HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-02/06/2020 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
February 6, 2020
9:42 A.M.
Board Members Present:
LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member (Absent)
ERIC DANTES—Member
ROBERT LEHNERT— Member
NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO— Member
KIM FUENTES—Board Assistant
WILLIAM DUFFY—Town Attorney (Absent)
JOHN BURKE— (Assistant Town Attorney)
1
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
INDEX OF HEARINGS
Hearing Page
Robert Yedid # 7309 3-8
Donna M. Wexler, Donna M. Wexler Revocable Trust and
Rodney T. Quarty#7363 '9 - 9
Eileen and Roy Schumacher#7372 9 - 13
Panayiotis Basios#7364 14- 17
Susan Blazowski #7365 17 - 23
Judith Evans #7366 24- 26
338 Bridge Street, LLC#7367 '26 - 29
Roberta Alifano#7368 29 - 31
Barbara Becker#7369 31 - 36
QJSG Properties, LLC# 7371 31 - 36
Eric Frend # 7370 36 - 36
Kendall Todd #7373 37 -41
William Gorman #7303SE 41 - 53
William Gorman #7302 41 - 53
Joan Cooke 4 7342 54- 65
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
HEARING #7309—ROBERT YEDID
CHAIRPERSON.WEISMAN : The first application'before the Board this morning is a carryover. It
was adjourned from, October 10th for Robert Yedid #7309. 1 don't need to reread the Notice of
Disapproval. It's to legalize "as built" accessory swimming pool and shed with a lot coverage of
25.9%, the code permitting a maximum of 20% and a side yard and rear yard setback of 3 feet
and the code requires 5 feet. Pat I understand that you are now representing the applicant.
PAT MOORE : Yes, Patricia Moore on behalf of the applicant. Mrs. Yedid is here with me today
so it's been delegated to the female crowd. I'don't want to rehash everything, I know you've
had two prior hearings. There's been a lot,of testimony a lot of the information provided that
I've read through the transcript. A lot of it is (inaudible). Mr. Yedid did a good job in outlining
the standards that are required in a prior submission he gave to the Board, I'm not sure what
date it was on the second hearing which dealt with standards. What I'd like to do is kind of
wrap things up and try to have a balance the issues that you have to address and hopefully
provide you with a significant environmental benefit which we hope "will outweigh the lot
coverage issue which as we all know there is very little room for correction. When they called
me and I started reviewing everything, the first thing that I advised is well you're getting rid of
the she'd. I'm not going to fight over a shed and automatically we're able to reduce'the lot
coverage by the square footage of the shed. I also had.them reach out to Mark Schwartz who
had been the design professional on the house and Mark very kindly prepared the site plan
which I'll-submit to_the Board that gives the'new lot coverage calculation when the shed is
removed so that we're able to reduce the lot coverage right off the bat to 24.5%. We know that
that's still a substantial variance in the Board's mind but it's certainly is an improvement.
Despite all the efforts and I really commend the applicant and the pool company who it seemed
like every after every hearing they rush off,to try to address whatever issue but it was like what
is the game where you're hitting things that are popping up? It seemed like every time they,
came to a hearing more issues would pop up and today is no different. Let me give you these
plans which Mark's provides and stamped, sealed plans. So as you can see from this plan I think
addresses many of the issues that were 'raised at the two' prior hearings. This plan shows
accurately the house 'footprint. In part there was an error right from the start by the applicants
and I'm a real pain in the neck when it comes to being an attorney'for'a purchaser, I insist that
they update their survey much to the complaints of clients and brokers and everybody who
know that it delays, the process but there's a• real reason for it which is having an updated
survey assures you that you know you see what's there and I know'the Board has the same
policy on every application to insist that you have an`updated current survey because the last
thing you want is to be reviewing something particularly with a lot coverage issue where the
numbers just don't make sense because of a modification to the house at some point or
another. There were prior renovations to this house and during those renovations there was no
3
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
need to get an updated survey but in the end that's (inaudible) the applicant just,not having'the
accurate information. So prior to today they were able they did get the building permit for an
outdoor shower. That's an interesting one because-I put outdoor showers in my home in the
past I've gone and I've checked With the Building Department and if it's'a spigot that comes out
of the wall with a fence, two pieces of fence they call it a fence enclosure. You don't usually- i
need a building permit'but for whatever reason I guess the Board wanted to make sure that
that had a permit. If you go into the Building Department with a request for a permit they'll give
you one. We have a building permit for the outdoor shower. We have that here for the record.
Let me just give it for your file, it's a standard building permit. I'm not going to give you multiple
copies cause it's a one page. I have an extra-if you need one but here you go. It just says
legalize an "as built" outdoor shower as applied for nothing magical there. In addition, during
past testimony there,was some discussion of drainage that has been put on the property. My
client Mr. Yedid had advised me that there was some ponding just normal drainage ponding not
to do with the pool not to do with anything, it's just the grading of the property in the street. It
was getting wet on that,let's see northeast side, so this shows the existing storm drain that is in
place. That was installed by Gary Tabor who's a recognized professional who knows what he's
doing and it's a standard dry well. Ultimately when this project goes in for a building permit
they'll have to conform with the storm water code so they'll have to provide the proof of
What's under the ground but part of the process Mark Schwartz is showing here he's very
familiar with the storm water code and what he'll need to show ultimately on the plans. The
shed that's over on the north corner of the at
12 X 12 shed we show existing shed to
be removed so it's no longer an issue. We've eliminated setback variances with respect to the
shed and as I said the lot coverage has been reduced accordingly. You'll probably the most
important two things and this was a real eye opener to the client and (inaudible) frustration so
if there- was no,pool there the sanitary system would be fine. The setbacks of the sanitary
system to the in-ground pool depending on who I ask and I asked Joe Fischetti and what
happens is a lot of times the pools go in and the Health Department does need to address it.
They don't really ask you fora permit from the Health Department but down the line should
you need to do modification to'your sanitary system then whatever structures are surrounding
that sanitary system potentially are an,issue because they have to be in an appropriate setback
to the property line, to other structures, to a foundation. At the last hearing there was,some
testimony Mr. (inaudible),I think was able to bring up with regard to drainage the setbacks that
are required similarly setbacks are required for sanitary systems. So in this case a bad scenario
of putting in a pool without a permit just creates a major headache down the line and
everybody certainly learned their lesson here but in order to do any modification to the
sanitary system, now we don't have room. So the reality is that we've got to relocate the
sanitary system to the front yard. It is what it is, that's what's going to happen and why
pointed out that we have to give you a significant environmental benefit to persuade you to
4
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
grant this variance that is an "as built" and I know I've been before the Board many times on lot
coverage issues and you try to negotiate with the applicant. We have little room for negotiation
when something is already there. So we hope that the relocation of the sanitary system to the
front yard and a sanitary system that's an IA system will be a good persuasive environmental
benefit that had this pool not been imprope rly'located would not even be an issue you know
the sanitary system in its present location would be fine. So now we get to the next issue. This
house is a major headache for this family. So my'client I'm going to put on the record because
you may ultimately hear about it just from one department to another, my client had a rental
permit application submission and thought hey we just bought the house we have C.O's how
hard can this be. The building inspector went in and he said, well the plans if you see the
construction drawings that are on record from the 2006' renovation the second floor has a
master bedroom a beautiful master bedroom suite, it has a one side what is called a study and
on the other side what is called a storage area. Well during the real estate advertising on paper
it said it was a four bedroom house but during staging and the showings they had beds in those
rooms. ,So my,client believing that those were legitimate bedrooms still have beds in there.
We're not trying to hide anything and, the rental permit goes through and the Building
Department issues what is a notice hey guys you gotta go get a building permit for the
modifications. Really there was no modification to the room's because on the plans it was
finished space. It's just because the prior owner was trying to get 'around'the need to update
their sanitary system they kept to the same number of bedrooms presumably the sanitary
system was designed for a four bedroom house and now they have two additional rooms that
would necessitated getting an updated or amended sanitary system. Well my clients now are
footing the bill for this updated sanitary system but again--it is going to be resolved. Again this is
kind of the snowball effect'of just I won't blame anybody. I think there's sufficient blame to go
around. So the sanitary system will be replaced. It will be put.in the front yard, it will be an IA
system, it will be one that will comply with the requirements of a.six bedroom house which is
what is existing there and that's typical. I think we've now done we've now handled the rental
permit process long enough and I'm sure you're aware every time we go in for a rental permit
with the Building Department you find out that something doesn't have a permit and I know
we've been before this Board many a times that through the rental permit,process we find out
that.in 1985 there was a renovation and,for some reason the-C.O. doesn't match so this is not
unusual. It is just one more thing that is-going to be cleaned up in this process and the owners
are in fact cleaning it`up. They don't have a choice they're going to do it. In a way this all got
disclosed by this whole variance process and there's good and there's bad 'and in the end
they're going to have a house that is all completely conforming, but it's bad that they're going
to be bearing the,cost of this process. I have in trying to find out about well you obviously know
the character of the area, Beixedon Estates is a very well established community. They're
beautiful homes;quite large homes. Some of them are very sprawling, some ranches, one and
5
February,6, 2020 Regular Meeting
half stories they take up a lot of room on the property but surprisingly when I went through the
research of the Board actions_I went through I thought it was me because it took me three
times to look at the same stuff, I could not find the number of lot coverage variances that I
anticipated given the size of the properties and how large the houses were. I think it's because
it is they're pre-existing and the homes started out as substantial not I•want to call year round
construction rather than the simple little cottages that 'often times go through multiple
construction projects. These are well established'homes and they're quite large. The only lot
coverage that I found on record is one that was issued to (inaudible) Cannon. ] have the
decision here, it's not the greatest it's not very helpful. It went in for, a lot coverage variance but
they were able to redesign during the planning stage and they were able to tweak the design
enough so that it eliminated the lot coverage variance. That's the only one that I found and you
can't make this stuff up. Again it is what it is and I'm happy to put this on to the Board. I have
copies if you want it but they're just aren't in this neighborhood as I said the houses are large
and they're sprawling and very small lots but they're for the most part pre-existing and the
Board has had many area variance applications for setback, side yard, :rear yard there are
several of those just because of the dimensional requirements in the code and that this is a pre-
existing development. Lot,coverage is one that I just don't see, whether they were not caught
or they just don't exist and I apologize my phone-just went off. So the only the last issues that I
have here are any pool, equipment be in sound deadening box. Is it already in some kind of
sound proof thing the' equipment? Maybe it.doesn't need it but if you require it we would
certainly.put some kind of sound deadening around the pool equipment. That's all I have. I do
want to have my client speak for a moment. I think you need -to hear from her.They are not
wealthy, they're not I don't want to call them unsophisticated but they are not high powered
attorneys or brokers who do multiple buying and flipping and you know just do this on a whim
and hope that they get themselves you know push the process through. ,I think they're just
normal people ,and they got caught up in just say a combination of issues. I think more
importantly Mr. Yedid and Mrs. Yedid can tell you they were very absolutely adamant when
they were buying this house. They,told the broker we will not buy a house that can't fit a pool.
That was like they're only requirement on buying the house. So,they went through all the
efforts that they could to show it to a pool company and,I think your testimony that we've
heard testimony for that, they started out with the wrong information which is when you come
up with a wrong survey, when you're dealing with a lot coverage'when it's that close whatever
opinion they got was going to be.defective because they,were starting with bad information but
I'll let Mrs. Yedid speak, for a moment and 'then we'll address whatever questions you might
have.
MRS. YEDID : Good morning. I am a school teacher and I took the day off to come here cause
this is very important to me. My husband and I rented houses here in Southold for four years
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
before we decided to buy and we were recommended to a realtor who lived here. Her name is
Maureen Gonzales and she seemed like she was really into-'the job, knew the neighborhood
extremely`well and as Ms. Moore said we've wanted only to have a pool because we were told
by her that if you wanted to , rent at .all you need a pool because that's a mandatory
requirement for people who like to rent. We can't afford really to manage the home without
having some rental period of time. So we believed her and we got two different pool companies
to come to the house before buying to say can we have a,pool. Both ofthem said no problem
the footage is,fine to have the pool and we thought everything was just great until we realized
it wasn't. So we're trying to.accommodate, we want to do everything by the book. We thought
we were doing everything by the book to tell you the truth and we didn't know. So now you
know as a teacher my yearly income is less than what we're going to have to pay to fix this
problem but we're willing to do it and we're willing to abide by any rules that you have. We
certainly didn't do .this intentionally in any way shape .or form. I don't want you to think that
that's what we did. We would not have purchased the home"if we couldn't buy the pool. We
would have rented another, year and looked again. It, wasn't like'this was a mandatory thing
that we,must be moving here. There are a lot of nice rentals in this area so we would have just
kept looking while renting. It just is one thing after another and-it was my lack of research and
sophistication because I trusted the people who were helping us. So we're sorry for this issue
but nobody meant to do'it intentionally.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you very much.
PAT MOORE,: Does anybody have any questions?
MEMBER PLANAM,ENTO : Two if I may. So number one, on that new site plan that Mark
designed or provided us with, there's no location for the dry well for pool de-watering.
PAT MOORE : Yeah I think ultimately were going to provide it'but those two I'm not an engineer
and I rely on Mark but the two cesspools that are there may actually be usable as a dry well
conversion. I mean Mr. Lehnert'might be able to direct that. I think that when we were talking
about pretty much the two being similar construction so it may be possible that some of the
existing infrastructure can be reused as part of the drainage but we're going to provide that's
part of the requirement under 236 so whether we say it or don't say it, it is the code and
MEMBER LEHNERT : Provided with the building permit anyway.
PAT MOORE : Pardon me.
MEMBER LEHN-ERT : You're going to have to provide it anyway.
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE : Exactly. I mean I think that Mark did the best he /could, given what he had
available but until the existing system is exposed, excavated we (inaudible) and see if it would
work whether it can be modified as drainage or whether it comes out and replace that's to be
determined. All I know is that the new sanitary system will go in the front.That we have already
come to that conclusion.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : and the sanitary system you're installing that as a result of the
bedroom count not regarding the pool, correct?
PAT MOORE : Correct. No that's not true, what happens is yeah if the pool hadn't been an issue
the bedroom if the pool wasn't there we could add an extra leaching pool to that existing
system and we'd be fine. I'd just be a simple modification to the existing system. The reality is
because the pool is there we don't have, the room to make a modification to that existing
system. So one way or another the sanitary would ultimately need well from the news of having
those extra rooms we need to do a modification but now the unfortunate thing is that it has to
be completely relocated you can't use it where itis. Really the pool creates the original issue
and then everything else kind of after that just snowballs. Does that make sense was that clear?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we clarified everything. Is there anyone else in the audience
who wants to address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to
make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
HEARING # 7363 — DONNA M. WEXLER, DONNA M. WEXLER REVOCABLE TRUST and RODNEY
T. QUARTY
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have an application before the Board for Donna M. Wexler and
Wexler Revocable Trust and Rodney T. Quarty but we have a written request for an
adjournment to May 7th so I'm going to honor that request and make a motion to adjourn to
May 7th Regular Meeting, is there a second?
MEMBER DANTES : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING #7372—EILEEN and ROY SCHUMACHER
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Eileen and Roy
Schumacher #7372. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the
Building Inspector's October 24, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a
permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located
less than the code required front yard setback of 35 feet (Holden Avenue), 2) located less than
the code required front yard setback of 35 feet (Southern Cross Rd.) located at 980 Southern
Cross Rd. in Cutchogue. Is there someone here to represent the application? So I just read the
Notice, this is for additions and alterations to a single family dwelling with a front yard setback
at 29.3 feet from Holden Ave where the code requires a minimum of 35 feet and a front yard
setback of 31 feet from Southern Cross again the code requiring a minimum of 35 feet.
PAT MOORE : Yes thank you I apologize.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes but we had an adjournment.
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE : Oh so it wasn't me. I did give you pretty complete application with respect to this
variance request. Very kindly one of the neighbors sent an email of support. I saw that it came
through. Paul Silensky had submitting a letter of support should be in your file. See it?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think we have it. Kim do you recall? It's possible we have it in
the file maybe we just didn't get a copy so we'll double check on that.
PAT MOORE : I have two copies here. I didn't make copies thinking you already received it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No we don't have it Pat.
PAT MOORE : Oh that's weird cause it looked like it had been sent. Alright, I'm glad I mentioned
it. So this application is for pretty standard request for a renovation that requires a little more
room for the family. This property is on the corner of Holden and Southern Cross so the setback
at the shortest end is 29.3 but then it is on an angle Holden Ave is on an angle so it does
increase as the property line goes towards the north, northwest. I did do research to see about
similar variances. One that I found that seemed to be very on point was Boutsalis, Theodore
and Anna Boutsalis #7131. It was construction, additions and alterations to the existing single
family home. This was almost on a diagonal from this property similarly from Holden. In the and
you'll see my handwriting because when it was written in the town's records it said that shows
a front yard setback of 39.5 but in fact that was just transcription error. The Board granted 35.9
so I just put a little I circled and hand wrote it but you'll see in the decision it's actually 35.9
being the variance that was granted.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat is that for a front yard setback?
PAT MOORE : It says front yard setback yeah.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The code requires 35 so why would they need a this must be a
bigger property that required 40 foot.
PAT MOORE : It required a 40 foot yeah. Well R40 so
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I remember the application, it wasn't that long ago.
PAT MOORE : Yeah it looked like a relatively recent one.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's 40 foot. It was just down the street.
PAT MOORE : Yeah it is very close to this one so I thought that that would be helpful for the
Board.
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : I think there's another one too, remember that guy that was talking about
planting his trees?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes I do.
PAT MOORE : Oh I saw that one about providing for like a row of arborvitae, I saw that one as
well.
MEMBER DANTES : Like two blocks over.
PAT MOORE : Yeah, this one just happened to be right almost like houses away. If you actually
stand at the corner of Southern Cross and Holden Ave. the house that faces Holden Ave directly
behind us the addition is going to be pretty much in line with their front entrance but we can't
use an average setback on the side. You can only use an average setback for a front yard so we
couldn't really benefit from the homes that are on Holden Ave. to avoid this variance but the
houses are pretty much all well in line with that setback.
MEMBER DANTES : I'm confused Pat why can't you use the average setback?
PAT MOORE : Cause this would have been a side of the house not the front door and you can
only use an average front yard setback for the front door. So our front is where the door is.
According to the Building Department's interpretations of using an average setback. We have a
technical front yard setback we don't have a true front yard setback.
MEMBER DANTES : Okay so it's not'that (inaudible)
PAT MOORE : I'd be happy to address any additional issues. I think this is a pretty
straightforward application. The house is not having a significant expansion. It's just a small
kitchen, bedroom, living space and it's my client's year round residence and you can see that
this community right across the street in fact I almost posted the wrong property cause right
across the street they're doing a -beautiful renovation. They didn't need a variance cause
they're pretty far setback from Southern Cross but it's a significant renovation. This is a much
smaller in fact they've done most of their interior work, now it's just small pop outs and then a
garage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see that part of the small addition you're proposing for a master
bedroom. Does your existing sanitary system have to be upgraded?
PAT MOORE : No there's no change in the number of bedrooms. It's just a modification to the
master bedroom making it a little bit roomier for their year round use. It's actually a reduction
in the number of bedrooms. I think he went from three to two.
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
ROY SCHUMACHER : We had what was a small bedroom is now going to become a sitting room
cause it's the hallway to the bedroom. So it was a two bed one bath now will become two bed,
two bath.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And would you state your name for the record please.
ROY SCHUMACHER : Roy Schumacher.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from anybody?
I
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pat so could you I'm looking at the site plan it seemed that maybe
one of the front yard variances on Southern Cross could actually go away from a design
standpoint. The fagade comes forward of the existing house, in the plan you certainly have a lot
of side room space, couldn't you build or expand the master bedroom or the proposed master
bedroom in a conforming location?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I can answer that
PAT MOORE : Yeah please do cause I don't think I think you'd be violating another setback.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You would have �o require thenyou'd need a rear yard setback. The
exiting setback is 36 feet it requires you mean just pushing it that way?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If the fagade was pushed back and then the addition was made wider
you'd have conforming space.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh you mean wider than
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Not pushing it back but wider.
PAT MOORE : Then you'd end up a violation of the side yard setback cause
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But there's 18 feet, your minimum is 10.
PAT MOORE : Are we 10 on this side?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's odd because they really only have one technical side yard so
I don't know what it probably would be 15 foot minimum single it might even be a 10 foot
minimum single because the size of the lot (inaudible) it would be a 25 foot combined.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So maybe just address from a design standpoint this design over
perhaps a wider bedroom that's not as long.
12
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
ROY SCHUMACHER : We were that was one of the considerations. (inaudible) required to knock
down a bunch of trees and so to preserve the trees and the boundary between us and our
neighbor it was just a matter of you now you're squishing (inaudible) you put it and so the
architect said it was better to keep the trees and move forward.
MEMBER DANTES : How close is your neighbor's house to that side of the property?
ROY SCHUMACHER : I don't know the number but right in between us is a garage so what
happens is they can't see the extension only cause their garage in the way. Their garage is very
close, it's right there and then their house is so if you're looking at the front of the house it's
our house, their garage separate from their house.
MEMBER DANTES So if you push the extension sideways you push it pretty close to their
garage then?
ROY SCHUMACHER : Yeah that wasn't a problem in itself it was more the you know bulldozing
all the trees.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They are beautiful trees, there's a whole (inaudible) of very mature
evergreens all along that property line there.
ROY SCHUMACHER : Yes.
PAT MOORE : I noticed that there's a drywell going to be there so I have a feeling that dry well
is not going to end up there cause otherwise you got (inaudible)
ROY SCHUMACHER : Yes it actually pushes forward a little bit.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright there's our answer. Is there anyone in the audience wishing
to address the application? Is there anything else from the Board? 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 DANTES : Second.
CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
13
l
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING#7364— PANAYIOTIS BASIOS
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Panayiotis Basios #
7364. This is a request for a variance from Article XXII Section 280-116A(1) and the Building
Inspector's September 25, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to
construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) located less than the code required 100
feet from the top of the bluff located at 2505 Soundview Ave. (adj. to the Long Island Sound) in
Mattituck.
CHRIS RIVERA : Good morning Chris Rivera. The applicant had originally put in for a pool which
was 45 feet back from the edge of the bluff and then I received Kim emailed me a letter from
Mark Terry where he request that it be at least 50 feet back from the edge of the bluff so I
resubmitted a survey where we moved the pool back 64 feet from the bluff and reshaped it to
try to accommodate Mark's concerns about the pool location. I also submitted to the Board
pictures of the restored bulkhead. I couldn't find out when it was done but it's (inaudible)
pictures I think (inaudible) sea wall as you can see from the pictures. That obviously has
stabilized this property substantially over the years. It was there when the person bought the
house two years ago so I hope this addressed all of Mark's concerns of the pool location. He did
address a de-watering well. I do know that Scott (inaudible) about two years ago put in two 8
foot rings in the back yard. They had a driveway that goes down to the garage and water was
accumulating the garage from the slope of that so we put in two dry wells to accommodate
water run' off to the new gutters so if a new one is needed we'll certainly put it in but
(inaudible) with the location would be before we decide where the dry well or de-watering
well. So basically that's pretty it and as far as the concern that Mr. Terry had about the pool
location from the bluff.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Chris the Suffolk County Soil and Water we usually get comments
from them and unfortunately this fell through the cracks and they're not going to have them.
they're very understaffed, they're not going to have them for us until next week to see what
issues they might have. Kim do you know for sure he's got the updated survey or the old one?
BOARD SECRETARY : I will have to send that to him.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think it's important cause he's got the original one that we got and
that Mark got so we want to make sure that he gets the updated survey to see if he's got any
concerns or issues. Meanwhile let's just go through the usual (inaudible) here, it's certainly an
14
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
improvement from what the original application was. Why can't that be relocated even more
landward, why can't it be shaped with more of a side yard?
CHRIS RIVERA : Well right now I have 17 feet right now I can try to squeeze it and turn it a little
bit. If I turn it a little bit it still may be maybe 5 or 7 more feet I'm not quite sure but as far as
you know the concerns about the bluff stabilization I think it's pretty well addressed by the new
bulkhead that's there I don't know 5 or 10 feet may make a difference but obviously we're
going to put some ground patio pavers around it so you know if 64 is not enough I can try to do
a little bit more but I thought you know 20 feet almost 19 feet was additionally sufficient to
meet Mark's concerns.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well of course the Board is obligated if they grant variances at all
we're obligated to grant the minimum variance that's possible and so we're always going to be
looking for more environmental protection and greater conformity with the code which does
require 100 feet and it would appear 100 feet is not so doable here.
CHRIS RIVERA : But you wouldn't even be able to put a baby pool there because it's so close to
the house at that point.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : To Leslie's point though is it possible since you redesigned the pool
from a rectangle which really straddled the width lot to a kidney shaped, can you push it back
so it more hugs the house?
CHRIS RIVERA : That's what I said I can possibly bring it back.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It seems like you can go another 15 feet or so just hugging it into the
house.
CHRIS RIVERA : I discussed it with Young & Young they thought this would be an appropriate
setback and what not. They thought it would be a great location. I can try to bring it back a little
bit more absolutely. Maybe I can make it longer and narrower I'm not quite sure but and I also
said I can it doesn't have to be kidney shaped I can make it
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any shape you want.
CHRIS RIVERA : L or (inaudible) type of thing yes so they just put that in so we can try to get
maximum setback.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I think I'd like to suggest the following, since we're going to
wait for Soil and Water we're going to send them the second iteration I'm going to suggest we
adjourn this to the Special Meeting in two weeks. That would give you time in the meanwhile to
see the absolute maximum that you can realistically set this thing back from the bluff.
3.5
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
CHRIS RIVERA : Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then we should have everything we need and we can close it in two
weeks depending on what information we get and how fast we get it we may even have a
decision. It just depends you know a lot on when we get the information.
CHRIS RIVERA : So what I will try to do is have Young & Young put another location on the
survey and submit it to you as quickly as I can and then this way maybe it can help (inaudible)
decision as to the location.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure, Eric you had a question.
MEMBER DANTES : There's a well there, is that for water to the house or is that for landscape?
CHRIS RIVERA : It's water to the house.
MEMBER DANTES : Is there a Suffolk County Department of Health code for how far a pool has
to be from the well?
CHRIS RIVERA : I checked with Young & Young and they said this was the location was fine. I
even checked with Suffolk County Water to see if there was water on the street and they said
no.
MEMBER DANTES : I thought you needed 20 feet between the pool and the well I'm not sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know. Do you know John?
A.T.A. BURKE : Not off the top of my head.
CHRIS RIVERA : I asked Young & Young and they said that it was fine but I think they would be
familiar with it but I don't know.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we'll have to find out, you can ask again depending on where
you will manage to pull this back even further so
CHRIS RIVERA : And then again wherever I put it if those two dry wells I have are not sufficient
then I'll put another one in. I'll address when we decide where the pool is going to go.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, anything from anybody else? Let's wait and see how this goes.
MEMBER DANTES : Is there a non-turf buffer on this property?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's bulk headed and I think there's some grasses
CHRIS RIVERA : The whole bluff is vegetated yes. I think you might be able to see it.
16 '
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) photograph you can see that. Anyone else in the
audience? I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting on
February 20th, is there a second?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING #7365—SUSAN BLAZOWSKI
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Susan Blazowski #7365.
This is a request for a waiver of merger petition under Article II Section 280-10A to unmerge
land identified as SCTM#1000-70-8-41 which has merged with SCTM#1000-70-8-40 based on
the building inspector's October 18, 2019 Notice of Disapproval which states that a non-
conforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or non-conforming lot held in common
ownership with the first lot at any time after July 1, 1983 and that non-conforming lots shall
merge until the total lot size conforms to the current bulk schedule requirements (minimum
40,000 sq. ft. in the R40 residential zoning district) located at 75 Clearview Ave. in Southold. So
we're looking at lots 40 and 41. Hi would you state your name for the record please.
STEVEN SILIATO : Good morning my name is Steven Siliato on behalf of the applicant Susan
Blazowski and good morning members of the Board. So just as a quick procedural history I
} know the Board has touched on it but both lots 40 and 41 my client and lot 40 neighbor were
under common ownership in the late eighties when the estate of Barbato owned the property.
Subsequent to their ownership the executors of said estate transferred title to I presume a
family member's son Salvador Barbato in 1989 who subsequently transferred the lot to my
client in 2000. With respect to the neighbor's parcel again the estate transferred to again I
presume to another son or relative of Vincent Barbato in 1989 who in turn transferred to the
now record owners of lot 40 in 1996. The lot in question is about 22,000 sq. ft. The parcels
themselves have always been maintained I should say after the transfer from the estate the
:.7
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
parcels themselves have always been maintained single and separate in the sense that there's
two separate tax lots, different ownership, my client continuously paid taxes on that lot since
the moment she acquired it as well as I'm sure as the neighbor house as well. I do have some
pictures for the Board. The pictures before the Board are multiple pictures of the lot of the
homes surrounding it and then you'll see there's two new construction projects. They're single
family homes, one car garage ranches that is the proposed house that the builder who wants to
buy the lot he is looking to put on the property. The house being built or supposed to be built is
in conforming with the neighborhood. It does not appear to have any environmental impact or
out of character with the neighborhood in any way shape or form. The two houses that the
builder is currently building within a few hundred feet of the residence now and again they're
all in conformity with the development as it sits now. My client is here and would like to be
hear on a couple points if she can. I'm going to invite her to come up and speak to you.
SUSAN BLAZOWSKI : Good morning, my name is Susan Blazowksi forgive me if I get emotional.
I'm a social worker and I've been a social worker for perhaps maybe twenty years. Every facility
that I've worked at there has been no retirement package, no pension, no 401K. I bought this
property approximately twenty years ago as an investment thinking that I would move out here
and build. I chose not to build. I live now in town and that's where I prefer to be. This is my
retirement. I presently commute approximately a hundred miles a day to and from work. I have
chosen to keep that position because the salaries are much higher where I'm working. I have
stayed in this field or working in nursing homes because it's a calling. I could have done some
other job that would have provided me more money but I chose not to do that. So to retire in
Southold has been my goal for the past twenty years. I've been living out here now renting for
six years. This my as I said was slated for my retirement and for my investment (inaudible) to
make that happen.Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask you, you own the undeveloped lot?
SUSAN BLAZOWSKI : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay somebody else owns the developed lot.
SUSAN BLAZOWKSI : Yes.
STEVEN SILIATO : Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How was it that those lots while they were merged were sold by the
estate to different people?
STEVEN SILIATO : I wasn't involved in the original transaction. It appears there was a deed
transfer from the estate to two individuals who I presume are family members who
1�
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
subsequently transferred to the neighbor and my client. My client when she purchased did the
right away had a title search (inaudible) title concerns and wasn't sure that in fact this was a
single and separate parcel and that she had a record ownership of it. So we don't know what
procedural history before we got involved but my client did take the right steps to protect
herself when she did it when she purchased the lot.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Did I hear you say that she did a single and separate search?
STEVEN SILIATO : Yes in fact when she did the single and separate search she also applied for a
building permit which the town did grant I believe in the eighties. The town did grant the
building permit but at that point my client elected not to build on the property to hold it for
future retirement. Subsequent to that during this investigation with what we (inaudible) the
Board we found out that a permit was revoked undenounced to us my client (inaudible) but at
one point the parcel did have a building permit.
MEMBER DANTES : Do you have a copy of that cause I think that would it would be evidence.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : and the single and separate search.
MEMBER DANTES : No the building permit.
STEVEN SILIATO : This was the building permit and everything that was approved by the town
after my client's ownership.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's Salvatore Barbato, (inaudible)
MEMBER DANTES : So she did a building permit while she was in contract to buy the parcel?
STEVEN SILIATO : She got the building permit post contract when she was right of owner.
MEMBER DANTES : But she applied as contract vendee.
STEVEN SILIATO : No the builder had applied as contract vendee once we went into contract.
MEMBER DANTES : When did she buy the land?
STEVEN SILIATO : 2000. She took title 6/23/2000.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And what day was the building permit issued? It doesn't say date it
just says June?
MEMBER DANTES : June 6th
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's the same date as you closed on it.
19
r
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One of the standards for waiver of merger is that the lots have been
held in common ownership. You don't even get to go to the next set of standards unless that
initial entry is in place. It sounds as though your client did everything correctly and somehow
this got jumbled up because they should not if they had been merged and illegally sold to
different people and if you have the title search that shows that it's a single and separate lot
the merger law took place in '84 am I correct?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : '83
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : '83 so there are three things that the Board can look at; recognition,
subdivision of an existing parcel and waiver of merger but the standards are very different and
very clear and so we have to grapple with whether or not because of the unique nature of this
particular history on this property; a) whether a waiver of merger is even possible as a
consequence of transactions that took place or b) whether they were merged incorrectly which
is another possibility given the fact that you have a paper trail here of lot recognition. There's
nothing simple anymore in the Town of Southold. So that's why we have these hearings
because all kinds of things come to light during the process of discussion and disclosure.
STEVEN SILIATO : Of course and I think that the Board does recognize the uniqueness of the
situation and again not to repeat the point but my client did do everything which she thought -
was the right (inaudible) represented by counsel (inaudible) title company and now is struggling
with the potential of retirement and you know potentially a lot that she's not going to be able
to do much with will again hurt her retirement.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think the lots are conforming in size aren't' they?
STEVEN SILIATO : No this one I believe that's R40 that district
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's R40 oh they're not conforming.
STEVEN SILIATO : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What do we have here in square feet? Yeah because in order to get
a subdivision as another strategy then you need variances for the non-conforming lot size then
you need to go before the Planning Board for actual lot line change.
STEVEN SILIATO : Yes and we were hoping to
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a long procedure.
STEVEN SILIATO : Yes and we were hoping (inaudible) the uniqueness of the circumstances
would be the best vehicle to obtain what our goal is.
2®
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We might have to wind up doing a code interpretation. This is going
to take a little cause this is not a straightforward waiver of merger.
MEMBER DANTES : Do you know the name of the subdivision? Is this a Planning Board
approved subdivision?
STEVEN SILIATO : Not to my knowledge.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Section I Fairview Park.
MEMBER DANTES : There's a list that Planning Board approved subdivisions that are exempt for
a while then the exemption got taken away at some point so we'll look at that I guess.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think this one was listed on them. Well we can look into that.
We're going to really have to think this one through a little bit. We do have a right to interpret
the law, the code and perhaps this based upon the facts before us requires an interpretation
rather than waiver cause I just don't see how you get passed the first gate. This is not the first
application by the way where someone incorrectly wound up having a lot that they thought
were two lots that got merged then they sold to two different people. They wound up in a civil
action because our hands were absolutely barred. If we can help you avoid that we certainly
will try,but we have to see what you know what's,within our jurisdiction.
STEVEN SILIATO : Much appreciated.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any of you have any questions at this point? I think the paper trail is
pretty clear, anything else Eric? Is there anyone in the audience wanting to address this
application? Please come forward and you can use this podium, the mics are on I think. Just
state your name for the record.
TODD NEWMAN : Todd Newman, 4S Gardiners Lane right next to that property.
MEMBER DANTES : You're not the lot that's merged right?
TODD NEWMAN : No I'm the next door neighbor. I don't want to I feel for you I really do but
what are the intentions when if you ever divide this property? Build two houses on that lot? I
had to jump through leaps and bounds to get what I had to get you now with the house next
door. I came before the Zoning Board years ago fought, fought, fought, argued, argued, argued
but that's in the past. To be honest with you to build two houses on that property
MEMBER DANTES : Oh no that's not what they're
TODD NEWMAN : That's what I'm getting at because my neighbors and me are like listen I don't
want to get involved with this
21
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : I understand. That's not what they're asking for. They're asking for one
house on that lot.
TODD NEWMAN : One house?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a building lot. The lot that's already got a house on it okay that
lot right next door
TODD NEWMAN : Right next door to me which is 41 I'm a little confused.
SUSAN BLAZOWKSI : Todd next to the lot, so I'm Clearview.
TODD NEWMAN : This paperwork that I got in the mail is confusing cause one lot was across the
street and one here. I just want to make sure that it's not two houses.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do your pictures show him
STEVEN SILIATO : Yes this gentleman's house is one of the pictures as well as
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don't you go over there and show him the two lots in question.
One is the one you know, you know it's undeveloped right?
STEVEN SILIATO : This is the lot in question that is next to on Clearview. You're on the other side
of this.
TODD NEWMAN : Yeah so again it's (inaudible) more confused about the way they sent me this
because (inaudible)
STEVEN SILIATO : The other lot in question which we are here to discuss.
TODD NEWMAN : 40 and 41 that's what you're talking about. I was under the assumption that
you're trying to divide that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no
TODD NEWMAN : Alright I'm good then thank you so much.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Glad to be of help.
MEMBER DANTES : So you have no objections to it?
TODD NEWMAN : I'm not involved.
22
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in the audience, anything else from the Board? Do we
need to keep this open John to you know just in case we have other questions as we look into it
or just close it? I don't know what other information we're going to get.
STEVEN SILIATO : I'm amiable to leaving it open with the Board. I mean there's some unique
circumstances here if you need to do some more due diligence and research and wants to come
back whatever the Board wishes to do or
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I wouldn't go that far, I would adjourn it to the Special Meeting
in two weeks which is our next meeting time. It's not a public hearing and take testimony. We
usually deliberate on draft decisions. That would just give us some time to say maybe there's
some more information we need, I don't know we'll need another public hearing on it. We
always have that'option, we can then adjourn it to the next regular meeting which is a month
from now but this just gives us some flexibility. If I close it then it's big rigmarole to reopen it
and to investigate. Once a hearing is closed all the information is in the record and so we can't
introduce anything that hasn't already been submitted and discussed. So I would rather leave it
open in case there's some loose end that we might need to address.
STEVEN SILIATO : Would you like my appearance at the Special Meeting or not needed?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think it's necessary. If we have additional questions Kim will
contact you on behalf of the Board.
STEVEN SILIATO : It doesn't appear that we would need any more testimony.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think so. It just might be some missing piece of paperwork or
something like that that would be useful. Hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a
motion to adjourn this to the Special Meeting on February 201h, is there a second?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
23
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
HEARING # 7366—JUDITH EVANS
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Judith Evans #7366.
Member Dantes has indicated that he's going to recuse himself from this application so it's so
noted and he's leaving the podium. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-
15 and the Building Inspector's September 18, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an
application for a permit to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) located in
other than the code required rear yard located at 1120 Willow Drive in Greenport. Is someone
here to represent the application? Please come forward and state your name.
JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : Good morning,Jennifer DelVagho as the agent for Judith Evans.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see what we have here. This is a pool in a front yard it looks like
on a corner lot.
JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : Yes it's considered a corner lot because there is a road that actually isn't
really visible. I'm sure you noticed you can barely see that there was a road there. I didn't know
until I went and filed for the permit. So they're requesting to have it, it's still considered behind
the house they just don't want to have it directly behind the house because they're planning to
retire out here and they want to keep options open to extending the backside of the house
which is where the kitchen is and that deck so to put the pool between the house and where
the shed is (inaudible) would block them from any future plans.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The only evidence of a road is nothing more than an asphalt apron
you know. This is something we're trying to work with the Town Board on changing the code.
mean you so many of these where people are considered to have two front yards and one is
really a right of way or an easement or an unopened paper road, it just seems so unfair for
property owners. This is in their architectural rear yard as we would call it and it's fenced
already isn't it?
JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : It is fenced. It's not pool compliant but it will certainly be.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah you'd have to put something four foot high. I don't have any
questions, does anybody on the Board have any questions?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think what you just shared as far as something that you discussed
with the Town Board especially the fact that the property to the west is preserved. This is
something that I think the road without a doubt is extinguished.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see absolutely no adverse impacts at all on this application.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's a pity that they had to come here.
241
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're trying to avoid that. I mean the last thing we want to see is
having property owners go through unnecessary time and expense and our spending time on
things that probably are pretty frivolous and so we're working with the Town Board to try and
improve those wherever we can. If nothing further from the Board, what Kim is looking at is
that the Ehlers survey look at the chart, underneath the actual property and it would appear
that the existing lot coverage is 15% but the proposed pool and patio bring that up to 21.3%.
The code only permits a maximum of 20%.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Do we count patios? We don't count patios.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No we don't so why is it in there?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Ehlers made a mistake, half of what he sites shouldn't be included.
JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : The patio will be at grade.
MEMBER LEHNERT : So that shouldn't count.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That should not be included.The pool yes.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but he's including the driveway, the walkway
MEMBER LEHNERT : This is a drainage calculation that he mistakenly put on here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's always good to check. I'd rather do them now than catch them
later. Okay that's fine it's just not well you can actually look at this and see the size of the house
and there's no way that's going to be a lot coverage problem.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do we need a corrected survey orjust
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I don't think so. The pool is what's before us so the Building
Department would have looked at that probably and taken some sort of(inaudible).
MEMBER LEHNERT : The pool is only a thousand square feet.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : This looks like it's a survey for drainage purposes.
MEMBER LEHNERT : It is.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what Rob was saying. Good enough anyone else in the
audience, okay I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date.
Is there a second?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second.
25
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING # 7367— BRYAN NICHOLSON and SCOTT BOGER
,
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Bryan Nicholson and
Scott Boger #7367. This is request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the
Building Inspector's August 27, 2019 amended December 6, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based
on an application for a permit to construct a single family dwelling at 1) located less than the
code permitted side yard setback of 10 feet, 2) located less than the code permitted combined
side yard setback of 25 feet located at 155 Bridge St. in Greenport.
JOHN FARRELL : Good morning madam Chairperson and members of the Board for the
applicant John Farrell from the firm of Sahn, Ward, Coschignano. Our offices are at 1300
Veterans Memorial Hwy. Suite 100 Happauge, New York.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you.
JOHN FARRELL : The subject property is located on Bridge St. the north side of Bridge St.
approximately 152 feet east of Main St. The lot is 40 feet wide a little bit more than 40 feet
wide a little bit more than 140 feet deep with a total lot area of 5,652 sq. ft. Currently the lot is
vacant but it was previously improved with a single family dwelling that was demolished I
believe around 2005, 1 think it was 2005. So it does have a history of being used for a single
family residence. It does have access to all public utilities including water, electric and sewer
directly across the street from this property is the Village of Greenport and the Village of
Greenport sewer line comes right down the middle of the road. So we do have a letter of sewer
availability and we will be connecting to that. The property is zoned R40 but it is a single and
separate parcel. So our application is to construct a new dwelling, two stories with three to four
bedrooms and three bathrooms. We require two variances to reduce the west side yard from
10 feet to 5 feet and to reduce the total side yard from 25 feet to 20.2 feet. The project
complies with the code in all other respects. If you look at the surrounding community which
I'm sure you're all familiar with there are a number of homes that have substandard side yards.
The development in this area is older so it's not really developed in accordance with any strict
261
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
conformity with any codes. I took a GIS map from Suffolk County just on this side of Bridge St.
and I marked out the properties that are the subject property and the properties adjacent to it
and you can see that the three or four houses next to it all have substandard side yards. There's
similar situation on Champlin St. behind us and then on the other side of Bridge street as well
there are lots with substandard side yards almost all certainly less than 10 feet. So the reason
we set the house like this you know put it in this perspective is we needed to have some space
for the dry wells on the sides so we put those under the driveway. Ideally we put them in the
front yard but because of the setbacks from the water line and the sewer line we really needed
to kind of just move them to one side. Also the house to the west fronts on Main St. and they
have a significant rear yard setback. It's approximately 65 feet from the back of their garage to
the rear property line. So we felt that this would help you know give a more open appearance a
more open feeling to the neighborhood. We believe that the benefit to the applicant certainly
outweighs any detriment to the surrounding community by granting these two minor variances.
The lot is very narrow, it's a 40 foot wide lot. The house is narrow we submitted a set of house
plans and as you can see it's not an overly large house it's only 20 feet wide. To build a
conforming house would have to be 15 feet wide and then on the inside the house would be
much narrower than 15 feet because you have to factor in the inside walls and that type of
thing. So this is really the only feasible means to achieve the goal of building this house. The
variance is not substantial especially when you view it in context with the character of the
surrounding community. Substandard side yards are very common in this area. There are
houses with side yards less than 1 foot some of them right on the property line. So we don't
believe it's going to have an adverse impact. There's no adverse impact, physical or
environmental conditions in the surrounding neighborhood. As I said previously this house this
lot was previously developed with homes. It's not something unique to the neighborhood.
Arguably the hardship is self-created but as you know that's only one factor to consider when
laying the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the community. Based on that I
would submit that the application should be granted. If the Board has any questions I'd be
happy to answer them.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we got a letter from a neighbor. Let's take a look at that what
that says. Gary M. Charters is that person here? Have you read it?
JOHN FARRELL : No we have not seen it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's dust basically saying that he opposes the location of the
home as currently proposed not the fact that a home could be built there. It's basically what I
think he wants to do is to have the driveway on the side the other side than what you're
originally proposing to give some more space between his property and the subject property.
Less visual impact on my property and it would not negatively impact the existing homes in the
27
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
east of the applicant's parcel as there would be a driveway between the proposed home and
existing-home to the east. It's a proposed relocation I don't want to read the whole thing of the
proposed home and driveway just be switched. Otherwise he's saying could you please screen
the property line the shared property line with evergreens. You want to address that?
JOHN FARRELL : I think we could I mean it's not you know we spent a lot of time on this to try
and figure out the best way to situate the house and based to the access to the utilities and
where we need to locate the drywells cause the drywells have to be a certain distance from
adjoining property lines and so forth. This is really the only place that we can put it. We will
agree to screen that side with evergreens if that's something the Board you know would like.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have about a 5 foot side yard there. It's going to be really tough
to put in some big evergreens at 5 feet. It's a side yard, you could put up a six foot fence.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think there already is.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is wire remnants of a wire fence. There's a stockade fence.
MEMBER DANTES : Where is this Chambers?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He must be on the this corner. He's gotta be over here you see on
the corner this corner lot.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Well then his house is nowhere near this.
JOHN FARRELL : His house is the one on the corner of Main St. His house is 65 feet away.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I noticed that when I did a site inspection.
MEMBER LEHNERT : His house is to the west of this garage that you're showing here. It's not
even on the page.
JOHN FARRELL : Exactly.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you come to the podium and state your name.
SCOTT BOGER : I apologize, I was just trying to state that the other houses (inaudible) so we're
trying oh my name is Scott Boger. There's a grade problem on his side. There is a great distance
on his side whereas if he opposes it then us and the neighbor can practically hand coffee to
each other.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look I'm not suggesting that we have to do this but I am obligated to
enter into the record any of these
28
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
JOHN FARRELL : If it were possible to situate it a different way my client would do it. Speaking
with him there was another issue that I was not aware of. Apparently with the grade issue, we
could cause damage to their property and cause their property to collapse if we move it any
closer because that lot is very narrow on that side. We feel that this is really the best location.
It's a significant distance'away from that neighbor's this property.
MEMBER DANTES : If we switched it would push the house right on top of the one to the east.
JOHN FARRELL : It would be even tighter that would make that (inaudible) even tighter.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, anyone else in the audience wanting to address the
application? Is there anything from the Board? I make a motion to close the hearing reserve
decision to a later date. Is there a second?
MEMBER DANTES : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING #7368— ROBERTA ALIFANO
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Roberta Alifano #7368.
This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's
October 16, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct
additions and alterations to a single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code permitted
rear yard setback of 35 feet, 2) located less than the code permitted side yard setback of 10
feet located at 1500 Grand Ave. in Mattituck.
EILEEN WINGATE : Hello, Eileen Wingate, unfortunately Alberta Alifano could not be here
today.
29
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we have side yard setback at let's see additions with a rear yard
setback of 15.2 feet where the code requires a minimum of 35, single side yard at 8 feet, the
code requiring a minimum of 10 and this is for a proposed 238 sq. ft. deck in the rear yard.
EILEEN WINGATE : Correct, it's a very small lot and it's non-conforming 6,600 sq. ft. with an
existing house of 904 feet. The house is very tiny. She has no intentions of going up or out. She
just feels that this rear yard deck would expand her living space. The way it's set up now her
washer and dryer is also in the basement so the deck was kind of designed for her not to have
to walk across the whole rear yard to get to the entrance where the washer and dryer is. We've
tried to minimize in every way possible and it's a minimum request. The deck aligns up with the
house, the house is already in non-conforming. There's really not much to say.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Looking at the 15.2 feet and I'm looking here it says 9.1 feet
MEMBER LEHNERT : It gets narrower toward the house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and then 8.2 feet oh I see, alright they called it out at 8 feet. Well it's
just obviously (inaudible) behind the house functions with the ingress and egress to the house.
It's certainly not visible to the street or anywhere else.
EILEEN WINGATE : It's barely visible from the house behind it the house behind it is way off to
the south.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there a C.O. on that rather large existing shed with a little bit of a
deck and ramp?
EILEEN WINGATE : I do believe there is. It was rebuilt recently but it was rebuilt within the
footprint of what existed in fact it got smaller because the former shed used the entire
footprint and when they rebuilt it they put a deck like a deck apron and made the shed smaller
cause they didn't need that big giant deck shed.
MEMBER DANTES : You mean repaired it or?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks like it's new.
EILEEN WINGATE : It got some old in it but I would say it was repaired/replaced but I did do
enough research to know that the existing shed was from the last survey (inaudible) new one.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't really have any questions about it, does anybody on the
i
Board have any questions, Eric?
MEMBER DANTES : Your client (inaudible) open to the sky?
30
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
EILEEN WINGATE : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody else?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions.
MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is no one else in the audience, you outlasted them all. I'm
going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second?
MEMBER DANTES : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING # 7369— BARBARA BECKER ᳋ QJSG PROPERTIES, LLC
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we have two applications with the same representative to the
property owners same issues so I'm going to open up both Barbara Becker #7369 and QJSG
Properties, LLC#7371. This is a request for a variance from Article XXII Section 280-105C(3) and
the Building Inspector's October 18, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a
permit to construct a deer fence at 1) more than the code required maximum four (4) feet in
height when located in the front yard located at 38015 NYS Route 25 (adj. to the Long Island
Sound) in Orient and the other one which is adjacent property is 38015 NYS Route 25 (adj. to
the Sound and it's two different tax map numbers, one is 15.7 the other is 15.8 with the same
legal notice basically. So Martin please proceed.
MARTIN FINNEGAN : Thank you good afternoon, Martin Finnegan Twoumey, Latham, Shea,
Dubin & Quatarraro at 304 Main Rd. Southold for the applicants in both applications. I
appreciate you hearing them at the same time. This is an application for technically for a front
yard deer fencing on what is collectively 26 % acre property laying between the Main Rd. and
the Sound. I say technically because I feel that this regulation was obviously intended to
31
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
prevent front yard deer fences for properties that are where you can actually see the front yard
deer fence and maybe not so much. In this situation where it largely is kind of like for all intense
and purposes a side yard fence what the applicants are seeking to do here is to install a fence
which will be 1,500 feet back from the Main Rd. give or take and along the sides of the
property. This property lays just east of the Orient By the Sea subdivision although the fencing
we're requesting in the front yard area of lot 15.7 would only go behind seven of the houses
that are on Greenway there. To the east is the Mendoza a farm parcel which (inaudible)
compliant and the problem is you know which is not uncommon you probably hear it all the
time that this farm field is filled with deer all of which migrate across my client's property and
then into the subdivision. So we have not heard about any opposition to this from any of our
neighbors to the west. They're actually all for it because they would love to have the ability to
push back some of these deer as well. So really this is just about these properties are both
improved with single family residences, the one 15.8 the house up on the Sound and then
there's another smaller house on 15.7 that also has an accessory tennis court. So the fence I
have some photographs I believe I have in the application. I don't have a blow up of this but I'm
just going to I'll just pass this up which kind of shows the general where we're proposing to put
the fence around both properties. So just to hit on the I sparred you the standard memo of law
this time cause I figured for deer fence you know I'm just going to kind of run through if you
don't mind, as to character of the neighborhood you know the southern portion of this fence as
I said which would be the far corner across the front yard is 1,500 feet from the road. It's only
behind seven houses on the western border of the property and that area is substantially
screened. So it's not likely that the neighbors there would even see it because it is so heavily
wooded. I tried to take photographs that would make that clear to you. I don't know if you had
the opportunity to visit.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We all went out to see.
MARTIN FINNEGAN : You can see (inaudible) how they're going to get the fence in there but if
we did it would be pretty well screened from view and as I mentioned you know we believe
that it would actually be benefit to those homeowners because it would help to keep the deer
away from their properties as well so we don't think it would have any detriment to nearby
property and the property to the east is farmland. So we're actually seeking to keep the deer
that are coming from there, there and not on our property. There is obviously no way we can
do this without the variance relief that's requested here and no way to control this deer
infestation without putting up the fence. I would argue that the relief requested is not
substantial because we're dealing with nearly 27 acres of land here and a deer fence will only
be on a portion of that. We did by the way already get relief from the Trustees for the rear part
of the fence that is the rear of the property on the side yards there not a part of this
application. We obviously don't believe that there is any adverse environmental impacts here.
32
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
Clearly we're just talking about deer fencing that will hopefully improve conditions in the
neighboring properties. I don't believe the self-created nature of the difficulty should preclude
relief, as I said it's substantially if you look at this property just from above it's hard to say this is
a front I know it's technically the front yard cause the houses are where they are but it doesn't
have the impacts that it would on a much smaller parcel. So basically that is that, we're seeking
relief to be able to solve this fence in the area indicated on the surveys. If there's any questions
I'd be happy to address them.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not really, these are to me this is the kind of variance that we're
trying to go before the Town Board to improve upon in the code. We have granted deer fencing
in front yards when they meet the principal setback on a whatever that property would be
based upon other circumstances as well and this is way more than any kind of setback. You're
right where is a front yard here? The front yard is maybe the Sound and that portion of the
existing dwelling where you're going to have fencing it actually only impacts just a little bit if
the subdivision because the lot that's on the Sound is a park. That isn't even a developed lot,
that lot is (inaudible)
MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yeah when you drive back there (inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : not going to have any impact at all on there.
MARTIN FINNEGAN : And if you drive back in there and look you could see that you can barely
there's a garage it really would be screened from the view (inaudible) visually. I agree it would
be nice if there was some kind of exemption.to spare you guys this on these large parcels.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Property owners too. I mean the only problem with deer fencing
other than obviously for agricultural purposes is that it displaces to other residential property.
That's still an ongoing problem but it is what it is. We live with (inaudible) deer everywhere.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The benefit though is several homes to the west they only have to
really fence two sides. It's awfully expensive so those people would have a benefit even just a
few of them I think that would control the deer (inaudible)
MARTIN FINNEGAN : I'm sure everybody says their clients are very (inaudible) but you know our
clients went out of their way to speak with months ago with the neighbors and everybody was
appreciative of it because of that because it really is that. I mean they come across and you
know on the southern portions of the property they just come down and infest that whole
subdivision so it would be helpful to that extent. I'm sure that people that live further south
would like it to go all way to the road but not yet.
33
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don't you just pen them in, the undeveloped lot just put them
all in there.
MARTIN FINNEGAN : We were concerned about that because you know it's not uncommon for
them to come up the bluff, come around the bluff so you gotta be careful there cause we might
end up actually doing that (inaudible) for the deer but hopefully (inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't have any questions, Eric anything, anybody else Rob?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Nope.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay no one is in the audience so I guess we
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well there's actually one, you did bring it up that we offered relief in
the past, Martin did you provide any similar requests for relief where it was granted? I didn't
see it in the packet but I'm familiar with a couple.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's a couple in Orient not right smack on top of
-MARTIN FINNEGAN : I did actually look at a couple of decisions for front yard. Some of them
were sort of one of these is not relevant cause it's in the context of
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : An AG property.
MARTIN FINNEGAN : There was one just back in October Fahs.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh Fahs yes they're residential/agriculture so they
MARTIN FINNEGAN : A little different?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah that's a little different. There was one right around the corner
there what was her name.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Was that the one in Orient with the apple trees?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes.
MEMBER LEHNERT : They were right on the road.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's Fahs, but they proved it was an agricultural operation which is
a little different.
MARTIN FINNEGAN : Well I actually pulled them I have them coming back with one where
they're trying to start out an AG operation and can't do it without some help. I don't have any
other ones.
34
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There are a couple more. We were on the Board together not far
from Elizabeth and Mimi's.
MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) dirt road back there somewhat.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes that's right that's what I'm thinking about.
MEMBER DANTES : It wasn't Jay Bredemeyer's, it was near his house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well there's two,Jay had one also. This was on a private right of way
kind of thing remember that? Look it's just particularly in Orient it's a real (inaudible) it's a
health hazard;I don't know what the town is going to wind up doing about it but
MEMBER DANTES : The deer fence you're coming back for is cause it's not a bona fide AG
operation?
MARTIN FINNEGAN : Well I mean they're planting, they want to but it's a problem. I mean it's a
farm, it's a hundred and some this is Indian Neck Farm in Peconic and you know they are ready
to plant crop but how do you, you can't. So what are you supposed to plant them (inaudible)
for two years and then come back and then so we're coming in to try to you know get the
fencing which I mean it's a, massive property and the fence there's areas where it does abut
residential properties but by in large it's nobody is going to even know it's there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well not to second guess it but we can. condition agricultural
property you know deer fencing based upon the submission that it is bona fide AG operations
within X number of years. There's a way to handle that.
MARTIN FINNEGAN : (inaudible) and it was part of one of the four parcels that comprise this
property is already we didn't get disapproved for that one because
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's already in an AG district?
MARTIN FINNEGAN : Well it was a portion of this is the old Bacon property it's a big
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait a minute is it down Indian Neck?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah, yeah, yeah.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Bacon's horse farm.
MARTIN FINNEGAN : Which is no longer so now they're planting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know the property.
35
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
MARTIN FINNEGAN : There is some paddocks remaining, there are some cattle there now but
I'm actually applying to put the thing into the AG district because it's (inaud'ible) anyway to,be
continued that one.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to
a,later date on both applications. Is there a second?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.,
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING #7370— ERIC FREND
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have on here an application for Eric Frend #7370 with a written
request to adjourn that hearing.to April 2nd from the applicant so I'm going to make a motion to
adjourn this hearing to that date our Regular Meeting, is there a second?
MEMBER DANTES : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
36
•February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
HEARING# 7373_ KENDALL TODD
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Kendall Todd #7373.
This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's
November 6, 2019 'Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish an
existing dwelling and to construct a single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code
required front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) located less than the code required rear yard setback
of 35 feet located at 670 Bayview Drive (adj. to Spring Pond) in East Marion. Is there someone
here to represent the application? State your name for us please.
KENDALL TODD : Kendall,Todd.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Welcome. It looks like you want to build a house with a front yard
setback at 32.4 feet; the code requires a minimum of 35 feet and a\rear yard setback of 34.7
feet, the code again requiring 35 feet couldn't get another couple of inches. So we did get did
you know that we got a letter of support from your neighbor?
KENDALL TODD : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But they did have some concerns for on-site parking and boat
storage and all that which you know anybody can understand. It's a tight knit community
around there. So what else would you like us to know? It would appear that it's LWRP
consistent, do you know what that is, Local Waterfront Revitalization?
KENDALL TODD : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You got his letter?
KENDALL TODD : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cause it's not being built in a flood zone so that's good.
KENDALL TODD : Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have been out to the property. We have individually inspected
just so you know we know the neighborhood. What else would,you like us to know about this?
KENDALL TODD : It's just we're just renovating the house and it turns out the best option for us
was to tear it down. We're not changing the footprint of the existing house now. We're just
extending the second floor dormer. As opposed to any concerns our neighbor may have with
parking and so forth, the front yard design or back yard design with a n'ew septic system is
(inaudible) for a single driveway and,there will not be any room for boat storage or anything
like that.
37
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
r
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the code does require that fora residential property you have
two on-site parking spaces.
KENDALL TODD : I'm sorry.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The code requires for every house, a residential lot that you have
two on-site parking spaces minimum. It looks like you could probably put that in your driveway
almost. There's no garage on this right?
KENDALL TODD : No there is not.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're keeping all those decks and stuff in the back correct?
KENDALL TODD : Yeah,.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have do you need Trustees permit for this also?
KENDALL TODD : Yes we do.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And do you have that or have you applied to them?
KENDALL TODD : I have yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :rYou have their permission already.
KENDALL TODD : Correct.
' r
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Could we have a copy of that?
KENDALL TODD : I don't have it with me.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's alright you can send it to Kim.
KENDALL TODD : Yeah absolutely.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now what kind of sanitary-system are you planning on putting in and
where are you going to locate it?
KENDALL TODD :`It's going to be in the front yard, street side and it's the new nitrogen system.
CHAIRPERSON,WEISMAN : An IA waste water treatment system.
KENDALL TODD : Correct.
IS
February'6, 2020-Regular Meeting
i
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good. Well you know a lot of'the houses nearby are all smaller older
cottages many of them have been updated,'renovated to year round dwellings like what you're
proposing. Let's see, Nick any questions?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Sort of one it's not necessarily relative to your property but
immediately to the east there's like a park which is part of the homeowners association. What
is that exactly?
KENDALL TODD : Next to my property?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes.
KENDALL TODD : It's just .a vacant lot, it's actually owned by the neighbor on that side. It's
divided in half with a right of way to a public park of the
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the association that little bridge that goes to the island back there.
KENDALL TODD : It's actually called Fox Island and there is some community docking on there.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So it's privately owned.
KENDALL TODD : Correct. `
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything?
MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric?
MEMBER DANTES : Yes, where do you keep it as far as you said you're tearing the house down?
KENDALL TODD : Correct.
MEMBER DANTES : What remains from the existing house?
KENDALL TODD : The foundation (inaudible) the house was built in the 40's and there were
several other reconstructions done to it and the framing is inadequate and the foundation has
different sections to it. Some are poured foundation, some of it is a block foundation. There's
water,'there was sand leaking through and if we're building a new house (inaudible)
MEMBER DANTES : Right I understand, .I was just wondering just shifting it a foot closer to the
road then we eliminate.the rear yard variance and it looks better on paper.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They don't even need to be it's actually just a few inches, that's why
I brought it up because it seems to be a couple of inches. It's like 5 or 6 inches, 5 inches. In fact
39
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
that gets rid of one variance. Otherwise if it's really for some reason not possible to do that and
don't know exactly what would be the case,cause you're putting in a new foundation right?
KENDALL TODD : Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What it might do is reduce the front yard setback you know make
that a little less conforming.
KENDALL TODD : We were considering moving back or forward but l was under the impression
that,there was a greater distance that we had to account for so we were thinking of moving the
house back but then we were too close to the water and it was
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In this case because of the size of the property it's 35 feet in either
direction so it's six to one and'you know it's better probably to be farther away from the water
and so if you're another five inches closer to the front yard. So I don't know you should really
think-about it.
KENDALL TODD : I thought we were talking about a distance of five feet so somewhere there
was a miscommunication. I thought it was a greater distance.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No 35 feet either
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's the rear yard so (inaudible) your deck if you just narrowed the
deck by
MEMBER LEHNERT : By inches!
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's removing one variance but then the front of the house is
basically a 3 foot what you're seeking is 3 feet.
KENDALL TOD : That makes us (inaudible) to what the amount space needed for the septic?
MEMBER DANTES : Also the,road is on an angle, that's kind of part of what's affecting-him Nick
is the way it's not a straight line.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right at'the one corner of the existing is 32.6
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN It's you know either way they're really fairly the de minimus
particularly the one that's just a couple of inches and you know we can grant it because it's
really not a big deal but the Board is obligated legally to grant only the variances that are
absolutely required and then the smallest one that we can. So if the're's a way that you can stick
a couple of inches back cut off a couple of inches off the.deck then it's a done deal you just
401
February 6,2020 Regular Meeting,
need to show us on a survey and then we only have the one 'variance. Does that make sense to
everybody? ,
KENDALL TODD : Now what does that do to the timeline and the process'here?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's no reason to take additional testimony. What I would do is
adjourn today to our next meeting which is in two weeks in the evening. We'll probably have a
decision already made and we can .vote on,it. There need not be any delay. What we would do
is subject to receipt of a revised survey so it depends on how fast you can get who's doing this
Luigi Pascarella to simply take off a little bit off the decking and show us a conforming. You
don't need,to do anything with Building, we'll just indicate that it was discussed at the hearing
and that you're conforming now to that setback which eliminates that so there's really nothing
other than just getting this amended and the survey into us.
MIKE CHUISANO : So you want a plot plan basically?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah just this showing 35 feet at the closest point. No one else is in
the audience who wants to address this application. So I'm going to make a motion 'to adjourn
this to the Special Meeting-on February 201h'and the sooner you can get this to us the faster we
can move. Send it to Kim, she'll forward it .to everybody and we will have 'a draft prepared.
We're going to assume that's going to be the strategy that you're going to submit the
elimination of one variance and we'll be good to go. Is there a second on that motion.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All if favor?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING #7303SE & 7302—WILLIAM GORMAN
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN So the next application I'm ,going to open up at the same time.
William Gorman #7303SE and William Gorman #7302 which are for variances. These were both
last'adjourned in December. Since then a number of things have transpired. The Board has a
41
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
bunch of questions about them. Particularly start Mike with the sanitary issue. Why they would
deny the Special the two family house.
MIKE KIMACK : This reminds me of that,old saying you know who's on first if you can remember
that Abbott and Costello that's where we are. Unfortunately we found out that from the past
meeting unbeknownst to me and unbeknownst to the engineer that Health Department
determines`that a two family is a commercial building and not a residential building and they
put it into that category. As such they would require 20,000 foot for each of the units to be
rented and, of course it's only half an acre of property. The interesting thing about that is that
it's the same number of bedrooms, you can have a five or six bedroom single family you got a
five or six bedroom two family but you can also have a bed and breakfast there and it doesn't
require anything (inaudible). It didn't make much sense as to why they put a two family into
commercial but they d,id and when we found that out obviously it threw this whole think into a
different direction. ,Health Department now (inaudible). in a sense that we could not achieve
what we had originally started out to which was two families without we didn't have the
property in order to do it so it was out of the picture.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :, So you would need 40,000 sq. ft. for a two family dwelling because
it's considered commercial.
MIKE KIMACK : Correct it's'news to me.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have anything in writing from them on that?
BILL GORMAN : They called me and told me that the application they were just don't bother,
they said you won't be'approved.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN,: So you didn't bother to apply then? You started to-apply obviously.
BILL GORMAN : I started to apply and they said don't even bother. The engineer called me and
said no. Cause I called a number of times, I just wanted to know what I needed to get them to
sign off on and they finally told me the application I have a couple of questions and I called him
up and that's what he said. Don't even bother it's not going to he did the calculations over the
phone and said that you're not even close.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then they won't give var iances?
BILL GORMAN : No there's you know I can buy credits right? I can buy sanitation credits that's a
whole thing. I don't know how long it takes but it's I think it takes,a year or so to get something
like that through everybody, through the town and through the Building Department.
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You said I think or Mike maybe you did but somewhere 'in the
application I think it says that they're suggesting an accessory apartment.
BILL GORMAN : Well they said that I could have a bed and breakfast, I can have a house with as
attached apartment. I can have as many bedrooms as the two family would have and those are
all considered, single family .and I have enough acreage for a single family and that's what he
told me I can do. I can do a bed and breakfast, I can do a house with an apartment and so that's
where we are with the Health Department.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well'it would certainly be helpful if we had some of this information
in writing. Bill you own that building right?
BILL GORMAN : Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You own all the buildings on the property?
BILL GORMAN': HHMMM
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. I understood your intent was,to rent -those two units, call
them whatever you want right?
BILL GORMAN : Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you then aware of the fact that in order to have an accessory
apartment in a single family dwelling
BILL GORMAN : You have to live there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes the intent there was for people like a B&B who are living in their
home and to provide a little bit of extra income if they want or put up their.aging parents or
their grown kids or whoever they want they can do that as of 'right and when the accessory
apartments in accessory structures code was passed we no longer had to give a Special
Exception on those kinds'of units within a principle dwelling provided they did not expand the
foundation by more than 25% and provided that the apartment unit was no greater than 40%
of the livable floor area of the entire structure.
BILL GORMAN : Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Let's ask-a few more questions.' It'sound Pike you wanted to say
something.
43
i
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
BILL GORMAN : Only that the apartment is 29% of the structure and in retrospect had I known .
we were going to go this direction we would have put the apartment in a different part of the
house so that the foundation wouldn't have expanded to 49%.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Was that when you added the garage on and all that kind of stuff.
BILL GORMAN : Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So then that's a variance now.
BILL GORMAN : Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But what are we going to do about the residency? Are you going to
live there?
BILL GORMAN : I'm going to live there. I'm going to be there in the smaller one. It's a nice new
house I could live in worse places.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright well let's see what else, bring us all up to date. So right now
we're looking at we haven't even changed the Legal Notices because before we were about to
abandon and ask you to withdraw the two family dwelling, one of the things we had talked
about in consideration of that was the fact that you went and talked to Denis Noncarrow at our
suggestion and agreed that one of the units would be an affordable apartment and how's that
working now?
BILL GORMAN : Well that's a little bit different now because I'm going to be living there and I
just lost half my income and I need to max out my potential rental income. _
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN': Let's'see what other issues are dangling here.
BILL GORMAN : Is that a (inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Well I'm trying to just get caught up because there are so many
things that have been discussed over a'couple of and it seems like this is a moving target every
time we turn around something else is getting changes. So I just want to make sure we.don't
forget what was on the table so we can address them all properly.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Can you just reiterate what the accessory whichever one of the
(inaudible).the owner doesn't live-in what it can be used as?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There can be a rental apartment, they can be market rate, they can
be whatever anyone
4
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Oh it is market rate, I thought it had to be affordable housing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it doesn't just in the accessory structure. They are as of right
apartments that can be rented for a dollar to your grandparents or you know ten thousand a
month. It's an apartment or it can be the principle dwelling and you can live in the apartment,
either way it doesn't matter as long as your residency is in place and your ownership is in place.
BILL GORMAN : Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we have now we need a rear yard variance, we need a front yard
variance that's for we'll call it principle dwelling.
BILL GORMAN : Right, rear yard variance because our second floor deck protrudes two feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's for the second floor deck. Then we were looking at a variance
for the storage building, used to be the vacuum cleaning place in a side yard. There was the
issue that someone living in the garage that needs to vacate. Also the fact that this is one
property and it needs to look like one property, I think we did talk to you about the hedge row
and, the second curb cut because they were used differently. One was used legitimately as a
commercial building back in the day and that's long been extinguished and this needs to be one
residential property with residential uses on it.
BILL GORMAN : Right so if you look on the survey just to address that
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The new one.
BILL GORMAN : The newest one. I took the hedge out so that the driveway goes all the way
through from one side all the way across the front of the property and out the other side in
front of the little in front of the old vacuum cleaner store. I took the hedge out but I would like
to leave the hedge blocking that building cause it's not a very attractive building and I don't it's
just like you can see maybe a third of that building is covered by the hedge. Is there any
objection to keeping that there as long as I run through the driveway runs all the way through
to the one building to the next?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we also talked about the use of that storage building at one
point as a garage as an accessory to the two family and the other garage which exists legally
although not used legally can stay there but you're going to have to remove the heat, you're
going to have to remove the plumbing, you're going to have to remove
BILL GORMAN : The person.
February,6, 2020 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN. the person, the propane'tank okay and get this property cleaned up.
The Board has some concerns about that accessory building and it's use particularly if the
principle dwelling now has a garage attached to it and an accessory garage in the rear.] know
you were storing a lot of your building materials and so on there and we really can't allow this
building to be used for anything other than residential. It's not a 'commercial property and it
cannot be used for a commercial use so you know it seems as though-you did a whole lot of
work on things pretty quickly and I guess in anticipation of things'that we needed to talk about
and needed to be approved before you had spent your money renovating and doing what
you're doing.
BILL GORMAN : Pretty much. I just put a loft in part of the building that was just (inaudible)
storage,and if you looked at it and I'm sure you guys have been by there"s really,nothing going
on it was just storage right now.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But it is storage for a business. In fact your business address is at this \
property.
BILL GORMAN : Is it?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : According to your website.
MIKE KIMACK : Don't look at me.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You look up your business your construction has 45805.
BILL GORMAN : 45805 is my residence.
MEMBER DANTES : But then if he moves there
BILL GORMAN : 45925,is the commercial building the non-commercial building.
MEMBER DANTES : Right but Leslie if he's 'moving there then he's allowed to keep his truck
there and stuff.
BILL GORMAN : (inaudible)
MEMBER LEHNERT : But we can't think about making that commercial building less commercial
building by extinguishing that curb cut in front of it.
MIKE KIMACK : We would prefer not to.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it should because if you want to use that storage building you
want to get your stuff in and out, that's what we=re saying, it's still a hybrid. It's a hybrid. I mean
46
1. February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
I can argue that there are some plumbers who will put their plumbing trucks in their garages
and they might have a little home office or something somewhere but we're trying to get this
property cleaned up once and for all; for your sake, for the town's sake to let it,be a residential
property but you built and renovated is very nice. I don't think anybody has any problems with
the variances for the front and rear yard for that structure. We're disappointed that we can't
make this a two family.
BILL GORMAN : Me too.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that you had flexibility and the town gets an affordable unit.
That's the basis upon which we proceeded and we're all kind of blind sighted by the Health
Department at this point. Are they going to require an IA system?
BILL GORMAN : No everything is just fine the way it is. We have it signed off by the engineer
and
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the existing cesspools are okay for the number of bedrooms
being proposed?
BILL GORMAN : I have that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's the date on that cesspool?
BILL GORMAN : The letter?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean how old is it? Do you have any idea what the permit says?
know that there has been a residence on this property for some time so I'm just trying to see
how old that septic system is as Mike knows certainly. This Board and we're trying to get the
Town Board to codify this because we're basically doing the work that the Town Board should
be doing by requiring on major renovations or new construction IA systems going forward.
Trustees are doing the same thing. Health Department eventually will also do that but they're
taking their merry old time on it and a state code is going to require it and eventually our town
code will require it but in the interim the Board is always asking (inaudible) any major
renovation which this certainly is or any new construction to look at the possibility of putting in
an IA system. Our town has just reached a critical environmental situation with nitrogen loading
and we're trying to do our part to preserve what we have. Would you like to comment on that?
MIKE KIMACK : This particular property I think within the last year, year and a half or so in
anticipation of replace the existing system with a brand new system with a septic tank and
(inaudible) that's (inaudible) by Deerkoski so he has a standard system in there which meets the
47
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
code of the Health Department in terms of servicing the number of bedrooms that are being
proposed.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Was there a permit for this system? If there's no permit for this system
how can it meet the code of the Health Department?
MEMBER DANTES : Until recently you were allowed to repair the existing system.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : This would have to have happened three to five years ago.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah they changed that a couple of years ago. They're require notice of
anything going into the ground.
MIKE KIMACK : But they accepted it they accepted the 72 form from Deerkoski when he
submitted it as a replacement system. So I'm not quite sure exactly what the comment how it
applies.
MEMBER DANTES : Do you have that (inaudible) form?
BILL GORMAN : The letter from Deerkoski?
MEMBER DANTES : Well no what you gave they usually stamp it and mail it back.
BILL GORMAN : No I don't have that.
MIKE KIMACK : We can get it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We just want to make sure that we don't leave any loose ends and
you know the Board's concern about sanitary so if this is a new replacement and it meets their
approval and it's within the last year or so I'm fine with that I just need the paperwork on it.
MIKE KIMACK : We'll get that to you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What else, Rob any other question you have at this point?
MEMBER LEHNERT : No, no questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just one thing about and this has been an ongoing sort or revolving
application, you had suggested that you were going to move into.one of the two units as your
primary residence and I was just wondering because there's this question mark about the
accessory structure and how that's used, is it something that perhaps you can convert the
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
accessory structure to your accessory living unit and then just rent the house out? So in other
words you'd have a single family house with an accessory.
MIKE KIMACK : The same problem would apply Nick in terms of the Health Department will still
look at it as a two family and
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) accessory structure.
MIKE KIMACK : But the main house would be still a two family.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, no, a single family main house and then using the accessory
structure as an accessory I don't want to say apartment but a detached accessory dwelling.
MEMBER DANTES : It would but (inaudible) affordable housing restriction though for the rental
if you did that.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Cause it's a free standing structure as opposed to attached.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : An accessory apartment in an accessory structure must be rented to
someone who is eligible for or are already on the affordable housing list or a family member.
MIKE KIMACK : So he couldn't live there.
MEMBER DANTES : No he can.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then you'd have to rent the house and you'd lose a lot of income
because an affordable dwelling is going to be less income than an affordable apartment. Yeah I
mean you could absolutely. You could live in either one but one of them would have to then be
rented to someone.
MEMBER DANTES : Both of them are pretty high.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was just going to say the rental numbers I think Bill you even sat
down with Denis Noncarrow and you discovered that an affordable rental unit is actually is
close to market rate.
BILL GORMAN : It was less than market rate but when it was times two obviously it was
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but I'd be curious to know if renting a standalone single family
home whether it's four or five bedrooms was something that I don't know what the rate is for
the affordable housing people.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not bad. Look the point is he
49
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
BILL GORMAN : $2450 for a three bedroom.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's just stop looking at five hundred iterations okay leave well
enough alone. He's got an accessory storage building on the property It needs to be restored to
being an accessory storage building. You're going to move into the dwelling. The Health
Department says okay if you have an apartment in that dwelling you're going to meet the
sanitary code. I think we just leave it at that for the time being. There's too many moving
variables here but there was something that I just thought of and ran out of my head. There is
the variance I did mention for the expansion of the dwelling the foundation by 100% more than
what's allowed?
BILL GORMAN : Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 49 instead of 25?
MIKE KIMACK : Correct, yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that's a very substantial variance and it's now "as built" it's done
already. Then there's the variance for the storage building we'll call it now in the side yard and
the only way that can only be kept either a variance or picking it up and moving it to the code
required rear yard cause you don't have a lot coverage issue.
BILL GORMAN : I don't think I can really move that because then I would be encroaching on the
rear yard.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'd have to look and see what the setback would be.
MIKE KIMACK : I think it's 30 or 35 roughly for a half acre.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not for a storage building, for a dwelling yes but that's not going to
be a dwelling.
MIKE KIMACK : It's a block building it's not
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not movable. So that takes care of that. I just want to make sure
everything in the record everything that we're looking at here. Eric do you have any questions
at this point, Rob, Nick? I think we at least understand exactly what's going on here now. I think
we have the same understanding of what's going on here. Bill what state is do you have a C.O.
on that building yet or are they waiting for these variances before you get it? Is it complete?
BILL GORMAN : I haven't done anything with that second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cause John was out there and said stop.
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
BILL GORMAN : Yeah I haven't done any plumbing to the kitchen or anything like that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So if we were to proceed on the basis what the new Notice of
Disapproval says the assumption is we would have to condition approval based on your
affidavit and documentation of principle residency and a number of other conditions obviously
the restoration of the framed garage as a storage building.
BILL GORMAN : I think all of those conditions are on the plans that I submitted and on the
survey.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean it says one car garage with unconditioned storage above but
then it sort of always did.
MIKE KIMACK : Now it's in print.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I want to see it in reality. I don't want to see lights on at night in your
garage. Anything else from anybody?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think on your list it still sort of open as the use of the accessory
structure and access to, whether it's a curb cut or not.
MEMBER LEHNERT : We can put that as a condition.
BILL GORMAN : Condition what, I'm sorry.
MEMBER LEHNERT : The curb cut.
MIKE KIMACK : We prefer to keep that, there's no reason to condition that away. It doesn't
change the use.
MEMBER LEHNERT : It could change the use of the building. It could allow it to be used as a
construction building.
MIKE KIMACK : But if you're using it for residential storage you need to be able to pull up and
use it for storage so why would you block or you need to be able to pull up and use it as
residential storage so why would you want to walk all the way over from the other driveway to
it.
MEMBER LEHNERT : To discourage this use as a commercial building again once this is all
approved.
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the Board has to approve the location and the side yard before
we worry about a curb cut cause if the Board finds that's excessive then you're going to have to
remove this building.
BILL GORMAN : Really.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes really. You just said you can't move it to a conforming location so
the choice is either we grant it where it is or deny it and if it's denied it will have to be removed
in order to get approvals on everything else. I just want to level with you so you're not shocked.
Each one of these variances has to be discussed by the Board, the back yard, the front yard, the
side yard and the foundation that's what we're looking at.
MIKE KIMACK : Also the proposed porch.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can approve one and deny another. The Board doesn't have to
approve everything or deny everything.
BILL GORMAN : Understood.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we'll just have to grapple with it.
MIKE KIMACK : I just wanted to bring to your attention that we had discussed the proposed
porch and it was part of the second one and that's also up for a variance.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah, the front yard porch you're talking about the wrap around,
yeah absolutely. We actually have a draft of approval written on that from months ago but we
couldn't act on any of it until we saw all of it.
MIKE KIMACK : We appreciated that except that when everything changes basically that might
have also altered your position on that and I just wanted to bring it up again.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN' : Nobody has a problem with that front yard variance. I think I can
speak for the Board, is that correct?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah we wrote that draft right after it was presented.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Months ago.
MIKE KIMACK : That's the pictures as we can present it to you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright then I think we've covered everything that I could think of.
Anybody else, anything from anybody else, anyone in the audience? Okay I'm going to make a
motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Wait a minute subject to no we got
52
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
two things I gotta do, subject to receipt of the information on sanitary system Mike you're
going to give that to us?
MIKE KIMACK : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so the clock will start when we get that and also we're going to
ask for a letter from you withdrawing the Special Exception Permit Application for a two family
cause it's moot now.
MIKE KIMACK : It is.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Notice of Disapproval that we now have covers everything.
Alright so there's a motion.
MEMBER LEHNERT : How do we do the residency requirement?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He's going to have to provide an affidavit of residency and
documentation the same way that we do with Bed and Breakfasts.
MEMBER LEHNERT : So that's since the project's not done that's going to be a condition.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It'll be a condition, a conditional approval sure. How else can we do
it? I mean you know you have to be living there and we need to know that you are. It's that
simple. We're going to take your word, that's what your intent is and it shouldn't be a problem
showing utility bills with that address and you know a driver's license or whatever else one has,
tax photo registration all that kind of stuff.'Anything else anybody, there's a motion here to
close subject to receipt of the sanitary information. Is there a second from somebody?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
53
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
HEARING # 7342—JOAN COOKE -
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just open it up, I'm not going to read the Notice again cause
it's a carry over. It's Joan Cooke #7342 adjourned from December 5th and this is basically a
setback for stairs in the front yard.
PAT MOORE : Yes and for the record Pat Moore, this is a wrap up of prior hearings. When we
left the last hearing I had Don Feiler at the last meeting and my client was at the last meeting,
she couldn't take off from work today and Don is somewhere in a warm climate but he did this
for us before he left and I filed it with the Board on December 23rd so you would have it in your
files. Don did a drawing of the staircase. We have two alternative staircases. We have the one
that is our preference is the one that you have before you which is a switchback of the staircase
the one that is the application. The application was for maintaining (inaudible) the picture of it
or do you have
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait we have this one Plan B that you said was your preference.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Plan A and Plan B.
PAT MOORE : We have Plan A and Plan B.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Plan B your preference is not a switchback.
PAT MOORE : Okay let me back up. So we actually have three plans, we have three plans. We
have the one that is presently under construction which was done with the Building
Department trying to comply with the setbacks this was submitted at the request of the
Building Department for a de minimus and the Board said no come back and (inaudible) which
this plan was drawn by Don Feiler as well. It was reviewed by the Building Department and this
plan that I show you is the one that we submitted to you and it would allow it takes the stairs
down with a little landing and switchback so it does not eliminate the access the storage access
under the house. So that is of all the plans her absolute top favorite because it means that the
doorway her access it's just storage underneath the foundation that's her access for the
storage. Don did Plan A which is taking the staircase the same landing at the top but it creates
somewhat of a I think the Board at the last hearing were kind of drawing on the fly at the
hearing and that was the drawing that created like a wood landing that looks like a little bridge
across the front. It goes you can see it crosses over the staircase and then goes back along the
side of the house, the left side of the house and the staircase goes down now and is on the left
hand side of the house that's Plan A. That was the drawing that you guys were suggesting when
you were drawing kind of off the you know on the dais. That doesn't work so well because it
does create a big landing and then it takes the stairs and does a switchback along the side and
essentially the front door now you go down the set of stairs and you're heading backwards on
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
your house to turn around to go to your front door excuse me to your car in the front. So that
was a less desirable design. So what Don Feiler did is plan what we show as Plan B when he
went back to his office it was taking the stoop that is at the top and putting the staircase now
straight down. The disadvantage of that is it blocks that doorway so that doorway becomes
unusable and now she has to cut another opening in her foundation to get access storage under
her foundation.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : However that also restores the 12 foot 9 inch front yard setback that
was originally granted.
PAT MOORE : Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And it also removes the stairs from the opposite side where there
was problems with the neighbor.
PAT MOORE : We definitely don't want that one.The staircase that was the original approval
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That was the same setback but it's (inaudible)
PAT MOORE : in the opposite direction. That one was clearly
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : moves it to the other side.
PAT MOORE : Yes it's switching
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it creates one problem with access to the foundation, it solves
two other problems.
PAT MOORE : And it also now our staircase is 7 feet from the other neighbor which I'm sure is
not going to make that neighbor very thrilled but at least there's 7 feet. We made sure that
there's adequate clearance so that you're not right on top of your neighbor now the neighbor
to the far left. So when you look at the different designs when you go back and deliberate they
all have pros and cons. The one that is the switchback that is what the Building Department and
Don Feiler designed with this picture the original application overall is the best design and it is
not unusual or uncommon to have a stoop and steps that encroach into the front and I have a
picture of our neighbor and I think last time I had the hearing I took pictures that actually along
the whole front of all of these homes that have they all have a stoop and steps down. That's a
standard in fact,a normal it's not even considered an encroachment where you have a stoop
and steps because we have elevated here and the Board had placed had reviewed it, it was part
of the decision but ordinarily every house has a stoop and has steps up front. So I have the
neighbors that's the neighbor to the left is that you? Sorry I didn't recognize you. So that's our
neighbor this is a normal stoop so you can see and I know you're all very familiar with it. Here
.5s
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
you go. So we've done everything we could to try to design what would be the alternates here
for a staircase out of the house and as I said there's pros and cons to all of them. The
switchback the existing one right now
MEMBER LEHNERT : So you're basically asking us to pick a design to solve a problem
PAT MOORE : Oh no, no we're not asking let me sorry you finish
MEMBER LEHNERT : You're asking us to pick a design to solve a problem that you guys created
due to field changes that never came back here and grant relief.
PAT MOORE : No I would rephrase that. I would say that this house was elevated to meet
FEMA. The staircase that was designed originally was done I think too quickly that when the
staircase went down the grade and the number of stairs it got too close. It fit but we'd be
trespassing half the time that you brought something wide to the house. So that revision that
was done by Bruce Anderson kind of on the fly didn't work when it got built and that's not a
surprise. Sometimes field conditions in particularly staircases is tricky and you have it's best to
have the architects design the staircase not anybody else.
MEMBER LEHNERT : That's what I'm saying, no one thought about this when they put the door
in to the storage area below and that's what we're working around.
PAT MOORE : No well the staircase was going down and the door was in there. What they
didn't realize is when the staircase went down and it all got built that you had such little room
from the neighbor. That was all shown on the plans but I think practically when it all got built
out there was a very uncomfortable distance to the neighbor.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Now if I remember back to the last hearing also wasn't this thing built
higher than originally planned?
PAT MOORE : No, they say so but no. I've been told over and over the elevations, the
architecture, everything is at the height that it was spec'd out so go by the architects who tell
me. Whatever the theory is, I've been told by the architects no it did not change. We're at the
FEMA requirement, that's what they built.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm looking at these old variances that were granted and of course
they were really granted for the house setback. They were granted this is 16.9 feet which is
where the house is.
PAT MOORE : Right exactly.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But the plan as I recall always had a set of steps in the front.
56
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE : It had to.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and it was the one we were looking at that was too close to the side.
PAT MOORE : Exactly.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But this is the same dimension so it would be 12.9 feet.
PAT MOORE : We haven't changed yes we have not changed the house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would be on Plan B that it reiterates what the original drawing
was (inaudible) what you started building.
PAT MOORE : Yes exactly.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : not what was looked at cause that's really reducing the front yard
substantially and there are conditions requiring two on-site parking spaces. So at least with Plan
B you're going to be able to get two on-site parking spaces on there. I'm not so sure with a
switchback.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'd be curious to know where the parking is on any of these.
PAT MOORE : The parking is in front of the house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is what he is saying. Well the law requires this is the switchback
and this is his Don's drawing showing three on-site parking spaces and that would certainly he
would have to do this a little differently but you can certainly manage to get two on there with
a straight across.
PAT MOORE : Are you talking about Plan B?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Plan B will allow definitely for two spaces, three is better but two is
all that's required.
PAT MOORE : But even the switchback you can see in the picture itself her parking space hasn't
changed.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The other thing that I want to point out here is, the prior conditions
the applicant had requested removing the condition about installing shingle siding on the
outside of the foundation. I believe this Board is not in favor of that request. We have always
felt that this was going to be a very over scaled visual impact or consequence of FEMA and that
we were working very hard to try and mitigate anything we possibly could and I just want to
5?
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
make you aware Pat that any decision is going to reflect that the prior conditions are still in
force.
PAT MOORE : So maybe I'm just passing on my client's request.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to save you the time and the aggravation.
PAT MOORE : Well unfortunately the time and aggravation is what I get paid for. I would just
say I did explain that I read it wasn't even between the lines it was very clear at the last hearing
that you were going to stick to the siding requirement. Her biggest concern is that this is flood
prone area that we're adding material and the siding that is surely going to be moldy behind
the siding and it frustrates her to think that she's going to put material on something that's
going to become moldy and create or damage through storms.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well there's a lot of ways of dealing with (inaudible) if it's installed
properly it doesn't get moldy.
MEMBER DANTES : If it's properly vented it shouldn't.
PAT MOORE : There's a lot of this I don't to me I think actually vinyl siding tends to be to create
mold anyway. I mean you have to maintain it.
MEMBER LEHNERT : If you build it correctly with the air space behind it it'll be fine.
PAT MOORE : So I don't know, did you have this material from last time? This was it was a
painted material that
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we do.
PAT MOORE : I thought that I had given it to you. The other thought was in order to limit the
amount of in her opinion that what could become damaged we would certainly put the shingle
in the front fagade could we at least of what some of the side in the rear we don't see and the
sides are going to be fenced and landscaped so we're covering a foundation that nobody is
going to see.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think the Board made that condition for good reason with respect
to the neighbors and the aesthetics of the dwelling. We know plenty of situations that concrete
has been covered and vented properly with furring strips and so on so that their maintenance is
nothing. She may not prefer to do it or to (inaudible) but we required it for a reason. I don't see
any evidence to suggest that we should change our mind on the prior conditions. However, we
do have a more viable option, we do have room for two on-site parking spaces, we do get rid of
the problem with being too close to the other neighbor and we do minimize the setback well
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
we optimize as much as we can the front yard by not doing the switchback and by just doing a
straight run across cause otherwise you'd have to double it. You'd,be reducing the front yard
again and again and that's the problem. The 16 foot front yard setback you can justify because
a lot of the houses the little cottages, a lot of them have non-conforming front yards. As you
point out rightly so, when you start to undertake this kind of construction it's extremely hard
unless you're extremely experienced to really visualize what you're getting into. So now you
have what looks to be a you put that little house to the left of it�next to it and you see what the
character of the neighborhood Kooks like as a consequence of building in flood zones.
PAT MOORE : I absolutely but I think what we're finding is that it's I don't want to say
temporary,because it's a matter of how quickly or how soon somebody has to because of flood
insurance or whatever an obligation to raise the house
CHAIRPERSON'WEISMAN : No agreed.
PAT MOORE : The character of the neighborhood is in a sense being driven by an outside
source. The federal government is telling everybody, if you're in a flood zone you better raise
your house or you're not going to get flood insurance and you're going to underwrit&your own
damages.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN And we understand that and that's one reason why we're doing
whatever we can to cooperate and to recognize the protection of the property but to also try to
preserve what sense of neighborhoods we have. We had an example over on Kenney's Beach of
a structure a little .tiny cottage on the sand okay in a flood zone had to be put on piles to
preserve it okay; they not only wanted to lift it on piles they wanted to double the footprint and
then they wanted to add another story on top to make it two story. That effectively made it
three stories tall, 13 feet off the ground with two stories on top of it blocking everybody's light
and view all to be FEMA compliant because we built in places that now we understand weren't
such great environmental ideas but there we have them and people own them and we have to
do what we can to help them preserve the property. I mean I went to the Board and said, listen
the people are going to have to be FEMA compliant to protect their what they need to do is put
maximum one story on top of that foundation. So it's the same sizes as all the other houses
around it instead of you know three stories just squeaking by the 35 feet height limit. So we
have a lot of thinking to do a lot of thinking to do.
PAT MOORE : You guys are there is no win here. ;
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Well we all have an obligation because we live here and`we're
neighbors and we care about where we live to try and put our best thinking together to come
up with reasonable answers. So we're working on it, as things arise we try to address them and
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
this Board is being very proactive with code the suggested code revisions and suggestions to
the Town Board to look at in anticipation of things,that we work with all the time and they
don't. Okay so did you want to say anything, are you okay with what you hear?
FRANK BEAURY : Hi my name is Frank Beaury I live at 35 Rabbit Lane which is the house next
door to this house. My other neighbor on the other side I don't know how she contacted you.
She said that she was going to fax you over a copy of a letter that she wanted to send.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's the neighbor?
FRANK BEAURY :Julie Ladauto.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : She was here before. We got it.
FRANK BEAURY : First I want to thank you for upholding the original (inaudible) to put the siding,
down because I don't know if you're aware if it even matters, when I go there you know
normally people do their work and they go about it I',try to avoid them. Obviously there's hard
feelings with them right but I guess he identified himself as a boyfriend and it certainly appears
that it's her boyfriend. He-has a couple of small children. This guy has come around and I tell
you I really amaze myself that I can take the abuse that I take from this man.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know sir honestly I do feel for situations I think this Board is
very familiar with situations where neighbors are'at cross purposes with each other really have
had it with each other and that's really a civil matter. We took-very lengthy, let me finish we
took extensive time consuming testimony from you in the previous hearings and you talked
about the boyfriend, you talked about
FRANK BEAURY : I never mentioned the boyfriend.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes you did it's in the minutes that's why
FRANK BEAURY : I don't remember.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : we record things they are transcribed and we recall the facts that
were before us. None of those have anything to do with the variance, they have to do with
FRANK BEAURY : I have a couple of other things-that I would
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you want to say something that you didn't say before because'
FRANK BEAURY : They said they were going"to put a fence up? They have a short piece of
property I believe it's a foot but anytime you look at the markers it's not a foot. There's a little
bit of thing. Since they put that wall up I had my son, he's eighteen now when we were mowing
60,
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
the lawn over there on my property it was aftera rain he went down to his knees so luckily his
age was on his side cause if it would happen to me I'd probably wouldn't get up.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : ,I'll tell you what, you know if there's a drainage problem caused-by
those retaining walls you have every right to call the Town Engineer and to ask them to come
out and inspect it.
FRANK BEAURY : They don't come. Have you seen any picture or if you drove by there when it
rains there we've never had any problem before with flooding we didn't even have a problem
with the storm and neither did she. There was no water in that,house and if people' don't
believe me cause I know I've been called a liar in regards to that they can look at the Suffolk
Times and see the pictures that they took in the area of the houses, that was the very next day
there was no water not a drop because,l helped her out with that house. There was no water in
there and then the joking about oh I can lift my house up and see the water'and everything else
which she took as a joke it wasn't a joke. So it's been going on for eight years.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What we want to do is get rid of this. We want to tell them where
they can put those steps. We want to see those parking spaces in their front yard as we
required. It's built okay all we can do is say you're going'to have to put the siding on like we said
to make it look less large and in your face and'you're going to have to maintain it, you're going
to put in the smallest steps you possibly, can so you got as much room in your front yard to put
cars or a boat or whatever you want like everybody else does and that's it we're done. I mean
the house is there. If they're not meeting the drainage code which they had to do in order to
get a building permit there should have been a drainage on-site drainage there to comply with
,Chapter 236 it's right in our previous condition. If you're having a problem with that you go to
the Building Department with pictures, you go to the,Town Engineer and talk to Michael Collins
and hopefully they will respond as public servants should by helping you out and if there's a
problem they will be fined.
FRANK BEAURY : The only person that wanted'to help me that was reasonable that came here
cause he mentioned about it not being the same house and that-all the wood was changed
when they were leaving the vehicles in my driveway for days. I get phone calls from neighbors,
that complain about me leaving the stuff there only to find out it's them and you call up Verity,
he don't care.Jarski I believe his name was
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :John Jarski is in the Building Department.
FRANK BEAURY : He came he said about the cement cause they used the water from the lake to
make their cement
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah you told us
61
February 6, 2020 Regular,Meeting
FRANK BEAURY : The cement was all over the street so he called Verity down and he wanted to
give a summons for the cement and Verity says oh no, no, no just'overlook it he mentioned-to
him to sweep it up. It wasn't a matter of sweeping it up there was cement that dried-on it and
what was very interesting was he's trying to help me right he's trying to help me. It's been eight
years.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sir I don't mean to be in any way disrespectful but you already told
all
FRANK BEAURY : I want to find out about,the fence.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you want to ask a question that's specific to this application we're
happy to hear it.
FRANK BEAURY : Weld when we were here at the hearing she said about putting a fence 'in
because my house is in disrepair. For the last eight years I've been-picking up garbage.
MAUREEN BEAURY :-Maureen Beaury, I know there's no fence on the paperwork there so that
is-a question, where is the fence or what
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We inspected the property recently because of the application and I
didn't see.a fence.
FRANK BEAURY : You said at the last time you were going to put it in because my house
PAT MOORE : What we,were offering to do is put up a fence so that they wouldn't see the it,
was to try to address the material that's below it's the cement that we said, allow us to paint it
with this water resistant paint, we'll put up a fence so that they won't even see whether it's
f
painted cement or siding.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you understand what she's saying? In other words if we would
allow them to paint the cement instead of putting the siding on they said they'll put up a fence
to.block your view. It's not going to need a fence they're not putting up a.fence.
FRANK BEAURY : Okay that's not what she said, they're blocking their view from my house.
PAT MOORE : Well I won't say they won't put up a fence, they have a right to but there's no
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's nothing to stop them, it's on their property.
l
FRANK BEAURY : No I understand I just didn't know
v
621
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They were offering to do that. They-can only go six feet high in a side
yard and they were offering to do that if you would say okay we, can just paint the concrete we
don't have to put that.
FRANK BEAURY : Actually that's not what she said, she said she was putting the fence there
cause I can live the way, that I want but my house is in disrepair. I've been spending eight years
picking up porta potties that dumped out on my lawn, paints, sandwiches, urine in my shower.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All I can tell you is it looks like it's coming to a painful end and at
least those stairs are not going to start near your property. They'll be way up in the air.
MAUREEN BEAURY : It's already way up in the air.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean by the time they get to their front door they're not going to
be starting
FRANK BEAURY :As far as the street I know the town owns a part of that. If I was going to put
bushes in, are you considering that in there?They.told me it was 12 feet when I called the town
I wns 12 feet from the street.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It depends on the size of the property.
A.T.A. BURKE : It's all based on the underlying area of the street it's usually somewhere
between S,and 10 feet but it depends sometimes there's almost no right of way.
FRANK BTAURY : I just wanted to know for myself. Another question, I wanted to plant some
trees over there and I was told by Mr. Verity that if I block their view that the penalties tome is
severe as being arrested which is a joke cause I'm a retired cop (inaudible) which is ridiculous. If
I plant a tree on my property and it blocks their view that the penalties can be as severe as
being arrested.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me correct this, the only way in which there would be any
penalty of blocking a view would be if that view was a protected view shed that the town was
protecting as part of the local waterfront revitalization plan.
FRANK BEAURY : I certainly am not childish to block somebodies view.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That property is not, you have the right to plant anything on your
property you wish anywhere you wish to plant it.
MEMBER DANTES : Except you're a corner lot right?
FRANK BEAURY : Yes.
63
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : There's a code for a corner.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 30 degree angle I think.
A.T.A. BURKE : Was he talking about with the view around the corner?
FRANK BEAURY : No he was•saying their view. He brought this up I never mentioned anything
about it.,
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The aesthetic view of Lake Marion or something?
FRANK BEAURY : The penalty can be as severe as being arrested.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's not correct and I find it hard to imagine him saying that
but nevertheless
FRANK BEAURY : But he did and I have it on tape cause I have a few things on tape from him if
anyone would like to hear.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll take your word for it but certainly you have the right the only
place you can't plant cause you mentioned the. shoulder, the town has a right of way for a -
reason. I live on a corner lot and I have a lot of landscaping. We have a stop sign you know
where there's Main Rd. (inaudible) just like you do so the point is if you're coming up to that
stop sign you gotta put your landscaping'back enough so when someone they can see what's
coming in both-directions that's called a cone of vision. That's the law for safety, everybody's
safety and they have the right the town owns the shoulder, if you're too close they have the
right to come by and chop it I mean and they have.
MEMBER DANTES : If you're an x number of feet of the lake aren't you restricted with what you
can plant by the D.E.C.?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh there may be evasive species and things like that but that's a
wetlands code but generally speaking people can•landscape and plant trees on their property.
MEMBER DANTES : That's where you gotta out is the'D.E.C.'
BOARD SECRETARY : They can come after you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean if you were pointing to a place on your property that was
within say you know especially Marion Lake we all know the work you went through to try and
restore it,-get rid of,the fragmities and I was one of the funders for the film that was•made so I
know it well. If you're going to be planting in that area then you have to be very careful about
creating shadows that would then promote a non-evasive species from or evasive species from
February 6, 2020 Regular Meeting
growing. There's a wetlands code about that, that's not about blocking somebodies beautiful
view of something. It's about protecting the wetland. Are we okay now, you know what's
happening. There's no fence going up unless they want to put one up whichJs their right to do.
FRANK BEAURY : Would it be up high or down low?
CHAIRPERSON WEIMSAN : They have a right to go anywhere from four feet to six feet high.
FRANK BEAURY : Okay so they can build on the top piece cause they have a wall that's about
this high
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It can be six feet above grade on their property.
FRANK BEAURY : Yeah but I'm just saying if you have a wall and-then you put the wall is here
then you can put on top of that a six foot
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's a building code determination. It depends on whether they're
taking it from the base of the retaining wall or from where let's say ground is, the retaining wall
is holding the ground. I don't honestly know I don't'Pat do you
PAT MOORE : I don't.
A.T.A BURKE : Generally it would be a height of six feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh that's right cause we'did one in Laurel. Do you remember that,
that there was big berm on this corner lot and they-wanted to put up a fence and they'wanted
to do a code conforming four foot fence, the problem was now it was seven feet cause the
berm was really high so we said no you can't go that high. Okay is there anything from anybody
else cause I'm going to call this a wrap?Are you ready? You're very welcome, I'm going to make
a motion to close this hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second?
MEMBER DANTES : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
65
e
February 6, 2020 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 si 61 �)
'U' lizabeth Sakarellos
DATE : February 13, 2020
r