HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-06/06/2019 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
June 6, 2019
9:47 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
?
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
INDEX OF HEARINGS
Hearing Page
Theodosius W. Victoria # 7278 3 – 12
Theodosius W. Victoria # 7280` 3 - 12
David and Claudia Garofalo # 7281 13 - 15
Thomas F. Daly, III, Joyce Daly, Margaret Daly, Et Al # 7284 15 - 19
Matthew F. Daly, Robert M. Daly, Marilyn K. Daly, Et Al 3 7285 15 - 19
Michael Smith # 7282 19 - 24
th
905 9 Street, LLC # 7289 24 - 35
East End Realty, Inc. # 7286 35 – 41 & 51 - 58
East End Realty, Inc. # 7287 35 – 41 & 51 - 58
Hound Lane, Fishers Island # 7237 41 - 50
Shawn P. Fitzgerald Revocable Living Trust # 7276 50 - 51
?
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
HEARING # 7278 & # 7280 – THEODOSIUS W. VICTORIA
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for Theodosius W. Victoria
#7278. This is a request for variance under Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector’s
December 4, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to relocate an
existing single family dwelling and convert a portion of the dwelling into an accessory building
(art studio) 1) located in other than the code required rear yard and I’m also going to open
Bruce, the second application because it’s so interrelated. This is application for Theodosius W.
Victoria #7280. Again request for a Use Variance under Article III Section 280-13C, Article X
Section 280-45C and the Building Inspector’s December 4, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on
an application for a permit to relocate an existing single family dwelling and convert a portion
of the dwelling into an accessory building (art studio), 1) proposed art studio in the accessory
building is not a permitted accessory use at 17250 Main St. in New Suffolk.
BRUCE ANDERSON : Good morning, Bruce Anderson Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the
applicant Mr. Victoria who is with us today as is Joe Fischetti who is our project Engineer and
two of the adjoining neighbors are also here. This is a property that contains two building units
now connected by roughly a 5 by 6 foot common entry and an attached deck. There’s a framed
arbor over the deck. The corner (inaudible) if you will or that portion of the deck (inaudible)
unit located along the eastern boundary adjacent to First St. is used as a dwelling unit today
and the attached westerly (inaudible) is used as an artist’s studio today they are physically
connected. This lot contains 10,861 sq. ft. and the problem we’re faced with is the Victoria’s
dwelling unit has experienced coastal flooding having a first floor elevation of 6.3 feet. It lays in
a AE Zone elevation 6 required which ordinarily make it finished floor at 8 feet there’s a two
foot free board that is added on top of the minimum first floor elevation. What the applicant
seeks to separate the structures and relocated the dwelling portion behind it to the south of
the existing studio. The dwelling unit will be expanded by 12 feet or 236 sq. ft. It will
accommodate among things utilities that could no longer be located underneath the building
just what’s typical in people’s basement. The construction would consist of FEMA compliant
foundation, the flow through vents comply with the flood conditions. This little property
(inaudible) I was there about a month ago during a nor’easter and I actually observed a
(inaudible) line which is a debris from the sea and actually it floods across the town park a
considerable distance several hundred feet across First St. and even up above the sidewalk
there. So this is a real problem it obviously was flooded during Hurricane Sandy so there is a
need to raise at least the dwelling portion of the structure to comply with FEMA. Joe is here to
describe any of the proposed improvements and if you have those questions I will refer to that
and Ted Victoria is here to answer and explain or describe any of the use of the structures etc. if
you have such questions. The history of the parcel is that it the original use of the property was
for a private one family dwelling and a restaurant we provide you with that 1959 C.O. The
?
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
restaurant use was abandoned and the structure was used as a dwelling unit and the survey
record in the Building Department indicates that you had two detached dwelling units on this
10,000 sq. ft. property. In 2000 and 2001 a rear deck was added to the easterly load unit and
the two units were connected by this common entrance which is what you see today. Then in
2003 there was an alteration of windows and installation of a new gas heater to the dwelling
unit. In March of last year I met with the Building Inspector to discuss the option available to
the applicant to regulation of this. We were given three options. The first one was to raise the
studio with the dwelling and deck (inaudible) two structures and under that circumstance I was
told you would need Health Department approval and a building permit approval. I understand
that part of this application involves the abandonment of two cesspools that are located
adjacent to First St. that do not comply with the regulations maintained by the County Health
Department. The second options given to me was to raise the studio and leave the studio as is
which would require in their opinion a use variance due to insufficient lot area and Health
Department approval and Building Department. The third option was to establish a principal
use, one being an art studio or which is akin to a gallery an art gallery and a single family
dwelling and that would require an area variance because you would have insufficient area you
need 40,000 sq. ft. for those two principle uses in this hamlet business zone which this property
th
lays. (inaudible) Health Department and Building permit. When you look at the December 4
Notice of Disapproval proposed converted accessory building does not conform (inaudible) sq.
ft. lot two front yards in the hamlet business district is not pursuant to Article X Section 280-45C
which says (inaudible) to the accessory conservation low density R80, R120, R200 and R400
districts. Just so you know hamlet business a single family dwelling is a permitted use. So that
accessory building structure or other accessory uses shall be located in the required rear yard
and here the studio portion is between the relocated one story house and (inaudible) replacing
it in the front yard. I was inquiring as to similar cases and I was given reminded actually of an
application known as Howell (inaudible). I remembered it because I was involved in it and I’ll
hand this up to you because it demonstrates what the Zoning Board’s you know how I feel
about Zoning Board cause they have to think about all things real abstract and this is an
interesting case. In that case I actually worked on that in 2000, ’99 I guess and the applicant had
a barn he wanted to convert into an artist’s studio and he had two bathrooms one was a half
bath and one was going to be a three quarter bath and the Building Inspector didn’t question in
terms of a unpermitted use in the it’s in a residential zone with the same the Notice of
Disapproval when you read it carefully you’ll see it cites the same language here and the
interesting thing about this case was that at no point did anyone question the studio use. What
was in question was because you had two bathrooms this was more (inaudible) single family
dwelling. As it turned out the artist was blind and I guess his partner occupied the premises and
they needed the bathroom because the barn was physically detached from the principle
dwelling and so the Board ruled that the artist’s studio was permitted and the bathrooms were
?
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
okay and that he had you know the special needs which of course he did so a building permit
was given and later C.O.’ed for that. I give that to you because I think although it’s not my
decision this Board could move in the same direction as was done in that case if you so choose
to do so. So, we might say that the artist studio is accessory to the principle use and we can sort
of side step the whole about a use variance which I would recommend and I would say that if
we did that it resolves a lot for the area and I will say that the zoning as hamlet business in this
particular area is probably not great zoning for the area because it has very severe parking
limitations to it. The lots are all grossly undersized and I doubt you’d want business type
activities in that area because it would just exasperate the problems that are already known in
that are but that’s something for the Board to you know think about. From an area variance
standards we listed those in our application and we’re saying that an undesirable change will
not be produced in the character of the neighborhood because it’s really not any kind of
significant expansion. We’re just basically moving the dwelling although we’re expanding by a
very minor amount which we have to for utilities and other things we’re not really increasing to
any significant degree the development of this property. That the benefit achieved by the
applicant can’t be achieved by any other kind of methods because the two structures already
exist on the lot. The amount of the relief requested is not substantial because it doesn’t change
the use intensity or use on the site and the uses whether it’s been self-created or not is
arguable yes but we’re forced to raise the house to comply with FEMA and that’s what sort of
causing this. When we jump over to the use (inaudible) some of the dollars and cents you
should know that if we were to raise the dwelling raise the studio rather to the elevation of the
raised dwelling the studio would loom over the street being separated from the street front lot
line by some 4 feet 4 or 5 feet 4.7 feet from the Main Rd. and you will recall that we had sort of
a back and forth on an application just down the road known as Obsourne and Grella where the
structure had incurred significant flooding causing us to raise the entire structure. If you recall
we removed the first floor, elevated the whole dwelling and reassembled the structure on top
of it but it kind of sits up like a rocket ship on the property. That being separated by the similar
distance 4 or 5 feet by my recollection and there was a lot of community concern about the
visual impact of the structures getting very high in the proximity. So if we were to raise the
studio portion for that to (inaudible) you’re causing that (inaudible) effect on the community
which I don’t think is serving anyone’s purpose. If we were to raise the dwelling unit and the
studio in its present location then you’d have the two structures looming over now two streets.
That’s not a very beneficial outcome (inaudible) either for the applicant or the community. So it
turns out the studio use from a flooding standpoint the contents being basically an open room
with a slop sink and a toilet is much easier to protect in the event of a flood than is the dwelling
portion which contains all of the amenities of any dwelling would have to protect so the hope
here is to obtain the ability to raise the dwelling unit while maintaining the studio in its present
location. That’s what (inaudible) this application.
?
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : May I suggest just a couple of detailed questions here Bruce. The
Notice of Disapproval refers to this art studio as a proposed accessory garage I’m assuming
BRUCE ANDERSON : No it’s a studio.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m assuming that that is an error. I also notice that the proposed
relocation of the dwelling portion that you now have an 11.7 foot rear yard setback. If you look
on your survey, that wasn’t called out in any way but I believe that’s a non-conforming rear
yard setback.
BRUCE ANDERSON : I agree with you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that should be addressed somehow or another. How is the studio
being currently used?
BRUCE ANDERSON : I’m going to let Ted describe what he does. I think that would be the best
way to Ted would you
THEODOSIUS VICTORIA : Theodosius Victoria but you can call me Ted. I’ve had this space now
for up to I think thirty something years. My father used to run the Sip and Dip soda fountain
there and eventually he gave it to me and I had to rip out the whole soda pop thing and then I
was working on the east wing I call the east wing the smaller house and then the west wing we
rent it out. Later on after a few years the person in the west wing passed away and so I took
over that space. It had seven rooms in it and I ripped out all the rooms and used that as my
working space. I mean this is not an open door thing where people can walk in and look at the
work and buy the work. I have a gallery that represents the (inaudible) and in Europe they
handle my work so but I do need a large space for construction. I have a very small space in the
city and that’s what I use it for and a place to put things up and photograph and that kind of a
thing. I work a lot with wood and I do a lot of installation work. I did some work I work a lot
with (inaudible) and I maybe you might have seen the piece I did in Riverhead which was in the
Woolworth Store the old Woolworth Store where I used to hang out as a kid and I went to High
School in Polish Town and whatever and I got the go ahead to take and frost all those windows
and (inaudible) sea monkeys and it was not for about six months and a lot of people had
responded to it but this is the kind of work I do. I mean I have some images in here of stuff that
this is a piece I did at the Aldrich Museum in Richfield Connecticut and I did the same kind of
piece at the Woolworth Store and I did it at a place in New York and three places in Paris and at
the (inaudible) in Venice and so I mean that’s why I have when I took over that space there
were a lot of windows there and I took the windows out and left very few windows cause I have
to work in a dark space in order to work with these projections and make them visible at least
to me.
?
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don’t have any interior plans floor plans and so when we were
doing site inspections I’m sure my colleagues did the same thing I did which was an attempt to
figure out what was going on by looking through whatever window I could get to.
THEODOSIUS VICTORIA : Oh you were over there?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Every application before this Board requires every Board member to
go to the site and inspect the property and the surrounding neighborhood personally and
individually. We don’t go as a group because of open meetings law. So we are all familiar with
the property and the surrounding area. I saw a lot of wood working tools basically. Now so
you’re using this for your own private work, the public is not invited in, there are no gallery
exhibits going on or any of that sort of thing? No commercial sales going on there?
THEODOSIUS VICTORIA : No. I mean you know I might if somebody eclectic comes in and might
look at the work and want to purchase something that’s one thing if somebody from the North
Fork or the South Fork were to come in but that’s very rare. Most of my stuff goes to the
gallery. That’s a very touchy thing too. You don’t want the gallery takes fifty percent or twenty
percent of anything you sell and so you can’t mess around with that too much. It’s usually the
gallery but they bring them to my studio in New York it’s where I have most of the finished
pieces.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you submit material to this Board in two ways, one the
documentation that you are an acting professional artist that that is the way you make your
living?
THEODOSIUS VICTORIA : Yes for thirty seven years I taught art at various universities. I was at
Rutgers teaching there, I was at Kean University, SUNY Old Westbury and but I did thirty seven
years at Kean University where I was head of the program. I had to do that to help support my
work and I can send you my resume which is all exclusive and I have some stuff here I can meet
with you or you can
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would be good. I wonder how the Board feels about an interior
inspection. We don’t have plans, you can submit plans. I want to know I’m sure Joe can draw
them up.
BRUCE ANDERSON : We have plans.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do we have floor plans here? So that’s my mistake. You said there
was a half bath in the studio?
THEODOSIUS VICTORIA : Right now there’s nothing in the studio. There was one there
?
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s showing a half bath.
THEODOSIUS VICTORIA : Well that’s a proposal. I would like to put a slop sink in there and a
toilet.
CHAIRPERSON WIESMAN : Well that’s permitted in an accessory structure.
THEODOSIUS VICTORIA : And that whole front of the building is empty, it’s empty. I mean I have
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The floor plan that we have is proposed not as built so
BRUCE ANDERSON : It’s an empty space.
THEODOSIUS VICTORIA : And I had some stuff stored in there you might have seen that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does the Board feel they want to do an interior inspection or it’s not
necessary?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don’t necessarily need to see the interior. I do have a few questions
though so
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea, yea well I want to make sure Bruce that you go back to Building
and you address the rear yard setback if we’re going to go ahead with this you should also
make sure that we include any variance you might need rather than having it come up later. So
you need to get an amended Notice of Disapproval. So the proposal is to leave the studio
portion where it is and slide the dwelling back and behind.
THEODOSIUS VICTORIA : Or parallel to it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea in line with it but behind it behind where it is now. New septic it
looks like entirely new.
THEODOSIUS VICTORIA : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So from grade to the FEMA compliant foundation, how many feet
with the freeboard are we talking about?
JOE FISCHETTI : Good morning Joe Fischetti Engineer. The existing grade on the property runs
from three to four feet in a couple of corners and the finished floor of the new house is 8.6 so
what was your actual question?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The visual appearance of the elevation of the house from where it
currently sits which is at grade at AE whatever you just said 4 to 6
?
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
JOE FISCHETTI : What happens is if you have the site plan the sanitary system there, okay if you
look on the First St. side that’s where the sanitary is going. So we have a retaining wall there.
The of the wall is 6.5 and pretty much the grade there the foundation on that side you’re not
going to really see it cause the elevation is 6 and it’s probably you’re going to see a foot of
foundation because the sanitary system is going to be filled in so the retaining wall on that side
will be exposed about 3 feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you have a 3 foot high retaining wall and the dwelling portion sits
behind that
JOE FISCHETTI : Goes up to about 7 feet. So it’s going to be (inaudible) the foundation on that
side that you’re going to see from the road
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is about a foot higher than
JOE FISCHETTI : With the grade final grade.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let’s see what questions the Board has, Nick?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Joe you just brought forward in conversation about raising the earth
a couple of feet so maybe you can talk just briefly about the elevations. On the First St. side I’m
looking at the lowest point is 2.3 feet the highest point (inaudible) opposite on the Northwest
corner at 4.2 there’s going to be an addition of a retaining wall what materials will be used for
that wall?
JOE FISCHETTI : Concrete.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It’s going to be poured concrete?
JOE FISCHETTI : Yes.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Any stone or veneer surface?
JOE FISCHETTI : Well it’s concrete cause it’s required. Health Department requires a poured
concrete cause concrete will contain any (inaudible) that comes out.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And I see that’s there a return that I guess is on the south side which
again contains what you just mentioned there. So perhaps this is the answer to the next
question, the applicant offered testimony that it’s not really intended as a commercial space
the studio. He has his residence proposed to be relocated. The parking however is in the front
closest to the studio directly on the corner. I was just wondering why the parking was placed in
that position versus a more common location by your front door or near the kitchen where you
would be able to carry the groceries in. Just to better understand the parking location.
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
JOE FISCHETTI : This parking location can’t be over the sanitary system and the walls taking up
that side the only parking that space doesn’t fit on the opposite side between the existing
studio and the property line. That’s the reason we put it there.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And I think the wall is what you just discussed.
JOE FISCHETTI : Yea you can’t go over the (inaudible) and you can’t have well you can
(inaudible). You’re allowed to put parking over sanitary system but it causes more problems
and you don’t want to do that so we try to keep parking and driveways out of sanitary systems.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And it’s not possible to flip flop the sanitary with the parking area on
the corner?
JOE FISCHETTI : No cause the sanitary is coming out of the house and it’s going backwards. Then
you would have a retaining wall in the front and you’re parking in the back. I don’t allow
parking to wag the tail of the dog which is the sanitary is the most important thing. Here we
have an existing cesspool and we need to design the system as best we can that works. This has
to go to the Board of Review by the way because of the tightness of the sanitary system.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You’re saying Suffolk County Board of Health?
JOE FISCHETTI : Yea because I right now have a distance separation of 6.9 feet between the
leaching pool and the wall, they require 10. It should not be a problem but this was a very tight
site to make it work. So I find no problem with having two parking spaces in the front.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob?
MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions at this time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric.
MEMBER DANTES : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Joe let me ask you a question, is it possible so that the Board and the
public understands the visual impact of these changes on the site to let me see what you
submitted elevations let me
BRUCE ANDERSON : If you look at the elevations
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I want to see where this retaining wall is.
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
BRUCE ANDERSON : If you go to A1 take a moment to look at you’ll see if you go to the top of
the page that’s the studio it’ll be upper right. Now you’ll see elevation 6.3 that’s the finished
floor elevation that exists today. If you then pan your eye to the left hand part you’ll see that
the elevation goes to 8.6 and that is the finished floor elevation. It’s slightly higher. You can also
see at the bottom so if you go to the bottom for example you’re looking at it from the other
direction you’ll see the rear elevation lower left that’s a studio, over right that’s the home and if
you follow that foundation line you’ll see the difference. Again we’re trying to keep this to
comply with FEMA but unlike the other guy trying to park underneath the building if you
remember. We’re kind of avoiding that issue which is problematic if you recall on that other
application and so we wanted to comply with FEMA no more than necessary and we want to
apply it to the house and the rear which effectively reduces the visual impact for the
community.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : To what extent can you assure the Board that this is not going to
result in a demolition? I’m referring to the moving of the, the raising and moving of the
dwelling portion. Obviously the studio portion is staying where it is there’s not going to be a
problem but lifting that and moving it and putting on a new FEMA compliant foundation. What
is the structural condition of the existing dwelling?
JOE FISCHETTI : It’s a structure that’s sound. It’s sitting on a foundation wall that we can lift and
move. We have to take out partially the one end of the house to extend it so I don’t think
(inaudible) I don’t remember where the demolition is I think it was 70% or 50%, we’re taking
one wall off which is the shorter wall of the house so that we can extend that house. It is not
even close to demolition 50%.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cause I don’t have to tell you how many times the Board looks at
additions and alterations that when someone tears into the wall and finds termites and rot and
it’s suddenly it’s no longer there. It’s a brand new structure and we want to avoid that. Better
to say it’s a demolition and a rebuild.
JOE FISCHETTI : I’ve done that before. I’d rather demolish it so that I don’t have that problem
but in this particular case it’s a pretty simple move.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, I had to ask. Anyone in the audience wishing to address the
application?
JOSEPH VANGIE : Joseph Vangie the neighbor next door. I have no issue except for the ground
you know with water issues that I’ve had in the past and I talked to Theodore and we’re going
to raise something so I can take care of that so I’m pretty good with dealing with them right
now and I’m okay with what he’s doing with his property.
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, thank you for your testimony anyone else. 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 PLANAMENTO : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Oh wait a minute back up, back up roll back the video. We need
to get an amended Notice of Disapproval.
BRUCE ANDERSON : We’ll amended and we’re going to provide you with Ted’s resume.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes so why don’t I, I’m just going to adjourn this to the Special
Meeting and give you time to submit that and then we’re going to be able to
BRUCE ANDERSON : That’s fine.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, rescind the previous motion, I’m going to make a new
th
motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting on June 20.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
CHAIRPERSSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
HEARING # 7281 – DAVID and CLAUDIA GAROFALO
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for David and Claudia
Garofalo #7281. This is a request for a variance under Article III Section 280-15 and the Building
Inspector’s November 30, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to
legalize an “as built” accessory deck surrounding an existing accessory in-ground swimming
pool, 1) located in other than the code required rear yard at 7630 Main Bayview Rd. in
Southold.
PAT MOORE : Patricia Moore on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Garofalo who are also here. This is an
application where the Board had previously granted the permit for the pool in its location.
There is a building permit for the pool but when my clients went out to close the permit the
Building Department noted that there was decking around the pool and that had not been
discussed at the hearing but not resolved at the hearing and in reading the transcript of that
hearing my client’s had come a gotten a variance on their own and in reading the transcript I
recognized that the Board was trying to listen from them what are you doing around the pool,
what are you going to use? Are you going to use a patio or decking? They didn’t they just didn’t
get it and then it’s understandable you and I dealing with zoning all the time know that the
material choices relevant on whether or not it requires to be incorporated into the variance or
not and unfortunately that issue of what material would be around the pool just never got
resolved and my client when they ultimately finished the pool and it has a very nice little deck
around it, very reasonable the Board I think would have granted it without any issue just as long
it had been discussed and included. At this point they’ve come back and the application for a
variance for the decking around the pool is before the Board now. When you went out to do
the inspection you can see that this property is unique on Koke Drive. Koke Drive is an
interesting little dead end circular road where several very small lots exist. This lot happens to
be quite large. It’s one of the original lots on Koke Drive. The house has a Pre C.O. so it is pre-
existing in its location and because Koke Drive as a street runs behind the property they are
faced with really a front yard setback all the way around the back of their property and the side
of their property. The right of way on Koke Drive runs behind the house and therefore around
the pool area and then the right of way ultimately opens up in to Main Bayview Rd. The lot
itself is well vegetated, it’s screened. You can’t see the pool or the house from Koke Drive. Also
the elevations seemed a little unique. We don’t have topo’s on the survey but you can see from
your own site inspection the property slopes down as Koke Drive behind the property where
the vegetation is and it evens up around the side where the right of way then connects to Main
Bayview Rd. Placement of a patio there on grade I think would have resulted in needing some
retaining walls so I think regardless they would have ended up here because if you end up with
a patio even on grade with retaining walls the Building Department ultimately says well the
retaining walls are a structure and therefore you need setbacks. So one way or another
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
whatever material was used around the pool would have ended up here I think ultimately. As I
said the pool is built, the decking is built and they just need to close out the permit and once
the Board I hope grants this variance then they can go close out the permit.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let’s see if Pat any questions?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric.
MEMBER DANTES : Yes. I’m looking in the file and there’s the variance that you’re referring to
for the pool is from October 27, 1998.
PAT MOORE : Yes let me see 1998 yes.
MEMBER DANTES : It took twenty years to close it out?
PAT MOORE : It took a long time for them to build the pool then I don’t know what prompted
the slowness in closing out the pool.
MEMBER DANTES : What’s the setback of the deck?
PAT MOORE : It’s on the survey. Well the surveyor gives me to the pool it is 42.3 and the deck is
about no more than 4 feet, 5 feet around that portion of the pool. The wider portion of the
deck is on the non-road side towards the side and between the pool and the house and there
are plans of the size of the deck let me go directly to the plans. So the deck actually if you take
your plans and put them upside down they will match the survey. The deck you have 3 feet 10
½ inches of decking composite decking around the south side of the property where Koke Drive
goes around. So at 42.3 is the setback of the pool less the 3 feet 10 inches. So just for
mathematics simplicity take 42 less 4 and that is the setback of the decking from Koke Drive
around the back. Then as you go Koke Drive as it runs along the east side the surveyor shows
27.1 and again that short side of the decking is also 3 feet 9 ½ inches. So the 27.1 less 3.9 ½
inches.
MEMBER LEHNERT : If you look at (inaudible) cause it’s on an angle. You have to go from the
corners.
PAT MOORE : Oh I’m sorry. Well it’s a plus minus because I’ve got as you said an angle. If you
need it to have me ask the surveyor to give you precise measurement I could do that. I hadn’t
noticed that he didn’t give the setback where I asked him to give me the setback.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Quite frankly it’s the pool location which has already been codified
and legalized. Decks around is a common ordinary and this one is at grade although anything
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
wood is not (inaudible) structure as opposed to stone on grade. It’s just a technical (inaudible)
it’s very private having no visual impact on the street or anybody else. Anything from you Nick?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No question.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Hearing
no further questions or comments I’ll make a motion to close reserve decision to a later date. Is
there a second?
MEMBER DANTES : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING # 7284 - THOMAS F. DALY, III, JOYCE DALY, MARGARET DALY, ET AL
HEARING # 7285 – MATTHEW F. DALY, ROBERT M. DALY, MARILYN K. DALY, ET AL
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m going to open up these applications together. There are two
before the Board. One is Thomas Daly III, Joyce Daly, Margaret Daly et al #7284 and the other
one is Matthew F. Daly, Robert M. Daly, Marilyn K. Daly et al #7285. Both are requests for
waiver of mergers. In the first instance Article II Section 280-10A is a petition under that article
to unmerge land identified as SCTM#1000-66-1-21 which has merged with SCTM 1000-66-1-22
based on the Building Inspector’s January 30, 2019 Notice of Disapproval which states that a
non-conforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or non-conforming lot held well
that’s just I’m trying to cut to the chase here so the second one is waiver of merger between
tax map # 9 and tax map # 8. So we’ve seen this subdivision before you’ve been before us with
the same applicants or the same family. What would you like us to know. Lots 21 and 22
merged which is lot 7 and 8 I guess. Lots 9 and 8 merged created by deed in 1968. No transfers
outside of the family?
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE : Nope.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think you said in your application all but five lots in the subdivision
are now developed is that right? That can’t be right.
PAT MOORE : No that’s opposite.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There’s something in the application that says that
PAT MOORE : No this development is for the most part undeveloped and the homes I can list
them or identify them on the tax map where they’re mostly on Hoey Lane which is the
northerly most set off properties and then along Town Harbor Terrace so the interior lots are
undeveloped.
T. A. DUFFY : In the applicant’s reasons under number one on the first application Daly it says
the neighborhood it does say the neighborhood both on the east across Hippodrome to the
west are completely developed
PAT MOORE : Oh that, no what I was pointing out is the east side of Hippodrome okay and then
the area Terry Lane, Town Harbor Terrace community is totally developed. It wasn’t this
particular it’s the lots that surround this I treat as its own little pocket but the surrounding
community cause one of the issues is the character of the community. The surrounding
community which is Town Harbor Terrace and Terry Lane and then on the east side of
Hippodrome those areas are completely developed. So would you like me to start working on
you know addressing this?
MEMBER DANTES : Do you have one of those last time you guys had a cheat sheet.
PAT MOORE : You have that or you want that? Oh sure. There should be one. I have one in front
of me. You threw me off by opening both hearings at the same time.
MEMBER DANTES : I think it had all of the lots on it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : My question is why do we keep coming back to these? Why not just
create your subdivision again? I mean seriously we’re going to do this again and again? There
are still some merged lots in that area.
PAT MOORE : No they’re hoping there shouldn’t be put it that way. We’ve done the single and
separate. Some of them were transferred before properly so therefore they didn’t merge.
Actually go through and if we find one or two we may be back here but certainly the process of
going through a re-subdivision of the entire would have been problematic cause it would need
area variances for every single lot so a waiver of merger is a little bit teadiest because you doing
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
them one at a time. I’m more visual I like the tax map so. Let’s address 21 and 22 from 22 and
25. If you recall from our prior applications the family did make concessions. They did combine
some lots in order to make a more conforming waiver of merger application. The way that this
property lots 21, 22 and 25 have been proposed in this case really follows the ownership of the
properties and rather than so that’s the application that is before you. One lot that is left
behind is owned by a family member and there is it’s really kind of the last lot the remnant lot.
With respect to the Thomas St. parcels what seemed to me was that we could of avoided or not
had to have a waiver or merger application because we combined lots 7 and 8 to create a one
acre parcel and as you know when you reach the one acre threshold you’re not supposed to be
merging further lots so we actually anticipated that in presenting that to the Building
Department that they were not consider those lots merged. For some reason they didn’t
believe that was the case so they sent us here and they wanted us to have it unmerged by the
Board. You can certainly in that application come to an interpretation that no the code says
that once you reach the one acre it doesn’t merge so therefore lots 7 and 8 in our volunteering
combining of the two lots now is single and separate from lot 9. So that application is before
you giving you really the opportunity to clarify for the Building Department that the one acre
threshold should eliminate the need for waiver of merger.
MEMBER DANTES : But wouldn’t you still need to unmerge lot 9 from the combined 7 and 8?
PAT MOORE : Well that’s an interesting interpretation because if you’ve got a one acre piece
that once you reach one acre it doesn’t merge it seems kind of awkward to say well if 9 merges
to 7 and 8 but 7 and 8 is
MEMBER DANTES : Nine would merge to 7 and 8 until it becomes a full acre. So you need two
full acre lots for them not to merge the way the Building Department has been interpreting.
PAT MOORE : That’s the way they’ve interpreted it but the way the code reads is that once
you’ve reached the one acre you kind of at that point it’s insulated. So 7 and 8 as a combined
lot you shouldn’t have to merge. It shouldn’t merge anything else around it. I don’t know it’s
gone back and forth on that interpretation. I’ve actually gotten so if 9 had a house on it, it
wouldn’t of merged to 7 or 8. The code doesn’t say that so if there’s a house on 9 and 7 and 8
combined is an acre why is 9 as a vacant lot merging to 7 and 8? It’s never made sense to me.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just do this. Let me just clarify for the record. In the first
application the owners are going to merge lot 22 and 25 to make it more conforming and
unmerge lot 2.
PAT MOORE : Lot 21.
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Lot 21 I’m sorry and then in the second application on Hippodrome
Pond unmerge lot 9 a 25,646 sq. ft. from combined lots 7 and 8 which is a combined 40,000 sq.
ft.
PAT MOORE : Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just want to make sure we have the right numbers and the right
sizes. Rob questions?
MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have the chain of title.
PAT MOORE : You do, you have the chain of title, you have the common facts. I don’t want to
make your meeting extended beyond what the Board already has all the background
information. The family is obviously is here in support of their application.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick any questions?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, no questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in the audience wishing to address the applications? I
have what I need. Hearing no further questions or comments I’ll make a motion to close the
hearing both hearing reserve decision to a later date.
PAT MOORE : I’ll go back to my office I’ll send it to Kim and then she can distribute it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so I’m just going to close it subject to receipt of the color
copy of the family ownership.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Kim I seconded the motion.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING # 7282 – MICHAEL SMITH
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Michael Smith #7282.
This is a request for variance under Article IV Section 280-15, Article XXII Section 280-116A(1)
and the Building Inspector’s August 17, 2018 amended November 27, 2018 Notice of
Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory in-ground swimming
pool and legalize existing relocated accessory structures at 1) proposed swimming pool is
located in other than the code required rear yard, 2) proposed swimming pool is located less
than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff, 3) existing two accessory sheds are
located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet located at 1405 Terry
Lane (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Orient.
SHAWN LEONARD : Good morning, Shawn Leonard the architect. I also have Michael Smith the
property owner is here if you have any questions. As you can see what we originally when we
started off we wanted to have a swimming pool put into the what would be the rear yard of the
house waterside of the house along the side there. In that location it would also make it visible
it’s for (inaudible) and Mr. Smith can fill you in on that if he wishes. So the purpose of that it
was brought to our attention that we have two sheds that are part of what he has is a small
vineyard on the property and those two sheds are used for servicing the vineyard right there
and that’s when it was discovered that those sheds do not meet the setbacks of the 15 feet. To
the east of this property of the sheds there that is agricultural farmland on the side there. I
believe that’s all been the development rights have been sold off on that so that would remain
a farm and we’ve spoken to the neighbors and my understanding nobody had any objections to
it. Do you have any questions for me?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me just enter into the record that the bluff setback you’re
proposing is 75 feet where the code requires a minimum of 100 and you’re located partially in a
side yard where the code requires a rear or front yard location in case of waterfront property.
As you know all the members have inspected the property have seen where the sheds are and
seen what’s next to it. I should tell you that it’s LWRP inconsistent for the sheds and the
recommendation is to try to increase the bluff setback for the pool. Certainly the pool we want
to get that pool as far back from that top of bluff as we can and so it’s probably better in the
side yard than it would be in the rear yard but there are two possible options. One is to just
scoot it back a little bit farther closer to the deck so that you increase it to maybe 85 foot
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
setback. The other is to rotate it which would make it closer to the side yard but there’s nothing
over there but hedges anyway you know what I’m saying. You could possibly rotate the pool so
that it’s parallel to the bluff instead of perpendicular. What do you think about that? Just state
your name for the recording.
MICHAEL SMITH : Michael Smith I’m the owner of the property 1405. So you’re suggesting
instead of 75 feet off the bluff it should be 85?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I’m looking at what’s reasonable. You know we’re trying to get
it as far back as conforming to the 100 foot as we can. Now if you put the 12 foot rather than
the 24 foot you’re going to gain at least 10 feet in setback by just rotating the pool. You see
what I’m saying?
MICHAEL SMITH : I do. Actually it was two reasons for the location that we chose. One was that
the side of the back deck you could view the children in the pool so that’s more of a safety
thing. So if it’s too far back it’s going to be on the side and not to say that we’re (inaudible) but
you know it’s just more convenient. The other was we’re trying to be consistent with the two
west building which are 75 feet from the bluff so we’re trying as a line of sight be consistent
with the pool to the building to the next building to the next building west. However I will have
no issues by pushing it back 10 feet. So it would be 85 feet from the bluff instead of 75.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And you’re suggesting that you’re keeping the pool’s length parallel
to the lot line?
MICHAEL SMITH : Just the way it sits just 10 feet back. So it will maintain the 25.6 and 24.9 feet
off of the side yard.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. I mean we’re just trying we sent this out in addition to the
LWRP which is in house it’s our local coordinator who looks at these, we send these out to
Suffolk County Soil and Water on that and for some reason they didn’t get the review done on
time but I’m quite sure we are going to get very similar comments to what we got from the
LWRP coordinator which is that the bluff is fairly stable over there so that thus his
recommendation just to try and increase the bluff setback. It makes it less of a substantial
variance you know the closer to the 100 feet you can get.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I’m sorry just a question, since you’re willing to push the pool back 10
feet there are actually two variances that you are seeking, one for the side yard which is always
going to be there but would you put the pool 100 feet back just to avoid and I understand you
said for safety for your children you want to watch the pool but you can remove the second
variance.
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
MICHAEL SMITH : What I’m concerned about if it’s too far back. Oddly enough is that when the
sun comes around the house blocks the pool so when the house blocks the pool it’s always
going to be on the shade part. Most of the time it will be in the shade especially with the trees
and then of course I won’t be able to see I’ll have to make the patio or something larger a patio
or something where I’m going to sit or have my
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you planning any surround? Is it going to be like an at grade
stone area around?
MICHAEL SMITH : On grade.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we don’t need to see that cause it’s not considered a structure. It
won’t count in lot coverage.
MICHAEL SMITH : Did I answer your question?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea no I was just curious if you were willing to remove one of the
variances I was fine with the location as
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : With regards to the sheds, they are very, very close to the property
line which was really misleading. I guess you did snap a line or something after I saw it and
spoke to you because Nick said
MICHAEL SMITH : I did. That was a good suggestion.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cause you would of assumed automatically the deer fencing was on
the boundary of the you know your property and the adjacent property and that it was just
hard to tell whose is whose but quite frankly there is farmland over there and I don’t think it
has any impact on anybody or anything and it’s conveniently located and yes there is
substantial the only reason you need to have that 15 foot side yard is because they’re in a front
yard location which means which is non-conforming accessory structures have to be in a
required rear yard just so I’m explaining the code to you so because of the front yard they’re
allowed on waterfront but they have to meet the setbacks of a principle setback like a house.
The house would have to have a 15 foot side yard. Therefore the accessory structures even
though they’re very little technically require the same setback as a principle dwelling. That’s
why you’re here for those variances. Let’s see, Pat do you have any questions?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No you covered everything.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric?
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : I think it would be nice to meet the 100 foot setback for the pool. A lot of
people want the pools closer to the water but other than that the side yard location is fine, the
sheds.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything?
MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just one other question regarding what I found on Google and the
address. Mr. Smith do you function or open your house to the public?
MICHAEL SMITH : No as a vineyard or anything other, no.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Googling the address your property shows up as being a retail tasting
room.
MICHAEL SMITH : Yes as a matter of fact somebody showed up the other day and said because
of Google said, oh it’s open.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : There’s like a Yelp site with hours of operation.
MICHAEL SMITH : Yea we don’t know absolutely not, it’s a private residence it’s my home.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So can you explain what those
MICHAEL SMITH : Google?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well I don’t understand what Google is but
MICHAEL SMITH : Well I can tell you what we do. It’s my private residence. I don’t have people
walk in on our private residence. Sometimes I have friends, we sit at the fireplace, we sit at the
beach but they’re friends of mine.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do you ever entertain the public or strangers or sell wine or
anything?
MICHAEL SMITH : Not there no I’m not allowed to.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : As I said if you just Google the address it pops up there’s a retail
tasting room.
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
MICHAEL SMITH : Absolutely not can’t do it. I’m very particular especially with the license I
have. It took me a long time to get it and I’m not fooling around with it, it’s a residential area.
I’m not going to have my neighbors complain.
MEMBER DANTES : What do you mean the license you have?
MICHAEL SMITH : The liquor license for a farm winery license.
MEMBER DANTES : So you have a license to grow the grapes and make the wine from the
State?
MICHAEL SMITH : Yes but I don’t make it there obviously (inaudible). I sell them elsewhere. I
have Premium Wine Group in Cutchogue. They typically bottle the wine and I’ll sell it
elsewhere.
MEMBER DANTES : So maybe one of those sites just saw the license and saw it was registered
to the house.
MICHAEL SMITH : When you register as a vineyard maybe it picked up on
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Both had consumer comments about
MICHAEL SMITH : Maybe my daughter.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don’t know I think it’s something I don’t want to you know we’re
here for a different purpose I’m just puzzled with what I found.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Hearing
no further questions or comments I’m going to make a motion I’m going to close and we can
grant alternative relief okay? Rather than wait for you to submit another survey with an
increased a minimum increase of 10 feet in the setback to the bluff I’m going to grant
alternative suggesting alternative relief which will say 85 feet instead of 75 feet and then what
you’re going to have to do is submit the survey that shows that.
MICHAEL SMITH : Okay we can do that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright is that sensible to everybody instead of holding it up? I don’t
think we need to hold it up for Soil and Water. We’ll probably put in the usual just so you’re
aware standard conditions on swimming pools are the dry well which you have already
proposed for pool de-watering, location of pump equipment in a sound deadening enclosure
where it’s a residential area so that you and your neighbors are not disturbed by pumping noise
and that it remain open to the sky. We don’t expect you’re going to put a greenhouse over it at
any point. Those are just standards I just wanted to let you know. Anything else from anybody?
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
I’m going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date is there a
second?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
TH
HEARING # 7289 – 905 9 STREET, LLC
th
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for 905 9 Street #7289.
This is a request for variances under Article IV Section 280-18, Article XXIII Section 280-124 and
the Building Inspector’s February 7, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to
approve a two lot subdivision and a permit for the construction of a new single family dwelling
and accessory building (lot 10) at 1) proposed two lots will measure less than the minimum lot
size of 40,000 sq. ft., 2) proposed two lots will measure less than the minimum lot depth of 150
feet, 3) proposed two lots will measure less than the minimum lot depth of 175 feet, 4)
proposed lot no. 9 with existing single family dwelling will have more than the code permitted
maximum lot coverage of 20%, 5) proposed lot 10 with proposed single family dwelling will
th
have less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet located at 905 9 St. in
Greenport.
RICHARD LARK : Good morning, my name is Richard Lark. My office is at 28785 Main Rd.
Cutchogue, New York. I represent Fred Savits who’s the sole member management of the
th
applicant LLC 905 9 St. Mr. Savits through his limited liability company purchased (inaudible)
lots I’ll refer to them as map lots 9 and 10 on the map of Greenport Driving Park for
convenience purposes. At a foreclosure sale he purchased them on April 7, 2017 for $300,000.
Mr. Savits could not be here today because he is on a business trip in Chicago and couldn’t
make it back so I’m the sole situation here. Mr. Savits bought this in the foreclosure sale
because he knew some he had researched it and knew some friends who lived in the
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
neighborhood and he checked it out and felt that this was now a stable family oriented
neighborhood where he could afford to buy cause he wanted to make his home cause he was
planning to get married. At the foreclosure sale he was led to believe that there were two lots 9
and 10 as they are depicted on the map of Greenport Driving Park. He knew at the time when
he purchased the premises that the house on map lot 9 was a an eyesore and a (inaudible). It
was abandoned and it had fallen into disrepair both cosmetically and structurally and needed
extensive work. So after the purchased he basically spent his entire life’s savings trying to get
this home together and I was shocked when he told me what he spent on it $400,000 and to
get all the permits for renovating and bringing the house up to date. In hindsight he should
have torn it down but that’s history. He wasn’t overly concerned at the time because he felt
that he was always going to be able to sell map lot 10 to cover most of his renovation. However
it was during the building permit process and in renovating the house and in talking with the
Building Inspectors he realized that he did not have a second building lot which he thought he
did when he purchased. So in completing the renovations and he had an engineer helping
getting all the permits and getting the house up to date with both the Health Department and
the Town Building Department and after getting it all said and done that’s when he retained me
to see what could be done if anything to get the lots separated. So after I was retained I did
research it and visited the property and toured the neighborhood and when I looked at
everything I concluded that his request for additional building lot in other words additional
house was not unreasonable considering the developed and established neighborhood. So the
purposes of this hearing this morning as I said I’ll refer to them both as map lot 9 and map lot
10 which are on the filed map. One of the first things I did after reviewing the deed the
foreclosure deed was to see if a waiver of merger would apply and I did do a single and
separate search and determined that was not possible so the only relief he had was with a
variance before this Board. I consulted with Mr. Verity the Building Inspector and he said it’s
just a waste of time. Go in get your variance apply for the variance and do that because you’re
just wasting your time on this other. Okay because there was confusion in the early title but
when you look at it in balance it did not comply with the requirements to get a waiver. So it’s
submitted that lot number 10 to be an improved building lot would have an area of 6,000 you
see on the application 6,603 sq. ft. and this would be in conformity with the and I’m going to
show you in a moment in conformity with the majority of the existing lots which have
residences on them in this neighborhood. It appeared to me that there would not be any
adverse impact either on the neighborhood or on the adjoining properties by allowing an
additional lot. So in reading the town law 267 B3 which mandates what has to be done by the
Board in the balancing test in getting area variances and the five factors listed that must be
used by the Zoning Board in a balancing test. I’m going to try to refer to them not necessarily in
the order they have one, two, three, four, five but as I think that are applicable so that the
Board would have an understanding of what the applicant is faced with on this property.
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
There’s no questioning considering the last factor number 5 which deals with self-created
difficulty, this applies a hundred percent in this case because Mr. Savits in all fairness is thirty
years old I understand he’s young but he should have retained a lawyer, should have
researched the house and should have had things done rather than just going ahead relying on
what the bank and the people told him at the foreclosure sale and purchasing it. I must point
out that this last factor of self-created difficulty I realized is not just positive with the matter, I
know this factor is not irrelevant but it should not normally in and of itself justify a denial of an
application for an area variance because the applicant created his own problem which is truly
the case here. It must be remembered and applying this balancing test that an analysis of any of
the factors whether the strict application of the Zoning Board will serve a valid public purpose
which would be greater than the difficulty that was self-created by the applicant and I’m going
to submit to you in the next couple of minutes that this is not the case that it will not. One thing
for sure as a practical matter in this neighborhood looking at all the properties of Greenport
Driving Park especially the ones that have homes on them as far as any real property matters
you’re concerned with homes whether you want to add a garage or whether you want do
anything with your property I don’t think anything can be accomplished basically without
getting a variance of some sort before the Board. The reason for that is simple, it’s zoned
residential which is good which it is but it’s designated R40 requiring 40,000 sq. ft. for each
building lot with 150 foot width and a depth of 175 feet and is applied to the neighborhood
virtually as set forth (inaudible) with the filed map and even the present tax map they do not
comply with the current zoning code the lots do not comply with the current zoning code and
are either grandfathered or have variances of one form or another. There are numerous
variances in this neighborhood of applicants that have applied over the years to do whatever
they do with adding the houses and really improving this neighborhood. Just as a parenthetic
note I remember this neighborhood twenty years ago you wouldn’t want to go there. Today it is
really low middle class neighborhood, kids in the street just a normal neighborhood whereas
years ago it was no one wanted to go there unless you were armed. But today it is it’s a very
nice neighborhood. The point I’m trying to make is that the required factor number two the
applicant in this particular matter had no choice in trying to obtain an area variance before the
Board. There’s no other method that I know of that would be feasible for him to pursue. Before
continuing I would like emphasize factor number four which I’m respectfully submitting to you
that after considering the development of this neighborhood over the years as to the location
of residence on the lots and their sizes that if the Board would grant the proposed variance is
basically allowing just another building lot with a home on it which would be basically in
conformity with the size, shape and area of the lots in this residential area and not create any
adverse impact on the environment or the lots in the neighborhood. I think this is fairly true.
Now factor number three substantiality, (inaudible) and I need to emphasize that this factor
cannot be analyzed in a vacuum. It has to be considered in the context of surrounding
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
circumstances when in this case it’s a fully developed residential built out neighborhood. The
point I’m trying to make is that in considering the substantiality test you have to evaluate the
specific variance requests in context with the surrounding developed neighborhood not just the
zoning ordinance. I did perform a detailed analysis and you have it in the application of map lot
10 in relationship with the other properties in the neighborhood and I won’t bother you with
the analysis of how the statistical analysis was compiled and just refer you to item two pages
four and five of the written application before you which has the detailed analysis. I just briefly
covered the more important points that I think you should consider. Map 10 which is the lot to
be created contains 6,603 sq. ft. which I indicated and its relationship to the 40,000 foot
requirement of the zoning is 83.5 deviation which is astronomical. However this is just not
realistic when you consider the lot relationship with building lots in the fully developed
community. What I did was compare the size of the proposed lot 10 with the average of all the
lots that were contained in the block bounded north by Flint St. and on the south by Linnet St.
So you have that in exhibit five of the application. I did not think it fair to include the lots on
Flint St. on the north side which are adjacent to the railroad tracks because most of them are
exceedingly on an average small and I didn’t believe it would produce a fair analysis although it
would emphasize my point. So I didn’t include them the north side of that street. The result of
the calculations is that the average size in this block between Flint and Linnet is 6,394 sq. ft.
which makes lot number 10 which is 6,603; 209 sq. ft. greater than the average lot size and map
9 which contains 6,898 sq. ft. would be 504 sq. ft. greater than the average size but to keep that
in perspective I did a similar analysis between Linnet and Brown St. so that would really the
Board would really then a have a mathematical average taking the two blocks of property into
consideration cause it is an integral part of the neighborhood it’s relatively small as far as area
is concerned and there the average lot sizes were three hundred feet larger which totaled 6,970
sq. ft. which made lot number 10 the proposed new lot 367 sq. ft. less than the average which
was (inaudible) 5.3 deviation and lot number 9 which contains the 6,898 sq. ft. it’s only a one
percent deviation. The point and in looking at the area the 5.3 deviation I did not think
substantial when you average it and if I averaged it with the two blocks it would bring it down
to much less than that but I think the point was well taken. As I pointed out in the written
analysis pages 4 and 5, item 2 of the application the same result is true with lot widths. Well 9
and 10 are going to be 56.47 feet wide which makes them a substantial deviation of 62.4% with
a 150 foot requirement. However when you look at the lots of the map of the Driving Park all of
the lots they’re all made out as 50 feet width so the analysis showed that and I did look at it and
there’s only a minority of lots which I believe were four not including maps lot 9 and 10 in that
block between Linnet and Brown that were greater than 50 feet in width and that was due to
either they bought two lots and the way they developed the property. I think clearly it
demonstrates that the 50 feet is not out of line and that ours is even greater by 6 feet. I know
no big deal but it shows that it’s in line with the width of the neighborhood of the lots. The
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
analysis (inaudible) the zoning requirements 75 feet in the same analysis all the interior lots in
the matter of Greenport Driving Park they’re all laid out to a depth of 112.25 feet some
exceptions but those exceptions were usually less than the length of 112.25. However 9 and 10
on the proposed have an average depth of 119.99 feet which makes them 7.74 feet longer than
the average of the majority of the lots but not all in this neighborhood and in (inaudible)
analysis of the two blocks of properties the point of course is that we’re dealing the size, depth,
length of 9 and 10 are not substantially different than the majority of the lots in the
neighborhood and that was my whole point in driving at I do not believe that there is a big
substantiality problem. Factor number one listed in the Town Law 267 B3 involves an analysis of
whether both lots 9 and 10, if a variance is granted by the Board will make an undesirable
change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties, and I submit
that when you analyze and balance the factors that you have before you that the additional
building lot is now 9 and 10 will be in harmony and with the majority if not all the lots in the
neighborhoods. So in viewing the neighborhood in particular the properties subject to this
application I (inaudible) the topography is basically level and I’m not aware of any traffic for
parking problems and I did this quite a few times and I will say that there’s very few street
parking. They’re all parking on their property so no matter where any of the traffic for parking
problems would occur by granting an additional lot. The application before you had to be
revised with the Building Department. As I told you I consulted with Mr. Verity because the
initial concept was to in his initial denial was on the additional building lot and he and I finally
came to the conclusion this would not serve any purpose unless the residence could be built on
the so called additional lot. So any applicant obtaining a building permit would have to return
to the Board for additional relief. Considering that this would be a waste of everyone’s time it
would be better to (inaudible) to incorporate it and so after meeting with the applicant and
now is getting some professional advice, he consulted with an architect and they laid out a
home of 1,104 sq. ft. with a detached garage of 200 sq. ft. and this was fine because it would
put it within the 19.7 lot coverage which is in conformity with the zoning on this for 20%.
However lot 10 is a corner lot and Flint St. then would be a front yard and therefore an
additional variance would have to be obtained which is a front yard variance and it’s proposed
to locate the house 22.5 from the Flint St. property line. In comparing the front yard within the
300 feet of the applicant’s property on Flint St. it averages out to about 35 feet and the
proposal of 22.5 would make the 35.7 deviation. However this was not realistic because the
house immediately to lot 10 has a setback of 56 feet which skews the average but if you
eliminate this lot which is map number 76 map lot 76 it’s staying within the 300 feet. The
average setback within that 300 feet is 28.5 making the request only a 60% deviation. Again this
is somewhat skewed I just checked the 300 feet which is required by the zoning ordinance but
when you look at the entire Flint St. and especially when you get out to the east end literally
some of the houses are only five or ten feet from the property line in the front yard cause they
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
subdivided an already small lot in the old days they cut them in half so I thought that that was
realistically the 22.5 being proposed was realistically. Looking at the totality of the situation and
it wasn’t substantial and was proportional with the front yard setback not only on Flint St. but
when you look at the front yards of the rest of the streets in the neighborhood (inaudible) and I
th
submit what I’m saying the 22.5 is really not out of line. The front yard on 9 St. the building
(inaudible) is not concerned about it in any way shape or form because he’s determined that
the average setback is in the 300 feet (inaudible) crossed over the roads going to the south is
only 12.5 feet so that doesn’t enter into it so we’re a little bit greater than that but it didn’t
matter.
MEMBER DANTES : Can I ask you a question? Why couldn’t you take the average setback from
Flint St.?
RICHARD LARK : For the whole street?
MEMBER DANTES : Within 300 feet.
RICHARD LARK : Well the zoning ordinance requires you to go 300 feet of the property line. So I
tried to stay within the 300 feet so that the variance granted you’re working within the
parameter of 300 feet not the whole length of that’s why I did it that way. It would be less
impact if I took the whole street that’s true.
MEMBER DANTES : I mean on the other street we have the 22.5 (inaudible) variance. There’s no
average for Flint St. that could be taken?
RICHARD LARK : On the north side, no I didn’t do that oh yea that would be a lot less. Some of
them are right on the property line. I mean you have front yard setbacks of 10 feet. If you
measure those on the north side of Flint St. and you can see that in the presentation that you
have and some of the later exhibits where there’s photographs of the houses actually on there.
MEMBER DANTES : So is there a section in the code that limits you?
RICHARD LARK : The way the Building Inspector interpret the code and I had to agree it had to
be on the same side not on the other side though some codes that do both sides of the street
that’s true but ours interprets just on your side.
T. A. DUFFY : That’s what the code says.
th
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You had to do it for 9 but you couldn’t do it for Flint.
RICHARD LARK : Pardon.
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
th
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You could do an averaging on 9 St. but you’re saying you couldn’t
do an averaging on Flint St?
RICHARD LARK : I did 300 feet yea.
T. A. DUFFY : She’s saying the Building Inspector was not going to because the properties are on
the opposite side of the street on Flint the Building Department would not average those
properties.
RICHARD LARK : He determined he looked at it.
T. A. DUFFY : But that’s why you’re requesting a variance.
th
RICHARD LARK : You don’t need a variance for 9 St.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right. Let me do this, thank you for your excellent and very detailed
analysis. I just want to summarize very simply what the variances are for the record and for the
Board’s benefit. Just follow me and make sure I’m right on this. We have a lot size on lot 9 of
6,898 sq. ft. and on lot 10, 6,603 sq. ft. both of which are in the R40 zone so it would technically
the code would require 40,000 sq. ft. Then we have lot width, both of them are 56 feet wide
where the code requires 150. Lot depth on 9 is 119 feet and on 10, 114 feet the code requires
175 feet.
RICHARD LARK : The Building Inspector told me he took the average between so he took the
middle line that’s where the 119 came from. That was his interpretation.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright and you’re saying that after if a variance is granted for a
single family dwelling on lot 9 then you’re proposing 23.1% lot coverage. The code allows a
maximum of 20% is that correct?
RICHARD LARK : No I don’t agree with that. The code is 20% and on 9 the residence is just
21.3%. However there’s an interpretation problem and so I dealt with it the best I could.
Depending on how you read the zoning code the enclosed porch area in the front of that house
as exists there on lot 9 is I know it’s got a cover and so it’s considered for the purposes of
coverage. There’s one interpretation that considers it; now as far as front yard is concerned
(inaudible) it’s bizarre, you don’t have to consider it for the length of your front yard but for the
area you do and so Michael Verity just said just put it in the way it is the way he’s showing it on
the survey and the way you have it and then they can make the determination he said because I
don’t know which way to cover these and I agree with you that that’s the way it is. So then
when I did the analysis in the area I came up with 22.1 of all the houses on that block that were
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
developed so I added up basically asking for a one percent deviation looking at the thing. It is
23.1%.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 23.1% that’s the newly renovated house?
RICHARD LARK : Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and if the subdivision is granted you’re now proposing a new
single family dwelling on lot 10 with an accessory building that would total what the lot
coverage here?
RICHARD LARK : The lot coverage is 19.7
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that’s not a variance.
RICHARD LARK : That’s not a variance that falls within that envelope.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The front yard setback is 22.3 on Flint where the code requires 35.
So I just wanted to make sure we have all of this there’s a whole bunch here so just to simplify
it and then we can
RICHARD LARK : It got complicated when he said what good is it? If you want to build a house
you’re going to need a variance. Why don’t you go in and just get it all done in one either yes or
no so everybody knows where it is and it made sense economically.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I do understand that. It’s not typical what we would be doing
without elevations
RICHARD LARK : I understand it’s just a footprint.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It certainly makes sense from a pragmatic point of view especially if
you’re going to try and sell the lot. Now I do want to say one thing before we see if anybody has
questions on this, we got a memorandum from Heather Lanza and actually copied Don
Wilsinsky, the Planning Board I’ll read it to you it’s an email rather; Planning Board is requesting
more time to provide comments on two ZBA applications for lot area variances. One is
scheduled for this is the one for today yours, and another one is scheduled for it’s very similar
scheduled for July and they’re asking for a little bit more time. They want to provide us with
comments and they said that they would be provided in time for the July hearing. I suspect
they’re trying to look at build out in the town. Mary do you know anything about what that
investigation is? Is it sanitary or a build out in general or non-conforming lot sizes or all of the
above. She’s shaking her head yes Liz, this is Mary Eisenstein.
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
RICHARD LARK : After talking with the architect he was advised that he might have to conform
cause we have public water there but you don’t have even though it’s on the other side of the
railroad tracks you don’t have it to the property sewage out of Greenport so you might have to
comply with the new sanitary standards that they have with the Health Department with their
new nitrates thing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The new IA systems.
RICHARD LARK : They’re aware of that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, so hopefully you’ll understand that we want to try and honor
their request.
RICHARD LARK : I don’t know why it took so long because it was filed with almost
simultaneously.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They called out two particular applications. When there’s a
subdivision proposed it’s got to go to Planning anyway so we asked them for comments and
that’s how we’re trying to coordinate this for everyone’s benefit so we don’t waste time and so
on. Do you have any questions at this point anybody?
MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Maybe make a little commentary you going back to your original
commentary about the Irvin Renaissance of this neighborhood the investment that people and
the owner made, children playing in the streets there’s a railroad track right off the site. It’s a
very what I would consider a hostile intersection, can you talk a little about public safety and
what added density might mean.
RICHARD LARK : Apparently there’s never been a problem cause it comes through twice a day
it’s never been a problem. Six in the morning is not a problem.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I know the schedule and disappointingly (inaudible) but there’s no
RICHARD LARK : I did ask the questions and we talked to a few people and it’s just not a
problem.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And you don’t think adding to the density may not create an
additional problem or
RICHARD LARK : I don’t think any more than you have now.
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And then my other question was I get at an earlier time when these
lots were created and built it makes sense but again adding to the density today when were the
lots actually merged? Did you do any research or can you explain that sort of what happened in
1983?
RICHARD LARK : I have a single and separate I can submit to you if you want to see it but there
were a number of transfers (inaudible)
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And then the last question is do you have any sort of prior Zoning
Board decisions that you could offer for these circumstances to allow a subdivision of a merged
lot in this general area or within the community?
RICHARD LARK : You have some yea you have one right down the street on Flint St. that you did
in
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But that was a waiver of merger not a subdivision.
RICHARD LARK : Yea I know but the criteria are the same.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well no the results are the same but the criteria is not the same.
They’re similar.
RICHARD LARK : He was trying to slid off a lot yea I saw that. The reason I found that was cause
when I was looking I said oh there’s a new building but I had to include that in. (inaudible) right
at the 300 feet that’s what
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look if the applicant or any future owner is aware of the fact that
the town is going in the direction of IA sanitary systems and that’s going to certainly mitigate
more nitrogen loading that’s extended technology is allowed, should variances be forthcoming
how do you feel about conditioning an approval for a footprint with an IA system required?
RICHARD LARK : That is not a problem because I think it’s warranted really because when you
look at it geographically where they have the (inaudible) and to the south you’re not that far
from wetlands.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s right.
RICHARD LARK : You know the area, you’re really not that far so I was hoping that a sewer
would eventually and I think eventually a sewer will go
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They might extend it.
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
RICHARD LARK : Yea I do because it’s too dense and sooner or later the plume will swell. I was
surprised how close it was.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s a surprising neighborhood.
RICHARD LARK : The wetlands how close they really are.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from anybody else at this point?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : A question on the proposed building of a two story house, would that
house have two bathrooms?
RICHARD LARK : Yes.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : And the one that was renovated, how many bathrooms are in that one?
RICHARD LARK : I think there’s just one, one and a half.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Cause I’m thinking two story two bathrooms.
RICHARD LARK : I think that’s to me that would be very logical.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what I’m going to do then is hold this hearing open to July so that
we’ll just expedite all the reviews we have to have and we’ll just continue this then and we’ll
make sure that when we get comments from Planning you will get a copy so you will be
prepared to address.
RICHARD LARK : He’s also got the application before them so it’ll come up in that. I did get
something but it’s going to be in their July meeting.
rdth
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We’re meeting July 3 on a Wednesday because the 4 of July is on
a Thursday so they told us that they were going to try and get us comments prior to that
hearing so that we would know what they’re thinking is.
RICHARD LARK : Oh now I understand okay.
rd
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so motion is to adjourn this hearing to the July 3 Regular
Meeting, is there a second?
MEMBER DANTES : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING # 7286 & 7287 EAST END REALTY, LLC
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for East End Realty, LLC
#7286. That’s for an area variance. We also have East End Realty, LLC #7287 which is for a use
variance. I’m going to open both applications at the same time. It’ll probably make sense to
address them that way. This is a request under the first application for variances under Article
IX Section 280-42 and the Building Inspector’s December 11, 2018 amended February 22, 2019
Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to alter an existing workforce
housing building to convert to a single family dwelling on a parcel having an existing business
use to be maintained, 1) less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 75 feet, 2)
less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 20 feet at 4880 Depot Lane. The
other application is for a use variance under Article IX Section 280-42 and the Building
Inspector’s December 11, 2018 amended February 22, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an
application for a permit to alter an existing workforce housing building to convert to a single
family dwelling on a parcel having an existing business use to be maintained at 1) less than the
required 80,000 sq. ft. in area for each use. Is there someone here to represent the application?
Please come to the podium and state your name for us.
HOWARD RABIN : Good afternoon, I’m Howard Rabin. I am the attorney for East End Realty,
LLC. It’s a single member LLC, just I’m going to give you some background and I a hundred
percent concur it makes a lot of sense to view the two of them together although I may diverge
to separate them the history and what went on with this parcel it is all connected. I have with
me today Diane Shulman Rabin. She happens to be my wife so if I appear a little bit more
nervous than usual it is (inaudible) no matter what I do. East End Realty purchased this property
in 1996. Now originally this property was built for Ian Young back in the twenties and they had
a potato grading building there that when we purchased this property was there. When we
purchased it, it was approximately a 7,000 sq. ft. building. That building had a 4,000 sq. ft. on
the first floor. It was used for a potato packing operation. They had hoppers up above on the
second floor. It was built with structural steel sufficient to hold about nine or ten tractor trailer
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
loads of potatoes that they used to bring up with a conveyor and bring them down. Back in the
hay day back in the twenties there was everything out here was potato farms and there were
several of these potato graders around Long Island. The only people that are doing this
independently now is Jerry Shulman (inaudible) which Diane is a principle in and the reason this
property was purchased was specifically to keep this operation going. Her father started this
business when he came out in 1948 after serving in the Air Corp in WWII and Jerry had and AG
degree, he came out here and he got involved with the local farmers. He packed potatoes for
them, he sold different produce as well and he was thinking about retiring in the eighties.
About 1986 I might be wrong by a year or two but I think it was about 1986 or so up until that
point he had a potato grading building that was in Mattituck and he sold that and then started
renting. He rented actually this potato grader on Depot Lane where this property is now for
some time from a company that had purchased it from Ian Young. They were Lebanon I think
they were called Lebanon Chemical and it became Lebanon Seaboard Corporation and they
diversified (inaudible) I think became a publicly trading company. So in terms of the people that
are like there’s nobody packing potatoes for a small independent potato farmer any longer.
Diane and her business is the only one doing that and so in about 2006 this potato grader that
we had there when we bought they had four buildings on the property. They had that building,
they had another building that was a 4,000 sq. ft. unheated storage building. It was designed
and originally given a C.O. as a fertilizer building and then there was a shed in the back that was
for storing supplies and then there was this labor camp on which we’re focusing today. They
called it barracks and it was designed this one in particular it was designed and I went back and
looked at the record and I think you have it in front of you it was designed to house up to
twenty four people. Prior to that in the 1950’s they had a prior building that was there that was
actually designed and allowed for up to thirty workers and then they cut it down and they built
this building which was superior at the time. At the time these four buildings were on the
property. There were none of these zoning regulations. Today the zoning regulation requires
one use. You have to have a minimum of 80,000 sq. ft. approximately two (inaudible) I guess.
So they allowed them even to put up these four separate buildings under the theory that these
were related they were all related part of the same business. The labor camp was part of the
packing operation. Nowadays we don’t really have a cause or a need to use they type of
migrant labor that used to be available and came out here nor if we could would it really be
desirable. People that she currently hires they have somebody from the old farming family
someone you may know he’s our performing (inaudible) he manages the potato packing
operation and (inaudible) takes care of the equipment (inaudible) and then during the season
they hire local people to help them pack potatoes. It’s seasonal and it runs from approximately
the end of August early September until we’re done which the season is much shorter than it
used to be cause there’s not as many potatoes. When they purchased the property in 1996 so
they had this much larger building and the operation in fact was much larger. In 2006 the main
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
building burned down. Some of you may remember that it was a tremendous fire and so at that
point it was actually in Newsday, it was like somewhat of an obituary saying that the last of the
potato graders is gone and what once was a potato area is no longer that. Well we didn’t want
to listen to them so she’s still here she’s still packing but the operation is (inaudible) smaller. It’s
much smaller than it was and the building in the back other than us coming out there to use it
occasionally in the summers it’s like camping out because it’s really not much of a residence.
That’s not the use it’s had since the labor camp was last there in 2006.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : May I ask you a question and I’m going to apologize in advance here.
We have an application at 1:30 on Fishers Island
HOWARD RABIN : Oh I hope to be done by then.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and we have to set up some video conferencing equipment in order
to make that possible and because of the timing I think we’re going to have to probably it’s a
very interesting application. We want to spend at much time as we need to on it but I think
we’re going to have to temporarily recess to set up this equipment and to take this application,
unless we want to run a little bit late. Heather she’s here to help us with the equipment.
T. A. DUFFY : Maybe just take his comment and he can leave.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I was going to get to that cause I see our local potato farmer expert
is sitting back there with the historic memories of miles and miles and miles and miles of
potatoes in bloom. So I don’t want in any way rush this but I think we’re going to have to
because of all of the complexity of dealing with the people on Fishers Island and having to have
a time frame they can (inaudible). Unfortunately this is like having an arraignment practically
but what I’d like to do is hear what Marty has to say so he doesn’t have to sit through the
entirety.
HOWARD RABIN : I appreciate you doing that because
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea that way he can go and then we can deal with this and then we’ll
reconvene your application with my apologies. We rarely do this but this is quite an unusual
circumstance for a very controversial application.
MARTIN SIDOR : Martin Sidor residing on Oregon Rd. in Mattituck and thank you and good
afternoon. I just want to speak on my history with this family. In the potato business there’s the
producer and buyer and package person and sometimes that comes at odds. As a producer you
want more money and the buyer is telling us that the market demands something else so
sometimes is can be a strange relationship. In this instance I will tell you I graduated in 1973
from college it was Diane’s father Jerry that took me under his wing and sort of showed me the
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
ropes on how to sell the crop and do it with such a way to be in business and sell for the next
(inaudible). Diane has since I’ve done business with Diane in those forty five years and I can
only speak of a very high character. Her word is solid and is one of the few people that I deal
with as far as selling my crop that is something that I look forward to something that I do not
fear as far as going round and round to make a transaction. Their word is solid, top shelf.
Whatever that you have before them I will delve into that. You can take their word on what
they have to say and what they wish to do but I can only say and what they did here with that
fire and how they have bailed out several of the potato farmers was of very important. My
story now and their story there’s a similarity. We’re both transitioning away from the days of
the potato. I’m getting into some different sort of growing and packaging and I think they’re
doing the same thing so there’s a similarity there but I wanted to say something about these
people.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Marty, let me ask you a question. We all did a site
inspection we’re required to do that for every application for the Board and we do that
individually and I didn’t see any activities at the time, I’m presuming that packing is a kind of
seasonal activity and clearly you’re not packing potatoes year round. You’re not growing them
year round, can you tell us a little bit more about that how that operation functions on that site
when it’s busy.
MARTIN SIDOR : Packaging will begin in the summer, it depends on the type of market and the
kind of season that we have. This year it looks like it’s going to be a little bit later as far as the
progress of the crop so August would be the early start up and how the season progresses is
based on the markets supply and demand which will usually go into the winter February,
March. The seasons have become shorter as there’s less and less potatoes but each season runs
its own course. I think last year you probably did open August till February. I also pack now so
there’s a similarity there also and she runs the packaged goods so it is seasonal and you know
there’s less and less potatoes as you can see.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How many local farmers would you say use the facility? I know
Marty if you should use answer that or maybe Diane. Yes please come to the mic because we
record these.
MARTIN SIDOR : I’m going to get back to my potato operation. I thank you .
DIANE SHULMAN : Hi Diane Shulman I own the property in Cutchogue on Depot Lane. When we
bought this property actually when we started renting this property we probably had eight or
nine farmers growing for us. As I’m sure you’re aware, potato acreage has decreased other
things have been taking their place. Right now we have three farmers sometimes four.
Occasionally for instance Marty packs his own. There are some farmers who occasionally if they
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
get behind or you know let’s say they have a problem with quality they might call us and ask us
to pack for them and that could add to the volume we’re packing but right now we have three
committed farmers who grow for us and if anyone of them decided to stop growing it would
hurt us it would be a hardship. From what I understand I’ve sold some of the seed potatoes too
(inaudible). The intention is that there are all three going forward and continuing to grow the
volume that they grow but as Howard said the acreage has gone down substantially from what
we were packing in ’96. In 2006 comparing to what we’re packing now it’s a drop in the bucket
but there’s kind of a synergy. We also we ship corn we ship anything that’s grown on the island
so what we’re packing might get paired up with somebody else’s corn or their potatoes might
get paired up with some of our potatoes. We kind of keep each other going that’s probably the
best way to explain it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And how would you plan to use the single family dwelling if it was
converted to that?
DIANE SHULMAN : We’re hoping to rent it to a family or an individual.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You will retain ownership?
DIANE SHULMAN : Oh absolutely.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The whole property stays?
DIANE SHULMAN : The whole property is staying intact. We’re not looking to subdivide and I
don’t believe we can we’re just looking to rent it out cause it’s there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you will be renting it possibly to a local family?
DIANE SHULMAN : Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And just taking it as you’ll pay for the renovations and then take
(inaudible)
DIANE SHULMAN : Right once approval comes through we would be renovating it. It’s not really
livable right now or it’s not pleasant.
HOWARD RUBIN : It’s like camping out.
DIANE SHULMAN : Right it wouldn’t be a pleasant living situation for somebody or for a family.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And what about the bus storage on the premises?
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
DIANE SHULMAN : So the buses one of the farmers that grows for us is I guess dating to put it,
is dating the woman who owns the bus company who is local. I think they’re either based in
Southold or Greenport and they approached me to see if during the school year we make it
easier for their drivers to not have to drive out to Greenport. Ours was a better location for
them for the Cutchogue school district so they asked us if we could work something out renting
that property just during the school year and I think it’s worked out well for them and for us.
The buses only go in and out twice a day and the school year is coming to an end and so I don’t
know the exact date of the end of the school year here but within another week or two the
buses won’t be there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so it’s just during like September to June or something like
that?
DIANE SHULMAN : Exactly it’s just the school year.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They’re there simply as a storage facility.
DIANE SHULMAN : Right it’s like a local depot for them.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They rent from you?
DIANE SHULMAN : They rent from us. It’s not a major amount of money I think it comes out to
about $550, $600 a month at most but I felt based on my relationship with the farmer and the
fact that this was a local bus company that’s where the old building was that burned down
where the buses are parking so it’s not our quality soil. It’s not like we’re going to start planting
anything there or use it for anything other than really parking is the ideal thing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you want to continue that use when you have a single family
dwelling on premises?
DIANE SHULMAN : I haven’t thought about it. I mean in my opinion using that for bus parking
right now is not an issue. I guess if it became an issue it’s something we can discuss but I think
the owner of Sunrise Busses is happy to have this local depot and we’re happy to be able to
rent to them.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well we’ll have to look into that whether it’s considered
another use or not.
HOWARD RABIN : Like she said it’s really a minimal amount a money. It’s more a favor to the
farmer and you know if you said no you don’t want it there you know it would be inconvenient
for the buses only because they you know for them to be on time in picking up the local kids
but you know it’s better for us to you know if we had a choice of one or the other it’s better for
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
us to have the house usable because if we can’t use if we can’t do what we’re proposing that
building in the back has no use. Should I continue or what?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think probably at this point what we really need to do because
again I want to hear everything you have to say. I see you’re very well prepared, your
submission was very thorough. It’s pretty rare to see a use variance and well it’s not quite a use
variance really. In this case it isn’t it’s an economic hardship but that’s not it’s you’re not really
changing the use. It’s just there’s two principle uses.
HOWARD RABIN : I was going to go over that but I don’t it’ll take a little while to explain.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : With your indulgence and my apologies again I’m going to make a
motion to just recess this so that we can set up this equipment and then proceed with the
Hound Lane application and then we’ll reconvene as soon as we’re finished with that one and
I’m sorry for delaying you. So motion to recess.
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 # 7237 – HOUND LANE, FISHERS ISLAND
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m going to make a motion to reconvene for the purposes of looking
th
at the Hound Lane Fishers Island #7237 application. This was adjourned from April 11 and
what I’m going to do so we don’t need to read the Notice of Disapproval again or the Legal
Notice, what I’m going to do for the benefit of and everyone’s review I’m going to organize this
hearing in the following way, alright here’s what I want to do; with everyone’s indulgence is to
review the history of this application very briefly and the comments we received from the
Architectural Review Committee. Then I want to go over what approvals are required on this
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
application and then I want to summarize some of the comments we received from various
members of the Fishers Island community not to go over them but to summarize their concerns
and then I’d like to have the applicant’s attorney address any of those things and anything else
you’d like us to know and then I will open this up to comments from the public. So let’s start
th
out with we had a hearing on February 7 on this application which was closed and then re-
st
opened by a unanimous vote of the Board on February 21. That was in order to request
comments from the Town’s Architectural Review Committee. These comments were received
along with several letters from residents of Fishers Island. Another hearing was scheduled for
th
April 11 at the request of the applicant’s attorney to have time to address some of these
issues, we adjourned it to today and we have received a Planning SEQRA determination from
the Planning Board in the meantime. Basically we adopted that this morning earlier by
resolution and it’s available for everyone but in the end the Planning Board is lead agency and
granted a negative declaration on this application so the Special Exception or variances
required we don’t need a Special Exception can go forward. I want to review some of the
comments from the Architectural Review Committee on the first submission that was given to
the Zoning Board. Among the various things they indicated was the area variances for an
application were to alter an existing building into a restaurant on the first floor of the bakery
building and to construct the second story addition for two apartment units in a general
business district on Fishers Island. Let me summarize this, the proposed elevations show the
addition of a second floor with corrugated metal panel siding and six shed dormers. The
Committee suggests that the addition radically alters the special character of the original
historic structure and scale proportion and material detail. They were also concerned about the
fact that it’s located in a flood zone and the required onsite parking could create more
impervious surfaces. That was the first submission. There was a second submission presented
which changed the elevations somewhat and one which included brick on the façade all the
way up to the second story. The second rounds of comments from the ARC were as follows, this
was the second review, the ARC has reviewed the resubmitted proposed elevations for the
Hound St. Bakery project and is making the following recommendations : (inaudible) comments
by the ARC are not adequately addressed by this resubmission although two of the proposed
elevations no longer indicate metal siding. These all brick elevations still do not substantially
address earlier comments concerning historic proportion, massing and roof planes. It suggested
that it may be more appropriate to locate an addition at the rear of the building as an
alternative to changing the height and roof lines of the existing historic structure. Those were
the second comments. Let me then go on for approvals required, the ZBA has before this
application for three variances. The first is for a front yard setback at 0 feet where the code
requires a minimum of 100 ft. The second is that it exceeds the maximum 60 foot of linear feet
of street frontage as proposed. There are 70 linear feet on the second floor proposed addition
and finally then third proposed landscaped area is 27.6% of the lot. The code requires a
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
minimum of 35%. We received comments from the LWRP Coordinator indicating it was
consistent respecting the preservation of the historic structure only it’s not on registry and
(inaudible) reuse idea which supports the code. The Planning Board generally supports this
application. Public comments included concerns about the architectural design. Everyone
knows it’s part of the fort right area and there are other buildings there and it’s kind of an entry
gate to the Fishers Island Ferry area. There were some concerns expressed about impacts
potentially of traffic and possible serving of alcohol right next to a school where children are
frequently around and there was all sorts of concerns about flooding on the property and
impervious surfaces. There were many more details of course but those summarize most of the
concerns. We received one letter of support and maybe about sixteen letters of concern or
opposition. So that kind of summarizes where we are with this application. I’d like now to ask
the applicant’s attorney Steve Ham to come forward and bring the Board up to date from your
end.
STEVE HAM : Hello Fishers Island. As far as the well I have actually I never do this here but I
have a prepared statement which I want to read and address to the people on Fishers Island in
particular. There has been confusion and misinformation about this project and I want to begin
to let everyone know what we are not requesting before this Board today. We’re not
requesting a change of zone. The property is now and will continue to be when all is said and
done in the B district, business zone. We’re not requesting a variance to attain a different use
from the uses that are currently allowed in the B district business zone. The project proposes
restaurant and apartment uses that are currently allowed in the B zone under existing
regulations as long as we get the site plan approval by the Planning Board. We are requesting
variances as Ms. Weisman stated to through dimensional regulations of the code and I
submitted a memorandum and an oral argument at the February hearing that support the
various criteria that this Board has to address when granting those dimensional variances. I
want to highlight a few factors; my client has to work with a relatively small property that has
existing buildings and defined locations that happen to be on or very close to the property lines.
The size of the property and the presence of the existing structures severely constrain if they
don’t outright prohibit my client’s ability to meet the dimensional regulations and that is why
we are before this Board. For example, in the B District Business Zone no single structure can
have more than 60 linear feet of frontage on one street but the bakery building was built
before this rule was adopted and has 70 linear feet of frontage. Also, by raising the roof slightly
even though the increased height will not put the structure any closer to the road than it
already is a variance to the setback requirement is needed. Finally, given the size of the parcel
there is a limited amount of land that can be devoted to both the minimum landscaping
requirement and the number of parking spaces that would be needed to make the restaurant
economically viable. We are before this Board to ask it to consider mitigating factors that would
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
support it’s grant of the three variances we are requesting. Some of these factors and I’m not
giving an exhaustive list but I’m going to give a few. There’s no alternative short of chopping off
ten feet of the building in order to comply with the 60 linear foot requirement. The total
inability to expand the building in any direction even off the back as the ARC might suggest
without the need for a setback variance if we went behind the building we would still need a
variance. By building up the roofline it’s a very insignificant amount I believe and Mr. Holzner’s
architect is here that the roofline will increase by 4 feet. Another factor is the character of the
neighborhood. Almost all the buildings in the area including the one directly across the street
have second stories and the proposed second story for the bakery will have a relatively minor
visual impact compared to the visual impact of the former Fort building directly across the
street where the second story was radically altered with glass dormers of a type that I doubt
were around during WWI let alone when the structure was built. We have a picture of that
structure which I will give to the Board. The fact that the building is surrounded by wooded and
green areas that will (inaudible) the impact of meeting less than a hundred percent of the
landscaping requirement and also the fact that it’s part of the site plan approval process, the
Planning Board will impose conditions making sure that there’s adequate drainage. Indeed the
Planning Board has already made a specific finding that the proposed development will not
alter or cause additional flood patterns or flooding and this is given the plan that is before that
Board that has the number of parking places that we are asking for that dictate that we need a
landscape variance. Generally concerning the project as a whole the assistant town Planning
Director’s report to this Board includes the following, “due to the parcel size and historic build
out the action does not conflict with community character, makes efficient use of infrastructure
and minimizes adverse effects on the development.” And finally as Ms. Weisman noted the
Planning Board’s determination determined this past Monday in its negative declaration that
the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. The Architectural Review
Board Committee seems to have adopted the opinion of the neighbor across the street who has
an interest in not seeing a second story go on this building but I submit to you that what my
client is proposing is no less radically altering the Fort building than this. We have additional
picture of this if you want to pass that around. That’s the building immediately across the
street.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If I hold this can you see this on Fishers Island? I love the shorthand
we got a thumbs up.
STEVE HAM : I’m not handling the application before the Planning Board but I understand from
the person who is that they are not particularly enamored in having (inaudible) build out in the
back. For one thing it diminishes the amount of parking, the amount of landscaping, it will
require us to come back here for a variance. In this business district we’re supposed to have
100 foot setback. The lot depth is not that big. This Board has to deal with hardships and
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
practical difficulties that are presented by a particular property. We are not coming with a piece
of vacant land and asking for all kinds of relief to do things that cannot be done under zoning.
We’re asking for relief because we have a building in a particular location and we have a lot size
that will not give us sufficient area for an economically viable restaurant and landscaping at the
same time. Mr. Holzner is here in the audience and his architect David Noe is also here if the
Board has questions for them or if there’s anything else that you would like me to address I’m
happy to attempt to do so.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : May I assume that you’re going to submit your written statement?
STEVE HAM : I can yes I will.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s not a memorandum of law but
STEVE HAM : I’d be happy to submit what I just read absolutely.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think before we ask the Board if they have any questions I’d like to
open this up to the public who’s on Fishers Island to see if anyone there would like to address
anything you just said or has any questions for the Board. Is anyone in the audience on Fishers
Island or here who wishes to address the Board? If so please come to the microphone. Please
start by stating your name for us.
KEN EDWARDS : My name is Ken Edwards lifelong resident of Fishers Island. Madam Chairman,
members of the Board thank you for letting us comment on this project.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s nice to see you again Ken.
KEN EDWARDS : I’m sure that this is small potatoes of some of the projects that you see over at
the town but it’s big potatoes for us here on Fishers Island and it’s going to have a positive and
negative affect and if the Board hasn’t made a site visit I encourage them to come and look at
the site.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually a number of us were over for the annual meeting, Southold
Town meeting on Fishers Island and did have a chance to look at the actual bakery building and
also Walsh Park you know all of those things in that area. We should let it be known that Ken
was for many years on the Southold Town Planning Board.
KEN EDWARDS : Twenty seven years thank you. I think most of our comments at least mine
were made to the Planning Board and I’m sure you have those in front of you so encourage you
to review them and due diligence on your decision at the end.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you.
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
BOB EVANS : Bob Evans. This is part question and part request. The building met the 100 foot
setback would that put it sufficiently close to the school and it would be within the area
prohibiting a liquor license and if that’s the case does your Board have the authority to ask that
any consideration for a liquor license would require that it be assuming that the 100 foot
setback were met?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I believe that’s the jurisdiction of the State Liquor Authority. Is that
right Bill, I’m asking counsel our Town Attorney but I don’t believe we have the jurisdiction to
do that and certainly as a historic property we would certainly not want to be moving that back
any farther than it currently sits.
STEVE HAM : It would be on school property Bob.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And it would be on school property and it would be off the site
entirely. So we can’t physically move it. With regard to a liquor license I know that a number of
BOB EVANS : For the purpose (inaudible) measuring you have the authority that the
measurement will start as if the 100 foot setback were met?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No we don’t have the authority to state the terms of business
operation like that. I mean that’s strictly actually when a liquor license is applied for usually
town agencies are notified to see if they have any comments and that would be the only time
that our Board or the Planning Board or any other, Building Department could bring up an issue
like that but it’s up to the State Liquor Authority to grant or not grant. We could make
objections but that’s about it, we don’t have the authority to do anything.
BOB EVANS : Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You’re welcome.
(UNAMED FROM FISHERS ISLAND) : I think that’s it from our end, anybody I just want to let you
know we have thirteen people here so it’s pretty impressive.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Very good, I’m glad that we made this effort even though it’s not
without its faults residents of Fishers Island are part of the Town of Southold and deserve to be
heard personally rather than just through written correspondence so we’re glad to (inaudible)
this up and running and we’re going to continue to work on improving it. Is there anyone in this
audience that wants to address the application? Anything from the Board, is there anything
anyone wants to ask? I will say that the basis of our asking comments from the Architectural
Review Committee was the fact that the bakery building is on the SPLIA list which is not
designating that it’s a historic property per say it’s not landmarked so there is flexibility in which
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
to do with the design but I being a former professor of architecture felt that it was a reasonable
thing to do given the historic character of that whole neighborhood and that one of our
standards for area variances is character of the neighborhood to find out how the Architectural
Review Committee viewed the design in context with the character of the neighborhood and
the historic nature of the whole Fort Wright complex. So that’s what all is boiled down to from
that point of view.
STEVE HAM : Right and I have an extra picture of the character of the neighbor there right
across the street which I can circulate if you’d like.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Would it be helpful for the architect to speak about the design?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure I think that would be very useful. You’re here why not come
forward and tell us what you would like us to know.
DAVID NOE : Hello my name is David Noe at 360 Design Plus. So after meeting with the Board
the Architect Review Committee we did respond to their desire to see brick on the building and
also work in conjunction with (inaudible) area so with that we did multiple options. The one
that we prefer I’ll show you right now as you can see we tried to bring the scale down in
response to the concerns of the Committee and also the roofline as the attorney said we’re
more like 4 feet above the existing roofline. So really in trying to keep that sort of raw aesthetic
of the industrial look of the area and maintain that aesthetic neighborhood.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don’t actually even have this one. Here’s what I got. I’m talking
about the second submission and this one. Basically the glazing remains the same and you need
it for head clearance. The pitch on the roofs are all different.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Why are the windows looking blue?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s just the software.
DAVID NOE : We can show you the other options. I was under the impression that all three
were presented.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have this one and I have this one but you’re preferred one
somehow was not submitted.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is that a flat roof now?
DAVID NOE : Yes that was an effort to reduce the ridge height. We did do a pretty exhausted
(inaudible) of various options.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There’s one that has a green roof on it.
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
DAVID NOE : Yes it’s the same one.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But it’s not from that you don’t see the elevations so much you
DAVID NOE : Right that’s the same one from a different
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you proposing a green roof?
DAVID NOE : Yes it could be.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, if you think it’s appropriate would anyone like to the
applicant’s architect would you like to address the concerns that the community has about the
nature of what the restaurant operation is going to be like, what plans you have in mind?
DAVID NOE : I’ll turn it over to Mark the owner.
MARK HOLZNER : Mark Holzner. We’re looking to do the right thing for the community so we
would start with housing. We’re looking to zone it for a restaurant but that could morph into
something more like a deli, bakery, wine and cheese but we’re looking for the relief to at least
start with that basis point.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so you’re not absolutely confirmed about how this quote
restaurant will operate?
MARK HOLZNER : Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You will serve what you’re hours of operation are, that’s not
decided.
MARK HOLZNER : Correct and that’s not for the ZBA.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it’s a permitted use.
MARK HOLZNER : That’s right.
CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : But because you know you’ve got neighbors there who will support
your business presumably they have some issues that we’re trying to simply broker some sort
of I won’t say compromise but some sort of understanding that you’re going to be a good
player within the frame work of the neighbors.
MARK HOLZNER : And we’re very sympathetic to that also because we have a house on Fishers
Island also so we’re very sympathetic to that.
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Part of the here I’m going to hold this up like that, can you all see
this okay? Thumbs up okay. It’s fairly similar in its massing to the kind of contemporary
intervention of the glazing on the building across the street. It does have more of a linear
industrial character than kind of a residential pitched roof proposal would. This is not the last
time a discussion about what it’s going to look like will take place because that’s part of the site
planning also. What’s really before us are the standards that are addressed in the area variance
standards of community character is the first one. So that’s where this comes in as far as we’re
concerned but again we’re not stamping necessarily this as a final design. We do have to when
we make decisions stamp plans that are submitted to us, surveys that are submitted to us and I
think what the best way to do this in order to make it a responsible coordinated review and
having you in the audience so let me address this to you as well, my thinking is that any
granting of any variances would be conditional based upon any potential changes made
through the site planning approval process okay and then anything that was changed would be
resubmitted to us for our file. That gives everybody flexibility. We don’t want to have to play
back and forth here, that makes no sense. Now let’s see, anything from the Board, any more
questions or comments or input you’d like?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just the one comment I’d like to make in light of this sort of preferred
design with a flat green roof, just from what I visually saw the massing I just want to make a
comment that it really striked me as a more substantial massing than the dormer on either side
of the modest pitched between and that’s just a comment and as Leslie said I’m sure the ARC
and Planning will have other comments.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think the best way to look at this is to look at the these together. So
here is the existing elevation and here is the proposed. They’re not the same but one
emphasizes the kind of industrial nature of the buildings within that area whereas the other is it
sort of looks more like a railroad station basically. It does have more of a residential scale but
this is one story. This is two story and you can’t get two apartments in there without some
headroom so changes will have to happen in order to make these permitted uses possible but
again I’ll reiterate what’s before this Board are dimensional standards, three area variances and
that’s what the Board is prepared to address at this point. Steve did you want to say
something?
STEVE HAM : Just that the building out the back of this property is not a reasonable alternative
and the height is so insubstantial that you know that I hope is what you’ll consider.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it doesn’t need a height variance, it’s still well under the 35 feet
permitted.
STEVE HAM : Correct, yes.
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you want to take these back? Do we have a copy of that? Can
you just email and then we can send it to the whole Board the preferred one. Just email it to
Kim to the office.
STEVE HAM : I had presented a photograph the one across the street just for the character of
the neighborhood.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright I’m going to get ready to close this any reason we shouldn’t?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Are there any other comments maybe on Fishers Island?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’ll ask again, one last shot anybody want to say anything or ask
anything on Fishers Island? I know this is a project you’ve had a great deal of interest in and
again I’m very glad to have your participation. Hearing no further questions or comments I’m
going to make a motion to close this hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAM : All in favor?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING # 7276 – SHAWN P. FITZGERALD REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have a hearing that is a non-hearing. It’s simply performing,
mailings were not done properly so I’m just going to ask Shawn Fitzgerald Revocable Living
th
Trust to come up #7276. This was adjourned from May 9 because of mailings. Do you have any
additional mailings?
PHIL BUTLER : Good afternoon madam Chairman. Yes I do have some.
CHAIRPEROSN WEISMAN : This was a technical matter. We’ve already had the hearing so it’s
just a matter of submitting those. There is no one in the audience who wishes to address the
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
application that I can see is that correct? Yes. So I’m going to make a motion to formally close
this hearing. We will be deliberating. We have a draft and we will make that decision shortly
but with your indulgence I’m going to hold that in abeyance until we complete this application
they’ve been waiting very patiently and I think in fairness I have to reconvene that hearing. We
had to recess in order to do this Fishers Island thing. Sorry to keep you waiting but the decision
will be very shortly as soon as they’re finished.
PHIL BUTLER : So I can just wait?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you want to hear it.
PHIL BUTLER : No I do.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’ll get mailed to you or you can
PHIL BUTLER : I’m going to wait.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s not legal until I sign it anyway. Motion to close 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 # 7286 & 7287 – EAST END REALTY, LLC
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to reconvene East Realty is there a second?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
MEMER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please come back and thank you very much. This is most unusual we
don’t usually do this but as you can see the technical challenges here were considerable.
HOWARD RABIN : Maybe I’ll just go into what you had questioned about use variance versus
area variance. When I looked at this I questioned whether or not a use variance was actually
the proper thing we’re requesting. The reason I did that was because the Building Department
whom I spoke to said that you would need that so I said fine.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Said it was not a permitted use but it is a permitted use.
HOWARD RABIN : Yes and that’s what I’ll just briefly talk to. So I just looked up the distinctions
under there was a case a matter of Cohen Realty LLC vs. Town of North Hempstead. It’s New
York Court of Appeals in 2014 case 24 New York (inaudible) and they actually cited the general
city law 81-B1. It said typically a use variance is defined as an authorization for the use of the
land for a purpose other than that allowed or not prohibited in a zoning district.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is not the case.
HOWARD RABIN : That is really not the case here because clearly you could put a lesser use on
a property. This property is zoned limited use business I believe is what you call it here and in a
limited use business you could have one use for 80,000 sq. ft. which is what we’re really looking
of the variance for to put two uses in that. We have approximately 100,000 sq. ft. of land area
but clearly you could put a lesser use like a residence which is what we’re asking to do to be
able to use this ex-dormitory labor camp for. So I think if I was the judge and jury I would
probably classify it as an area variance that we’re going for but just to give it a way of
explanation. I’m saying that I applied for it the way they asked me to.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes and I actually believe you addressed the use variance standards
very effectively because use variances as you can imagine are very difficult to get.
HOWARD RABIN : That’s right.
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You did address the economic hardship and the other potential uses
on the subject property. I think quite frankly in my opinion and I’m one person on this Board
with one vote, they are dimensional. They are two principal uses on one undersized property.
Now it’s a very substantial variance, it’s a hundred percent. You have 80,000 and you need
160,000 but that is really a dimensional issue and it speaks to the nature or the history of the
property when you’re talking about character of the neighborhood and so on. I would almost
opt to overturn the potential use variance of the Notice of Disapproval by saying it is permitted
subject to an area variance. I’ll ask counsel and we’ll discuss it as a Board but in either direction
I think you’re on pretty safe grounds.
HOWARD RABIN : Okay with that said then I’m not going to pursue I’m not going to go into
unless you suggest I do.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does the Board want that to be the case or I mean you’ve done it in
your application but what do you think Bill?
T. A. DUFFY : I think this is clearly an area variance not a use variance to the extent you need to
address the use variance you’ve done it in your submission so I would focus on the area
variance.
HOWARD RABIN : The zoning required here I just made some notes as to the town code, there’s
80,000 sq. ft. required per use, we have 98,498 sq. ft. There’s a side yard requirement of 20 feet
on the side facing the railroad. We’re actually between 19 and 20 feet so it’s a little bit shy on
that side. The bigger deal on the area variance is the rear yard. When this building was
constructed I don’t think that that was thought of at all. I don’t think these things existed.
Initially the property that was developed was developed in 1920. I believe it was the one that
burnt down and then even in the fifties when the original labor camp was built I don’t believe
this was an issue at all and then when they rebuilt it they gave them a special use permit to
build to reconstruct this building where the old building was. So there was a rear yard setback
requirement of 75 feet and that’s where the significantly short the building juts out in the back
for a utility room so at that point which is the closest to the neighboring line we’re only 12.3
feet and it fans out as much as 20 feet give or take but that’s really the variance that we’re
seeking and the building can’t not much we can do to move this building. I don’t believe it
constructed such that you can move it or it would be very difficult and cost prohibited to do so
as long as they’re using the potato grading building the variance in fact even the building that
burned down they told us we couldn’t reconstruct because it didn’t meet the current code.
They allow you to have a lot coverage of 20% on such a property that’s for one building. We
actually had four at the time so we could definitely take down all the buildings and put up a
building of approximately 20,000 sq. ft. footprint. We can go up to 2 ½ stories which would give
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
us 40,000 approximately sq. ft. and then we would have our lot coverage of 20%. What do we
have here? We have 7.12% so we’re using just really a small percentage of what we’re
permitted to do. So that said I’m going to just look at the who the neighbors are. You have
better pictures than I do. I only have just to show you what the area looks like that we’re talking
about. The architect put in aerial views pictures and if you look from the air you see this
building near the property line and then you see the building we use to pack in kind of in the
center of the property. In the rear the only neighbors to the building that we’re talking about
immediate neighbors there are two. One is the railroad I don’t have anyone to speak to at the
railroad, they didn’t appear. I don’t think that they care. The neighbor behind us I did speak to
Russell he actually called me
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : McCall.
HOWARD RABIN : Yea and he’s actually a local guy. He has I didn’t know this until he called me
but he I never met him but I know he rents out his farm to a farmer that we do business with
Shulman produce does business with and he called me and he said he has no objection on it. He
was just asking what we were doing and I told him and he didn’t have any objections and he is
the neighbor directly behind. He’s the one that would be affected by the I guess by the
proximity of the building not being 75 feet in that setback and I believe he’s zoned agricultural
so I don’t think anything else is happening with that land so we’re not really getting in anyone’s
way there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask you, what does a red kind of wood framed building that’s
facing the proposed dwelling to the left, that’s a storage building of some sort?
HOWARD RABIN : Yea it’s a shed. It’s not heated, there’s no water in it. I think we ran one when
we got a permit to run like an electric light in there so they can but it’s just storing things like
bags for their potato packing operation and that’s basically all and old spare parts that the
equipment
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When you renovate this dwelling what about the septic system?
HOWARD RABIN : The septic system in 2006 that’s an interesting question. When the old
building burned down in order to at that time we only had well water on the property and we
wanted we didn’t have a bathroom in the building they now use as a packing shed that building
was only used for fertilizer storage so we had to put significant money into that building. The
town required us to hook up to public water in order to do that so therefore we had to put in a
new septic system. That half bathroom we put in cost over $50,000 because we had to run the
public water trench back for some 400 some odd feet. We had to do a test of the old septic
system before the building burned down to make sure there was no environmental issues there
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
were not. Then we put in a totally new septic system for this half bath. This building the septic
system was in between the farm behind us it was in a twelve to twenty foot area. They said no
you have to abandon that. I believe that’s where it was and they told us to move out in front so
we did that. They put in a large septic system. It’s been underutilized because since that time
the only ones using it is basically us on occasion our occasional camping trips where we stay
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What year was that?
HOWARD RABIN : 2006 so we have the specs I believe, I’m not sure if the architect put them all
in. I think he did cause I know he told me he had to look into this and he spoke to the Will Parks
so Will put in the (inaudible) for us. I asked him for the paperwork he sent it to the architect.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The septic lids are right in front of the structure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You walk right over them.
HOWARD RABIN : We put a heavy duty concrete pad there so that you can park on it so that it’s
not going anywhere if that’s what somebody wanted yea that’s correct so you go those things
right out in the front. Any other questions about that?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just in terms of rental, do you have anything in mind you know some
farm workers family or anything like that you (inaudible) market rate rental or what?
HOWARD RABIN : Well market rate rentals it’s not so clearly what they are. I did research it and
in addition to being an attorney I’m also a licensed real estate associate broker. I have all this I
think I met Nick before I spoke to him once.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Your memory is better than mine.
HOWARD RABIN : Well I think I had a house for sale for a client in Southold and I think he had
called on you or something like that. In any event so I did the comps. It seems like most there’s
not an awful lot of rentals for the year out here. Most of the transient people are looking to
rent are seasonal. I wouldn’t be looking to rent it seasonally somebody coming out for vacation
probably doesn’t want to be next to the railroad tracks.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Or potato packing.
HOWARD RABIN : Potato packing that’s true except that’s a short season so yes you’re correct
but I don’t think that that’s you know a terrible you know inconvenience for somebody there
cause they you know
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I will say that this town desperately needs some affordable
rental housing. When I say affordable I’m not talking about subsidized. I’m just talking about
something that a working family can pay for.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That’s what I was going to ask you. The housing registry in the
Supervisor’s office will have them.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that’s different. That does restrict what you can charge and it’s
restricts who is eligible to live there. It might be something you might want to look at because
actually the income levels are pretty high. This is workforce housing. When we say affordable
we’re talking about affordable in context. So you know the rentals out here are staggeringly
expensive so this is
HOWARD RABIN : This wouldn’t be bad. This would probably be in the range of $2000 a month.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : See that would be considered affordable rent.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly. I was going to suggest that there should be some discussion
with the Supervisor’s office to that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m going just recommend that it has nothing to do with what’s
before us but right down the hall is a man named Denis Noncarrow who is the one who
manages the list of people who are looking for housing, year round permanent rental housing
and they qualify by income for this range of housing. There’s some restrictions on it but it’s very
high end. I mean it’s not like cheap and these are people that really need a place to live and
that are working. They work in the town or they live in the town of Southold and they have
decent incomes.
MEMBER DANTES : I’m confused are you asking him to put his house with restrictions?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I am not. I’m suggesting he might want to consider.
HOWARD RABIN : Although we’re not up to it.
CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : Just look at it because you can also look at the list.
HOWARD RABIN : I appreciate it. I think what she’s doing is making a good suggestion to us
because well first of all we have to renovate the place. First of all we hope the Board goes our
way and gives us a variance. We have to do our construction, get everything approved, get the
C.O.’s and then look for a tenant. We’re not looking for a tenant now because it would be quite
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So far away but I just wanted to make you aware that that does exist
here and that there are a lot of terrific nurses and you know people that are school teachers
and you know
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : This is a three bedroom house which is (inaudible) people need.
HOWARD RABIN : Yeah it would be for a small family. It’s not such a tiny house it’s 1,600 sq. ft.
a reasonable size it’s not a mansion or anything like that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What we have to do is find out about the use of the property for the
storage of the buses on top of the a dwelling and potato packing. I don’t think we’ve ever had
that kind of thing before so it’s LB zoned so that’s a little different than a residentially zoned
property. It might be okay but I just want to
HOWARD RABIN : Our thought was just to go to that because I did speak when I had the
architect come out here he looked at the place and showed him what was there. He made
some recommendations about doing some landscaping. We have some privet not too far from
the building we’ll probably take it out and put it in some probably something like we put in on
the side a few years back some arborvitaes or something like that to basically separate the
busses from you know if they were there to separate that so that it wouldn’t you know that
people wouldn’t be looking at it. The buses wouldn’t be parking in their area etc.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you don’t require site plan approval for this right Bill, but I
mean it looks as though you already recognize that probably in order to have a reasonable
dwelling on there that’s rentable and possibly you know a bus depot and a potato you’re going
to have to do a few site improvements, the driveway or something like that maybe some
landscaping.
T. A. DUFFY : At the very least it’s now a third use. If it’s allowed at all I’m not passing
judgement so you would require an additional variance to have that bus depot. That’s not part
of your application today correct?
HOWARD RABIN : That’s correct.
T. A. DUFFY : So you’re going to have to come back before the Board if you’re going to want to
keep that.
HOWARD RABIN : Yeah and that’s small potatoes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No pun intended right. Alright I wanted to bring it up because I
thought that would be the case that it would be considered another use.
??
June 6, 2019 Regular Meeting
HOWARD RABIN : We never intended to have the property as a bus depot. We did you know
when trucks would come in sometimes the truckers might sleep overnight. They park their rig
there but that wasn’t you know
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it was an industrial site so what harm is it doing.
HOWARD RABIN : They’re driving (inaudible) they have a limit to how much they can drive a
night but you know so that was something that was there before and I don’t know that that
happens that often any longer but anyway point well taken as to the
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from anybody, anybody in the audience? I think we’ve got
everything we need. Hearing no further questions or comments I’m going to make a motion to
close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)