HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/14/2019 Hearing TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK
-------7-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York
March 14, 2019
9:51 A.M.
Board Members Present:
LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member
ERIC DANTES— Member
ROBERT LEHNERT— Member
NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO— Member
KIM FUENTES— Board Assistant
WILLIAM DUFFY—Town Attorney
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
INDEX OF HEARINGS
Hearing Page
Ronald Coons#7244 3- 11
Jo Ellen Cortapasso#7245 11 - 22
Sarah Apgar# 7246 22 - 24
Douglas Robalino#7247 25 - 28
Erica Lev and Zachary Lev#7249SE 28 - 32
Amy O'Brien, Trustee c/o Frank A. Uhlendorf and Edith
Uhlendorf Trust# 7250 32 - 34
Douglas and Lisa Carlen #7251 34- 38
Walsh Park Benevolent Corporation (Town of Southold Owner) #7252 38-40
Alex Friedman #7253 41-47
Olde Colonial Place, LLC#7248 47-54
William A. Penney, III and Sukru Ilgin (CV) (Southold Gas Station) # 6839 54 - 65
MMC Realty 2 Family Limited Partnership#7221 66 -71
2
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
HEARING#7244 RONALD COONS
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for Ronald Coons #7244.
This is a request for variances under Article III Section 280-15, Article XXIII Section 280-124 and
the Building Inspector's September 27, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a
permit,to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling "at 1) less
than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) less than the,code required
minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet, 3) an existing shed located in other than the code
required rear yard at 5206 Great Peconic Bay Blvd. in Laurel.
MIKE KIMACK : Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant and the applicant Mr. Coons is"also
present to answer any questions you may have. If you pretty much laid it out it's an undersized
non-conforming lot with an existing one story structure. The dwelling is to be demolished. Also
the land is going to be raised from its existing elevation up'to nine feet because .it tends to be
rather low and it ponds in that particular area. The applicant calls to put a two',story'house
exactly in the same location as the foundation is now with the addition of a garage adjacent to
it and at .the first elevation it would be at 11 feet. There would be a new septic system put in
and also there is an existing shed in the back which is a part of,it that we would like to be able
to maintain. It's presently 2 % feet from both property lines both rear and the side where I
believe the (inaudible). There have been comments .from the Town Engineer primarily one
dealing with moving the house three inches which we really didn't think was necessary or
needed at that time although we.did incorporate if you look at the latest drawing We did
incorporate the drainage situation as (inaudible) on the east side of the property and across the
front.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN We 'should enter into the record that the front yard setback is
proposed at 27.8 feet where the code requires a minimum of 35 feet and the 'rear yard setback
is at 10.7 feet, the�code requiring 35 foot minimum. With regard to thfe shed, the shed does not
'require a permit it's very small. It looks as though the shed is already in the side yard.,
MIKE KIMACK : It is, it is.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it was called out but
MEMBER DANTES : Is it a 5 foot setback or a 10 foot setback there needed?
MIKE KIMACK : I thought it was a 3 on size of the lot but
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : For the shed you're talking about?
MIKE KIMACK : The shed.
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not a setback for the shed those are setbacks for the house.
What was called out was the existing, shed was going to wind up in the side yard where the
code requires a rear yard but I think it's where it is now anyway. If you look at it and see where
the house is.
MEMBER DANTES : It's a required 3 foot setback just move it to the 3 foot mark and then it's a
code conforming
MIKE KIMACK : That's what I thought you would probably go to move it (inaudible).
MEMBER DANTES : You've got the excavator there anyway.
MIKE KIMACK : Mr. Coon's is acceptable we figured six inches would not be a big situation.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can roll that probably. The Town Engineer has recommended
that the new sanitary system be installed be an IA sanitary especially since it's so close to the
water.
MIKE KIMACK : Yea I expected that be the issue and we had opposed that particular position.
Number one, the architect Mark Schwartz on the basis that it's a larger system and it's a very
tight piece of'property to get in there. 'Now that may not necessarily be 'something that would
be sellable to the Board, however I think basically in defense of not having to impose an IA
system on the property all I can basically do is basically believe and point to the Board I'believe
that the imposition by the Zoning Board is an overreach on your part and what I'll do is go back
to the Zoning Board of Appeals which had in the 267 and the fact that I-know that you have the
- ----ability to condition the property that's-within the 267 (inaudible) laws it says, such-reasonable - - -
conditions and restrictions as directly related to and incidental.to the proposed use of the
property. I assume that that's basically where you have looked in order to.get your authority to
do so but in a case law basically it says, conditions must relate solely to the particular land that
is subject to the application and must not concern unrelated land or other issues. That's what
the case law according to the Zoning Board this is in there.
T. A. DUFFY : What were the facts of that case?
MIKE KIMACK : I don't have the specific facts but this is what I got off of this
T. A. DUFFY : Doesn't that case have to deal with granting a variance on one piece of property
and conditioning a separate parcel?
MIKE KIMACK : Except there's a language the language under that basically says it has to be the
particular piece of property.
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
T. A. DUFFY : But you have to know the facts of that case to understand the ruling and the facts
were that the ZBA in that case were putting conditions on a totally separate parcel (inaudible)
MIKE KIMACK : Well that's what you'd be doing with the IA system Bill. In essence if you
basically impose an IA system on a particular piece of property the you're not imposing it for
the effect on that particular piece of property, you're imposing it for the effect on the body of
water adjacent to it or
T. A. DUFFY : The case you're siting does not stand for your argument.
MIKE KIMACK : That's you're position. All I can do is present what I believe is an overreach on
your part on the imposition.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Years ago we did a series of variances for a property near Rabbit
Lane on Bay Ave.
MIKE KIMACK : Yea I'm familiar that's
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and at that time this property was being raised. As a consequence of
being literally sitting in a flood zone with wetlands all over the place and the bottom line is we
discovered at that point in talking not to anybody other than the actual Health Department that
regulates these things that we had the authority to require based on municipal law more than
what their minimum requirements are. That went back a number of years. Now we also look as
you know at the environmental impacts okay not just on the subject property but on the town,
no adverse environmental impacts, it's one of the standard state statutes we have to address
for variance relief. Based upon that and recommendations from LWRP which we must make a
consistency ruling on in order to make an approval and based upon comments from the Town
Engineer this Board has taken the position where appropriate that moving forward especially
with new construction that the use of more advanced waste water treatment systems
throughout the town where warranted, we have not only the authority to do what we have an
obligation to do.
MIKE KIMACK : And I respect that position. The one argument that I did not bring before you
because I don't have enough information as of yet is the second (inaudible) of that argument is
that there has to be some environmental impact primarily. There's been study after study in
terms of all the bodies of water around not only Long Island Sound but of the bays. They've
done (inaudible) oxygen studies at that bottom and at the top and they've tried to come up
with a means with which to assess the nitrogen effect on all those bodies of water primarily.
That plays directly to your question as you have to really look at to determine whether an IA
system is going to be beneficial to a body of water that may not need it or one that has already
been hypoxiated which is three milligrams or less primarily based upon the code. Long Island
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
Sound we had that discussion before from Southold east is totally flushed by the Atlantic Ocean
and oxygenated (inaudible) high so it's not a need in that particular case so in the future what
you're saying to me is that one of the things that are to come in and give you evidence that that
body of water that may be adjacent to that particular piece of property may not necessarily be
in need of an IA system simply because the condition (inaudible). The studies I haven't made it
up I'm indicating where I've been researching it, I've got (inaudible) background in septic and all
the biologic etc. but I don't have enough data to even come before you with any credible
information as to how nitrogen basically would affect a particular body of water with a
particular system although they do vary. They're all over the place in terms of their conditions
and in terms of their (inaudible) and their (inaudible) levels.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well essentially what the Board does is it relies upon the expertise
within the town government, namely the Engineer and the LWRP coordinator as well as the
Trustees. We attempt to make coordinated reviews on these.
MIKE KIMACK : And as such in the future if I have this situation and I have a body of water and I
have good research on that I can bring to indicate that. It might not necessarily be of such that
would require an IA system I'll make that presentation but at the present time it's such a new
system and quite frankly the reports coming out on these systems are not good at the present
time. They're not functioning but I don't have enough data on that to indicate. Some engineers
have told me that they're only operating about ten percent better than the standard system
which in and of itself(inaudible) enough to justify twenty thousand dollars.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How about we move to the variances that's before us.
MIKE KIMACK : I needed to do this for my client. Thank you for your time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Tell me why you need the non-conforming setbacks cause that's
really what we're here for at the moment.
MIKE KIMACK : Because number one it's a very, very small lot primarily and he really is
constructing a house the footprint of such is the same except for the garage and that is
(inaudible) the existing house that he's owned since 1989 1 believe and he would like to be able
to retire there at some time so he'd like to be able to the house has not been upgraded and
he'd like to be able to provide additional comfort space, additional convenience inside. Overall
the new house is not is being built essentially in the same location and really isn't any place to
move it forward or backwards or sideways that would not create another variance situation and
it's not oversized for the area in terms of what's being constructed. If you (inaudible) you might
have noticed that the house immediately in front of it on the water there which you had given a
variance to actually twice
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I remember that well.
I
MIKE KIMACK : I remember that too.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see what the Board has to say, Nick questions?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm full of them. I guess the first question I want to ask is where's the
well located?
MIKE KIMACK : There's town water.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : There's public water in. (inaudible) I didn't understand and are all the
houses on the right of way?
MIKE KIMACK : Yes.
RONALD COONS : All five houses, yes.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Also I didn't notice on the application you talked about your lot size
and square footage, but what is the actual lot size with the right of way taken out of that?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on if the applicant is speaking you need to come to the
microphone and state your name please.
RONALD COONS : Ronald Coons. The house is approximately a quarter of an acre.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You're saying 10,507 on your application what is the lot size less the
right of way? -
RONALD COONS : I haven't done the calculations myself. I think it's in the front it's 89 by 117 on
one side and 98 by 137 on the other side.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The reason why I ask is I'm just curious to know how that impacts
your developed area you're presenting an application covering lot coverage of 17.2%.
MEMBER DANTES : Basically Nick it looks like the right of way is about 15 feet by 137.16 which
is 15 times 137.16 is
MEMBER LEHNERT : 18,000 sq. ft.
MIKE KIMACK : But the right of way would normally be a calculation as part of the lot because
it's not a separate tax map number.
MEMBER DANTES : No he's trying to create a mitigating factor for you that's what he's doing so
let him.
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Again trying to understand the square footage of the actual residence
in comparison to the bluff and why they're saying that it's 17.2%. 1 think that the house with the
added garage is quite large for that location and when I look at the community character given
it's a right of way I think (inaudible)
RONALD COONS : It's just over one car garage and my wife and I are planning on moving out to
Southold and you know we hope we're going to stay there it would be important to have a
garage. I talked to my neighbors and everybody was fine with what we were doing and we all
get along very well. I think for us to move out I just turned seventy, I retired and my wife is
retiring next year. We're going to move to Southold full time and I think it's important that we
have a garage to stay on that lot. There seems to be plenty of space. The house in front of us
built a beautiful new house a few years ago so that's our I think that there'll be plenty of space
for the garage. We actually have a wood chuck under our shed so I'm a little concerned about
moving it six inches. I don't want to disturb the wood chuck. I'm kind of an animal lover.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think the disturbance of building a house will. So one other question
I have is just relative to the right of way which we're talking about as it is 15 wide. By my count
it services five houses or five residences. It's in really poor condition and it might have been
based on the day that I was there with the snow etc. due to the flooding or some RCA. One of
your neighbors actually paved the area in front of their house where as the balance of the right
of way is unpaved, what plans do you have as far as mitigating construction trucks any damage
to the right of way?
RONALD COONS : When the house was being built in front of us I pretty much played a role for
the whole neighborhood so I know it's important when trucks coming in consideration for your
neighbors. I've asked the neighbor behind me to remove the black top because that hasn't
helped the situation and they put stones in you know trying to talk them into putting stones
down the entire road but again everybody (inaudible) has to do their own thing on the street
but so right now there's really no major plan. I was going to put gravel and Belgian blocks in
front of my garage but in terms of the road everybody is kind of responsible for their own
fifteen feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any questions Rob?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Yea I have a few questions. You're showing that the existing house is going
to be demolished, what's the scope of the demolition? Are you showing the proposed on the
existing footprint, you guys taking the foundation down?
MIKE KIMACK : Yes.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Completely?
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
MIKE KIMACK : Completely.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Okay. My other question is the and this is again mitigation, drainage-you
got the property shown as you know meeting the drainage code to hold your water on your
property but you don't show anything for the driveway you're using it as in your buildable area
calculation.
MIKE KIMACK : Well where that we're raising it up I mean I don't have the we're raising it up to
the 9 elevation. I think right now it's roughly about the 7 elevation so it's about two feet coming
up and then the first floor (inaudible). When we raise it up obviously the water is going to flow
back to the drains
MEMBER LEHENRT : I see that on the property
MIKE KIMACK : Most likely from the road too it's going to probably going to come over because
it kind of dips down and then begins to go back up again when it gets towards the (inaudible) so
drainage wise
MEMBER LEHNERT : Are you going to contain your water on the right of way?
MIKE KIMACK : I suspect that the water coming in the right of way is also going to be going to
the dry well system.
RONALD COONS : It's already sandy that road. It's pretty much all sand so when water does
collect it dissipated pretty much immediately. It's not a problem.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Again I'm just asking this question (inaudible) mitigation factor we have to
put this down for town code. You have to contain all your water on site.
RONALD COONS : We do it right now. It seems to be fine and I think we're adding more you
know drainage with the new house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well they're going to have to comply with 236 anyway so the Town
Engineer and the Building Department determines that whatever you're proposing is
inadequate they'll tell you.
MIKE KIMACK : I suspect Jamie will look at it to make sure that in fact the right of way needs to
drain or (inaudible) accordingly.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric anything, Pat any questions?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Basically Nick covered what I was going to say with regard to that right
of way and actually I have an SUV and I had a hard time getting into that area because the
9
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
neighbors have a sticking up rocks or stones or whatever it is there so how are you going to get
big construction vehicles into that property especially when you do the demolition?
RONALD COONS : I think two years ago they built a huge house in front of me and you know
again the trucks were all over the place. We work as neighbors and it didn't seem to be a
problem. The only problem we had all together is up the road somebody's step was hit by a
truck and they replaced it but we didn't it wasn't a problem. Like I said the house in front of us
think is bigger than the house I'm putting up. Trucks came down I think we have good
(inaudible) and I've already talked to them about consideration for the neighbors so like I said
they did the house in front of us that's probably at least 2,400 sq. ft. ours is a little smaller so
you know if you consider it even (inaudible) to people I mean there'll be times when trucks will
come down delivering material but you know they'll have to you know (inaudible) for the
neighbors.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yea it's a tight fit it really is a tight fit.
RONALD COONS : Did you go down the road?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Absolutely.
RONALD COONS : So you saw the house in front of us?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yes.
RONALD COONS : So like I said, I'm kind of hands on and I'm big on making sure neighbors are
satisfied, I'm not just going to be absentee I'll be out there making sure that everything is done
as carefully as possible.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from the Board, anyone in the audience wishing to
address the application? I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a
later date is there a second?
MEMBER DANTES : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
$®
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING #7245—JO ELLEN CORTAPASSO
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Jo Ellen Cortapasso #
7245. This is a request for variances under Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building
Inspector's August 10, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to
construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code
required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, and 2) less than the code required minimum
rear yard setback of 35 feet located at 4830 Peconic Bay Boulevard in Laurel. State your name
for the record please.
ROBERT STROMSKI : My name is Robert Stromski and I'm the architect for the owner and
applicant. The owner and applicant are here today so if there are any questions from the Board
that the owner would have to address you could do that as well. Essentially what you have here
you have an existing one story dwelling that is non-conforming to existing zoning. The project is
looking to do a second story addition on top of the existing footprint. The existing first floor
(inaudible) increase. What the project is looking to do is to remove the existing roof structure
and basically build a new second story on top of the existing structure with a two foot
cantilever to the front and to the rear. That cantilever what that does is it allows for the floor
plan to move and allow for the spaces and the use that the client is looking for with respect to
the layout at the stairs and so forth. We tried to make the house as narrow as we could but we
felt that the two foot overhang towards the front and to the rear was necessary to fill the
(inaudible). The current rear yard has an even smaller setback of 7.7 with the existing enclosed
porch so the rear yard that we're looking for, for the new construction is much less than what
currently exists on the front so and in the front yard which is to be reduced by two feet only for
that second story. We have submitted the proposed plans and elevations. We feel that the
proposed development would be with the character of the neighborhood. We tried to look at
the designs and have a project that looks somewhat aesthetic and similar in character to the
surrounding neighborhood and we feel that the impacts of the design would not be something
that would have an adverse effect to the community. As far appearance that would pretty
much conform to the common (inaudible) of the properties with similar lot sizes and we feel
that the setbacks would be pretty much in keeping with what's around in the neighborhood on
this particularly smaller type lots.
la
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well again we're looking at a front yard setback of 23.8 feet
where the code requires a minimum of 35 and a rear yard setback of 15.7 feet where the code
requires a minimum of 35. Now you're going to be decreasing by two feet because of this
second story overhang.
ROBERT STROMSKI : Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The footprint is where it is and that's not to be expanded is that
correct?
ROBERT STROMSKI : No the current the only alteration that would be done on the first floor
would be internal so nothing is proposed to change that existing footprint.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat comments, questions?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : It is a small piece of property for sure. Coming out the extra two feet it
was hard just walking around to that back yard and the neighbors I mean you have arborvitaes
some kind of trees back there but the neighbors there is a shed to the west and a shed to the
east and they're pretty big sheds so I'm kind of wondering how are you going to do all this
construction in such a little space. There's no room to move around that's my question. How
are you going to do it?
ROBERT STROMSKI : I mean essentially all the construction is not going to require much heavy
equipment. A lot of it is going to be done with man labor so the fact that getting deliveries
there is the access to the property that is on there's a private right of way that's to the west so
obviously they'll be able to have material drops near that area.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Because the driveway turnaround is a really small area also.
ROBERT STROMSKI : Correct, well obviously they'll be able to have whatever you know truck
vehicles would probably park in that area and on the western side of the property where
materials would be but obviously the contractor is going to have to not drop the entire second
floor load of lumber. They basically going to have to you know drop the amount of lumber that
they're going to be able to build within the day or two days because there's just not (inaudible).
I don't think that with proper scheduling of material deliveries and being able to put vehicles on
one side and materials on the other. The fact that it's mostly just man labor I mean it is a fairly
small structure so the roof can be demolished by man labor. It's not like we need to bring in a
fork lift or an excavator to do any of that work so I do think it would be feasible even though
the lot is small.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : And the workers would be parking on Peconic Bay Blvd?
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
ROBERT STROMSKI : I would imagine. I don't know the size of the work crew but I mean you
could do it with a framing crew you know three to four guys so you might have two vehicles,
three vehicles you know. If they stack up on another you can at least fit three vehicles in that
existing driveway on the east so like I said if you're parking vehicles on the eastern part of the
property the western part of the property should be able to handle the materials and then
there'll be pretty much the work is over the existing footprint so it's not like there's a lot of
staging (inaudible) going around so.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : And the fence is going to stay up?
ROBERT STROMSKI : As far as I know there's no you know indication that they were looking to
do anything with the fence.
MEMBER PALANMENTO : Talking about the fence I noticed that the side yard fences are four
feet but the front yard fence is six feet. Are you aware of the code relative to fencing?
ROBERT STROMSKI : I haven't look at the code. I don't know if the fence was put up by the
existing owners or if that was something that was there when they purchased the property.
They haven't owned the property for long. Did you purchase the property with the fence? If I
could have the owners address that.
JOHN CORTAPASSO : Good morning, I'm John Cortapasso, Jo Ellen's spouse. The house is the
way you see it is the way it was when we purchased it and the work we've done has mainly
been on the inside and that's what we have. It is kind of odd, it's a corner house and we have a
corner house back home up west so it's a little similar but different and as far as parking my
neighbor to the west have a double lot and we're very good friends even though we're just
there for a year. We're able to use his lawn for parking the few times we've needed it and I
don't think that would be a problem in an effort to keep people off the road. As far as the fence
I wasn't aware of the code because it was that way when we bought it and (inaudible) that
fence has been up for ten years or two year well we're there three years so I don't know how
long it's been there but the previous people were there since 1974.
MEMBER DANTES : I think the code is 4 feet for front yard fence and you can go higher when
you go to the side yard and the rear yard so he's asking you do you want to apply for a variance
for it or do you just want to make it code conforming at the end of your building project?
JOHN CORTAPASSO : Well we've had some discussion even as much as taking the whole thing
down. The problem is the elevation, as you go to the house it's lower and I think they again I
don't know I did ask my neighbors and they weren't sure. There are drywells on the property, I
think they're dry wells. No one knows really what they are and there's a dry well outside on the
13
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
right of way that we are actually repairing as soon as spring comes. So we have not had a water
problem on the property. We had the survey and we don't hit water for maybe 30 feet
ROBERT STROMSKI : Beyond 17 feet.
JOHN CORTAPASSO : Yea it's so we have not had water in the three years we've been there I'm
happy to report but the way it goes down I don't know how aesthetically pleasing it would be if
the fence wasn't there because it's you know you'd have to right behind the fence it's probably
three feet high and there's all the (inaudible) bushes, hydrangea there on the inside of the
fence and then it goes down to a patio. It was all decorated and landscaped that way before we
got there so it would require a lot of work I think and I don't know how good it would look and I
don't really want to lower it in the front to the street because then I think it would bring water
in coming up Peconic Bay Blvd.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think probably the best solution to this would be for you to maybe
photograph the fence or ask the Building Department to have a look and determine whether or
not this is conforming to code or not. It appears to be higher but as you said it goes up and
down because of the topography. It looks higher than what the code generally would permit in
a front yard but I think maybe they might do an averaging I'm not sure based on you know the
way the property is sloping but maybe we should get a ruling I think from the Building
Department as what the story is on that fence and then go from there. You may be able to
leave it or they may say modify it or they I don't know what they'll say but since you're going to
go through all the trouble of doing all this work on your property we want to make sure that
you are aware of all the issues and that you're addressing them and that everything is going to
be according to the code or a variance from the code. I think if you wanted to since we brought
this up in this hearing if there's an issue with the fence if you go to the Building Department and
find out that there is or there isn't I mean your architect could do that. If there's no issue fine
and if there is an issue then maybe we can address it now without you having to go through
hoops again with variances and so on. We can just have them amend the Notice of Disapproval
to include the fence height or if you decide that you want to remove it it's not an issue at all.
That's up to you though.
JOHN CORTAPASSO : I guess you're implying that whoever the previous owners when they put
the fence up they didn't get a permit?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct. Well people often don't get permits for fences. They should
but they don't and the thing is that often the fencing company doesn't tell the owner I think
they probably make more money by making it six feet rather than four feet.
141
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Well I (inaudible) because it's kind of right going up to the fence is like a
berm and because the house is somewhat near the road I think it was done to kind of quell the
noise the road noise.
JOHN CORTAPASSO : That's what I thought that it was used as a sound barrier as well.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yea.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's quite possible. I don't mean to suggest anyone would have
intentionally do anything that wasn't legal but on the other hand they might not have known,
they might not have been informed. This is not unusual in the town so I would just check with
the Building Department and see what they have to say about it.
JOHN CORTAPASSO : Can we do that today?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah sure just walk over there it's right in the Annex on the ground
floor you know the old bank building on the corner here. Just go in and talk to Mike Verity or
Damon Rallis or one of the plans examiners. They might even be able to maybe John can go out
and just do a quick inspection and let you know advise you to see what the story is because just
if you want to leave it and it does require a variance for the height then we should know about
it and do it now and if they do then just ask them to amend the Notice of Disapproval to include
it and then bring it back to our office and then we can deal with it right now get it done.
ROBERT STROMSKI : When you say right now you mean later today or
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No what we will do today,is hear what's before us and we will then
at the next meeting which is in two weeks, two weeks from today we'll depending on the
outcome we can leave it open until then this hearing to find out what the story is and close this
matter in two weeks and if we have enough information well enough in advance we will
deliberate on a decision at that meeting. If it comes in really, really close to the time we may
not have enough time to write it up in which case the worst case scenario would be we would
deliberate four weeks from now cause we meet every two weeks and we can only do that
working or meeting in a quorum.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The next question I have is relative to the sanitary system. Do you
know where it is on the property?
ROBERT STROMSKI : Right now the sanitary system is within the blue stone driveway area of
the, property on the it's within just outside the slate patio on the (inaudible) house. No it's on
the side of the house towards the rear of the property.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And do you know what type of sanitary system it is the size?
1S
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
ROBERT STROMSKI : I do not know what the size is but I know that as part of the project we are
going to be filing an application to the Health Department because of the increase in bedrooms
so at that point we're going to have a conforming system with the proper septic sized septic
tank and leaching pool.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So that actually produces my next question, you discussed (inaudible)
presented in your application there's no current condition of the house or floor plan but you
show a proposed first floor with a kitchen sort of in the center of the house labeled existing
kitchen plus an existing bedroom, an existing office and an existing bath which you know
bedrooms are typically altogether. How may bedrooms does the house currently have and
where is the second bedroom?
JOHN CORTAPASSO : Three bedrooms sorry.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So there's three existing bedrooms?
ROBERT STROMSKI : Correct.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And then in your proposal adding a second story, you're keeping one
bedroom down, one of those bedrooms which you labeled existing office is actually a
bedroom?
ROBERT STROMSKI : Now it's currently used as a bedroom. So right now there's three spaces
downstairs that are currently used as bedrooms. There has been ongoing discussion since the
floor plans have been submitted to you where we may be even eliminating those two the
bedroom and the office and we may be enlarging the partition to have an open floor plan so
that there would be either no bedrooms on the first floor or only one bedroom on the first
floor. So right now since this application was submitted over three months ago there's been
decisions as to how much they wanted to increase the budget and do work to the existing first
floor and try and create a more open floor plan for the kitchen. Right now as you can see the
existing layout the kitchen is somewhat of a galley kitchen. It's tight to itself and not really open
to a dining area so the idea is that the adjacent bedroom you would eliminate that space and
possibly the office as well and just create one large great room on the first floor that would be
an official connection to the kitchen. So there's kind of an ongoing decision as to what actually
how much work is going to be happening on the first floor. It's kind of difficult to say what's
exactly going to happen because we're trying to look at budgets and see where they're going to
go. They redone the kitchen since they bought the house so the question is are they going to try
and do a layout that tries to keep the kitchen or are we going to scrap the whole kitchen and try
to do a different layout and reconfigure the spaces on the first floor but regardless of what is
going to ultimately happen, everything is going to be within the existing footprint of the first
16
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
floor and the bedrooms upstairs primarily what will be used and there may be one bedroom on
the first floor after it's all said and done.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If I count obviously you have five bedrooms, a study and an office
which sort of (inaudible) six bedrooms. It seems like a lot of sleeping space which I mean that's
obviously your choice (inaudible) that's your own design but from a standpoint of community
character of the general area most of the homes at least from my drive by and site inspection
all seem to (inaudible) one and half story homes where bedrooms are actually in what could be
called an attic and a more cape cod low sort of (inaudible) homes whereas this has really a
substantial presence very close to Peconic Bay Blvd. because of the full second floor.
ROBERT STROMSKI : Right but as you can see from the design and the elevations we're actually
trying to design as if it was a cape style house so the roofline is starting as if it was created on
the first floor with a very large pitch and the second floor is actually like a dormer out of the
first floor.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's a small dormer and you can see it's cantilevered in the side
elevation on the east for example it just seems like it's going to hang over not only the house
but it clearly is but very close to the road and not having a front yard setback.
ROBERT STROMSKI : Right I mean obviously we're only reducing the setback by two feet from
what it currently is.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : From what it currently is. Just again when you drive by the general
area most of the houses across the street are really classic sort of cape style homes and in the
general area there is nothing necessarily so massive.
ROBERT STROMSKI : Essentially a lot of the properties on Peconic Bay Blvd. within that area
have larger footprint larger areas whereas if you're on in his direct area as you go down the
private road going towards the water that's where all the properties seem to be (inaudible) so
it's on Peconic Bay Blvd. there's a large discrepancy of different style. You have one acre lots,
one and a half acre lots, you have flagged lots so it's kind of difficult for this parcel because it is
small to kind explain it to the setbacks you know east and west when they're much larger lot
sizes than they can have the footprints of the house back further.
MEMBER DANTES : But you're not changing the footprint of the house right?
ROBERT STROMSKI : No the only thing we're doing is the second floor.
MEMBER DANTES : So the location of the footprint really isn't an issue.
17
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
ROBERT STROMSKI : No but based on setbacks it's based on new construction so therefore even
though we're not changing the foundation of the first floor footprint the setback is going to be
regulated as to the new construction of the second floor therefore before you it's a two foot
reduction.
MEMBER DANTES : And even if we asked you to move the setbacks we really can't cause
they're already there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The only thing we could do but I don't think that it's I think you know
if you're going to invest that kind of money and you need an extra foot or two here or there
that's when you do it. They are the overhang does increase the degree of non-conformity of the
front and rear yard setbacks by two feet but if you make the argument that you really need to
have that there in order to have a rational floor plan to meet the client's needs since it's not
touching the ground I don't know whether you know this much is going to make a huge
difference in the impact that a second story is going to have.
ROBERT STROMSKI : Our position is that because the first floor is very narrow and looking at the
placements of where we can put the stair that mitigates where the stair lands on the second
floor. We're trying to have bedrooms on the front and rear and then a corridor in the middle.
The existing footprint of the first floor just doesn't allow itself and we were trying to make the
design so that it's symmetrical to the footprint of the first floor. So we do that cape style design
that from the side if you're looking at a symmetrical second floor based on the first floor. If we
tried to kick it back it's going to be a little bit difficult aesthetically to make the side elevations
seem like it wasn't just skewed off.
MEMBER LEHNERT : I think it would be pretty helpful if we had existing conditions plans.
ROBERT STROMSKI : I have them so I can drop them off to you.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Yea if you're coming back for the fence.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You had mentioned that you're planning interior changes to the first
floor, you're building a second floor at what point may this become a demolition and is it easier
maybe just to start a new versus renovation?
ROBERT STROMSKI : All the work that's happening on the first floor is within the interior
partitions. There's really only one bearing wall. We're looking to just relocate or change the
windows in their existing location. There may be one or two windows that are going to be
reframed so we can leave the majority of the exterior walls on the first floor and you know for
budget reasons you know we don't want to just tear it down and rebuild. We feel that we can
18
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
do the work leaving the majority of the structure there. It seems to be adequate and my
standpoint is that you really don't need to tear it down you know don't do it just
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And in your professional opinion the foundation is strong enough to
support the second floor?
ROBERT STROMSKI : It's a concrete block structure. It's very common for houses like this to
have a second story. The amount of loading that we have you know I think would be more than
adequately supported by the (inaudible) foundation. There's no evidence of cracks. I've looked
at the block system and so forth so it doesn't have any more of the settling cracks that you
would normally have on a you know thirty forty year old foundation so the fact that the soil is
fairly sandy which was verified by the test hole that we had done in anticipation of making a
Health Department application. It's a very sandy soil which has at a minimum two thousand
(inaudible) capacity so a linear footing for a block foundation is going to distribute a lot of load.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anything else from the Board, anyone in the audience
wishing to address the application?
MEMBER DANTES : Can I just point one more thing out Leslie, if you look at the width of the lot
and the fact that it has two front yards I mean even if this was new construction they still have
grounds to apply for an area variance just because they don't have any options really.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're right.
ROBERT STROMSKI : Can I just ask one question with regards to this fence issue? If it is deemed
that a variance would be required for the fence, would we have to repost a public notice in the
paper, repost the property and is this something that's going to extend the review process for
the project?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I see this more as a de minimus situation where we have had
application before say somebodies fence was partially on their neighbor's property cause they
didn't know where the property lines were accurately or they went around a tree or something.
I mean we try to just clean that stuff up within the workings of the bigger picture so I would say
no. I would suggest that if you need to have a variance for the fence and you decide that's what
you want to do is to keep it then I would ask them to amend the Notice of Disapproval to
include it and bring us that amended notice and we'll deal with it within the framework, you
may have to pay for one more variance if that's what's required. We're not going to have to
repost it and do another hearing and all that. We'll keep this moving forward.
19
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
ROBERT STROMSKI : If we decide to do that worst case scenario is it might take a month from
now for the deliberation to happen if we can't get the proper paperwork within the next two
weeks.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's correct. Well you can get a Notice of Disapproval amended
very quickly. I mean it's in their computer but it's a matter of having them take a look at it to
see if any action needs to be if it's okay the way it is. If that's the case then you just need to call
the office and let them know that who went out to look at it or how that happened and so on
and if you don't need to amend the Notice of Disapproval we just we'll be ready in two weeks
probably to write this up and have a decision made but we can even include the variance if
need be if we get it fast enough within two weeks.
ROBERT STROMSKI : I'll make sure of this. Essentially this is something that I need to discuss
with if they intend to keep the fence. If they do I can work with the Building Department and
get the paperwork necessary. So our intentions that we would have everything ready so you
would have more than enough time to
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea if you can do it in the next couple of days.
ROBERT STROMSKI : I don't see a reason why I can't have it done by the end of the week.
CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : Then we should be fine.
MEMBER DANTES : Just making sure I mean that was an old survey it said 6 foot fence I don't
remember what happened when I went out there but it is a 6 foot fence right?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well portions are and again it depends on where you're standing. If
you're standing on their property looking out at the road it has one appearance of an elevation
and if you're on the road looking back it looks somewhat different because of the berm so I
don't know how they will calculate the height. I think Pat's description was very accurate. They
do have an odd small lot and there is an issue with privacy and sound. It's a main thoroughfare
really. So I think that's just stuff for you all to think about.
ROBERT STROMSKI : Yea I'll talk to the Building Department and if they want to keep the fence
I'll ask them how they determine height. I can verify what the height is based on I'll ask the
questions, am I taking it from the street side or the property side, is it an average and then we'll
go from there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good perfect. Anyone in the audience wanting to address the
application? Please come forward and state your name.
2,01
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
JO ELLEN CORTAPASSO : Good morning, I'm Jo Ellen Cortapasso. I just have a question, if we
chose took down the fence that's in the front that you're saying-is a six foot fence and put
shrubs in there would that be an issue if we
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not at all. You can plant any shrubs you want anywhere on your
property. That's not considered a structure so it doesn't require anything other than your own
aesthetic judgment.'
JO ELLEN CORTAPASSO : So that would a barrier for sound also.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes it would.
JOHN CORTAPASSO : What is the height limitation of such shrubs if we did do that?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : None. -
JOHN CORTAPASSO : When we bought the house I actually thought that the front of the house
was on the western side. It is a cockamamie (inaudible) house so it never occurred to me that
the front was on the road.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what, the interesting thing is most people don't realize
front is determined by road frontage not where your door is you know. So you like me I live on
a corner also so I have two front yards whether I like it or not. It doesn't matter what my
architecture looks like it's all about the street frontage.
JOHN CORTAPASSO : To your point as a privacy point of view sound barrier yes and privacy you
need something there because otherwise you-have no back yard. You feel like you have three
front yards and a half of back yard there but we enjoy the house and we are in a classic love it
or list situation My wife and I. And to your point sir it was an office till my son had a we have
our first grandchild two years ago and she's now at the point where if they didn't want to be in
the same room and so this is what's and my business has moved we just opened a branch in
Aquebogue that you know we're probably going to be out there more often you know full time
in the next year or two and we need to make the place bigger for the rest of the family.
T. A. DUFFY : Just to be clear this Board is not determining that it's a 6 foot fence. Your survey
says 6 foot high fence and they're just pointing out an issue. The architect working with the
Building Department will make that determination as to whether it needs a variance. It could be
fine the way it is. They're just pointing this out to you now so that you can address it now so
you don't have to you know you don't want the Building Inspector coming there to inspect for
C.O. and saying your fence it out of whack you have to go get another variance. So they're just
trying to help you out to take care of it now.
21
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
JOHN CORTAPASSO : I appreciate that and I don't know how I was able to buy the house with it
there. I mean I would have taken care of it then.
MEMBER DANTES : Cause nobody checks for fences. If you drive around town there's hundreds
of fences that are out of
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else, anyone else in the audience? Okay I'm going to make
a motion to adjourn this to the Special Meeting on March 28th. Is there a second?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING # 7246—SARAH APGAR
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application is for Sarah Apgar#7246. This is a request for a
variance under Article IV Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's August 17, 2018 Notice of
Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an in-ground swimming pool at 1)
located in other than the code required rear yard at 1175 Haywaters Rd. in Cutchogue. Hi Colin.
COLIN RATSEY : My name is Colin Ratsey from Ratsey Construction in Greenport. First thing I
want to apologize for the application that I have in it's been taking a long time Mrs. Fiedler
there she's been her father died and now her mother is very sick so I have not been pushing her
for that application.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay when you get to it.
COLIN RATSEY : Yea us local people have to stick together so I just figured I'd tell you so you
don't. Okay so my name is Colin Ratsey of Ratsey Construction. I'm here for Mrs. Apgar for the
installation of a pool and we need a variance because she's on a corner lot. I've taken pictures
2,21
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
for you and showed you what's'going on there. I also have letters to give to you from neighbors
that are very happy with the work that she's done on the house. She bought the house as a
little tiny house and has put siding on it and made it quite a nice little (inaudible). She has
(inaudible) in the neighborhood or put additions on it or anything it's pretty quaint with what's
there. Her family spends a lot of time outside. They go to the pool a lot, she has two young kids
I mean they go to the beach a lot they have two young kids but they want to see if they could
put a pool in for more you know therapy and exercise and instead of putting concrete in the
ground and polluting the ground and all this she actually came up with kind of a neat system
which is actually a steel container just like the steel that they put on for pools in you know with
the liners and this gets delivered in one shot and then they need somebody crazy like me to put
it in the ground and then they put a nice deck around it and it's very quick and fast. It's not a
you know all summer and ruin everybody's neighborhood kind of deal. So her all her systems,
septic systems are (inaudible) in the front she has drainage on her whole house on every leader
because when I did the renovation on the outside siding I brought that all up to code with that
and she's going to put a fence around the unit. Her pool equipment she's putting between her
house and the pool she wanted to put it over there. She doesn't want to put it near the
neighbors and I think unless you guys have any questions it's pretty straightforward.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Can you just correct something you just said, you said the pool
equipment is going between the house and the pool? On the survey it illustrates it on the
outside of the pool.
COLIN RATSEY : This is the northwest side of the house the front of the house is here, the pool
is going here. This is a diagonal lot close to nothing and she's putting the pool equipment right
over here so the pool is not bothering the neighbor here it's more towards the street and that's
what
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The question is are you the survey shows that the proposed pool
equipment is on the side of the pool on the short end of the pool closest to where the tip of the
property is.
COLIN RATSEY : We moved if cause of the drainage issues that we have on the,deck here so she
moved it to the far end of the pool property in the middle of the diagonal
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the survey is correct?
COLIN RATSEY : Yea the survey is correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a better place for it.
2-31
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
COLIN RATSEY : Yea it was going near the house more. We didn't want to put it in the back
because these neighbors are very nice people and this lot's lower than the house there so they
didn't want the sound bouncing up the wall towards the neighbor so we were going to put it
near this paving patio but they moved it here the surveyor because of what was in there so
drainage and everything. So the pool is 25 feet off the back, 39.8 off the front and 25 feet off
the house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well look let's cut to the chase if you want a swimming pool that's
the only place on the property that you can put it and you are burdened with an oddly shaped
lot and two front yards technically and no rear yard to speak of.
COLIN RATSEY : I'm going to give you these letters.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So in interest of time let's just keep this moving along. I think the
only question I have is the property itself is at a different elevation than the street and you do
have some evergreen screening in there but there's a lot of porosity also you know the see
through stuff, the Board is likely to want to because of the public nature of that to ask you to do
a bit more of a green screening to fill those things in so that you have some privacy they're not
driving by a swimming pool all the time.
COLIN RATSEY : Well she's got two young daughters so I'm sure she's going to make it private.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright I just wanted to enter that into the record that's all. Anything
from any Board members?
MEMBER DANTES : I think it's a textbook area variance application.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? I'm
going to make a motion hearing no further questions or comments to close this hearing reserve
decision to a later date, is there a second?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
2,4
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING#7247— DOUGLAS ROBALINO
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Douglas Robalino#7247.
This is a request for a variance under Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's
October 2, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to legalize "as built" demolition
and proposed reconstruction of the existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code
required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet located at 1695 Bay Ave. (adj. to Marion Lake)
in East Marion. Would you state your name please.
JUSTIN GENNARO :Justin Gennaro, Gennaro Renovations Inc.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we saw this application before and would you please tell the
Board why you're before us again.
JUSTIN GENNARO : When we took the roof off we had a right to do the siding over so when
took the old siding off and realized there was a lot of rot on the side of the house. We did not
change any measurements of the house or anything like that that we weren't allowed to. I did
replace some of the walls that were completely rotted which you have pictures of. It wasn't
safe, the structure (inaudible) so I changed I didn't want termites in there put a piece of
plywood in there and say see you later so I did replace some of the rotted areas which were as
you can see in the photos were completely rotted. There's termites everywhere so that's why
did what I did pretty much to make the structure safe and sound. As for the siding removing
anything anywhere we did not. We left the foundation exactly where it was we didn't touch
the foundation. We did leave a few existing walls up that were not needed to be changed. The
roof we had a permit for we did that. The garage we had a permit for we did that. Pretty much
we are here today because I did change some of the walls that were rotted.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I (inaudible) then determined to be a demolition rather than an
addition and alteration.
JUSTIN GENNARO : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know if the property obtained Trustees approval?
JUSTIN GENNARO : Yes everything was approved. We didn't touch the foundation. We didn't
move anything. We had variances on the roof we had everything. The only thing that I did was
2�
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
change some of the walls that were rotted. I couldn't give the homeowner back the house
knowing that there was termite damage and rot. It's not what I do.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric questions?
MEMBER DANTES : These things happen is my comment.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you obtain a Stop Work Order is that what happened?
JUSTIN GENNARO : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You didn't realize you had exceeded the scope of relief granted.
JUSTIN GENNARO : Yes I've been back and forth with John making sure I'm doing the right thing
a hundred percent getting the paperwork in as it was needed.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : I do have a question, in noticing the garage the garage is rather big.
What are you planning to do with that second floor of the garage?
JUSTIN GENNARO : Just storage we're putting a wood staircase up there just like we have what
we were permitted for as applied for.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Do you have electricity up there?
JUSTIN GENNARO : Yes.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No plumbing.
JUSTIN GENNARO : No there's no plumbing in the garage period. There's not one pipe in the
garage.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So you're just offered that there's photographs included in the
application. When I looked through those as part of the review it seemed to be a structure
that's wrapped. I don't see photos of and maybe I'm mistaken were they included to illustrate
the damage the termite damage? Do we have photos of this? I saw a letter of apology but I
have not seen any pictures of damage.
JUSTIN GENNARO : I had given them to the Building.
MEMBER DANTES : What Nick is looking for is like the interior photos cause we have pictures of
the exterior after you (inaudible) back up.
7-6
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's an old cottage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can we keep these photos?
JUSTIN GENNARO : Yes I have more.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well this is a perfect example of why the Board has now with
additions and alterations that are kind of a little dicey you know put a condition into our
variances that indicated how to proceed if what just happened to you takes place because this
is not the first time this Board has had to re-review something that we deemed to be a
demolition when you thought you were just going to be able to build upon what was there.
With all the humidity out here and aging properties and so on it's not terribly uncommon but
we want applicants to know that when something is demolished all of those non-conforming
setbacks are extinguished technically. You know in other words you can start from scratch
because what you had is now gone literally. Even though it's still physically standing so we're
just putting in a caveat now that basically explains you better call the Building Department right
away and you know don't start ripping everything out so people are aware that there's a way to
proceed that doesn't get you in trouble you know or require us to take further action.
MEMBER DANTES : Or Leslie when you just go for the initial permit just go for the demolition
even if you don't need it that way you're covered.
JUSTIN GENNARO : I mean that's what I should have done. As you know the walls were
(inaudible) and I had no idea it was going to be like that until I opened it. I couldn't give him
back his house like that.
MEMBER DANTES : This is kind of a developing this is kind of a newer they changed the law a
couple of years ago they're still kind of working through the kinks.
DOUGLAS ROBALINO : Douglas Robalino the owner. We did keep a good portion of the house. It
was just that when he opened up some of these walls (inaudible) there was more than we
anticipated. At the end of the day it probably would have (inaudible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It often is but then you know hindsight is great. Well you think
you're saving money, you're going to preserve something.
DOUGLAS ROBALINO : That was the plan and it didn't work out that way it actually cost more
but the footprint, the foundation we did save a good portion.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, anything else from the Board?
27
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just I personally appreciated the letter that you included. I thought
that was very nice of you to take the time to write a letter. I guess I would have loved to see the
photos in advance but looking at them here on the dais you can clearly see the dilemma that
you're facing so thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay anyone in the audience who wants to address the application?
I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date is there a
second?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING#7249SE— ERICA LEV and ZACHARY LEV -
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Erica Lev and Zachary
Lev #7249SE. This is a request for a Special Exception under Article III Section 280-13B(13). The
applicants are the owners of subject property requesting authorization to create an accessory
apartment in an existing accessory structure at 1425 Paradise Point in Southold. Would you
state your name for the record please.
JUN LEE : Hi good morning. My name is Jun Lee and I'm the architect for Zachary and Erica. Like
you just said (inaudible) to convert an existing garage into a legal apartment for Erica's parents.
We're proposing to keep the same footprint with updating the exterior updating what's there
and I think you guys have the proposed existing and proposed plan.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do the Lev's live on the property?
JUN LEE : Yes they live year round.
2$
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you confident that you can rehabilitate this garage? It's in pretty
deplorable shape.
JUN LEE : Yes well that's our hope. Like the gentleman that was here before us if we run into
any issues with rotting and damage we could come here first and or talk to the Building
Department but everything is exposed
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's for sure.
JUN LEE : Yea so the slab and the block were (inaudible) and good shape and the roof is also in
good shape so can't see too much water damage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where is the sanitary system?
JUN LEE : So I have some updated surveys for you guys it locates the
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The septic?
JUN LEE : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anything we saw that there was some plumbing in there I'm
not sure how it was previously used but
JUN LEE : Yea we're not when Zach and Erica bought the property that was there and it was
never rented or anything like that so maybe the previous owner had used that to rent we're not
quite sure but there is a bathroom, there is plumbing and an outdoor shower. I don't know
when the last time that was used.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The survey that you just offered us, does this show the existing
location of the precast cesspool or is this your proposed?
JUN LEE : No this is all existing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you going to put in a new sanitary system, waste water
treatment system for this structure or are you trying to use what's there?
JUN LEE : Yea we were trying to use what's there if we need to update that's something that
they will do.
MEMBER DANTES : The Building Department is not going to require an updated system? I think
they will.
29
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the LWRP is recommending that be the case particularly since
you know you're up against preserved land and it rolls down toward that area. They're also
suggesting do you have a copy of the LWRP consistency report?
JUN LEE : Yes I do have a copy.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. So you know that they're proposing actually to install an new
IA system and a non-turf buffer along the wetlands to comply with 236 which everyone has to
do.
JUN LEE : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Storm water management code.
MEMBER DANTES : Doesn't the LWRP ask for an IA system?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes it does that's what I just said. So when we were there obviously
there it was a very bad snowy day which required gymnastics to get up without a driveway
visible to get out to the structure itself I almost wanted to call and find out if we got workers
compensation for falling down on the job it was quite a trek for me to schlepp myself up that
hill because I couldn't do it with my car. I don't have four wheel drive, so they're living you're
saying they live there year round.
JUN LEE : They do they're on vacation.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's their principle residence?
JUN LEE : Yes .
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright let's see if the Board has any Nick do you have any
questions?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea I was just going to ask that question whether or not they were on
vacation. I took the time after the snow to revisit the property. The house was dark, closed up
there were no tire tracks in the snow. It would appear that no one lived in the house.
Additionally (inaudible) the application but you've illustrated driving licenses and voter
registration cards neither of which in my opinion substantiate residency so do you have
additional documentation to evidence that they do live in the house full time?
JUN LEE : I can ask them for
301
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A tax return would be good. Redact anything you want from it so we
don't pry into your personal business but if they file under that address then we're going to
assume that's their principle residence.
MEMBER DANTES : Or a pay (inaudible) we don't need know how much they make but just the
address on it.
JUN LEE : Okay sure.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And I think also perhaps if they intend to or received a star
exemption from the Assessor's Office on their taxes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can check with the Assessor's Office they're right over there just
to see if that's possible.
MEMBER DANTES : Where do they work?
JUN LEE : They work remotely. They're lawyers, they're both lawyers and they work remotely
from New York City.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well do they have to go into the city a lot or
JUN LEE : I think yea they do but this is their main residence that they go in for work.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do they have a residence or any additional property in New York City,
Brooklyn or
JUN LEE : I would have to ask them. I don't know for sure but I can ask them about that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The reason that we're being so probative is simply because the code
requires principle residency in order to have this accessory apartment for either a family
member or someone who qualifies on the affordable housing registry. So we're just
documenting making sure we have sufficient documentation. Anything else from anybody?
Alright do you want to adjourn this subject to that information being received rather than
closing it subject to receipt in case we have further questions? What I'm going to do is I'm going
to make a motion to adjourn this hearing, there won't be another hearing probably but just to
the Special Meeting in two weeks to get that information to us. The assumption being we
would be able to close this hearing at that meeting and if we get the information soon enough
we'll have a draft decision written that we can vote on in two weeks. If we get it a little bit later
then it might take we'll close it probably then but then for sure we'll deliberate a month from
now cause we meet every two weeks so if we can get it done in two weeks we will if not it will
be on for the next meeting. Anyone in the audience wanting to address the application?
31
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
Hearing no comments or questions I'll make a motion to adjourn this application to the Special
Meeting on March 28th. Is there a second?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING #7250—AMY O'BRIEN,TRUSTEE C/O FRANK A. UHLENDORF and EDITH UHLENDORF
TRUST
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Any O'Brien Trustee c/o
Frank A. Uhlendorf and Edith Uhlendorf #7250. This is a request for a variance under Article
XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's October 29, 2018 Notice of Disapproval
based on an application to legalize an existing deck addition to an under construction single
family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet located
at 230 Landing Lane in Greenport. Please state your name for the record.
MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good morning everybody. For the record my name is Martin Finnegan I'm
from Latham, Shea, Kelley, Dubun and Quartarraro. I am joined today by Amy O'Brien who is
the owner of the subject premises. Can I just hand up a memo?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure.
MARTIN FINNEGAN : So I'll be brief cause this is a pretty straightforward application and the
property is a 12,500 sq. ft. parcel in the R-40 zoning district. Our story is pretty straightforward
and the owners of the property and the designer applied for a building permit and the deck
addition was part of that plan, a building permit was issued by the Building Department and
they went on their way and in a later inspection by the Building Inspector (inaudible) it was
determined that the rear deck actually lied within the rear setback so they were they applied
32
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
for the building permit and a Notice of Disapproval was issued and here we are seeking what
amounts to a 10, foot variance from 35 rear yard foot setback. I included some color
photographs in ourapplication packet which I think pretty much tell a lot of the story here. This
is pretty much a standard rear deck. There are surrounding homes in the neighborhood that
have'a similar deck and"the deck itself is necessary for access. The house was constructed with
rear sliding doors that go out onto that deck so in the absence of the deck obviously it's
problematic for exiting the home. So just to briefly run through the criteria, as far as character
goes as I said previously I think the photographs more or less speak for themselves. There are
two particular the one that shows the actual deck itself and,then the one from the other
vantage point which shows you know the neighboring property in the rear that has almost the
identical deck construction. There's other houses around. We have included letters I just were
-you able to get copies of them?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we have them.
MARTIN FINNEGAN : I actually if I could Kim I actually have the originals for you if you want me
to hand those in. Just one note, we did have one green card that somehow didn't make its way
back however we do have a letter from that person.so that's a wash there. Anyway it's pretty
clear that the as built deck is in character with the surrounding neighborhood and as I said we
can't go forward here without a variance because we need the deck to get out of the house out
of those sliders and for safety reasons obviously. It's not a substantial variance. I will submit to
you it's a 322 sq. ft. deck and it's a 29% variance from the (inaudible) setback. Again it's similar
with the other decks in the neighborhood. We don't see any adverse impacts that could ever
come,out of the granting of the-varian_ce.,_It is_self-created; well yes we built the deck sort of in
.good faith reliance on a building permit that was issued and the moment it was brought to the
owners attention and they immediately applied for the necessary (inaudible)"so all things said I
would submit to you that I think we have established the criteria for the granting of a variance.
If there are any questions I'd be happy to answer.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well as you know we've all been ,there to see the site and see the
deck that's right next door that looks just like it. We know the area. I'll see if the Board has any I
don't have any,questions. Anything from you Pat?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric?
MEMBER DANTES : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob?
33
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO.: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : W0000 you scared,us Martin. Anytime we get a memorandum of
law it's like ohhhh. You can't help,yourself. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to
address the application? Okay I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision
to a later date, is there a second?
'MEMBER LEHNERT : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :,Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING#7251— DOUGLAS and LISA CARLEN
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Douglas and,Lisa,Carlen
#7251., This is a request for a variance under Article IV Section 280-17A and the Building
Inspector's September 26, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to legalize an "as
built" accessory deck and construct a roof over at 1) accessory structure does not constitute a
permitted principle use on a residential parcel ,at 5550 New,Suffolk Ave. (adj. to Deep-Hole
Creek) in Mattituck. Just state your name please.
DOUGLAS CARLEN : Douglas Carlen
LISA CARLEN : Lisa Carlen
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the Board has inspected the property and I think we're aware of
the circumstances that it's a very unusual lot. It's not a buildable lot in terms of a residence. It's
very low and very narrow and with lots of bramble (inaudible). This is a 21,780 sq. ft. lot in R40
so there's no principle structure on here, and there isn't any principle structure that can be
built on that lot. It would appear you received a permit from the Trustees in 2005 a wetlands
34
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
permit #6064 and that replaced a 12 foot by 16 foot',floor of a pre-existing cabin is that
something that was on the property?
DOUGLAS CARLEN : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Obviously pre-dated zoning or someone just built a little cabin on
there and there's also a 3 foot by 6 foot catwalk with a 4 foot by 8 foot platform that would
allow you to take a boat out or a kayak or something. So all of a sudden then there was a 12
foot by 16 foot is that a screened porch built over the deck without Trustees approval or
anyone else's?
DOUGLAS CARLEN : Well no, I actually have a timeline that I made but maybe we don't need it
because I don't need to take too much of your time. What happened should I pass it out?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure you've done it. If you've gone to the trouble why not. What's a
safety partition?
DOUGLAS CARLEN : I out like a half wall across the front of the deck at the highest part cause
we were concerned about liability. Our insurance company required it. I believe the town did. I
tried to research it back to 2010 and I believe I put,that on there but it was I believe the town
required it too because it was over 30 inches. I had looked at that at the time that I put it in but
I didn't get Trustee approval and I got a violation for that.which we answered which started the
whole ZBA thing. That's all gone now. That was temporary cause I need to go up in the spring
and''it comes back down in the fall.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well what, this comes down to-in a nut-shell-is that you have an
approval for the deck that,replaced the cabin floor and you have an approval for the boardwalk
out to the water with a platform and all this other stuff is because additional structures are
being built or proposed. See what you're really using this for is recreational purposes and that's
not considered principal use. ;
DOUGLAS CARLEN : That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But you do,have a legal document in place. However the attempt to
put anything else on there even that big storage shed technically is considered an accessory but
an accessory to what? Without a principal use you can't have an accessory.,In other words it's
like saying I want a swimming pool on a piece of property that I don't have a,house on. So that's
why the stop work order was issued and why you're here. Let's see I don't know if the Board
has any other questions. I mean We do have copies of what you just given us and the permits,
that's all there.
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
DOUGLAS CARLEN May I make some generalizations cause, I'm not an attorney, I'm not
educated on the LWRP and all that so (inaudible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks as though you've been trying to use the property just to
camp to basically
DOUGLAS CARLEN : (inaudible) we have a more permanent mooring out there for our boat so
it's access to the boat and dingy.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So even this temporary screened thing like this would,be considered
a structure believe it or not. It's got a roof, it's got walls.
DOUGLAS CARLEN : It was there on when the Trustees came but I understand. (inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well what we have in our application is a proposal from you to build
a more permanent kind of structure on that deck.
DOUGLAS CARLEN : If possible.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And,so that's sort of even more non-conforming to what the code
permits that a temporary thing which would be like a tent so I have•to see where we go with , ;
this. Let me see if any of the Board members have questions. Is there anything else you'd like to
tell us, is there anything you'd like to say about the application?
LISA CARLEN : Part of the screened room or any kind of walls whether they're similar to the
structure that we had just a tent myself and my daughters go down the creek all the time and .
-swim so it is-nice when-we come back to'be able to change without we're pretty rnuch'in view ---
you visited the property so you know getting out of the bathing suit"it would be nice to have-
some sort of covering there just for our own personal use.
DOUGLAS CARLEN : Also we do keep a porta potie in that plastic shed that's on the deck. We
have a bathroom on the boat also that we do use but we also keep a porta potie to use for the
wife and daughters and use it regularly.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay'Rob'questions, comments?
MEMBER LEHNERT : NO.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick anything?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No just.a comment that it reminded me of Fishers Island. Kind of feel
like I know all the inner workings of our community and this was one for the
36
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
DOUGLAS CARLEN : You missed this one.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : One for the record an unusual situation.
DOUGLAS CARLEN : It is a unique piece of property. I mean just for the record if it matters,
when we bought that property it was (inaudible) we had bought it and you can I don't know if
you guys I guess you went there but that abandoned road that was there it was a great place
for someone to back a truck and push (inaudible) off the back and there was lots of appliances
as (inaudible) I took three trailer loads of stuff I pulled out of there and cleaned it up and of
course it wasn't until we started cleaning up the property and using it that people have an
interest in the property. Before that I don't think anybody had any interest other than so it was
we have been quite liberal with allowing neighbors, dog walkers and bicyclists come down they
use that property bird watchers bird watching groups to use the property so we don't have a
problem. We're very (inaudible) with our neighbors on both
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where do you live?
DOUGLAS CARLEN : We live in Wading River.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you just come there for recreational purposes and that's it. Well
it's unusual to have such an opportunity in this town. Usually this is going back in the day to a
permit from the Trustees and it's unusual to have any kind of permission granted for
recreational use without a principle use (inaudible) but you do have it and it is in place and I
think that at least bodes well for your ability to use it legally but the including additional
structures on that property as you said is a heavy lift and it would have been a heavy lift then
and it's a heavy lift now.
DOUGLAS CARLEN : I understand we were encouraged to cause we told the attorneys office and
we're happy with it the way it is we don't and I've always been very upfront that partition I've
had and any tent I've had up all it requires is (inaudible) is a phone call to ask me to take it
down that's all removable. So that's not a problem but we were sort of encouraged to apply for
more so if you're going to apply you might as well go for (inaudible) it would be nice to have a
roof over it with a screen so here we are.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well again the precedent this Board would be setting by
encouraging the construction of accessory structures on lots without principle uses would be a
hundred percent relief from the code and would be very difficult for the Board to justify. I don't
want to mislead you, you've been using it legally as far as I'm concerned. I'm one vote and I
would not attempt to undo what another Board in this town has legalized but beyond that
there's some (inaudible) limits that we're faced with. Anything else from the Board?
37
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
DOUGLAS CARLEN : What about that tent that we put that green screen room that we put on
top of that, is that something that
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's a structure. I'm afraid it is yea. Anyone else in the audience
wishing to address the application? I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve
decision to a later date.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING # 7252 — WALSH PARK BENEVOLENT CORPORATION (TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,
OWNER)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Walsh Park Benevolent
Corporation (Town of Southold) owner #7252. This is a request for variances under Article XI
Section 280-48 ( C ) (3) ( c ) and (f) and the building inspector's August 21, 2018 Notice of
Disapproval based on an application to alter a second floor of an existing building to include six
(6) accessory apartment units at 1) proposed accessory apartments are more than the
maximum of three (3) apartments allowed to be created or maintained in any single structure,
2) accessory apartments will exceed 40% of the livable floor area of the existing dwelling unit at
544 Hound Lane (Fox Lane adj. to Long Island Sound) on Fishers Island.
STEPHEN HAM : Stephen Ham 38 Nugent St. Southampton for the applicant. Walsh Park
Benevolent Corporation is a not for profit corporation. It was formed about thirty years ago for
the purpose of finding and providing housing for year round residents on Fishers Island and in
furtherance of that mission they entered into a lease agreement with the Town of Southold and
Fishers Island Ferry District which manages town property and the ferry area on Fishers Island.
To convert a second story of a freight building that the ferry district uses for six apartments. The
381
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
need for the variance is the fact that fifty percent of the whole second floor will be devoted to
apartments which exceeds the forty percent maximum under the code and then also the fact
that we're allowed three accessory apartments but we are applying for six. I've distributed a
memorandum which addresses the criteria for area variance under the zoning code. I just want
to point out and then we can answer questions. I think that this would be a worthy project even
if it were for a private developer and I think that we could support a variance application on
that basis but especially with the public policy considerations at stake here. I think it's a worthy
request for relief from the code and the one point I will make, we are asking for (inaudible)
number of apartments that would otherwise be allowed however I think you should keep in
mind the size of this property. It's 4.68 acres. We're not trying to shove six families into a tiny
parcel. Further the waste water is not an issue here. We will connect to the Fishers Island sewer
district. So the extreme (inaudible) substantiality is muted by these factors I think the large area
and the fact that we will not need individual septic systems. Matt Edwards is the program
manager of Walsh Park and is here with me today if you have questions concerning this
application.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well again I just want to enter into the record that we have
comments of support from the Planning Board from the Housing Advisory Commission of the
Town of Southold and it is deemed to be LWRP consistent. It is supporting the preservation of
while not listed specifically as a historic property it's certainly part of the historic area and
(inaudible) right area being preserved and
STEPHEN HAM : I have attached as well a letter of non-jurisdiction from the Town Trustees and
a permit from the State Department of Environmental Conservation for the project. So it's
environmentally consistent with the laws that are administered by those agencies.
MEMBER DANTES : I should point out that I am on the Housing Advisory Commission so I was
one of the people that endorsed the letter.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if anybody has any questions. You just submitted a
memorandum of law and this
STEPHEN HAM : That's the most recent that's what the ARC looked at a week ago today and
provided by the architect. There's no really change just some tweaks to basically the site plan I
believe not to what you're considering here the need for six apartments and the 40%
requirement but I thought you should have the most current version.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any questions, Pat do you have any
questions about this application?
39
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions just a comment. I think it was about twenty five years ago
I had an affordable housing project on Fishers Island when I was in the New York State
Assembly. It was a joke at that time and the assembly was like are you kidding Fishers Island
needs affordable housing? I'm glad to see it's taken a long time but there is a need so I
appreciate the fact that it's now being worked on.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric any comments on this?
MEMBER DANTES : I think it's a good project.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Nope nothing I think it's a good project.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I think everything is in place to move forward then. Is there
anyone in the audience who wishes to address the application? I think we all appreciate the not
only the need but the pending answers on the affordable housing crisis that not only the whole
Town of Southold but Fishers Island in particular has really needed a place for people who live
there year round and provide services can actually live with reasonable cost. Okay I have
nothing further and if there'is no one else in the audience then I'm going to make a motion to
close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
4®
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
HEARING#7253—ALEX FRIEDMAN
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Alex Friedman #7253.
This is a request for a variance under Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's
October 29, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to construct additions and
alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum front
yard setback of 40 feet at 350 MacDonalds Road (adj. to Brushes Creek) in Laurel. Please state
your name for the record please.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Good afternoon I'm Anthony Portillo from AMP Architecture. I'm
representing the homeowner Alex Friedman. We are proposing a few alterations and additions
to the home. Just for the Board's knowledge we did have a variance for the second floor
alterations it was in November if I remember correctly and it was approved. Basically we were
going to do the second floor alteration to create living space on the corner area of the footprint
so basically just changing the style of roof. What the request is for today is to add a terrace off
of I'm sorry two terraces off of that second floor and we are also going to alter the deck. Part of
that is an oak tree that is existing that is actually growing into the deck. That alteration to the
first floor deck actually (inaudible) increase the non-conformancy which you can see on the site
plan the dotted existing deck and then the proposed deck. Also there's a minor encroachment
on the proposed mud room mostly it's just the landing of the mud room. The mud room is
basically to allow for you know Mr. Friedman's family to place to sort and (inaudible) and
coming into the home (inaudible) current condition just walk in the front door and there's really
no room to have a storage except to put your shoes and things like that. So that's what the
request it. I just want to mention that you know we've received our approval letter. There was
an approval in August 20, 2015 on MacDonald road and that was for a home that was
demolished and then rebuilt and that home was 20 feet off of MacDonald Rd. One other thing
of support (inaudible) this road that ends at Mr. Friedman's residence and is really not used by
the public really just used by Mr. Friedman and his family and maybe the neighbor across the
street obviously would use it for access. It's not really a I would say a road. It's managed and it
is a corner lot but it was just something I wanted to mention.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have an application number for that variance?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes I do. It was ZBA file 6857.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And that was for 20 foot front yard setback?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yea on a residence that was rebuilt.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : New dwelling on MacDonald. What was the date August
41
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
ANTHONY PORTILLO : August 20, 2015.
MEMBER DANTES : So basically we're talking about the setbacks on the survey it's called
unnamed street?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's (inaudible) but it's an unnamed street.
MEMBER DANTES : Right that's what it says so the home setback is 12.8 feet so all the additions
and alterations are going to be behind the existing setback for the house.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : No actually we will be increasing the non-conformancy but that terrace
is going to be cantilevered so there is no structure (inaudible) ground.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is a small second story deck they want to cantilever out off of
the second floor with this setback so we granted that which is where the house is and they
want to reduce it to that but it's on the second story and this is slightly changed but doesn't
require any this is what we're
ANTHONY PORTILLO : And just for the record as well, we did propose a plan that we altered and
this actually decreases the non-conformancy by 2.3 feet from what our original proposal was
for a terrace that wrapped around the whole (inaudible) so we're trying to give some terrace
and not to have it encroach too much but unfortunately because of where the home sits on the
plot and where the road is it's
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Can you talk a little bit about how you (inaudible) when we were here
last year and approved the 12.8 foot front yard setback how did it come about, what were the
circumstances that changed (inaudible)for this balcony.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : So we were in construction and really we were working from that
(inaudible) demo noticed the view out to the water that's the reason for positioning this
balcony in that location. So part of the balcony actually is on the original footprint. So only that
portion is sticking out. If you can imagine that being a full rectangle that's the actual boundary
so we are building inside of the footprint to give them a balcony as well but (inaudible). Like I
said just again to note we are reducing the deck setback on the first floor which decreases the
non-conformance there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm looking at the deck for the proposed cantilevered balcony and
it's like 5 foot 2 inches?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So reducing that would turn it into pretty much a hallway.
42,
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Basically yea we'd end up basically on the footprint so if you look at the
corner of the building we're not really far off the corner of the building. Again if you can draw a
line with your eye straight across it wouldn't really (inaudible) corner of the building I don't
think it would change it much in regards to the encroachment.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think originally what you had proposed was like a Juliet balcony or
something with sliding doors in that location.
ANTHONY PROTILLO : Right we actually had it in the center because we were going to do a full
wrap around balcony, we were thinking of this originally which would have been 7.3 because of
(inaudible) location so we are reducing it by so we're going to move the door here on an angle
which faces the water and have that small balcony.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So this you never applied for. You applied for the cantilevered
balcony instead.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : So we did apply then we revised before the meeting. So we submitted a
new drawing a new proposal which is what you guys have in front of you.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : This isn't an amended application this is
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a new one.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : He's saying he applied for this.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that was a prior design that they were going to apply they
would have been before us for that but they changed that
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Before the application.
ANTHONY PORTILLO The doors that we propose the Juliet which (inaudible) wrap around
balcony so I think that the work that we're proposing is less of a non-conformance if not we're
not as close to that property line.
MEMBER DANTES : So you're saying it's less of a non-conformance for them that we previously
approved.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : No, no from what I proposed originally so we redesigned the second floor
to have the balcony off to the corner to not have it encroach so far. Then we're also (inaudible)
some of the square footage on the second floor to create this balcony.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In other words they were going to come back to us in any case cause
they were going to reduce that variance of 12.8 feet that we granted them. So he's just saying
43
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
they thought about it they were going to do it a certain way and then changed their mind and
reduced the potential impact to the non-conformity. But we never saw Plan A, this is Plan B.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes correct.
MEMBER DANTES : And the street doesn't even have a name.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Well that was sort of the discussion last time. It is a street but it doesn't
have a name and it's really not used.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well there's only one other property down passed it.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yea across that street.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We know that area well. We know this house pretty well at this
point. Any questions from anybody?
MEMBER LEHNERT : I have a question. When I went out there the girders for this were installed
already so we're really not talking about something proposed. It's almost as built.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's not as built if we are not going to receive (inaudible) cut the girders
because we were in the middle of construction
MEMBER LEHNERT : (inaudible) pretty far back.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Right the girders have to go back to the center of the house. They
cantilever so I suggested put them in and that I would tell you guys that if you aren't going to
agree to this that we were cut the girders flush with the building and figure out another relief
that you would grant.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's why I brought up the fact that it's only like 5 foot deep
which is pretty small. I mean you can get two little chairs and a table on there.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Exactly. It's for Alex and his wife.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But alternatives it would seem also that you can just continue to eat
away from the interior of the approved bedroom and achieve the same effect. Some sort of just
an open spot (inaudible) or anything of that nature.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : (inaudible) but I would say that in fact we need the corner of the house
just for structural purposes for that cantilever because we're going to want to sit on a
foundation otherwise we're going to end up interrupting the interior of the house to bring
columns down and structure this thing. Just so you know there's a staircase to that inside that
44
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
square footage there's a staircase it's a master bedroom suite so there's a bathroom so they've
already decreased their square footage you know in the bedroom area to try to reduce you
know the size of this terrace.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I had seen that you had altered the interior plan in this application
versus what was approved previously.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's what we had to do to create the terrace on that corner of the
house. Any alterations on the plan will be submitted to the Building Department.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's always in some respects I think there's less impact if
something is on the second floor not touching the ground. There's space underneath it, it
doesn't have the same mass as a full story. I see what you're looking for and why you want it
and it's certainly a nice amenity so you know we'll give it a good consideration.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Mr. Friedman is here as well if you have any questions.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just a question regarding the landscaping and the trees. During our
last public hearing by my memory (inaudible) we talked about and you just mentioned a tree
close to the wood deck that you're scaling back what were you speaking of regarding that tree I
didn't hear exactly what you were saying?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : The roots are growing into the existing deck and Mr. Friedman doesn't
want he wants the tree
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : He wants to preserve the tree.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : He wants to preserve the tree so that's the reason for sort of squaring off
that deck and bringing it back further off the property.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And then there's a second large tree on site that I noticed over the
when we were originally at the site it was healthy now it looks like it has wind damage or who
knows what a large series of branches came off of it.
ALEX FRIEDMAN : Alex Friedman the owner. So there are three big oak trees. There are two
facing the creek so the deck what happens is we had a landscaper come through for that very
reason because we're worried about the one the tree that you're taking about so what happens
is when he came out he looked at that tree, he said what happens with so much water and rain
the bark is shearing off of the tree and the tree is rotting from the inside. So we're taking some
precautionary measures to save that tree but there was so much wild trees or whatever it is all
around it, it was obstructing that tree's health so we've cut all that out and we've isolated that
tree trying'to remediate it and save it so it's not in good health and the bark falling off it's
45
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
actually just an indication of what's happening on the inside. Then they walked around I had
then walk around to look at the other oaks which are also beautiful and he said the deck is
encroaching so what happens is if you have roots that continue to grow and then you have
something over them the like a lot of people build benches around big fat trees what it does it
actually kills the tree over the long term. You can't put anything over where the roots are
expanding otherwise it suffocates the tree so that's what's happening. The deck is actually over
years is now over a number of the root systems and he suggested that we cut away that portion
of the deck but cutting away the triangular deck is not really going to offer a proposition so we
talked to Anthony by just cutting the deck back and just squaring it off and just simplifying it
getting away from the tree to save that tree. Again you wouldn't see much for the next few
years but it's the beginning of the problem so trees and the creek is why we're here so we're
extremely sensitive to beautiful oak trees and we want to make sure we did everything to
preserve them. So I think that may address your question. We have four little children, so the
mudroom so we've been sort of living in the house and we're trying to make it a more
permanent residence and when you walk in you walk right into basically a bathroom and
there's like no place to put anything so yes Anthony did design us a mudroom so we can put
stuff in clear the sand before they get into the house. So that's the purpose of the mudroom
addition.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Questions anybody, anyone in the audience wanting to address the
application?
JOAN CAREY : Good afternoon, my name is Joan Carey. My husband Jim and I live own the
property 375 MacDonald Rd. which is to the east of the Friedman property. We have no
objections to the proposal and we will look forward to having the project move along so they
could enjoy the Friedman family could enjoy the summer you know we're a very nice little
community so thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your comments and I bet you thank them for their
comments. Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close this
hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
46
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING#7248—OLDE COLONIAL PLACE, LLC
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Olde Colonial Place, LLC
#7248. This is a request for an interpretation pursuant to Article X Section 280-46 of the Town
Code as to whether 20,000 sq. ft. of property is required for each principal use (4) in
accordance with the Building Inspector's October 5, 2018 Notice of Disapproval stating that the
proposed use(s) as applied for is not permitted in the Hamlet Business (HB) Zoning District
property is located at 615 Pike St. in Mattituck.
MARTIN SENDLEWSKI : Good afternoon Marty Sendlewski architect from Riverhead
representing Olde Colonial Place, LLC. Basically we're here for an interpretation with regard to a
project that's proposed for the HB zone. The project itself is a single building and the project as
designed on the site meets all the dimensional criteria; parking, setbacks, landscaping etc. for
the proposed development. What's really at question here is the interpretation of the code or
the application of the code. Previously for other projects (inaudible) properties where the
intent indicates having a minimum lot size per use on a parcel which generally in my mind
would apply to a property that does have multiple buildings and multiple uses. In this case we
have a single building which is relatively small, it's 4,500 sq. ft. If we were to utilize it as a single
tenant of 4,500 sq. ft. we wouldn't require a variance at all (inaudible) as of right as it's
currently designed. We end up here was based on the interpretation that the per use
requirement for the minimum lot size would apply to a building that includes multiple tenants
so even though this is one building if it had one tenant the interpretation is you're okay but if
you put in four tenants which is what we're proposing here we would require 20,000 sq. ft. per
four tenants or 80,000 sq. ft. Where the property is located in the HB zone does encourage this
type of development for multiple tenants. The higher density uses, it is in a location where
smaller tenant spaces are much more rentable and desirable and there's a need for them.
There has been some previous interpretations that favored a similar application where that was
in the B zone where the same exact situation occurred. We had a building with multiple tenants
and I believe in 2004 there was a ruling by this Board that for that particular incidence the
interpretation would not apply that they could have multiple tenants within the same building.
Unfortunately that interpretation is as of now limited to the B zone which is a similar zoning
district to the HB zone. We had initially thought and requested or it was our feeling that when
47
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
the interpretation was given that it would apply to all zones but then we now understand that
different zones have different criteria and different things that apply so we're here to ask for
that same interpretation for the HB zone that it would now going forward would apply to the
HB zone also in that they are both very similar and with that said I know we had met with the
Town. We've gone through a number of items that I believe the Planning Board has looked at it
and looked favorably upon it as far as the site of interpretation so we're hoping we can get that
so we can move forward with the approval process.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know at first when I looked at the actual plans and saw that it
said four dry retail units. I thought to myself well is this a matter of defining what is a use in
other words if it's the same use four times is that 20,000 sq. ft. per use or is it one use or you
know but basically I think the real question is multiple uses within a single building in the HB
zone because when we did a literal interpretation of our own interpretation the very specific
reading of it did limit what that decision was to the B zone because it's a greater density. It's a
place where you wouldn't want to necessarily limit the right of various commercial projects and
(inaudible) to minimum density. There is where you would want density you would not
necessarily want that kind of density in a transition zone like a limited business zone or an RO
where you already have two uses, residential and office. That's in part why it would not apply
to all zone districts because it wouldn't be productive in all zone districts. So I think what you're
asking us to do is to say whether or not it's appropriate I'm stating it cause I want to make sure
I'm understanding the interpretation that you're requesting. You want us to decide whether or
not multiple uses in one building is an appropriate way to interpret the bulk schedule in an HB
zoned district.
MARTIN SENDLEWSKI : That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let's see if the Board has any questions.
MARTIN SENDLEWSKI : It would be multiple tenants considered as one use on the property
which would be based on the size of the property the building we would meet the code if it was
interpreted that way correct. I do also understand that you know some of the revisions that are
being considered for zoning within the township that this is an item that has been discussed
and may change in the future but right now we're here now cause we're involved with the
project (inaudible)
T. A. DUFFY : Just so I'm clear I think that there's a difference between what you're saying and
what Leslie is saying. Leslie is saying multiple uses and I think what Malon says is that in a B
zone you got multiple uses within one building as long as one building conforms to setbacks.
You're saying the same use with multiple tenants is really one use. That's not what Malon says.
48
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
MARTIN SLENDEWSKI : Okay
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's why I mentioned about the idea of are we interpreting what
the definition of the use is you know cause if you're saying you got really one use, it's dry retail
but you have four tenants?
MARTIN SLENDEWSKI : That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's a bit different than saying multiple uses which could be a
variety of different uses.
MARTIN SLENDEWSKI : Absolutely that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And different tenants do you see what I'm saying? You want us to
look at whether or not multiple uses and multiple tenants' in one building are okay in the HB
zone?
MARTIN SLENDEWSKI : That is correct yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : With the bulk schedule saying it's one use, it's 20,000 sq. ft. or
whatever.
MARTIN SLENDEWSKI : That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : To make sure we know what we're talking about here. Let's see if
anybody has any questions for you, anything Nick or Rob? You have a copy of the Planning
Board's comments. I asked them to comment on this cause I know that the land use chapter is
looking at changing zoning somewhat and their understanding is that it's consistent with the
comprehensive plan which is to have greater density and more flexibility within HB zones.
T. A. DUFFY : One of the points they made just speaking with the Planning Director was that we
have the same allowed uses in a B and HB where you'd want them to locate in the HB they're
not they're leaving downtown areas and going to the B zones because as you said you need you
know for the same three or four retail stores you need 80,000 sq. ft. 'in the HB and you only
need 20,000 in the B.
MARTIN SLENDEWSKI : Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any questions that you all might have? I think it's our job to be
probative and to take a look at all of the possible findings with the code interpretation I think
basically the Planning Board did an analysis more or less as long as your request is clear.
Anything from anybody here?
49
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : So basically our decision is whether or not we can tell if there is a difference
between one big store or four small stores?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The word store is misleading because we're talking about
MEMBER DANTES : more retail
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea four tenants let's say.
MEMBER DANTES : Four tenants versus one tenant.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes and four tenants could be the same type of business or different
businesses but then that would have to of course be site plan involved and then it has to be
Health Department. You gotta look at sanitary flow and all of that stuff for some of these issues
but that's beyond the scope of what we're looking at really.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : How many parking spots are you proposing in this?
MARTIN SLENDEWSKI :The total parking on the site let's see
MEMBER ACAMPORA : It's hard to tell with all this
MARTIN SLENDEWSKI : The total parking is 23 spaces that are proposed.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : That includes handicap?
MARTIN SLENDEWSKI : Yes it does.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now bearing in mind we are not in this application essentially
granting approval for the application per say okay. It's being used as an example of why they
are requesting us to interpret the code so the Building Department will be guided by their
writing a Notice of Disapproval or not.
MARTIN SLENDEWSKI : Correct this would be our first step and then after this we would have to
go through the full site review again.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : I'm just trying to get a feel for even if wasn't allowed and it's still was a
one tenant depending on the size of what was going on how many spaces would the site
require.
MARTIN SLENDEWSKI : It would be the same amount because the parking spaces are on square
footage.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : That's why I asked I was trying to get a
501
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
MARTIN SLENDEWSKI : Exactly, whether it's one tenant for the entire building or four tenants
for the same building. The, parking, everything stays the same other than the fact that there
would be four tenants versus one tenant.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the
application?
GAIL WICKHAM : Good afternoon my name is Abigail Wickham and I own property near this at
13015 Main Rd. Mattituck New York. I just had two comments for the Board but after hearing
the first exchange with the applicant's representative I want to I have a question. Are you
saying that the application is asking you to approve multiple uses of the same type or they can
be different types?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's what I was trying to clarify.
GAIL WICKHAM : Yea cause I understood it was going to be similar I thought to Malon where it
would be different the same types. In other words multiple dry retail uses. That's what I
thought you were here to decide this afternoon not 'many multiple different types of uses
because that's a whole other dynamic. So I'm raising that question and I haven't really thought
about that. I thought if they were all the same type it made sense under the reasoning of Malon
because you do want to foster downtown development in HB Halo district. I would leave that to
the Board but that was going to be what I was going to say that if they were of the same type
that would make sense. I also wanted the other comment that I wanted to make is that and it
goes along the discussion you just had Ms. Acampora and Ms. Weisman that if granted that
your decision will make it clear or will mean that it is not deemed approval of the number of
units, parking, the building aspects and site plan elements all of which would remain within the
purview of the Planning Department, Planning Board and the Building Department. Thank you.
MARTIN SLENDEWSKI : I would just like to essentially reaffirm that it is indeed four similar uses,
dry retail (inaudible) multiple uses meaning different types of uses so it would be four small dry
retail stores and we would certainly moving forward from this point if we do get the
interpretation that's acceptable we still have to go through the full site plan process which I
believe would include public hearings etc. prior to any permits being issued further down the
road.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so let me restate that. This is for multiple tenants with the
same proposed use.
MARTIN SLENDEWSKI :That is correct.
5:1
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright. Of course we can take it farther if we choose to I presume
you know because the Planning Board more or less is looking at that but it's also looking at the
fact that in HB zones you may want to have one building with multiple tenants with different
uses and that goes beyond I think what you're saying cause you're limiting the type of use
within the building you just want multiple tenants. That would be like RO residential offices,
offices professional offices it doesn't matter whether it's a lawyer or a doctor or whatever. It's a
professional office in an RO zone. So I think the Board has an opportunity to broaden the scope
or narrow the scope. We're just going to have to look at all the variables and see based upon
perhaps the Planning Board's review of the comprehensive plan, what makes sense for the
development in future of commercial projects, multiple use projects, mixed use projects like
residential and commercial you know in an HB zone whether this is an opportunity for us to do
something productive for the town. We understand you're project has generated this and
you're proposing four tenants with the same use.
MARTIN SLENDEWSKI : Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that's why the code interpretation was can we do this project
basically without having a lot that's four times bigger than what we have.
GAIL WICKHAM : But that's just for that 20,000 sq. ft. and then if you have more space you
could do other types of uses.
MEMBER DANTES : But if you had 20,000 sq. ft. per use technically.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh yea well then you could do it as of right and they're saying on
smaller lots you know where density is generally driven should we still require that every let's
say that you want to have a deli and you know two retail stores that are dry in the same
building that's going then require at least 40,000 sq. ft. one for the deli and
MEMBER DANTES : Are we going to make that decision now?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No well we might. What we're doing now is looking at the same use
but multiple tenants in one building. That's similar to Malon. Malon had multiple tenants with
the same type of use in a B zone.
PAT MOORE : Patricia Moore. I actually seen a lot of maybe even (inaudible) properties that are
(inaudible) properties and always the limitation is principle if there's an accessory that meet
that twenty percent it would be beneficial I think to be able to have a choice of the uses.
Obviously the uses that are permitted in HB and then driven by the parking and Health
Department, other restrictions so that you're not constrained by I would even say what he's
asking for Mr. Sendlewski is asking for is within the building all dry uses that be the equivalent
52
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
of an RO or an office building where you might have three lawyers or a lawyer and accountant.
That I thought the code already would provide for because it's a use the office professional
office use is the building and then your tenant occupancy is all professional uses. My
understanding and you kind of limited yourself on the second round because I thought that the
interpretation was, give us guidance that in a 20,000 under the 20,000 acreage among the
permitted uses we can pick those that fit and can meet the parking requirements because that
too will determine whether or not if you had for example a restaurant that might have a lot of
parking needs you may not be able to combine it with a professional office where both have a
lot of maybe a lot of parking but I think that the flexibility of the code in HB in particular should
be there and let's accelerate with the purpose of this applicant rather than waiting until the
master plan goes through the process.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right well that's the point. What you just described is a broader
scope than what I think we just clarified. The applicant actually asking us to look at which is
does their project in making a determination will be answered in question for the Building
Department cause this project needs more square footage a bigger lot for what they're
proposing.
PAT MOORE : It's funny because the Malon application with my application and that extra
language was added on to Malon when we really didn't ask for it. It wasn't part of the Notice of
Disapproval and it went in there and if you read the code it's uses to me are those uses that are
permitted in that zoning district within the limitations of square footage and other (inaudible).
So I would hope that you actually broaden it rather than (inaudible) Mr. Sendlewski's
requesting.
T. A. DUFFY : Pat do you read Malon's as saying that the same uses equal one use or that
multiple uses regardless of what they are allowed in one building as long as
PAT MOORE : The way it was we came in was with multiple uses because Mr. Malon the family
had actually a deli in the back that was one of the uses that the owners wanted to have. They
also had office uses and doctors and a mixture of uses. So that was the original site plan
application that went in and ultimately was approved so when the language of Malon came out
it quite frankly the language didn't really match. What we got was an application so I don't
know that if when it was written it was as clear as it could have been because it seemed to
almost imply the opposite of what the approval was. Ultimately the Building Department didn't
interpret it that way because the project was built and in fact there was a deli a polish deli in
the back, some medical offices and professional offices mixed in.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay anybody else, anything from the Board? Okay we'll just have to
talk to each other and see you know where we want to go with this interpretation. I know what
53
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
the bare bone minimum interpretation is going to be and we'll just talk about the rest of these
possibilities. So hearing no further questions or comments motion to close the hearing reserve
decision. Is there a second?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING# 6839—WILLIAM A. PENNEY, III and SUKRU ILGIN (CV) (SOUTHOLD GAS STATION)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for William A. Penney III and
Ilgin (CV) Southold Gas Station and this has been previously heard so I'm not going to read the
Notice of Disapproval we can just get right down to it. Mr. Cuddy would you like to come to the
podium please. So the Zoning Board got fairly far along with this application and I think at this
point what we're trying to do is do everything we can possibly think of to lessen whatever
impact that might happen as a consequence of this project. We understand what we're dealing
with the proposed uses which are both permitted in the zoning district but anything we can do
to make sure that it has the lightest footprint possible that's what we're here to do and when
we looked carefully at the plans that were being proposed it's a big property and there are
generous setbacks (inaudible) variances those all went away but we felt like doing some
research. I had Kim pull out maps of other gas stations with convenience stores in the town and
also 7-Elevens to see how big they were and it would appear that the convenience store being
proposed by your client was larger than the largest 7-Eleven and we thought that it may be of
interest to be able to talk about possibly reducing that. So can you give us some feedback on
that. I know that you've talked to the Town Attorney about it.
MR. CUDDY : Yes. We looked at it and what we have agreed to do is to reduce it by 600 sq. ft.
and I think conforms to essentially the sizes that you're talking about.
541
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea it's within shopping distance it's maybe a little bit bigger than
the biggest 7-Eleven but that would mean removing the proposed office use which certainly
makes sense. It's a convenience store you might need a tiny little office or something but that's
just
MR. CUDDY : We have agreed to that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and we're going to get forthcoming plans that will reflect that?
MR. CUDDY : Yes we will give you plans that shows it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You've also agreed to make sure that there's signs that you will
prevent any left turns from the site that would be going west onto 48.
MR. CUDDY : 48 yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that's not going to be a tie up with an accident on the corner.
Alright I don't have any further questions I just need to see those plans.
MR. CUDDY : Mr. (inaudible) couldn't be here cause he has another hearing but he'll bring the
plans shortly.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any other questions, Pat anything at this
point?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No.
MEMBER DANTES : I do not.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think at least Leslie you and I had talked about this, hours of
operation and lighting. We had a dialogue about that.
MR. CUDDY : The lighting will be dark sky lighting and we have to comply and the Planning
Board will make us comply. I've been there before with gasoline service stations and they're
very astute about how much lighting you can have and what times you can have but as far as
the hours of operation we think we'll be open from 6 a.m. to probably 11 p.m.
MEMBER PLANANMENTO : Is there any flexibility on those hours as far as perhaps closing
earlier? We are across the street and adjacent to preserved land additionally residential homes
in the immediate area.
MR. CUDDY : Somewhat but gasoline stations generally are open in that period of time. I could
ask the owner and get back to you but I don't know that they have
S-
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Peconic closes at ten.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You were originally at 6 a.m. to midnight and then agreed to come
down to 11 and I guess we're looking at maybe possibly 10 o'clock because of the nature of the
residences around it.
MR. CUDDY : They can cut back to ten o'clock.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I mean everybody around here gets up early so we know that it
needs to be open early everybody is going to work.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) turned off except for whatever one needs for security or
MR. CUDDY : Yes that's right.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : dark sky and closed at ten.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just to be informed, when the store is not open are the pumps
turned off or are they open to people coming by with credit cards?
MR. CUDDY : They are turned off.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright cause you know at some places you can access
MR. CUDDY : You can go all night.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A light with a credit card and you can pump gas yourself. This will
mean the operation is shutdown at 10 p.m.
MR. CUDDY : That's right.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Signage off. No further questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now I do want to say for the record you know all of us have had a
real awareness a lot of us live right near there and are on the streets all the time but the
public's concern and our concern about traffic impacts and we have at least I reread everything
in the SEQRA determination by the Planning Board. I reread the traffic studies, I reread the
testimony that the neighbors have said about their own counts and their own concerns. At this
point I believe everything that could possibly be done to address them has been. I can't think
of anything else that we have the authority to do since the SEQRA mitigations the resolutions
have been adopted by both the Planning Board and the Zoning Board.
MR. CUDDY : And we have agreed to all the mitigations.
56
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right so the applicant has been attempting to implement these
permitted uses, done everything possible to mitigate the impacts from every point of view that
they can think of. There will be some buffering. There will be additional landscaping between
this project and the residential property which will be a lot better than what's certainly has
existed for 'some time on that property. So I don't really know what else to ask or what else to
say.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Additionally we had a brief conversation about the ARC. They
(inaudible) review and jurisdiction as far as the overall design.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh thank you for reminding me. Yea one of the things that is not
really before this Board is the aesthetics of this project but I do want to say that it will come
before or we will request that it come before the Architectural Review Committee where you
can take that back up in case they feel that they want different colors, they want a slightly
different roof pitch and they want to make it look a little more like something else. Those are
minor changes but we will include that concern in our findings that they do have an opportunity
to look at it to make sure that it fits the character of the neighborhood and all that.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : On top of that I would just stress again the fact that there's adjacent
and across the street preserved properties that form the standpoint of the design and I can
understand the applicant's interested in whatever he wants to build something like the
Chairwoman just said in character of the community.
MR. CUDDY : The Planning Board has already discussed that with us and we know we are going
through the Architectural Review.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good and I wanted to do this in front of the public because you
know we're neighbors and we want you to be aware of that we're aware of your concerns and
our task is to balance the welfare of the community with the reasonable rights of property
owners. That is a tough job sometimes but that is what our task was doing and we have to take
in and will take into consideration every point of view and every comment we've heard from all
sides. Having said that I will give you an opportunity time if there's anything that you want to
add to this conversation please feel free to come and do it.
ELLEN CORWIN : Ellen Corwin Founder Village.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hello again.
ELLEN CORWIN : I promise not to bore everybody with traffic studies today. I appreciate all the
mitigation and I appreciate reviewing the file but it still doesn't address our traffic concerns. I
wanted to start with a few items from the code just to make sure I understand it. This
.97
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
application falls under 280-48 use regulations that would be "B" uses permitted by Special
Exception' 12 and 13 gasoline service stations and partial self-service gasoline stations. I guess
due to the size of the convenience store it's still going to be a second principal use. My question
is being a second principal use under C you know sub 5 does that mean that it's not subject at
all to like say C-4 the convenience store usage some of the permitted items? Is that why the
accessory use being second principal
T. A. DUFFY : I don't know off the top of my head quite honestly. I would have to look into it.
MR. CUDDY : Under the section she's speaking about that is a second principal use and so that
part of the code that she's talking about is an accessory use so this has a second principal use
(inaudible) to use just the way we're proposing to use.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The property does permit two principal uses as of right with review
from the Zoning Board. So in other words there's some properties that have one principal use
with something being accessory to it. That often has to do with the size and also whether the
property is zoned to permit more than one principal use on it. It gets a little complicated but
what they're proposing is within the law and it's two principal uses. So they are governed not
by accessory but by principal use.
ELLEN CORWIN : So C5 will not apply to this application?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If that's accessories if that's the part that says. I know the code but
it's not all not line by line in my head.
ELLEN CORWIN : Yes it definitely is. There's some prohibitions in there that I'm going to assume
are not going to apply to the principal use.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct.
ELLEN CORWIN : I guess one in there that caught my eye was formula food franchises being in
there and I just wanted to see
MEMBER DANTES : Formula what?
ELLEN CORWIN : Formula food franchises.
MEMBER DANTES : How are they defined formula food franchises?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Fast food stuff.
T. A. DUFFY : It wouldn't be prohibited.
58
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They would have to come back.
T. A. DUFFY : That's a prohibition for an accessory use. It's not going to be a prohibition for a
principal use.
ELLEN CORWIN : So that would be a possibility?
T. A. DUFFY : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But they'd have to come back before this Board.
MEMBER DANTES : And they would have to eliminate one of the uses. You can only have two
you can't have three.
ELLEN CORWIN : Well I was thinking of more as being the use of the convenience store.
MEMBER DANTES :Then you'd have to go back to site plan and redo the application.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would like to remind everyone, this is not finished okay. When the
Board makes determination there are still things before the Planning Board that have to be
addressed so ongoing concerns can be taken to the Planning Board also and if you have further
ideas for any mitigation it seems to me that the applicant is quite open to doing whatever they
can to cooperate within reason of their business model and you know I just wanted to make
you aware of that. Today is not necessarily the last time this project will be aired before the
public.
ELLEN CORWIN : It's a corner lot and my understanding is you have two fronts on a corner lot.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's right.
ELLEN CORWIN : Do I interpret the site plan the latest site plan I have is the one that was
handed out (inaudible) public hearing. I know in the file there's one later that's slightly revised.
was wondering if there are copies here today of that?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well he's going to bring in some revisions to the architectural plans
making the building smaller and one of the things that happened along the way here was, when
we first got this application there were variances required for setbacks that didn't meet the
bulk schedule. All of those have been the site plan has been changed so that everything they're
doing with where things are being located is conforming to the code required setbacks so there
are no longer any variances in front of us it's just the Special Exception for the use the proposed
use.
59
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
ELLEN CORWIN : I noticed on the site plan it looks like there's two side yards (inaudible) two
side yards considered?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think by law they're required to identify one rear yard even if it's a
small one.
MEMBER DANTES : Ma'am you can have my copy. Talk to them and make sure this is the latest
copy and there will be another one.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea because the footprint of the building is going to change slightly
when you reduce the size of it. It's going to be smaller so we're going to need another site plan
showing the footprint and then the revisions to the architectural plan.
ELLEN CORWIN : This still shows both side yards.
MEMBER DANTES : But it's 100 foot front yard setback.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well what's your question?
ELLEN CORWIN : My question is I want to know how they figured the 72.4 setback when they
combine two side yards?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm not sure I understand. Are you looking at variances the bulk
schedule a single side yard and a combined side yard?
ELLEN CORWIN : I'm looking at the bulk schedule.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea the Building Department I can't without having tables in front of
me I can't answer the question but I can tell you this much, there are no variances required on
this property. The Building Department has determined that all of these setbacks for any yard
and the lot coverage is conforming to the code.
MEMBER DANTES : She's just saying to spell it on their site plan. They're just for the
convenience in reading their site plan spelling out what their proposed setbacks are. That's why
it's written on there. They don't need a variance. It's permitted by
ELLEN CORWIN : I have a question on 12E storage for gasoline or flammable oils and (inaudible)
located clearly in the ground and (inaudible) property line is that not important? The setback
from the fuel tanks and the Rempe property line the setback is 30.1 and 12E says it should be
35 from any property line other than the street line.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well then that's something that will have to it's not called out on the
Notice of Disapproval as a variance and if it's not conforming to what the code requires the
60
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
Planning Board will deal with that and that's really a Planning Board issue. We're looking at the
use okay and all of those concerns are thoughtful and should definitely come before the
Planning Board so that they can you can get answers and that the applicant can address them. I
see exactly now I've got this same thing you have.
ELLEN CORWIN : There's also a (inaudible) a site plan issue?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes.
ELLEN CORWIN : I have a couple of other comments to include 280-142 general standards. I
think (inaudible) specific enough in what our concerns were as it relates to the code. Our
concern is in "C" that the use would be compatible with surroundings and character of the
neighborhood and the community in general particularly with regards to this building scale and
appearance. You know we touched on this, we have the Land Trust to the west and to the
north. I'm still not sure what's in those little white tents.
MEMBER DANTES : That's why we're recommending to go to the Architectural Advisory
Committee.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That committee has architects sitting on it and advises the Planning
Board and makes recommendations for approval or for changes you know that would we also
know that 48 is a scenic byway. It's covered by the LWRP and the LWRP has found this
consistent but we're not done until the Architectural Review Committee says that we think it
does meet the character of the neighborhood and it is in scale. We do have the ability to
request and they've agreed to make the.building smaller because we did not see the need for a
600 sq. ft. office space. This is supposed to be a convenience store and they've agreed to do
that. They're saying yes we'll have a little office area and the rest is going to be for a
convenience store would be for the sale of products.
ELLEN CORWIN : Our other concern was 280-143 matters to be considered. I think this little a, f,
m and n but our overriding concern has been c and that's what it's been all along, with the
affect that the location of the proposed use and the location of entrances and exits may have
upon the creation or undue increase of vehicular traffic congestion on public street, highways
or sidewalks. I think we made our position very clear. I'll just say that you know I really see
nothing really that mitigates that concern. I see you know prohibiting informally prohibiting
traffic from making turns to go west coming out on 48 you know it's satisfying you know a
dangerous condition on 48 (inaudible) sacrificing safety on Youngs Ave. as you increase that exit
area. That exit area will be (inaudible) three or four everybody heading west (inaudible) all the
ferry traffic is going to be coming down Youngs Ave. It just increases the traffic issue there. I
noticed on the it's probably on the site plan when I saw in the file that we've extended the side
61
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
walk down to the Rempe property and also from the north down to the driveway to the exit
which is great you know it's going to be helpful (inaudible) sidewalk there is always going to be
helpful but it really doesn't address the safety issue of the vehicles. The other thing I did want
to talk about was the store size the fact that I guess (inaudible) store area that's cut down is it
1,800 if we take away 600 for the office?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'd have to look at the plans and it's like
ELLEN CORWIN : (inaudible) 1,800 sq. ft.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a little more than that isn't it.
ELLEN CORWIN : It was 2,400 before.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's 2,400 sq. ft.
ELLEN CORWIN : Alright so the building is down to 2,400 and that's all convenience store?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea.
ELLEN CORWIN : Oh ok so the convenience store size hasn't changed.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No.
ELLEN CORWIN : It was a little confusing. So I mean it's just a little bit smaller than the three 7-
Elevens but still larger than any convenience store in a gas station you know in the surrounding
areas. I mean that's you know 2,400 sq. ft. For those of us spatially challenged how big is that?
That's twice the size of our condos.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's about a little bit bigger than the 7-Eleven in Mattituck.
ELLEN CORWIN : That's still pretty large.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's what's considered a principal use. You know if it was like
the gas station the Speedway now I don't think it used to be I don't know the one that's on in
Mattituck on Main Rd. that's a minimart. Those are really, really little. The one in Southold
that's Ackerely and Main Bayview and the Main Rd. that's a minimart. These are not at the
same scale of a convenience store. They are accessory to the principal use of a gas station. So
here because of the size of the property and the way it's zoned they are permitted to have two
principal uses which is why the size of the store is allowed.
62
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
ELLEN CORWIN : So I'm puzzled by the size. I mean throughout this whole process the applicant
have an FEIS, we have traffic study all say you will see a (inaudible) increase in vehicle
(inaudible) traffic where will the customers come from to support the 2,400 sq. Ft.?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's their business model and that's something
ELLEN CORWIN : (inaudible) increased traffic you know 2,400 sq. ft. that's a lot of soda and
chips. If there's no increase or significant increase in vehicle or pedestrian who is going to
support this larger store? If this is almost you know the size of the three 7-Elevens they are all
maybe 2,600 sq. ft.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A little bit smaller according to my information. 7-Elevens are a little
bit smaller than what's being proposed.
ELLEN CORWIN : The 2,400?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea maybe 200 something like that square feet.
ELLEN CORWIN : Maybe we need to assess traffic patterns of the 7-Eleven if they're almost
comparable in size.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I think that's something that probably if it should have
happened it should have happened a long time ago when the issue of traffic was being studied
by their engineers and by the Planning Board but again you still have opportunities to go to the
Planning Board and to address your concerns because there are things they can do that the
Zoning Board doesn't do. They can change ingress and egress if need be with the cooperation of
the applicant. They can do a variety of things in site planning that the Zoning Board doesn't do.
All we really what we have jurisdiction over is essentially, these are permitted uses have all of
the potential problems been sufficiently mitigated to warrant an approval. That's in a nutshell
what this Board is supposed to be doing.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And I think isn't it correct by right the applicant can actually build a
larger convenient store?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : According to the bulk schedule they could yea. Yes they could they
could build
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the 2,400 (inaudible) seems large and I don't frequent 7-Elevens
it's not exactly a supermarket relatively small scale (inaudible)
ELLEN CORWIN : I really don't feel that the traffic issues have been mitigated
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand.
63
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
ELLEN CORWIN : to any extent.
MEMBER DANTES : Is there anyone else who would like to speak maybe you want to collect
your thoughts for a little while.
ELLEN CORWIN : No, no, no I'm almost done. I was just looking for something. I've lived in
Southold for ten years. I know it's not forever but I never ever heard anybody say gee I wish we
had another gas station here. Two (inaudible) have been submitted to the town one in 2015
three hundred Southold residents expressing concern over the gas station and in September
2017 a hundred signatures residents of Founder Village expressing their concerns for the traffic
safety impacts. We have three major concerns. You've has these all along, pedestrian safety,
vehicles entering and exiting the gas station onto Youngs and an increase in turn a rounds at
the Founder Village entrance. These will all remain. Like I've said to you before just because it's
zoned for business and it meets zone requirements for a Special Exception there's nothing
automatic here. Maybe in B zoning is no longer viable for this parcel.
MEMBER DANTES : In all honesty you might be right but we the Town Board does it so
ELLEN CORWIN : Yea I know you're not going to change that. I'm not asking you to change it I
understand.
MEMBER DANTES : I think it's a good idea but
ELLEN CORWIN : I'm saying you may no longer be viable but maybe a change to RO is more
appropriate for our (inaudible). Just a summary, you know we do not support the approval of
this gas station as it represents a very (inaudible) to our community. We are already burdened
by growing traffic problems. We are at the tipping point. The character of our neighborhood is
at risk and once lost is gone forever. Again I urge the ZBA to deny this request for Special
Exception. Thank you for the opportunity.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your thoughtful comments. It takes a lot of work and a
lot of dedication to put together that much information and the Board appreciates it. Anybody
else, anything from you Mr. Cuddy?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If I could ask one question that Ms. Corwin brought forward. Is there
any proposed or desired accessory uses that would be secondary to the two principal uses?
MR. CUDDY : No we do not have any.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : There's discussion at this time. Is it something that perhaps that if
there was a covenant or restriction limiting the uses with that perhaps help mitigate some of
the concerns of neighbors?
64
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
MR. CUDDY : We don't have any interest in any accessory uses.
MEMBER DANTES : They would have to come back anyway.
MR. CUDDY : I can't envision what type of accessory uses it's a store and a gasoline station. I
don't see any other gasoline stations with accessory uses and I can't imagine there would be
any here.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Something that Ms. Corwin had mentioned I don't know if a Subway
shop inside a gas station is considered an accessory or how that
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's a formula of it depends I would say that how the code was
written and certainly they have at this point no intent but things can change. I just want to
make it clear that should any additional accessory use ever by them or by anybody else be
proposed on that site they would have to come back before the Zoning Board.
MR. CUDDY : And we understand that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We would have a long record of the neighbors, people in the
neighborhood voicing their concerns at the two principal uses let alone an accessory use on top
of that. I can't talk about a hypothetical I can just tell you that legally they would have a high
bar that's for sure if they came back before the Zoning Board for an additional use.
MR. CUDDY : And we are forewarned.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I didn't mean it as a warning or threat just a clarification that's all.
Anybody else? Alright hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the
hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
651
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
HEARING # 7221— MMC REALTY 2 FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for MMC Realty 2 Family
Partnership #7221 adjourned from December 6, 2018 request for a variance from Article III
Section 280-13A and the Building Inspector's June 12, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an
application to legalize "as built" alterations to an accessory building at 1) more than the code
permitted one dwelling on each lot. The proposed construction constitutes a second dwelling
unit in the accessory building at 7625 Nassau Point Rd. (adj. to Little Peconic Bay) in Cutchogue.
PAT MOORE : Good afternoon Patricia Moore on behalf of the applicants. I have both Mr. and
Mrs. Cirretto here. We have nobody else in the audience. This application is for an existing
garage. There' a one bay garage and a pool house. The pool is adjacent to this structure. The
building was built with a building permit. The permit number is 42121Z. it was for all of the
improvements that are there on the property. It showed storage on the second floor. My client
built what was on the plans. When the building inspector was making one of the final
inspections they saw the finishes on the second floor and called it a dwelling a second dwelling.
That was clearly never the intention. The building has it's a pool house on the first floor. There's
no heat in the building. It has no air conditioning. It obviously has electric and water but it is a
seasonal use structure. The reason that they thought it was too nice is that my client has
installed porcelain flooring on the second floor mainly because he was able to get such a great
deal. It was the cheapest product that he found and it is needed for storage. The second floor in
my paperwork I explained that Mr. Cirretto is a very fine both of them are fine attorneys but
they're getting ready to retire and files have to retained in there. The storage is going to be for
the old files to retain them for the period of time that he's obligated under the law. Again there
is this is not a second dwelling and we're here to answer any questions you might have. I did
give you the citation with respect to the applicable law. The fact that there is a nice floor on the
storage space does not constitute a use or even an intended use to have an illegal second
dwelling. It's a pretty straightforward application and we were very disappointed that the
Building Department to force us to come in and get a permit based on their interpretation that
this structure as a second dwelling particularly when there's no heat. We wouldn't have met
the criteria under the state building code for a dwelling. You have to have the proper heating,
proper insulation all the requisites of a code compliant dwelling and that's clearly not the case
with this structure.
MR. CIRRETTO : My name is Michael Cirretto my wife is here also. When we originally put the
plans together to build the pool house they were approved by the Building Department. We
actually had a fireplace on the first floor. There was going to be a working propane fireplace
(inaudible). While we were doing the construction we determined that we're not going to be
using this place in the winter anyway and the fireplace takes up too much room, it bumps in to
66
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
the garage and we wanted more garage space so we took the fireplace out. So the most
(inaudible) that we had that this was going to be habitable space we eliminated from the
project even though the Building Department had previously approved it. Now the building has
absolutely no heat. It has no air conditioning although I do plan to put a window air conditioner
on the first floor during the summer time cause it gets hot in there and the second floor is not
going to be used as habitable space. It's (inaudible) for the winter. We would agree with the
Zoning Board is they are required to put a restricted covenant in that the second floor cannot
be used as habitable space and I'll go further than that to say that we would put a covenant in
that we would covenant to drain the pipes by I don't know November 15th of each year and not
put them back on again till March 15th and I think with those caveats and that kind of restriction
you can feel secure that the second floor is not going to be used as habitable space. It's not my
intention. I know you were all there and I appreciate the fact that you came. You see that we
already moved our trans files up into the second floor and it's full of boxes right now probably
eighty or ninety large trans boxes and that's our application. So I just wanted allow you to see
that we're not going to be using it. It's not our intention to use it and we do not mind you
putting a restriction on the property so that the next person we sell it to understands that they
can't use it that way too.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'd like to talk about on the record the issue that is relevant to this
application but is broader also because one of the things we lack in the code is a real definition
of what is a pool house. We all know it better have a swimming pool somewhere on the
property.
PAT MOORE : Although a beach house I mean as a I've had clients that have wanted let's call it
pool house because you can't call it a beach I mean you could call it a beach cabana, it may be
the same purpose. It's somebody that's near the beach that wants to put in a little changing
room, shower outdoor shower so I want to when you're thinking in the broad scheme of what a
pool house is it's really a cabana. It's either a pool cabana or it could be a beach cabana but
something that is clearly not a second dwelling it's something you know of convenience so
people can shower and not mess up their house.
MEMBER DANTES : That's something that Pat let's just work on that one they're still working on
changing the code let's just get to the pool house today and stay focused.
PAT MOORE : Okay no because you guys opened up that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I did. I stated that because I think very soon this Board is going to
have to go before the Town Board to say you know we really need a working you're the
legislatures you should be looking at this in Code Committee and we might propose a working
definition that they can do what they want with but that's forthcoming and one of the things
67
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
that has kind of got all of us a little confused is what's a kitchen? I mean you know people
associate snacks with swimming pools you know cold drinks you know a yogurt whatever a
sandwich that you make or something but again we're seeing pool houses that proposed pool
houses that are short of maybe having you know a twelve burner stove. Today I mean a stove
doesn't even isn't even required for a kitchen anymore. You can put in a convection oven, a
microwave you know a free standing unit a smaller unit; we have to come to grips with that too
because that's one of the things that the Building Department looks at and says oh it's
habitable space there's a kitchen in there.
PAT MOORE : The funny thing is in this case it didn't apply because we had the plans that there
was no other than the cabinetry that is just storage.
MIKE CIRRETTO : And a sink and a refrigerator.
PAT MOORE : A sink and a refrigerator. There was no stove not even a
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right, no I'm bringing it up cause I think it's worth looking at some of
the problems that property owners have in attempting to do this sort of thing, either renovate
an existing building or to propose a new one and to simply admit that we need better working
guidelines, what you're allowed to do and what you're not allowed to do.
PAT MOORE : Well I honestly don't think we should dictate that a storage area has to be rafters
and you know that you can't make it clean and useable so to that extent giving the Building
Department some guidance that this is clearly a pool house. I mean by the fact that there's no
heat that's it's not a dwelling. You're not using it for habitable space and part of it was a garage.
I just think that the Building Department shouldn't look at the finishes and say so this is too nice
go to the Zoning Board spend six months going through the Zoning Board to get this approval.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea well typically storage has meant just open space you know but
you do only have one room up there.
MIKE CIRRETTO : Only one room. Let me say today I have to go get some files cause I haven't
been to the house for six weeks now and there wasn't a (inaudible) there wasn't a spider web,
there wasn't mouse droppings I mean usually you'd find that in open space. Everything was
clean, everything was neat and it's a nice way to keep storage so I would have liked to have
done that with the second floor just because it's conducive to having clean storage up there
rather than just open space. I will admit it looks very nice but it's not used for habitable space.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well when you move out here what are you going to do with your
files? You're going to leave them there or in that space or are you going to use that space for
office space?Are they dead files? I believe that's what we call them.
6$
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
MIKE CIRRETTO : No,no, no we keep files for seven years.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have to keep them for legally.
MIKE CIRRETTO : We're selling our business in Nassau County and the building is for sale. As
soon as the building is sold then all the files are coming up here and that's where they'll be and
you know 'they'll be some (inaudible) work, I'm sure -that somebody will call me up or
somebody's relative will need a Will that we did a long time;ago and'I'll have to'retrieve it but
by law we have to keep everything for seven years anyway.
PAT MOORE : And longer sorry to tell you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let's see if the Board has anything, Nick.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO Just I think a comment with my discussion with the Building
Department. I think there was not necessarily the comment that this looks like a residence it's
just a preponderance of a variety of individual things that sort of added up which prior to my
interior inspection and I think you commented in earlier meeting I looked .in the cabinet just
cause I was curious to see if there was like whatever was in there I have no idea what could be
behind it whether it's correct or not I don't know but I understood in variousAiscussions that
there had been other improvements which like the fireplace that was removed and I don't
know and I don't want to repeat hearsay
PAT MOORE : But he's telling on the record it was never even put in.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So again in conversation with the Building Department,that there was
stuff that was seen which again I'm not really privy to (inaudible) application it's a pool house
my only thought is if you had storage on the second floor there's no doorway and you know if
it's a personal choice, if it's a necessity (inaudible) separate the storage area
PAT MOORE : It's just open storage.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea and I don't know if that's a personal choice because other
(inaudible) seen have stairs but beyond that I (inaudible). I .think there was also a discussion at
some point also that the closet and the bathroom looks like it could easily fit a shower tub.
MIKE CIRRETTO : If that would have been our intention there is, no way -1 would have put a
porcelain floor with the mud in that area I would have left it
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm sorry you need to speak into the mic.-
MIKE CIRRETTO : At one time the pool house had a closet that was inside the pool house itself.
When we-started to do the work and the framing on the inside'he said look you're going to lose
6g
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
this whole wall by putting this closet here we,couldn't p,ut a couch or we can't put anything else
inside the pool house so we moved the closet to the bathroom side so you open it now on the
bathroom side. I keep my fishing stuff in there all my rods, reels and all that stuff. If the.
comment was made that it would be a, great place to put a shower which (inaudible) this
porcelain floor over mud I would have to jackhammer that. It's not crawl space underneath so
and there's no plumbing there to do that so that's not our intention. So it's just a half bath but I
would agree you know in case you want to do,that as a condition also (inaudible) half bath you
can't put a shower,in there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well would you like to speak you're the only one in the audience.
MARY ELLEN CIRRETTO : (inaudible) back order and they were overloaded and we got,great
price.
MIKE CIRRETTO : At the end of the day it really wasn't a great deal because you have to take
this whole lot and I have five boxes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sell it to the next pool house.
MARY ELLEN CIRRETTO : Like a third of the price.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually we went to see an accessory apartment in an accessory
structure and it was the same floor in that one.
PAT MOORE : It was a sale.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess,it Was on sale.' --
MARY ELLEN CIRRETTO : It was a great buy that's why we did it. It looks nice.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay anything from anybody else? I think the offer of covenants is a
very reasonable way to go. I'm glad you offered them up. Certainly I think that in future we will
probably be suggesting that a pool house should be used the same way as a pool is, seasonally.
MIKE CIRRETTO : That's why I offered to drain it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anybody? Hearing no further questions or
comments I'll make a motion to close' this hearing reserve decision to a late date. Is there a
second?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
7O
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
71
March 14, 2019 Regular Meeting
CERTIFICATION
I Elizabeth Sakarellos, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape 'recorded
Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription, equipment
and is a true and accurate record of Hearings.
Signature
Elizabeth Sakarellos
DATE : March 28, 2019
72