HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-11/04/2021 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 Webinar Video Conferencing
Southold, New York
November 4, 2021
10:21 A.M.
Board Members Present:
LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson
PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member
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
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
INDEX OF HEARINGS
Hearing Page
Areti Lavalle#7521 4- 6
Philippe Jacquet# 7554 6 - 16
420 Pauls Lane, LLC#7548 17- 34
Vasilis and Christina Fthenakis#7559 35 -45
David and Lisa Cifarelli #7551 45 -50
Petros Mamais#7555 51 - 52
Scott Rosen and Lori Goeders Rosen #7556 52 - 54
Rizos Paliouras#7552SE 55 -72
Rizos Paliouras# 7553 55 - 72
Patrick and Diane Severson #7558 72 -75
Levent Temiz#7557 76- 77
Christopher T. Astley and Amy Astley#7561 77 - 89
7
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning everyone, welcome to the meeting of the Zoning
Board of Appeals. We have completed our Executive Session as per our Agenda, the Word
Session does anyone have any items they want to add to the Agenda in future at this point?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Nope.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 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: Philippe Jacquet, Vasilis and Christina Fthenakis, David and Lisa
Cifarelli, Petros Mamais, Scott Rosen and Lori Goeders Rosen, Rizos Paliouras, Rizos Paliouras,
Patrick and Diane Severson, Levent Temiz and Christopher T. Astley and Amy Astley so moved.
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. 420 Pauls Lane LLC#7548 the Town of Southold Planning Board
declared Lead Agency for the purposes of SEAR. As of the date of this determination the
Planning Board has not asserted Lead Agency and therefore no determination under SEAR has
been made therefore as set forth below any granted relief will necessarily be subject to the
Planning Board using a Negative Declaration under SEAR so moved. Is there a second?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
3
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries.
HEARING#7521—ARETI LAVALLE
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board this morning was adjourned
from August 5th. This is for Areti Lavalle #7521. 1 do not read to read the legal notice into the
record since I've already done that. Would you like to come to the podium and represent the
application. We have received amended plans for the proposed swimming pool, would you like
to read what those are for us.
ARETI LAVALLE : Yes good morning my name is Areti Lavalle the owner of 555 Sound View Rd. in
Orient Point. This is a house that was built in 2017. At the time this house was moved back to
accommodate the 100 foot setback. We were here on August 4th at which time it was suggested
to us and we agreed that it would be best to run the pool parallel with the house to increase
the setback to the bluff which I believe at this point is 68 feet. We also reduced the size of the
pool to 13 x 36. There may be slight wiggle room on that but at the very top we have a Southold
Town right of way on the westerly side of our property, drywells, septic systems everything is
on the easterly side. There are also drywells on the front of the property which prevent us from
putting a front yard pool which would also not be very pleasant for neighbors. I think that this
plan is more feasible. We are planning on moving out here permanently, we're both winding
down our law practices so this is not just a summer house we're here on the weekends.
Addressing issues of the pool, again there is multiple pools in our area both our easterly and
westerly neighbor have pools that are much closer to the bluff. We understand that the whole
back yard is non-conforming which puts us at a bit of a difficulty. We're not asking for much as
far as area. I believe that we're below the mandate of 20% if I remember correctly I think it was
14% once the pool is in. I understand that the Zoning Board recently approved a pool in a house
in an area very, very much identical to us. That was the Zoitas case that came back a couple of
months ago. We're asking that the Board approve the pool. Topography is an issue and we
understand that the Board may not be prone because of the fact that there's a bluff there,
that's not a situation that we created. Any decisions that I personally feel that we shouldn't be I
want to use the word discriminate against but you know the bluff is the bluff. We will work to
do whatever what's necessary again we've only been there a few years, we are planning to be
planting once we have the approvals in place. The pool as it stands now will be exactly in the
same location as the previous house was 67 % (inaudible). I'm open to questions.
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The 15 foot non-turf buffer that appears on your survey it already
(inaudible) is it not?
ARETI LAVALLE : Yes ma'am it is. It was pursuant to the building of the house and the
requirement of the Trustees.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any questions from you Rob?
MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric.
MEMBER DANTES : I have no questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think this plan is certainly more palatable plan all the way around.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie if I may, Ms. Lavalle you stated in your introduction to the
hearing that you can reduce the size of the pool, how far would you be willing to reduce the
pool?
ARETI LAVALLE : Well I mean I don't want we do reduce it. I believe the original was 17 x 36 or
40 we brought it down to 13 x 36. 1 mean realistically speaking it's very narrow I mean beyond
that we'd be at (inaudible) on the bluff. Could we go another foot, but at 13 feet that's about as
small as you can get realistically speaking.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It doesn't matter about what the actual length of it is because that
has nothing to do with the setback.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think (inaudible) seeking a 10 foot wide pool so you had said in your
introduction that while you did reduce the pool you said that you're still open that you'd
further would reduce it.
ARETI LAVALLE : A 10 foot pool would most likely be declared a lap pool which would be prone
to somebody who is a professional swimmer or it's not a family oriented type pool. Is it possible
yes if this is the Trustees and the Zoning Board's decision you know we'll take it for what it is
better than nothing but a family pool is normally no less than 12 or 13 feet in width.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The original setback was 45 feet from the top of the bluff, I'm
looking at the Notice of Disapproval and so you are now proposing 68 feet.
5
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
ARETI LAVALLE : Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Eric? Is there anyone in the audience wishing to
address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I 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'll have a decision in two weeks.
HEARING #7554— PHILIPPE JACQUET
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Philippe Jacquet #7554.
This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's May
27, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory
in-ground swimming pool at 1) located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at
710 Grandview Drive in Orient. Is there someone here to represent the application? Good
morning, this is for a swimming pool located in a side yard where the code requires a rear yard.
State your name please.
JONATHAN FOSTER : Jonathan Foster I'm representing Philippe Jacquet. The corner piece of
property has two front yards. The front door to the house from the garage to the house facing
north not west (inaudible) west but natural fact the front is on the north side. It's a vacant piece
of land on the north side it's not going to be built but it's there and then the road comes right
there so we had choices of where to put it. Where we put it on the south side it's more
sheltered by the house, it's next to his neighbor on the south side. He wrote a letter in favor of
this pool project and its location. We will be putting evergreen hedges around the pool so that
the neighbors along the western side of Grandview will not see or be bothered by the fact that
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
there's a pool there. I'm not sure what else to say because it's really a decision of what is the
back yard and what is the side yard what is actually the front yard and the front yard.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just so you're aware the Zoning Board makes personal inspections of
every property that comes before the Board prior to the hearing so we've all been out there
and we've seen the property. So let's just review for the record why you cannot put this in the
code required rear yard?
JONATHAN FOSTER : Well first of all we think it's in the rear yard but the other yard the other
rear yard is smaller, it has less sunlight, it's closer to you know it's more accessible to neighbors
because it is because of the way the land works you're closer to the neighbors on that side. It's
not as private.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does the existing dwelling have a Certificate of Occupancy?
JONATHAN FOSTER : It does not. It's waiting on the well to be certified, it's a new well it needs
to be certified. I talked to the well people this morning, Philippe has been calling him for
months to come over and certify it. They refuse to give me an answer of why they haven't done
the work but when that comes in which should be in the near future then we would be able to
have that certified get that set up and he'll be getting the C of 0. That's what's holding us up.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Building Inspector has made inspections and has passed
inspections?
PHILIPPE JACQUET : Not yet.
MEMBER LEHNERT : So there's no final inspection on the house?
PHILIPPE JACQUET : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any other questions. Pat anything from
you?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : You asked the question about the location there could be another
location.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick anything from you?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes. What was that Pat?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : I was saying Nick that I thought that there could be another location for
the pool on that property rather than the one I mean there is a back yard. I know you're not
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
calling it a back yard but there is something behind the house. You have room back there but
there's a lot of stuff in the rear of the home.
JONATHAN FOSTER : There's a lot of stuff there, yes. That's temporary but there's stuff
underground, there's setbacks there's all kinds of things it's not a good place for a pool.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : I would argue that it is not a corner piece of property because you have
a neighbor to the south and then you have that vacant property on the other side. So it's not a
corner piece of property, it has a front yard, it has a rear yard.
JONATHAN FOSTER : You can see on the survey that that road touches the property over there.
It goes around the corner.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Anyway there's a lot going on, on that property from my observation. I
don't know what that mulch and all that digging on the one side
JONATHAN FOSTER : Want me to address that?You mean the mulch?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : The mulch with I guess I don't know is that some kind of water going on
there some kind of
JONATHAN FOSTER : It's his heating system. The mulch creates heat and the water goes
through that
MEMBER ACAMPORA : But it's all open it's like a pit.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mr. Jacquet if you would like to make comments please go to the
podium.
PHILIPPE JACQUET : I'm sorry. Yes it is a heating system with the wood chip, creates heat and I
take the heat from the wood chip and heat the whole house.
JONATHAN FOSTER : But it will be covered over as, the wood chips are part visible temporarily.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : It looks like there's exposed drip hoses also running around. To me it
looks quite dangerous. I mean honestly it looks like a pit.
JONATHAN FOSTER : I don't think it's meant to be you know forever. The landscaping has not
been started yet and that area will be covered up. There will be a decent driveway, there'll be a
parking area on the north side where the access to the garage is to the front door.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Can I ask if you can show this on the site plan, I mean show us where the
driveway is going to be, show us where this heating pit is.
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
JONATHAN FOSTER : It's on the survey.
MEMBER LEHNERT : It's not on the survey.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The driveway is.
JONATHAN FOSTER : Here is the survey. The way our driveway is that's not the final one that's
what's there now and where it says (inaudible) we recycled what does that say oh recycled
glass driveway. Right above that is the so called wood chip pit.That's going to be covered over.
MEMBER DANTES : Are you allowed to put those in the front yard?
JONATHAN FOSTER : Wood chip underground?
MEMBER DANTES : I mean I don't even know what this thing really is, I've never heard of this
before.
JONATHAN FOSTER : It's a natural heating system.
MEMBER DANTES : Is it a structure?
JONATHAN FOSTER : No it's just it's like a mulch. You know you put your food in and you mulch
it and after a while it becomes fertilizer.
T. A. DUFFY : I know the Building Department has for some time to get further documentation
about the heating system, has that been approved by the Building Department yet?
PHILIPPE JACQUET : It has to be approved by the Building Department.
T. A. DUFFY : Have you submitted any documentation that they requested?
PHILIPPE JACQUET : Not yet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well I have a feeling there's people in the audience who would
like to address the Board.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO Leslie if I can before I was about to ask a question. I guess the
question goes to Mr. Foster or Mr. Jacquet it sounds like you're here as well. You stated that
you can't put the pool in the rear yard as our Board Member Pat was just discussing before we
went into the conversation on the heating system but I noticed that there's a deer fence in that
corner and the deer fence protects raised vegetable beds which are in a very sunny location
when I was there during my site inspection and I don't see the setbacks for the pool. I see the
primary residential building envelope but not the accessory envelope on the survey and it
would appear to me that without a doubt a pool can be placed in the conforming rear yard
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
location within that area that the deer fence is. So I mean it's a bit of statement I'd like to hear
your opinion but also I'd like to ask do you have a Certificate of Occupancy on the deer fence?
PHILIPPE JACQUET : No I don't have but I just take the raised bed and (inaudible) but I don't
want to put the pool on this side because I'm too close to the neighbor. On the other side the
purpose of pool he was with my friend the neighbor who is actually okay to have the pool here
so it was easier to put on this side than the other side.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But again there is no hardship then because you do have a
conforming location to place the pool within the rear yard as defined by your deer fence and
the sunny location of your garden beds.
PHILIPPE JACQUET : (inaudible) raise the (inaudible).
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No it's very clearly defined.
MEMBER LEHNERT : They must have decided which is the rear side when they issued a building
permit.
PHILIPPE JACQUET : When I put the (inaudible) over there they said we don't know where to
put it because we don't know where the back yard. You have two fronts and two side no two
back.
MEMBER DANTES : Usually they give you a defined area they consider your back yard.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not at all uncommon for this to be (inaudible)
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's very clear that Grandview Ave. is the front yard and the house is
the setback. They chose to place the house far back within the lot or the applicant.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let's move on and hear what the people in the audience have
to say.
MEMBER DANTES : What's your lot coverage with the deck and the in-ground pool with the
house?
JONATHAN FOSTER : The lot coverage with the new deck and the pool?
MEMBER DANTES : Yes I don't see it on the survey or on the architectural plan.
JONATHAN FOSTER : I don't have it off the top of my head.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm sure it's going to be conforming. Look at the size of the property
and the house but we should have it.
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
MEMBER LEHNERT : We should have it.
BOARD ASSISTANT : We have an amended survey. Would you like them to show the deer fence
on it?
MEMBER LEHNERT : I'd like to show everything on the amended survey. I'd like to see the
proposed driveway, I'd like to see this mulch pit, I'd like to see the deer fence everything on the
property.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I want to move this on we have a lot of applications today.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And the rear yard setback for an accessory structure (inaudible)
JONATHAN FOSTER : What was that?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was another thing that was being requested to be put on the
survey so that we have complete information of everything that's on the site.
JONATHAN FOSTER : I didn't hear what that was.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick repeat that please.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The rear yard setback for an accessory structure whether it's a shed,
a pool etc. to illustrate that the pool
JONATHAN FOSTER : What is it?
MEMBER LEHNERT :The envelope for an accessory structure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The conforming setback.
JONATHAN FOSTER :The setback for a pool is 15 feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right so then you want to show what that setback is in the rear yard.
Let's hear what the audience has to say. Is there someone who wants to address the Board?
Please come to the podium and state your name.
KEVIN MCPIKE : Hello my name is Kevin McPike. I want to thank the Board for having this
meeting today. Just before I read my statement I'd like to address two things in regard to what
was previously said. I did some research on that heating system and it has to be completely dug
up and cleaned out every two years because the ability of the mulch to break down and create
heat needs to be redone every couple of years otherwise it loses the purpose of what it's there
for. So every two years there would have to be a complete cleanout of this large amount of
mulch and taken somewhere. I just wanted to point that out. It's not going to be landscaped
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
over and forgotten about. The other issue mentioned his neighbor his friend is okay with that,
he's an absentee landlord and there's renters so he's not affected by where that pool will go
personally. Having said that I'd like to read my statement. My name is Kevin McPike, my wife is
Theresa. We are homeowners and have lived at 795 Grandview Dr. in Orient for the last eleven
years. We live directly across the street from Mr. Philippe Jacquet's property at 710 Grandview
Dr. For the last eight years we hoped that the property we look at from our front home would
have been completed by now instead we have had to see without permits in place land cleared
and a half a dozen shipping containers of all bright colors delivered and placed on the property.
The intention was to join them together with cutouts for windows and doors and call it a
container home. Subsequently this was stopped by the Southold Building Department and the
containers were removed. Then over the next six years there's been stop and start
construction. We've had to watch and hear porta poty deliveries, fowl smelling cleanouts, every
fisherman, delivery man and landscaper etc. stopping by to use that as a public toilet. We've
watched thirty yard construction dumpsters filled and replaced with new ones to be refilled
with construction debris from other jobs that Mr. Jacquet contracts to do in other locations in
the area. We have watched and listened for five or six years endless mountains of steaming
mulch deliveries, dump truck dumping mulch and tail gates clanging what he called a bio mass
heating system that I thought at time could ignite into a major fire not to mention its effect on
our groundwater aquifer. For years on end construction (inaudible) vehicles and cars of workers
have gathered to the property in the morning occasionally to work on the site but mostly to
load up material in the garage in this unsealed workshop and then out to other jobs in the area.
Mr. Jacquet keeps a piece of construction machinery and excavator on the site almost all the
time to move that mulch around and leaves the property and has driven to other locations to
do work elsewhere. At times there has been un-plated vehicles including a (inaudible) left on
site for long periods of time. (inaudible) enclosed in a make shift fence with abandoned
construction material and large quantities of landscaping debris. The property is being used as a
commercial yard not a residential home. This is an area that is residentially zoned not
commercially zoned. All of this over the last eight years with three or four building permits
renewed and still no Certificate of Occupancy proves that Mr. Jacquet has no regard for the
quality of life for his neighbors or the Grandview Estate as a whole. Now he requests a variance
for a pool on the front side of his house when in fact he has proven that he can't finish anything
he starts more years in all likelihood of in completed pool work that will be visible from the
street especially my home that I will see every single day. Yes we live in Grandview Estates but
for me and for many in our community it has been much less than grand view. I hope that the
Southold Town Planning Board denies Mr. Jacquet's pool location variance and urges the
Southold Building Department to use all means available to have 710 Grandview Dr. and Mr.
Jacquet complete this eight year endless project. Thanks for your consideration.
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you wish to submit that in writing for the Board although it's in
the transcript we don't have to have it.
KEVIN MCPIKE : I gave four up there with pictures.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I've got it thank you.
KEVIN MCPIKE : If you have any questions about this I'm directly across the street so
MEMBER DANTES : Do you ever smell this bio mass pit?
KEVIN MCPIKE : Yes. Sometimes it looks like it could it (inaudible) it looks like that mulch pit
right off of the Long Island Expressway by the Sagtikos but smaller. It's beautiful to look at
believe me just joking.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we get it. Is there anyone else who wants to address the
application? Please come to the mic and state your name.
SUSAN WORTH : Hi, I'm Susan Worth and I also live in Grandview Estates. I'm assuming some of
you have made a site visit some of this you've gone over. Well the house is totally out of
character of the neighborhood, I have no issues with the building itself if it meets all code
requirements. My concerns are with the ongoing state of the property and it's future impact on
the neighborhood. Some of my comments and opinions might repeat some of my neighbors
they will be brief. On the application project description they claim that with the pool it's a
4.3% lot coverage. So in terms of the sites and the permits you noted there is no current
building permit? The first permit was issued in 2013 eight years ago. The building does not
appear to be finished and there is still scaffolding on the site. I assume that all the Southold
town codes require that all accessory structures to be in the rear yard, there clearly is a rear
yard. The adjacent property to the north you want to put up a site plan?The adjacent property
to the north is designated park. When it rains hard its wetlands park but it's designated park. It
is un-cleared natural (inaudible). It quite certainly is being affected by runoff from the site and
the large piles of mulch that are directly adjacent to it. In terms of the application itself all the
questions on the application for reasons for appeal are inadequately or inaccurately addressed
by the applicant. I don't know if you want me to read the question, an undesirable change will
not be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties if
granted because then they say, many houses have pools in the subdivision. Well, all pools in the
neighborhood and not every house has a pool maybe half or less have pools they're in the rear
yards and are screened from the street. Second question, the benefit sought by the applicant
cannot be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area
variance because the answer is, the choice of pool location are shady or sunny. This side
location is only sunny side of my house. Wanting to put a pool in the sun cannot be a valid
3.3
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
reason for a variance. The amount of relief requested is not substantial because no views are
obstructed and the neighbor approves. The majority of the neighbors do object to this
application in this location of the pool. The variance will not have an adverse effect or impact
on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or districts because it is part
of the neighborhood for pools in the yard. Again all the neighborhood pools in the rear yards
screened from the street. Has the alleged difficulty been self-created and the answer, no.
(inaudible) setbacks and the rear yard is undetermined because of corner lot. As you can see
the northern corner boundary marker is Pettys Dr., the entire eastern or northeastern lot line
abuts a residential lot which is the triangle you see on the right. However the house is not in
that little triangle the house is further up to the south and they the owners of that property
have provided landscaping for years and years and years against the back of Mr. Jacquet's lot.
Of course the difficulty has been self-created by the applicant's placement of the house at the
rear of the lot where he would be able from the second floor to see the Sound so that was why
it was placed in the rear of the yard. Conditions for variance, the application for variance does
not meet the conditions for variance, it appears to me that this is a self-imposed hardship and
there's no good and sufficient cause for (inaudible). Finally, I would ask the Board to delay
closing this application for variance for further investigation and additional information can be
(inaudible). I would also ask the Board to ask the applicant to more fully and accurately answer
the application questions. Thank you for your time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else?
MARK NICHOLAS : Good morning ladies and gentlemen thanks for giving us an opportunity to
be heard I will try to be brief. My name is Mark Nicholas I live at 250 Pettys Dr. I also submitted
a letter to the Board for your review. This is difficult as the person we're talking about his
property is adjacent to mine. I am the person in the rear of the yard. That being said, the house
was intentionally placed as close as you can see to the setbacks as legally possible.
MEMBER DANTES : Excuse me are you lot 29 or lot
MARK NICHOLAS : I'm lot 111 believe. If you want to have a tax map I can show you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I think we have it.
MARK NICHOLAS : I wish I had a photograph which I think we submitted to you as well that I
would like you to consider what we've been living with for eight years. I have been silent, I have
not made a solitary complaint and I want to put that on the record to anyone in the town or to
anyone. I would like to take an excerpt from the town, unsafe building premises and property
maintenance law adopted by the Town Board of Southold 9/9/1980 amended 3/13/12 title 100
I believe paragraph 1 purpose 100 paragraph 2, to promote the conservation of property and
14T
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
property values and character of the community by addressing the cumulative impacts of
property neglect. Now I ask you to look at the photos and I'm very happy and I appreciate the
fact that you all took a ride out there to see what we've been looking at and by all means feels
free to walk on my property to assess what I have to live with. Better yet, I want you to imagine
if you and your family lived in that neighborhood right up against Mr. Philippe's home and had
to live and deal with what we've seen for the last eight years. It will become quality of life issue.
Many of us live there all year round, some of us go there on the weekends after working a hard
week down in the city coming up here to relax only to hear the incessant sound of an occasional
back hoe operator on the weekends after hours without any after-hours variance permits which
I'm sure are required by this town. He uses the property as the staging area as somebody said
earlier with construction business bringing heavy equipment such as backhoes, dumpsters for
jobs ongoing. In addition to dumping hundreds of yards of mulch to be used as alternative
heating which forgive me for being repetitive with what the other people say he has told me
specifically that he now has the intent of converting the property to a rental property for
income. When does it stop, when will it be completed? Please we implore this Board to insist
that he completes his house, restores his property and is granted a Certificate of Occupancy
before any, any permit is considered or granted for a pool or a garage. Both of these elements
are encroaching our neighboring properties including the rear. It was his decision to place a
house where he did. There was plenty of room, he could have placed it in the middle of the
property but it was his decision to irresponsibly place the house to the back end of the property
leaving just the legal allowable amount for his envelope. As far as placing the pool in the rear
once again it was his decision so there is no room for him to put a pool in the rear I agree and
being that I won't be knowing my neighbors frightens me and it frightens our community.
We've already had his other neighbor who he is friends with purchase a house for that means
to rent it out. I want to also state for the record so you all understand, Mrs. Gasca and you can
check the records was asking considerably more money for that house and yet all the buyers
who came said, what about what's going on over here and she was forced to lower her price as
if it was intended for his friend to buy the house at a considerably lower price at a bargain I
might say not to live there mind you but to rent it out. Now I ask you folks I grew up here on the
North Fork, we're not the Hamptons is this what we want for your community. This is a quiet
private area, it's not even really part of the town. Please talk to the Building Department
something has to be done. I appreciate your time, thank you so much for hearing me.
MEMBER DANTES : I just want to say one thing, our only decision that we're going to write is
regarding the location of the swimming pool. I mean we're not Code Enforcement, we're not
the Building Department. For something like that you have to talk to them directly.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But I can add something else, a proposed pool is an accessory to a
legally existing principle dwelling. Until such time as a Certificate of Occupancy is issued it is not
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
a legally occupy able building and I wanted to put that on the record. I'm not prejudice in votes,
we will discuss this as a Board but I think that's important for the public to understand. Eric is
right, issues of building permits and so on reside within the jurisdiction of the Building
Department. Anything else from anybody, from the Board, the applicant? Okay, there was a
request that we hold this open but I really don't know that we need more information at this
point. Did you want to get an amended survey or not? If not then we can just close this and
render a decision which we will have in two weeks' time.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie, I would make a motion to close the hearing.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Let's close it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright who is seconding?
MEMBER DANTES : I'll second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Eric, all in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. This hearing is closed, thank you everyone for your attention.
Liz why don't you go through the instructions on how people can participate if they want to
testify or they can raise their hand and puts something in the chat room, go ahead.
OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Good morning, for those on Zoom with us as attendees if you
would like to make a comment on a particular application we ask you that you send us a note
via the Q&A tool at the bottom of your screen or you can click the raise hand button and we
will allow you to unmute and you can let us know. I see we have just a phone number I'm
showing for those on your phones please use *9 to raise your hand and you can tell us who you
are and what you're here for. Thank you.
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
HEARING#7548—420 PAULS LANE, LLC
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for 420 Pauls Lane, LLC
#7548. This is a request for variances from Article IX Section 280-42, Article IX Section 280-42C,
Article XI Section 280-49 and the Building Inspector's June 7, 2021 amended August 10, 2021
Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a convenience store, a
new woodworking workshop/storage addition to an "as built" conversion of an existing storage
building to a woodworking workshop at 1) located less than the code required minimum front
yard setback of 100 feet at two front yards, 2) measuring more than the maximum permitted
60 linear feet of frontage on the street located at 420 Pauls Lane in Peconic. Good morning
Mike.
MIKE KIMACK : Good morning everyone.
MEMBER DANTES : Hold up I'm going to recuse myself from this application.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : For the record, Member Dantes is recused.
MIKE KIMACK : Good morning everyone. This is a split zoned piece of property of approximately
115,761 sq. ft. There's roughly 99,000 sq. ft. that is the LB zone and about 16,777 sq. ft. in the
business zone which all of this property at one time was business. I believe in 1999 the Planning
Board basically made the whole back section limited business and created the general business
adjacent to which is now the BP gas station and they created the non-conformance because it
doesn't match the 30,000 sq. ft. in the code. As it exists now on that property there is an
existing storage workshop which has a C of 0 with 59,030 sq. ft. and we are proposing to attach
that as an addition an additional work storage workshop addition of 9,663 sq. ft. I'd like to
address that first because that we're requesting two variances for that addition. One is the
setback, now Pauls Lane is a private drive and it's half owned by 420 Pauls Lane and the other
half I believe by the three owners of the houses on the other side of the driveway. Basically the
length does exceed 60 feet it's back 89 feet from the original I think the original was about 75
and we moved it back now as much as we could in order to still maintain a space within the
building for the type of workshop the type of storage that the client does require for his
property. It does face pretty much an open area on the side it's all treed it doesn't necessarily
face directly into the residences and on the north side is the gas station and you really don't see
or will not see as you pass by on CR 48. That is one of the variances basically, the other one the
setback of 89 feet as opposed to 100 feet primarily but it does and then of course the length of
the building I think it maximizes it more than 60 feet. The intent of that was to try and keep the
massive from being visible as much as possible from existing roadways. In this particular case
we're adjacent to the Long Island Railroad to our south and I believe the Long Island Railroad
also has a right of way in that driveway in order to get down to their working area. It doesn't
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
really visibly affect anyone per say, the other side of it is all agricultural to the west. To the
south is all agricultural across Long Island Railroad which would be not visible from that part
because it's behind the existing one story building which would be to the north of that. So from
the perspective of the length of the building exceeding the 60 feet it does not really create a
condition upon which that would be a massive building that would be so visible from any
particular well-traveled road or pieces of property that are adjacent there too. Those are the
two requested variances for the proposed 9,663 sq. ft. building in the LB zone. In the general
business zone which is roughly 16,773 sq. ft. which as you well know is less than the 30,000 sq.
ft. that was created by the town. We are requesting a convenience store which is permitted
under the general business code of 3,500 sq. ft. It's pushed back as far as it can be from the
property 75 feet from the road which is somewhat even or a little bit further back than the gas
station adjacent to it, which would be on the easterly side. It has basically 37 proposed parking
spaces on the south side of that building which basically goes into the split lot primarily and it
has a drive through it has a one way drive through coming off of CR 48. We'll talk a little bit
about the traffic there, CR 48 is a major road and where the driveways are located coming and
leaving there is more than ample sight visibility for the speed of the traffic at that particular
point. It's open, a lot of you probably drive that road and know that visibility to bring cars in as
a matter of fact there's also almost like a reacceleration lane that comes off at the gas station
that uses to pull in there. Leon's gas station has two ways in off of CR 48 but also has one off
into the private driveway on that one side which would be their traffic pattern of the cars is
more complicated than ours would be. Ours would simply be one in, one out off of a well-
traveled well sighted roadway. There is a couple of comparisons here, cause I know it's going to
be coming sitting here. I do bring your attention I didn't bring it along but in terms of having a
convenience store next to a gas station adjacent to I bring your attention to Valeros in
Cutchogue on Main Rd. by Depot over there, that's in a hamlet business and next door is a 7-
Eleven with a fence in between as something that has been approved. I'm not quite sure you
got a gas station in hamlet business but it was probably pre-existing from that perspective. The
other thing, as far as we do have a split lot and as far as putting the property which would not
be part of the 16,777 we are required to put parking in the rear anyway so in order to move the
building all the way back to the property to try to get as much space in the front as possible to
try and meet that 100 feet setback as much as we can the 75 is all we could and then the
parking goes behind it which is required cause we can only put I think ten percent of the
parking in the front which would not be aesthetically visible anyways so the parking would go
behind. A comparison to that situation is something that I think the Board might have dealt
with recently which is in Mattituck which is North Fork Marine which is the intersection which
has just been built by Strongs, that's a split lot a general business in the front and R40 on the
back side of it and the building on the front is in general business and the marine operation
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
with all the boats with the storage and the trucks are on the R40. So that's something I think
the Board dealt with. I don't have the case on it but
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did, we granted a variance for the parking of only boats in the
residential zone which required a variance permission from this Board.
MIKE KIMACK : I point that out because that would be a much more restrictive use of an R40
zone than we have in our limited business zone but we do have the lots it's still considered one
lot even though it's a split on that one. Are there any questions of me?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As you know the Planning Board is going to be doing Lead Agency on
this one and we cannot get comments from them until such time as you submit a site plan.
MIKE KIMACK : I have submitted the site plans.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When was that?
MIKE KIMACK : Three, four weeks ago I think when I got it in.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cause we asked for comments and I don't think isn't that right Kim,
Heather said
BOARD ASSISTANT : That was a couple of weeks ago a week ago that she said
MIKE KIMACK : I'll double check with her. I did get
BOARD ASSISTANT : She needed site plan from you a week ago she said. Maybe she needs a
completed site plan, maybe she's reviewing something and she needs more from you.
MIKE KIMACK : I haven't gotten a letter back from them but then again they're jammed as well
as everyone else is. It's been difficult from a timing element point of view. I've got several
projects in and it's bee and I understand they're (inaudible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Kim will follow up.
MIKE KIMACK : I'll follow up too.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Also it would appear that your Notice of Disapproval has not been
amended since the code interpretation was rendered for split zoned parcels.
MIKE KIMACK : When we met last on September at that meeting primarily when Heather stood
up and said that she had even though it was noticed against 420 Pauls Lane she stood up and
said that this is a general interpretation it's not against anybody. I did ask to speak because I
know it was noticed against 420 Pauls Lane I was not given the opportunity at that time.
---T1
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did receive all of the written submissions.
MIKE KIMACK : But then again I figured I would follow it up with the written basically and made
my point and you disagreed with that and I disagreed with you on that and that's what it is. I
have not received an amended, what you're probably saying to me is that you are directing the
Building Department to reinterpret what they've already reinterpreted and to amend their
Notice of Disapproval to include the 30,000 sq. ft. as a variance requirement.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm not going to say what they should do, I'm just simply saying
because there has been a new code interpretation on split zoned parcels
MIKE KIMACK : But they made their own interpretation on this property.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But it was prior to this decision being made.
MIKE KIMACK : Not prior to the application being before you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is correct but this is now not then. We haven't heard your
application till now, your notice does not reflect the notice doesn't reflect the current
circumstances and it should.
MIKE KIMACK : Well what you got before you on an appeal the current circumstances as a
result of the interpretation.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct yes that's right.
MIKE KIMACK : That's where you and I disagree, between having the Building Department
having made their interpretation and me coming before you an appellate body, an appellate
body only for the two front yard setbacks and
T. A. DUFFY : It's not an appellate body only, the Town Board has given them this Board
MIKE KIMACK : I understand that Bill.
T. A. DUFFY : So it's not an appellate only Board.
MIKE KIMACK : Look you have the jurisdiction to make a general interpretation. I don't disagree
with that except in this particular case the Building Department has original determination
declaring to make an interpretation. They did, they put it in the Notice of Disapproval which
does not include anything other than the two front yard setbacks and the length of the building.
Then Planning came in after that and asked for the general interpretation which you have now
turned it into a specific interpretation and now you want the Building Department you want me
to go back to the Building Department and ask me for an amended? Does that come from you?
o
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
T. A. DUFFY : I think the Board is suggesting it's in your best interest to go back and get it so
you're not wasting your clients time.
MIKE KIMACK : I respectfully would ask the Board if the Board is making that determination in
my case in this particular case that they basically now determine that given the fact that they
made the general interpretation that we're before you which does not include that particular
variance section that you basically should write a letter to the Building Department telling them
to reinterpret the application.
T. A. DUFFY : The Board doesn't have the power to direct anybody to do anything.
MIKE KIMACK : Well apparently they do.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't have the power to tell the Building Department what to
do. No they tell us if something is conforming or not.
T. A. DUFFY : The Board is making a recommendation here, if you don't want to follow it they'll
make a decision based on their prior precedence and they'll make a decision that's fine. They're
suggesting that it might be
MIKE KIMACK : I wanted to use
T. A. DUFFY : Can I finish talking, I'll let you talk. I'm suggesting that it's in your best interest the
Board is suggesting in your best interest is to go back so that all these issues can be decided at
once. Otherwise you're going to get a decision based on their past precedence and you know it
may not go the way you think it's going to go. They're not going to ignore their interpretation
because you have a Notice of Disapproval that pre dates that interpretation.
MIKE KIMACK : Which specifically are they adding to what is now before them? What is the
Board adding other than
T. A. DUFFY : They're going to look at this plan and they're going to interpret the zoning code
based on prior decisions.
MIKE KIMACK : So what do I tell the Building Department to put into the Notice of Disapproval
other than
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You don't tell them, you go back and say the Board of Appeals has
requested an amended Notice of Disapproval that reflects the determination of the code
interpretation just recently made at the request of the Planning Board. You should not be
telling the Building Department what you need.
MIKE KIMACK : I never had.
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have because you submitted a letter to us that you sent to Mike
Verity telling him what variances you needed.
MIKE KIMACK : No I was instructed by Mr. Verity at that time because I had gone to Planning.
was instructed by Mr. Verity to outline the
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't disbelieve you Mike but that's very unorthodox with the
Building Department to let an applicant or an applicant's agent tell them what he thinks they
should be required to get is extremely unorthodox.
MIKE KIMACK : It was simply laying out what I considered to be all of the issues that they would
have to look at to make it
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's still very unusual, they usually make that decision themselves.
MIKE KIMACK : I was asked to do that and I did that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's just get all the issues out okay, let's just look at the whole big
picture. Nick I think you had some comments you wanted to make. We've been out to the site a
couple of times as you know we have to.
MIKE KIMACK : Did you see the (inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I did.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you Leslie. I'm trying to really understand what is going on
with the site. I have a lot of questions, I think the Board might mirror my thoughts but let's start
with the underlying C of 0 and the site plan on the property. What is the C of 0 for on this
entire property? I'm not talking about (inaudible) the current existing C of 0.
MIKE KIMACK : The C of 0 on the property right now Nick is for a workshop storage as
understand it.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : From what you understand. In the packet submitted the only C of 0
that I can find and while there were C of O's for things that I cannot find such as the
greenhouse I don't know where the greenhouse is let's take that one first. Where is the
greenhouse? It's more of a rhetorical question, there is no greenhouse. There is a C of 0 for a
greenhouse, there's a C of 0 for solar. Both of those improvements I can't find on the site. Next,
the C of 0 that I can find is for an existing potato storage and packing building yet the
application talks about a woodworking workshop. I don't find any C of O's for heating, cooling
all of which is on the site. I don't find a C of 0 for (inaudible) structures that are on the site, I
don't find a C of 0 for containers that are attached to the building and used as a building
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
expansion. The survey doesn't correctly show all of these improvements and encroachments on
the railroad track immediately to the south. So perhaps you can address a couple of these
things that I just brought forward.
MIKE KIMACK : I looked at the C of 0 and thought it would be in the package. There was an
earlier C of 0 that I'm surprised it wasn't that listed this as workshop storage then a later C of 0
that I think listed it in a different manner and we were a little bit perplexed as to why it
changed because the usage of the building had not changed. As far as the additions you're
speaking of
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm sorry you just referenced can you give me the C of 0 number that
you're relating or that you were referring to that listed it as such?
MIKE KIMACK : I can get it for you I don't have it in front of me right now.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Okay continue.
MIKE KIMACK : As far as the additional buildings what you're asking now is to have them put on
the plan and to make sure that they are also C of O'd?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Partially, you know seeing a site inspection or participating in a site
inspection that doesn't mirror the survey is a little complex for me to understand what the
ambition is as far as your redevelopment. It would seem that as I remember the property years
ago you know with the little sheds everywhere you know that's all gone. It would seem that the
demolition permit should have been sought for the solar or for the removal of the greenhouse
so that there's a clear picture of what is there and what the use is. Everyone keeps calling it a
woodworking wood shop but I can't find anything in your packet or in town records that are
accessible by any member of the public including this Board that shows anything other than a
potato storage building with additions for a storage building. Storage to me implies storage
whether we're talking about potatoes that's (inaudible) and I think it was originally built as a
potato storage building but it certainly wasn't built as a woodworking/cabinet workshop which
is what we're told it is yet during my inspection the doors were wide open and cabinets weren't
being built but boats were being either repaired or built, fiberglass dust everywhere exhausting
from various fans in the building and you know what I would argue more of a manufacturing
process outside of any OSHA hazards that may or may not even be there. So I really want to
know what's going on with this property before we even discuss what the future is and I really
think there should be some sense of a site plan and something that clearly illustrates it's legal
use as it's being used today.
MIKE KIMACK : I can get you the additional C of O's that are not in your possession indicating
that they had indicated it as a workshop which would include I would imagine repair boats.
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well again as I said I've got a C of 0 in the packet for potato storage
building, I have a C of 0 for a wood cupola on an existing storage building, I have a C of 0 for an
addition of a greenhouse and this one it's labeled as an existing workshop, I have a C of 0 for
additions and alterations to a storage building. All of these say storage, roof mounted solar to a
one family dwelling as applied for, I don't even see a house on (inaudible).
MIKE KIMACK : One of them did say workshop I think you read it off right Nick?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes but there's no house so I don't know if there's errors made but in
my mind's eye it's a storage building that is not being used per the C of 0. So not that I want to
suggest that Code Enforcement should be there but it seems that there's some sort of a
disconnect between how the property is being used and or by who the tenants are versus the
intent of the legal position of what the use is.
MIKE KIMACK : Well I'll make sure that what you have all of the C of O's that I have basically
and you're right, there has been a disconnect on some of the wording that they've done on
some of what they call storage in one place, workshop on another of the same building
primarily and it has been a workshop and it store materials in there and it does on occasion
repair some boating.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is it possible then is there an open building permit because part of
the application states it's for an as built conversion of an existing storage building to a
workshop but I don't see a building permit.
MIKE KIMACK : The reason that we put that in primarily was to correct the last one that simply
said that it was storage only and they go back to the fact that it had been C of O'd as a
workshop. I recognized when I did it that there was a discrepancy between the C of O's in terms
of its operation so I wanted this particular permit to straighten that out in terms of what's going
on there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good because obviously if we're going to be looking at additional
uses on that property we want to make sure that everything that is there and that is planning to
remain there is legally established.
MIKE KIMACK : That was one of my things. I looked at the C of O's as Nick did primarily and I
saw all over the place
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we all did.
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
MIKE KIMACK : and that's one of the reasons that I wanted to bring that into continuity but the
proposed building that 9,600 sq. ft. building would be of the same type of use the workshop
doing what he's doing now with the storage.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would argue based on the history of the C of O's other than one that
may or may not be written in error the workshop use may not be compliant. So in other words
someone may have made the mistake of calling it a workshop versus a storage building. So we
still need to understand what the underlying C of 0 is and then next what the current uses are
you know boat manufacturing as I witnessed I would not say is an appropriate use in that zone.
MIKE KIMACK : He doesn't do boat manufacturing there. I've seen the boats there basically and
I believe he cleans them up, he cleans them up and re-fiberglass's it for clients but he doesn't
manufacture boats. It's almost say restoration type of a situation.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : There were boat molds for fiberglass for framing of a boat and the
boat that I witnesses was completely taken apart whether it was being rebuilt or not I would
argue it still borders on manufacturing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look you know we're trying to work in a way that will just simply
make sure what's going on, on the property is legally established and that the uses are
compatible with the zone district. That's all we're really trying to do, there's clearly a long
history on this property and we want to make sure that we have correct updated and accurate
records. If there's any kind of fiberglass going there OSHA will require a very different kind of
building code and ventilation system than woodworking. This is not a workshop like on a
residential property where someone has carpentry tools a table saw.
MIKE KIMACK : It's much more sophisticated.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah this is a business operation, this is a manufacturing of cabinetry
and clearly of also boat repairs and or whatever you want to describe and now you're
proposing to expand that use and we have drawings that just show an empty space. That's all it
is, I have no idea what you're going to do in there, if there's any partition walls, if there's an
office, if there's a bathroom nothing. It's a huge empty space.
MIKE KIMACK : There's no bathroom, there's none of that going in no bathroom. As far as what
you're looking at I don't think he's laid out the interior in terms of where the storage might be
and what type of machinery is going in there. I know that he hasn't reached that point yet he
just wanted to basically get through the Zoning Board in terms of the location and get the
approval on that and then he would during construction obviously put the building up and
layout the interior.
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we don't have any plans at all for the existing building either
nor do we have a plan that shows what the real connection between the two are. Originally
they were two separate buildings now connected so I need floor plans of what is actually there
now, how it's being connected and what's being proposed.
MIKE KIMACK : Okay, that's reasonable.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because we have to determine if it is one use or more than one use
which I know you're aware of.
MIKE KIMACK : I am quite aware of it yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I need to see what's going on, on the inside.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : What Leslie just shared relative to what's going on inside and outside
to be sure to include various there's clearly venting in the roof, there's fill lines for what would
appear to be an oil tank in the building for heat, for cooling there's some sort of refrigeration.
There are these containers that are welded literally welded to this old potato storage building
which I would argue encroach on the setbacks to the railroad so there might be variances
needed for the rear yard setback. Additionally there are what may be deemed temporary
storage I don't know they look to me to be pretty permanent, multiple containers turned into
like a carport structure with a solid roof over them. Again within the encroachment of what I
would say for a rear yard setback. So all of this needs to appear on the survey so we can
understand what we're looking at. I might be repeating myself but I want to understand also
the interaction, you talked about Pauls Lane is a private road, I don't see it on the survey and
maybe I misread something but you brought that forward I was surprised to hear what you
were speaking about, about the ownership and the access I don't see the middle line I see the
lot line and Pauls Lane is to the east of the lot line.
MIKE KIMACK : Pauls Lane has its own tax map number Nick. I think it's 74-4-8.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I saw that on the town tax map yes.
MIKE KIMACK : If you look at it basically it says unknown but I can get you indicating that 420
Pauls Lane is (inaudible) they pay the taxes on it or one of the owners but it's a separate tax
map number but it's a private drive it's owned.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But that's something I'd like to understand I didn't realize that I didn't
even think when I saw the tax map about the (inaudible) perhaps but I think that's an important
thing to understand. I would also add for your proposed convenience store you've conveniently
pushed it as far back within the zone as possible yet I don't see dumpster locations etc. Often
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
times at these convenience stores people have a vacuum or something much like the
neighboring gas station and it doesn't make sense to me because if you're putting it in the
corner of the building immediately at the southern lot line not lot line but the zone change line
what about a roof overhang? You've come before the Board for residential applications where
accidentally a building was built where the overhang wasn't calculated and suddenly we're here
for a variance for a three foot overhang. It would make sense that the building should be well
within the zone that you're proposing.
MIKE KIMACK : You've got an elevation of that building as part of your
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We do.
MIKE KIMACK : Hopefully the overhang will (inaudible)
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Understood but I'm not saying that somebody won't in the future
add it or suddenly decide that the building was unfortunately pushed two feet too far back and
here you are for a variance.
MIKE KIMACK : The overhangs look to be roughly about two foot. It's going to be a Morton
building.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible)just to make everything conform to the best of ability and
that everything should be clearly shown above and beyond a doubt. This is proposed new
construction although there is existing buildings here that would still need clarification on.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look in the interest of other applications that are before the Board
today I think we've had a lengthy discussion, I'd like to know if there's anyone in the audience
who wants to address the Board? Liz can you check is there's anybody on Zoom who wants to
PAT MOORE : Good morning Board I work for Leon Petroleum which is directly to the east
contiguous to this property. I've submitted for the Board a letter from Highpoint Engineering
we have some very serious concerns regarding the proposed convenience store and the access
onto CR 48. Before I get to this issue I think the Board I was surprised when I saw the Notice of
Disapproval because given that there's been an interpretation then you're right it does require
an amended Notice of Disapproval since based on the interpretation a significant variance is
going to be required and an area-variance for the secondary use since the interpretation was
that there has to be at least 30,000 sq. ft. for the secondary use the use that's proposed and
with only 16,773 there will be an area variance required for that. So I'm glad it was brought up,
it left me a little confused when I saw the Notice of Disapproval so that's to be determined. I
guess the hearing will continue once that issue is before the Board. Very specifically I had
Highpoint Engineering and my client called originally and raised concerns which he then asked
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
to be reviewed by traffic by an engineer, I'll let you read the letter it's very clear with respects
to the issues pointing out the very specific issues that have to be addressed and considered is
that the existing curb cut as proposed is only thirty feet from the curb cut that is used for the
gas station which also includes a convenience store. Now going back to the records we're
familiar with this used to be Tartan Oil, my husband actually handled the application probably
twenty five years ago it had been an original gas station which was purchased by Tartan Oil, it
was renovated and then the accessory convenience store was made part of the gas station use.
That went through litigation because at the time we Southold didn't really have accessory uses
that they were familiar with even though all throughout the country there were gas stations
with accessory convenience stores that was something novel in the Town of Southold and
ultimately through the courts that accessory use was recognized and later on in the last five or
ten years five years that use has actually been legislated into the code with various levels of
accessory and convenience store considerations. Nevertheless we do have that existing use
here, the analysis points that there is potential to create substantial conflict between the
vehicles existing the gas station property and those seeking to enter the gas station, drivers
waiting for a break in traffic to exit the subject property onto 48 may be confused by oncoming
vehicles which are slowing down with their turn signal on merging to the right onto the
shoulder. The limited frontage of the subject property dictates that the proposed entry and exit
driveways be located so close to each other that the drivers waiting to exit the driveway will
have difficulty discerning whether or not oncoming eastbound vehicles are planning to turn into
the subject property or the filling station driveway. As a result these exiting drivers may be
confused and enter into a path of vehicles intending to access the filling station that's causing
for potential collision not only with the two vehicles but possible chain reaction accidents with
other eastbound vehicles. We're all local, we've all used this gas station where travel in front of
on CR 48. We've actually all certainly I've had I don't know about the Board but personally
you've probably witnesses a little bit of conflicts there on 48 entering into the existing gas
station. Most cars know to pull towards the right when they're pulling into the gas station but
not (inaudible) they often slow down and it does create a certain amount of conflict with the
traffic that's moving eastbound particularly on the left hand lane which tends to travel quite
fast and beyond the speed limit. So presently there is just a lot of activity there at the gas
station the way it was site planned and with the two ingress and egress. The engineer also
points out in paragraph two the issue that as seen in the image the exit driveways located in
close proximity to the break in the CR 48 median serviced by the 250 foot long left hand turn
lane which allows eastbound vehicles to turn left onto Henrys Lane or to make a U-turn to head
west on CR 48. All of the proposed driveways shown on the plan to be utilized only for a right
turn eastbound CR 48 movement there would be the ability for drivers wishing to make such a
U-turn or access Henrys Lane to cut across two travel lanes and merge onto the turning lane
almost directly at the location of the median break. If there are any vehicles already queuing in
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
and or moving into the turning lane when such a maneuver is attempted the potential for the
existing vehicles to need to stop and block the eastbound travel lanes waiting for the turning
lane to clear poses a significant danger. Again you've all observed people that should be turning
right and heading eastbound oftentimes come out turn right and then cross the CR 48 to turn
onto Henrys Lane and head west so there's again already a lot of activity here and CR 48. This is
adding to that condition with a new convenience store lead to significant traffic problems
certainly for my client and for the town and the county. The third issue C. it is noted that he
subject property maintains access to Pauls Lane which is located just east of the filing station
property a potential remedy for (inaudible) for a potential dangerous condition outlined above
would be to (inaudible) at that exist from the subject property be limited to Pauls Lane. The
property is going to be accessing Pauls Lane for the workshop or warehouse whatever they
ultimately propose there. That makes sense but there's a certain amount of distance from my
clients property, there is an ability to at least plan for the traffic as it's coming west to east and
visibility. What is being proposed here is definitely not a viable safe alternative. Finally, they
point out that Suffolk County DPW obviously has jurisdiction here with curb cuts and the traffic,
the project should be submitted to Suffolk County DPW for their comments. They may end up
changing the design of this significantly. One issue the environmental, health concern that my
client spoke to me about and is included in this letter and the Board would certainly wouldn't
know anything about it is that there is my client's property has a well on the piece there is no
public water in front of this property. The property has been developed with the well and there
is also drainage and so on. There has to be a separation between driveways and any kind of
pollution sources onto wells in particular this being directly next to the driveway. One of the
things that is monitored by the Health Department for this gas station is the quality of the
water and maintenance of the water and they have very strict guidelines on what you can use
for de-icing and materials that you can use on the property because the well is on my client's
property it is controlled and within the client's control and is part of their maintenance certain
things they can and cannot be used on the premises. That is not applicable when you have a
driveway that's closer if not within the zone of pollution that is occurring on adjacent property.
So that is something that is again another serious concern because we my client knows what he
can and cannot do with respect on impact on his well. We don't have any control on the
adjacent property so that too is raised. Mr. Tartaglia the engineer provide a photograph to
show where the location of the Leon Petroleum well is located for the Board and the applicant's
information. So as you can see there are significant issues with respect to this site plan. My
client opposes the construction of a convenience store next to his convenience store use.
Putting two one next to each other I don't think you can use downtown Cutchogue hamlet
business as an example. You have the 7-Eleven that's been built there for a very long time
think it was developed in the I have to go back I remember I saw many years ago because I
worked with the gas station that was the Valero gas station when they needed some variances,
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
I think for canopies I believe. Both uses were there I believe since the seventies, there was a gas
station there already and I believe the convenience store has been there for a very long time
also maybe earlier eighties, seventies. So both properties have been developed over time their
existing uses. Here there is a choice of where you put another convenience store, we're starting
with a fresh slate and we would hope that the Planning Board and the (inaudible) dissuade the
applicant from putting a convenience store here and certainly the Zoning Board's jurisdiction
with respect to the area variances impact its location it's access and now it will impact whether
or not the use is appropriate when the Board has to consider the area variances for the size of
the property and the use. So it has been before the Board. I thank you for listening and we
reserve the right to submit additional information as it becomes available.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's just see if there's anybody in the audience who wants to
address the application. Please come forward and state your name.
CHARLES HYDELL : Good morning, my name is Charles Hydell and I've lived on 48 for about
thirty five, forty years. I'm not nearly prepared as everybody else was. If I would have known if
it was so technical I would have done a little better. I got a drawing here and I'd like to show
you exactly what happens on 48 at the gas station and I can explain it to you how dangerous it
is and I also think we should have
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold it can you still record him moving around the room? You know
what, why don't you come up here I'm going to turn my mic around so that your comments will
be clearly heard.
CHARLES HYDELL : I was going to mention about Suffolk County should be involved because
eventually if you allow a convenience store you are going to need a traffic light there. Okay, I
come out of Henrys Lane five to ten times a day, here's what happens. Cars from Pauls Lane
they come this way, this way to get on 48, cars from the gas station come this way, this way to
get on 48 cars come this exit comes this way to this way to get on 48. It is a nightmare. I don't
do it but my daughters have to go to the U-turn to make a U-turn over here. Trucks come over
here there's a sign that says do not enter which is for the highway it's do not enter the highway
but people get confused and think it's do not enter the gas station so what they do is they make
a U-turn the truck and they can't make the U-turn because of the curb here they have to back
up and then go into this was poorly designed this gas station. Okay so what they have to do and
then they always run over the car because more like an exit. There's no parking signs here,
every day I see trucks parked here cause they don't want to pull in here to go to the
convenience store and the people trying to get out here cannot see the highway. Nobody does
fifty five on 48 nobody except me and everybody complains about me. Now years ago they
used to have the two diesel pumps back here so when the trucks came in they went back there
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
but now they have I couldn't understand how they redesigned this, now they have the diesel
pumps here and all the trucks they stop right about here. These cars can't get in. In the
summertime you have there's a gas pump there too and in the summertime you have boats
trucks with boats on it with long boats and cars are stuck out here because they can't get
around it. They also have landscaping trucks with the big trailers now and they're also stopped
here filling up five lawn mowers filling up there for five or ten minutes and all these cars are
trying to get in which is totally impossible. Now you're going to have an exit here. These trucks
are going the truck drivers do not want to walk to pull into the parking lot, they rather park out
here than walk to the convenience store. I'm always looking at people trying to go like this to
see if there's any cars coming around the two trucks or the truck that park here to go into
there's no, no parking signs which I can't understand. When you try to get out here you gotta a
car coming this way, you got a car coming this, you got a car coming this way and sometimes
they'll just go right over Pauls Lane over the median. So that's about what I have to say.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Weren't you the one that submitted a letter?
CHARLES HYDELL :Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In addition there was documentation a letter at her request from
Chief Flatley indicating the number of accidents that have occurred there.
CHARLES HYDELL : Everyday whether in the wintertime more in the summertime. All you hear
are cars squeaking jamming on their brakes tooting their horn because someone is trying to pull
out here or someone instead of turning on the shoulder to go in the gas station they turn right
off 48. As is said nobody does fifty five there and when you're coming on 48 and you got a slow
driver they're jamming on the brakes cause this person instead of using his common sense to
go on the shoulder to turn in they're turning off right off 48. I'm only doing this for safety
reasons because there was somebody killed there ten years ago crossing the street, there were
other accidents. Why they put the diesel trucks they should put a sign there pull to the next
pump over here if you got a trailer or a boat on the back this is very dangerous I'm just saying
and like I said, you're going to have to talk to the county because they are going to want to put
a traffic light there because somebody will be killed.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I will say this much, one of the good things about living in a
small town is that those who are sitting up here are your neighbors, we use the gas station too
so it is not unfamiliar. That kind of experience is a little different than just going to a site and
inspecting it. If you live with it all the time you know that nobody pays attention to ingress and
egress and people go out the in because you can go across the median easier now all the time.
The same thing happens at Tanger, nobody pays attention to which way you're supposed to
turn. That's just human nature. I think you can put up all the signs you want but people are
3T:t
i
i
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
going to take shortcuts and that's creating a kind of a mess already so we're well aware of it. I
just want you to know and I think probably your applicant does too.
CHARLES HYDELL : I (inaudible) notice to the public that there was going to be a meeting. They
used to have signs notice to the public?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is a yellow sign that should be posted on the property
CHARLES HYDELL : I haven't seen it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : not necessarily on Main Rd. it could be on Pauls Lane did you post?
CHARLES HYDELL : If it's not on the Main Rd. no one is going to see it. If I knew what I know now
about this meeting I would have went down Henrys Lane and gotten statements from
everybody on the block how difficult it is and another thing, it's extremely difficult for the
school bus to get out of here. I've seen the school bus just give up and its' hard for a bus that
long to make the U-turn over here. I'm just saying.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's a couple of things that you should be aware of, number one
this application needs to jump through several hoops before it gets any further and one of the
is the Planning Board. The Planning Board really is the place where parking and ingress and
egress is very carefully examined. There will be studies done on traffic impacts, they're going to
be looking at all of that so all of the concerns of the public and those of us who are familiar with
the area will be taken into consideration. What's before this Board is variances for the use that
are being proposed but all of this is relevant and we've already disclosed a number of things
that Mr. Kimack is going to be looking into further for this Board and for the Planning Board.
The Planning Board once they get that application in front of them will be giving us some
further comments and I think probably what we're going to wind up doing here is adjourning
this because there's just too much stuff that's out there. I want to read what Pat Moore
submitted you know there's a lot there's many more steps.
CHARLES HYDELL : Would you want to keep this?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you'd like to.
BOARD ASSISTANT : Let me just take a picture of it.
CHARLES HYDELL : I want you all to know I am not against business I am for safety and this is a
safety problem.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, any other Board Member want to say anything? I think
we're really running very, very late this morning.
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Kim you're going to circulate that image to everyone?
BOARD ASSISTANT : Of course.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have just two other comments, I know I spoke at length earlier but
just two other comments that maybe Mike can look into and get back to us and I would agree
that we should keep this leave the meeting adjourned for a future date but one, Mike just a
reminder that any lighting at the site needs to be dark sky compliant. It is my opinion that there
is currently some bright LED lights on the eastern fagade of the existing potato storage building
that I do not believe are compliant. Additionally I would like to know if somebody can research
Mike the land immediately to the west I believe it's owned by the Krupski family is that in fact
preserved land?
MIKE KIMACK : I can find out whether it's development rights or not Nick, it could be Krupski I
thought it might be Satur but
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It doesn't matter the owner.
MIKE KIMACK : I'll find out. Really quickly we've run over, I understand what my marching
orders are from the Board in terms of the revisions of the site plan, what Nick wants in terms of
the C of O's, what detail needs to be in terms of the proposed 3,500 sq. ft. convenience
building. Pat Moore's client's concerns about the parking and the gentleman's concerns about
safety. You're absolutely right, the Planning Board would take that up and normally would
make a condition of their approval subject on approval of the State Highway Department I've
had that before also so that point will be covered the safety of the traffic and if there is in fact
an ongoing situation with (inaudible) we certainly don't want to contribute more to it and we
will work to try and get a resolve to it. I understand exactly what I need to do.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else any final comment from anybody? Alright I'm going to
make a motion to adjourn this hearing I think we're just going to adjourn it without a date until
you give us further information.
MIKE KIMACK : I'm not quite sure how long it's going to take me to put it together.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It doesn't make any sense to put any pressure on you so just get
what you can and you'll be in touch with us and let us know as things progress.
MIKE KIMACK : I will.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so motion to adjourn without a date, is there a second?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second.
3
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Rob, all in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. Let's go get Eric back. I want to keep going
but can we adjourn for a five minute recess just to stretch our legs we'll be right back. Motion
to recess for five minutes. 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. We will be right back. Motion to reconvene. 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.
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
HEARING # 7559—VASILIS and CHRISTINA FTHENAKIS
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Vasilis and Christina,
Fthenakis #7559. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXII
Section 280-116A and the Building Inspector's July 16, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an
application for a permit to demolish an existing dwelling and cottage and to construct a new
single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the
bluff, 2) swimming pool located in other than the code required rear yard located at 6925
Nassau Point Rd. (adj. to the Peconic Bay) in Cutchogue.
MIKE KIMACK : Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicants who are present in the audience.
This is a request for a variance for a setback from a bluff which is less than 100 feet as you had
indicated. To give you some background on this, there is an existing cottage on the property
that sits I believe about 12 foot or so from the top of the bluff at the present time. It has been
in place for a considerable period of time and the proposal is to remove that cottage remove
the existing deck and construct a new proposed two story addition set 22.1 feet back from the
top of the bluff up against an existing pool which is on the back side of it primarily. The criteria
that you would be looking at in terms of this is in many respects in terms of how can we
basically if we're going to be less than 100 linear feet from the top of the bluff would that
construction in any way compromise the condition of the bluff either present or future. There
are a few letters I know in your file one from (inaudible) Grant, one from Kathleen (inaudible)
Phd. I won't read it but you can go through it. It paraphrases the present bluff is well vegetated
and that there should be some areas that have to be as time goes on it would have to be
watched for erosion, consider the fact that the existing cottage has been in place for a long
period of time so it's footprint has not had any effect overall on the condition or the
vulnerability of the slope to the construction on top with the closeness. There's also another
letter in your file from Evan Akselrad engineer and in his opinion basically that the distance
from the bluff more than 50 feet will not (inaudible) impact the stability of the bluff and then
he makes a recommendation about the (inaudible) within 10 feet. Then as part of my
application I've submitted prior findings because this is a fairly accurate argument for this, prior
determinations of the Board the more relevant ones are three, four and five which are adjacent
property owners. One basically was adjacent next door which you just completed which was 28
feet from the top of the bluff for the existing home. Let's talk about the bluff itself and the one
thing is yes it's in good shape and it's not eroded and yes we are less than 100 feet, we're going
to be 21 which is in line because I know there's (inaudible) with other houses in the area but
the important thing is what about the future of that bluff? What is the saving grace on this
particular one is that there is an existing bulkhead as there is for the most part most of the
properties, why is that important? Most of the properties that I had to do restorations on they
really don't have a protection they've had a natural condition there's no hardening of the
35T
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
bottom. In this case there is. The important aspect to this particular bulkhead. It sits at 8.8 foot
elevation and the reason that's important is because the FEMA VE line in this area is 9. So in
essence the strongest surge that would be expected under FEMA which would be that one
percent storm every hundred years except that we've gotten three in ten years this particular
bulkhead would be able to withstand that and protect the toe of that slope from any further
erosion and there have been several storms over the years and it has not impacted to any great
extent as (inaudible) top of the bluff everything has been in place but it's our consideration
backed up by the letters from the engineer so that being 22.1 feet from the top of the bluff
with new construction is not going to have any significant impact on the bluff at all hasn't had it
with the existing cottage and will not have it as a result of the hardening of the bottom with the
bulkhead in place which is in good condition and has been for several years, there's not
anything that has to be redone here. That is the overview one of the things besides the cottage
coming down the house along the road is being removed also so we're within the coverage
zone. The house is in the building envelope and with the exception of the setback of the bluff it
does need all the other variance requirements including the coverage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Have you submitted anything to Trustees yet Mike?
MIKE KIMACK : On this one no. It's always up to you basically to make the determination.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think I told you already that we're going to be trying to be much
more (inaudible) and on top of it because so much waterfront properties are being built on and
being rebuilt and a lot of it is non-conforming and we think it's probably timely to really maybe
reverse that order that Trustees kind of look first or at least at the same time as we do.
MIKE KIMACK : And I do want to say that one of your concerns in the past, look I deal with a lot
with restorations of slopes and with the devastation and it's going to continue obviously it's not
going to get any better and once the erosion starts it doesn't stop it has to be corrected and
adjusted. I also understand that one of your past concerns was if in fact this was an eroded bluff
primarily that you might consider finding out what D.E.C. and Trustees (inaudible) about
reparations prior to any considerations that is not the case here in this particular situation.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the obvious first question that anybody is going to ask is
probably something that you're going to expect which is that when you have a brand new
dwelling being proposed on a property why can't it be conforming in regards to bluff setback?
You have more than enough room to set it back to a conforming bluff setback with the depth of
the existing property.
MIKE KIMACK : Except that there's an existing pool on the backside of the property.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what design is for.
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie to that point Mike can you tell us where the 100 foot setback
is? It's not shown on the survey.
MEMBER DANTES : It's on one of the sections Nick.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah it's on the section like you said but I'd also like to say that the site
plan I mean you're really not showing the truth when you're showing the building envelope
going out into the bluff cause the building envelope takes in the 100 foot setback. So you're
showing the building envelope I know what you're doing using the property lines but it's really
not true that the building envelope goes out into the bluff.
MIKE KIMACK : Well I use the property line because you got jurisdiction at the top of the bluff
but that doesn't necessarily have you thinking that you can't be within the jurisdiction line.•
MEMBER LEHNERT : Correct with a variance.
MIKE KIMACK : With a variance yes.
MEMBER LEHNERT : The other thing that I'd like to sort of (inaudible) is the bulkhead at the
bottom. I've worked on plenty of these houses in my years doing construction along that strip
and I remember even hurricane Sandy halfway up that bluff I don't care how high the bulkhead
is it tore it to pieces.
MIKE KIMACK : I got the properties on both sides of this primarily Rob and the bulkheads at the
same height on the two properties to the south of this didn't have any damage. You're right
about that in a sense it all depends upon which way that storm is coming in, which way the
(inaudible) is coming it all depends whether it's northwest or northeast and it could
MEMBER LEHNERT : I've seen Nor'easters where the water is over the bulkhead.
MIKE KIMACK : Look this has been in place and has survived a lot of storms and I'm not saying
that twenty or thirty years there may be one but at the same time if you look at what has
occurred as a result of past storms and there has been no serious injuries to the slope. That's all
I can.look at moving forward but the bulkhead it's better to have that bulkhead in place cause if
it wasn't there that slope would have been gone a long time ago.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think someone wanted to go, would you state your name for us
please.
VASILIS FTHENAKIS : My name is Vasilis Fthenakis I'm the owner I'm here together with my wife
Christina with the property in question. First I thank you for hearing us and thank you for
service to the community. I want to actually to argue two technical issues and then give a
371
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
bigger context as I see the bluff and the (inaudible) of the bluff. I'm an engineer myself, I have
worked forty eight years as an environmental engineer. I actually applied due diligence to that
by asking experts and something that was not presented I want to ask to be aware is the bluff is
not subject to erosion from rainfall because it has a slope towards the land. So the only concern
would be erosion through the waves. The bulkhead is new after Sandy it was something very
old over there it was destroyed before we bought the property and is very new, very strong
bulkhead not only the height of it cause I asked the engineers if I should put a second bulkhead
they told me no don't do that this is a very strong one. There is no reason to put another one.
Now the question we have a big property why (inaudible) to go backwards there is a (inaudible)
a big one. First of all let me give the whole actual picture. I have been working for fifty years
(inaudible) fourteen at Cornell University. My wife and I would like to retire in a year or two and
we need to be the new house there. The existing house is a hundred years old it's falling apart.
We need a new house and that would be our place for retirement after so many years. I was
born by the water by the sea I want to have the remaining years of my life close to the sea. If
we go backwards there are two big issues, one is it's going to cost us at least two hundred
thousand more. We asked engineers why a slope it's a big slope it's about fifteen twenty
degree slope. Going back we have to raise the house in order to be able to see the water and I
want to feel the water I want to hear the water. We have to raise it, it would be a nothing
house it will be a lot more expensive because it will be a three story house then we have to
move the pool. I have the estimate for just moving the pool a hundred ten thousand without
anything. The engineers tell me that it will cost at least a hundred thirty thousand if I am to
raise the house to get to the level that we can see the water. Again it's a slope towards the
land. We don't have the budget for that, we're selling our house in Dix Hills after fifty seven
years to be able to build here. As we will be retirees we have a strict budget, we cannot afford a
hundred fifty, two hundred thousand or more for that that's a big thing. The other one is again
that we want to think that that was our dream. Now if we go backwards then there will be no
room for another pool. The pool as is now it is screened completely from the road, it's about
the closest section of the pool is about a hundred and fifty feet from the road completely
screened cannot be seen from the road so no problem really with the harmony and the
character of the neighborhood. So we're here to ask for this relief with the variance because
any other plan we have to build a house. Any other plan with building a house further in it will
pose a big (inaudible) to us. Both financial and also it won't be quite the dream we bought the
property we were lucky to find a good price five years back. We thought we couldn't afford it
now we know perhaps maybe we could but that's the only plan for us to build the house there
and (inaudible) the character of the neighborhood. The other houses next to us there will be
exactly in the same line if you go back ten feet. The houses two properties apart there are
closer to the water than where we would be when (inaudible). I give you this I rest my case but
I (inaudible) actually I could answer questions from the Board.
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : I don't understand why you have to move the pool if you built the house
further back. I mean you can always build the house behind the pool, the existing house is
behind the pool so why would you have to move the swimming pool to build the house?
VASILIS FTHENAKIS : Because we won't be able to see the water. We bought the waterfront to
be able to see the water. We bought the waterfront in order to see the water, we won't be able
to see the water at all. We cannot see the water from the existing a hundred years old house
not even from the very top, not even from the roof because it's sloped you see it's a big slope
landwards. I think it's about 20.4 we cannot see the water at all. That's why we spend our time
in the cottage from where we can see the water and we're going to go ten feet further in from
where the cottage is which cottage has not affected the bluff at all. The bluff is not subject to
erosion, if it was subject to erosion I wouldn't build there.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie if I can chime in relative to Eric's statement. So first I would
agree with Member Dantes in that 100 foot line setback actually encroaches on the western
edge of the pool but the pool exists and a house can conform at 100 feet back while you
maintain the pool and perhaps you know the garage would have to be removed. My concern is
really where people are stating a cottage, a cottage, a cottage; based on the research and the C
of 0 offered this is an accessory structure no different than a shed. Furthermore the research
that was included in or the application packet the C of 0 when I researched the building permit
for that illustrated that they do have a half bath, a toilet and a sink in that accessory structure.
During the visual inspection you can clearly see through the windows there's a full bath with a
shower so I don't know when this happened but the building was clearly built with a permit as
an accessory not as a cottage in 1974 and I suspect it was built to allow the then owner to enjoy
the seaside view that you so eagerly looking to achieve. Unfortunately it is not a house and
think if a home was to be built it would be down in the hollow well back from 100 feet to allow
the correct placement of the swimming pool which may not afford the owner or the developer
the sea view that you're desiring. I don't understand how one could even think about calling
this a cottage or addressing it as a habitable unit when in fact very clearly is just an accessory.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob do you want to make some comments?
MEMBER LEHNERT : I'm going to comment on the bluff again, we don't have it in front of us but
I can tell you from prior experience those bluff lines move. A lot of these houses were built
when the bluff was much farther forward. Even though it might be close to it now I'm betting in
the past it was not that close it was farther forward.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well one of the things we're learning from Trustees because this is
happening all over, all over Long Island in fact bluff erosion and we're learning from the
Department of Environmental Conservation and Trustees that on average between one and
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
three feet of bluff is lost every year. So we have determined that some properties on the water
here are building sites and you have some property rights, you have the right to build a house
on a waterfront property based upon current code but we are very concerned about protection
of property as well as protection of the bluff. It's possible that what looks like 21 feet now
within a couple of years is going to be 18 feet or 17 feet. I know you're saying that the bluff the
toe of the bluff is protected by a bulkhead but we are experiencing severe weather events like
we have never had before and I don't think it's going to get much better in the near future.
We're just trying to be honest here that we are working hard with property owners with our
neighbors to find reasonable solutions. I certainly can relate to your desire to want to see the
water and experience it. It is not however one of the legal standards that this Board can apply
when making a decision. Personally I get it, I think we all do I think everybody would want a
waterfront property where they could really take full advantage of the waterfront but the law
doesn't ask us to protect your view of the water, it asks us to protect the bluff through a bulk
schedule. So I'm not pre-guessing what a decision is going to be I'm just trying to explain what
the basis of our decision is and what it is that this Board has to grapple with not just in your
case but you know in a lot of applications. We had one guy on Fishers Island that had a
beautiful home remember that, that literally the bluff erosion was so bad the house wound up
hanging cantilevered over the bluff and he had to pick it up at enormous expense and move it.
The problem is he couldn't move it to a conforming location because he would have to be in the
street. That's how much bluff loss there was. The house was probably what a hundred and
something years old at least it was a historic house. I mean this is what's happening now with
climate change and all of that we're just having to deal with it as best we can. Mike did you
want to say something or did you want to say something?
CHRISTINA FTHENAKIS : Yes hi, I'm Christina Fthenakis and the co-owner with my husband of
the 6925 in fact we put a little sign when we bought it Christina's bluff so that we could enjoy
the water and I understand all the concerns and in terms of you know calling it a cottage and I
understand it's an accessory that's how we bought it, it was there when we bought it, it was a
cottage it had the existing we haven't done anything to change it in terms of you know the
bathroom that was there so this is how we bought it and it was always being referred to as a
cottage. The desire you understand is to be near the bluff I understand the concerns and we
both you know I'm a chemist and my husband is an environmentalist all his life, we understand
what is happening and we would be very negligent I think if we were not convinced that we're
not taking a risk your concerns. So that being said yes we could move the house back and all the
financial burdens you know moving the pool maybe not even being able to put a pool in the
back we would have to have a three story house. He just had one hip replaced and December
13th he's going in for the other. I just cannot see us having that as our retirement home if I have
to climb three sets of stairs you know to get to the top floor to be able to see the sea and to
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
have any view because if you have been and seen the property it really slopes so much that you
would really have to elevate and we have seen some houses that are extremely like you know
ostentatious and they've done that and they're square boxes. We are going to be building a
modest house if you look at the design of the house that is going to really compliment I feel the
area. It's not going to be an ostentatious house, it's going to be something that will have
amenities on the first level and that's why we'd like to be on the bluff. In fact we looked and
see that even by moving back the 10 feet what would we do to preserve. In our plans we have
that we would not be doing any excavation near the bluff, if any leveling needs to be in place
we would do hand leveling. We requested and inquired with our architect if that would be
possible so there are no two people that are more vested in preserving the area and the bluff
for the obvious. We're going to make an investment there and I've been coming out here since
fifty years and I wish I had the foresight then or the money to have bought a piece of property.
We're very lucky and I seriously didn't think we would be able to afford waterfront. My
daughter and my two little granddaughters are out here (inaudible) years back so it's going to
be a dream and if we're not able to see the water I'm not sure that we want so the decision
very much depends on what it is and whether we're going to be able to retire where we're
dreaming.Thank you very much for listening.
MIKE KIMACK : I'd like to just make one point, when you have an opportunity to do your due
diligence on this one to look at number five the distance from the bluff which was a variance
that you granted immediately adjacent to this property back in July of this year and it was
granted as a demolition it was granted 28 feet from the top of the bluff. The same (inaudible) of
the bulkhead the same condition of the vegetated slope going forward.
MEMBER DANTES : Right but Mike that was a technical demolition they were keeping most of
the structure. I believe it was the value that triggered the demolition code they weren't taking
the whole structure down.
MIKE KIMACK : Except Eric when we went to the Trustees and the Trustees looked at that also
very much so in terms of they do call it a demolition to be fair and it exposes it as a demolition.
To the Board basically saying once you use the word demolition it gives you the opportunity to
say look we (inaudible) a vacant lot. Yes you obviously looked at the reality of that particular
(inaudible) and said yes the foundation and what is there but he reality is that you did allow it
to be within 28 feet. That portion the southern portion of the southern portion of the proposed
house is 32 feet it just happens to be the bluff shifts away over there. So about two thirds of it
is 22 the back one is 32 feet which matches with the next door which you granted at 28.
41
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But Mike again you're working off of an existing dwelling unit, you
don't have a dwelling unit, you don't have a cottage you have an accessory structure that's a
non-habitable building. It's a real game changer (inaudible)
MIKE KIMACK : Nick you're looking at it the wrong way in essence a building is a building is a
building. What your criteria are is what is the existing what has been the impact to that existing
building on the bluff and then what will be the proposed impact on the bluff irrespective of
whether it was you know it's a structure that puts weight on that particular bluff at a forty five
degree angle basically going down. The question is that particular cottage in that location did
not cause any issues with the bluff and the proposed house moved further back given the way
it's being designed such that it will not cause it doesn't matter whether it's an accessory
building or not. It was built as a cottage with a whole foundation with a weight factor that was
certainly
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You're forgetting (inaudible) existing house that you plan on
demolishing and as a result you have a vacant lot so you're applying with a blank canvas and
there's no need not to meet the code.
MIKE KIMACK : You could have done that next door.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Mike I'd also like to bring up your quoting the past variance that we gave
was for a substantial house that was already there. You're trying to use that with a really small
building replacing it with a substantial building. It's not apples to apples here.
MIKE KIMACK : I'm drawing a broader (inaudible) but at the same time you do have the
authority to basically say that when they submit a Notice of Disapproval to you and it calls for a
demo whether it's because it happens to be a capital cost demo or a complete demo you can
call it a vacant lot you have that authority.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We do but you know darn well how much more difficult that is a
decision. If people are preserving part of their house, they have a foundation, it's been there for
years it's really not apples to apples but I have a thought that I'd like to ask the Board and you
about and the applicants. One of the things that we have done recently is when we've had a
complicated thing with really basically all about environmental impacts on the bluff we have
heard an application and we've adjourned it so that you can go to Trustees and see what they
have to say. If the Trustees are okay then we can actually use that as mitigation to make the
LWRP consistent, we can't approve anything this Board cannot approve anything that is not
consistent with the LWRP. Do you understand what that is? I just want to make sure you know
what I'm talking about. The way we do that is if the coordinator says it's inconsistent then
through conditions, through some form of mitigation we can then say, based upon this
r
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
mitigation it is consistent and therefore we can approve. If the Trustees (inaudible) an approval
we can use the Trustees approval to mitigate our decision. So I think till we get this system
straightened out a little bit more it may be in the best interest of the applicant to go before the
Trustees. At least if there is a process in place even if they haven't rendered a full decision they
might be able to resend up written comments. They can't even comment right now cause they
haven't seen it.
MEMBER DANTES : Leslie what if we deny it then we're just wasting their time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we can't really even consider without mitigation and what's the
mitigation here? I don't know how we can mitigate, you see what I'm getting at.
MEMBER DANTES : No I mean I don't think it can meet the conditions of the area variance
standards for approval. Basically he'd be taking a risk (inaudible) after Trustees but maybe he
won't.
MIKE KIMACK : So we go to the Trustees get their blessing and then come back here to be
denied?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's possible is it likely not so likely. I'm not saying what the outcome
would be I'm just simply saying that it's a very strong argument in favor if the Trustees approve
it that's really all I'm saying. They're the environmental experts, they've said we've looked at it
they may put a condition of a buffer on there you know non-disturbance buffer which is
standard which is something we would do and we do regularly. Then we would have a stronger
case. We've done it before and I think that we have one or two choices, we can either close it
and we can make our own decision that could be an approval a denial or alternative relief
which says will give you this variance but not the one you're requesting. Or we can adjourn it
and ask you to go the Trustees. I'm just laying out the options in attempting to try to work with
the applicants really.
MIKE KIMACK : I think basically having been through this process before I would request the
Board if they can send a letter to the Trustees that we would be coming their way obviously
because you have to basically give them permission since you are lead agency on it anyway. I
think you've done that in the past too.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't have to give them permission at all.
MIKE KIMACK : Oh you don't.
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no, no, no this is a Type II Action. There's no SEQR pending here
this is a variance.
MIKE KIMACK : We would request an adjournment with no date until I have a chance to go to
the Trustees go through that process.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah you can always call the office and say we're ready to come
back. If they're giving us very favorable comments and they're really busy and they can't get
you on for a full hearing that quickly I'm willing to entertain you know rehearing it as long as we
have substantial comments from them. I would prefer approval with mitigation but if you can
get that from them in writing prior to their conclusions.
MIKE KIMACK : I think the Trustees will probably want to see an application
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh they will have to see it I mean they can't comment if they don't
see it but you're going to have to do that anyway.
MIKE KIMACK : Of course they're going through a new Board now so we have three new
Members coming on that's going to be a journey of enlightenment. It's a tough job it's a very
tough job.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All of these are tough jobs let me tell you this is not simple anymore.
This use to be easy no longer is this easy for anybody.
MIKE KIMACK : Like the one prior I requested an adjournment with no future date.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you alright with that?
CHRISTINA FTHENAKIS : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's an ongoing process, you don't have to pay another fee you
have to do a mailing but you don't have to pay anymore variance fees it just has to be noticed.
So I'm going to make a motion to adjourn without a date, is there a second?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
HEARING#7551— DAVID and LISA CIFARELLI
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for David and Lisa Cifarelli
#7551. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building
Inspector's July 1, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish
an existing dwelling and construct a single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code
required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet on two side yards located at 2674 Peconic Bay
Blvd. (adj. to Peconic Bay) in Laurel. This is really it's not a complete demolition it's a demo and
reconstruct or rebuild what's there with a side yard setback to the east of 2.9 feet, side yard
setback to the north of 8.2 feet the code requiring a minimum of 10 feet. Anthony I have a
question for you before we get started, how come it's not a combined side yard setback then
do we know?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : 25 feet
MEMBER LEHNERT :They missed that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I'm looking at it, if you have two substantially non-conforming
side yards then the combined side yard is also non-conforming.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah 9.2 and 2.9 is not 25.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : We're still holding the 10 on the (inaudible) and then we would have to
have the combined side yard on the I guess on the eastern side of the property. I mean we're
showing it as 15 on that side.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait a minute, the existing setbacks are 8.8 to be reduced to 2.9 and
6.9 to be 8.2 have I got that right?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : 8.2 is the front yard variance that we're asking.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay gottcha.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : There's an existing front yard encroachment of 6.9. You'll see that on the
site plan there to the east corner the front east corner of the property.
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So why are they citing these as two side yard setbacks and not a
front yard setback?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Oh I'm sorry, so look at the bigger the larger survey. So this property
cause of the flagged lot the front yard comes off of the property line in the front of the
driveway and we considered everything else side yard. So the front property line is all the way
at Peconic Bay Blvd. and that driveway goes all the way back. There's another lot that is owned
by the same owners exactly there and there's another lot that's vacant actually I'm sorry
there's a pool on it it's also owned by them. That lot is vacant so they own
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I just looked at it, the point is you're right the 8.2 would then
be because of the flag it would be a front yard setback and there's two side yard setbacks they
don't cite the front yard and they don't cite the combined side yard.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : The Building Department the denial letter?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah. I mean when you're before us I want to make sure we get
everything right and we address all of the issues, we don't want you to have to come back.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Me either I appreciate that. We actually yeah we've been waiting to see
you guys for a while now so
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We are so busy, we're practically doubled up. We've added many,
many more applications per month to try and accommodate the delays which we don't like to
see but there's just so many hours in a day that we can hear these applications, take them in
and do all the site inspections and write all the drafts it's very, very busy.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I understand, I think we're probably all in the same boat.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We are everybody is. Well why don't you address all of those things
and then we'll work it out.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : So to the western side of the yard are the lot we're staying within the 10
foot so we're proposing a 10.2 foot setback and then now talking about the front yard we
aren't encroaching more than what the existing I know it's a reconstruction due to the fifty
percent rebuilt rule but currently the house is 6.9 feet at the front yard and we're proposing
this addition when you go past that actually it would be setback from that. Also stating which I
already said was that the property to the north is their property the owner owns that as well.
The eastern side of the property the 2.9 proposed you know when we were designing this was
to you know keep the line of the existing house we didn't change that and we were just trying
to get you know what was needed on the interior. That addition there just to be clear is only a
4
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
one story addition we're not proposing any two story addition on that so it is a low visibility it's
not necessarily you know going to have the same scale as the part that's existing so I just
wanted to make that clear. We did speak to the neighbors to the east they actually wrote a
letter which we submitted that you know this is from Paul Yu and Melissa Hobley I'll just read it
for the record. To whom it may concern we are the neighbors of the Cifarelli's and reside at
2826 Peconic Bay Blvd. directly east of their property. We have no objections or concerns
regarding the renovations and additions that they're proposing. We think it would be a great
addition and would add value to our neighborhood. Please let us know if you have any
questions. So they were so kind to write us back. What really they're looking to do is the
existing home is in somewhat disrepair in my opinion so they are looking to basically gut
renovate. We are upgrading the septic, we obviously have to go to Trustees so we're in that
process. We have non-jurisdiction D.E.C. We are maintaining we're trying to maintain the same
amount of bedrooms that are existing and the way it was designed originally in my opinion is
very dwarfing on the second floor so we're trying to add square footage on the second floor as
much as possible. We tried to hold as many lines as we could of the existing footprint. Some of
these additions are to get proper square footage or space. You can see somewhat of you know
kind of awkward positioning of the existing house so we are removing the existing foundation
so we had to work with the existing foundation and just how it was originally put on the lot it
didn't really in my opinion follow you know the lot lines.That would have helped obviously with
trying to provide additions and things like that so maintaining kind of what the orientation of
the existing house is that's sort of how we're getting into this relief situation and why we're
here. I'm here for any questions or comments.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me just go over all this again. I want to be sure that
everybody's got the same numbers here. It looks like the front yard setback is proposed to be
8.2 feet based upon the new addition correct?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is the existing front yard setback? It looks like it's 8.9
ANTHONY PORTILLO : 6.9
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then we have a side yard setback at 2.9 which was 8.8 correct?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have a side yard at 11.2
ANTHONY PORTILLO : No 10.2
47,
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks like 11 on the survey. Oh there it is yep 10.2 and it was 22.7.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then we would have a combined of what 13 feet or something like
that?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes you would be at 13.1
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, so it looks like you're really, really decreasing the side yard
on what side are we looking at, the one with the big addition on it.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Oh sorry the east.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : East side yep.
ANTHONLY PORTILLO : Oh that's the west.
MEMBER LEHNERT : It's the west.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would appear you want to do this basically to increase the livable
floor area. What would happen what would the setbacks be I understand the house is at an
angle so you gotta reduce the front yard setback just keeps getting smaller and smaller. What
happens if you took the existing wall on the east side and just filled in that notched corner
going back to the other existing wall and the same on the east side if you continued the side
yard but stopped that or the existing other wall you know so you're just squaring off the house
as it is?You're going to have greater setbacks there, you won't have as much
ANTHONY PORTILLO : That large addition to the west is the you know the Cifarelli's want to stay
you know longtime residents in Southold and this is what they want to be their boys are now
grown up so looking to really to live in this home and that first floor is that addition is to get a
master bedroom with an en suite bathroom and that's really where that that's really what that
square footage is there for. Then you know you kind of have center living and then you have
some on the east side you have a garage that's attached and then basically some accessory
spaces. By squaring that off it does really take away from the suites the first floor suite. Again I
really thought you know and I was thinking more about you know wetlands and being close to
the water that I really wanted to avoid which was something that we did discuss at the very
beginning of the project is do we just rip out the existing foundation and take down the house
and you know me being somewhat of a conservative I said you know let's try to keep what we
have and work with it. I mean obviously you know removing the house completely taking out
the foundation there's a lot of ground disturbance and things would end up happening and
then sort of directing it properly on the site would resolve a lot of these issues but that's why
4,31
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
I'm here because I feel like there's a way to keep this structure or portions of the structure and
definitely the foundation because I think it's just especially nowadays with pricing and stuff
taking out concrete when you don't need to and spending money on wood when you don't
need to I mean it just you know with the shortages it just seems to me sensible to keep what's
there. The biggest I think difficulty on this plot is the orientation of the existing building and
working trying to gain square footage. Maybe we can consider taking some off of the side yard
and maybe I'm just looking at the floor plan and possibly aligning it with where that 14.4 on
that lot right there which is hitting the 10.2 corner. I mean I know these things like if we went
straight back with that line which would take like 3 feet out of basically the proposed master or
primary bedroom and it would reduce some of the closet space. I mean maybe that would be
something we can do. I just want to be you know something that I think we should look at here
is that because of the orientation we are coming close to the front yard and the side yard at
10.2 but as the building goes back you know it's sort of has a triangle to it so the base of that
triangle at the corner towards the rear yard it is pretty far from the property line. It sort of
maintains a 20 foot setback, I don't have it on here but I'm just kind of looking at it. So it's like
it's just to me I think something to take into consideration that it's not exactly everything the
entire structure the mass of the building is not at 10.2 it's really just that corner of the building.
Something too that I because I didn't want the building to feel massive at the side yards
because of being close to the property lines and also just walking by the building was we tried
to keep a one story structure on both side yards and then sort of massed it in the middle of the
building so you get the second story more condensed. So that was our design approach there as
well as we thought through this.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you just look at it we know this is a family compound you know
and this is in part the way the beach is accessed and they're not even walkable side yards left.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yeah I mean I think a 10 foot footpath is pretty
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That may be on that side but look at the other side.
MEMBER DANTES : How are you going to build that Anthony cause you need an overcut you're
going to be on your neighbor's property just to get the foundation in with the overcut and the
footing.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Definitely I think I understand that part and I think maybe getting it
maybe considering to bring back the rear addition you know to reduce the 2.9 to maybe
something a little bit closer to like 5. 1 do have a demolition reconstruction approval which we
did submit already similar to this that was approved October of 2012 by the Board for a 5.7 foot
side yard setback with a combined 20.16 foot side yard setback so I mean maybe looking into
that, that sort of one story addition there maybe we can squeeze like the pantry and a few
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting i
things that's what's over there mudroom, pantry maybe we can pull some of that back and get
closer to like 5 foot or 5.5 foot maybe similar to what was approved in this recent variance.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anthony you know what, maybe the best thing to do here is give
you a chance to talk to your clients and see what kind of amended plan you want to submit and
then get an amended Notice of Disapproval for crying out loud that addresses both side yards, a
front yard and a combined so we know what we're actually doing?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yeah sure and I'm sorry I missed that, I should have looked at that prior
to this and I apologize. Okay not a problem, I think the comments are good and I kind of
understand where you guys are coming from so I think there's some things we can maybe cut
back on and we'll come back. Can we adjourn for next month?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can do that. We're probably booked to the ceiling next month
too but we'll put you under the X-mas tree.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Can you put me first? I'm just kidding. I'm just glad I didn't have a corner
lot that I had to deal with.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have to have a healthy sense of humor these days.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Have a great rest of a day you guys, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me see if there's anyone in the audience who wants to address
the application before we make a motion. Anybody on Zoom, nope. Okay I make a motion to
adjourn to December 2nd
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Acampora. All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. See you then.
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
HEARING#7555— PETROS MAMAIS
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Petros Mamais #7555.
This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's
June 11, 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 required
minimum side yard setback of 10 feet located at 990 Central Drive in Mattituck.
EILEEN ROWAN : My name is Eileen Rowan I'm from Rowan Permits Expediting located in
Coram the agent for the applicant. The relief requested is because of an increase in the height
of the dwelling proposed with an existing side yard is 9.4 feet where 10 feet is required. The
applicant is changing the roofline and raising portions of the existing roof from the existing
height of 16 feet to 18 % feet. A front porch is proposed and a raised roof is more aesthetically
pleasing. As the dwelling encroaches into the required side yard by approximately 7 inches
relief from this Board is required for the increased height. There is no expansion of the existing
footprint of the home just the height increase. I would like to let the Board know that on
November 21, 2002 application #5213 for a property located at 250 Summit Dr. a dwelling in
this area this Board granted a similar relief as requested here. In that application a full second
story was proposed on a single story dwelling that was non-conforming for a rear yard setback
of
MEMBER DANTES : You're asking us for a 6 inch variance for a pre-existing side yard setback
because the roof has changed by 2 feet?
EILEEN ROWAN : Yes.
MEMBER DANTES : I think this is a benign variance. I mean just in the interest of time.
EILEEN ROWAN : Let me just finish I have a very short the Building Department was very
particular it's considered an expansion of the non-conforming use because it's a non-
conforming setback. So a setback of 11 feet where 35 feet is required no expansion of the
footprint. Seven inches in my opinion is not substantial, it's in keeping with the neighborhood. if
the Board has any questions.
MEMBER LEHNERT : I'm going to agree with Eric it's pretty benign.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's really almost deminimus it's like too bad you can't make it
conforming you wouldn't even have to be here for a few inches. However the only thing I do
object is the fact that the house is already under and we had to have a Stop Work Order issued
prior to any approvals. I don't know if you're even aware of that.
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
EILEEN ROWAN : I would like to address that. I got a phone call yesterday. I was told that a Stop
Work Order was issued. I was told that what was going on at the property yesterday was an
installation of a TV and surround sound system. In the application that includes the raising of
the height it includes the existing conversion of the basement it was already constructed
without a permit.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for addressing that. Let me see if the Board has any
questions about this, Nick anything from you?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes just one thing and I agree wholeheartedly with Eric and I'm sorry
that you're here but I'm glad that we're going to resolve this but please just make sure that you
get a Certificate of Occupancy on the outdoor shower.
EILEEN ROWAN : Okay, anything else from the Board.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Okay
hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve
decision to a later date, is there a second?
MEMBER DANTES : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We'll have a decision in two weeks. Thank you for your
patience.
HEARING#7556—SCOTT ROSEN and LORI GOEDERS ROSEN
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Scott Rosen and Lori
Goeders Rosen #7556. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the
Building Inspector's June 14, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to
construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) more than the
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 850 Lupton Point Rd. (adj. to Deep
Hole Creek) in Mattituck. State your name for the record please.
LISA POYER : My name is Lisa Poyer, Twin Forks Permits in Hampton Bays on behalf of the
applicants. We are here today to request relief for a 2.2% square footage increase which is
above the 20% lot coverage that is allowed by the code. There are no other variance requests,
we meet all the side yard setbacks. We're below the height limitations. The owners are looking
to do two small additions, one is in the front of the house. It will contain it'll make it more of a
foyer entry into the residence. It will also have a hall closet as well as a little bit larger laundry
room than what's in the residence right now. The other addition is located on the west side of
the property and it will consist of expanding the existing kitchen and an existing bedroom to
make it more of a master suite for the property owners. In the interest of time if you have any
additional questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One is a 53 sq. ft. front porch it would appear and the other is only a
372 sq. ft. I mean what's the existing lot coverage?
MEMBER DANTES : 19.5
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 19.5 so adding anything is going to require a lot area variance.
LISA POYER : It's an undersized lot. It's only 19,166 sq.ft. in a R40 zone.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you increasing the number of bedrooms?
LISA POYER : No we're not.
MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) new system.
LISA POYER : We're getting a new septic system, we do have a non-jurisdiction letter from the
New York State D.E.C. and we are on the calendar for the Trustees for the December meeting.
We were on originally in September but because of your hearing they moved us to December.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have three letters of support from neighbors.
LISA POYER : That's what I was going to add, the neighbor on either side and across the street
have submitted letters of support for the application, they reviewed it and have no objections
to it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from the Board?
MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions.
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? 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. We'll have a decision in two weeks. We are going to adjourn for
ten minutes we're going to skip lunch today because we are so far behind just to stretch our
legs and have some water. Out of concern for the public's inconvenience we're just going to
push forward so I'm going to make a motion to recess for ten minutes 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 reconvene, is there a second?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
HEARING#7552SE ᶁ— RIZOS PALIOURAS
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Liz do you want to review the Zoom, please do that.
OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Good afternoon everyone, for those on Zoom if anyone
wishes to comment on the applications following we ask you that you send us a note via the
Q&A or the other option is to raise your hand I can see it of those who are attending if you'd
like to comment raise your hand and I will allow you to unmute or move into panelist and then
we'll let you speak. I don't see anyone on a phone but if you are on a phone we also have if you
press *9 to raise your hand and then I will let you know how to unmute. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Liz. The next application actually I'm going to open both
of them at once it makes more sense to do it that way. We have two for the same applicant and
the same attorney, Rizos Paliouras #7552SE this is a request for a Special Exception pursuant to
Article III Section 280-13B(17) the applicant is requesting permission to convert second story
space of an existing two family dwelling into two (2) units of affordable rental housing located
at 65795 CR 48 in Greenport and application #7553 a request for a Use Variance pursuant to
Article III Section 280-13B(17) the applicant is requesting permission to convert second story
space of an existing two family dwelling into two (2) units of affordable rental housing for
premises not located within a designated hamlet locus (HALO) zone not a permitted use also
located at 65795 CR 48 in Greenport.
PAT MOORE : I have with me today Mr. Rizos Paliouras and his friend assistant. Mr. Paliouras
may need some translating so his friend is going to assist me. This is a type of applications
where and I have to admit I really wasn't sure which direction to go with. The bottom line is
that we wanted to take an existing structure that had built the two units two additional units on
the second floor that were done before my client purchased it was all occurring in the eighties
because when my clients purchased it still the C.O. showed two family but there were still two
units upstairs so he should have realized it but they didn't and in that period of time it's always
been rented it's been occupied. I just got confirmation from Mr. Paliouras because I didn't
know the amount of the rental but the units have always been affordable. I did start to just
divert for a moment, I provided you by email an appraisal it's a very thorough document so I
thought it would be better to come to you as an email but he verifies this as well which is that
the first floor apartment is only it's a two bedroom and it runs for $1,400 which is way under
even the affordable criteria. The two apartments upstairs are two bedroom and they started at
$500 and they went all the way to $1,500 at the max and what happened is that when he went
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
for a rental permit because it was obviously rented the rental permit went through and that's
when he realized or the Building Department said wait you don't even have permits for these
extra units so at that point he had to ask the people to vacate fortunately there was no landlord
tenant issue the people vacated and it's been vacant ever since. At this time and you saw from
your own inspection the units are vacant. I sent you also an outline I don't want to read from
my outline you have plenty there in written form I just wanted to talk about it and get your
direction as well because I think it would be helpful to me to get some idea of which direction
you'd want me to go in. You went into the units and you can see that the original structure that
was put there was a barn and it was converted to a residence and approved for a two family.
There is ample room on the second floor of that two family. When I went through the
paperwork and again the sixties they weren't really that clean and clear on paperwork but it
looked like the plans were submitted to the Zoning Board at the time as a two family only
showed the first floor leaving the second floor not even as defined space and there is a
tremendously large second floor to this building so much so that it's two additional apartments.
When I was looking at this as to how to make it conforming really the options for Mr. Paliouras
was okay we can remove the second floor units and make them part of the first floor so you
have a two family with the space above that can be incorporated as part of the apartments. So
you continue as a two family but you have a larger space ultimately with whatever either make
them additional bedrooms or moving the bedrooms up whatever. So that was one option but it
seemed like the town was asking and encouraging people to provide affordable housing and it's
become a big political hot topic that everybody says they want affordable housing but it's
always a challenge on how one gets it. In this case we have two units that are there, they would
be perfectly situated for rental, they've been rented since the late eighties, 86 or 85 whatever
83 that period of time and never bothered anyone. It's a very large piece of property, very
screened in the closest neighbor is the house next door the old it's a little Victorian that Mr.
Paliouras owns and he has a very nice family that's in there. Again I went for a rental permit for
that unit and everything was fine I think we had to correct something that might have been
replaced in the eighties that the Building Department they don't see a record of it makes you
clean it up at this time but it was very minor. So you have an existing situation that would be
perfectly suited to provide affordable rental in this community but the way that the code was
written and I don't know honestly if it was intended that you can only put it in the HALO zone
or whether the condition was such that it allowed for a given the circumstances presenting it to
the Board showing that it would not impact the neighborhood it would be an appropriate
location to allow one of the condition being the HALO zone location to be a variance from this
Board. In a sense I don't know the answer to that, the Board will tell me that. I never got a clean
answer on it, you did ask for a USE variance so I would imagine then the USE variances because
you the use is not specifically identified in the code and we would my asking for a USE variance
for the two apartments or a USE variance because of the condition of the affordable apartment.
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
Again that's never been very clearly identified for me. I had an early conversation with Mr.
Noncarrow about how to do this, how to make this work and here we are.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat just a minute, did you ever ask when you talked to Denis did you
ever ask him whether or not it would be worthwhile to apply to the Town Board to make this an
HD or affordable housing district.
PAT MOORE : I asked whether yes that was my first step to ask that the HD be amended or
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well no they have to it's an overlay zone they have to grant it as an
overlay zone.
PAT MOORE : Right. It went on deaf ears I don't know. I asked and nobody ever responded that
they would do it. I don't know what the answer was no we really don't want to do that go to
the Zoning Board. I think indirectly I got that answer.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you talk to Denis or did you talk to the Supervisor or any Town
Board Member or
PAT MOORE : No I did not approach the individual Board Members, I didn't ask the Supervisor I
went through his liaison which is really he's the affordable housing guru so it was with emails
and conversations. I assumed he was discussing with Mr. Duffy. Bill I just don't remember we
spoke directly about it or not to be honest.
T. A. DUFFY : The only discussion I remember is using the conversion of the existing space not
putting an HD.
PAT MOORE : Okay yeah.
T. A. DUFFY : I don't know you might have discussed it with Denis but
PAT MOORE : I do know I did speak because my earliest emails were hey can we do something
about the HD because you know it would be appropriate. I think if I read the problem is also
reading the HD map it's a challenge at least it was to me and I'm used to reading these maps to
figure out where it was.
MEMBER DANTES : There is no HD map it's an overlay district. It's basically a change in zoning.
PAT MOORE : No they actually refer if you look at the code it says it refers to a map. It's really
convoluted it's like it refers you to something that doesn't exist and then you look at HD and
there is actually in the HD zone that is mapped but is that the map or not the map I don't know.
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) it's because it's already gotten approval from the Town
Board. When the code was put into place it was just simply giving them the authority to say we
can decide since we need affordables to put it here or put it there or put it there which
overreaches beyond the underlying existing zoning. It could be let's say R40 or AG that we can
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : There's something that I find puzzling and I'm not an attorney so I
can't really answer this but I think it's tantamount to the dialogue that we're having but this
barn is part of a larger subdivision and I suspect when the subdivision was created the hope
was that somebody like other barns in town would convert to a single family house but in the
package was offered Covenants and Restrictions and it clearly states that this property along
with all of the other sister lots in the subdivision are to be single family residences.
PAT MOORE : I think timing wise though if you look at the timing of it, it's maybe one of the lots
but I think it had already been split or developed because if you look at the approval of the
building it was approved in '64 the subdivision was not until '86. So something doesn't make
sense there. It may have been part of the property of the original developer but I can't tell you
that those covenants would apply to a property that has already been developed because it
was already a two family.
MEMBER DANTES : Are those in the packets?
PAT MOORE : It's in there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah it's in there.
MEMBER DANTES : The only HD that's been approved as far as I know is the one next to
Feather Hill there's others pending but I don't (inaudible) been voted on.
PAT MOORE : But I think those are projects that are affordable but this is different. This is like
an HD overlay zone, it's different than the AHD zoning, rezoning.
MEMBER DANTES : I understand it's next to Feather Hill (inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The cottages in Mattituck AHD and there's one or two others but
that's not the point. We don't have the authority to do that it's the Town Board's jurisdiction
to do that. Nick did you want to say something about that prior decision?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I wanted to mention I don't know if it was appropriate to bring it up
and this is where I'm puzzled between the Covenants and Restrictions, the subdivision and then
the actual square footage of the units and it's whether I'm looking at this I might be mistaken I
certainly wasn't party of the original subdivision but ZBA decision 702 which granted the relief
that allowed the house to be what everyone is calling a two family clearly states that an
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
additional apartment would be classified as a guest apartment, it would not be a rental
apartment so the intent was that somebody should have a unit to live in plus have an accessory
apartment for friends and guests as the decision specified. It would still be a single family house
the way that we look at things today with an accessory apartment. Accessory apartments didn't
exist at that point and it would seem that that's what the intent of the variance was. Whether
or not it's true I don't know because at a later point it was acknowledged as a two family house.
I just need to understand the connection between the Covenants and Restrictions, the prior
relief granted and the future use.
PAT MOORE : I'm not sure I can I mean I can only tell you date wise when things were
approved. As I said the covenants came into effect much later and the subdivision was much
later than the original approval for the two family and I read that as well I looked at the
transcript and I looked at the statements made at the hearing. It started out with the
gentleman who was asking he was saying, oh I want to live there and I want this as my guest
quarters I guess I forget the terminology he used. Then when it was actually issued it was as a
two family no conditions, no criteria nothing so it's always been C.O'd as a two family. What
happened with the ultimate decision making I can't tell you. I know what was discussed but
when the Board actually ruled on it they called it a two family not a without any strings
attached.
MEMBER DANTES : The 1964 decision?
PAT MOORE : Yeah the 1964.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : To my point, the 1992 Certificate of Occupancy states it's a one family
house.
PAT MOORE : I saw that too. Yeah because that was a builder adding a deck, I don't know that
he you know you don't really have a builder analyzing what kind of use it was if it's to a single
family which clearly it was a two family and it's always been a two family and at the time that
deck was built it was in fact being used as a four family. I acquitted it to just sloppiness not so
much a legal conclusion that it was a single family dwelling it was a small deck addition to an
existing building and that's all it was that was in the nineties.
OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Excuse me Leslie I have someone here I moved him in, Vince
he is from the subdivision the one that the home belongs to, can he speak?
VINCE LARAIA : Hi good afternoon Board thanks for taking the time. I'm Vince Laraia I'm the
President of the Home Acres Homes Association and recently became the President of the
Association and as I'm listening to this, this does sound rather convoluted I heard that word it's
a great title for this. This property is a part of our homeowner's association, the owner has
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
complied with the association by paying dues so has you know by the mere fact of paying dues
has been a part of the association at the end of the day. As a matter of fact this has been one of
those homes that has been a little bit of a conundrum to the rest of the association. We have
been wondering for years why there's multiple cars going in and out of that property. We see a
lot of activity, it does not comply with our Covenants and Restrictions, it's something that we
have brought up on many occasions to the owner. I have spoken to the owner on occasion so I
do know that he's able to speak very clearly and communicate himself at the end of the day. A
little bit of a texture around this you know being a part of the association you would think that
you know petitioning the town here for this special variance that that would be something that
would be brought to our attention. Unfortunately the way we were made aware of this was
through a public notice that was in the press and through a certified letter from their attorney
that came to us October 15th. So I can sit here and say to you very clearly we are really trying to
preserve our homeowners association, we're one of the few that have really full buy in, we take
rather great pride into our association. We're all about the beautification of our neighborhood
and of the area and we have been one hundred percent under the impression based on all of
our the deeds and everything attached to this property and this homeowners association that
in fact this property is very clear that it is a single family home. We have also looked at some
information that really as the attorney has pointed out you know what it does contradict itself
but at the end of the day this has been an association property for all this time. We strongly
oppose this petition for a change in variance and we would need some time on our side to seek
some legal counsel if needed since this is something that has been brought to our attention just
recently. At the end of the day I hope that you'll take our side on where we sit with the legal
documents that we have in place and we hope that that would be of upmost consideration. I
know that we have a couple audience members that are in attendance as well that are a part of
the association that do have issue with this as well.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your comments. Do you want to carry on Pat?
PAT MOORE : Well just with respect to how this map is has been created I'll just point out that
this property does not use the association road I know it has its own driveway. The road seems
to be the road for this subdivision next to Homestead Way on the north
MEMBER DANTES : How did they become part of the association?
PAT MOORE : I don't know, I assume by some form of a deed recorded a covenant being
recorded.
VINCE LARAIA : Absolutely.
PAT MOORE : I could do more research.
Q
November 4,2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we just got a confirmation, Vince will you state that in the
record please.
VINCE LARAIA : Excuse me please say that again.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The question was, how did the subject property become part of this
subdivision and subsequent the homeowners association do you know?
VINCE LARAIA : I do not know but this subdivision was put together as mentioned in the
eighties and a part of that footprint was this property. It is within all of our covenants and
restrictions and we do have all of the legal and signatories involved in that. It has been fully
vetted as a part of the association based on the legal documentation we have.
MEMBER DANTES : So this parcel was part of this subdivision?
VINCE LARAIA : Absolutely.
MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible)
PAT MOORE : In fact I think there was some testimony or discussion at the subdivision end that
this was a pre-existing house and there may be some mention of what it was which was a two
family. (inaudible) takes six months for the hearing and quite frankly I didn't review that so
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it would appear that if the house pre-dated the subdivision and
the house had received a prior variance for a what appeared to be the conversion of a barn into
a single family dwelling with a guest apartment that's what it says in the decision. You have that
in front of you?
MEMBER DANTES :The'64 says two family was there another decision?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Was there a different decision there's also another one that says
two family.
MEMBER DANTES : That's 1964.
PAT MOORE : Yeah '64
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there something after that Nick or before that that you're looking
at?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Maybe
PAT MOORE : No that's the one he's reading.
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Maybe that's the way the C.O. was written.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Decision 702 issued in 1964 includes an additional apartment would
be classified as a guest apartment.
MEMBER DANTES :That was his application but then they approved it as a two family.
PAT MOORE : Yeah it says this two family dwelling will not harm the character of
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what they applied for but they wound up with a decision that
called it a two family dwelling.
PAT MOORE : Right cause it was being used for commercial it says here
MEMBER DANTES : The decision says the Board finds that the applicant states in the application
that this would not be a commercial (inaudible) in addition (inaudible) will be classified as a
guest apartment and if you go down further it says resolved that Frederick Gordon will be
granted permission to (inaudible) into a two family dwelling.
PAT MOORE : But it has a C.O. as a two family so
VINCE LARAIA : If I may just add one part to this, our association has repeatedly gone over to
this homeowner member in our association and have questioned about if there are multiple
people living there and we have been told no. So we just feel as if this is an opportunity to take
something that may have been in violation and to pay it off through changing the variance now.
So that's a little disconcerting to all of us as association members cause we have taken the
necessary steps by asking if in fact there are additional folks renting or living there and we have
been told no which we can see with our own eyes yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we have homeowners association that comes in after the pre-
existing non-conforming dwelling has received a Certificate of Occupancy as a two family
dwelling. It becomes part of the association then governed by Covenants and Restrictions put
into place by the association but it also then pre-dates that association Covenants and
Restrictions, so therein lies the conflict. Now whether it should be more than a two family
because it has been operating as four units dwelling units okay without proper things in place
to allow for that which is why they're here trying to clean this up. I'm going through this
because I want to make sure everybody understands what we're looking at, what the history is
and what the current situation is and what the applicant is requesting and what the
homeowners association would like to see that be which is apparently a single family dwelling.
However there are legitimate property rights that this pre-dates was prior to the association.
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
The conflict then is how is this then part of the association that then they must be governed by
those C&R's and yet
MEMBER DANTES : I would think that whoever the property owner was decided on the
agreement agreed to that's not really our jurisdiction. When you sign onto an agreement you
decide to live by the terms of the agreement.
PAT MOORE : Well it depends on how again it was all pre-existing they may have thought oh
this doesn't apply to me because it's already here it's I get certain benefits and I'll contribute
towards your road maintenance or snow removal or whatever might be the case but as far as
extinguishing or preventing the use of a property that's already there and has always been
there, we don't know why homeowner voluntarily pay in other than sometimes it's fine you
know as to not create any problems.
VINCE LARAIA : Listen I'm not a lawyer folks but I know this I deal with a lot of contracts in my
business and you know I do know that if there is any special considerations when something
else is written that special consideration would be called out and be spelled out very clearly and
any agreement. I'm a little confused if there is some special lack of term grandfather clause for
that part of our association that should be clearly spelled out in our legal documents and it is
not.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would add Leslie for (inaudible) also the town property card I
mentioned it earlier it's classified as a single family residential structure it indicated one kitchen
etc. there's without a doubt a blemish here but it would seem that perhaps Eric is right that the
(inaudible) his rights.
PAT MOORE : I equated no offense every other property card I read is in error so I would
definitely not assume that the property card is definitive. It usually has some form of inaccuracy
one way or another. I can't tell you I don't want to say that the property card is definitive it's
been a two family the Assessor's failed to assess it as such it's not the owner's problem. I mean
they would have been assessing based on the size of the house all being whatever the square
footage of this house is. As a two family it would have potentially been income based and then
you'd be assessing on a $1,400 rental income. He still occupies one part of it so really it's the
one unit that's rented and then potentially a lot of times the Assessors they assess you
regardless of what the zoning they'll assess you higher because they see activity there so again
it's not always definitive. Sometimes they catch it sometimes they don't and maybe the
assessment was for a very based on a much more based on habitable space and the habitable
space was whatever square footage that they allocated here. I don't have the card in front of
me you probably see it and I don't know what the square footage that they were assessing on
but nevertheless (inaudible)
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I thought it was more of an accessory apartment if you look at the
square footage.
PAT MOORE : Well it's two bedrooms.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The square footage is smaller, unit B is 860 sq. ft. and I forget what
unit A is I don't have it here.
MEMBER DANTES : Correct me if I'm wrong I mean Covenants and Restrictions are advisory for
us (inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask one other question that's quite relevant here, you said
there's four dwelling units let's say or it's proposed to be how many bedrooms you said there
were two bedrooms on the ground floor and two units is that right Pat?
PAT MOORE : Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to see how many bedrooms in the entire building we're
talking about.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think Donna had the floor plan.
PAT MOORE : I know that you have them. Okay, first floor has one bedroom on the west side
that's where my client Mr. Paliouras lives is the one bedroom Unit A. Unit A is the smaller one
that's where Mr. Paliouras lives. Unit B is two that's where I don't know the woman's name but
I know she pays $1,400 a month. Upstairs we have Unit C which has two bedrooms and Unit D
two bedrooms.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I would like to know what the Department of Health approval
for the septic is, how many bedrooms?
PAT MOORE : I already explained that they probably need to get updated cause I have no idea.
It hasn't been I don't think it's ever been changed. Probably when the house was originally
done in the sixties would have been the original.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that certainly needs to be looked at.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie could we look at because in my mind's eye the square footage
you have Unit B was the large one with two bedrooms at 862 sq. ft. where Unit A was 743
which would be like an accessory. It would seem that from what I'm aware of that there's
always been a minimum standard as far as house sizing which would then speak to again guest
space whether it's a two family or not it's not clear but that would make sense.
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess what are you saying the square footage is in Unit A?
ERIC DANTES : A dwelling 850 an apartment I thought was 350 1 mean that's the state code.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything less than the dwelling definition is considered an
apartment, 350 is the minimum.
PAT MOORE : 850 is a dwelling anything less than that is an apartment. So for sanitary approval
you actually get it based on the size the square footage of
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the current code the one that's been in existence for a while it
used to be a Special Exception you could have an accessory apartment in the principle dwelling
within that as long as it didn't exceed 40% of the livable floor area of the principle dwelling. So
in order to know if that 740 was originally intended to be an accessory to a principle dwelling
we'd have to know what the square footage of the principle dwelling is.
PAT MOORE : But then you'd be ignoring the C. of 0. which calls it a two family. It is what it is.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Exactly, (inaudible) it's good to revisit this because I want it all in the
record but the bottom line is right now you're applying for either a variance which (inaudible)
potentially dimensional variance from the fact that we can grant a Special Exception permit for
affordable units in an existing building provided it's in a hamlet center of HALO zone and this is
not. The other one is for a Use Variance because alright it's not in a HALO zone therefore it's
not permitted therefore we have to get a Use Variance in order to permit the use.
PAT MOORE : And here I am that's right and meanwhile we're also agreeing that affordable it
has a policy has certain amount of encouragement politically I would say is to encourage the
development of affordable housing. Here you have two units that have always been affordable
would be designated as affordable and in fact what wrote in my outline that I sent to you I said,
well you know originally I said let's make those two affordable but we have a woman on the
first floor with the two bedroom unit paying $1,400 which is even below the affordable. If the
Board were to grant this allow two units in this building to be designated as affordable so it
gives flexibility to which ever tenant could qualify to say and be able to get the subsidies that
they would otherwise would not be able to get. So the first floor the downstairs is paying
$1,400 but in fact part of it is her I think she pays $500 the balance is paid through Section 8 or
HUD.
VINCE LARAIA : If I may just say I'm going to have to excuse myself from this meeting, I'm at my
office and I have a meeting that I need to go into an important meeting but I wanted to leave
three comments and just observations. The first observation that strikes me very clearly is with
the current operation of the home with multiple folks in it, the septic tank is not up to speed 1
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
wouldn't imagine. So that seems to be problematic right there. The other part of this equation
is this, we know that the owner of the home the petitioner has another home and we're very
suspect if that person lives at the home as a primary residence and I know with affordable
housing and anything else I think that's a requirement to be there and maybe I'm wrong and
the last thing is, is a pure observation that we have seen more than ten to fifteen cars parked in
that property. So that would really suggest that there's multiple people maybe bunking
together if there's that many cars. So I just think that at the end of the day my final comment is
this, this is a part of a homeowners association and there has been a buy in by the petitioner,
we have been questioning it. We again would hope that the Board would really look at this with
a very keen eye and make the best decision for our association and for the community at large
and to say this I don't think political expediency and affordable homes should be the way that
anybody makes any decision all about affordable homes for everybody to include in a
community. That's just really a little bit of the long and the short of where our association sits. I
hate to do this folks but I do have a client that I have waiting for me for about fifteen minutes
and I'm going to have to drop off but I do have two association members that are currently in
person. So thank you and my apology for dropping off.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome and thank you for your testimony. I think at this
point all the issues are as clear as they're going to be let's put it that way. The question is where
do we go from here? I think that you would like to talk about the Use Variance standards and
how this application fits within it that might be appropriate.
PAT MOORE : Let me just discuss the Use Variance criteria and really it's the appraisal that we
can talk about. A couple of points he made, one was the cesspool yes we clearly would upgrade
the sanitary system to accommodate the number of units that are here. It has its two family, it
was designed that way and this will get an upgraded sanitary system no matter what. As far as
the cars that are there the number of bedrooms the people may have cars there's certainly
plenty of parking. They don't use the subdivision road it had direct access to CR 48 so other
than the fact that there are cars there they are not impacting the subdivision by way of using
any of the services of the subdivision or the roads. The rental permit process addresses that.
They make sure that the rental permit will assure that people occupying the proper spaces that
you're not preventing from having a car there, two bedrooms it might well it could be one
family that has a number of cars if they are teenagers. So the number of cars I've been there
several times and I haven't seem more than two cars there but that's I come at various times. I
won't contradict I'm sure he's accurate but we don't know if the cars are there because of the
people that are living there or because they're visiting the people. With respect to the Use
Variance criteria I requested from (inaudible) and again this is a unique one he said I don't know
I've never done this before with this kind of scenario but I think what we tried to do or I tried to
simplify and say before and after because that really it's the only way I could think of it and he
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
and I agreed that that would be how it's done. With respect to the different criteria the bottom
line is that,as a two family the property the unit as a two family was (inaudible) $490,000 being
the income approach mostly the income approach. The fair market value I think you also that's
a similar value. The four units jump to $860,000 as the value of the property and again a little
bit of GU estimating I would say because in a way he used comparables that were not
necessarily renting at the low fair market value which is what we're doing her. The comparables
that we used are very familiar with some of them, two units in Greenport they're brand new a
brand new actually renovated building I was involved in and the units are very beautiful
spanking brand new and (inaudible) is the owner and they rent and again it's at fair market
value rent and he also typically rents slightly under fair market value but $2,200 is what I think
that rental was it's pretty good rent for a two bedroom. So there is a significant difference
between a four unit and a two unit as far as the economic hardship here. We did not analyze it
if the two family what we would do with the second floor if the Board says sorry you can't
make it two separate units and realistically you've got a huge amount of space there the two
family could occupy that space and you can spread out the bedrooms upstairs and make living
space downstairs it would make for a nicer design. That is an option but I think we would need
to get the Board's okay to expand into the second floor. I'm not sure, Mike Verity never really
give me a firm answer on that so if the two family the approval in the sixties for a two family
would be adequate to allow us to move up to the second floor. So that could impact the value, I
just don't have the answer to that.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pat did you (inaudible) relative to a single family? I mean the
numbers that he used I thought were I don't know how appropriate from the standpoint of a
Use Variance but a single family home would seem to be more valuable.
PAT MOORE : Well here's the issue with a single family, if you have a single family with an
accessory apartment it actually devalues or undermines the approval that he already has
because right now it's a two family both units can be independently rented that's how it was
analyzed. It's not reliant on its owner occupancy where as a single family with an accessory
apartment requires owner occupancy, principle residence owner occupancy. That's certainly
something that on the record the Town Board has considered, I don't know that happened to
that proposed legislation. I spoke in favor of it because I know on a daily basis there are people
that have second homes that would be willing to provide affordable but for whatever reason
they never that changed so the code never got adopted. So right now it's being analyzed as a
two family because, it has more independence you know a single family with an accessory
apartment. It might be worth and you know what the values are for single family homes
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : As a single family house not accessory you know within the C&R's a
single family house.
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE :But the Use Variance criteria is it's a legal two family so I use the legal two family
analysis. As a single family home that would be a completely look at whether the comparable
sales a property of this size on CR 48 could be a number in between these I don't know. That is
not what we're asking for, we have a legal two family house so the Use Variance criteria you
have to analyze what we have with what is proposed. So that's what we used.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One of the things that Bill you're going to have to make sure if I'm
saying this correctly please, it's my understand that with regard to Use Variances the most
significant one of the criteria is that for every legally permitted use in the zone district the
owner of the property cannot realize any financial gain. Now that's a little different than what
we're talking about, we're talking about if I ran this number or if ran that number. The point is
that it can be rented so that is a permitted use in that zone district. So a change in use is
basically a change of zone and that's not what we're really talking about here. Do you see what
I'm saying, we're not changing the residential zone district, we're not saying all of a sudden
okay you can put a dry cleaner there.
PAT MOORE : Correct it's still a residence.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cause there's no way anybody is ever going to live on that property
it's just simply not a dwelling a buildable lot for that purpose you know whatever. So again even
with Use Variance standards this has somewhat fallen between the cracks.
PAT MOORE : I don't disagree with you it was a challenge to try and figure out what we're
trying to describe and consider and analyze here because again even when you're looking at
MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) I think we have the information to close it I just think (inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I want to see the (inaudible)
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie before you close it there needs to be some discussion about
the stairs to the third floor attic and potentially be interior stair.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well all of that layout it depends entirely on what the Board decides.
PAT MOORE : Just for the record we did go to the Building Department with a building permit
should correct that at some point. Clearly the occupant of one of the apartments kind of
worked themselves into the attic space that as storage that was only being rented as storage
and made themselves a little comfortable which that got removed immediately.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Clearly there were some people sleeping illegally in that and there's
all kinds of code problems because quite frankly in one of the apartments upstairs that I went
to there's an egress out to a back staircase a landing and back staircase, that is virtually a
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
window with a latch on it. I mean you would have to be four feet tall in order to get out of that
thing safely. I mean it is not a door, it doesn't have the height to even put a door in. Frankly one
of the problems is going to be that when building permits get issued for whatever the outcome
is there's going to have to be a whole lot of renovation because almost nothing in there is to
code well let's say there's a lot. I'm not saying it's not correctible.
PAT MOORE : (inaudible) it's always my first problem is hey even if I get the approval I'm I going
to be able to legally clean this up and yes we did have it looked at and we're going to address
whatever needs to be addressed, if it's a proper egress because I think that was an emergency
access egress not an access so that's not supposed to be a whatever it was created as.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Normally windows are not on the floor level either. I mean you know
it's an (inaudible) it's just one of these things that that's why we do the site inspections because
there's what's on paper and then there's what happens when you go look at it.
PAT MOORE : I think somebody and it was a good reminder because it was originally a barn so.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Egress is egress the code is pretty clear on that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright let me see if there's anyone in the audience who wants to is
there anyone from the homeowners who wants to come up and say something? Pat let them
and we'll hear what they have to say and then I have to agree with Member Dantes there's a lot
for us to digest and sort through but I think we've heard all the testimony from all (inaudible)
and please you go ahead and tell us what you'd like.
MATILDA LATUSO : I'm Matilda Latuso, I live in the subdivision, my home is in the original
subdivision of Homestead Acres. I'm opposing that the first of all I went to the town it's listed as
a 210 code I have the paper here which is a one family. On this property record card it states
there's a date of 11/13/86 and there's numbers Homestead Acres to Paliouras. Therefore in
1986 as I'm understanding the subdivision was initiated. It was started in '86, they were going
to build a development there. Mr. Paliouras according to this purchased the property or had an
interest in the property at that date. The Homeowners Association came along in '97 that was
established. I have a copy of the Covenants here which clearly state that the subdivision was
started in 1986, it was recorded with the County everything is legal and it was updated and
recorded in '97 and that's when it became the Association. Mr. Paliouras had known that this
was not qualified as a two family, it states clearly in the covenants that the residential use is for
only one family homes to be in that development. There is no record that I was given at the
town that he got a special permit which is listed in the file associated with this whole hearing
that he obtained there was a special permit given. The structure was a barn converted from a
barn to a habitable living space in the 1960's along with that an addition I'm saying they put
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
some more in there where is the septic system. I live adjacent to that there's fourteen homes
on the other street. They may not directly use out street but ground water is going to be
affected if the septic system is not up to par. If it comes if this variance is approved it will
become a multi-family dwelling and it will (inaudible) the character of the neighborhood. We
don't have multiple family homes there it'll just isn't pertinent to where it is along with the fact
that (inaudible) objection to the Homeowner's Association rules and conditions. The applicant
lives at an address in Queens. He will become an absentee landlord if this is granted, he's not
going to be able to oversee the conduct of the tenants or the daily upkeep of the property
which could become a problem. It just should not be. There is no paved driveway entering for
tenants. If your parking spaces are indicated (inaudible) parked on the premises could be
excessive and unsafe and unsightly to all neighbors. I also opposed the request for a Special
Exception to have two units designated as affordable housing. It's not in a HALO zone as has
been discussed. I don't even think that a privately owned residence off of affordable housing
should even be considered. They also in their file mention a hardship, what is the hardship?
That's not totally, they're speaking about monies that he could make. I don't understand the
hardship that he's I mean that would be cause he can't make it four units. I have all the records
of anything the covenants or whatever if you'd like to see them.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you want to submit them for our file?
MATILDA LATUSO : Yes I think or if you want to make a copy of them.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone else who wants to address the Board on this
application?
JOAN MILOWKSI : Good afternoon, my name is Joan Milowski I also live in the subdivision.
Actually Mr. Paliouras's property backs right up and is on the side of the open space which we
all own he as well so he does have a direct access to our Homeowner's Association it isn't just
Route 48 that he would have to get out on and come around. The HALO zone is (inaudible)
because it is so close maybe (inaudible) when Vineyard View whatever but he's at least an eight
of a mile as Beau Latuso said maybe a mile from the actual HALO zone. It sounds good but it
doesn't seem right that he's (inaudible) and the HALO zone is down here which that also has
gotten as far as I know special certificate to build there because it was a part of Greenport.
Speaking of Greenport, I met a woman there I was the previous President of the Homeowner's
Association and I believe I went into Mr. Duffy's office to discuss it with him. When I met this
woman I happened to be looking at our properties which they tend to throw a lot of garbage on
because it's easier to throw it onto an open space and she told me that there were numerous
men living on the second floor and she had been put there by the Town of Greenport
(inaudible) or someone in there had put her there and that she had requested to leave because
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
she was frightened.There were so many men living there which might have been the men living
in the attic I don't know but that's when I said okay I have to find out what's going on there
because at that time those nine, ten cars that would arrive every night or every weekend were
there at that point as well and I believed her. The only thing I did do after speaking to Mr. Duffy
was ask the secretary Beau Latuso to go into the Greenport Fire Department to let them know
that God forbid there was a fire up there that at least they knew that there were people living
there and that the rooms had been divided for each one of them. This is what she told me. I
was never in the house so I don't know but she was living there at the time. I'm totally against
and oppose to him getting any more leeway on his rentals. He has a rental on his other
property which yesterday I took a picture of.
MEMBER DANTES : That property really doesn't involve us.
JOAN MILOWSKI : It's all one property it seems to me and he's renting that as well and it goes
to the back of what his rentals look like after a while. I mean if I can't show it to you then fine.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I think we can accept it.
JOAN MILOWSKI : It's a mess and it shows clearly here what it is and it's like that all the time it
isn't just an isolated incident it's like that all the time. He's cleaned up that one house now
because somehow or another he got caught and decided or has decided he can make more
money with getting legal for four families in there. However this is what it looks like. You're
welcomed to
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We'll accept it.
JOAN MILOWSKI : That's all I have to say. I'm totally against it and hopefully (inaudible) favor at
least not give him a HALO zone because he shouldn't have it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. Anything else from anyone? Okay we have a lot of other
applications that are waiting patiently and I think we've heard more than enough on this one so
I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a
second?That's on both of these applications. Do you want to do them separately?
MEMBER DANTES : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Eric, all in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
HEARING #7558— PATRICK and DIANE SEVERSON
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Patrick and Diane
Severson #7558. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXII
Section 280-116A and the Building Inspector's June 18, 2021 Notice if Disapproval based on an
application for a permit to construct a new accessory building at 1) located less than the code
required 100 feet from the top of the bluff, 2) located less than the code required minimum
front yard setback of 50 feet located at 9202 Bridge Lane (adj. to Long Island Sound) in
Cutchogue. Would you state your name for the record please.
URAL TALGAT : My name is Ural Talgat I am the architect for the project and representing the
owner.
MEMBER DANTES : What's the existing side yard setback? I don't recall seeing that on the
papers that you sent. You have one side at 13 and (inaudible)
URAL TALGAT : The project let's see to the north I believe or northeast there's an existing
setback to the house 25.8 feet that's a side yard setback. Now since the property has two right
of ways, two front yards that would be a 50 foot front yard setback on both sides. (inaudible)
right of way west of the house is not traveled. I believe that when I put the application in the
code had been changed about front yard setback for buildings on a corner.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's just review what's before the Board. We have a proposed
accessory apartment in an accessory building which is a new building, we have a bluff setback
at 81.6 feet where the code requires a minimum of 100 and we have it located in a front yard
on waterfront parcels which is fine but then it's a 15.1 foot setback as opposed to the code
requires a minimum of 50. The LWRP says it's consistent but basically based upon a prior ZBA
decision which allowed a shed to be located there, one of the things that may not be clear Ural
is that you cannot build an apartment number one that is an accessory apartment in an
accessory structure that is not already a legally existing structure with a C.O. This is a proposed
new structure.
URAL TALGAT : Right accessory structure.
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that in and of itself is an issue because it's not an existing
building, the setbacks are the setbacks. The other thing is that it's two story. It's got a cathedral
ceiling open to below and do you know what the overall square footage is or the livable floor
area?
URAL TALGAT : 750 sq. ft.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO Leslie doesn't the applicant need a Special Exception also for an
accessory dwelling unit?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He didn't apply for that. He's just before us for variances however
you can't put an apartment in an accessory structure without A. having an existing and B.
getting a Special Exception Permit for an accessory apartment in a structure that is accessory to
the principle residence and full time occupancy of the owners. So a couple of things going on
here.
URAL TALGAT : Leslie in 1988 two story building there is no second floor to it it's all open.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're looking at the volume and space not a second habitable story.
MEMBER DANTES : It's permitted no, I mean
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes it is permitted now it's being discussed under house size but it's
permitted as of now. I'm just trying to characterize what we're actually looking at. So how do
you want to make the case that's it okay to go ahead and put what is a guest cottage according
to your description not an accessory apartment it's labeled guest cottage on the plans.
URAL TALGAT : I would like an accessory structure first of all in the location. There is no other
place on the property that we can put a structure like this. It's along with the pool and in terms
of its use as an accessory building if we were granted this accessory structure in the setback
that's shown then we can come back for a permit to have a guest house or an accessory
apartment? Is that the way it would work?
MEMBER DANTES : Do your clients live there full time?
URAL TALGAT :That's their house.
MEMBER DANTES : Is it their primary residence?
URAL TALGAT : No it's not their primary residence.
MEMBER DANTES : They wouldn't qualify.
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
URAL TALGAT : So they would have to live there full time. So they would at that point live there
full time?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN What they can apply for is a pool house, an accessory that has
different standards you don't have to live there full time year round for a pool house but a pool
house is not habitable. You can't sleep it
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And it has to be under 350 sq. ft.
MEMBER LEHNERT : And you're only allowed a half a bathroom.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's right, it's only a half bathroom so the shower can be outside if
you want an outdoor shower and what's the maximum square footage now 350 that's all it
could be inside. You can have an under counter little refrigerator a microwave and that's it.
URAL TALGAT : I understand that, so if the owners at that point when this accessory structure
was built made this their primary residence
MEMBER DANTES : Then (inaudible) NYS income tax as part of the residence.
URAL TALGAT : Okay, at that point then this can be deemed an accessory apartment.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here's what the code allows and I'm saying this very straightforward
because I don't want to be a part of doing a run around the code. Here's what is allowed, in
existing structures rather than we needed extended family living arrangements in this town.
Housing is very expensive and sometimes grown children needed a place to stay and moved
away cause they had nowhere they could afford to rent. The code was written to leverage more
housing units at existing structures but very limited, things are not meant to be market rentals
these are not meant to be guest houses. They are meant to be occupied on a rental basis full
time either by a family member with an affidavit proving that or by someone who qualifies on
the affordable housing registry so that you are creating an affordable unit for the town both of
which the town thought was beneficial. Yes cottages are not a permitted use cause it's a second
dwelling if it's smaller than 850 sq. ft. and we have them in town they're grandfathered you
know they've been built they pre-exempted zoning but we can't approve building them now.
URAL TALGAT : One of the things I also note that the owners parents stay at the main house live
there when the owners could not. Now I'm not quite sure what their future plans are, maybe
this house is meant for the grandparents but that's a family member so I would have to ask my
client for that information. In the past since I've known the Seversons that their parents
(inaudible) primary residence and they needed something else.
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I really can't advise you on that. I mean I've explained what the
intent of the code was to suggest look most people they build a garage there's no way that's a
garage. It's way up on a hill there's no driveway it's beautifully landscaped I mean it's never
going 'to be a garage and then years later alright they want to put grandma or somebody in
there and they come back and they apply based on those standards. So to build an accessory
building without a definitive use on the basis of maybe we'll be able to get it legalized someway
into a guest apartment is simply not why the code was created and I'm just being very honest
with you. We know each other a long time and I'm sure you want to do right by your client but I
think the best thing to do is to advise them of what the code allows. They could put an
accessory pool house if that's what they wanted if they wanted to use it as a pool house and
not a guest cottage.
MEMBER DANTES : H&would need a variance for that side yard.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You would need side yeah setback variances which given the fact
there's a pretty good size shed there right now is a likely possibility but that may not be really
what they're looking for. That's entirely up to your clients and you to sort out.,is there anybody
on Zoom that wants to address this?
OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : We have Mrs. Severson but she doesn't have her hand up.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's great that she's there so you don't have to explain this. Is
there anyone in the audience? Is there anything else from the Board Members? Anything from
you Ural that you would like to add? Alright 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. We'll have a decision in two weeks.
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
HEARING#7557— LEVENT TEMIZ
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Leve"nt Temiz #7557.
This is a request for variances from Article IV Section 280-18 and the Building Inspector's June
17, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and
alterations to a single family dwelling and attached deck at 1) located less than the code
required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet, 2) located less than the code required
minimum combined side yard setback of 35 feet located at 57305 CR48 (adj. to Long Island
Sound) in Greenport. So this is a replacement of a deck in need of maintenance basically.
PAT MOORE : Well the variance it was a very small variance it was a variance for
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : side yard setback of 13 feet on the east side and combined of 30 feet
where 35 is required. The westerly side yard setback is conforming at 15 feet. The good news is
most of the deck some of the deck is going to remain most of it is going to become a patio
which reduces lot coverage.
PAT MOORE : Right exactly.
MEMBER DANTES : What's the existing combined side yard setbacks? I'm having trouble
reading it on the site plan survey whatever this is.
PAT MOORE : The existing combined is I know the survey is very challenging. The decking goes
around so on the west side it shows the building at 18.6 but the decking goes around the west
and I think it goes down to I think both sides are combined 30. So the Building Department
considered the 13.3 cause again all of this is this whole property is decking on grade but it's
wood decking rather than stone so it's the decking on grade so there is you get at grade on the
east side like a platform before you go down the steps.
MEMBER DANTES : But are you increasing the existing non-conformity or decreasing?
PAT MOORE : We're maintaining it in fact. We're not changing it, it's because the hot tub on the
west side is a small 186 sq. ft. of wood to allow for the hot tub to be placed there on the deck
on the outside.
MEMBER DANTES : So basically you have a pre-existing non-conforming setback (inaudible).
PAT MOORE : Exactly.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the addition in the middle is not before the Board it's
conforming.
MEMBER DANTES : I don't have any further questions. I just couldn't read the
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All the alterations on the house that new room are conforming,'side
yards are as built and you're reducing lot coverage so it's a matter of maintaining the deck the
top needs replacement and you're going to be removing a lot of it and putting it at grade on
stone. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? Is there anybody
on Zoom Liz? Okay 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 #7561—CHRISTOPHER T.ASTLEY and AMY ASTLEY -
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Christopher and Amy
Astley #7561. This is a'request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXII Section
280-116A and the Building Inspector's August 3, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an
application for a permit to merge two properties, construct an accessory in-ground swimming
pool and convert an existing single family dwelling into a cabana/pool house/shed with an
attached deck at 1) swimming pool located in other than the code required rear yard, 2)
cabana/pool house/shed located in other than the code required rear yard, 3) swimming pool is
located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff, 4) cabana/pool
house/shed is located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff located at
480 and 320 North View Drive (adj. to the Long Island Sound) in Orient. So just briefly and
Martin we have gotten your memorandum of law: So the cabana/pool house and pool is
proposed to be in a side yard and that will be a portion of an existing dwelling mostly to be
demolished. The bluff setback for the pool house is at 10.75 feet where the code requires 100
feet minimum and the bluff setback for the pool is at 61.16 feet where the code again requires
a 100 foot minimum. Now the application says 50 feet.
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
MARTIN FINNEGAN :That was an error, that was (inaudible) setback it was (inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have received a number of letters of support from the neighbors
and we have also received based on Trustees approval LWRP consistency determination. I do
have a question though, I looked at the Trustees and LWRP comment based on mitigations
imposed by Trustees I'm not quite clear on what those mitigations are, can you review that
with us?
MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes so as part of the plans that we submitted there was a (inaudible)
review done by Holzmacher we discussed that with the Trustees, there is a construction
methodology that was developed to ensure the integrity of the bluff moving forward through
the construction process. So basically we went through that with the Trustees in terms of all the
different components of just the demolition through the construction of the pool and that is all
part of that and the condition of the Trustees recurring was consistency with that plan so that's
part of that. There's also a 10 foot (inaudible) buffer that is part of the approved plan which is
also intended to further ensure the integrity of the bluff.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know everybody, Soil and Water they all say the same thing
about no heavy equipment within 15 feet of the top of the bluff and so on. I just couldn't figure
it out from the Trustees approval exactly what the mitigation was. So thank you for letting me
know that.
MARTIN FINNEGAN : I know you guys have had a long day and so you want me to run through
this as quickly as we can. So as Leslie explained we're talking about two properties here 320
and 460 Northview Dr. which by the way Martin Finnegan 13250 Main Rd. Mattituck for the
applicants. So 320 Northview Dr. is currently improved with a dilapidated single family
residence that has really been left to waste over the years. It's the eyesore of the
neighborhood. The Astley's reside just west at 460 that is their home. As you may be aware
they had come before this Board in years past on a couple of revisions in an attempt to obtain
approvals for some improvements including a pool. They (inaudible) to abandoned those just
because it was clear that the upland area that was available was not sufficient or it required a
(inaudible) was not going to work so in 2018 they went ahead and acquired the 320 property
with the goal of merging it with 460 eliminating this eyesore that is ,so, (inaudible) on the
community creating room for the long awaited pool that they were trying to build. As depicted
in the photos and the plans that we submitted the Astley's propose to demolish a significant
portion of the old home at 320 down to the foundation and remove the existing decking and
renovate what's left into a pool house and deck that will essentially be on grade with the pool
based on the topography of the property and the lower level of the house which is going to
remain as storage what is now,mostly the garage area of the existing structure. On the existing
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
driveway and sanitary system at 320 will be removed and the resulting lot will be 1.35 acres
which is obviously a conforming lot within the zoning district. The partial demolition of this
older home will result in a smaller accessory structure located further from the top of bluff and
will reduce the lot coverage of the structures on the both parcels to a conforming 20%. As I
mentioned there's going to be a 10 foot non-turf buffer that will be incorporated into the plan
to be planted with native vegetation to (inaudible). As stated the project does contemplate the
merger of the two parcels upon the issuance of the approvals. We understand that any
improvement may be (inaudible) upon it as was Trustees approval. The Trustees did grant the
wetlands and the coastal erosion permits that's necessary to proceed with the project and they
do include best (inaudible) practice in this as well for bluff stability. The project was
disapproved because once the lots are merged the accessory structures will be in a side yard.
I'm sure you guys have gone out to see the property obviously it is constrained even with the
merged parcel. It is what it is with respect to the bluff a 10, 11 foot setback from top of the
bluff for the improvement obviously it's just the existing footprint of what is there and in
review with the Trustees and with all the issues it's obviously clear we don't want to further
disturb the area it's intended to just maintain right where it is. So yes we're going to need
setback relief there as well as to the pool. The location of the structures was intended to be as
conforming as possible within the constraints of the property. I have as mentioned submitted a
memorandum of law that addresses the relevant criteria of Town Law 267, 1 would ask that the
statements and arguments in that town law be incorporated into the record. I'm not going to
reiterate that and bore you with that right now but suffice it to say that we submit that the
Astley's have satisfied the standards for granting the requested variance relief. The proposed
improvements are in character with surrounding neighborhood, will have no adverse impacts
but obviously cannot be achieved without variance relief. So the project has (inaudible) support
from the neighbors in the Browns Hill community. We understand there are some concerns
raised by the Winters (inaudible) to the west that we discussed but the number of letters in
support clearly are (inaudible) of the consistency of the project with the character of this
neighborhood. The Astley's have gone to great lengths as I mentioned to design the project as
conforming as possible. There is an extensive in detail engineering and construction
methodology incorporated and best management "practices mitigation erosion control
measures. Those are already part of the approvals as we said with the Trustees so applying for
them is going to be part of this no matter what. The goal here is to create a more conforming
lot and to have these accessory structures in a place that is as conforming as possible and really
to eliminate what is you know a building that is right now on its northern end essentially
perched at top of the bluff and 'bring that back to ensure bluff stability. As for the concerns
raised by Mr. Winters I presume that they're going to present them, there seems to be a little
misunderstanding about the size and scope. The driveway part of what's on the plan and it's
obviously not part of the relief that is before this Board this particular improvement but there's
791
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
a suggestion that somewhat we're attempting to create an eight car parking lot on the edge of
the property which,is certainly not the case so I'm not quite sure where that calculation was
derived from. The location that is proposed to move this first of all it was done because as the
properties are merged it's a logical location for parking for the principle structure it's actually
where the parking area was when the house was originally constructed in that area. The other
two parking areas are to be eliminated as we discussed. Really we're looking for an area that
would accommodate around four vehicles certainly not eight Tahoe's. The location is also
because of the topography of this lot it creates the building for access that is on level to the
home. Right now where the existing parking area is, is down a hill. The Astley's were planning
to age in place on this property. They have family members who are severely handicapped and
require access to the home so the intent of this location was by no means to be offensive or
certainly not creating against a condition, it was the most logical location for access moving
forward to their home. I think what we can do is I will (inaudible) and we'll let the Winters
present their concerns and then maybe we can further address them. I do have now Carol on
Zoom here who is the project architect who is also available to explain what exactly is
proposed.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's interesting because I'm looking at the survey (inaudible),here
cause this is really kind of a wraparound bluff just creeps almost to the road on the parcel that
you're going to be merging with the principle dwelling parcel, parcel two. This says 7.7 as a
setback here, maybe that's from the wood wall. Here it says 10 and the Notice it also says here
10.9 this setback here.
MARTIN FINNEGAN : Are you talking about from the existing the eastern
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah the bluff. The survey says 7.7, the site plan I must have
MARTIN FINNEGAN : That's why we had an updated Notice this is an old one.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah, okay well this one is fine. This one is on this set and it's got
alright I just wanted to clear it up. I see it on here I just wanted to know,why that said.
MEMBER LEHNERT : I'm looking at the site plan and that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay got it.
MEMBER DANTES : Also Leslie (inaudible) the old one does the portion of the dwelling is going
to be demolished.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah, no it's okay I just wanted to (inaudible)these numbers up.
MEMBER DANTES : According to the site plan demolish 2.3 feet off the northern (inaudible)
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
BOARD ASSISTANT : Martin I have a question here too. The issue always was that the site plan
was always (inaudible).
MEMBER DANTES : You see the dotted line here, according to their survey you're demolishing
this whole portion off of the existing house remains 10 feet according to that survey.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The site plan is 10.9 right here.
MEMBER DANTES : Cause they're demolishing according to the survey they're demolishing part
of this existing dwelling to get (inaudible).
MARTIN FINNEGAN : There's a deck that's coming off.
MEMBER DANTES : Yeah that's what it is they're going to the deck, that deck is coming off then
you get
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that it is the site plan that is a legal document as is the survey.
MEMBER DANTES : It's because there's a deck being removed.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Somewhere between the surveyor and the architect something got lost.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think now we understand where we are (inaudible) with this. You
wanted to testify about yeah about representing the Winters and their concern?
GAIL WICKHAM : Good afternoon, I'm here Abigail Wickham of Mattituck New York
representing the Winters who are directly to the west of this property. The Astley's have
presented a plan to you for redevelopment of their expanded property which focuses on
structures on the east side of the property. In creating this plan however they propose to
relocate their parking area away from the center of their expanded lot all the way over to the
west side of the property actually on the impressiveness of a naturally occurring slope. We do
understand that somewhat of the westward direct relocation of the parking area would make
sense but we cannot imagine that the Board would approve and stamp a map that shows such
a location that we feel would create such an unsafe condition. Mr. Fischetti is here to speak to
you or answer questions about his report concerning the load that this would create in that
location and consequent danger to the anyone and anything that could be in that area including
Northview Dr., the Winter property, the Astley's house itself and the slope going out potentially
towards the water because this is I guess it was a gulley at one time and it is a very steep slope
along that west side of the Winter property of the Astley property. Mr. Fischetti's report
demonstrates a serious and substantial risk of that collapse. You can question him if you have
any questions about it. For those of you that have not been involved with the ZBA as long as
some of us have and perhaps we don't care to admit that, this slope impairment was a subject
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
of previous applications #6004 and #7038 involving structures which principally a swimming
pool I think it was 15 feet from that line and at the Zoning Board's request the applicant did
eliminate that proposal for some of these reasons so now they have much more room on the
other side which will alleviate that concern but the overall plan does include this and we ask
that they could perhaps slide it further west so it's not such an unsafe condition. I do want to
clarify for the Board and for Mr. Finnegan the (inaudible) analysis by Mr. Winter was an
illustration of how much could fit in a location that they are showing on the plan. Now the
Trustees did not see that plan of the parking area there was somewhat further west and when
the 2007 application was made to your Board the driveway was much further to the east. Mr.
Fischetti is here to address any questions you might have and address you briefly on the
application as can Mr. Winter or me beyond that.Thank you.
JOE FISCHETTI : Good afternoon, Joseph Fischetti Engineer Southold. Mr. Winter constructed
the existing wall on his property in 2007. At the time the Town of Southold did not require
building permits for those retaining walls. While those walls today have been added to
(inaudible). Under the circumstances the neighboring property was undeveloped. The proposal
right now if front of you changes that and may create a highly unsafe condition for both
properties. The applicant has a very capable engineer Holzmacher that submitted a geo-
technical evaluation report, it was very technical and it was there based on the swimming pool
and the effect of the swimming pool on the bluff to the Sound. That technical report was very
important for the submission to prove that that swimming pool had no effect on the bluff.
There was no geo technical report presented for the parking lot. The parking lot actually under
normal conditions by using the general engineering rule of thumb adds a fifty ton surcharge to
the top of that slope. Without a detailed slope analysis for that parking area we don't know
whether that parking area will cause instability to that slope. We recommend for the safety of
Winters property that the parking area be moved at least 50 feet away from the slope for the
safety of all the Winters and the adjacent property. I'll be here to answer any questions if you
have any.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The retaining wall would be necessary in that parking area is
(inaudible) driveway the car would be parked is much narrower in this plan. Are you talking
about the retaining wall causing runoff cause the change of elevation?
JOE FISCHETTI : No, no we're talking about a surcharge of parking area. In the general parking
area right now that slope and those retaining walls were designed for natural conditions.
Generally when you design especially retaining walls that have (inaudible) slopes you have to
design for what's called rotational slope failure. That slope from those loads will actually cause
lateral (inaudible) that slope. That hasn't been done, nobody has told us. Holzmacher is very
8?-
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
capable of doing that so I'd be glad is Holzmacher came up with a global analysis like they did
for the swimming pool and tell us that everything is fine. We would be fine with that.
MEMBER DANTES : The parking area is outside of Trustees jurisdiction, it's over 100 feet from
the bluff.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah it is.,
JOE FISCHETTI : All the construction that's there, the retaining wall, the construction itself again
if you look at what was submitted for the swimming pool and the discussions on how that
swimming pool would affect the bluff on the north side it's Worse here because that swimming
pool is 50 feet away from the bluff. This parking lot is no more than 10 or 20 feet away the sides
of the parking lot. So this is something that needs to ,be it should have been discussed by the
capable engineer. If the engineer is part of this project before they submit they located that
parking area at the top of a bluff they shoved analyzed the (inaudible) stability of that bluff. I
think that they're better off moving the parking lot 50 feet away we would be happy with that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it looks like there's an existing septic and underground propane
tank and leaching pool in the area that might be feasible but also it appears that it's on the
flattest part of the property. I mean the slopes going to the-east are really substantial. If you
look at the contour intervals on here Joe on the site plan they are really, really close together.
GAIL WICKHAM : I understand what you're saying. The suggestion is to move it just to the west
of the leaching area where it is flat and it's actually closer I believe to the entry if that's the
entryway to the house right here on the other side it says there's a walking path.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pavers set in sand.
GAIL WICKHAM : No-we're not suggesting it go back way over to the west on the slope, I said
that initially that we understand why they want to move it on (inaudible) east, they would want
to move it west it's just the degree of the location.
JOE FISCHETTI : An existing leaching pool is (inaudible) and an underground propane tank again
where it is now is unacceptable and it's very dangerous and I'm not here to say they have a
capable engineer that's probably one of the best on Long Island and they need to analyze this,
they can't just put it there but where it is now it's unacceptable.
MEMBER DANTES : I mean people that build into the side of mountains, bluffs and everything
for thousands of years so when the technology exists they build it in the same manner isn't it?
JOE FISCHETTI : Let me know that it's safe.
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
MEMBER LEHNERT : Can I ask a question here? I'm looking at this, the contour for the house
and the contour for the parking area are exactly the same so how can you tell me a parking area
is unsafe when a house that already exists
JOE FISCHETTI : The house is not in the same place as the parking area.
MEMBER LEHNERT : It's on the same contour. If I follow the contour to the west of the parking
area it touches the house.
JOE FISCHETTI : Yeah but that's not you're missing this area here. You don't have the
topography of the Winter's property which is very steep and contains retaining walls. The
topography that you have there is a slope without retaining walls. The problem is the retaining
walls, the retaining walls putting the slope putting the impact at the top of the slope will affect
the retaining walls. (inaudible) retaining walls fail.
MEMBER DANTES : Don't they have to submit all this information to the Building Department
the structural drawings?
JOE FISCHETTI : The Town of Southold (inaudible)
MEMBER DANTES : As a condition that they have to submit.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I think I'd like the attorney address the neighbor's concerns. I
think we've heard what Gail is saying and have heard their presentation (inaudible) Martin
what you have to say.
MARTIN FINNEGAN : I was going to ask about now how they are expected if you could give us
any comments first and then I can
NIALL CARROLL : Hi my name is Niall Carroll with (inaudible) Architects the architects for Chris
and Amy Astley. So I think as Martin had mentioned earlier one of the primary concerns for
relocating the driveway was to make it more accessible both for them in the future and for
members of the family who are slightly disabled. So that is why we wanted to move it to the
western part of their existing (inaudible) where it is relatively flat think those elevations to the
house. Then also the use of this would be for primary for two cars and occasionally an
additional two guest cars. So not anything like the eight that were suggested in the letter.
JOE FISCHETTI : Again the problem is, no one has done global analysis of the fact of the impact
(inaudible) of that parking area to the Winter's retaining wall not the slope the problem with
the slope it's the retaining walls that are there that will be affected by any adverse loads up at
the top. If they do any analysis on that we're sure that there will be (inaudible) impacts to the
neighbors. They did it for the swimming pool and do it for this.
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you hear that, can you answer that?
NIALL CARROLL : Yes the engineers Holzmacher performed an analysis on the effect of the
swimming pool because of its proximity to the bluff and that was required as part of our
submission to the Trustees being in their jurisdiction. This area is not within that jurisdiction.
Also just in terms of the loading it seems unreasonable.
JOE FISCHETTI : So it's a no.
MARTIN FINNEGAN : Just to first of all (inaudible) apply for a building permit for a driveway let
alone a full engineering analysis. This particular improvement is not part of the variance relief
that's before this Board. I understand the concern however we're talking about a driveway on
the level which is a foot or two above the property next door. I think this is completely
overblown. The Astley's the last thing they would ever want to do is to create any type of a
dangerous condition but it seems very speculative what's (inaudible) here. I think that this is
the original location of the driveway on this property the cars were parked there for years and
there was never an issue. We're talking about protecting a wall that literally has no approval
okay so I don't know we're being presented with a question essentially sterilize 50 feet of his
property and not use it for parking an occasional vehicle. The Astley's were certainly willing to
be reasonable but I don't think that this is warranted or necessary in terms of the relief that we
are seeking.
T. A. DUFFY : You started to touch on something that I'm going to ask both attorneys to
comment on that. This Board and both correct me if I'm wrong, we can only approve conditions
on things that are relative to the variance relief requested so I just ask both attorneys how is
this relative to what's before the Board?
GAIL WICKHAM : It is relevant for the reason that I stated at the beginning that this is a plan for
a structure on a map that you are going to stamp as approved-and I think it's part of the overall
project, it's related to what's happening because they wanted to move the parking area away
from it. To clarify what Mr. Fischetti said and I want I believe it was Mr. Lehnert asked the
difference in the slope from the western edge of the Astley property down that slope the
contour is much, much less steep than the contour differential between this proposed parking
area and the foot of the Winter's property. It's about a fourteen foot drop it goes almost
straight down. I can provide the Board with a contour map but it's shown on the map that
shows the eight squares and again it's just an illustration. It does show how dramatic that drop
is, you will see that there. I think the other thing that's being missed is it's not just a couple of
cars it's excavation, it's equipment, it's retaining walls, it's gravel base and it is so close to the
edge that that was is Mr: Fischetti's concern is. I don't see how moving it further away is going
to affect right where that R equals 199 area would be if you see that on (inaudible) and it is
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
related to this application because it's part of their overall plan that you are being asked to
approve. I'm frankly kind of shocked ,that they don't even want to consider moving it back
where they had it previously.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anybody?
MARTIN FINNEGAN :Just to reiterate in terms of the (inaudible)
JOHN WINTERS : Hi my name is John Winters my wife is here we are the direct westerly
neighbor of the Astley's subject property. If I may can I present this to the Board?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure. I just want to let you know that you obviously sent this in a
digital form and we all have it I'm going to put this in our original file but we do have it. Each
Board Member has a copy and we've looked at it prior to today.
JOHN WINTERS : It's a color copy perhaps it presents a bit better but if you allow me to read my
letter into the record and perhaps add it (inaudible) so that we can work something out as good
neighbors. I think this would be a benefit mutually beneficial. Our names are John and Nina
Winter and our bluff front home's retaining walls and pool are directly west and adjacent of the
applicant's proposed gravel driveway and timber walls. It is utterly appalling and unfortunate
that this is the third time the applicants are again before the Zoning Board of Appeals with a
proposal to endanger our property and person. Prior ones are 2017 ZBA file number 6004, 2017
ZBA file number 7038. Each past application's attempt has been defeated or withdrawn. In this
instance I have reached out to Mr. Astley regarding their current proposal's perils and liability
to our property and have not received any response. For the safety of our property and
ourselves we request the site plan's proposed large parking area and timber walls adjacent to
our property be eliminated. Attached is Professional Engineer Joseph Fischetti's October 30,
2021 detailed report stating findings and concluding recommendations regarding the impact of
the proposed parking area and timber walls on our retaining walls. Our retaining walls were not
built to anticipate nor be subject to additional surcharge loading from the proposed driveway,
timber walls or associated construction activity located at the very edge of the property drop
off. Engineer Fischetti states, and I quote, "I recommend that for safety of the Winter's
property, the parking area shown adjacent to the Winter property be eliminated. Any parking
area proposed to the site plan needs to be placed at least 50 feet from the Winter property line
for the safety of the existing Winter retaining walls." In order to show how close the proposed
impacts are to our retaining walls please find attached the applicant's site plan and our
property's survey exposing the proposed endangering dimensions as follows : the distance of
the proposed parking area to our retaining wall is 10 feet. The distance of the proposed timber
retaining walls to our retaining wall is 7 feet. The proposed large parking area size is 25 feet by
38 feet. To put this size in perspective eight large Chevy Tahoe SUV's can fit inside the space.
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
Additionally, the proposed timber wall is 64 perimeter feet along with the parking area's gravel
surface. Engineer Fischetti's report states that that the proposed parking area proposed
adjacent to the Winter property is 950 sq. ft. and could add over 50 tons of surcharge to the
crest of the Winter's slope. This additional surcharge loading at the crest of the slope could
cause a rotational slope failure causing the retaining walls to collapse into the pool. Those
retaining walls (inaudible) our retaining walls our pool and our property and our health and
safety are in peril. The applicant's proposed driveway location is self-created. In fact, the
proposed driveway's location is fluid as shown by the applicant's counsel July 2, 2021 Trustee
hearing certified letter, survey is attached fpr you I just gave that survey which shows the
proposed driveway in a different location 18 feet from our property line. So the driveway is
fluid. It was moved in one spot and then out to another. The applicant's existing two driveways
on property numbers 460 and 320 are presently in use. According to the applicant's
construction drawings the existing driveway on property 460 does not interfere with any
proposed construction activity or the final project. There is no hardship to the applicants to
remove the proposed parking area to at least 50 feet away from our property line or utilize the
existing functional driveway on adjacent property number 460 which is more than 50 feet away
from our property line and satisfies Mr. Fischetti's engineering criteria. We respectfully ask the
Southold Board of Appeals to condition for the safety of our property and person that the
irredeemably parking area proposed on the site plan be eliminated due to liability issues. The
egregious parking area proposed to the site plan needs to be placed at least 50 feet from our
property line for the safety of our existing retaining walls. Thank you, thank you for listening
and thank you for the (inaudible) we face now. I'd like to have that driveway moved for safety
and to avoid liability. Does the Board have any questions that I can answer as a homeowner?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we're familiar with your property, prior I don't know if it was
this Board but I've certainly been there several times so I think we're familiar with generally
what's on the Astley property, what's on your property. At the moment I don't have any
questions I'm just listening and taking it in. I will say one thing, the Board always requires as
does the town that anything that comes before us must conform to Chapter 235 of the Storm
Water Management Code which requires that storm water all be managed on site, runoff must
be retained on site and not spill over to other properties. That's a standard condition that is put
in that is one of the mitigations that we always do and it's one of the things that the Building
Department is going to require. So there will be controls over management of discharge and
storm water surface runoff on that property, the Astley property it's required by law.
JOHN WINTERS : And what Mr. Fischetti said is mentioning potential loading, that could affect
our property as well, affect our retaining walls 14 feet of grade between their proposed
driveway and our grade. It's a steep drop off, I have photos if you'd like to see that I can
8
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : There's parking regulations in the town code and that's what kind of what
governs what the requirements are for them to put them on the plans.
JOHN WINTERS : I don't understand can you repeat what you said.
MEMBER DANTES : There's requirements in the town code as far as what they have to do with
their plans and where they put driveways and (inaudible) governs it.
JOHN WINTERS : Then do we is it safety, our only and primary concerns is our safety to be sure
that our retaining walls don't shift or become damaged, collapse and we're on the bluff as well.
What do we do then? I mean right now our retaining walls are in great shape, it holds back tons
of earth from above the Astley property and if anything shifts we can't tell if it's going to
happen or not but if it does do I stand in front of the Board again with a new problem? That
would be disastrous. If I may present to show the Board copies of our retaining wall and you
can see the steepness on it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you want to say something?
MARTIN FINNEGAN : I do, can I see what was presented? I'll try to wrap this up here. To respect
to prior applications, they were withdrawn in consideration and concerns raised by neighbors
partially but for other reasons okay. They were not denied they were withdrawn. The Astley's
have now gone on to purchase an entire property in respect of those issues so that they would
not be (inaudible) so close to the neighboring properties. They made this huge investment to be
more conforming and actually for the benefit of the entire community there. I don't think they
can be accused of being bad neighbors under the circumstances. The driveway as I explained is
positioned in the most logical place, it was appropriate place for access to the house because
the timber wall that you see on the plans is a little two foot landscaping wall that will be
(inaudible) in the driveway. It's not some massive retaining wall that is fortifying anything but
they need this access okay. Mrs. Astley's father is severely handicapped and they want to age in
place at this house this is where the driveway has to be. They're not looking to park eight cars
there. I don't know where that's coming from, it will be a reasonably sized driveway in an
appropriate location and that's where it is. They're not here to present something that is going
to threaten anyone else's properties. Shifting focus back to the relief that we're actually here
about, I just wanted to remind the Board as we believe as stated I direct you again to our
memorandum of law and I believe it's clear that under the facts and circumstances presented
here that the Astley's are entitled to the variance relief requested and we respectfully request
that you grant the application.Thank you for your time.
JOHN WINTER : May I speak before this is closed?Thank you. While we were discussing this and
counsel you mentioned that the driveway was our driveway to this property was located in the
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
same exact spot. I pulled up a survey from 2007 which was submitted to the ZBA under file
number 6004 and that driveway is 35 feet an existing driveway on the Astley house 35 feet
away from our property line not where you're proposing to have the driveway presently. So in
fact that driveway that existed fourteen years ago was 35 feet away from our property line and
it seems that you have been using your existing-driveway quite some time and
MEMBER LEHNERT : Address the Board please.
JOHN WINTER : that's the logical place to you but it's a safety issue for us.
GAIL WICKHAM : I think if I can just back up because it is late, the point is that the relief we're
requesting is to avoid liability on anyone's part to avoid danger including the Astley's and their
family if they're using a driveway in an unsafe location and move it slightly so that it is not going
to adversely impact their ability to access the house. That is not what this is about. This is to
protect from the sides and all Mr. Fischetti is recommending is that an engineering study be
done if they want to keep it where they're proposing it. So thank you for your time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from anyone else, any Board Member want to make a
comment or ask a question? Alright I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve
decision to a later date. Is there a second?
MEMBER DANTES : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. Thank you all for your time and your
patience. I'm going to make a motion to close the meeting, is there a second? Oh I forgot we
have resolutions. Resolution for next Regular Meeting with public hearings to be held on
Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. so moved. Is there a second?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second..
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
November 4, 2021 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. Resolution to approve the Minutes from
Special Meeting held on October 21, 2021 so moved. 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. Motion to close the hearing meeting rather of the Board of
Appeals. 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. The hearing is closed, stop the hearing please.
November 4, 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.
t
Signature
Elizabeth Sakarellos
DATE : November 17, 2021