HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-05/09/2019 Hearing
?
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York
May 9, 2019
9:35 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
JOHN BURKE – Assistant Town Attorney
?
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
INDEX OF HEARINGS
Hearing Page
1050 West Cove Road, LLC # 7268 3 – 12
Thomas Kennedy # 7271 12 - 14
Tracy Minucci/White Cap North Fork, LLC # 7272 14 - 18
Diane Arpaia # 7273 19 - 20
Stritzler Family Trust # 7277 21 - 23
Turklan Arklan # 7279 23 - 30
Shawn P. Fitzgerald Revocable Living Trust # 7276 30 - 34
SV Greenport, LLC # 7275 34 - 39
Ronald and Susan Smith # 7283SE 39 - 43
Ronald Coons # 7244 43 - 49
Peter Patinella # 7263 49 - 57
?
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
HEARING # 7268 – 1050 WEST COVE ROAD, LLC
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board for public hearing is for 1050
West Cove Road, LLC # 7268. This is a request for variances under Article III Section 280-15,
Article IV Section 280-18, Article XXII Section 280-116A(1) and the Building Inspector’s
September 21, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct
additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling and to construct an accessory in-
ground swimming pool at 1) proposed additions to the single family dwelling located less than
the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff, 2) proposed in-ground swimming pool
located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff, 3) proposed addition to
the single family dwelling is less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet,
4) proposed swimming pool is partially located in other than the code required rear yard at
1050 West Cove Rd. (adj. to Cutchogue Harbor) in Cutchogue. Is there someone here to
represent the application? Before you begin everyone would you please turn your mics off and
open up your files, we’re trying to avoid paper rustling so when these are transcribed our
transcriber can actually hear what we’re doing so let me get the surveys out.
FRED WEBER : I’m Fred Weber I’m the architect for the proposed project. I’d just like to give
you an overview of what we’re intending to do and the reasons behind why we’re requesting
the variances. The site is a wooded one and half acre parcel with approximately 200 feet of
frontage on Cutchogue Harbor. The existing house is positioned along the west or the
waterfront side of the property which takes advantage of water views. The existing house is
primarily a one story structure with a two story roadside piece and the house is going to be
expanded as a retirement home with a new second floor master bedroom and additional first
floor living space for family and friends. There are two zoning issues that relate to the house
additions and two zoning issues that relate to the swimming pool location. First as far as the
house additions as they relate to the top of the bluff, we’re proposing a second story addition
over the existing first floor house footprint which is 13 feet from the top of the bluff. As we’re
not changing the house footprint or the foundation in this area this is where a second floor
would get the best water views and make the most structural sense. The bluff in front of the
house tops out at the 23 foot contour is stabilized with plantings and has a long established
bulkhead space. Our bluff is only 3 feet higher than the 20 foot height which defines a bluff and
is not comparable to the very tall Long Island Sound type bluffs. The second issue related to the
house is the rear yard setback requirement of 50 feet. The existing house has a rear yard
setback of 49 which is only one foot less than the required 50 feet. The proposed additions will
have the same 49 foot setback. Then the pool location first of all in relation to the bluff, the
proposed swimming pool is intended to be located 89 feet directly behind an embankment
?
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
which in fact is less than 20 feet high and therefore not actually a bluff although in discussion if
you do a diagonal measurement you can make 100 foot dimension to the bluff but right in front
of the pool it’s actually a bank not a bluff. The swimming pool will be located considerably
further from the water than the neighbor’s pool to the south and the two neighbor pools on
the property two properties to the north. I put a red line here on this aerial survey which shows
where
MEMBER DANTES : Can I ask you one question, I’m looking for the 49 foot setback for the house
where is it the 49 foot rear yard setback, this is the bluff
FRED WEBER : That’s the bluff
MEMBER DANTES : Right but this is a side yard isn’t it?
FRED WEBER : No it’s a rear yard.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But then Eric to that point
MEMBER DANTES : No I just wasn’t understanding the whole I have a small copy so it’s harder
to read.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But to that point I think it’s actually from the apparent high water
mark 49 feet.
FRED WEBER : It’s from the actual tie line. In discussions with the Building Department they
wanted us to they said that they take it from the tie line the 49 feet.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And not from the bulkhead?
FRED WEBER : Well the rear yard dimension is from the tie line you know the rear what is the
rear yard. The top of the bank or the top of the bluff is another dimension.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But did Mike (inaudible) Building Department explain why the tie line
versus the bulkhead?
FRED WEBER : Cause that’s the property line and that’s how rear yards are defined.
EUGENE BURGER : Eugene Burger property owner. He actually Mike asked us to have the
surveyor re-survey the property to the tie line so we had to go back that’s what he told us he
wanted.
?
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The other copies that you gave us of the pool and the neighbor’s
pools none of them had this red line on it so what I’m going to do is show everybody, is that
where the closest point of the pool is?
FRED WEBER : Right correct. It’s along the waterside face of the pool.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so from that red line it would be above that where the pool is
setback?
FRED WEBER : Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WIESMAN : So does everybody see this you got a copy of this image, the actual
89 feet of the proposed pool I’m going to pass this down so maybe you can mark it down on
your own copies so you could see, do you know if any of them got variances or were they pre-
zoning. They probably got variances.
EUGENE BURGER : The both actions relatively new I would say ten
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The pools next door?
EUGENE BURGER : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They probably got variances then I would think.
EUGENE BURGER : I would imagine.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because the code would have been the same at the time. It would
be useful if you could find any of those you know if there were other if those pools got
variances then it speaks well to what you’re proposing. It improves your application.
FRED WEBER : Just to finish up, this is the last point about the pool being located in the side
yard. First of all it cannot be located in the rear yard obviously there’s not enough distance
between the rear face of the house and the bank. The property is a waterfront lot so the pool
could be located in the front yard. However because the existing house is about 80 feet deep
from front to back from the waterside toward the water locating the front yard requires the
setback I believe an unreasonable distance from the waterfront views. Also instead of nestling
in the hill it would push the pool up the slope toward the road. It encroaches only 6 feet into
the side yard but because the side yard is quite wide measuring 110 feet it still allows the
proposed pool to be located over 40 feet from the property line and neighbors. In general the
site is wooded, generous in size. The house addition will not feel like they encroach physically
on any neighbors. The addition to the house will instead enhance the character of the house.
The bluff is relatively low, stable and maintained which limits the environmental impact of the
?
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
proposed improvements. All drainage and erosion control will be installed in conformance with
Southold codes. A new conforming sanitary system will be installed and a letter of non-
jurisdiction exists from the New York State D.E.C.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you need Trustees on this?
FRED WEBER : Yes but we’re not permitted to go to them until we
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well there’s nothing in the law that says that it’s just a way of trying
to coordinate our applications.
FRED WEBER : Yes that changed a year or two ago.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it made sense for property owners really so that you knew how
to proceed when there was concurrent jurisdiction. Sometimes the Board if it’s clear that there
are significant environmental impacts we will sometimes ask the applicant to go to the Trustees
first which makes more sense but that’s just interdepartmental communication. Did you get a
copy of the LWRP?
FRED WEBER : I did.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so I’m just going to enter into the record that it is consistent. It
is deemed to be consistent and did you get Soil and Water comments, Suffolk County Soil and
Water?
FRED WEBER : I didn’t get that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it won’t come as a surprise that their concern is no heavy
equipment during construction close to the bluff and to the bluff. It’s going to be a little
challenge. I know you know construction but it will be a little bit of a challenge to build over
that footprint close to the 13 feet from the bluff. It’ll all have to done mostly on the landward
side and keep heavy equipment from that
EUGENE BURGER : You mean it’s saying all hand work?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea. Let’s see what else. What’s the proposed tower going to be
used for?
EUGENE BURGER : Just viewing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it’s not habitable space, it’s not a third story?
EUGENE BURGER : No.
?
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you will be able to get up there and look out however?
FRED WEBER : Yes, I think it’s 6 risers higher than the second floor.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So then that’s fine. Let me see if I have any other questions.
FRED WEBER : I don’t know if this is helpful, the shaded part is where the
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s big we can see it.
FRED WEBER : The shaded part is where the first floor additions occur and then on the second
floor the shaded portions are where the second floor additions occur and then that’s the south
elevation and then also the east and west elevation. As an attempt to kind of stay in the shingle
style and be consistent with the architecture of the area.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea we have copies of that Fred thank you. The proposed
reconstructed barn is not before us. I presume that’s because it’s simply an accessory structure
on the property and is in a conforming location because of the waterfront property.
FRED WEBER : Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that going to be used for storage out of curiosity?
FRED WEBER : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You’re not going to have weddings there or anything.
EUGENE BURGER : No I have that covered.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just checking. Nick questions?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea if you don’t mind going back to the distances from the tie line
versus the bulkhead, I’m just a little confused about how the Building Department rationalizes
that and maybe we need to speak with the Building Department about but the distance from
the house to the tie line is 49 feet and then the distance from the proposed pool to the
bulkhead is 89 feet; just as matter of consistency I think the measurement should be from the
same point.
FRED WEBER : No I think the 89 feet is at the top of the bank.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But isn’t the bank at least what’s marked on the survey it terminates
at the bulkhead.
FRED WEBER : 89 feet is top of bank.
?
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but I’m following the directional lines. I don’t necessarily know
where the top of the bank is then.
FRED WEBER : Top of the bank is that very heavy line.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Oh I’m sorry so this is the spot here. My mistake. I was following the
dotted line across to the bulkhead.
EUGENE BURGER : Then from the bulkhead the pool is 120 feet back from the bulkhead, 120.7
and it’s actually written on the site plan and to Fred’s point that’s where the bluff is actually
lower in that area from site inspection you can see it.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Again, I need to do a little research on this just to get an
understanding of the tie line versus the actual property line. So I’m assuming here maybe your
deed is written that you own underwater land or something.
EUGENE BURGER : Probably and that was we kind of argued with Mike about it too cause I had
to go back and change the survey.
FRED WEBER : I had originally put a shorter distance in there because I had to go on to you
know to the bulkhead and then they had written up the Disapproval based on the 49 feet to the
top of the tie line so then we had to revise our plans to reflect what they asked us to do.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don’t want to suggest at least from my purview it’s an issue of
semantics something that I need to better understand. The house obviously is in existence so I
don’t think the numbers (inaudible) drastically at least for the application but just so that I can
better understand for this application and perhaps future the tie line meaning.
st
FRED WEBER : I think even if you look at this revised the October 31 when we originally
th
submitted and then the November 20 revision date was to correct that distance to the
Building Department and (inaudible)
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That’s something I’ll research and then another question regarding
sanitary systems. Do you want to talk a little about sanitary, on site waste water, pool de-
watering etc.?
FRED WEBER : As far as the sanitary system, we have submitted that to the Health Department
and have kind of gone through their preliminary review. They’re now waiting for all the other
approvals because we have to check boxes saying we’re going to the Zoning Board and we’re
going to the Trustees so that’s all basically they’ve approved the sanitary aspect of it but they
won’t grant a permit until we get through all the other parts of the process. Now as far as the
pool, I really did neglect to show a backwash drainage ring which we would add. I know that
?
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
was actually on the LWRP as well. I mean there is plenty of property it’s not going that we’re
going to have the issue of locating it’s just a matter of (inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything from you?
MEMBER LEHNERT : I have nothing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric?
MEMBER DANTES : No I think it’s pretty straightforward.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the
application? Got anything to add Gail?
GAIL WICKHAM : I do.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Also you can maybe just for (inaudible) IA versus traditional systems.
GAIL WICKHAM : I’ll leave that to them. Abigail Wickham representing the applicant. I just want
to tie in a couple of your standards to what was just presented in terms of the town code. First
of all there’s not going to be an undesirable change in the neighborhood because this property
has a lot of wooded frontage well far away from the road. The houses are and the accessory
buildings are and will be down in an almost a courtyard configuration. Neighbors won’t see it
and it won’t impact anything. If you push the pool further back you’d have to get rid of some
big trees, do a lot of digging and what not. So I think that there really is no feasible alternative
to really comply. You would have to make the house a long railroad and push things back up the
hill. It wouldn’t make sense. It’s not substantial. It’s eleven percent in terms of the pool. The
house addition is substantial in terms of distance back but it is on its existing structure. There
are no adverse impacts. The LWRP set forth that. I do want to just want through quickly the Soil
th
and Water. I know that the inspection was made on January 14 so dead of winter, a few areas
of bluff issues which I’m sure Mr. Burger will address and take care of. They ask for roof runoff
containment, that’s all being addressed and I don’t know that there was anything else
significant. Ground disturbance there was concern about that so that’s going to be addressed
and equipment kept away from the area in question. There are towers, the neighbor to the
south has a tower. There are others in Nassau Point galore. I do think that the property has a
strong bulkhead that is in excellent condition. This is a very sheltered area (inaudible) from
storms. I’ve always called it Fisherman’s Cove it’s not as Horseshoe Cove, it’s not as Old Cove
and it’s protected by the Nature Conservancy Barrier beach from the what do you call that Long
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
Tree Island from the (inaudible) southwest storms and certainly protected from the northeast
storms too. The third thing I wanted to address is there are a few decisions I found in the
Nassau Point area to support this variance. One is 7243 Vanston Bear which I think it might be
the (inaudible) property from describing it. There they totally took down the house and
replaced it and there were variances for insufficient setback for a house and pool. The 7003
which was Abrams in 2016, again totally took everything down. They actually had bluff
instability and they had an approval from you based on those considerations. The 7128 Negri,
your amended decision in 2018 pool was 51 feet from the bluff either the bluff or the bank I’m
sorry I don’t recall which but either way it was much closer and Hermer in 2018 7117 an
addition over an existing dwelling was approved by you. I’m sure there are more so if you have
any other question I’ll be glad to address them.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Gail would you submit the priors just for our
GAIL WICKHAM : I have them right here.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you so much.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you kindly have a look at any variances that might have been
issued for swimming pools that are nearby the Google map
GAIL WICKHAM : Yes. I don’t know that these are those but we will do that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don’t think they are. I think those were different variances but we
do so many
GAIL WICKHAM : I couldn’t get into Laser Fiche to download.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But it would be helpful if we had any of that information for our
record. Anything from anybody else, is there anyone in the audience wishing to address the
application? Did you want to just talk a little bit before I make a motion on this to close address
the sanitary system whether it’s an IA or whether it’s a conventional system and what you’re
applying for.
EUGENE BURGER : It’s a conventional system and it’s quite (inaudible) in capacity obviously set
way back, very sandy conditions there so it should function. As far as the other system I happen
to have some of those on other properties that I own and there is a bit of a maintenance issue
for me, expensive. I don’t see a need to have it at this particular residence.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Board has typically where brand new construction is being
proposed especially if it’s anywhere near waterfront has been conditioning approvals for
variances based on the installation of an IA system. I think however we look at things a little
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
differently if it’s an existing dwelling already and it’s being upgraded so I just Nick is right we
should just discuss it on the record.
EUGENE BURGER : No I understand, I really feel I’d like to stick with what we have designed, all
the design work is done, it’s already submitted and approved and you know so it’s just another
added expense. Like I said I have two of these systems and I’ve had to already go back and
replace pumps and stuff, very expensive. I know everyone is pushing for them and I get it from
an environmental standpoint but I think that you’re going to find a push back moving forward
when people start realizing the problems that come up from this and the expense to operate
these things when the pumps go. Having two of them (inaudible) I’d rather on my own personal
house have a nice natural flow you know and I am very environmentally conscious you know
that’s the type of person I am and I like you know I’m trying to keep things back and tucked in
so I’m not blowing it off don’t get me wrong but like I said I have two of them already in
operation and they’re expensive.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just the last question, within the Suffolk County Board of Health
application for your wastewater, what size system are you applying for?
FRED WEBER : The application is for a seven bedroom house, there’s a 2,000 gallon septic tank
and then there’s two eight foot diameter times nine foot six deep leaching pools.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) two or three bedroom house of
EUGENE BURGER : No I think we oversized it so that it has there’s a good sandy spot that we’re
removing the old system this way there’s on issues.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the
application? Alright I’m ready to close, hearing no further questions or comments I’m going to
make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of any additional information on variance
relief for the pool setbacks in the neighborhood, is there a second?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING # 7271 – THOMAS KENNEDY
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Thomas Kennedy #7271.
This is a request for variances under Article III Sections 280-13C and 280-15, Article IV Section
280-19, Article XXIII Section 280-123A and 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s October 30,
2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for permits to legalize “as built” additions
to an existing single family dwelling, to an existing non-conforming accessory cottage and to an
existing non-conforming tool shed at 1) “as built” addition to a single family dwelling is less
than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, 2) “as built” accessory structure
(deck) is located in other than the code required rear yard, 3) “as built” additions to the
accessory cottage is not permitted pursuant to Article XXIII Section 280-123A which states “a
non-conforming building containing a non-conforming use shall not be enlarge or structurally
altered or moved except as set forth below, unless the use of such building is changed to a
conforming use”, 4) “as built” addition to tool shed located less than the code required
minimum rear yard setback of 5 feet, 5)”as built” changing room and shower attached to the
existing tool shed is not permitted at 12005 Rt. 25 in East Marion. Is there someone here to
represent the application? Please come forward and state your name for the record.
THOMAS KENNEDY : Good morning, Tom Kennedy.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning. So, all of the what relates to the pre-existing non-
conforming accessory cottage and the dwelling are all having to do with a deck addition that
connects the two of them is that correct?
THOMAS KENNEDY : Correct, yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we have a single side yard setback at 3 feet where the code
requires 10 feet. This is considered an enlargement as a consequence of attaching it to the
dwelling via the deck and we have an accessory building that’s supposed to be in the rear yard
but it’s attached by a deck so that would be the cottage and we have a non-conforming tool
shed with an “as built” setback of 2 feet from the rear property line where the code requires 5
and the Building Department has determined the changing room and shower is not permitted
as attached to the shed in addition to its setback. I think that covers all of them, is that correct?
THOMAS KENNEDY : That’s correct.
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What would you like us to know about this project? Is there anything
you want to tell us?
THOMAS KENNEDY : The only thing that I can really tell you is (inaudible) with the deck
attached to the cottage now I purchased the home for my dad who is 87 and he has a very hard
time walking and is very unstable getting into the cottage and he spends a good amount of time
there so I just try to make it very simple so he wouldn’t fall or trip or anything so he goes right
into that existing building.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you have a certificate of occupancy for that guest cottage I
believe?
THOMAS KENNEDY : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think it’s #Z10595 July 22, 1981.
THOMAS KENNEDY : Correct. The only other thing I can say is with the shower in the back, the
original inspector I think it was Gary Fish and he inspected it and he just required that I put in
the proper drainage for the shower and he didn’t really mention anything else and I went
forward with it and thought everything pretty much was okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me just mention that it’s clear that the property the large
rear yard that you have abuts undeveloped property at the rear.
THOMAS KENNEDY : Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) extensive landscaping so none of these changes are in
anyway visually impacting the road or any adjacent neighbors so my question is why are you
before this Board now? Is it just because you went to apply for a building permit for the deck or
what?
EILEEN WINGATE : Hi. Eileen Wingate. I helped him out with his building plans. When we went
for our final inspection to close the building permit for the house the Building Inspector said
well you’ve gone beyond and you’ve attached the deck so they did issue the building permit for
the house contingent upon us going to ZBA to ask for permission to keep the deck and the
shower house as is. But it was about construction of the front house that triggered us being
here today for the side deck.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let’s see if the Board has any questions, Pat we’ll start with you.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric?
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob.
MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Shocking. Anyone in the audience wishing to address the
application? Hearing no further questions or comments I’d like to make a motion to close the
hearing reserve decision to a later date, is there 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 # 7272 – TRACY MINUCCI/WHITE CAP NORTH FORK, LLC
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Tracy Minucci/White
Cap North Fork, LLC #7272. This is a request for a variance under Article XXIII Section 280-124
and the Building Inspector’s December 6, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application
for a permit to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) more than the code
permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% at 16500 Main St. in New Suffolk. Would you state
your name please for the record.
JASON PETERS : My name is Jason Peters owner of North Fork Pool Care.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is a proposed in-ground swimming pool.
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
JASON PETERS : Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The lot coverage is proposed at 28.4%, the code permits a maximum
of 20% and the total existing coverage is 25.6% is that correct?
JASON PETERS : Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The pool will add 2.4% for a total of 28.4%. This is proposed on a
conforming location with a 13 foot setback. What else would you like us to know about the
application?
JASON PETERS : The application itself the location of the pool is placed in that area because we
have a few things that kind of drive that location versus the access. Second would be
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Excuse me a moment, could we just be on the same page with which
survey we’re looking at or we’re looking at for where the proposed pool location is, there were
two (inaudible) two different locations.
JASON PETERS : One that is 16 feet off of Main St.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is the one dated excuse me the most recent revision is March 14,
2019.
JASON PETERS : Correct.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you.
JASON PETERS : So that location being closer to Main St. is because there are utilities running
from the house the cottage, electric, water and gas. In that location as well is a small water
feature. In the pictures you can’t really see it but now that it’s in full bloom it’s absolutely
stunning and it actually breaks up the area that would view in the pool area. On that Main St.
there, there are arborvitae that are on the property currently that are larger in size just about
eight feet so once we’re done with construction we plan on bordering that (inaudible) to create
coverage between (inaudible) with those arborvitae to keep it out of view both from Fourth St.
and from Main St. The equipment pad is located on the backside of the two story house. That’s
to keep the decibels down and we’re planning to put a sound deadening box around it. The
pump creates about forty five decibels so basically the same sound as a washing machine or
dryer so there shouldn’t be much noise coming off this system whatsoever. The lot that is to
the east of the property is not built on so it is vacant at the moment but there is a six foot fence
to keep (inaudible) as well so it should be very difficult for passersby to view that area without
having to approach the fence and peek through the arborvitaes so it should be out of view of
the neighbors. The other locations issues with the cesspools. So on the Fourth St. side of the
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
property a cesspool there as well so approximately to those within 20 feet so we feel that the
location of the pool is pretty optimal where we have it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m looking for the what was the most recent the survey with the
most recent date? I have July 13, 2018. That’s not very close to the road.
JASON PETERS : No there can I come up? This is the newer survey that was my hand drawn.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see. Well we have the survey. She just gave it to me. This is the one
that I got.
JASON PETERS : I’m sorry yes we did change it because of the utilities we moved it. We changed
the location so I updated so (inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s why I don’t have it. It’s still in a conforming location.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The pool doesn’t require a front yard setback, it’s conforming?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No the location of the pool is in well actually let me think now what
does it say here? We have a lot coverage and that’s basically it doesn’t say anything about the
location of the pool or setbacks for the pool.
JASON PETERS : No because of the two roads it borders the two sides in a certain scenario you
get to choose or deem what the back yard is.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s what I’m thinking.
JASON PETERS : So it’s on either side would be considered the back yard.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s why I’m saying it’s in a conforming location. It is considered a
rear yard ten foot is a conforming setback from a property line so the only thing we’re really
looking at is lot coverage. Okay let’s see if the Board has any questions, I’ll start with Rob.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Can you speak to any other applications or variance that we have given in
the neighborhood for lot coverage of this size?
JASON PETERS : Not to my knowledge. I didn’t come prepared for that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I can tell you that there are a number in the New Suffolk area
not too far from that property and do you require them Rob?
MEMBER LEHNERT : There’s just knowledge, I know the one we denied across the ball field less
than a year ago.
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
JASON PETERS : Yes in that area on Jackson St. which is just behind it I have personally six
clients on Jackson. Lot sizes vary in size so I don’t know distinctly that they required variances
but just in that proximity alone I have seven clients up and down Jackson and a couple that are
just across the street.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is a pretty unique property. It’s history is unique and you know
it’s different from a typical residential property. It’s residential but it’s more of a commercial
use, it’s a hotel/motel (inaudible) and I guess it’s a fact that it’s a legally pre-existing cottage
that’s on the property so that really is where the lot coverage you know it’s become excessive.
MEMBER DANTES : I thought the one we denied was new construction where they were
leveling the whole lot.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think it was.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And that was also they were applying for new construction or
demolition with new construction plus a garage/pool house plus the pool.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes. So that’s rather different than here’s the existing and we’re
increasing it by 2.4%.
MEMBER DANTES : I would like to dig up those variances though cause I know there’s a bunch
of them. There were some that were similar to this.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that’s a little homework that’s all. It’s just a matter of giving for
our record giving us background that we can enter into the decision about comparable lot
excessive lot coverage in that area. It doesn’t have to be for a swimming pool. You could look at
other pools but it’s really about the size of the lot and the lot coverage cause that’s what’s
before us. It’s not the swimming pool that’s the issue and the pool is what size, 30 by 14?
JASON PETERS : Yes ma’am.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just because I’d like it in the record, is there anything you could
possibly remove from this property that would reduce the lot coverage?
JASON PETERS : Currently the standing structures that are there the front porch and the framed
garage everything else that’s on the property is we are removing one wood deck area. I don’t
really think that counts as lot coverage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea well it would.
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
JASON PETERS : There is currently a it was on your first survey it’s a wooden patio it’s about 10
by 10 on the first survey it’s there. We’re actually removing that that’s why it doesn’t appear on
the second survey. So that’s being removed at the moment.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It doesn’t appear that they’ve changed either it didn’t count. It
should, a wood deck generally does count. Pavers are of grade and they don’t calculate as lot
coverage but usually wooden decks are included in the calculation of lot coverage.
JASON PETERS : Yea it’s more or less a platform. It’s a deck it’s going to be removed. It’s 10 by
10 so that’s being removed when we do the construction if we do the construction.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I don’t think it was counted on the survey here cause the lot
coverage on both surveys is the same so removing it didn’t reduce the proposed extra lot
coverage.
JASON PETERS : Everything else that’s there is framed house or framed cottage nothing else
that if we removed more or less to reduce the coverage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from the Board anybody, anyone in the audience
wishing to address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I’m going to
make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision subject to receipt of prior variance relief in
the adjacent neighborhood. 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)
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
HEARING # 7273 – DIANE ARPAIA
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Diane Arpaia #7273. This
is a request for a variance under Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s
November 8, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize “as
built” additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code
required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet at 1900 Wunneweta Rd. in Cutchogue. Would
you state your name for the record please.
CHARLES SOUTHARD : Good morning, my name is Charles W. Southard Jr. registered architect
435 Bay Home Rd. Southold. My client Diane Arpaia.
DIANE ARPAIA : Diane Arpaia the homeowner at 1900 Wunneweta Rd. along with my husband.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. So the “as built” deck and screened porch has a side yard
setback of 12 feet, the code requires a minimum of 15.
CHARLES SOUTHARD : That’s correct, yes. The house was built in this fashion with a 12 foot side
yard. The deck that the new sunroom is built upon was also built at the same time and is legal
has a certificate of occupancy. The homeowners erected a sunroom porch over the top of the
existing deck and then put a new deck to the rear of the existing deck all of them with a side
yard of 12 foot.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And how is it that you’re before us now? Did you have a building
permit to
CHARLES SOUTHARD : No this was built without a building permit so we’re going to legalize the
existing construction.
MEMBER DANTES : Was the sunporch built on the building permit or just the deck?
CHARLES SOUTHARD : The sunporch is not it’s part of the application now. The deck that it sits
upon was built with the house and has a C.O. the sunporch does not.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What about the hot tub that is there? It’s not before us but I want to
make sure that it can be drained into a drywell.
CHARLES SOUTHARD : It can be.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there an existing drywell on the property?
CHARLES SOUTHARD : There are existing drainage wells yes.
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric questions?
MEMBER DANTES : Would you accept a condition that the deck shall not be enclosed and
always remain open to the sky?
DIANE ARPAIA : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat any questions?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob.
MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in the audience wishing to address the application?
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 LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
HEARING # 7277 – STRITZLER FAMILY TRUST
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Stritzler Family Trust
#7277. This is a request for a variance under Article XXII Section 280-116(A)(1) and the Building
Inspector’s December 21, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to
construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than
the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff at 955 Soundview Ave. (adj. to Long Island
Sound) in Mattituck. Are you here to represent the application?
PETER STOUTENBURG : Peter Stoutenburg, Environment East. I filed the application and I
wanted to make sure we crossed all our “t’s”.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let’s enter what the variance into the record the variance relief
requested. This is for construction, additions and alterations at 84.3 feet from the top of the
bluff where the code requires a minimum of 100 feet and let’s see the addition is landward of
the existing house. So we have obviously had variances on this house before
PETER STOUTENBURG : A year ago.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes and that was I guess December 21, 2017 and we granted a bluff
setback of 57 feet for expanded living area. So tell us this change which is on the landward side
of the house what does that involve and why are you here. You made some changes I guess
from the original application?
PETER STOUTENBURG : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well then why it says proposed new, existing access proposed
PETER STOTENBURG : We filed two other permits one for a non-habitable pool house I guess
they call them and a pool (inaudible). This is to connect that to the house. The permits were
granted and this fell within you know too many feet of the bluff. There are a set of stairs that
only don’t expand anything from the existing deck. They’re actually the deck is going to be
turned into a set of stairs on the roadside. All the work that we did on the last variance was
within the footprints that existed. It was a kitchen, the deck that was already there and a
bathroom under the deck that was already there.
MEMBER DANTES : So I’m looking at A01 on the architectural plans, is your variance for this
little it looks like the deck, (inaudible) stairs and a mud room with bench/(inaudible) closet coat
closet, is that all you’re asking for?
PETER STOUTENBURG : That’s it.
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : So the existing screened porch is not part of the variance?
PETER STOUTENBURG : No that’s all been (inaudible) all outside the 100 feet.
MEMBER DANTES : Okay existing house and the existing deck is not part of this variance?
PETER STOUTENBURG : No.
MEMBER DANTES : Those were my only questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat any questions here?
MEBMER ACAMPORA : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob.
MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions.
MEMBER DANTES : Wait I have a question, do you have a copy of the old variance (inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we have it in the file.
PETER STOUTENBURG : I had a permit on that (inaudible) but nothing beyond the existing
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the additional construction is basically to connect the dwelling to
the swimming pool area?
PETER STOUTENBURG : Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay anything else from anybody, anyone in the audience wishing to
address the application? 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 LEHNERT : Aye.
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING # 7279 – TURKLAN ARKLAN
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Turklan Arklan #7279.
This is a request for a variance under Article XXII Section 280-105 and the Building Inspector’s
January 14, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an “as
built” six (6) foot high fence in the front yard of a single family dwelling at 1) more than the
code permitted maximum four (4) feet in height when located in the front yard at 55 Eastward
Court in Mattituck. Is there someone here to represent the application? Please come forward.
Would you tell me your name please.
ARKLAN TURKLAN : My name is Arklan.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Arklan okay. So we see that you live on a corner lot that you’re on a
side street and on the Main Rd. and just to make sure that you understand the town code only
allows a four foot high fence in a front yard. The side and the rear yards can be six feet high but
the front yard needs to be four feet. So we see that you got a Stop Work Order that you started
to put in your fence to enclose your property. What would you like us to know, what would you
like to tell us about this fence?
ARKLAN TURKLAN : Actually I moved out here from Virginia. Normally you can make over there
six foot fence and then I ask a couple of people. I should ask town not the people I know. They
told me I can make it if you don’t pass the I make the sides not the front and then I (inaudible)
people that you can make it if you don’t pass the corner of the house. Then I make it (inaudible)
I hear two (inaudible) of my neighbors you know and then like and I need more privacy because
I have a lot of trash and then when people go to work especially people who are going early in
the morning (inaudible) drop there and then my kids play football cause I live close to the
school and they have a lot of friends. A lot of times (inaudible) going to highway and that’s why
I built for more privacy and more security for safe.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well part of this fence is perfectly legal. Some of it is in your side
yard and some of it is along the rear yard. It’s when you get past your house going toward Main
Rd. then that’s where the problem starts. It’s all considered a front yard. If you would like to
come up here I can show you here what is okay and what’s not okay. So this is your survey right
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
so here is Eastwood Ct. and here is Main Rd. Your house is here so this is okay, this is okay and
this is okay. As soon as you get to your house the back of your house this would be okay too
because it would be behind your house but anything along here and along here and going back
here is considered a front yard. See this is the front even though your house faces this way
ARKLAN TURKLAN : That’s what I’m thinking
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea well this is north this is natural. Most people would think
whatever way my house faces that’s my front yard this is but this is not all back yard. I’ll show
you here, I’m doing this for me too. This would be okay actually you have a wire fence here
now. I don’t know how high that is.
ARKLAN TURKLAN : When I buy house I buy like eighteen months ago
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was there already?
ARKLAN TURKLAN : I see like two six foot fence was there too. When I buy house it (inaudible)
there six foot fence like here and here. (inaudible) start from here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This was a six foot high wood fence. It wasn’t legal but I can
understand. So the question is it’s this part here that’s the problem. You can put four foot, you
can plant tall evergreen trees to make it private. You can keep the volley ball or whatever the
soccer ball in with plants and with a four foot high. I know you have dogs you want also to
contain. I guess they would have to be in here someplace.
ARKLAN TURKLAN : Believe me my dogs is like 145 lb. (inaudible) shepherd dogs and I want to
make a swimming pool and if I make swimming pool they don’t have space and my kids have no
space for play you know that’s why I don’t want to only to corner of the house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let’s see if the Board has any question. I mean perhaps if you
move that fence back from Main Rd. you know I do understand when somebody happens to be
fronting on a very busy street
ARKLAN TURKLAN : Can I say something? I just discussed with my neighbor last week I
(inaudible) really like my neighbor has across the street my neighbor has jeep we can’t come up
from road because they block we can’t see block your front and very dangerous and he told me
same thing that please don’t plant trees and that’s why I (inaudible) too. You can’t see when
you come out from road. It’s a very busy road.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well here’s one of the things you can do. Right now the fence that
you have partially finished is actually just on your property line. So if you wanted to plant
bushes on the road side you could not do that because you’re not it’s not your property so you
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
would be planting on the town’s shoulder and you would be creating a visual obstruction. So
one of the ways that this could be addressed depending on how the Board feels about it is, that
portion of the let’s see this part of the let’s see that’s okay, that’s okay isn’t that right Bill? So
here but that’s still going to be in his front yard you know even though it’s in the rear yard here
it’s just this whole are is just complicated. If this got moved back considerably yea I’m just
thinking if this if we let this go you know so that it increased it a bit but we had more of a
principle setback; the Board has a precedent of having granted six foot high fences in front
yards as long as they meet the principal setback of the dwelling. Let me explain what that
means. The code requires your house to be on this sized lot I guess it’s still 35 foot front yard
setback, if you move the fence it won’t be your whole property but if you move that fence from
say the road Main Rd. if you move it 35 feet back I don’t know where that would come out
cause it’s not showing on here anybody have a scale?
ARKLAN TURKLAN : Like a four panels.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We’re going to tell you we’re going to show you.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : He’s saying the panels are about ten feet each.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you move it closer to your house away from Main Rd. if it’s at
least 35 feet from the property line then we have allowed this to happen before because you
could build a house 35 feet from Main Rd. legally.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : He just scaled it. Four panels are (inaudible) and have plantings.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea, yea oh perfect. Come on back here and I’ll show you what we
mean. Here is Main Rd., here is 35 feet from your property line okay so if you move what you
put here over to here right and then bring it back this way. I think the Board would give
consideration to allowing that even though it’s not allowed by code we can we have the power
to allow you to do this anyway but because again Main Rd. you can put shrubs here plenty of
room for that. It means you take 35 feet off of your enclosed area.
ARKLAN TURKLAN : You’re saying even (inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you see what you already have put in, if you pick them up and
move the whole thing to here and then add the rest of them here and come back here. I think
what you’re going to have to do is instead of this here right Bill instead of it here it would have
to be here. Let me show you, I’m marking on his copy but if you do this and this then you can go
all this. You see? Now this is still not legal but we can give you the authority we can grant it so
that you can get it
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
ARKLAN TURKLAN : I move if I move fence it’s going to cost me (inaudible) trash this fence
cause we break it. Can I do from here to like here from corner cause I trash that fence?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I wouldn’t mind. Let me show this to the Board. Even though it’s a
front yard it’s still behind this so let me show. It’s the side of this thing. Even if he would plant
there’s plenty of room for sight lines. Would you like to see this? Please state your name as the
neighbor.
RAY ZANESKI : My name is Ray Zaneski, I’m the neighbor of Mr. Arklan. My only complaint was
about the trees my concern was where the trees. He mentioned he was going to put trees and
that fence already on the line as it is and if they put those trees there’s no way when you try to
pull out I mean if you were there. If you look at the left hand side there’s this big hedge it’s hard
enough to see there when you’re going across from the east to the west if you add more trees
and they grew it’s almost impossible to see there now. I mean sometimes it’s like hairy carey to
pull out.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know and safety is everybody’s concern and yours too. You have
kids you know.
RAY ZANESKI : That was my only
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me show you come up here and we’ll show you what we’re
suggesting. This is a 35 foot from the property line on Main Rd. and we have a precedent where
we have allowed six foot high fencing even though all of this is considered the front yard so is
all of this cause it’s a corner lot. If it meets the principal setback, if you could build a house here
we figure it’s not such a big deal to put in a six foot high fence.
RAY ZANESKI : So that would be pulling it in from here to here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : From Main Rd. 35 feet. You could legally build a house back here
because all you need is to be 35 feet from the property line in a front yard. So we’re suggesting
that we’ll make it okay for this, this, this, this and this. I think the majority of your property
would be enclosed and you could still put your trees there with plenty of room so it covers it
and you will have your enclosure that’s secure and for your kids and your dogs and whatever. I
tell you what, we’ll give you this copy and what we’re going to suggest that you do is go back to
the surveyor and just ask the surveyor to change the location of the fence to see that okay.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : You should make the neighbors cut their bushes on that left hand side.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seriously. You know what you should do, I’m serious you should call
the Highway Department.
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
UNAMED SPEAKER : You don’t want to start if you didn’t complain for the last twenty years but
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m sorry we have to have this on the record but this has nothing to
do with this application however I’m on a corner lot myself and I have literally had to trim back
things radically for the same reason on my property because there’s a stop sign. It’s not a main
road but there’s a stop sign and people can’t they have to creep way past the stop sign out into
the intersection almost in order to see which is what your problem is. So you do have every
right there is something in the code that says you have to have a thirty percent cone of vision.
So they really might have to cut them way down or they’re going to have to move them back or
something because it is dangerous.
ARKLAN TURKLAN : When they make a right (inaudible) push all the way down cause how
(inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea. Okay so now do you understand what we’re suggesting? If you
get the what we’re going to do is ask you to submit a new survey with the fence there. It’s still
going to require a variance. It’s still going to require that we approve it but we will call this an
amended application in other words you changed the location of the fence from original to the
new location and then once we have that survey we can write up a decision and I believe that I
can’t speak for everybody on the Board, we have to vote we have to write it up but I believe we
will look more favorably at that kind of an application and you won’t have to move very much
of the fencing that’s already in.
ARKLAN TURKLAN : I have to bring the new survey (inaudible)?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What you need to do is go back to Nathan Taft Corwin back to the
surveyor, show him that drawing and just say would you please show the fencing he doesn’t
have to change much cause you know what he’ll have to do is just take this out a little bit out
you know and add just show him that drawing and just say this is where I want to put my fence
now would you please change the survey to show the fence just there.
ARKLAN TURKLAN : Okay I will take new survey to Town Hall.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You take it to her office the Zoning Board office and as soon as we
get it we’ll be able to write up a decision. So the sooner we get it the better. I mean I don’t
know how busy he is and how long it’s going to take. Do you want to just leave this open until
we see what we get in case there’s a something confusing or do you want to close it subject to
receipt what do you think?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Close it subject to receipt.
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The only thing just confirmation of some sense of plantings I think.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay yea that’s a good idea. If you propose to put evergreen trees
on the roadside of the fence.
ARKLAN TURKLAN : Green giants.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s fine. That’s the one thing the deer don’t seem to eat any
other arborvitae dead forget it. Would you ask the surveyor to also show a row of evergreen
trees where you want to put them so that everything that you want to do is going to be on the
survey so that when we say okay we know exactly what you’re going to do and so does the
Building Department. Anyone else in the audience wishing to address the application?
ERKLAN TURKLAN : My name is Erklan Turklan I am his son, I was wondering if we get rid of the
fence could we plant like trees near the border or close to it instead of the fencing and have like
a metal fence behind the trees?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A four foot high yea. That would actually be conforming to the code
and yes the answer is you could but the trees would have to be planted on your property not
the roadside but inside on your property line and yes you could put up a four foot high fence
metal fence there or wood fence and that would not require a variance. You still would require
a variance if you want to come forward I’ll show you on this drawing
MEMBER DANTES : Leslie if they’re planting green giants they need a real setback from the
property line cause green giants grow out.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I mean they get really big so you don’t want to create a visual
obstruction. You don’t want to put them along here because then they’re going to be growing
out this way onto the shoulder so you’d have to set them back around here (inaudible) around
here someplace.
MEMBER DANTES : At least (inaudible) feet
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea probably 15 feet because they do get really wide so what we’re
suggesting and your dad will show you is to put the fence like this. This is 35 feet from the road.
That would give you plenty of room to put a line of and we would allow you to do I think a six
foot high here if you wanted since you already have the panels but it would mean moving a bit
over here that you already started to install back here. We’ll let you keep this and you would
put it all along here all this is okay.
ERKAN TURKLAN : So if we decide we can plant trees like this we leave this part and put the
trees here and getting rid of the side?
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No you could leave this. Whatever is in yellow you can have not
here. We need to keep that 35 feet clear and we’re doing that because the Board has especially
if you’re on a main road it’s consideration. If it’s a corner lot sometimes traffic is terrible and
privacy is difficult and sometimes people put swimming pools in there and they really need the
privacy so we’re here to be reasonable to allow you to do what the code doesn’t automatically
allow you to do if there’s good reason. Do you understand what we’re suggesting?
ERKLAN TURKLAN : Understand.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean to me if we’re willing to grant you some 6 foot high fence
and you already have the panels most of them I would stick with that instead of throwing the
money away you know but I’m just speaking for myself because we all each have one vote on
this Board. Anything else from anybody?
RAY ZANESKI : Just one other thing, I just want to add to the
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The neighbor just submitted a letter to the Board. Kim will make
copies but it’s basically saying that they have no problem with the fence it’s just the sight lines,
planting any evergreens and so on. But moving the fence farther away from the road will give
you plenty of room to plant trees so that the fence is not visible from the road without being a
problem for safety.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : And I would say that everybody on the street should call the Highway
Department with regard to making that left hand turn because even if you want to make a right
hand turn you still have to look left and you can’t see a thing. I mean it was scary when I, I mean
I just gunned it out of there. The Highway Department will come and do something about that
because I’ve seen them do it in other places.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They will contact the proper
MEMBER ACAMPORA : And you don’t have to feel bad about it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the very least you can do is have them come out and have a
conversation and see what’s involved before any decision is made because we all want to keep
ourselves safe. Is there anyone else in the audience no I think everyone in the audience has
already spoken. Hearing no further questions or comments I’m going to make a motion to close
this hearing subject to receipt of an amended survey. Is there a second?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING # 7276 – SHAWN P. FITZGERALD REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Shawn P. Fitzgerald
Revocable Trust #7276. This is a request for an interpretation pursuant to Article III Section 280-
13(A)(1) and the Building Inspector’s December 14, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an
application to amend a building permit #41621 (construction of an accessory pool house) for
“as built” interior alterations at 1) as to whether an “as built” structure constitutes a second
dwelling unit by design located at 495 Paddock Way (adj. to Wolf Pit Lake) in Mattituck. Would
you please come to the podium and state your name please.
PHILIP BUTLER : Thank you madam Chairwoman, Philip Butler with Farrell Fritz here for the
applicants. I’m joined here today by Shawn Fitzgerald and also Sal Ionni he is our architect. I
have a handout for the Board if I may hand this up. Just to go over the table of contents that
th
you have in front of you, I provided a copy of the Notice of Disapproval dated December 14, a
copy of the current zoning code which defines one family dwelling as well as a chart that I
prepared, a copy of the most recent survey that was approved by the Suffolk County
Department of Health. There is a floor plan; it is a (inaudible) floor plan which shows you the
floor plan of the pool house as it was approved according to the current building permit and
what was subsequently changed over the course of construction. You’ve also been provided
with color photographs in case any of the Board members have not been to the property and
viewed the pool house. Then finally there is a copy of a prior decision from this Board from
November of last year which was a significantly analogous case to the current one. So just to
give the Board a little bit of background on this, the property previously had a pool house and a
pool. There was an indoor shower in that pool house. My clients decided to knock down and
reconstruct the pool house with an outdoor shower and a new pool. He went to the town, he
got a permit, the plans were approved and started construction. During the course of
construction there were certain changes that were made to the floor plan. We felt that they
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
were innocuous changes at the time and if you take a look at Exhibit D I’ve highlighted for you
the changes that were made. The direct changes the red markings signify the things that were
removed and the yellow markings signify the things that were added. So it was added to the
floor plan was a microwave, a dishwasher, an island and an air-conditioning unit. So once my
client went to close out his permit and get a C.O. the official from the Building Department saw
the pool house felt that maybe it was a little bit as they put it too nice and felt that it possibly
constituted a second dwelling in violation of the code. So they recommended that we come to
this Board for a determination as to whether or not it’s a dwelling perhaps get relevant
conditions place on it so that it couldn’t be used as a dwelling and proceed in that fashion. So
that’s why we come before the Board today. We’re basically seeking a determination just for
that under possible conditions from the Board this will not constitute a second dwelling and
that it is in fact a pool house (inaudible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I will make one comment at this point. We are not able legally based
on case law to put conditions on a code interpretation which is what this is. We did do that
once and found out the hard way that an interpretation is based strictly upon whatever the
code is at the time and that conditions are irrelevant. I do appreciate the offer.
PHILIP BUTLER : It was something that was discussed I was just binging it before the Board.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I believe everybody has done a personal inspection an interior
inspection. If not everybody almost everybody on this Board has seen the interior. Let’s see
what questions we might have. Well you went through the history, there’s you know a C.O. July
1994 for an accessory pool house that was granted back in the day. There’s a prior ZBA for a
new accessory garage in a non-conforming yard, May 2017 a demo and reconstruction of an in-
ground pool with a building permit and we see this is very helpful, thank you for your
memorandum showing the changes that took place. Is the microwave that was added is it built
in is that microwave convection oven or just a microwave or you don’t know?
PHILIP BUTLER : I actually asked my client and I was told that it is a standard microwave and it’s
actually you can pull it out it’s just plugged into the back it’s not built in.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now I understand that why the shelving in the half bath is as deep as
it is because obviously that was an existing shower of some sort or tub.
PHILIP BUTLER : I believe so yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that makes sense cause that was the first thing that we look at
and we say whoops. That’s the deepest towel I ever saw in my life and we know there’s
plumbing there of course (inaudible) an issue and the unit that’s in the ceiling that is air-
conditioning?
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
PHILIP BUTLER : Yes. I haven’t seen it personally but yes. If I may madam Chairwoman I know
there’s perhaps some concern for the town I know there’s a huge issue with Air B&B and all
that these days, I know the town recently enacted a transient rental law in 2015, I represent
several villages myself we’re doing the same thing. I just want to say if there’s any concern of
that with this Board my client has invested obviously a considerable amount of money in this
property so I can assure this Board I will represent and I’m sure he would be happy to represent
that this is not going to be a rental. I don’t think he would do such a nice job on a pool house
only to have some stranger sitting in it during the prime times of the year and using his pool. It
just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. That being said you know I understand can’t have any
conditions placed on this that would maybe give you that additional comfort but you know this
is going to be his pool house. He’s actually downsizing he’s selling his home his full time home
in I think it’s Clandor Manor and downsizing so this is going to be his only property so if that
gives the Board any comfort here I would like to offer that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I should also just relay something else, although you know that
there is no definition of cabana/pool house in town code so people have been left to their own
devices as to determine what it is (inaudible) probably accessory to a swimming pool if you’re
calling it a pool house but other than that there’s been no guidance for the Building
Department or for this Board or for the town and as a consequence this Board has proactively
with the assistance of the Town Attorney and the Building Inspector attempting to address that.
However at this point we can’t really do a code interpretation because we don’t have one to
interpret of what constitutes a pool house. What we would have to do in this instance is
overturn the Notice of Disapproval from the Building Department and to say that that Notice
was issued in error in our opinion.
T. A. DUFFY : It wouldn’t be a discussion whether this constitutes a pool house or not it would
be it does not constitute a dwelling.
PHILIP BUTLER : Right and to (inaudible) that we can the existing definition of dwelling under
your code says it has to be at least 850 sq. ft., this is 445 and it says it has to have complete
housekeeping facilities. I mean just going through the list this doesn’t have a bed, it doesn’t
bedroom, doesn’t have a separate room aside from the bathroom. It doesn’t have a cooking
surface or a kitchen. I mean it has you know what we discussed a kitchenette area but we’d be
fine representing as a bar cause it’s not (inaudible) for cooking. Maybe heating up some taco
dip or something in the microwave. We also don’t have closets for storage so I mean it really
doesn’t have a lot of the indicia of a (inaudible) and again it’s not going to be used I will say to
the extent of your code has requirements for accessory structures this was designed in full
compliance with your accessory structure requirements so I mean we started with what was in
the code and then it kind of morphed with these changes that I guess the Building Department
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
felt it was just a little bit more than what a pool house should be. So yes we’re just asking for a
declaration that it’s not a second dwelling and we understand that the town in currently in
process of adopting a definition of a cabana but I was advised by your attorney that you know
since we applied when we did that we will be grandfathered under the existing code rather
than possibly being subject to
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s correct. I think at least we’ve clarified specifically what the
parameters of what we need to be doing here to address the application. Did you want to say
something?
PHILIP BUTLER : Sorry we just had one other thing, we know that there’s an open building
permit it actually expires tomorrow. I spoke with the Building Department and I understand this
Board’s purview is in building permits but we were told that that was going to be helpful
(inaudible) and we’re not going to be renewing that or basically doing anything with that permit
pending the outcome of this hearing so I just want to let the Board know we do still have
technically a valid building permit that we’re going to have to close out one way or the other.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright well we meet twice a month so after this public hearing, the
difficulty well this bring this up the difficulty in part is that although you correctly followed the
instructions which allowed for mailings which said to either use one set of you know an address
from the Assessor’s office or the other and as a result you did not follow you followed the
instructions correctly but we’re going to have to fix that because what happens is as a result is
that there are different mailing addresses than street addresses so I think there are seven
neighbors that were not able to be aware of the fact that there was going to be public hearing
on this application today. However it’s a little bit different, you’re not asking for a variance. It’s
a little different kind of quote code interpretation/notice of overturning of the Disapproval so I
think in fairness what the Board should do is we heard your case, we’ll hear if there’s anybody
else who wants to say anything and then I think what we’ll do is adjourn this to next month
simply so that you can complete the mailings and in the event that anyone wishes to be heard
which we don’t know we will have that opportunity and then we’ll close the matter and we will
write a decision and the decision will be written by the next meeting most likely that would be
two weeks after.
T. A. DUFFY : You can try and have the drafts that
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we can do that. We can expedite it I mean you know we don’t
want to hold up anybody beyond what is a reasonable but legally we really have to allow the
public to be heard if they choose to be and it was not through any fault of your own but we will
correct that so that we’ll make it clearer to future applicants that the mailings need to go to a
mailing address and where to find that.
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
PHILIP BUTLER : I just note a very respectful objection to having to re-notice considering that
we did follow the instructions but we will absolutely re-notice and we’re happy to come back
and address the comments that any neighbor might have at that time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay fair enough. Anything from the Board at this point? Is there
anyone else in the audience who wishes to address the application? Hearing no further
th
questions or comments I’m going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to June 6 at 1:45.
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 # 7275 – SV GREENPORT, LLC
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for SV Greenport, LLC
#7275. This is a request for an interpretation pursuant to Article I, Section 280-4 and Article
XXIV, Section 280-127 of the Town Code and the building inspector’s October 17, 2018 Notice
of Disapproval relating to proposed construction of hotel/motel transient units with kitchen
facilities; 1)as to whether the current restrictive definition of hotel or motel transient requires
the applicant to remove the existing kitchen facilities in existing units on the subject property or
if the applicant may continue to use, maintain and renovate the existing kitchen facilities in the
units on the subject property and 2) as to whether the applicant is subject to site plan approval
from the Town’s Planning Board upon property located at 59725 CR 48 in Greenport. Welcome,
please state your name for us.
JOHN WAGNER : Good afternoon madam Chairman, my name is John Wagner an attorney with
Certilman, Balin, Adler & Hyman Hauppauge, New York representing the applicants. I have one
extra green card that came in.
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is basically either code interpretation and or appeal
overturning the Notice of Disapproval from the Building Department.
JOHN WAGNER : That’s correct. I don’t want to belabor all the nitty gritty points that are in the
application. We try to be as thorough as possible in our written presentation that we included
with the application. I mean in essence we have a facility that’s been there since the 1970’s.
The application of the building permit was in 1973 it was granted, a certificate of occupancy
was granted in 1975. The units from the beginning have had kitchen facilities in them and we
now are in the process of trying to basically brush these units up a bit to bring them into the
modern era and make a few changes there. In the course of trying to do that the Building
Department has taken the position that you must before we give you a building permit remove
the existing kitchen facilities. Our position is that we have a right to continue them and that’s
(inaudible) to do. We’re not trying to do anything structural to these units but just want to
continue to have kitchens and by the way I did include with the application color photos of the
facilities. You can see that these are not insubstantial kitchens. They have been there I mean
(inaudible) in my home but there they are and you know I’m not trying to expand the footprints
of the units at all. We’re not moving structural walls around or anything. We just want to bring
these up to snuff and the (inaudible) agrees and I only raise it because it was in the Notice of
Disapproval was that the Building Department said it would require site plan approval for what
we’re trying to do. I think other than (inaudible) of the code it is not required cause we’re not
doing anything that is going to change the characteristics of the site in terms of parking or
drainage or anything like that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Site plan was approved in 1973 I believe.
JOHN WAGNER : Yes for this original building that’s right and I can give you a copy of that as far
as the (inaudible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have a question about the number of units. If it’s possible I’d like to
see if you can verify whether or not the original C.O. was issued in error for eight units. I think
you could look at Suffolk County Health Department approval for sanitary for ten units. If we
can verify that Suffolk County Housing inspection in 1973 for ten rental units; those inspections
took place and the existing C.O. is a little vague. I mean it says motel transient dwelling.
JOHN WAGNER : There was a number on it that was (inaudible) I don’t understand crossed out I
don’t know (inaudible) what it originally said that was redacted but I think the original building
permit submission all we can do is look for what papers we have. The original papers I was able
to locate applied for eight units, I don’t know what happened after that probably during the
course of construction but for some reason the C.O. ultimately issued did not have a number of
units on it. I think it did in the first typing of it but they crossed it out for reasons we don’t know
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
but the official record does not specify a number of units. The reality is as you notice there are
ten units there now and there is documentation of ten units in the history of this property.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just wanted to clear that up.
JOHN WAGNER : Believe me I turned over everything, I want every piece of paper that might be
relevant to this that’s how we located the site plan and by the way you have very excellent
records on line to look at.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have some comments from the Planning Board, did you receive
those comments?
JOHN WAGNER : I did not.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Kim would you make a copy for counsel. Well let me summarize two
comments and I’ll make sure you have a copy of this. They were questioning whether or not
there was a necessity for sanitary upgrade, sanitary system upgrade; it was a question not
saying one way or the other and then they’re saying that the there’s a difference between year
round rental apartments which would virtually replace this position of being an apartment
building and a vacation transient motel related use. Can you address that?
JOHN WAGNER : First of all with regard to sanitary upgrade, we’re not looking to change the
occupancy of these units at all. They’re going to continue them the way they are so I wouldn’t
see any need for that. I’m not aware that we’re trying to do anything that’s going to increase
sanitary flow there. Second with regard to the occupancy times and iteration of occupancy,
transient non-transient use I have from the former manager of the premises who unfortunate
could not be here today due to health issues that these units traditionally were essentially
rented on a well might call transient basis during summer months when there’s a tourist
population coming into town and then during the off months would be rented on a more
permanent basis basically it’s apartments. I think that the Certificate of Occupancy is somewhat
consistent with that state of affairs because it specifically the Certificate of Occupancy actually
lists apartments in parenthesis on it. I think there was an acknowledgement there something
was going on at different times of the year. That really has been the way these units have been
used over the years. What I propose to you is that in spite of the health problems of this
particular individual that I can probably get an affidavit from her that would verify everything I
just said. I’m going to ask for that affidavit I would ask you as well if you mind to keep the
record open for thirty days so I can get you that document and while we’re on that topic I also
would like to submit a very short memo of law on the legal issues. I won’t belabor you with that
now but just some of the applicable principles for this. Like I said we try to (inaudible) in the
application with all of the code sections that pertain but I think I answered both of your
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
questions as to what and we’re not looking to change anything we’re just want to continue
what we’ve always had and another legal issue with regard to the transient non-transient
nature is that you know the code has changed over time as you know. You now have specific
definitions in your code for transient, motel and resort motel and it’s interesting because the
first one the transient one motel today does not allow for kitchens. Resort motel does not have
that prohibition so I mean the way this has been operated over the years if you would try to
stuff it into one of the current definitions it’s probably more akin to a resort motel than
anything else because it has those kitchens but the reality is back when this was approved back
in 1973 the code at that time did not have any restrictions on length of stay and I can tell you
from my experience (inaudible) in other towns there seems to have been a (inaudible) change
that happened in the early seventies. A lot of towns suddenly decided that they want to put
restrictions on length of stay so right around the same time for example the Town of
Southampton I think it was in 1970 changed their code to put strict occupancy limitations on
motel rooms. So I mean this town sort of followed suit but at the time that everything
happened here those restrictions were not in place. They’re there today but our position is that
we’re not subject to those. We should be able to continue our historical occupancy and use.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that what your client is proposing to do to continue on the same
basis as historic precedent?
JOHN WAGNER : As I understand, yes. We will continue to use these as motel units and you
know they will be rented out as such. I’m not sure what the exact structure will be, probably a
manager that takes care of that but that is the proposal.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And it would be less of a lengthy stay during the season, is that what
we’re saying and I just want to make sure I understand you correctly that based upon whether
it was in our out of season, the in season rentals were shorter duration and then over the more
quiet months they were more long term but that would maybe be several months, six months,
seven months.
JOHN WAGNER : I can’t tell you how long probably on an as need basis depending who is willing
to take up and you know it’s probably I think if everybody would agree it’s probably better that
the units have somebody there to watch over them you know in the off months than to be left
vacant; anything can happen in a vacant unit but the reality is you know as I said before you
have a large tourist population that comes to town in the summer and they have a need for
these such units and that’s why they turn over rapidly.
T. A. DUFFY : A much longer tourist season now than we did in 1977.
JOHN WAGNER : True we have shoulder seasons now that’s happening everywhere.
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let’s see if there’s any questions that the Board might have, Pat do
you have any questions on this?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric.
MEMBER DANTES : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just so I have it entered into the record, what is the scope of the
proposed renovations?
JOHN WAGNER : The scope in terms of
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you changing the footprint in any way?
JOHN WAGNER : Oh no, no.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not expanding the number of units?
JOHN WAGNER : Not expanding units.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Primarily interior renovation?
JOHN WAGNER : Yes we’re not changing any structural walls or anything of that nature.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any new windows or doors?
JOHN WAGNER : That’s a good question.
UNAMED SPEAKER : Not at this time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it’s primarily cosmetic.
JOHN WAGNER : Upgrading I would call it; updating, upgrading.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright. Let’s see Nick any questions?
MEMBER PALAMENTO : No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob.
MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to address the
application? Based upon your request I’m going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
next Public Hearing date to obtain additional information and enter into the record an affidavit
th
or whatever else you wish. That would then be June 6. I doubt that we will need a hearing.
The intent would be to close it at that time with a draft decision on it.
JOHN WAGNER : I’m sorry to interrupt, I was just proposing to have written submissions and I
wasn’t planning to introduce any additional testimony.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know we could just close it subject to receipt of additional
information why don’t we just do that. That’ll give us more flexibility without writing a decision.
Motion here is to close this hearing subject to receipt of an affidavit and any other additional
information that the attorney wishes to submit. 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 # 7283SE – RONALD and ANN SMITH
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Ronald and Ann Smith
#7283SE. 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 measuring 830 sq. ft. in living floor area at 1530
Camp Mineola Rd. in Mattituck. State your name please.
MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good afternoon, Martin Finnegan; Twomey, Latham, Shea, Kelley, Dubin
and Quartararo 56340 Main Rd. Southold for the applicants. I would just like to hand up to Kim,
we have one last green card and apparently the recipient is deceased we’ve been advised so I
just wanted to. So I’m joined here today by the applicants Ron Smith and their daughter
Rebecca. I just wanted at the outset tell you a little bit about Rebecca who is a certified yoga
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
instructor and therapist working here in the Town of Southold. She has three jobs at the North
Fork Yoga chalet, the Underground training gym right up the street here and the Peconic
Community School. She also in her spare time is employed as an organic farmer at Sang Lee and
despite having four jobs she like many young adults in our town is faced with the challenge of
trying to find an affordable place to live and that really is what brings us here today. Her
parents are coming here seeking the Special Exception to legalize the “as built” accessory
structure and create a home for Rebecca. A little bit about the property and I know some of you
did have the opportunity to inspect it. It’s 1.8 acres in the R80 zone. It’s bounded on three sides
by residential properties. Across the street is the Norris Estate which the part adjacent to across
Camp Mineola Rd. from the Smith residence is PDR land pretty much vacant open space. The
property is currently improved with a two story single family residence and accessory
garage/pool house that we’re here to talk about and a dilapidated barn. All structures on the
property are in conforming locations. The Smiths reside in the single family residence and
continue to do so. The original structure was a garage that was C.O.ed in 1976 that was
converted in 2004 with an application and building permit in 2004 and it was converted into the
structure that's there today and a Certificate of Occupancy for a pool house was issued by the
Building Department in 2006. At that time the plans for a pool were under consideration. Due
to circumstances of the family and a bunch of other reasons they had to scuttle the pool project
and life went on from there and essentially what happened was eventually the interior of that
pool house structure was modified in a way that you have observed to provide living space for
Ron’s mother who became ill and required assistance until the time that she passed. So as I said
previously we’re here to seek Special Exception to legalize the existing structure to provide
housing for a family member. So the accessory apartment itself is 830 sq. ft. of livable area. I
believe that was verified my Mike Verity, all on one floor, one full bath, one bedroom. The site
plan that we submitted with the application confirms that there is room for five on-site parking
spaces on the property. The structure is serviced by its own septic system that was approved by
the Health Department. We did submit a survey with a stamp on it you saw it?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We all have.
MARTIN FINNEGAN : Excellent I have other copies if anybody needs it. AS mentioned if
approved the apartment will be occupied by a family member and Ann and Ron will continue to
live at the house as their primary residence. So we will require a variance for the livable floor
area. I just want to hand up a memo. So the standards for the issuance of the Special Exception
approval we’re seeking and (inaudible) I set forth some more detail in the memo I’m not going
to site chapter (inaudible) here today I just want to address why I believe that the Smiths are
entitled to I have met those standards they are entitled to relief here. As is said we need the
area variance the existing structure is 830 sq. ft. where 750 is the allowed. Those of you who
had the opportunity to inspect the apartment can attest to the fact that there really is no
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
feasible way to modify the layout of the apartment or the existing space to eliminate that 80 sq.
ft. The structure itself is on a parcel that’s nearly two acres in size. All the structures are in a
conforming location. I would submit to you that under the circumstances here I don’t believe
here that the 80 sq. ft. variance is substantial. We’re talking about a variance for interior space.
It’s not going to have an impact on the character of the neighborhood or create a detriment to
nearby properties. In fact if I may I’d like to hand up letters in support that we have obtained
from six essentially all of the surrounding contiguous neighbors have offered letters in support
of the application. Those are all the originals. I don’t have copies for everybody.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s fine she can scan it and send it to us.
MARTIN FINNEGAN : So as for the remaining requirements for the issuance of a Special
Exception the documents that we submitted in support of the application and here today I
think confirms that (inaudible) that we have an accessory apartment that is on its own floor,
one bathroom one bedroom. We have three available parking spots. There’s only going to be
one accessory apartment on premises. The septic system is approved by the Health Department
and only for that structure. The residency occupancy requirements I think have been
established. I do have an affidavit that I can submit for if you just want to question Rebecca or
Ann or Ron just about that (inaudible). There is no question that that is their primary residence
for Ann or Ron and will continue and it’s only going to be rented to a family member.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Typically we would have in our record there’s no concern about the
veracity of this application. We just need to have documentation for the submission
requirements to prove you did submit some information a utility bill I believe and driver’s
license. There are a number of these that come before this Board and so we’ve been actually
asking for either STAR exemption, for redacted tax return something to really show principle
residency under the name of the owners. That’s easy to do and then some documentation of
relationship if it’s a family member. Certainly the affidavit and the fact that the daughter is
present here is sufficient I think for that. Sometimes they put in birth certificates or marriage
licenses or whatever. So all I need is to have a little more information about permanent
residency of the Smiths and maybe they want to come up and I can just ask them how long
they’ve lived there and so on and just enter that into the record.
MARTIN FINNEGAN : Would that be sufficient for your purposes without the
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you still want have you know the tax return or the I think if we
have testimony see sometimes the applicants you can’t personalize these. It’s not fair to say oh
we know you and we don’t know you.
MARTIN FINNEGAN : No they can certainly Ann has been actually dying to come up and testify.
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Whoever wants to. Just so that we have something in the record to
indicate.
RONALD SMITH : Ronald Smith 1530 Camp Mineola Rd. Mattituck.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So how long have you lived in your
RONALD SMITH : We bought our house in 1985.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And is this your principle residence?
RONALD SMITH : It’s our only residence yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s your only residence therefore it must be. Anything else the
Board would like to know about this? Do you intend to continue to occupy your home?
RONALD SMITH : Oh I hope so yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don’t we ask Rebecca to come up. Just state your name please.
REBECCA SMITH : Rebecca Smith 1530 Camp Mineola Rd. Mattituck.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And it is your intent to live in this accessory apartment on your
parents property?
REBECCA SMITH : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else the Board wants? Well I’m glad to see somebody
finding a place to live who is not sixty or older. That’s the kind of housing we need a lot more of
actually in the area. Anything else from the Board?
MEMBER DANTES : I have a question. How come this is more of a Building Department
question, how come they didn’t ask to get a variance for the extra 80 sq. ft.?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I can answer that. They don’t go to the Building Department and
that’s why I send over this form to the Building Department because they are qualified to
calculate the livable floor area in conformance or not in conformance with the 450 to 750 and if
in fact we get something that says it’s over or under I use that as a de facto Notice of
Disapproval for variance relief which we simply do as part of the Special Exception because you
couldn’t get the Special Exception unless we gave you relief for that standard.
T. A. DUFFY : It’s a little frustrating but any Special Exception not just accessory apartments
cause the Building Department says because the ZBA has original jurisdiction they won’t look at
the plans at all (inaudible) Notice of Disapproval.
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the livable floor area is my way around that. I mean I wish they all
went through the Building Department frankly but at this point
MARTIN FINNEGAN : We’re fine with it coming right to you Leslie it’s okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : At this point Special Exception permits so we have original
jurisdiction so that answers that question.
MARTIN FINNEGAN : Anyway just to wrap it up, the use and occupancy of the apartment is not
going to violate any of the standards of 280-142 or 280-143. I don’t think it’s going to implicate
any of those concerns and I think the letters would support from the neighbors pretty much
confirm that the granting of this Special Exception is not going to have any adverse impact on
the privacy and use (inaudible) of the adjoining parcels and character of the neighborhood. So
with that I would ask on behalf of the Smiths that the Special Exception be granted.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to
address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close
this 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)
HEARING # 7244 – RONALD COONS
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Ronald Coons #7244.
Since this was adjourned from March I don’t need to read the Notice of Disapproval again. Mike
welcome back.
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
MIKE KIMACK : Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant who unfortunately could not attend.
He had a serious medical condition but his son is here and Mark Schwartz the architect is here. I
nd
would address basically the letter that I sent to you on March 22. With some of what you
would like to do the things you were looking for us to reorient the building and we had
objection to that and in my letter I pointed out I gave you a google aerial map primarily which
pretty much illustrates the existing conditions or the existing locations and orientations of all
the existing houses. It’s a very small area. The lots are very small. These houses were built in
the thirties and if you can address yourself you can see that they all pretty much align the same
way. I also put another aerial photography in there showing that we did swing the house as you
had proposed that we do we would not only lose the direct line of sight to the water we’d be
looking to the house in front of but we would also block the visibility of the house behind. One
of your other concerns was that the size of the garage being at 16 feet it really is effectively a
12 foot garage because if you look at the drawings themselves internally there’s 4 foot of
staircase against that in order to get from the garage up to the house. So there’s only really 12
foot which is a standard one car garage internally. Basically the character of the neighborhood
is pretty much defined by the existing orientation and to ask us to reorient it even though it
may lessen the rear yard setback it would basically be out of character to a fairly significant
(inaudible) that’s already been established in the neighborhood which would really be against
criteria one and criteria five. I’ll ask Mark to make some comment.
T. A. DUFFY : Before you do that Mike I just want to say for the record the letter did not say that
you wanted see anything or they wanted anything or had any concerns. The letter asked you to
consider any alternatives that would make this more conforming and gave some suggestions of
what things you may want to look at. They did not tell you they wanted to see anything or said
they had concerns about the size or anything.
MIKE KIMACK : The point is that we really feel that the location the existing location as it now
sits on the original foundation and the way it’s oriented is the only
T. A. DUFFY : That’s not what you said. You got up here and said the Board wanted something
and had concerns but that’s not what the letter said.
MIKE KIMACK : Well my understanding was that the Board was looking for us to reorient the
building to be parallel to the
T. A. DUFFY :That’s not what the letter said. The letter said consider any alternative to make it
more compliant and some things you may want to consider could be these. It didn’t say we
wanted you to reorient the building or had concerns about the garage.
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think it was just a suggestion an example of how you might
consider less variance you know
MIKE KIMACK : I took a look at it and I didn’t realize when I began to look at trying to swing it
basically as the suggestion would I think swinging it because of the very narrowness of the
property is because of the configuration and location of the other houses change is not only the
position of the house but the visibility of that house and also the house behind and it does
change the character. So our position is that we feel that building on the existing foundation on
that same location would be in conformance with the criteria more than trying to offset.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay why don’t we hear from Mark.
MARK SCHWARTZ : Mark Schwartz architect for the project. I’d just like to say that the owners
had asked me to design something that’s conforming with the neighborhood. We kind of did a
one and a half story design four feet knee walls and try to keep it as narrow as possible and
pretty much with the same footprint besides the garage is you know it is an extension. I think
it’s a nice design for the area. I don’t see any issue. There’s no neighbors that are against it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have to see if I have my notes from the last hearing here. I just
want to enter into the record what the actual variance requests are. It’s a front yard setback, a
rear yard setback but I don’t know what they are. I’m looking to see if I have my old notes. All
the Notice does it says it’s not a conforming front yard or rear yard. The Notice of Disapproval
says exactly what that is so do you know what it is offhand, does anybody have that?
MARK SCHWARTZ : I believe it’s front and rear yard. Lot coverage is fine we’re at 17.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I know that I just want to know what the numbers are.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : 35 feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s conforming, 27.8 for the front yard setback the code requires
35.
MEMBER LEHNERT : And 10.7
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the code requires 35. Well the Board just wanted to actually I
think we were a little (inaudible) instead of closing it and really thought gee there might be
some way to make those setbacks more conforming and to give you an opportunity to talk to
each other and see if there isn’t a way to improve the proposed setbacks. What’s the depth of
this lot?
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
MIKE KIMACK : Well the deck goes across the right of way which there’s one house in the front
which actually utilizes it. I’ve got 97 feet on an angle on one side.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s 88.79
MIKE KIMACK : If you go straight back on a right angle that would be appropriate.
MEMBER LEHNERT : It scales to about 82.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright well let’s see what the Board has to say about this again
(inaudible) try to delay the process but to find out if there was something that you can come up
with that would improve the reduce the amount of variance required. Rob do you want to ask
any questions?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Yea I have a question for Mark. The garage the need for the steps I mean is
there a way to bring a garage floor up closer to the finished floor elevation thereby shrinking it
taking some of the 16 feet out?
MARK SCHWARTZ : We’re stepping up about 2 or 3 feet up to the first floor so that would be
difficult not impossible but I don’t know if we can go slide up to the grade that high and step
into the house. It was also an issue with (inaudible) step up anyway
MEMBER LEHNERT : The code says you need one step up cause that would eliminate the need
for the stairs.
MARK SCHWARTZ : I guess that’s a possibility. We’re at 17.2% so lot coverage you know within
its conforming. I know it’s front and back is the issue but I don’t see that side as an issue as far
as I know the neighbors are okay with it. You know the site is tight with the septic system and
the dry wells so we’re really it’s tough to shift the house in any way.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The shed is existing it’s there it’s in that location at the moment.
Quite frankly there’s plenty of other sheds in the area too, they’re all different kinds of
locations and I think the primary thing is the setback from the right of way more really than the
setback from the rear. I suppose the stairs could go on the outside. It would be awkward you
know the ones that are in the garage. There’s a bilco door on that wall so that has an impact.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is it necessary to have interior stairs?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s a convenience but it isn’t a requirement. People can walk out of
the garage and walk through a front door or something. Well what that would do is reduce 16
feet to 12 feet and what will that do to the rear yard setback?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Nothing you still got the 10.7
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea so that’s not going to really aid in the overall impact. The garage
is really not the problem it’s that corner of the house which is why I believe one of the
suggestions was if you rotate it a little parallel then you’re going to increase that obviously
increase the rear yard setback and you won’t necessarily be reducing the front yard setback by
doing that. That would stay the same or could possibly even be pushed back a little.
MARK SCHWARTZ : We thought as we designed it the 10.7 is the existing setbacks so we figured
we’re not going to go closer than the 10.7 so with the extension of the garage 11.7 we thought
reasonable.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know I believe we talked about the foundation and you
indicated that although you wanted to do the footprint and that general footprint it was going
to be a new foundation. So that’s different than saying I’m building on an existing there it is
can’t be moved foundation. If you’re pouring a new foundation you have more flexibility. That’s
what led to this whole saying that let’s have this conversation together and see if there isn’t
some way to improve the variance relief that’s being requested to minimize it. Was that your
understanding or were you only thinking that we were saying this is the way to do it and that’s
why you submitted what you did?
MIKE KIMACK : My understanding was that you had wanted us to look at an alternative location
just the position of the house as opposed and I did understand that we were putting a new
foundation in and that you were looking at it as a vacant lot as opposed to building on the
existing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s correct we were looking at it as new construction really.
MIKE KIMACK : Well it’s such a tight small lot basically and by the time you put everything else
on there with the new septic system and it’s going to be IA system and the retaining walls and
the dry wells location and it is fair for the client’s perspective to consider that it pretty much
remains in the same location simply from his visibility of the water primarily. I did at the last
minute get a letter from the neighbor behind I sent to Kim in support of the application in
support of the location as it now exists. That’s Mr. Minto owns the house behind.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is the proposed dwelling is the footprint of the proposed dwelling
any different than what is there now?
MIKE KIMACK : No with the exception of the garage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you’re adding a second story on it?
MARK SCHWARTZ : Yes partial second story.
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Partial second story. Anything else from Rob any other comments?
MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no more questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you say you were installing an IA system?
MIKE KIMACK : I thought it was required.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we have been requiring them.
MIKE KIMACK : We might as well talk about it rather than having it show up as a condition. I
suspect and we had informed my client that my expectation was that an IA system would be
required. He accepts that as a reality and that was one of the other issues that Mark had
actually played with because the difference in the overall size of the standard system as
opposed to the IA system added some additional footage and it made it even more difficult to
put everything on that one side and try to make it more
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The survey that we have with the showing the sanitary that’s the
location and is that the area that it’s going to occupy if you put in an IA system?
MARK SCHWARTZ : On the site plan?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes.
MARK SCHWARTZ : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay anything from you Nick?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in the audience wishing to address the application?
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 LEHNERT : Aye.
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING # 7263 – PETER PATINELLA
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Peter Patinella #7263
th
adjourned from April 25 so no need to reread the Notice of Disapproval. So, Mike we asked
you to come back to address since you had not done that the area variance standards that you
would be addressing for new construction if in fact you are looking for the single side yard
setback of 9.6 feet where the code requires a minimum of 10, a total side yard setback of 19.6
where the code requires a minimum of 25, lot coverage of 21.8% where the code permits a
maximum of 20%. We have letters of support from neighbors for the application. The LWRP
coordinator has deemed this to be inconsistent and so the prior ZBA May 17, 2018 approvals
for additions and alterations now need to be addressed as new construction and you still need
Trustees permit right?
MIKE KIMACK : I still have to go back to the Trustees and revisit that issue yes. A little bit I
believe I understand what you’re looking for, the original variance was for a partial demolition
and it turned out for reasons that have already been expressed and justified by the contractor
as to why the house had been taken down. The existing foundation had not changed in terms of
that and nor the floor joists (inaudible) that was in place and the as built dwelling was
constructed on that foundation pretty much in place with the extension of the garage and the
replacement of the porch with an exterior porch and squared up with one corner. The house
had previously existed for some fifty plus years in that exact same location and the new as built
dwelling basically takes up the same essentially the same area. They are narrow lots in there
and they basically the neighborhood is made up of fairly narrow lots. A lot of homes are older
homes basically with pretty much the same kind of problems with the side yard setbacks and
somewhat of a coverage issue. The house basically has the same exact style and composition
that it had prior to demolition and built in exactly the same way. It doesn’t change the
character of the neighborhood because it looks exactly as it did before with the exception of a
few additions etc. in terms of its position, in terms of the location on the property and basically
even though you’re looking at it as a new construction which it is. It’s up in its place. That
particular house the way it’s constructed couldn’t be achieved by anything else other than not
using the existing foundation and having to begin all over again in order to reduce some of the
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
variances. I mean the variances and everything are 10 feet and 15 feet primarily and one side I
think is 10 feet and the other side is a little bit less than 10, 9.9 if I remember correctly.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 9.6
MIKE KIMACK : Yea it was fairly close to it so that would have to basically be reduced by 6 feet if
in fact we were looking at a house being constructed from the beginning if we were looking at a
vacant lot and coming before the Board. Well in a sense if we did that if it was a vacant lot we
would basically conform to the 15 and the 10 so there wouldn’t be any variance required but as
it is the house dwelling does sit on the existing foundation. To have it changed so the side yards
exist as it had existed prior to the take down of the house and the putting it back to it being a
new dwelling. We don’t believe that the addition the request is substantial in terms of the
percentages (inaudible) for the side yard and the coverage issue. In many respects I guess in a
certain amount of defense and this is a little odd but I think I have the in the right direction I
can go back to the original granting of the original ZBA primarily where the house was existing
and it existed pretty much as it exists now with the exception of a few additional changes.
Pretty much that in essence in that particular one they found that the variance would not
produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or the detriment of
(inaudible) properties. The benefit could not be achieved by some other feasible for the
applicant to pursue other than an area variance and you do (inaudible) that the house for fifty
years. That the application proposed an increase (inaudible) 379 square feet which has been
achieved through the as built. The variance basically are not mathematically substantial as it
was determined at that time representing 5% relief from the code regarding the side yard
setback, 12.5% relief from the code regarding the coverage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We also have a total side yard setback variance.
MIKE KIMACK : Between the two.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think he said that 15 is 25 on that size lot that’s required for total
side yard setback.
MIKE KIMACK : The overall is 25 yes and we’re dealing with 10 and we’re
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 19.6
MIKE KIMACK : Yes 19.6 between the two.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There’s three variances.
MIKE KIMACK : Three variances.
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think you can appreciate why if something is existing already the
Board realizes that you’re not going to be able to pick up a house and move it right and if it’s
got a non-conforming side yard then it’s reasonable to say it can continue to be non-
conforming and yes you can put a second story on it or whatever. It’s quite another thing to say
why if you’re building brand new how come you need to have 21.8% lot coverage instead of
20%?
MIKE KIMACK : Well because the construction above the foundation and above floor was new
but the foundation was the same so in a sense it’s different than what we had just been
previously in fact Mr. Coons was taking everything down and putting a brand new foundation
in, this one yes albeit the fact that the permit did not allow the complete take down of the
building. It was construction on the old foundation and I believe the original floor joists were in
place also so the original deck was in place. That’s the difference between the two in essence
and
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are there any other accessory structures on the property I can’t
recall?
MIKE KIMACK : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the lot coverage pertains only to the single family dwelling.
MIKE KIMACK : Yes there’s no shed or anything like that.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And I think it’s perhaps pertinent to point out that the Board this
Board has made a decision. I think it might be pertinent to find out that this Board has made
decisions where there are similar circumstances that relief was not granted that while a
structure was built on top of an existing foundation it’s basically a new structure and therefore
the opportunity would have been remedied though the variance relief requested. So I think
that we’re at you know it’s tough point to make a decision as far as how to proceed especially
in the case here where the house has gone so far above and beyond the scope of the original
relief granted.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I will enter into the record that we did confirm although we had
no documentation of the necessity for demolition we did confirm with the Building Inspector
that the cement block was he did observe that where a silt plate is supposed to be it’s his
opinion that that testimony by the builder was accurate.
MIKE KIMACK : At least from a verbal from a visual perspective that (inaudible)
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Didn’t you say that you’re adding by expanding the existing house by
4.3 feet by 16.4 feet for the garage and covered porch?
MIKE KIMACK : The garage was extended towards the road by 4 feet and there was a porch that
was constructed. The original house has exterior unconditioned porch which became part of
the interior and then towards the road towards the landward side that section of the house. If
you look at the house it would be on the right hand side (inaudible) right hand side of the
garage and then there was a new porch added on to that to replace that porch which became
part of the interior of the house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay cause I’m looking at lot coverage and I’m trying to see what the
house’s original lot coverage was and
MIKE KIMACK : I think the original lot coverage was 18.6 if I remember correctly.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and now you’re proposing 21.8 so was that what you applied for
with the original additions and alterations and that was granted?
MIKE KIMACK : And that was granted, yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright anything else from anybody?
MEMBER DANTES : Would your client be willing to put in an IA system for new construction?
MIKE KIMACK : The owner is here they can address that.
PETER PATINELLA : My name is Peter Patinella, I’m the owner for 440 South Lane. In reference
to a septic system the people who owned the house before us Stern was an engineer and he
did things with an engineer’s mind so we once had a blockage in the ten years we’ve been living
there and I called his daughter who is also an engineer and who constantly assists us in issues of
the old house. It’s impossible (inaudible) it can’t be the septic system the way it’s built cause it
has a what do you call that a leaching field and then the separate septic system shows the
dimensions it’s impossible. Sure enough we called somebody it was something inside. So going
back to the new house situation we understand that you have rules and this is our first
experience with doing a project of this magnitude we never expected. We applied Mike is due
diligence as far as the variance is you saw other houses in the area that are even closer. There’s
a house three or four doors down it’s like three feet away from the other house and it’s a mega
house in comparison. He did his due diligence and he proved to you that this was a norm in our
neighborhood and you approved it. Our builder Nick whatever judgement he used we think he
did it for the right reason. He talked to you about the difficulties it was I don’t understand the
technical terms of that but he never meant neither did we to have a new house. The fact that
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
you continue to call it a new house to me is sort of strange because if we wanted to build a new
house first of all we would have done a four bedroom house which in terms of value would be
would have added another bathroom. This is not what we wanted. We wanted pretty much the
same house and a studio for my wife who writes. Just to have something apart from the
mainstream of the house. That’s basically it. So it was never his intention it was never our
intention. The last meeting you asked all the questions and he explained to you. We’re now at a
point where our life has been held up aside from the financial burden. All we wanted to do is
finish this house and move to here. This is our permanent home and our life is being held back
and I understand again that there are rules and regulations but I believe that all the questions
have been answered so we appeal to you to understand our situation and grant this the permit
to go ahead and continue with our project.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just say thank you for your comments. Let me just make one
statement, we’re not seeing this as a new house we’re seeing it as new construction. There’s
nothing left of the old house. You’re may have rebuilt your old house but it’s considered new
construction because it’s brand new. I mean you didn’t save any of it other than the
foundation.
PETER PATINELLA : Well the subfloor and what Nick mentioned joists I don’t understand the
terms but he explained to you the last time on the record I can’t say anything about that. These
are technicalities that you obviously (inaudible) regulation in the town. We understand and
took responsibility for the fact that the permit wasn’t exactly followed but whatever. I believe
we have paid a high price already for that. This is more than six months behind and again I’m
just appearing on a personal level it’s for the (inaudible) of our life and you can understand the
circumstance that’s all I want to say. I’m not asking you to
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I can tell you that we will have a decision in two weeks that’s
the next time we meet. So that we will be able to do and the reason that Eric was asking about
an IA system is because when anything is now built in the Town of Southold near waterfront in
particular sometimes just wetlands but if it’s anywhere near water and it’s new construction
we’re both the Board of Trustees and the Zoning Board are requiring IA systems because it
improves the reduction of nitrogen loading into the water and the ground water and you know
we all know that it’s terribly important to keep our waters clean and unpolluted as possible and
although they’re not absolutely perfect these systems are designed to really improve old septic
systems, cesspools and so on and we don’t necessarily feel it’s justifiable if someone is just
putting in an addition on their house to ask them to put a whole new septic system but if
someone is building from scratch practically even if it’s on the same foundation then the Board
has said okay well you’re putting in a major investment, it’s brand new construction let’s
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
upgrade the sanitary while you’re doing this big project for the benefit of your neighbors and
yourself and everyone else in town. That’s what he was actually asking.
PETER PATINELLA : I understand.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We didn’t want to surprise you. Mike is aware that this is typically
what both Trustees and ZBA are now doing because we think it’s fair.
PETER PATINELLA : I perfectly understand. Again we try to follow all the rules all the demands
that you made as a result of the variance we’re asking. All the inquiries that you make a
decision as quickly as possible so we can continue and we’ll continue to follow rules that we
should.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. Does anyone else want to testify?
ELLEN ZIMMERMAN : I’m the Patinella’s neighbor to the east. Ellen Zimmerman sorry. I’ve been
watching this construction project go on or not be going on through my kitchen window ever
since it started. I can attest to the fact that there was concrete block in the walls because I saw
it when they pulled off the sheetrock. I can also attest that what I’m going to be looking at out
of my kitchen window is in a no different place as it always was and it’s considerably better
looking now and that it’s consistent with the neighborhood. It’s in fact an enhancement and
what is of greater concern to me is this delay that has an unfinished house sitting there month
after month unoccupied and that has a far greater impact on the neighborhood than if he
finished the house. Even as you know with the slight variances that you know to the current
standards. It’s going to be in exactly the same place the other house was in. If you look at it
from the road you wouldn’t know that there’s that extra four feet in the front it’s the same
house except it’s got nice siding and a better roof. So I urge you as a member of the Old
Orchard Homeowners Association to let this continue as quickly as possible. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mike anything else?
MIKE KIMACK : No I think that was addressed. I think the points are all done. I think the
questions were well asked and responded to thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else from the Board?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea Mike did you bring any prior decisions to support the relief
sought?
MIKE KIMACK : Other than I think in that particular area I brought in the original primarily. I had
looked in the overall area and there wasn’t I did not find specifically ones with coverage issues
in the immediate area. When you say the immediate area you know (inaudible)
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well even maybe extending along the coastline of East Marion for
new construction that has similar
MIKE KIMACK : I can extend out a little bit further. I mean a lot of times when we say
immediate area I’ve always been trying to stick relative to at least staying within the same
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well it should be in the Old Orchard neighborhood without a doubt.
MIKE KIMACK : What I can do basically is I will endeavor to extend the Old Orchard and address
whether or not we have coverage issues that have been granted in the past and side issues.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : For new construction. Thank you.
MIKE KIMACK : New construction may be hard. I don’t think in Old Orchard there’s no new
construction in that area.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s the dilemma and what happened in a nut shell and through
no fault of anybody’s ill will, what happened was what was there and was going to be added
onto turned out to be a lousy rotted crazy material that had to come down. What we have
done as a result just so that you’re aware, we don’t like to take this out on property owners but
the bottom line is we now have put in place when people propose to do additions and
alterations a form that the property owner has to fill out saying I have read the decision, I
understand it, I am responsible if a demolition has to happen we will go to the Building
Department immediately to remedy it to see if you need to come back quickly for additional
variance relief or you now to resolve it. So that you’re put on notice that there is a difference
between an application for the demolition of the house and rebuilding one and what it means
to put an addition on an existing house. This certainly isn’t the first time this has happened in
front of this Board but we want to try to be helpful to property owners who often say well the
builder did it and I didn’t know anything about it or the agent says I helped them get their
variances and then I walked away and I don’t know anything about it and meanwhile we have a
whole new house sitting there or the same house in your case but built new. So, we’re doing
the best we can to inform the public of the difference because the Board approaches variances
on brand new construction very differently, you got a small lot well why do you want to build
such a huge house then. I mean that doesn’t make sense. Do what the law allows or at least
minimize what you want to do that’s beyond what the law allows and have a good reason. The
law is clear it’s spelled out in the state statutes why variance relief is justifiable and that’s what
our decision basically says. That’s the one you’ve got from the prior variances. So I’m taking the
time to explain it just because I don’t want you to think we were purposely trying to hold you
up or punish you for what happened in any way but the bottom line is we are obligated to
follow legal standards and we wanted to give Mike an opportunity to address the variance
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
standards that he would be addressing or anyone would be addressing for a brand new house
you know on a small lot or narrow lot and that’s why we’re back here or we wouldn’t have
asked you to come back cause we did confirm as I think I said at the Special Meeting we did
confirm that it was indeed concrete in the walls and that it was very difficult if not impossible
construction so we at least confirmed without any evidence other than the testimony of the
builder that that was the case. We need to have a reason in our record as to why what we
granted was not adhered to so we have that now and we’ll proceed and we’ll make a
determination and we’ll have an answer for you in two weeks we’ll have a decision written up.
MIKE KIMACK : As a side note though as an expeditor I think I’m beginning to when I have these
situations come up before and I’m putting my ZBA applications together partial reconstruction
or so I’m going to begin I’m looking at it more from making sure I don’t exceed that fifty percent
evaluation. It’s not necessarily going to be a cure all cause it doesn’t necessarily address what
occurred here. Once you open the walls up you find something different but there may be
circumstances where we may be able to find that with all the windows being changed and
everything else going on this and that we’re precariously close to that figure and at least take a
look at it and perhaps ask for a demo to begin with.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s a much better plan.
MIKE KIMACK : A much better plan.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because then you’re safe if you have to take it down.
MIKE KIMACK : And then look at whether or not variances can be dealt with at that particular
time so from my perspective it becomes part of my responsibility also upfront simply because I
can’t allow to go through this whole process and being ignorant of the fact that this maybe now
(inaudible) up front.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And we also told the Building Department if you think it’s that close
to a possible demo write it up as a demo. It’s easier it’s just easier all the way around and then
we all know what we’re dealing with.
MIKE KIMACK : In many respects calling it a demo doesn’t really have any particular affect
depending upon where it’s located and whether or not you have an opportunity to move it
away. I mean yes if it’s within 100 feet of the bluff that I can understand but in most sense it’s
not the case it’s a matter of adjusting a few things but thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay hearing no further questions or comments and no one else
with any comments to make I’m going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision
to a later date. Is there a second?
??
May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting
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)
May 9, 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 : May 23, 2019