HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/05/2020 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
March 5, 2020
9:48 A.M.
Board Members Present:
LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member (Absent)
PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member
ERIC DANTES—Member
ROBERT LEHNERT— Member
NICHOLAS'PLANAMENTO— Member (Vice Chair)
KIM FUENTES—Board Assistant
WILLIAM DUFFY—Town Attorney
1
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
INDEX OF HEARINGS
Hearing Page
Reinckens, Paul #7359 3 - 9
Reinckens, Paul #7361SE 3 - 9
Gobic, Mileva #7374 10 - 13
Mitchell, Joseph #7375 14- 17
Solutions East LLC#7379 17 - 26
David, Mildred#7376 27 -31
Franco, Edmond #7377 31 -34
925 Youngs Rd. LLC# 7378 35 -45
Beachwood Rd. 22 LLC#7380 45 - 53
McDermott, Marley &Agrusa, Tarulane#7381 54- 57
Lemler, Jeffrey#7382 57- 61
Cimino, Cono #7338 62 - 73
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
HEARING # 7359 &# 7361 SE—'PAUL REINCKENS
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Application #7359 is a request for a variance from Article XXIII
Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's_October 1, 2019 amended October 3, 2019 Notice
of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a porch addition attached to an
existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum.combined side
yard setback of 25 feet, located at 1065 Hummel Ave. in Southold SCTM#1000-63-2 26.
Additionally as I said I'm opening up the second hearing which is application #7361 Special
Exception which is a request for a Special Exception under Article III Section 280-13B(13). The
applicant is the owner of the subject property requesting authorization to legalize an accessory
apartment in an existing accessory structure and request for a variance from Article III Section
280-15 and the Building Inspector's October 1, 2019 amended October 3, 2019 Notice, of
Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize "as built" additions and alterations
to an accessory garage converted to' an "as built" accessory apartment at 1) located less than
the code required minimum side yard setback of 5 feet located at 1065 Hummel Ave in
Southold SCTM# 1000-63-2-26. Good morning, would you please state your name for the
record.
ATHONY PORTILLO : Good morning Anthony,Portillo, AMP Architecture.-Good morning Board
and Happy Birthday I don't know if I share a birthday but today is my birthday so; I'll start with
the main house the request for the proposed porch. So there's an existing covered porch at the
front of the home and we're asking to basically wrap the porch around the left side of the home
or I guess the western side of the home I'm sorry the south side of the home. The current lot is
50 feet wide so it is somewhat narrow even the neighboring lots are 60 feet so there is
somewhat I guess of a lot width issue there that doesn't allow for us to have that porch wrap
around but basically that's the request and it's about a 6,foot I'm sorry it's a 6 foot porch that
we're asking for on that side. I think aesthetically it kind of brings out more of a farm house
look if you look at the elevation. So that's the request on the main house. So that's a proposed
structure that is not built.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : I'm sorry if I could just interrupt, would you repeat the specific
variance that you're seeking. So there's a minimum combined side yard setback of 25 feet or
proposed side yard setback total is 22.7.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Correct yes, so on that side the minimum is 25 feet and we're requesting
to be 22.7 feet from the side yard. Let me correct myself, the porch is 7 feet off of the home the
side porch that we're proposing.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Right but I think again it's a combined side yard. You've got 10.8 on
the driveway side and 11.9 on the neighboring vacant lot side.
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes correct. The encroachment would be 2.3 feet.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Exactly.
ANTHONY PORTILLO.: Should I move on to the accessory or do you want to discuss
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO-: Perhaps if you just discuss--the character of the neighborhood and
some other reasons specifically for the need to encroach upon ,that setback and if it's
(inaudible) outside of the aesthetic.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : So as I mentioned, this lot compared to the other lots in the
neighborhood is smaller not as wide.as the neighboring lots just even the neighbor to the north
and south are 60 feet wide so if we had the 60 foot we would have been able to do this without
a variance I would suppose. The (inaudible) to the porch is I think it's an aesthetic definitely but
also to give them some more outdoor space at the front of the home.The owners are here so if
they want to speak about why they want the porch at the front of their house I can have them
come up but I do think aesthetically for the neighborhood it does fit. I mean it's a farm house
style originally and a wraparound porch is pretty common on that type of structure.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Who owns the property immediately to the west? The applicant.
Do you want to talk a little bit about the garage, the setbacks there?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Sure.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Be specific to exactly what relief you're looking for and of course
then the Special Exception. .
ANTHONY PORTILLO : So there is an existing-C.O. on the garage and there was a relief granted
by the Zoning Board. The C.O. is Z24957.'That was the original garage was an existing non-
conforming
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Mr. Portillo please clarify, is that building permit or C.O. that was
issued on the garage?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's a C.O.
MEMBER LEHNERT : When was that issued?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : April 7, 1997. It was with the one family dwelling, an accessory garage
the same C.O. So the owners added to that existing garage so basically what happened was the
addition was on the southern I'm sorry the western side which was not increasing the non-
conformance is actually in conformance because they built it off of a structure that was granted
4
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
a variance. The request for relief is that we're building onto an existing structure that was
granted relief and also has a C.O.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : I think it's important to footnote that the existing structures are 1.2
feet from the property line where the code requires a minimum of I believe it's 5 feet.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes, right. It was approved and granted C.O. at that time. The addition
that was added was done without a permit so we are basically seeking it as an "as built" permit
currently. The relief is that they added to that existing structure that was already non-
conforming.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Do you want to talk a little bit about how the apartment came to
be?There's an existing apartment there.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yeah and I'll probably let the owner speak about it a little bit more but
the father Mr. Reinckens has some health problems and basically he was using that for himself.
They did build it without a permit but that was what the reason is. There was a hardship there
for him. He needed a space for himself and that's who was using it.j
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So Mr. Reinckens lives in the garage, who lives in the primary
residential structure?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Paul the son and that's how they want to use it. Paul will be using the
main house and the parents will be using the accessory apartment and I would say they're snow
birds so they're not here year round but when they're here that's when they want to use it.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : My understanding is, part of the application you submitted driving
licenses, a birth certificate etc. to establish residency along with the utility bills and a sample
lease.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I will check my office but yes we usually do provide that.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : It was in the packet.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Oh okay yes.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : The other thing I need to add, the Building Department offered a
determination we received it on October 0 relative to square footage of the livable floor area
of the garage accessory conversion at 620 sq. ft. which is a permitted amount of square footage
for an accessory residential unit.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Correct.
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Maybe before the Reinckens stand up to share whatever they'd like
to are there any questions from the Board?
MEMBER LEHNERT : I have one question, how is it tied into any septic?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : So it is tied to the existing septic. Mr. Reinckens Jr. Paul is a contractor a
licensed contractor and works in the town of Southold regularly so he can explain that maybe a
little bit too. The plan is to change one of the bedrooms in the main house into a den. So
basically remove a door and a closet, open it up so that basically the accessory apartment will
act as the bedroom that we're removing from there.
MEMBER LEHNERT : I mean can you share where the system is located on the property?
PAUL REINCKENS II : PAUL REINCKENS II. So the septic is going to be located to the southwest of
the cottage.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So this is in front of the area of the (inaudible) arbor?
PAUL REINCKENS II : No this is going to be more towards the rear of the property.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So more of the northwest.
PAUL REINCKENS II : Yes it would be northwest excuse me.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Behind the accessory building?
PAUL REINCKENS II : I believe so yeah.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Board I'm willing to have them excavate and we can locate it. I'll provide
it on the plans and also verify the size to make sure that it meets the requirements for the
amount of occupancies.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah can you do that?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Of course. I will provide that.
MEMBER LEHNERT : And show it on the
ANTHONY PORTILLO : the survey, yes.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : While the existing residence is not necessarily part of this
application, how many bedrooms are in the existing residence?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Three.
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
VICE CHAIR PORTILLO : Three, so then your thought is that you're going to convert it to a two
bedroom house to allow for the sanitary for the addition at the accessory structure?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes.
MEMER LEHNERT : Would it even comply back there behind the
MEMBER DANTES : There's nothing wrong with putting it there. Most people don't because
then they want to put the swimming pool there but if there's no pool there's no setback issues.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : In regards to Suffolk County in regards to the Health Department, when
designing septic systems nowadays they really want it in the front yard. It's not really a law to
put it in a front yard but I guess the plans examiners there that's what they look for. A lot of
time when I'm replacing a septic system and I can prove it to be in a rear yard they'll allow me
to put it back there in kind as long as I'm not increasing the volume of the septic system.
MEMBER DANTES : Well the reason is cause people put their swimming pools in the back yards.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I think access too. I think it's also just to be able to get to it it's a lot
easier.
MEMBER DANTES : In the old days everyone had the well in the front so they put the septic in
the back.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Right and it had to be 75 feet from the well so
MEMBER DANTES : We're not using wells as much anymore. One thing, the lease you gave to us
is not signed. If you guys can just fill it out if you want to fill it out now and bring it back to us
that's fine. Just fill out the date and have them sign the signatures.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Additionally so that I can understand this, you're suggesting no
improvements to the existing sanitary system and that you believe that the existing sanitary is
behind the garage structure not closer to the house.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : To be positive I'd like to dig it up
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Make sure where it is.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : We did not locate it or dig it up we just assumed that its existing. The
Building Department does allow me to remove one of the bedrooms from the main home and
add the bedroom in the accessory apartment as (inaudible) but I'm fine locating it and
uncovering it and I can fill out an affidavit which the Building Department has and I can basically
give them the size of the
7
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah you can certify what's there.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So I think as a condition if relief is granted that's something we
would look for, an updated survey.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Do we hold this part of the application open for that?
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : I'm thinking that perhaps we can just close it so that we can make a
determination if they're submitting the update survey illustrating the sanitary, we want to hold
it to the Special so that gives you a solid two weeks to find that information out.
MEMBER DANTES : We could even just do a decision and make the C.O. subject to receipt cause
that way it won't hold you guys up.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Normally it's a Building Department you know item of providing that
affidavit and they obviously won't grant me a permit if we don't have proper septic. I think it's a
good idea for us to do that and in hindsight we should have done it first but then again maybe
getting the relief knowing that we have relief locating it you know so they're not spending the
extra money bringing out a septic company to dig out the top of it so I think if relief is granted
that makes sense for me then I'll do the investigation. I'll certify what's there. I'll also verify that
they connected properly from I mean I think the Building Department and I've spoken to the
Reinckens about this because the plumbing was done and the electric. Obviously the Building
Department is going to be looking for certification that that was done properly so we are going
to have to show that the plumbing was roughed properly, the septic was connected properly so
during our investigation that something I'll look into as well. I think they're going to need to do
that regardless cause John is going to sign off on the plumbing since he can't see it.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : If the Reinckens want to offer testimony for the need of the Special
Exception please come forward. Just one second I'm sorry I just remembered what I wanted to
share for the audiences benefit and for yours, Mr. Reinckens you and I met when I was at the
site for an inspection, the Board conducts a site inspection for both the well for the interior
inspection for the Special Exception used for the accessory apartment and a site inspection
relative to the porch addition with a less than code conformed combined side yard setbacks.
The Board visits all properties prior to our public hearings.
PAUL REINCKENS SR. : Paul Reinckens senior. I just wanted to make a statement on the porch
addition. We have large families between my wife and myself and during the summer we get a
lot of people on the front porch having coffee or breakfast and it's way too crowded so that's
why we're trying to do that addition off the side of the house and keep to the same styles as an
old farm house.
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Thank you. Do you want to talk about also
PAUL REINCKENS SR. : The accessory.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : You will be living on site and
PAUL REINCKENS SR. : Due to my health I can't climb stairs anymore and all the bedrooms are
on the second floor in the main house so I have difficulty climbing the stairs. I also have taken a
fall down the stairs once so I'm very leery about going onto the second floor so that's the
reason I sort of got involved in getting into the back cottage. It's a lot easier for me to get
around.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : The Board can't personalize things but we appreciate your
testimony. I think also it's very generous of you to allow your son to live in the larger home
while you are in a small cottage.
PAUL REINCKENS SR. : I still go up there and hang out.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Good, on the porch. One of the requirements if the relief is granted
or rather if the Special Exception is granted obviously that you must be in residence in either
the main residential structure or the accessory and that you're not allowed to rent the
remaining properties unless you remain on site and you put it into the I believe it's the
affordable housing lottery through Denis Noncarrow in the Supervisor's Office or to an
immediate family member. Any other questions or shall we close? Anyone from the public
wishing to speak? I'm going to make a motion that we close both hearings simultaneously Paul
Reinckens #7359 and Paul Reinckens #7361SE. We'll have a determination for you hopefully in
two weeks at the Special Meeting March 19tH
MEMBER DANTES : Second.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : All in favor?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
9
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
HEARING # 7374— MILEVA GOBIC and DRAGANA GOBIC
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : I'd like to open up our next hearing, Mileva Gobic and Dragana
Gobic #7374. This is a request for a waiver of merger petition under Article II Section 280-10A
to unmerge land identified as SCTM# 1000-70-9-35 which has merged with SCTM# 1000-70-9-
36 based on the Building Inspector's October 7, 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 R-40 Residential Zoning District) located at 465 Mailer Court in
Southold.
PAT MOORE : Good morning, Patricia Moore on behalf of the Gobic's and Mileva Gobic is here
and Mr. Gobic are both here in the audience. This is as you pointed out an application to
unmerge two properties. The two parcels are part of the subdivision here in Southold which is
called Map of Smithfield Park which was created in 1966. The subdivision consisted of twenty
nine lots and I would say all of the lots were developed with at least a half-acre size for the
subdivision. These two parcels are one parcel the larger one is 22,250 a half acre the corner lot
and then the slightly smaller but also over 20,000 sq. ft. 20,873 for the lot that is on Mailer Ct.
could point out that when my clients purchased the two lots in 1982; in 1982 there was a
specific exemption from the merger for lots that were in grandfathered subdivisions this was
one of the grandfathered subdivisions that was known as meeting 112 which was the town
code provision at the time. So these lots were actually considered separate lots until 1997. In
1997 when the waiver of merger law changed that provision was taken out of the code.
Nevertheless they owned this property as two separate properties from 1982 to 1997 with
certainly no indication that there was an issue. I also submitted as part of the packet to you that
in also in 1997 the owners had designed a house with a sanitary system proposed there were
two surveys that were attached as an exhibit that shows the proposed location. At the time
there were wells there wasn't public water, now there's public water but at the time a well and
sanitary was designed and the proposed house put on a building envelope. The building
envelope would still be applicable today that hasn't changed. The sanitary system and from
your prior hearing would probably go in the front and the lot to be connected to public water.
The Health Department would recognize this lot because it is a lot both lots because they
appear on the 1981 tax map and is a filed map in the county center. Also in my submission to
you I provided multiple either waivers or area variances that had been granted within the
proximity area of this property. I gave you they're listed in the application it was Appeal 4435.
Again it's all in writing here with the submission. Also Appeal 5689, Appeal 4435, Appeal 1858
and Appeal 1324. All of these applications were made to the Zoning Board either under a
waiver provision that the law was in place at the time or area variances. Consistently the Board
1®
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
has said the obvious which is that the lots in the subdivision are all consistent in their size, all
comparable. The character of the neighborhood is having half acre lots. This particular
subdivision I'm sure you all know is very well established, a lot of I would say I don't see any
mcmansions on these properties, they're more modest. They're typically either second homes
or year round homes and the homes that would be built on these two parcels would be
comparable. The problem would be combining these two properties and then allowing for such
a large home would be completely out of the character of this community. So that is something
I just want to add to the record.
MEMBER DANTES : Pat did you guys give us a map of the Smithfield subdivision as part of the
packet?
PAT MOORE : I did, it was the first exhibit let me look. I have the exhibits attached to the
packets. Yes it is the first exhibit. It's lot number one.
MEMBER DANTES : It's the first piece of paper?
PAT MOORE : It's in front of the blue piece of paper. So as you can see from that subdivision
map I took the subdivision map it appears on the town's records. There have been subsequent
subdivisions in that area the area off of this is Bayview area is all similarly half acre lots or
smaller. This is a very well established area of the community. The map that I've given you here
is the one from the subdivision itself.
MEMBER DANTES : And then we'll see that subdivision listed on the list of exemption?
PAT MOORE : Yes 112 this subdivision is one of the listed exceptions. So you can see just so I
can make sure that you have it, that you note it exhibit 2 which is the next set of exhibits are
the two surveys of each of the properties and have the building envelope and the sanitary and
the well that was
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Can you speak to I'm sorry to interrupt but you had said that the
applicant made some sort of design as far as a future home, did they ever for either of the lots
submit for Suffolk County Board of Health or a town building permit or any paperwork?
PAT MOORE : No, I don't think so. I'm sorry I'm double checking. They can't remember. It's
been a long time, these lots are vacant so that would have been the first step in pursuing either
developing them or selling them but no I don't know if they actually went to the Health
Department with this. It would have automatically been approved as
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO: At that time.
11
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE : Yea well even today it would be approved today. The design would probably put
the sanitary in the front and there's public water so this design shows a well and the sanitary.
The building envelope hasn't changed. It's based on the size of the property and the building
envelope remains 15 and 20 so the house was within smaller in that building envelope. So the
same plan modified with a sanitary design in the front and connection to public water would
automatically give them an approval with the Health Department because these are recognized
lots by the Health Department.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Can you explain how we ended up being here today, what
prompted them to discover that these lots were in fact merged?
PAT MOORE : (talking with applicant) I know they came to me but I don't know they I know
they were doing some estate planning and at that point they came into me and I noticed that
the lots had been put in the same name. Not surprising here and most cases I'm the bearer of
the bad news to advise people that never knew that their lots have merged, these lots had
merged. Again they've owned them since the eighties so, I promised to let him speak but I just
don't want to force him to come up right immediately. So here we are after they've been you
know I gave them the information that the lots had merged. So again let's see the in the packet
that I previously gave you I gave you the list of Zoning Board Appeals that were granted and
those are all attached so I gave you the appeal numbers, I listed them and I attached the
decisions for you. I also have photographs which show vacant properties that were treated they
weren't used in any way. They weren't expected to be connected in any way.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : They're truly in their natural state.
PAT MOORE : They're truly yes in their as they bought it they kept it so they pretty much stayed
intact the entire well till the present and then the Single and Separate and a copy of the deed. I
think that's it. Do you have any other questions because I do want to have my client speak.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Pat any questions?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Eric, Rob?
MEMBER LEHNERT : No question.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Maybe if you allow the Gobic's.
MR. GOBIC : (inaudible) Gobic. I just (inaudible) I bought it a long time ago I never know and
few months, seven eight months
3.2
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : You couldn't have cause they changed the law in 1996, fourteen years after
you bought it.
MR. GOBIC : But I never received a letter or something and all the time we pay tax on the
separate lots and to the now. I never know.
MEMBER DANTES : The answer is you didn't do anything wrong so you know.
MR. GOBIC : We paid taxes separately, each lot separate all the time. We paid (inaudible)
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : A lot of people unfortunately receive two tax bills for it's a common
occurrence. Unless there's other questions from the Board I think we' have sufficient
information.
MR. GOBIC : I never receive from the town information that they have a lot (inaudible)
MRS. GOBIC : We take care of the tax.
MEMBER DANTES : No we understand it was a program done about twenty something years
ago that wasn't rolled out very well and now we're here to deal with.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Thank you Mr. and Mrs. Gobic. I'm going to make a motion to close
the hearing do I have a second?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : All in favor?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
13
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
HEARING #7375—JOSEPH MITCHELL
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : We're opening up our next hearing application #7375 Joseph
Mitchell which is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building
Inspector's November 13, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to
legalize an "as built" front portico and roof alteration attached to an existing single family
dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet
located at 1380 Corey Creek Lane (adj. to Corey Creek) Southold, NY SCTM#1000-78-4-18.3.
MEMBER DANTES : Let me recuse myself Nick.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Good morning and you are?
JENNIFER WICKS : Jennifer Wicks agent for Joseph Mitchell.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Thank you Jennifer. Please tell us about the application and state
the relief that you're seeking.
JENNIFER WICKS : We're asking for relief it's a 40 foot front yard setback and we're asking for a
35.4 front yard setback. I mean the porch conforms with the area, it's just a front porch.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So tell us how we got here.
JENNIFER WICKS : I believe what it originally happened is he had done work for a dock in the
backyard (inaudible) and this had come up about his front porch.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So the house had been renovated and the owner made an addition
to the front porch by enclosing it with a I guess a roof overhang?
JENNIFER WICKS : Yes it's just a roof over like a I don't know what you call it.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : A stoop.
JENNIFER WICKS : Yea just a little porch.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : It's benign. Do you want to talk a little bit about the benefit or the
use of the front porch and how it fits into the character of the neighborhood?
JENNIFER WICKS : I think it's a 4 x 8 front porch. It's just the aesthetics of the house added to a
it's not so much that it would fit even a rocking chair. Just to improve the front look of the
house.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : I was just going to correct it's a 5 x 7 and the existing house does
have a Certificate of Occupancy as a single family residence. Pat do you have any questions?
141
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yeah I would question why are we even here for this? Driving around
the neighborhood there's so many houses and throughout the whole town of Southold there
are many similar circumstances of houses that just have that little porch, it's all over the place
so this is really probably one of the most benign applications we ever had.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Rob?
MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : My only question and I don't know if this is really a matter or
housekeeping, the survey illustrates a front yard setback to the porch of 35 feet but you're
proposing it at 35.4 so I don't know if that's it was in error.
JENNIFER WICKS : In all honesty they were trying to get an updated survey for this but they
haven't gotten it on time so it's not proposed its existing.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Exactly it's as built.
JENNIFER WICKS : Yes. We just weren't able to get the updated survey on time.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Okay.
BOARD SECRETARY : It's the site plan you're going to see the 35.4 right here.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So the site plan has the 35.4 my mistake. The application is asking
for relief at 35 1 thought.
JENNIFER WICKS : 35.4
T. A. DUFFY : Where was the 35?
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : That was on the survey.
BOARD SECRETARY : But we have a site plan, the site plan has it.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So we're going to go by the site plan and not
T. A. DUFFY : You're certain of the 35.4 number as opposed to 35 feet?
JENNIFER WICKS : (inaudible) what's on the site plan.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Are we able to work off just the site plan as far as there should be
T. A. DUFFY : The problem is the Building Department if we grant if this Board grants it at 35.4
and it's 35 you have to come back here.
151 -
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
JENNIFER WICKS : Okay.
BOARD SECRETARY : The survey was created in 2018, then it was updated with a site plan they
both have similar dates 2018.
JENNIFER WICKS : I'd like to go with 35.4 (inaudible) end of it just from looking at it I guess the
survey was done with the proposed and they went back and updated the site plan to the
existing.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So we probably need
JENNIFER WICKS : Also as well where they took where the one took the measurement from
inside the (inaudible)
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : I think to the Town Attorney's point we need the correct
information because we don't want to see you come back.
T. A. DUFFY : Have to amend their application to reflect the if you grant at 35 feet if it's at 35.4
then fine.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So how would we go about (inaudible) an amendment?
T. A. DUFFY : You can amend your application for the relief of 35 feet.
JENNIFER WICKS : Is that something I would just do here or do I have to physically go
T. A. DUFFY : If you say yes right now we'll amend it right now.
JENNIFER WICKS : Yes.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So we're amending the application to 35 feet, excellent.
T. A. DUFFY : This way if it's at 35.4 you're fine.
JENNIFER WICKS : Okay perfect thank you.
T. A. DUFFY : Cause the other way around you have to come back which seems silly.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : It seems silly to also ask for an updated survey. So any other
questions here from the Board members?
MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions.
PAT MOORE : Sorry I like to learn when I'm here. Is the Notice because the roof over is more
than 24 sq. ft.?
3.6
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : It's actually 35 sq. ft., 5 x 7
PAT MOORE : Oh okay because 24 sq. ft. is typically permitted encroachments so the difference
is because it was a little bit bigger than the 24 okay. I just want to make sure because you
pointed out that they're all over town. Most stoops have a little bit of a portico just to cover for
protection so okay that's all I needed clarification.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So I'm going to make a motion that we close this hearing is there a
second?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING#7379—SOLUTIONS EAST, LLC
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Next up is application #7379 Solutions East, LLC. This is a request
for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's November 19, 2019
Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory garage at
1) located in other than the code required rear yard located at 1055 North View Drive Orient,
NY SCTM#1000-13-3-1. Pat are you here to speak for the applicant?
PAT MOORE : Yes I am.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : At this time I'm going to put the note, Pat did Kim reach out to you
that there's an issue regarding green cards?
PAT MOORE : Oh green cards?
BOARD SECRETARY : Mailings.
PAT MOORE : Oh the Association?
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Exactly the Association was not notified. They own the road in front
of the residence. As a result we're going to hear the hearing, obviously we'll conduct everything
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
but we're going to leave it open for the Special so that the Association has an opportunity to
respond. Okay so we'll adjourn it for a full month.
PAT MOORE : Yes please, that's fine. I want an opportunity to respond.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So do you not want to I mean you'll have a chance to speak today
as part of the public. Pat please do you want to tell us what you're here for today, what
variance relief you're seeking and a little bit about the application?
PAT MOORE : Yes. We are here today because there is a proposed garage, accessory structure
in a front yard which because it's not a waterfront house needs a variance to be in its position
there in the front yard and it is proposed at 10 feet from the front yard property line. It is not
that close to the road itself because as you can see the survey the Browns Hills Rd. is actually
much further out than the property line. I want to call it a dead end in the sense that as you go
towards the Long Island Sound it's a homeowner that has a long driveway so if you go straight
down Browns Hills you dead end to someone's house. So it is I want to call it somewhat of a
dead end but the road does continue. What I prepared for you just it's kind of my little cheat
sheet of my points which are buried here I apologize okay here we go. So we have proposed a
22 x 22 it's a two car garage one story. It's just a garage no heat, no water, electric i.e. light
bulbs. I provided attached to the exhibit just the elevation of how the garage is proposed to be
designed. It's a shed roof, one story and you do have the full elevations in your plans. If you
would go to also this attachment has the bullet points, what I did is I tried to simplify by
providing all my arguments in bullet points and then I had also gone out and taken photographs
just to help visualize my point. So the first point I want to make is that the proposed garage the
location, this garage was selected to be placed in this spot because the property is quite sloped
and the area where the proposed garage is really a very flat area that would not require a lot of
land disturbance or removal of trees. You can see from the renovation of the house the trees
remained intact. There are some beautiful specimen trees on this property. In particular one of
my points is if the garage were put in the rear yard not only would the driveway be very long
going up the hill creating a great deal more disturbance to the property, retaining walls and the
rest it would also cause the removal of in particular three specimen trees, tulip trees. I provided
you with not very good photographs but I apologize my picture taking skills are less than
artistic. We do have photograph C is one of the larger tulip trees. There are two others in that
area. There's a some dirt mounded in that area which is just temporarily there while the
construction is taking place oh from the pool. That's again very temporary but the trees that are
there are beautiful trees that they do want to preserve and if that garage had to be put in the
back yard it would be precisely in that area where the garage would be in a conforming side
yard setback and location. So that was another factor why we wanted to have a garage in the
front yard. The points that I make here again it's a flat area, there's a lot of natural vegetation. 1
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
do have the Browns Hills the Board wanted a copy of the Browns Hills by laws and there's also a
little kind of good neighbor policy behavior and I'm attaching that as well and I'll provide that
for the Board. One of the things that is actually mentioned in here is that the road has natural
vegetation and it is requested that natural vegetation not be disturbed. So again the natural
vegetation that's along this road is not intended to be disturbed and again that's why the
location here of this garage while the garage is close to the street as you push the garage up
the hill or in the back it is going to be much more prominent. You will be able to see the garage
from the road because it would elevated be it the level of the house which obviously you see
very well versus tucked in, at grade and it shows 19 feet at its tip. It's equivalent to a 17, 18 foot
one story garage accessory structure in size. So let me give this to you, I only have one set my
client brought it.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Maybe you can talk briefly about the house prior to renovation had
a garage underneath, why you could not attach a garage either off to the side where the
existing garage is or on the other side.
PAT MOORE : Yes. Well on the side where the garage where so if you put the garage one it's not
designed to be an attached garage. You can see there are windows there and it just
architecturally would not be desirable but also that is where the grade goes up and so you
would be building the garage at the level of the house which you have a driveway, you have a
sloping area and you notice on the survey that the driveway is actually had been a circular
driveway part of the circle was eliminated and made natural. So the front yard is
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : I was going to ask about that too.
PAT MOORE : Yeah, the yard is all landscaped and natural. Half of the existing driveway is gone
now. It is going to be obviously improved but again the goal here is to reduce the amount of
land disturbance rather than increasing the amount of land disturbance. The garage where it's
proposed is adjacent to the existing driveway and it's adjacent to the cut into the public road a
public area so it again reduces the amount of disturbance and it's all design wise makes sense.
As far as locating because I did anticipate somebody might ask, the placement of the garage on
the opposite side on the left side of the house is problematic. One there is a deck that is in the
process ,of being built on that side but in addition that is a much more steep area of the
property. You have a bank on the right hand side but you have even a more steep slope on the
left hand side. If you happen to be standing where the house is and look down we can see that
you've got probably a 45 degree angle down to the road. That area has again the driveway was
eliminated in that area and the land has been landscaped, it's very natural. The garage on that
side would be one a huge disturbance but design challenge impossible. I will have my client
speak on that but it would really make it very difficult to get into the garage particularly in
19
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
winter months because of the slope. There also is an underground propane tank, 1000 gallon
propane tank is on that side.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : And again that's the east side?
PAT MOORE : The left hand side, yeah the east side. I'll pull out the survey it'll make it easier.
Yes on the left hand side the east side here we are east side thank you. So in that area there is a
1000 gallon underground propane tank. There's also a generator, the pool equipment, the
electricity is buried on that side so all the utilities have been place on that side and it would be
impossible if not very expensive to relocate everything at this point to the left hand side. It was
never intended to be a garage because of its slope. So that was eliminated as part of the overall
design.
MEMBER DANTES : Can I ask you a question Pat? I'm looking at the Browns Hills Estates the By
Laws that you just handed up, you turn to page two under Article II Membership second
paragraph it says, restrictions as to use of property are outlined in the Covenant and
Restrictions executed July 31, 1982. Do you have a copy of that?
PAT MOORE : I don't have the Covenants, I can get them for you. I know I reviewed them when
I first met with the clients to make sure that we wouldn't be in violation of any covenants.
There was a provision about setbacks of structures a minimum setback of 10 feet. It didn't
specify front or side yard, it's just any setbacks. So when we were reviewing his original
proposal was at 5 feet and I said no, no you have a violation of the covenants so it was pushed
back to 10 feet. So that is in conforming with covenants but we will get a copy of that. I know I
reviewed it six months ago when I did this application.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So Pat would this be maybe an inappropriate time to allow a
member of the Association to speak? Do you mind?
PAT MOORE : No anytime you prefer that's fine.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Would you like to speak. Good morning, if you state your name
please for the record.
ALEX PEARLSTEIN : My name is Alex Pearlstein and I just wanted to confirm that the matter will
remain open for comments until the April meeting and that the ZBA will not render a final
decision until that time.
T. A. DUFFY : The reason for the adjournment was because you didn't have notice but now
you're here so you obviously knew about it so why would we want to keep it open?
ALEX PEARLSTEIN : I'm just here can I just make the rest of the comments?
201
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : I want to ask what is your role?
ALEX PEARLSTEIN : Oh I am a neighbor, I live right across the way.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So you're not representing the Association?
ALEX PEARLSTEIN : No.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : I'm sorry I understood you to say earlier that you were here to
represent the Association.
ALEX PEARLSTEIN : I'm not that familiar with the format of the meeting. I'm just a neighbor.
MEMBER DANTES : So are you a member of the Association?
ALEX PEARLSTEIN : Well I live in the neighborhood so yes. I just want to ask for it to be noted on
the record that the Browns Hills Homeowners Association the party that is record owner of
North View Drive which is privately owned road adjacent to 1050 North View Drive did not
receive notice of the hearing and thus we're just requesting time to respond. We just didn't
know about it.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Ms. Pearlstein did you receive a green card, a notice? You said you
live across the street from the subject property.
ALEX PEARLSTEIN : A green card, no.
MEMBER DANTES : Did you receive a letter in the mail from the applicant?
ALEX PEARLSTEIN : Yeah.
MEMBER DANTES : So they sent it to you but the rest of the Association wasn't notified?
ALEX PEARLSTEIN : I don't think so. Just two more comments, I just wanted to let the Board and
interested neighbors who received notices so I think one other neighbor did but I'm not sure
exactly how many but we're meeting with the owners on Sunday to discuss it and you know
just to have a discussion about which we have not had time to do.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : As stated at the start of the meeting there was an error that we
didn't recognize during the period where we request of the applicant to do a mailing to all
immediate property owners, it wasn't recognized that Browns Hills Road was privately owned
by the association therefore you did not receive that notice or the association and it's our
intent to originally leave the meeting or have it adjourned to allow you well not you but the
association to respond.
21
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : I have a question for you, does the garage need the association's approval
in order to be built?
ALEX PEARLSTEIN : I don't know.
MEMBER DANTES : You just know that there's a meeting.
ALEX PEARLSTEIN : I just know that there's been request to postpone this so that we have time
to discuss it and that we appreciate your consideration.
PAT MOORE : Just to address that one question I will check in the covenants but my memory is
that they don't have approval of plans and specs which I think is what you were technically
asking. So they are an association but they don't have the (inaudible).
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Pat would you please at your earliest convenience a copy of those C
& R's?
PAT MOORE : Yes I will get them as soon as I get them from the client.
MEMBER DANTES : Question for you, I was looking at the variances, are there any other garages
in the neighborhood that are 10 feet from the front property line?
PAT MOORE : Well what I did is I did a research that's this packet here okay. There are a lot of
accessory buildings in a front yard.
MEMBER DANTES : There's also a lot of houses with multiple front yards.
PAT MOORE : Yes exactly multiple front yards, waterfront houses that the setbacks may not be
what the code required so I did provide those to you. As far as setbacks from the road the I'm
just trying to remember the one right across the Art Studio. There was one most recently an Art
Studio a very large building, I actually took a picture of it because it is characteristic of the
neighborhood. The building is about 1,500 sq. ft. It came into the Board as an art studio and an
office and during the hearing the Board asked the applicant to modify the request to a
workshop but ultimately it did get the variances it needed. That is directly across from this
property and
ALEX PEARLSTEIN : It's setback way more than 10 feet.
PAT MOORE : Yes oh absolutely. Is that your house?
ALEX PEARLSTEIN : It's much, much, much more. It's absolutely hidden from the road.
22
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE : No, no, no it's okay. I'm not disparaging, it's a beautiful building. I know it's got
it's recognized architectural design but as far as the character of the neighborhood and other
accessory buildings it is the one that is most proximately adjacent to our property, directly
across from our property. There is also another building that I wasn't able to identify just
because I couldn't when the tax map is very confusing when you're going around Browns Hills
and you go around the circle there is a new structure that's under construction. I didn't have
time to research what it is, it is an accessory building and it appears to be a pool house but it
I'm going to give you a picture of it. I can't really identify if it got a variance or not. It didn't pop
up as a variance so it may be conforming as far as setbacks but as far as size and character of
the neighborhood I want it to be noted.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Pat is that in this large packet or are you just going to
PAT MOORE : No this is an extra one cause I couldn't identify which I know generally where it is
but I can't identify this with a tax map number to give me the ability to research it. That would
require me to go to the Building Department and find out who's got the open building permit
but I will put it on the record.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENT : Right and then if you get the information we are going to adjourn the
meeting.
PAT MOORE : Exactly it gave me a little time to research that. So this clearly I mean it is the
closest request as far as the 10 foot setbacks from the front property line. Although given the
topography of the property that is there is a strong basis for requesting that it be closer. I did
ask the client in the meantime so it's something to deliberate and it's something that he can
discuss with the association. I asked, is it possible to move this back some in that general area
where it's flat where it would not be a practically you can push it back a little bit and still be it
would still need a variance but it might be further away from the front property line, remember
this property has very odd angles. The house is facing in one direction and the angle of the side
yard is on a triangular on a somewhat of an opposite direction so when you're placing an
accessory structure one of the complications here is you have to meet the side yard setback
that's on an angle that's going this way, you're putting the house that's in a perpendicular
direction and so you've got to twist the garage so it is facing somewhat the house is coming in
the garage doors are facing logically when your house and your driveway is so it places the
entire accessory structure somewhat on an angle that would in fact encroach on side yard. So
the placement of this garage in this location is the best location without the need for additional
variances cause we'd be on a variance application for side yard on this so it gets very tricky on
this and this was very well thought out. But to finish my comment we'd so there is flexibility to
move the garage from the front property line 15 feet so there is some flexibility.
23
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So is that an additional 15 feet or 15 total?
PAT MOORE : Additional 15.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So then you would be 25 feet.
PAT MOORE : 25 feet yes. So the road itself has about 50 feet between 45 feet between the
property line and the road but as far as trying to make this more conforming there is some
flexibility to move it back. It still has to be in the front yard again it's not a waterfront house so
you need a variance for the front yard but the setback has there is some room to move it back
without creating a huge disturbance. There may be a need for some more land clearing, tree
removal but at least the grade I asked them to really look at where the grade starts to change
so you start having to cut into the land the hill.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So that was the question I was going to ask, is it possible to cut into
that hill and bury it on the one side? I mean the design just to make it more conforming as far
as the front yard setbacks. Would you state your name for the record.
CHARLES KITTS : My name is Charles Kitts, owner of Solutions East a member. That is a
possibility to cut it into that hill. I think it would end up doing more damage as far as doing
retaining walls and you know cutting down more trees into that area. If we set it back like we
were just saying 15 feet to the south it would be the same offset as the art studio across the
street from the road.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : The only difference in that application and we're not hearing that is
that's a waterfront parcel so accessory structures are permitted by right provided that they
meet minimum front yard setbacks.
CHARLES KITTS : I totally understand that.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Yours is a different application so we're just trying to mitigate what
you're proposing with what the code allows.
CHARLES KITTS ; Yeah it would be approximately 450 sq. ft. of a garage as opposed to the studio
across the street which you can see from the road is 1,500 sq. ft., that's a big difference.
MEMBER DANTES : Question for you now, what's the front yard setback required for a principal
structure on that sized lot?
PAT MOORE : Principal, let me check. What's the size of your property?
CHARLES KITTS : It is .65
241
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE : 28,350 1 think. Is it one acre zoning? It's either 40 or 50 because under the R40
it's 40 but as a non-conforming it just goes above that 20,000. If it's under 20,000 clearly it's
40,000 but I think we have two sections of the code to look at R40, you're one acre zoning.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : The distance to the road is 49 feet as illustrated on the survey.
PAT MOORE : I think on the schedule the table for one acre zoning is 40 so
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : And there is an open building permit on the renovations to the
house?
PAT MOORE : Oh yes.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So I expect that any alterations the Building Department would
have sent you to us if there was an issue with the setback.
PAT MOORE : Oh for the house?
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Yes.
PAT MOORE : Oh there's no issues.
MEMBER DANTES : Then nobody goes down the road right?
PAT MOORE : Well the one homeowner. It's their house.
MEMBER DANTES : What I'm getting at is who is going to see the house if it's got a (inaudible)
conforming location?
PAT MOORE : That's one of the points yes.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So Pat, Mr. Kitts had suggested that you could relocate the
proposed accessory garage to a total of 25 feet back from your lot line while remaining in the
front yard, is that something you would like to amend your application during this period? We
will as I said earlier leave the meeting open. We're going to adjourn it to our April Special
Meeting. Is that something that you want to have your design person or surveyor relocate it,
resubmit this to the
PAT MOORE : The Building Department.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : No to the Zoning Board for
25
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE : Yes but I would want to so you'd be taking the same 13 feet from the property
line right okay and back so it would be okay just want to make sure we wouldn't create another
non-conformity on the side yard but I think
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Right but I was anticipating you're keeping the 13 just moving it
back more into that hill side and even if you could do more as you said earlier we're waiting to
hear back from the Browns Hills Association so while we're waiting you have that time to
amend your application, that's your choice it might be beneficial. Pat any questions?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Eric additional questions?
MEMBER DANTES : No.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Rob?
MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Anyone in the audience who wishes to speak also.
MEMBER DANTES : I got one comment I guess. Do we anticipate having a public hearing next
month in case some of the homeowners show up or
PAT MOORE : My only concern would be if they raise an issue that I feel should be responded
to. I don't want to have it just by you know a written submission that doesn't give us an
opportunity to respond.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Exactly so without any other questions, if there's nobody in the
audience that wishes to speak I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this meeting for the April
Regular Meeting that is April 2, 2020. Kim will let you know what time and do I have a second?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : All in favor?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
26
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
HEARING # 7376—MILDRED DAVID
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Good morning, I'm going to open up the hearing of application
#7376 Mildred David which is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and
the Building Inspector's October 25, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a
permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than
the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet located at 3825 Stillwater Ave. (adj. to
Eugene Creek) Cutchogue, NY SCTM#1000-137-1-3.1. Would you please state your name for the
record.
ROBERT BRENNER : Good morning, my name is Robert Brenner. I'm an architect and I'm
working as a consultant to Anne Surchin Architect on this project.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Do you want to tell us about your application and the specific
request for relief?
ROBERT BRENNER : Okay the specific request is concerning a second floor dormer and the
minimum setback from the side yard is 15 feet and we are requesting that we be able to build
or reconfigure the existing dormer to a distance of 12 feet from the property line.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : And there's currently a building permit open on the renovations?
ROBERT BRENNER : That is correct. The subject of this variance is a house that was built in the
early 1950's so the existing house itself has a setback of 9 feet, 9 % feet from that side yard
property. We are not touching any of the first floor walls on that side but upstairs we are
reconfiguring the dormers. Right now two dog house dormers as the house was built and when
we first looked at the second floor we saw that the bedrooms in that area as you can see on the
drawing the second floor demolition plan the upstairs bedrooms were the shape of the floor
plan was very odd configuration of jogs. The existing dog house dormers provided very little
usable floor area so the homeowner requested that we expand those rooms and the most
reasonable thing to do seemed to do is reconfigure those dog house dormers to one shed
dormer that would mirror that existing dormer on the back of the house. So this entailed
moving the front more out only one foot and moving the side yard to the north out so that it
would be 12 feet back from the setback line.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Maybe you can explain to the Board again relative to the I guess it's
the west side of the house where the proposed shed dormer is where there is a request for
relief; the house exists already so all the work proposed is to this shed dormer correct?
ROBERT BRENNER : Correct. As far as any work requiring a variance it's just for the shed
dormer. On that side north happens to be to the left on these drawings so
27
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : I was saying that was the west side.
ROBERT BRENNER : So what you're asking for actually is there's an existing wall to the north on
the existing dormer and what we're doing is moving that wall out only another 13 % inches
towards the north. That way the front dormer would more exactly the shape of the rear
dormer. So we thought that that was the best thing to do for the house and for the immediate
neighborhood.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Maybe you can clarify something, I understood that there was
going to be some demolition if and when the variance is granted am I repeating this correctly
relative to a statement that the applicant made?
ROBERT BRENNER : Yes, the existing wall that the neighbor can see from the north side that is
still there and it's been incorporated into the new dormer shape. So it's the same wall that was
on the north side for the gable dormer that wall is still there and we just reconfigured the roof
over that area. What we would like to do is move that wall 13 % inches further north so that is
really the subject of the variance.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : But this is where I'm confused, I can't speak for the other Board
members there's an existing dog house dormer which has since been removed. Today there is a
full dormer running the width of the front side of the house.
ROBERT BRENNER : Yes.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Is there any proposed demolition to what we physically see or what
we would have seen during our site inspection?
ROBERT BRENNER : Right now the only thing that we would demolish would be that north wall
that's existing.
MEMBER DANTES : So you're here to legalize a dormer you've already built that's what Nick is
asking you. Are you building a new dormer or are you legalizing a dormer that you've already
built?
MEMBER LEHNERT : We went out and inspected this and basically what we saw in the field is
what you're proposing so are you telling us you've built this dormer 13 inches short and you're
going to demolish it again or does it already exist as it's proposed?
ROBERT BRENNER : The wall is there.
MEMBER DANTES So the dormer as existing is conforming to the code you don't need a
variance. When you move it that's when you need the variance?
28
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
ROBERT BRENNER : Correct.
VICE CHAIRP PLANAMENTO : That's where I'm confused.
MEMBER DANTES : So nothing (inaudible) has been done you're just asking for a variance to
extend the dormer?
ROBERT BRENNER : The GC did make a small mistake in that the front wall you know maybe
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Mr. Brenner would it be easier at least for me I don't know if the
other Board members agree but perhaps maybe you can come here and point to us what
MEMBER DANTES : Or they can just draw on the plan then you just do a color coded thing on
the plan and add it. I mean it's a fairly reasonable request I'm not questioning that but we just
need to know where
ROBERT BRENNER : I did present this supplementary drawing.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Do you have one for all the members?
MEMBER DANTES : I see so the way they built the dormer they built it 18 inches encroaching
into the required setback. So you're here to legalize the 18 inches (inaudible) extended another
13.
ROBERT BRENNER : What's there now they did move the front wall. That comes out forward
towards the street one foot. (inaudible) he brought it across and he did extend like 22 % inches
over this setback line. Then he brought it back to the existing wall right there so I don't know if
he's actually going to demolish that wall or just (inaudible) to this point but the reason that this
portion (inaudible) that we believe has to align with the wall in the back here. (inaudible)
balanced and symmetrical on both the front and the back.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So the as built dormer you're calling the north side actually it's the
west side you might have to pull that forward more towards the lot line to match the other
side.
ROBERT BRENNER : Yes that is the 13 % inches so that is what we're asking for. So really this is
L-shaped here that only represents 10 sq. ft. of a floor area. So that is really the subject of this
variance. So it's very
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So the as built shed dormers still require relief then.
MEMBER DANTES : So he went over a couple of(inaudible) I mean it's no big deal.
29
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : But I think it's important for us to understand because we were
looking at something that's existing as an as built and now you're seeking relief to further make
right. Rob do you understand what's going on here?
MEMBER LEHNERT : I understand what you're trying to say but
A LOT OF CONVERSATION GOING ON AT THE DAIS—IN AUDIBLE
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So that already needs relief but what they're seeking right but it is
as built so it shouldn't have been there to begin with.
ROBERT BRENNER : This is what the original construction from the early 1950's so it's not a
conforming pre-existing to the zoning regulations.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : What you said a moment ago is that you might have to take down
the existing wall that was just built. It's no longer a dog house dormer there's a shed dormer.
Which line represents the shed dormer?
ROBERT BRENNER : The shed dormer is the (inaudible). What was built originally in the 1950's
MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah that doesn't exist anymore.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : But this is the existing shed dormer wall. So what will be
demolished?
ROBERT BRENNER : This is still there this dash line there that wall still exists so that would have
to be taken out 13 % inches into the side yard. Just so that the house will be (inaudible) the
front and back walls
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : I think we're all in agreement this is a benign application because
we've heard the word that you're going to demolish something where we see what already
exists and I think that I'm still lost on whether or not that wall is coming down not that it's a big
deal but just to understand what's happening.
MEMBER DANTES : I can tell you my experience in construction, I'm positive that wall is going
to have to come down.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : It has to come down.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : But that's where I'm confused, there's a new one there now
already.
30
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : They built it in the wrong place, now he's saying he doesn't like the design
of what they built so he's going to remove that wall anyway and built as per that dark area on
his plan.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So it would seem that am I correct in saying this, for the dog house
dormers are illustrated by the dotted lines the dog house dormer was converted to a shed
dormer using the dotted line on the I'm saying the west side of the house and that's where the
existing dog house dormer not dog house shed dormer is? But then what they're applying for is
to receive the relief to push it out the extra 10 % inches.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Right so it conforms to the other side of the house.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Understood. What I think I got confused on is that it's illustrated as
a dog house dormer as opposed to a shed dormer, okay. Rob any questions?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Not anymore.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Any questions from the public? Seeing none I'd like to make a
motion that we close this hearing and reserve decision until the Special Meeting on March 191H
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : All in favor?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING#7377— EDWARD D. FRANCO
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : The next application is #7377 for Edward D. Franco. This is a
request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXII Section 280-105(A) and the
Building Inspector's October 18, 2019 amended October 30, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based
on an application for a permit to legalize an "as built" six (6) foot high fence in the front yard of
a single family dwelling and to construct accessory mounted solar panels at 1) proposed solar
panels located in other than the code required rear yard, 2) "as built" fence is more than the
39
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
code permitted maximum four (4) feet in height when located in the front yard located at
15919 Route 25 (adj. to the Long Island Sound) East Marion, N.Y. SCTM#1000-23-1-8.1.
MARTIN FINNEGAN : Martin Finnegan, Tourney, Latham, Shea, Dubin, Quatarraro 56840 Main
Rd. Southold for the applicant and Edward Franco. We are here today seeking front yard
variance relief for a property located at 15919 Rt. 25 in East Marion. The parcel itself is a two
acre conforming waterfront parcel in the R80 zone. It's a currently improved residence, a pool
and a deck and I trust you guys have gone out to see it. The property is a flagged lot, you really
can't see much of it from Route 25. The neighbors to the east enjoy a right of way over the flag
to the sound beach over the Franco driveway. So we're seeking the front yard setback variances
for the installation of solar panels just to the south of the existing pool area and also to
maintain the as built six foot fence which technically was in the front yard although
unfortunately to the fence contractor he thought was the side yard. So anyway having seen it
and the pictures we submitted show that there's a lot of screening here. Basically it's to the
west to the south to the east of this property (inaudible) there's substantial screening. The non-
conforming sections of the fence lay just to the east of the property pretty much along what is
the driveway, the property to the south of the garage and to the north of the garage. So really
no (inaudible) portion of that fence is visible from Rt. 25 nor is it and it's substantial screening
from the neighboring residences. The solar array is going to end up being about a 286 sq. ft.
footprint for that. It's proposed to be placed 35 feet off of the southern property line, front line
and really there's existing vegetation there, it was the best place to put this there for its
efficiency cause the production and again based on the screening and thanks to the as built
fence it's going to essentially also be not visible to neighboring land owners. Just to touch on
criteria I've said it all in the memo but I'll just for the record, you know as I said the main issues
here it's a flagged lot that's substantially screened south, east, west. The six foot fence the
portion that lays on that eastern side of the driveway is not visible from the road. Really
(inaudible) to maintain for privacy not just for our client but really for the neighbors that are
accessing the beach as well (inaudible) either. The solar array is likewise going to be screened
really not going to be seen so there's really no discernable impact implement from either
structure and we have I just handed up I know there's a couple of letters of support that were
already submitted to Kim previously.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : We have three letters of support via email.
MARTIN FINNEGAN : Okay great. I submitted two.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Let me rephrase that, no objection.
32
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
MARTIN FINNEGAN : We'll take it. We're not aware of any opposition from any of the
surrounding neighbors and I just want to make sure that those additional records or letters are
part of the record.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Martin what is the approximate distance to Main Rd.?
MARTIN FINNEGAN : Approximately 300 feet.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Actually it's more, about 550 plus or minus.
MARTIN FINNEGAN : Can we do it without a variance, I submit we can't. We can't maintain the
solar array in the front yard or the fence in the front yard. This is one of this weird waterfront
situations where it's the front yard but (inaudible) we submit that we'd like to maintain it and
the variance relief is necessary. The only people that can actually see either of these
improvements are those neighbors that are at the same right of way to the beach occasionally
or otherwise (inaudible). As I mentioned earlier the location of the array is essentially to
maximize the exposure and efficacy. As to substantiality you know the (inaudible) sought to
maintain the fence we submit is not substantial to the location of the fence in relation to
surrounding properties and while a 25 foot variance may be mathematically significant it's not
practically substantial here (inaudible) configuration of the lot and the full screening of the
property. As for adverse impacts, the environment is as previously stated you know they're not
visible to the neighbors.The neighbors are not opposed to this and
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Can I interrupt you, to the environmental concerns did you receive
a copy of the LWRP and the Soil and Water findings?
MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes and my understanding was that as to solar it was consistent and the in
consisting which is simply because we need a variance for the fence.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : The fence exactly.
MARTIN FINNEGAN : So it's self-created I would say not determinative here but (inaudible) but
we submit the configuration of this waterfront parcel and the applicant's desire to be energy
efficient has eluded to this is really the fence it was not intentional but I guess we're neither
here nor there. So having said all that obviously our memo elaborates as I said on all these
points but we do believe that the record supports the granting of front yard variance relief from
the requirements of 280-15 and 280-105A. Are there any questions, I'd be happy to address
them.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Pat any questions, Eric?
33
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : No I just think it's important to note that it looks like about half the
property is seaward of the coastal erosion hazard line so that land is undevelopable and then
when you add in his 100 foot setback line seventy percent of the property becomes
undevelopable so it's a distinguishing factor.
MEMBER LEHNERT : The fact that it's so far from the road.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Then on the south side of the property there's substantial mature
evergreen screening between the two residences. My only question would be as an alternative
to avoid or maybe even remove one of the variance requests is can the fence be cut to a
conforming height and then perhaps evergreen or other landscaping material be added or has
that been considered?
MARTIN FINNEGAN : It has not. Quite honestly the fence is there. It seems to serve substantial
screening. Elsewhere there is some other vegetation in front of it. I mean could that happen,
yes but we don't believe that under the circumstances here it's really unwarranted because the
impacts you know based on the criteria we don't think that the reason for the front yard height
limitation isn't really (inaudible) out on this property. We don't put six foot fences in front yards
because we don't want to create walls around properties on public roads. It's not really
applicable to this situation so for intense and purposes it's a kin to a side yard situation here
and that's why we believe (inaudible).
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Thank you, any other questions? Anyone in the audience wishing to
speak? I'm going to make a motion then that we close the hearing reserve decision for our
Special Meeting. I
MEMBER DANTES : Second.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : All in favor?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
34
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
HEAERING # 7378-925 YOUNGS ROAD, LLC
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Good afternoon, hi let's begin with application #7378 for 925
Youngs Rd., LLC. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the
Building Inspector's October 17, 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 minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet, 2) located less than the code
required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet located at 925 Youngs Rd. Orient, NY
SCTM#1000-18-1-4. Good afternoon, hi Meryl I believe you're here for the application?
MERYL KRAMER : Hi yes I am, Meryl Kramer the agent for the owner who is,also here with us,
Sharon McGuire. As you can see from the site plan we are kind of stuck literally a rock and a
hard place on this project. There are boulders that are on the property and I'm sure there are
we were told more boulders in the ground our neighbors (inaudible). By virtue of (inaudible)
the house is located skewed not parallel to the property lines. It was a very difficult it's
impossible for us to locate the house in the locate the pool behind the house with a deck and
not violate the side yard setback and a rear yard setback.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Do you want to state the variances or should I remind you of
(inaudible)that you're seeking?
MERYL KRAMER : We are seeking a rear yard setback. We are seeking for 36.8 feet where 50
feet is required and on the side yard setback we're asking for 11.9 feet where the 15 feet is
required. In addition the benefit that we will be getting from this is that the existing septic
system is located under the existing deck although we're keeping the existing deck. We're
expanding it around the propose swimming pool but will be bringing the septic system into
compliance with regard to distance from construction and also the size of the system cause it's
an antiquated system.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Are you proposing to make you're relocating the septic system I
guess to the driveway side of the property sort of in front of that large boulder. Will this be an
IA system?
MERYL KRAMER : No we have such a high water table and we're above 40 feet above ground
water so really in a situation it didn't make sense to do the IA system. We were told by the
engineer that it didn't make sense because of the soil quality. We don't have sandy soil here so
we would have had to excavate.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : And there are no sensitive wetlands?
MERYL KRAMER : No wetlands here. This is down the street from the Sound so
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Do you need Board of Health approval for the relocation of the
septic system?
MERYL KRAMER : Oh yeah we're currently we submitted the application to the Health
Department and we are waiting for our second round of comments to come back. Hopefully it'll
be back soon.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Do you want to talk a little bit about the character of the
neighborhood and how this proposed improvements will impact the neighborhood?
MERYL KRAMER : As I said in the reasons for appeal, I don't have the specific tax map numbers
for other properties but I can furnish you with this. Looking at the aerial there are other
properties in the area that also violate side yard setbacks and rear yard setbacks. So in terms of
setback requirements we are not out of character. In terms of visually we are proposing that
this pool and deck be located within the rear yard of the house so it's not possible to be seen
from the street and will be screened with plantings and won't be visible from properties
adjacent either. Mathematically because again we're not square to the property line there is a
triangular space that we're talking about that is actually affected. I have to call to your
attention we did apply for slightly when we first made our application the deck and pool was
slightly smaller and then we amended to the letter of Disapproval so the application you have
says 140 sq. ft. or 8.9% of the proposed 1,558 sq. ft. deck is within the non-conforming but in
fact that I can give you these calculations. It's now 12.3% of the proposed 1,657 sq. ft. of deck
that lays within the non-conforming. It's reflected that way on the site plan that you have. We
revised the site plan and submitted that but we asked but we didn't need to update the
(inaudible) but I can certainly give that to you if you want.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So is there any possibility from the standpoint of the site as you've
designed the pool with the decking that you could you know reduce the deck or what is the
purpose of having the larger section I guess on the short side of the pool which would be the
south side of the property?
MERYL KRAMER : That's where chaise lounges are going to go (inaudible) the sun. The sun
comes around it would be the house the area of the deck would be in the shadow of the house
so we wanted an area for chaise lounges on that side but that area was also required by code in
order to have we needed to have an area surround the pool in order to have a pool be part of
the primary structure. So we had a lengthy conversation with the Building Inspectors about the
idea of what the deck does relative to the pool, what if the pool becomes an accessory
structure or part of the main house and the way we have it right now is part of the main house.
36
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : So if your pool is an accessory structure wouldn't it be a code conforming
setback for an accessory structure?
MERYL KRAMER : No cause then we would have violated other.
MEMBER DANTES : What's the other?
MERYL KRAMER : The side yard setback we would have had to well we already have the existing
deck, we're just re-decking. So the deck itself is already on the rear of the house. We're
expanding it but let me get the code hang on one second I have the sheets here. We did this
quite a long time ago. I went through this with Damon and Amanda and so forgive me if it's not
at the top of my memory here. So for an accessory structure I believe the side yard is 10 but
MEMBER DANTES : And you're at 11?
MERYL KRAMER : We're at 11.8 but it needed to be they told me this would be the best way to
do they obviously wrote the Disapproval this way.
MEMBER DANTES : What would the rear yard setback be for accessory?
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : It would seem that if the deck was not attached to the house the
existing deck is in a conforming location.
MERYL KRAMER : The rear yard would be 50 also.
MEMBER DANTES : Not for an accessory, no.
MERYL KRAMER : Side and rear is 10.
MEMBER DANTES : So basically the reason you're here for a variance is the semantics. You have
a raised patio with a pool
MERYL KRAMER : Deck, it's a deck.
MEMBER DANTES : Deck and the pool and for whatever reason seem to be considered attached
to the house. If it was an accessory you wouldn't have any setback issues.
MERYL KRAMER : Right and we didn't want to lower the pool for several reasons and have it be
part of the patio. Number one patios are much more expensive to construct, number two we
already had the deck structure so we were just re-decking, re-surfacing so we already have the
benefit of that. Plus the pool was underneath I'm sorry the septic system is underneath the
deck and where we wanted the pool to be and we are already having to relocated the septic
tank and do excavation there and we don't know what is coming underneath. To do that
37
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
elsewhere we might wind up digging up the entire property trying to find out where these
boulders are.
MEMBER DANTES : Is the terrain sloped so that you can't do an (inaudible) patio?
MERYL KRAMER : The terrain is sloped slightly away.
MEMBER DANTES : So it's also the terrain then.
MERYL KRAMER : Is preventing us from doing we would have to then regrade to have it at
grade. It just made sense to keep the swimming pool in the rear yard or in the rear. It's the
definition of a yard when it's parallel to the house versus parallel to the property line. That's
when you get into this issue of is the pool
MEMBER DANTES : How far above grade is this patio or this deck?
MERYL KRAMER : At the far end we're trying actually we're hoping it will be 4 feet actually so
that we can have the wall of the pool be our that required fence so it can serve that way for the
actual perimeter of the pool. There will have to be some fencing or guard at some point, four
foot pool compliant guard door. It will be at least at the far end will have 4 feet so that the wall
and the wall of the pool will act as our pool compliant fence enclosure.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : And then there's a railing proposed on the deck at that same end?
MERYL KRAMER : No we don't have that. We will have to have it at some point if there is I'm
not doing the pool enclosure I'm working with the landscape architect. Once we get our
variance hopefully we have our variance then they'll all pick up on the design of the railing
enclosure for the pool compliant enclosure. We have to have as you know 48 inches so that
magic number of 48 inches we'll try to maintain where we can but we're not doing a complete
grading so at some places there is this transition and that's where the fence would pick up but
it would be a transparent mesh type fence.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : You also had mentioned some landscaping, by memory there
wasn't anything included in the packet. Do you want to talk a little bit about the landscaping
plan?
MERYL KRAMER : I think Sharon can you speak to that?
SHARON LESSER MCGUIRE : Hello I'm Sharon Lesser McGuire. Marshall Petzel has been
contracted to do the landscaping and I know that their focus is to ensure that there is as much
privacy as possible so that whatever is going on in that back yard isn't impinging on the
community and their privacy.
381
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
VICE CHAIR-PLANAMENTO : It seems that the property to the north is actually a vacant lot.
SHARON LESSER MCGUIRE : Yes and as far as I know the owner wants it to remain vacant. She
too values her privacy.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Pat do you have questions?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No I think you covered it pretty much.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Eric do you have?
MEMBER DANTES : I do not.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Rob? Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to
this application? Please come forward to the podium and state your name.
ROBERT HUGHES : My name is Robert Hughes my address is 1025 Petes Hill Rd. I'm an adjoining
land owner.
MEMBER DANTES : Where is Petes Hill Rd. in relation to the property?
ROBERT HUGHES : It's the back yard. I'm the property that's within 50 feet of the swimming
pool and the deck. If you have the survey it says now or formerly Hughes on the left hand side
of the street and Petes Hill Rd. actually you see where it says chain link fence, Petes Hill Rd.,is
about 15 feet to the west of that. My house looks directly down on this back yard.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Is yours the large white colonial that's sort of on a hilltop where
you see the I guess you have an eastern fagade like the side of the house faces
ROBERT HUGHES : Yes and again it looks right down into their back yard. So the proposed pool
at 44 feet from my property line violates the setback as does obviously the deck at 36.8. It
seems to me that this pool the elevation is the hardships that the applicant have are really self-
inflicted (inaudible) I don't know the proper terminology. First of all the lot is pre-existing non-
conforming it's a one acre zoning but it's only .88 acres. So already you're dealing with trying to
squeeze something into a lot that is not the size that it's zoned for. Secondly, as acknowledged
the positioning of the house is awkward. Now I acknowledge that but this is again not of my
doing, it's the people who own the property. I understand the house was built by somebody
else but the applicants when they purchased the land they saw that the house was in an
awkward position. They knew that it was an undersized lot and again I don't think that these
are inconveniences that should be overlooked to their benefit and to my judgement.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : If I can just interject one thought, I don't know if you picked up on
what Eric Dantes was sharing just a few moments ago but by right the application can have a
39
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
swimming pool in their back yard as close as 10 feet to the lot line if it was an accessory
structure.
ROBERT HUGHES : Okay, you're not going to decide that today that would be a whole new
application.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : There would be no Zoning Board with that.
ROBERT HUGHES : The other thing is I think that there's 17 x 50 foot pool is oversized for this
proposal.
MEMBER DANTES : I have another question for you. Just looking at the aerial, (inaudible) it
looks like your house is on the other side. Petes Hill Rd. is between your house and the
applicants. So you have to look across the street to see the applicants pool.
ROBERT HUGHES : Petes Hill Rd. runs through my property.
MEMBER DANTES : But you have to look across the road to look at the applicant's pool. So first
you see the road then you
ROBERT HUGHES : My house is forty feet higher than their back yard. My house is at sixty five
feet above sea level.
MEMBER DANTES : Is there a lot of trees between your house and the property?
ROBERT HUGHES : There's some. I sit in my little office and I look down on the construction
that's been going on all winter and I know everything that happens and prior to these people
owning the property the prior owner had a motion sensor on their garage which of course the
deer triggered constantly and I had these lights and I was totally aware of the lights so the fact
that there are trees between my house and their property I think is pretty irrelevant and you
know if the trees come down they come down. They're locusts, they break they fall. Again I
think that the size of the pool is outsized for this size of property. If they wanted to scale it back
so that it complied with the 50 foot setbacks then I (inaudible) I wouldn't have any standing to
object to the plan. A 17 x 50 foot pool is a pretty good sized pool.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So Mr. Hughes another point which we can only and you're
welcome to (inaudible) there's no comparing here but the application as I understand it the
zone allows 20% lot coverage and the application as calculated I believe it's at 11%. So they're
going to have a pool possibly even larger than by right.
ROBERT HUGHES : I'm saying I understand that. If they position it someplace else on the
property you could have one that's you know right up to the 20% that's fine but I'm just saying
40
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
that this is a large pool and this problem with setbacks could be accommodated by downsizing
the size of the pool. I understand they can make it bigger they can have a larger pool but if they
did in this location they would be even more in violation of the setback requirements.
MEMBER LEHNERT : If they made the pool as an accessory structure they will completely be
closer to your house than they're asking for now and larger without having to come to this
Board.
ROBERT HUGHES : Now the other thing I wanted to know is and you bringing it up was the
elevation of the pool I assume when they said the far corner they were talking about the north
what would be the northwest or the north corner of the pool being 48 inches above grade at
what point does I don't know if it makes any difference with the zoning regulations but at what
point is a pool an above ground pool? Is there any distinction made about that?
MEMBER DANTES : Not really it won't affect our code.
MEMBER LEHNERT : It's a structure it's all about the same.
ROBERT HUGHES : So an above ground pool and a regular pool are the same?
MERYL KRAMER : What our aim is to make this pool as aesthetically pleasing as possible. The
decking is going to be made out of (inaudible) and the wood that is wrapping around the
perimeter will either be (inaudible) as well or will be siding to match the house. I don't think
that has been decided yet and will also probably have a lot of new plantings. With regard to
your comment about the lighting of the garage, we're very dark skies conscious and the two
firms that are working on this project and I insure you that we will make sure that whatever
lighting we use will have will be dark skies compliant, will have shields on them and will be very
conscious of any motion protectors, sensors that would be used would not be possibly only
used on the front of the house if at all where you won't see them.
ROBERT HUGHES : I'm wasn't doubting your (inaudible) sorry I brought up the idea of the
garage lights you were asking whether I can see the house. That was the context in which I
brought that issue up. I have no doubt that they'll the new owners will be very conscious of
outdoor lighting and that sort of thing. I was just I raised the issue because you asked me
whether I can see the house and I can. I'm not sure exactly what is meant by the what's going
to be on the applicant just used words to describe wood siding. You're siding the side of the
pool that is all around
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : The decking.
MEMBER DANTES : It doesn't really affect the application.
4:1
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
ROBERT HUGHES : Okay I didn't know what that was all about. I don't know what affects the
application in the applicant raised the issue so I was just responding to it.
MERYL KRAMER : I'd like to also represent to the Board something that I neglected to mention
earlier that the applicant's father is in his early nineties and although he has a very difficult time
moving, one of the things that he can do is swim. So one of the reasons for this swimming pool
for exercise and enjoyment is very important to her that in the last years of his life he can share
space.
VICE CHAIR PLANEMENTO : Meryl I'll take the opportunity to put my Leslie hat on, you know we
can't personalize applications but thank you of course for sharing that. Mr. Hughes we
mentioned earlier as a Board we all sort of shared that by right the applicant avoiding the ZBA if
they so choose to put a larger swimming closer to the property line, is there some way in
hearing your concerns and I interrupted you so I never let you fully finish but is there some way
that you feel that they could mitigate (inaudible) we can listen to that perhaps the applicant
could even respond to versus I think the alternative of them putting perhaps a larger pool right
along the property line within 10 feet. Is there something that mitigates?
ROBERT HUGHES : By I think I mentioned it, I said if they scale back the size of the deck along
the end and cut back the length of the pool so that it conforms to the 50 foot setback then I
have no standing.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So just responding to that and maybe I should allow the applicant
but right now the rear yard setback proposed is 36.8 feet. So in effect if they meet a 50 foot
setback they wouldn't have any width to a pool. I'm speaking of while they retain the existing
deck that's already there.
ROBERT HUGHES : The existing deck that is there now only goes along correct me if I'm wrong
along basically the side the long side of the pool. There is no deck existing deck now across the
end of the pool where it sits you know where it sits 20 foot minimum. The end of the pool there
is no deck there now.
MERYL KRAMER : That's correct.
ROBERT HUGHES : There's only a deck along the long side of the pool the proposed pool.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : But if we took away just based on and I don't have a scale with me
but if you add 10 feet to the 36 foot really a 14 foot cut off of that pool there is no pool. I mean
you'll have something that's only a matter of inches wide, 20 inches or something to that affect.
ROBERT HUGHES : The pool is this white part of this diagram as far as I understand.
42
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Agreed.
MEMBER DANTES : They're not asking for a variance to build a pool, they're just asking for a
variance to attach the pool to the house. That's quite frankly the crux of it. They can build a
pool, they can build a deck. The only variance they're requesting is to attach to the house.
ROBERT HUGHES : What I'm asking is that the pool at the moment the closest point of the pool
MEMBER DANTES : What I'm trying to say it's a fairly benign request.
ROBERT HUGHES : It's 44.6 feet to my property line.
MEMBER 'DANTES : Right but they can do that. That's as of right. If (inaudible) attach to the
house. It's a quirk in our code.
MEMBER LEHNERT : As of right they can have it 10 feet from your property line.
ROBERT HUGHES : If they can put a pool 10 feet from my property line that's (inaudible) ground
level.
MEMBER DANTES : They don't have to even make it a ground level. The only thing they
(inaudible) is to attach the pool to the house that's what their request is.
ROBERT HUGHES : Well I feel the request is the Chairman asked me what was my suggestion
and I was responding that if they scaled down the pool so that it was it still could be 17 feet
wide but probably it would only be you know 40 feet long. I'm not sure I have you know I don't
have the scale on this but they would still have I don't know why you think they're going to be
only a 12 inch pool.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : I'm just looking at what I see here on the survey without a scale. If
you look at the line below their proposed lot or rather distance to the property line of 36.8 feet
where the pool corner is not the deck corner is 44 feet. So they can even get to 50 so if you
continue to sort of extrapolate those distances to get to 50 feet which would be somewhere
below the dry well. They're now making a pool that's probably half of the width maybe I was
wrong in saying inches but it would seem that it's going to be a very narrow pool. With that said
I think we heard your request, let me ask the applicant is this something that the applicant
would consider reducing the size of the pool in any capacity or perhaps working to relocate that
deck? I don't think you necessarily need to make this decision now I'm sorry for putting you on
the spot but just to try to mitigate Mr. Hughe's grievance.
MERYL KRAMER : What I don't understand is how mitigating the grievance of the pool being
attached to the house versus having even a larger pool and deck that we're actually by right
43
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
allowed to have 10 feet from the property line which we can do and it's actually well in my
opinion I think because of the virtue of the topography you know if the neighboring property is
40 feet above our there's nothing that we can do necessarily to prevent him from looking down
on our property or on my client's property. I have to confer with my client and find out if she's
willing to make this smaller but I don't see how that request is really relevant to the application
because the application is not about size it's about this skew in the way the existing house is
relative to the angle of the property line. So I just have to ask my client and let me see if we
need to table.
MEMBER LEHNERT : I think to pick up what Eric said this is sort of a benign application and the
mitigation is I think what you propose, instead of a bigger pool as of right.
MERYL KRAMER : Yes.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So at this point I would also add then that there is a proposed
drywell for pool de-watering, the pool equipment would be contained in a sound deadening
enclosure which hopefully would reduce any issue it might have with noise. Alternatively
perhaps you can talk a little bit more request landscaping plan from Marshall Petzel or whoever
that would illustrate some sort of perhaps an evergreen screening or buffer that might mitigate
any lighting or other noise that Mr. Hughes might experience.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Can you just do that as a condition?
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : How do you feel?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yes.
MEMBER DANTES : Yes.
ROBERT HUGHES : I'm not objecting to the location of where they have the drywell and again
the pool equipment. That's around the corner of the building from what I could see from where
my house is and I (inaudible) see that that would affect me. It appears to be on the north end of
the house and the proposed pool drywell and equipment would be around so what that would
not I have no objection to the noise issues I'm not raising that at all so (inaudible) I never made
that an issue.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So we recognize the fact that you'd like to see them conform to the
code of 50 foot rear yard setback. They're here before us relative to a proposed reduced
setback so as a Board we can weigh these differences and we'll certainly make consideration as
far as what your statement and testimony has been. Do you have anything else to add?
ROBERT HUGHES : No. Thank you for your time.
44
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak on this
application? With that then said I'm going to offer a motion to close this hearing reserve
decision to a later date.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : All in favor?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING# 7380— BEACHWOOD ROAD 22, LLC
VICE CHAIRP PLANAMENTO : Our next hearing is application #7380 Beachwood Road 22, LLC.
This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's
November 12, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish an
existing single family dwelling and build a new single family dwelling at 1) located less than the
code required minimum total side yard setback of 25 feet, 2) more than the code permitted
maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 545 Beachwood Rd. (adj. to the Great Peconic Bay)
Cutchogue, NY SCTM#1000-116-4-22. Rob before you introduce yourself and commence with
your presentation if I can just ask you also have you received the LWRP findings? I believe you
did because I think there was a response a written reply.
ROB HERMANN : Yes we got the memo and I submitted a letter back to you all.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Great so I'll turn the microphone over to you and let you present. If
you can be so kind as to also explain the variances that you're seeking.
ROB HERMANN,: So this is an application where we're seeking relief from two sections as you
just read. One is for 20.6% lot coverage where 20% is required but should be notice where
25.7% lot coverage was previously approved by the Board for this property in 2016 and I'll
speak to a little bit more detail to that variance in a couple of minutes. We're also looking for
3.7 feet of total side yards setback relief as we have a proposed total side yard setback of 21.3
feet where 25 feet is required. It's important to note that the minimum side yard setbacks are
45
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
in fact conforming so it is the total side yard only that we're seeking relief for. The point that
we'd like the Board to stay focused on with this application is the proposed projects consistency
with what exists. What has historically existed at the site and has in fact actually been the
subject of a prior case before the Board. Specifically the project proposes to maintain the
identical building area so the square footage contributes to lot coverage as what is existing and
what was approved by the ZBA pursuant to case 6908 in 2016 at which time the Board granted
relief to maintain 25.7% relief. The reason the same building area is now lower and close to
conforming is the fact that when you compare the survey from 2016 and the survey now the
beach appears to have accreted so you would actually have a larger buildable land area. So
taking the same building area as a percentage sorry taking the same building area as a
percentage of a larger buildable land area you get a lower lot coverage. We all know that that's
a dynamic situation on the beach so what's most important there is that the building area itself
is being maintained identical to what's there. So it's not like the applicant saying hey we have a
bigger buildable land so now we're going to jack up the building area. We're staying with what
was there. The project also has been designed specifically to maintain the identical side yard
setbacks as they exist. So there's a conforming 10.1 and 11.2 side yard setback now which total
a 21.3 total side yard setback that we're asking for. So generally speaking the house is going to
remain roughly in the same location as the existing dwelling with the same building area, the
same separation distances from the two adjacent dwellings. Now the house will be taller than
the existing but with a height that conforms to code and is designed to be consistent with the
surrounding dwellings which are much taller than the existing now. Included with you
application package as shown here is a rendering by Meryl Kramer Architect that shows both
the street view and then a waterside view of the subject and adjoining houses. This one in the
center here is a rendering so this is these are these first two and this fourth dwelling are
existing. This is what is being proposed here and when I'm done speaking I'll actually ask Meryl
to give you a rendering. There's a portion of the back part of this house that has been revised
since submission to this application. It doesn't affect the nature of the variance but there's a
portion if you look on the site plan of a roof that extends over the open deck and that roof is
now being replaced really more with a trellis structure so again it doesn't change the proposed
footprint, it doesn't change building area, it doesn't change setbacks, it doesn't change our
variance it just sort of reduces some of the roof load that exists over the deck in the back. We
can hand up a revised rendering to you for the record. So the project will from our perspective
we're arguing it's very consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood both in
terms of its architectural design and also with respect to town zoning. Just quickly if you go
back if you look at this second board under here this is the subject dwelling and this is basically
you can see the nature of this developed shoreline along Beachwood is that all of these lots are
historically very narrow lots that are constrained by vegetated wetlands to the north and tidal
wetlands surface areas associated with Great Peconic Bay to the south. So you end up in a
46
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
situation here where pretty much all of these dwellings have some non-conformities related to
the narrow width and the constraint from the wetla'nds to the north and the south. This lot is,
only 60 feet wide and it's generally only about 45 feet wide in the location of the dwelling to
the center of the property. As we put in our application although most of this development is
pre-existing, some of these lots have been redeveloped and or expanded pursuant to prior
Board decisions. The most notable is the adjacent property to'the west. In, 2005 pursuant to
case 5711 the Board authorized the partial reconstruction and expansion of the dwelling with a
2 foot minimum side yard and a 5 foot total side yard and 25.5% lot coverage which at that time
was based not'on the currently defined buildable' land but on total lot area. So by today's
standards that lot coverage would actually be even higher- and all of that relief is much more
substantial than what we're asking for.
-MEMBER DANTES So Rob is the new .house going to be slightly smaller than the existing
house? ,
,ROB HERMANN : It's-the same building area so although it won't be an identical footprint the
end result is that you're building area that goes toward lot coverage is still 2,000'sq. ft. For
some reason the Board considered it well I don.'t think the Board considered it, it was measured
to be 2,025 sq. ft. in 2016 but the surveyors measuring a 2,000 sq. ft. so either way we're under
either the same or under
MEMBER DANTES :The discrepancy is between surveys that's all.
ROB HERMANN : Right so the difference in so there's two discrepancies between the current
survey and the survey that was previously before the Board.
MEMBER DANTES : Is it the same surveyor?
ROB HERMANN : No and I think it's not the same architect so previously the Board,approved
2,025 sq. ft. of building area based on buildable land of 7,875 sq. ft. which came up to 25.7%.
Currently for intents and purposes again this is the same building area it's just somebody's
measuring it different than somebody else did. It's 2,000 instead of 2,025 divided by buildable
land area of 9,710 sq. ft. So in 2016 you had your buildable land definition so unlike the 2005
case I mentioned it wasn't being based on total lot area it was being based on total lot area it
was being based on buildable land,but again the buildable area that is the basis of lot coverage
we are keeping the same and we've gone into this design-with that-specific intent in mind.
MEMBER DANTES : Can you go into now I'm not an expert on it but depending on the time of
the year wet land average shift do buildable areas shift as well?
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
ROB HERMANN : To an extent sure. Now not typically not a vegetated wetland boundary like
you see to the north maybe .over a period of decades, but where you',re going to get that
fluctuation and where we're seeing that fluctuation here is on the bay side. So you could get
three different surveyors to go.out and put,a,mean high water line and you now on the survey
on,certain time but I think what happened what we saw here is not so much in connection with
what you just mentioned but where the line the beach grass was. Cause remember buildable
land the definition is supposed to exclude beach. Now that's unconsolidated beach so if you
have vegetated area that's not being excluded from buildable land. So what's happening is if
the beach grass is encroaching closer to the water it's actually giving you more buildable land
because (inaudible) unconsolidated beach is located farther away. This gets a little (inaudibl,e)
unless you're looking at it and you're standing at the site and all that which ,is why I mentioned
before the part that we want you to focus on is not necessarily that we're reducing lot coverage
from the 25.7% that was previously approved to 20.6 but that we're accomplishing what you
may want to call an incidental decrease in lot coverage by maintaining the same building area.
So in other words we're not looking to increase the building area over what has been there
historically and what this Board has already blessed. To your point, if you get a change in the-
beach
hebeach grass line, if you get in the erosion trends there and the lot gets smaller and you get
smaller buildable land then you're actually you know your lot coverage is,going to go up but
that's just the nature of the beast with any of these waterfront properties where you're on the
bay or the sound or whatever. Well maybe not on the sound cause you have the bluff but you
know what I mean. If you have a situation where you have a moving shoreline, buildable land
due to the way the town defines it these are going to have some dynamic components to it
over time. Again here the goal was to create a dwelling design that would be consistent with
what's there now, consistent with what is existing around it, consistent with the Board's
decisions on those other surrounding properties, consistent with the Board's decision on this
particular property and that's been done not only through architectural design but by actually
maintaining the exact minimum side setbacks, total side setbacks and building area that exists
today. Just quickly speaking to the LWRP, the reason that I did want to (inaudible) that letter
back in the record is because the way that Mark wrote up his report was he uses the term that
the project is inconsistent because of a proposed increase to lot coverage over what's allowed
by code and it's pretty clear in our application that due to the conversation we just had we're
actually proposing to decrease lot coverage. Now again you can go back to the point
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : But it still seems that it's all the semantic because of the accretions
so the lot actually grew.
ROB HERMANN : Well that's true which�is,why I'm saying if anything lot coverage relative to the
last time you all saw this is either the same or less but we're not increasing it and that's what
Mark's memorandum says and it's inaccurate and it's important to understand that. We are not
48
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
proposing an increase to lot coverage by any definition or any theory or'any argument. I-think
that was just misread in our application and his other comment related to the fact that with
non-conforming coverage in a FEMA zone that that was somehow inconsistent with policy 4 but
that belies the fact that right now you have a FEMA non-compliant dwelling that's being
demolished and removed and replaced with a dwelling that will be FEMA compliant.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : You mentioned the elevation or rather the house will be a little bit
taller than it currently is but still under the code permitted height so describe to us or explain
rather the height of the free board, how high over the elevation of the now existing terrain will
the house be?
ROB HERMANN : So for the vertical component I'm going to turn that over to Meryl Kramer
who is the architect and hopefully she can speak a little bit to the vertical component of the
house. Again -it's being designed to be FEMA compliant but if there is something else that you
wanted to ask about that Meryl will be able to answer.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Actually maybe while you're still there we also as far as part of the
application which again this might go back to Ms. Kramer, you're proposing an IA sanitary
system?
ROB HERMANN : Right so that would have been the last little bit of my,presentation here is that
while we're trying to maintain all of the scope and design setback elements of the project there
is also significant mitigation that's coming along with the property. One includes the
transformation to FEMA compliance. The other includes the replacement of conventional septic'
system with, a new IA low nitrogen sanitary system. There is a drainage system to control and
recharge roof runoff that's being proposed. There are some grade level patio areas to the side
in front of the dwelling that are actually proposed to be pervious gravel. Again as grade level
they wouldn't contribute to lot coverage regardless but nor to try to minimize you know
pressure on the drainage capacity on the site. Those patio areas have been designed by a
landscape architect to be pervious gravel patios. Obviously there'll be a project limiting fence to
contain site disturbance and runoff during construction. Really it's a good project. I mean you're .
gonna get a modernized dwelling that fits in the character of the neighborhood but becomes
FEMA compliant, becomes energy code compliant. It's just really going to be an improvement in
every way particularly with an IA system here in between these two wetland systems to the
north and south.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So perhaps Ms. Kramer Meryl would like to address the elevation.
49
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : I think the reason Mark Terry is saying it's an'increase in non-conformity,is
cause technically you're demolishing the house therefore the C.O. is extinguished so the new
building would then be an increase is the way he's looking at it.
ROB HERMANN : I don't disagree with that interpretation but I've always disagreed with the
underlying concept. I mean I get it from a Building Department perspective in terms of the law
but when we're before a Board like this where you're looking at the character•of the
community and everything else it's a big ask to_suggest that you should ignore the fact that
there's a house that's there.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : And this is something that can be renovating or
ROB HERMANN : Correct and we speak to that in the application as well. You just get to a point
where trying to modernize a house like this in terms of energy code and FEMA and everything
else, at the end of the day it doesn't make sense. It makes more sense to replace it with a new
dwelling while being very sensitive to all of these setbacks. Again you know with the change in
buildable land you would probably have a different design professional or a different agent in
front of you trying to increase you know the building area up to 25.7% and saying well you owe
us that because you gave it to this lot before. We're not doing that. The applicant is
approaching this you know from the perspective of trying to maintain existing conditions.
MERYL KRAMER : So in order to FEMA compliance the house is sitting in an AE6. There"s a very
small portion on the property that's in the actual VE zone so you can see the rear steps of the
deck on the beach side, we've actually cutoff at an angle parallel aligning with the VE zone
because if we were to have any portion of the house in a VE zone then the whole house would
have to be velocity meet all the velocity requirements which don't really make a lot of sense. So
the house itself is at elevation 8.5 which is 2 % feet of elevation 6 which is what FEMA requires
2 feet actually is what they require.,
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : 8.5 or 8.35?
MERYL KRAMER : The house is 8.5 finished floor.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So that's the deck area I'm looking at I'm sorry.
ROB HERMANN : So you're 6 inches above what's required.
MEMBER LEHNERT : This is the proposed house.
MERYL KRAMER : The proposed yes and we will have the flood vents (inaudible) so obviously
complying with FEMA code and I don't recall what your second did you have another question?
,50
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
ROB HERMANN : I think I answered it.
MERYL KRAMER : I also do have an updated rendering of the rear of the house that I can hand
out to you to the Board. We wound up the beach side was a little too visually heavy so we
basically pulled the volume of the house back and made the we wanted to have a covered area
over the rear doors both from the first floor and the second floor because that faces due south
and is just blinding light. So originally we had thought we would just bring the whole roof over
but it just seemed too visually heavy and we thought it would be better to have this rear
second floor porch and first floor roof coverage over the first floor doors and the side lattice
(inaudible) was the structure and also to give some privacy visibility wise and some shade from
the side.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Do you have copies for the Board?
MERYL KRAMER : Yes.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So Meryl this proposed elevation, you're reducing I guess the gable
end of the house you're pulling it back I don't have a scale but it would look like it's something
like 4 or 5 feet.
MERYL KRAMER : I believe it's 5 feet let me just see if we have a dimension here, 5.7 no, no, no
I'm sorry. I believe it's 5 feet but I have to check that to make a hundred percent sure. It doesn't
change the lot coverage though because obviously it's still a trellis and it's still covered so
ROB HERMANN : It's an area that is over the attached deck it's already been calculated in
coverage.
MEMBER LEHNERT : So as a mitigation factor would you have a problem if we had that space
that's open now to remain open if there's an approval?
MERYL KRAMER Meaning not having a roof be (inaudible) on the application as it stands
correctly?
MEMBER LEHNERT : As a condition to remain just to remain open that
MERYL KRAMER : It's open but it's trellis, we want to have shade.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah but it's not enclosed space, it's not enclosed as habitable space and
that would be a mitigation factor of the overage on the lot coverage.
MERYL KRAMER : I'm happy with the design as presented now. You mean not put glass beyond.
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
ROB HERMANN : What he's asking is if so you have right now the design has been submitted to
the Board actually shows a roof over part of the deck and so a typical condition the Board might
be is that you can't then enclose that roof over area. I was asking the same question, now that
it's a trellis do you have any objection to the same type of condition that that trellis not
suddenly become an enclosed study or something like that in the future.
MERYL KRAMER : I don't object to that.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Thank you.
ROB HERMANN : It seems like if they were going to do that now would be the time to do it.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Pat do you have any questions?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : On the deck part are they planning to put any railings on the side there?
MERYL KRAMER : No railings are required by code if your deck is less than 30 inches. However
we do have we will have a handrail. The code requires I believe four risers or three treads so
there will be just a handrail as you're walking up somewhere but it will just be a single location
but we're not required by building code to have an actual railing around the back.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : And just to recap as part of this application there is an IA sanitary
system proposed which of course will go through the Suffolk County Board of Health to receive
MERYL KRAMER : Yes we're in the second round of comments from them again on that as well
and they're working with Butler Engineering on that one.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Eric any questions?
MEMBER DANTES : No further questions.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Pat any additional questions?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Rob?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Meryl can you just submit revised plans showing this so you can reference
them?
MERYL KRAMER : Sure the entire the floor plans?
MEMBER LEHNERT : The floor plans.
MERYL KRAMER : Sure. I don't think the plans that you have
52
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
a
BOARD SECRETARY : (inaudible) illustrations on this at all?
MERYL KRAMER : The ones that you're looking at here on the board that Rob
BOARD SECRETARY : I just want to make sure whatever that is
ROB HERMANN : If for some reason you don't have it let me know and we'll submit it. They
should have been submitted.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Is there any member in the audience from the public that would
like to speak on this application?
ROBERT TAYLOR : Hi I'm Robert Taylor I'm a member of the Beachwood community and I'd just
like to say this is indeed very much in keeping with the nature of the community and the styles
of architecture and also the setbacks throughout the community. We're all in favor of it.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Thank you Mr. Taylor. Is there anyone else here that would like to
speak? With that then
ROB HERMANN : Is it okay if we just give you 11 x 17's of that?
BOARD SECRETARY : This particular page. Whatever changes that you're making.
MEMBER DANTES : Just two pages the one is the floor plan and the other one is the rear
elevation just A201 just submit that one too with the change.
MEMBER LEHNERT :Just submit the floor plan.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So with that said now I'm going to make a motion to close this
hearing reserve determination for a later date.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : All in favor?
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
53
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
HEARING # 7381— MARLEY MCDERMOTT and TRAULANE AGRUSA
MEMBER DANTES : The next variance is #7381 Marley McDermott and Traulane Agrusa. This is
a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's December 2,
2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory in-
ground swimming pool and to legalize an "as built" accessory deck at 1) swimming pool located
in other than the code required rear yard, 2) "as built" accessory deck located in other than the
code required rear yard located at 275 Majors Path, Southold, NY.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : I'm going to recuse myself.
MEMBER DANTES : Nigel why are you here?
NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Nigel Williamson, (inaudible) Southold, New York 11971 representing the
applicants. Ms. McDermott and Ms. Agrusa before I start may I approach and hand in the green
cards please, thank you. There's one green card missing it hasn't been returned. I did do the
tracking it says it's in transit. Chairperson and members of the Board the property is located at
275 Majors Path in Southold and is in an R40 zone. We're requesting relief from the Building
Department's Notice of Disapproval dated September 16, 2019 and renewed December 2, 2019
from Article III Section 280-15 regarding request to maintain an existing deck in the front yard
and to construct a 20 x 40 in-ground swimming pool. The property as existing was originally
part of two lots, lot 23 and lot 26 which were merged 9-10-99 to create lot 54-01-26.0001. This
in turn created two front yards one which runs onto Marjors Path and the other which runs
onto Hill Top Path. The existing deck was on lot 23 which was on Hill Top Path and (inaudible)
part of the dwelling which was destroyed by fire as indicated on the survey by Destin G. Grath
land surveyor dated 5/25/99 as (inaudible) in the submission. There was an X marked through
the dwelling and the deck and therein lays part of the issue. The X was only meant to reference
the dwelling as noted by the annotation on the survey, existing structure to be removed not
structures. There was never a C.O. for the deck at any time. However it is clearly visible from
the photograph attached to the property card which is the dwelling that was burned.
MEMBERE DANTES :The deck pre-existed '57 or
NIGEL WILLIAMSON : I don't believe that they'd know I can't say that I can't make that
statement. I do know it preceded 1999 when the house was there and I can't find the date on
the property card photograph. On the property card you'll notice that not only the dwelling is
(inaudible) referencing demolition and not the deck. The existing deck is mostly at grade with
one corner at 3 feet above grade and the other corner 1 foot 6 above grade which runs along
that little top (inaudible). That side slopes down to Hill Top Path and none of the structures are
clearly visible with the existing vegetation and that's I believe is (inaudible) in the photograph
54
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
that we submitted. The proposed in-ground swimming pool would be at grade and will be
blocked from (inaudible) from the existing vegetation. Neither the existing deck or proposed in-
ground swimming pool will produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood nor will they
adversely impact the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The amount of
relief is not substantial. The only request is for front yard relief so that Ms. McDermott and Ms.
Agrusa can directly benefit from their property and again this is all predicated on the two lots
merging and because the house burning down. Thank you.
MEMBER DANTES : Pat do you have any questions?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No not yet.
MEMBER DANTES : Rob?
MEMBER LEHNERT : No, it looks like if the lots didn't merge he wouldn't even be here.
NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Correct.
MEMBER DANTES : That's a good point. So I'm confused about this merger. So the house
burned down
NIGEL WILLIAMSON : The house burned down and originally it was if I get this straight, the
woman who owned the house her brother owned Mr. (inaudible) he owned so he made an
application for a swimming pool back (inaudible)
MEMBER DANTES : Did he have a permit for it and just didn't build it?
NIGEL WILLIAMSON : No he came to he applied to ZBA but it was a no start and it was back in
2004
MEMBER DANTES : This is after the fire?
NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Correct this is after the fire and what was the question again I just lost
track.
MEMBER DANTES : I'm confused as to how the lots merged. If the house is burning down won't
merge the lots.
NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Well no the person who owned this the property which was a vacant
piece of property, lot 26 and approached the woman to buy the lot and she did and I mean
that's basically how it got merged. The woman owned both the
MEMBER LEHNERT : The one neighbor bought the other one.
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Correct. The person who owned (inaudible) house Mr. (inaudible) and his
sister I believe and both the sister bought the other property as well after Mr. (inaudible) sold
her the house.
MEMBER DANTES : What's the required front yard setback for the principal dwellings sized lot
do you know?
NIGEL WILLIAMSON : I do not know that's the simple answer, let me see if I can
MEMBER DANTES : It looks like your side yard setbacks are 39 feet and 26 feet. Your front yard
setback from Hill Top Path looks like it's close to 58.6 feet.
NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Correct for the pool not for the deck.
MEMBER DANTES : My question is does the pool meet the front yard setback (inaudible)
principle structure?
NIGEL WILLIAMSON : I can't answer truthfully. I believe so because the Building Department
never brought that up as an issue.
MEMBER DANTES : They won't they'll just say that the
NIGEL WILLIAMSON : the front yard, then I can't answer that truthfully.
MEMBER LEHNERT : I think it does.
BOARD SECRETARY : I think it does at least 50.
NIGEL WILLIAMSON : 50 1 don't swear. I can find out.
T. A. DUFFY : He's got more than 50.
MEMBER LEHNERT : He's not here for setbacks.
MEMBER DANTES : No I know. That's my only question. Is there anyone else in the audience
that would like to speak?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : I noticed that when I did the inspection, there's a very large tree down
on the property and there's some other trees there. Have the owners of the property had
anyone inspect to see that possibly some of these trees may need attention?
NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Well let me give you a statement. The owner has been made aware that
there is a tree down cause they phoned her and no they have not had an arborist.
56
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
MEMBER ACAMPORA : I mean.if the pool,was there that tree would have been in the pool.
NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Right.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : I mean when I went it was'a very windy day and I was looking around to
make sure nothing was going to fall on me.
NIGEL WILLIAMSON : No I mean you can (inaudible) back from the (inaudible) yes you are right.
will suggested to get an arborist in there and check the trees.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yeah I mean they really should for the.protection of their own property.
MEMBER DANTES : I have no further questions. Anyone in the audience with further questions?
If not I make a decision to close the hearing reserve decision to a further date.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second.
MEMBER DANTES : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING#7382—JEFFREY R. LEMLER and ANCA LEMLER
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Good afternoon, I'm going to open up the hearing for application
7382 Jeffery R. Lemler and Anca Lemler which is a request fora variance from Article III Section
280-15 and the Building Inspector's November 19, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an
application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family
dwelling resulting in a swimming pool 1) located in other than the code required rear yard
located at 32,0 Broadwaters Rd. (adj. to Broadwaters Cove) Cutchogue, NY SCTM#1000-104-10-
6. Would you please state your name.
ERICH SCHOENENBERGER : Good afternoon, my name is Erich Schoenenberger. 'I'm the
architect of this addition.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : If you can tell us why you are here today and what relief you're
seeking.
57
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
ERICH SCHOENENBERGER : We're seeking relief for a pool that ended up in a side yard variance
due to the proposed addition of the single family house of Jeffrey and Anca Lemler. We
constructed this house not too long ago and they came back to us and' we're -seeking an
additional space which is consisting of an exercise room and a sitting room and the only way we
could do this within all the setbacks was forward towards the water which is meeting all the
setback regulations from the water and what ultimately happened is that a slip next to the pool
that exists. When we built the house originally the pool had been existing and the,we built the
house with an existing pool and now we building an extension to the house and it ends up that
in part a large part the pool ends up in the side yard of the extension and the (inaudible)
alternative we are adhering to any other setbacks there are and that (inaudible) as'simple as
that.
MEMBER LEHNERT : So your pool is legal before you proposed an addition?
ERICH SCHOENENBERGER : Yes.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : And there are multiples Certificates of Occupancy, I have one, two,
three, four, five, six, seven, eight ranging from 1976 to 2015.
ERICH SCHOENENBERGER : This is it almost was an accident. We really worked the best way to
meet their hopes of extending and it ended up we really ended up next to the pool and only
then when we submitted to the Building Department that the pool is actually coming to the
side yard and the pool is not allowed in the side yard and therefore we're here for a variance.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So all this one of perhaps technical things just we got caught in a
little bit of a loop hole because there was an existing swimming pool, could you please
potentially address the location for the proposed addition of the living space. This is the
waterside of the•rear of the house versus putting the living room perhaps on the driveway
entrance side of the house.
ERICH SCHOENENBERGER : Well the driveway entrance side has septic in the ground and we
can't go further that way plus we have a shed there that they don't want to remove and we
can't really go all that- far. There's actually there's septic and there's something else` in the
ground that we can't get there so really and I mean clearly they would like their extension'
towards the water. I mean they would like to have a sitting room towards the water, that's
their hopes essentially and yes we are caught into this,situation where we have an existing
pool, we don't want to replace the pool. (inaudible) we don't want to go there because it's very
(inaudible) it's not an easy process to change pools and we don't want to so he would like to
keep his pool but he would like' to get this extension accomplished. So that's. where -our
conundrum is essentially.
58
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : A letter was received I think by an'email correct? From one of the
neighbors who does not have any objection to the proposed the improvements are already
there to the proposed relief sought but they stated that the property owners chain link fence
the existing fence is on their property and I'm wondering have you seen this letter?
ERICH SCHOENENBERGER :' I have , not seen the letter that is news to me. (inaudible)
conversation because we went to the Board of Trustees for some landscaping and there was
complaints from the neighbors about trees and things which my client Mr. Lemler said that
that's not the case. They haven't cut any trees down so'I'm not quite clear what the conflict is
and the chain link fence (inaudible). Mr. Lemle( said when they bought the house the chain link
fence was there so if it would be on the property line we would have to resolve there was some
surveyor finding.
MEMBER DANTES : I'm looking at your stamped by yourself,it's called Site Plan and it shows on
the right side it shows the fence. It's not a lot it-looks•like 3.7 feet east from the property line.
ERICH SCHOENENBERGER : That's a condition that I mean we're happy to move that. He
certainly doesn't want get into any conflict.
MEMBER DANTES : We just do a condition that they move it and show us on the final survey.
ERICH SCHOENENBERGER : I haven't seen it I don't know if he has seen that Mr. Lemler. I have
not (inaudible)
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So perhaps before the Board asks any questions that they may have
in addition, is there anyone in the audience or is the neighbor that has the issue with the chain
link fence here? Would anyone like to speak about this application?
MEMBER DANTES : It's- the chain link fence is only off by (inaudible) of the property so just
when they get a final C.O. (inaudible)
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Rob do you have any,questions?
MEMBER LEHNERT : No I don't have any questions.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Pat do you have any questions?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Eric?
MEMBER DANTES : No.
59
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
ERICH SCHOENENBERGER : The only thing that I ,might add I don't know what difference it
would make but I looked around on peninsula and I guess it happened to several people
because there's several conditions where the house is actually a little bit ahead of the pool and
so I was feeling when I go we're not the only one.
MEMBER LEHNERT : You're not the first one that's come in with this.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Did you find actual
ERICH SCHOENENBERGER : I didn't fin&the address because I would have to actually go I guess
and write down the address but I have two screen shots that I have of I don't know if it matters
without the address probably not but this is what I on Nassau Point. It's in the close
neighborhood.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So I'm thinking I don't know if the Board perhaps you can find the
address for those applications or-even if you know Nassau Point has you know where this house
is located, I'm sure there's prior relief granted for a pool in a side yard,if you might do we'd like
to have those part of the record some relief granted.
ERICH SCHOENENBERGER : How would I do that? I find them and submit it to the Zoning Board
of Appeal?
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Exactly. Kim could email you instructions I think you can
BOARD SECRETARY : Yes how to go in to LaserFiche our weblink to do research on these
properties.
ERICH SCHOENENBERGER : Okay.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO': So I think what I would, like to do if the Board is in agreement is
close the hearing subject to receipt of at least two if not three prior like comparable prior
MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah the one right here it's on you can see-'it on the tax map right here the
one you showed.
ERICH SCHOENENBERGER : I have to look at the address. I have to figure out the address and
you're so basically saying (inaudible) for me as well as
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : The decision you can pull that up off from your office computer or
something. Kim can email you the instructions, it's relatively easy to find -looking for_a pool in
the side yard just by using the mapping software like this. You've already found two properties
so if you submit those in for part of the record. Additionally if and when relief is granted we will
60
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
make a condition that we need an updated survey to illustrate that chain link fence has either
been removed or do we want to leave this open then?
T. A. DUFFY : I wouldn't condition the survey now and tell them (inaudible) I don't know if that's
appropriate.
MEMBER DANTES : It's a condition, when they apply for a C.O. cause they
T. A. DUFFY : We don't dispute property boundary disputes between people. We shouldn't be
getting into their business. We don't know
MEMBER DANTES : It shows it on the site plan.
T. A. DUFFY : Do you know whether it has covenants or (inaudible) to have the fence on we
don't know the issues (inaudible) disputes. They have their own (inaudible) over a fence. It's
not up to this Board or any Town Board to decide where the fence should be. That's not part of
the application, it's not part of relief sought, they're not looking for a variance for the fence.
That's my advice.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Do we want to adjourn this then to the Special? I think that might
make better sense.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Why don't we adjourn it to the Special.
T. A. DUFFY : We have to get,the updated comparable other properties that have gotten
variances.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Can we close just pending receipt of subject to receipt?
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So why don't we do what we originally discussed and remove the
discussion relative to the fence. I'd like to make a motion to close this hearing subject to receipt
of at least three prior decisions for relief granted for a pool in the side yard. Do I have a second?
MEMBER DANTES : Second.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : All in favor?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Aye.
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING#7338—CONO CIMINO
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Our final hearing today is application #7338 Cono Cimino.
(adjourned from December 19, 2019) a request from variances from Article XXIII Section 280-
124 and the Building Inspector's June 12, 2019 amended October 4, 2019 Notice of Disapproval
based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to a single family
dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet, 2) less than
the code required minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet located at 155 West Shore Rd.
Southold, NY SCTM#1000-80-2-25.
MIKE KIMACK : Good afternoon, last group standing. Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant
who is present in the audience along with the architect. At last we met the request of us was to
determine whether or not we in the demolition of the building the existing structure whether it
exceeded fifty percent of the capital cost of the existing structure. I indicated in a letter to Kim
that we were not able to meet that requirement therefore we're asking for full demolition.
We're before you now for that particular request. What you got in front of you I thought would
be very helpful in terms of illustration, it's a very unusual piece of property it's diamond shaped
it's a little pie shaped piece of property with two fronts. As a result of the two fronts there's a
requirement by the Building Department that there'll always be a rear yard. As you can see
from that with the two fronts being the 40 foot setbacks and the rear yard being the 50, If you
look at the existing structure it takes off a good portion of the existing foundation. Albeit the
existing building substantially will be demolished I'm not quite sure whether the entire will be
or not but the architect can speak to that issue. There is no reason or any desire upon the
applicant to replace the foundation. That particular piece of buildable envelope really the
house as it exists now is on the backside of that pie in a very, very narrow section. So whatever
is done there the foundation basically extends mostly into the rear yard and a portion into one
of the front yards and removing it is an economic condition which really is excessive in this
particular case. It was always the intent to keep that foundation in place. There isn't that much
in order to move forward we'd have to almost move forward and almost be in the front yard
with this kind of design. To change it into any other type of design in this particular thing at this
point would be beyond what the architect and the owner are really for to give them what they
were looking for on that particular piece of property. I didn't do a percentage calculation as far
as how much of the foundation but it looks to be maybe about a quarter of the overall which
now exist within a front yard and a rear yard basically. The desire is to demolish I'll let the
62
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
architect speak to how much of the house has to come down and to build a new on top of that
foundation the existing foundation then add to the front of it which is the fat portion of the pie.
MEMBER DANTES : Wouldn't they have to expand the foundation as well?
MIKE KIMACK : Expand the foundation frontwards yes but the expansion is not going into the
front yard and the side yard setbacks. Using the existing well yes it still remains in the front yard
and the side yard setback but the expansion of the house forward is where all the room is.
MEMBER DANTES : So he's going to build a brand new house but keep an old
MIKE KIMACK : He's building on top of the foundation with a new house and expanding it
forward with the existing foundation. Let me bring the architect up to give the technical aspect.
CHRIS ALVINO : My name is Chris Alvino how are you? I work for Harold (inaudible) architect.
I'm not actually an architect. I work for Harold (inaudible) twenty years. I design houses and
buildings I'm not officially licensed I don't think I ever will be but this is what I do.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So I think from our prior hearing the concern or discussion was if
there's a demolition which this is why one could not build a new foundation in a conforming
location? With that said I just heard what Mike Kimack shared, however when you look at the
plan I mean it seems that you're more than doubling the size of the existing house so there will
be a new foundation on at least three sides of the existing. So maybe you can talk about why
you can't place this house in a conforming location.
CHRIS ALVINO : Well because it's just too small. Look at the rear yard setbacks rear yard setback
it's just a little triangle. The house doesn't sit in a conforming location now. Right now you have
a house, sometimes you know I've been doing this a long time and when I first pulled into this
area with the owner the first thing I notice was this is an old house and attached to it is a new
house. If anyone looks at this house it's two houses stuck together. I said to myself how did this
side happen? Regardless it happened. It's two houses stuck together. I would never have done
that if I were (inaudible) to this house initially I would have been designing this house. I would
have never made it look like two houses stuck together. I would have made it copasetic and
made it one big beautiful home. What I think we've designed for this site I think is a very
beautiful home. I think it's kind of nice. We went through a few designs and I like the one we
have but there's cost involved because it is a bigger home. I wanted it to look as one house and
when you go down the street and you look at the houses this is a beautiful spot there's no
question about it. The area is gorgeous. It's surrounded by beautiful homes and I think that this
particular lot deserves a really beautiful home. The problem is, right now a good chunk of the
house if you look on the towards the private road side and there's maybe a 15 foot by 15 foot
triangle of the existing house already sits in the setback and we're not changing that. That
63
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
corner we want to leave right where it is. We could take a little bit of that a little 6 x 6 triangle
of a deck that little piece there. I don't think that's incidental it doesn't even go maybe 4 feet so
we're not changing anything really there. On the other side of the private road the rear yard
setback we're calling it here on the site plan a very good portion of the house a lot bigger than
the other side sits on that setback so this house is already where it sits. The back of the house
that whole jog the whole main back of this existing residence or two residences because even
when you walk through it it's got a beautiful old house I love the old house the new house
that's attached to this I could I'm not really crazy about it but it's there. What we did was just
come forward basically forward with the• new portion of the home. Now incidentally when I
inspected the foundation on both the old house and the new house they're not in bad shape.
mean the existing basement of the portion that was added to the original house is in really very
good shape so I don't want to go back out there and rip all that concrete out. I rather just take
that line and just continue it out. As for the old house I don't really want to tear that foundation
up too. It's been there so long it's kind of like ripping it out and disturbing the soil it doesn't
make any sense to me to start ripping this whole site apart. We've done this before, we can add
to a house, leave some of the stuff kind of together and build around it save some money and I
also find that sometimes you get a better job when you do that. Be a little bit more careful with
existing things and I kind of I'm kind of nostalgic myself I like to save some portions of the wood
in the house and it would be kind of nice to see some of the older stuff there that still survives
and is still in good condition. In the end when putting this house together when we were
designing this me and Deana my associate we wanted to be sensitive to the site that's why we
kept everything forward towards the front yard. We have a pretty big front yard so it's kind of
design sensitive so we can do this, we can build towards the front and not really hack up the
back just leave that line alone leave most of that alone you know other than maybe a little
bump out or two. So and it's more cost prohibitive. So we're not looking to tear this whole
property up and build a brand new house. We're looking to kind of be more site sensitive and
just add to it towards the front because we believe that that's where most of the building
envelope is available to us. If you see here most of the building envelope is towards the front.
So we are asking for a couple of little things here but I personally and with all due respect don't
believe we're asking for too much of a crazy variance here and I do believe when we're all said
and done with this house that it's going to be very, very beautiful and (inaudible) kind of
centrally located in this pie shape. It's kind of right there in the middle almost. It's kind of nice.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : We're tasked with offering the least amount of relief and we're
confronted with the situation where you're literally demolishing a house so where you talk
about the house that you propose to build or the house that your saving or the foundation you
know it almost fits but it doesn't so you know we're confronted with a situation that we have to
look at this application and to process this as if any other person was doing this and many
641
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
people come before the Board when they make decisions to demolish a house and the answer
typically is to place it in a conforming location. While I understand that you've got hard site
constraints
CHRIS ALVINO : We could just move it forward.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : You could and that would solve a problem.
CHRIS ALVINO : We could move this house forward. I just think it would be to be honest with
you from my experience it's probably better right where it sits. If I were living in the if I was
living across the street if I was a neighbor to this house I don't think that I would want this
house. If you look if you're familiar with this site it's kind of like a little bit of a hill. I wouldn't
want this I don't know how you feel I don't know if you're a neighbor I wouldn't want this
house any closer to the front if I was living or even when you drive up the road I don't think
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So let's do this then, it sounds like you're not making any proposed
changes to the plan that was previously submitted you're just making an argument for keeping
what you're asking for.
CHRIS ALVINO : We're open to it. if you guys tell us hey unless you move it forward you're not
going to get the house, we'll move it forward. What I'm saying as a professional and I'm just
giving you my own advice here and maybe someone would like to come up and
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : That's what I was going to ask first of all are there questions from
the Board does anyone have anything? So let's do this, right now there's an audience member
let's let her speak and if there are other people we can take turns. Ma'am would you like to
come to the podium and state your name. I need to ask that if you'd like to speak, thank you.
MEMBER DANTES : You don't have to speak if you don't want to.
MARY LEONARDI : Yeah I just have a few questions to ask.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : State your name please.
MARY LEONARDI : Mary Leonardi.
MEMBER DANTES : Where do you live in relation to this house?
MARY LEONARDI : Around over the bend in Reydon Shores.
MEMBER DANTES : So you're not adjacent.
65
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
MARY LEONARDI : No I'm not adjacent to this. I'm just not sure what they want to do. Will the
two houses that are stuck together still be there?
MEMBER DANTES : They would be there, they're looking to do a substantial renovation and
addition.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : It's a demolition.
MARY LEONARD[ : What's being demolished?
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : The two homes will be or the one house will be demolished.
MARY LEONARDI : Which one the older one?
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : No everything that you can visually see.
MARY LEONARDI : Both houses that are stuck together will be demolished?
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Would you like to see the elevation they propose? Mike would you.
(Mike Kimack showing Mary Leonardi the elevations and explaining the project)
MARY LEONARDI : Just a few comments about this whole area. I know it's been said that the
Assessor's don't even like to come out there to try and assess because it's grown up like
(inaudible) since the 30's.
MEMBER DANTES : I don't know if that's true.
MARY LEONARDI : Yeah it is true. My family bought several lots there in 1939 and we've seen
nothing conforms to anything. They're odd lots, the setback (inaudible). One of the roads this
r
piece runs against isn't even really it's called the unnamed road. It doesn't have a name it's just
it's paved pretty much black top part of it, it's called among Reydon Shores people the back
road. I don't even know if it's on the maps but it's called the unnamed road on some of the
maps that we've seen. So I just want to get a clear, I don't live right next to it but I live around a
little bit. I just was curious as to what was going to happen. I'm very familiar with it. We've been
watching it with all the landscaping was torn down it's very barren. The first little house is very
old probably from the forties and the other one is much more recent and they're just stuck
together. My nephew is familiar with the interior. He was looking to buy it. There's no back yard
at all to speak of. It's all in the front down this little hill, it's a slope that goes to the road. Now
you're saying the old house would be torn down is that it?
MEMBER DANTES : Well no. What he's proposing he's not proposing to tear the whole thing
down. Our code once you tear or demo a house by a certain amount it calls it a demolition. He's
-T
66
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
saying he's going to meet our code required demolition so it is demo'd by our code but he's not
actually demoing the whole thing.
MARY LEONARDI : Okay and I'm sure this beautiful structure would be very much an asset.
MEMBER DANTES : So you like the design?
MARY LEONARDI Oh yeah it looks lovely. What's there now is ugly. All the shrubs need
(inaudible) I don't know why everything was cut down and
MEMBER DANTES : Do you think the design is characteristic of this neighborhood? Do you think
the design of the proposed location of the house is characteristic of this neighborhood?
MARY LEONARDI : I think it looks like it would fit in as much as any of the houses fit in. As I say
they're all a little different they grew like top seed Reydon Shores. It used to be all the
bungalows for twenty or thirty thousand dollars now it's mcmansions among others and some
modest homes and that spot is not particularly what's there is not attractive. I think any
structure would be an improvement. I'm just curious, I'm just interested in what's going to
happen. As I say I'm right around the bend from it.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Okay Ms. Leonardi thank you so much for your testimony today. Is
there anyone else in the audience
MEMBER DANTES : Wait can I ask the applicant a question? First question is, can you tell me
about the private road and is it a paved road, how many people go down it I mean what's the
use of this road that's marked private road on the survey?
CHRIS ALVINO : I'm not really sure about that. I'm sure someone here can speak about the
private road.
MIKE KIMACK : I know it's not paved. It's just a driveway (inaudible)
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : I was just on there, it's paved.
CONO CIMINO : Cono Cimino. It's paved.
MEMBER DANTES : Mostly I want to know, I understand the one there's the Main Rd and then
there's the side road.
CONO CIMINO : The side road is an access road.
MEMBER DANTES : Who actually uses it?
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
CONO CIMINO : What it is it's the back of the people's houses so picture this, normally you
would have two yards connected and most houses maybe with a fence right? Instead like the
young lady said back in the forties probably when that was just a fishing town people came
from the city to use these cottages someone must have just kept driving on that road and
flattened out the grass and one day they said let's just pave it. It never really became a street
name so now they call it an access road or unnamed road. What it is is basically over the years
people have their garage in the back so instead of going through the front of their property
they're going through this access road. Some have actually turned their garages around over
the last eighty years I guess.
MARY LEONARDI : They're (inaudible) on each side. It's an unusual setup. There are houses on
this back road that face onto Oak Drive, Grove Drive but people come down the back road the
unnamed road and their garages are there. They park their cars there so it is used that
unnamed road is used even in the winter I see headlights all the time.
CONO CIMINO : Mainly by the people that live on the back of the house they use it for their
garage. So how many cars a day, maybe four or five cars a day (inaudible) summertime it could
be a little bit more.
MARY LEONARDI : It did not used to be paved at all it used to be called the dirt road then it
became the back road and then it became the unnamed road. It's barely wide enough for two
cars.
MEMBER DANTES : What I'm getting at is it really a front yard, it's not really a front yard. My
other question is, are there any other prior variances in this neighborhood for non-conforming
setbacks? I believe there are but I don't
CONO CIMINO : It sounds like Greek to me I'm sorry.
MEMBER DANTES : If you ask him to find out that would help your application.
MIKE KIMACK : It's such an unusual piece of property in terms of front yard, side yard, rear yard
setbacks. If you want I can take a look, I'll go through and see if there's anything else in the
area. I didn't do it only because this is such an infrequent situation with this particular piece of
property. I can't say
MEMBER DANTES : I'm sure there are non-conformities in Reydon Shores I mean this goes to
the character of the neighborhood that's what you have to prove whether a non-conforming
setback meets the character of the neighborhood. I mean I think probably there would be some
variances granted.
6$
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
MIKE KIMACK : If there are I'll stay in the neighborhood and if they're in the neighborhood I'll
dig them up and submit them to you.
T. A. DUFFY : The mere fact that people have their garages all those people now would have
two front yards, there's the front and then the back would be a front too. So there should be
variances for all those garages and houses. Almost every house
MIKE KIMACK : It would be interesting whether or not there is it would be interesting to find
out. The Building Department looked at it and determined it was two front yards so that's why
we're here two front yards before you. They looked at that unknown road and
CONO CIMINO : The addition to the house was approved. The other portion the right hand side
structure was approved to be built and it's kind of in the same really
MIKE KIMACK : This is the old section here.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : It might have been approved at a time that the setbacks were less
so I mean we're dealing with the code today.
'MEMBER LEHNERT : Or it could have been approved as an addition to an existing house. It's a
completely different application.
CONO CIMINO : We're not going to tear down the whole thing, we're going to save as much as
we can.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : We had talked about that. Again just from looking at the elevation
the second story of both homes does not match your second story so right off the bat we knew
that was going to become a demolition, the silt plates and the first floor.
MEMBER DANTES : What happens is people come before us and say it's not a demolition, the
Building Department goes out there and they start saying oh they demo'd too much. It really is
a demolition so we're trying to nip that in the bud and what I think what you need to do is you
need to go out and find the other non-conformities in the neighborhood, submit them to us so
then we have a basis to say everything else in non-conforming in this community.
CHRIS ALVINO : And we are not opposed to moving the house a little forward we're really not.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So I think that this is something that we had been hopeful for that
during the interim of the last two months that you would come forward with a plan-that made
the renovation
MEMBER LEHNERT : Hang on a second, if you're not opposed to moving the house forward that
tells me demolishing the entire foundation
69
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
CHRIS ALVINO : That's why we really don't want to move the house forward. That reason and
it's kind of nice kind of moving it forward putting the addition towards the front, most of it is
towards the front I think that's as far as we want to go and I don't think we want this thing
hovering right up cause it's on a hill. I think it would be too massive when you come around the
bend there the house right there. When you drive down this road all the other houses are set in
far they're not right on top of the street. So this would be kind of weird driving past this house
and it's like whoa right on top of you. That's why I think it's in a good spot.
MIKE KIMACK : Our position is we want to preserve the existing foundation. We'll have to take
down more than fifty percent in order for this construction to go forward. I will do my research
and I'll see what else in the area basically has a non-conforming front yard that have approval.
MEMBER DANTES : They might not all be variances. Some of them might be pre-existing non-
conforming but I think those should be submitted as well cause it's part of the character of the
community.
CHRIS ALVINO : We want to do what's best for the neighborhood too.
VICE CHAIRP PLANAMENTO : Mrs. Leonardi would you like to say something?
MARY LEONARDI : I do. As it is now the whole thing is as ugly as hell. Any improvement will be
wonderful at that place there in that corner. The unnamed road and Grove Drive I believe it is
or West Shore right across from the beach from the (inaudible) right near the stairs that go
down to the water. It's an unusual little area. So any improvement will be an improvement.
CHRIS ALVINO : I think it's a nice spot too that's what I believe. I think it's better for the whole
neighborhood that this house it's a big house and I don't think it should be right on top of the
road so that's why we're trying to be sensitive to the site and maybe you guys can between
looking up the stuff and maybe this is better. You know sometimes I know there's zoning codes
and there's setbacks but sometimes I think in particular instances like this it may be better for
the community that the house is just we just put the addition towards the front and we don't
slide the whole house cause I think it'll just be too massive. When you're coming around that
cute little street now this thing is right on top of you that's all. That's one reason why we did
this and why we like where it is.
T. A. DUFFY : (inaudible) criteria you got to address to get (inaudible) variance. The cost of
moving a foundation is not one of them. You're starting to hit on some of the criteria. Mike is
very familiar with what they are. You'start talking about the characteristic of the neighborhood
that all the houses seem to have this setback and you don't want to bring it up because it would
be out of character, that other properties have two front yards and have setbacks. That's the
7®
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
type of thing this Board needs to hear in order to grant you the relief. Not just to hear about
the cost and wanting to keep the foundation.
CHRIS ALVINO : I understand.
MIKE KIMACK : We have touched a lot of that at the last meeting Bill and I appreciate you
bringing it up again.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So I'm going to bring up something else that I think we touched
upon but talk to me about the sanitary system for waste water management.
MIKE KIMACK : Let me give you a background. A sanitary system was replaced in 2017. It was at
that particular time with Health Department. The Health Department allowed installers to
replace they filled out the form. It's a 1,500 gallon tank good for five bedrooms with the
appropriate amount of disposal pools and it can be certified (inaudible).
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So then clarify cause in your prior testimony we're told it's a six
bedroom house.
MIKE KIMACK : What happened there's a reason I said it's a six bedroom house in particular
(inaudible) because the original installer put down six bedroom approved. You have to
remember that back in 2017 Health Department standards were one to four bedrooms 1,000
gallons, five bedrooms 1,250, six bedroom 1,500. What has not occurred basically is the
applicant through their architect is taking the installers information and submitting which
should hadn't been done under an 072 Health Department primarily indicating that this
particular installation existing system is in conformance with a five bedroom. I know that
because they would be looking at it under the new code and not the old code when it was
installed.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Well is it too much to ask for since this is a demolition to get an approved
Health Department sanitary system?
CHRIS ALVINO : No problem.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Are you asking about an IA?
MEMBER LEHNERT : No not an IA just a regular approved.
MIKE KIMACK : We're in the process of doing that basically and quite frankly the owner did not
realize and indeed the installer did not realize that when he filled out the necessary form he
stopped and nobody took that form and took it to an engineer or architect to do the 072 form
to submit. That's the last step that has to be done and that's being done now.
71.
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
MARY LEONARDI : One more comment, as far as codes go an awful lot of the residents in
Reydon Shores didn't have things done according to code and they're running into trouble with
their million dollar homes now. They can't go up for sale cause under the codes put in place and
people just had the work done when they (inaudible) work done they had it done and they
didn't worry too much about codes. So it would be very good if all codes are in place the way
they're supposed to be (inaudible) the whole area. But you'll find an awful lot of non-coded
additions and so and so. They just went and had the work done. You had your electric work
done, you had the plumbing you just did it.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So folks you want to leave this
MEMBER DANTES : He's got to give us the priors.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Leave it open.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Adjourn it to the April Regular?
MIKE KIMACK : (inaudible) for the adjoining property owners that's not an issue I can have that
in the next two weeks.
MEMBER DANTES : I don't think we need another public hearing.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : You think that you can find some granted relief that you could offer
us?
MIKE KIMACK : I can do that within a week that's not a problem.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So I think it's better rather than us closing the hearing pending that
information we should just adjourn this to that date. We can close it that date, I don't know if
we'll have a decision or not but we'll work towards that depending on how quickly you get us
this information.
MIKE KIMACK : I will do my due diligence.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : So I'm going to make a motion that we adjourn Cono Cimino
application #7338 to the March Special Hearing.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : All in favor?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
72
March 5, 2020 Regular Meeting
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
VICE CHAIR PLANAMENTO : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
73
March 5, 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
Elizabeth Sakarellos
DATE : March 16, 2020
74