HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-08/05/2021 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 & Zoom Video Conferencing
Southold, New York
August 5, 2021
10:06 A.M.
Board Members Present:
LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member (Absent)
ERIC DANTES—Member
ROBERT LEHNERT— Member
NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO— Member
KIM FUENTES—Board Assistant
WILLIAM DUFFY—Town Attorney
ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Office Assistant
DONNA WESTERMANN —Office Assistant
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
INDEX OF HEARINGS
Hearing Page
Enno and Hannah DeBoer#7516 5-8
Kenneth Monaghan #7517 9 - 11
Joao Carlos Cunha Dos Santos and Claudia M. Mazo Montoya # 7518 11- 13
Christopher Stocker and John Cocuzzo#7519 13 - 18
Anthea Carr and Paul M. Smith # 7520 19- 20
Jonnah Hollander#7522 20- 23
Andreas Zoitas#7525 23 - 27
Areti Lavalle #7521 28- 33
David Garner and Jean McGee # 7523 33 - 42
Daniel Mazzarini and Andrew Grover#7524 42 -50
Yana Watson Kakar#7526 51- 52
Philip Loria #7498 52-71
7
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning everyone and welcome to the meeting of the Zoning
Board or Appeals for August 5th. Due to the expiration of the New York State Governor's
Executive Orders regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, in person access to the public is now
permitted so welcome everyone. We're glad to be back here hopefully we can stay this way.
We are also making this meeting available to people who wish to join by Zoom webinar and we
have that set up. We're done with executive session so I want to ask if there's any request from
Board Members for future items to be placed on a work session. Okay let's do the SEAR
resolutions, new applications. Resolution declaring applications that are
setback/dimensional/lot waiver/accessory apartment/bed and breakfast requests as Type II
Actions and not subject to environmental review pursuant to State Environmental Quality
Review (SEAR) 6 NYCRR Part 617.5 c including the following : Enno and Hannah De Boer,
Kenneth Monaghan, Joao Carlos Cunha Dos Santos and Claudia M. Mazo Montoya, Christopher
Stocker and John Cocuzzo, Anthea Carr and Paul M. Smith, Jonnah Hollander, Andreas Zoitas,
Areti Lavalle, David Garner and Jean McGee, Daniel Mazzarini and Andrew Grover and Yana
Watson Kakar so moved, is there a second?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Planamento. All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. We have an application that is going to be
that's going to actually have to be next month so it's a request for an adjournment. I can,do it
now in case somebody is here for that. On the Agenda under resolutions is a resolution for
SEQR determination for Hard Corners Partners LLC #7541. We did get a request from the
applicant because they failed to do the mailings and postings in a proper way so they have
requested an adjournment to next month. That hearing will be adjourned I'm going to do that
as aIresolution so moved, is there a second?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. So anyone here for number twelve, that will be heard in
September. So what I'm going to do is read this in September. Now back to the Kalich, a draft
deliberation before us for Richard Kalich #7505. This is a request for a new dwelling
with a number of setbacks, it's a side yard setback and a spa in a non-conforming side yard.
There's a lot of history on this property which started out as an early twentieth century
cottages on Blue Horizon Bluffs in Peconic. Are there any comments about this? Nick do you
want to make any specific reference to anything that's in here?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, I think the only thing that's really compelling about the
application is relative to the bluff instability and I think there was an awful lot of testimony
including from the applicant themselves relative to the bluff's instability.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There was a demolished cottage on that property and part of the
demo had to do with moving it away from the bluff and that area is losing a foot of the bluff
every year and between the last ZBA decision the bluffs has lost fifteen to twenty five feet over
twenty years in that area and it's for a six thousand square foot two story dwelling. The
conclusion is they can easily be conforming and not require variances to build a new dwelling
on that property. So this is a draft to deny the variance as applied for, any comments or
questions?Alright I'll make that motion, is there a second?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries unanimously.
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
ENNO and HANNAH DEBOER#7516
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first hearing before the Board today is for Enno and Hannah
DeBoer#7516. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building
Inspector's March 18, 2021 Amended April 9, 2021 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 minimum required side yard setback of 10 feet, 2)
located less than the code minimum required combined side yard setback of 25 feet, 3) more
than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 1555 Fleetwood Rd. (adj. to
East Creek) in Cutchogue. Member Dantes is recusing himself on this application so he has left.
So you have a side yard setback of 7 feet where the code requires a minimum of 10, combined
side yard setback of 16 the code requires a minimum of 25, lot coverage of 25.1% the code
permits a maximum of 20%.
ROB HERRMANN : Good morning Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant
Hannah who is also here in the audience. Those are the variances required lot coverage,
minimum and total lot coverage. These variances are related to two elements of the proposed
work. One is basic maintenance work which involves the in place replacement of the aging first
and second story decks which currently they do not require total side yard setbacks or lot
coverage and also the expansion of the first floor deck by 213 sq. ft. in connection with
construction minimal decking to surround a proposed 8 X 14 swim spa and the addition of a 6
foot wide section of deck along the north side of the house. So after addition to the deck and
spa and removal of the existing hot tub and shed lot coverage increases from the existing non-
conforming 23% to 25%. This is a total of only 247 sq. ft. but the buildable land here is only
12,745 sq. ft. so even a minimal increase changes the percentage points by a couple. With the
addition of the deck along the side of the house as Leslie just mentioned, the minimum total
side yard setback drops by 3 % feet from the existing 10 % to the proposed 7. The addition of
the 6 foot wide section of deck along the side of the house is intended to allow direct access to
the new waterside deck the replacement waterside deck and swim spa from a proposed egress
on the side of the house and create some minimal outside storage space.The swim spa which is
being installed for the benefit of the owner who is a competitive swimmer is located almost 9
feet from the property line so the spa almost conforms to the 10 foot setback, it is the deck that
is creating that 7 foot setback. It's addressed in the application the relief that's being requested
here in addition to creating only limited changes to the existing site conditions will not
adversely impact the character of the surrounding neighborhood. As we addressed in our
application the subject property or I should say like the subject property many of the properties
along the developed shoreline at East Creek in Fleets Neck are characterized by similarly sized
dwellings and narrow lot widths and many have similar non-conforming side yard setbacks and
more lot coverage including some established through the benefit of variance relief. For
5
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
example at least four properties in the surrounding neighborhood have required and benefited
from side yard setback relief including properties located two to the north in 2000 which was
case 4843, three to the north in 2019 which is case 7266. In 2017 a property located to the west
on Stillwater Ave. was granted relief to allow a minimum side yard setback of 6.8 feet for a deck
addition and lot coverage of 29.7% which was case 7072. So comparently here the applicant's
deck addition results in similar but slightly greater side yard setback of 7 feet compared to that
6.8 and lot coverage at 25.1% compared to the 29.7. With respect to the potential impacts to
the two immediately adjacent neighbors there should be no impact whatsoever on the
neighbor to the south as the existing conditions and setbacks adjacent to the southerly lot line
essentially remain unchanged. All of the work that's proposed creates side yard relief occurs to
the north side. Although the deck addition and spa will be located a few feet closer to the
northerly property line than the existing there is substantial buffer vegetation that's situated
between the proposed structures and that neighboring dwelling to the north which is also
located similarly close to the property line between 10 and 11 feet. I believe that both of the
adjacent neighbors have submitted letters in support of the application and it should be on the
record. Finally we also address in the application, the project will not have an adverse impact
on the physical environment, the overall site conditions are changing minimally and the
reconstructed second floor deck will be equipped with a drain and downspout connected to the
existing drain system and backwash from the proposed swim spa would also be piped to the
existing drainage system. The proposed work is located outside the wetlands jurisdiction and
New York State D.E.C. and we would have to apply to the Town Trustees for wetlands permit
pending this Board's determination.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any questions, Pat I'll start with you.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO Yes. So Rob I appreciate what you just shared. I want to ask a
question that's sort of related but unrelated it's just regarding the site. On the application
questionnaire you stated that there is a guest house on site.
ROB HERRMANN : So you're referring to the two story accessory building that's up toward the
front?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly. So can you tell us more about that guest house or guest
cottage as it's labeled not on the survey on the application it's labeled as a guest cottage.
ROB HERRMANN : I'm not sure what you mean. Do you want me to tell you about it?
August S, 2021 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If you can describe what the building is.
ROB HERRMANN : Hannah do you want to describe it?
HANNAH DE BOER : Hannah De Boer. It's just an accessory building, it's actually not (inaudible) I
guess built for an architect's kind of workspace, nobody lives there or anything we're kind of
using it as storage and as an exercise room.
ROB HERRMANN : There is a C.O. for the building dated July 1996 which is for a non-habitable
accessory structure in the front yard that was issued to William and Janet Walsh on July 10,
1996. I'm not sure where I don't know where in the application you're saying we referred to it
as a guest house I don't know why I didn't refer to it
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : In the application questionnaire so
ROB HERRMANN : Can you direct me to the page Nick.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The pages aren't numbered but the title of the page is applicant's
project description. It's the questionnaire for filing with your ZBA application item i, please list
present use and operations and it says residential single family dwelling with decks, hot tub and
guest cottage.
ROB HERRMANN : That's really just a that's supposed to reference the accessory building so
there's no such thing as a guest cottage in Southold.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's where I'm going with it.
ROB HERRMANN : That really should be corrected.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And to better understand what this structure's is, it's an
unconditioned and I guess there's no plumbing there's no bathroom or kitchen?
HANNAH DE BOER : No kitchen it's used as storage at the moment and as I said I can (inaudible)
as an exercise room and sometimes we use it as a study.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And there's no bathroom.
HANNAH DE BOER : No.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And the C.O. clearly states it's non-habitable.
HANNAH DO BOER : Not habitable right now.
7
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
ROB HERRMANN : For the record Nick it's C.O. #Z-22977. Sorry about that one more time it's
number Z-24485 is the correct C.O. for the accessory building.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Rob?
MEMBER LEHNERT : No I have no questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the
application or anyone attending the Zoom who is here for this? Liz if you would just in case
there are attendees please review the instructions for how to participate via Zoom.
OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Yes thank you Leslie. Good morning everyone. If anyone
wishes to comment on a particular application we ask that you send us a note via the Q&A tool
at the bottom of your screen or click the raise hand button and we will allow you to unmute
and then you can let us know which application. I have coded people Leslie and the ones that
are just hanging out listening you cannot see yourselves on the screen because I have not
admitted you. Once your application comes up if you raise your hand we will either allow you to
speak or admit you so hang tight. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Liz. Hearing no further questions or comments on this
application I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is
there a second?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The hearing is closed.
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
HEARING #7517— KENNETH MONAGHAN
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Kenneth Monaghan
#7517. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building
Inspector's March 24, 2021 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 minimum required side yard setback of 15 feet located at 2750 Nassau Point Rd. in
Cutchogue. This looks like a side yard setback at 9.5 feet where the code requires a minimum of
15.
BRUCE ANDERSON : Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant
located at 2750 Nassau Point Rd. The two you have in your files a survey by Twin Forks
Surveying March 2, 2021 architectural plans by Suter and Suter dated October 14, 2020. The
Notice of Disapproval dated March 24, 2021 the minimum side yard setback in R40 zone is
(inaudible) proposed side yard setback of 25. The Board can take notice that along the side yard
the existing side yard setback 9.2 (inaudible). This application is driven by the applicant's desire
to expand the dining room area. We're extending along the same (inaudible) of the house. It
turns out that the house is not perfectly parallel with the side lot line so that the actual
expansion of the dining room area is slightly further from the (inaudible) than the existing. We
believe we meet the zoning criteria and that an undesirable change would not be (inaudible) if
a variance was granted cause (inaudible) is not visible. The benefits sought by the applicant
can't be achieved by some other method other than the variance because the existing location
is (inaudible). I argue that the variance is not substantial cause there's no further encroachment
towards the side lot line. The variance granted would not have an adverse effect on the
physical, environmental conditions of the site. (inaudible) the line of the existing house. We
argue that it's not self-created cause of the location of the house relevant to that side lot line so
the variance (inaudible) benefit to the applicant would outweigh any detriment to the
neighborhood. Our benefit would be (inaudible) I submit that there is no detriment to the
neighborhood. I also took the time to identify similar variances in the neighborhood. The first
one is (inaudible) #6879 dated October 6, 2015 which relief from side yard setback of 8.2 feet
the total side yard setback of 31.4 feet. Garafalo came in for a second variance and the first one
was to expand for decking, the second one was for a house addition again at 8.2 feet that
would be file 7339 dated November 26, 2019. We provide you with a third example which is
485 Nassau Point Rd. decision 7434 dated November 23, 2020 which is a side yard setback for a
house addition at 10.7 feet. We provide you with a fourth example which is Zimmer 7525
Nassau Point Rd. decision #7196 dated September 26, 2018 with a side yard setback at 9.8 feet
for a dining room addition. Our fifth example Sullivan at 2715 Nassau Point Rd. which is
decision 5902 dated August 21, 2006 for addition and reconstruction of the house 14 feet from
the side lot line where 15 feet is required. We provided you with another one, 4705 Nassau
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
Point Rd. decision 5171 dated October 17, 2002 for side yard setback of 14.2 feet, another one
for Nassau Point Rd. (inaudible) that's an old one decision 988 dated November 17, 1986 for a
side yard setback. All of these pretty much have the same elements in common and that is that
we're continuing the existing house line alongside. In other words the houses are non-
conforming folks that are coming before you for variances are not increasing he degree of non-
conformity the same basic application here. Finally the Board should take note that we
provided letters of support (inaudible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I should point out this is a through lot Nassau Point on one side and
Vanston on the other and although the proposed addition which is pretty small is being
(inaudible) front elevation of the house. It sort of faces Vanston but it's a good 250 feet maybe
from Vanston and (inaudible) as a front yard situation so that's it. Let's see if the Board has any
questions I don't it's pretty straightforward, Eric, Nick.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Actually a couple it's sort of housekeeping. There was a letter of
opposition from one of the neighbors did you receive that or give a response?
BRUCE ANDERSON : No
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the neighbor is pointing out three different issues some of it I
think is already addressed in the application but they were inquiring about a future pool. Is
there any proposed and I know that the application that we're looking at does not include a
pool but is there a pool proposed at any point?
BRUCE ANDERSON : There is not, we may come back we wouldn't be asking for any relief.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The other question I had is just to be clear, the addition while it's
small is approximately 110 sq. ft. it's a one story addition correct?
BRUCE ANDERSON : That is correct.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And I think the terrain shifts between the subject parcel and the
property to the south where there is a bit of a knoll so the closest house is still quite a distance
away.
BRUCE ANDERSON : Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything from you?
MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions, it's pretty straightforward.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Is there
anyone in attendance on Zoom for this application?
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
OFFICE ASSISTANT : Mr. Monaghan is here but he does not have his hand raised.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well hearing no other questions or comments I'm going to make a
motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
HEARING #7518—JOAO CARLOS CUNHA DOS SANTOS and CLAUDIA M. MAZO MONTOYA
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for I'm just going to Carlos
Cunha Dos Santos and Claudia M. Mazo Montoya. This is a request for a Use variance from
Article III Section 280-13C and the Building Inspector's January 21, 2021 Notice of Disapproval
based on an application for a permit to construct alterations to an existing accessory garage to
convert to an office at 1) proposed conversion does not constitute a permitted accessory use
located at 275 Maple Lane in Mattituck. Would you state your name please.
CARLOS SANTOS : Hi Carlos Santos.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have inspected the property as you probably know you may
have run into one of us and it would appear to be that the upstairs is being used now as a home
office of some sort. We saw that there was some sort of drums sets up there. There's a Stop
Work Order issued for construction of an apartment that was on January 24, 2021. 1 guess that
was done in the existing garage without a building permit. What would you like us to know
about this application?
CARLOS SANTOS : So we purchased this home in 2014 and that hobby room already existed.
Obviously we've upgraded we made some we put fixtures we replaced the glass and a fresh
coat of paint but the usage as a hobby room was already there and we've been using that as an
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
office like hobby room. It does have a full bathroom but there's no hot water in there so it's just
(inaudible). The upstairs the entrance sliding door doesn't even have a lock. I have been
working from there for the last six years. The inspector saw it because we're doing just finished
our kitchen we remodeled our kitchen (inaudible) and he was there a few times and he saw
light because I was working there back in the office and then he said (inaudible) because my
kitchen (inaudible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you are permitted by code to have a half bath in an accessory
structure not a full bathroom. Is there any heat?
CARLOS SANTOS : No I have (inaudible) burner wood stove. There's no heat there's no gas heat
no air conditioning.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well in fact because this is not a permitted use technically what
you're requesting is a Use variance in other words it's not allowed, you want to allow it so that
would be a Use variance. Those standards are really different than area variances which have to
do with setbacks and height and so on a very different set of standards. They're very strict
standards for Use variance and that includes things such as the inability to yield any kind of
financial viable profit from the property with all of the uses that are permitted on the property
and almost no one can basically meet those standards. You need to produce financial records
and so on. This doesn't exactly fit with your application but that is in fact the standards that we
have to apply or a waiver not a waiver but to grant creating an office in a detached accessory
structure. We have had a number of requests for that over time but because it is not allowed in
the code it's not something that we can easily accommodate. The Town Board is the legislative
body that determines what the code is. They're the ones that change the code, code language,
the Board of Appeals doesn't do that we looked at your application carefully. Let me see if
anybody here has any questions, Eric do you have any questions on this? Pat anything from
you?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick anything?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO I seem to be the only one to have questions. Two things, you
mentioned the bathroom, is the bathroom included in the C. 0. on the garage the accessory
garage and is there a Suffolk County wastewater permit for the bathroom?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that it Nick?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes.
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything?
MEMBER LEHNERT : No I have no question.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the
application? Liz can you see if there's anyone in attendance on Zoom, no not for this one.
Alright anything else from the Board? We have everything that we need? Okay I'm going to
make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries unanimously. We will write up a decision
and have it available at our next meeting which is in two weeks and that will be held in the
Town Hall Annex. You have the right to attend if you wish to or you can dial in on Zoom or you
can just wait till the next day and see what the decision was. It will be mailed to you in any case
or you can call the office to find out it's up to you.
HEARING#7519—CHRISTOPHER STOCKER and JOHN COCUZZO
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Christopher Stocker and
John Cocuzzo #7519. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15 and the
Building Inspector's April 1, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to
construct an accessory structure at 1) located less than the code minimum required rear yard
setback of 15 feet, 2) located less than the code minimum required side yard setback of 15 feet
located at 3375 Depot Lane in Cutchogue. This is for I believe you're proposing a carport of
some sort.
CHRIS STOCKER : Yes an enclosed carport.
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The rear yard setback you're proposing is 5 feet a side yard setback
of 5 feet and a rear yard setback of 5 feet where the code requires 15 feet in each instance. Tell
us what you'd like us to know about this.
CHRIS STOCKER : Good morning Christopher Stocker, I brought a visual aid to help me. This is
the proposed building right here and our surrounding neighbor is Vineyard 48, our curb cut is
here and this would be the approach to the building and we're using it for storage and some
work on antique vehicles hobby it's not a business. We're asking for this change in the setback
because we would like to have space enough for a car trailer to park and turn around to off load
vehicles there. This extra 10 feet would give us that space. This is where the building would be
this is just an approximation if we were going by the given setbacks and there's an existing barn
here which would put it very close for our swing around space. So that's why we're asking for
the setback to the rear of the property and the side of the property.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is the minimum that you would need? In other words can you
make that setback a bit more conforming?
CHRIS STOCKER : It could be yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because if we grant variances if it doesn't have much impact on your
neighbors if only the grapes would talk we are required by law to grant the minimum non-
conformity that we possibly can when we are able to grant it based on the legal standards we
have to go by. So what do you think you can increase that setback to, to still meet your goals?
CHRIS STOCKER : The increase to ten feet and that would still give us just adequate room for a
trailer to park and circle around. We are situated the building would be the least visible side of
the building facing the street so there would you know not be any visual impact.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a huge lot I mean that's a big setback you know so 10 instead of
5 what Pat?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : I'm just saying that the church is across the street and the vineyard
surrounds the property so there's really not a lot of impact to the neighbor here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm wondering if you rotated that so that the side of it faced the
street cause it is such a big setback it's not going to be visually intrusive cause you already have
a huge barn. Could you possibly meet those setbacks and accomplish your goal that way if you
rotate that?
CHRIS STOCKER : Oh with the setback that we're asking for?
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No if you rotate making it parallel to the rear lot line the rear
property line instead of perpendicular.
CHRIS STOCKER : I mean it would still interfere because the bay doors of the building are facing
this way so it's still impact this getting around here to circle it and going into the vehicle bay
doors of the building.
MEMBER LEHNERT : What's the distance from the corner of proposed to the corner?
CHRIS STOCKER : It's approximately 30 feet.
MEMBER LEHNERT : From the proposed?
CHRIS STOCKER : Yeah.
MEMBER LEHNERT :That's not what the survey shows.
CHRIS STOCKER : What does the survey show?
MEMBER LEHNERT : The survey shows about 70 if I scaled correctly. Your representation there
is pretty awfully far.
CHRIS STOCKER : Oh okay.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : According to the survey the barn is immediately behind the house.
MEMBER DANTES : I'm looking at the aerial picture it looks like the barn is (inaudible)
CHRIS STOCKER : It goes this way and that way the barn.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's L-shaped.
MEMBER LEHNERT : We have to go by the survey not
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you look at this look how much room that is on your survey. It's
showing 98 feet from the side
CHRIS STOCKER : From this?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The side yard from the property line where the Bidwell Family
Limited Partnership from here to here it's showing on your survey that you got 98 feet, that's a
lot of room.
CHRIS STOCKER : Well the building is 50 feet long.
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
MEMBER LEHNERT : But even in a compliant location you would still have about 60 feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In other words what we're showing you is that perhaps you're not
really seeing the amount of space you actually have even with the size of the building you're
proposing. If you did the 15 feet you're still going to have a heck of a lot of room there for a
turn around.
CHRIS STOCKER : We pull the truck and trailer there's like no swing around it's almost
impossible.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well here's another option for you, if you put that as I said if you
rotate it and come cause the bay windows are alongside the bay doors rather they're on the
long side of the building, if you rotate it why not come straight in from the other side? Why do
you have to go all the way around?
CHRIS STOCKER : Well there's no curb cut over here so we were using this curb cut and drive to
get to the building.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well how about putting it in the opposite corner?
CHRIS STOCKER : There's trees back there, they would have to be taken down.
MEMBER DANTES : How are you going to get the car through you have to cut the trees to get
the car through?
JOHN COCUZZO : No, no, no there's a cluster
CHRIS STOCKER : It's like a dirt road that goes
MEMBER DANTES : I have another question for you, looking at the aerial photo it looks like a
different barn than on the survey is there something I'm not seeing in the trees or it just kind of
looks like it's shaped different.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess what the Board is saying is if an applicant can be conforming
in some way or another we're obligated to require them to be conforming. We're here to
provide relief when it's absolutely essential and then the minimum amount of relief that we
can. So let me see if anybody else have does anybody else have questions or comments?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well the only thing that I would ask is why can't you conform to the
code?
CHRIS STOCKER : We we're trying to facilitate the easiest way to get trailers in and out and
deposit the vehicle.
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess what I'm saying is, if you put that over on the opposite side
and come straight in you're going to be able to be conforming.
MEMBER PLANAMENT : Any number of locations, even if you just rotate it to Eric's point
relative to the aerial that you provided you can just rotate it and make it conform and still have
a substantial amount of space between the existing L-shaped barn and your proposed accessory
structure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess what I'm saying is nobody is saying that you shouldn't have
your carport we're just saying if you can put it in a conforming location and have enough turn
around space to do what you want to do then you should be able to do it as of right without a
variance. You just receive a building permit. So I think you should just probably rethink the
placement of it. It would appear if you want look at the space look how close you have that on
your little drawing and look at the survey, you can just visually see that there's so much more
room on the survey.
CHRIS STOCKER : Yes.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And even the aerial.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So maybe what you should do is go back to your property and just
measure it out and stake it and pace you know actually take a measuring tape and you know
one of those rolling things and stake it out and I think that you're going to find that you can
make this 15 foot setback from both property lines and put it in several places in your back yard
that would allow you to do that.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Even if they didn't want to rotate it you still it shows on the survey that
you have 98 feet so even if you took 10 feet you'd still have 88 feet to be able to maneuver the
car if that's the way you wanted to have it perpendicular looking rather than having horizontal.
CHRIS STOCKER : (inaudible) 15 plus 24 is what's coming out.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : May I ask a separate unrelated question? This is for storage of cars
correct?
CHRIS STOCKER : It's for
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's for your own cars, how many cars are there?
CHRIS STOCKER : Three well it's going to be three cars antique cars.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And then the red area that you're showing on your sort of site plan
mock up, it's not an awning or something covered in addition to the building?
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHRIS STOCKER : This is what we want to do and this is what we have to do.
JOHN COCUZZO : There's no exterior awning (inaudible)
MEMBER PLANAMENTO (inaudible) it's actually a Morton building it's a garage so I was
thinking of
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well they called it a carport but it's a building it's a structure it's a
metal structure.
CHRIS STOCKER : They call it an enclosed carport.
JOHN COCUZZO : It's really a carport with metal
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have electric in there I presume you're going to put electric in
there?
CHRIS STOCKER : Yes.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Any plumbing in there?
CHRIS STOCKER : No plumbing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from the Board? Is there anyone in the audience who
wants to address the application? Is there anyone on Zoom Liz? Okay I'm going to make a
motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second?
MEMBER DANTES : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Eric, all in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries, we'll have a decision for you in two weeks.
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
HEARING# 7520—ANTHEA CARR and PAUL M. SMITH
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Anthea Carr and Paul M.
Smith #7520. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building
Inspector's March 4, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to replace
an existing accessory shed with a new accessory shed at 1) located in other than the code
required rear yard located at 1030 Westview Drive in Mattituck. Is she representing the
application?
ANTHEA CARR : I'm here can you hear me?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we have all inspected the property and this is a shed in the front
yard where the code requires a rear yard. It's a lot with two street frontages.
ANTHEA CARR : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess you want to replace the new shed of similar size at the same
location on the same foundation is that correct?
ANTHEA CARR : Yes same width which is currently 16 feet, the current set up that's there is 8
feet depth no I'm sorry 6 foot it'll be 8 foot which will come in further into our yard that
additional 2 feet on the same slab that's there. So just replacing what's there with something
newer.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We had seen it, it needs replacement.
ANTHEA CARR : I think our neighbors will be the ones we've spoken to will be very grateful to
see it gone.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks like it's about 42.7 feet setback from Brower Rd. which is
more than what the principle dwelling requirement.
ANTHEA CARR : (inaudible) that it's in front of we can't really move it any further back past the
where it would be considered back yard only because then that would impede access to our
back door to our mudroom. I think all other setbacks it's far enough from all of our well within
the 15 feet that would be required for our neighbors.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat any questions?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions.
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric?
MEMBER DANTES : I do not have any questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob.
MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody else in the audience there's only two people here.
Anybody on Zoom who wants to comment? Okay this is a very straightforward matter, I have
no questions. I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date.
Is there a second?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries unanimously, we'll have a decision in two
weeks.
HEARING# 7522—JONNAH HOLLANDER
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Jonnah Hollander#7522.
This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's
April 26, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an
accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage
of 20% located at 275 Maple St. in Greenport. Is there someone here to represent the
application?
OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Anthony is here. Anthony would you want Mr. Hollander to be
admitted as well?
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I'll start and then if there's questions they can come in and answer.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, so we're looking at a pool with a 26.35 lot coverage where the
code permits a maximum of 20% and it meets all the setback requirements and it's a rear yard
location. It looks like the lot coverage is already non-conforming you're adding 2.2%Anthony?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes that's correct Board. The request for the pool would add a 3.2% lot
coverage. We did keep it to a pretty small sized pool due to the fact that we're already
exceeding we were already non-conforming on the lot coverage. The plan would be to turn the
current garage into a pool house with the approval of the pool that would allow us to have the
pool house in the rear. We have just for the information for the Board we have filed with
Suffolk County Health Department to connect the proposed wet bar and half bathroom in the
pool house to the existing home which is on Greenport's sewer it's not on septic. So we have
been proceeding with our other applications for your information. I would like to note there
was a similar approval in Greenport on the ZBA Board for an in-ground swimming pool ZBA
#6650, it was approved on 5/16/13. It created a 22% lot coverage due to the proposed pool
that was approved, it's very close by this area. One thing to mention also is that as you can see
it's not a large lot and I think we really tried to minimize the impacts by keeping the size of the
pool down.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Anthony, was there any consideration to reducing or eliminating the
raised concrete stone patio to reduce lot coverage to allow for the pool?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : So there wasn't, the current owners that purchased the home recently
this home was renovated prior to their purchase so that patio is somewhat new. I mean it's
probably about a year and half old so I think it would be that's probably why we didn't consider
it. It seemed like a real waste of money spent current money spent. I mean if it was I think if it
was an older patio then I think that would definitely be a possible consideration but so no to
answer the question.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It seemed older when I did my site inspection so I'm surprised to hear
that you're saying it's a year and a half old.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I know the renovation was done about a year and a half prior to when
they purchased it but maybe the patio wasn't part of that I could be incorrect but the house
was renovated you know they purchased it as a renovated home. We didn't consider that to
answer the question. There would be a decent amount of construction or demolition to reduce
the size of that. Just one thing, if you can see we also were able to kind of deal with the
obstacles with like getting around the pool and you know with our septic lines and our water
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
lines so you know I do believe that the pool really fits on the site well. I don't think it's too
obtrusive.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well one of your neighbors is the Greenport High School parking lot
that should help. The rear yard is very, very well screened, it's pretty open in the back, grass no
trees and it's only a 50 foot wide lot so which is typical of other lots right in that area. Maple is
a very short street that kind of dead ends at the subject property. There is a letter from a
neighbor objecting to the pool based on concerns for noise and traffic impacts and so on. I
mean is this primarily assuming to be used by the resident property owners and their family?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yeah I gather I mean but it's they're a married couple it's just the two of
them. Obviously I don't know what their future plans are I'm hoping for everybody that their
future plans are to have children but I don't think I mean they could probably answer that
better. It is basically on a dead end in a sense but I don't
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yeah well the dead end is I guess the drive into the Greenport parking lot.
You can access the parking lot from that street or that road. As you mentioned too, it's a very
dense planting around the property which does give somewhat of a noise buffer obviously a
visual buffer but I think Mr. and Mrs. Hollander can talk about how they plan on using the pool
maybe that will help with that comment.
MEMBER DANTES : Can you just go into the other houses in the neighborhood, is 25, 26% lot
coverage characteristic of this neighborhood? It's an older neighborhood do they have
structures that already over?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : So it is a pretty dense neighborhood. The neighboring lots are very similar
in size. I didn't do a complete study on all the adjacent lots to see if they were exceeding the
20% lot coverage but based on just my visual I mean it seems like all the houses all these lots
have houses, some have garages in the rear similar to this lot and you know they all appear to
be around the same sized lots which is pretty common I think in Greenport which we all know
more in the village but you have these smaller lots and they're pretty dense.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It already has non-conforming lot coverage it's most of them do
you're quite right Eric they're 50 foot wide lots and you know by the time you get an accessory
garage up with a small house the lot coverage is probably already exceeding the 20%.
MEMBER DANTES : Most of the houses in that neighborhood.
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah they are almost all pre-existing non-conforming. Anything from
any of the Board Members, comments or questions?
MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : If Jonnah the homeowner can maybe put on record what they're use will
be of the pool and just
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure by all means.
JONNAH HOLLANDER : Thank you Board. For the pool yes that's correct, we would just be using
it for own personal use and maybe a guest here and there would join us in the pool but it would
just be for the two of us.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, anything else anybody? Okay hearing no further questions or
comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision for a later date. Is there a
second?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries, we'll have a decision in two weeks thank
you Anthony.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Thank you Board.
HEARING # 7525—ANDREAS ZOITAS
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Andreas Zoitas #7525.
This is a request for a variance from Article XXII Section 280-116A(1) and the Building
Inspector's April 5, 2021 amended June 18, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application
for a permit to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) swimming pool is located
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff located at 1470 Grandview Drive
(adj. to Long Island Sound) in Orient. Is there someone here to represent this application? Is
Brooke on Zoom?
OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : It's Anthony again.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Brooke wasn't able to attend so I'm taking care of it in her place. So I just
want to say that you can see the home itself is basically at the 100 foot setback and the septic
system is currently existing in the rear yard just some of the design constraints that's why I'm
bringing it up. We tried to keep the pool as close as possible to the home and then obviously
had to be 20 feet from the existing septic leaching pools and that's sort of how we plotted the
location of the pool. Just something very there's some similar on Grandview it's very similar
that the pool locations can't meet the setbacks from the bluff and I think part of that is you
know just because of the existing locations of the homes. I actually found two similar homes
that were approved by the Board for a pool that I believe are even closer to the bluff. This one
is a little bit pre-dated because in '86 it was approved on a 2410 Grandview Dr. in Orient same
street 45 feet from the bluff line. One more current in 2009 this is 2670 Grandview Dr. there
was a pool and a deck that was built 75 feet from the bluff.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Do you have the case numbers for these?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Oh I do I'm sorry. The first one was 5358 that's the 45 foot from bluff,
then the more current 75 foot from the bluff was 6299. Just to give you a little description of
the family, it's a wife, husband and they have two daughters in their teens it's primarily a
summer residence seasonally residence and that's basically it. Just some further information for
the Board just so they know, there's a current application with the Building Department they're
doing some interior renovations and adding a few dormers. We also filed for they're repairing
the retaining wall this is very high up the house, it's very high up on off of Grandview so we're
doing some retainment work for the driveway so there are in my opinion they're taking this
home that really needed some work. When they bought it, it was really overgrown so they're
trying to you know repair the home and bring it back.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So originally there was a pool house but that was removed correct?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know you have okay I see the 20 foot setback but that's along
the side of the pool, you got this at 19 feet away from the house and you certainly can move
that a lot closer without compromising the size of the pool or anything else to increase that
setback from the top of the bluff. It is of course LWRP consistent, Soil and Water says the bluff
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
is vegetated with no major areas of erosion so that's good. I want to ask you a question, what is
a low height sun shelf? I don't know what that is.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's like where you the water is like twelve inches and you put like a
chaise lounge there, it's kind of like in the water but basically in the sun.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that's internal to the pool it's like you would have a hot tub. Okay
I thought what is it solar panels.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : You can see it in that section if you go back.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see it drawn in but I didn't know what the heck it was now I know.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's where you catch the sun and still be kind of in the water without
being submerged in the water.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And technically the pool is 20 x 50 feet because of the sun shield.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes. I mean I don't think the length of the pool at least in my opinion is in
question, I'm fine if you guys you know in regards to considering moving it closer to the home I
think that's something I can discuss with the homeowner and try to reduce the distance from
the top of the bluff. We don't have any side yard setback issues in regards to the length of the
pool.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No you don't have a lot coverage issue either but it is you know
we're increasingly seeing over the course as you're aware I'm sure swimming pools have
become essential apparently to everybody in the town of Southold and a lot of them want their
views of the water. Now you couldn't put it in a front yard in your case anyway because it's too
steep and it's totally inappropriate to the character of the neighborhood but you know we have
to do something about bluff protection because we're getting bluff blowout at the loss of a foot
a year and the erosion is substantial. Now this happens to be a pretty stable bluff which is a
good thing but we certainly are going to encourage not only non-disturbance buffers along the
top of the bluff for some sort of protective measure but we're also going to require the
setbacks that are absolutely the greatest extent possible. So we can do just amended relief we
can do or rather alternative relief so you don't have to bother with the homeowner just tell you
what we're willing to provide based upon priors in the area and so on but increasingly as we
have more really severe weather events we're finding that prior variances were based upon a
different climate a different environmental science and a different set of environmental
impacts. So we're going to be doing everything we can to continue to protect the bluffs. I guess
this needs Trustees approval too no?
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes our application has been filed and we'll be attending next. Just some
history, we were going to move the septic system and center the pool with the pool house they
decided it would just be better not to you know to disturb the existing septic which they have a
standard like it's not a block or brick cesspool it's a tank and it has the leaching so it's
somewhat of an updated standard system. We sort of reversed that thought and said okay let's
just get the pool and they're not really concerned with a pool house. I mean they want to do
small outdoor kitchen but they have the kind of wrap around patio in the rear so they're pretty
happy with that. I'm sure they are and what your recommendation is on the distance from the
home and I think that's fine with us.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean you have plenty of space for an at grade patio to provide as
many chaise lounges as your client wants. Obviously you don't want to be walking out of your
house falling into a swimming pool. On the other hand that can be a lot less than 19 feet.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Okay we appreciate that thank you and I agree about the bluff.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : They're also proposing which isn't a part of the variance but a proposed
outdoor kitchen coming right out of that house also. I see they have something about exterior
plumbing for the sink and you have to take into consideration it has to be an area for the pool
equipment in a deadening area that's going to have to be place somewhere also.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's a dry well for pool-dewatering I see that's being proposed. It
doesn't show us where you're going to put the pool equipment but wherever you decide to put
it may very well end up in a side yard. It will have to be the usual sound deadening container
and so on.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : The plan was to put it on the driveway side because they have that wrap
around porch on the other side of the home. In regards to the outdoor kitchen, the sink would
have its own small drywell which is acceptable by the Building Department for the grey water.
Obviously it would be shut off the water would be shut off during the winter time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright anything else from the Board, Rob?
MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions you covered the setback from the bluff.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric, Pat? Is there anyone in attendance Liz who is here for that
hearing? Okay I'm going to make a motion then to close the hearing reserve decision to a later
date. Is there a second?
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. I'm going to make a motion to recess for
lunch. Is there a second?
MEMBER DANTES : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Motion to open the public hearings seconded by Member
Acampora, all in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Okay the meeting is open. Before we get started we of course
meeting in person now but we are also meeting via Zoom so I'm going to ask our secretary Liz
to review with any potential attendees how they can participate in Zoom.
OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Thank you Leslie, good afternoon everyone. If anyone wishes
to comment on a particular application we ask you that you send us a quick note via the Q&A
tool at the bottom of your screen or click the raise hand button and we will allow you to
7.71
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
unmute and let us know which application you are here for. I have some people here that I
don't know which application they're here for and I don't see anyone here yet for the first one.
I don't know if they are in attendance she was on earlier.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They're here in person. Thank you Liz.
HEARING#7521—ARETI LAVALLE
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Areti Lavalle #7521. This
is a request for a variance from Article XXII Section 280-116A(1) and the Building Inspector's
March 12, 2021 amended May 12, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a
permit to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) located less than the code
required 100 feet from the top of the bluff located at 555 Sound View Rd. (adj. to Long Island
Sound) in Orient. Who is here to represent the application? Would you state your name for the
record please.
JONATHAN FOSTER : Jonathan Foster I'm an architect and we have worked on this pool and we
received a letter from the county about the status of the pool and so forth (inaudible) making
that we'd like to modify the design of
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm not exactly quite sure what you mean by that but let me just
enter into the record what we're talking about here is a Notice of Disapproval that says, the
proposed swimming pool is setback from the bluff at 45 feet and
JONATHAN FOSTER : That's what we applied for.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, are you now saying you modified you're proposing to modify
that?
WILLIAM LAVALLE : If I can just speak for a moment, I'm William Lavalle I'm the applicant. We
realized that the original plan called for the pool to be perpendicular to the house which
apparently puts it too close to the bluff. We've had originally (inaudible) plan that was
approved which was 67 % feet from the bluff. That house was demolished, we put up a new
house we made sure it was 100 feet from the bluff but what we would like to do is to change
the orientation of the pool from perpendicular to parallel with the house which would bring it
close to the house further from the bluff.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What setback would that be?
WILLIAM LAVALLE : I don't know. I haven't seen the architect's rendering yet of
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
JONATHAN FOSTER : If the pool were just flipped over it would be about 50 feet off the 44.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it would be larger than that.
ARETI LAVALLE : May I please, I'm the applicant Areti Lavalle. Just to give some preliminary
information I'm sure the Zoning Board has this information from the prior application. We built
a brand new house roughly about three years ago. It was a pre-existing house 57 % feet from
the bluff. In order to comply with zoning requirements we pulled the house back 100 feet. So
the further the seaward (inaudible) wall the bluff is now 100 feet. We had no intention of
putting a pool initially, as time goes by we're spending more and more time in this house. We
intend to make it our permanent house. We spoke to our next door neighbors who both on the
easterly and westerly side both have swimming pools, the parties across the street have
intention of putting a swimming pool in. I have a letter from my neighbors I don't know at this
point if anybody has objected to the installation of a pool. I have a letter of support that I would
like to submit but after certain indications we feel that if we reduce the size of the pool and run
it parallel to the house we expect that we may be able to get this pool roughly about 70 feet if
not 70 between 67 and 70 feet, 66 and if you reduce those two feet off the deck it'll bring it to
68. So we believe and we don't have plans now cause this is all happening in the last day or two
that we should be able to bring this pool within let's say 68 feet which would bring it further
away from the bluff. We would also be able to meet the side yard requirements, requirements
that we be 20 feet away from the septic system. As you know the back yard is non-conforming.
The pool would be reduced in size from I believe
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's now 18 x 36
ARETI LAVALLE : Right, I think we would reduce it to 14 this shows it as 42 but I think it we
would be more likely to go 40.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The application shows 36, 18 x 36
ARETI LAVALLE : Right what we're saying is the proposing new plans comply more closely with
what I think the ZBA would accept would bring it down to 14 x 40. So the square footage of the
pool would be reduced. It would bring it about 68 feet away from the bluff and I think that
there are including the hearing that was earlier today at eleven o'clock there are pools found
and ZBA has approved them in the back yard which by code I believe is where the swimming
pools are intended to be. We would consider putting it along the side yard but unfortunately
there's a 10 foot easement, there are drainage to the Town of Southold so that precludes us
from putting it on the westerly side. On the easterly side we have our septic systems, dry wells
so that is not a viable option. So at this point I don't know if it would be afforded an
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
opportunity of a possibility two months to resubmit plans and hopefully better apply with some
of the ZBA requirements.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well certainly if you want to provide an amended application we can
allow you to do that. I will say one thing about your proposed pool and I did say this earlier this
morning but I'm not sure who was and wasn't here, but we have been experiencing more and
more severe weather events as we all know and as a consequence we've been getting about on
average about a foot a year of bluff erosion all over the east end. So we're really very careful
now in evaluating setbacks and we're trying to the only tool we have are two things, well
there's three; you need Trustees approval and they can of course require some sort of
hardening of the toe with a bulkhead or whatever that's their jurisdiction.
ARETI LAVALLE : Right which I believe we have to go to the Trustees.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You will have to go to the Trustees yeah. The D.E.C. also probably
has jurisdiction because they're within 300 feet of (inaudible) and we've been made aware of
the fact that there are conflicts and (inaudible) to how to protect bluffs how to create bluff
stabilization with D.E.C. and Trustees. Now independent of any particular application we are
doing what we can to get all parties together to see if we can't improve that situation including
the possibility of developing a Long Island Coastal Erosion Coastal Resiliency Task Force through
some legislative process. However having said that as you're considering what you can do I
would really encourage you to make whatever setback you're able to do as great as possible.
We just I know we granted things previously but I really believe that we are in a much more
precarious position now and we've had I don't know five applications today for swimming pools
and everybody wants a swimming pool now.
ARETI LAVALLE : It's also the fact that people are moving out here during the current crisis.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know and it's challenging the electrical grid. That's a whole other
things.
ARETI LAVALLE : I completely understand it and as part of the process, again we've only been in
this house for two years roughly but you (inaudible) condition of the house when we moved in.
If there was a remediation of the bluff that was (inaudible) us doing this pool we have every
intention as a matter of fact when we were building there was the intention to submit the
original application with some remediation of the bluff and we were told by our architect that
at the time it was not a good idea to address that until later on. Since we're before the ZBA at
this point and I believe ZBA is not the sole authority that would have to go before if that was
the necessary element in doing this we would be amenable to it. The thing that may distinguish
us from possibly other pools that were put in is again the fact that at 67 feet there was a pre-
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
existing home there it complied to and one of the concerns we had afterwards when we look at
the way the pool was placed on the original plans was that we wanted to keep as much open
space in the back yard as we could (inaudible) lifting it and putting it off to the side. By running
it perpendicular or parallel I'm sorry with the house yes there's more of a back yard between
fences cutting off views and what not we initially thought that was the way to go but obviously
it's not. So I'm looking for an opportunity to amend the plan and resubmit at this point or
answer any other questions that are feasible at this time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well as long as the hearing is open comments can come in and
you're able to continue the record is still open whether it's for written submission.
JONATHAN FOSTER : Are you (inaudible) the plan the new plan?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well actually I think every single person on this Board is probably
already put in their own notes in preparation for the hearing rotate the pool it's rather obvious.
WILLIAM LAVALLE : We noticed that after that we had this planned this way this is not
(inaudible).
ARETI LAVALLE : It's a sketch it's not a survey.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any comments or questions at this point,
Rob.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Not at this point.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Not really, I'm delighted that you're (inaudible) pool. I think that it
has more to do with the required 100 feet setback so perhaps if you're going to adjourn the
hearing you might really consider reducing the width of the pool and pushing it as close to the
house as not attaching it to the house as possible.
ARETI LAVALLE : That would be definitely considered. Again we were looking to push it back as
far as we can, at some point obviously it's not going to end up in the living room but I've seen it
done actually.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Where there's new construction like your property there could have
been consideration at the original development time for pool placement to (inaudible)
precarious position but the house is now existing so we're dealing with 100 foot setback which I
think you recognize that it does present a problem.
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
WILLIAM LAVALLE : The original plan for a renovation of a pre-existing house, that house was 67
Yz feet from the bluff. We got that approved for a 3,600 sq. ft. house with a new foundation
which would have been it probably was not a good idea but we could have built that house and
we decided not to and when we got the plan to rebuild we asked should we move it back 100
feet and they said that would be very acceptable to the township which we did.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is and in fact it gets you away from having to deal with the
Trustees because their jurisdiction is naturally regulated features within 100 feet. We're really
aware of the fact that 100 foot setback these days with bluff erosion being what it is. We
should possibly be looking at greater setbacks. I understand why a property owner would put it
100 feet that's what the law says, it could have been done at in this case you would have
needed a front yard variance if you would have went 105 feet because you needed 35 you have
40 in the front yard.
WILLIAM LAVALLE : The house could have been designed that (inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah you know when you have a blank slate then the problem is that
you have to think of multiple things at once and while you were improving the situation vastly
with a new house located 100 feet now we have the problem of non-conforming pool and pools
do create problems. I mean it's a lot of land disturbance, they can destabilize the bluff, in your
case the bluff is moderately poor condition and there are lots of different things you can do
(inaudible) Trustees will do that but those are the issues. We're trying to do due diligence on
behalf of our neighbors, property owners we all live here and own properties as well. As time
goes on we're going to have to see things evolve in ways that help us preserve what we have
here. So I think we're all on the same page, I think you understand what we're looking for and I
think already understood (inaudible) before you walked in the door. I'm going to see if there's
anybody else in do you have any questions at this point? We'll just adjourn to let me think
November? You said you wanted like two months. It depends on the surveyor the surveyors are
ARETI LAVALLE : Eight weeks behind so I would say
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How about November?
ARETI LAVALLE : November is fine.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're not going to start building this now anyway.
ARETI LAVALLE : No it's past construction.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So let's put that them on for November Kim. Alright is there anyone
in the audience who wants to speak to this application?Anyone in attendance on Zoom Liz, no.
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
ARETI LAVALLE : May I submit the letter of support?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure absolutely. Hearing no further questions or comments I'm
going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to November 41n
ARETI LAVALLE : Can I ask one question, I assume that requires additional notices with the
amended plans will that all be taken care of, will we receive word from
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you're amending the plans then we're probably going to have to
have your neighbors take a look and we'll have to have it in the file for public viewing and post
to Laserfiche instead of coming in to FOIL. We will have to have you re-notice because it's a
different variance.
ARETI LAVALLE : So the paperwork will be given to us.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah, yeah in October you will get everything you need a new
packet. Is there a second to the motion?
MEMBER DANTES : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
HEARING#7523— DAVID GARNER and JEAN MCGEE
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for David Garner and Jean
McGee #7523. This is a request for a waiver of merger petition under Article II Section 280-10A
to unmerge land identified as SCTM # 1000-41-1-33 which has merged with SCTM # 1000-41-1-
34 based on the Building Inspector's February 8, 2021 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 810 Washington Ave.
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
in Greenport. Pat welcome and as you know we've all inspected the property and (inaudible) so
why don't I just turn it over to you.
PAT MOORE : Good afternoon Patricia Moore on behalf of the applicants. You know from my
submission that these are two lots that are here on the map of Washington Heights which is a
filed map from 1927. It is an isolated area that has one foot in the Town of Southold and one
foot in the Village of Greenport. So this property happens to be in the Town of Southold right
across the street is the Village of Greenport. My clients purchased the house in 1948 and then
the lot in 1954. The family has owned the property since those dates and they obviously had no
idea that the lots had merged, the parcels were purchased separately, they continued to
receive separate tax bills and the building very importantly across the street the Village of
Greenport ordinance actually prohibits the merging of properties. So the lots across from them
would never merge. The lots in the Town of Southold unfortunately do merge. When they
started looking at the property and how to do some estate planning for mom the mother still
owns well the mother has a life estate in the house, the parcels were for estate purposes
transferred to the son and the daughter those are the applicants at this point but the mother is
life tenant at the house. That's when they learned that the parcels had merged and at that
point we began the process of getting surveys and submitting the application to you. I provided
to you the history, the other parcels in the area all the I pretty much identified all the properties
whether they merged they didn't merge there were a lot of cause this is such an old area old
properties there's a lot of deviation of property lines. It looks like neighbors in the old days they
would just say you know what let's move the line a little bit so there's a couple of those in the
neighborhood and other properties either in the surrounding area had received waivers of
merger or area variances if that was the (inaudible) at the time. This is a relatively
straightforward application. The parcel size and layout of the properties is conforming to the
character of this community here and the family as I said has owned it since almost the
beginning. I'm here to answer any questions, I don't want to repeat everything that is already
written before you. I'd be happy to address any questions you may have.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's start with Rob.
DAVID GARNER : Can you hear me, this is David Garner.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we can.
DAVID GARNER : If you have any questions that Pat can't answer I will try to help.
MEMBER LEHNERT : My question Pat is, can you address some of the standards the shed on the
lot, the immaculate landscaping?
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE : Sure. I did address it in writing but I will repeat that's fine. Because this property
was, bought in the fifties my client actually lived there with the family and the family dogs and
all of the accoutrements that come along with family. They put up a chain link fence which is
still there it's the same chain link fence and they surrounded the entire property to protect it,
keep the animals and the children in the area. This property had been when it was originally
subdivided a big farm so the shed had actually had been a chicken coop I just don't remember
what it looks like but it started its life like a chicken coop and it's now a shed. So it's been in
existence there for whether it's a shed or another shed since it was a farm.
MEMBER LEHNERT : So before (inaudible)
PAT MOORE : Yes. I don't know if Mr. Garner can answer I'm not sure his parents built the
house or if it was already built.
DAVID GARNER : It was already built, it was built on it's in the life estate Pat, it was purchased I
believe it was built in 1930 and my parents bought the property and again it's on the life estate
if I can find it.
PAT MOORE : 1954 is when the house was purchased excuse me 1940's, 1948 is when the
house was purchased and 1954 is when the lot was purchased. There are two kids at the time
they bought there were two kids so most families want to you know buy properties and hold
them hopefully for their children which is exactly what's occurred. There is a family right now
renting the house. I gave you the information regarding the tenant. It is a gentleman that works
for the Village of Greenport Utility Company and the kids and everybody offered to sell it to
them on occasion they just have to figure out if they can afford it. But in any case it has been
providing for a local community a rental that I pointed out that the merging of these properties
would essentially be (inaudible) the rest of the neighborhood and I think you when you drove
around you saw the gentrification and change of a neighborhood and it's becoming a little bit
more exclusive and difficult for local families and people who work in the Village of Greenport
to find housing to buy or to rent. That's not something you're well aware of that condition. But
in any case the fact that it's been manicured it's been manicured since day one because the
mother was very fastidious she ran her beauty shop there you know the property was very well
kept and it was a farm so it would have been cleared right from the beginning. I think that's as
far the house and the garage is all on the one parcel
MEMBER LEHNERT : On the other lot.
PAT MOORE : Yeah, yeah so it's the vacant lot that just the only thing it has is a shed and the
chain link fence.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't have any questions.
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat do you have any questions?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric.
MEMBER DANTES : Yeah, who technically owns the house now, is see the LIPA statement but
when does the ownership transfer?
PAT M.00RE : With a (inaudible) the ownership transfers immediately but reserves property
interest a life estate is reserved with the mother so technically mom lived there or rented out
and take the rent and use the rent for her care. So it is kind of (inaudible) property law life
estate is property interest and you would have to if you were to sell this house you need both
the kids as well as have the mother sign the deed the transfer her interest of the life estate.
MEMBER DANTES : Next question, why did whenever they did the life estate they only record
one deed for two separate properties?
PAT MOORE : Because they thought they only had two separate properties. Are you talking
about the life estate is only on the house right?
MEMBER DANTES : I don't know it's one deed and it says parcel one and parcel two on the deed
which I think
PAT MOORE : Oh, oh okay yeah the way that this historically was transferred people were I
think to save a dime in recording fees they would just record parcel one and parcel two not
realizing that when you have one deed with two parcels that have the same name you merge
them. Now it's a technical issue and I don't know the answer to it but the Building Department
said we merged and it would be a very technical issue whether or not in fact you have a merger
where there is a life estate on one so you really have three owners and you have two on the
other but I think my memory here is that husband and wife both own both parcels even before
that date. Does it say the deed I don't have it in front of me but I think I looked at it and I
thought ah this would merge after '83 when it was owned by the husband or wife. Again the
Village of Greenport specifically prohibits merging and
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat I do have to say we've discussed this with you on Ninth St. on an
application. The fact that one side of the street has one zoning and the other has another
zoning is utterly irrelevant to this Board. This is zoning is Southold, the property is in Southold,
it doesn't matter what's across the street in Greenport. We've done this many, many times
with properties that have the same kind of situation. We have to apply the Southold rules not
what Greenport does.
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE : Obviously I did that but with all due respect my transcript is for the courts and in
fact when you have a zoning line where the Village of Greenport specifically says you cannot
merge properties and you step across the street and the Town of Southold merges property.
The merging occurs automatically without any knowledge or intent but homeowners to merge
properties. So I think it is very relevant as far as how a merger occurs. In addition it also deals
with the character of the neighborhood which is one of the elements that is the unmerging
changing the layout or the design or character of the neighborhood. Clearly it doesn't because
across the street you have parcels that would not merge even if intended. The law changed I
cited you the village law because it was actually a case of mine where I had a client who wanted
to merge a small piece to theirs in the Village of Greenport and the village prohibited it until
there was legislation that said well we'll allow you to do it but we really don't want you to but
we'll give you an avenue to make an application to merge it if you have a very good reason for
merging. In this case it was a very narrow lot and the client wanted to expand their house.
T. A. DUFFY : I think the standard is the same as an area variance not a very good reason. The
legal standard is for a variance the same as a variance application.
PAT MOORE : I understand that and the basis for this (inaudible) for the community personally I
think as a matter of law when across the street from you, you have a neighborhood or a block
of homes that are equal in size and you're now if you merge this property you're creating a
double sized lot where the reality is people are going to eventually this house will probably not
stay and it would be made you know a much larger house which is not part of the character of
the neighborhood.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that is a valid point but of course that argument needs to go
to the Town Board and not (inaudible). They are the ones that deal with affordable dwellings
and so on and you made a point about the fact that the smaller lot will produce a smaller
house which will be more affordable and I think that's a valid perspective but I think that's an
argument that you need to take to the Town Board our legislatures because they're the ones
that could change it. Right now the character of the neighborhood is fine, on both sides of the
street it's the same character. It doesn't matter whether one set of laws on one side prohibits
what the others mergers. That's just bad luck for your client but the bottom line is, we're in
Southold and we have to address Southold standards. The other standard we have to address is
whether it's been maintained undeveloped single and separate. Well we've had these before
people use these as their side yards. They put a fence around the whole thing as though it was
one property, they put chaise lounges over there, they put a shed there whether or it was pre-
existing or not it's a structure. Normally what we'd like to see in a waiver of merger is a wooded
piece of property that is and I know you made the argument it never was wooded. That's kind
of the way the code was written to say, this is a buildable lot and it merged by virtue of the
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
merger law because it was held in common ownership and we were trying to up zone because
of septic, because of you know additional problems with water quality and so on and density so
the town up zoned and that's where this all came from. That's why they said if you're in a R-40
zone and your lots are too small and you own those two lots together they are going to be
merged into one more conforming lot. In this case I would say that that lot size is not as
conforming as the two separate lots to the character of that particular subdivision. I just want
to try and get straight now what things this Board has to grapple with and what things we can't
grapple with. One of things that I read about in your reasons had to do with personalizing the
whole thing with the history of this woman who lived in the neighborhood, raised her kids here
and I must remind you once again with all due respect we are not allowed to personalize any
variance relief for anybody or any un-merger. It is strictly based upon the legal standards and
not who they are or what the history is.
PAT MOORE : Okay it's just a way of I guess my theory is, you need to know the family, you
need to know the property, you need to know the history and my applications and I know from
thirty years of submitting them I try to tell a story not just its' this, this, this and this. I mean you
can see for yourself I include those points specifically but I also give you a little bit of history
because nevertheless we have a property that's been owned by the family since the fifties. It
has and yes it's a vacant lot but keep in mind and I thank you for pointing out the fact that the
size of the lot as two lots is more conforming than if you make them one large one but also look
at the way this property has been developed where the house and the garage are conforming
to setbacks on one lot. Cutting the grass and leaving a chicken coop does not equate to
accepting a lot to be merged when you've owned it since the fifties. I think that quite frankly
think that whether it's a wooded lot or a cleared lot, look at how the properties are developed.
If the house and the garage and I know I've had other applications on Bayshore Rd. have been
exactly that which is they come in and actually had to get variances to develop on the one
property to keep it all on one property but the property was still the vacant lot was still cleared
and made part of the property because the people you know they kept everything neat and tidy
is human nature you know. You don't this didn't start out as a wooded lot.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just wanted the record to reflect that because I know you take a
great deal of effort in putting in all of these reasons and
PAT MOORE : Obviously you can ignore any personalization of an application.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we do but you know we are only able to address you're right
the history is very paramount those are just facts.
PAT MOORE : That's why I give you all the facts, you chose which ones you like and which ones
you don't.
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Trying to say how nice this person is or what a nice family it is, is just
a little (inaudible) it can't be relevant to us. It could be a miserable human being and it would
still if they deserved to have it unmerged they would get it anyway.
PAT MOORE : However very interestingly and I'll put this (inaudible) but you do have
applications where you have somebody who is an S.O.B. okay and has neighbors that get so
mad at the person becomes the form for a fight and obviously the person's personality on how
they behave is completely irrelevant to this Board. Unfortunately you have to hear it just the
same way my presentation of a good person you hear that as well.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we try to tell people that bickering in front of this Board not
T. A. DUFFY : You're making your record and the Chairperson is making our record.
PAT MOORE : Absolutely that's fine. I'm not sure I can change the way I write applications.
MEMBER DANTES : We don't pick and choose which facts to listen to we just use the facts that
are relevant to the area the variance standards and the waiver standards for whichever
application (inaudible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what the law requires. Anyone in the audience wanting to
address the application? Is there anyone in attendance on Zoom?
OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Yes I have Katherine Diggs. I am going to move her in.
KATHERINE DIGGS : Hi can everyone hear me okay give me a thumbs up.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes.
KATHERINE DIGGS : My name is Katherine Diggs. I live across the street from the property in
question. Thank you to the Board and thank you to Ms. Moore for answering a phone call from
me earlier. A couple of questions that I had are mostly just my lack of familiarity with the
process but one question I wanted to ask is, what would be the setbacks required from the
property lines should a new building be constructed on the newly created lot and how do those
setbacks compare to the other properties on that side of Washington Ave?
PAT MOORE : I'll go by my memory of the code but on the lot of this size the side yards are 10
and 15, rear yard is 35, front yard is 35 however front yard can be brought closer to the street
and within 300 feet the average front yard setback of other homes is closer to Washington Ave.
so front yard can deviate somewhat but the sides are still 10 and 15.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's exactly right.
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE : Good I remembered correctly.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does that answer your question?
KATHERING DIGGS : It does. So I noticed that the setback then for the existing structure would
be 9 feet so I'm just curious like would that be a variance for the newly created lot the setback
would be larger?
PAT MOORE : Yeah it would be let me address that. The house was built in the forties or thirties
actually according to the family. So it would have been pre-existing there wouldn't have been
setbacks at that time zoning setback, the front, side, rear they weren't applicable. So this house
has pre-existing setbacks and it's fine it's grandfathered that's the term.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In other words zoning was not implemented in the Town of Southold
until 1957 so anything built prior to that was just built. It didn't have to worry about where it
was built or what the setbacks were from property lines and that's why when zoning came in
anything that existing prior to zoning was now considered pre-existing and if they don't
conform to the current code non-conforming but as Pat said they're grandfathered.
PAT MOORE : The zoning would apply to this lot and as I said the setbacks are in the code and
the only mediation would be the front yard again depending on how I don't recall off the top of
my head but the homes to the west where they are they're all over the place.
KATHERING DIGGS : Understood, thank you. The second question I had relates to what type of
structure will be permitted to be constructed on the newly created lot? Would does any Board
require that that would be a single family residential stick built structure or would there be
other typed of structures permitted to be placed on that property?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would have to be a single family dwelling because that is what the
zoning permits and if they didn't build something conforming to or proposing to build
something that wasn't conforming to all of the current code requirements for setbacks and lot
coverage and height they would then get a Notice of Disapproval from the Building Department
instead of permit and they would have to come before the Zoning Board with an application to
create variances for anything that wasn't conforming to the current code. We can't say what
somebody would propose but it would be a single family dwelling.
PAT MOORE : I think the concern she raised with me on the phone and I'll just repeat it, she
was concerned about a mobile home and I assured her that a mobile home is not a permitted
structure.
40T
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A prefabricated dwelling a modular construction it doesn't have to
be it could be stick built in a factory and dropped in place, you wouldn't know the difference. In
other words those homes are just built in a factory as opposed to built on site and finished on
site but it's a proper single family dwelling.
KATHERINE DIGGS : Understood thank you. If the proposed waiver of merger was not approved
by the Board you know we discussed a scenario in which it's possible that the combined lot
would be sold and then that would create the opportunity for a much larger house to be
constructed in that space and so I wonder if you can just educate me as to what would be the
setbacks in that scenario. Would it still be a 10 and 15 foot setback or what would prevent an
enormous house from being placed there for example if you can just educate me I just don't
know the laws.
PAT MOORE : Off the top of my head again, the lot would be over 20,000 sq. ft. would be
24,000 sq. ft. and my memory is that the setbacks would be side yard would be 20, 25 front 40,
rear 40 1 believe.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct and the thing is it would then be seen as a corner lot. The so
called undeveloped lot right now is a front and rear and side yards but the one with the house
on it it's on a corner two streets so there are different setbacks for front yards. They would
have to have greater setbacks for a larger house and they could not exceed 20% lot coverage
again unless they applied for a variance.
KATHERINE DIGGS : Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay anything from anybody else?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pat if you can maybe you can just speak to Rob had spoken earlier
asked a question about the existing improvements in the vacant parcel but the chain linked
fence runs around the entire property (inaudible) the owners chose to fence it in to keep the
kids in keep the dogs in so in fact they were using it as one lot.
PAT MOORE : Well the reason is it's two lots with a fence around it.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So why wouldn't they put a fence down the middle to delineate the
difference?
PAT MOORE : Because most people don't even think of the merger when they bought the
property in the fifties those things just didn't exist. That's a rule that we kind of have come up
with like let's say policy where then that code because it's not in the code either. Again it was a
cleared piece of property developed in the thirties and the chain linked fence looks like it was
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
put up in the fifties it's an old fence. In the fifties it pre-dated any zoning, it pre-dated merger in
fact so that issue was not even a consideration. It's all pre-existing.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anybody? Okay hearing no further questions or
comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is
there a second?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Rob. All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. We should have a decision in two weeks at
the next meeting of the Board. Eric had a point, earlier I was going to do this later in the agenda
but earlier we made an acknowledgement that Hard Corners Partners I don't know if there's
anybody in the audience here or if there's anybody on Zoom this is for the next not the coming
one not Kakar this is for Hard Corners Partners it's our twelfth hearing for the day, they're
requesting an adjournment they were not able to do their mailings and postings properly so we
have to adjourn that to September. So we're going to be hearing that application next month
September 2nd so if there's anybody here for that application we won't be hearing it today.
Let's go back to the next one before us.
HEARING # 7524— DANIEL MAZZARINI and ANDREW GROVER
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Daniel Mazzarini and
Andrew Grover#7524. This is a request for variances from Article IV Section 280-18, Article XXII
Section 280-116A(1) and the Building Inspector's April 13, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on
an application for a permit to demolish and reconstruct a single family dwelling and construct
___T_
42
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
an accessory in-ground swimming pool located in the subdivision of Pebble Beach Farms at 1)
located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 7.5 feet, 2) located less than
the code required minimum combined side yard setback of 17.5 feet, 3) swimming pool located
less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff located at 90 The Strand (adj. to
Long Island Sound) in East Marion. We're looking at a minimum side yard setback of 6.5 feet
the code requiring 7.5 feet in that subdivision, 2) combined side yard setback of 13 feet the
code requiring 17.5 and a bluff setback from (inaudible) was amended from 77.5 feet to 82.5
feet. Did I get that all right?
MIKE KIMACK : That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so Mike take it away.
MIKE KIMACK : Michael Kimack for the applicant who is in the audience today. I'd like to take it
to the two components first talking about the side yard setbacks. You're correct about Pebble
Beach Farms when it was created the lots were very narrow and it had been granted at the
time the ability to offset their side yard setbacks by fifty percent. This house was constructed in
1976 and if memory serves me right that would have fallen under chapter one under
(inaudible). The house was built which is in its present form with the present side yard setbacks.
It was in conformance at that time with the particular side yard (inaudible) at that particular
time. Obviously when it changed to the present ones the new one doesn't quite meet it. The
code additions and the closing of porches do not encroach any further into the side yards it had
been originally constructed the house. It had received it's building permit in 1976 (inaudible) in
1977 which is in your (inaudible). If there are any questions of me on those the side yards?
MEMBER DANTES : On the survey it shows the proposed addition at 6 % feet but it shows the
existing house at 8.8 feet it's on the north side of the property.
MIKE KIMACK : That addition had been in place that's not the addition that was always there.
MEMBER DANTES : It shows addition it doesn't say existing it's even drawn with the lines
through it as the new part of the house. On the John Metzger survey dated (inaudible).
MIKE KIMACK : You have the latest survey?
MEMBER LEHNERT : It's showing proposed additions.
MEMBER DANTES : So maybe he chose the side yard setback for the existing house as meeting
this Pebble Beach Farms.
3
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
MIKE KIMACK : Well the proposed addition over there is the same setback that had been
already in place (inaudible). The existing house that was 8.8 feet Eric and that was no closer the
addition is no closer to (inaudible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well there's a 6.5 foot with this 11 foot
MIKE KIMACK : That's on the other side.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what he's talking about.
MIKE KIMACK : But that's not coded in
MEMBER DANTES : Right that's what your variance is for right?
MIKE KIMACK : The variances yea that had been constructed in place primarily as the existing
house am I correct on that?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait a minute, no.
DAN MAZZARINI : I'm Dan. There's actually nothing there, where it says AC is an air
conditioning unit where the house sets back (inaudible).
MEMBER DANTES : What's the variance isn't for the AC condenser right?
DAN MAZZARINI : Maybe.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No look at the other side, there's a detached 11 foot addition
proposed addition setback at 6.5 feet.
DAN MAZZARINI : That's (inaudible) it's bay window
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what I'm saying and it's not at grade is it at grade or on the
second floor?
DAN MAZZARINI : It's (inaudible) the way the lot slopes it's above grade so it's
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You would walk under it?
DAN MAZZARINI : You would be able to walk under it yeah.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what I thought from the elevation. So that is not at grade it's a
setback for a bay window that's elevated.
MIKE KIMACK : That's a second floor addition.
44
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Second floor addition. The foundation is not changing.
MIKE KIMACK : No.
MEMBER LEHNERT : So the first floor plan show a walk out (inaudible).
MIKE KIMACK : Well where it says proposed addition Rob that's on the second floor. If you look
at the architectural plans you'll see that on the second floor which was (inaudible).
MEMBER DANTES : If he took out that bay window you wouldn't need any variance relief for
the side yard setback.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Mike it's the first floor plans coming off bedroom number one.
DAN MAZZARINI : The bedroom on the first floor (inaudible) so that side yard the window
would be high enough to be able to walk under it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first floor above well it's a lot of the house is below grade
correct habitable space that's below grade so that is considered I guess the first floor above
grade but it's a second floor.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So since we're talking about the window, what is the purpose of the
bay window? Couldn't you have just a regular window?
DAN MAZZARINI : Because I'm a designer and I guess we have to views of the water on two
sides of the house and this is just a way to get the view (inaudible).
MIKE KIMACK : The backside of the addition.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let's hear what other questions does the Board have about
this?Are we understanding what the setbacks are now?
MIKE KIMACK : Let me then address the third variance actually (inaudible) which is less than the
100 feet from the top of the bluff. It had been amended the pool was made smaller 16 x 32 and
at its closest point it's 82.5 feet from the top of the bluff but I would like to point out that the
majority of the pool from the top of the bluff is about 90 feet. If you look at the way the bluff
comes across now I have given you there obviously which we always do additional cases
indicating prior decisions that you have made relative to other pools and they range anywhere
from 50 to 70 feet within that area. Having said that I also understand that you are much more
sensitive to the conditions of the slope and whether or not this particular pool in that particular
location is going to have any effect on the bluff. So let's talk a little bit about that. If you look at
the survey you'll see there's a row (inaudible) about three years ago fourteen neighbors got
together for about 1000 linear feet designed a temporary holds using 1,100 three thousand
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
pound sand bags in order to stabilize to the extent possible the slope which had been
devastated by several storms and pretty much taken out. It pretty much worked it's really
(inaudible) two feet of the beach in front of it because it's (inaudible) but it's a temporary
action. We took all of it off the beach (inaudible) I got an emergency approval from D.E.C. and
an emergency approval from Trustees. I am now in negotiations with D.E.C. senior officials I've
had two hour and half conversations on a design method that will basically be used to sustain
and stabilize the entire slope of the fourteen homeowners. It's not a rock revetment (inaudible)
the details of it but it's so far going well it's a new proposal new method. There is a future
conversation coming which includes them and it would include Chairman Goldsmith and
Senator Palumbo with the senior officials in about two weeks dealing with this particular design
to see if this would be acceptable and so far they haven't said no. Also a hybrid (inaudible) sill
design which we use in (inaudible) which I'm using in Laughing Waters. The thing with D.E.C. is
they don't want to talk in generalities they like to talk about specific projects that are before
them. I was fortunate to have those three designs before (inaudible). What we tried to do with
that is what can we do, what are you going to able to give us as tools that we can utilize and
stabilize. I understand there are constraints, I understand where they're coming from. A quick
anecdote on that (inaudible) that they have been restrained by the politics of the situation. The
politics of the situation want the third parties who have intervened who basically if you wiped
away the slope they don't want you to put it back. So between the property owner who is
trying to preserve the property with (inaudible) and those people who basically say well mother
nature (inaudible) away let's leave it and that's what we're dealing with because they had told
me that my design is better than the one but it's too good we'd really like to replenish the slope
(inaudible) their words not mine.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well Mike you know we have started meeting with the Trustees not
in a forum not about an application but when these conflicting philosophies were brought to
our attention we made a decision that we would try to help and to facilitate conversation that
would get us more on the same page. It's apparently the Trustees that have jurisdiction with
100 feet of the bluff which would mean you would need our local Trustees approval and here
you go again you're going to need D.E.C. approval also cause they're (inaudible). It turns out
Trustees are not necessarily against the hardening of the toe of the bluff and bulkheading and
possibly changing the slope or the grade of the bluff and revegetating whereas D.E.C. says leave
it alone no hardening because if you start hardening then you're going to lose beach, you're
going to lose sand. So those are things that are town wide they're not just this application
they're everybody's concern. I just wanted to let you know we had an initial meeting and we
are now setting up with Soil and Water.
MIKE KIMACK : I'm going on my third basically with that one. You're absolutely right with that.
The only these three the Trustees haven't argued with me.
a
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have Soil and Water comments did we give that to you on
this application?
MIKE KIMACK : No you did not. I wasn't quite sure I know that the LWRP
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He says it's inconsistent.
MIKE KIMACK : I was interested in number ten which we really don't fall under I'm not quite
sure why it's there. (inaudible) constructing part of the dwelling normally approximately 100
bluff setback required. None of the house (inaudible) within 100 feet, I think Mark just felt it
was in there and he just put it in there but it's not relevant to this because the house the
dwelling it doesn't talk about the pool it talks about the dwelling only.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me just point out, Soil and Water spotted some irrigation
lines in a garden bed that's along the bluff the top of the bluff and indicated that it's one cause
of significant bluff erosion. Anytime water spills over a bluff it's going to cause that kind of
problem.
MIKE KIMACK : We can make adjustments to that also we did add a ten foot non-turf buffer to
our design which we knew the Trustees would basically (inaudible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We may want to see an even larger than 10 feet. The biggest tools
we have in order to protect bluffs are two fold, setbacks and non-disturbance buffers and
making sure that we don't have anything going over the bluff, no debris so
MIKE KIMACK : Their almost at the end their bluff is actually not in bad shape at all. They just
chose really to participate in sandbagging as a continuation all the way through.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I'd like you to have a look at those comments from Soil and
Water. They go into they're very good they go into extensive details. They made personal site
inspections whereas D.E.C. might Google Earth it but they never go out and look. So you know
our local Trustees know our local conditions and they go out and inspect the properties just like
we do. So there's a lot of things various levels of(inaudible) agencies that we have to do better.
If we don't allow property owners to build in fragile areas like along bluffs they have to be
doing it responsibly and we have to be doing it in a way that doesn't conflict from one agency
to another sending you reeling in ten different directions.
MIKE KIMACK : You're absolutely right, the way you got existing homes over decades conditions
change that take away that slope you're forced with you can't put it back like mother nature
intended because it's not going to hold you have to have some (inaudible). The Trustees you're
right are much more aware and much more sensitive to the hardening issue. I have to get the
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
meeting of the minds between the Trustees approval which they've approved each one of the
projects that I've submitted. The D.E.C. for evaluation and D.E.C. I'm (inaudible). I did want to
point this up only because the homeowner has taken positive steps and we continue to take
positive steps. His bluff is not really in bad shape. I think Pat you might have had an opportunity
to see it.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : (inaudible)
MIKE KIMACK : That's one of the reasons that we did the sandbagging and it hasn't gotten any
worse as a result of the sandbags being placed (inaudible) Sandy storm but it takes the
(inaudible) it stopped it from further erosion and it's really (inaudible). So that's the best we're
doing and it's proactive on our part and we're taking the fight to D.E.C. not really a fight but I've
been through this too many times, I understand D.E.C.'s motivations and psychology and so far
we have not been rejected in terms of our methods we designed.
MEMBER DANTES : Why not just build a pool that conforms I mean cut back deck, cut back the
addition, cut back the screened porch (inaudible) and meet the 100 foot setback and not even
be here?
MIKE KIMACK : Because basically the living conditions what they're looking for the proposed
deck was there primarily and I think the screened porch is it the same location just being
extended correct?
DAN MAZZARINI : Yes so the addition is actually the structure is a footprint of the current
screened in porch and it's been there for a year and a half. We (inaudible) so that's something
that we kind use (inaudible) requires a variance but this is how (inaudible).
MIKE KIMACK : So this has been in existence.
DAN MAZZARINI : No, where it says proposed addition the left side of the house that currently
is the depth of that is the depth of the existing screened in porch and we're adding the
screened in porch.
MIKE KIMACK : Which received a C of 0 basically back in '92 or something like that. I think
basically they made it as 16 x 32 is the size which you approved before which is within the
reasonableness for a pool and if you look at it it is 90 feet from the top of the bluff and you're
dealing with a fairly well vegetated slope a little bit on the bottom but you're also dealing with
a homeowner who understands that we're moving to the next level of (inaudible) of a more
permanent structure beyond the sandbags.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What about the septic? Are you going to be putting an IA?
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
MIKE KIMACK : An IA system is going in, it's being designed by Jim Deerkoski.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright let's see if there's any other questions, anything from you
Pat?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything more Eric?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I just want to mirror what Eric said, while I saw the interior floor plans
and I understand the alterations proposed the same sort of thing here can be achieved by
placing the proposed screened porch where the deck is where you're going to be extending
you've got such a large front yard that's more landward versus seaward so again I don't
understand why the pool cannot be placed in a conforming location.
MIKE KIMACK : Take a look at the contours, you see where it says (inaudible) retaining wall on
the survey. You got your water line and you got your buried electric the new septic system is
going in that area between the concrete wall and the building right through there it's the only
place it can go.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : In front of what is labeled the proposed deck.
MIKE KIMACK : No on the landward side.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right that's what I'm looking at, it says proposed deck
MIKE KIMACK : Yes right in front of that.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So that's where the septic is, why couldn't you extend where the
proposed addition is which is one of the bedrooms coming forwards. In other words reversing
the floor plan and you can still have or I suggested even putting in the screened porch over the
rear deck which would allow the pool to fit.
MIKE KIMACK : We need that room right there for the septic system between the retaining wall
and the driveway (inaudible) you need that in order to have the setbacks the 10 foot from the
foundation and 8 feet from the septic tank IA tank from the drywells.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but that's what I said, the proposed addition on the other side
of the walkway at the fagade the front fagade of the house you could have extended the
bedrooms in that direction where it says the waterway. I mean I'm not redesigning the project
but you have lots of space to work with that you can still increase the square footage by placing
the pool.
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
MIKE KIMACK : That area was (inaudible) as a more convenient entrance way.
DAN MAZZARINI : From a design perspective if you look at the way the sun travels I've been
living there for a year and a half now and this kind of optimizes both (inaudible) and sunlight. So
(inaudible) all the bedrooms on that side get that morning light in the summer particular and in
addition off the back just to make sure we use that living space in the kitchen the most so we
put them both on the back of the house just for the views. We tried to keep it all as tight as we
could to make those additions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything from you?
MEMBER LEHNERT : No, nothing right now.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Is there
anyone in attendance?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO Leslie if I may, I recall receiving an email was there a letter of
opposition on this application?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There was yes. It just said letter of objection from the adjacent
neighbors. Did you get a copy? I know I have it in my file. I think it had to do with the Pebble
Beach C&R's as I recall. We'll get you a copy. Anything else from anybody if not I want to move
on. Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
HEARING # 7526—YANA WATSON KAKAR
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Yana Watson Kakar
#7526. This is a request for a variance from Article XXII Section 280-105A and the Building
Inspector's April 19, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to
construct a six foot high portion of pool fencing in the front yard of a single family dwelling at 1)
fence is more than the code permitted maximum four (4) feet in height when located in the
front yard located at 4625 Aldrich Lane Extension (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Mattituck. Hi
would you state your name for the record please.
ERIC MARTZ : Hi Eric Martz. So my clients are looking to do 127 feet of a six foot privacy fence
along the pre-existing pool. The property line is 904 feet and this fence will be located about
400 feet back from the actual front of the property.
MEMBER DANTES : So the area around the pool the picket fence that's what you're applying
for?
ERIC MARTZ : No the picket fence was a pre-existing is now down, we have a new larger fence
going around that we need a permit for but along the property line extension we wanted to do
6 feet rather than 4 feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 127 foot length right?
ERIC MARTZ : Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think your argument was there were too many fences there I mean
trees there so
ERIC MARTZ : A lot of trees a lot of shade.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : growing evergreens in there is not (inaudible)
ERIC MARTZ : It's along the driveway (inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat did you have any questions?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No none at all, I was there and I saw the new fence.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick any questions?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm silent on this one, it's pretty straightforward.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : My heart be still. How about you Rob?
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
MEMBER LEHNERT : I have none.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience? Anyone Liz? Okay we've all seen it we've
seen the neighbors are set very far away and I don't think there's any impacts it's very far up on
the road. I mean it's just a small portion (inaudible). Alright I'm going to make a motion to close
the hearing reserve decision to a later date with my apologies that you had to wait so long. Is
there a second?
MEMBER DANTES : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Eric. All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We'll have a decision in two weeks. We've already adjourned
Hard Corners Partners to September. So let's get to the next one.
HEARING #7498— PHILIP LORIA
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Philip Loria #7498. This
was adjourned from July 1s1 and one of the reasons for adjournment if you all recall was
because there was some confusion about the Notice of Disapproval as to what bulk schedule
was to be applied to this property. The reason is now very clear, the Building Department did
not put in their Notice of Disapproval the fact that they were basing their disapproval on a
precedent established by the Zoning Board of Appeals in 2017 in a different decision which
interpreted the code. There was a proposal for a residential structure in an MII zone and it was
one setback a side yard setback and the question before us was the residence is a permitted
use in that zone but do you apply the MII zoning bulk schedule or do you apply the residential
schedule? This Board indicated that the residential bulk schedule setbacks and height should be
applied. The Building Department used that as precedent for how they wrote the Notice of
Disapproval. So anyone who went to the standard residential or went to the MII zoning to look
for the correct setbacks would not have been looking at the right place for good reason
because how would you have known. It was not an error on the Building Department's part but
it should have been in my opinion in the Notice of Disapproval so we all knew where it came
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
from that would have probably saved a good deal of time. However now we're here and then
Notice is deemed to be correct. It's considered a three story dwelling where 2 % is the
maximum, a front yard setback at 9.5 feet where the code requires 35 feet, a side yard setback
at 10.2 feet where the code requires the minimum of 15 feet and a rear yard setback at 15.7
feet where the code requires a minimum of 35 feet. So there we are, we've gotten lots of
written correspondence you've had opportunity I believe to review them I presume cause we
try to make sure that everybody gets all the information they need many letters and we've read
them all very carefully and we're here to take whatever additional information in that anybody
wants to tell us. I'll give you an opportunity to speak first.
NICK MAZZAFERRO : I'm Nicholas Mazzaferro professional engineer. My address is P 0 Box 570
New York, New York and I'm here representing the Lorias. I'd like to thank the Board for getting
us copies of this interpretation. It was 2015 right not 2017 cause the legal description says
2015.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You may be right I know I voted for it but let me see I have to find it.
It's 2015 you're right, March 19, 2015.
NICK MAZZAFERRO : We reviewed that and we also checked all our documentation regarding
the submission and the front and rear setbacks did not change it's the same as the original one,
side yard setbacks did change and we went back and checked all the documentation and all the
paperwork that we submitted and we did not have to amend anything in regards to the new
description. The project remained the same as far as design, (inaudible) are basically the same
so having said that thank you Board for your consideration and getting us on the calendar today
and just to let you know we would like this project to go through, we're willing to work with
you as far as getting this some kind of resolution as soon as possible.Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the
application at this point? Please come forward and state your name for us please.
JOYCE BARRY : My name is Joyce Barry and I live in New Suffolk. I have concerns and I've
stressed this before to the Board about the changing coast line and over building and large
buildings and (inaudible). I know you know New Suffolk, it's a small little community, the
houses are moderate but I do feel that the feeling is encroaching upon us and that lot is a small
lot and the setbacks aren't just a foot here and there it's a lot big difference 35 feet to 7 feet to
9 feet and I just think it's an overbuild for the lot. I have concerns with it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. Anybody else?
STEVE KATSOLAS : My name is Steve Katsolas I live at 75 First St. I thought the setback from the
rear was water involved here and the bulkhead should be 75 feet.
53
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : That was an old code, the wetland bulkhead setback was taken out of the
Zoning Board's jurisdiction several years ago.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't grant bulkhead setbacks anymore the Trustees do. We
look at that as a rear yard and so the rear yard bulk schedule has to apply in that instance. This
would have to come before the Trustees and the Trustees can do whatever they were obligated
to do under their code. Under the zoning code we're looking at a rear yard with 35 feet. Having
said that we do understand that the lot we do know the neighborhood, we do know the
flooding. We are aware of problems all up and down there. I remember very well when they
moved the Galley Ho, Legends was under water so we know the area.
STEVE KATSOLAS : My house is located almost across the street from Phil's property I know Phil
for a long time. Actually the house I bought it from his father back in '86. With Sandy I happen
to be in my house and the waves I would say more than about 150 feet up on the second story
and the waves the spray was coming to my house. Now another question I have is what's the
lot coverage it's 20%, 25%?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's 20% when you're a bulk schedule if it's residential.
STEVE KATSOLAS : If it says residential.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's maximum.
STEVE KATSOLAS : Maximum okay. In the application he put close to 2,700 sq. ft. of living space.
MEMBER DANTES : We don't regulate living space we regulate lot coverage.
STEVE KATSOLAS : In other words I have a my property is 20,000 sq. ft. so am I allowed double
like what's my house is 50 x 40 two stories it makes 4,000 sq. ft.
MEMBER DANTES : You have a 20,000 sq. ft. lot you multiply that by a .20 and that's the total
lot coverage you're allowed. It can be used on a house a swimming pool a garage that's your
business.
STEVE KATSOLAS : Okay I understand that's (inaudible). His lot is 6,200 sq. ft. approximately
okay so if you multiply like you say .20 something that makes what 1,200 sq. ft. correct?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : On the ground floor.
STEVE KATSOLAS : I'm sorry.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Touching the ground. In other words you can have two stories.
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
STEVE KATSOLAS : Yes so I'm allowed to do two stories on my house too?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah. The lot coverage has to do with the way structures take up
space on the ground like a driveway does but that doesn't count because it's not considered a
structure.
STEVE KATSOLAS : It's not total square feet?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it's not square footage.
MEMBER DANTES : It's not gross floor area it's lot coverage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's just the area of the property is going to be covered by a
structure.
STEVE KATSOLAS : Okay so he applied for 2,700 sq. ft.
NICK MAZZAFERRO : Can I just clarify something? The bulk schedule 280 attachment 2.1 for
Marine II references secondary schedule VII when you're going to residential and VII the
column allows 25% coverage. I have the schedule here if you need to see it. So the lot
(inaudible) can 25%
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But you're referring to MII.
NICK MAZZAFERRO : MII zoning when you go to residential go to column VII on the second
schedule attachment 3.1 and that's based on the Building Department's interpretation. Actually
in the legal description I was just recently updated and sent out the (inaudible) there is no
variance required for coverage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No there isn't.
NICK MAZZAFERRO : There isn't. We have 21% coverage and the allowed was 25% just for the
record that's all. Section 280 attachment 3.1 under the bulk schedule charts.
STEVE KATSOLAS : The only thing I have to say is that that property is too small the setbacks
front, back, sides it's the property is not (inaudible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. Liz was there somebody there that wants to speak?
OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I don't know if William would like to speak. He's already in as
a panelist. William if you would like to speak unmute please.
WILLIAM GRELLA : No I'm just listening thank you.
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
OFFICE ASSISTANT : I have an Arlene Castellano. Arlene unmute please.
ARLENE CASTELLANO : Arlene Castellano New Suffolk. I spoke in opposition to this application
at the July 1St hearing and my concerns have not changes. Regardless of the size or scale of the
proposed structure I'm primarily concerned with the close proximity of the septic system and
leaching fields to the Peconic Bay. Due to the small size of this waterfront lot which is located in
a FEMA special flood hazard area no amount of modification or reconfiguration or even scaling
down of this application will ever result in compliance with the town's wetland setbacks which
were designed to protect our increasingly fragile eco system. If I'm reading Mr. Loria's plans
correctly he is proposing to install a septic system less than 10 feet from the Peconic Bay. This is
unacceptable. The benefit of a new septic system is only relevant when it is replacing an
outdated one. That is not the case here. I know that based on a recent Town Board decision the
75 foot bulkhead setback was eliminated from the ZBA's jurisdiction even though the bluff
setbacks remain. I would hope that the ZBA would still take the wetlands setbacks that are now
solely with the Trustees into consideration when making their determination. Those setbacks
from a wetland boundary are 100 feet for a residence, 75 feet for a septic tank and 100 feet for
a leaching field. It should also be noted that the Trustees have the authority to waive the
setbacks. I understand how in this application hamlet density zoning code is being applied to a
Marine II lot. What I don't understand is why the code was written this way and more
importantly why it has been haphazardly applied over the years. The 2015 case in Mattituck
that has been referenced as an interpretation of the code doesn't seem to be an interpretation
but rather the first time that this code has been properly read and applied by the ZBA since the
code was written in 1989. There are three waterfront properties across the street from me.
They are all zoned MII and have all applied for variances in the last twenty years. The ZBA
applied different zoning and setback rules to each one of them. One was granted variances
using R40, one was granted variances using MII and now we have HD. As recently as 2017 the
ZBA applied MII setbacks and lot coverage to one of these properties. So I think that's an issue.
Everyone is operating under different rules and that's just my three neighbors. The only other
thing I want to add is that I notice that Mr. Loria's ZBA file includes several documents
concerning the bulkhead on his property. There is a storm damage repair permit from 1993, a
D.E.C. permit from 1975 and an as built permit from the Trustees from 2019 but there is no
original wetland permit for the bulkhead in the file and I can't find it anywhere in the records.
So I would just like to ask if that permit exists, if it could please be added to the ZBA file along
with the date of the public hearing associated with that permit. Thank you very much.
NICK MAZZAFERRO : I would like to address the septic system. The house has been designed to
optimize the conditions and protect the bay at the greatest extent possible. We are including
the most advanced IA system that the Trustees are now requiring, the Suffolk County as of July
1st is now requiring and we've been researching manufacturers, they are completely sealed
5
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
units and that is located the proper setback distances from the bulkhead and the property lines.
The leaching field where the water actually returns to the ground has been completely put into
the AE zone which is the least amount of energy that's generated by the water and it's also set
up to be as far away from the bay as possible where the clean water gets leeched back into the
ground. As far as the wetland permit goes, we know that we have complete clearance on the
bulkhead and the history of the property the bulkheading was built by reputable people
(inaudible) three cycles already. The D.E.C. has been involved and there has been no violations
and no issues as of 2019 from anybody regarding the bulkhead. As a matter of fact the D.E.C.
even approved a sand easement which doesn't count as part of the property that allows that
little (inaudible) cause of the wash that existed.Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody in either the audience or on Zoom?
LINDA AURIEMMA : My name is Linda Auriemma and I live in New Suffolk on 460 Front St. I'm
very glad that you're all familiar with what New Suffolk looks like and what this property that
we're talking about today looks like because I think that's critical. We presented I guess
approximately a hundred and forty signatures petitioning that you do not allow this house to be
built. These are all New Suffolk residents with one or two exceptions and I'd like to give you
another sixteen of them today. I have to say if we had more time we would probably be able to
double the number from a hundred and forty to a hundred and eighty or three hundred or
whatever. There are plenty of people that are still voicing objections it's just a question of
getting to (inaudible). In New Suffolk our waterfront our bay views are cherished by us. It's the
reason why many years ago we fought against building condos in town and against building
triple tier boat racks to hold a hundred and fifty (inaudible) right along First St. and we were
successful to keep these water views. This house is going to take a big chunk away from us. It's
going to be 60 feet long as you know and there's a lot next door to it that's also vacant which
could be also in your purview at some point if this house goes through. Effectively blocking out
that entire section of waterfront Orchard St. through Kane St. There's already one house there
blocking the view which came about from being flooded out from Sandy, we don't want to
continue and block out the entire sections it's going to be a corridor of homes. This is not a
situation that I'm standing here cause I'm going to lose my personal water view. I don't live on
the water or near the water but it's the case that our town is upset, our people are upset. They
don't want to lose their water view it's the heart of our hamlet it's not five people saying, oh
it's going to block my view it's pretty much all of New Suffolk. The application has to respond to
questions about the LWRP and I don't really feel that they satisfied that. I don't think it's
consistent with the LWRP (inaudible). It doesn't enhance the community character to build this
house three stories high. You've seen pictures of what the house looks like. The application says
the project is proposed in traditional style used prominently in Southold town. It has a full flight
of stairs going up the front, the living space doesn't start till the second floor. What kind of
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
house is this, have you seen that all over Southold town? I don't think so, it does not fit in our
hamlet by any stretch of the imagination. It's not preserving open space by building a house, it's
not making beneficial use of coastal location and it doesn't minimize the adverse effects of
development which is all part of the LWRP. Even the town planner has ruled that this project is
inconsistent with the LWRP and when that happens it means the project should not go forward.
Please deny this request and thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay now you want to see if there's someone on Zoom wants to
talk?
OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Well we have William in here already and he was his hand up.
William you can go ahead.
WILLIAM GRELLA : William Grella. I just want to say that I think Phil should have the option to
do to build what he wants on his own property. My concern is basically with his septic system
being as close as it is to my property. I don't know if that's going to cause a problem for me. I
know that when I had to redo my septic system that it affected my neighbors and I had to put in
town water for them because of the same issues of leeching so I'm just concerned about
continued leeching there but as far as visibility to build a house there I think that's you know
he's a land owner and entitled to do what he wants on his property regardless of what my
personal opinion is I think that's his right. So that's about all I have to say thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you.
OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I will move in a Joseph.
NICK MAZZAFERRO : May I say something first? As far as the septic system goes, the septic
system is designed to Suffolk County Department of Health standards and the dimensional
spacing and guidelines. The depth meets the requirements, the IA system meets the
requirements and as far as the public water comment, any residential property that does not
clear 150 feet of a septic system requires public water today. That was updated from 100 to
150 recently. I have personal experience with that I owned a lot that was only 100 feet deep,
they changed the regulations I put my neighbor on public water so I can actually a permit to
build a house. So that has nothing to do with Phil's design Phil's house that's a Suffolk County
regulation that requires any public I'm sorry, you cannot have a well within 150 feet of a septic
system. So if you have a lot that's 100 feet wide and 60 feet deep you have to have public water
whether it's the property next door to Phil's or Phil's property itself.
MEMBER DANTES : We had the same conversation the last hearing basically verbatim if I'm
correct.
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
JOSEPH POLASCHUCK : Hi my name is Joseph Polaschuck I'm the President of the New Suffolk
Civic Association. We're (inaudible) property values and the environment and just looking out
for the community as a whole and I'd just like to speak to the end of this being the septic.
know (inaudible) system out there and they're touting that as a wonderful thing but I don't
know I have not seen the actual numbers if it's a hundred percent effective. Any detergents or
nutrients that get into the water from septic is definitely detrimental to the health of the bay,
detrimental to the use of the water by our community. That is my biggest fear and I would just
hate to see the day that we go to the New Suffolk Town Beach and the sign is up for no
swimming, no clamming, no crabbing, no fishing due to pollution and it may not be far off into
the future. So my thoughts on this again is directly related to the septic system and this
application and its proximity to the water. That is all I have to say, thank you.
OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I am going to move in a Michele. Michele please unmute.
MICHELE ROUSSAN : My name is Michele Roussan, I live 865 Second St. in New Suffolk. Just
concerned about more building down First St., that street is already heavily congested. I have a
question about preservation, is there any way we could preserve that piece of land?
MEMBER DANTES : We don't have the power to do it here. Someone can make an offer to buy
it.
MEMBER LEHNERT : You can purchase it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If it's for sale.
MICHELE ROUSSAN : The town of Southold has done such a great job preserving land. I'm
wondering if the Peconic Land Trust or anyone preservation buyer maybe could get involved.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's something you'd have to discuss with those particular groups.
We have no efficacy with regard to anything like that but any individual I suppose can try and
reach out to any of the Land Preservation organizations and they have the right to approach the
owner. There's no guarantee of any of that, I mean it's their property and Mr. Grella is correct
in that people can do whatever they want with their property but not unless it conforms to the
code. Then they have the right to go in accordance with the code. When something doesn't
follow the code they have the right to appeal the denial of a building permit from the Building
Department that's what the Zoning Board of Appeals is here for. We are an appellate
jurisdiction and we only hear things that have been denied and that's how we balance out
problems when like a lot of things became inconsistent when zoning came in and so we would
have to basically review what kind of hardship was created by zoning for a lot of properties. If it
meets certain legal standards that are very clearly spelled out they have the right to get a
variance but that's the process. I do agree that property rights matter. This Board as much as
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
the character of the neighborhood in New Suffolk is open views to the water only has the
authority to protect designated view sheds. As much as we would like to say no we should
block anybody else's view of the beautiful waterfront we don't have the authority to say you
can't unless it's a scenic view shed in which case then it would be inconsistent with the LWRP.
There's a lot of people that build in front of other people that suddenly they're used to seeing
an open space and then it's not open anymore. It happens all over the place. We always try if
they require variances to minimize the variances or to deny them for that matter if they're
egregious but often we try and say could you move this over a little bit because this person's
house is right over there and if you moved your house over five feet you still would be
conforming and they would preserve their view shed. That's what you try to do, you try to help
everybody in the community. So I just want to go on the record that I agree property rights
matter and we are not here just to protect other people's views but when something is part of
the character of the neighborhood that does matter and those are all the things we have to
balance it's called a balancing test. In the end we have to ask ourselves one final question when
we provide variance relief and that's the balancing test. We look at all the variables all the six
state statutes town laws and you say to yourself does the benefit to the applicant outweigh the
detriment to the community or the other way around and that is what the law obliges us to do.
Is there anybody else on Zoom that wants to say anything?
OFFICET ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Yes I'm moving in
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh wait there was someone you can move them in, come to the
podium and state your name please. Okay let Mr. Krug go and then you go.
MR. KRUG : I just have a couple of thoughts some of it is a reiteration of what we spoke about
at the last meeting but the bottom line is as a relative newcomer to New Suffolk relative to
some of the people who are involved in this application. We purchased our home because of
the wonderful character of this little hamlet and with the reassurance that there were codes
that were strict enough to protect that character, that there's an LWRP that's looking to
preserve and improve the character of places just like this but it does strike me that if we do
grant these variances and they are as someone said earlier they're very significant variances
they're not talking a foot here a foot there but if variances like this are granted you know
precedence has been discussed in this meeting there are a number of precedence that were
discussed. This will then become another precedent that gets discussed. It will be much more
difficult to preserve that waterfront and open space it'll be more difficult to stick to the codes
that are in place if these variances are granted and if we're going to go against the
recommendation of the LWRP then what does the recommendation of the LWRP mean and in a
case like this where you know on its face it just seems like an application that should be you
know to use a pawn dead in the water. Again that's my opinion as a homeowner, it's my
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
opinion as someone who enjoys the character of the New Suffolk and it's my opinion as a
homeowner who's had to deal with you know applications for zoning variances and so forth
and had expectations about what that would mean what kind of variations and exceptions I was
looking for and I hope that all made sense. So if my wife has something to add to that I am
certainly not going to get in the way.
LYNN KRUG : My name is Lynn Krug I live at 1175 on Second St. with Mr. Krug. I did a lot of
research on this because this was really troubling to me, just like my husband said so many
variances that Mr. Loria is seeking and I agree wholeheartedly with his statement I have a lot of
trouble finding information. I called the New York State D.E.C. today I was put on hold for thirty
minutes and I reached out to someone in Stony Brook and left a message. I just wanted to find
out information on the septic but I did some research before and I started looking at the Suffolk
County GIS system which shows maps. Mr. Loria's property is surrounded by NYS surface water
and that I think is really important because the state really wants to protect the bay. After all
Peconic Bay is a protected bay. We don't want to see what's happening in where I grew up I
grew up in Northport New York, you can't even go to the beach at (inaudible) anymore because
of(inaudible) into the water. So I'm very, very concerned about protecting Peconic Bay. We sail,
we swim I love it. I moved here for those specific reasons but the thing that I found when I was
researching the code, there's an exclusion and it's called the areas of special one hundred year
flood hazard as defined in ECL Articled 36. This exclusion is to protect the water of the state
that could become contaminated by soil based treatment systems washed away by flood
waters are structurally compromised basic treatment systems that are washed away I'm sorry
I'm repeating myself I don't have my glasses on. Anyway, it can undermine the quality of the
water because let's face it no system is perfect. Sandy caused a lot of damage. I had no power
in Garden City for three weeks so we know. I know New Suffolk flooded based on what Steve
the water line on his steps. I mean let's face it, coastal degradation is happening. We have to
protect what we have or we're going to lose the future generations. I firmly believe that New
Suffolk is going to lose its charm and the small town feel if we start allowing these variances to
go through because like everyone has said here who is in opposition if lots along First St. and I
can see being like a domino. I went before the Zoning Board last year maybe during COVID, we
had our permit granted the only variance we needed was 3 feet on the side of our house so we
can have a good staircase going up to our attic. We worked with you guys we followed the
building codes, we really didn't ask for a variance for non-conforming it was 3 feet. I'm finally
done with the house and we're seeking final approval. I think when you start granting so many
variances why have a code? If you don't meet the code requirements you shouldn't granted
and again thank you for your time. I'm sorry I can't read very well without my glasses my eyes
are changing. I really hope you consider all the petitions, our letter that we wrote last time and
again I hate to speak publicly I tried my best thank you.
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're very welcome. I will say one thing about the LWRP just for
again everybody to be aware of this. This Board cannot legally grant anything that cannot be
made to be LWRP consistent and the way in which we do that is by imposing mitigation
measures. If mitigation measures are not possible or not sufficient we can't approve it. That's
how strict the LWRP is and we have to indicate exactly why we determined given an
inconsistency that given the following yada, yada, yada conditions or whatever or approvals
from various other Boards we now determined it to be consistent and that's in all of our
decisions. That is a very, very important document the LWRP and it was really a work of years
invested by our former Town Planner Valerie Scopaz who managed to get this massive
document not only approved by our Town Board but approved by Albany so that we would
have local determination so that not everything has to go to the D.E.C. in Albany they don't
know what's going on here. They don't live here, they don't know what communities look like
we do and that's why it's called local and it's working very well for the most part and it's
helping but we have to use every tool in the tool box to do the right thing. I don't know if some
of you were here earlier when I was saying that the ZBA had an initial meeting with both the
President and Vice President of the Trustees and Mark Terry who is the LWRP Coordinator to
begin to discuss what the issues are among inconstant standards and not the same consistent
application of those standards between the D.E.C., the Army Corps. Of Engineers, Suffolk
County Soil and Water and the LWRP our local Trustees because if we don't have some
consistency we're not going to have going forward a coordinated plan of protection. We don't
want to see one property damaging another and then you know a whole domino effect and
that can happen but if one property has one kind of bluff remediation or a bulkhead and
another is a different kind there could be issues from one property to the next. It's not exactly
zoning but it is the right thing to do as neighbors who are public officials who care about
protection for our community. So we had one initial conversation, we're going to be setting up
more and you know we're hoping to revisit the possibility of getting a coastal resiliency task
force at the county level in place. Legislator Krupski had proposed it but COVID kind of shut that
down so just want everybody to be aware of how important we all feel these issues are. I'm not
talking about the Loria application I'm just talking about in general. We know that these are
really important issues and please be aware that we're doing everything we can to try and see
how we can make things better and keep things safe. So having said that is there anybody else
who wants to make a comment. Okay go ahead I'll give you the last word how's that.
OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I have one more Leslie.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have one in the audience here, you want let the Zoom person in
and then you speak and then they will.
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
JENNIFER JACOBS : Hi thank you. So my name is Jennifer Jacobs, I live in New Suffolk. I don't live
adjacent to the property but I do walk by the property just about every single day and I meet
other people who also walk by the property just about every single day because New Suffolk is
such a nice place to walk through especially that downtown area and I think many of the
residents just really enjoy that downtown area. I was just going to say one thing about that I
think is important when thinking about setbacks and you know how much of a difference it will
make if you know bend the rules here or there to allow them. I think it's really important to
consider the heights of the building. Now I know the 35 feet of height that is proposed is within
the legal height limit. However if you have a building that's that high and that's really, really
high for New Suffolk and you take that building and put it right close to the road it looks even
higher. If they were going to try and build a building that's that high and set it way back from
the road you know that doesn't matter so much. Or if this were just like a little one story kind of
building like you know like the one that's two doors down that's called the Sugar Shack the little
blue house you know that's right up close to the road it's adorable and it doesn't assault the
senses. When you take a three story building and I understand like technically because the
bottom is a breakaway and maybe the floor won't be finished that maybe it goes to a two story
instead of a three story but for intense and purposes that is a three story building that's set so
close to the road and it's so close to the property lines on either side is just really going to look
huge. I think it would be a real shame if those variances were permitted and those setbacks
were set aside in this case for such a gigantic structure. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we had somebody in the audience.
JULIE SOUL : Hi my name is Julie Soul and I live at 875 King St. at the corner of First St. so I'm
pretty close to this plan so I'm extremely familiar with the landscape. I mean as far as I can see
those lots are beaches and if you look at some of the historic pictures they are beaches before
the bulkheads went up. What I can't understand and this is very naive of me because I haven't
been involved with something like this is, what is the point of having codes or laws and then
asking for variances in every different directions significant ones. I mean why would that even
be considered when you're talking twenty feet here twenty feet there I just don't understand
why that you know it's like you know I was going fifty five mile an hour well actually you were
doing eighty you know. There's a code and I don't understand why that isn't adhered to that's
my question and I think it would be a real shame if those codes were not honored. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you want that question answered? I tried to explain (inaudible).
Zoning went into effect in 1957 in the Town of Southold. So everything that was built before
then was likely it was just built the way it was built there were no rules and a lot of things were
then rendered pre-existing, pre-zoning and became non-conforming. The Board of Appeals was
established by state statute in everything in this town that had zoning. We derive our powers
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
from the state and we were established as a relief valve. Let's say you bought you know your
house became non-conforming but you want to put a porch on the back, should you be denied
an opportunity to do that because you don't meet the law anymore? No, we were there to
listen to arguments that address certain statutes that are right in our decisions, they're right on
our website, they'll tell you all of things you to be able to address and make an argument for.
They include environmental impacts, character of the neighborhood, degree of substantiality of
the variance and so on. Is it self-created or is there some other reason why the problem arose,
all of those things we do in order to arrive at the balancing test that I told you about. So this is
to respect the rights of property owners but we don't have cart blanche as I said we have to
make sure if it's waterfront it's LWRP consistent and we have to make sure that we grant the
minimum variance possible if the variance is justified. We'll often say well you're applying for
five feet why can't you make it ten feet if you can't make the fifteen that's conforming you can
do better. So that's why there's a Board of Appeals. They're appealing a denial because they're
not going by the code. So they didn't get a building permit. That's why the Board of Appeals
exists and it does so wherever there is zoning ordinances. Our job is to go out and inspect
properties, look at those standards, look at the arguments, listen to the public, listen to the
applicant and then make a decision. That's about all I can do to clarify this. We had somebody
there and I think somebody else in the audience here. Let's see the one from Zoom is.
DORIS BRADIGAN : Hi I'm Doris Bradigan, I live in New Suffolk I'll make it quick. Madam
Chairwoman Ms. Weisman I think you said something interesting before and I hope I don't
misquote you but you said something about the benefit sort of deciding how to benefit how to
grant variances and so on, does the benefit of the seller outweigh the detriment to the
community? Please feel free to correct me but I think
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The benefit of the property owner. In other words, the property
owner is asking for something that the code doesn't allow. This is true of every variance. The
question we have to answer in the end and it's right in the decision, is this the minimum action
necessary to allow the applicant to proceed with the project. You have to say if it is or it isn't.
You have to in the end say, the benefit to the applicant outweighs any potential detriment to
the community or it's the other way around. The detriment to the community outweighs the
benefit to the applicant. That's the ultimate (inaudible)
DORIS BRADIGAN : Toward that there's something about the design of this house. Well I can tell
you what it is, when these homes are built on small properties they go for maximum F. A. R.
which is floor are ratio which creates kind of a monolith and it just rather disregards any sort of
intentions of good will toward the community. You're taking away a block of view not just the
water a big chunk of sky as well on such a small scale. The design shows absolutely no sympathy
for the surroundings well most of the surroundings we'll put it that way cause there is a similar
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
nearby and we would I would love to see the character of New Suffolk preserved and we've
seen a few exceptions to that lately and that's all I'd like to add.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ok thank you. There was someone from the audience who wanted
to speak, you can come forward and state your name please.
GLORIA BAUME : Hi my name is Gloria Baume, I'm at 640 Orchard St. in New Suffolk. I'm
actually not going to talk I'm just going to hand in this letter that we wrote to the editor of the
Suffolk Times so that we can add it to the record it was added to the Suffolk Times of July 291H
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. Anybody else in the audience, is there anybody on Zoom
now Liz? I'd Phil to speak last unless you want to go now.
PHIL LORIA : My name is Phil Loria. I'd like to assure many that are disappointed, there's no 60
foot wall, there's no Mt. Everest (inaudible) 10 feet from the property line and 18 feet from the
street curb. If a garage face out the New Suffolk parking problem the sides of the back are
actually 40 feet 5 feet more than we are required the 35 feet. The house is proportioned to the
lot the footprint is actually small 1,372 sq. ft. it's only 21% of which allowed we're only using
21% of the 25% lot coverage allowed. We're putting in the state of the art septic system
(inaudible). There's nothing out of the ordinary for this variance that we're seeking. We're glad
to have received the ZBA's 2015 decision which (inaudible). As I said we're more than willing to
work with you and (inaudible) a letter of support that I'd like to submit. I'd just like to say you
know some of the people are saying something about the septic, we're (inaudible) of cesspools
that seemed to be okay but the state of the art septic system that we're going to (inaudible).
I'm trying to do the best I can. I've lived in the town an long time and my wife and I would like
to continue to do that. I just feel that it's a very personal thing for me. Some of these people
are my friends and I'm very disheartened by the whole thing. Thank you I'd like to give you this
support letter.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure thank you.
STEVE KATSOLAS : Can I say something? Okay Phil mentioned about the septic tanks (inaudible)
gotta go more back it's not the reasonable place for (inaudible) for the septic tank if far away
from the bulkhead from the water. His situation is (inaudible) 20 feet from the bulkhead. That's
all I have to say.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from the Board at this point, any comments. I think we're
mostly here to (inaudible) just to hear final comments from the applicant and from (inaudible).
Nobody else on Zoom Liz? Okay, alright Board are we ready to close?
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mr. Loria or Mr. Mazzaferro but I suppose it's more directed towards
the Loria's, there's a lot of opposition I personally wouldn't necessarily want to be in your shoes
I can't imagine what it's like but if is you know a bit of a challenge. Having heard so many
people speak out against the project would you consider amending your application in any way
or altering the design to better suit what people are finding fault in?
PHIL LORIA : Like I said, initially we said we were more than willing to work with the town and if
it means moving this or that or whatever we have to do I want like I said I want to live there, I
want to build a house if it means doing whatever we have to do the limitations I'm okay with.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't think it's up to us to design the house or guide but it's
something you have to come to terms with I think on your own. So I don't know I think the
option the Chairperson was directing that we're closing the hearing the problem is then that
we're rendering the decision and I just wonder if it's something that you can it's (inaudible). I
know other people on the Board feel that way the members.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well they can always come back in with a different application with
a different design but I think we really have to make a determination on this application in my
opinion. It doesn't preclude them whatever the decision it. They are either going to be able to
build something based on what we heard or not and if it's not then they have the right to come
back with a different design based on some different setbacks.
NICK MAZZAFERRO : I'd like to address that. When we did the design we focused on a lot of
different things. We focused on the parking problem, we focused on being able to get
emergency vehicles on the property, we focused on putting the septic system in to optimize the
conditions for everybody including protecting the bay. It's ironic that the side yard setback
which is 10 foot versus 15 is one of the strong issues that's being required. I mean we have no
problem at all if it became (inaudible) a contingency by the Board written into the decision that
we had to move the house over 5 feet to the north. That would give us 15 feet on one side yard
and 25 feet on the other to be fully compliant no variance would be required. The reason you
have 10 foot there I know for a fact that's a standard distance for emergency vehicles to get by
a piece of property and the other side we kept it as wide as possible in order to optimize the
use of the leeching field of the septic system but we have no problem whatsoever to a
contingency put in by the Board that we would have the side yard setbacks 15 feet on the south
and 25 feet on the north. That would eliminate the variances entirely. The other possibilities
are we don't really want to put any of the (inaudible) into the A zone we have the house
structure proper in the AE and we have like ninety five percent of the deck structure right now
in the AE. We looked (inaudible) push the house 5 feet further away from the road, maintain
the house within the AE flood zone the only thing that would happen the rear deck would now
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
be in the VE zone but the rear deck is already designed to be on piles. So we would have no
problem accepting that as a contingency also. As far as the rest of the design goes it's 1,300 sq.
ft. of coverage it's 21% sq. ft. coverage. We do not need a coverage variance and we do not
need a height variance. We're trying to make a nice living condition for the guy that's
(inaudible) that's all so we're willing to work with you. We can easily make that design change
without a problem if that answers your question.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The other thing is that you have although it is not a conditioned
story therefore non-habitable we've done that in order to create a garage. You do not have to
have a (inaudible) elevation in that zone to be FEMA compliant.
NICK MAZZAFERRO : That's correct but we did want to capture the space. We are within the 35
foot height limit overall. The base (inaudible) set the height at 35 feet to allow by code and
build the house downward that's what was left at the bottom. The reason for three story
definition was based on the finished floor. We put a concrete floor in there that complies with
FEMA it does benefit for a garage that's a hundred percent correct but what it also does is it
sets up a FEMA approved or FEMA compliant situation where if we do get a flood on the
property everybody here has said that that's going to happen the water will come into that are
which is not occupied it's nothing but a storage space with a flat slab but it will also exit that
area and when the water exits the concrete floor you can go down there with a hose, wash it
off in one day and your environment inside your house is not damp, you do not have salt water
under your floor inside of the space, you don't have rodents coming up through the ground to
an interior space with the storage area so that's why that floor was put in there. It's multi-
purpose and you're absolutely correct there is a benefit of a garage, it's a benefit for a storage
area but it's not (inaudible) and it does actually produce a better and safer environment for the
structure above.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The height doesn't have to be there. The slab yes for all the reasons
you just described. I guess what I'm trying to say is that what I've heard the public quite frankly
my feeling and I'm not speaking for the whole Board is that close to the road that length, that
height there's something that it's just massive. We know it's going to look very big and I think
part of that is that people are worried about the scale of properties in that area the size of the
lots and so on. We're not here to negotiate design. I'm not going to sit here and amend every
single setback and say well you can have this but not that. It's not a negotiation. You're
applying, you did what you thought was the best thing for your client, we've heard from the
public and I'm ready to make a decision. I mean I really am. If you want to I'm going to poll the
Board. If the Board wants to hold it open so you can go back and redo everything.
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : I'll read it if I'm reading it correctly, it says floor zone AE elevation 6 and
then lists the height of the parcel at 5.4 so for the insurance rates they like you to try to get to 2
feet above the elevation so you can take what you have like 2 or 3 feet of concrete to get the
first floor and still meet the FEMA requirements as opposed to the 8 feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What we're basically saying is if we're reading the FEMA
requirements you could have 2 or 3 feet of concrete okay above grade meet FEMA
requirements and to get to the first floor. There wouldn't be a car under it there wouldn't be
much storage yeah you could put some storage under there but not a lot cause there's no head
clearance but you know you can stick a kayak or something. The bottom line is the scale is an
issue on a lot that size where the setback is so close to the road and I think that's what you're
really hearing. What people are not yet aware of is that IA systems are by far superior to the
kind of septic systems we're all used to. It's really an enclosed system, it doesn't leech effluent
out the way our old systems do which is why Suffolk County as of July 15t is requiring them.
They're more expensive a lot more expensive and they require maintenance. But we all have to
pay the price for preserving our water quality. So you know it's just a lot of stuff that the Board
has to review and grapple with. I think we have a proposal in front of us, I'm going to ask Rob
do you want to look at an amended or do you want to make a decision now?
MEMBER LEHNERT : I'd like to see something amended.
NICK MAZZAFERRO : (inaudible) we're going to amend can we get on the calendar for
September?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No. We're lucky if we can put you on for November. We are so
swamped I can't begin to tell you and we wind up with adjournments just like yours was and
then that's on top of the ones we've already scheduled. We have fourteen applications today.
These are not five minute hearings. Sometimes you get lucky and it's simple and we can do it
quickly.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Leslie can we close this pending revised plans?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would rather not because the public wants input and if we close it
subject to receipt of an amended plan then there's no other it'll still be open but there's no way
for the public to really review it in the way I think this public wants to. So either we just adjourn
it for an amended application which does something different than you've certainly taken in all
of the comments, you've heard from the neighbors we don't want to our (inaudible) I don't
want to judge it. We have to (inaudible) deliberation this is not a time for deliberation we listen
it's a hearing we hear things. So I don't know obviously Nick you're in favor of looking
NICK MAZZAFERRO : We've already said we're willing to leave it open and amend and resubmit.
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think they listened to what the towns people have said and
NICK MAZZAFERRO : We're willing to amend.
MEMBER DANTES He has grounds I mean for area variance relief I think the issue is the
massing like the way that the size that it looks like not fitting in the character of the
neighborhood not that he has an unbuildable lot.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : I think that fact that you come here today you certainly heard remarks
that were made in July and now we're here in August and now you seem to want to amend and
make changes I think that you know we can't close this based upon the fact that you're still
willing to make changes so I'd like to see the amended changes before we settle anything.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so then what we're going to do is give the applicant another
opportunity to make a number of adjustments to the propose dwelling and come back before
the public again when we receive that amended site plan, survey, elevations, floor plans as
usual. They will be on Laserfiche and they will be available to the public. We will have to re
notice that adjournment. You're going to have to send out notices again post it again. We'll
have a legal notice in the paper again so everybody will be aware of it and we'll see what you
probably will have to go back to the Building Department to get an amended Notice if
Disapproval for the amended plans so that we will then have a new Notice of Disapproval and a
new Legal notice and it will say what their requests are now as opposed to what they're
requesting now. Is everybody clear on that?
STEVE KATSOLAS : What's really going to change I mean
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't know until we see it. They've heard everything you've said
and they've heard what everybody has said and they're willing to say we're going to make it
more conforming to the code.
STEVE KATSOLAS : The problem is not going to get any bigger. I mean what's really going to
change the square footage? The setbacks are going to be the same. You're going to come here
again and talk the same thing again I don't know.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just heard from Liz one of our staff members who is in the office
now and she's looking at the calendar for our hearings and she said we actually at this point
have one more in November than we have in October. So we can put you on for October.
NICK MAZZAFERRO : You can put us on for October?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's just double check.
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
NICK MAZZAFERRO : You can put us on last we don't care.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You would be on last you will be last we're going to bring in pizza
next time.
LINDA AURIEMMA : Linda Auriemma again, I just want to make sure everybody is clear about
the reference to the (inaudible) and the septic system I was on the board for several years not
when they were putting it in but there's a world of difference between this property and the
Galley Ho. I mean the Galley Ho was pushed back 75 feet and the septic is behind that so
probably well over 100 feet away from the water. Here we're talking about 15 feet from the
water so don't (inaudible) same category please they're not.
NICK MAZZAFERRO : The Galley Ho is not using an IA system.
T. A. DUFFY : The applicant point was that their system is much more efficient than the one at
Galley Ho. I think that's how the Board took it and (inaudible).
LINDA AURIEMMA : It's not close to the water like this one is and it's also very underutilized for
what was put in it barely is used.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright now we just gotten yet another update this is like breaking
news. We're swamped every month, this is what happens when a zillion people move out from
the city and everybody wants to build something. We have the same number on for October
and for November. It's going to have to be December, Christmas presents and plenty of time to
notify neighbors and so on and plenty of time to review it. The sooner we get it the more
people will be able to have a look at it. I'm not rushing you in any way, these things take time to
draw up and to think through and all of that. There's a lot that goes into designing something
like that. We closed November already because of the notice, you can see that it's a long day
for us and we try very hard to concentrate and each thing is different and you can get pretty
tired out and we don't ever want to put ourselves in a position where fortunately we have
transcripts. This is August it gets recorded and it all gets transcribed and if we can't remember
things squarely we read the transcripts. That's available to the public also by the way, that's
going to be on Laserfiche. So if anybody wasn't here and wants to read what we discussed
today that's all available to the public. So where are we in December, it's December 2nd and I
think we should put them on for the afternoon so that the other ones can come in. We're going
to give you a specific date December 2nd in the meeting hall unless God forbid we get shut
down again but in any case we'll have to let you know the time. We're going to have to look at
the calendar when we get back into the office but there will be plenty of public the agendas are
posted and so on. It will be in the afternoon but I can't say exactly what time in the afternoon
yet. Okay everybody alright with that? So staff will contact you and now am I ready to make a
0
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
motion? I'm not hearing anything else. Okay I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing
to the December 2nd Regular Meeting of the Board of Appeals. Is there a second?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Okay thank you all. I'm going to offer a resolution for the next
Regular Meeting Public Hearing to be held September 2, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. so moved. Is there a
second.
MEMBER DANTES : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to approve the Minutes from the Special Meeting
held July 15, 2021 so moved. Is there a second?
MEMBER DANTES : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. That concludes our agenda. I make a motion to close the
hearing. Is there a second?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Okay you can stop recording.
August 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
CERTIFICATION
I Elizabeth Sakarellos, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape recorded
Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment
and is a true and accurate record of Hearings.
Signature :
Elizabeth Sakarellos
DATE : August 17, 2021