HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-07/06/2023 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
July 6, 2023
10:16 A.M.
Board Members Present:
LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson
PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member
ERIC DANTES— Member
ROBERT LEHNERT— Member
NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO— Member (Vice Chair)
JULIE MCGIVNEY—Assistant Town Attorney
BENJAMIN JOHNSON —Assistant Town Attorney
KIM FUENTES—Board Assistant
ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Senior Office Assistant
DONNA WESTERMANN —Office Assistant
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
INDEX OF HEARINGS
Hearing Page
Veronica Gonzalez#7767 3 - 5
Nancy Burke#792SE 5 -9
Kenneth and Elizabeth McCulloch #7799 9 - 20
Patrick Carey#7794 20- 22
220 Navy St. Trust, Colin Cowley#7796 22 - 26
Matthew and Jill Perry#7798 26- 30
Katie and Jonathan Vigdorchik#7802 30- 32
1280 Corey Creek, LLC#7774 32 - 34
RQA Properties, LLC#7800 35 - 51
Constance Levy#7801 51 -53
James Burleigh Morton and Carol Degraff Morton
(Morton JB Living Trust)#7803 54-55
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning everyone and welcome to the Meeting of the
Zoning Board of Appeals for July 6, 2023. Please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Let us begin with the State Environmental Quality Reviews, Resolution declaring applications
that are setback/dimensional/lot waiver/accessory apartment/bed and breakfast requests as
Type II Actions and are not subject to environmental review pursuant to State Environmental
Quality Review (SEAR) 6 NYCRR Part 617.5c including the following: Veronica Gonzalez, Nancy
Burke, Kenneth and Elizabeth McCulloch, Patrick Carey, 220 Navy St. Trust, Matthew and Jill
Perry, Katie and Jonathan Vigdorchik, 1280 Corey Creek, RQA Properties, LLC, Constance Levy
and James Burleigh Morton and Carol DeGraff Morton so moved.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER.PLANAMENTO : Aye,
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye
r
I I
HEARING#7767—VERONICA GONZALEZ
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for Veronica Gonzalez
#7767. This was adjourned from April 6, 2023. This is a request for a variance from Article III
Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's January 20, 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 at 285 Oyster Ponds Land in Orient. Is there
someone here to represent the application? Please come to the mic and state your name
please.
BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : Bilal Altintoprak from Long Island Pool Care.
S
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is a proposed swimming pool partially in a side yard, has a
14 foot conforming setback. What would you like us to know about your application?
BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : Homeowner wants to put a pool in so we put the application to the
Building Department they disapproval and I have to come to the Zoning Board.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well usually there are standards, there are a whole series of
standards that you are required to fill out in your application. We have that application but
there are no reasons particularly, you need to address character of the neighborhood;
environmental impacts, substantiality of the variance which in this case is one hundred
percent and a number of other things. So none of that is really addressed here. We
understand that at the moment the applicant is in Justice Court, there are violations for
additions without a building permit on the house and there's a Stop Work Order in place. Are
you aware of that?
BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : No I don't know anything about it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me see if is there anyone on Zoom who wants to address
this application Liz? I don't see anyone. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address
the application? The Board of Appeals is going to adjourn this without a date because we do
not seek when you seek approvals you should not have violations on the property. So once
those violations are cured then you have every right to come back here, we probably don't
even need to have another hearing we'll see at the time how long it is from now. In fairness
to the public we need to make sure they have an opportunity to speak. No one is here at the
moment, so we'll just adjourn it until such time as your client takes care of the violations on
the property and then we can proceed with a decision. Is there a second on that
adjournment?
MEMBER DANTES : Should we talk about this guy while we're here?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well standards are right in the application I mean I mentioned a
couple of them.
MEMBER DANTES : Is there a code conforming location to place the swimming pool on the
property?
BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : There is no other location on the property that we can put the
swimming pool.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from the Board at this point?
July 6,2023 Regular Meeting
MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah it's not showing any drywells, pool equipment that needs to be you
know in a conforming location. We need the drywell for the overflow shown and where your
equipment the pumps the heaters are going.
BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : I will have to check that draw it up and just submit the paperwork back
to you guys.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well I think the thing to do is to talk to your client, talk to Ms.
Gonzalez and let her know what happened here today and if she wants her pool we'll
certainly entertain it but we certainly need to make sure the violations on the property are
cured before we can do that.
BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : Okay
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to adjourn without a date, is there a second?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second
CHAIRPERS WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye
HEARING#77925E—NANCY BURKE
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Nancy Burke #7792SE.
Applicant requests a Special Exception under Article III Section 280-13B(13). The-applicant is
owner of subject property requesting authorization to establish an accessory apartment in an
existing accessory structure located at 625 Woods Lane in Peconic.
JOAN CHAMBERS : Good morning, my name is Joan Chambers I live in Southold. Almost a year
ago we were here discussing this building and I just want to cover a little bit of that. This
accessory structure was issued a building permit on November 7, 2018 and that permit was
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
based on plans drafted and certified by James DeLuca. Those plans included notes on the
interior finishes of the structure including radiant heat under tiled floors, board and batten
wall finish, cathedral ceiling finished with painted cedar as well as trim, high quality doors and
windows. All inspections for that permit were performed as required by the Town of Southold
Building Inspector. When the decision was made to add a toilet and sink an application was
made to Suffolk County Board of Health and a permit for a septic system was issued
September 22, 2021. The addition of the powder room was added to the plans and the
additional plumbing was inspected and approved by the Town of Southold Building Inspector.
The conversion of the parking area to a storage area was not noted as problematic when it
was duly inspected and approved by the Building Inspector on December 6, 2018. Prior to the
application for the C.O. the COVID lockdown commenced. Nancy Burke is a front line medical
worker and her duties were extraordinary, her family like many others gathered to support
her and to take care of each other and the accessory building was temporarily used as
overflow space. When the lockdown was lifted the application for the C.O. was denied and
the reason given was degree of finish as well as the use as part of the structure as recreation
space. The Building Department advised us to apply to the Zoning Board for a decision to
permit the recreational use and therefore allow them to issue the C.O. the public hearing for
that application was July 7, 2022 and the Board Members denied the application on July 26,
2023. Since that time Nancy Burke became a full time resident and Tim Burke has retired to
join her so we return to the Zoning Board with a request for a Special Exception Permit for an
accessory apartment in the existing accessory building. The Burke's have made plans to add a
small kitchenette and an indoor shower in order to meet the criteria of an apartment and
they have made a lease agreement with their adult son. There are absolutely no plans for the
space to be rented to anyone outside of the immediate family or to make the space part of
permanent year round living space for family members. Many of the houses on Woods Lane
were built prior to 1960 and most could be described then and now as seasonal family
residences. Further research shows that almost all of them have expanded the family living
space by some means whether by addition or 'conversion of existing structures to habitable
space. The Burke's do not intend to use their property in any way that would be significantly
different than the neighboring properties meaning that the accessory structure will not be
rented and wilFbe for the occasional and seasonal use by immediate family. The only other
thing I'd like to address briefly is the findings from the LWRP, in reference to the findings of
the LWRP dated June 22, 2023 1 have to question their decision to declare this project
inconsistent because the "as built" structures and this is their quote, "the as built structures
were constructed without the required approvals or permits". This structure was issued a
building permit prior to any construction and all required inspections were done. So I'd like to
submit this
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure give it to Kim and she'll make copies for us please. Let's see if
the Board has any questions Joan, we'll start with you Pat.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No.we've been down this road.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric
MEMBER DANTES : I have no questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any questions Nick?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Joan I just wanted to ask a sort of one is partially a statement, the
living space has like a balcony access from the unfinished attic there's a pull down stair this is
for storage correct?
JOAN CHAMBERS : Strictly storage that's right.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Then the otherquestion or statement I wanted to make is relative
to where you're placing the shower or the shower pan, during my site inspection the sort of
trap door was open allowing access and I didn't go down to the crawl space, are you
relocating that or I'm just
JOAN CHAMBERS : Yeah that will have to relocated. You know there's an outdoor shower
which the family would prefer to keep using but in order to meet the criteria for an accessory
apartment we're going to have to add a shower and a kitchenette. It's unlikely that there's
ever going to be cooking going on there. So that's the best space that we could come up with
to put an interior shower in the least obtrusive. It stops us from having to sort of tear up the
existing bathroom and the tile floor and the sink and the toilet just by adding that shower in
behind there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well one thing that probably will clean that whole problem up
would be the door that you now have which is the entrance into the outside shower
JOAN CHAMBERS : From the shower in yes
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : that should be a solid wall. The outside shower should only be
used outside.There are no provisions in the code for interior access.
JOAN CHAMBERS : Okay
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that needs to be a solid wall. You can put the shower where
you're proposing without a problem but that should be closed up.
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
JOAN CHAMBERS : So we should not have that exterior door there that opens into that little
hallway outside the bathroom.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes
l
JOAN CHAMBERS : Okay
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I can show you on the plan if you know what
JOAN CHAMBERS : I understand.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's supposed to be purely exterior.
JOAN CHAMBERS : Purely exterior okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Otherwise the Building Department is going to get you on it.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO Also I just want to mention the Building Department did do a
calculation of the floor area and it's less than 450 sq. ft.
JOAN CHAMBERS : Good thank you we were close but we were under.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I believe there was a copy of a lease provided for Tim.
JOAN CHAMBERS : Yes
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just enter into the record a couple of more facts. As
required by the standards of the Special Exception Permit.we have in our record a voter
registration card from the applicant, an oil bill, a lease to Andrew Burke for one year, driver's
license, a gas bill, tax payment and so on showing full time residency. There are also three
parking spaces on site also on the survey as required, two for the principle residence and one
for the accessory. Anything else Board that,we need to enter into the record? Is there anyone
on Zoom Liz?Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think Leslie the only other thing is to mention there was an
overwhelming amount of support for the application.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes oh please come to the podium and state your name.
SHARI NERREAU : My name is Shari Nerreau and we live at 705 Woods Lane so we are looking 1
at the water to the right, we're the most we're the closest property to the Burkes and we
support their application there's no reason that we feel that it should be denied. The Burkes
have been lovely neighbors, the activity there is their four sons and their daughter-in-laws
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
and we just never had any reason to think that this shouldn't be something that they should
be able to do.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your comments. I will enter into the record that we
have in our file nine letters of support from various neighbors on this property. Anything else
from anybody? Ready to close? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is
there a second?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, we'll have a decision in two weeks at our next meeting.
HEARING#7799—KENNETH and ELIZABETH MCCULLOCH
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Kenneth and Elizabeth
McCulloch #7799. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXIII
Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's February 17, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based
on an application for a permit to demolish (as per Town Code Definition) an existing dwelling
and reconstruct a single family dwelling and construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool
at 1) pool located in other than,the code required rear yard, 2) construction located less than
the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet located at 1605 Parish Drive (adj. to
Southold Bay) in Southold. Good morning Rob. So this is demo per Town Code it is not a
complete demolish and it's a reconstruction with a front yard setback at 35.8 feet where the
code requires 40 feet on this size property. The proposed pool in a side yard where the code
requires a rear yard location. LWRP consistent because the pool is further seaward than the
existing dwelling and it's a salt water pool.
ROB HERRMANN : That's all correct. Good morning, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on
behalf of the applicants.Kenneth and Elizabeth McCulloch who are both here with their
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
newest family member and also Michael (inaudible) the project architect is here. As Leslie just
summarized we're here before the Board this morning asking for two separate and I guess
physically unrelated variances. One is for the newly propose pool in the side yard and the
other is for maintaining a previously permitted but now non-conforming front yard setback.
I'll go through both as quickly as I can. I would like to address the pool variance first. With
respect to the character of the community we looked at North Parish Drive and the two
immediate surrounding roads that are similarly developed with waterfront homes fronting
Southold Bay with Kimberly Lane to the west the northwest and Harbor Lights Drive to the
east. Aerial photography shows that pools are a common and customary accessory along this
stretch of Southold Bayfront as thirteen at least thirteen of the twenty eight homes based on
aerial photographs are just about half the homes in this surrounding area have pools seven of
which are more than half of those which were constructed pursuant to variance relief case
numbers which are referenced in our application. As also described in our application there
are pools in the neighborhood located in a side yard specifically including one constructed on
Kimberly Lane pursuant to variance relief granted by Case 3814. Interestingly there are none
along North Parish Drive itself because all of the other Bayfront parcels are only 100 feet wide
which makes locating a pool on the side yard an'unlikely to impossible prospect especially one
that would comply with the minimum side yard setback. The applicant's parcel however
because it is 155 feet wide creates a unique opportunity for a pool to be placed to the side of
the house and here at a conforming 15 foot side yard setback where a minimum of 10 feet
would be required. For these reasons variance relief that would allow the pool to be sited on
the property could be granted without changing or adversely impacting the character of the
neighborhood and also without harm to the adjacent neighbor to the west who would be the
most closely impacted neighbor. They also have a pool which is actually located on the
waterside of their house so closer to the bank than the house because A. as I just mentioned
we have a 15 foot conforming side yard setback and as you may have seen if you visited the
property or with the photographs submitted with the application there is dense evergreen
vegetation that provides heavy screening along the shared property line with the westerly
neighbor. For these same reasons the requested relief while the Board would typically
consider it mathematically substantial because you're either in or out of the side yard is not
substantial in fact and it represents the most desirable and only real practical alternative here
for several reasons. Given the depth of the lot the presence of the bay, bank and wetlands to
the north and the location of the existing home which while being as Leslie mentioned
renovated and partially reconstructed is not moving or expanding closer to the bay or the
road. So the renovations are not impacting the location of the pool at all even if no work was
being done to the house the only place or the property that the pool could be physically
located and not require a substantial side yard or front yard setback variance is on the west
side of the property where it is proposed. Now of course the pool could be constructed
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
exactly where it's proposed in the side yard without a side yard variance by surrounding it
with a raised deck or patio but that design would create the need for lot coverage relief and
create a potentially more visible and substantial renovation from the perspective of the
surrounding neighbors. I'll come back to the physical impacts which I'll speak about together
with the larger renovation for the home but I want to address the same variance standards
relative to the front yard setback variance first. We need 4.2 feet of front yard setback relief
to maintain the existing 35.8 foot setback which as Leslie pointed out 40 feet is required and
that's to the existing attached garage portion of the house. (stepped away from the
microphone-inaudible) All the renovation and reconstruction of the existing foundation is
occurring here, this portion of the structure which is located in a non-conforming setback on
the front lot line remains. So the variance here is it's a little bit technical in nature and a little
bit unusual for a few reasons. First as you can see on the map that 29 foot fagade of the
attached garage which is about 676 sq. ft. is the only portion of the house that does not meet
the front yard setback. With the exception of the addition of a faux roof on top of the garage
which is designed to match the architecture of the portion of the house that's closest to the
water being renovated there is no actual construction or renovations being undertaken on
the attached garage. Now the reason for that is because the garage which was constructed as
part of the original house that was built pursuant to a building permit in 1965 was actually
renovated and expanded in the same footprint the same distance from the road without
variance relief pursuant to a second building permit in 1996. Now the original permit was
issued without variance because in 1965 thirty five feet was the required front yard setback.
The second permit was issued without variance relief even though the setback by that time
had increased to 40 feet you know what I'm going to say next because that was prior to the
Walz decision at which time you could expand upward over a non-conforming setback as long
as there was no additional encroachment. So basically you got a more recently renovated and
expanded part of a garage that was originally built pursuant to a town permit in 1965 and
expanded into its current shape and form in 1996. So that part of the house remains, that's
the part of the house that is creating the need for relief. There's no demolition there's no
reconstruction, no expansion of the attached garage whatsoever and all of the work all of that
type of work that is occurring is occurring almost sixty feet from the lot line and you can see
that's the yellow highlighted area on the site plan. That's the roughly 1,800 sq. ft. portion of
the house located closer to the bay, that portion of the house is being reconstructed over the
existing foundation which is to remain. There are some small additions you can see most
significantly the screened porch addition on the west side of the house and because of all of
that the Building Department considers the work to be a demolition as per Town Code and
essentially treats the renovated dwelling as if it was a completely new house. So in effect
they're treating the front yard setback as if it's new even though it's been in place for almost
sixty years pursuant to two prior building permits. As described in the application, the
July 6,2023 Regular Meeting
adjacent home to the west has a slightly less but nearly identical front yard setback because it
received a variance pursuant to Case 1309 all the way back in 1970 for a 34.8 setback when
35 feet was still required. In fact that decision references the McCulloch's home's setback and
that of others along North Parish Drive as.being similar at that time. Just paraphrasing in our
application we stated therefore given the relatively modest changes to the portion of the
existing dwelling that is being reconstructed a front yard setback that is nearly identical to the
westerly neighbors the fact that there will be no demolition or reconstruction in fact or town
defined of the legally permitted attached garage that faces North Parish Drive and thus no
change to the existing front yard setback we argue there is no change to the character of the
neighborhood or adverse impacts to surrounding properties and neighbors caused by
maintaining the existing front yard setback. Since the previously permitted garage is not being
demo'ed or moved and the rest of the dwelling is being reconstructed over its existing
foundation this relief is essentially unavoidable and the 4.2 feet of relief is insubstantial both
mathematically and in fact representing about ten percent relief. Finally with respect to the
potential physical or environmental impacts of the granting of both variances our application
provides a pretty lengthy and comprehensive description of the proposed design features and
mitigation measures that will ensure the project has no adverse impacts. Thus I will only
briefly summarize them here, they include the removal of nearly 1,100 sq. ft. of existing deck
and other structural surfaces to maintain a conforming lot coverage including a legally existing
accessory deck that's located adjacent to the top of the bank and if you look on the left hand
side of the screen upper left hand corner there's a pretty substantial deck that exists seaward
of the proposed pool location that sits right at the top of the bank, that is being permanently
removed. In connection with the dwelling renovations, we are replacing the conventional
septic system with an IA sanitary system. There's a new storm water drainage system
proposed consistent with the LWRP recommendations they would be maintaining the
approximately 19 foot wide embankment as a vegetated buffer and then establishing an
additional 5 to 10 foot wide non turf buffer in place of existing turf lawn along the top of the '
bank. The proposed pool in addition to complying with lot coverage and the minimum side
yard setback from the lot line to the west would be located 62 feet from Southold Bay thus
exceeding the 50 foot wetland setback, 50 feet from the bulkhead thus ensuring basically
permanent compliance with that 50 foot setback. As noted in the LWRP memo it does not
extend closer to the bank than the existing house and as Leslie mentioned at the outset it will
use salt water filtration. So all told we feel that this is a reasonable application, as the
McCulloch's can attest a lot of time went into planning the application and working with Mike
McKrena to come up with a design that we felt would satisfy both the Board and also the
Town Trustees. A wetlands permit for the entire project with the exception of the pool itself
has already been granted. The reason for that was that the house was always slated to move
first and you know if we had applied for the pool at the same time the Trustees would have
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
kicked project to the Board. So the Trustees know the pool is being proposed, they've actually
permitted the patio that surrounds the rectangular void. We were very transparent with the
fact that a pool would be coming and the only thing that ended up happening was when Mike
submitted for the building permit last fall it got kicked back because of this kind of
unexpected frankly front yard setback variance cause nobody was thinking about a front yard
setback cause we weren't doing anything to the front of the house. Again we get into that
demo issue and then it triggers everything as if it's new. So I'm here I can answer any
questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So Rob are you going to need an amended wetlands permit?
ROB HERRMANN : Yes, right so the only approval that we would need aside from a building
permit at this point would be a modification to the already issued wetlands permit to put the
pool in the void next to the already approved patio.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do they do that administer ally or do you have to do a hearing?
ROB HERRMANN : I'm guessing they would probably require a hearing just because typically
for a swimming pool doesn't qualify under Chapter 275 as an administrative permit
something we can ask them. That buffer that you see again that was one of the things
mentioned in the LWRP report, that buffer has already been approved and conditioned by the
Trustees so that is something that would become a covenanted feature as part of the
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to suggest you go and give Glen a call and see if you can
get into a work session to discuss it because there may be a way to expedite this.
ROB HERRMANN : Okay I appreciate that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from the Board?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions.
MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions.
;CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the
application? Please come forward and state your name please.
ALISON BOYD SAVAGE : My name is Alison Boyd Savage I'm a resident of North Parish Drive
Southold. While I appreciate the great deal of care and thought that's been put into these
plans I would like to address what I feel is environmental impact on a very pleasant and
nature rich street in Southold. I live on that street and I observe osprey bald eagle now in
those trees along North Parish Drive. I feel a swimming pool is just a little bit of a step too far.
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
There is one pool next door I know but it's in the back yard and it has been there since the
eighties. I've lived on the road since 1996 and I feel that if a variance is granted there's a lot of
older houses there that'll be coming up for sale soon and I feel that it will set a precedent.
Another thing that confuses me is, is the house up for sale? So the people that are putting in
these plans to make substantial changes to the property are not actually living there. They
purchased another property I understand. So they're putting in something that someone else
will then takeover. The finishes and so forth may not be sensitive to the area you know and I
address things like mature trees being taken down which are you know home to wildlife
which is under siege in the North Fork. I feel that replacement of mature trees obviously they
can bring in fairly mature trees but it takes a while for that habitat to reestablish itself. Also I
feel you know I'm seeing more and more outdoor lighting that's not dark skies compliant and
I just feel the nature of the area is changing. So I would just like to make my thoughts known
on the environmental impact. Thank you for hearing me speak.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you for your comments, anyone else?
KATHRYN`STIMPSON : Good morning my name is Kathryn Stimpson, I live at 495 Northfield
Lane and I would like to make two points which are very compatible with that of my neighbor
Alison Boyd Savage. We have had residence in Northfield Lane since the late nineteen
nineties. We are very sympathetic to keeping the environmental quality of the neighborhood
very respectful the hard work that the Board puts in to establishing codes in making sure that
Southold remains an environmentally conscious place for people to live happily. I'd like to
make two points, one the neighbors immediately across from this property at 1700 North
Parish could not be here. Margo and Mark Bridgen, I have a letter from them which I would
like to read to you and I have copies of the letter for your files. With your permission I would
read the letter it's not long. To Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals, we are writing to
express our opposition to the request for variances for the property owned by Kenneth and
Elizabeth McCulloch at 1605 North Parish Drive in Southold.The construction of the in-ground
swimming pool in the side yard was denied in February and we feel that this decision should
stand. We believe that dedicated people put their time and effort into developing town codes
to ensure proper use of residential land and to protect the local environment. We have
concerns about the proximity of the pool to Southold Bay and about noise in the pool use. We
do not feel there's a compelling need to override the town code regarding pool placement on
the property. Sincerely Mark and Margo Bridgen 1700 North Parish Drive Southold, New York.
Again should I give.it in to
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes give it to Kim and she'll make copies for us and we'll all get
copies.
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
KATHERINE STIMPSON : Terrific, my second point and here I echo my neighbor Alison. This
property is for sale the for sale sign is in front of the property. I do not know the McCulloch's
and I'm sure they're wonderful people and it's a delightful baby but what is the status if the
Board grants variances and permissions here? What is the status of your action on the
property after it is sold?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It will run with the land.
KATHERINE STIMPSON : It will run with the land.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well for three years until it's codified.
KATHERINE STIMPSON : Thank you for that but (inaudible) what you do will not be under the
supervision of the current owners but of unknown people and we trust that they will treat the
property in compliance with the instructions and requirements of you.Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you very much nice to see you. Rob did you want to reply?
ROB HERRMANN : Sure, I just wanted to just reply quickly to the comments that were
relevant to the variance that's before you. One, I did think it was important that you caught in
my presentation just with respect with the comment about a fear of precedent because that's
always an issue with variances. In addition to the history that we described again it's also
worth pointing out that along North Parish Drive in particular this is a unique lot because of its
width. So if you have these homes on hundred foot lots they all face the same challenges with
respect to putting a pool you can't put a pool right on top of the bank. So it was pointed out
that the neighbor's pool maybe in some way is better I don't know because it's on the
waterside of the house but environmentally ironically that's actually worse. You want to keep
the pool farther from the bank and farther from the bay as it's designed here and because of
the width of the other lots this decision would not open up an opportunity for every owner on
North Parish Drive to put a pool in the side yard. So that cause and effect is not really
accurate here. Obviously it doesn't matter who owns the property. As Leslie mentioned the
variance runs with the land and the Board's decision is based on the merits of the case not
whether you know the owners or don't know the owners and in a way with the
acknowledgment that a lot of time and thought has gone into creating a sensitive design here
maybe it's better that you know what you're getting now with these owners whether they sell
the property or not. They are upgrading multiple environmental elements of this property in
terms of the upgraded sanitary system, the upgraded drainage system, the non-turf buffer,
the vegetative buffer etc. So if the project weren't allowed to go forward none of those things
would happen. You'd still have a deck right on top of the bank you'd still have an antiquated
conventional septic system you would have no non-turf buffer here you'd have no storm
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
water drainage. So in a way this is an opportunity while the McCulloch's who apparently are
sensitive to the environmental conditions are able to actually put in this plan and maybe
that's a good thing. With respect to the location of the pool relative to the bay, again this
what's before this Board the variance for a pool in aside yard it exceeds the wetland setback
and the environmental issue is for the Board of Trustees along with this Board's capacity to
look at physical environmental conditions but for that part of the record again it's a salt water
pool and it is located exceeds the minimum wetland setback that's required by Chapter 275
by 12 feet. There was one comment relating to sound, I did forget that in my presentation.
The site plan does show a 4 foot tall pool equipment and sound deadening enclosure around
the pool equipment. So with respect to the sound that would come directly from the feature
of the pool I know some people don't like pools because it means people are going to make
noise but people can make noise whether they have a pool or not. I think that was really it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thanks Rob, anyone else? Please come forward and state
your name.
ROB HERRMANN : Oh I did forget one thing, Mike is reminding me that there was a comment
about mature trees being taken down, there's no proposal to take down any mature trees in
connection with the project.
KENNETH MCCULLOCH : Good morning my name is Ken McCulloch. My wife Elizabeth and I
purchased the house in November of 2020. We have a young family of four children under the
age of six. We were hoping that this would be our forever home and that maybe within a
couple of years we could renovate it. Everything kind of spiraled and renovation like
dominoes moving HVAC and doing different things turned into more project than we
anticipated and it's taken a lot longer. Hopeful that we can have it done in a couple of years I
think what two and half years now and still I mean even with if these approvals went through
building might take another couple of years.Time is the most valuable thing to us and for that
reason we did buy another house. Buying another house that we can live in and have our
children in creates a financial hardship cause now we have two houses which is why the other
house is for sale. Whether it remains for sale or not remains to be seen. Some of the financial
hardship created has been navigated if we can get the approvals maybe we don't sell the
house we keep the house and then revert back to it as the process goes on. Really we're kind
of making up as we go along we just want to have our kids a good place to live. I can
appreciate the concern from our neighbors a hundred percent regarding the environment and
Rob would you mind just putting up that picture one more time of the lot. So we've tried to
conform with every environmental concern possible and then some, always do more than
what's expected. If you can see on the lower left hand corner of the diagram there's a
driveway coming in there and that driveway is going to be eliminated to have a central
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
driveway and then we wanted to populate that are with all brand new mature trees which
would create visual and sound barrier and also populate the property with even more trees
than it has now. We're definitely environmentally conscious we want to be good neighbors
but that's the process that's been going on and our thought process behind everything.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you planning to put in additional landscaping as a visual screen.
from the street for the pool in the side yard?
KENNETH MCCULLOCH : Yes we wanted to create a visual screen and quite honestly we want
to have as much vegetation and trees as possible. We love landscaping so we were going to
do that in place of that driveway and probably have it set back I mean we'd have it next to the
road and then off of a few trees behind that. Of course we're willing to conform with
whatever the Board would require but�we were going to be doing that anyway.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea cause typically when a swimming pool is something that can
be observed from a public street the Board will suggest discussing at least the possibility of
additional landscape screening for privacy so that it not seen from the street.
KENNETH MCCULLOCH : We will be doing that.
ROB HERRMANN : Leslie the reason why I made the point that ironically because the pool
does exceed the minimum side yard setback one of the things that we discussed as a design
alternative which I think I mentioned in the presentation is the possibility of surrounding the
pool with some sort of raised deck or patio in which case it could be located exactly where it's
being proposed without a side yard variance in addition to (inaudible) the potential need for
lot coverage relief it then creates a potentially more visible and more significant renovation
than if it's at grade level with a grade level patio.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Your proposed lot coverage now is 19.7%which is conforming.
ROB HERRMANN : That's correct. (away from the microphone) so again the idea with the
application just in the context of general environmental'concerns is to actually try to create a
project with specific regard to wetlands and other environmentally related setbacks to create
a better end result than you started with and it's our position that's what we're
accomplishing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you want to make a comment?
ALISON BOYD SAVAGE : First of all I appreciate that Mr. and Mrs. McCulloch will probably
(inaudible) environmental stewards of the property however they're not going to be there
and I don't see anything on the plans for you know screening of trees and all that which
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
would certainly mitigate some of the effects of the side yard rule. So there doesn't seem to be
any provision for plantings and native plants and that kind of thing which we're very in favor
of. Also on the plans it said for each mature hardwood tree removed from the site during
construction one hardwood tree would be planted on the property. So if they're not removing
anything I just wanted a comment possibly from their representative onto why that was
there.
ROB HERRMANN : To clarify there are no mature trees being removed in connection with the
proposed swimming pool that requires variance relief. Mike and I are trying to find where
there are any trees,on the plan that are to be removed. This note relates to sort of a
newfangled requirement of the Town Trustees where any tree that's removed from within
their jurisdiction is replaced on a one to one basis. So we're starting to put this not on our
plans prophylactically which may have been a mistake here cause it's creating but again so
maybe I should qualify my statement. I mean if you look at the photographs there is I mean
Ken can you think of anywhere on the property that we're removing any trees?
MEMBER LEHNERT : It's basically a boiler plate note that goes on the plans.
ROB HERRMANN : Correct but I'm just trying to figure out just to be clear for the record
because I don't want anyone to think that we're trying to put something past them. There
may be a tree or something that's being removed as part of the drainage by the driveway but
I don't, I mean you can see the photographs (away from microphone).
MEMBER DANTES :Trustees will go through all this right?
ROB HERRMANN :That's correct.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Rob if I can, one thought that maybe you can elaborate on. First, lot
coverage is below 20% it's a hair below at 19.7% but it's not a lot coverage issue. Secondly
and maybe I'm misinterpreting the code myself'but the pool appears to be attached to the
house and
ROB HERRMANN : It isn't.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Oh it isn't I thought this was all patio.
ROB HERRMAAN : It is but if it's not raised then the Building Department so that's the catch
Nick, in order to attach the structure to the house
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's what I was going to ask.
ROB HERRMANN : It has to be connected with a raised deck or raised patio. Once you do that
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So if the patio was raised twelve inches above grade
ROB HERRMANN : Correct and then once you do that, that patio or deck surface then counts
as lot coverage. So we can surround the pool with a deck ora raised patio and ask you for a
lot coverage variance or we cannot do that and use a grade level patio and ask for a variance
for a pool in a non-conforming side yard. So we went with what we thought everyone would
perceive to be the better of those two variances given the fact that the pool meets the
minimum side yard setback so there's no harm to the neighbor. So this is really, as I
mentioned it's a technical issue, you suddenly lift that pool with a deck which I don't think any
of the speakers would like more now there's no variance for the pool in that location but
you'd need a lot coverage variance.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's also more environmental impacts with a raised deck than an at
grade permeable patio.
ROB HERRMANN : Correct which is how we ended up here as opposed to the other direction.
i
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I do want to say one thing in addressing your comments ma'am,
should an approval be granted it is the common practice of the Board of Appeals when as I
said earlier something can be observed from a public street the condition of approval is to
require plantings of substantial evergreen screening. That is very common for us.
ALISON BOYD SAVAGE : Okay thank you.
KENNETH MCCULLOCH : I would have put that screening already if it wasn't a driveway there
in anticipation but again you do one thing you have to do another and another if you move
the driveway so I'd be happy to have that in the plans standard and make it part of the
approval.
MEMBER DANTES : We just condition (inaudible) they'll be more specific than we will.
KENNETH MCCULLOCH : Okay very good, the second thing with regards to the mature trees
on the property, when we bought the property the property was kind of in a state of
disrepair. I think it had been rented out for many years, there wasn't
ROB HERRMANN :This is irrelevant.
KENNETH MCCULLOCH : Okay regardless my point was that the trees some of the trees are
not healthy but as far as having to remove any trees for doing thisproject it doesn't seem that'
we would have to because we're keeping the same footprint. So there's no there will be no
trees that should have to come down to do this project. If we ever are going to be removing
the tree it would be because it's sick and we would replace the tree but not for this project.
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
ROB HERRMANN : We'll double check the tree,issue before we go further.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I do want to in the interest of time move this along and conclude
unless there is some other,compelling comments that haven't been made. Is there anybody
on Zoom Liz? No hands okay anything else Board? Motion to close the hearing reserve
decision to a later date. Is there a second?
MEMBER DANTES : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries we'll have a decision in two weeks.
HEARING#7794—PATRICK CAREY
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Patrick Carey #7794.
This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's
January 20, 2023 amended March 16, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for
a permit to demolish an existing garage, construct a porch addition and build a new garage at
1) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 1930 Sigsbee Rd.
in Mattituck. Would you state your name for the record please.
JAKE LACHAPELLE : My name is Jake LaChapelle I live in Mattituck.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's review what you're actually requesting, this is a porch
addition of a deteriorated old section, a new garage and that garage is to 16 by 20 that's a
detached garage right?
JAKE LACHAPELLE : That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's in the rear okay rear yard in a conforming location. The
current lot coverage is at 22.7% is that correct?
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
JAKE LACHAPELLE : That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Your asking for 1.2% more and at 23.9% lot coverage.
JAKE LACHAPELLE : Exactly
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that's basically the only variance he requires, lot coverage.
You're going to put in a second story storage going to have to have exterior stairs it looks like.,
You realize that that must remain unheated and unconditioned storage space only?
JAKE LACHAPELLE : That's understood.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Unfinished, no plumbing.
JAKE LACHAPELLE : There's no plumbing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We are all very familiar with homes on Sigsbee, I don't think
there's a single lot that has conforming lot coverage, they're all very small. Let's see if the
Board has any questions it's a 50 foot wide lot. Pat do you have any questions on this one?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : I don't have any questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric
MEMBER DANTES : I do not.
MEMBER PLANAMEN1TO : I have no questions.
MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions here.
JAKE LACHAPELLE : I guess we'll keep it simpler than the previous.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're catching up thank goodness for an easy one. Is there anyone
in the audience who wants to talk-to the
MICHAEL CARVER : Hi Michael Carver I'm the son-in-law of the owner Patrick Carey. He
wished to have been here today but he's the primary caregiver of my mother-in-law who is
home with Dementia. We love this property and feel like these implements will benefit the
neighborhood as well. That's all thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, anything else? Nobody is on Zoom, motion to close the
hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye,the motion carries.
HEARING#7796—220 NAVY ST.TRUST, COLIN COWLEY
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for 220 Navy St. Trust,
Colin Cowley#7796. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the
Building Inspector's March 10, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a
permit to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling 1) located
less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet located at 220 Navy St. in
Orient. So this is a front yard setback at 22 feet, the code requiring 35 feet minimum.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Correct, can I just handl printed a couple of things that weren't in our
application that I would like to (away from microphone). So the design architect is here Peter
Marren he and I have worked together on this project for about two years. When we first
took a look at the existing structure there were some things that based on the scope of work
from the client that created some issues with keeping the structure. One was adding an
addition and repairing the structural conditions of the home put us into a situation where it
would have been a reconstruction from the Town Code. When we started to look at what that
meant as a reconstruction the home is in a flood zone so then we had to get into elevating the
existing structure, was the existing structure able to be elevated, putting in a new foundation
so it all sort of concluded to us thinking that a new structure was the best way or the best
route for the owner and for the lot. So the next thoughts were the replacement of the home
due to a lot of constraints in this neighborhood. There are wells everywhere and septic
systems and the sites are tight so we worked with John Condon I provided a letter from him in
regards to where the septic system was best to be placed and that's again based on
neighboring wells, our well and the location of this septic system was really the first reasoning
of how we plotted the home. That location really is the only location based on the findings in
the vicinity of the lot. The next thing we looked at was the size of the home, what we were
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
trying to get for the home owner and the things they were asking us for. We did conform to
the code at that time at least we thought we did, we were going based on an average front
yard and in reading the code it wasn't clear to me or Peter that the corner lot would be
counted towards our average because there is a corner lot that has basically that secondary
front yard. It's about 70 feet plus, I have a photo of it you guys probably saw when you were
out there, it's a driveway it really looks to me like a side yard so anyway the calculation
originally was based on the neighboring lot because that was the only home on Navy St. on
that side within the 300 feet and that calculation we assumed that we were okay in regards to
the front yard setback because we are 3 feet I believe 2.8 feet past where the neighboring
home is located on the front yard. The other thing I want to mention is if you look at my site
plan you'll see that there's that dotted line there, that is the footprint of the existing home.
We're actually not even in front of the existing portico we're behind that and we're only
proposing a stoop so as the Board knows the stoop is okay to be in non-compliance so theirs
is no covered portico on our proposed plans. So for those couple of reasons you know well for
those reasons that's where we got this plotting of the house. We went through the process of
getting septic approval etc., well approval which you probably know takes a really long time.
Once all that was done we filed with the Building Department and this is when it came to our
attention that since the code is not clear that it's primary or secondary that they would be
using the secondary front yard in that average setback calculation. Whether I agree or not I
just I don't think it made a lot of sense in this scenario. So that's how we got here I just want
to make sure the Board understood that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea cause the first thing I thought of was why aren't you using
averaging and then I realized there's a whole lot full of bamboo next door and there is the
corner lot that does have two front yards. It's more technical than anything else, your setback
is actually a tiny bit greater than what the existing house is and we know that street well and
there's no conforming front yard setbacks on any of them. Thank you for submitting a
diagram which shows that very easily.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : That was my next comment, if you look at the diagram presented it's
pretty clear that we're in conformance with the neighborhood in regards to front yard
setbacks.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know whether HPC approval is required in this case? I
mean it's a new dwelling it's not listed it won't be under it's not a historic dwelling. How
would that work with a historic district,they probably don't have jurisdiction then.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's correct, we are not required to get
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We do have one letter from a neighbor who informed us that that
property was originally the Prince Terry home some time ago built in 1904 1 guess and that
that woman was the first lady lighthouse keeper for out here so there is some I guess some
significance historically about that but I don't think that it
ANTHONY PORTILLO : There's two unfortunate facts about the existing, one is the structure
you walk into the house the floor is basically waves. You would have to remove most of that
structure and maybe you would be keeping perimeter walls. To add an addition and to do
that you know it's going to become a reconstruction. They actually went to the Building
Department two years ago and presented what we were thinking and Amanda told us this
would be considered a reconstruction so
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a demolition anyway what they're asking it's not an objection
to the demolition it's simply a request to see if there isn't any way to save parts of the home
salvageable for use but if it's in such a deteriorated condition it may simply not be possible
but I just wanted you to be aware of the letter we got.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I guess my only last statement just to put it on the record is we are
presenting an IA system which we have been approved for by the Health Department and as
you can see we are providing dry wells for on-site collection. I think Peter has a letter from
the owner that he's going to read.
PETER MARREN : Peter Marren Architect, one comment about the significance of the house
it's obviously not on the register it's not part of the thing but in the new project we really
endeavored to kind of put back more or less what was there. This is not some sort of extreme
version in any case the owner asked me to say a few words on her behalf. I wanted to
introduce her a little bit on a personal level, so she will along with her adult son be using the
property. She is retired reading specialist and consultant I guess I can say she's not a Wall
Street broker she's a modest person and she's really decided it's time to spend a little more
time out of the city and she's never owned a house before but she developed a kind of affinity
for Orient like many people do by renting for a couple of years. She's drawn to the beauty of
it and all the reasons the water access the folks that hang out at the General Store the whole
business. So my feeling is ensured she's king of a good fit for the community very much
environmentally conscious, she's appreciative of the sort of aesthetics of the village. She
really looks forward I mean we've been through not only an application at the Health
Department but a lengthy Board of review variance process and a covenant process that
maintain water purification. So she's looking forward to finally move ahead and settling in and
my sense is having to gotten to know her and also as a resident of Orient I think she's going to
be a good neighbor and a good steward of the property.
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your comments. I will say that it's definitely a
certainty that the proposed design of the new dwelling is very contextual it is not something
that's going to stick out and make a statement. Anything from the Board?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea I have a question sort of for Anthony and I just read the letter
from Mr. Condon, I noted that the property the majority of the house is in the AE6 zone and
your first floor elevation I believe you said was like 8.8 o 8.21 don't have it in front of me.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I don't know if I put it on the record but I'll check that.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's not necessary for my point here, the question would be if the
three sheds are coming down in the back of the property why wouldn't he just flip the house
to make it conform within the X zone I don't think it would disrupt the placement of the septic
and you probably reduce or actually increase the front yard setback?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : So are you saying nearer the home
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just flip the house the other way it would then follow the contour
of the X zone.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I mean the only thing I could think of good question but)the only thing I
could think of would be the well location that we're presenting would be too close to the
home the corner of the home there. We need to be at 10 foot from the well. You see that well
location not that well the actual well the water well go down the existing well.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It seems to me the house would have to be set further away from
the road anyway follow the X zone but I was just wondering why that wasn't a consideration
and perhaps the well is the answer. It's 10 feet I still think that you'd still be able to achieve
that.
MEMBER DANTES : It's not just that well (inaudible) existing well from the surrounding next
door to the property.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea but the septic wouldn't move.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : The well though I think would have to come closer to the road. I can
actually show you this diagram that represents (inaudible away from the mic).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's so many constraints stuff underground.
PETER MARREN : One of our motivations was to one of the design motivations was to put
things back as they were more or less. The notion was to put the house essentially back
where it currently has existed for eighty years or so and keep that sort of rhythm of the street
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
and not kind of create a whole new you know not really disruption but a whole new attitude.
The house is virtually where it is today.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, anything from anyone else in the audience?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Just one note to Nick's point, I think it's better to keep the well in the
location that it's existing in when you're filing with the Health Department. When we start to
move things it becomes a very difficult process. Again going back two years when plotting the
home it think that's the reason we said well let's keep the well where it is and it just sort of
worked itself out with how the design was set up.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, anything else? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision
to a later date.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye
HEARING#7798— MATTHEW and JILL PERRY
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Matthew and Jill Perry
#7798. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXIII Section 280-
124 and the Building Inspector's January 18, 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 required rear yard, 2) more than the code permitted maximum lot
coverage of 20% located at 3200 Camp Mineola Rd in Mattituck.
JR DICIOCCIO : Good morning, I'm JR DiCioccio I'm'with the Law Firm of Greenberg (inaudible)
in Bridgehampton here representing Matthew and Jill Perry who are with me in the audience.
I do have a submission for the Board.
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure please bring that forward, thank you. So this is a swimming
pool in a side yard it's a 16 by 32 foot.
JR DICIOCCIO : That's correct yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The code requires a rear yard location which is not very easily
achieved with a home that has presumably three front yards.
JR DICIOCCIO : Exactly it's a very unique property. As you can see from the survey it's
bordered to the west by Faye Court which is an unpaved right of way. To the north is Allen
Drive which also an unpaved right of way and then the only actual street frontage is Camp
Mineola Rd. So as you pointed out it does have it's burdened by three road frontages and
really this is the only location on the property where the pool can be situated. On the
southwest corner is the septic system so it can't go there. Although it's technically on the side
yard for all intense and purposes it's actually in the it would appear to be in the rear yard
when driving by on Camp Mineola Rd. and will be completely mostly completely screened by
the existing garage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And by a very tall hedgerow.
JR DICIOCCIO : Yes and by existing landscape. If you can see on the aerial the two home
directly across the street on Camp Mineola Rd. they both have pools and they appear to be in
pretty similar locations to the pool that's proposed here today. Those addresses are 3245 and
3285 Camp Mineola Rd.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's probably nothing that's been built in that neighborhood
without a variance.
JR DICIOCCIO : It was definitely they're all substandard lots and it looks like they were all built
before design code (inaudible). There was actually on the I guess it would be the one, two,
three, four houses to the south there was a previous approval of this Board and that was
application #5139 and that was to allow the same relief that is being sought here today to
allow a pool in the side yard. Again this really the only location for the pool due to the size of
the lot and the location of the cesspools in the southwest corner. Given the other pools in the
neighborhood and the fact that the pool fronts on the two unpaved right of ways the request
in our opinion is not substantial and the difficulty is not self-created. It's really based upon the
configuration of the lot and the location of the cesspools. As far as the lot occupancy currently
existing at the property is 24.3% and that was granted in a previous approval of this Board I
believe it's application #6176. So the request here this morning is really just an increase of
.9% and as part of the application the Perry's are proposing to remove a substantial portion of
the existing deck as well as the outdoor shower to the west of the property. I've also in that
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
submission I've included previous approvals of this Board in the neighborhood for lot
coverages. We have 4135 Camp Mineola Rd. the Board,granted lot coverage for 30.7%, we
have 300 Faye Ct. the Board granted lot coverage of 25%, 100 Faye Ct. the Board granted lot
coverage of 30% and 55 Faye Ct. the Board granted a 38% lot coverage and all those decisions
have been included.
MEMBER DANTES : What are the dates of those decisions?
JR DICIOCCIO : They're in the submission but I can get you.
MEMBER LEHNERT : They're all here.
i
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Some of them are older but some of them are not that old I mean
it's any improvements to the original cottages that were there really have to undergo
variance relief.
JR DICIOCCIO : Given the developmental pattern of the neighborhood 'seeing that's it's only a
.9% increase over what is existing today.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Very close to de minimus
JR DICIOCCIO : In our opinion it's pretty de minimus relief. I'd be happy to answer any
questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't even know why it's called Allen Rd. I mean it's a footpath,
there's no access to it.
JR DICIOCCIO : It's a very unique property.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the thing it's the Building Department's call but the bottom
line is if you don't have vehicular access to a right of way it's not considered a front yard for
you. In this case they said it was.
JR DICIOCCIO : In this case they said it was yes and that's why we're here and not in the
swimming pool right now.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any questions from anybody on the Board?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Where do you propose dry well and pool mechanicals?
JR DICIOCCIO : That's a good question, the pool mechanicals I believe we are they're going to
be in a conforming setback, they're going to have conforming setbacks I'm just not sure if it's
going to require it's going to be in the same yard that the pool is located in. We're hoping to
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
locate the pool equipment on the north side of the property of the garage not the pool with
conforming setbacks.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And the dry well?
JR DICIOCCIO : The dry well we do not yea it's going to be on the southwest side of the
property.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else Board?
MEMBER LEHNERT : No
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a
later date.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Should we close subject to submission of
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They're going to have to do it I mean do you want to just get we
could just ask you to simply locate on the survey it won't necessarily delay anything but we
would like to know where the pool dry well and the equipment. Typically we do have that on
a survey that we finally stamp so if you can just go ahead and put that information on there
and submit it as soon as possible. We'll go ahead and start writing the decision anyway
hopefully you can get that done pretty quickly cause it's very simple.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Can't we just condition it and then if it's a conforming location that
r
would be okay to sign off?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We could cause sometimes it does take surveyors quite a while to
you know get that information.
JR DICIOCCIO : We'll check with the surveyor, we'll try to get it done as quickly as possible and
we can call the Board tomorrow and let you know how long we expect.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay cause we will be voting on draft decisions at our next
meeting which is at 5 o'clock in the Annex.building.
JR DICIOCCIO : Today?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN No, no, no not today in two weeks. We like to take our time
writing them carefully and with substantial information in them so it takes a little while. So
we'll vote our next meeting so if you can get it by then it will be great but if not I think Rob's
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting'
right we don't really need to delay it, we can require it as a condition of approval and then
you won't be able to get the building permit until you get the survey. Anything from anybody
else? 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,the motion carries.
HEARING#7802—KATIE and JONATHAN VIGDORCHIK
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Katie and Jonathan
Vigdorchik #7802. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXII
Section 280-116A(1) and the Building Inspector's February 23, 2023 amended March 27, 2023
Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory
swimming pool 1) located in other than the code permitted rear yard, 2) located less than the
code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff located at 17975 Soundview Ave. in
Southold.
JEN DELVAGLIO : Jennifer DelVaglio from East End Pool King as the agent and representative
for the Vigdorchiks. I just want to give a little brief story on this, we did go to the Trustees
previously and the intent was originally to put the pool more on the I guess north side of the
property and then we ended up pulling it back there was a lot of contouring to be done and it
was less favorable in their opinion so we did put it back to get into the side yard. If you can
just take a look we are behind the original dwelling of the house that line and we are 96 feet
from the bluff and 101 feet depending on if you're looking at the right or the left of the pool
so we're just there. I want to make note that I'm sure you've all went to the property but
there is a very large retaining wall there so we feel even moving it back a little bit we're not
going to be encroaching on any sensitive area that has to do with the bluff or it has to do with
Er
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
any sort of runoff that would come from the construction of the pool because we do have
that heavy original existing retaining wall.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea we did inspect the property it's really quite an interesting
property a pretty dramatic slope it's like a two leveled property almost a brick parapet wall
buffer so there's certainly not going to be any runoff from the pool.
JEN DELVAGLIO : We're here to answer any questions that you may have just to make the
process a little bit easier it's been a long time in the making.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't have any questions, Rob how about you?
MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat, Eric?
MEMBER DANTES : No it seems benign.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's the best location and it's mostly conforming it's not the side
yard but the setback is and it's the only place to put it.
MEMBER LEHNERT : It's such a minor part of the pool that actually doesn't conform to the
100 feet.
MEMBER DANTES : Yea if you move it back then you're stuck against the garage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's the side yard location that is the greater variance for us
but without a doubt the most environmentally reasonable place, it's the only location it's a
large side yard. The side yard setback is conforming so I don't see a problem. Does the
applicant want to say anything?
JONATHAN VIGDORCHIK : Good morning everyone we just want to say thank you for
considering our application. We're a young family with two kids we feel this is the best for the
safety of the children as well to be monitored from the house, we appreciate you looking at
the plans thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're very welcome. Anything else Board? Motion to close the
hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second
July 6,2023 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries.
HEARING#7774— 1280 COREY CREEK, LLC
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for 1280 Cory Creek, LLC
#7774. This was adjourned so I don't know that I need to read the Notice of Disapproval
although it's an amended Notice so maybe I better do that. This was adjourned from May 4,
2023. Request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's
November 18,2022 amended January 23, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application
for a permit to demolish an existing single family dwelling and construct a new two story
single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of
40 feet located at 1280 Corey Creek Lane (adj. to Corey Creek) in Southold. So we're now
looking at a front yard setback of 36.88 feet, previously it was 30.36 feet.
MARTIN FINNEGAN : Correct
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now you are behind the Trustees pier line with that setback is now
in the code which is a general practice. You have drainage with dry wells or French drains
across the driveway. I had a question, how high off the street grade is the retaining wall to
accommodate the IA system?
MEMBER LEHNERT : TV top of wall.
MARTIN FINNEGAN : It's at 7' 6" and
MEMBER DANTES :That's elevation.
MARTIN FINNEGAN : It's kind of going like this so the reveal ranges from 0 to 7 % inches and
increases in height to an average exposed face of 18 inches for the 50 feet length that it is.
July 6; 2023 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's an 18 inch exposed retaining wall.
MEMBER LEHNERT :The street is at elevation 5.15
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that's certainly not bad at all. How high above the foundation
is the actual habitable space, how high off the existing garage?
MARTIN FINNEGAN : The first floor elevation is at 11 and the top of the foundation wall is
elevation around 10 so you're going to have the first floor substructure, subflooring finished
floor material end up about twelve to fifteen inches higher than the foundation wall or 11 it's
at 11 and that's shown on the plans. Just to recap cause Leslie kind of stole my thunder there,
let me cut to the chase. Yes we've submitted revised plans, the site plan has been updated,
there is a revised Notice of Disapproval June 22"d to address the 36.88 setback which is of
course 3.2 relief. The existing front yard setback is 34.3 feet so you know we would submit
that this is back for a deminimus relief cause we're actually taking the house back further.
Clearly the house have bene pivoted to address the pier line concerns and all of the concerns
that were raised by the Board with respect to drainage and the installation of the IA system
dealing with and retaining wall height all that have been addressed in the revised plans. I did
submit a revised memo and re-revised memo cause I guess the day I did that my math skills
had evaporated so it is really at this point I think we're looking for relief that is two and half
feet less than the existing setback. So it's a fairly straightforward front yard variance to allow
this to happen. We did the that sort of elevation site section thing just to confirm that this is
not going to be some monstrosity towering over neighboring properties. That's right in with
what's currently there on Corey Creek Lane.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well in summary I guess this is about as good as it can possibly get
given the circumstances. You still have to go then once we're done here you have to go back
to Trustees now?
MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes, they won't talk to us anymore until you guys say it's okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if anybody has any questions, we're pretty familiar with
both the property and this process. Nick anything from you?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have no questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob
MEMBER LEHNERT : I have nothing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : No
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Nothing
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay nobody is 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. We'll have a decision in two weeks. Motion to recess for
lunch.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to reconvene.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye
HEARING#7800—RQA PROPERTIES, LLC
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application this afternoon is for RQA Properties, LLC
#7800. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-123A and the Building
Inspector's March 15, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to
legalize several "as built" additions and accessory structures at an existing auto body repair
business 1) a non-conforming building containing a non-conforming use shall not be enlarged
or structurally altered or moved unless the use of such building is changed to a conforming
use, 2) "as built" improvements results in increase in floor area greater than prior alternative
relief that was previously granted in ZBA File No. 5759 dated December 27, 2005 located at
29950 Main Rd. in Cutchogue.
MIKE KIMACK : Good afternoon everybody, Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant and the
applicant is in the audience.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Briefly it looks as though the rear addition on the primary building
is 65% larger than the alternative relief that the ZBA previously approved and the tent
structure condition of approval was the removal of a tent structure on slab which has not
been removed but has been converted to conditioned space being used I guess now as a paint
shop.
MIKE KIMACK : That's fairly accurate. This all began back in 1957 basically. That was when the
property was occupied by a public garage and service gas station. It had been operated from
1957 under a B1 zone a general business zone and it had operated essentially as a garage
repair shop, there had been some sales of cars within that particular period of time. Up until
1985 1 believe is when RQA had basically began to lease the property and it was still general
business at that particular time. In 1989 the zoning was changed on that one abruptly to an
R40 and that has really created the issues for my client ever since. He's running a business, he
had always run a business, he has operated that business as a repair shop since 1985 pretty
much for thirty eight years as it stands on the property. I'm aware of what prior decisions
have been made on that particular property but the reason we're here is and one of the
July 6,2023 Regular Meeting
reasons the argument would be made is of necessity. We're running my client is running a
business and has been running it for thirty eight years. It's in a residential zone and there's
about an acre, he is sensitive to the fact that it's in a residential zone. If you've looked at the
property and you passed it many, many time you see that it's completely surrounded by
fencing and vegetation that it's pretty much blocked from the neighbors and from the street.
He operates a complete repair shop and the reason for the necessity for the buildings is that
he keeps everything enclosed in order to keep his operation noise down to pretty much
minimum so it doesn't pass beyond the borders.The site alone makes this mandatory in order
to keep within the reason for an R40 zone is that they are going to be (inaudible) to the
neighbors but also to keep quiet for the neighbors themselves. That painting shop the tent
which is on a concrete slab was originally supposed to go on one of the buildings that were
turned down he needs as part of the operation a painting facility that has to meet the codes
of the state of (inaudible) for the spraying. Everything that's there on the site is contributory
to his operating a successful business as he has done on that site for thirty eight years. The
decision prior had been made adverse to the situation the necessity is that these particular
structures were put up and maintained in order to keep the viability of his business going. It's
difficult when you're trying to work with the label of an R40 zoning you're trying to run a
business within there, even when it started as a business'for thirty two years before the zone
was changed. If you've on the site and looked around I think you probably have noticed how
neat everything is. On the weekends he brings all the cars in, nothing is left outside so you
really don't know it's not as if you see anything other than just regular activity during the
week. Those existing buildings are essential part of his business and that's why he's able to at
least sustain the business and has been able to sustain it. This is not about looking at it from
an R40, I ask you not to look at it as an R40 zone but to look at.it as what he's asking for to run
his business. On that site is the requirement of the types of buildings that he needs his space
required in order to keep it going as he has been doing for thirty eight years and a good
neighbor at it. I'd like Rich to come up and kind of give you his version of what I just gave.
RICHARD BOZNYAK : Rich Boznyak owner of RQA Companies and Rich's Quality Auto Repairs.
I've been in business for thirty eight years there. I know that I'm in a residential area and I
respect that more so than a lot of people would. My business closes at five every day, I don't
work late hours, we don't work Saturday and Sundays. The property is totally enclosed and
fenced and landscaped so I'm not visible to any of the neighbors, I've never gotten a
complaint in thirty eight years from any of my neighbors. I don't park any wrecks out front.
When I moved into that piece of property thirty eight years ago it was an old gas station,
somebody was doing sheet metal work in there. I replaced eighty nine panes of glass in the
building facing the Main Rd. I'm very fussy, I'm very particular and you can see by the way I
keep the business. The structures that I have up need to be up because also of the respect to
July 6,2023 Regular Meeting
my neighbors. We're not making noise, we're not banging fenders, I run a clean operation.
There's never been a home there, it's never been an R40 operation there it's always since day
one it was a gas station when I started. It's always been a business piece of property and you
know that's why I'm asking for what I'm asking. I have put up the structures, the one structure
that I'm asking to get the C.O. on especially because I wasn't going through it again. I did this
with the Town, they turned me down, I spend last time thirty five thousand dollars just to get
my variance to do what I had to do and I was not financially prepared to do that again. I did
what I did and I figured I'd deal with it at the end. Someday I'd like to sell my business to my
employees and keep this going and hopefully they wouldn't have to deal with all the proper
stuff that's why I'd like to put everything in order now. That's basically it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : May I ask you a question please, so when you were given this
variance to enlarge your building why did you basically build a much bigger building and not
attach it really it's a separate building there's a tiny little connecting piece but it's not an
addition.
RICHARD BOZNYAK : That's what the town let me do. It's exactly what they told me I can do.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : At that size?
RICHARD BOZNYAK : Not the addition but that building at that size is what they told me to do.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the building you were told well it was tent structure you were
told to remove, when you decided you needed to use it why didn't you come back and ask
for a legalization of that use?
RICHARD BOZNYAK : Money is tight, everything I went through this and as I said the first time
it cost me thirty five thousand dollars so I actually had to threaten the town okay and tell
them I'm done, I'm selling the business I'm out I'm not doing this again I'm finished. Within
two weeks I was told to put up my building.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You were told what?
RICHARD BOZNYAK : I was told to put up my building.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You were told to put up the so called addition.
RICHARD BOZNYAK : Not the addition the original building.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The original building faced Main Rd. did it not?
RICHARD BOZNYAK : Yes
July 6,2023 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So behind it also facing
RICHARD BOZNYAK : I got a variance to put up another building.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct you did, you built it at sixty five percent bigger than the
variance that you received.
RICHARD BOZNYAK : No I added an addition to it and that's when it became bigger. I build
exactly what they told me to build.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Building Department gave you a building permit to build the
building bigger than what the Zoning Board allowed?
RICHARD BOZNYAK : I never really looked at the permit, I was told to put up the building.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea because you were allowed to put up a building but not that
size.
RICHARD BOZNYAK : The building was already purchased. I had
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm talking about the thing in the back.
RICHARD BOZNYAK : The addition I never got a permit for,the addition I just put up.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So am I correct in understanding you came to the Zoning Board of
Appeals got granted certain relief and then you never went back to the Building Department
for a building permit you just built the building.
RICHARD BOZNYAK : For the addition.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : For the addition, the separate building connected by the vestibule
for a,lack of better description.
RICHARD BOZNYAK : No they're attached it's an addition.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : There's a corrugated plastic connection, is that the building we're
talking about?
RICHARD BOZNYAK : There's a little plastic connecting the two buildings that's what the town
approved when they gave me my variance.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But you made a statement that I was clarifying the Chairperson I
think maybe was misunderstanding, the building that was built you're calling it existing
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
r
building two, auto repair four bay that's the building that you built. Did you build it with a
building permit?
RICHARD BOZNYAK : No
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You built it without a building permit?
RICHARD BOZNYAK : Right
r
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's what I was clarifying.
RICHARD BOZNYAK : The addition correct.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So it seems like he came to the Zoning Board but never went back
to the Building Department.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN What about the and why did you not remove it at the time the
variance was granted to you? The condition of approval was to remove this tent structure on
slab and
RICHARD BOZNYAK : I didn't remove it, I felt that you know it's a removable tent and I needed
to do my detail work.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Again it might have been possible to do that had you asked for an
approval or a change from the original condition.
RICHARD BOZNYAK : Money is tight, I got a family put three kids through college and I already
spent thirty five thousand the first time, thirty five thousand not thirty five hundred that's a
lot of money.
MEMBER DANTES : I have a question, why did they change the zoning? Did they ever contact
you or
MEMBER PLANAMENTO He was his tenant so he probably wouldn't have been noticed
anyway.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Had you gotten a building permit they would have told you that
you couldn't build it that big based upon the ZBA's decision. They would not have allowed you
to build anything they hadn't been aware until you had removed that tent structure. If you
needed a painting facility you could have come back and said I need to build a building or I
need to use this, I need to convert it. The difficulty is now things are in place, they're not in
place with legal approvals and permits as required by law and why are you back before us
now?You've been operating this way for a long time.
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
RICHARD BOZNYAK : Because some day I would like to sell my business to my employees and I
would like to have a C.O. on that building.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so you want to legalize what you've been
RICHARD BOZNYAK : I want to legalize what I have there.
MEMBER DANTES : Why did the Zoning Board grant you the size that they did? Did they
explain why or
RICHARD BOZNYAK : They calculated the size of the property and everything.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Probably lot coverage maybe.
MEMBER DANTES : Lot coverage now is only 18% (inaudible)
RICHARD BOZNYAK : It was also a variance because it's under a residential zoning.
MEMBER DANTES : Right I get that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the Planning Board of course gave you site plan approval and
that approval did not include all the buildings you have on the property.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Does this have to go back to site plan?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It probably will have to go before the Planning Board.
RICHARD BOZNYAK : The tent has been up for twenty five years. It was up even before I put
the first building that I got a variance for.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but that determination also said that the tent needs to be
removed.
RICHARD BOZNYAK : Right
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : For me I had asked the staff to pull up the site plan or some
documents to substantiate what was here in 2005 and while we looked at certain things we
couldn't find anything stamped or approved. I think you've answered one of my major
questions is why can't we judge what was there in 2005 as approved versus what's here today
and I think the process stopped for you based on what you said in 2005. You trying to pick up
the ball today and now sort of you're seeking permission for a lot more than what was
granted in 2005.
ROBERT BOZNYAK : Would it be different if it was an R40?
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay any questions from the Board?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Rich are you able to remove any of the smaller structures or the
tent structure? I'm looking at the survey that's dated, what document should we really be
looking at to show it's there Mark Schwartz's design or the survey?
MIKE KIMACK : The survey has everything on it. You can look at Mark's RQA Properties "as
built" structures that has everything on it.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So looking at Mark's what buildings would you be willing to
remove?
RICHARED BOZNYAK : Everything in the left hand corner we can remove. I can remove the
trailers I can move that little tent, sheds.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So this is on the I guess the southwest corner, four buildings you
said those can be removed?
MIKE KIMACK : That is correct the southwest corner.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And that's the metal shed, the wood shed, the tent on slab labeled
one and the 8 by 25 portable metal shipping container.
RICHARD BOZNYAK : Sure
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The tent on concrete slab which has been there, you're using that
as the spray booth?
RICHARD BOZNYAK : No I'm using that as a detail.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's the detail area, and that you want to keep?
RICHARD BOZNYAK : I do
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The other two buildings have the original C of 0, then you've got
the existing building No. 2 which is the one that is built 65% larger than what was permitted.
Is there anything that you can do there?
RICHARD BOZNYAK : No I can't.
J
MIKE KIMACK : That goes back to how much interior space he needs in order to have the
operation. So he keeps all of his work all the cars he's working on within those confined
within those buildings.
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : Did you apply for a smaller size building or you applied for this size
building and they just lessened the size on you?
RICHARD BOZNYAK : I'm not sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we do have in our file the original variance I think we do.
MEMBER LEHNERT : It's here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's ZBA #5759 you were granted a 25% increase in floor area and
you have apparently done 65% greater than that 25% on the rear of the principle building
subject to removal of a tent type structure on concrete slab. So two of the things were not
properly followed.
RICHARD BOZNYAK : inaudible
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That I don't understand because you were the one that received
the variance and so why you would do something different than what the variance allowed
you to do I mean I just don't get that.
RICHARD BOZNYAK : I didn't have the money at the time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : To do what? I mean this would cost you more than what you were
allowed to do. To build something this big when you were allowed to build something smaller.
RICHARD BOZNYAK : I was turned down, if I was turned down I would have to fight it and I
wasn't prepared to do that again.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't understand, you were told what you could do that was not
turning you down that was allowing you to do an addition right.
RICHARD BOZNYAK : Right an addition on that addition.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you're saying you built you would have gotten a building permit
then you don't have a building permit on that. In other words if you would have built it the
size they said you would have been fine you would have had a building permit. Then you
could of added on to it, you couldn't do that legally you'd have to come back to get an
increase in that or request the Board to amend their decision for some reason for some
compelling reason.
RICHARD BOZNYAK : I got a C.O. on the building that I built. They gave me a C.O. so they
accepted. I put an addition on that building which I did not get a permit.
i
42
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so you enlarged the addition.
RICHARD BOZNYAK : Correct
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mike for my benefit cause now I'm confused, existing building #2
the one that we're talking about that's 65% larger, the applicant just said that he has a C of 0
on that building as it was originally built in 2005 what is the C of 0 number?
MIKE KIMACK : I don't
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't have one in our file.
r
MIKE KIMACK : Was it part of the application?
MEMBER LEHNERT : There's not even building permits on the property card just a transfer.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mike can you get us a copy of that C of 0?
MIKE KIMACK : Yea I'll dig up what C of 0
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But I think what would be helpful is what Eric was asking about
relative to this building, where are the plans? There's no at least in my packet it doesn't show
the proposed building that was denied by the Board but granted relief for 25% excuse me for
the addition so there should be some sense of a file.
MEMBER DANTES : I'm kind of figuring out here Nick, the building on the right seems to be as
applied for
MEMBER LEHNERT : Existing#1
MEMBER DANTES : Yea
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But that's the existing one that has nothing to do with the expansion
or the addition.
MEMBER DANTES : 48 by 60 foot building, he applied for a smaller'building I think this is what
we're saying (inaudible) but he extended it later on.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But he said he built it, got a C of 0 and then
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And then added on
MEMBER DANTES : That's why it's (inaudible)
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But there's still no C of 0 on the original 40 by 30.
43-
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
MEMBER LEHNERT : There would be a paper trail.
MEMBER DANTES : Right but that portion of that building (inaudible) and it looks
RICHARD BOZNYAK : That's what he's saying and if in fact there's a C.O. on record then we
know it would have been built to the specifications allowed by the ZBA.
MEMBER DANTES : That portion of the building was approved.
MIKE KIMACK : Eric I think you're accurate in that, I think the 40 by 36 was approved and then
the 24 by 40 was added.
MEMBER DANTES : Yep and then it looks like the tent on the concrete slab being removed that
condition was because that was the way they did the application. It wasn't like something that
the Zoning Board made them (inaudible) it was the way they did the application back then.
MIKE KIMACK : You're right on that because I think the intent was to take the temporary one
and include it in the new building.
MEMBER DANTES : Right to bring it yea
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Then in 2005 1 was on the Architectural Review Committee and I
remember the applicant coming before us also with I believe Gail Wickham and the whole
conversation revolved around the spray booth which was really the important part of the
business at that time.
MEMBER DANTES : Right that's in here too, take it out of the chimney and give it some proper
ventilation.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what was the size of the approved building, 40 by ?
MEMBER DANTES : 48 by
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 48 and then a 24 by
MEMBER DANTES : What was added. Basically what we're looking at is the addition.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea but we still need to see the C of 0 on the 48 by 60.
MEMBER DANTES : I don't know if he has one.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If he doesn't have a C. 0. then it wasn't ever legally approved. He
just said he had a C.O. you said you got a C.O.
RICHARD BOZNYAK : (inaudible)
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
MEMBER LEHNERT : Wouldn't there be a building permit attached to that that would pop on
our searches?
MEMBER DANTES : On an opened building permit should have popped up.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Yea anything issued.
MIKE KIMACK : Just to add a little bit further clarity, the existing building#1 at the present time
is used for spraying, painting.The tent is used for the detail and then because he doesn't have
any cars or anything in there the existing building#2 is used for all of the repair work that's the
body shop.
MEMBER DANTES :Then the location got adjusted as well. So we're also looking at the location
of the 48 by 32 building cause it's different from the site plan.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Right but then it says temporary tent like structure shall be removed
within eighteen months of this determination.
` CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And it was temporary at the time but it's now a permanent
structure because it's been conditioned, vented you know and the size is different.
MEMBER DANTES : We should really just look at this as a brand new application. I think the
original Zoning Board determination doesn't apply to anything here (inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it applies in so far it's in violation of that and if we had a Notice
of Disapproval that essentially looked at the current variances assuming there was no history
on this and these were all as built structures they would have to issue a very different Notice
of Disapproval in an R40 zone for what's on your property now. So until that happens we can't
look at this as a new application. You want to go back and talk to Mike Verity and see if you're
willing to do that. Say that this is so far different than what the original they wrote a Notice of
Disapproval based upon the history of this property and what the prior ZBA determination
was. You're not in conformance with that determination okay and so I don't know how we can
see it legally as a brand new application.
MEMBER DANTES : What would be different though? I mean it's still the same non-conforming
use on a non-conforming property. I mean he's still under the lot coverage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One would be the same the condition of a previous approval then
you'd have to look at this as if it wasn't approved at all you know and start from scratch.
MEMBER DANTES :That's what I'm saying.
MEMBER LEHNERT : How do you disregard a past approval?
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can't nullify the history on the property. This is very unusual as
you can see and so
MIKE KIMACK : I know you're struggling.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're trying to find to think this through together
MIKE KIMACK : I'm trying to keep up with you.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would add also and I think the Board would agree with me, the
property is beautifully maintained you discussed the character of the neighborhood and how
you also respect your neighbors that it is a residential zone. I think for us it's just really the
bureaucratic function to figure out what to do here because clearly this isn't the relief that was
granted.
MIKE KIMACK : We agree with that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anything Julie that you can think of that we should ask at
this point?
MEMBER DANTES : I just want to say it doesn't look like the Zoning Board at the time denied
him,they granted him what he asked for, they didn't deny him so
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Because it's a non-conforming building he was here.
MEMBER DANTES : Yea, I mean it's not like we would be overturning a past denial.
MEMBER LEHNERT : But they did grant a whole lot less plus the tent to be removed.
MEMBER DANTES :That's what he applied for it wasn't that they
MEMBER LEHNERT : It was a condition that was put on it.
MEMBER DANTES : Yea based on his application but it wasn't
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What he built was not what was approved.
MEMBER DANTES : Right that's true.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So then the question here remains the existence of the tent and the
larger building, it's two simple details.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't see it as a new application it is what it is.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : It's a different location.
461
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not even in the same location as the original ZBA approved
plans.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Kim didn't you and I didn't print it out but isn't there from the site
plan it shows from the Planning Board notes it shows similar to what we're looking at.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea it's right here.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mike if it helps one of the notes shows a building permit number
34748.
MIKE KIMACK : 34748?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's what the ZBA granted 36 by 48 but he built it bigger.
MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible)
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But Eric how do you know it was granted there we don't have any
plan.
MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible)
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would go by the Planning Board.
MEMBER ACAMORA : Where's the Planning Board
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look the fact that the tent structure is removed from the Planning
Board's approved site plan says they saw it after we did. After the ZBA ruled Planning Board
looked at it, said that's the size building which is what the ZBA approved and there is no tent
structure on there that's this plan here it says Planning Board approved. So they were in
conformance with what the ZBA had granted that's what the site plan was from the Planning
Board and we know what's there now. I understand what you're trying to do and we're trying
to figure out what we can do or what we have to do.
MIKE KIMACK : We appreciate that. I think that the temporary structure was always going to
be removed as a result of building the bigger building. I think what happened was that when
that building was cut back because that portion of what was in the temporary tent was going
to be in it. It left really my client with no option but to leave it in place. Is that correct Rich?
RICHARD BOZNYAK : Yes
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
MIKE KIMACK : Because he just needed the space. Once they cut the building back and it
removed that portion that was going to have the temporary tent in it that operation.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So why wouldn't he have taken the tent down after he got the
building built to his taste not to the town's?
MIKE KIMACK : If the building that he built was still smaller than the one that I think he
originally going to be put up,correct?
MEMBER LEHNERT : It was larger than what was allowed.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know it's just very difficult to come before the Board after the
fact when things were done without approvals and now we're stuck with what we're stuck
with you're stuck with it and where do we go from here. Do we endorse violations of the code
and say oh sure we'll give you a pass you know because it's a good business we know you are a
local business. We are not allowed by law to personalize decisions, it's never about the
applicant it's always about the merits of the application and the history that's in the record. So
we have a lot to grapple with.
MEMBER DANTES : The town should bear some responsibility for changes the zone on people.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea but the building was sold after the zone change so the property
owner knew that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's an R40 zone he did not do this prior to the zone change.
MEMBER DANTES : No but the business was there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It wasn't his business it was a gas station.
MIKE KIMACK : No he took his lease out in '85 the zone changed in '89.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When did they change the zone?
MIKE KIMACK : '89
MEMBER DANTES : I mean they did deny (inaudible)
MIKE KIMACK : I looked into the history to see if I can find out the rational as to why they
changed the zone and' there was none it was just there. Talking to Rich to be rather frank
about it I think that particular time the town was having some difficulty with one of the owners
of that building in terms of what he wanted'to build on that site. I think he wanted to put up a
a
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
big office building and the town panicked and I think they changed the zone on him down to
an R40 so it wouldn't happen and here we are.
MEMBER DANTES : Do you think it was spot zoning?
MIKE KIMACK : No it wouldn't be spot zoning. There isn't really any reason or rational that I
can give the Board as to why that particular on an operating business changed from General
Business to R40.
RICHARD BOZNYAK : I wasn't even notified.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : As a Board Member I don't know how important that is, it exists, it's
grandfathered I don't-think anyone is coming after to shut down your business or anything.
MIKE KIMACK : It has made it difficult over the years for my client simply because the R40 they
look at it based upon the R40 standards every time something is done you know for the
coverage the setbacks. You're non-conforming to begin with your non-conforming cause it's
not a residential home it's made it hard. I'm not quite sure it's been hard. I went to the Board
to ask to have the General Business put back and we were unsuccessful on that one.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright well I think we've exhausted about everything we can and
probably time to move on to the next application. How about we adjourn this to the Special
Meeting so you could go back to Building and research and see if you can come up with any
C.O.'s or anything that would show
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie, Kim has here a C of 0 on the building for the ZBA. It relates to
building permit No. 34748 dated June 5. All we have to do is find that information and see
what was granted and what was C of O'ed. So that would be helpful whether we get it from
Building or Mike provides it.
MIKE KIMACK : I can look it up, we'll go from two different ways. Nick gave me the number on
it.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And I think maybe this is just my opinion I can't speak for the Board
but the tent structure that was supposed to come down which should have come down
especially in light of what you just said about the building was too small so you built a bigger
building that you wanted to contain the equipment inside, logically the tent should have gone
away. So maybe you might reflect upon that so that when we see I guess no we're not going to
see them on
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Unless we want to adjourn I'm just going to proposed to adjourn to
the Special Meeting. If at that time we have enough information we feel that we can close this
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
and make a decision fine, if we still need to investigate and we need to ask you more questions
based upon what we discover or you submit then we will adjourn to the next month's hearing
so we have a chance to
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't want to skip facts but sort of to and I have no problem with
what you suggested but in my mind's eye it would be so much easier, you've already
suggested that you'd remove the four (4) small buildings so those are gone in my mind's eye.
We're confronted with a larger building than what was approved which again being
sympathetic just by what you know what Mike said about the zoning I recognize a business
there. I don't think we want to personally hurt your business, can you do anything with the
tent structure? Cause if the tent is gone we're only talking about the larger building that exists
and if that's something that you're not willing to discuss well then I guess there's the path that
Leslie laid out and we'll see where it all goes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it does require according to the Notice site plan approval
again. So the Planning Board is going to have to look at this no matter what.
MEMBER LEHNERT : And they're going to go back to the old variance that says to remove the
tent.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well it was a condition.
MIKE KIMACK : Unless we get an amended variance from you, then I can go to the Planning
Board.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're going to need to think this through and this is not the time
and place to do anymore thinking.
MIKE KIMACK : We can go down to the beach.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me make a motion to you go ahead and submit what you can
and we'll think more about this. I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this to the Special
Meeting on July 201h. Is there a second?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye
HEARING#7801—CONSTANCE LEVY
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Constance Levy#7801.
This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXII Section 280-116A(1)
and the Building Inspector's April 11, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a
permit to construct additions and alterations to existing single family dwelling at 1) addition
located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff, 2) swimming pool
located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 405 Soundview Avenue in
Mattituck.
MIKE KIMACK : Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant and Ms. Levy is present in the
audience. The existing home as it now sits it's kind of skewed with the top of the bluff. The
closest point is 66.7 feet to one portion of the house. It's a little irregular, the proposed
design of,the house cuts into one corner which is set back 78 feet from the top of the bluff
and is no further seaward than the existing one house. It goes away at a triangular distance
going in a southerly direction and then it cuts back to avoid the pool and I guess the best way
to take a look at it the best way to take a peek at if you can take a look at A002 on this one.
That would give you the best idea of how the proposed addition is being connected to the
house itself. You need me to point out where that connection is made? (away from
microphone)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So they're calling out the bluff setback really what is for the
existing dwelling right?
MIKE KIMACK : Correct the house is irregular in shape so it kind of runs pretty much parallel
with the top of the bluff where the closest point is 66 feet which is off to the easterly side. On
the one where the proposed structure is being connected to is 78 feet. As you can see on the
proposed structure over there (away from microphone). I think when you went out there my
flags and everything was still in place hopefully?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The additions are LWRP consistent it's all landward basically.
MIKE KIMACK : Except for that little triangular section.
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The small connecting piece.
MIKE KIMACK : The small connecting section on that side of the house.
MEMBER DANTES : That's 95 feet from top of bluff right?
MIKE KIMACK : No 78 feet, you're looking at the older one. I had Peconic
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea this is not correct (inaudible) is 78.
MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible)
MIKE KIMACK : Yes you asked for that because the architectural drawings still have a 95 on
that, I should be getting that I'll get it to you. It took a little while to coordinate between the
surveyor sending the CAD over to the architect I should have that for you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It shows on the survey not on the architectural drawings.
MIKE KIMACK : I'll have the ones I'm getting it done,the architect is getting it off to me.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Again there's no building seaward of the house the existing house.
MIKE KIMACK : No, not at all.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : We've seen applications like this before.
MIKE KIMACK : They're not extending any more seaward all the way, and actually they're
doing it at the furthest point away and the only point they can and
MEMBER LEHNERT : So the pool in the side yard becomes a technicality.
MIKE KIMACK : It becomes a side yard because of where the new building is going to go on
that particular
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There's a C.O. on that pool right?
MIKE KIMACK : Yes
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's a legally existing building, this happens all the time, when
somebody puts an addition on a porch on the back of their house all of a sudden the garage is
partially in a side yard.
MIKE KIMACK : I thought the architect did a rather nice job getting the addition in there.
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Very much so it's a very clever addition, it's a very difficult
configuration to create an aesthetically reasonable outcome but this is a very skillful architect.
You're going to get Mark to change it was I don't know who it's not Mark
MIKE KIMACK : I've already put that in and she was doing some traveling I got the Peconic
(inaudible) I should have it soon.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We just want to make sure we have consistent drawings.
MIKE KIMACK : Kim alerted that to me about a week and a half ago.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright anybody on the Board have questions? Is there anybody in
the audience wanting to address the application? Motion to close the hearing reserve
decision to a later date.
MEMBER LEHNERT: Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Did we get an LWRP on this?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's going to be consistent, I know it's going to be consistent cause
it's all landward of the existing.
MIKE KIMACK : I have a question, is the Board making determinations in certain cases going
forward that you're not going to need LWRP?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No the law requires us to anyone wetlands any of those things we
need to get LWRP comments.
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
HEARING # 7803 —JAMES BURLEIGH MORTON and CAROL DEGRAFF MORTON (MORTON JB
LIVING TRUST(#7803
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN The next application before the Board is for James Burleigh
Morton and Carol DeGraff Morton (Morton JB Living Trust) #7803. This is a request for a
variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's March 27, 2023
Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and
alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required
minimum front yard setback of 40 feet located at 495 North Sea Drive in Orient.,State your
name for the record please.
ADAM VOLOSIK : Yes hi thank you, my name is Adam Volosik I'm the architect for the
applicant. The applicants are also here with us in the audience. We're proposing a modest
bedroom addition on the second floor of the residence and also the addition of a bathroom
on the first floor of the residence. We're trying to make the house a little bit more accessible
for the owners. We'll also be in the process rebuilding the master bedroom which currently
exists in the house now. That master bedroom will be all conforming with the current zoning.
The existing house unfortunately is across the setback line which is a 40 foot front yard
setback. The existing dimension is 39.2 feet from the corner. One thing I do want to point out
is we are removing an existing bay on the front of the house which actually crosses which is
actually 38.2 feet from the property line so we're actually pulling away a little bit a non-
conformity on the house.
MEMBER DANTES : Your proposed additions and alterations are more conforming than the
existing (inaudible)?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Following the existing line of the house.
ADAM VOLOSIK : Correct we are following the existing line of the house.
MEMBER DANTES :That works for me.
ADAM VOLOSIK : Does that work for everybody?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We also have in the record four letters of support from your
neighbors.
ADAM VOLOSIK : Yea I was going to mention that, we have four neighbors gave support of the
project.
MEMBER DANTES : I have no further questions.
July 6,2023 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I should indicate that the house is actually I mean we're looking at
39.1 and % I was like why can't you make 40 feet? I understand why I mean it's existing and
you know the additions are where they are it's a second story.
MEMBER LEHNERT : It's a pretty benign application.
ADAM VOLOSIK : The initial FOIL request we saw the original survey for the property it did
actually have a 40 foot dimension, I think it was just builder's error when they were building
the house when it ended up and it's on a slight skew to the front property line which makes
things a little bit more odd. If there's any further questions I have some 3D model images of
the house if that would help anybody but it's in the character of the existing houses on the
street. There's some two story houses, a lot of one story houses and we're trying to keep the
pitch of the second floor down a little bit to keep it a little bit more in character with
everything in the surrounding neighborhood.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the lot across the street is undeveloped and there's no impact
whatsoever on that front yard setback.
ADAM VOLOSIK : The neighboring lot is undeveloped at this point too.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes and the adjacent house is a very large two story home. This
would be smaller than what the existing neighbor's house is actually. I have no questions,
anything from any of you?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good we can leave. Motion to close reserve decision to a later
date.
MEMBER DANTES : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
July 6, 2023 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, we'll have a decision in two weeks. Okay we've already done
the Resolutions. So I think there's no other matter before the Board I'm going to make a
motion to close the meeting. Is there a second?
MEMBER DANTES : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, stop recording and shut down.
July 6,2023 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 :
Elizabeth Sakarellos
DATE :July 14, 2023