HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-08/01/2019 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
August 1, 2019
9:55 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
1
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
INDEX OF HEARINGS
Hearing Pie
Patrick Naglieri and Margaret McConnell #7300 3711
Florence Vasilakis, Alexander Vasilakis and Demetrios Vasilakis # 7304 12 - 18
Maggi-Meg Reed and Michael Schubert# 7301 18 - 19
William Gorman #7302 20 - 32
William Gorman #7303SE 20 - 32-
Fabrio Granato#7305 32 - 37
Susan Cacchioli #7306 37 -41.
North Fork Haven, LLC#7307 42 -43
Halsey A. Staples and Janet E. Staples #7299/Ratso 25 Corp. 44- 57
Hlasey A. Stapels and Janet E. Staples #7231/Ratso 25 Corp. 44- 57
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
HEARING#7300—PATRICK NAGLIERI and MARGARET IVICCONNELL
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN, : The first application before the Board is for Patrick Naglieri and
Margaret McConnell #7300. This is,,a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124
and the Building Inspector's March 6, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to
demolish an existing dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling at 1) located less than
the code required' minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) located less than the code
required rear yard setback of 35 feet, 3) located less than the code required combined side yard
setback of 25 feet, 4) more than-the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at
9955 Soundview Ave. in Southold.
PAT MOORE : Good morning, Patricia Moore on behalf of the applicants and both my clients are
here to assist me and if the Board has any questions. We provided the survey the proposed
house and you could see in the silhouette of the survey the existing house.,The existing house
we provided you the C.O.'s and 'you can see that this isa pre-existing, non-conforming house on
a very pre-existing, non-conforming or;very non-conforming lot. The lot itself is 6,677 sq. ft., it's
one of the smallest lots along this lot.-My clients began the process hoping that they could do
renovations to their existing house but as' you can see from the documentation that in doing
renovations we would very quickly reach the fifty percent threshold in that the original house
may have significantly under constructed since 'th'ey had originally constructed as a seasonal
home. So with that in mind they approached the modular design, one certainly''for affordability
and the proposal you know from prior applications and your knowledge of modular there are
limitations on the sizes of modulars. They are standard sizes that you try to fit to the extent
possible to 'make them conforming. The proposed modular is showing here it is a rectangle, it is
placed at the most conforming setbacks as far as side yards with 10 feet on the one side and
13.5 on the other. In doing the calculations the front yard I was told during the process oh no
we can't apply the front yard setback the numbers didn't match and I had checked it again this
morning and we actually we have the front yard setbacks of the adjacent properties and when I
did the calculations in fact the front yard setback if the house was pushed back less than a foot
we would be conforming because the average setback that would be required when you take
all three houses and divide by three is 27.36, the requested is 27.5. So less than a foot would
bring that front yard, into conformity if that's what the Board would prefer us do. However it
would reduce the rear yard setback proportionally by that amount. So the front yard setback
could be eliminated if as I said the front if the house were pushed back just slightly less,than a
foot. The side yard setbacks are really can't be reduced any further because of the modular
design the width of this house is an established width. If we went with an alternative design it
would be a significant need larger reduction making the house less comfortable for my clients.
This will eventually become their retirement home. Probably the most significant issue here
and I'm sure you want to talk about it is the lot coverage. I want to correct for the record the
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
surveyor provided the existing lot coverage well the lot coverage of the existing house and we
believe he may have overlooked the existing deck and his calculations are off. My clients and I
did some rough calculations and the existing house with the'deck and the shed the deck and
the house which also includes a small,entrance covered porch is closer to 19 % as a lot coverage_
for the house that's there. So this house proportionally is similar to the house that is being
demolished. Where we end up with a greater'lot coverage is the front porch and the rear
covered deck.
CHAIRPERSON WIESMAN Pat if you were to eliminate the shed what is the lot, coverage
proposed shed?
PAT MOORE : Eliminating the shed would well-the existing shed would reduce it down to 24.2
i
and they're certainly prepared to do that right off the bat.This house the new house will have a
basement so they will have,storage and a bilco door for access. So it will eliminate the need for
the shed. The house.right now doesn't have it has a crawl space so it would provide the storage
'that they would need. So that certainly would be something that the applicants would be very
pleased to offer towards compliance. When we're dealing with a modular again the aesthetics
of a modular are sometimes a-challenge. You're dealing with for the most part a box so a front
porch really does provide some character to the architectural style and the porch here has been
proposed, it is not a large porch. It's a porch really just for two rocking chairs, I laugh cause it's
you know a retirement home with a rocking chair but it does both provide just a little just ,a
character as well as functionality to, the house. The most important for my clients, the back
deck the,covered porch this property will have a water view from the new house and that is
something that really they would value greatly because one it's a water view without having,to
have the flood insurance issue from the flood problems that water view homes typically have.
So the rear deck as to all of the accessory improvements on this house that's their. highest
priority. If you'd like to discuss the design we are here, we're here to discuss it, we're always
willing to be as flexible as possible given the limitations the constraints on modular design.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you were writing your analysis I think certainly from my point of
view it's a very small lot that's narrow probably one of the smallest in the neighborhood so side
yards and so on averaging, I was going to ask about the averaging cause it looks to me like
you'd be very close. I think that could' help eliminate one variance and I'd like to get the lot
coverage down so without the'shed we're about 24.2 you're saying?
PAT MOORE : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If that front porch which is more decorative than functional were
eliminated what does that bring us down to?
4
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE : Let me see if I did that calculation.
MEMBER LEHNERT : 212 sq. ft.
PAT MOORE : Yeah thank you so a reduction by 212 let-me see I think it was only a reduction of
3% to the, lot,coverage with a front porch. One suggestion I made to the clients which they
would be amenable to, you see that the front porch right now runs along the entire length of
the front yard; if that front porch was cut off where the reverse gable that angle it was cut off
there then cosmetically or architecturally I think it would give the'same some character to the
design without the need for that extra lot coverage. So certainly we could do a calculation on
that and it seems to fall really in line with that reverse gable. It's a mini, it's a fake reverse gable
I want to say but that line seems to run and if you end at the porch just slightly over because
there'll be a little bit of an overlap where the post is that is surrounding the front door. I think
that would be a very big compromise as well, elimination of some or without' impacting
significantly the design and the functionality of the house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Let's see in the interest of time (inaudible) questions from the Board
cause I'm suspecting what was probably going to be the best way to' proceed is to submit an
amended application showing a conforming front yard setback and changing the rear yard
slightly, eliminating the shed, reducing the porch and seeing what lot coverage we come up
with on the survey maybe the change of the front elevation. So is there anything from the
Board on this that was not discussed that you would like to ask?
MEMBER DANTES : I don't see•why they can't get a conforming lot coverage.
PAT MOORE : Well that would eliminate you would have the house just a box and it is well the
elimination of that rear balcony is really a
MEMBER DANTES : Well you got the shed then you got the covered front porch taking you
down to 21% `
PAT MOORE : Where you're going to take it from that's the problem. The back deck is really the
useable area. Given the size of the property and looking at the homes, the number that we've
come to by eliminating what we could I think would bring it certainly much more conformity
and realistically with such a small lot you can't reach conformity here and certainly have a
modular that's the problem and just affordability for the clients. The modular is the alternative
that will allow them to replace what is'a significantly non-conforming house. You know you're
going to get better here in that the new house will be more conforming. You're going to get an
updated sanitary system. I mean their option is do nothing leave the cottage that's there but
that doesn't really that's not an improvement to the community at large and to the
neighborhood.
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anything from anybody else?
MEMBER LEHNERT : I think there's got to be a way to bring it down. You're showing us a blank
slate, you're taking a house down. You're getting a blank piece of property and asking for 26%
lot coverage and then throwing in the modular as if it already exists. I mean I'm not going to tell
you how'to-build your house but there's a way to design around this and get that number
down.
PAT MOORE : It's difficult with a modular. You know they come as a box and they don't come I
mean certainly there is I'm sure there's ways to customize but now you're essentially paying a
modular to do a stick built and your costs is significantly different. My clients are not wealthy
people they are trying to they rent their home in the city or their apartment in the city. They're
I want to say average, we're not used to average on the east end but there are still a lot of
people,that are average income so we're trying to work within what is their budget as well as
the limitations of the property. So yes in an ideal world I would be saying to them stick built
because you'd have a lot more flexibility but the cost factor is significant.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's why I'm asking you to go back and calculate on the
survey and see how low you can make it. I think the front porch is the way to go because it's an
entry and it's not something you're really going to and we know the street they're not going to
be sitting really on that porch much. They will be in the back yard.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But I would agree that I think adding some sort of articulation is nice
just from the street besides it does strike me as a boxy structure.
PAT MOORE : It is yeah.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that's why I'm saying go back to the (inaudible) and talk to them
come back in and tell us what you've accomplished.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : To that point if I may two questions, are there any proposed outdoor
showers or other things that are not represented on.the survey or site plan?
PAT MOORE : An outdoor shower would generally be it'wouldn't be considered a structure. It
would be a spigot out.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well depending on what it is yes.
PAT MOORE : They would have to have in order not to create any issues it would be a fenced in
outdoor shower that you
August 1, 2019 Regular, Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Then you mentioned that there was going to be a bilco access, I
didn't see that on the plan or
MEMBER LEHNERT : It's on the west side.
PAT MOORE : It's on the west side. It says CE on it next to the garage
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : CF?
PAT MOORE : Well mine says E.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It wasn't on the plans so
PAT MOORE : It's on the survey.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from the Board, anyone in the audience wishing to
address the application? Please come forward.
RICHARD LEE : Good morning everyone. My name 'is Richard Lee. I'm in agreement of the
Southold Town Building Inspector and his Disapproval the requested variance of Patrick Naglieri
and Margaret McConnell owner of 9955 Soundview Ave. Southold, New York. I've been residing
at 3050 Kenneys Rd. Southold since April of 1994 bordering the property in the question on the
western side. It troubles me to see a possible violation of our R40 zoning code concerning this
non-conforming lot. The demolition of an existing cottage to erect twice the size 855 sq. ft.
versus 1,617 sq. ft., two and half story new structure on such a small narrow trapezoidal lot
only 50 feet by 133 feet will surely detract from the surrounding neighborhood,and property.
We on the North Fork in the town of Southold pride ourselves in being the un-Hamptons and
the un-borough of Queens. May I ask a few questions?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You may.
RICHARD LEE : I have a well water system within 150 feet of the Naglieri proposed CP system.
The (inaudible) property bordering on the east side also has one. The proposed three bathroom
and kitchen, is the proposed CP system able to handle the increased amount of waste? What is
the status of the Health Department sanitary code application by Mr. Naglieri will there be a
variance hearing?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :`That I can't answer. I presume that the Health Department will take
care of that and it's not before this Board but certainly all codes, all setbacks'from existing wells
and things like that would have to be adhered to by the applicant. The Department'of Health
has jurisdiction over that.
7
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
RICHARD LEE : On the proposed building drawing there's indicated a semi stair from the first
floor with a smoke detector indicated below. Is there a proposed basement within a mechanical
room also and I believe there's more (inaudible) there will be a basement (inaudible). I want to
thank you for the attention and respectfully I'd like you to review what I just read.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If I may Mr. Lee if you could,go back to the podium' I was going to
originally ask Pat Moore this question about landscaping but I just want to verify that we're
speaking about the correct house. The home that you reside in is the one with the swimming
pool?
RICHARD LEE : Correct.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just I had noticed that your neighbor immediate to the north recently
renovated their house. They have a second story with windows that sort of look down to your
pool.
RICHARD LEE : Yes.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : This property and I was trying to understand whether or not there
would be a sound view achieved by adding that second story terrace. It all seems very sort of
tight within a neighborhood so I just A) wanted to verify that yours was the property with the
pool and then sort of for the applicant although I don't want to see screening to take away their
view but I'd like to understand if there's any proposed landscaping or other things to mitigate
cause it's a very tight location.
RICHARD LEE : Very tight and obviously in a trapezoidal situation only 50 feet wide as it's
already been stated its way out of a conforming use for any of the other properties in the
neighborhood. It'll detract.
PAT MOORE : Is this your house?
RICHARD LEE : No. Any other questions?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we're good. Is there anyone else in the audience?
PAT MOORE : Well I'd just like to address-briefly, the views are maybe why don't I have Mr.
Naglieri you can describe for us what you see. I have photographs if you look in the file winter
photographs. You can see that there are neighboring houses that are two story as you pointed
out. Their pool is on the other side but there's a six foot fence-that is separating the .two
properties I recall really the entire length.
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
PATRICK NAGLIERI : That's correct. I'm retreating my property and Mr. Lees My apologies I
don't testify at these hearings my name is Patrick Naglieri. My wife and I Margaret McConnell
own the property at 9955 Soundview Ave. We've owned the property for approximately fifteen
years. We consider ourselves part time residents of the Town of Southold. Within the next year
or two we'd like to consider ourselves full time residents of the Town of Southold and for all the
reasons that Ms. Moore articulated which I won't go through again we'd like to able to build
this house. To the west of my property lies Mr. Lee's property and he is correct, it's a
trapezoidal property. He's correct on it's all very close (inaudible) swimming pool and I'm not
mentioning this you know by way of complaint (inaudible) the other side of the fence and in
fact we will be moving the rear corner of our property that abuts Mr. Lee's property further
away from Mr. Lee's property. I don't know if that alleviates his concerns. Mr. Lee was one of
the neighbors who unfortunately I didn't get to speak with personally although I had made a
number of attempts. All of my other neighbors, the Castigliones, the Matigues and the Clarks
were all apprized before I started the process so it wasn't simply a letter in the mail as to what
we were doing and if they had any concerns, would like to see the plans and would like to walk
the property with me so long before I started the process they were aware of that. I don't know
if there's any other questions I can answer for the Board I'd be happy to do so. Other than to
say we know a modular is boxy and we've tried to put our resources into finishing it in terms of
the exterior, the roofing, the decking and hopefully when it's done appropriate plantings and
landscaping so it's attractive to the neighborhood and adds to the neighborhood. That was our
intent. We realize it's a small lot. We're going to be retirees. I'm not looking for a big lot and
(inaudible). I've done that for the first forty years of my life so I'm looking to have a small
property that's easier for me to maintain and you know continue to be a part of the Southold
community. So if there's anything I can answer I'd be happy to answer and we'd be happy to try
and work with the Board in any way possible so that we can achieve what we would like to
achieve without any detriment to the Town of Southold.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, anything else from the Board? Hearing no further
questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to adjourn to the Special Meeting so that
the applicant may submit an amended application.
PAT MOORE : Can I just for my purposes of clarifying, what do you need?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I need a survey showing the change for the average front yard
setback which is conforming which eliminates one variance. It will alter slightly the rear yard
setback variance that's required. We're going to need to remove the shed and to reduce the
front porch as discussed to provide the closest to conforming lot coverage as is reasonable. So
we'll need the survey with the calculations and elevation change of the front. Anything else you
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
would want? Go back to Mike and say this is what we're changing and it will be cleaner I guess
because they do there determinations to just get an amended Notice of Disapproval.
PAT MOORE : That's fine. I will put in the order right away. Timing wise Peconic is very backed
up so I may have to ask for additional time so just
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you want to adjourn to the next Regular Meeting that's in four
weeks?
PAT MOORE : Yes. I don't think that Peconic can get me the information in the short time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pat if I may I have another question it came up cause I was thinking of
Mr. Lee's comments. In the proposed elevation of the house accessing the rear deck off the
master bedroom like a spiral staircase and it's on the lot line or on the lot side where it's the
narrower 10 foot width. It's not shown on the survey but I'm just thinking that from the landing
the scaling we don't have a ruler here to really figure out the exact width of that stairwell.
Could you be sure to include that on the revised survey just that I get a better grasp where it is
in relation to the lot line?
PAT MOORE : Sure.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was going to say it's a ten foot wide area it's got to be I'm thinking
at least 6 if not 8 feet wide.
PAT MOORE : Yea I was concerned I noticed that as well and I wanted to check with the Building
Department but we can either relocate it to the other side which is a larger side or it's right
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It strikes me based on where I think it's going probably almost right in
the guy's pool.
MEMBER LEHNERT : I think in needs to be shown on the survey and the plan also cause it's only
showing here on the elevations.
PAT MOORE : Yes okay and would anyone have an objection if we relocated that stairs to the
other side?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No.
PAT MOORE : No, okay just my only concern is I'm sensitive to the width of it. I don't want
usually staircases don't result in setbacks but if it gets tight I will see where we can relocate
them.
a.®
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And I'm thinking I don't know if this is something that the applicant
would consider but in light of what we were talking about reducing the lot coverage, I was
looking at the photographs again the winter photos I don't know with the trees and leaf what
the view would ultimately be or not be but maybe there's a consideration like reducing the
front porch to really just being an overhang cover something that would allow some visual
interest of the structure. Perhaps there could be some consideration to reduce this I'm not
stressing the deck on the first floor but the porch on the second cause it is
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That wouldn't contribute to lot coverage.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If you cut it in half it would.
PAT MOORE : Well you'd have to cut the entire thing in half. It's functionality is an issue. I think
that we
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not that large. Look you know what, let's give the applicant an
opportunity to think this through. I'm okay with this discussion. I think we need to move on to
another hearing. So I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this to the regular meeting on
September 12th. 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)
11,
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
HEARING#7304— FLORENCE VASILAKIS,ALEXANDER VASILAKIS and DEMETRIOS VASILAKIS
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Florence Vasilakis,
Alexander and Demetrios Vasilakis #7304. This is a request for variances from Article III Section
280-15, Article XXII Section 280-116 A (1) and the Building Inspector's February 11, 2019
amended March 14, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to construct an
accessory swimming pool at 1) located in other than the code permitted rear yard, 2) located
less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff located at 21625 Soundview
Avenue (adj. to the Long Island Sound) in Southold. The first thing I want to ask Pat before we
get into this, this is an accessory pool with 65 foot bluff setback the code requiring 100 and in
the side yard. I don't see how and why that was determined to be a side yard. That really looks
like a rear yard. I think the Notice of Disapproval is what because it's part of the house that's
sticking out
PAT MOORE : No the existing deck places the pool between
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In between two decks.
PAT MOORE : Well one is a patio but the deck creates a side yard that's the problem.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So tell us what you'd like us to know about this.
PAT MOORE : So the Vasilakis property has a and you've gone out to inspect this to see this, the
original vinyl bulkhead in 2018 was replaced with a steel bulkhead. There was if you recall the
storm in January that anybody with vinyl bulkheads on the sound felt the wrath of the storm
and it was more the trees and debris from Connecticut that pounded the vinyl and really
destroyed the vinyl bulkheads. So the bulkhead now is an existing is an in place brand new steel
bulkhead. So the condition of the property is at this point very secure. The existing house was
going more than a hundred feet from the bulkhead at the time those were regulations and the
pool where it is proposed is actually further from the top of the bluff than any of the homes
that you see there in this neighborhood. I did receive the LWRP recommendations and the
attached aerial which is actually a very good example of the fact that existing deck patio the
pool where it is tucked in is at a safe reasonable distance from the top of the bank. So we have
a bank here which is a low bank. It is not a sea bank. The protection that this property is
primarily the steel bulkhead and there's really not much to say about the pool because it is an
accessory structure and you know from prior hearings and engineers that have testified that
had advised the Board and told the Board that water weighs less than soil. So as far as its
impact on this bluff at 65 feet, it has no impact on the by virtue of the weight of the water on
the bluff. It is at a very safe distance and in fact it is approximately 100 feet or more from the
bulkhead which is the protective feature of this property. (inaudible) on accessory structure
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
and this house they have requested'a-pool. I'd be happy to discuss any other facts that you'd
like. It is fitting between two (inaudible) setbacks so it is not going closer to the top of the bluff
'than the existing structures in fact it is tucked in further away from the top of the bluff than the
'existing patio on the property. It is in line with'the existing excuse me one is a deck one is a
patio I'm sorry I'm looking at the survey that misidentified it as two patios but it's really a deck
which is slightly above,grade therefore needing a building permit and it has a C. of 0. Then the
patio on the west side is a patio with a hot tub on it no, a fireplace. I have a winter picture
which is covered. So I have my client that's helping me identify what's on the top of this stone
so any questions?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Have you seen the LWRP not the LWRP the Soil,and Water?
PAT MOORE : No I never got that.
i
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :-They're concerned' about the sprinkler heads along the top of the
bluff.
PAT MOORE : I did get that. I remember the,sprinkler heads issue.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN, : And that the pool, pump and back wash, drywell that,stuff is not on
here and we're going to need to have a drywell for pool de-watering and see where the pump'
equipment is proposed to be located. They say the bluff is vegetated.
PAT MOORE : Yes. Well it's even further vegetated because when the bulkhead was replaced
the grass was part of the restoration the beach grass and the non-turf buffer.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They're also looking at a damaged underground irrigation pipe in the
front yard (inaudible)
PAT MOORE : I noticed that and I believe that's'been fixed right? Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's it, it was the sprinkler head at the top of the bluff and the lack
of having information on your dry well and where the pump equipment would be.
PAT MOORE : I mean we certainly it would make sense to put the equipment either side of the
existing patio or existing deck along the side so it is not one so it doesn't impact the view but
it's tucked in so right now it could go on,either side. I don't know that the pool company has,yet
given us those details. I mean we would certainly put it in. I think that the Building Department
would require us to show it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure. Have you thought about putting it in the side yard so that it
can have a much more conforming setback I mean you have a pretty generous side yard.
13
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE : Yes I had discussed that with the clients and it's just the way the interior of the
house is set up it just would not make sense. It would really keep the pool away from the living
where kids are swimming you'd be somewhat isolated. The back of the house is really the living
area in front of the interior living area of the house. There was a consideration for that but it's
owned among how many brothers and sisters, six.
ALEX ALEXANDER VASILAKIS : My brother and my mom. Alex Alexander Vasilakis.
PAT MOORE : So the general consensus was that it wouldn't be a desirable location just the way
it would function with monitoring those that are using the pool from inside the house. You
essentially isolate yourself by the pool rather than being able to keep an eye on,kids and,
grandkids from the kitchen and other areas.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well let's see what the Board has to say, Pat comments,
questions?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : The comment was again to consider moving the pool.
PAT MOORE : Well we certainly wouldn't put it in the front yard.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No you have a lot of property on that eastern side yard. You can make a
bigger pool.
PAT MOORE : We'd still need a variance because (inau'dible) in the side yard so
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The whole idea here is simple. I mean I understand there's greater
privacy behind your house and all of that that's clear but you know the impacts of storm events
are just constant out here and they continue even though you put in all kinds of money to try
and protect your bluff and all of that. The Board has really been giving very careful
consideration as are the Trustees to protecting not only your property but everybody else down
the bluff and it's probably considered a less a more benign even though the side yard is a more
non-conforming location it is a non-conforming location, the setback is of greater concern than
the side yard location. So that's why we bring it up just to see what your reaction is, to see if
you've thought about it, to see if it was possible to do that because if you did that you'd be-able
to get a conforming bluff setback. You might want to think about moving your shed out of the
way. You could certainly you would have to have a four foot high fence around it; landscape
screening is not difficult to do a row of evergreens and you could still have some privacy from
the street and I don't know how the rest of the Board feels but to me a side yard location is less
problematic than being closer to the bluff.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Well we recently approved their neighbors pool in the side yard.
141
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE : Yes, Murphy's.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We just did it down the street.
PAT MOORE : Why don't you let me go back and talk to the family because there may be this
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you put it where it is now there's no way you're getting a bigger
setback. Well Rob just scaled that, well if the pool do you want to come up here
PAT MOORE : Yes because my survey doesn't give me that information.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob just we have a scale ruler here. Rob has become the scale
person. So he's just taking the closest point from the top of the bluff to 100 feet, that brings it
here okay but you know it's certainly going to be you'd have to probably rotate it this way you
don't want to have it then it's too far right so you just rotate it well you keep it this way
basically. So why don't you kind of think about it, you may still need a bluff setback but it would
be certainly a lot less. I mean it would be a greater setback.
ALEX VASILAKIS : The way the house is set up it's like my family has one half of the house and
my brother's family is the other half of the house. So that's why we that's kind of the common
area where we have it. Otherwise it's on his side of the house and I have to not that it's that far
but
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Family feuds.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That was actually something I was going to ask Pat about. Just my
understanding, this is a non-conforming two family house in a single family zoning district so I
was going to ask you maybe to explain a little bit more of that history just thinking from a safety
standpoint if none is even home in the second residential unit you don't have any knowledge of
what's going on in the pool and
PAT MOORE : It's actually I didn't know who had what side to be honest with you. Yes it is from
the beginning the Pre C.O. in '72 had it as a two family so what
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It seems like everything is mirrored.
PAT MOORE : Yes it is a mirrored right, right.
ALEX VASILAKIS : It was a two family and it always has been. We actually just cut a door through
the middle when my parent bought the other half of the house back in 2003 and you know all
of our names happens to be on it right now. At one point there were two separate owners and
it was two separate families.
1s
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE : So unfortunately it's the location of the pool, where it is logically place it couldn't
be in the side yard would be on the other family member that
ALEX VASILAKIS : And one of the pools the pool that we are looking at we want to make sure it
has we went for a pool that has the cover so that we would have it covered while we're not
there and then obviously fenced in as well. So we're not looking at the heart shape or anything
like that that you can't cover. They have these covers supposedly you know people can walk on
them and someone is going to fall in and stuff.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The width is only 12 feet so you can't really make it much narrower.
PAT MOORE : It's really tucked in, purposely tucked in.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess I understand all this now. Is there anything else from
anybody? You want to just close this or do you want to wait and see if they submit any change
or are we okay with what we've heard and just close it? I mean we were going to give you an
opportunity to look at a side yard location but hearing what you just said I understand the
argument. I mean other than the sprinkler system and showing well we do need to see where
the pump equipment and the dry well is going to be.
PAT MOORE : We can all agree to place that as far away from the top of the bluff as that we can
certainly do. When you were doing your measurement was 100 feet as long as it's not in the
front yard that's I don't think anybody would want to see it street view.
MEMBER LEHNERT : (inaudible) in the side yard but you're going to have to pipe literally around
the house.
PAT MOORE : So let us figure out where if the pool was left here where the pump
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the drywell.
PAT MOORE : and drywell would be
MEMBER LEHNERT : If you can have the surveyor show the 100 foot setback from the bluff
across the property.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that we can see to an extent to which there's some non-
conformity. Does anybody need anything else on here, would that do it? So you know, Pat if I
adjourn it to in two weeks to the Special Meeting.
PAT MOORE : Let's make it Nat is even slower than Peconic I love them all dearly but they're
driving me crazy. They're very busy.
6
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we'll adjourn to September with the assumption of we don't
need another hearing I mean we've got a lot of applications. Close it subject to receipt?
PAT MOORE : My only concern is if you don't have the majority vote for the pool where it's
being proposed please don't just deny the application. I would hope that you would consider
you know an alternative. Not that we want it, we really don't because of what he's described.
We would still need a variance for side yard.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll tell you what I'm going to do. I'm going to actually propose we
adjourn it to the Regular Meeting. Let's see what they come up with. We don't have to have a
hearing. We can just open it and close it you know what I'm saying?
PAT MOORE : That's fine.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If there's questions then we have the option of discussing it again on
the record so that we don't (inaudible)
PAT MOORE : That would be my only concern cause obviously I can't do a head count. I know
two of you commented what you'd really like us to do and given what we've explained
hopefully you know the practicality particularly the half of the family is not there monitoring an
area that is outside of their view since the house really is if we were to put it on the side of the
other brother and mother you're not in the house to monitor it's a little less secure. That's the
concern. You want to be able to keep an eye out keep a constant eye on anybody that's using
the pool. I will get you the information.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have to ask before I close it if there's anyone in the audience who
wants to address the application. Okay hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to
make a motion to adjourn this to the September 12th Regular Meeting. 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.
17
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING#7301— MAGGI-MEG REED and MICHAEL SCHUBERT
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Maggi-Meg Reed and
Michael Schubert #7301. This is a request for a variance from Article XXII Section 280-116A(1)
and the Building Inspector's March 5, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to
construct additions and alterations to a single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code
required 100 feet from the top of the bluff located at 815 Rosenburg Rd. (adj. to the Long Island
Sound) in East Marion. As I said to my colleagues this morning, you know that you know that
you've been on the Zoning Board a long time when you know Rosenburg Rd. if fire road 3 cause
it doesn't show up on anything.
MICHAEL SCHUBERT : I'm Michael Schubert, this is my wife Maggi-Meg and yes I (inaudible) fire
road 3 (inaudible). So we've moved out here to this home twenty two years ago in 1997. Then it
was a two small cottages and we were just connected by a greenhouse and we were single not
single we were a couple we didn't have any children and moving out here and started to have
kids and so about five or six years later with two young kids we connected the two cause living
in two separate houses didn't work and build a second floor over two thirds of the structure
leaving one of the cottages as is. That seemed like enough at the time and now those two kids
are in high school and college and we're thinking about what happens when one of them has a
significant other or kids so we wanted to take the other cottage unit now connected and
(inaudible) that's our goal and then you put together the plan and you want to talk about that?
So we put together a plan that in keeping the existing structure as is, is essentially what I would
describe as kind of you know covered (inaudible) where there's a piece that goes over and a
stairwell up and I think the issue is that there are you put two new footings in front of the
existing footings instead of building on the existing footings with the idea of not wanting to
have to take everything down and put everything up which we thought this would create less.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Less land disturbance less impact.
MICHAEL SCHUBERT : Yes and so you know that's our goal. We have I would (inaudible) talked
to our neighbors about it and what we're doing and they are supportive and if you have any
questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to enter into the record that what we're looking at is an
addition and alteration that's 37.1 foot setback from the bluff, the code requires 100 but then
what you're proposing to add is landward of what's already there and the LWRP coordinator
indicated because of that it's exempt so that indicates no impact. That's the one variance that's
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
required. Okay let's see if the Board has any questions, anybody? Just so you know we all go
out to every site. We've inspected the property each one of us and we do that with every
application so we see how you know the neighbors are and what impacts might be,there.
Anything from you Nick?
MEMBER PLANAM'ENTO : No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? We do
have because it's a waterfront property w& also request comments from Suffolk County Soil
and Water that's kind of standard and,they're running way behind. I don't anticipate any
difficulty with this but what I'm going to do is make a proposal to close the hearing subject-to
receipt of comments from Soil and Water. That means we'll basically finish. I don't really expect
we're going to have any issues with them since it's landward of what's already there and that
just means we have to wait for the letter which could be a week or two. I don't think it would
be much later than that and'we'll make a decision as soon as we'get does that make sense to'
everybody? Cause if I close it entirely then it comes in afterwards and we'can't consider it. I'm
going to close it but it means we don't start'to deliberate until we receive'it that's what subject
to receipt means. We're just waiting for that. As soon,as we get it then we will prepare a draft
decision.'The next time we meet is within two weeks. If we get it soon enough we'll probably
have a decision at the next meeting in two weeks. If not it would be at the following at the next
Regular Meeting which is like September 12tH
MICHAEL SCHUBERT : Would you like us to come back for that?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No. So I'm going to make a motion to close'subject to receipt from
comments from Soil and Water is there a second?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO -, Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.,
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
'CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. , ,
(See Minutes for Resolution)
19 F_
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
HEARING#7302 &# 7303 SE—WILLIAM GORMAN
CHAIRPERSON VEISMAN : I'm going to open both of these hearing at the same time, makes
kind of sense to do that. The next application and the one that,follows before the Board is for
William Gorman #7302. This is a request from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building
Inspector's March 18, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to construct a front
porch addition to an existing single family dwelling currently under construction (BP#42160) 1)
located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet located at 45805
NYS Route 25 in Southold. The next application for.William Gorman is #7303SE a request for
Special Exception ,pursuant to Article III, Section 280-13B(1) the applicant is requesting ,to
convert a single family dwelling to a two family dwelling at the same location 45805 NYS Route
25 in Southold.
MIKE KIMACK : Good morning everyone Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant who is
present today., In the first application it's for an extension basically a roof over a wood porch
that is incredibly across the front of the building if you visited the site you would see it: It would
extend both on the westerly side and on the easterly side. The reason is, is that the applicant
would like to be able to cut in two doors to be able to have movement from the existing house
to the front porch for the apartments in order to get people to be covered conveniently to
move from the front porch into both the if you look,at the house a door coming out'on the
westerly side and also (inaudible) the garage on that both sides.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's a two family right?
MIKE KIMACK : It's a single right now we're proposing it to be a two family. The other family is
in the back. To get to the second floor the second one is the entrance is in the back of the
house basically but because of the configuration of the property where the parking is going to
be where the road is going to be the access for the first floor primarily is going to be from the
garage come out the garage into that and to go to the front and to go back to the western side
we'd like to be able to extend the existing closed porch. Yes there's going to be an extended
improvement to it but that's not something that you normally consider. You look at the
necessity the reason for having done it or having proposed and that would be to the doors are
not cut in. Basically if you looked at it there's a window on the western side and there is a door
cut we did not take the situation where we wanted to assume that this was going to receive
immediate approval and cut the door in with the expectation that was going to (inaudible). It's
pretty straightforward.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's just you want to wrap it around.
20
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
MIKE KIMACK : Just want'to wrap it around. It's also not visible from the road. There's a very
heavy hedge line so pretty much as you're driving by unless you're looking for the house itself
there's really it doesn't really standout.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's a massive hedge row there.
WILLIAM GORMAN : Hi, Bill Gorman.,If you've seen the property Rt. 25 has gotten noisier and
noisier as you know traffic increases and it,makes sense to me to put traffic and driveways in
front of the house and take advantage of the,p'rivacy of the back of the house so I prefer to put
everything to the front and the driveway is going to go in you know into the existing driveway
and it's going to turn hard right and run along the front of the house between the house and
the hedge row and then there's going to be a little parking area back there and it also accesses
into the garage and then I'd like to fence off from the beginning of that the end of the wrap
around porch and the same on the other side at,the end of the garage looking to make the
whole thing a back yard. So all the cars will be in the front of the house and parking in the front
and the privacy of the back yard will be,accomplished that way.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So as long as you, you Want a six foot fence I take it for privacy is
that correct, perimeter fencing, stockade fence it says there's already some existing stockade
fence. "
WILLIAM GORMAN : Yeah around the perimeter of the property.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's fine all I'm saying as long as it's in the side and rear yard
you're fine.
WILLIAM GORMAN : I understand that right.
CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : Well let's look at does anybody on the Board have any questions
about this?
MEMBER LEHNERT: That was the covered porch?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN, : That's the variance, that's just because the house is already that
close to the road so they don't have a choice you know if you want to do anything to the front
of the house.
MIKE KIMACK : I think the setback now is 24 feet if I remember correctly.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I should just enter because typically it's not you know you're looking
usually at a 35 foot setback. In this zone district it's 40 feet so we should make sure that the
21
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
record reflects the fact that the variance request is for 24.1 feet where the code requires 40
feet.
MIKE KIMACK : The 40 feet in this case comes actually back. If you took the porch off it comes
back to the two (inaudible) on the house basically (inaudible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so let's go on to the Special Exception Permit.
MIKE KIMACK':'As you had indicated the"house had received a building permit for a 'partial
demolition or (inaudible) and reconstruction which is under construction at the present time.
The applicant would like to be "able to convert it from a single family to a two family. It existed
as a five bedroom originally and the proposal is to create 'the two family structure. One
approximately 2,500 sq. ft. three bedroom'on the first floor. The second floor would be about
950 sq. ft. two bedroom and that would be accessed'from the back of the property. These are
fairly large rentals. They're not necessarily for individuals. They're most likely primarily for
families for that particular site. They do represent a fairly large investment by the applicant in
order to make this (inaudible). The property that surrounds it is agricultural conservation
(inaudible). It is isolated primarily, the activity around it is probably more active creates more
noise than the residential (inaudible). The house,has existed as a residence in this one area. If
you look down the street on both side there are commercial activities also on those properties.
Just to let you know the existing the prior existing septic system had been damaged during
construction and has been replaced. The original one supported a five bedroom, the new one
supports a five bedroom and that can be certified as such.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that second floor was a two bedroom you're proposing.
MIKE KIMACK : Two bedroom about 942 something like that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 950 sq.'ft.
MIKE KIMACK : It's good size. The building overall is about 3,900 sq. ft. with the garage take that
off you got about 3,300, 3,400 sq. ft.; 2,450 to 2,500 for the three bedroom and about 950 sq.
ft. for the two. They're very ample spaces.
MEMBER DANTES : Is the Building Department going to send you to the Department of Health?
MIKE KIMACK : Not that I'm aware of. They did not in the original construction no.
T. A. DUFFY : But you were proposing a single family dwelling now you're proposing a two
family that's why Eric is asking you the question.
22
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
i
MIKE KIMACK : Yes except that they Would send us in essence if'we have a situation where we
were able to get certified by an engineer that the system in the ground met the Health
Department standards.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Can we get a copy of the certification or the Health Department,approvaP
MIKE KIMACK : We'll get`you a copy of the certification by the engineer that is supports a five
bedroom. I mean that's something that you would want. I mean the thing,is that does,the
system basically if you're making these kind of changes of the system to have the capacity to
meet the new changes that you're doing at the capacity of the new sewer going in and if it
doesn't you've got to go to the Health Department, if you go,to Health Department you most
likely going to go with the new system anyway an IA system. In this case the system is in the
ground functional for five. We can submit the PE'letter to you.
MEMBER DANTES : In this area the Health Department won't require an IA system cause it's far
from the water. I'm just surprised
MIKE KIMACK : You would.
MEMBER DANTES : I'm surprised Mike Verity wouldn't ask you to go cause of the renovations of
the house. Are you expanding the number of bedrooms?
MIKE KIMACK : No, it was five original and five n'ow basically so the-building permit was prior to
my involvement with this but I would assume that if he wanted to he-would not have granted
the building permit without having first sent off to the Health Department if in fact sewage was
an issue at that time.
MEMBER DANTES : My other question is on the survey by Nathan Taft the shaded area on the
house is the new construction but then he's got the garage as one story concrete framed
building is all shaded why is that? Is there any work being done to the building?
MIKE KIMACK No there's not. There was an original thought primarily -that we didn't do
anything-with that building because it has a history to it and I know.that the Board is interested
what may be.occurring with that building. My understanding was.about six or seven years ago
my client basically approached it had been a.vacuum repair place.if I remember correctly and it
had been granted a permit for that functional use.. Obviously there isn't that much need for
vacuum repairs for that kind,of building and I think at that particular time my client wanted to
basically have another type of retail activity there and the answer at that-particular time was try
to see if you-can keep the vacuum repair business or somebody new going in there but if not
we most likely have to come back and amend the variance anyway. My advice was not,to deal
with that particular building until we were able to first get through this. We have to come back
2-3
August,1, 2019 Regular Meeting
and probably,convert it to retail in order to have a general use of that building. We'd have to be
before the Board anyway to amend that original permit. What he's showing on there now
basically is we have perhaps to add a second story to their but we that was the proposal that
we'd only have to go to Building Department on there and that's why Nathan shaded it, but no,
the answer is we didn't want to complicate'-it with something that represents a different
separate issues. We know the building is limited in terms of its use to vacuum repair
legitimately and that we would like to be able to have a variance that is more reflective of some
other opportunities with the building but that would be in the near future come back to you for
that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright Eric?Anything else from anybody?
MEMBER LEHNERT : I have a few questions, parking required parking for a two family house
you just stated it was going to be on the side can you show it on the survey?
MIKE KIMACK : We can. It's interesting the code basically doesn't indicate how many parking
spaces for this one but there is more than ample space on that one and if we needed it
certainly we've got a framed garage in the back. We would assume I mean it isn't reflected
because it doesn't transfer over when you do the apartment Rob. You've got those three
parking spaces for that one. In this particular case I'm assuming that three or four parking
spaces or two parking spaces we have five parking spaces would be ample for this assuming
that if you got five bedrooms you may have five individuals so that would be my
recommendation. We can show on here that we've got five spaces. We have room to do that.
MEMBER LEHNERT : And my other question is can you show us or get us documentation of any
precedent for two family houses in that area?
MIKE KIMACK : I would think not but I think the answer back to you on that particular one is
there aren't that I think we haven't done a study in terms of the needs which we found we do
know one thing that there is rental needs in the Town of Southold. There aren't that many that
offer this kind of space really for families. I mean that's what my client would like to able to rent
for long term for families. He's got a major investment in that and doesn't want to necessarily
run you know everybody once a month or something like that through there. So in a sense it
would be like a starter for families coming in: The answer is that the entire property around
there is pretty much AC zone. There's vineyards across the street and behind it and the answer
would be that it would have not necessarily follow in line with other rentals close by but I don't
think that in and of itself is a determinative factor as to when someone wants to be able to reap
the ability to have a rental opportunity for people of this particular size and magnitude that
location to other rentals would necessarily be something that would be determined in and of
itself.
24
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think no one would disagree that rentals units out here are very
badly needed affordable ones especially and I'm assuming you're looking,at renting for at least
a year lease at a time nothing that',s really transient•is that correct?
WILLIAM GORMAN : Yes absolutely it would be vetted tenants certainly
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN ': Would you consider offering one of those units as an affordable
rental and affordable what that means is that you • know the rental price would be in
conformance with what the housing-registry of the town-'indicates, it's a percentage of the HUD
or the median income.
MEMBER DANTES : One hundred and twenty percent.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A hundred and twenty percent I mean the point is they're not low. In
other words this is not subsidized rentals that you'd say oh my God that's so cheap I can't
afford it. I've got all this big investment in the property I've got to recover my costs and I'd like
to start making a little profit on it.,They're pretty high rental prices.•
T. A. DUFFY : I believe a two bedroom cap, top rent is $1,800 for two bedroom.
WILLIAM GORMAN,: That's the cap?
T. A. DUFFY : I believe right now.
MEMBER DANTES : Leslie why doesn't he just talk to Denis cause Denis has a list of people that
are looking for rentals and figure out what works rather than make a decision now. We're going
to talk to the Denis Noncarrow in the Supervisor's Office.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Talk to Denis you know Denis don't you? He's in Scott's office.
MIKE KIMACK : He's about to.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN' : I mean simply because I think it's wonderful that apartments are
being proposed in the town and if we can make do •a win, win what is market rate'you know
and get in there whatever you as long as it's like a year lease or something,so we're not looking
at transient stuff with an Air B&B or something. Then the other thing is if you feel that it's
usable it would be a great contribution to the town 'to at least offer one of them at an
affordable-rate if you feel that it will not totally compromise your financial situation. You don't
know until you find out what that is.
WILLIAM GORMAN : I certainly will consider that.
2-5
August'1, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So why don't we do this, we need Health Department certification
anyway Mike.
MIKE KIMACK : You need a P.E. letter that it's functional, we have to submit that anyway.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :' So I'll tell you what, why don't we just adjourn this to the Special
Meeting that's all the time you're going to need and get the letter and you can talk to Denis and
we can introduce you to Denis if you want. You just explain what happened here at the hearing
and investigate it and then you can let us know. When we get that P.E. letter you can let us
know what you think. Is this a doable thing for you. Certainly we can condition approval based
on the fact that it's a minimum one year rental. The other part would be whether or not it's
feasible to make one of them at least available as affordable. They all go to people who live in
the town. They're mostly people who have good salaries but you know the housing prices are
crazy out here so you know teachers and .nurses and people like that can't necessarily afford
skyrocketing prices. Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application?
GAIL WICKHAM : Good morning my name is Gail Wickham, Mattituck New York. I am here
representing the adjoining owner on the north Mattabella Holdings. Many on the Board will
know the details of that operation from a rather long variance that we had not too many years
ago.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I needed a spreadsheet for all the accessory structures on that
property.
MEMBER DANTES.: As built accessory structures.
GAIL WICKHAM : One of the things that was addressed at that time was the,fact that they did
have to neighbor with some very adverse conditions on this property for many years and glad
the property is being renovated at least as a residence. I do want to note that as a vineyard and
a winery one of the things that the town often considers on those types of uses which my client
has is how many residences are in the neighborhood because of impact and I would like this
record to note that this application for additional multiple residence is being sought with the
knowledge and after the effectiveness of that vineyard so that should not be a factor as to this
increase in usage in this area if the Special Exception is granted. I have a number of concerns I
had tried to express with the applicant and his counsel before the meeting and they were
unwilling to allow us to adjourn to do that because we would like to work with the owner and
try to resolve some of the problems that they have experienced on their side but since that was
not acceptable I do want to ask a number of questions to clarify. As far as the variance goes,
there was something I didn't quite understand.,Would you indulge me if I just take a quick look
at the map?
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah sure. There's an existing and then they're wrapping it around
along the front elevation.
GAIL WICKHAM : (inaudible) to say about the front porch it's in the front and it doesn't affect
us. I would however like to ask, any approval you grant as the applicant has indicated to my
client numerous times that he would be required to put some serious screening around the
rear yard because first of all there's a lot going on over there. That house is very, very large and
does loom over this small area of the buildings and the winery. If you remember they're all very
small. My questions really address several things.
MEMBER DANTES : How does a front yard variance affect the rear yard of the house? I'm
confused by that. How do you make that argument.
GAIL WICKHAM : I think we're caring about the Special Exception as well in this hearing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think she just said they don't have a problem with the porch. We're
looking at the Special Exception.
GAIL WICKHAM : Yeah and that would be one thing that we would like to ask, that you
consider. I also like to clarify
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It shouldn't be a problem since the applicant just offered it that's
what he intends to do. (inaudible) is that a solid fencing thing or is it evergreen screening or
what?
WILLIAM GORMAN : I want to say one thing, I'm fine to negotiate with my neighbor your client.
I don't see how our negotiations impacts the decisions of the Board.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Bill you've got to talk to me.
WILLIAM GORMAN : I don't see how negotiations with my negotiations with my neighbor
impacts the decision of the Board.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's acceptable to have the public especially an adjacent neighbor to
say anything they want. It's up to the Board to decide whether it's relevant.
WILLIAM GORMAN : And I would like to screen as well because they have lots and lots of
people and lots of activity and music and it's to my best interest to screen it as I told your client
as I told my neighbor numerous times so it's not there yet. I'm still trying to build and finish the
house and
CHAIRPERSSON WEISMAN : Fine I think we're on the same page.
2?
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
GAIL WICKHAM : And to clarify, I was discussing natural screening. There was a fence there I
was talking about landscaping. I'd like to clarify how many uses currently exists on the property.
What is the rear garage used for this time? What is the commercial building used for? What is
the plastic hoop shed used for? Those are some of the questions that I'm not clear on and
they're talking about intensifying a half acre property with a house that was already started
before he asked for the additional apartments. So the question of having all those rooms and
spending all the money I think is somewhat self-inflicted and I just want to see what it is that
we're going to end up with there. I am concerned frankly while I'll certainly recognize the need
for housing out here everybody has to and I wish the town could even do more than they do
now that is a precedent to allow a two family it's not an apartment it's a two family they're
asking for on a half-acre property is kind of dramatic for this area particular where it's an
80,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size and this happens to be non-conforming. So this is a big
intensification. The accessory apartments that the town does allow on existing buildings has
really stringent requirements and that includes owner occupancy so I think that what the terms
of this type of use would be do need to be spelled out pretty carefully by the Board should it be
granted and I'm glad you asked about affordable housing. I think that's good. One of the things
in the accessory apartment code is that you're not allowed to expand the foundation of an
existing building by more than twenty five percent to accommodate an apartment and this
building I think if I'm hearing the numbers right has been more than doubled in size. So that's
something I would like you to look at as well. I'm just again asking the questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you like to respond?
WILLIAM GORMAN : It's not doubled in size.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Go ahead finish Gail and we'll have Bill say what he wants to say. I
think the more compelling question was how many uses are on the property? A two family
although it's two dwelling units is still one use even though there's two of them.
GAIL WICKHAM : Yes and there was already a vacuum cleaner store.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I understand that. They're putting that on hold and whatever this
Board decides now will surely one way or the other impact their future application. So we can't,
I can't hypothesize about what that's going to be until we see it.
GAIL WICKHAM : But I would like the applicant to clarify what use that vacuum cleaner store is
being used for as well as the accessory building they put next to it and what use the rear garage
is being used for.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we can certainly ask what the garage is being used for. The
framed garage that's in the corner of the property.
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
GAIL WICKHAM : Yes in the northwest corner.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Bill how is that framed garage being used now?
WILLIMA GORMAN : Right now it's temporarily I have one of my buddies is keeping his stuff
there and he is there from time to time. My neighbors asked to rent that place for their
vineyard manager no surprise that you're here today but
MEMBER DANTES : Your answer is storage?
WILLIMA GORMAN : Absolutely, dry storage in that building and in the other building that is all
getting cleared out now. The yard is being cleared as we speak. By August 6th it's going to
vacant inside the building is going to be vacant. There's going to be no activity in fact I'm
moving my dry storage over in to that building.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Bill pardon me, what is the hoop house?
WILLIAM GORMAN : That just sort of evolved.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But which one is it?
WILLIAM GORMAN : That's the commercial building the central building.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : There's a separate building you're speaking of.
GAIL WICHKAM : In the northeast corner.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : In the area that's represented (inaudible)?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where it says metal shed?
GAIL WICKHAM : It's right where it says metal shed it's right between the metal shed and the
concrete and framed building.
'WILLIAM GORMAN : I don't have a metal shed.
MIKE KIMACK : Are you talking about the framed garage?
GAIL WICKHAM : It's large.
MEMBER LEHNERT : You have a metal shed on February 6th when you submitted it.
GAIL WICKHAM : This may be an addition to that, I don't remember there was a shed I was
there today.
29
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
WILLIAM GORMAN : That just sort of evolved. There was fire in the house, stuff was moved
over into the yard and other things. My stuff is in the yard. I just had stuff kind of accumulated
there but again we're cleaning it all out and the place is going to be totally vacant. The yard is
going to be all cleaned up. The inside of the building is going to be (inaudible) use it as dry
storage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What are you using in the vacuum clean
WILLIAM GORMAN : That was what I was referring to until' the ultimate disposition of that
building it will just be dry storage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Since that really wasn't before us now we didn't really take a close
look at it. I've known that vacuum cleaner store since before I knew you. It's been there
forever. I actually used that to service vacuum cleaners back in the day.
GAIL WICKHAM : I believe he just said that there was a fire in that house so does that mean that
it's being used as a house and did he represent on the record that the rear garage in the
northwest corner is being used only for storage?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think you said storage but I think you also said a buddy of yours is
there from time to time. Does that mean not picking'up storage but rather staying there? '
WILLIAM GORMAN : He does stay there from time to time. If he's got to move out
GAIL WICKHAM : I'm asking to clarify.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on, I believe at one point that vacuum cleaner was-also being
used as a dwelling.
WILLIAM GORMAN : It was being used it's been many years.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just to understand cause there's two different conversations I think
occurring, the former vacuum cleaner store is storage but Gail you're speaking about the
framed garage in the northwest corner as being a'residence?
GAIL WICKHAM : My understanding and again this is why I'm asking the questions because all
we want to do is make sure that the Board in making their decision knows what they're
approving on the property and what else in on the property. As I understood it the vacuum
cleaner store is being used I think he said'as a residence which means (inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON,WEISMAN : I`think because he was referring to previous use. Al] I'm saying is
this, there's effort clearly with this investment to clean this property up.
30
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
WILLIAM GORMAN : Absolutely.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's a lot of things going on, on this property that were not
necessarily what the building permits would have permitted. I'm certainly aware of that. I know
Bill is being honest about the fact that that's been the case. What I think is important is that as
we move forward here should this be granted for a two family dwelling it will be conditioned as
number one an annual rental at the minimum possibly one affordable and no other dwellings
on the subject premises. It's going to be a property with one two family dwelling on it alright.
What happens to that other building at the moment it just becomes a neutral empty storage
building the one that's in back
MEMBER LEHNERT : Commercial building.
GAIL WICKHAM : Commercial building, okay and the framed garage should be a garage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A garage period that's it and it's an accessory to the dwelling.
GAIL WICKHAM : Okay that's my only premise here so I'm trying to clarify what's supposed to
be
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that's a reasonable request. I think once the cleanup and
legalize whatever is going on, on that property.
GAIL WICKHAM : I said that at the beginning. I'm very glad that, that has happened.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything Mike?
MIKE KIMACK : No not at all, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from the Board, anyone else in the audience? Hearing no
further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to you need to get the P.E. letter.
I'm just going to adjourn this to the Special Meeting so that you can talk to Denis and get us
that letter.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Can we close the hearing on the porch?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah we could do that sure. That's a good point. Rob is asking if we
can just close the hearing on the variance so fine let me do these as separate. I'm going to make
a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date on application #7302. Is there a
second?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second.
311
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Then motion on application #7303SE to adjourn to the Special
Meeting. 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 Resolutions)
HEARING# 7305— FABRIO GRANATO
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Fabrio Granato #7305.
This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's
March 22, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to demolish an existing dwelling
and construct a new single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum
rear yard setback of 50 feet located at 1725 Nassau Point Rd. (adj. to Hog Neck Bay) in
Cutchogue.
DOUG MCGAHAN : Good morning my name Douglas McGahan. I'm the agent and contractor for
Fabrio Granato.
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this looks like a rear yard setback at 40.5 feet where the code
requires 50 feet. This is a proposed new dwelling to be built over a partially extended and
raised foundation 3 feet above existing grade.
DOUG MCGAHAN : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What else would you like us to know about this?
DOUG MCGAHAN : The existing setback that's in question is the existing house that is there
now, we're leaving that foundation in place and just adding to the height of it to get us out of
the storm danger zone and the addition to the foundation for additional living space is going
towards the landward side. So we're not affecting the setback that's in question. Well this is a
demo so I understand the practicality to some extent of building on an existing foundation but
the house is very close to the bulkhead and with a demo all bets are off. Can't you move that
closer to the road and farther away from the bulkhead?
DOUG MCGAHAN : Well the idea was to mitigate the expense of the renovation by saving the
existing foundation that was there.
CHAIRPERSSON WEISMAN : Well have you seen the LWRP report?
DOUG MCGAHAN : Yes I have.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay maybe you would like to address that then.
DOUG MCGAHAN : Yes I spoke with Mark Terry about this yesterday. Apparently he explained
the entire process to me and he says this is a town wide program so there are inconsistencies
with some projects as is this one. I explained to him he said the house no matter how far you
move it is still going to be in the AO zone no matter where you move it. So there's no intention
of moving that. The deck itself is in a VE zone half of the deck is and I explained to him that
even through the last major storms like Sandy, there was no damage to the decks but our
intention is to raise the deck as well 3 feet to get that out of the danger zone as well and he
thought that was a great idea.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the deck and the foundation will be elevated per flood zone
FEMA flood zone elevation?
DOUG MCGAHAN : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What else do we need to know?
331
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
DOUG MCGAHAN : The existing garage is there as well as the shed which is in very close
proximity to the property line of the Nassau Point Causeway Association. It's going to be
completely removed which will create a much lower side yard and definitely enhance the area.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Since this is a new dwelling the Board has especially on waterfront
properties been conditioning approvals based on the installation of an IA sanitary system which
may super cede some of the requirements of what the Health Department minimal
requirement is but the Trustees are doing the same thing pretty much.
DOUG MCGAHAN : I think it's a great idea.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you have no objection of a conditional approval based on that?
DOUG MCGAHAN : Absolutely not no. We're planning on new septic. Whatever you
recommend is fine with us.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Let's see what else the Board has, Eric you want to start.
MEMBER DANTES : Yes, so it looks like the existing house meets the rear yard setback, it's the
new deck that pushes it.
DOUG MCGAHAN : No the existing house and deck are the reason we're here for the variance
and we're going to keep them in the same exact location that they're in.
MEMBER DANTES : Now with the foundation what's the house on now block?
DOUG MCGAHAN : No it's a foundation. It's a concrete block foundation, crawl space
foundation.
MEMBER DANTES : So your plan is to put more blocks on top of the existing blocks?
DOUG MCGAHAN : Yes whether it be block or poured I'm not sure what, the architect hasn't
gone that far yet. We're trying to get through the first hurdle.
MEMBER DANTES : With the VE zone what is that require you to put as far as to meet the FEMA
requirements?
DOUG MCGAHAN : You mean as far as the height?
MEMBER DANTES : As far as what kind of foundation you need.
DOUG MCGAHAN : Well in the VE zone it's just the decks so we do concrete piers to above the
flood plain.
34
August'1,'2019 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : And then the house is in
DOUG MCGAHAN : The AO zone.
MEMBER DANTES :There you need the flood vents there?
DOUG MCGAHAN : That is up to the architect. Whatever he specifies is what will be done.
MEMBER DANTES : Has the architect specified in keeping°th,e foundation?
DOUG MCGAHAN : Yes, we're adding to the height of the existing foundation and expanding it
towards the north.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When you talked to Mark Terry-did you bring in the elevations to
show the free board and all the stuff?
DOUG MCGAHAN : Oh yeah.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And is that what we have the,same thing you showed him?
DOUG MCGAHAN : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. So the house is the AO zone?
DOUG MCGAHAN : Yes. ,
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the whole property looks like A0.
MEMBER DANTES : I'd look at that cause I think when you put the deck there it drags the whole
house to the VE zone.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah the.existing survey shows part of-the deck in the VE zone.
MEMBER-DANTES : That might drag the whole house into the VE zone.
DOUG MCGAHAN : Not according to Mark yesterday. I explained to him what we were doing
and he said the house is fine where it is, no matter if you were to move it, it would still be in the
same situation and it's just a small portion of the deck and stairs that are in the -VE zone.
explained to him there's never been an issue with it but in the event if there was another major
storm it would be and everyone's got (inaudible) to raise it up three feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well for insurance purposes you're going to want to do that anyway.
DOUG MCGAHAN : I mean I don't know how he gets insurance now'because obviously it's been
that way for fifty or sixty years.
35
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat do you have any comments or questions,'Nick, anything more
from you Rob?
MEMBER LEHNERT : No I'm good.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else Eric?
MEMBER DANTES : Yeah I'm just cautious because remember at the last training session we
had on FEMA, once you have one part of the structure in the VE zone it drags everything else
into the VE zone.
DOUG MCGAHAN : The deck being the structure you're talking about?
MEMBER DANTES : That's what I remember being explained to us.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think under some circumstances that's correct but I'm not sure
that's under all circumstances. I just don't know enough.
DOUG MCGAHAN : Mark didn't'think that was the case. He-said that the deck is the only issue
that is in the VE zone. I said well we can leave the deck the way it is and I told him what our
,intention was to improve the whole situation and raise everything up and he thought that was a
great solution.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well what would happen is if that were the case they would have
problems with their insurance but that isn't really
T. A. DUFFY : Mike Verity is not going to approve it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah the whole thing the whole dwelling is counsel is correct that
the Building Department is not going to approve he's not going to'give a permit for the whole
thing in a'VE zone;-let it unfold. Anything else from anybody, anyone in the audience wanting to
address the application before we close. I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing
reserve decision to a later date is there a second?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
361-
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING # 7306—SUSAN CACCHIOLI
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Susan Cacchioli #7306.
This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's
March 15, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to construct additions and
alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required
minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum
combined side yard setback of 25 feet located at 1040 Holbrook Rd. (adj. to Howards Branch of
Mattituck Creek) in Mattituck.
SUSAN CACCHIOLI : Hi, my name is Susan Cacchioli and we've owned the house since 1998 and
at the time we had two kids, we now have a family and we are ten. We're looking to have some
expansion done on the house so we can accommodate our children.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we know that you have a very, very narrow lot so let me see. It
doesn't look like you're changing the non-conforming side yard setbacks. We have a minimum
side yard setback of 5.2 feet where the code requires 10 feet and a combined side yard setback
of 10.4 feet the code requires 25 feet but you're building on top of that is that what you're
proposing to do?
SUSAN CACCHIOLI : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You want to enlarge two guest bedrooms it looks like for a total of
225 sq. ft., create a playroom, I guess Trustees approval is not required in this instance but they
gave you a permit that said no clearing of vegetation and so on is that correct?
SUSAN CACCHIOLI : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The lot is only 30 feet wide but 332 foot 11 inches deep. This is
exempt from the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. Let's see if the Board has some
questions, Nick do you want to start.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Having been to the site my only concern really is when you well
actually two concerns, one is when you walk on either side the east or west side of the house
the overhang of the house sort of shields the access and it feels like it's hanging over into the
37
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
neighbor's property and when I look at the proposal it just seems you know it's really quite
massive. So I was wondering if you can talk a little bit about the design and the narrowness of
the lot and then the second conversation I want to bring up is just the logistics of actually doing
the construction again because of that narrow space.
STEVEN GUECI : Hi my name is Steven Gueci I'm Susan's husband. The overhang on either side,
front back and again the side that will no longer be there that's going to be removed when the
second story gets squared away.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But in the elevations there's clearly still an overhang and you have
eaves on the house.
STEVEN GUECI : That's right on the property line itself. You're talking about when the roof
comes down and you have that overhang?
MEMBER LEHNERT : The soffits.
STEVEN GUECI : The soffit. Those soffits that's going to be gone. The little soffits that'll be on
top with the new roof line is going to be guttered off. It's not going to be overhanging the same
amount.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's reduced absolutely but it's still obviously there it's just it's a
massive structure for such a narrow lot.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know if there are other this looks like it's maybe one of the
smallest properties in the area, are there other lots that are similar in size or do you know other
lots that have non-conforming side yards? I think it's fairly simple if you're adding a second
story and maintaining the same non-conforming footprints. You can't do otherwise.
MEMBER LEHNERT : If the soffits are in compliance with the code.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They are so it's, well there are other two story houses around. They
may be on larger lots but it's not uncharacteristic of the neighborhood to have single and two
story dwellings. I did notice to be honest cause we look very carefully at everything when we go
out on a property that there's a lot of curtains in your garage. Do you have some folks staying
there from time to time?
STEVEN GUECI : We were doing this with the town already
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You did?
STEVEN GUECI : That's when we said you want to meet there, we'll take you there right now, no
it's just storage.
381
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
SUSAN CACCHIOLI : I didn't even know there were curtains in the garage, basically we have
storage in there.
STEVEN GUECI : I don't think the curtains are closed. They're there but I don't think they're
actually closed, closed are they?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I didn't I mean they're all kind of different but I didn't pay much
attention because it is not uncommon
STEVEN GUECI : There's no living quarters at all.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay we just had to make sure that that was the case.
STEVEN GUECI : No heat, no water nothing just electric.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just electric?
STEVEN GUECI : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat any questions?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Do you have any plans to do anything with the garage? I noticed the
roof looked to be in pretty bad shape.
SUSAN CACCIOLI : When we finish with the house you know we would have the roof and the
garage doors changed.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : I mean if when they would start this construction suppose the structure
itself of the house was found to be really inadequate to take a second story and maybe a
proposed demolition would happen you know, do you have anything in your head that this
could be a scenario that might happen?
STEVEN GUECI : No. The engineers checked out everything and they said we're not building a
whole new house on top of the existing foundation that's all there already. We're just like
raising the wall with the roof. That's all we're really doing.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Well I mean honestly speaking when I did my inspection I felt that the
house and the garage were in pretty bad condition.
STEVEN GUECI : You're talking about the outside walls?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yeah.
39 F
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
STEVEN GUECI : Well yeah like I said once we're finished with the house siding and stuff like
that of course sure that has to be done. I mean how can you do any kind of work without
having siding put on. Yes I agree with you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're going to have to have them carry hand carry construction
equipment in.
STEVEN GUECI : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Because short of knocking your garage down there's no way of
getting equipment in there so most of it is going to be hand work.
STEVEN GUECI : The dumpster in front of the garage and they know they have to walk it up.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is your existing septic system adequate for this new construction?
STEVEN GUECI : There's no additional bathrooms being put in. What's there is staying and the
existing is in very good shape.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the Health Department interesting because most of us would of
assumed that's it's the number of bathrooms that the sanitary has to address but the code
requires a number of bedrooms so you are adding two more bedrooms.
STEVEN GUECI : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh you're enlarging.
STEVEN GUECI : We're enlarging.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're enlarging that's right I see that in my notes. Okay so that
should be okay. Well just so you're not surprised, when you get a decision we now with major
construction especially second story where we've seen many times and I'm not saying that it
would happen to you but many times we've seen what looked like was going to be an addition
they start tearing into walls and finding it's full or rot and mold and everything else and the
next thing you know the contractor knocks the whole thing down. We as a consequence of
having seen that have now as standard procedure nothing special for you just so you know
we're asking applicants to say yes I've read the decision and realize I'm proposing additions, if
anything else goes wrong I am responsible for contacting the Building Department to figure out
how to go there I'm going to build a brand new house when I got an approval for an addition.
So that's just going to be a standard thing that you're going to get in the mail with the decision
but it's nothing you should get scared of. Anybody else on the Board?
4
a
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : I'll just say with the demo just something you should talk to your architect
about cause people have gotten through there and they it's not a true demolition it's a code
conforming demolition which basically you devalue the structure by fifty percent of the
demolition so the Building Department looks for it and if they flag you it can delay your process
like six, eight months.
STEVEN GUECI : I'm sorry can you repeat that I didn't hear that.
MEMBER DANTES : Basically talk to the Building Department first cause if they decide what
you're doing is a demolition while you're in there it can delay your project by six months.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would only be though in the process. They've already decided
it's an addition. What will happen is if they go out and do an inspection and discover this is like
it had really been demolished and you're rebuilding they're going to give you a Stop Work
Order that's what Eric is saying.
STEVEN GUECI : The roof of course definitely has to come off.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's fine.
STEVEN GUECI : Everything else is going to be built up and
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Refurbished. Alright, so hearing no further questions or comments
I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date is there a second?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEIMSAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
41
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
HEARING #7307— NORTH FORK HAVEN, LLC
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for North Fork Haven, LLC
#7307. This is a request for a variance under Article XXII Section 280-116A(1) and the Building
Inspector's February 27, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to construct an
accessory pergola at 1) located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff
located at 8871 Oregon Rd. (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Cutchogue.
DAVID CHICHANOWICZ : This is a picture as of this morning of the actual location where this
pergola is going.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know we've been there for site inspection.
DAVID CHICHANOWICZ : Yeah I know but this is as current as you can get.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is an accessory pergola accessory to the in-ground swimming
pool at 85 feet from the top of the bluff where the code requires 100 feet. What else do we
need to know Dave?
DAVID CHICHANOWICZ : There's absolutely nothing else you need to know.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I'll say it's 12 feet by 8 feet.
DAVID CHICHANOWICZ : Yeah that's the size (inaudible) be shrunken down slightly but we're
proposing this as the maximum size but that's pretty much simple. There will be four footings
put in as per manufacturers recommendations. The structure is actually going to be a wall pole
pergola, very high quality you know not a maintenance type of material.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I mean this is some beautiful property I'll say. It's totally you
know there's nothing visible on that property nobody can see it. It's got a very long right of
way, there's another house but it's totally screened you know make sure you landscape it. The
Soil and Water basically indicated we'll give you a copy that they don't have any they don't
believe it will have any impact on the bluff.
DAVID CHICHANOWICZ : I actually was responsible for bluff restoration on this property for the
past owner and the two adjacent owners. There was severe erosion and we went to D.E.C. and
Trustees and got approvals to restore major portions of the bluff to help the integrity of the
bluff so that I know from firsthand basis is in very good shape.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's good to know. Do we need Trustees on this? I think we do.
DAVID CHICHANOWICZ. : Trustees we have.
42
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have Trustees approval.
DAVID CHICHANOWICZ : We have Trustees approval. We needed the Trustees approval for the
patio underneath it and I do have it if you need a copy of that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'd like to have that thank you.
DAVID CHICHANOWICZ : Sure. We actually are waiting for the C.E.C. I have the permit that was
approved by them and I can give you a copy of that and get you the C.E.C. as soon as they give
it to us. They've already visited, approved it's just the paper trail so
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Perfect. It's also deemed to be LWRP consistent. I'm just entering
this into the record that's all. I don't have any questions or comments really. It is 12 by 18 and
11 foot 4 inches tall. Alright does the Board have any questions, Pat?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nothing, there is no one else in the audience so I'm presuming no
one is commenting. Do you have copies of that stuff now Dave?
DAVID CHICHANOWICZ : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You want us to make copies or is that a copy we can have?
DAVID CHICHANOWICZ : You can have that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well 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 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)
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
HEARING # 7213 ᲃ— HALSEY A. STAPLES and JANET E. STAPLES/RATSO 25 CORP.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There are two applications here they were both adjourned but I'm
going to enter them into the record. Halsey A. Stapels and Janet E. Staples#7299 SE request for
Special Exception permit pursuant to Article III Section 280-13B(1) the applicant is requesting to
legalize a storage building altered to an "as built" two family dwelling located at 1100 Wilmarth
Ave. in Greenport and then there's an application for variances that was adjourned from
November 1s1 and that is application # 7213. These are variances, I'm not going to read the
whole thing because I don't need to. It was an adjournment but it's legalizing pre-existing
storage building altered to an "as built" two family dwelling and there is a less than code
required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, less than the code required minimum side
yard of 10 feet and less than the code required combined side yard setback of 25 feet. so
they're all bulk schedule issues. Is there someone here to represent the application, well which
of the several people that are here to represent the application?
MORGANT FIEDLER : I'll start. Morgant Fiedler I'm the attorney for the applicants and I have
two things for you. One is a common driveway agreement that we'll be filing and second is the
septic was inspected.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well this is interesting. Let me mention to the Board what this is.
This is an agreement between the Staples party and the Ratsey party essentially to Robin
Walden agreeing to mutually own the and have access and use to the driveway that was part of
the subject of the waiver of merger and let me review with you what the conditions are on the
agreement of that waiver of merger were. There were three conditions; the first is standard
approval of the waiver of merger being effectually through filing. The second was the existing
driveway off of Wilmarth that services both lots four and five shall be abandoned so that each
lot has a separate and independent driveway since they are now recognized as separate lots
with separate functions and uses and third screening such as privet hedge or similar measuring
three to five feet in height shall be planted along the eastern lot line of lot five and continuously
maintained. In separating those two lots the Board was attempting to ensure that a two family
dwelling would operate separately and independently from another lot that had all kinds of
other uses on the premises, another business, another house and so on; that they were
separately owned and separately operated. So you're coming in here with something that
contradicts our condition that was a requirement of the waiver of merger so let's look at that.
This is good this is let's see this is from Latham Sand and Gravel, existing septic it's stamped by
a licensed professional engineer, system was pumped and inspected consists a 1,500 gallon
precast (inaudible) septic tank and two leaching pools 8 foot by 8 foot diameter and deep. Pools
are precast, system appears to be structurally sound and functional and is sufficient with
44
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
residents with up to six bedrooms and what is being proposed in this two family dwelling is four
bedrooms I believe, is that correct Colin?
COLIN RATSEY : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that's good that takes care of that. Now this is part of the Special
Exception application, the other is a variance application for a pre-existing building whose use is
being changed but has been there for many, many years and exists where it is so they're
separate but interrelated applications. Morgant do you want to proceed or Colin do you want
to proceed?
MORGANT FIEDLER : Colin did most of the work so any structural questions that you have.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How do you want to do all this?
COLIN RATSEY : I just wanted to say that the lots were all one and they were separated a long
time ago pretty much and that's why we have the situation that we have and then the driveway
situation is that Halsey Staples had a business there for Staples Monuments and that's the way
the monuments come in so that's why we had to leave that driveway. Also that driveway has all
the pools down at the bottom so if we start planting all kinds of trees and everything in there
we're just going screw up our septic system so that's why I said you know what just let him use
the driveway and let's not (inaudible) the driveway.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do we have a survey showing the location of the leaching pools?
COLIN RATSEY : It's on the back of that letter that you have right there. It shows exactly where
they are off the corner of the house and that corner of the house is where all the pools are. The
pools are on my property but they're down that driveway. The tank is in the middle of the hill.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Typically when we get information it's not a hand drawn thing it's on
a survey.
COLIN RATSEY : I understand when I go to the Building Department I was going to give them the
survey where the things I didn't know that you would need something like that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It seems to me this information should have been made available
prior to the decision about waiver of merger.
COLIN RATSEY : It was handed in in the beginning I handed in something with the pools. That
was the first thing I did with Joe Fischetti. I handed in a letter saying that the place was owned
by certain people. I handed in the next door neighbor sent a letter saying it was a two family, I
had Joe Fischetti look at the house send a letter to you to say that the house was a two family. I
4.
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
had the letter for the pool sent in. I just had this redone because Morgant couldn't find it in our
files. For some reason we (inaudible) off that one driveway that would be a big problem for
(inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What I'm trying to do is explain, the driveway is not meant to be
closed off what you're talking about common ownership. That driveway is meant to be a part of
the lot that either abandoned and another driveway put in on the Staples Monument property
for their use, for their business right. The residential property that is now unmerged and is a
separate lot that has the structure being proposed to be a two family dwelling has a driveway
on the opposite side. That is the driveway that, that property should be used according to the
terms of this waiver of merger.
COLIN RATSEY : Yes ma'am you're a hundred percent right. When I walked you through the
property it goes driveway then goes the house and then it goes to the driveway that's shared.
That driveway is the only access to that property for any reason because if you look the garage
is there. There's about eight feet then the house is there and then it's the hill down to the main
property. The new house that was built over there has its own driveway that goes around the
other side. There is no other access to that monument property at all. There's no room to put it
in there room to put it in there, there's nothing to put in there. The only thing that they own is
six feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well is that driveway supposed to be on the residential lot or on the
Walden lot?
COLIN RATSEY : It's right down the middle. There's not enough room for them to put it on my
property or not enough room for them to put it on their property. What I'm saying is if we said
okay we're going to abandon that driveway they have no access to those two houses. If that
other house was to sell it owns the driveway on the other side and it would have to share with
the other.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There are too many houses we're talking about. I want to know are
you talking about the new little one that was built that fronts on Main Rd.?
COLIN RATSEY : Yeah the new little one that was built has a driveway yes ma'am it has a
driveway on the south side and that's the only access to that driveway and that house does not
use the driveway that goes on my property and the other one's property. They're not allowed
to use it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What I'm trying to do is clear up what all the issues are, clarify the
constraints on the property. Here's another issue, we have to enter into the record and I want
to have you enter I'll probably put you under oath to do this. I want you to understand that this
46
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
was originally in the name of Halsey A. Staples and Janet E. Staples, you now own the structure
that is the subject of this hearing correct?
COLIN RATSEY : Yes ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This application now has to be put'forth under your name Colin. So if
you got a deed or something like that.
COLIN RATSEY : I filled out a letter and gave it to you and signed it-and had it notarized.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Fine. Then that is what we're going to have to do. We're just going
to have to simply change the name on the application to your name.
COLIN RATSEY : And the reason I sold the house is because I would deal with the driveway and
all the stuff before. If somebody else bought the house they wouldn't do it. They were offered
the 'house and they said they didn't want the burden of the house so they said sell it to
somebody that will be kind to us. So I've been friends with, him for a long time. I have no
problems with him. I,could care less,if he parked every vehicle in my driveway you know what I
,mean. So that's why I agreed to it..
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I suspect what I'm getting at here is simple. The residential lot is
what I'm going to call the one that you own the one with the subject dwelling on it. The people
who live there use the far'driveway the driveway that is on the what is it the south side the
west side yeah. That side is for residential purposes only and will require let me'see how many
do we need for each apartment well it say two family dwelling it's not apartment even though
you might call it apartment if we (inaudible) to be a two family dwelling it's going to be two
dwellings.
COLIN RATSEY : There's eight parking spaces in the back.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's on the subject property on the residential.
COLIN RATSEY : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And that driveway allows access to the back of the building?
COLIN RATSEY : No problem.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Fine. So all the parking that is in association with that dwelling we'll
call it can be accomplished on that driveway.
COLIN RATSEY : Yes ma'am.
47
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So then the agreement you're putting forth here is to allow access
an easement, half of that driveway an easement to the Staples Halsey all the property.
COLIN RATSEY : Yes ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And that is a kind of covenant so when it says even though part of
the it is on your property they have access to it.
COLIN RATSEY : That's what Judge Price said that I should do to be a good 'ol boy instead of
being a New Yorker.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : New Yorkers are not all bad.
COLIN RATSEY : I know.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN We all live here, we're all Southolder's we love our town anyway.
Now I'm getting clear of what you're trying to do and why you're trying to do it. It took a while
but we will figure it out. Having understood that, at the time the waiver of merger was
effectuated we might have addressed it then. So are we clear do we now understand what how
these conditions impact, Kim will make copies of these and give them to everybody on the
Board alright? So that part of that driveway basically what you're willing to do is abandon your
use on that residential lot of that driveway and allow the easement to exist across your
property so that the Walden property no Bill is saying no. Would you come to the mic Bill and
state your name.
BILL PRICE : William H. Price (inaudible) Front St. Greenport, New York. The driveway that
comes off of Wilmarth Ave. is partially on Colin's property and partially on the Walden's
property. So instead of having two driveways right next to one another as it stands now that
the common driveway agreement deals with the driveway as it exists so that the Walden's have
an easement over the portion that is on the Colin's property and Colin actually has an easement
over that portion that is on the Walden's property. That's why we call it a common driveway.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And what will he use that for?
COLIN RATSEY : Pumping my cesspool out.
BILL PRICE : What the driveway?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah.
BILL PRICE : For access to the rear portion of his property where the off street parking is
located.
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think what I've just asked was if you look,over from the survey on
the other side of the,house it says gravel that is an existing driveway. That is the driveway that
was just describing as the one that will be used by the residential property for their cars. It
looks to me like if there's no barrier at the end of that driveway they can walk back there to the
shed or whatever. The property will require four parking spaces two for each of the dwelling.
Two cars per dwelling unit and that's typical but that's for a single family dwelling. I have to be
sure that' that's the same -parking requirement, we'll look into that, but the point is that
driveway is to be used for that dwelling.
BILL PRICE : That's the primary driveway and that's for where the primary parking should be
and the other driveway is as I said it's a common driveway and it's more for the,benefit of the
neighbors the Walden's.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Walden's sure.
BILL PRICE : As opposed to Colin's benefit.
c
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That I totally understand and Colin I think if I understand -you
correctly you're talking about the fact that somewhere under that driveway is where your
leaching fields are your septic tank?
COLIN RATSEY : Yes ma'am.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Can we have (inaudible) and septic shown on the survey?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's what I'd like to do. I mean that's why see`Rob this is what
MEMBER LEHNERT : I saw that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You saw that, so in order for us to really kind of get this normally we
would want to see where the septic is on the survey.
COLIN RATSEY : I didn'.t realize that you needed another, survey for the tanks, the pools run
down here like this. Once I show this quickly you'll have no problem. The driveway of mine
.starts right up here but it gets wide-down here. My pool comes out of the corner of this house
and it's on the hill that's why the hill is like that and then the pools are down 'in the parking area
and they all have ten inch lids on them for driving over them. So let me just say this is the house
to
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I got it but you're showing these back here not on the driveway'not
under the driveway.
49
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
COLIN RATSEY : They're right on this area of my property. They're on my property not on the
Walden's at all.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN' : And they're not'in the driveway.
COLIN RATSEY : Well this you're saying I can't use this driveway .but this is a driveway that's
there the gravel now.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is a driveway?
COLIN RATSEY : Yes ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well then why does the'survey draw it differently?
COLIN RATSEY : Because this is the property line that's not showing the driveway. That's
showing the property line. These lines here are showing the driveway.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is the property line. That's the property line and that part of the
driveway is on your property and that part is on the Walden property.
COLIN RATSEY : You're right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know I'm right.
COLIN RATSEY : I'm sorry I don't have my glasses on. This is the driveway it's showing his
driveway.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So if you're saying that the pools are over here they're not in the
driveway. They're on your property and they're
COLIN RATSEY : Not in Walden's driveway.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct.
COLIN RATSEY : So (inaudible) and I pump this one out up on the hill.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I don't know if okay that's fine but what I'm trying to say is I
don't want this property using this driveway.
COLIN RATSEY : I don't use it now.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's all I'm saying. That's why we said abandon the driveway
because we thought alright we're going to'get-rid of the merger, they're separate lots and
COLIN RATSEY : Yeah you can do that.
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN See there"s a building there I do understand you do have large
equipment that comes back and forth into that back yard for you know retail commercial
purpose. That's the waiver of merger these are the two requirements we're now talking about
and we will have to if we understand this better I'm going,to have to amend this decision to
rescind some of these conditions to remove them. The point I'm making is if you don't want to
change the driveway you need it to be that-big for your-own operations and you come to a
decision a mutual decision as individual property owners that's fine. What I don't want is to
have the residential property using that driveway other than perhaps the pump'out your septic.
COLIN'RATSEY : We don't use it now.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well the point was to separate the properties cause the
driveway was straddling the property line and we wanted them -to be seen as separate
properties.
BILL PRICE : So this (inaudible) the common driveway agreement to say that the driveway is not
to be regularly used by the (inaudible) the Ratsey property on'a regular basis. So they're not
prohibited from having the cesspool truck going in there and pump out but they're not going to
be able to utilize it for regular driveway purposes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's perfect.
BILL PRICE : That's the reason I came here 'today was to cause I've (inaudible) the driveway
agreement: I changed that and I came also to test on the record that Ratsey's corporation LLC
I'd'have to go look again is now the owner. I represented him when he took title so I'm making
that representation. '
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :'So he's the sole owner and the application for variance relief and the
application of the subject structure,and the application for Special Exception permit is now, in
the name of Colin Ratsey.
BILL PRICE : In the name of Ratso 25 Corp. that's the name,of the owner.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And is that on the deed Bill?
BILL PRICE : Yes it is.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Ratso 25 Corp. So that's now in that name. I'm just taking one
second to look at the common driveway agreement to see where it discusses what Bill Price just
said. So what you're going to do is amend this Bill to describe what you just.
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
COLIN RATSEY : Just a'quick question. What is the problem if we had two driveways? Is it illegal
to have two driveways?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No but it is illegal to have a driveway on two parcels unless it's an
easement across to get to properties in the back.
.COLIN RATSEY : To be, honest with you I don't want to close it off. I don't use it now but I don't
want to close it off because of the fire escape on that side, if fire trucks go in there. I can't
imagine a fire truck going down that,twelve foot area on the other side.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have a copy of the transfer of commercial property to Ratso 25
Corp. but Bill you're going to submit this amended
BILL PRICE : I'm just going to make sure we have it straight. It's going to say in no event shall the
property described in schedule A be allowed to utilize the driveway on I think it's the east side
of the property for regular driveway purposes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That sounds fine, parking of vehicles.
BILL PRICE : I can make it longer if you want.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no just you get the point. We're just trying to clarify that the
reason we ask for an abandonment of that driveway was simply because they were no longer
one property. So there was one driveway for the residential and then there were other ways I
guess. Now that you're looking at it you can see in fact there really is no other driveway into the
Staples Monument property but when it was all one it didn't matter but now that it's two so
that you can have different functions we looked at it and thought well we were meaning the
abandonment of the driveway really should be for the residential property but I can see why
maintaining it makes a certain amount of sense and there isn't much room to do anything else.
Then you'd have to have another curb cut and it would be whole big deal.
BILL PRICE : You know that whole intersection there was
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's murder.
BILL PRICE : (inaudible)just makes it dangerous.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I agree. So now we understand what the goals are and if you can
submit a copy of the deed in Ratso 25 Corporation's name' and this amended driveway
agreement and on the survey please show where the septic system is located on the Ratsey
property and show the parking spaces for 'the subject structure in the other driveway in the
residential driveway we'll call it then we have all the-information that we need. It's complete,
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
we know who owns what and where everybody is supposed to be on the property. Now does
anybody want to address first of all the variances?
MORGANT FIEDLER : So for the area variances the property itself has existed with the same
dimensions, the structure and same dimensions pre 1950, so in terms of fixing any of the
(inaudible) in the setback requirements which we have written out combined sides at 21.5, the
front at 16.9 and the side is 7.9 so where combined 4 % feet less than the requirement but the
structure has always been there for so long it wouldn't be feasible to change it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know what year that structure was built?
HALSEY STAPLES : I can only vouch for say 1948 I was five years old but
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it certainly pre-dates zoning. I don't have any questions at all.
The variances they are what they are. The building has been there forever and it has had no
adverse impact nor will it. Nothing is being proposed to be changed. There's no change in the
footprint of the structure so anybody have any questions?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I want to just ask one questions relative to the septic, the certification
is for a six bedroom house somebody offered testimony. This is a four bedroom house, is there
any plans of expansion?
MORGANT FIEDLER : No.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Are you willing to limit that
COLIN RATSEY : There's only two pools you can put in. You can put a smaller system in or a six
bedroom.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Not that the bedroom matter counts, the question was about any
expansion.
COLIN RATSEY : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If there's no questions on that let's get on to the Special Exception
permit and address those standards. They're quite different than the statutes requiring
variance relief balancing test. Morgant are you going to do that, address the Special Exception
permit?
MORGANT FIEDLER : Yes. So in terms of the change in use preventing orderly and reasonable
use of adjacent properties we've sent out notice to the adjacent property owners and one of
them is here today. We have not gotten any push back whatsoever. That being said Greenport
in general is in need of additional housing so that would be an addition to the neighborhood.
53
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
There are two other properties that I found that are within a half mile of that property that are
two families currently. So as far as out of character with the adjacent neighborhoods I don't see
that being out of character at all.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Can you show us where those properties are?
MORGANT FIEDLER : Sure, they're in the application. They are I printed out the property cards
for those two, they are 25 Washington Ave. is a two family and 4765 Bridge St. which is also a
two family. That information is all in the application that I submitted.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else you want to say about it?
MORGANT FIEDLER : Essentially nothing is going to be changing other than allowing for another
family to live at the premises. It's not going to affect any of the drainage, the storm water
management won't change. None of the structure itself will be changed. It's just getting the
benefit of an extra family.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The assumption is that the rental will be for minimum of one year?
MORGANT FIEDLER : Absolutely and we're willing to put restrictions on that whatever your time
frame is we could do rental for no less than a year not a problem. No short term.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else Nick, Rob, Pat?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in the audience who wants to address this application?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : One clarification I'm just making some notes that I thought I had;
regarding the setbacks the permitted front yard setback is 35 feet, your proposed is 16.9
MORGANT FIEDLER : That's what we currently have so I mean it's
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But on the survey it says 17.5
MORGANT FIEDLER : Maybe I miswrote that it might be
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the Notice of Disapproval shows
MORGANT FIEDLER : Yes your Notice of Disapproval had it (inaudible)
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And then there's a similar on the side yard where you're saying the
proposed is 7.1 it's 7.9 and combined you're saying 21.5
MORGANT FIEDLER : I took that language from your Notice of Disapproval.
54
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're right Nick the math doesn't add up.
COLIN RATSEY : It's 17.3 it's 13.6 and it's 7.9 but that's on that egress of that driveway.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well they're measured from the property line. What did the Notice
say? It says 16.9, you have 7.9,
MORGANT FIEDLER : And 21.5
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And 21.5 that's really strange.
COLIN RATSEY : It's the driveway, it's the main road that screwed it up because it's 19.7 on one
side and 17.3 so it looks like they pushed in a little bit.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well to be perfectly honest let's see which is well 16.9 is less than
17.3 so it'll be on the safe side I would go with the 16.9 because then if you were greater than
that it wouldn't be a problem. You know the survey shows it's greater than that if we give you
what's on the survey that's less than what the Notice says so short of having them rewrite the
Notice of Disapproval and delay this all over again we'll just grant what the Notice of
Disapproval says.
MORGANT FIEDLER : We're also willing to covenant that we won't expand the building itself at
all.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why would they do that? I don't understand why they get a survey
and don't give you the same it's one thing if they have to scale it themselves cause there's
nothing on the survey that shows the
BOARD SECRETARY : Sometimes they get an old survey and that's what they're using.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh I gottcha.
BOARD SECRETARY : So basically the applicant doesn't go back to the Building Department to
change.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's the date on this?This is the survey by John Ehlers
MEMBER LEHNERT : Is there a second survey?
MORGANT FIEDLER : There's the new one.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The old one was by Ehlers and we have a Metzger, John Metzger and
MORGANT FIEDLER : Right Peconic Surveyors.
5S
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
MEMBER LEHNERT : Updated 2014.
BOARD SECRETARY : We usually recommend if there's going to be any changes to the
dimensions to go back to the Building Department.
MORGANT FIEDLER : There won't be any changes to the dimensions.
BOARD SECRETARY : Not dimensions but setbacks.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah see this is the one that they have. This one they based it off of
this one and this one does not have this one is dated that's weird do you see a date on this
Kim? `
BOARD SECRETARY : (inaudible) had used this in order to
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : See this is what we have this is what they used for the Notice of
Disapproval. I don't even see a date on here. Well at least we understand now why there's a
discrepancy cause (inaudible) surveys. I don't like to do things when they don't add up.
COLIN RATSEY : I don't know who gave you the survey cause it was never given to us or ever
even the sale of the house or anything. Somebody found that in a (inaudible) file.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That was a Staples application. This probably was the very first one
you did.
MORGANT FIEDLER : The waiver of merger perhaps.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah for the original for the one lot not the one you (inaudible) then
you have a new survey drawn up and Building had this one and used this one.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So we're going to use the Notice of Disapproval?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah cause it's greater than what the survey shows so better to
grant the greater setback and then you won't have a problem.
MORGANT FIEDLER : The newer survey.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Or what you can do it wouldn't take long you can take this survey in
which is showing what's in reality, this is dated 2014. Actually you're going to get another one
anyway because it's going to show the septic and it's going to show the parking and then it will
show the current date on it. So show the accurate setbacks and then go in and give that to the
Building Department and just say please update the Notice of Disapproval. That way there's no
doubt about anything and that doesn't take them any time. They don't delay it, they won't
56
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
delay it and we'll just get that and make sure all of the numbers add up properly so there's no
confusion going forward.
MORGANT FIEDLER : Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I ,don't have any further questions, does anybody else have any
questions or anyone in the audience who wants to say anything?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So we're going to
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going just adjourn this to the Special Meeting in two weeks. That
give Price time to get us what he said he would get, Morgant can go in Colin can go in to the
Building Department and get that stuff straightened out. We'll get everything we need to close
the hearing in two weeks when all the parts are together properly and then we'll make a
decision. If we get it really quickly I'm going to put it on for a closing in two weeks but'if'we get
it really quickly we'll close it and deliberate, we'll have a decision. If we get what we need
quickly enough you know in time to be able to write one. If not the very latest would be two
weeks after that cause we meet twice a month so the next meeting would be September 12th. I
just soon get-it done in two weeks it's entirely up to you. Depends on how fast you can get us
what we all talked about.
MORGANT FIEDLER : Okay.
COLIN RATSEY : Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're very welcome. Okay hearing no further questions or
comments I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to August 15th, is there a second?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye-.
MEMBER,DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
August 1, 2019 Regular Meeting
CERTIFICATION
I Elizabeth Sakarellos, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape recorded
Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment
and is a true and accurate record of Hearings.
Signature
Elizabeth Sakarellos
DATE : August 13, 2019
r
58