste
11 line .
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And you feel that
13 this structure can be lifted without any
14 major detriment?
15 MR. UELLENDAHL : Yes . I spoke to a
16 house mover or lifter, and it ' s amazing
17 what they can do . I mean, I have a very
18 old large barn in Orient, one of my
19 clients , and I was there yesterday and they
20 lifted it up four feet . You know, they have
21 the privings . They have the support, the
22 steel beams . And they can do this, you
23 know, exactly, half an inch, a quarter of
24 an inch .
25 MEMBER HORNING : Very good. So you
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 23
1 feel confident that you won ' t destroy the
2 cottage?
3 MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes . Yes .
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: How high do you
5 think that you ' re going to lift it?
6 MR. UELLENDAHL : Well , in my
7 application, I had mentioned -- the total
8 would be 23-24 inches . 16, should go on
9 the inside and I would like to bring this
10 up a little bit more . I don ' t know if you
11 saw the situation on the north side of the
12 cottage . The grade is much higher . So
13 that would alleviate a little bit . That is
14 one reason why I don ' t want a crawl space
15 and a continuous foundation. In case there
16 is a flood, the water would just rush right
17 through .
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And you plan on
19 installing gutters and leaders and
20 drywell ' s?
21 MR. UELLENDAHL : Yes . Absolutely.
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have no other
23 questions .
24 MEMBER HORNING: There was a reference
25 to a recent ZBA decision, Mullman, and I
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 24
1 want to take note that there are a couple
2 of conditions in that decision. Indicating
3 that the structure should only be used as
4 an unheated seasonal cottage . Your client
5 is aware that there might be a condition
6 like that?
7 MR. UELLENDAHL : Absolutely. And it ' s
8 stated, this has to remain a seasonal
9 cottage . It is unheated. And the Mullman ' s
10 as I saw on their application, they ' re
11 going to insulate the building . They' re not
12 going to use it in the winter time, because
13 most of the cottages are really closed up
14 during the winter .
15 MEMBER HORNING : Okay. Thank you .
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just wanted to
17 give this to you . This is from the County
18 of Suffolk regarding -- yes .
19 Okay. Eric?
20 MEMBER DANTES : No questions .
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. Hearing no
22 further comments from the Board. Is there
23 anyone in the audience that would like to
24 speak for or against this application?
25 Kindly state your name for the
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 25
1 record.
2 MS . SZARKA: My name is Helen Szarka .
3 I am on the Board of Breezy Shores . The
4 Board wants you to know that we approve of
5 the application and I think that you all
6 know that all the cottages at Breezy can
7 use a little extra love . They really need
8 a lot of support and upgrading of them.
9 We ' re very happy to see this and we hope
10 that it will go forward as presented.
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Could you spell
12 your last name?
13 MS . SZARKA: Sure . It ' s "S" as in Sam.
14 "Z" as in zebra, A-R-K-A.
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
16 MS . SZARKA: Thank you.
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody
18 else that would like to speak?
19 (No Response . )
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Seeing none . I
21 will make a motion closing the hearing
22 pending the acceptance of the following
23 information that we needed from the
24 architect, with the percentage of increase,
25 and that portion of it that are the
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 26
1 additions that we had been discussing .
2 MEMBER HORNING: Second.
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All in favor?
4 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
5 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
8 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
9 *******************************************
10 HEARING #6661 - GRAHAM WILLOUGHBY
11 (BREEZY SHORES #13 )
12 MS . TOTH : The next application is for
13 Graham Willoughby at Breezy Shores , #6661 .
14 Request for variance from Article XXIII
15 Code Section 280-123A and the Building
16 Inspector ' s March 7 , 2013, amended May 2 ,
17 2013 Notice of Disapproval based on an
18 application for building permit for
19 additions and alterations to an existing
20 seasonal cottage at ; 1) a nonconforming
21 building containing a nonconforming use
22 shall - not be enlarged, reconstructed,
23 structurally altered or moved, unless such
24 building is changed to a conforming use,
25 located at : #13 Breezy Shores Community,
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 27
1 Incorporated, 65490 Main Road, also known
2 as State route 25 and Sage Boulevard,
3 adjacent to Shelter Island Sound in
4 Greenport, New York.
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you .
6 Frank, can you give us your
7 appearance, please .
8 MR. UELLENDAHL : My name is Frank
9 Uellendahl representing Graham Willoughby.
10 His wife, Annmarie Williams is present .
11 And I, again, have three --
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
13 MR. UELLENDAHL: This cottage is on
14 the water side, but they proposed activity
15 is beyond the 75 foot wetlands setback.
16 It ' s landward of the cottage . There is
17 apparently, a small mud-room addition and
18 entrance into the existing kitchen . And on
19 the other side, there is a small bathroom.
20 What the owners would like to do is
21 increase the size of the bathroom, so that
22 we could have a code compliant situation
23 there . And switch the entrance basically
24 with the bathroom. This will allow. us to
25 have a much nicer usable kitchen. Right
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 28
1 now, it ' s all in pieces . The sink is
2 sitting by itself . The refrigerator and
3 the stove . There is basically a kitchen
4 table in the center, which is only space .
5 In order to achieve this, we ' re basically
6 suggesting the -- push out the exterior
7 wall by a few inches and bring this all the
8 way across . Basically filling in that gap .
9 And this is basically a 27 square foot
10 enlargement of the existing cottage . This
11 is the only two-story structure . So there
12 are bedrooms upstairs . As far as the
13 septic system is concerned, there are no
14 changes to the bathroom. The waste line
15 status is the same and will be hooked-up to
16 the existing waste line . It ' s a relatively
17 small project but I need to ask for a
18 variance because it ' s and enlargement of a
19 nonconforming structure .
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What is the
21 existing square footage of the structure?
22 The footprint? So I can get that number,
23 so we can see the percentages?
24 MR. UELLENDAHL : I think I mentioned
25 the percentage in the application.
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 29
1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yep . I saw that,
2 30 . I would just like to know the square
3 percentage .
4 MR. UELLENDAHL : I will submit it to
5 your office . Absolutely. I did this . You
6 would like the existing footprint?
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes . The existing
8 footprint square footage .
9 MR. UELLENDAHL : But only the first
10 floor? Not the living space?
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes . The first
12 floor footprint .
13 MR. UELLENDAHL : Yes .
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Are there any other
15 structurals?
16 MR. UELLENDAHL : I propose, since
17 we ' re pushing this out a little bit, I feel
18 we should do something similar to what
19 we ' re doing to Cottage #25 . I just need
20 three concrete footings . A beam up on top
21 and then reframe the bathroom and the
22 entrance area accordingly . The existing
23 roof -- there are two slightly different
24 pitches . We ' re going to . let the pitch that
25 we have on the water side, almost symmetric
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 30
1 to the side elevation that will run all the
2 way across . But I would like to propose a
3 deck from the corner of the two structures,
4 for architectural reasons .
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Of course .
6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: But there are no
7 other construction?
8 MR. UELLENDAHL : No . Well, at one
9 point, there will be a new kitchen but that
10 will all be in this area .
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. That ' s it for
12 me .
13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just wanted to
14 refer you back -to the LWRP Coordinator ' s
15 evaluation that this is a consistent
16 action. Do you have a copy of that?
17 MR. UELLENDAHL : Yes .
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: His only
19 recommendation is that you adhere to
20 Chapter 236 of the Stormwater Management,
21 and that is of course, leaders and gutters
22 into proper drains .
23 MR. UELLENDAHL : Right .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you have any
25 problem with that?
July 111, 2013 Regular Meeting 31
1 MR. UELLENDAHL : No . If you would
2 like, I can ask the owner, would you like
3 us to install a small drywell?
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is what
5 you ' re going to have to do, yes .
6 MR. UELLENDAHL : Let me ask Emily.
7 We ' re only focusing on the activity in the
8 front or are we talking about the entire
9 structure? We may need a couple of
10 drywell ' s on each end.
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The Building
12 Department will tell you that . When we
13 discuss any type of cesspool systems in
14 this area, I would suspect, except for the
15 ones that have been upgraded, they ' re all
16 brick.
17 MR. UELLENDAHL : Yes .
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is what this
19 was .
20 MR. UELLENDAHL : Round, brick. We
21 will do this and I will actually show this
22 on the site plan when we submit the
23 percentage of the footprint .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you .
25 MEMBER HORNING: Do your clients have
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 32
1 to have their septic containers pumped out
2 seasonally or every two years?
3 MR. UELLENDAHL: This is usually not
4 required seasonally, because they are only
5 there a few months out of the year or maybe
6 a weekend, but due to the ( In Audible) of
7 the existing systems , it ' s advisable to do
8 it and not wait six, seven or eight years .
9 Since some do . I can find out but it is
10 not necessary to do it once a year .
11 MEMBER HORNING : Every few years?
12 MR. UELLENDAHL : Correct .
13 MEMBER HORNING : And in your research,
14 did you find out how this second story was
15 put on there?
16 MR. UELLENDAHL : Well, Emily -- the
17 variety of footprint ' s of these cottages ,
18 some of them are identical but there are a
19 lot of different floor plans . I can only
20 guess that 'the second floor was required
21 because a larger family was living there .
22 These were all workers that would leave
23 during the winter time because they
24 couldn ' t produce brick.
25 MEMBER HORNING: Well, I am asking,
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 33
1 could it be roughly dated? Was it prior to
2 the introduction of code?
3 MR. UELLENDAHL : Oh, yes . There were
4 no code requirements when the cottages were
5 built .
6 MEMBER HORNING: Can you guess?
7 MR. UELLENDAHL : I would guess that it
8 was built around the same time -- maybe
9 they improved upon it when they were making
10 bricks . This is the 30 ' s . We all know in
11 the 1938 hurricane, the brick company had
12 to close . It was all flooded with salt
13 water .
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is this single
15 construction all throughout the house?
16 MR. UELLENDAHL : Yes . Well, are you
17 talking about the materials?
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are there walls
19 inside the house or are there studs
20 showing?
21 MR. UELLENDAHL : No . There is
22 wainscoting .
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay .
24 MR. UELLENDAHL : So I assume that
25 there is some insulation but it ' s minimal .
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 34
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. Thank you .
2 Eric?
3 MEMBER DANTES : No questions at this
4 time .
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. Is there
6 anyone in the audience who would like .to
7 speak in favor or against this application?
8 MR. UELLENDAHL : Thank you .
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Hi, how are you?
10 MS . SZARKA: I am doing well . Thank
11 you .
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can you just state
13 your name again?
14 MS . SZARKA: Helen Szarka . I am on the
15 Board of Breezy Shores . Again, we approve
16 of the project that is being done . We ' re
17 happy that work is being done and that
18 improvements are being made to the property
19 and we hope that you will approve it as it
20 was presented to you . Thank you .
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you .
22 Is there anyone else that would like
23 to speak?
24 Could you please just state your name
25 for the record.
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 35
1 MS . HEIDENRY: Martha Heidenry. I am
2 in #29 in Breezy Shores .
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can you spell your
4 name?
5 MS . HEIDENRY : Yes . Sorry. H-E-I , "D"
6 like David. E, "N" like Nancy, R-Y . I am a
7 neighbor of Sam and Emily and I am in favor
8 of them doing this work.
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you very
10 much .
11 MS . HEIDENRY: Thank you.
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Anyone else?
13 (No Response . )
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. Seeing no
15 hands , I will make a motion to close this
16 hearing pending the receipt of the
17 information that was requested, and that is
18 the square footage of the site plan -- of
19 the structure and the site plan to include
20 Chapter 236 of Stormwater Runoff from the
21 overall roof of the structure .
22 Anything else?
23 (No Response . )
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. I will offer
25 that as a resolution.
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 36
1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All in favor?
3 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
4 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
7 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
9 HEARING #6664 - RALPH M. CARBONE, JR.
10 MS . TOTH : The next hearing is for
11 Ralph M. Carbone, Jr . No . 6664 . Request
12 for variances from Article XXII Code
13 Section 280-116 and Article III Code
14 Section 280-14 and the Building Inspector ' s
15 April 16, 2013 , amended May 13, 2013 Notice
16 . of Disapproval based on an application for
17 building permit for additions and
18 alterations to a single family dwelling,
19 at; 1 ) less than the code required 100 foot
20 setback from top of the bluff, 2 ) more than
21 the code limit number of stories (2 1/2 )
22 with a height more than the code limit of
23 35 feet, located at : East End Road, also
24 known as Castle Road, adjacent to Block
25 Island Sound on Fishers Island, New York.
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 37
1 MR. HAM: Stephen Ham, 38 Nugent
2 Street, Southampton, for the applicant .
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What would you
4 like to tell us, Mr . Ham?
5 MR. HAM: I would like to give you
6 some things .
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Ham, before
8 you start, I just wanted to mention to you,
9 it is a possibility that we might adjourn
10 this hearing so that members could look at
11 this, within the next three weeks when
12 y.ou ' re over there . And that is really the
13 only reason why we would be adjourning it ,
14 unless there is further information that we
15 would need to get .
16 MR. HAM: Okay. We will see .
17 As you can see from that photo, there
18 is substantial damage to the bluff of this
19 property from Hurricane Sandy and my
20 clients engaged Coastal Engineers to
21 prepare a plan to restore and stabilize the
22 bluff . That was approved by the Town
23 Trustees and the State DEC, and they
24 restorations have commenced. Although it
25 has been in abeyance during the summer . At
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 38
1 the same time, they received a permit to do
2 interior renovations to the property and
3 are proposing a very modest increase to the
4 existing building, which will add a few
5 decks . Demolish some portions of the
6 existing deck and add a few decks . The lot
7 coverage will increase minimally. The lot
8 coverage has been approved by the Town
9 Trustees and out of jurisdiction for the
10 State DEC . I have attached a memorandum, a
11 letter of non-jurisdiction from the DEC .
12 The Trustees permit I did not have . It was
13 handed to me this morning . So this work
14 that is before you, has now been approved
15 by the jurisdictions . I was handed a LWRP
16 report just now. Haven ' t had time to
17 digest that .
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And you did
19 receive a Soil & Water Report?
20 MR. HAM: Yes . And the Soil & Water
21 Report I received a week or two ago . I
22 gave that to Dick Straus, who is an
23 engineer and he has responded to that . By
24 enlarge, you will see in his letter to me,
25 which addresses that report . It ' s attached
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 39
1 as Exhibit B to my memorandum that I
2 distributed to you. By enlarge, he is
3 saying that my clients are acting
4 consistently with the recommendations . ( In
5 Audible) interpreted the site plan . There
6 is room for a silk fence . It won ' t be on
7 the side of the bluff . It will be on the
8 top of the bluff . The site plan that was
9 submitted with our application shows
10 conditions that will exist following the
11 bluff restoration . :Existing conditions are
12 shown on Page 3 of that OCC Report, which I
13 distributed with a photograph . So there
14 will be room at the top of the bluff with a
15 silk fence . I believe that was the only
16 difference between what my clients were
17 proposing and what was recommended and that
18 Soil & Water report .
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don ' t normally
20 act as Chairperson here . I have been asked
21 to refer to those recommendations that you
22 had just eluded to and basically make you
23 aware from Pages 7 , 8 and 9 of that report,
24 which are the recommendations from POLY,
25 that they be made part of the report . And
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 40
1 that we ask you that, whatever
2 recommendation, as you just mentioned, so
3 inclined to deal with. Basically from this
4 information or inadvertently thought of
5 something different . I haven ' t read this
6 information to date but at the end of this
7 hearing I will ask you if you are and again
8 reaffirm, that you ' re aware of these and
9 that you ' re pretty much dealing with the
10 major portion .
11 MR. HAM: Absolutely.
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And you will
13 reflect that the swimming pool does not
14 have a CO on it, and what you ' re doing with
15 that and how you ' re going to obtain it and
16 so on and so forth. And for that
17 particular situation, I will let you
18 continue your presentation .
19 MR. HAM: I did not represent the
20 Carbone ' s when they purchased the property.
21 I was not aware of the lack of the CO for
22 the swimming pool . So that is a new one .
23 We would need to apply, presume for a
24 variance given its location for that . I
25 have set forth the legal criteria in the
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 41
1 memorandum. I just wanted to point out, the
2 whole property, the house is nonconforming .
3 The only area that we can work to allow the
4 lot coverage to increasing that only
5 slightly is only in a nonconforming area
6 and less nonconforming. As I pointed out
7 in the memorandum, as you can see, and from
8 the existing conditions , which are in the
91 OCC report, it is a setback now with minus
10 about four or five feet . The worse setback
11 of the -- the closest after the bluff is
12 stabilized in the paperwork, would be 13
13 feet . And no new structure, in effect is
14 there, 23 feet . So in absolute terms , it
15 may be considered a substantial variance
16 but in realistic terms , we ' re becoming more
17 nonconforming and it ' s not particularly
18 substantial . Also we have no alternatives
19 given the fact that the property, the house
20 itself, is within 100 feet of the bluff .
21 Insofar as the other variances are
22 concerned, third story for Captain 's Walk
23 which would be changed . That is more or
24 less a decorative feature . It ' s not really
25 functional living space . You can walk to
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 42
1 it . There might be a bench in it . It will
2 be used for observation purposes . It ' s
3 about the size of two pieces of plywood.
4 So technically it may be a story but it ' s
5 more in the nature of a cupola or an item
6 under the Zoning Code that would normally
7 be exempt from the height requirement . As
8 far as the height itself, which the Notice
9 of Disapproval indicated was 39 feet, that
10 could be somewhat arbitrary depending on
11 where you measure it from. ) We think it ' s
12 le.ss than that . But again, it ' s something
13 that is not going to be visible from the
14 neighbors . It ' s not visible from the
15 house, as I understand it , when you stand
16 in front of it . So as far as the issues
17 that you need to address for a area
18 variance, I think that this qualifies . I
19 understand that there are concerns for
20 erosion and measurements and so forth . The
21 plans for both the stabilization of the
22 bluff and for the construction and
23 activities around the house, in terms of
24 runoff and so forth, we believe address
25 this in a logical and effective way.
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 43
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I will make a
2 general statement . Your appearance before
3 this Board has always been very
4 constructive, and anything that we ' re, I am
5 referring to, as well as members of this
6 Board are referring to, are viewed to be
7 constructive . We ' re not here in any way to
8 be de-constructive . And I am speaking
9 actually for the entire Board. There are
10 issues from other agencies that we need to
11 discuss . And more in particular, as you
12 touched on the Widow ' s Walk and so on and
13 so forth, is that an enclosed structure?
14 MR. HAM: Yes .
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So therefore, if
16 it ' s enclosed, it ' s a third-story
17 individual evaluation of that . It needs to
18 - be sprinklered. It needs to be part of the
19 system. I realize that this is an extremely
20 large house . On the North Fork of this
21 wonderful island as well as Fisher ' s
22 Island, once a house meets a certain square
23 footage, it has to be mandatory sprinklered
24 anyway.
25 MR. HAM: Yes . And my client
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 44
1 understands that, and there are avenues to
2 variances for that requirement as well .
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You ' re going to
4 take those avenues or basically that you
5 will sprinkler? We have to know that
6 sometime during the hearing. So we need
7 you to use the mic, Mr . Carbone?
8 MR. CARBONE : I am Ralph Carbone, the
9 owner . The sprinklers for the third floor,
10 is that the area for the sprinkler head
11 there, and then there is a stairway -- so
12 doing the third floor, I have no issues .
13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As long as the
14 third floor goes to a sprinkler system all
15 the way down. You ' re sprinklering the
i
16 entire house or no?
17 MR. CARBONE : I am planning to not
18 sprinkler the whole entire house .
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. So that has
20 to go down to a second floor stairway, to a
21 first floor stairway to an outside door.
22 MR. CARBONE : You want me to carry the
23 sprinkler system from the third floor to
24 the walkway in the hallway, down the
25 stairway, to the exit?
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 45
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is my take on
2 that . I am not an engineer .
3 MEMBER DANTES : There is a New York
4 State Code .
5 MR. CARBONE : If that is what it is , I
6 will take that into consideration . I am
7 not going to sprinkler the whole entire
8 house . It ' s too massive of a project .
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What your
10 insurance company tells you is fine with
11 me . I am just telling you what we require
12 up to this particular date . As I eluded
13 to, if the house exceeds on the North Fork,
14 a maximum square footage of more than 5, 000
15 square feet, the insurance companies on the
16 North Fork have been requiring all owners
17 to sprinkler the entire the house . They do
18 on Fisher ' s Island. It ' s what they' re
19 doing here at this point . Again, this is
20 my take . I am not an engineer . I am just
21 referring this to you.
22 MR. CARBONE : I appreciate it .
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I consider this
24 attorney to be one of the most
25 straightforward attorneys that we have ever
July 11, 2013 Regular, Meeting 46
1 dealt with.
2 MR. CARBONE : Thank you. Appreciate
3 it .
4 MEMBER DANTES : ( In Audible) .
5 MR. HAM: 7x10 , meaning, if you put two
6 pieces of plywood together, it ' s 64 . It ' s
7 in the memorandum.
8 MEMBER DANTES : The other question
9 that I have, I am looking at the pool . Is
10 there a fence around the pool?
11 MR. CARBONE : There is a fence from
12 the -- let ' s see . From the driveway, the
13 fence goes all the way around to the end of
14 the bluff . So there is no fence around the
15 bluff line . If there was, it would have
16 been gone with the storm now . There is
17 hedges there that has been lost .
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just for your
19 edification, on the Widow ' s Walk, we have
20 had major requests for situations like this
21 on the North Fork, and all of them are
22 non-habitable . This means that you can ' t
23 habit there in any way. So this is the
24 situation that we have been dealing with .
25 MR. CARBONE : Okay. Thank you .
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 47
1 MR. HAM: If you require the
2 sprinklering, he can still apply for a
3 variance through the State .
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have to tell you
5 that it ' s a Building Department issue . You
6 can certainly -- they have included it .
7 It ' s what we consider to be a third story.
8 And I can ' t answer that question .
9 MR. HAM: If you were to grant a
10 variance with that as a condition, would he
11 be in violation of that of not doing it as
12 long as he --
13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: He wouldn ' t get a
14 CO on it, to my knowledge . Everybody that
15 has done it, has found it to be a positive
16 thing . That you ' re going down two or three
17 stairwells down . Again, I am just making
18 you aware of it .
19 MR. HAM: If you have questions, why
20 don ' t we do that, while we have my client
21 and the architect here . I also have my
22 memorandum, I can read it, but I don ' t
23 think that you want me to do that .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Counsel has
25 questions .
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 48
1 MS . ANDALORO : And I normally don ' t do
2 this . Please bear with me . I want to
3 clarify a couple of things for the record.
4 MR. HAM: Sure .
5 MS . ANDALORO : You stated that you had
6 approval from the Trustees and the DEC,
7 what was that approval for?
8 MR. HAM: It was two approvals . Well ,
9 one non-jurisdiction. The DEC approved the
10 bluff stabilization project, prepared by
11 Ocean Coastal Consultants , and the Town
12 Trustees approved that . The restoration of
13 the bluff. Insofar as the work that is
14 before you, the Trustees approved the.
15 demolition and construction activities that
16 are subject to this application. The DEC
17 issued a letter of non-jurisdiction . I was
18 just informed of that approval . We got it
19 yesterday. So this work is now permitted by
20 the Trustees and is out of jurisdiction of
21 the State .
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You ' re referring to
23 the work that is depicted in the OCC
24 plans?
25 MR. HAM: Both . That was approved in
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 49
1 the winter, the bluff stabilization . The
2 work that is outlines of the surface of the
3 capital bluff, that we ' re here before you,
4 the demolition and construction activities,
5 are out of jurisdiction of the State . And I
6 think the Trustees --
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We have a copy.
8 MR. HAM: And I just got a copy.
9 MS . ANDALORO : I see you have a
10 Wetlands Permit for the existing dwelling,
11 but I note on the plans that a portion of
12 the deck goes beyond the Coastal Erosion
13 Hazard line, and I don ' t believe that you
14 have gotten Trustee approval for that . You
15 may have to go back to the Trustees for a
16 Coastal Erosion permit . Not for the work on
17 the bluff, but for the deck going beyond
18 the hazard line .
19 MR. HAM: I haven ' t seen that and I
20 haven ' t handled that permit .
21 MS . ANDALORO : Just take a look at it .
22 The other thing is, the LWRP recommends
23 that you cut back the deck and bring it
24 beyond Coastal Erosion Hazard line . You may
25 be able to avoid going back to the Trustees
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 50
1 if you can bring that deck back beyond that
2 line . And then it would comply with the
3 recommendation of the LWRP . So you have to
4 think about that .
5 MR. HAM: Right .
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: For the record,
7 they ' re reviewing the plans on a table on
8 the floor and we will back. That is
9 counsel, the engineer, the applicant and
10 the attorney.
11 Counsel, you ' re going to have to state
12 this on the record for us .
13 MS . ANDALORO : Okay. I was just
14 pointing out to the applicant that there
15 may be an issue and an additional permit
16 required by the Trustees because a portion
17 of the deck appears to be over the Coastal
18 Erosion Hazard area . However, what the
19 applicant had stated or the architect had
20 stated, was that there may be an existing
21 foundation there and the building over and
22 it may be a problem to remove it or it may
23 be architecturally un-savvy to just leave a
24 foundation over there with nothing over it
25 or unsafe . So they ' re going to look into
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 51
1 that issue and provide information to the
2 Board. We just identified it as an issue .
3 MEMBER HORNING : . Counsel , just one
4 question on that particular item. Didn ' t
5 the LWRP recommend that it stay there?
6 MS . ANDALORO : They did. And I think
7 that if this Board wants to acquire -- I
8 don ' t know how difficult it would be to cut
9 down that foundation. They have an
10 existing foundation . So that is something
11 that they would have to address with the
12 Board and they would have to confirm with
13 the Trustees whether or not if you want to
14 keep the foundation as it is . If they get a
15 permit from the Trustees, I think that
16 would cover us , to say that it was
17 consistent .
18 MR. HAM: And further, the County, the
19 technician recommended that it not be
20 disturbed.
21 MEMBER HORNING : That is why.
22 MS . ANDALORO : And if she did say
23 that, it may be very easy for you to get an
24 additional permit or at least a letter from
25 the Trustees to say that they don ' t want
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 52
1 you to get a permit . They consider it like
2 maintenance or a minor alteration. That
3 kind of thing. I think there is an
4 exception in Chapter 111 that talks about
5 that .
6 MR. HAM: Right .
7 MS . ANDALORO : But we would need
8 confirmation from the Trustees . Even if
9 it ' s just a letter .
10 MR. HAM: I will talk to Mr . Carbone ' s
11 agent who handled that .
12 MEMBER HORNING : Can you give an
13 estimate of what percentage of the DEC
14 approved work was the rip-rap?
15 MR. CARBONE : I would say we ' re about
16 300 . We were planning to continue through
17 the summer but we had gotten a call from
18 Citco, to kind of slow it down and stop it
19 for the summer season . But I spoke to Mark
20 Garmond yesterday. He allows us in August
21 to restart that project .
22 MEMBER HORNING: Early August or
23 late --
24 MR. CARBONE : No . I don ' t want to do
25 early August . Mid August is where we want
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 53
1 to go .
2 MEMBER HORNING : Mid August .
3 MR. CARBONE : Mark said we can ' t stop
4 you . We want to be a totally good neighbor
5 and agree . I understand the high season . I
6 also understand that we have about three
7 solid months of work to finish that
8 project . I mean, that is a lot going on
9 there . That is why I figured mid August .
10 The days are starting to get shorter .
11 Obviously it ' s critical .
12 MEMBER HORNING: And you ' re estimating
13 30o is done?
14 MR. CARBONE : Yes . What they have
15 done . On the east side, they did the stones
16 back there . The reason why it has gotten
17 quicker, because we were waiting for
18 additional granite to come in and be
19 manufactured. And that was the delay.
20 MEMBER HORNING : The DEC work
21 continues landward of the stone rip-rap up
22 onto the slope?
23 MR. CARBONE : Absolutely.
24 MEMBER HORNING : To the vegetated
25 bluff?
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 54
1 MR. CARBONE : Yes . That is all the
2 vegetated lifts .
3 MEMBER HORNING: Is the distance from
4 the house from the top of the bluff, those
5 measurements , are they going to be effected
6 by this work that hasn ' t been finished?
7 MR. CARBONE : What work are we talking
8 about?
9 MEMBER HORNING: The restoration of
10 the bluff .
11 MR. CARBONE : And is that going to
12 effect what?
13 MEMBER HORNING: The distance from the
14 house to the top of the bluff?
15 MR. HAM: The site plan shows what the
16 setbacks should be based on the project
17 itself .
18 MEMBER HORNING : That is what I am
19 asking.
20 MR. CARBONE : Sorry.
21 MR. HAM: The site plans shows what it
22 will look like once the project is
23 completed.
24 MEMBER HORNING : Okay.
25 MR. HAM: And that is a setback of 13
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 55
1 feet from the closest to the bluff .
2 MEMBER HORNING : And that process is
3 not finished yet?
4 MR. CARBONE : Right . The deck is still
5 hanging off the bluff . He hasn ' t gotten to
6 that piece of the process yet .
7 MEMBER HORNING: They don ' t have a
8 pile of soil --
9 MR. CARBONE : The soil has been
10 removed.
11 MEMBER HORNING: We have other
12 questions here .
13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are you adding
14 material to the top of the bluff?
15 MR. CARBONE : The way the construction
16 of the bluff is, you ' re building up and
17 going to about, I think it ' s either 18 feet
18 or 19 feet above sea level with the stone .
19 Then you have the granite . Then it ' s going
20 to be vegetated lifts bringing it up to 38
21 feet or 39 feet, and it ' s going to
22 reestablish what we lost before Sandy.
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But is there going
24 to be any soil that is going to be placed
25 in that? Basically, the planting is going
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 56
1 to be imposed on the existing face of the
2 bluff?
3 MR. CARBONE : Well, I think it ' s maybe
4 -- I am not an expert here . They ' re doing a
5 gabion system above it, with all the fabric
6 behind it . So I am sure it ' s going to be
7 some type of mixed stone . And then the
8 planting is going to be on the face of
9 that . I don ' t know if that answers your
10 question?
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If you don ' t mind
12 showing us that?
13 MR. CARBONE : Oh, I would love to show
14 you that .
15 MEMBER HORNING: And the steps going
16 down?
17 MR. CARBONE : That is being replaced
18 by granite steps .
19 MEMBER HORNING: And those are
20 approved in the site plan?
21 MR. CARBONE : Yes . That is in the
22 site .
23. MEMBER HORNING: And approved by the
24 DEC?
25 MR. CARBONE : Yes .
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 57
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Very good.
2 Any other questions? George?
3 MEMBER HORNING: The pool does not
4 have a CO?.
51 , MR. HAM: That is the first that I
6 have heard of it .- I think that that pool
7 is -- was accepted with another property .
8 MEMBER HORNING : I did research --
9 there was a ZBA application for the removal
10 of a fence or the maybe --
11 MR. HAM: That is what it was and it
12 was denied. Perhaps, it ' s preexisting .
13 MEMBER HORNING : Let me establish a
14 couple of facts for the record then .
15 Mr . Carbone purchased the property in
16 June of 2012 . Can you give us that exact
17 date? Was it June 12th?
18 MR. CARBONE : I think so .
19 MEMBER HORNING: June 12 , 2012 , Lus
20 (phonetic) Carbone, does that sound right?
21 MR. CARBONE : Correct .
22 MEMBER HORNING: Then the storm hit of
23 course, a couple or so months later .
24 MR. CARBONE : Correct .
25 MEMBER HORNING : On the property card,
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 58
1 it really doesn ' t show a building permit
2 for the pool . So I think that is part of
3 the problem. The previous owner to the Lus '
4 was a McDonald. McDonnell . ' I pronounced it
5 wrong. The question comes who put the pool
6 in?
7 MR. CARBONE : I thought it was the
8 Lus ' . I think that was in the ' 70s .
9 MEMBER HORNING: And there is no CO
10 for that?
11 MR. CARBONE : The first that I have
12 heard of it .
13 MEMBER HORNING: And they did not want
14 to have a fence and then they were denied
15 by the ZBA to not have a fence around the
16 pool .
17 MR. CARBONE : Since I have known the
18 property for years, there has always been a
19 fence there . The bluff side .
20 MEMBER HORNING: Then there is a
21 question of drainage for the pool . When
22 you empty the pool, if it ' s ever emptied,
23 is there some sort of a drainage
24 containment for that?
25 MR. CARBONE : I couldn ' t tell you . It
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 59
1 hasn ' t been emptied. So I don ' t know.
2 MEMBER HORNING : If it has to be
3 emptied, where would it go?
4 MR. CARBONE : I would probably put it
5 in the front lawn, to water the lawn.
6 MEMBER HORNING: Because we have an
7 issue for other pools . Maybe the
8 Chairperson could speak.
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER What we ' re saying
10 is , if you need a variance, we will
11 probably ask you to apply for a variance so
12 we can take care of it . This is not a
13 sarcastic statement . Ask you to apply for
14 the variance and then we can take care of
15 the whole procedure at one time . All of
16 the pools that we grant, have to have
17 dewatering system and the dewatering system
18 requires to have a certain diameter
19 drywell . In a very slow methodic way. More
20 importantly, the position of this pool,
21 would be very important to do that .
22 MR. CARBONE : I understand.
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We appreciate your
24 approach .
25 MEMBER DANTES : Can I ask a question?
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 60
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sure .
2, MEMBER DANTES : Is the pool gunite or
3 vinyl?
4 MR. CARBONE : It ' s gunite .
5 MEMBER HORNING: ( In Audible) .
6 MR. CARBONE : Sure . If I have to do . a
7 drywell system for the pool, I haven ' t dug
8 up the ground to see what the soil
9 consistency is .
10 MEMBER HORNING: We ' re curious to see
11 if you can get a CO or permit for the pool?
12 MR. CARBONE : I don ' t know.
13 MR. HAM: He is entitled to a pool .
14 It ' s a residential structure . It ' s the
15 location that would be problematic in this
16 case and we would need to come before your
17 Board to secure a variance .
18 MEMBER HORNING : Right .
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Anything else,
20 George?
21 MEMBER HORNING: No . We have a large
22 volume of material, including stuff that we
23 got today. So we ' re on an ongoing process
24 in doing that .
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sure . And you
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 61
1 can ' t do it all today?
2 MEMBER HORNING: Right .
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ken, questions?
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No .
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Eric, any further
6 questions?
7 MEMBER DANTES : No .
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So we go back to
9 the recommendations of Soil & Water . And
10 you told us that you ' re working with those
11 recommendations and that you agree with
12 most of them. And the ones that you don ' t
13 agree with, you will let us know?
14 MR. HAM: Yeah . As I said, attached to
15 my memorandum is a response . In fact, it ' s
16 a letter from Dick Strauss , a letter from
17 him to me addressing that report .
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. The reason
19 why I mention that, I have been on this
20 Board for 32 years, and I never seen any
21 recommendation from that of a driveway. And
22 that was interesting to me .
23 MR. HAM: Was that for construction
24 vehicles?
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, I think that
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 62
1 you were going to elongate the driving
2 area . I don ' t know if she was referring to
3 the pitch towards the road or the pitch in
4 general of the property itself . If it was
5 going to go over the bluff area --
6 MR. HAM: Well, we would address -- in
7 terms of, she is talking about permeable
8 pavers . When I spoke to Dick Strauss about
9 that, there will be drains so that
10 everything runs away from the bluff into
11 drywell ' s . And I thought there was
12 something about matting . I vaguely
13 remember that .
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes . I remember
15 that too .
16 MR. HAM: And I think that had to do
17 with during construction.
18 MR. CARBONE : I think she was talking
19 about matting when she is doing the bluff .
20 Matting in the Hanley ' s property.
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We will look that
22 up and address it at the final hearing .
23 MR. CARBONE : Sure . You have large
24 excavators . So you have to have vehicles --
25 now they ' re not there, but they do put
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 63
1 track mats down to reduce the erosion . I
2 think that is where they ' re trying to go .
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay.
4 MR. HAM: I will go through this again
5 and address any more detail .
6 MR. CARBONE : I think she checked out
7 the property the track mats weren' t there
8 because they weren ' t doing any work.
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In any case that
10 is where we ' re at this juncture .
11 MEMBER HORNING: Can I just mention
12 one thing? The letter from the LWRP, we
13 would like you to help us make that be
14 consistent . Right now, he cites that as
15 inconsistent . And we have to come up with
16 consistent to give an approval .
17 MR. HAM: Okay . And when is your day
18 over on Fisher ' s?
19 MS . TOTH: August 7th .
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have a copy of
21 the LWRP?
22 MR. HAM: I just got it this morning.
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So I appreciate
24 George mentioning that . And that of
25. course, referred to the discussion that you
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 64
1 had with counsel on the additions .
2 So we will continue to refer to that .
3 That was an issue on July 2 , 2013 .
4 MEMBER HORNING: I found a location
5 where the Soil & Water Conservation, it ' s
6 basically on the last page of their
7 recommendations, the drywell ' s for the
8 house and shower and pool needs to be
9 installed to a depth below the clay layer
10 identified on the bluff base . That is
11 where I got that from.
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. So we ' re
13 going to adjourn the hearing . I don ' t know
14 if you want to adjourn it to ,August or
15 September. I am not trying to hold this
16 project up .
17 MR. CARBONE : We have been working on
18 the home with the first permit . Our plan
19 was to try and have an enclosed envelope by
20 the time the weather starts to come in . So
21 we wanted to remove the room and rebuild
22 it . That smaller room. That was a big
23 push of ours .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So what we will do
25 is adjourn it to August . Based upon our
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 65
1 evaluation, I guess it ' s possible for
2 people to go look at this lovely house that
3 you have on this magnificent piece of
4 property, they will get back to us at the
5 hearing. We ' re not going to see them until
6 that morning. So we will do it in August
7 and we will see what the Chairperson has to
8 say about it .
9 MEMBER HORNING: And the Town ' s
'10 meeting is the day before .
11 MR. HAM: Will you need the architect
12 present at that meeting?
13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: To be perfectly
14 honest with you, as you know, the
15 Chairperson is --
16 MR. HAM: Is an architect .
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And so one really
18 never knows what she is --
19 MR. HAM: That is a good point .
20. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All we can say is
21 that we don ' t know. I apologize . This is
22 why one of the reasons why I was pushing
23 for September . I understand your problem. .
24 I am just sorry I am not going to be there .
25 At this particular point, I will make
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 66
1 a motion of adjourning this hearing for
2 the sole purpose of our members going to
3 visit this property and see this gentleman,
4 and we will read the correspondence . At
5 this particular point, we ' re not in a
6 confirmation with the Trustees with the
7 Coastal Hazard Line and what permits may be
8 required, based upon the conversation that
9 you had.
10 MR. HAM: Right . I will follow-up on
11 that .
12 MEMBER HORNING : And the applicant ' s
13 response to the LWRP and Soil & Water .
14 MR. HAM: Yes . Those three items .
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the pool
16 conditions and the dewatering aspect and
17 the possible variance for the pool . Those
18 are the four or five major things that
19 we ' re looking for . We thank you very much .
20 MR. HAM: Thank you .
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further
22 comment, I make a motion to close the
23 hearing till August 8th at 10 : 20 .
24 MEMBER HORNING: Second.
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All in favor?
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 67
1 MEMBER. DANTES : Aye .
2 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
5 (See Minutes for Resolution. )
6 *******************************************
7 HEARING #6665 - DINA MASSO
8 MS . TOTH : The next hearing is for
9 Dina Masso,- #6665 . Request for variance
10 from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the
11 Building Inspector ' s May 3 , 2013 , amended
12 May 16, 2013 Notice of Disapproval based on
13 an application for building permit for
14 additions and alterations' to an existing
15 single family dwelling, at ; 1 ) less than
16 the code required side yard setbacks of 35
17 feet, located at : 5705 Nassau Point Road,
18 adjacent to Little Peconic Bay in
19 Cutchogue, New York.
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ms . Kramer, how
21 are you today? Would you just state your
22 name for the record .
23 MS . KRAMER: Meryl Kramer . I am
24 great, how are you?
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As you can see, we
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 68
1 had a rather complex situation going on
2 prior to this .
3 MS . KRAMER: So this should be a rather
4 welcome --
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, we can ' t
6 say that . We need green receipts . Do you
7 have them?
8 MS . TOTH : You didn ' t give me any .
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Any time you ' re
10 ready, you can give us your presentation .
11 MS . KRAMER: Basically, what we ' re
12 doing is removing an existing noncompliant
13 deck on the side of the house . It has a
14 Certificate of Occupancy from 1983 , but
15 there was never a variance issued. So it
16 was a little bit of a surprise to me to
17 find that out . But we ' re actually
18 encroaching on the side yard. We ' re
19 expanding a kitchen and a family room,
20 because the Masso ' s have moved out here
21 full-time . And we have made the addition as
22 small as we can. It ' s very much in keeping
23 with the rest of the house . We ' r.e using
24 the same materials . Following the same
25 roof line . Basically just extending it to
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 69
1 the minimum amount required to get the
2 state of what they need.
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We were all to
4 the site and we are aware of .what you ' re
5 doing . We will start with Ken . Do you have
6 any questions?
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I did at first
8 about the existing deck. I am looking into
9 some research right now, but at the time of
10 that deck, that may have been conforming at
11 that time . We ' re just doing some research
12 as to what was the code at that time . I
13 have some research here that it might be
14 built back into 1978 or sometime like that,
15 and the code may have changed since then,
16 and requires a 35 foot combined side yard
17 now.
18 MS . KRAMER: Right .
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So you ' re reducing
20 that nonconformity on the side yard by
21 increasing the side yard to 19 something?
22 MS . KRAMER: I am looking through here .
23 Sorry about that . 19 . 7 .
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: 19 . 7 . Where now it
25 exist at 15 for the deck?
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 70
1 MS . KRAMER: Correct .
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Then the combined
3 would be?
4 MS . KRAMER: 19 . 7 , plus 10 . 2 , 29 . 9 .
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: 29 . 9 . Okay. I have
6 no further questions . It seems
7 straightforward.
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: George?
9 MEMBER HORNING: Is there a CO for the
10 existing deck?
11 MS . KRAMER: Yes . I have it here . I
12 have included in my original application
13 packet . 1983 .
14 MEMBER HORNING : Okay. What is the
15 status on -- on a different topic on the
16 same property. What is the status on all
17 of the structures at the bottoms of the
18 stairs?
19 MS . KRAMER: They ' re storage
20 structures completely. No electricity. No
21 water . We actually had gone to Trustees
22 first because at the time, I wasn ' t aware
23 , that I was going to need to come to your ,
24 board, because I thought that the deck had
25 a CO and it had a variance along with it .
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 71
1 So the storm destroyed the bulkhead and the
2 stairs . So Trustees investigated and we
3 provided them with information about those
4 buildings . That they were in fact
5 compliant and just storage buildings .
6 MEMBER HORNING: So you have a
7 Trustees --
8 MS . KRAMER: For the repair to the
9 bulkhead and repair to the deck down by the
10 water, as well as for this work that you ' re
11 approving -- well, reviewing now .
12 MEMBER HORNING: It ' s all included in
13 the same permit?
14 MS . KRAMER: Yes .
15 MEMBER HORNING: We had an application
16 that had two Trustee permits .
17 MS . KRAMER: We tried to avoid that .
18 MEMBER HORNING : So would you need a
19 variance from anything below the stairs
20 down.?
21 MS . KRAMER: They got a permit . Rob
22 Hermann was handling the paperwork for
23 that, and I made . the application jointly
24 with the work that you ' re reviewing today .
25 All I know is that it was all approved.
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 72
1 MEMBER HORNING: By the Trustees?
2 MS . KRAMER: By the Trustees and
3 DEC .
4 MEMBER HORNING : And I am questioning
5 whether you need a variance for --
6 MS . KRAMER: Oh, the structures down
7 there?
8 MEMBER HORNING : Yes .
9 MS . KRAMER: Those structures --
10 MEMBER HORNING : Those structures are
11 not a part of your application now?
12 MS . KRAMER: No . And I think I saw
13 some reference to them.
14 MEMBER HORNING: We have had a lot of
15 applications dealing with what we refer to
16 stair activities .
17 MS . KRAMER: Okay. They aren ' t doing
18 any work to those buildings because they
19 were somehow not harmed.
20 MEMBER HORNING: But you ' re
21 reconstructing the bulkhead and all the
22 decks?
23 MS . KRAMER: The bulkhead. Very little
24 bit of deck. There is a Certificate of
25 Occupancy -- Just so you know, 1989, I am
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 73
1 looking an accessory structure, boat house,
2 which is what that was called . As I said,
3 I am not all the familiar with that because
4 that is not my involvement in this project .
5 There is a Certificate of Occupancy for
6 those structures in ' 89 .
7 MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you . In my
9 particular evaluation, I just wanted you to
10 be aware, in the LWRP Coordinator did
11 determine this action as exempt . It ' s
12 significantly landward of the bluff .
13 MS . KRAMER: Yes , I got that
14 notification.
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You of course have
16 to deal with Chapter 236 --
17 MS . KRAMER: Yes . There is an
18 existing drywell ' s that we will be tieing
19 into .
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All right . Eric?
21 MEMBER DANTES : I have no questions .
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody
23 else in the audience that would have any
24 questions on this application?
25 (No Response . )
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 74
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Seeing no hands .
2 I will make a motion to close this hearing
3 and reserve decision until later .
4 MEMBER HORNING: Second.
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All in favor?
6 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
7 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
10 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
12 HEARING #6662 - KEVIN GALLAGHER &
13 DOROTHY GALLAGHER
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The next appeal
15 that we have is for Kevin Gallagher and
16 Dorothy Gallagher . That is Appeal #6662 .
17 MS . TOTH : This is a request for a
18 Waiver of Merger under Article II, Section
19 280-10A, to unmerge land identified as
20 SCTM #1000-70-10-61 . 1, based on the
21 Building Inspector ' s January 9, 2013,
22 updated March 21, 2013 Notice of
23 Disapproval, which states adjoining or
24 nonconforming lots held in common
25 ownership shall merge until the total
July ll, 2013 Regular Meeting 75
1 lot size conforms to the current bulk
2 schedule, minimum 40 , 000 square feet in
3 this R-40 Residential Zone District, this
4 lot is merged with Lot #1000-70-10-62 . 1,
5 located at : 1800 Park Way and 40
6 Beachwood, adjacent to Goose Creek, in
7 Southold, New York.
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Would you kindly
9 give us your appearance, please?
10 MS . MOORE : Yes . Patricia Moore on
11 behalf of the Gallagher ' s . I have
12 Mr . Gallagher and Mrs . Gallagher here with
13 the support of a friend and neighbor .
14 The history here I have set forth in
15 writing to outline for you. These are two
16 lots in the subdivision. It ' s a 1962
17 subdivision map that was approved by the
18 Town Board and filed with the Suffolk
19 County Clerks . On the map itself, it
20 actually had notations because there was
21 additional land that was conveyed to -- for
22 three or four of the parcels . The one
23 parcel here that we ' re unmerging --
24 requested to unmerge, was enlarged as part
25 of the subdivision approval . So the
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 76
1 overall lot does show up on the tax map as
2 a combination of two parcels . It is in fact
3 one parcel, and the lot size is in fact
14 22 , 192 square feet . And that is the parcel
5 that is 1800 Park Way. As you can see from
6 the records , the two parcels have two
7 different addresses . One is on Park Way and
8 the other is on Beachwood. My clients
9 purchased their house in 1994 . That was
10 the 40 Beachwood Lane . They placed the
11 house in both their names for estate
12 planning but in 2004 , the house was placed
13 only in Dorothy ' s name, again for estate
r'
14 planning . Just prior to that in 2000 , so
15 there was a period of merging between 2000
16 and 2004 , just because the way the titles
17 were held. The vacant lot, which had been
18 purchased in 2000 from Mary Mayer,
19 M-A-Y-E-R, that lot had remained single and
20 separate . And only because of the
21 overlapping period when the Gallagher ' s
22 owned it, was it considered merged when the
23 single and separate was submitted to the .
24 Building Department as part of the building
25 permit process . And also the -lot was being
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 77
1 sold to the neighbors who happened to be
2 here . And that was brought out by Deborah
3 Dorothy who is a local attorney, single and
4 separate search and that issue came up .
5 Mr . Gallagher, as I pointed out, he cashed
6 out his pension and thought that this was a
7 good investment, holding this property
8 until he needed the money. Well, the time.
9 came when he and his wife needed the money
10 and all of a sudden this merger of a four
11 year period popped up . Since -- I would
12 also put on the record, and I don ' t believe
13 that you had it at the time that I
14 submitted the application or it wasn ' t part
15 of my original application, the Town
16 Trustees had in fact issued permits in 1998
17 for George Mayer . You saw that the survey
18 had full development . Plans showing on
19 that vacant lot survey. All the setbacks
20 were shown . It was done by Mayer,
21 anticipating either he was going to build
22 his house or sell the lot with -- showing
23 that permits could be obtained.
24 Mr . & Mrs . Gallagher had that information
25 and purchased the property. So I am going
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 78
1 to put in your file the Town Trustees
2 approval issued in 1998 and it shows
3 approval and CAC approval and the house .
4 All of the structures that are being shown
5 on the survey.
6 MEMBER HORNING : Are they valid today?
7 MS . MOORE : They expired by now .
8 MEMBER HORNING: Pat, while you ' re
9 doing that , are both of these two parcels
10 with the original subdivision map or just
11 one?
12 MS . MOORE : I attached to the
13 application a subdivision map itself . And
14 it shows the southward map . If you refer
15 to that, it ' s right after the written
16 submission .
17 MEMBER HORNING: I don ' t see it right
18 now.
19 MS . MOORE : Okay. Good. It looks
20 like --
21 MEMBER HORNING : Just a simple
22 question, were both of the parcels expanded
23 from the original subdivision?
24 MS . MOORE : It ' s kind of confusing. I
25 am just going to double check that . It ' s
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 79
1 because the subdivision map refers to Lot
2 10 , 11, 12 and 13 , are to be sold with
3 their sidelines extended to ordinary
4 high water marks . It ' s very small print,
5 but it is printed on the map . I believe
6 it ' s both lots including the property to
7 the northeast, because that appears to be
8 Lot #10 . I have to look at the survey.
9 MEMBER HORNING : So my basic question
10 is , were both lots expanded from the
11 original subdivision map at that time? You
12 mention some were expanded.
13 MS . MOORE : Yes . I am looking at the
14 survey done by Joseph Ingegno, and it shows
15 that the vacant lot is Lot #11 . And that
16 shows -- on the subdivision map, it shows
17 Lot #11, 12 and 13 were all expanded to be
18 made more conforming lots . Do you see --
19 MEMBER HORNING: I don ' t have a copy
20 of that map, but Lot ' s #11, 12 and 13 were
21 expanded. So several lots were expanded?
22 MS . MOORE : Right . And these are two
23 of the four lots that were expanded as part
24 of the subdivision of 1953 .
25 MEMBER HORNING : All right . Thank you .
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 80
1 MS . MOORE : Essentially what the Town
2 Board did, and I think, from the records,
3 the family -- the family owned to the south
4 and to the north and they must have gotten
5 together as part of the subdivision of this
/ 6 area . And there was additional land
7 contributed to the subdivision lots . So
8 the end result of the lot that was created
9 was the oversized lot -- the size lot that
10 you see today on the survey.
11 MEMBER HORNING : That was my question .
12 What was the original size of these two
13 lots and as a result of the activity that
14 you mentioned, does that result in a size
15 that is allowed today? Can you give us,
16 for our references, the difference of the
17 lots? Is that possible?
18 MS . MOORE : I don ' t know. It ' s on the
19 -- on the filed map . I might be able to
20 give it to the surveyor and he might be
21 able to calculate it .
22 MEMBER HORNING: The map did not give
23 the square footage?
24 MS . MOORE : No . But we know that the
25 lots are deeded lots , meats and bounds
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 81
1 parcels.. So the survey actually shows the
2 ownership based on the deeds .
3 MEMBER HORNING: I am curious to know
4 whether there was a small increase in the
5 size of . these parcels or was it something
6 more substantial than just a few square
7 foot?
8 MS . MOORE : Well, can you see that
9 map?
10 MEMBER HORNING: I have it now .
11 MS . MOORE : I am trying to read the
12 number . It ' s a real challenge . I might be
13 able to blow it up on the computer . It ' s
14 from the Town records . It looks maybe --
15 the same width along the road. That didn ' t
16 change, but the setbacks -- I want to say
17 it ' s more than 40 feet .
18 MEMBER HORNING: If you can give us
19 the actual information?
20 MS . MOORE : I will do the best that I
21 can. I am looking at very small print . I
22 can get that to you right away. That is not
23 a problem. Did you want me to continue?
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes .
25 MS . MOORE : Sorry. So the lots right
i
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 82
1 now do have public water. The house is
2 connected to public water and there is
3 public water in the streets . The house has
4 all CO ' s and I provided you with copies of
5 the Certificates of Occupancy' s . The
6 surrounding' community is developed with
7 similar sized 20 , 000 square foot lots . The
8 vacant lot, as I said, 22 , 000 plus in size .
9 So it ' s actually the larger of the two
10 parcels . I believe that that covers all
11 the issues that I think you would need for
12 your file, and I would be happy to try and
13 answer any additional questions .
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Eric?
15 MEMBER DANTES : Sure . The only
16 question that I have, as I look at the
17 survey here, it looks like the 40 Beachwood
18 Lane survey, ( In Audible) illustrated in
19 2008 and Super Storm Sandy. Is the
20 property the same size or any erosion due
21 to the storm? Do you have any ( In
22 Audible) ?
23 MS . MOORE : I don ' t have the current
24 flood map because that would entail
25 certainly asking the surveyor to update his
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 83
1 map . I can give you just testimony from the
2 owner . The property looks identical . It
3 doesn ' t look like it ' s effected at all .
4 It ' s vegetated and I can see from the
5 Gallagher ' s property looking over that it ' s
6 -- there are no issues .
7 MEMBER DANTES : It looks like the
8 survey was last updated in 1997 .
9 MS . MOORE : You were asking me about
10 the house?
11 MEMBER DANTES : I was asking about
12 Beachwood Lane first .
13 MS . MOORE : I 'm sorry, I was looking at
14 the vacant lot first . I apologize . Well,
15 Beachwood Lane is the house . As far as the
16 flood zone map, the property has been
17 completely developed and if you have been
18 to the back of the property, you can see
19 that there is a landscaped feature and then
20 the pool fence . So everything is somewhat
21 elevated. So I don ' t believe the flood map
22 changed the improved property in any way.
23 MEMBER DANTES : And then the other
24 question that I have is on the unimproved
25 property --
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 84
1 MS . MOORE : The vacant parcel, I would
2 have to ask the surveyor to give me
3 where the flood elevation is presently .
4 We know that --
5 MEMBER DANTES : Pat, can we have an
6 updated survey?
7 MS . MOORE : Honestly that is a very
8 expensive request . This is a very
9 expensive survey that was done and would
10 actually be approved -- it would be
11 accepted by all the agencies . The only
12 difference .being the -- to verify where the
13 flood line is and to make sure the house is
14 maintaining or confined from the flood
15 zone, because it ' s showing the flood zone
16 plane down by the wetlands and across .
17 MEMBER DANTES : My legal counsel is
18 asking for it .
19 MS . MOORE : Your legal counsel is
20 asking for it?
21 MS . ANDALORO : I am not asking for it .
22 I am telling them they have a right to ask
23 for it .
24 MS . MOORE : Of course, I understand .
25 Okay. That ' s fine, they ' re just asking for
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 85
1 -- that ' s a lot for a homeowner to do
2 that . Assuming that we ' re going to get the
3 Waiver of Merger, yes, I don ' t have a
4 problem with that . The buyer is getting an
5 updated survey. We don ' t have an updated
6 survey at present because it ' s merged. So I
7 have this vicious survey.
8 MS . ANDALORO : I understand that, but
9 the Board needs it .
10 MS . MOORE : Well, if the Board wants
11 it .
12 MEMBER DANTES : The other issues, the
13 shed --
14 MS . MOORE : That would be removed.
15 That shed is being dealt with .
16 MEMBER DANTES : I ' m just saying, it
17 would have to be on the Beachwood --
18 MS . MOORE : Well, we would have to
19 move it before the surveyor went back out
20 there . In good faith, I hope that we ' re
21 getting this Waiver of Merger because it ' s
22 a very expensive process for my clients to
23 go through.
24 MEMBER DANTES : I understand. The
25 other question that I wanted was just to
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 86
1 walk through the law .
2 MS . MOORE : Okay. Let me just go
3 through the items that you wanted. You
4 wanted the shed relocated. So it ' s not
5 showing on the vacant survey . Two, you
6 want an updated survey, which you don ' t
7 need to have all the sanitary -- how do you
8 want it? It ' s vacant .
9. MEMBER DANTES : It ' s a vacant lot .
10 ( In Audible) .
11 MS . MOORE : Well, that should be a lot
12 less expensive . The flood zone
13 designation . I will ask the surveyor, when
14 he goes out there, he ' s going to update it
15 anyway. You want me to discount the
16 buildable and unbuildable just to give you
17 the dimensions?
18 MEMBER DANTES : I think so .
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We ' re also
20 concerned about how . much building you ' re
21 going to do .
22 MS . MOORE : Well, the Trustees permit
23 -- I think it was only in the area -- let
24 me look. The reason for submission, why my
25 clients bought it with a permit in place .
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 87
1 The condition was to buy .a property that
2 was buildable . So the 98 ' permit was still
3 in effect or could have been continued.
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just give me one
5 second?
6 MS . MOORE : Sure .
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We need to know
8 how much. fill is going to be required for
9 construction of a home? If the surveyor
10 could tell us , that would be great .
11 MS . MOORE : Maybe if you could give me
12 the LWRP report that would help me try and
13 answer it? Thank you. The thing with the
14 fill , it really depends on the house that
15 you ' re building and the -- we don ' t have a
16 plan .
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just an average . I
18 don ' t think that we ' re asking for a high or
19 a low .
20 MS . MOORE : Okay. I can tell you what
21 is proposed? Okay. I am adding it to my
22 list .
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I think what we ' re
24 looking . for is a reflection of the
25 property.
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 88
1 MS . MOORE : The existing conditions .
2 Okay.
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: There is a catch
4 basin that the LWRP refers to .
5 MS . MOORE : Let me see .
6 MEMBER HORNING : The second page --
7 MS . MOORE : I am looking at the
8 survey.
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It ' s not on there .
10 MS . MOORE : It ' s a town catch basin .
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It ' s a town road.
12 MS . MOORE : That ' s fine . I will do
13 this .
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The proverbial
15 question, how long?
16 MS . MOORE : We ' re going to try and get
17 this to you right away.
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay.
19 MS . MOORE : Nate Corwin, I hope he can
20 just go out and update .
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: By August?
22 MS . MOORE : I don ' t know how fast I
23 can do it, I hope by August . There are -
24 did you want me to come back or just submit
25 it?
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 89
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We still have to
2 go over the law itself .
3 MS . MOORE : Okay. Let ' s go over the
4 law. We will go from there .
5 MEMBER HORNING: One final question
6 before we do that . How many other vacant
7 parcels is in the adjacent neighborhood?
8 MS . MOORE : I think this is the very
9 last lot in the entire development .
10 MEMBER HORNING : Can you just provide
11 a statement?
12 MS . MOORE : Well, on the record. How
13 about that? Come on up, because he lives in
14 the neighborhood.
15 MR. GALLAGHER: Good morning. I am
16 Kevin Gallagher . I am the owner of the
17 property that you ' re discussing. I would
18 like to add a little color to the question
19 that you ' re asking. First of all, I
20 purchased the lot as an investment because
21 my retirement funding became part of that
22 lot . In other words , could use the money
23 in the lot to keep my retirement going . So
24 my thought was to sell it . Not publicly.
25 Sell it to my next door neighbor . The gal
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 90
1 that is sitting here now. We bought the
2 lot because we never intended to build on
3 it but the idea that it was a buildable
4 lot, because ( In Audible) community
5 designed with the lots in those days . To
6 further clarify what you were asking before
7 about the expanded property, I believe the
8 major dredging of Smith Drive North now,
9 that ' s -- that whatever was placed on a
10 bunch of - our properties . That is the
11 standard --
12 MEMBER HORNING : Can you give us the
13 date?
14 MR. GALLAGHER: Before my time . I
15 don ' t have a date on that . I believe it was
16 before the construction of the new Goose
17 Creek Bridge, to bring a dredge in and do
18 that kind of thing. That is the best that
19 I could do on that one . But anyway, my next
20 door neighbor here, Nancy, has agreed to
21 buy the property from me as long as it is
22 on the existing maps, a buildable lot . The
23 grade is below our expanded lot level . And
24 it would have to be if it as built upon.
25 It would have to be brought up about 4
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 91
1 feet . To level with my neighbors property
2 and mine . My neighbor was consenting to buy
3 the property from me as long as it was
4 still a buildable lot and she was going to
5 put it in a name that would not be merged
6 with her property. Neither of us ever have
7 any intention on building, on it . It was
8 there for protection. Now I would like to
9 get that over to Nancy. Out of my hands .
10 And, you know, have a reimbursement from
11 her .
12 MEMBER HORNING: What is Nancy ' s last
13 name?
14 MR. GALLAGHER: She is right here .
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We ' re trying to do
16 that . We ' re just trying to let you know
17 that there is a process by which you do
18 that . While you ' re there Mr . Gallagher,
19 there was a transfer from Kevin Gallagher
20 to Dorothy Gallagher, Dorothy Gallagher .
21 And then Dorothy Gallagher to
22 Kevin E . Gallagher . Who is Kevin E .
23 Gallagher?
24 MR. GALLAGHER: ' I am. My drivers
25 license, they dropped the "E" out and I
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 92
1 can ' t get it back in . When we did
2 transfer it, and that sounds odd, we had it
3 in two different names . And it was on two
4 different streets , and we were told by an
5 attorney, Jay Quadarro, who was doing a
6 trust for us and planning our future
7 estate, put the properties in the same
8 name, which we did. It was not more than a
9 couple of months later, we separated it
10 again with his legal work was satisfied.
11 All of a sudden we go back to sell it and
12 we find out that it is merged. So we ' re
13 stuck between a rock and a hard place with
14 a piece of property that we never moved and
15 we never changed. Incidentally, while I
16 have the floor, if you will, that so-called
17 shed, the shed is a few feet over onto that
18 property, which is in material to me or
19 Nancy, as long as it ' s in our hands . She,
20 wouldn ' t mind if it was on that property.
21 We both have been neighbors for 20 years .
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We just can ' t
23 allow it . We apologize for that . Anything
24 you can do to skid it over would be greatly
25 appreciated .
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 93
1 MR. GALLAGHER: We will move it for
2 sure . That is not a problem. It was done
3 that way for aesthetic purposes . So that
4 can be moved. So I never asked for this
5 merger . Another thing, for your
6 information, I bought it . It was a second
7 piece of property from a separate person .
8 It was an investment . To this day, I get a
9 separate tax bill . No one in the Town had
10 ever cometo me either by letter or mouth,
11 and said, "Hey, we ' re merging your
12 property. " I had no idea of this . And I am
13 going to use my words, it was done in
14 - secret, and I was never told anything about
15 it . That is why I never had a question
16 with the tax bills . It was two separate
17 parcels .
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We hear this all
19 the time, and we understand. We understand
20 the problem you ' re going through .
21 MR. GALLAGHER: Yeah . I am grateful
22 you understand it . From the landowners
23 point of view, homeowners point of view,
24 it ' s costing me money to undo something I
25 never wanted to do in the first place . You
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 94
1 know --
2 MEMBER HORNING: When did you find
3 out? What date?
4 MR. GALLAGHER: It was this year . It
5 was probably in January or maybe March, but
6 we found out through our neighbors lawyer,
7 Deborah . She didn ' t trust the Town and
8 said, Kevin, she said we think it could be
9 a merged property with the Town and you
10 need to go and look. So when I got to that
11 stage, I didn ' t know, with the lawyers that
12 I was using back west, they. didn ' t know
13 what I was talking about, property merger .
14 So I came out to -- out here, and she was
15 very well lawed on that type of situations .
16 MEMBER HORNING: If we can back track
17 for a minute . You want to sell the
18 property -to the neighbor?
19 MR. GALLAGHER: That ' s correct .
20 MS . MOORE : She ' s not interested --
21 MEMBER HORNING: The whole thing?
22 MS . MOORE : It ' s ,a future retirement .
23 MEMBER HORNING : And is this neighbor
24 on the other side of the vacant parcel?
25 MS . MOORE : Yes . She is on the west .
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 95
1 She is right here .
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Please come to the
3 mic .
4 MS . HEISNER: I am at 1700 Park Way . -
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you . What is
6 your name?
7 MS . HEISNER: Nancy Heisner . And I
8 have no intention of building on it .
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ms . Heisner, you
10 need to spell your last name for us?
11 MS . HEISNER: H-E-I-S-N-E-R.
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you ., We just
13 need to move this along, George .
14 MEMBER HORNING : You say you don ' t
15 intend to build on it?
16 MS . HEISNER: No .
17 MEMBER HORNING: But you will only buy
18 it, if it was a buildable lot?
19 MS . HEISNER: Because I , as Kevin did,
20 am buying it as an investment ..
21 MEMBER HORNING: Understood.
22 MS . HEISNER: So some day down the
23 road if I need money, I would be able to
24 sell it .
25 MEMBER HORNING : How much space needs
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 96
1 to be placed onto this property to make it
2 buildable? We don ' t know?
3 MS . HEISNER: The house would have to
4 be built on the road. It ' s wetlands below
5 that is perfectly -- the water comes up
6 only --
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ms . Heisner, we did
8 not raise that issue . It was raised by
9 another agency. There are a whole different
10 impressive things that we have to do today,
11 and it ' s only a question. It ' s a process
12 and we appreciate your assistance . It ' s
13 No . 3 on the list of the criteria and that
14 is basically where we are . And if it was a
15 non-waterfront lot and based upon
16 Mr . Gallagher ' s testimony, we could stop
17 the process right now, but we can ' t,
18 because of the environmental aspects of
19 this waiver . That is where we are .
20 MS . HEISNER: Okay.
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We thank you for
22 your assistance . Thank you, sir .
23 Eric, do you have more questions?
24 MEMBER DANTES : Yes . Can we just run
25 though the law?
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 97
1 MS . MOORE : Sure .
2 MEMBER DANTES : ( In Audible) .
3 MS . MOORE : It stayed in Dorothy and
4 Kevin Gallagher '.s ownership and it was
5 transferred within the family, within the
6 two owners . So it met that criteria . I
7 think he has already put on the record that
8 Kevin and Kevin E, are the same individual .
9 MEMBER DANTES : And the las,t, the lots
10 ( In Audible) .
11 MS . MOORE : Yes . The subdivision
12 consisted of lots 20 , 000 square feet more
13 or less , and this parcel according to the
14 survey, 22 , 192 , which is the deeded parcel .
15 I will give you the buildable and
16 non-buildable provisions . Only as more
17 recently, applied for the development
18 portion to establish lot coverage for the
'19 properties . Otherwise, it is considered to
20 be a buildable lot .
21 MEMBER DANTES : And then the lot is
22 obviously vacant?
23 MS . MOORE : Yes . It ' s still vacant .
24 It ' s treated -- as you go -- when you
25 started from the street, it looks like an
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 98
1 unimproved wooded lot that anybody might
2 own.
3 MEMBER DANTES : And then there would
4 be no adverse impact on the
5 environmental --
6 MS . MOORE : Our position is that it
7 will not impact the environment . Certainly
8 the ' 98 survey and the permits that were
9 issued at that time, which followed the. law
10 of 198 obviously, had all of the
11 environmental criteria considered. More
12 recently, we would have to get a possible
13 Trustees permit, because you would be 100
14 feet from wetlands . So the Trustees would
15 consider the design and the placement of
16 the house, but we don ' t suspect to be any
17 problems . Since both sides of the homes
18 have -- are certainly closer to the road
19 then what is here on this property.
20 Mr . Gallagher has a pool in the backyard
21 and landscaping . He has it very nice . He
22 then keeps the rest of the property very
23 natural and I want to call it the
24 non-disturbance area, the grasses are
25 maintained and left natural for Stormwater
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 99
1 collection . On the other side, the other
2 property owner is fully developed as well .
3 You can see from the Google and from the
4 road that it is a fully developed property
5 as well . So the plans in ' 98 provided for
6 adequate setbacks for everything . That was
7 not a problem. And since there is public
8 water, in ' 98 , I don ' t think the public
9 water was in place because they had permits
1-0 for a well . Now the public water is in the
11 street . So it has resolved that issue very
12 easily. So it has resolved the issue of the
13 sanitary. This subdivision map itself when
14 it was approved by the Health Department,
15 showed that there was a notation on the
16 map, that wells and sanitary' s would be a
17 minimum of five feet apart . Certainly not
18 the code now, but the Health Department
19 does recognize their file and approved map .
20 So this lot is recognized by the Health
21 Department without any difficulty
22 whatsoever .
23 MEMBER HORNING : We ' re asking for
24 updated surveys .
25 MS . MOORE : Yes you are . Are you
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 100
1 verifying that I heard that?
2 MEMBER HORNING: Yes . And I am thinking
3 in the back of my mind, the impact is still
4 going to be on the environment . And that
5 goes for the Core #3 statement of the
6 approval of such a waiver .
7 MS . MOORE : Well, as we said, the
8 amount of fill, if any, would -- at this
9 particular plan, had fill that was being
10 proposed more than 50 feet from wetlands .
11 As you can see, it said proposed clearing,
12 so they had 50 foot clearing limits on the
13 proposed plan. This plan was pretty well
14 planned out . Suffolk Environmental had
15 been the Mayer ' s consultants on it, and
16 it ' s a well thought out plan, with a
17 sanitary along the street . So the well
18 location is no longer -- it ' s a moot point .
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We ' re done . Is
20 there anybody else that would like to speak
21 for or against this application?
22 (No Response . )
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay.
24 MS . MOORE : Just very quickly. The
25 fill, as I said, would depend on the house .
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 101
1 The house that someone constructs doesn ' t
2 necessarily require fill . The fill is only
3 when you try and build the grade up from
4 the floor . It can be built with a higher --
5 I 'm sorry, basement . A somewhat exposed
6 basement . The newer houses may not have
7 fill . So as far as the newer houses, the
8 agency at the time, when we ' re doing to the
9 development process -- that is why at this
10 time, it ' s a little difficult to determine
11 this . I can try and get it from the
12 surveyor but he might respond that it
13 depends on the buyer .
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Maybe you
15 misunderstood what we said. The new lines
16 that were changed will tell where the fill
17 can start . And that is basically what he
18 is looking for . If the lines have changed
19 drastically in the last 20 years .
20 MS . MOORE : Okay. I will ask him --
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The 2008 data, that
22 is when it went out for change .
23 We ' re going to close the hearing at
24 the Special Meeting, which is July 25th. If
25 you don ' t have it by July 25th, let us know
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 102
1 and we will have to do some altering stuff .
2 MS . MOORE : Okay. I appreciate it .
3 MS . HEISNER: May I just ask --
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: State your name for
5 the record, again .
6 MS . HEISNER: Nancy Heisner,
7 H-E-I-S-N-E-R. For the fill issue, if there
8 is fill put on this lot, then it will run
9 off onto my property. Both properties are
10 level now. When the water comes up, it
11 comes up on my yard and it comes up on the
12 lot to the same level . So it ' s still put
13 in --
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We ' re just
15 asking.
16 MS . HEISNER: Okay. I still don ' t
17 understand but, okay .
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you very
19 much . Hearing no more comments at this
20 point, I will make a motion adjourning the
21 hearing to the Special Meeting on
22 July 25th, at which point we intend to
23 close it , if we can, subject to the receipt
24 of the survey.
25 MEMBER HORNING : Second .
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 103
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All in favor?
2 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
3 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
6 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
7 ******* ************************** ********
8 HEARING #6666 - RATSO, LLC .
9 MS . TOTH : This is a request for
10 variances from Article XV Code Section
11 280-64A and Article XV Code Section 280-63
12 and the Building Inspector ' s May 13 , 2013
13 Notice of Disapproval based on an
14 application for building permit for
15 additions and alterations to an existing
16 commercial building, at; 1 ) less than the
17 code required minimum front yard setback of
18 100 feet from the right of way, 2 ) less
19 than the code required minimum rear yard
20 setback of 60 feet, located at : 67875 Main
21 Road, also known ' as County Road 25, corner
22 of Albertson Lane in Greenport, New York.
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. Who would
24 like to be heard? Kindly state your name
25 for the record.
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 104
1 MR. RATSEY : My name is Colin Ratsey.
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What would you like
3 to tell us , Colin?
4 MR. RATSEY: I recently purchased this
5 property from Corrazini and I think you ' re
6 aware of the buffer is 25 feet on both
7 sides ; is that correct? I own a
8 construction company and I tried to build
9 on TJC, which is down the road and I had
10 some problems with the DEC . So I bought
11 this lot . It ' s commercial . I installed a
12 six foot fence all the way around it
13 because our stuff now is getting stolen.
14 Our aluminium and copper . I mean, they ' re
15 going in our trucks . It ' s hard enough to
16 make a living without them stealing from
17 us . So I bought this building and I wanted
18 the Town to know that I made it a mechanics
19 shop, a carpentry shop, you know a paint
20 shop . To try and make it better for my
21 employees . The shop that I am in now, the
22 secretary ' s have to leave and go home
23 early, so we can paint . So I would like to
24 build an office on the side . I actually
25 think it would make the building look
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 105
1 better. I gave your drawings of the
2 building . I tried to spruce it up a little
3 bit . I put a flat roof so I could put the
4 AC ' s on top and try to hide them, without
5 having them on the ground. And I have made
6 the entrance way come a little further .. So
7 that from the office, you can see straight
8 across the garage doors . So with one or two
9 people in the office, they can pretty much
10 secure the whole place . I only have one
11 entrance in, off of Albertson . So the way
12 that I use the property, I come off
13 Albertson to go around the back and come
14 around the front . There is only one way in
15 and one way out . You know, I think that it
16 -- I put the hedges in now . My plan is to
17 have the hedges go 8 to 10 feet high, like
18 my house . And try and make it nice off the
19 road, so you can ' t see what ' s in there . I
20 mean, it is a construction yard. We can ' t
21 keep everything beautiful but I figured
22 this would make it better . A lot of
23 customers do come to my house, whether it ' s
24 holidays and such . That is why I put the
25 office here . To try and keep them away . So
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 106
1 if I make it nice from the street, it
2 would make my business look better . To have
3 them come to my home is ridiculous . All
4 right . Thank you .
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How many people
6 are you going to have in your office? .
7 MR. RATSEY: Right now, I only have
8 two . But you know a couple of the guys that
9 we have working for us , go in and fill out
10 paperwork. They keep all the major books in
11 there . So any given time, it could be a
12 couple of people in there . The girls
13 usually kick us out but we try and get in
14 there .
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: George, do you
16 have any questions?
17 MEMBER HORNING: Yes , I have a few.
18 How necessary for your business is this
19 additional space on your site?
20 MR. RATSEY: If we don ' t get it, we ' re
21 selling the property. I mean, we ' re in
22 Greenport now . We live at 413 Wiggins
23 Street in Greenport . We have a
24 construction site there . We have four or
25 five trucks there a day. We are right
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 107
1 against the railroad tracks . That is
2 what we ' re trying to do with this we ' re
3 trying to make it fit within the
4 neighborhood. I guarantee when you drive
5 by it in three years , it will look like the
6 Hampton ' s . You won ' t even know what it is
7 there now. I put a fence up there
8 immediately. I have like seven containers
9 on my property. I am not sure if you ' re
10 familiar with TJC, we kept containers
11 there . Maybe about four or five Sunday ' s
12 ago, I had all my containers moved around.
13 I had them all moved. So we can move stuff
. 14 around pretty quick. We have done our best
15 on the TJC property. The Town keeps
16 pushing us to move smaller .and smaller .
17 It ' s hard to keep giving people jobs if we
18 keep going smaller and smaller.
19 MEMBER HORNING : Looking at the site
20 that you ' re proposing the office addition
21 on, with the nonconforming setbacks, did
22 you think of any alternatives?
23 MR. RATSEY: If you look at the plans,
24 the site plan on one side shows all the
25 cesspools and the 440 volts coming on one
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 108
1 side . So we can ' t go there . The back side
2 is where Mel Rose is . There is not enough
3 room to go around our building there . The
4 front is where our -- we need to be able to
5 turn around and bring 18-wheelers in . I
6 think we had' four in today already. So this
7 area, which I propose right now is a grass
8 lot, that is overgrown grass . So I am , just
9 trying to stick on that . So I am not
10 hurting anything. I am not touching that . I
11 bought an engineer there .
12 MEMBER HORNING: So you ' re stating
13 here, that this proposed addition office
14 space that you say that' you need is best
15 located on the site plan as you ' re
16 proposing and you can not reasonably locate
17 it somewhere else on the site?
18 MR. RATSEY: Like I said, there is
19 cesspools and electric on the one side .
20 The back does not have enough room. The
21 front side is the hill . The entrance is on
22 Albertson.
23 MEMBER HORNING: And the arrows on this
24 site plan are the traffic flow?
25 MR. RATSEY : I would have to look on
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 109
1 your site plan .
2 MEMBER HORNING : Yes, that is right .
3 Thank you .
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ken?
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions .
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Eric?
7 MEMBER DANTES : The location of the
8 proposed location is not being used?
9 MR. RATSEY : Yes . That ' s it .
10 MEMBER DANTES : And your neighbors,
11 are they all commercial?
12 MR. RATSEY: Yes . 1 have Penny Lumbar .
13 I have only been there for three or four
14 months . I have dressed it up .
15 MEMBER DANTES : The only other
16 question that I had, is there any other
17 current variances on the property?
18 MR. RATSEY: Well, the lot is too
19 small . So the lot, it would be stupid to
20 put the building any where else on the
21 property. The 50 foot buffer came so close
22 to the handicap buffer . You couldn ' t go
23 around the building . So they gave him more
24 space going this way.
25 MEMBER DANTES : I don ' t have any other
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 110
1 questions .
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Colin, we did get
3 a response from the Planning and they said
4 that the site is consistent . It ' s going to
5 be a 3200 square feet . They are talking
6 about the buffers , which is what you have
7 said.
8 MR. RATSEY: Yes . You know, I can do
9 this without even telling anyone . I don ' t
10 want to do that . I am 50-years-old.
11 George Costello died, my best friend, I
12 have 13 years to go . So I am setting an
13 example for my son so that he can work
14 smart and not stupid. This is going to be
15 better for everybody. This is a ideal-
16 situation. So I want to put this on the
17 outside . The best that I can, so I can
18 make it best that I can .
19 MEMBER HORNING: What are you
20 fabricating?
21 MR. RATSEY : I do work for the whole
22 town . So I do everything . I clean-up the
23 oil spills . I jacked the house up on the
24 corner . I am a carpenter . So I fix
25 things . Whatever we have to do to get
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 111
1 done .
2 MEMBER HORNING: Thank you.
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody
4 else that would like to speak in favor or
5 against this application?
6 (No Response . )
7 MEMBER HORNING: Hearing no further
8 comments or questions, I will make a motion
9 to close the hearing and reserve the
10 decision till later .
11 Can I have a second?
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All in favor?
14 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
15 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
18 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
19 *******************************************
20 HEARING #6663 - JOHN ABBOTT
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The last
22 application of the day is on behalf of John
23 Abbott . Appeal #6663 .
24 MS . TOTH : Request for Variance from
25 Article XXII Code Section 280-116 (B) based
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 112
1 on an application for building permit and
2 the Building Inspector ' s April 24 , 2013
3 Notice of Disapproval concerning a permit
4 for construction of a 10 ' X15 ' covered
5 deck/gazebo; at 1 ) less than the code
6 required bulkhead setback of 75 feet,
7 located at : 8630 Peconic Bay Boulevard,
8 adjacent to Great Peconic Bay and Private
9 Road in Laurel, New York.
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Who is the
11 representative? Kindly state your name for
12 the record.
13 MS . RIGDON : Agena Rigdon,
14 R-I-G-D-O-N . Here for Mr. Abbott .
15 Mr . Abbott is also in attendance .
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me have the
17 spelling of your name please, again .
18 MS . RIGDON : A-G-E-N-A, last name,
19 R-I-G-D-O-N .
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. We have some
21 additional information from the County and
22 then a copy of the LWRP ' s Coordinator
23 letter of consistency and his determination
24 that this property to inconsistent . Do you
25 have a copy of that?
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 113
1 MS . RIGDON : I do . I was faxed it .
2 Thank you.
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to
4 give you the County ' s interpretation.
5 Okay. What would you like to tell us?
6 MS . RIGDON : As you ' re aware, there
7 was a structure there . A concrete sort-of
8 storage building that Mr . Abbott used. The
9 proposed structure is actually smaller then
10 what was there . No fault as to Mr . Abbott,
11 as you well know, was a result of the storm
12 damage from Hurricane Sandy. A short storm
13 event . Mr . Abbott would like to put back a
14 structure similar and better than what was
15 there . More environmentally friendly and
16 restore the bluff and the bulkhead, which
17 already has Board approval . He does have
18 approval for this 10 ' x 15 ' covered deck.
19 from the Southold Trustees, and also has a
20 letter of non-jurisdiction as well as an
21 emergency hurricane general permit from the
22 DEC .
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Did you read the
24 LWRP Coordinator ' s --
25 MS . RIGDON : I did.
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 114
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Would Mr . Abbott
2 be inclined to move that out of the VE Zone
3 to a higher zone? Meaning closer to the
4 top of the bluff?
5 MS . RIGDON : At this point, I don ' t
6 think that he would like to move it . I
7 believe that the new structure is located
8 further landward of what was preexisting .
9 I think he is compromising to meet the
10 environmental code specifications and the
11 general public . There are also decks in
12 the area that were constructed not to long
13 ago . A couple of neighbors down, that
14 actually sit right on the bulkhead.
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is a covered
16 deck. This is --
17 MS . RIGDON : Uh-huh . Understood. The
18 reason he needs it covered, and it ' s just a
19 simple 2x4 , 4x4 structure, ' he has had some
20 health issues and he would love to sit out
21 on a deck that is not covered but
22 unfortunately he has some medical issues
23 and he needs the screening from the sun.
24 ; MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me just -- the
25 LWRP Coordinator issues three separate and
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 115
1 distinct evaluations of a piece of
2 property. The first one is an exempt one .
3 Usually is one where the water is not
4 involved and the tidal water or the lake
5 water is not involved. The other one is a
6 consistent, and that usually is a situation
7 where he would mention that there is a
8 possibility where water runoff may be --
9 has to be diverted into this Chapter 236 of
10 our Stormwater Management Law, into storm
11 drains . And the third one is inconsistency.
12 The inconsistency is a very important one
13 because on that one, we need to address and
14 mitigate any factors that are being
15 addressed by the LWRP Coordinator. So what]
16 we -- that is why I ask that question
17 regarding this particular request from the
18 LWRP Coordinator . The floodplain maps have
19 changed. We now have new zones in the
20 center of this , which I believe to be an
21 intermediate zone, which is referred to a
22 SLOSH, S-L-O-S-H category . And so he is
23 basically asking us or asking your
24 applicant, to consider the possibility of
25 moving it to a different application .
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 116
1 Now, I have to be perfectly honest with
2 you.
3 Sure . You need to use the mic . Just
4 state your name .
5 MR. ABBOTT,: Yes . My name is John
6 Abbott . I am the owner of the property.
7 When you say move it to a different
8 location?
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am talking about
10 a higher location in the VE Zone . Being in
11 a zone where, if we have another situation
12 like we had, you don ' t lose it .
13 MR. ABBOTT : I just don ' t understand
14 what you ' re saying. The property is flat .
15 You ' re saying raise it up higher?
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No . Moving it up
17 the hill a little farther .
18 MR. ABBOTT : It ' s at the top of the
19 hill now . When you come out t-o Laurel --
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It ' s determined to
21 be in the VE Zone . A high velocity zone,
22 where I suspect it was destroyed by Super
23 Storm Hurricane Sandy.
24 MR. ABBOTT : What actually happened
25 with the storm was , the bulkhead breached
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 117
1 the erosion and went around the supporting
2 structure . The water didn ' t do anything .
3 The wind blew it over in one piece . I was
4 going to take it and put it right back up
5 on the structure but when the people from
6 the Town came down, they didn ' t like the
7 structure and wanted me to get rid of the
8 structure . My original intent was to put
9 it right back up on the structure and
10 repair the structure and repair the
11 bulkhead. Now, as you come out my lawn,
12 it ' s at the top . You walk this one 2x6 up
13 onto the deck. I am not understanding what
14 you ' re saying .
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, this is my
16 problem, when we come over to your very
17 beautiful piece of property --
18 MR. ABBOTT : It was .
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well , it will be
20 again . I have trouble visualizing . I saw
21 where it was , okay, which was very close to
22 the bulkhead down toward the bottom of the
23 hill . I refer to this as a hill .
24 MR. ABBOTT : Let me tell you why it
25 looks that way. Down below the concrete
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 118
1 pad that was there, that is not where the
2 bulkhead started. That is not where the
3 front of the structure .
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Where was it?
5 MR. ABBOTT : The structure was 16 feet
6 back from the front of the bulkhead. The
7 stairs came down, then there was a concrete
8 pad that you walked five or six feet . Then
9 there was some growth area and then there
10 was the bulkhead. So the -- do you
11 remember the property right next door? To
12 my east? That gazebo? Essentially it ' s the
13 same thing . It ' s going to roughly start
14 where his gazebo starts and go out as far
15 as his gazebo . The front of the structure '
16 that I would like to put up, is going to . be
17 16 or 17 feet from the bulkhead . Two doors
18 down -- now, I understand that is an
19 existing bulkhead and his was not blown
20 over, he is 8 feet from the bulkhead. My
21 other neighbor is about 12 feet from the
22 bulkhead: I am currently 16 feet .
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just explain
24 something to you, Mr . Abbott?
25 MR. ABBOTT : Sure .
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 119
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Everything I am
2 saying, I consider to be -- not trying in
3 any way to give you an impression of you
4 . don ' t understand what you ' re saying . We
5 have a copy of the survey, and I am not
6 speaking specifically for the entire Board.
7 But the majority of those structures that
8 are on Peconic Bay Boulevard right now do
9 not have C of O ' s . None of them do .
10 MR. ABBOTT : This one did.
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This one did.
12 It ' s gone .
13 MR. ABBOTT : Correct . Okay. Yes .
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What .the LWRP
15 Coordinator is saying is to move it closer
16 to the house so that it is out of that low
17 end zone, which we refer to the High
18 Velocity Zone . A little closer to the
19 house . That would be a mitigating factor
20 in the inconsistency evaluation . So we
21 would like you to move it up a little bit .
22 I have difficulty understanding how it
23 exist right now. I have to be honest with
24 you and I have been doing this for 32
25 years . I think -- this is not a sarcastic
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 120
1 statement, but you know, you have a
2 tremendous amount of devastation, and so,
3 you know, if you could possibly consider
4 moving it a little to the rear of the
5 house --
6 MR. ABBOTT : How far are you talking
7 about?
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, I don ' t know
9 how far the zone is to get out of the VE
10 Zone . I am going to give you an example .
11 The -- one of the old restaurants down in
12 New Suffolk across from the -- the only one
13 that exist in New Suffolk now . They moved
14 that out of the VE Zone because they would
15 have had to do so much strapping and
16 everything else that they needed to do
17 reconstruction of the restaurant . I can ' t
18 tell you exactly how far it would be . It
19 would only be your surveyor, but any where
20 closer or partially out of the VE Zone, I
21 would consider -- I can ' t answer for the
22 Board. Okay. So that would be the
23 situation that I would suggest to you . I
24 don ' t want you to leave here that we ' re
25 not being cooperative .
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 121
1 MR. ABBOTT : As you said, to look at
2 what was there, it was very confusing to
3 what the location of the old gazebo was . I
4 wish I could draw something for you . I have
5 a picture from 1947 but it ' s from the
6 front . The structure was built in 1942 .
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yeah . That was the
8 year that I was born . I am looking at a
9 hill that looks like this . Here would be
10 the bulkhead down here . You ' re telling me
11 that you want to put it approximately here .
12 And I am saying to you, that all of this
13 area down below is in the VE. Zone . That is
14 a high velocity wind and tidal zone . And
15 what I am saying to you --- you know, the
16 difference between these two meetings ,
17 between now and August, is not that far
18 away. If you could state that for us and
19 have the surveyor tell us where that is ,
20 the VE Zone and how far it would take you
21 out of the zone, that would be the only
22 person that could tell us .
23 MR. ABBOTT : Okay.
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: These are all new
25 terms that we ' re using . That word "SLOSH"
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 122
1 that I used, also a new term. The young
2 lady here has the evaluation . Please be
3 aware we ' re not -- this is not a sarcastic
4 thing . We ' re not allowed to discuss this
5 with you unless it ' s on the record. So
6 when we came to your house, we couldn ' t --
7 MR. ABBOTT : Sure . I understand.
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We couldn ' t
9 discuss it with you . That is why we ' re
10 discussing it with you today. So that is
11 that .
12 MR. ABBOTT : I don ' t have a problem
13 moving it back another 3 feet .
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is not a bad
15 picture . Please, tell us where that is?
16 MS . RIGDON: There is a scale on this .
17 MR. ABBOTT : See this line here, that
18 is the replenishment of. the grade . That is
19 where it was . This distance here from the
20 front of the gazebo, from here is 16 feet .
21 This is level, as you see with the front
22 lawn . Now, if I move it back, I am probably
23 going to have to elevate the whole
24 structure . To the intent, I am going to
25 have to raise it, which is going to have
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 123
1 some safety issues . More stairs . This from
2 here to here is 15 feet . Down here from
3 here, where the ground starts to break,
4 that was and is, all natural vegetation.
5 That is -all I am trying to get back.
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand. It ' s
7 not going to affect you that much. You
8 know --
9 MR. ABBOTT : My concern was only is
10 now -- was a 2x6 . You know, that ends up
11 being -- it ' s 16 now. If they want 20 , it ' s
12 only 4 feet back.
13 MS . RIGDON : As we know, the
14 structural element of what had preexisted
15 differ between what where we ' re proposing
16 to construct now. The new vinyl bulkhead
17 will be a series of vinyl, which will last
18 approximately 75 to 100 years .
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We ' re putting in
20 right now, 619 feet of bulkheading -- not
21 now, but as of September 3rd. 4 , 000 feet .
22 In the Mattituck Park District Beach . They
23 legitimately told us that this retaining
24 wall that .we ' re putting in will not survive
25 a major storm. And we ' re using the same
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 124
1 stuff that -you will be using, I mean, it
2 may vary from grade here and there . So in
3 general, what I am saying to you is, the
4 bulkhead or the retaining wall, is one in
5 fact the exact same thing . And I know the
6 gentleman that you have constructing it,
7 the guy is unbelievable . And I told your
8 brother that, Mr . Abbott, when he asked me
9 how I knew about that . And so very simply,
10 we ' re just trying to get some sort of
11 mitigation between based on the . LWRP
12 Coordinator ' s evaluation of the
13 inconsistency. So that we can give you a
14 decision, well there was some sort of
15 mediation here and we can mitigate this .
16 MR. ABBOTT : If I moved it back to 20
17 feet and 5 inches from the front of the
18 bulkhead to the front of the gazebo, would
19 that be acceptable? Would you consider .
20 that?
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: How does that work
22 with the LWRP? They are requesting 20 feet
23 from the bulkhead?
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: He is requesting
25 that it be moved out of the VE Zone .
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 125
1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Where is the VE
2 Zone?
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is the
4 question .
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It ' s not on the
6 map?
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It ' s not on the
8 map .
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Then how could we
10 say move . it to a line that is not on the
11 map?
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is why I said
13 only a surveyor would know where the VE
14 Zone is .
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Well , how did Mark
16 come up with that conclusion?
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no idea .
18 MS . RIGDON : He eyeballed it .
19 MS . TOTH : He eyeballed it and printed
20 it out and attached it to the report .
21 MS . RIGDON : That is greater than 20
22 feet from the bulkhead .
23 MR. ABBOTT : If we move it 20 . 1, that
24 complies with his request or . idea .
25 MEMBER HORNING: He has a photo in
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 126
1 your report . It ' s in the photo but you
2 can ' t see it . There is another photo
3 showing -- the parcel showing the gazebo
4 location with the 'SLOSH category in the
5 hurricane map zoning .
6 MR. ABBOTT : This document that we
7 have is based upon his photo . This document
8 that he wrote says greater than 20 feet .
9 Again, I will ask the question, if it was
10 20 . 5, 20 . 1, 20 . 2 , that would satisfy his
11 observation . Would that be acceptable?
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only way that I
13 could tell you that we could answer that
14 question and this is not a sarcastic
15 statement, is for you to stake it and we
16 will send him back out there .
17 MR. ABBOTT : Okay. I can stake the --
18 back but I can ' t stake the front because --
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Stake the back.
20 And then tell' us after you stake it .
21 MR. ABBOTT : There is nothing there .
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The existing
23 bulkhead is pulled out?
24 MR. ABBOTT : Gone .
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was there
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 127
1 yesterday.
2 MR. ABBOTT : Yes . It ' s all a disaster
3 down there .. I can put some paint on the
4 debris .
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only way that
6 I could see it, is if a surveyor stakes it .
7 MR. ABBOTT : Physically stake it or
8 mark it on the drawing?
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Physically stake
10 it .
11 MR. ABBOTT : He is going to have the
12 same problem.
13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not necessarily .
14 They use other types of mechanisms to do
15 it .
16 MR. ABBOTT : My question is , I can be
17 done there and measure it out , this is
18 all --
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You can take it
20 from the -- it ' s the rear of the house .
21 MR. ABBOTT : There is all debris there
22 right now.
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand that .
24 We were there last night .
25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Looking at the LWRP
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 128
1 report on the last page, last sentence
2 says, "the distance from the bulkhead from
3 the top of the bluff to be restored, " which
4 you intend to restore, "would be greater
5 than 20 feet as indicated on the DKR
6 Shore . " This is dated March 15 , 2013 .
7 Now, I am not sure which survey they are
8 talking about . .
9 MS . RIGDON : It ' s a site plan . Not a
10 survey.
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: A site plan . Okay.
12 Site plan. And then he says , in the
13 previous sentence . "It is recommended that
14 the gazebo be located landward. " So the
15 LWRP Coordinator is saying that the top of
16 the bluff would be 20 feet from the
17 bulkhead. And then he is asking that the
18 gazebo be landward of that top of the
19 bluff .
20 MEMBER .GOEHRINGER: Right .
21 MR. ABBOTT : 20 . 1 inches , for
22 arguments sake, would be the front of the
23 gazebo . Is that fair?
24 MS . RIGDON : Would the Board consider
25 that? I can redo the site plan .
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 129
1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What Mark is saying
2 here that' when you ' re all done with your
3 reconstruction of your bluff, the top of it
4 would be 20 feet from the bulkhead. He is
5 asking that the gazebo be placed landward
6 of the bluff . Does everybody understand?
7 MEMBER HORNING : I understand that .
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So he is asking it
9 to be greater than 20 feet from the
10 bulkhead providing that the top of the
11 bluff is 20 feet .
12 MR. ABBOTT : The top of the bluff is
13 actually going to be further back.
14 MEMBER HORNING : We don ' t know in
15 relation to the rear of the house .
16 MS . RIGDON : The top of the bluff has
17 to be restored.
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: There is two things
19 that he is talking about . He would like to
20 see the structure located landward of the
21 top of the bluff .
22 MS . RIGDON : The restored top of the
23 bluff .
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The variable that
25 he does not know, he says that it appears
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 130
i
1 that once the bulkhead is restored, that it
2 would be approximately 20 feet from the top
3 of the bluff . So he does not know where the
4 top of the bluff is going to be .
5 MR. ABBOTT : I am going to have the
6 guy construct that bluff . The top of the
7 bluff is going to be 20 feet from the top
8 of the bulkhead, okay?
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Fine .
10 MR. ABBOTT : The front of the gazebo,
11 will be 20 . 1 from the top of the bulkhead,
12 2 inches behind the crest of the bluff .
13 MEMBER HORNING : I don ' t think you ' re
14 understanding what he is saying. It ' s a
15 minimum --
16 MR. ABBOTT : Of 20?
17 MEMBER HORNING: Yes .
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: 20 feet landward of
19 the bluff .
20 MR. ABBOTT : Okay. How do you define
21 that?
22 MEMBER HORNING: Well, it could be 25
23 feet for example .
24 MR. ABBOTT : I am going to dictate
25 where the bluff is going to go . So I will
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 131
1 make it whatever you want it to be . I am
2 not arguing . I just want to make sure that
3 I understand.
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We appreciate
5 this . It ' s a little new to us .
6 MEMBER HORNING: I want to ask a
7 couple of questions related to this in a
8 way. Sir, the reason why it ' s important to
9 us , when we issue a variance it goes with
10 the property. It doesn ' t go with the owner
11 necessarily. We ' re all mortal beings . Some
12 of us might not be here ,a year from now.
13 And so, but the variance will be . You
14 eluded to the problem and associate that
15 with your --
16 MR. ABBOTT : I have no one ( In
17 Audible . )
18 MEMBER HORNING: So what does this
19 have to do with the distance from this
20 gazebo to the corner of your house?
21 MR. ABBOTT : Not a lot . But unless
22 you ' re telling me that it ' s going to be
23 back 20 feet from the -- then I have two
24 problems . Number one, it ' s a certain
25 number of feet from my front porch, then I
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 132
1 don ' t -- I bought a place on the water,
2 that I don ' t get to see the water . Kind of
3 useless to have the house .
4 MEMBER HORNING: But you ' re
5 overlooking the water . I don ' t understand
6 that concept .
7 MR. ABBOTT : I am not going to see
8 much . I won ' t see any of the beach .
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think we can
10 correct this whole situation by asking you
11 to speak to the LWRP Coordinator, based on
12 the evaluation that we just read to you.
13 MR. ABBOTT : Sure . How do I get in .
14 touch with him?
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: He is over in the
16 Annex. Just make an appointment to see him.
17 In the Planning Division over in the Annex.
18 MR. ABBOTT : What ' s his name?
19 MS . TOTH : Mark Terry. It should be on
20 the LWRP letter .
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You have a copy of
22 the LWRP?
23 MS . RIGDON : It ' s actually not on
24 here .
25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It says memorandum.
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 133
1 Oh, it ' s on the top .
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Wait a minute .
3 There is a possibility that he may not meet
4 with you, okay? So, in that particular case
5 -- what would you like us to do?
6 MS . ANDALORO : Somebody should reach
7 out to the LWRP Coordinator for
8 clarification of his letter . I think you
9 have asked the applicant to place the VE
10 Line on his survey.
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is what we
12 need.
13 MS . ANDALORO : This plan is difficult .
14 I think it ' s confusing . I think this is
15 what Mark bases his decision on . There is
16 no distances on here, on these plans .
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It ' s a site plan .
18 It ' s not a survey.
19 MS . ANDALORO : I know. I think if
20 there were approximate distances because
21 everything sounds so up in the air . The
22 other thing that you can do, Sir, and I
23 don ' t know if this is an option for you,
24 but you may want to wait and see where this
25 comes out before you construct the bluff
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 134
1 and then you come back to us?
2 MR. ABBOTT : That ' s an excellent idea .
3 However, if I have the opportunity now to
4 eliminate any problem, I want to do that
5 now .
6 MS . ANDALORO : You should certainly,
7 before you construct the bluff, take a look
8 at where the VE Zoning . I think that is
9 important .
10 MR. ABBOTT : The LWRP guy will not
11 meet with me directly?
12 MS . ANDALORO : He does support for the
13 Board.
14 MR. ABBOTT : Can I ask a question? �
15 MS . ANDALORO: Sure .
16 MR. ABBOTT : Would it be possible for
17 one of you gentlemen to join me and go over
18 there and make an appointment? He won ' t see
19 me . He will see you .
20 MS . ANDALORO : I am uncomfortable
21 making that representation . You should
22 talk to him about it first ! He may be open
23 to meeting with you . I am just saying that
24 we never do that . So I just don ' t want to
25 put him in an uncomfortable situation . We
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 135
1 usually deal with him directly. He might be
2 willing to meet with you but we should talk
3 to him first .
4 MR. ABBOTT : That ' s great . That ' s even
5 better .
6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The situation with
7 our parties is , . we ' re not permitted to
8 discuss the application outside a public
9 venue . Like we all can ' t go in some room
10 and start talking about this project .
11 MR. ABBOTT : People have done that a
12 lot with me .
13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So we can ' t
14 actually go and talk to the LWRP
15 Coordinator without it being a public
16 noticed and noticed to the public that
17 we ' re doing that . We ' re obliged to be open .
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The question is ,
19 how do we get the VE line on your survey?
20 Can we get it on your survey?
21 MR. ABBOTT : You know, I don ' t know
22 what a .VE Line is .
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It ' s a High
24 Velocity --
25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: They must have
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 136
1 looked at this site plan here, and said,
2 that okay, some of the scale -- your
3 outline of your gazebo of 11 feet from the
4 proposed bulkhead.
5 MR. ABBOTT : If that is what that
6 says , then it ' s incorrect, because that
7 should say 16 feet . The old gazebo was 16
8 feet from the front of the bulkhead. That
9 is all I want to do . That 11 feet is
10 incorrect . If he assumed that it was 11
11 feet, then that is incorrect .
12 MEMBER HORNING : If you go to whoever
13 made this survey and you said to him, I
14 have a board that is requesting the VE Line
15 be put on the survey, he will know what
16 we ' re talking about . You don ' t necessarily
17 need to know. It ' s good to know what it is .
18 MR. ABBOTT : So he will know what it
19 is?
20 MEMBER HORNING : Yes .
21 MS . ANDALORO : That ' s very common
22 language .
23 MR. ABBOTT : I will get it done by
24 tomorrow.
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What we need it
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 137
1 done by is the Special Meeting, which is
2 the 23rd of this month .
3 MR. ABBOTT : When you put that on the
4 drawing, how many drawings? One drawing?
5 Ten drawings?
6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Six or seven.
7 MR. ABBOTT : Okay. And who do I bring
8 them to?
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Our office in the
10 Annex . Next to the Building Department .
11 Go into the Building Department and ring
12 the phone, and one of the gals come out .
13 The ladies come out .
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Let ' s also try and
15 get a bulkhead --
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is the bulkhead
17 going to be put back in the exact same
18 place?
19 MR. ABBOTT : Exact same place .
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So we need a
21 proposed location .
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We need a proposed
23 location landward of the VE line showing
24 where it is, from the west, from the
25 bulkhead.
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 138
1 MR. ABBOTT : So just to make sure I am
2 clear . He is going to give me a map with
3 the new VE Line on it . Then I am going to
4 ask him to move back 20 feet and write in a
5 10 ' x 15 ' gazebo . Is that what you need?
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That would be out
7 of the VE Zone .
8 MR. ABBOTT : Out of the VE Zone .
9 MS . ANDALORO : Just as long as it is
10 landward of where the VE Line is . It could
11 be less than that . It could be more as
1.2 well .
13 MS . RIGDON : I will coordinate that .
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The proposed
15 distance from the bulkhead to the base of
16 your gazebo . He is going to say that is
17 where you ' re going to place the gazebo .
18 MR. ABBOTT : That is not a problem.
19 Then when I get that, I have to go over to
20 the Building Department?
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Then you will ring
22 our phone and they will --
23 MS . RIGDON : I will handle that .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We need that
25 before the 25th, so we can close the
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 139
1 hearing, assuming we have all that
2 information on the survey .
3 MR. ABBOTT : Okay.
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And then we can
5 make a decision.
6 MR. ABBOTT : Very good.
7 MS . RIGDON : What time is the meeting?
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Special Meeting .
9 We have a Special Meeting . We will adjourn
10 this meeting to the 25th at which time, if
11 we have received your survey and we have no
12 further questions, we will close your
13 hearing .
14 MS . RIGDON : Okay. What time?
15 MS . TOTH : Five o ' clock.
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: By the Capital
17 One .
18 MS . RIGDON : Okay.
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Now, here is the
20 question, assuming that we have questions ,
21 do you want to give them a date in August?
22 MS . TOTH : You can do that at the
23 Special .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We will do that .
25 We will give you date in August, if we have
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 140
1 questions with the information that we
2 have, which means, that you don ' t have to
3 notice anyone else .
4 MR. ABBOTT : Okay. Very good.
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We will assume, I
6 hate to use this word, attempting to
7 comply. If you comply with everything that
8 we think that we need at that point, then
9 we will just close the hearing.
10 MR. ABBOTT : Very good.
11 MS . RIGDON : Thank you.
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. I make a
13 motion adjourning this hearing to the 25th,
14 7/25 .
15 MEMBER HORNING: Second.
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All in favor?
17 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
18 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
21 (See Minutes for Resolution. )
22 ******************* **** ******************
23 (Whereupon, the July 11, 2013,
24 Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of
25 Appeals concluded at 2 : 04 P . M. )
July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 141
1
2 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
3
4
5 I , Jessica DiLallo, certify that the
6 foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public
7 Hearings was prepared using required electronic
8 transcription equipment and is a true and accurate
9 record of the Hearings .
10
11 Signature,:'-,t
----------
12 `J-ssica—DiLallo
13
14
15 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
16 P.0 Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
17
18 Date : July 25, 2013
19
20
21
22
23
24
25