HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-05/04/2023 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
May 4, 2023
10:08 A.M.
Board Members Present:
LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson
PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member
ERIC DANTES—Member
ROBERT LEHNERT—Member
NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO—Member (Vice Chair)
KIM FUENTES—Board Assistant
JULIE MCGIVNEY—Assistant Town Attorney
ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Senior Office Assistant
DONNA WESTERMANN —Office Assistant
May 4,2023 Regular Meeting
INDEX OF HEARINGS
Hearing Page
Richard Martino#7694 4
1280 Corey Creek, LLC#7774 4
Sand Lennox, LLC#7762 5 - 9
Hollander Jr. Living Trust#7768 10- 14
Hollander Jr. Living Trust#7769SE 10- 14
Richard C. Jensen Jr. Estate of Richard C.Jensen 16- 23
John Hochstrasser#7771 23 - 27
David and Sondra Russel#7765 27- 37
David and Sondra Russel#7766 27 - 37
Nicholas Aliano#7770 38-48
Chris Caufield #7772 48-50
Regina Calcaterra #7773 50- 51
Domeluca LLC#7778 52- 55
Thomas C. Bauer and Jenifer Courtney Bauer#7779 56- 61
Liane Scaduto#7786 62- 64
May 4,2023 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning everyone and welcome to the May 4, 2023 Meeting
of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Please rise and,join me for the Pledge of Allegiance. The next
part of the Agenda has to do with Resolutions regarding a SEQR determination. This is a
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
including the following; Sand Lennox, Hollander and Hollander, Jensen and Jensen,
Hochstrasser, Russell and Russell, Aliano, Caufield, Calcaterra, Domeluca, Bauer and Bauer
and Scaduto, so moved. Is there a second?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The next item on our Agenda is a possible draft resolution for
Robert Pagnozzi. I think we're still in the process of preparing the final draft and having it
reviewed. Is that correct? Okay so I'm going to make a motion then to table this to the Special
Meeting in two weeks May 18th. So there's motion to table this to May 18th, is there a
second?
, t
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
HEARING#7694—RICHARD MARTINO
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have a request from the applicant Richard Martino to adjourn.
Is there a date Kim that the request to adjourn to or no? It's without a date that's right.
Alright motion to adjourn Richard Martino#7694 without a date.
MEMBER DANTES : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye
HEARING#7774—1280 COREY CREEK, LLC
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now we also have another motion to adjourn 1280 Corey Creek,
LLC#7774. I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this to the July 6` Regular Meeting. 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
May 4,2023 Regular Meeting
HEARING#7762—SAND LENOX, LLC
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for Sand Lennox, LLC
#7762. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building
Inspector's November 15, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to
demolish an existing dwelling and to construct a new single familydwellingat 1) located less
than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet located at 1450 Salt Marsh
Lane (adj.to Long Island.Soun.d) in Peconic..
MIKE KIMACK : Good morning everyone, Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant. A little
historical background on this one that would be of assistance to the Board. We had originally
gone to at the request of the Zoning Board gone to the Trustees with the original application
with approximately a 67 foot setback from the top of the bluff. The Trustees wanted-it further
back, we redesigned it and set it back to 80 feet and at the same time basically then
requested at the particular time set it 10 feet within the 40 foot yard setback. Having received
that permit I then came to the Zoning Board and in your wisdom you felt that 80 feet was not
sufficient. You then required that we move it back 100 feet and you then approved the
setback to be 30 feet to the front yard at the same time, that was what was before you. The
difficulty was that if you look at the design the building area left is skewered on an angle
primarily and basically the house originally that we had redesigned for the Trustees is
approximately 30 feet front to back roughly because it has to be angled within that and then
that skewered changed. When we moved it back to the 100 feet primarily, if we kept it at the
30 feet the house would be about 15 foot wide at that particular point. So the request is to
get an additional 20 feet to the front yard. It's a unique location from this perspective, it's a
dead end road, there's no traffic past it and there is a it's a two (inaudible) road it's a 33 foot
wide road. Peconic Land Trust is on the other side there's no development there. So
essentially it's pretty much it's its own little area. Being within 10 feet of the front.property
line isn't going to have an impact on any neighbor any adjacent neighbor. If you had gone up
there you might have seen the construction going on next door which is going to be fairly
equal roughly with the setback which you had given us the last time to be the 100 feet.This is
a truncated lot, it doesn't have the depth that the lot adjacent to it does. It goes back further
this is all we have so given the 100 feet setback and trying to get a reasonably sized house in
there which would be about roughly 30 feet front to back. We redesigned it and we were able
to get the IA system in there. I did note that the LWRP had some concern about taking trees
down within the 100 feet their comments. The Trustees had addressed that primarily in their
permit and also in the submittal there. For every tree we take down whether it's dead or
dying within 100 feet we'll replace the tree and that's how their permit and that's how they
ameliorated the concern of the LWRP on the matter of the tree cutting within the 100 feet.
Are there any questions of me?
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's start down there, Rob?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Mike I think I asked this in the last hearing but can you guys build a
conforming house here?
MIKE KIMACK : No, not to the 30 foot, no. If you take your layout design draw a line halfway
through it that's really what was given to us.
MEMBER LEHNERT : I'm not saying this design I'm saying can you build a conforming house on
this property?
MIKE KIMACK : Conforming to
MEMBER LEHNERT : The code
MIKE KIMACK : No we can't.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well I would argue they were previously granted a 30 foot setback a
30 foot front yard setback and still have you suggested 15 feet I scaled it, it's closer to 20 feet
MIKE KIMACK : There's 20 feet on the angle Nick and then if you square the house it's about
15 feet if you're trying to square the house which we did within that skewered area.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Did you scale it out as far as in like a charrette to see what.sort of
home you can build in that location?
MIKE KIMACK : This house has been designed twice, I mean it's a reasonably sized house to fit
in that particular area.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but it's now encroaching into the front yard beyond the relief
that we previously granted.
MIKE KIMACK : Only because originally when we came to you with the approval of the
Trustees we had an 80 foot setback and you deemed it you added an extra 20 feet to it
(inaudible) back.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right with the rational that we'd rather grant a reduced front yard
setback than a reduced waterside rear yard setback.
MIKE KIMACK : Yes but at the same time what was before you was something that was locked
in, we were asking for 80 feet and we were asking for 30, you granted 100 feet and you
granted 30. So then we ended up with a very truncated building envelope that would not be
desirable to put anything of any reasonable significance within. As a result of that basically I'm
r
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
coming back to the Board asking for relief since I had to move it back 20 feet from the top of
the bluff to get relief from the front yard which the last time I think your comments were it
wasn't really because it's a dead end road because we're not going any further it wasn't
something that was going to be creating any kind of precedence.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well that was the rational that we're allowing that because of the
nature of the road. I think at the same time of course the hope was that you redesign the
project to conform to the relief granted.
MIKE KIMACK : We designed it twice Nick basically and
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's a difficult lot.
MIKE KIMACK : Yeah it's not an easy lot primarily in order to get this septic system in, to get
the IA system in etc. We only had that I mean if you look at the skew on that from front to
back on that particular one to get in with the decks and everything like that we only had really
about 15 or 16 feet.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I use one example that's I think it's 17 feet wide, the Bombara
house on North Sea Drive which is also a bay front property, it can be done.
MIKE KIMACK : I know that house, I know next door what's going on with the property.
Basically the Zoning Board is to basically grant relief when it's reasonably necessary to allow
that. I mean we are required what-you ruled to be 100 feet back from the top of the bluff
which we are.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mike how has the design that's in front of us now changed from
the design we saw last time?
MIKE KIMACK : We had to take off a lot of the decks in order to move it in, in order to fit it in.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the house is the same you've removed some decking?
MIKE KIMACK : In order to truncate it within this area here we removed the decking and we
shifted I don't have the original design in front of me primarily but there was more decking off
to the one side I think off to the northwest corner of that house there was more decking in
that area that went into the 100 foot setback. I believe that they redid the house also in order
to conform internally with that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean I didn't keep the original plans either but it seemed to me
when I looked at it that it looked pretty much the exact same house (inaudible) before.
MIKE KIMACK : It's not unlike the configuration that was originally
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I thought that it was the same house.
MIKE KIMACK : It was redesigned in order to fit into this particular new request basically.
Obviously the 30 feet would allow us a very truncated house and it would only be if you look
at what you've got now just draw a line halfway down the middle of it and that's what you got
left 30 feet back.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's still a large house plus you have a proposed roof deck all kinds
of other improvements that (inaudible).
MIKE KIMACK : Well you have to fit it within the (inaudible) there's no other place to put, if
anything is going to happen it has to happen within this footprint within this perimeter.
MEMBER DANTES : What about moving the septic system to the other side of the property
and then sliding the house over this way the front yard setback (inaudible)?
MIKE KIMACK : The reason that the septic is there Eric is I have to go and get a variance
anyway from Health Department. You see where the existing well is?
MEMBER DANTES : Yep
MIKE KIMACK : You see the distance 100 feet?
MEMBER DANTES : Yep
MIKE KIMACK : See the well on the other side it's 100 feet? This is equally distanced between
the two. Also the well for the property which is up by the house to be removed and
demolished is also 100 feet. I mean I have to go for a variance. This was put into a location
where it would be equally balanced between each one of the wells in order to more
accommodate what the Health Department will be looking for in terms of distance. I don't
know whether the well hits the 40 foot magic line onto the top of the screen the 100 foot. It
hasn't been drilled yet it might. On the anticipation that it doesn't that was put into a point to
equally distance between the existing wells.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from the Board? Is there anyone on Zoom who
wants to address the application? Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address
the application?
MEMBER LEHNERT : I have one more question, you testified the last time that the 30 foot
setback was what you required to get the IA system and a turning radius in here can you
speak to that?
May 4,2023 Regular Meeting
MIKE KIMACK : We did basically the 33 foot right of way Rob allows because the driveway
there if you drove up there, there really isn't a driveway in the place it's just a grass area
through there. We can place the driveway anywhere within that 33 feet primarily. You can
see it's a little truncated by putting it up against one side of the right of way it's a little bit of a
tight by extending and (inaudible) on the other side we're able to swing it around within that
10 foot. We did it with a little bit more ease than the last time because we had the extra 20
feet where I came down the middle of the road and then swung in there.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Where are you proposing to park cars? I mean right now it looks like
you're putting it on someone else's property.
MIKE KIMACK : Well basically it would be basically on that one area. They got the right of way
to the road a right of way to the driveway on a dead end road Rob no one else is coming
down that way. It's not unusual not all properties are like this but a lot of properties along
beachfronts etc. have areas where the parking basically goes into the
MEMBER LEHNERT : Every other house on that road has parking on their property. They're
not using a road be it a dead end at this lot they're not using a road as their parking area.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The code requires on-site parking, two for a principle dwelling.
MIKE KIMACK : Anymore questions of me?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from the Board? Motion to close the hearing reserve
decision to a later date. Is there a second?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries.
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
HEARING#7768 &7769 SE— HOLLANDER JR. LIVING TRUST
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board I'm going to open there's
two of them I'm going to open them at the same time is for Hollander Jr. Living Trust #7768.
This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's
December 23, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an
as built" accessory garage addition at 1) located less than the code required minimum side
yard setback of 10 feet located at 485 Old Woods Path in Southold. Hollander Jr. Living Trust
#7769SE, applicant requests a Special Exception under Article III Section 280-13B(13). The
applicant is the owner of the subject property requesting authorization to establish an
accessory apartment in an existing accessory structure at the same location 485 Old Woods
Path in Southold. Is someone here to represent the application?
MIKE KIMACK : Good morning, Mike Kimack on behalf of the applicant. We're on the
variance?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can address them simultaneously, I can review the
MIKE KIMACK : In many respects with the variance basically the variance would be required in
order to have the Special Exception so it would be that. We're requesting a variance, the
garage the original garage when it was a garage had a C.O. on it and then there was a shed
behind it that had a C.O. on it and that particular shed you can see was fairly close to the
property line. Then the applicant built and attached the two together primarily and it's that
addition primarily that attaches the shed to the garage that we're requesting a variance for. It
doesn't come any closer to the property than the back corner of the shed as it now exists. It
just connects the garage to it on a straight line on the backside.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a 1.2 foot side yard setback correct?
MIKE KIMACK : It's 1.2 foot to that one corner of the shed Leslie. The addition is a little bit
further in primarily the addition is about 2 some odd feet. It's not exactly shown on this
particular one here. (Stepped away from the microphone-inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the apartment is already built, it's been occupied, the applicant
is now requesting to legalize it?
MIKE KIMACK : Right
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : To that point, how did it come to be that it was built this addition
was added, kitchen installed etc.?
0
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
MIKE KIMACK : That all occurred I'm not quite I can't give you a time period on that one
because they brought me into this after everything was done in order to try to get it all
legalized. I would imagine it was probably built within the last ten years from the looks of it
from what's in there.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : How was the problem discovered?
MIKE KIMACK : It wasn't they asked me to bring it in and legalize the apartment to bring it
before the town.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So they did the work without permits realized the mistake or the
error and now wish to clean it up?
MIKE KIMACK : Right that's a neat way of saying it Nick.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the applicant built the addition?
MIKE KIMACK : Yes the applicant built the addition and then the applicant
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Who is residing in that apartment or is residing in it?
MIKE KIMACK : Family members, I think the daughter is the one who is also on the lease the
proposed lease.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does the daughter live there full time year round?
MIKE KIMACK : No they're moving out there they're retiring and moving out obviously. She's
out there she's a resident right now but they're relocating and the daughter comes and goes
it's not anything on a full time basis.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's more like a guest cottage for the daughter?
MIKE KIMACK : Yes guest cottage for the'daughter basically.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is anyone else staying in there?
MIKE KIMACK : Not that I know of.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Family members or anything like that?
MIKE KIMACK : What it was told to me it's just the daughter when she comes out to stay
there.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Doesn't the resident have to be full time?
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
MIKE KIMACK : She is.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You just stated that the daughter is not full time.
MIKE KIMACK : But the owner of the property is and they reside in the main house.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Doesn't the renter have to be full time also?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The tenant has to be full time.
MIKE KIMACK : On the apartment?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's meant as affordable housing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Or family member.
MEMBER LEHNERT : But the family member must be a full time resident.
MIKE KIMACK : The code doesn't say that, the code says that you have to be a resident in
order to be either in the primary home or in the apartment itself but the other person doesn't
have to be a resident.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it requires an annual rental. So the rental is definitely for full
time occupancy but there's nothing that absolutely spells out the fact that the occupant must
be there three hundred and sixty five days a year. You know part of the dilemma here is, with
these kinds of applications people turn them into guest houses. People just basically you
know have family members coming and going or whoever they want and they get somebody
to sign a year lease and that's it. I mean it's easy to do, your daughter is not going to say no to
you she'll sign the lease and then we wind up with accessory apartments that were not
intended to be used by the code in that fashion. It's a town wide problem, it's not unique to
this application particularly but that's something that is up for discussion fairly soon before
the Town Board. There's a review of the entire accessory apartment code that's coming
before the Town Board at a Public Hearing. When is the date of that hearing?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : On the 9th I believe, May 9th
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Soon, next week. We'll see what happens but in any case the ZBA
has (inaudible)
MIKE KIMACK : But under current ones I gave you a lease agreement for the daughter, her
name is Katherine Hollander.
tz
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes and we have a birth certificate and we have you know you're
proposing a new IA system to serve the house and the apartment.
MIKE KIMACK : Yes
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have shown three off street parking spaces. It is confirmed by
the Building Department to be conforming at 631 sq. ft. of livable floor area.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think it's 621
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 631 is written down.
MEMBER DANTES : It could be a discrepancy between the plans and the Building Department
calculation.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's still conforming.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : 631 so apologies.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have in the record a deed, we have a driver's license with the
name and the address of the applicant/owner, we have tax returns with the address, we have
utility bills, affidavit of principle residency and the STAR exemption she says she does not
qualify. Anything from the Board anything else from the Board?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have a question regarding the street name, I've always known it as
Old Woods Path I see on the applicant's (inaudible) it says Bordenson Rd.
MIKE KIMACK : No it's always been Old Woods Path I'm not quite sure where that one came
from. Quite frankly that's new to me Nick.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : This is from PSEG. So is this in fact for the site or for a different
location?
MIKE KIMACK : I'm not quite sure because on the town map and everything else it's all Old
Woods Path. Could it have been something that was named I mean I think that was the
original name I don't know where PSEG would have come up,with that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know either.
MIKE KIMACK : I know that the I'm not quite sure Suffolk County Water came through there
and extended the water line and paved it pretty much right up to their house.
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody on Zoom Liz that wants to address this
application? Is there anybody in the audience?Anything else from the Board? Motion to close
both hearings reserve to another date is there a second?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye the motion carries. I'm going to go to some Resolutions. We
have to wait till 10:40 for the next one. Resolution for the next Regular Meeting with Public
Hearings to be held Thursday June 1, 2023 at 9:00 AM. 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. Resolution to approve the Minutes from the Special Meeting
held April 20, 2023 so moved.
MEMBER LEHNERT: Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to amend Decision No. 7678 John Smyth located at
26745 Rt. 25 in Cutchogue, so moved.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to amend Decision 7717 Nicholas Tzoumas 35
Clark Rd. in Southold so moved.
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 recess, 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
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Good morning, for those who are on with us on
Zoom and you wish to make a comment on a particular application I ask that your raise your
hand. I will see that your hand is raised and I will give you further instructions on how to
speak. I see we have one phone number, for that person using the phone number for you to
raise your hand please press *9 if you would like to speak and then I will let you know what to
do next. Thank you.
HEARING#7764—RICHARD C.JENSEN JR., ESTATE OF RICHARD C.JENSEN
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Richard C. Jensen Jr.,
Estate of Richard C. Jensen #7764. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section
280-124 and the Building Inspector's January 4, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an
application for a permit to demolish an existing dwelling and to construct a new single family
dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, 2)
located less than the code required minimum combined side yard setback of 25 feet located
at 4155 Bay Shore Rd. (adj. to Shelter Island Sound) in Greenport. Pat good morning. Let me
just enter into the record here the specific variance request. This is to demolish and construct
a new two story single family dwelling with a side yard setback at 6.2 feet where the code
requires a minimum of 10 feet and secondly a combined side-yard setback at 16.10 feet and
the code requires what is it 25. Can I begin by asking you a question please? How high above
the road grade is the required retaining wall and elevated plinth?
PAT MOORE : I'm so glad you asked I predicted that may be a question.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it seems to have two sets of steps going up. Please give me
the answer.
PAT MOORE : Let me introduce who's here that way we just get everybody on the record. I
have The Jensens which are both of them the son, grandson actually from the original,
Richard and Kashia and Patrick Christian is the Architect from the Architectural firm. I'll have
him discuss the height of the retaining wall footprint.
PATRICK CHRISTIAN : Our street elevation is an elevation four and our top of wall for the
retaining wall for the sanitary system that elevation is 6.5 only to get it out of the water table
(inaudible) septic system.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Approximately 2 %feet.
PAT MOORE : Yeah.
16 1
May 4,2023 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN-: Is a fence going to be required around it?
PATRICK CHRISTIAN : No
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No fence required. What else do we have, is there on-site we've
had them before where they had to actually put a safety fence around. The elevation was so
high they were sitting on the water table. Do you have two sets of steps proposed is that wide
enough for two cars or deep enough for two cars?
PATRICK CHRISTIAN : No
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The code requires two on-site parking spaces for principle dwelling.
PAT MOORE : We're going to have I mean we'll do our best. I think the issue is going to be the
distance of the sanitary to the wall. The minimum setback is 20 1 think, 10 feet from the
distribution but this from this measurement the expansion pools so I think the Health
Department requires 10. We could expand the parking area up to the point it reaches the 10
foot separation between the expansion pool so it would give a little more room but we have
our restriction. I mean the actual property line Bay Shore Rd. has a lot of frontage before the
road actually starts so a lot of the homes on the block they park in front of their property but
we'll do our best to
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I actually haven't seen that I know that street very, very well and
you almost never see other than a guest occasionally but pretty much everybody pulls their
cars onto their own property.
PAT MOORE : A lot of the houses there are getting retaining walls so I don't know, some of
them are like dead end like the guy on the very far has a retaining wall but that's kind of a
dead end area.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's because everybody is on the water table and now that IA
systems are required and they're going to have to be elevated in-order to comply with Health
Department. That's a good thing and a bad thing. (inaudible) changing the topography, there's
a lot of land disturbance and it's changing the visual character of neighborhoods. It's just the
way it is.
PAT MOORE : I mean we can show you a larger parking area if you want after the hearing and
we'll expand it. We just have to measure out the 10 feet, I don't know exactly maybe the
expansion pools can go I just don't know. Rob.you may know, the Health Department allow a
reduction of the distance of the 10 foot
MEMBER LEHNERT : I don't believe they would they're hard and fast rules.
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think you'd need parking at least 20 by 24 or something to that
degree no? As the design professional what would be the minimum space for two parking
spots?
1
PATRICK CHRISTIAN : The minimum like a compact spot
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't think you want to calculate on a compact spot.
PATRICK CHRISTIAN : I don't see a simple way with the 50 foot property width to manage two
spots wide and get a compliant sanitary system.
MEMBER DANTES : I think they just have to do their best and it is what it is.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Then how do you meet the town code?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They won't.
MEMBER DANTES : You need a variance from that or you go to Health Department for a
variance but I don't think the Health Department (inaudible).
PATRICK CHRISTIAN : We did discuss that with the Engineer, he said if it was any less than 50
feet wide in width we could pursue a variance but he didn't see an easy way to get one with
meeting the minimum lot width requirement for a sanitary system.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Parking has not been cited on the Notice of Disapproval so how do
we address this?
MEMBER DANTES : We never do.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They aren't going to quote parking, it's not in the bulk schedule but
it is in the code.
PAT MOORE : I've never had in the thirty five years I've never had to get a variance for parking
this is a first.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think they write up Notice of Disapprovals for that but that is
the code as you know, you have to have two on-site parking spaces for a principle,residence.
PAT MOORE : I know for B&B it's very specific.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's because of the number of rooms and rental spaces and
you have to have two for the principle dwelling and then one for each rented room. That's a
lot of parking but you know
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : I have a question Leslie, I'm looking at the site plan here and you've got
your driveway, you have one, two, three, four it looks like four steps up and you're on some
sort of raised area and then you go to the other end you have more steps. Are those steps
further up or are those steps down?
PATRICK CHRISTIAN : Those are both access to the raised grade to accommodate the sanitary
system so it's really if you look at the 10 foot minimum from the retaining wall on the south
side of the property and then to that distribution box close to the residence that's our town
required (inaudible) so that's really grade and it's just goes up to that right there and back
down
MEMBER DANTES : Then the house area will be from the basically based off the existing grade?
So then when I look at your elevation plan it looks like a ridge height of 24 feet 8 inches. That
24 feet 8 inches from the raised patio or 24 feet 8 inches from the existing grade?
PATRICK CHRISTIAN : Existing grade.
MEMBER DANTES : Thanks
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any other questions from the Board at this point? Okay I'm going to
see if there's anyone in the audience who wants to address this application.
PAT MOORE : Did you want me to discuss the application?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please summarize and don't read what you've already written.
PAT MOORE : A very quick summary, you know that this property the family has owned this
property since 1946, it's part of the Peconic Bay Estates filed map from 1933. We originally
hoped to keep the house but it was going to be impossible with an addition to and the extent
of the investment to make it conform to both FEMA and New York State building code because
our structure would not accommodate the proper insulation and residential code. There was
no option here other than a demolition. The house size is all as far as lot coverage conforming,
they worked very hard to make it fit on the property. We do show a very small splash pool,
that is being reviewed obviously by the D.E.C. so ultimately
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Trustees too you're going to need?
PAT MOORE : Yes of course the Trustees. So we've maintained what setbacks we could
possibly maintain. The 10 and 15 the new house is actually more conforming than the original
house with respect to setbacks. We moved the closer side to the on the west because the
neighbor there has much greater side yard. The house on the east as you can see the existing
house is two and half feet from the property line so the larger setback is 18 on the east side.
May 4,2023 Regular Meeting
So it was the process (inaudible) take a very'long time because it was really agonizing, to try
and fit everything within the 50 foot wide property and meeting all of the regulations and as
you pointed from the beginning the sanitary system having a compliant system on the street
side. So this has been a very challenging design and if you have any other questions we're here
to answer them. As you know from my application this is a third, fourth generation, third
generation-of this property staying in the family so it is important to the family and his children
would like to continue to enjoy the property and keep it for many more generations. I think
I've addressed your area variance issues.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have, well you know when we went out to the site the whole
shoreline along there varies I mean the house right next door has a retaining wall on the a
bulkhead rather whereas this is non-bulkheaded and it goes straight really out to the beach.
mean it's just gravel and when you talk about a non-disturbance buffer there's really nothing
there except a couple of scraggy bushes to not disturb. Quite frankly mother nature is going to
disturb them as she's done for a very long time. The house next door is set back farther from I
guess their 'back yard technically but has a big patio so you're proposing a 10 foot non-turf
buffer
PAT MOORE : We anticipate that that would be required by the Trustees.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Probably I mean I don't see how you're going to get any grass
anyway maybe in the front yard on top of the sanitary but that's it.
PAT MOORE : It has remained pretty (inaudible) so lawn is not something that they're
accustomed to having there. So yes you point out the most of the challenge here is that Bay
Shore Rd. most of Bay Shore Rd. has cement bulkheads that predate. I believe this, one and
maybe part of the parcel to.the east maybe one of the few that don't have so it's a real
challenge cause D.E.C. assumes jurisdiction and you know it would be a lot easier to develop
this property without D.E.C. involvement.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They're not going to require a bulkhead.
PAT MOORE : Oh no, no.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No
MEMBER LEHNERT : They would never do that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I was going to say please I know they're bad but they can't be that
bad. Does any Board Member have anything else? Is there anybody on Zoom?
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
GIOVANNI PATANE : I'm the owner of the house across the street directly across the street
from the proposed construction. I just want to make sure that you know it's a very small site
that they're working on and there's going to be large construction vehicles, I do not want them
parking on my driveway. I have dry wells also I don't see any dry wells on this property. I see
leeching pools but there are no dry wells. The thing I'm concerned about is when they do this
work especially that retaining wall how they're going to go back and forth and go into the site.
They'll probably built it last but I'm concerned about all of the construction equipment that's
going to be there and where are they going to park them? I don't want them parking on my
grass strip or definitely on my driveway cause I have dry wells located there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does somebody want to address that?
PAT MOORE : Oh sure, no the sequence of construction here would have to be the house first,
the foundation the house. You might ultimately they're going to work backwards and the
sanitary system being at the end of the process because we don't have drivable sanitary
system so we would you know they don't have a right to trespass and I think most contractors
know not to trespass. So my clients are here, make sure your contractors don't trespass on any
private property to accomplish this construction. I did want to point well dry wells we will
require dry wells I'm surprised they're not showing on this plan. They would need to be shown
for Trustees permit.
MEMBER LEHNERT : We have to comply with drainage anyway to get a building permit.
PAT MOORE : Yes, but I would want to show where the dry wells are going to be since it's part
of their jurisdiction for the Trustees. That will be most likely the dry wells just based on where
we have room to put dry wells they would be along the side of the house away from the water.
I did want to address one very quick point, we don't know what the D.E.C. is going to do to us
with respect to the setback the 35 feet that requires a variance from D.E.C. regulations cause
their regulations require 75 feet on both structures. Obviously we are pre-existing so they
should have some recognition of that but the pool may be a sacrifice. If that occurs that opens
up some lot coverage some square.footage. If the Board I just want to put on the record cause
it might require a de minimus request down the line if we can adjust some of the square
footage maybe of the deck wherever we have room. If it changes from this obviously we would
have to come in with a de minimus but we do have that square footage at the pool. We don't
want to sacrifice the pool but you know we don't know what D.E.C. is going to ask. I just want
to put it on the record.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you've got a conforming rear yard setback and as long as it
stays conforming whether it's a pool or a deck you know I don't think our Board is going to
care.
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE,: To the extent it might because our side yard setbacks are non-conforming we
would not go any obviously go any closer than the existing side yards that are set here but it
might because of Walz we wouldn't be able to let say have the deck extend out even two feet
without a de minimus most likely but the Building Department would ask of us.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But you're speaking of de minimus relative to the lot coverage.
PAT MOORE : Well lot coverage we conform it's de minimus with respect to side yards. So if
the side yard stays no closer than what the Board grants but extends towards the water or to
the land the Building Department has typically asked us to get a de minimus. I just want to
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I've told them time and time again that if changes that are
proposed in no way affect the variances that were granted they have the jurisdiction to simply
approve them, they won't.
PAT MOORE : They won't.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I will.
PAT MOORE : I just wanted to put it on the record because we don't know what the final
outcome of our permit is going to be.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's fine.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So actually to that point though, one of the questions I did want to
ask and I've seen it in other applications it would appear that the lot line or the side yard
setbacks are to the actual framing of the house not to the eaves and other projects it's been to
the eaves. Now the eaves here are not excessive at least in elevation
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You mean the soffits the overhangs?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The soffits
PAT MOORE : I didn't think that the Building Department considered anything less than two
feet to be
MEMBER LEHNERT : Yea less than two feet they don't even bother with.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They don't look at it.
MEMBER LEHNERT :They don't look at it at all. It's always to the framing to the foundation.
PAT MOORE : Yea in fact the surveyor sometimes they measure to the foundation on one
survey and they come back and measure to the exterior shingles and I end up with differences.
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
I think we're okay with that, I appreciate your point because sometimes I have seen them on a
stoop you know
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was thinking about different applications that you can't
MEMBER LEHNERT: Technically you can't frame without a foundation survey.
PAT MOORE : Yes correct, any other questions?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody in the audience who wants to address the
application? Anybody else on Zoom Liz? Okay I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing
reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All if favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries.
HEARING#7771—JOHN HOCHSTRASSER
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for John Hochstrasser
#7771. This is a request for variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building
Inspector's January 13, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to
demolish an existing deck and patio to an existing single family dwelling and construct a new
raised masonry patio and decking at 1) located less than the code required minimum side
yard setback of 15 feet located at 2855 Nassau Point Rd. (adj. to Hog Neck Bay) in Cutchogue.
So this is demolishing an existing deck and part of it is a brick patio on grade attached to an
adjacent single family dwelling. You want to do a new raised masonry patio with a side yard
setback at 10 feet where the code requires 15 feet and what else do we have here, ZBA#7176
July 19, 2018 granted a 12.8 foot side yard setback for additions and alterations to a single
family dwelling. We have on the record a letter of support from a neighbor. You're going to
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
expand the existing deck along the side yard removing the existing brick patio. Mike I have a
question, why not just simply maintain the 12.8 foot side yard setback for the new raised
patio that,was previously granted by the Board, it's only a couple of feet?
MEMBER LEHNERT : It matches the line of the house.
MARGARET HOCHSTRASSER : Barbara Hochstrasser I go by Meg. You're talking about the side
you want me to just go back to the original
CHAIRPERESON WEISMAN : Level it off with the house.
MARGARET HOCHSTRASSER : That was the architect's design, to be honest with you I didn't
even realize it went beyond or closer until
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : See that little funny bump out there, he's got steps going up.
MARGARET HOCHSTRASSER : Yes
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's a bunch of ways to do that.
MARGARET HOCHSTRASSER : The only reason was that the back door from the den that is two
steps to go in so instead of having it go back down two steps he was making the patio even
with that. So that was his design, I thought it was fine but I didn't realize it was going to go
further on the property line. I mean I will concede that you know to be even with the
foundation of the original part that's fine.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you.
MEMBER DANTES : You're looking at Sheet A-4 on the drawing that's where the two steps
you're talking about are for the deck?
MIKE KIMACK : I believe so.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know which one I'm talking about Eric?
MEMBER DANTES : Yea this is the existing, I understand why they did it bump it out to get
MEMBER LEHNERT: Two steps down you don't need a variance for just a set of steps.
MIKE KIMACK : We would require the variance simply because we were within the 15 feet no
matter what.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea but you know it seems like reasonable to square it off with the
house and maintain the previous non-conforming setback that was granted.
May 4,2023 Regular Meeting ,
MIKE"KIMACK : We can make"the changes and revise and get it to you by the Special, would
that work for you?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that sounds good yep. Anything else from the Board? Is there
anybody on Zoom that wants to address the application?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It was the letter of objection from the neighbor.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did I mention that?
MEMBER LEHNERT :There was a letter of objection.
MIKE KIMACK : There was.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And a letter of support.
MEMBER DANTES : I think the objection was (inaudible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea it was just coming closer to your.neighbor's side yard. If you're
willing to put it you know where it already is
MIKE KIMACK : It's so heavily treed on that one side it wouldn't matter one way or the other
to the (inaudible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's very heavily screened by large mature evergreens on that side
but
MARGARET HOCHSTRASSER : The backyard goes beyond his house (inaudible)"
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's his garage building I think, you're right it's in the front.
MARGARET HOCHSTRASSER : (inaudible) towards the water as well on my other side my
house is set back up on the hill it's the furthest one his existing house the person who is
objecting is further towards the water beyond my patio and his deck also goes beyond and
towards the waterside so you know it really doesn't he doesn't look into my yard except
further out.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's LWRP exempt and I do have a question, wood decking is
somewhat pervious because there's slats and there's drainage right on the deck with masonry
it's an impervious surface and can you just maybe address any kind of drainage issue cause I
did notice the terrain is such that from your house it rolls kind of down toward the water. We
want to make sure that any water collected on that impervious masonry surface is norbeing
discharged it's probably going to roll right onto your grass and stop but I just want to get into
May 4,2023 Regular Meeting
the record that there is a difference between a pervious and an impervious surface, it's a
pretty big deck well masonry patio.
MEMBER LEHNERT : It is,the Building Department will also look at that for them also.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They will but I just want to give Mike a chance to does this need
Trustees? I don't think so.
MIKE KIMACK : I need to go to Trustees.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea so they're certainly going to look at that too I guess. So it's
Trustees approval is required, okay. I don't know they might require a buffer of some sort
down toward
MIKE KIMACK : They might require a berm it's possible.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Berm it up a little so that the water stays pooled on your property
and drains there.
MARGARET HOCHSTRASSER : Beyond that deck there is planting and a rock wall kind of to
hold property up towards the house so if I have to do that along the rest of it I can
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that will be Trustees. I just wanted to bring it into the record.
Okay anybody in the audience who wants to address the application? Is there anybody on
Zoom? Anything else from the Board? 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 oh I'm sorry you were going to amend that. I should have
basically just adjourned it
MIKE KIMACK : Adjourn it to the Special Meeting.
6
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : To the Special Meeting I'm going to take that back, undo roll the
video back cause that way you're just going to amend your survey or
MEMBER LEHNERT : Can't we close it subject to the plans?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We could I suppose what's the difference. Want to close it subject
to receipt of an amended application
MEMBER LEHNERT : Or amended plans.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No has to be an amended application because he's going to change
the side yard setback to what the previous side yard setback 12 feet something. Alright want
to do that then? Okay motion to close subject to receipt of an amended application for a 12.8
foot side yard setback.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, okay now we did it.
HEARING#7765 Ṗ-DAVID and SONDRA RUSSELL
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN We have two applications from the same family before us, I'm
going to open both of them at the same time. David and Sondra Russell #7765. This is a
request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's
November 15, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to demolish (as per Town
Code definition) and reconstruct a single family dwelling and to construct an accessory garage
upon two (2) merged lots at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard
setback of 35 feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35
feet, 3) accessory garage located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 1325
& 1375 Smith Drive So. In Southold. The other one is for #7766, this is a request for a waiver
May 4,2023 Regular Meeting
of merger petition under Article II Section 280-10A to unmerge land identified as SCTM1000-
76-2-34.3 which has merged with 34.2 and 35 based on the Building Inspector's November 15,
2022 Notice of Disapproval which states that a non-conforming lot shall merge with an
adjacent conforming or non-conforming lot held in common ownership with the first lot at
any time after July 1, 1983 and that non-conforming lot shall merge until the total lost size
conforms to the current bulk schedule requirements (minimum 40,000 sq. ft. in the R-40
residential zoning district) again located at 1325 and 1375 Smith Dr. South and 1480 Smith
Drive North in Southold. Phew got that out it's the law you gotta enter it into the record.
KAREN HOEG : Good morning, Karen Hoeg from Tourney, Latham. I just wanted to point out
for the Board that the Notice of Disapproval was amended on March 21, 2023 to reduce some
of the variance relief that was needed. We had submitted a supplement on April 12tH
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't have that.
KAREN HOEG : It was a revised addendum.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't have any record of that Karen.
KAREN HOEG : Okay it was hand delivered and handed in with the amended Notice of
Disapproval.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : To our office?
KAREN HOEG : Yes
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You remember doing it?
KAREN HOEG : It was April 12tH
MEMBER DANTES : Can you just read it to us this way we'll know what you're talking about.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't understand why we would not have that in the packet.
Donna says she, remembers doing it so we did get it. I just want to make sure
SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : What are you missing Leslie?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Notice of Disapproval originally from November 15th and
amended March 21, 2023 renewed and amended. We have a new one that came in in April.
Donna says she remembers doing it.
SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I remember adding the addendum. Look in the
original in the file that's by you guys.
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
BOARD ASSISTANT : It's the one we have.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me make sure I have the same, so we're looking at a new single
family dwelling with a 59.5 foot bluff setback where the code requires a minimum of 100 feet
no, where am I? I turned the page now sorry, so we have a waiver of merger the resulting lot .
of 16,750 sq. ft. in the R-40 zone it's going to be 16,750 where 40,000 is required. Proposed
construction with a front yard setback of 33.7 feet, the code requiring 35, rear yard setback at
28.9 feet the code requiring a minimum of 35. It's a one story addition to an existing single
family dwelling and an attached two car garage. I'd like you to clarify which exactly lot
numbers I mean there's one developed lot right and the house
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Two developed lots.
MEMBER LEHNERT :They both have houses.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's where I messed up here.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Can you just walk us through the chain of events that led us here.
KAREN HOEG : Sure, I think it would be helpful to talk about the waiver of merger first.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Absolutely
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The variances are the least of our
KAREN HOEG : Exactly; correct. So let's start with the waiver of merger of the two back to
back parcels which are designated tax lot 34.3 which is also known as 1480 Smith Drive North
and 34.2 which is known as 1325 Smith Dr. South. The application also seeks to merge tax lot
34.2 which the Russell's purchased in November of 2021 with the easterly improved adjacent
parcel owned by the Russell's known as 1375 Smith Dr..South which is lot 35. The Russell's
have owned the improved lot at 1375 since 2011. Mr. Eugene McConnell owns the improved
lot at 1480 Smith Dr. North which is identified on the survey as tax lot 34.3 and he had
acquired that in 2016 from Marion Hoffman whose now deceased. These lots are all in an R-
40 zone and are non-conforming. Tax lot 34.2 is 10,050 sq. ft., tax lot 34.3 is 13,400 sq. ft. and
tax lot 35 is 6,700 sq. ft. So as noted in the Notice of Disapproval which we were just talking
about which was amended on March 211t, tax lot 34.2 and 34.3 have merged under Town
Code Section 280-10A as they were held in common ownership after July 1, 1983. However it
is important to understand the history of the lots which were recognized as two separate tax
parcels having been created by the town and the county in December of 1981. So I have it in
(inaudible stepped away from the microphone)form 101.
r
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's .2 and .3 that merged is that correct?
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
KAREN HOEG : Right
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 34.2 and 34.3
KAREN HOEG : Those two lots were created in December of 1981, they are referenced on the
forms that are attached. So initially it was lot 34.1 which was created in the early seventies
and then split into two separate tax lots the 34.2 and 34.3.
MEMBER DANTES : One question Karen, which is the paperwork I have in front of me has the
subdivision lot.
KAREN HOEG : If you look at what's on the screen what's shown as the vacant parcel that's
34.2
MEMBER DANTES : It's part of 114 and 113 both part of that tax map number or are they
KAREN HOEG : Those are the subdivision lots, this was all part of the (inaudible) farm
subdivision back in the forties. So those little circled numbers are the actual subdivision lots
so if you look at the top of the survey you can just scroll up a bit it will identify these actual
subdivision lots.
MEMBER DANTES : So is that little dotted line between 114 and 113 does that mean
anything?
KAREN HOEG : That is the part of the subdivision lot 114 which was actually when the
subdivision was created. A copy of the subdivision map is in the application, it was twice the
size. The adjacent parcel to the west got half subdivision lot 114 and this other portion of 114
was combined with subdivision lot 113.
MEMBER DANTES : So 114 and part of 114 and 113 are both part of 34.2 now?
KAREN HOEG : Correct yes. It's not really clear why the Town Tax Assessor's split the lots from
34.1 into two separate tax parcels in 1981. My only guess is that when the house was built on
Smith Dr. North which is tax lot 34.3 that the Assessor divided it into two lots and since 1981
it has been treated as two separate tax lots. I have a copy in the application (inaudible
stepped away from the microphone). I have also to submit to the Board which I didn't see in
part of the application was tax lot 34.3 was created by the town and the county in 1981 was
issued a C.O. for that particular tax lot in December of 1981 when the house was constructed.
So for the record I'll just submit these C.O.'s for that lot.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Which one is which?
MEMBER DANTES : It's 34.2 is 113 and 114. Let me just walk I'm struggling with
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
KAREN HOEG : It is very confusing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The problem is you get a subdivision map on the survey and then
tax map
MEMBER LEHNERT : You have to use tax map.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have to.
i
MEMBER DANTES : So then 34.3 then is lot 112?
KAREN HOEG : 34.3 is subdivision lots 106 and 107.
MEMBER DANTES : So then 35 is 112?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's 34.3
MEMBER LEHNERT : and 112 is 35
KAREN HOEG : Yes 112 is tax lot 35 which is the current home that the Russell's own.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Lot 35
MEMBER DANTES : So then 105 is not part of this application at all, subdivision lot 105?
KAREN HOEG : No
MEMBER LEHNERT : Nor is 112
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think what happened here which maybe I'm jumping ahead, but
the lot on the north which is owned by a family called McConnell
KAREN HOEG : It comprises subdivision lots 112 and 113
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm not even getting into that I don't have a problem with the
subdivision map but I was trying to figure out how they merged and what was going on but
the vacant lot was sold to the Russell's from the Estate of Hoffman. Hoffman was the one that
built the house on the north
KAREN HOEG : Right
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So those two were one and somehow the Russell's purchased the
Hoffman lot when'it technically belonged to the McConnell's.
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
KAREN HOEG : Not exactly. So what happened was back in 2016 Marion Hoffman.was a
widow and she had owned tax lot 34.3 and 34.2. So it was in the Hoffman family up until 2016
held in common ownership although our title report when we did the single and separate said
that no these lots have been all single and separate since 1955 which is also submitted as part
of the application but lot 34.3 which is currently in the name of McConnell was transferred
from. Marion Hoffman in 2016. So it was transferred out of the family in 2016 by Marion
Hoffman when she was eight four years old. She since died in 2020 at the age I believe of
ninety and her executrix of her estate sold the vacant parcel to the Russell's
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's what I was saying.
KAREN HOEG : Yes
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The only thing is that when she sold the house the lot should have
gone with it because it was merged or at that point it should have been unmerged. So now
we're dealing with it
KAREN HOEG : We're dealing with it now because when lot 34.3 was sold from Hoffman to
McConnell nobody knew about that these two lots were merged and they never knew that I
mean it should have been unmerged at that time but nobody knew
MEMBER LEHNERT :Then you wouldn't have to deal with it.
KAREN HOEG : Right and if you explain to anybody outside of Southold that there's this code
provision about transferring outside of the family they look at you like you have ten heads
because they don't know what you're talking about because it's not a title issue it's a zoning
issue. So that's why we're here today to kind of clean up this issue and as I said before that lot
34.3 never use lot 34.2 it's been treed up until the Russell's purchased it. It was kind of used
as a dumping ground for people in the neighborhood and subdivision to discard grass
clippings whatever it was but it was never cleared by the northerly lot or never used in any
capacity. It has always been treated as a separate lot by the county by the town by people in
the neighborhood. So when the Russell's who have lived in the house that they currently live
in at 2011 acquired the property and their hope was to put in a small addition to the property
add some additional living space. Their current house is under a thousand square feet, they
wanted to add a garage a laundry room area so in order to get to that point of the area
variance we have to deal with this merger issue. If you like I can go through the history of
these lots and how they all came to be, how they are.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Karen who's maintaining the lot next to the Russell's home? It's all
nice grass mowed so it's
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
KAREN HOEG : Yes they purchased the property in 2021 and have since cleaned it out. People
in the neighborhood are very happy that it's no longer a dumping ground. I believe there are
some shrubs that have been put there, they put the fence up they've been maintained to it.
They have title to it so now they as part of the request to add a garage and a small addition to
the house which would conform with lot coverage, GFA we need an area variance.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do the Russell's own lot 35 let's call it where the house is?
KAREN HOEG : Yes
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and 34.2
KAREN HOEG : Correct
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : which is the grassed lot adjacent right
KAREN HOEG : Yes
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and they need to unmerge that lot with 34.3?
KAREN HOEG : Yes so that they can merge that vacant parcel with their current lot.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So they want to unmerge 34.3 and 34.2 and then merge 35 with
34.2 so they can build their house on it, expansion.
KAREN HOEG : Yes,that's correct.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Yes
KAREN HOEG : That's it in a nutshell. They have title to both 34.2 as well as to tax lot 35 and
as I said the square footage that they're adding is so minimal the setbacks that they need for
the area variances are no further to the front or rear from their existing home. All parties
support the application on the waiver of merger. This is kind of a housekeeping issue and it
would make lots 34.2 and 35 once they are combined more compliant with zoning and more
conforming as a lot. How this configuration came to be over time between 34.2 and 34.3 is a
little you know odd the way that the lot is currently shaped and that it fronts on both streets.
They've been treated independently since 1980 when the town and the county separated
them. I suspect that you know since the Hoffman's have owned it for so many years they had
no knowledge that they were you know once they sold one tax lot parcel out to another
entity that that would become an issue but here we are trying to clean it up. As I said
everybody supports it, the vacant parcel over the years has never been anything but a treed
lot. There's been no kind of complaining where people were using it you know the neighbors
and stuff, the goal is to as Leslie said is to you know unmerge 34.3 from 34.2 and have 34.2
May 4,2023 Regular Meeting
merge with lot 35 so that the Russell's can add this small addition as well as the attached
garage to the house.
MEMBER DANTES : Why do it this way, why not do a lot line change?
KAREN HOEG : Well I think if the Board doesn't grant the merger that's what we would have
to do. That's more time and money you know to do.that. The tax lot lines metes and bounds
are all have never changed. To do the lot line change I'm assuming you're talking about
between lot 34.2 and 34.3.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was going to suggest the same thing just in light of there is a
similar application I think it was on Beach Rd. off of Manhasset. These two small lots where
the property actually changed hands title change without the merger without the waiver of
merger creating a unique situation just like yours and I think in that case it was a denial.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the bottom line is this is what's before us now and I think
that's what we need to address okay.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think the lot line change is the cleaner.
i
MEMBER DANTES : Yea but the problem is I mean think about it, you need to get a lot line
change to create the lot that merged you get a lot line change to uncreate the lot.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is not a straightforward as the other one.
KAREN HOEG : This gets a little complicated because in 1981 these lots were created as two
separate tax lots. If you look at the tax from 1981 to today they show them as two separate
tax lot parcels.They both pay taxes on
MEMBER PLANAMENTO :(inaudible) Assessor's Office
KAREN HOEG : Right but that's how it's always been treated. I mean the property cards will
reflect too that these all have been taxed as separate tax lot parcels since 1981 when they
were created. Even the Building Department records show that 34.3 was recognized pretty
much as a separate tax lot.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's the problem when town up-zoned to create this they did a
terrible job in notifying the public and in fact they didn't at all. So everybody's gotten separate
tax bills all along. How would you know anything changed? Unless you got stuck like this and
have to come before the Board to fix it. I mean it was a good idea when it came to sanitary
and density but it had a lot of unintended consequences. About the only thing they actually
fixed with this waiver of merger was merger by death which was added because so many
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
people like you know a couple owned two lots next to each other, one for their kids
eventually, one of the spouses died the two lots merged because they wound up in the same
name instead of checker boarded. That was exempted after that. This is a complicated mess
that the town created and the Zoning Board is the one that's given to resolve it. It's very
straightforward this is going to be an improved lot, much bigger lot, much more conforming
to the R-40 zoning and as long as I now understand exactly what numbers we're looking at I
just do want to see what would so once they build now I gotta go to the survey that shows
the house
MEMBER LEHNERT : Yea this application is different in that they're not trying to create a lot
that they're just going to sell off they want to actually merge it to their existing lot to make it
more conforming.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The one thing I noticed when I was out there is that there is in the
north west corner of the lot a shed, I don't know if it's on the subject lot it looks like it is.
KAREN HOEG : On the vacant parcel?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not on the survey. It's on the grassy area over there up in the
top corner over there. Is that your shed? Okay so we need to get that make sure that the
setbacks are okay on that shed and it doesn't have a permit and it's not showing on the
survey in that corner.
MEMBER LEHNERT : The survey will show that it doesn't need it if it complies.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea but it should be on it that's all (inaudible) it's benign but it
should be there. Let's see now so now we're looking at when you build the house addition
you're proposing to remove that far the garage in the back and turn that into just a roofed
over patio?
KAREN HOEG : A roofed over patio for outdoor dining. The footprint is not changing, the walls
will just come down.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cause you're adding an attached garage on your addition so okay.
You got a 33.7 foot front yard setback which is basically the same as what you've got now on
your house.
KAREN HOEG :That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In fact most of the addition is going to be set back farther than
that, it will be conforming.
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
KAREN HOEG : Yes
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then the rear yard what is the other one?
KAREN HOEG : The rear yard is similar to it's in line with the existing house which was
probably built back in the sixties, seventies.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All of the addition is conforming on the rear yard.
KAREN HOEG : I believe it's 28.9
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's the existing house.
KAREN HOEG : Right so it's going to be in line with the existing house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's showing setback much farther from the rear yard than the
existing house. So I think what you're adding is other than for a 15.8 foot section of.the in the
front yard of the proposed addition
MEMBER LEHNERT : Oh I know what's happening, once they merge the lot the rear yard
becomes non-conforming.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's right. These are technical things. So the variances are not
substantial at all, I mean you're actually most of your additions are ,going to have pretty
conforming they will have conforming setbacks.
MEMBER LEHNERT : The variances are minor.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : At least we get it now. Thank you for walking us through it.
KAREN HOEG : A little complicated but yes as we said they designed the house it just needed a
little bit more space you know the existing house is under a thousand square feet, they're
adding an additional.maybe fifteen hundred between the garage a mudroom, an additional
bedroom as opposed to creating this as a separate lot adding density, putting a new house
there. This is just to make the house more functional. The house right now the laundry room
is in the basement;you have to go outside to get there this will actually help with the'flow of
the house.
MEMBER LEHNERT :This entire application is a big technicality.
KAREN HOEG : Correct, there's no hardship to the town it really is a benefit to clean up all of
these properties. There's no environmental impacts, there's no increased density
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's very little land disturbance either because basically it's all
treed it's open, it's flat (inaudible)foundation.
KAREN HOEG : Yes
MEMBER LEHNERT : Merging two instead of separating them and selling one off.
MEMBER DANTES : It's complicated gymnastics but it's really
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a complicated application with a good outcome let's put it that
way for everybody. Okay I think we all get it right? Okay, anybody on Zoom? Anybody in the
audience who wants to address the Board? Anything else from the Board. Okay I'm going to
make a motion to close both of these applications 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. Our next meeting will be in two weeks and it's very likely we
will. have a draft decision to vote on, on both of these at that time that will be the earliest we
can do it. If not it will be at our next meeting two weeks after that which will be in June but
that's it's likely that we can manage to get this written for you in two weeks. You get a copy in
the mail but you can also listen in, I mean it's on Zoom or you can come to the Annex we start
at 5 o'clock two weeks from today. Either way it's up to you but you will get a decision and
you can also call the office and ask what happened whatever works for you is fine. Motion to
recess for lunch.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
i
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to resume the hearings. Is there a second?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All if favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye
HEARING #7770—NICHOLAS ALIANO
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Nicholas Aliano #7770.
This is a request for variances from Article XXII Section 280-116A(1), Article XXIII Section 280-
124 and the Building Inspector's January 17, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an
application for a permit to construct a new single family dwelling at 1) located less than the
minimum code required 100 feet from the top' of the bluff, 2) located less than the code
required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet located at 3705 Duck Pond Rd. (adj. to Long
Island Sound) in Cutchogue. Let me enter into the record that Member Dantes has recused
himself from this application. Let me just quickly look at the specific variance request is for a
single family dwelling witha 59.5 foot bluff setback where the code requires a minimum of
100 feet and a front yard setback of 26 feet where the code requires a minimum of 40 feet.
CHARLES CUDDY : Good afternoon, Charles Cuddy I have an office at 445 Griffing Ave.
Riverhead, New York. I have with me today Mr. Aliano, Mr. Rubenstein who is the house
designer, I have Doug Adams who is a member or Young Associates also Charles Sultan who is
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
the builder. We're here to review what is essentially a residential building lot and what I'd like
to do is to give you some documents that may help us with the review. I have the certified
copy of the deed from 1972 when the Aliano's got the property. I also have copies of the map
which I think is important because you may want to look at the map as we discuss some of
the lots next to this lot.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Is that the tax map that you're referring to or the filed map,
subdivision map?
CHARLES CUDDY : We're here to review the application to have our house at 59.7, this is as
far as we can get from the top of the bluff we can't go any further. Also as the Chairperson
indicated we have a front yard setback of 26 feet. I don't think that that's significant because
the neighbor on lot 4 right next to us has 15 feet and just down the street four hundred feet
away is the Sack application and that person has a 25 foot setback. So I think the setback is in
accordance with what's previously been done in this neighborhood. We submit that with the
passage of time and also maybe with an examination of the earlier decision and your
subsequent decisions that there should be a different result than there was in 2006. Just for
your records and I'll hand it up in a minute, we have a D.E.C. letter or no jurisdiction which
was also true in the prior application and as you know the Town Trustees had agreed at that
point also to approve the application for building at this site. So I've given you the subdivision
map so that we can at least look at what some of the neighbors have as far as the bluff
setback. The neighbor on lot number one (inaudible) on lot number two had setbacks of 50
feet then 65 feet but the deck on lot number two is 53 feet back. I'll just give you copies of
those so you can at least have them.in the record.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Mr. Cuddy did they receive variance relief for those setbacks or
they were Pre C.O.'s?
CHARLES CUDDY : Those setbacks as we will show were in '79 and '77 before the '89
(inaudible). If I may I'll just give you these. The reason I give you those two are because those
setbacks have endured with the passage of time. They've had setbacks, they've had
bulkheading on each of the lots, they have foliage, vegetation and each of those lots are
relatively in good shape today. In 2015 this Board made a decision in the application of
Steven, David and(Stephana Sack, Sack I guess is a better way of saying it. When you did that
application they were 50 feet back from the top of the bluff and particularly important I think
it's what the Board did it said that you can do two things to make sure the bluff is stable. You
can at the toe of the bluff you can put bulkheading which is what our client proposes to do
and along the bluff you can have vegetation. So if you do both things, if you put something at
the bottom whether it's (inaudible) that is stone, whether you bulkhead you can protect the
May 4,2023 Regular Meeting
bottom and if you do vegetation you can protect the top. I think it's important in that decision
of course you gave them a house that's just 50 feet back versus further back than that but I'll
also give you that so you can have that in the,record. Again I think the Sack decision makes it
very clear that bluff stability is achieved by a bulkhead at the bottom and vegetation the rest
of the way and that's exactly what we propose. In fact what we propose to do more than that
because when you do construction we will have silt fences, we will do whatever is required to
ensure that the bluff remains stable. I want to talk a little bit about the earlier decision that
you made cause in that decision you talk about impervability as a problem and the
impervability that's talked about has to do with putting a structure but the structure that
we're putting there is less than three percent of the entire site. So I think when you look at it
closely three percent-structure on an entire site is not going to cause any real problem and I
think a little bit later Mr. Adams will not only confirm that but state that that's absolutely
true. I would also like to have you look at if you would at some of the decisions that you've
made about inconsistency with the LWRP, the Local Waterfront Plan. By the way I note that
we have gotten an inconsistent statement from the Local Waterfront but we object to that
statement for two reasons, one in itself it's actually incorrect. It's remarkable to me that the
Coordinator used Google to. determine where our.area was beyond a slope of twenty feet.
Secondly there was nothing in our application to the Zoning Board from the Building
Department that said this was also a problem. So somehow it either wasn't noted or it's not a
problem. In any event it's our intention to make sure that we have no problem with the
slopes to go the Storm Water Manager Officer who is an Engineer and tell us yes we do or no
we don't. So we're going to do that, I just haven't been able to make an appointment with
him but I will and very shortly. Getting to the next phase of,this I would like to talk to you
about some of the inconsistent LWRP situation. I have some additional cases for you and what
those cases are showing essentially is that when you have inconsistency you make them
consistent by mitigating. Mitigation is often the things we're talking about and that is to have
some vegetation on the bluff, to do something that prevents (inaudible) and things from
flowing when you have construction, to use light construction equipment. I have those
decisions and I'll give those to you also. The first decision is Benacourt decision which was in
2010, there's another decision Pant View which was in 2022 and the third decision Ben Ami
which was in 2023. In the first one it was consistent but to make it consistent you mitigate it.
In the next two you made them inconsistent to consistent by again requiring mitigation. So I'll
hand those up so you can have them as part of the record. So our position in front of this
Board indicates that by doing something to the bluff as opposed to doing nothing to preserve
the bluff. If you look at the bluff today, erosion has been very small in the last seventeen to
twenty years and I think that's been_noted previously but in our situation we're saying to you
that if you do nothing at all the bluff eventually will erode but if you do something what I
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
think your decisions tell us is that's how you preserve the bluff. So what we're proposing to
put a house not that far back compared to everybody else
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just making sure that we have everything.
CHARLES CUDDY : I would like Mr. Adams who is an Engineer and a Geologist both licensed
Geologist and licensed Engineer to speak. Before he speaks the reason I consulted Mr. Adams
and his firm Young Associates is I've been doing this forty years and which I guess makes me a
little bit older than I should be but in any event from my perspective Young Associates is
probably the most knowledgeable and the most experienced people to do subdivisions, site
plans, surveys on the Northfork and I think they've done more than anyone else in that
particular area. So I think they're particularly equipped to talk about a site like this and
whether it can built upon and how it can be built. So I'd like Mr. Adams to say a few words.
DOUG ADAMS Good afternoon Doug Adams, professional Engineer and Geologist with
Young Associates office at 400 Ostrander Ave. in Riverhead. I've only been doing this for
about thirty six years so I don't feel too bad Charles. Just a couple points I think Charles was
going to if he hasn't already submitted a constructability assessment that we did for the
property an engineering report, it's just a page and a half basically. Also an affidavit from my
partner regarding the Health Department issues that come along with the property and I'd
like to bring these up if that's okay. I'll just touch on a few things so you don't have to
necessarily read it at this particular moment. As far as the subdivision goes on this lot, this is a
bit unique in that it is on the bluff and also on the gulley of Duck Pond Rd. or that outwash
from the basically a glacial outwash gulley. All of the properties in this subdivision is very
stable with the exception of our lot and that's basically because it's the only one that's not
developed yet. Bluff protection on all the other lots has all but stopped erosion as far as we
can tell by only there's been very little erosion in the last you know couple of dozen years. So
it's working and if you just simply look at Google Earth or something like that you can see that
they're very well vegetated and again the only problem area is really at the bluff side of this
property. Again just touching on the few parts of the report, development will probably help
stability of the bluff in a lot of ways. One would be that Charles talked about impermeable
surfaces, someone had mentioned before we say impervious surfaces today and it would be
required that the house footprint and any other impermeable surfaces be just through your
storm water control plan that's required with a building permit application would require that
that water is handled somewhat to the limits of what a storm water pollution plan or
(inaudible) would require. So effectively that footprint of the impervious areas would be
taken out of the equation of what is currently contributing to any runoff that's heading
towards the gulley or the bluff face. So again that tributary (inaudible) basically being reduced
because we're going to handle that to put it right into the ground. I think Charles also talked
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
about this three percent coverage, that was basically to address that so the impervious
surface although it's three percent, any percent it doesn't really matter in, fact the more
percent probably the better in terms of how much water would be controlled rather than not
controlled. So at the end of the day you have more control of what (inaudible) factors could
contribute to the bluff or the gulley. The bluff face is only effected these days by headword
erosion that's basically what the definition of a bluff is anyway. So it's eaten away and the top
just keeps failing down and it keeps moving you know being eaten up basically by the Sound. I
just want to read the summary paragraph which is very small just in closing, I just want to say
based on our assessment we find no valid rational for not allowing a residential home to be
constructed on this property. If implemented correctly there will be no adverse impacts to the
surrounding properties but rather a benefit contributing to the stability of the land forms in
the immediate area. We further reiterate our recommendation that the bluff area I say that
cause I mentioned it earlier that any construction here would have to include a discernable
effort to stabilize the bluff face because that bluff will keep on moving landward without any
manmade structure at the bottom of it and stabilization of the bluff face itself. So we would
certainly recommend that appropriate stabilization take place in the development through
the relevant permitting agency processes. Our opinion is further based on the fact that the
stable portions of the subdivision are the direct result of the development of those other lots
utilizing the existing slopes to their advantage and minimizing the amount of disturbance
necessary to construct and improve the residential homes. One other point I'd like to make
about steep slopes is that if you look at any house that has a walk out basement or a walkout
level or different levels in the front or the back that slope going down the side of the house is
at about exactly twenty percent. When that twenty percent number is thrown around a lot
it's not necessarily a detriment in fact it's utilized a lot it's utilized on properties that aren't
flat to give them that appearance or to give them that feature where a twenty percent slope
might be generated. The best thing to do is to work with the slope put some retaining walls
using the foundation walls of the structure as retaining walls to minimize your reach away
from the structure and chase those grades away to make it something that it isn't which is not
flat it's sloped. Obviously I'm available for any direct questions that you might have.
CHARLES CUDDY : Just a little bit more if we may. Mr. Wolfert is an Engineer too who
submitted an affidavit (inaudible) that the septic system would drain down not out which is
very important and he's done that for many, many years probably has more applications to
the Health Department than other engineers. I'd like to offer to you one other thing, I have
some photos of the property that's just to the east of us that's the Electrical Contractor's site
and also as a at the end of it the house that's on the bluff it's been on the bluff for a long time
and I think that the significance of these photos show effectively that at this site you can
actually have a bluff with vegetation (inaudible) or stone at the bottom without any problem.
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
I'll hand up the Electrical Workers photo which shows that's right on the beach but is
protected by enormous rocks. These sites are immediate to the east of us and of course to
the west of us is all of the existing homes that are in the Vista Bluff map that you have. I think
at this point I also would like to say to you that in the event that this Board were to deny the
application then the applicant (inaudible) applicant would be deprived of the use of,his land.
That becomes very significant because today that land is very valuable. I have two appraisals I
had hoped that Andrew Stype from Mattituck would be here but he had an emergency so he
could not be here but he's available if the Board wants to talk to him. I have his appraisal and
I have an appraisal from Tom (inaudible) from Greenport so these are both Southold people
that are familiar with 'the site, they both came up with an appraisal a million four hundred
thousand and we don't have use of the land essentially we have zero as opposed to having a
viable lot. I'll give you those too, I have one of each. In closing I would like to say that I believe
under the circumstances here and based upon your decisions and based upon the passage of
time not only is this appropriate but it meets the standards up to sixty seven of the Town Law.
It doesn't produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood and many times you've noted
that where there are residences it's not a problem because it's a residential neighborhood so
adding one more residence even though Mr. Callas our next door neighbor would not like us
to have adding one residence does not affect the neighborhood. By the way I think it would
help the neighbors next door because it would lock in his bulkheading with our bulkheading, it
will protect that whole area. I also think that there's really no alternative we went as far back
as we can possibly go. As far as an environmental impact I think that we're positively doing
something to the environment as opposed to negatively. If you leave it alone I think the
answer is from Mr. Adams and others that neglect essentially will ruin this site. While it's
substantial it's not any more substantial than anybody else's bluff setback. (inaudible) Mr.
Sack is just four hundred feet down the street. This lot was created in 1972 but I think it's
before much of the other provisions that we're talking about. In any event I believe that we
meet the seven requirements and I would ask this Board to.approve the application.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your presentation. Should be get comments from
others before we speak, do you want to ask questions anybody?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have one question I'd like to ask the Engineer Mr. Adams I believe
was his name. The topographical survey that was provided with the application, who
determines where the bluff is, where there's a mark where it says top of bluff and it follows
the shoreline, who makes the determination of that location?
DOUG ADAMS : We have a field crew that's under the direction of our surveyor and they've
been doing this for a long time and basically we take the what's the obvious top of bluff which
4,31
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
is in the field it's usually obvious it's a graphic abrupt change in direction from what the upper
land area is before it starts its decent towards the beach.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : How do you reconcile that with a corner parcel such as this?
DOUG ADAMS : How do you reconcile it? I don't understand.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah I'm looking at the elevation, it's showing the top of the bluff at
approximately 62 feet and the 62 feet arcs and actually there's what would be the front of the
proposed house the covered patio but you're showing the delineation of the top of the bluff
as descending down to the roadway. I'm not understanding because there's a hollow a
natural grade where the old Santorini Hotel or Motel is which is now the Local Union 3 or
something to that effect but that's a whole like natural hollow and I'm not understanding like
the bluff sort of stops at the subject parcel and then heads to according to what I'm reading
here from the elevations it sort of heads south not east.
DOUG ADAMS : Okay so the top of bluff line shown on the map it descends down to the end
of Duck Pond Rd.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes
DOUG ADAMS : that's the top of bluff and it does it dissipates and goes away at Duck Pond
Rd. at the end of Duck Pond Rd. there is no bluff. The slope that you see along Duck Pond Rd.
is the result of a gulley not (inaudible) erosion from the Sound. So if you step back and look at
this topography from a higher altitude which I 'don't have in front of me, Duck Pond Rd. was
built down a ravine up from the southwest and came down to the beach in that location and
that road was probably put there because that ravine was there cause it was the easiest way
to get down.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But it's a natural ravine and I was calling it a hollow.
DOUG ADAMS : Right so.the top of bluff though is defines the limit the landward limit of the
bluff as it comes away from the Sound so it doesn't turn and continue to go up the ravine.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is sometimes referred to as a landward bluff, it's not on the
water but if the slopes are steep enough we see that at Captain Kidd's Estate and so on in
various neighborhoods where there's literally a very big sheer with substantial slopes that
sometimes referred to as landward bluff but it's substantially different than a sound bluff.
DOUG ADAMS : Because of the erosion for a ravine is different than the cause of erosion of a
bluff. A bluff is a result of headward erosion and eating away at the bottom from wave action
or from storm action. On a ravine it's basically just like a river. If you look at something like
441
May 4,2023 Regular Meeting
the Grand Canyon obviously those are very steep slopes but it's not a bluff it's a gulley or a
ravine there's a lot of different geological definitions for it. I don't happen to agree with a
what the other bluff that I know some people call it but it's certainly a steep slope but it's not
subject to the same type of erosion. In fact even on this lot there has been no erosion even
though it's never been developed like the other lots. Just because there's,been no erosion at
the toe there's
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Are you saying there's no erosion are you saying on the Sound side
or the roadside?
DOUG ADAMS : On the roadside. So that bluff line
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's exposed I mean I don't know how other Members on the Board
what they perceive but during site inspection you could see there was erosion.
DOUG ADAMS : On this bluff face on the ravine side?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Absolutely
DOUG ADAMS : On the ravine side?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : What you're calling the ravine side on Duck Pond Rd. I'm even
looking at a Google Earth aerial and you can see there's exposed sand much like you have on
the Sound side.
DOUG ADAMS : I'd like to see that photograph. I was there yesterday and I didn't see any it's
heavily vegetated. There may be some riveting from concentrating water coming out of that
area but it's not doing anything near what's happening on the bluff. The bluff is completely
exposed with no vegetation. In any event this is not considered a bluff this is considered a
gulley face and it's not you know the top of that if there was a top of ravine if you will that
came parallel to Duck Pond that hasn't moved whereas the bluff top of bluff does move.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea very clearly.
DOUG ADAMS : It clearly does certainly once you get east of the bulkheading that's on the
rest of the subdivision.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In order to build a structure on this property you obviously are
going at the flattest section that exists, I have two questions. Would it be necessary to use
railroad ties or other sort of terracing along that Duck Pond frontage?
DOUG ADAMS : I think to build a house.you wouldn't need to do anything, you could just have
that part of the foundation of the house exposed if the finished floor of the house for
451
May 4,2023 Regular Meeting
example is higher than what the grade is there. If you look at the rest of the houses on Duck
Pond Rd. all of them have you know some sort of terracing or.retaining walls and exposure of
their foundation walls to have multi-level you know drive in the basement or walk out of the
first floor on the other side every single one of them. That's just them using that topography
to their advantage in fact some. of the house still have as their front yards slopes well in
excess of twenty percent and their mowing so clearly a twenty percent slope can exist you
just need to work with it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What if any plans are there for the partial foundation that was
abandoned after a Stop Work Order and a denial was issued?
DOUG ADAMS : I think that maybe the part that where the house is going would obviously be
worked and removed but the part that heads seaward certainly we can leave that in place and
just cover it up.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) land disturbance that way.
DOUG ADAMS : It could be taken out safely as well I believe but it doesn't serve any purpose
if it's buried there except possibly help I suppose.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does anybody have any questions at this point?Anybody else?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : One more of Mr. Adams while he's still at the podium. So you had
said or Mr. Cuddy even had said that there are no other lots vacant lots, there's actually one
lot.
DOUG ADAMS : There is one lot there's two vacant lots total yea.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right the subject property and one on the other side to the west of
the existing neighbor.
DOUG ADAMS : Correct
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Again I didn't walk the beach that far I'm familiar with the beach
but I did not during our site inspection go forward but this from looking as we're speaking at
Google Earth you can see it's washed out at the intersection whoever the neighbor to the
west is right at their lot line to the vacant lot. So you can even see in the Google Earth imaging
that there is bulkeading it's substantially washed out.
DOUG ADAMS Yea I'm not sure what the situation is there in terms of whether the
maintenance of the bulkhead is being kept up or not. I believe that lot also has some activity
up'top and I'm not sure what it is that could be contributing to that.
May 4,2023 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The developed lot or the vacant lot?
DOUG ADAMS :The vacant lot.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So on the subdivision map number three is the one that's vacant
but the wash out is right between four and three visible on Google Earth.
DOUG ADAMS : I remember looking at aerial photography as well and noticing that there was
some activity at the top of that bluff right at the top of the bluff which could be contributing
to you know material erosion coming down that and either overtopping the bluff or again the
bluff might the bulkhead might not be being maintained at this current time properly. It could
have a hole in the bluff or something or a board broken. Sometimes in these Nor'easters you
have things like telephone poles or something floating out in the water and they get tossed
into a bluff and they can literally punch holes right in the sheathing so there could be a piece
of sheathing that (inaudible) material through it. I have not gone down to take a look at that.
In general if you look at that aerial photograph I'm sure you'll see that the top of bluff is
basically in the same location as the lots next door to it largely due to the fact that there's a
toe hardening structure along those lots.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This may be a question actually for Charles or the architect but this
is a three bedroom two story two and a half bath dwelling that's being proposed? I'm
wondering what the square footage is.
CHARLES CUDDY : (inaudible) 905 sq. ft. as the base so it would be an 1,800 sq. ft. house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay what is the status with Trustees approval have you applied to
them yet?
CHARLES CUDDY : We have not applied to them yet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But you know of course it's going to have to happen. Alright, I
don't have any further questions at this time, let me see if there's anyone in the audience
who wants to address the application. Anybody on Zoom Liz? Okay if there's no questions
from anyone else and anymore questions from the Board do you have anything else you want
to say?
CHARLES CUDDY : I think I said everything, I don't know if I gave up the D.E.C. letter and if I
didn't I'll get it (inaudible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :.Alright I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve
decision to a later date. Is there a second?
471
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries.
HEARING#7772—CHRIS CAUFIELD
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Chris Caufield #7772.
This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's
November 28, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish
(as per Town Code definition) and construct a single family dwelling 1) located less than the
code required minimum side yard setback of 20 feet located at 966 Youngs Rd. in Orient.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Good afternoon Board thank you for having me. Maybe just before I
start I do have (inaudible). So as mentioned this being considered a
demolition/reconstruction. The house is existing a 1910 home, it's on a right of way street off
of Youngs at the very end of the road so there really isn't a lot of neighbors around there.
There's one neighbor on the right property line so it's not on the property line that we're
asking the relief on.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's look at what that relief is, you're looking at the side yard
setback of 14.4 feet where the code requires a minimum of 20 feet.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's correct. On that side there's basically just a farm field no
residence. The code does call this a reconstruction but we're not necessarily demo'ing the
whole building we are going to be saving basically (inaudible) the footprint that's there and
the addition that we're adding that's creating the 14.4 foot is in line with the existing building.
The building is just angled a bit so the current setback is 15.6 and the new setback would be
14.4 with that extension that is in line with the existing building. If there's any questions I can
answer them.
481
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It really is not visible to any other properties, there's,just some
accessory structures that looks like agricultural property on the other side of the fence. The
rear yard is substantially wooded.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : The other setbacks were (inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's all predating zoning anyway.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Exactly and they really want to preserve that structure. The clients are
really into the historic aspect of the house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know we've all been out there to the property.
MEMBER ACAMPORA :There's some nice rocks on the property.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually this is very straightforward, very simple. You're looking at
creating a 262 sq.ft. addition for a second story?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN.:The house is now a two story anyway.
r
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yea it's like a one and a half but they want to fix the second floor so
that it's actually
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No more from me, anything from you Pat?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric, Nick? -
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Nothing
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the
application? Is there anybody on Zoom? 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
491
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye
HEARING#7773—REGINA CALCATERRA
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Regina Calcaterra
#7773. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXIII Section 280-
124 and the Building Inspector's November 29, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an
application for a permit to demolish and construct a new accessory garage and legalize an "as
built" deck addition to the single family dwelling at 1) accessory garage is located in other
than the code permitted rear yard, 2) deck addition is located less than the code required
minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet located at 7630 Main Bayview Rd. in Southold.
TODD CIARIAVINO : Hi my name is Todd Ciariavino I'm the co-owner. We're asking to remove
demolish the garage and slide it over to a 20 foot setback. Unfortunately this property has
three front yards. When we purchased the house we were told we could two separate lots we
had to merge it into one lot in order to get (inaudible) which created a greater setback and by
past variances that were issued on for the pool and the deck on two separate occasions the
Zoning Board has in the past that's the area between the house and Main Bayview functions
in reality as a front yard and the variance permitting construction of a pool in what is
technically another front yard is not substantial. We are asking we're not increasing the size
of the garage we're moving over, we are eliminating since the lots were merged we no longer
have 1045 Koke Rd. as an entranceway we would lose that by the merger. Our garage with
the door facing would be pointing towards our driveway.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It faces Main Bayview
TODD CIARIAVINO : Where our front door faces Main Bayview and with the Building
Department code is a 50 foot setback (inaudible) rear yard since there's a pool already there
now (inaudible) pre-existing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it functions as what we would call your architectural rear yard
no matter how they define it.
TODD CIARIAVINO : It's noted here in the second variance.
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The deck is about the same with the house.
TODD CIARIAVINO : Yes
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that's not an increase in setbacks. Let's see if the Board has any
questions, anything from you Pat?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No, no questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric
MEMBER DANTES : Not at this time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob
MEMBER LEHNERT : Nothing
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody on Zoom?Anyone in the audience who wishes to address
the application? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. I'll have a
decision for you in two weeks.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries.
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
HEARING#7778—DOMELUCA, LLC
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Domeluca, LLC #7778.
This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's
January 19, 2023 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 14909 Main Rd. (adj. to Dam Pond) in East Marion. State your name for the record
please.
STEVE AFFELT : Hi my name is Steven Affelt representing Domeluca, LLC, I'm the architect for
the project. Our proposed project is to reconstruct the existing swimming pool and build an
underground filter room vault, a side yard. The main residence on this lot,is up against the
100 foot setback from the bluff. The side yard is really the only affective spot to have a pool.
The pool has been previously approved by the Zoning Board for a smaller size. I think it was in
2017 don't quote me on that
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was February 27th well that was a de minimus. It was actually
July 24, 2014 for the variance and then you asked for a de minimus to just move it a little
more southerly which was granted.
STEVE AFFELT : This new one is a longer pool 25 meters or 82 feet a more,competitive I guess
swimming practice.
MEMBER DANTES : Wait the plan I have says 12 feet by 70 feet long.
STEVE AFFELT : That's the existing pool.
MEMBER DANTES : Oh okay so where's the
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's going to go to 12 feet by 82?
STEVE AFFELT : Correct further south.
MEMBER DANTES : Is there a way to get the pool equipment (inaudible) setback?
STEVE AFFELT : That pool equipment that you see there is going to be removed and relocated
between the pool and the house in an underground vault. So we're trying to correct that as
well as get our (inaudible). The underground vault obviously won't be seen but it'll still be on
the side yard. That's the generic abbreviated project. We already have our Trustees approval
for everything we've proposed and if you have any questions I'd be happy to answer them.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you're basically just keeping it in the same place and making
it longer and reconstructing. Will it still be elevated?
Z
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
STEVE AFFELT : The exact same elevation as it is now.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And changing the fencing, I'm presuming getting rid of all the
grass?
STEVE AFFELT : I'm not sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I had to put a hard hat on to get in, there by the way once we
finally got the code.
STEVE AFFELT : Yes I apologize for not sending the code the first time around, I hope that
everything worked out well.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, well it certainly needs a little bit of a face lift that's for sure. I
don't have any questions, Rob?
MEMBER LEHNERT : I don't have any questions. J
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just one, does the underground vault need any sort of permitting or
anything, is it considered an improvement? We've never had that I'm aware
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know.
STEVE AFFELT : Our initial Building Department denial also included the vault as part of the
denial also in the side yard so I assume that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was just for the location?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's what I was.thinking for the location cause I mean it's kind of
an improvement but it's not. I mean it is but
MEMBER DANTES : What other plans do you, guys have? Mine one that says zoning analysis
Gibbons Pools it looks like it says 70 feet on here, the survey I have says 70 feet so which is
the architectural plan that says the 82 feet? Is there a Sheet number on there or
STEVE AFFELT : Do you have the one that says PL101?
MEMBER DANTES : PL101 (inaudible). Yes I see it now.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The equipment is moving over.
MEMBER DANTES : Mine says 12 by 70, then 82 feet is this but it says 12 by 70. Inside of the
pool it says 12 by 70 in-ground pool and
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's existing.
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
STEVE AFFELT :' I am working off of the surveyors plan because to translate all that
information into a new CAD plan is actually (inaudible) so I just stuck with the original. So 12
by 70 is the existing pool and the 12 by 82 is notation ally on the side.
MEMBER DANTES : Yea if you can just give us aversion where you white out that 12 by 70. 1
mean you're an architect if you want to change it by hand.
STEVE AFFELT : It doesn't matter to me, I don't mind submitting another one for the record
before your Special Meeting.
MEMBER DANTES : In the other notation (inaudible)
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm sorry Mr. Affelt, you had said that your Notice of Disapproval
originally included the underground vault?
STEVE AFFELT : Yes
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : My Notice of Disapproval didn't illustrate that. What was the
change or why did the Building Department remove that?
MEMBER LEHNERT : We're working with one dated January 19tH
STEVE AFFELT : So am I yea. I'm sorry I thought it said
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It doesn't make mention of the underground vault but our.primary
concern when we look at pool equipment is sound deadening enclosures. I would think the
earth would be sound deadening.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's where I'm just wondering I've never seen a vault. I mean this
is larger than we've discussed an enclosure which we normally condition.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think it's an issue, I really don't. If we grant the side yard
location we previously granted this is way set back from the property line
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : This is between the pool and the house anyway.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : this is way set back from the property line to a conforming
distance. No I don't think the Building Department is going to have a problem with that at all.
Is there anything else from the Board? What about the fencing around the pool, the new pool
what are you going to put?
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
STEVE AFFELT : I believe we're going to be sticking with style that was there in the past, it was
an ornate chain link but it was more of an (inaudible) pattern not diamond pattern and it had
I think it was top rail bottom rail. It conformed to regular code.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I saw that I thought it looked like chicken wire with a top and
bottom rail
STEVE AFFELT : We won't be winding up with chicken wire.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay you're proposing more of a chain link alright. I thought that
made sense, why would you invest that kind of money in a new pool and put chicken wire
over there. Is there anybody in the audience who wants to address,the application? Is there-
anybody
hereanybody on Zoom? Why don't I just say we will close the hearing subject to receipt of an
amended length on the swimming pool proposed at 82 feet not 70. Is there a second on that
motion?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie are you saying an amended site plan or just an amendment to
(inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No just a correction to the dimensions on the plans we got which
call it out at the existing size rather than the proposed. It's better to stamp that when we
send it to the Building Department.
May 4,2023 Regular Meeting
HEARING#7779—THOMAS C. BAUER and JENIFER COURTNEY-BAUER
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Thomas C. Bauer and
Jenifer Courtney-Bauer #7779. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-
124 and the Building Inspector's December 28, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an
application for a permit to legalize an "as built" masonry patio attached to-an existing single
family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35
feet, 2) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 415 Goldin
Ave. in Southold. So this is already built, we've been out state your name for the record
please Mr. Lark.
RICHARD LARK : Richard Lark, Main Rd. Cutchogue, New York.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. So we're looking at a rear yard setback of 10 feet
where the code requires a minimum of 35 and lot coverage of 24.8% where the code permits
a maximum of 20%. This is for a 12.8 foot by 22.4 foot patio and it was built without a building
permit apparently.Tell us what you'd like us to know about.the application.
RICHARD LARK : I attached a Board of Appeals application in 1964 with a decision but the
decision is so brief you don't really know what happened until you see the application. The
denial of the Building Department and so on and so forth and it is relevant for you to consider
as to what happened here. As the Chairman stated this is a permission to have a rebuilt "as
built" patio to remain where it is. I think the application is really (inaudible) and so on and so
forth cause it's non-conforming lot. Simply put the applicant is requesting that the Board to
grant whatever necessary variances so the pool can remain in its present position.
MEMBER DANTES : How close to the patio is it to being an at grade patio?
MR. LARK : What's that?
MEMBER DANTES : How close is the patio to being at grade?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's actually at grade on the end of it.
MR. LARK : That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One step down is practically at grade.
MEMBER DANTES : What's the difference between this cause it looks like you can push a lawn
mower onto it.
MEMBER LEHNERT : No it steps up when you get by the road.
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
MR. LARK : Right, the front lawn was built up gradually and there was a reason for that. It's a
good question cause when I went to inspect it when I got involved in this matter what had
happened was is the applicant had told the contractor he wanted the deck for the patio to be
one step below the window the sliding glass door window that goes into the house. The
reason forthat is because the snow blowing coming off the Sound would have a little bit of a
buffer there. So that was the reason there's a step down there. Now what happened was he
has a disabled niece who spends a lot of time in the summer with him and it was difficult for
her to get the wheelchair there so they built up the front lawn from the road all the way out
down Soundview Ave. all the way up with a very gradual and replanted the whole lawn as you
see is pretty nice now and so that the wheelchair can have access to the deck and then really
into the house for that accommodation for the niece. So when I got involved with it after the
Building Inspector decided that he wasn't going to grant a building permit without a variance
when I went and looked at it cause I was puzzled as the contractor was. The contractor still
maintains that he built patios like this before and has never had to have a permit cause it's
ground level. It's really not ground level because the code got changed where if you put steps
on it on a house on either side he did this for (inaudible) to get to it rather than have a steep
grade water runoff. He did a good job and to answer your question Eric, it was slightly above I
say it's probably elevated about six inches, seven inches from what it was so it wasn't at the
natural grade level that was there before okay it was built up a little bit.Then he put the steps
in to make the facility so you didn't have to climb up a short hill. But anyway, the owner was
totally unaware of this because as you can see from the application in the file there this is a
substandard non-conforming lot drawn by the Board of Appeals never mind what the filed
map in 1932 filed map said. In '64 they redesigned the whole thing because what had
happened by background, it was a summer cottage community back in the thirties and people
only stayed there during the summertime not in the winter there was nothing there just
cottages. So what had happened.the one owner this guy named Avita ended up owning these
three lots and these cottages were built with no consideration where the lot lines were. He
went to sell it and of course the red light went on cause he had title insurance and then all of
sudden he realized that like on this lot where you came out of the Bilco door and you were
stepping on the neighbor's property it was right on the line. That was just one problem and
they wanted to put a garage on this property it was proposed and so the Board of Appeals
said go ahead change the lot lines, make it conform and it's odd because the Board actually
granted him to change the filed map real property lines not zoning lines, real property lines
and when I looked at it I said this can't be. So then I went back and it happened and they did
the deeds accordingly. They didn't abandoned the filed map or anything like you're supposed
to do.The title search companies went along and it's has been that way since '64 with various
conveyances back and forth. This applicant (inaudible) father you have that they got a C.O. for
the garage in the back and everything else but the interesting thing is in that hand up that I
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
just gave you which was the application for the Board of Appeals it showed what was really
happening at the time and they talked about area and side yards and the Building Inspector
and the Board of Appeals then determined that if you did it this way it would conform to the
zoning never mind you (inaudible) which I haven't gotten over. Actually they were talking
about side yards so from the rear of the house which I call the rear of the house if you would
because we now have the zoning is more sophisticated around the corner so we have two
front yards so we got that dilemma. So they had decided that the Soundview Ave. was going
to be the front yard and that was pretty clear (inaudible) how they do it and they created that
side yard to 10 feet and they had to move the property line to accommodate it and it became
the side yard. The Building Inspector when I was confronted how do you want to handle this
thing cause it was clear that we were over 4% with the lot coverage because I determined by
definition it did require a building permit so there was no argument there. He said well I'm
just going to designate it the rear yard but I said how do you explain all of this and he said I
see your argument explain it to the Board of Appeals let them make the decision I think it's a
rear yard. I said well then where's the front yard? He said yea that's a good question isn't it?
So I said I'll apply you're going to deny it, I'll apply for it and we'll just see what happens with
it because I said it's really a total mess and really needs to be kind of straightened out you
know what I mean. In the contractors favor he did keep it 10 feet from what he determined
also with the survey was the side yard okay, I give him credit for that but he did not do his
research and he should have gotten the building permit and I think we probably could have
resolved a lot of the problems at that time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He probably would have sent you to us anyway.
MR. LARK : That could very well be because the Building Inspector says well I'm making it the
rear yard. I said I thought when we had two front yards the owner can decide which is my
front and which is my secondary front yard. So anyway that's what happened on that so I
wanted to give you a little bit of the background.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I commend you for being able to figure it out.
MR. LARK : When I finally went and got all of the records and I can say they're not complete
surveys but that's what's in the actual file. I just took it well that's what they had so I'll go
with what it is at least explain it and Mr. Bauer his father who owned it before him they kind
of verified that's what it was he said yea I know it's probably my back yard but it's really the
side yard.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the principle street is Soundview then yes it's a side yard, if
their house is facing Goldin so you know typically a rear yard is the opposite of your front
May 4. 2023 Regular Meeting
door and what complicates it even .more is you've got a little L-shaped lot here with this sort
of tail here in the back where the
MR. LARK : Which was all created by the Board of Appeals and the reason they did that was
that the original filed map on the southerly portion ran through the neighbors garage on the
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see
MR. LARK : So they moved the line north in other words and said okay. Now it'll have a proper
exposure with the side yards and rear yards. ,Okay so that gives you a bit of the torturous
history here. I recognize in order for the Board to consider whether or not to allow the patio
to remain it must consider the statutory factors or criteria but basically the bottom line is that
when you look at this patio whether you walk as a pedestrian or you drive by with the car it
does not cause any detriment to. the health, safety or welfare of the neighborhood and
therefore this is a mixed neighborhood of secondary homes and well with the pandemic it's
more permanent homes there now I've noticed. I don't think that it interferes with the health
and safety of the neighborhood in any way shape or form. That leads right into the first
criteria to whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood by allowing this patio as built to remain. To evaluate this you have to evaluate
the neighborhood and analyze it and originally like I said it was created in the 1930's and then
it basically stayed that way right through probably WWII and then the summer homes
became more year round type homes as opposed to cottages because of the beach area there
on the Sound and so and so forth. Today it's a mix both full time and part time residences
there. When you take everything into consideration I think this "as built" patio will have a
zero effect in the neighborhood or the community and whether you're walking or driving like I
say but it is a great benefit because not only was it well built if you stand on it or sit on it you
have on a chair you have a marvelous view of the Sound and it does serve a functional
purpose for this family when the niece comes which makes an easy access rather than try to
have to schlep up the wheelchair up the steps you only have one to do. Now the next criteria
that you have to consider were the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some
other method in a word no, variance is the only answer.so unfortunately due to the unique as
you pointed out in the configuration of the lot and .under the current zoning on it it's
substandard in size and put it another way submitted extremely difficult to make any exterior
development on this or improvement or otherwise on this property without obtaining a
variance. The owner basically knew that and didn't understand his contractor saying no you
don't need one this is just a patio but we now know differently and he suspected as such in
the beginning he told me. Now whether the next one is the key one whether the area
variance is substantial, this is an interesting requirement because to review this requirement
of substantiality required in my opinion to view not only this patio but in the context of this
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
residential neighborhood to.determine whether or not to remain is a substantial to determine
whether it would be adversely affect the neighborhood by letting it remain especially
residential character of this neighborhood. There is no evidence to suggest the patio has any
adverse effect on the neighborhood. As for the lot coverage the 287 sq. ft. patio does cause it
to exceed the 20% at 4.8% which mathematically is not a substantial actual deviation. The
rear yard side yard problem if it's deemed a side yard then there is no variation or the request
for a variance it's a side yard and it does comply with the 10 feet which is the current
standard on one side and on the other side it would be the side yard which is the subsequent
front yard, I know it's a mess when you look at it from a zoning perspective. But if you do
deem it a rear yard then it does exceed cause it's only 10 feet as opposed to the 35 foot
requirement which is basically a 71% deviation. But if you consider it in the sense of not
mathematically only but substantiality by designate it the rear yard mathematically yes but
from a zoning perspective (inaudible) into the neighborhood surrounding properties in other
words the totality of the surrounding circumstances there and with no evidence or claim that
substantially has any impact on the community than it is not substantial. The next criteria is
more or less repetitive whether or not the proposed variance would have an adverse effect or
a physical impact, environmental or otherwise on the neighborhood by allowing it. I'm not
aware of any claim or evidence that this patio which has been up there for about a year now
or so and where it's located has any negative impact environmentally or physically concerning
this neighborhood. The last one that you have to consider is the self-created, yes. The
applicant owns the property and is responsible for his contractors mistake and that's why
we're here with a permission so that we can apply for a building permit and a C.O. As far as
the construction is concerned I did talk to the Building Department and they said yea once
you get by the Board of Appeals I put the construction of it the engineers certified everything,
went back (inaudible) what the contractor did and he said there's no problem that way he
said that was done all according to (inaudible). The mistake of the contractor is not reason to
deny the application for that reason alone and if it's allowed to remain in its present position
then the real test is whether the strict application of the zoning ordinance which would be to
remove and modify this patio will outweigh the damage to the applicant with the cost and
everything else. So in summary on behalf of the applicant Thomas and Jenifer Bauer we're
requesting the Board grant them this variance to allow for this patio to remain so we can
apply for the building permit and then C.O. everything legalized.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the only house that would have anything to do with anything
like that with this patio is actually set the one that's adjacent to it facing Soundview, that's set
way, way in front of where this patio is, they're much, much closer to the road. There's also a
picket fence up in place along what we could call either the rear property line or the side
property line you share a property line so you don't even see it from Soundview and you
0
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
know it's attractive it's functional and I don't really see any particular adverse impacts with it
to stay the way it is. I mean you can't move other than demolishing the existing (inaudible) or
demolishing the deck there's no way to change the lot coverage. The house is there, it's nicely
done it's been upgraded so that's the way it is. Pat do you have any questions or
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric, Nick, Rob?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Do you have any idea when it was built the patio?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Like a year or so.
MR. LARK : A year and half within the last two years for sure yea. I was thinking because when
we applied for the permits and everything there's been delay so I would say within two years.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And there's no plans of adding an awning or pergola or
MR. LARK : No, no, the way it is now the owner is very happy with it, it's so clean. Don't
forget that suffers tremendous winds. He's not there all the time so he likes it the way it is
nice and clean.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's probably a good idea to elevate it slightly you know below
the patio doors because you do get a lot of(inaudible)
MR. LARK : (Inaudible) to do it within the rules and regulations of the town put it one step
below so we can wheel the wheelchair in the sliding glass door window but otherwise the
snow would just bunch up all the time, it won't get a chance to blow away.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright I have nothing further, anybody on Zoom? Motion to close
the hearing reserve decision to a later date.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye
May 4,2023 Regular Meeting
HEARING#7786—LIANE SCADUTO
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The last application for this afternoon is for Liane Scaduto #7786.
This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's
January 31, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a
wood deck attached to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code
required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet located at 7845 Skunk Lane in Cutchogue.
DOUG MCGAHAN : Good afternoon, I'm Douglas McGahan I'm the agent and contractor for
Ms. Scaduto.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know we've all been out thereto see it, we're looking at a side
yard.an attached deck on a single family dwelling with a side yard setback at 9 feet where the
code requires 15 feet minimum. We have a letter of support from a neighbor in our record
here. We have a letter of concern from another neighbor who says that the site plan itself is
incorrect, it's based on a 1975 survey. Did you get a copy of that?
DOUG MCGAHAN :.I have that somewhat defamatory letter.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you want to make a comment about that?
DOUG MCGAHAN : Yes, I'm not certain how they can be sure that it is our site plan that's
incorrect if it is incorrect as opposed to their survey that is incorrect. I know that they don't
make them like they used to and it's been quite a few years since this was done. Nothing has
been brought up prior to this as far as accuracy. I don't know why even a property line issue
would be a point because I set the deck back two feet from the existing structure which is too
close to the property line just to avoid any instance like this and also to provide a place to
possibly plant arborvitaes as a screening to the neighbors. This deck is actually going to
enhance the looks of their house and I know the neighbors have also mentioned that their
house needs improvement, can you please improve it your (inaudible) the value of our
property. That's exactly what we're doing we're improving.
MEMBER DANTES : Regardless I mean still it matches what's existing so if it's the wrong
number I mean you're not changing the location.
DOUG MCGAHAN : No we're not moving the house.
MEMBER LEHNERT : It's based off the existing house.
MEMBER DANTES : Exactly
z
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : My question is, how do you access this deck? There's no steps
drawn in and it's right up against a masonry wall.
DOUG MCGAHAN : We're going to (inaudible) that abandoned masonry steps which is going
to enhance the appearance of the house. We're not going to make it accessible from the yard
because it's off of her bedroom which she does not want access from the yard. We're going to
replace the window that's there with a single door so she can just go out in the morning and
have her coffee and relax on her deck in her own privacy.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so the window is the one that's closest to the down spout
that's the
DOUG MCGAHAN : The only window on that space of the house
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well there's two, there's a little one and (inaudible)
DOUG MCGAHAN : It would be the larger window.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that's going to become a door. That makes a lot more sense
cause that's not drawn on anything so I was like how the heck are they going to get to that
thing.
DOUG MCGAHAN : I didn't figure that was a point for the variance but that will be (inaudible)
MEMBER ACAMPORA : That was basically an outdoor deck for a bedroom.
DOUG MCGAHAN : Right
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so you need a variance for this setback and then you will
have to get a building permit for both the deck and the window replacement for a door.
DOUG MCGAHAN : Right
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, so there will be an access in and out just strictly from the
bedroom.
DOUG MCGAHAN : Correct
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You need a railing on that deck?
DOUG MCGAHAN : We will need a railing on the deck.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You will have to have one.
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
DOUG MCGAHAN : It's going to mimic the deck on the other side of the house the same style
deck, same railing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's the other question, why do you need another deck when
they're disconnected but I guess it's for
DOUG MCGAHAN : She wants to have her own private area, she's going to have her very
senior father living there and she wants to have her own place to have a bit of privacy.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There's not a lot coverage issue so
DOUG MCGAHAN : No
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I don't have any more questions, anything from you Pat?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Nope
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric
MEMBER DANTES : No
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well now the mystery is solved, we now understand how it's going
to function. Anybody on Zoom? No hands and there's nobody in the audience so I'm going to
make a motion to close the hearing reserved decision to a later date. Is there a second?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. We'll have a decision in two weeks.
Motion to actually to recess to the 5 o'clock hearing.
MEMBER DANTES : Second
641
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye
May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting
CERTIFICATION
I Elizabeth Sakarellos, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape recorded
Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription
equipment and is a true and accurate record of Hearings.
Signature • 9�td6eik
Elizabeth Sakarellos
DATE : May 15, 2023