HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-07/12/2001 HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
TRANSCRll'T OF HEARINGS
HELD JULY 12, 2001
(Prepared by Paula Quintieri)
Present were:
Chairman Goehringer
Member Dinizio
Member Tortom
Monber C611ins
Member Homtng
Paula Quintieri. Secretary
PUBLIC HEARING:
6:31 - 6:42 p.m. Appl. No. 4970 - JOEL REITMAN. This ~s a request for a Variance
under Article XX1V, Section 100-244B, based on the Building Inspector's May 2, 2001
Notic$, of Disapproval. Applicant is proposing a deck addition with a rear yard setback at
less tl~kn 50 f~et. Location of Property: 325 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic: County Tax
Map Par~0.¢0-86-1-4.22.
CHAIRMAN: Good evening sir, could you stare your name for the record?
JOEL REITMAN: My name is Joel Reitman.
CHAIRMAN: How are you? What would you like to tell us?
JOEL REITMAN: I would like to put up a rear deck and screened in porch that's 12'
X 14'. The backyard variance is supposed to be 50 feet; it's less than that. Behind the
house is an area of 25 feet. To the left side
CHAIRMAN: When the construction of these houses commenced in this sub-division
Mr. Reitman, we became well aware that there were particular problems with the
shallowness of the lots, just are we are in certain areas in the Town. So I don't have any
objection. Let's start with Mr. Dinizio, any questions of Mr. Reitmm~7
MEMBER DINIZIO: No. I don't have any questions.
CHAIRMAN: Miss Collins?
MEMBER COLLINS: Yes. Mr. Reitman the house was built in 2000 ifI understand the
Assessor's Card.
PAGE 2- JULY 12! 2001
ZBA PUBLIC HEAKING TRANSCRIPT
TOWN OF SOUTI-IOLD
JOEL REITMAN: Yes. wemovedinjnsr before Christmas.
MEMBER COLLiNS: Were you the comracr vendee wt~e it was being built? Were
you I the picture or did you buy it when.it was finished?
JOEL REITMAN: No. We went through the process before it was built.
MEMBER COLLiNS: Did you discuss a rear porch, deck with your builder?
JOEL REITMAN: Yes.
MEMBER COLLINS: What was the outcome of the discussion?
JOEL REITMAN: He took it right off, because he said he wo~d get with the variance
later on. He didn't want to go for the variance.
MEMBER COLLiNS: That's what I was afraid the story was. I personally am vc~y
troubled in cases Where builders tell people, they're building right to the permitted line,
actually in your case you've got four more feet of backyard than the town requires. You'
can always get a variance later and mind you, you can't, and you shouldn't count on it. I
just want to make that clear to my colleagues. I've said this before. In the case of your
neighbors, the Molnars who are two houses away who similarly about one year ago, what
they were asking For was a 16-foot open deck and we shaved it a little. I think we gave
them 14 or 15. In our decision we said. the fact that there is open space behind coupled
with the size of the lot; leaves the Board to conclude that a modest open deck wilt not
produce an undesirable change. I am personally very troubled, my colleagues on the
Board, by the fact that Mr. Reitman wants to build is not a modest looking deck. He
wants ro build a screened in porch, which is really an extension of the house. I don't
think that we should permit our rear yard setbacks, to be encroached on that way. I just
want youto know where I'm coming fi.om this.
CHAIRMAN: Sure. Lydia?
MEMBER TORTORA: I understand Miss' Collins concmns. The Molnar decision we
granted alternate relief
CHAIRMAN: It was a foot or two.
MEMBER TORTORA: It was at 35. You are requesting an 8-foot variance. I do share
her concern that we try to look down the road before the house is built. Do you have
plans in the future for any lather additions down the road?
JOEL REITMAN: We had this in our other house, and we want to enjoy the backyard
without the bugs, and that's the purpose of it.
PAGE 3- JULY 12. 2001
ZBA pLrBLIC H~A1LING TRANSCRIPT
TOWN OF SOUTftOLD
CHAIRMAN: Let me _just ask you a question. This particular addition is a one-story
~iddition off the rear'of the house. It is a completely screened in porch, on a raised deck?
JOEL REITMAN: Yes, that's right.
CHAIRMAN: So the ordy difference between the open deck and the closed, [ don't mean
m be trite in this, is the fact that this has a roof and it has three of the sides are enclosed
and screened.
JOEL REITMAN: Correct.
CHAIRMAN: There's no attempt to make this part of the living area of the house.
There's no attempt to putting Anderson windows, or any other type of windows to make
it a permanent part of the house?
JOEL REITMAN: No. I might put electric in for hghts. Thai would be the extent of it.
CH_AJRMAN: Okay, thank you. George?
MEMBER HORNING: I was wondering, you made a statement in applying for the
variance that there are other decks in the neighborhood similar to this, and yet you're
describing a screened in porch.
JOEL REITMAN: When I went to file the application, they asked me to put some kind
of description. I knew that across the street there was something, somebody has a
screened in porch, closer to the main road.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Reinhart, when we're gomg through the procedure of deliberation on
this, the Board could put a restriction on that it remain a screened in porch. So that was
the purpose of my question.
JOEL REITMAN: Okay, yes. We have no problem with that.
CHAIRMAN: it's enclosed by screens, but it's not necessarily enclosed. Nor is it open to
the sky. One of the phrases that we use is open to the sky, and it's not open to the sky.
MEMBER TORTORA: With the condition that it rema'm a screened in porch.
MEMBER HORNING: On the construction of this, could yon tell us is the floor built
like a deck?
JOEL REITMAN: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: Is it going to be timber?
PAGE 4 - JULY 12. 2001
ZBA PUBLIC HEg2R1NG TRANSCRIPT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
CHAIRMAN: Or cedar, ~hatever.
;IOEL 1LEITMAN: Yes. It's a deck.
MEMBER COLLINS: I just want to get my two cents in. When we looked at the
Molnar application, this issue came up of adding something after the fact, and
encroaching on the rear yard. And the Chairman, I can remember him saying it maybe
it
was in the meeting, maybe it was in the deliberations; people need a deck~ We went
along with that. we frequently g~ve people decks that will encroach on rear yards,
because they are open, they are not structural they don't look like part of the'house; and I
just think th~s is different. I will defmitety vote against the screened in porch.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Could I comment? I just want to verify some thugs to, if we have
this reserved area around this plan, and I don't know why it is, but obviously it can't be
built on. If we have setbacks, I'm wondering why we have these setbacks. The only
reason why I can think that we have the setbacks, it occurred to me many times, is to be
away from the neighbor. If there's no neighbor here, and this reserved area, I don't know
if you own that reserve area, there's no mailing, whatev, er it is, it's part of whatever the
public is, there's not going to be a house there. When they cook their hot dogs and
hamburgers on the deck. Ws not going to be may closer than it would be if there were the
right setbacks. I think we have to look at it that way; You can't just this particular lot to
the strictest part of that law, in that; it wilt not disturb their neighbors. That's the reason
why we are looking at these applications, is it going to be a judgment to the neighbors. I
dowt see that.
CHAIRMAN: Who's is this?
MEMBER TORTORA: Mine.
CHAIRMAN: Just don't leave before I close the heanng, Okay. We thank you for your
honesty. We'll see if anybody else is objecting. Just wait until we close the hearing that's
ail. Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to speak in favor of or against
this application? Seeing no hands, I'll make a motioh closing the heating.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
6:42 p.m. Appl. No. 4963 - JANET ODDEN~LAMPAS. This is a request for a Variance
under Article XXIV~ Section 100-242A based on the Building Inspector's May 9, 2001
Notice of Disapproval. Apphcant is proposing 60 sq. ft. of step area for a porch addition.
which will have front yard setback at less than 35 feet. Location of Property: 315
Rachel's Road, Mattituck;.County Tax Map Parcel 1000-I 08-4-7.44.
PAGE 5 - JULY 12. 2001
ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
CHAIRMAN: How do you do? Could you come up and explain why you needed a 60
squar~ foot front porch.
JANET ODDEN-LAMPAS: Why I needed one? One of the problems that I'm having in
my house, which is currently being built an old (inaudible) is pan of the original
,affordable housing of Southold Townsthp. to change from the
engineers l~m on a piece of property that is extremely narrow in the front
and~then widens as it goes back. front yard. So we wanted to stay in depth as
the current steps, but widen to change
CHAIRMAN: Okay. George any questions?
MEMBER HORN1NG: No.
CHAIRMAN: Okay. Mrs. Tortora?
MEMBER TORTORA: No I don't.
CHAIRMAN: Miss Collins?
MEMBER COLLINS: This new front steps, has already been built, hasn't it?
JANET ODDEN-LAMPAS: The front steps have been built?
MEMBER COLLINS: Isn't the new structure already built?
JANET ODDEN-LAMPAS: No, it's not.
MEMBER COLLINS: Oh really. What's there looked bigger than 5 x 6.
JANET ODDEN-LAMPAS: There's a platform that they put up, which is not
. The frame is built, the deck part.
MEMBER COLLINS: I guess that's what I meant.
JANET ODDEN-LAMPAS: Yes, the deck is built and was put in front of the current
door, just for access. Then they're going to shift it to the right.
MEMBER COLLINS: I guess what I'm asking is what I see when I drive by is the scale
of that's the size that it's going to be.
JANET ODDEN-LAMPAS: That is correct.
MEMBER COLLINS: It's going to be covered?
PAGE 6 -JULY 12. 2001
ZBA PUBLIC H~AR1NG TIC'NS CRIPT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
JANET ODDEN-LAMPAS: It's going to have an eve.
MEMBER COLLiNS: Okay, just a roof cover coming out.
JANET ODDEN-LAMPAS: Yes, exactly. Then it's going to have a comer post.
MEMBER COLLiNS: Okay, it's not a foyer with walls.
'JANET ODDEN-LAM~PAS: No.
MEMBER COLLiNS: Okay, thank yom
MEMBER DiNIZIO: They actually moved the road on you, is that it?
JANET ODDEN-LAMPAS: Yes, theydid.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Did they widen it, was the right of way always there, or did they
have to take land from you to do that?
JANET ODDEN, LAMPAS: No they didn't. I'm not exactly sure how it happened; but
when my house was built I didn't get that road for six years, it took them six years to
figure out where that road would be.
CHAIRMAN: I remember that in the newspapers.
JANET ODDEN-LAMPAS: Right, we had a lot of problems with it.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You did. Did you lose some land because of that?
JANET ODDEN-LAMPAS: I don't know, actually. I don't know. When you enter
Rachel's Road, the entrance comes in and then it stfifts a little bit, this way, I'm not really
sure exactly. If you look at it, you see it doesn't really line up straight when you come in
that entrance. When I tried to figure out why is it that my front porch was already past
that 35-foot limit, I was told that the engineer had changed the road to meet, what's now,
Gabriella Court. That's why.
MEMBER DINIZIO: So your house was built, then they changed the road.
JANET ODDEN~LAMPAS: Yes, that is correct.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I just found that hard to believe when I saw the application. Okay,
I don t have any other questions.
PAt~E 7 ~ JULY I2.2001
ZBA PUBLIC UEARINGIIo, A~SCILIFT
TONVN OF SO--OLD
CHAIRMAN: While you're standing there, we'll ask if anybody else has any particular
questions or comments either for or against this application. I don't see any hands. I'll
make a motion closing the heating.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
6:46 p.m. Appl. No. 4966 - LEONARDO TIRADO. This is a request for a Variance
under Article III, Section 100-33, based on the Building Inspector's May 2t, 2001 Notice
'0f Disapproval · Applicant is proposing an amendment in the' location of an accessory
swimming pool clc~ser than 32 feet decided April 19, 2001 by tke Board of Appealsmnder
AppL/~4913. Location of Property. 3850 Nassau Point Road, Cutclx)gue, NY; County
'Tax Map Parcel 1000-111-8-1.
CHAIRMAN: How are you tonight sir?
LEONARDO TIRADO: How are you?
CHAIRMAN: Nice to see you back again. I don't mean that sarcastically. Do you want
to tell us what haplJened between the last application and this one?
LEONARDO TIRADO: We realized the size of the footage that we have is 50 feet. So
the setback arrived at last meeting was 32 feet. That would make the pool very small.
MEMBER TOP, TOP.A: What is the actual? 20 feet?
LEONARDO TIRADO: We're only requesting 20 feet on one side, and 25 feet on the
other, because it's irregular. If I want a which is 50 feet, and then 26 feet to
my next neighbor, the Silemos. Which is actually bigger than what the actual really is,
1.021 feet. You can see from the map.
CHAIRMAN: Okay, how far away is the pool from the house? I know we discussed tiffs
once before.
LEONARDO TIRADO: I don't have a copy here, but it's about 16 feet.
CHAIRMAN: Okay, 16. We had, at that time, asked you to place it closer to the house.
I have to discuss green cards with you before we finish this heating. And you said that
you could move it closer to the house. I don't understand why we 16 feet from the house
at this point. Do you know why?.
LEONARDO TIP, ADO: This is the way we think the pool would look best, for us and
our neighbors.
CHAIRMAN: Let me go back to the same question again. How much closer to the
house can you put the pool?
PAGE 8 - IULY 12.2001
ZBA PUBLIC HEAK1NG TRANSCRIPT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
:LEONARDO TIRADO: Weneed this, we need the 16 feet. Whatever it is here.
MEMBER COLLINS: It measures about 16 feet. I did it scaling it.
LEONARDO TIRADO: We need 16 feet. When we submitted the variance, it was our
first variance. We did realize when we actually started figuring out where the pool was
going to be. We did realize the lot itself. But now we know the area we would like to
:obtain. 20 feet fi:om Wmmeweta, 26 feet fi:om the Silemos~ and 32 feet from the right of
way. tt i~' p~reuy even that way, and also, the house would be located right next to the
structure of the house, as you can see tim,the map. II~s not going towards the right of
way, or'towards the Silemos, it's right behind the structure itself.
CI-L4IRMAN: Let me ask you a question~ I am personally not a builder. [ don't purport
to be a builder, but it is my understanding that/~ you were to push it closer to the house
you would have to elevate the pool more. Is that correct?
LEONARD TIRADO: Not really. I tkink t would have to make the lot a little bit even,
but I don't thinl~ I need to raise it. Why raise it, I don't understand.
CHAIRMAN: Well, if you don't raise it, then all the wafer fi:om all the surrounding area
ends'up in the pool.
LEONARDO TIRADO: That's no problem. It alreadyhas no problems like that, that lot.
That's the first Itdng we looked at when we considered doing the pool. We lived in the
house for three years. We waited to see what came up. And that hasn't come up. The
water is not a problem there. It circles down Wunneweta and down my right of way,
naturally. As a matter of fact, we have a problem with the water being channeled through
the right of way and onto Nassau Point Beach. But the water is not a problem now. We
don't need to raise it. We can build it as is, maybe raise it a froot or so to make it even.
But there's no water problem.
CHAIRMAN: We'll start with Jim, any questions Mr. Dinizio?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
CHAIRMAN: Miss Collins?
MEMBER COLLINS: I want to get something clear in the record, because your previous
appeal and. this one have entailed an awful lot of numbers flying around. We have here a
letter that you wrote, I guess to the Building Deparunent, in May when you were
rethinking where the pool really was going to go. It has some numbers in it that are not
the setback numbers that are on this survey, which we also have fi:om MrJ Isaksen dated
June 5. Is this what we're talking about, this survey? Is th/s what you want to do?
PAGE 9 - ]IYLY 12,2001
ZBA PUBLIC ttEAPdNG TRANSCRIt~
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
t~._, LEONARDO TIRADO: This is from That's why we did it with a
surveyor.
MEMBER COLLINS: I am trying to ou~ records.
LEONARDO TIRADO: It was very confusing, it was our frrst variance.
MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, indeed, it was very confusing.
LEONARDO T1RADO: Very confusing, and I'm very sorq- for taking up your time.
MEMBER COLLINS: Excuse me, I want ro make sure, I'm trying ro get tlf~s into our
records that the numbers we are talking about, the numbers you are asking for are the
numbers that show on this survey by Stanley Isaksen dated June 5.
LEONARDO TIRADO: Yes.
MEMBER COLLINS: Okay, thank you.
MEMBER TORTORA: So then, the relief is from: instead of 32 it's 25. Is that correct?
,zf~'~ LEONARDO TIRADO: That's right, and 20. Make sure because it's irregular. 20 and
25. It's 53 all together from where Wurmeweta is
MEMBER TORTORA: It's 20 at the closest. But on this particular application, I think
what we ought to do is all the points from the closest point.
MEMBER COLLINS: Absolutely.
MEMBER TORTORA: You know 20 feet then down to the nearest point of the pool at
25. List all the points in this decision.
CHAIRMAN: That's why I wanted to know how far it is from the house.
MEMBER TORTORA: I think it's 16.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You can write it down. but if you take 53, less 18 then you should
get the difference.
MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, and I scaled it off just now.
CHAII~[AN: You're telling me that that arrow, that 5.6 on the house is 16 feet from
there to the pool?
MEMBER TORTORA: Look at the width of the pool Jerry, it looks about right.
?AC~E 10 -~krLY 12, 2001
ZBA PUBLIC FI]EARING TRANSCRIPT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MEMBER 9OLLINS: Yes, it is. Lydia in the~ prior application I recall you made a
point, and I [hink it was in our decision about where the filter equipment was going to go.
MEMBER TORTORA: Has there been any chang~ in that?
LEONARDO TIRADO: No. We will, you can set the same findings from last time.
Some was going to go in the basement and some
MEMBER TORTORA: The only condition that you're asking to be listed is the
LEONARDO TIRADO: Is the 20 and 25.
MEMBER TORTORA: So all of the conditions, as far as the location, all that would
stay?
CHAIRMAN: In these decisions I think we are going m reserve the right m look at the
placement of these, so if they become a problem to the neighbors, we may have to change
it.
MEMBER COLLINS: I don't think you want to do that.
CHAIRMAN: Well think about it.
MEMBER COLLINS: It's better to do it right the first time.
MEMBER HORN1NG: How would they change it?
CHAIRMAN: How would they change it? They'd have to move it.
MEMBER HORNING: Is that possible?
CHAIRMAN: Sure. Anything is possible.
LEONARDO TIRADO: As a matter of fact, this variance, remember five letters were
written in by my neighbors. Two of them were, three of them were of the six that I
mailed in. Make sure that that's in this file too.
CHAIRMAN: How many green cards do vou owe us? You still owe us more green
cards.
LEONARDO TIRADO: They were mailed here. The six that I need to send, the
certification.
PAGE 11 - JULY 12, 2001
,ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MEMBER COLLINS: Lydia going back to thai thing about the filter. We said the
~ '~ pumps and filters mst be located, as offered by the applicant, either in the basement or
as dose to the right of wa~y, Which means Menhaden Road, as posst~ble near the ex?sting
shed. Sc~, I think what. Jerry said is correct. That basically, what. Mr. Tirado is asking
that's different from what he go~ in the earlier decision, is a different setback from
Menhaden Road.
LEOBIARDO TIRADO: From Wunneweta. I think on Menhaden it remained the same.
MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, I'm sorry.
LEONARD T1RADO: But since I am submitting a new variance, this would be
considered a different.
MEMBER COLLINS: Of course. I am trying to determine how it differs from what we
did before. The problem is that we were working before with numbers that apparently
don't parse.
LEONARDO TIRADO: That is correct.
MEMBER TORTORA: I think the difference is probably that you had a 1979 survey
that you were working off of.
CHAIRMAN: Questions?
MEMBER COLLINS: No.
CHAIRMAN: Okay, let's see what develops throughout the hearing. We thank yon sir.
Don't leave, please, until we close the heating. Is there anybody else that would like to
speak in favor of this application? ls there anybody else that would like to speak against
the application? Yes, sir. State your name for the record please.
RICHARD WEISS: My name is Richard Weiss. I own two pieces of property across
Wunneweta Road from the applicant's property. The relocated pool position puts it 5 ½
feet closer to Wnnneweta Road. That, to me, is immaterial. I'm across the street,
whether 5 feet one way or the other is, doesn't really matter. The crux as is pu~ting the
pool on the Wurmeweta Road side instead of the other of the house, that's over'and done
with. The comments I have, the revised drawing shows no pool machinery location. I
would think that should be shown somewhere. The revised drawing shows no fence or
enclosure location. That was the subject of a discussion here back in April. The height
ora fence, which was proposed at 6'feet and then determined to be allowed only 4 feet.
In the meantime, there has been a 6-foot fence erected on the southerly property line all
the way to Wunneweta Road.
PAGE 12 - JULY 12. 2001
ZBA PUBLIC HEA2dNG TRANSCRIPT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
CHAIRMAN: We deterr~tned that no to be legal. That's the situation in our opinion.
There is no fence application as far as that goes.
RICHARD WEISS: Well there is a fence.
CHAIRMAN: But, we're saying to you that that fence has not been properly placed, in
our detenuination.
MEMBER COLLINS: No, it's a rear..vard fence.
CHAIRMAN: Ob. it's a rear yard fence. If the Building Deparunent allowed him to put
it there, that's not an issue that's before us, at this time.
RICHARD WEISS: I understand. I would then assume, that the 6 foot fence will not be
continned all along Wunneweta Road.
CHAIRMAN: Not by this Board. I mean, I'm just saying I make these statements and
none of them are meant to be smug or sarcastic in any way, manner or form. We do not
have a fence application before us at this time. Therefore, it is our understanding that it
will be a 4-foot fence, meeting State guidelines.
RICHARD WEISS: I understand. I also have one prior point on this revised drawing;
there is no mention of any kind of landscaping or softening of the fence from the exterior,
which verbally was agreed to by the applicant back in April. I see no mention of that.
It's the fence location, the landscaping and the pool machinery are lacking on the so-
called fmal drawing.
MEMBER TORTORA: I understand your reviewed report. The problem is we don't
have a fence before us to require screening. We don't have an application for a fence
before ns. So we can't instruct him to do any landscaping or screening.
RICHARD WEISS: I understand. Then I would assume that there would be no fence
erected without permission of the Building Department.
MEMBER TORTORA: Absolutely. If the Building Department says, that if he applies
for a 6 foot fence on the Wunneweta or Menhaden side, then he would be right where the
and you would get notice just like before.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Tirado?
LEONARDO TIRADO: Let me clear the issue of that fence. That fence is in the process
of being built to code, because the Silemos they complained to the Building Department.
The Building Department comes back to us and requested us to build a fence to code. It
has not been brought down to Code, because the contractor is busy. Bul as soon as the
contractor, sometime the end of this month, then that fence will be to code.
PAGE 13 - JIJLY 12. 2001
ZBA PUBLIC ItEAi~JNG TRANSCPdPT
TOWN OF SOIJTHOLD
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. What about the fence around the pool?
LEONARDO TIRADe: It will be to code.
CHAIRMAN: Okay, ~hank you. Anybody else like to speak against this application?
S/r?
MICHAEL SILERNO: Michael Silemo, 2045 Wunneweta Road. At the last set of
hearings wh~en I spo~ke on this; I was not Opposed to Mr. Tirado's pool, and the 'new
setbacks that were golng to be placed. Now, I am opposed to it being in that location. I
~hink it should be on the other side, where it has. more than ample room to put the pool.
Gettingt6 the fence~ which is just the issae h~ere, he is in violation of the already erected
fence s'mee yom: last rul'mg ~ April where, you told him abt~ut th~ 4-foot height Me has
erected a 6-foot fence. That was my rrmin concern when we were here at~ending the
meetings, that there was not going to, be a continuation of'that fence that he already put,
which is c~msidered his rear y0rd continu'mg down my driveway, which he did all the way
to wmmeweta Road. I've taken photos ~it~find, you are aware of it. I spoke with Gary
Fish, which he was~on the ca~e, and explained to me whicli Mr. Tir, ado jus, t sid~ that the
conlractor is too busy to take it. down. So nx)glffng is being done about~tl~t. Evidently,
notre Of, you have been on tM site since. April, I did take some pllotos, if! may present
them.
CHAIRMAN: Sure. Could I just ask you a question Mr. Silcmo? As I did with the prior
neighbor. In no way is this meant to be a sarcastic statement toward you or your family.
What has changed your mind in referenced tothe pool being located in this location that
he's proposed, at this time?
MICHAEL SILERNO: Well I just feel that since you people set a ruling last April, and
at that time, the fence had already been considered. He disregarded it, and he went ahead
and did it anyway. He said a lot of things of what he will do, but, it doesn't seem to work
out that way. I don'fknow what to expect. That was an insult.
CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you.
LEONARDO TIRADe: rm sorry if they took the fence as an insult. The problem here
is that house and my house there is no setback. Now we both have to live with it. I am
there to stay.
CHAIRMAN: Pardon me Mr. Tirade.
LEONARDO TIRADe: That's really truly where the problem is. Mr. Silerno keeps a
boat there, which by code, cannot be parked there.
MICHAEL SILERNO: There's no boat there.
PAGE i4 - ILrLy 12. 2001
ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
LEONARDO TIRADO: For the last three years, there!s been a boat there.
CHAIRMAN: We understand.
LEONARDO TIRADO: So it's going back and forth. You'll probably see us here back
and forth on this issue. But the problem here is that the two houses are too close to each
other. I'm 21 feet away from his property. He has no setback, he's right there. Cars all
of the time.
CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. Anybody else that would like to speak for or agmnst
this apphcation? Yes, ma'am?
EILEEN CASE-SITSON: ! live ar 3745; I think that's right, I'm not sure because it is a
new institution. My grandfather, Ralph Case, was a developer of Nassau Point. Our
house goes back to 1920. We live up on the hill and are neighbors. There's always been
good feeling on the Point.
CHAIRMAN: Could I just ask a question? Is this Wmmeweta Road that yon live on?
EILEEN CASE-SITSON: No, we live on Nassau Point Road. We Iive across and we're
on the Bay side, in fact, we allow them to use the beach and we have their Kayak.
There's always been good neighborliness. I just came to suppon him, but also it might be
an interest that, your house, my grandfather owned the lot, he owned a lot of tots. owned
the lot where your house came from. My parent's best friends were from.
CHAIRMAN: You're referring ro Mr. Silerno?
EILEEN CASE-SITSON: We never had bad feelings, but, I do believe that they have a
boundary problem that probably went back before the pool. Basically, the people in the
neighborhood with the Sclmeiders, ourselves, the people next door ro us, have no
objection to somebody having a pool. So. I'm just saying I know we're not the/mmediate
neighbors, but things have not always been that way. I would just sa~v as a founding
family, that we tike everybody to be happy.
MEMBER TORTORA: Then you have no objections?
EILEEN CASE-SITSON: No objection.
MEMBER TORTORA: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN: Anybody else? Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion closing
the hearing, reserving decision until later.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
PAGE 15 -JULY 12 2001
EBA pUBLIC t/EARING TRANSC1UP~I
tOWN OF SOUTHOLD
7:07 p,m. Appl. No. 4967 - THOMAS JEROME. This is a request for a Variance under
Article gl. Section 100-32, and Bulk Schedule oftheZoning Code, based on the Building
Inspector's May 2, 2001 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant is proposing a division into
two lots, one with a two-family dwelling on less than 160,00Osq. ft. of land area, and the
other lot for a proposed single-family dwelling on less than 80,000 sq. ft. of land area, in
this R-80 Residegtial Zone District. ~T,o, tal land are ,existing: 192,66~ SCi. ft. Location of
'Property., 48220 Main, Road, So~tltold County Tax Map parcel 1000-69-6-7
CHAIRMAN: Good evening, Miss Moor~. how are you?
PATRICIA MOORE: Good evening. I was rooking back in my file, and it's hard m
believe that I was here on the two family home back in 1998. It feels likejust last week.
In reviewing my file, to give you a little bit of background for the Board Members that
were not on the Board at the time.
MEMBER COLLINS: We were all here Miss Moore.
PATRICIA MOORE: You were all here? Well. then I won't be going through the
background.
CHAIPO/iAN: Not at all.
PATRICIA MOORE: We have a legally pre-existing two-family home m the front~ It
has been renovated. It now is occupied and has continued to be occupied by two
families, single moms with children. It's been working out very well. On Thomas
Jerome, the piece of property is 4.4 acres, which is a very large parcel with this pre-
existing two-family. If we had started, this could have existing on any size property. In
this particular instance, it'was parr of a larger farm. The Kowalski family used the back
piece for agriculture and had other in the area. Thomas Jerome would like to put,
separate the two-family house, which only requires one acre, under the Health
Department requirements. That is the min/mum acreage that the Health Department
would want to seeon this two-family; and use the back 3:3 acres for a small house to
continue the agricultural use. garden, farm, vegetable garden, that kind of thing. That's
why we're here before you at this time. It's to put a line between these two properties.
Provide for adequate size for the two-family. You don't really need for their purposes,
they don't use any more land than the surrounding piece righl now. It's a lot of
maintenance and so on. The back piece would work very well for a modest single-family
residence with farm use. It seamed to make sense. We appeared befbre the Planning
Board at a work session, showed them our proposal and said to the Planning Board, what
you thinlg~ wh~re would you recommend this line? This is where we think'it should go.
They adjusted it somewhat and they recommended the line that's been drawn. It's nice
and clean and it provides direct assess as applied on it for the back p~ece. And giving the
front piece the same access. There essentially won't be any changes to the front piece. I
PAGE 16- YLIL¥ 12. 2001
ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT
tOWN OF SOUTHOLD
stand corrected; it must have been a little mark on my survey that made me think that two
garages were going Io be remove& Ouly o~e garage would need to be remove& That's
the one that would'be in the flag lot portion. The other garage, which is the larger garage,
there is no intenrxon of removing it. It's a functioning garage and it works welt for
storage. I please correct my application to reflect that one garage would be remove&
MEMBER TORTORA: The barn?
PATRI~CIA MOORE: The barn stays. The3/re ail in good condition; it wouldn!t make
sense to remove them. They're all working with the two families. They're all
functioning. As £ar as Mr. Jerome is conceme& I beIieve the intent to conlirme, to keep
the properties. He doesn't have any intention of selling the two-fs~m~ly. So most likely;
the agricultural piece could still share the barn between the two f ~ansffl: [~es. But, ,for the
most part,' the~v are goil~g to be independent of each other and ftm6tion hadepengemtly.
CHAIRMAN: Miss Moore, let me ask you a questior~ Assuming that the Board was not
happy with 1.081 acres, but'was happy with the figure that is greater than that.
PATRICIA MOORE: That's not a problem. I should've mentioned that, because one of
my points, the line that has been drawn is one that Mr. Jerome would like to see, that
would work for h'ma. But he is certainly amenable to modifying the tine if you want to
see more land on the two-family house; I don't see a problem with that. It would be
purely adding acreage, not because it's necessary for it's functioning or the Health
Department, but maybe because you want to see a more even split of the property. I
think we would be agreeable to that.
CHAIRMAN: Okay. We*ll start with Mr. Hormng.
MEMBER HORNING: Up to a certain point, Miss Moore, would he agree to a 2-aere
parcel?
PATRICIA MOORE: On the two-family? It seems to take away more from the ag.
piece. Let's assume, his finances require to sell off the two-family and his house is there
and we'd like tb use it to grow crops on it. Whatever they might need, vegetables or
whatever. It takes away from it, you'd have to lease that, and that wouldn't be likely. So
that's why he would prefer to see more land on the house parcel. They both would be
served, we believe, by Public Water, but they are certainly large enough, even a two-acre,
would be large enough for a private well and sanitary. So, it's not an issue, a Health
Department related issue, it's more a functioning.
MEMBER HORNING: I understand. How about an acre and a haif?. I mean you said,
PATRICIA MOORE: An acre and a half is fine on the two-family. That certainly would
work. We th/nk that, the Planning Board wanted to see at least a 15-foot driveway. And
we wanted to maintain adequate that people who come in and the families; we want to
PAGE i7 -'JULY 12. 200t
ZBA PUBLIC HEARtNG TRANSCRIPT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
give them enough space from the property line along where the flag is. So it would nor
make s~se to make that too much wider, we could, but we're ~rying to leave room for the
two-family. Certainly w~ could cut the back parcel. We tried to make it a more normal
separation, and again, with the Planning Board's ass/stance, we originally had something
else in mind. t think ~ur tine had originally gone all the way across. But the Planning
Board said, welt that doesn't make sense because you have your driveway cutting thrq~ugh
a piece that would be used by the twn-family and you'd have essen~y box. It wouldn't
be fimetional. So, we actually conceded ro this, it works for us. Would you like a
different d~sign?
MEMBER HORNING: Well, that would nor be an extraordinary right of way through
the property.
PATRICIA MOORE: No, it just leaves. We were trying to put it as a flag lot, rather than
a right of way. 'That usually works better for maintenance of the access.
MEMBER HORNING: I understand.
PATRICIA MOORE: My suggestion might be this being the minimal, that if the
Planning Board wants to make it larger, we don't have a problem with~it.
MEMBER TORTORA: What, you have it as a single family.with Ag. What AG. Use?
What type of Ag. Use?
THOMAS JEROME: We just want to plant a garden. As a farmer, I've had apple trees,
Who knows, I might put some more in. It's always nice to have a little bit more property.
Looking at this property here, all I can see is, if we move it back any further, that's more
further back the house is going to be; that's much more of a road I have to put in.
Because I can only go back on one side. I can't go back on the opposite side. Tiffs is why
we came up with this piece, and like 1 said, everybody seemed to go along with. I
certainly could make it go back, but now I'm going to have to put the house back further.
It will take away quite a bit of property.
MEMBER TORTORA: I used ro be a member of the Suffolk County Planning
Commission. We used to look at flag lots ali the time in sub-divisions. One of the
problems, if we brought that line any further, is you would be creating two separate
parcels on the front part of the parcel; actually a non-useable piece. From years of
experience, it's not a desirable thing. I have absolutely no objection of the layout that you
have presented because it's very practical, it's extremely practical. To go back any
further, you are going to create less use, you're going to create a little comer there, a little
L shaped comer that's going To be of no use to anyone. As far as I'm concerned I'm
willing to make it subject to Planning Board increase or anything else, but I totally see
the sense of what has been done here.
CHAIRMAN: Miss Moore is this 1.081 acres based upon 43,560 at 40.000?
PAGE 18 -JULY 12.2001
ZBA PUBLIC I-TEARING TR-4NSCRIPT
TO~gFN OF SOUTHOLD
THOMAS JEROME: I'm pretty sure (inaudible)
MEMBER COLLINS: Jerry, the surveyor wrote in area 4.423 acres. The total parcel,
undivided according to the surveyor, is 4.423 acres. Surveyors speak in acres, not 40,000
feet.
CHAIRMAN: So does the Tax Map.
PATRICIA MOORE: I mean, if you want to say more or less. I mean the surveyor wilt
draw it up precisely for the Planning Board.
CHAIRMAN: No, that's an issue thought that the 43,560 is at 40,000. Miss Collins did
you have a question?
MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, again, I think I want this in the record. When you were here
three years ago you were asldng us, in effect, to bless the existence of this two-family
house. There was evidence that it had been a two-family house since before, b~fore. Our
decision then. had very little content. It's not at' all ctear to me how important to us at the
time. that' this two-family house, that it was located on four acres; and that it. therefore.
satisfied the square footage requirement of the law now. I have no recollection of
whether we discussed it. I suspect we 'didn't. Now, I think what youYe saying, in a
nutshell, is, this house exists, it's been there for a long time. We blessed it. We said, yes
it exists, it's okay they should treat it as legal, Your point, I th/nk, your legal point is that
we did that without regarding the size of the lot that it's on. Therefore we should not be
concerned now with requiring that it exists on a lot that conforms to current zoning. But
it's okay to let it exists on a one-acre lot, instead of 160,000 square foot. Is that your
point?
PATRICIA MOORE: Yes it's very well stated.
MEMBER COLLINS: I th'mk that's your legal point, and I Wanted to get it clear. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio?
MEMBER DINIZIO: I recall thinking about the size of the lot, w/th the two homes and
· all that. I think we did discuss it a little bit. I just have, I give you my thought on this.
That is I wouldn't mind seeing the lot with the two-family smaller than his right now. In
other words, up to that line that says 8.t6.
PATRICIA MOORE: I would like that too, but the problem the Health Deparanent
requires a minimum of one acre.
PAGE 19-JULY 12_2001
ZBA PUBLIC HEAPdNG TRANSCRIPT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well that brings me m another point. The point, are they're any
plans to sub-divide the 3.4 acres?
PATRICIA MOORE: No.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Can we'set that as a condition?
PATRICIA MOORE: We can set that as a condition, yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: That there is. one single house on a piece of property. No F~mit ro
the size of that house, except for the setback. You can sell it later on; I lxave no objection
to that. I just want to be sure that there wasn't going to be a sub-division in there.
MEMBER TORTORA: A ques~tion here, because [ totally confer with Jim on this one.
What the Chairman has raised, is how do we define what we're granting, when we do nol
know whether we are talking about a 43.560 or 1.081 acres?
MEMBER COLLINS: I feel very confident th~/t we know what we're talking about.
PATRICIA MOORE: One suggestion I would have is that you will need a survey to go
to the Ptann/ng Board. What we can do is follow up with a survey that gives you the
~'- precise measurements. The problem isL the surveyors take a while to do this. If we know
x, .... that you're approving subject ro the receipt of the survey, just to get the exact
measurements that reflects this; we have no problem. We just don't want to spend
money, th/s is going to be a very expensive survey, without knowing that the Zoning
Board agrees with the line, likes where things are, given the specifics of the acreage.
MEMBER TORTORA: That would be fine with me. How does that sound?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Oh, yes.
MEMBER TORTORA: Approval subject to the receipt of the survey for the exact
dimensions.
PATRICIA MOORE: Right, and then you can fill in the blanks on the exact dimensions.
MEMBER HORNING: What they're looking for here is one acre.
PATRICIA MOORE: Yes~ we need to justify for the Planning Board too. We have to
show acreage here and acreage here. That would also be helpful too, because I can work
comfortable ~ ith a surveyor, put this through to make sure that our access is good, that
everything ~s measured properly because I appreciate your acceptance of tiffs survey the
way it is. It is very kind of you to accept such a rough drawing. [ th'ink it would be
appropriate, for everybody.
PAGE 20 -JULY 12. 2001
ZBA PUBLIC HEAPdNG TRANSCRIFI
TOWN OF SOUTFiOLD
MEMBER TORTORA: If you don't mind waiting until you get the survey, then I'm
PATRICIA MOORE: No, for the final decision. We can't go to the P}ann~g Board
anyway until we have the surveyin hand.
CHAIR, MAN: Okay, we'.ll see what else develops throughout the heating, and we thank
you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor or against this application?
Okay, ~eeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until
later.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
7:25 p.m, Appl. No. 4973 - DONALD AND LOUISE MOYLE. This is a request for a
Variance under Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4, based on the Building Inspector's May
30. 2001 Notice of Disapproval for a proposed addition at less than 75 feet from the
bulkhead. Property Location: 1920 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold: County Tax Map
Parcel 1000-87-3-63.1 for 63).
CHAIRMAN: Good evening sir. Would you sram your name. for the record please?
DONALD MOYLE: Donald Moyle.
CHAIRMAN: How do yon do.
DONALD MOYLE: Address is 1920 Mirmehaha Boulevard in Southold.
CHAIRMAN: Okay, what would you like to tell us?
DONALD MOYLE: We are proposing an addition to the existing house, including that
is a deck, That encroaches, as I understand it, coastal barrier line. We need your
approval in order for us to go ahead with the project.
CHAIRMAN: Pardon me, Miss Collins?
MEMBER COLLINS: The coastal erosion hazard line is not the issue. The issue is it is
more than 75 feet of the bulkhead. That is what we are addressing.
CHAIRMAN: It is not SCZM hne. Okay it is within 75 of the bulkhead. We have
jurisdiction within that area. Can you tell us, I mean I've read the application, but can
you tell us why you need this deck?
DONALD MOYLE: To improve the house which we've all enjoyed for many, many
years, some 40 years, l think the file shows we've made certain additions in the past to
this piece of property. I'm not sure whether any of you have been up to visit the property,
PAGE 21 - JULY 12.2001
ZBA PUBLIC HEAPdNG TRANSCRIPT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
but process of the State, etc. We think that it's a perfect spot to do a little more with the
structure, and that would include addinga deck that would run the length of the l~ouse,
it*s actually a walkway, a s/x-foot deck. In addition to that is a second garage, the lop of
the garage.
MEMBER TORTORA: That's a second garag~e?
DONALD MOYLE: It's a second garage.
MEMBER TORTORA: On the east side?
DONALD MOYLE: On the east side.
CHAIRMAN: How high would that be Mr. Moyle? How high would that second story
be?
DONALD MOYLE: The fzrst floor is 7 feet. The second would take it up another 8 feet.
It's got a peak to it; it's a gable, a single gable. To the point of the gable, it would
probably be 20 feet to the top of the gable approximately.
CHAIRMAN: What is the reason for that? For that addition? Why are you requesting
that?
DONALD MOYLE: The addition?
CHAIRMAN: Yes.
DONALD MOYLE: To add a room that is situated in a spot, for an ideal meal of the
day, we sit right on the Bay there, right on Corey Creek. tt shoots right out of the Bay.
It's a most ideal area for the house to have an addition. It's just to maximize the locatio~
with something that we would value and enjoy. We don't intend to go anywhere. It's
with the perspective of our own enjoyment. We have one other room top, in addition to
the living room. Just a nice addition. I guess that's the best explanation I can give you.
CHAIRMAN: Okay. The reason why I asked that question is because you're asking for
the elongation of the deck at that point, also to Include that. That was the main reason
why I asked that question. Okay, we'll start with Mr. Dinizio. Any questions of Mr.
Moyte?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
CHAIRMAN: Miss Collins?
MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Moyle, the reason you're here is because that sLx-foot deck is
within 75 feet of the bulkhead. That's what the Building Department gave you a
PAGE 22 - IL~LY 12. 2001
ZBA PUBLIC Ftl~ARING TP. ANS CPdPT
TO~7~N OF SOUTHOLD
disapproval for. Did you put in a Building Permit request for the whole project,
including your addition ro the east beyond the garage? Is that all in the Building
Department?
DONALD MOYLE: That went and the project was disapproved to come back here.
MEMBER COLLINS: I'm being obscure, because the addition is too close the road, and
I'm Wondering i~you have another disapproval.
MEMBER TORTORA: I can clari~ this, because I spoke with the Building Department.
MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, okay.
MEMBER TORTORA: What is before us, is not just the deck, it's both proposed
additions because all of the proposed additions are within 75 feet of the bulkhead ~nd~r
the new interpretation of the office.
CHAIRMAN: That was what I was eluding to before. So, in other words, everything is
within the 75 feet.
MEMBER COLLINS: I was also concerned with the front yard setback on the road. It
goes from 18 ~ z to 16. I personally don't care about the front yard setback, it's just that if
Mr. Moyle.
MEMBER TORTORA: I~e Building Department wrote it correctly. It does not say
deck, it says proposed, permit for addition.
MEMBER COLLINS: Lydia. you are explaining a question I didn't ask. I wanted to
know whether Mr. Moyle, whether the Building De~partment has expressed any concern
about his setback from Mirmehaha Boulevard with his addition. Because his current
setback is 18 ½ feet, at the closest point, and the addition is gmng to go to 16 feet; and if
he's going to need another variance, I just wanted him to be aware of it. I wasn't talking
about the setback from the bulkhead.
DONALD MOYLE: Do you want me to answer that, the best way I can?
MEMBER COLLINS: Sure.
DONALD MOYLE: As I understand it, that was not an ~ssue that was being considered
by the Building Departmenu They use the 15.9 if you took on the, you see the 15.9.
They use that as justification for not considering the road setback. That's my
understanding of it.
PAGE 23 -JULY 12.2001
ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MEMBER COLLINS: That's precisely the question I was trying to ask, and I was really
only aslcing it for your sake. To make sure that you weren't going to be blind-sided by
discovering you had another problem you hadn't identified. But you don't have it.
DONALD MOYLE: We were vmy concerned about that. until we got the survey that
brought that point clear.
MEMBER COLLINS: Okay thank you. I'm sorry m confuse things.
CHAIRMAN: Okay, Lydia?
MEMBER TORTORA: The only concern, what is the length of the deck now?
DONALD MOYLE: The proposed deck?
MEMBER TORTORA: Yes.
DONALD MOYLE: The entire proposed deck will be about 70 feet by 6 feet. There's a
little jog that goes in there, there's a breezeway that will be the separation.
MEMBER TORTORA: The closest point that the house is ar now is roughly 30 feet.
DONALD MOYLE: The survey shows the 30 feet is the closest point. That runs off the
porch there.
MEMBER TORTORA: One of the things that rye view is, we look at the minimum relief
necessary. Yes, it's a beautiful house. What you're proposing is vcn-y elegant. However,
ir is 25 feet from the bulkhead. So, what I'm going to ask you is, would it be possible for
you to cut back on some of that deck to get it back to 30 feet. So the variance would be
for the existing line.
DONALD MOYLE: See, I don't tlfmk that's possible, because there are two issues there
as I see it. One is if you go back the 30 feet, you don't have a deck.
MEMBER TORTORA: Than you'd have half a deck.
DONALD MOYLE: But it would be so narrow, it would almost be hazardous.
MEMBER TORTORA: It would be. instead of 70 feet, it would be 35- feet.
DONALD MOYLE: Oh you mean going, I think estheticalty it would be a big problem.
MEMBER TORTORA: 6 by 35? It may be 6 by 40. I don't have a measurement. I'm
,,~-, asking the question, that's all.
PAGE 24 -JULY 12. 2001
ZBA PUBLIC HEAP, lNG TRANSCRIPT
rOWN OF SOUTHOLD
DONALD MOYLE: ,I've been in this place for forty years, and I can only say that I've
spent a lot of time looking at tiffs house. If you look at it, and you start breaking up
decks, one here, one here, it would really destroy the project. We wouldn't be able to
pursue it. I wo~tldn!t pursue.it. Esthetically it would not work. This is an old fisherman's
shack. WeYe transformed it into a very livable ho~ne, over the years. We're just frying to
rrmke it look better, to do something without knocking it c~owrc People tell us the easiest
thing to do is to knock k down. The least expensive way ~s to knock it d~)wn. Then, you
can put the Taj Mahal and go up and put it on the same footprint. I don't want to
maintain the same character that brought us to this place to, begin with and xnake it better.
Bnng tt up to snuff with whats going on m the Commuurty of S~out~otd tod~y
architecturally. That's what we're ti'ying to/[o.
MEMBER TORTORA: I can respect that.
CHAIRMAN: Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't have any questions.
CHAIRMAN: We'll see what develops throughout the hearing; please don't leave until
we close it. Thank you sir. Is there anybody else th~/t would like to speak in favor of this
application? Anybody like to speak against this application? Seeing no hands, I'll make
a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later.
SEE MII~ UTES FOR RESOLUTION
7:37 p.m. Appl. 4968 - EDGEWATER 1~ LLC. This is a request for a Variance under
Article III, Section 100-32, based on the Building Inspector's May 1,200t Notice of
Disapproval for the reason that third story of the proposed dwelling is indicated as
habitable area. Location afproperty: 63735 C.R. 48, Greenport; County Tax Map Parcel
1000-40-1-20.2. P. Moore, Esq.
PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: Miss Cohen is here this evening, next to Christine Haspel
and Ira Haspel as the architect.
MEMBER COLLINS: Just before you start. Miss Moore, this is a completely new plan
isn't it?
PATRICIA MOORE: Yes.
MEMBER COLLINS: So we haven't seen this, and you're going to talk to us about
something we haven't seen.
PATRICIA MOORE: Correct.
MEMBER.COLLINS: Is there anew disapproval?
PAGE 25 - JIJLy 12, 2001
ZBA PUBLIC lO, EARING TRANSCRII~
TOYVN OF SOUTHOLD
PATRICIA MOORE: No, it's still the third story addition. The footprint has not
changed.
MEMBER COLLINS: I realize that I've Ceased the microphone here, but I wanted to say
this at'the ontset before you started your presentation. The disapproval was for a roof
over 35 feet because of an elevator shaft and a third story. In the plans, which I carefully
studied, I could find neither an elevator shaft, nor in the elevation a roof that seemed to
be o,~r 35 feet. I wanted to saythat at the outset.
IRA HASPEL: [ am Ira Haspel, the arcbJtect.
CHAIRMAN: How are you.
IRA HASPEL: The plans that were first submitted to the Building Department and
disapproved, are the ones that you received first and reviewed, and the ones you have
before you fight now, neither set exceeds 35 feet.
PATRICIA MOORE: So the disapproval, that's incorrect. It should have said, or I think
it said at one point or another, it was a 2-½ story, a definition of a 2-½ story.
CHAIRMAN: So what we're saying here is we're within the Zoning, but we are
exceeding the 2 ½ story?
PATRICIA MOORE: Right.
MEMBER COLLINS: It does say, the top of the elevator shaft exceeds the 35-foot
requirement.
PATRICIA MOORE: Yes. that is the only part of it that exceeded 35 feet, because the
shaft tmsto go above the roof line of 35 feet.
MEMBER COLLINS: And the elevation drawings that we looked at in that first set
didn't have the shaft on it~
PATRICIA MOORE: It did, but it didn't
MEMBER COLLINS: I'm sorry, I don't mean to muddy the waters here, but since you're
go.rog to make a presentation to us, £'d like to feel that the presentation relates to the
denial.
PATRICIA MOORE: Yes.
MEMBER COLLINS~ And I couldn't find an elevator shaft on the floor plans.
PAGE 26 - ~dLY 12. 2001
ZBA PUBLIC HEAK1NG TRANSCR]PT ~, ,~
TOWN OF SOLTHOLD
IRA HASPEL: I would be happy to point out where the elevator is on the old plan.
MEMBER COLLINS: The old plan is irrelevant.
PATRICIA MOORE: Oh, okay. Well, we're still dealing with the same two issues. Do
you want us to point out where the elevator shaft is?
MEMBER COLLINS:No, I'm sure I'll find it.
PATRICIA MOORE: We were going to give you a tour of the house. Mr. Haspel was
actually going to walk yon through and describe the issues, thc points of contention under
the State Code and Zoning Code.
CHAIRMAN: Oh, I just want to mention we are waiting for Soil and Water
Conservation.
PATRICIA MOORE: Yes, I heard. I want to begin by saying that this piece of property
is 2.7 acres, as you know. It faces the Long Igland Sound, waterfronl property, and the
parcel itself is 130 x 919 feet in length; so, it's a very large parcel. This is Edgewater II.
Edgewater I and Edgewater III are the adjacent parcels. George Cohen is the manag/ng
agent of both those parcels. We are our neighbors. We control the two parcels adjacent
to this one on both sides. The only neighbor that is near this piece is a small parcel lo/
#22 on the Tax Map, that is actually buffered by Edgewater III. We are not impacting
adjacent properties, singe we control both ofthem. Theplans show you the proposed
design of the two parcels, the adjacent parcels. The Cohen family are going to be plac/ng
homes on those for family. They are positioned in such a way that it will be a family
compound. It's all shown there. None of the other two require variances at this pont.
IRA HASPEL: IfI may, you might be missing a plan from the second set, this shows all
three parcels.
MEMBER COLLINS: We're looking at, I think, a blueprint?
IRA HASPEL: Yes.
MEMBER COLLINS: I obviously seem like a pest, Miss Moore, but the material that I
studied, at length, is for the Edgewater III parcel with the house with all the multi-wings.
That's what is in my file. That's what I read.
PATRICIA MOORE: Edgewater II is application.
MEMBER COLLINS: I know, but.
PATRICIA MOORE: [ don't know what you got, but we gave plans that had, I th/nk we
included the other two so you would see what the development of the surrounding
PAGE 27 - JULY 12.2001
ZBA pLrBLIC I-~ARING TRANSCRIPT
TOWN OF SOIJTHOLD
communky. But, Edgewater II is the subject of this variance. That would explain why
you didn't see any height issues.
5/[EMBER COLLINS: Yes, indeed, it would certainly explain why I didn't see what was
supposed to be there, but there it is.
PATRICIA MOORE: Okay.
MEMBER COLLINS: It's that house~ with all those wings, the seven bedrooms and the
bunk roorm
MEMBERDINIZIO: That'sEdgewaterlII. This is not the subject of this applicafion.
PATRICIA MOORE: No, Edgewater II is.
MEMBER COLLINS: All right, we are starting from scratch.
PATRICIA MOORE: Alright, let's start as if you don't know anything about this, and
we're going to walk you through the plans that you have now which will make things
much easier. The surrounding community is the campgrounds across the way. You have
a seven-acre vacant parcel directly across the property, and you have the Village of
Greenport own fifteen acres, which is w~thin 200 feet. So agairh the surrounding
community will not be impacted by this. The crux of the issue here is'that the Zoning
Code versus the State Building Code. Our Zoning Code puts a language limitation.
which I don't believe was intended the way it is being interpreted. But, it creates a
problem in that it essentially eliminates the ability of any house to have a ½ stoW
habitable space in the ½ stow; because the State Code, the present New York State Fire
Prevention Building Code and ultimately the Federal Code that's in the process of being
adopted, deals with the habitable space and putsa defluition allowing you to make the
third story ealling it a full third stoW and allowing it to be habitable space, as:long as you
meet the height reqnir~'nents or,he ceiling height. What we did initially was meet with
the Building Inspector and Ira and I sat down with the Building Inspector and said. here
we originally desigued the way.we read it, he designed it very specifically reading the
Zoning Code, knowing the State Building Code; and take the first floor, the square
footage of the first floor, hi this case, it's over 4,000 square feet, 4,357 square feet. The
second story is 2,4 I5 square feet, and the top layer;, the top stow, which is the master
bedroom suite, is 990 square feet. It was intended, reading the Code; you take a
percentage of the lowest floor. That's how we originally sat down, and the Building
Inspector thought everything was fine. They say no, the way they read it is that this ½
stow you can only have a ½ sror?' under the eves of the roofline, and it is-esseatially attic
space. I don't believe that was intended. [ know that in all of Main Road, with the
beautiful, stately homes, half of them would not have been able to have been built
because that third stow, the attic space, in most cases is a room or useable space. The
State Building Code allows this. There is a technical problcma with our code, in that it
negates the State Building Code. Even though, veW simply could be solved by saying,
PAGE 28 - JULY t2, 2001
ZBA PUBLIC ItEBILIiXlG TKANSC1LIPT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
let's not deal with definition of ½ story, story, whatever, let's allow the State Building
Code to dictate how we build something. Just make a height requirement 35 feet, which
is what we've always maintained. The 35-f6ot height limitation as a roofline, That's
what would be the alternate goal, would be cleaning up things~ I know that the intention
has always been recent revisions to the Town Code reflect that There's ~always the
cleaning up (~f the Code, ro tryto say, why are we micro-managing how people are
designing ttdngs. If it meets 8tare Code, let it,go. Reveal the zone height, not the design
of this ½ story; and that's been the crux of the problem. I am sure this is not the only
applicatio!3 dealing-with the. ttffrd story or ½ story, ecaus~ the e ,urrent ~nterpretatgon ~s
you can't mm it into habitable space Some bematiful homes; particularly~ on.. thc Water,
the hes~ view and tt[e most ns~ab!e space may be fight i~.,~e e~e~ as in the C~he~ house,
the master, bedroom s~te. 80 ttmt is a probtcm. I've hi~gh/ed for you so you compare
the langUage of the State Code, next to ~he Zoning Code:'~'i~ my application I took thee
langUage of the Zoning Code and gave it to you. Hero's the State Code, which 1711~ give to
the Chairman to pass out.
CHAIRMAN: Miss Moore, 1 can shed some light on this, when you're ready.
PATRICIA MOORE: Do you want me to just finish my description?
CHAIRMAN: Sure.
PATRICIA MOORE: If you look, I've highlighted the paragraph where it deals with at
least 50% of floor shall be 7 foot 6 inches. The Town Code than 50%.
area
says
not
more
So essentially you can't do it. [ don't believe that's been the intent. Chairman
Goehringer, you've been arom~d a long time. maybe there's been ~liscussions along that,
maybe the thought.was, well maybe the th/rd story witl make people go to the Zoning
Board. I don't know. It just doesn't seem logical.
CHAIRMAN: It happened with a condo project in Southold, where they attempted to
make a th/rd story a storage area, but they a~tempted to heat it. In commercial buildings,
and condos are indicated, are you familiar with the proper description codes that they use
at the State.
PATRICIA MOORE:' Oh, yes.
CHAIRMAN: Okay. A condo is a 412 orca 413 okay. Which goes over the aspect of the
0200 aspect of a house or a dwelling situation or the residentiality of the 0200 stares or
the 200 status, excuse me. What happens, and we have stayed with th/s aspera because of
the ultimate concern of the inhabitance of the third story of a house. The second story is
a stretch as you take it anyway, because of ingress and egress. The minute you go into
the third stqry, regardless of what the State Code reads, the issue of ingress and egress as
it pertains to a wood frame dwelling structure, ~s a concern. It always has been a concern.
Before this Board
PAGE 2~- JULY 12, 2001
ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT
TOWN OF S OUTI-IOLD
PATRICIA MOORE: 0naudible'~
CHAIRMAN: That's an issue that we have to discuss. There. therefore, became a
Supervisor iq this Towr~ some fifteen or r~venry years ago that wanted the. Zoning Board
of Appeals to vary the State Construction Code. We said it was not with'm in our
purview. It was within the purview of the State to deal with that However, we were no~
necessarily discussing residential structures, at that time, we were discussing commercial
structures. And the co,.mmerc/al structure that'we were c6~cerning, was ,an existinghouse
ia Matfituck which was cony ~erted to am~taurani apr a.bar. 8D,tll'a~g wh~re tha situation
came. to be. okay. We more.or less ~.tiised; at thai pcdn.t, so therefore, we did not vary.
PATRICIA MOORE: For the commercial use?
CHAIRMAN: For the commercial use.
PATRICIA MOORE: Do you want to talk about the State Code?
IRA HASPEL: IfI may just pick some points that I am sure you are aware of. As far as
the State Code is concerned, we would not be asking for any relief; because the State
Code already allows for third story habitable space in a residential building, if it is
constructed of the correct construction class. Either a Class Three, which is heavy timber,
which is what we propose here, or a Type 5A, which is a partially fire-protected frame if
it is sprinklered. The Cohen's have expressed interest in both sprinkling it and having'
heavy timer construction, because of the continuation of the decks on different levels, the
secondary egress would be facilitated, there would not any drop more than eight feet and
they allow fourteen feet. So, we wouldn't be asking for any variance from the State
Code. In fact, the new International' Code, wkich will soon be adopted by the State,
already allows three-story framed construction. But it will be even easier to build a frame
building of three-story residential under the International Code. I know your Zoning
Code has zoning restrictions:
CHAIRMAN: Let me just ask one more question. Is the entire house going to be
sprinidered or will it just be that third-story?
IRA HASPEL: We haven't discussed that. That's a good question. I assumed it was the
whole'house. Typically, unless We try prior separation within the house; or other reasons,
the same type of construction would be assigned to the house. You'd only have one type
of construction, unless there's prior separation. If it's all heavy timber, then it is either all
sprinklered or not sprinklered at all.
CHAIR_MAN: The heavy t'maber aspect is from the bum rote situation? So that the
timber.
IRA HASPEL: That's correct. It has been shown that heavy timber construction is much
ore preferred by Fire Departments. They'd rather fight a fire on heavy timber structure
PAGE 30- IULY 12. 2001
ZBA PUBLIC I~fI~ARING TRANSCRIPT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
than a white stage metal building, even though metal is non-combustible_ it loses its form
in the heat and the hea~cf timber is a non-proven asset m fighting fires. Also allows the
applicants more time to exit the building.
CHAIRMAN: Okay.
PATRICIA MOORE: Why don't you walk them through.
IRA HASPEL: I don't wunt to take up too much time, but basically thethree houses were
composed al! together. They were thought about in terms of layout or~ the s~te. They.are
not near each other. There is kind ora staggered:positioning. We've only one house,
which is this house Edgewater Ii~ that's near the bluff-,The Edgewater II house that we're
~onsidering could be built much larger. I~s only ¢{~vcning 3.7% lot coverage in it's present
form;, and much bulkier as .a two-story b~lding. We only ask, that that one maSter
be&room suite be considered a thkd floor. That can be done without variance for Zoning~
In terms of the ho. use; the first floor basically has an entrance space. It.ha~ a living room;
it has three bedrooms, a mu&room, and a laundry ro6m.
PATRICIA MOORE: The front page is the layout of the three parcels. The first page is
the first floor.
IRA HASPEL: The second level has a kitchen and dining area with a balcony
overlooking the living room. It has a deck on a few sides. The ttdrd-story is just a master
be&room and a master bath with an elevator serv/ce. The house does not exceed the
height limitations. The elevator shaft looks even more h]ce a ch/mney. Contemplation is
for stone; a large stone chimney, conditional board and wood sided. The site
was cleared; I hope you had a chance to look at it.
CHAIRMAN: I was there when it was not cleared.
PATRICIA MOORE: It is cleare&
IRA HASPEL: The bluff line has been staked up this house. It's hack 100 feet from the
bluff line. And I ~iffnk it would look very good in that wooded situation, because of the
trees and the growth, the fact that the third-story would maintain the view.
CHAIRMAN: What else would you like to add Miss Moore?
PATRICIA MOORE: I think we've touched everything. If you have questions, we can
see what happens.
CHAIRMAN: I have one more question of Mr. Haspel. Mr. Haspel back in 1980 the
concern has always been, there are fire persons on this Board. We certainly don't want to
/~x create anything that is going to be hazardous to anybody, either to tiffs particular owner,
~ ..... or to subsequent owners of this property if that happens. The sprinkling aspect and the
PAGE 31 -IULY 12, 2001
ZBA PUBLIC I-~ARING TRANSCR/PT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
sprinkler aspect and the heavy timber are of great importance to us. to me in particular. It
would bcthe ~nlyw~y yoffd gone in my vote conceivably. So that's an issue that I think
you need to discuss ~yith. your clients. Because in my particular opinion, it doesn't do any
good, heavy timber or not, if you have one section sprinklered and the fire burns up, it's -
moot.
PATRICIA MOORE: I checked with Mrs. Cohen. She has not objection to the condition
of the variar~.ce.
IRA HASPEL: Those were my msnnactions from the beginning, heavy timber and
sprinldered building.
CHAIRMAN: Okay. We'll start with Mr. Dinizio, any questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: As I recall the discussion with the Town Code Committee a
number of years ago, discussing this exact line in the Code. We tried to eliminate that,
but I can tell yon that the comments were, and the reason why it wasn't, was because they
want to see houses with flat roofs.
PATRICIA MOORE: Flat roofs.
MEMBER DINIZIO: That is the reason why it was never addressed. It was addressed.
but never, ever
PATRICIA MOORE: Doesn't the code already say 35 feet, measured?
MEMBER DINIZIO: It says 35, it does say 35.
IRA HASPEL: This house does not have a flat roof.
CHAIRMAN: We know that.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I disagree with it wholeheartedly, believe me. Matter of fact, there
are people that I know this going out. With that asi, de, assuming that the sprinkler system
is an automatic type sprinkler, not something that you connect on to, you're going to have
enough to back and push the water through. That's your problem, your responsibility
rather.
CHAIRMAN: Okay, Miss Collins?
MEMBER COLLINS: On the two parrs on which the Disapproval was written, I mean
you can't imagine how confused I was reading the plans for a different house.
PATRICIA MOORE: I really apologize.
PAOE 32 -JULY 12,2001
ZBA PUBLIC HEARJNG TRANSCRIPT
TOBfN OF SOUTHOLD
MEMBER COLLINS: The two parts of the disapproval are, one is this third-story. It
doesn't meet. our definition of~a ½ story, therefcrr~, it's a third-story not a 2 ½ story house.
Your point, boiled down, is the State Code allows what you want to do. The Town Code,
for. whatever reasons, is written the way it is written, is pernicious, because defeats what
the State Code permits.
PATRICIA MOORE: In my opinion it's misleading, because why say 2 ½ stories, if you
can't put the ½ story?.
MEMBER COLLINS: That's your point about that. For the other point, which is the
exceeding 35 'feet, could Mr. Haspel, I haven't had a chance ro study the floor plans, I
found the elevator but on any one of the elevations could you just show me which roof
protuberance is the elevator shaft?
IRA HASPEL: This is the stone chimney.
MEMBER COLLINS: That's the chimney, right.
IRA HASPEL: This is it (points to plans).
MEMBER COLLINS: Okay, that's it. And, it's, in fact, higher than other parts of. My
problem is, is that really the highest part?
IRA HASPEL: The highest parr is this peak here (points aga'm to plans). If you look at
some of the other elevations, it shows a little bit here. hiding behind that peak.
MEMBER COLLINS: I guess the reason I was asking, Mr. HaSpel, is, and as I said I
haven't had a chance to study this, it appeared to me that they were pans of the roof line
as distinguished from the elevator shaft housing that were higher than this elevator shaft.
PATPdCIA MOORE: Architectural pieces?
MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, but they're higher than the elevator shaft, and the elevator
shaft is what violates the 35 foot. So why don't those roof elements violate it?
IRA HASPEL: It's because the roof, the height is defined as the average on the
MEMBER COLLINS: Okay, the average on the, okay I just wanted my head ro be
srrmght on that. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora?
MEMBER TORTORA: I have no questions.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Homing?
PAGE 33 - JULY 12.2001
ZBA PUBLIC FIEARhNG TRANSCRIPT
TOYYN OF SOUTHOLD
MEMBER HORNING: No questions.
CHAIRMAN: All right, we'll see what develops. Mrs. Moore let me give you three of
these back right nov<. I'm saving a total of four.
IRA HASPEL: I apologize for the confusion.
CI-IAIRMAN~ No problem. From the public, is there anybody else that would like to
speak in favor or against this application? Seeing n.o. hands I'1t make a~mofion c~losing the
hearing, reserving decision until later.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
8:0t p.m. Appl. No. 4971 - DOUGLAS BRADFORD. This is a request for Variances
based on the Building InspeCtor's May 1, 2001 Notice of Disapproval for additions to
dwelling: (1) under Article XX1V. Section 100-244B, based with a tot coverage over
20% of the code limitation, (2) under Article XXIV, Section 100-244B for side yards at
less than 25 feet, and less than 10 feet on either side; and (3) under Article XXIII, Section
t00-239.4B for a setback at less than 75 feet from the bulkhead. Property Location:
3705 Bayshore Road, Greanpnrt County Tax Parcel 1000~53-4-21. C. Mesiano, Esq.
CHAIRMAN: Good evening Mrs. Mesiano, how are you?
CATHERINE MESIANO, ESQ.: Very welt thank you.
CHAIRMAN: What would you like to tell us?
CHATERINE MESIANO: I would like to tell you. I would like to address the things m
the order in which you've.listed on your ~tgenda. The first item is the Disapproval based
on the lot coverage in excess of the 20% limitation under the Code. [ apologize, I had
asked Mr. Metzker to provide you a different copy of the map with the lot coverage
calculations included, and all I have is a faxed copy, so if you bear with me I'll explain as
quickly as possible. The existing lot coverage of the property prior to any alterations is
1,789 square feet; no I'm sorry, 1,769.3 square feet. which is 24%. So we're starting out
with greater than the allowed lot coverage. Since the time the application was made to
the Building Department, and after their Disapproval was issued, we went back to the
drawing board and willed some areas off the house in debt. We've eliminated a concrete
patio, we will eliminate a concrete patio that exists on this front property, which, wilt
result in a change and the overall change results in a total square footage of the proposed
alteration to be 1,789 square feet. So we have a net gain of 20 square feet. And I think
that,s really the issue, and that creates the difference u ith 24% existing and the 24.2%
proposed. ]7m sfire you have questions, so I'll stop so you can ask the questions.
PAGE 34 - JULY 1:~. 2001
ZBA PUBLIC ~G TRANSCRIPT
TOWN OF,SOUI'HOLD
CHAIRMAN: The question I have is why does the deck extend, I guess we're referring
ro that as the south side, xvhere the tot says 66.
CATHERINE MESIANO: I'here's an error on that map, and I confirmed it with the
designer. There is currently a deck on the side of the house. No part oftlae new structure
will come farther south than the existing structure.
CHAIRMAN: So where you see the phrase, the words "wood ramp" we could square
that off, right across?
CATHERINE MESIANO: Yes, actually the ramp was removed because it was unsafe.
So there is no ramp there~
CHAIRMAN: But on the survey ir says,
CATHERINE MESIANO: Right,
CHAI~C,/IAN: That can be squared off all the way across?
CATHERINE MESIANO: Right no point on the side and the street side will exist, wilt
extend beyond any point - let me say that a different way.
CHAIRMAN: Any existing side of the house.
CATHERINE MESIANO: Correct.
CHAIRMAN: So we're at 24% ground zero right now?.
CATHERINE MESIANO: We're at 24%, as proposed. No existing is 24%. Proposed is
24.2%. The difference is, we're talking about overall 20 square feet.
CHAIRMAN: The deck on the front of the house, the proposed deck, is open to the sky?
CATHERINE MESIANO: That's correct. Currently that is correct.
MEMBER COLLINS: There's coverage on the front?
CHAIRMAN: It says new covered porch.
CATHERNE MESIANO: New covered porch. What is intended, and I have a set of
house plans if you'd like to verify. What is intended is that a second-story addition will
be constructed and the second story will overhang the front, and create a covered porch
rather than an open deck.
CHAIRMAN: Is that calculated in the overall lot coverage?
PAGE 35- JULY t2, 2001
ZBA PUBLIC HEAPdNG TRANSCRIPT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
CATHERINE, MESIANO: Yes it is. That's what brought us here in the first place.
Becausethat r~of Iines it's the extension of the roof that forms the covered porch that
brought us four feet closer to thebuIkhead. I just hadn't gotten to that point yet. I hadn't
addressed that yet. That is the 0nly line, which.would exceed the preseaxt line of the
house. They propose to put a four-foot extension on the existing, deck. That four-foot
extension and the existing deck would have an overhang of the new roo~fline.
CHAIRMAN: Is that the same in the rear of the house, which is really the front yard of
the house?
CATHE1LINE MESIANO: The rear of the house, being the front yard, will have, that
would be the northwest corner squared off. That will be a covered porch, covered by the
overhang of the new second story.
CHAIRMAN: And you're going to give us a copy of these plans?
CATHERINE MESIANO: [ have a set of plans here with me. There's been some
modification to this. because in whittling this down, we've taken away some steps on the
deck and so on. But the basic footprint of the structure is.
CHAIRMAN: Okay. Okay, what else did you want to say?
CATHERINE MESIANO: I'd like to discuss the side yard setback and the existing side
yard setbacks are at 6.4 feet on the north side. and 7.5 feet on the south side. Our original
intention was to continue the hne- the new structure would continue the line and at no
point, come closer to any side yards than the existing stracture. The Building Department
deemed that to~ be an increase in non-conformity. We handled that by cutting back
additions so that they were greater distances from the side yard than the existing. I
believe the front is cut in by one foot, so that we have not an increase of non-conformity.
So we addressed that in that regard, so we are at no point closer to the side yard than we
presently are.
MEMBER TORTORA: Just one quick question. I thhxk it's one inch, not one foot.
CATHERINE MESIANO: You're absolutely right.
MEMBER TORTORA: You're going 75
CATHERINE MESIANO: That's by the Building Inspector.
MEMBER TORTORA: Really?
PAGE 36 - JULY 12. 2001
ZBA PUBLIC ~O TKANSCRIFr
tOWN OF SOL-THOLD
CATHERINE MESIANO: Yes. We didn't believe it. We were increasing the degree of
non-conformity to begin with, and he said, give us one inch less. So, we'll give you one
inch less. ' ' ·
That s why we re here, for one inch.
MEMBER TORTOi~A: Amazing!
CATHERINE MESIANO: I thought so.
MEMBER TORTORA: Remarkable!
CATHERINE MESIANO: That was one of my ~vomes too. And the third point is the
setback from the bulkhead is less than 75 feet, The structure is presently set back from
the 15ulkhead 50 feet. We're looking for a relief of four feet to handle the deck and the
roof over hang. I would like ro point out that the houses on either side of this property
are all .closer to the bulkhead than this property. This is the most landward structure of al
least one half dozen houses immediately adjoining this. The neighbor to the north, I
understand, has a proposal in to .do a similar type of project. Fie looks like he's, at best,
15 test (>fl of his bulkhead presently. The house to the south 0£us, is at least 15 feet
seaward ofus. The house south of that is approximately in line with that house over
there. Our house is the most Landward structure in the, immediate area. Our additions and
alterations would, nOt even bring us in line with any of the existing structures. So we're
maintairfi~g a greater degree of setback than the other houses presently maintained.
CHAIRMAN: Okay, questions Mr. Homing of Mrs. Mesianog
MEMBER HORNING: I don't have any questions. Jerry I need to leave.
CHAIRMAN: Yes, okay George.
MEMBER HOR. NING LEFT HEARING AT 8:10 P.M.
CHAIRMAN: Lydia?
MEMBER TORTORA: No, I think you've explained that quite clearly.
CATHERINE MESIANO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Miss Collins?
MEMBER COLLINS: No, I'm sorry I am confused. To begin with Miss Mesiano. it was
my reading of the file last week that led the office te ask you to bring in coverage detail
that we could understand. Because. we had a Disapproval that talked about 26 feet, and
you're talking about 24 feet, and I'm trying to measure it off of the survey and I couldn't
get there. So I hope that what you have in the facts breaks this thing down.
PAGE 37 - JULY I2. 2001
ZBA PUBLIC I-iEAR]2qG TRANSCRIPT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
CATHERINE MESIANO: I will provide you with copies, and I do apologize.
CHAIRMAN: We'll make them tonight:
MEMBER COLLINS: This concrete patio is only, bymy calculations, about t80 square
feet.
CATHERINE MESIANO: 187 square feet.
MEMBER COLLINS: Okay. But taking it out gives you 180 square feet to play with.
but k seems that looking at this, which is all that I had to look at, which is the survey for
the sake of the record, and the survey Metzker showing the proposal. It looked like you
were adding a great deal more than 180 square feet, and I was confused by that.
CATHERINE MESIANO: Okay. Well if you would like me to break it down.
MEMBER COLLINS: Well let me just go a little bit further. So there's the coverage
questior~ And then you're saying now, you're not going to increase the coverage
variance. It's trivia} 2/10 of 2%.
Discussions continued.
REMAINDER OF TAPE RECORDING DAMAGED FROM THIS POINT.
At the end of the hearing the Chairman requested diagrams pertaining to the arrangement
of the house and drainage information.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
8:29 p.m. Appt. No. 4964 - TIM AND LINDA MCWlLLIAHVIS. This is arequest for a
Variance under Article XX1V, Section 100-244B based on the Building Inspector's May
2, 2001 Notice of Disapproval for a new dwelling with a rear yard setback at less than 50
feet. Location of Property: 345 Wabasso Street, Southold; County Parcel 1000-78-3-
36~1. ~~(._
8:41 p.m. Appl. 4975 - JAMES BALDRIDGE. This is a request for a Variance under
Article XXIV, Section 1 ' ' '
00-244B, based on the Bmldmg Inspector s May 29, 2001 Notice
of Disapproval. Applicant is proposing a new dwelling with a setback of less than 50 feet
PACE 38 -JULY 12. 2001
Z~3A PUBLIC HEARING TR2kNSCRIPT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
from the front property line facing Private Road at 6155 Horton's Lane, Southold; CouHEy
Tax Parcel 1000-54-7-18.6. Archnitechnologies, Inc.
8:45 p.m. Appl. No. 4974 RICHARD HAMM~L I contract vendee JOHN DEMPSEY'}.
This is a request for Variances based, on the Building Inspector'S. March 18, 2001 Notice
:of Disapproval: (1) under ArticleXXIV, Section 100-244B fora new dwelling at less
than 35 feet from ~he front pr0perty'line facing Birch Avenue, and-(2) under 2(rticle
XXIII, Section 100-232A~,~ for a ~ew cIwelJJng on a lot-wit~ three~ fron~t ya4:ds, wi, tt~,~ a rear
yard setback at'less than 35~feet ~rom the remaining property l'.me~ L~cafion of Property:
2155 Cedar AvenUe, Southold; Parcel 1000-77-1-25. Catherine Mesiano, Inc.
8:50 p.m. Appt. No. 4944 -HENRY SMITH AND ICEPSPAN GAS CORP. This is a
request for a Special Exception under Article III, Section 100-3 lB(6) to establish use of
property as a Gas Compressor Facility, and a Variance under Article III, Section 100-231,
based on the Building Inspector's February 13, 2001 Notice of Disapproval for fencing at
a height above six feet along front yard(s/in this nonresidential zone district. Location of
Property: 49400 Main Road and Bayview Road. Southold; Parcel 1000-70-8-5. Zone
District: "B Business." P. Moore, Esq.
Beginning of this Public Hearing Transcript destroyed on tape.
PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: So, on the average, what has been the experience on the
running of this equipment?
KEN MCCARTHY: Well, based on the information I have received from both previous
engtneers onthe project, their recollection on the project, within the last two years, it was
probably one full day of operation on this system.
PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: One full day?
KEN MCCARTHY: One full day in operation.
PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: A month, or a year?
KEN MCCARTHY: It was actually in a two-year period.
PAGE 39~lULY 12 2001
ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPY
tOWN OF SOIJTHOLD
PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ,: Oh, it operated once.
KEN MCCARTHY: Yes.
PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: In two years?
KEN MCCARTHY: Yes. It really hasn't come into play. It's almost as a safety belt, if
we experience a problem, because it is a to the North Shore or the North
Forl~ We don't have systems out thereto support this into the cormeetors.
PATRCIA MOORE,.ESQ.: The system is tested on a weekly basis, or monthly basis?
KEN MCCARTHY: It is tested on a monthly basis, when not in operation. If we need to
go into operation, we do test it montbJy.
PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: So the Committee can anticipate it being tested or nm, once
a month.
KEN MCCARTHY: And that is my conversation with the operator. The maintenance or
the actual test running is anywhere from twenty minutes, or maybe a half hour. Just a
short duration on this unit to test the operation, to take readings.
PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: During what time of the day does it usually nm?
KEN MCCARTHY: That would be during business hours. We try to avoid what it costs
to send somebody out there to test the units on evenings or weekends.
PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: I tlfink I've answered the questions. Do you want me to
address some of the matters to be considered, just briefly, on I can go either A, B, C or t
can very briefly go over them.
CHAIRMAN: Just briefly do them.
PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: With respect to the character of the existing development,
this is a business owned parcel. Again, it could be developed to the extent that all the
business uses that are listed on the property are special permit uses in the business
zoning. This is just a back-up facility use. It will be unmanned at m~nimum impact. The
effect on property values, Keyspan has kept in mind the ~mpact on the neighborhood and
has landscaped for that purpose. The effect on the use location of entrances and exits; we
have gone through full site plan~, once the Board here makes a decision, we hope in favor
of tiffs application, the site plan tias been reviewed and I believe it's ready to be either
before Public Hearing or approved. The Department of Transportation has reviewed the
plans in accordance with the site plan review procedures, and we have a State Permit for
the access that is pending. It has been reviewed. All of the State requirements, and have
PAGE 40 -,JULY 12. 2001
ZBA PUBLIC ttEAPdNG TRANSCRIPT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
met on the site, a6tually I was present, and they've incorporated ail the comments that
were in the field into the plans. So we should see approval withom any complications.
Again~ fi4s is tested on a monthly basis, but nm once in two years. The availability of
public or private, water supply facihties, there will be electricity to site, no water and no
sanitary. Whether the use will produce gaseous odors or soot there, it's gas combustion.
which is clean and natural gas, so there will be no ffimes. Whether the
light, noise, agam it's nm only once a month,'and the noise is, the noise off the Main
Road would be comparable. It would run dusk to dawn. Lighting would be limited.
KEN MCCARTHY: And that dusk to dawn light'mg ~s on an angle,~ which you have to
be. So if operating on and off hours, even it would nor be
visable too muffled, inaudible.
PATRICIA MOORE: Any undue interference with the enjoyment ofpubhc parking is
not applicable here. The necessity for off street parking again unmanned, and the facility
is designed the same way that the Mattituck facility is. Any hazard to life would require
lot erosmn and so on, There is 360-degree access for emergency vehicles on
this property. J. Is not applicable with respect to overcrowdina of land. Whether the plot
area sufficient, agairg the percent of lot coverage with structures, that is the houses, is
1.1%. The paved area wittfin the fenced in area is 6.5%, and the landscaping, which is
most'important, is 92.4%.
CHAIRMAN: This is a bunkered facility, is that correct?
PATRICIA MOORE: Yes. I've provided you with photographs that show the Mattituck
site. which gives you a good view of the inside of the housing and the equipment.
CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora has a question.
PATRICIA MOORE: Yes, go ahead.
MEMBER TORi'ORA: Why are you moving from Matt/tuck?
KEN MCCARTHY: Because of the fact that we are twing to maintain pressures further
out east at this time. Because there is an increase in the development out east, we do
have. I think through our Sales Department come an, a visual of homes to be built further
out. In order to maintain the pressures, we decided to move the station out where it
would be more effective to maintain these pressures, in the event an emergency where the
systems pressures start to drop off.
MEMBER TORTORA: This is to maintain the pressure of 31. What was the number
before?
PATRICIA MOORE: What's the purpose of this, to maintain what pressure?
PAGE 41 - JULY 12_ 2001
ZBA PUBLIC HEASL[NG TILAN SCR1PT
tOWN OF SOUTHOLD
KEN MCCARTHY: The system pressure we make an effort is 60 pounds.
MEMBER TORTORA: So what will happen to the Mattituck site?
KEN MCCARTHY: The Mattituck site will be left as is. We will remove the structures
from the site: and the landscaping, fencing, ail that will rbmain/n place. So we are not
going to disturb thd naturai look of the site.
MEIXBER TORTORA: The pressure is at 60 at Mattituck- Laurel. The maximum
p~essure you wouldbe able to have at the proposed site.is?
,KEN MCCARTHY: The maximum pressure? We'll be able to ma'mtuin 60 pounds
further out in the system. First of all, what if does is actually pull gas in, compress and
maintain the system at 60 pounds, We're actuaily holding pressures further out east.
MEMBER TORTORA: I would assume you're picking up more pressure from
Riverhead?
KEN MCCARTHY: Yes, we're getting a better supply at this time because of an
increase in the structure we've established at Rix erhead.
PATRICIA MOORE: Do you want me to finish the standards, for the record?
CHAIRMAN: Yes.
PATRICIA MOORE: TheL. letter, the use to operate reasonably near a church, school
or theatre. There is none in the area. Whether the site proposed is suitable for this use.
Keyspan believes so, certainly the Planning Board believes so because of the concern of
the fact that this again is a business-zoned property, and this could have been a
commercial development on this p~ece. This is very low impact development. So it
would be very suitable for the use. Whether adequate bumper yards and screenings, the
landscaping there is going to be a fence, a security fence for security reasons. That fence
has the
KEN MCCARTHY: The stockade fence?
PATRICIA MOORE: Well, the stockade yes.
KEN MCCARTHY: Oh. it has the security at the top?
PATRICIA MOORE: No. to cover the fence.
CHAIRMAN: Slating.
,t~AG~E 42 - JULY 12. 2001
ZBA PUBLIC I-/EARING TRANSCR1Fr
tOWN OF SOIJTHOLD
PATRICIA MOORE: I don't have the fence diagram. I did provide it to the neighbors
and to the. Board. but unfortunately I don't have it with me. Whether adequate prowsions
can and will be made for collection of storm water rtmo~ s~wage waste again, most of
that is not appli6able and storm water catch basins have been designect to the site and the
natural findings, ~e natural characteristiCs at the site as such the proposed use.may be
produced wifn6ut undue disturbance to natural features, processes, grozmdwater and
agmn, that it is not.
CHAIRMAN: This is a fee purchase not a lease, ri.'ght?
PATRICIA MOORE: Oh, it's a contingent yes.
CHAIRMAN: We thank you. That's the end?
PATRICIA MOORE: That's the end of what I have to say.
CHAIRMAN: We don't get the clmnce to grill these two nice people here? By a show of
hands I'd like to know how many people here are concerned about this that are in the
audience. Okay. While we have these nice people here, we certairdy are not going to not
have you speak but, we'd like ro possibly reduce them to an appointment in Mattituck so
that you guys can come down and take a look at the Mardtuck site. Which we did not
have when we constructed the Mattituck site and that is the reason why I went to
Hicksville. Wcmld someone be available on a Saturday?
PATRICIA MOORE: We've seen it.
CHAIRMAN: Do you want a tour of the site?
UNKNOWN GENTLEMAN IN AUDIENCE: What about the new people? We would
like to see it.
CHAIRMAN: These two nice people in the front, would you like to comment on
something? Yes.
MIKE SHANNON: My name is Mike Shannon and I live on Pine Neck Road right down
the street from the site. The following are thoughts of mine, I'm educated as a landscape
architect and I am currently co-chairmanned of the Southold Town Tree Committee.
Increasing population creates.demands for energy. This is inevitable. Therefore. I
believe the proposed special exception of the property is acceptable. The development of
this particular plot for the new use has b6en carefully critiqued. I have reviewed the
proposed plan for the compressor station prepared by Keyspan Energy. The location for
the proposed compressor station at Route 25 and on the side of Bayview Road is the
gateway to the Hamlet of Southold. It's a very visible and high profile area. Every effort
should be made to conceal the proposed utility and protect the further character of the
area. The decision we make today will reflect the overall character of the Town in
PAGE 43 - JLrL¥ 12. 2001
ZBA PUBLIC HEAPdNG TRANSCRIPT
tOWN or SOUTHOLD
I-~ generations to come. If the plans for the compressor station are indicative of the
compressor located at Route 25 in Mattituck, [ believe we owe the residents of Southold
Town a more regulated re%ew process in upgrading these necessary utility swacmres into
landscape. I believe KeyspaffEnergy has made un effort to conceal the proposed
compressor station by ~uggesting to create a five-foot raised planting berm. The brain's
shape and everyfffing planted depicted on the drawing looks very symmetrical and
formal. If Keyspan Energy would like to conceal the compressor station by creating a
natural buffer, may I please suggest the following. I have five suggestions, very short.
Use indigcmous nati~plant, m~terial to Lollg [~a~d. More than t~o types ofplaut usage
should be utilized. The percentage ofplarrt motc~al sm~ix: '.nng,.fl~e.~long?rm Will be
inereas,edby rectucingmtet~ance~ cost. The us~, ofrmfiw pta~rnatedal w~l also help
blend the site into the exZstktg s,arro~nding nataml areas. I have an a~taclied list of
indigenous plant materials for Long Island if you would like to ut~e that.
CHAIRMAN: We would like a copy.
MIKE SHANNON: The planting units should not cxnphasize the unnatural shape of the
berm. An organic or natural scheme utilizing different plant species, which reflect
different heights and textures in relation to each otto, should be incorporated. The
quantifies and size of plant maferial proposed should be increased to a mature landscape
and accelerated rate. The shape of the outside perimeter of the berm should have a more
natural d~cor.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. You'll g~ve us a copy sometime. Thank you. These people
in the back there. I'm sorry I don't know your name.
DANIEL KENNY: Good evening, my name is Daniel Kenny. I'm here with my wife,
Saprina Kenny and my neighbor Gary Laube. We live across the street from the
proposed site, which is located on Main Road. We are not on Bayview. So actually,
moving the site from the Bayview residence has moved it a little closer to us. Our main
concern, at this point, is landscaping, driveway access, the generator noise and, as the
gentleman pointed out, the overall effect of as you enter the Hamlet of Southold. That
this, of course as the gentleman did note, ts a commercial zone, but its impact if not
addressed correctly could have an industrial effect. I'm concerned about night-lights and
am also concerned about the egress, would it be from Main Road or would it be from
Bayview. We have experienced a couple of traffic incidents, just in the past year, on that
turn there's a high speed there. So that's something to take into consideration, i'm very
interested in visiting Mattituck. I'd like to see that facility. My one question was, what is
happening with Mattituck, is it being disassembled?
CHAItLMAN: That's what it sounds like.
DANIEL KENNY: Okay. Basically, our concerns are pretty obvious. We are in
residential commurdry there, and we don't want that residential community become
PAGE 44 - JULY 12_ 2001
ZBA PLrBLIC I:tEARING TRANSCIL1PT
TOWN OF SoIFrHOLD
slowly challenged and become more industrial and more commercial. Another question I
have is what is the~size, what is the acreage of the site~ is it about two acres?
CHAIRMAN: No. One acre.
DANIEL KENNY: One acre, okay. I don't have an elevation, I don't have a proposed
drawing of the structure, and I would like to take a look at it eventually. I do have a
detail of the fence, and it looks to me like the total profile proposed is going to be about 8
feet 2 inches. You are adjusting things like, you look.at the fence, but I do th'mk that's
where wemeed to take into consideration, the industrial effect, not just the lighting; that
possibly as Mr. Shannon talked about landscaping of the fence. Because, as we know, a
chain 1~ fence with another foot and ahal£ofbarbed wire can become quite unsightly.
It might start'to send the area intp~tt3e wrong d"rrectio~. So, I think if we address
landscaping very diligently, we m~gl~t all i~ l~rmony.
CHAIRMAN: That's the reason why, in our decisions, we really state that the landscape
has to be continuously maintained. 115it-s not continuously maintained, then it has to be
replaced with something that is going to be continuously maintained. Either tin'ough a
water drip system, or whatever process they intehd to deal with.
DANIEL KENNY: Correct. I think that pretty much covered my notes. That other
people might have already covered as well. We've considered about safety, natural gas
under pressure could be volatile, and we need to know that there is a back-up safety
system for that. At this point, our driveWay immediately egresses right to front of your
proposed site. So, as you can imagine, we have a great deal of concern to that. We have
a rather old home. it's historical, and we would like to pre.serve that feeling. We are very
concerned about what it is to be across the street. Of course, we don't like Seven/Eleven,
and this might be a compromise, bul we want to make sure that we can come to a healthy
decision on it. We appreciate any information you give us, and we would appreciate you
listening to any suggestions that we might have because of your interest as well.
CHAIRMAN: Could I just raise one issue here, and that is, that the ingress and egress
appears te be on Main Road. I just want to reduce this down to a specific time limit. Is
there a possibility that we could meet at this site next Saturday, not this coming Saturday,
but the following Saturday morning? Would you be available?
PATRICIA MOORE: Before they leave, if you could give me your phone numbers and
names, and I will be sure to have my office phone you.
DANIEL KENNY'/: Could I just take one copy be15ore I leave. As of now, it's proposed
as an unmanned site, which sounds pretty friendly. But, we all get wiser as we get older,
and we've seen situations change. I would like to be reassured that this does not
eventually become an equipment storage facility for vehicles, trucks or other equipment.
Because a one acre piece of property today, might be extremely invaluable in five to six
PAGE 45 - JULY 12.2001
ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
years, and we know that if there's room, that room will sometimes be exploited and used~
So these are also concerns that it does~not become an industrial storage facility.
CHAIRMAN: That's not going to happen, because we'll place that within the decision.
DANIEL KENNY: Just addressing it.
PATRICIA MOORE: I thir[k that the application has been for this project, to this Board,
as well 'as the site plan to the Planning Boar& So I think modification like that would be
at least With one of the Boards.
DAN[EL KENNY: Good, as long as it other ears for them. Thank you very much for
your time.
PATRICIA MOORE: IfI could just make some comments on what.has been said.
Thefre att very good comments, and I just want to make the Board informed that we did
have the Tree Committee, the chairman I believe, and another gentleman, Bob Kasner did
advise someone from one of the landscape (inaudible - not speaking into the
microphone) Oh because he gave input into the process, and actually made suggestions
that were incorporated on the field, we incorporated those comments into the site plan
and into the landscape plan. So we do have additional comments, I can give you mine, if
you want to give it back tome when you're done. In a short time,.you can take a look at
this. I don't think it even. if you have some suggestions, as long as they're reasonable
they might modify this to a certain extent as long as the Plauning Board doesn't object to
it. We certainly don't have any objection; we've always been very accommodating.
MEMBER TORTORA: We're not going'to pick up any of this on the transcript.
PATRtCIA MOORE: Sorry about that.
CHAIRMAN: Pat, could you just move that microphone around to your side, pull the
podium out a little bit, that's wonderful. Thank you so much.
PATRICIA MOORE: What I mentioned is that a member of this committee did
participate, at the field, and did provide input on plans. But if he would like a copy of my
print to borrow, look at it in your own home, and give it back to me.
MICHAEL SHANNON: Isn't it Keyspan's responsibility, I can give you that to hire a
landscape architect is their responsibility.
CHAIRMAN: Just reuuember that we're not doing the landscaping.
MEMBER TORTORA: That's an important thing.
CHAIRMAN: The Planning Board is doing the landscaping.
PAGE 46- JULY 12,2001
ZBA PUBLIC HEARD~IG TRANSCR1P'F
TOWN OF SOUTh[OLD
MEMBER TORTORA: Exactly. I mear~ we can condition our approval on mardmizing
landscaping, bnt we do nor actually do landscaping.. That is a Planning Board decision.
We can do things 1/ke condition approval on no outside storage or use, etc~, sm., ere.
PATRICIA MOORE: We did have a landscape architect design the landscape plan.
CHAIRMAN: So, ag~m, I want to reduce a time so that we can all go and look at this,
became I'm concerned ab6ut e~erybody who wants to look at it.
ERIC APRIGLIANO: The gentleman, Mr. Kenny, his concern was the additional
pressure or over-pressunzatiom There is safety in the system so we don't over-pressurize,
because that is a concern with us. The pressure is no higher than we will be boost'mg the
pressure than what you had in the previous. There is always concern. You always have
that with safety, when you'mdealing with compression gas.
CHAIRMAN: Let's talk briefly about the lighting. Is the lighting going to be any
different than what it is in Martituck?
ERIC APRIGLIANO: No. And like I said Gab (?) verified this with the gentleman the
other day, there's an on and off switch at the gate. So, basically he has to throw the
switch on, if he's coming in on off hours to use the lighting, and throw it off when he
leaves.
CHAIRMAN: And that lighting is shielded to the bunker area?
ERIC APRIGLIANO: Yes, facing downward you can at the site when we show it to you.
It's hard to demonstrate that if you're going during the day. Well the question is, do you
want to go during the day, or do you want to go in the early evening?
ERIC APRIGLIANO: You're probably better off during the day, because I think the
concern is the visibility of the site and the lo6k.
DANIEL KENNY: We can take a look atit at night on our own.
CHAIRMAN: In the Fire Depamnenr, when we toured it with the Fire Department we
were in the evening. You're actually not going to see as much during the night as you are
in the daytime.
PATRICIA MOORE: Also, just so you know. the boxes are being, painted, at the request
of the Planrdng Board, green so they wouldn't be that visible. Right now they're blue,
white?
ERIC APRIGLIANO: They're actually white with silver trim on the edges for the
capping.
PAGE 47- YULY 12. 2001
ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT
TOWN OF SOUWHOLD
CHAIRMAN: Yes ma'am. I need you to use the microphone; I apologize with this air
conditign'mg system on here.
SAPR1NA KENNY: I just have one question; my name is Sapfirm Kenny I live across
the stme~ from the site. The old site in Mattituck, I still really don't know what you're
doing with it. What is the future use of it? I understand you're moving the site down
here, but what is going to happen to the Mattituck site, are you selling it? Are you just
going to leave it there and not do an.ything with it, I~can't believe that2 ~ mean~, nothing.
ERIC APRIGLtANO: We really don't haye any plans right now for that particular site.
There's been no decision made as to whether the company would look to sell it. Our only
plan right now is to relocate the equipment that's on the foundation at the site. Remove
the meehardcal piping that's at the site and the electrical equtpment that's at the site and
relocate it to the new one. The foundations are not going to be removed, at this point m
time, thep~ving's going to stay, the venting the berm. Therets no intention right now, and
no decision has been made as to what the Company m/ght want to do with that particular
piece of property.
MEMBER TORTORA: The use is going to be discontinued then, is that correct?
ERIC APRIGLIANO: As far as a compressor station, its intended use right now, yes.
Once the equipment is removed from it will have no function, as far as mechanically, as
far as the gas system itself. It will look the same, obviously, but there just won't be any
equipment sitting there, at this point in time.
CH3,JRMAN: Thank you.
PATRICIA MOORE: Do you want us to discuss some dates and let you know what date
might be considered? I'1I get their names. I don't know my calendar offthe top of my
head, but we may have to go back and make sure.
CHAIRMAN: I have no problems with you setting up the calendar for the viewing, as
long as you let us know. And as long as everyone that's here, who wants to go, has the
availability to go.
PATRIC1A MOORE: We will certa/nly invite them.
MEMBER D1NIZIO: Could I ask a question of this gentleman, could you just get up
again please? I think we need to clarify someth'mg. You're still going to have p~pes
going into that property in Mattituck? You've got pipes going in there now, valves and
the whole nine yards, and you're not going to remove that.
PAGE 48 ~ JULYI2, 2~J01
ZBA ]PUBLIC HEARING TRANSC~
TOWN OF SOUTIffO~LD
ERIC APRIGLIANO: All the above grade piping will be removed. A lot of it will be
util/zed lathe new site. The below grade piping that comes in from the street fight now,
will be cut at the street and will be abandon in place.
MEMBER DINIZIO: No gas will be going into that site?
ERIC APRIGLIANO: That's correct.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay.
ERIC APRIGLIANO: It will be cut at the street.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Thank you.
MEMBER TORTORA: On the same line of thinking, I would really like to know a little
bitmore about what's going to happen with the Mattituck site. We did grant a Specia~t
Exception for a Use there. You have now said the Use is going to be abandoned. Along
that thinking, 1 would like to know what's going to happen to that site.
CHAIRMAN: We need you to take that back to Keyspan and tell them, listen if you take
everything out, you've abandoned that particular portion of the use, and therefore, it's
time to abandoned the Special Permit for that.
MEMBER TORTORA: And if you leave part of it there, and it's not maintained.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Now wait, that's not the subject of this application. We don't need
to know that.
CHAIRMAN: I disagree with you Jim, because they're taking that equipment there and
putting it here.
MEMBER DINIZIO: It doesn't make a difference.
CHAIRMAN: It makes a difference.
MEMBER DINIZIO.' We granted them an approval, and then they have that approval
for, I think, two years. It's not the subject of this application. It has nothing to do with
whether we make this decxsion or not.
CHAIRMAN: It's not predicated on this decision, nobody said it was.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well then, let them do what they want to as long as they live up to
their part of the agreement, which is to keep up the landscaping, keep it locked and keep
it secure. And, in two years, if the Town feels that they want to say something, they
certainly have that opportunity. But, for you to waste a moment on the fact that they're
PAGE 49 - JULY 12. 2001
ZBA PUBLIC I-IEAR lNG TRA]qSCR]P'I
TOWN OF SOUTI-IOLD
moving.that equipmeur, and they're moving it down here, they don't need to waste their
time on that. WeYenot goirkg to make our decision based that,
CHAIRMAN: We never said thru.
MEMBER TORTORA: I'm not saying that,
MEMBER DINIZIO: They don't need to tell us what they're going to do with the
problem.
CHAIRMAN: [ disagree.
PATRICIA MOORE: I don't think that they concern you at this point, because it may in
all fairness, it's a Corporate decision. So you're talking to the engineers.
ERIC APRIGLIANO: No, if we had. some intended use or some plan for it. I would tell
you. There's no decision to date as to what to do. But we would continue to keep the
fences locked. We would continue ro provide surveillance and inspect it, and make sure
there was nothing going on there that would not be acceptable.
CHAIRMAN: Sure, that's basically what we would appreciate:
ERIC APRIGLIANO: There is fully the intent to do that.
CHAIRMAN: Yes sir.
DANIEL KENNY: Just a quick follow-up question. Obviously, my follow-up would be,
how long was Mattituck granted this variance for the pm'mit; and how long is this permit
for Southold is it for five years, is it for ten years?
CHAIRMAN: It's for forever.
DANIEL KENNY: Forever.
CHAIRMAN: Unless there's a violation of the premises.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Or unless they discontinue the use. which we are discussing that
on the Mattimck problem. If they discontinue the use for ~wo years, they no longer have
that to come back.
DANIEL KENNY: Obviously the concerns would be that they continue to occupy the
property, but the use slowly over time that the transition would become used. for
something else.
MEMBER DINIZIO: There are violations like that all the time. You have to be diligent.
PAGE 50-'JULY 12 2001
ZBA PUBLIC tL~G TKANSCRIPT
tOWN OF SOUTHOLD
That's your responsibility.
DANIEL KENNY: Wehave to be dihgent.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Let me tell you, you're the most effected, get on the horn.
DANIEL KENNY: Thank you.
CH ~AIRMAN: So basically what~we!~:e going ~o 4o, at this point them we're going to
close this hearing, based upon an inspection of the premises, is that correct?
PATRICIA MOORE: If you close the hearing, [ mean I don't have any problems but,
CHAIRMAN: What we're going to do is we're going to close this hearing to a verbal
testimony. We'll take k in writing, at that particular point. So the purpose of the next
hearing is just a Performa act of closing the hearing at the.next regularly scheduled
meeting. Everything that we'll take, we'll take in writing. All right. It will be August 16.
2001; it will be the last hearing of that evening. That will be in the wee hours.
PATRICIA MOORE: Only for the purpose of closing i.t.
CHAIRMAN: Only for the purposes of closure, that's all.
PATRICIA MOORE: So no one here has to show.
CHAIRMAN: I offer that as a Resolution.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
9:37 P.M. Appl. No. 4972 - LISTA CANON. This is a request for Variances for
proposed additions to dwelling bussed on the Building Inspectors March 9, 2001 Notice
of Disapproval which states that under Article XXIV, Section 100-244B the proposed
construction will have setbacks at less than 35 feet from the front property tine, less than
10 feet from the side property line, less than 35 feet from the rear property line, and lot
coverage for total building area in excess of the 20% code limitation. Location of
Property: 1050 Arshamomaque Avenue, Southold; Parcel 1000-66-27. C. Cuddy, Esq.
CHAIRMAN: Good evening Mr. Cuddy, how are you? Thank you for your patience,
and everybody else sitting out there.
CHARLES CUDDY. ESQ.: Iam Charles Cuddy; I appear for the applicant, Lista
Cannon. With me is Meryl Kramer. the architect of the site. This is a piece of property
that has a house on it that's located at Orchard Street and Arshamomaque Avenue in
Southold. We've been here before, as the Board is aware, in October of last year and you
granted us a variance going out to Orchard Street ar a 1.5-foot variance to build out the
PAGE 51 ~ JULY 12. 2001
ZBA pUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
house. It turns out, and you will see it in the last page of the handout that I've g~ven over,
it's actually 34 feet. Were here tonight, not as indicated by notice of publication for four
variances, but for two vat/anees. We've withdrawn the request for the re~ yard hearings,
which we no longer need. We~ve withdrawn the request, because of that, for the coverage
variance. So, we're asking for simply two var/maces, wh/ch is the front yard, that's a
foyer area, They would llke m have theirs built out so that we'll have a 30 foot instead of
a 35 foot setback. One the side yards, we asked for 4.5-foot variance, so that we could
have a deck. Now I've had ~ architect sign an affidavit indicating the re~sous for both
of these. Just briefly to go through them with you~ The sq~ar~ fix the ~o~ of the ho~s¢is
part o~ what the architect believes, is the functionality of the house~ tlie formula. So, ~'s
a center hag type colonial when you Walk in. There needs to be some emranceway.
There w~sn't any origimlly. She's looked at it, and the owners iooke~[ at it. They're
asking to complete the house tO have a foyer at the sire. The surrormding pj:ol~evties are
small; and I. hare a copy ofthe tax map showing them. Are they smalI,~but they're bu'dt
our virtually as this lot i~;~ t~te tBts adjoining it are virtually the same size. Directly across
the street from this lot are two lots thai have garages that are w/thin 15 and20 .feet of the
street line. There is certainly precedent for having some build that into the setback, h~
our setback area, if you look at the map either map, you notice the street is on an angle.
If the street were on a straight line, we wouldn't be here for this variance. Where we
sram we're 25 feet into where we end where the propertyis just about even, the 3.5-foot
line. Essentially we're asking for a foyer on the Arshamomaque street side. We're asking
for a deck in the back. The reason for the deck is shown on the next to the last survey
that's there, which is the olg map. On the old map, which was the old house, mad our first
application here, the deck w~s completely to the tine of the property. InadYertentiy, we
did not ask for the deck five feet from the fence line when we'came here in October. We
now ask for that. In other words, there was a much larger deck as the one that was
proposed. We're simply asking that we put part that deck back, not the entire deck, just
part of it. So you can have a deck come out in the rear. You've been to that site, there's a
stockade fence. You can't see over the fence, so we're not intruding into our neighbor's
yard. The neighbor's house is virtually built to the line anyway. So that, he's using up
part of his side yard, and we're using up part of our side yard. We've done that before,
and I can't imagine that there is any more intense use than there was previously. What
we're trying to do is simply have two modest variances. It goes with the neighborhood.
Mc~l Kramer, who is here, has done an extraordinary job in actually building out this
house and making it part of the neighborhood, which is very pleasant. This is the first
house as you come into it, and she's taken it from, I think a rather shabby situation to a
very decent situation. To encourage that, I would ask that you grant the variance. I know
of no (inaudible).
CHAIRMAN: Have you discussed this-w/th any of the neighbors regarding the closeness
of the deck to the property line or anything of that nature?
CHARLES CUDDY, ESQ.: No. The sign has been there. We sent out notices.
CHAItLMAN: No one has approached the applicant.
'PAGE 52- JULY 12.2001
ZBA. PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCK1PT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
CHARLES CUDDY, ESQ.: No has said anything that I am aware of at all. As I said, the
deck previously was further out.
CHAIRMAN: I have absolutely no problem with the proposed entryway, and I'll leave
the deck up for review at the end of the hearing. I do want to say, however, the house is
absolutely magn/ficem. Before you leave Mr. Cuddy, do you have any questions.of Mr.
Cuddy, Mrs. Tortora?
MEMBER TORTORA: No.
CHAIRMAN: Miss Collins?. I just wanted to be sure that I understood the when and the
now here. The adctition that we approved a year a~nd a half or so ago was to put a
screened porch on the Orchard Road side, going around the comer; and ir appears to me
that the screened porch is now there.
CHARLES CUDDY, ESQ.: That's fight.
MEMBER COLLINS: And it looks very nice.
CHARLES CUDDY, ESQ,: And it shows it's 34 feet back.
MEMBER COLLINS: That's from the Orchard Road side. Now this proposed deck, I
mean I agree with the Chairman, I think the foyer is not anything that I going to spend a
lot of time worrying about. But, the proposed deck wilt come out from that screened
porch on the side of the property, the west side. On the sec6nd, the third of the four
pieces of paper your gave us tonight, which you referred to as an old survey-
CHARLES CUDDY, ESQ.: Yes.
MEMBER COLLINS: I see sort of a dotted; I can't tell what was the former deck that
you were talking about. I'm just confused. There's a dotted line, which I took to be the
stockade fence.
CHARLES CUDDY, ESQ.: The stockade fence actually goes right down the line, on the
property line.
MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, okay on the property line.
CHARLES CUDDY, ESQ.: That's right,
MERYL KRAMER: I think the dotted line is the required setback.
MEMBER COLLINS: I was thinking ora line, a ball and chain line.
PAGE 53 - JULY 12, 2001
ZBA PUBLIC FIEARING TRANSCRIPT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MERYL KRAMER: That is the stockade fence.
MEM]3ER COLLINS: That's the stockade fence. Okay. Then it says deck in here, I
know you're telling us where there was a deck, but I can't tell how much of that great big
area was the deck. Was it that enormous thing?
CHARLES CUT)DY, ESQ.: The entire area, from the fence back, and from the fence on
the side.
MEMBER COLLINS: Okay, thatts what I couldn't quite parse up. So whatlyou're saying
is that there was a big deck there, Which has now been removed in order to bu~d the
screened in porch. And you now want to attach a smaller deck.
MERYL KRAMER: Actually, we just want to make a small distinction, for the record
I'm MeryI Kramer the architect. On the Orchard Road side is the screened porch. The
deck is not actually attached to the screened porch itself. The deck would be on the west
side of theproperty, which is a little bit away from the screened porch. The owner would
like to use the deck for outside dining, and of course; the screened porch was for to be in
the fresh air. The reason why she wants to use the deck is to be at the same level of the
house, so that wt~en you're carrying food, you won't have the trip hazard of stepping
down, because obviously there's no requirement for a patio at grade, but she wants it to
be up at house level, that was the driving force behind the request.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
CHARLES CUDDY, ESQ.: Virtually, instead of putting slates down and coming our on
the bend, we're just try/rig to keep it at the same level.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio?
MEMBER D1NIZIO: No. I have no questions.
CHAIRMAN: This is an open deck, right Mr. Cuddy?
CHARLES CUDDY, ESQ.: Yes, absolutely.
CHAIRMAN: The X shown in that is the shower we assume?
CHARLES CUDDY, ESQ.: Yes.
CHAIRMAN: The X is shown as the shower. Okay. All right, we'll see what develops
throughout the hearing, we thank you. Is there anybody that would like to speak
additionally in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application?
Heanng no comment, I~11 make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until
later.
PAGE 54-JULY /2.2001
ZBA P~JBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SEE- MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
9:49 P.M. Appl. No. 4976 - MICHAEL MCALLISTER. This is a request for Variances
(1) under Article XXXII/, Section 100-239.4A. 1, based on the Building Inspector's May
31, 2001 Notice of Disapproval for new dwelling at less than 100 feet fi.om the top of the
blUff, (2) under Article:XXI!~ Seclion 100-239.4A.1 based on the Building Inspector's
:May 31, 2001 Notice of Disappr0val'.for an in-grotmd sw:unming pooI'at less than 10 feet
fi.om tike-top oftke bluff, and (3) under AVdcle III, Section 100-33B.4 to locate a
proposed, garage at les than 20.feet from the sicle lot line. Location of Property:, 17665
Soundview Avenue, Southold; Patrol 1000-51-1-3.
CHAIRMAN: Just for the benefit of the final hearing I still have to go back to the office
and pick up the file, we're still studying it with the new revisions that we had gotten. So
there be a short time when t would rm~ in a grab it and come back out.
MEMBER DINIZIo: Do you want me to do that for you?
CHAIRMAN: Would you mind getting it? It's on my desk.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Which file?
CHAIRMAN: It's the final one. Thank you. Mr. Anderson how are you tonight?
BRUCE ANDERSON: Good. How are you doing?
CHAIRMAN: Good thanks. We are still awaiting an evaluation from Soil and Water.
They tell us that they are getting closer.
BRUCE ANDERSON: My name is Bruce Anderson; I'm from Suffolk Environmental
Consulting. I'm here before you tonight on an application for Michael McAllister. I have
a number of surveys I'm going to hand up to you; they are the same surveys that are
before you. I highlighted them so you can see, very clearly, what is going on here. I
have one for each of you. They're the same surveys, and I've highlighted the different
locations. That survey, the blow-up of the survey is on the board before. In addition to
that. this will keep you fi.om walk'mg back and forth all day. rll hand, you up another
exhibit that will conta'm most of the documentation which will give you a very clear
understandIng of what we're here for~ whywe're here, what we're asking. Mr. McAllister
is here with us today, as is the designer, Mr. Price. As you know. an apphcation was
made for a Building Permit. In response to the application, we received Notice of
Disapproval In two items, The first item coastruction within 100 feet ora bluff, which
PAtOE 55 - JULY 12. 2001
ZBA PUBLIC HEAi~qG TRANSCPdPT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
involves a swimming pool and a new family residence; and the second, involves a side
yard setback for a proposed detached garage. The proposed'detached garage is shown on
the site plan prepared here, and I apol0g/ze for it (i~aat~dible) for everyl~)d~ it is a'
proposed structure, ils proposed that garage wotfld be five feet offthe property line,
Where twenty feet is required. The story starts, in that. we had an existing dwelling and
We had an ex/sting pool and various components perfect for residential development as
follows. The existing dwelling is shown in your binder before you as the f~rst
~arhotograph. It was also shown on the. survey, which Fve h~hlighted, That would be the
get dvielling closer to the. bluff5 Tfiat-dwe!!ing~s foo!priat~easures 2Z0~0 square fee~
and is located 45 feet from the. bluff..The, re Was a patio, a mncrete pati* ~t extended
from th~Swelling to anoth~ patio that stlrrounded ~e swimming ~ool ~house nafio
measuring 300 square feet existed 29 feet from the top of th&%IiU~. The~pOol that ~en
ex/stud was a20 x 4(} foot ~ool that was located 17 f~et from the, bluff. ~i~ally, that pool
was gurroUnded by a t 680 square foot patio that was located as. close ~s 44 feet from the
bluff. The dwelling was served by a septic system located, b~een the hO~se and the top
of the bluff. That septic system was at its closest point, 35 feet ~om the top of the bluff.
The appticafion was made for Building Permit in February ofthis year. We put in the
application, and the application called for the ~lemolition of thig ex/sting house and the
construction of a new house, including a swimming pool Tke new house, by size, was
2139 square feet referring to its footprint for a gross t~oor area of approximately 3900
square feet. There was a proposed deck measuring 60,2 square feet that was to be located
64 feet from the bluff. Them was a new pool measuring [6 x 32 that was to be located 42
feet from the bluff. The patio surrounding the pool, as well as, the concrete patio leading
from the then existing house was to be removed in its entirety. A new septic system was
proposed for the property that would be located 129 from the bluff. The first photo
shows you what the original house looks like, and if you mm'the page to Item B, you will
see how that existing house lined up with the houses on either side. Essentially what that
tells you, is that this is an area that was developed some time, many years ago prior to the
scripture of statutes that requffes 100 feet from the bluff, and that the then existing house
was similarly situated in the neighborhood as were the adjacent properties. Photograph B
provides you w/th that. The remaining photographs ~show you what the property looks
like now, in relationship to surrounding properties. Photograph C shows you what the
property looks like from the street. You will see that the area is clean, it is a grass area
now, and it filled in naturally. You get a close up of that standing from the center of the
property looking out tow. ards the water in Photograph D. ffyou go to Photograph E, you
can see quite clearly the existing dwelling, originally identified in the second photograph,
that would be to the west of the property. You will see a garage that's located some three
feet from the property line. We can show all through a survey, and the dwelling in the
background would be located closer to the bluff in line with the original house that was
here. Photograph F simply gives you a close up of a detached garage approximate to
your side yard barrier. There are actually two lots to the east. There is a smaller lot of
approximately ~A of an acre that has flooded on Soundview Avenue. This yard is shown
in Photograph G, and that photograph is directed fi:om that property onto the site
demonstrating the openness that that property owners enjoys. Moving towards the water
and looking east, you will see in Photograph H, the very densely vegetated buffer area.
PAGE 56 - JUI,y 12, 2001
Z~BA PUBLIC HEAP,/ING TRANSCRIPT
TOWN OF $OUTHOLD
The rema'mmg photographs deals with conditions of the bluff. In Photograph I you can
see tie condition of the bluff from the McAllister's property. Importantly, you will
undcmbtedls, !aotice somedenuded areas, results o£ the storm that' occurred approximately
1 ½ years ago. You will also notice that the area are denuded are limited to the lower
portionofthe bluff. We believe that's very significant because it's evidence of
(inaudible).. In other words, the condition ofth/s bluff had nothing to do with the
erds~ence of the house on thispmperty, similarly, when we wrote m Photograph J. we
see the condition of the McAllister bl.u. ffrelafive to the bluff or both properties adjacent
to the east and west. The s: .amc. condifior~ h.~tds, wherein the ero~i,~ that..oecurred is
limited to' tie low:er-ha!f of tl~e blu(f. You ~l:tfote that the pro~.e~.~ to ~ mst appears
to haye experienced greater eros?n than the~pmperty to thtxwes~ T !e'¢ormtm6tion of the
house, as'~pisl~ed for, r~cei;ced :NoI~-JuriSdi.~on4l letters from both t ~e Trustees ~athe
DEC tlia~ are~shown in, items It and III in th44~amphlets. Item ~'is 1 e DEC permit that
relates to the reconstruction of a stairway, arid also the rep, lacem~:o, f{he revetment
along the toe of the bluff.' The purpose ofttmt revetment is to l~mVie~e future toe scour
and. the applicant Intends is witli~ag to replant.those denuded portions of the bluff.
CHAIRMAN: As a condition of this application, fight?
BRUCE ANDERSON: As a condition of this application, we're going to propose it right
here today, I vdfll go through how that bluff may be planted. The hardship that occurred
here was when wemade the application, we got a rather quick review and what came
back to our office and the office of the Building Inspector was that they needed a letter of
discormect from LIPA. ha order the remove a house, it had to show that it could
disconnect from the power. I had called the contractor, who is Boeckman doing the work
here, he promptly provided that letter to the Building Inspector. We had thought at that
point, that that was the only remaimng item in the Building Permit application. So the
demolition of Bennington House commenced. The house was demolished, it was
removed; the septic system, 35 feet from the bluff was removed; the swimming pool that
was in a patio that extends four feet from the bluff was removed. The cavity in the
swkmming pool was filled and the area is now grassed over. Several months passed, and
we had not received our Building Permit. We finally received the Notice of Disapproval.
which is part of your file;which suggests that we may not build within 100 fee~ of the
bluff, and that's why we're here tonight. I submit that in grantir~g this variance, that there
will be no undesirable change to.the neighborhood, given the evidence before you,
specifically showing the second photograph before you, in that the proposed house and
po01 would be set back approximately twice as far as the then exist'mg:house. Therefore,
the extent that a house might impact the bluff because it's in the ,.inaudible) that impact is
diminished by retreating from the shoreline, which I think that ~s something is referred in
your (inaudible) Line 2561 we submit that the variance that we. see cannot achieved by
any other means for several reasons. One, the lot layout as shown.with respect to the
house and the pool, places the pool between the house and the bluff, which is where it
typically belongs. So that we have moved everyttgng fmther back from the bluff than
what was there, and there is a reasonable lot layout, a traditional lo~ layout wherein we
have pool between the dwelling and the bluff. Those distances are maximized in our
PAGE 57 - ~JUL¥ 12~ 2001
ZBA P~BLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT
TCFC/N OF SOUTHOLD
view. We also submit that in mo~Cing it back still further Would only cause an undesirable
change with this neighborhood and would obstruct the view, an impact upon the view
with the parcel immediately to the east that occupies that h acre land on Soundview
Avenue. We believe that the relief requested was not substantial because we increased
zomng compliance over the site-and~thatobvious~y the variance will not have an adverse
impact on the physical or en~vlronmental conditions of the neighborhood os d/strict. The
alleged self-difficulty is not aterminative factor is one born out of a simple
misunderstanding. Clearly, when-I look at a provision in the Code regard~g non-
conforming bv. ild~gs~ with no~n-conf0rmed uses~ which is what v~e had. h~e in terms oat'
the pre)eXisting residence whereas the: residential use corffprms bm i~s loca~on, relat/ve to
a bluffis something that conld hmre been expanded, in. any numbe~ always prov/ded it
didn't increase any new non-conformity. That is found in yonr Code at the 100-242A.
With respect to thq garage, the garage:has been placed five feet from the propertyline.
I've discussed i~.with our client i~ placing k 20 feet from the. property l~ne, which puts the
garage wSthia half'tl~e part of the hous,e by placing the garage ia a location that, would
obstruct the space between the t~)osse ~ the street. We can be flexs~ble on that, We had
proposed it at five, certainly if ~e Board chose to make it ten feet, ~at would, not create
an undo hardship on the applicant. Pointing out also that the placement ofthd garage as
shown as in the site plan before you, is intended to back up with the existing garage on
the property a~iacent and west of this property slightly closer to the street because we
have moved all other structures further awa~y from the bluff. What results is avery
tastefully'done site plan for a v~ old, nicely established neighborhood. As part of this
application, and as a condition, we have ~bsolutely no problem with implementing any
recommendations made on the part of the Soil Conservation seiwice. I had, ar one point,
represented a property owner in relative close proximity to this prop;erty. It didn't involve
an application before the Board. but it involved a bluffthat had collapsed and we had to
reconstruct a stairway and restore the profile of that bluff. Prior to making that
application, we had made a referral to the Soil Conservation service seeking their input,
and I will hand in a copy of their report that was given in connectiol~ with that
application. As I sa/d, it was not a Zoning application, but it did involve similar almost
exact circumstances as to the condition of this blufZ In essence, in this case, because the
erosion occurring, as it occurred in the lower part of the bluffhaving, nothing to do with
this dwelling, or any other dwelling the remedy is to stabilize the toe of the bluffby
replacement of the revetment of and also the planting of plants between the revetment
and where the reservation stops. There is no reason to mampu!ate ia any way the upper
portion of that bluff while stabilizing it. The remedy is to plant either beach grass, 12 to
18 inches apart oh.center throughout all the new sections which we are willing to db; or
to mix that with switch grass, tannic grass, blue-stemmed grasses, black-eyed Susan's and
other vestures. That is applied by a hidroceived method where you spray it all over the
bluff and it seeds itself.' Either method is acceptable to us. I am sure when the soil
conservation service comes back to you, they will come back to you with a planning
protocol. The system is with the report I handed in, because that report was one that was
prepared. I would say with respect to the condition of the bluff, that I can stipulate right
here and now that we will follow the recommendations of the soil conservation service,
which could enable you to close the hearing.
PAGE 58 - J'~rLy 12_ 2001
ZBA pLrBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
CHAIRMAN: We'll still close the hearing; we're just going to submit that when we get
it.
BRUCE ANDERSON: YOU have copies of the building plans themselves. What you
should see is a beautiful home, construction featuring cedar shakes, traditional lines, and
details based as part of this application; which, if you go back and Iook at the original
house shown in pictures A and B, I'm sure we'll all agree it's a much nice, much more
attrac~dve structure than what ~as there. The removal of all the pervious ~uffaces, the
concrem patio and ~o forth, will result in amuch more softeu/~g ofthelook. We only
request that we be able to place these structures whgre we prppose in light of what was
there, because we've, taken from zon~g standpoim,~what was a bad siraati~n and made it
far better.
MEMBER TORTORA: Bruce, let me just stop you for a moment and go through some
facts on this. The original survey that was disapproved by the Building Department was
the survey, wi-rich was resubmitted in Decemb~, correct?
BRUCE ANDERSON: That's the survey you have before you.
MEM]~ER TORTORA: Those are not the same plans that you have here. I'm talking
about these. These plans here. These are the plans that were reviewed by the Building
Department according to the Notice of Disapproval, because there are three separate sets
of setbacks on the Application. That's what we have to get cleared up. The question I
have to you is, this set of plans and the setbacks on those plans do not mesh with the
revised plans that you haye shown us tonight. Has the Building Department reviewed the
ievised placement of the house, garage?
BRUCE ANDERSON: Yes theyhave.
MEMBER TORTORA: And when, because in your Notice of Disapproval, they're
talking about the subject swimming pool stale at 48 feet. The site plan is stale. The
survey is actual.
BRUCE ANDERSON: Well the purpose of the site plan is the showing of merely a
proposed detached garage. There is nothing on the site plan that can be construed relative
to the pool and the house. I request you refer to the survey for that.
MEMBER TORTORA: Right, well I agree. But the question I'm asking is, did the
Building Department review the survey? ]
BRUCE ANDERSON: Yes theydid.
MEMBER TORTORA: Okay.
PAGE 59 - JULY 1:2. 20131
ZBA PUBLIC ItI~ARING TRANSCKI]Yr
TOWN OF SOLrlIffOLD
BRUCE ANDERSON: I personally met with the Chief Building Inspector,
approx/mately fi~ze - 6 weeks ago. The Notice of Disapproval is dated two days after our
n~eeting. Mr. Forrester and I enjoy a vepy good'relationship, and we went through the
Whole. we went through everything because we wanted to be sure that this Board had the
correct information and to give the correct determination as quickly as possible.
MEMBER COLLINS: Let me shine charm in to Mrs. Tortora's point, because I had the
same reaction, I think. The Notice of Disapproval that says the house js proposed at 62
f~e~ fi:om the btufl~and we have the garage; and the pool is pr0posec~ 4~,f~e~ from the
bluff. The survey ~h/ch gave us; which is most recently ?~dat .ed by 3~0. i, has lines fi:om
the pool out, bm it's~not clear whether they go to the bluff ~r whetl~er ~.~y go to
someth/ng else. T~ ey are not the same numbers that are in the denial Given that we're
worldng with setbacks here, we really need to know.
MEMBER TORTORA: That's the most important thing that's before us.
MEMBER COLLINS: Exact distance.
MEMBER TORTORA: Right. The design of the house, that's very nice, but that's very
miniscule. What's before us is the degree ofthe variance you're requesting. Sowhatis
the actual closest point to the top of the bluff of the proposed pool?
CHAIRMAN: I have 48 feet
MEMBER COLLiNS: Well you can't tell ftom this exactly where the top of
BRUCE ANDERSON: You have a survey in ftont you that is the exact measurements.
The exact measurements extend out to a line that is nor exact, that being the top of the
bluff
CHAIRMAN: As shown on the survey?
BRUCE ANDERSON: Correct. Whatever the number is, as I have scaled it, as the
building inspector scaled it, or what is shown in the survey before you reflects the house
in the same location: The reason for that is the top of this btuffis not as sharp a decrease
as seco in many bluffs. So, I would compel you to consider, if you wish, you can take the
number offthe Notice of Disapproval, or you can take the number offthe survey. It
really doesn't matter, because what's important here is the house location and the
important thing being that everything has been moved back.
MEMBER TORTORA: That's good, but in other words, we grant you approval for a
setback that maybe 42, maybe 48, maybe 52. Can't do it.
BRUCE ANDERSON: To make your life easier refer to the survey (inaudiblY).
PAGE 60- JULY 12. 2001
ZBA PUBLtC HEARING TR&NSCRIPT
TOWN OF SOUTFfOLD
MEMBER COLLINS: Well I guess one problem is that, I understand what you're
saying. The house is where it is, and if you get your GPS and you figure out exactly
where the house is, that'.s where the house is. And you say we're quibbling over exactly
how to measure the setbacks. But the problem is that we have a Notice of a Disapproval
that says you want a ~2 foot setback and on here, the only number I see is 57. But that's
not to the bluff; it appears to be tothe Coastal 'Erosion Hazard line.
BRUCE ANDERSON: That's correct.
MEMBER COLLINS: And, in fact, I can't figure out your saying, wherethe top of the
bluffis somewhat "iffy" in that area.
BRUCE ANDERSON: It's going to be offby anyone's interpretation, it will vary at least
four feet. because it is not a sharp bluff.
MEMBER COLLINS: Because it's not a sharp bluff. Okay. We understand our
problem. Whatever you get from this, in the way of a variance, is going m have numbers
in it.
BRUCE ANDERSON: tfyou refer to theNotice of Disapproval that will suffice for our
purposes. If you then, also choose to defer to the survey, it's the same for us. It makes no
difference.
MEMBER TORTORA: Well the topographical request from the bluff, they're saying
from the Coastal Erosion Hazard line.
BRUCE ANDERSON: It is nor.
MEMBER COLLINS: No. that's not so.
CHAIRMAN: It's n6t.
MEMBER TORTORA: According to what's on here. Look at it.
BRUCE ANDERSON: If you look at the northeastern comer, you'll see a deviation. It's
57 feet, which is actually landward of what I would consider the top of the bluff.
CHAIRMAN: Which you refer to as the crest of the bluff
BRUCE ANDERSON: Exactly. So I wouldjust encourage you m, ifa number has to be
an exact one, please refer to the Notice of Disapproval.
MEMBER TORTORA: (inaudible) you said that the distance that you require, the
distance between the proposed deck and the pool from the house. (Inaudible)
PAGE 6i -JULY 12,2001
ZBA PUBLIC I~AK1NG TRANSCRIPT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BRUCE ANDERSON: What I was referring to was the general layout of the site,
wherein the poolis located between the dwelling and the top ofthe bluff. (Inaudible) if
we move both structures further away than when they Were originally existed.
MEMBER TORTORA: It still is a tremendous variance that you are requesting.
BRUCE ANDERSON: But you might consider my view, I hope you would consider
what existed. What took place here was done in good faith. What results is greater
compliance than what we have out there as evidence as proposed before you. I also want
to bring your attention eat I ~ceived letters of support fro~ Edward Booth ~hich we
received and which reads as follows: "I have receivedNofice of Public Hearing o~ July
12th in the case of Michae,! McAllister reqnesting a Vmiance tO allow the sighting of kis
new home and poo~ at a distance less than 100 feet from the top of the bhff. I hope you
wi~,l give them the variance they ask for. The ground slopes away from the spot he has
chosen for his house so that moving the site to 100 feet would serious li .mi~ his view of
the Sound. which is the primary attraction of his new property. The arcl~/tecfs plan for
the home looks very good and will enhance the value, of the neighborhood. I believe that
he purchased the lot with the understanding that he did n0t need a variance to build the
house where he wants it, so that it seems fair to give him his variance. The 100-foot vale
maybe better suite to shorefr0nt that slopes down to the water thanto the caseofthe
bluff, where the land usually slopes down to the water than to the case of the bluffi where
the land usually slopes in the opposite direction.
Thank you for your consideration of my.support for Mr; McAllister. I have never met
him but I thnk he has a good case and look forward to seeing him as a new neighbor."
Again, we can all agree, or should be able to agree that you could have increased the size
or. the then existing house in any number of directions other than towards the bluff. I
hope what we can agree on is that we have essentially done that and gone even a step
further by pulling everything back further from the bluff.
MEMBER TORTORA: So what you're saying is that you took an existing house that had
an existing footprint, that he ~ook the house down and now he's moved it back a little bit
more.
BRUCE ANDERSON: That was proposed all along in the original Building Permit.
CHAIRMAN: What you're saying Bruce is that there was no trade-offby the Building
Department at that time. You thought there was a trade-off and there ended up to be no
trade-off: Is that what you're telling me? Between the setbacks. Since you were going
landward.
BRUCE ANDERSON: That is correct, I thought we had.
CHAIRMAN: Excuse my common jargon of using that phrase.
PAGE 62 - JULY 12. 200I
ZBA pUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIF[ ~ 3.
TOV(N OF SOUTHOIzD
MEMBER TORTORA: You thought you had the ability to re build.
BRUCE ANDERSON: Right. The onlyodyssey here was at the time when they in/tially
req~ested the letter of disconnect. It was ~sgumed bythe buitder that was the only item
that was missing in his a~pl/gation. Presumably the Iine on that,portion that Iread to you.
What you have is an honest error. We eerta/nly could have left the house there, but the
pool; there would be no question that we could do that. Or, ff we couldn't do k we wonld
simply enlarge The house.
MEMBER TORTORA: Was the house demolished?
CHAIRMAN: Sure it's demolished. Let me suggest something to you here. As you
know, in the past, you and I have worked with things that we were unaware of.,' we've
gone back and revisited the site. Not necessarily on demolished houses, b~it on houses
that we were being_instructed. My suggestion is, at this point~ that you have another field
inspection with the members of this Board, so they understand What exists on that bluff
right now and the specific concerns.that they have regarding this. You can also tell them,
by the stakes that you have there, where the existing house was and so on and so forth. I
have to tell you that, in general, bythe nature of the revetment and bythe nature of the
actual re-nurishing ofthisbluf~ I don't havea problem with this, application. But, Ithink
some of the concerns here are that we, first of all, caunor totally identify that there is no
real lip to this bluff up on top. I think you can Understand that more bylooking at it
physically than you can on a piece of paper here. Secondly~ I need you to take this piece
where you have the, what you consider the top bank of the bluff~or the crest of the bluff
written in. I need you to super implani that garage on here. Use this one and only this
one so that they understand exactly what you're talking abo~ut, when you go out and look
at this thing. I don't have to.be there, but I Can be there ifyou want me to. That's a
suggestion I have to my fellow Board Members. I've done substantial looking at th/s,
almost to the point of. one o£the major problems is I've been down there looking at this
bluff from the top down.
BRUCE ANDERSON: It is a pecuIiar situation, doubt about it. I would certai~y par
myself at the Board's disposal, whether it be individually, selectively, however you want
to do it.
CHAIRMAN: When do you want to go back there?
MEMBER TORTORA: Saturday?
CHAIRMAN: I have a 10:30 appointment at the Keyspan site. So what do you want to
do. do you want to make it 10:007 What's your schedule Bruce?
BRUCE ANDERSON: Are you talking about Saturday?. This Saturday?
CHAIRMAN: Yes.
PAGE 63 - J~0LY 12, 2001
ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BRUCE ANDERSON: ~Anytime you want. If yoahave to be in Mattituck at 10:30, and
you do!~t w~mt to be laie because there's going robe people there. I would suggest you
makeit something like 9:30, 9:45.
CHAIRMAN: 9:45? Everybody knows where it is, right?'
MEMBER TORTORA: That way we can take a look, because it's very hard for us ro get
a handle on eye~ the degree(~f the variance. The questions that we legally have to
answer und~ the law. the setback;'the degree of the variance.
CHA}RM~N: She's going to take this one here that you gave us. with it penciled in on
that, and you're goktg to super implant it. I can't give you this one; I can give you a copy
of it. You're going ro give us that one. which has the numbers on it. You have that one
right? Do you want me to give you a cop3P..
BRUCE ANDERSON: Yes3 just give me a copy.
CHAIRMAN: We'll give him a copy; actually make a bunch of cop~es.
MEMBER COLLINS: What are you actually asking hun to do Jerry?.
CHAIRMAN: I want this one here so you don't have a problem with it.
MEMBER COLL1NS: That's the one I'm looking at, right?
CHAIRMAN: That is not the one you're looking at.
BRUCE ANDERSON: That's the one the Building Inspector and I determined.
CHAIRMAN: This is the one you need to deal with, because we're being confused.
BRUCE ANDERSON: What happened, the Bu/lding Inspector and I sat down and said,
given the state o£the bluft~ how do we best show the conditions.
CHAIRMAN: So, we'll see you there about 9:45. I may be a couple of minutes late.
BRUCE ANDERSON: That's fme. Do you want te close the hearing, how do you want
to handle that?
CHAIRMAN: We're going to see what we're going to hear, If we're going to hear
anybody. If we don't here anybody, then we'll close the hearing pending the receipt of
the survey and whatever the situation is at that point.
BRUCE ANDERSON: Okay.
PAGE 64 - JIJLy 12; 2001
ZBA pLIBLIC I-tEARiNG TRANSCRIPT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
CHAIR/VlAN: Is there anybody that would lik~ to speak in favor or against this
application? Sir?
ED BOOTH: Can I do both?
CHAIRMAN: You can do both. Just come up and state your name if you would.
'ED BOOTH: My name is Ed Booth.
CHAIRMAN: How do you do Mr. Booth.
ED BOOTH: My family I inaudible). It's true I feet that way about the construction
(inaudible) ~ live pretty close to th~ bluff myself and all day long I can here the waves
roiling in and would take alook over and watch the erosion taking place (inaudible).
The first is, it's a nice look/ng house. It kind of reminds me of some of the houses that
used robe up that way, like the Marshall place and another place. [ want to see it made.
I think if you move halfway to the road, it's not going to be quite the same. That's why I
wrote the letter. We have borders on the south side (inaudible). The other thing is if you
get out there and look at the toe of the bluff, anybody's toe of the bluff. That was there
when we first discussedthis I think ia September: the first time. (inaudible) I have
C pictures before and after this erosion was done and I would say 35 feet has eroded this
year. (inaudible)The idea of planting a cliffwith grass, I don't get it. Ihave a cliffofmy
own it's not going to take grass. But just take a look, okay, when you're there and think
about the toe of the bluff.
CHAIRMAN: They're going to put a revetment in all along, the bul!chead. That's what
they're going to do. What that's going ro do is stop.
ED BOOTH: Stop a bulkhead.
CHAIRMAN: Do you know what a revetment is sir?
BRUCE ANDERSON: A revetment is distinguished from a bulkhead. A bulkhead is
generally built out of wood, a wooden structure. A revetment is {inedible) the reason
regulators like the revetment over bulkhead these days is (inaudible~. When you look at
many of the proposals made to construct these from the D.E.C., there seems to be the
preference towards the angular rock, placed along the bluff. Rather than the flat vertical
surface of the bulkhead.
ED BOOTH: As I said, when the weather tinandible) it made a Itt of sense. Now it's a
cliff You can lean the blocks up against, but you cannot put them in a horizontal
position anymore, linaudible)
PAGE 65 - IO]L¥ 12. 2001
ZBA PUBLIC I~=ARING TRANSCRIPT
tOWN OF SOIYrHOLD
BRUCE ANDERSON: ]'he way this particular one is designed is really the way the rock
itself will find it's way.
ED BOOTH: What concerns me is, has ~ways been the I think could happen (inaudible)
on the beach and not on the toe of the bluff. (inaudible)
BRUCE ANDERSON: In other words; you're concern is that this i inaudible) will occur
thereby mowng the rock out towards the beach.
CHAIRMAN: Justletmeexplainsomethingtoyouinmybriefknowledgeoferosion. I
have seen this become very effective. Now, of com'se, the only hazard that you have is
tha~ youYe going build it for Mr. McAilisrer; the question is what are the neighbors going
to do. That's an issue you'll have to deal With in the tSature~ that the water can o. rme
arom~d and you know what happens. But I personally tlfink that it would have.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr. Booth.
BRUCE ANDERSON: Jerry, I didn't make the application for the but the best way of
doing these sons of things is to coordinate if you have a longer wall rather than the series
ofreturns. Unfortunately, that~swhat we were discussing why we were here. Discussing
the bluff as I see it, with this application, is simply to say the then the house, as location
(inaudible) of what we propose now has no impact on that bluff, because the erosion that
occurred was considerably a 0naudible) event. Has evidence the vegetation on top is still
fine.
CHAIRMAN: What you're telling us here is that you're going to stabilize this bluff. This
bluff., not the neighbors on both sides: and predicated upon that, we are going to grant a
variance, and I'm going to tell you, I'm not talking for my fellow Board Members, rm
going to tell you that before you get a C.O. on that house, that's when you 0naudible) that
entire bluffwilt be re-nurtured.
BRUCE ANDERSON: And I'm here to tell you that I'm all for it, and so is the applicant.
CHAIRMAN: And you're going to let us inspect it and see it.
BRUCE ANDERSON: Absolutely, I will be inspecting it.
CHAIRMAN: This is the one you need. That's the one we need you to work on. Yes?
MEMBER DINIZIO: I want ~0 know how this erosion began in the first place.
BRUCE ANDERSON: Coastal flaw. It's wave driven. It's not driven by some overland
run off set.
PAGE 66 -JULY 12. 200t
ZBA PUBLIC I-IEAP.~G TRANSCKIPT
TOWN OF qOUTHOLD
.... MEMBER DINIZIO: But I mean you have hundreds of years of this bluff existing and
.~- surtdenly tmYe a, storm that takes it out. on one or two. How does that happen?
BRUCE ANDERSON: The answer is that each bluff, up and down, the up and down
dyrmmics. What you see today has a decade ago, two decades ago, fully vegetated.
Some of what you see vegetated today, a deeade or two ago may have been fully earth.
The only thing that I see hold true, really there's a bluff in Northaven. My guess is that
those areas are in a process o.f continual, erosion, and that they're so to speak, that no
vegefation CQv. ld really, become estabhshed, The (?) on this bluff are far less severe than
the Nyc examples I just pointed o~t: Evcm if we were able to, actually we had bm'It a set
of stairs, o~ ilia, bh~ from maetials now (inaudible)-with the appropri ,arc drifts in an
initiatiigh~ ;fert/tization. If yo~r~re a boater aS i am, and you happen to be head~g into
Noriae Bay you may look east to Northaven anA you'll see a big set of stairs wh/ch has 12
feet on either side, thick as can be from top m bottom. The idea of.pl ~ .ar45ng a bluff is
something that cma be deae bus it takes a Sear.. deal of care. It can be dime. This is an
easier job than the one we did in Northaven. If you're out on a boat, please take a look at
it.
CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would tike to speak, sir?
NICHOLAS NICKOAULS: My name is Nicholas and this is my wife Katy. We have
the property immediately to the ledge. We support Mr. Booth's contention that having
the McAlhster's build this house is something that we would like to see. So really the
house that was there before was an eyesore. We are happy.that this is taking place.
About that stone wall, I'd like to make comment that tiffs p~ece of theSoutholfl Town
Beach there are eleven houses there that have been submitted to (inaudible) and I think if
you ever have time to look at them, it will give you an idea of what the long term effects
are of this wall. I think it should help, but I'm not sure.
CHAIRMAN: Could wehavethe spelling ofyour last name?
NICHOLAS NICKOAULS: Nickoauls
CHAIRMAN: Thank you sir.
NICHOLAS NICKOAULS: Another comment I would like to make is about the garage.
It looks like it's going to be fight next to ours, and I wonder if it could be moved a little
bit further away.
CHAIRMAN: We'll discuss that with Brace.
BRUCE ANDERSON: (inaudible) discussion of materials of garage.
MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Anderson, ifI read the survey, the topographic map survey
correctly, the numbers that are circled with dots reflect regarding?
I
I~AGE 67 -nJL¥ t2, 2001
ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BRUCE ANDERSON: Yes.
MEMBER COLLINS: Itdoesn'tappearthatthere'sverymuchofit. Couldyoujust gnve
me a thumbnail.
BRUCE ANDERSON: The property is essentially flat.
MEMBER COLLINS: I haven't looked at it from the road.
CHAIRMAN: I will close this testimony to verbatim testimony. We're going to have to
make a decision if we're go/rig to have a spec/al meeting or not. Do you warn to have a
meetingin a week or so?
MEMBER COLLINS: I am going away two weeks from next week, so any time in
between now and then is okay with me. I'm going the 31s~.
CHAIRMAN: Oh the 31st. I was thinking next Thursday. Are you available next
Thursday night?
CHAIRMAN: I was going to close it to verbatim and anything that we learned on
Saturday, we could bring to the heating and I was just going to close it at that point.
Yes. close it at the special meeting.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I have a question, my question wasn't answered and it really
bothered me about this, because we have a bluff here that looks hke it's in terrible shape
and I don't think we're spending enongh Xime on that particular part of the bluff. What
comes to mind is in Cutchogue. What happened to that gentleman and he had different
precautions, What I kind of want to look for here, Jerry, you know that I don't normally
do this.
CHAIRMAN: No, that's fine.
MEMBER D1NIZIO: I look at those pictures; in all honesty, [ can see nothing but
trouble in the future unless I can be convinced otherwise.
CHAIRMAN: The only trouble that this project has, in the future, is if the neighbors
don't take the same precaution that this applicant is going to take. That is the only
problem.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree.
CHAIRMAN: That is the only problem.
MEMBER DINIZIO: But is what this gentleman going to do accelerate that?
P~GE 68 - IULY 12. 200~
ZBA pIJBLIC tLEARING TRANSCRIPT
TOWN OF S OUTHOLD
CHAIRMAN: No.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Why not, that's what happened in Cutchogue.
BRUCE ANDERSON: I think you're referring to Howard Wexler, who I know. I
believe that is a bulkhead, am I fight?
CHAIRMAN: That's correct.
BRUCEANDERSON: This matter is distinguished from the Wexler matter, in that we
are not-talking about a bulkhead, and the reason why, I think Mi-. Boehman attempted to
get a bulkhead and the reason why the bulkhead was rejected is again, the fear of m-eating
this vertical surface that would create an increase wave energy upon comact, If you refer
to Item iV, you will see the survey that is included there, and o~ that sun-ey you will see
a cross sectional view. What you see is the placement of fill, of that fill it covers a
horizont~ area of and doesn't extenct above grade, more than a foot and one
half. Those are oneto two tons fills, which are not large fills~ butit gives an area in
which to protect against a lot. The key really being above that area, what I can suggest,
what we haven't done I've already said that whatever soil and consc~wation service is
goin~ m recommend I believe wiIt be.consistent with that report because we ~lesign other
projects consistent with their instructions. ! can actually prepare you amore formal
landscape plan that says areas that:are in need of planting, Here's the
__ density, tinting, maintenance, etc. More than that I can't'do. The only thing I
can't do is, I cannot force an adjacent property owner into that. I can't go beyond my
property line.
CHAIRMAN: That's not what we're asking,
MEMBER DINIZIO: That's not what I'm saying. Pm saying is your action now, in other
words, my understanding from Mr. Booth is that this has been a long-s~anding bluff, and
that suddenly it's not anymore. Now I understand that's (inaudible) 1,000 years or
whatever, but now at this point in time, is the modification you're going to make gomg to
effect the other people that are on either side of this property. I'm not so sure, becanse
I'm not an engineer. But I certainly would like to have someone tell me what we agree to
let you do doesn't affect the people on either side, because if I'm on the same as this
gentleman's home, he's lived on this p~x)perty a long, long time, is that it's probably best
left alone.
BRUCE ANDERSON: No~ I doubt what Mr. Booth is saying, and I'm not going to put
words in his mouth, is that the potential for the rock, if you wilt, will sort of migrate our
on the bluff. In other words, no longer (inaudible). He's saying, in fact, because of the
wash-out that had occurred there, the actual line of the toe is not precisely deter able, and
I don't think I would argue otherwise. But. other scmmfio where you have some sort of
fluffing offi the result of that is not to create an up drift, down drill upset. What happens
PAGE 69- JULy 12.2001
ZBA PUBLIC HEARI~TG TRANSCRIPT
TOWN OF SOUTIcIOLD
,~.~ is the rocks themselves are no longer cause effective on that bluff not to the detriment of
an adjacent property owner. Do yon follow? As opposed to a bulkhead, with Mr. Wexler
as an example, which is driven into the ground, a (inaudible) structure, It is fled back by
half inch he-rod, fastened to the which are basically pieces of telephone
po}e, 8 feet in len~ driven into the base of the bluff to hold £t, ro counteract that seaward'
movement, the way we'do them, are about every 8 feet. The> object
involving the placement of the stone at the toe of the blnff is a far m~re softer solution
than that of a bulkhead, and so the impact that we think of~ in bulkheads~ particularly the
~ pohat c~ reXurn and thc remm is where the bulkhead ~S back into- thc la~-d whi¢li creates
a j;ett~ effect, it could create a jetty effect. Amthe waves gc~i,ng ~o ~ashi~t0 .that
hul~ead an~ undermine the disbursement 0n the ~edge ~ply don't oc~tm~oa thZs? type of
structure. These rocks are really no harder man th/s;Oak. Ttlese am one to two ton
rocks, they are no~:big rocks. So if they fail, they fluff off. theybury themsel~¢eS, which
is very possible. What you're left with is stares quo, what you have now. Not a situation
that causes a worsening effect.
CHAIRMAN: I think you need to show them a little bit, the revetment.
BRUCE ANDERSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN: Or pictures of one. As for the other situation, of what you were
suggesting to us in reference to the plan itself, I think that would be important. What do
you want to do about ~losing the hearing; you want to leave it open?
MEMBER DINIZIO: I'd like to leave it open.
MEMBER COLLINS: I'd like to leave it open.
CHAIRMAN: Let me get the timing of what we're going to do here first. Do you warn to
leave it open until he comes back, or do you want to. what do you want to do?
MEMBER COLLINS: We're going to have a special meeting next week, did we agree to
that?
CHAIRMAN: So what do you want to do? Do you want him to come back next week?
Or do you want to make it two weeks from now?
MEMBER COLLff4S: You're asking them for some things, which presumably are things
they can get in a week. We're going to go out on Saturday and look at it. So we could
recess the hearing for our special meeting next week.
CHAIRMAN: Is that all right with you?
MEMBER DINIZIO: That's fine.
PAGE 70 - JULY 12. 2001
ZBA PUBLIC I-~AJilNG TRANSCRIPt'
tOWN OF SOUTHOLD
CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry about this Mr. McAtlister.
MICHAEL MCALLISTER: No problem.
MEMBER TORTORA: Okay the 19th at 6:45 p.m.?
CHAIRMAN: No let's do some decisions, so let's make it 7:30.
BRUCE ANDERSON,: 7:30 next Thursday?.
CHAIRMAN: 1~11 make that motion. Mr. McAllister I apologize, is there something you
want to 5ay?
MICHAEL MCALLISTER: 0naudible/the revetment. I never tried to do anything that I
would never have been allowed to do, so I went through~the whole process and carefully
planned my bulkhead or whatever I wanted or whatever I asked for, and I said fine. no
problem. If the revetment is a problem in preventing me fi:om bu/td/ng the house, where
I'd not like to build it, which to me makes honestly a more reasonable place to build a
house, and the cesspool was demolished. I have no problem removing the revetment. I've
been in contact with Mr; Nickolas, I've told him, once I have an idea where I will be able
to build the house. I've spoken to Costello Marine; I'm waitingro get costs to see how we
can do it, over the bluff ar in the. water on barges. I haven't event gone into that yet. But
/fit's going to prevent me from doing the house and the pool the way I'd like, which to
me are very reasonable ways then I have no problem with not putting the reveunent,
because I certainly don't want to anger my neighbors, people who have been living there
for twenty years and are familiar with the erosion,
CHAIRMAN: No we need you to stabilize that toe of the bluff.
MICHAELMCALLISTER: Iagree. I think the revetment breaks up the motions ofthe
waves, but does not prevent, it doesn't not effect the side properties in any way. The
D.E.C. are the people that are opposing, this is the right way and this is the way
everybody should do something, something everyone should do if you have a bluff: This
~s a practical smart way. It's not going to prevent, like you say, the thousand-year storm,
or the year normal erosion. But, if it's going to prevent me fi:om doing the house and
pool put where I would like them, which in my opinion is much more reasonable than
what was there, then I would be willing to, I'll negotiate that and I'd be willing to give
that up. But the revetment, I have been granted permission by the D.E.C. to do that.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
BRUCE ANDERSON: Can I say something again. The gentleman on the left is
concerned about whether or not there will be a problem with the properties on both sides
of the stone wall, and my suggestion is that, ~s early as possible, to go look at this area
east of Southuld Town because there are a lot of these stone constructed. They've been
PAGE 71 - JULY 12. 2001
ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TR~2NSCRIPT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
there for quite a few years. This way they can determine whether or not there has been
and effect on properties on either side.
CHAIRMAN: What we really want to see is one that has that big time slope going down
almost similar to your area.
BRUCE ANDERSON: The bluff there is not quite that high; they're much lower there.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
GORDON PRICE: I'm not quite clear about the outline of what happens, is the next
Thursday.
CHAIRMAN: Yes we'll recess it until next Thursday.
MEMBER TORTORA: If he provides us with more information after we re-inspect the
site on Saturday.
GORDON PRICE: I'm only pleading actually because we go the Building Permit
Apphcafion in
CHAIRMAN: Hold on - we have to change the tape. Gordon you can plead any time
you wanT.
GORDON PRICE: Anyway it was four months before they even looked at the permit.
My client has the property for over two years; paying taxes on this suitable 2-½ acre lot
in this beautiful area, and would certainly love to have something happen.
CHAIRMAN: Thank vou. I will restate the motion, and that is to recess to the 19th.
BRUCE ANDERSON: Thank you very much.
10:59 Appl. No. 4969 - N.Y.'S. FEDERATIONOF PROCESSORS AND GROWERS
(Owner: N. Aliano}. This is a request for a Special Exception under Article [ti, Section
100~31B (4), to establish use of property as a proposed Nursery School IGrace's Place).
Location of Propeity: 31800 and 31040 C.R. 48 (a/k/a/Middle Road or North Road),
Peconic; County Tax Map Parcel Nos. 1000-74-4-4.8 and 4.8 also referred to Lots 7 and
on the Subdivision Map of Nicholas Aliano. Matthews & Matthews, Esqs.
CHAIKMAN: The final heating of the evening, I know you people never thought it was
going to come. We really, really do appreciate your patience and understanding. Sir,
your name is?
JAMES MATTHEWS: My name is James Matthews. I am the attorney or the applicant,
New York State Federation of Processors and Growers applying for a Special Exception
PAGE 72 -FJLY 12. 200.1
ZBA PUB LIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT
TOWN OF SOUITiOLD
to construct a 7,000 square foot nursery school on two lots. They are contract vendee on
two lots that have merged, the lots that fu total that were merged almost 4.59 acres. The
building reqmTres. I believe, 3.4% of the total lot. It is a mixed area: the road behind it is
on C.R. 48. It won't- effect transportation, We believe it's a low impact type of use. les
only being used Monday through Friday with two or three drop, offs in the mom/ag which
isnot a Iot of traffic that's going to come irc It terminates around 4:00 in the afternoon.
Tke tolal capacity is 76 children. Provides an education environment and so forth. I
would like to present to you both the Executive Director who would like to speak briefly.
MAGGIE EVANS: I am Maggie Evans and I am the Executive Director of the New
York State Federal of Processors and Growers. We are a single pnrpose, private not{or
profit We are S,~te and Federally funded. The majority of our funding comes from the
New York State Department of Agficalture in . The proposed nursew school
would be an educational institution for children birth to six years old. We would service
primarily the agricultural commtmily. When we say agricultural communitys it is the
agricultural workers that work for sod farms, nurseries, greenhouses, all of that. A
typical day for a child at our center is they're picked up at their homes, either by om'
contracted busing or our own busing. They're dropped offat the center around 7:30. A
typical day will include educational activities= obviously, growth in fine motor activities.
weql have a playground area that will be adjacent to the building. Obviously, when we
to safe, happy, active children i( lends itself to parents are very active in our
program, generally, and it certainly lends itself to the community in that we will be
providing probably twenty-five year-rotund full-time positions. I would be far more
enthusiastic, but my bedtime was about two hours ago. But we are very enthusiastic
about this project.
CHAIRMAN: Questions? Do you do, what do we do about language barriers?
MAGGIE EVANS: Language barfiers~ as far as?
CHAIRMAN: We're referring to, are we talking specific ethnic backgrounds or are we
talking about, no?
MAGGIE EVANS: We are an agricultural service oriented agency. Generally, what
happens is, there is eleven other schools in upstate New Yqrk. In every classroom we
hire staff with the request of cultural
CHAIRMAN: VV-hat I'm saying is what happens if a child comes in and the child doesn't
speak English?
MAGGIE EVANS: Very bi-lingual stall: I would say more than 50% of our staff are bi-
lingual.
CHAIRMAN: How far wilt you service out of the Town of Southold?
PAGE 73 - JULY 12~ 2001
ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TIL~N SCRlt~
TOWN OF SOUI'HOLD
MAGGIE EVANS: We are restricted by the Department of Social Services Licensing
where children cannot be on the bus for longer than one hour. l'hat caps an area of
generally twenty to. twenty-five miles. That's a rural county that captioned area would be
in tiffs vicinity.
CHAIRMAN: So you're going to go about as far as Calvertor,, basically.
MAGGIE EVANS: Yes, probably.
'CHAIRMAN: The outside area, are all the chi!dren going to be using it at one hme?
Wilt you have 70 children outside in the playground?
MAGGIE EVANS: No, it is staggered throughout the morning, generally mornings is
playground time; aRernoons is snack time: We willhave playgrounds ~at are indigenous
to our infants, indigenous to toddlers, indigenous to pre-schoolers. So they are
segregated from themselves, as well,
CHAIRMAN: The building itself, the funding comes from the State?
MAGGIE EVANS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN: Then you hire the people that you need to run the program. We just
recently granted a Special Permit to the Head Start Program. They started out at forty-
five and I believe we added another floor on-to the former Church of the Open Door.
How would your program vary from that one?
MAGGIE EVANS: Well specifically the island aspect of it, is a major component of it.
(Inaudible), unless they have an early Head Start Program (inaudible). Most Head Starts
do not provide transportation. (Inaudible)
CHAIRMAN: Would this give the availability of the non-working parent the ability 2o
work?
MAGGIE EVANS: Absolutely. One of our eligibility requirements is both parents are
working. If a parent is not working there is a thirty-day reprieve for them to seek
employment. That's a State Funding requirement.
CHAIRMAN: Now if we wanted to look at one of these schools, where would we have
to go?
MAGGIE EVANS: You'd have to travel a little bit. The closest one is in Goshen, New
York: Oregon, New York; New Pawls, New York.
CHAIRMAN: Interesting.
pAC~ 74 ~ JULY 12. 2001
ZBA PUBLIC HE~RING TRANSCPdPT
TOW~ OF SOUTHOIJD
~ .... MEMBER TORTORA: Wasn't there one that was approved in Riverhead last year. I
~hink Governor Pataki amaounced it was part ora, one oftke grant proposals?
MAGGIE EVANS: Governor Pataki did award this grant.
MEMBER TORTORA: About a year ago.
MAGGIE EVANS: Yes. about a year.
MEMBER TORTORA: But I thought that was the one that was in Riverhead.
MAGGIE EVANS: There is not one located in Riverhead.
CHAIRMAN: There's one, an individual, private one that runs out of Stotsky Park.
MAGGIE EVANS: This would be our first center on Long Island.
CHAIRMAN: On Long Island, interesting. All right do you want to start? Questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I gues~ you are going to be busing your own and mainly for
farms, not for just anybody. You have ro qualify as far as; probably you both have to
work on the farm or ~vhatever.
MAGGIE EVANS: At least one parent has to be working in agriculture. But they both
have to be c~mployed.
MEMBER COLLINS: To whom are you answerable from a licensing and supervision
point of view?
MAGGIE EVANS: Depmtment of Social Services regulates the Center and the
activities. They're also reflecting State and Federal Govmam~ent coming in quite a bit
during the course of the year to check on our program. Obviously, fiscally audited,
externally, as well as, by appointment. We are audited a lot.
MEMBER COLLINS: Department of Social Services is a State phenomenon on a
County basis. I just want to get a sense o£who's watching this.
MAGGIE EVANS: Oh. everyone.
CHAIRMAN: Why Southold or Peconic and not closer West?
MAGGIE EVANS: You know Frank can totally address some of that. We have looked
at.
CHAIRMAN: You're going to make the former supervisor come up.
PAGE 75 -JULY 12~2001
ZBA PUBLIC HEAPING TRANSCPdPT
row~ oF SbnTnOnD
MAGGIE EVANS: He~s inmont court. Would you mind Frank?
FRANI~ MURPHY: Sure. There are quite a number of children in Orcenport. I am
Frank Murphy. Chairman and M~nbers of the Board. good to be here. I got involved
when they came to our real estate office looking for a site, There is probably nothing so
hard to find is a site for a day care, a school, a public place. Ironically, this site that we
ultimately ask to exannne, probably one hundred, was a site that Southold Town back in
ttte m~d-80's Was,trying to negotiate a deal. to hav~ the Ac~ult, theSenior~, the N~trifmn
Center, the A~'nner's Program~ a Day-Care Center all in 0n~ right, at this location. The
whole th/rig almost came about, but some '~ctors .~nAer~di~to it; and we, never got it, and
We stiJt don't have it.
CHAIRMAN: Was that the time when you were Councilman and then became
Supervisor?
FRANK MURPHY: Yes. We were dealing with the owner of the property, Nick Aliano,
and he wanted to actually to make a donation of eight acres to the Town for this complex.
But, we picked this mainly because it's in __ area and the center of the town,
basically, from Orient Point to Laurel, it's just about smack in th~ middle. It's on a
highway, where we have no impact on traffic. There's very little traffic coming in and
out of the building. They're next to a business-zoned property; on the east is a
woodworking shop retail/wholesale operation and gas station. To the west of the
property ~s a legal, two-acm tot, that's owned by Nick Aliano. In negotiating the
for the property, instead of buying one 2-½ acre lots, we took two lots and put
them together just so we would have plenty of clearance all around us. To the south of us
is the railroad tracks, and two vcuT¢ large vineyards and then the Town Highway
Department behind that. To the north is basically one house, one home, I dbn't know the
people; but it's not going to have any impact on them they are on the other side of C.R.
48. Next to them, to the west is all open space, I believe, the development fights were
bought or they were given something with the development on tke sound that this land
can't be built upon. We dealt with Suffolk County Water Authority, Michael Grande
made some suggestions on where to go, but most of the time where the public water was
there were too many homes nearby. We don't want to have the type of school or church,
[ think next to .a lot of homes where we could have an adverse impact on. ~ don't think
we could find a better location than this in the town to really help out a real serious need
for daycare for working families. Suffolk County is the top agricultural county in the
State. Southold Town probably has the most agriculture than any other town in Suffolk
County. There really is a serious need, and if it weren't fo~these people coming here and
working, we would be in a lot of trouble. I think we have an obligation to help bring up
these children, to gwe them a good start in life and ma.~be ,make a big difference in their
life and the future. There's going to be very, very little impact on communi~, the only
real impact is going to be positive, It might even provide quite a few jobs, Okay, any
questions on why we picked the site?
]~AGE 76 - JLrLy 12. 2001
ZBA PUBLIC HEAPdNG TIL~'4 SCR1PT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD -
CHAIRMAN: Anybody? Thanks Frank. [just want to say this license and this permit
wou}d be restricted to 76 children, because that's the total maxnnum occupancy of this
particular facility.
FRANK MURPHY: Right.
CHAIRMAN: All right, let's see what develops throughout the heating, please don't
leave. 'Anybody that would hke to speak concerning this other than the people that have
come, we would be very happy to open up to anybody that have any specific questions.
rather than members of the community or any particular concerns. You don~t have to~
speak adverse. I think the only question I~ have, at.this point, is d'nl you make a
s'ffnuttaneous application to'the Planning Board?
FRANK MURPHY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN: Yes.
FRANK MURPHY: And the Building Department.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Any comments from anybody in the audience regarding this
facility? Okay. Heating no further comment, what?
MEMBER TORTORA: I would to ask a couple of questions.
CHAIRMAN: Couple ofquestions for you Frank.
MEMBER TORTORA: On the survey, the survey has Lot 8 as seven acres. That's an
error, 4.5 acres which would make it a total of seven acres.
JAMES MATTHEWS: Yes, that's an error, exactly. It's those two lots together would be
about 4.59.
MEMBER TORTORA: Just for our records, so we have a correct file on this, just make
that correction on the survey, that's one. Number two, on the approved site plan, the
approved sub-division plan, there is a 50 foot landscaped buffer zone along C.R. 48 and
on your proposed site plan you propose removing almost of that entire landscape buffer
zone that was approved in putting asphalt there. I personally would not be in favor of
that. that was part of the original approval, and I am sure that this is something when you '
get to the Planning Board stage; you'd go through it. But there was a very good reason
for this 50-foot buffer zone.
FRANK MURPHY: I think I can answer that. In the site plan approval, each of the eight
lots o~Aliano has a twenty-foot roadway going from their lot to the one common curbed
10t. There was an error in the approval in the Planning Board of the subdivision. They
put trees in the roadway, for Lots 8 and 7. The two lots that these people are buying.
PAGE 77-JULY [2. 2001
ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIFr
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
The Planning Board, I guarantee you, we have a t50-foot setback, and I guarantee you,
~e ptannmg Board is going to insis~ upon quite a large buffer ir~ the front and quite a
large buffer raainly to the east to hide the two busiriess properties~directly east ofus~
MEMBER TORTORA: But that was a mistake in the original approval?
FRANK MURPHY: Yes.
MEMBER TORTORA: That's why I'm not terribly concerned.
FRANK MURPHY: That's where they put the plantings. There are trees, some of those
trees, some are going to have to come out on the road; but that wilt be determined really
by the Planning Boar&
MEMBER TORTORA: Those were the only two strange looking I noticed.
FRANK MURPHY: It's a very strange looking lot with that L-shaped cutting across.
MEMBER TORTORA: I am familiar with the program, at a statewide level, and as you
say, Suffolk County is the number one agricultural county in New York State. and
S outhold Town has the second largest mount of agriculture in all of Long Island. So
there is definitely a need for this.
CHAIRMAN: On that note, I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision
until later.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
APPEALg Lydia A. Tortota BOARI~MEMBERS
Gered P. Goehringer, Chairman ! ,, ! Southold53095 MaiuT°WnRoadHali
James Dinizio, Jr.
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York i1971-0959
Lora S. Gollins ~/~e4~4-~~~ ZBA Fax (631)765-9064
George Ho~ming~. ~~Y Telephone (631) 765-1809
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
7116; upd. 7/18; 71'19 AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING
THURSDAY, JULY 19~ 200~1
~6.'~3~ p.m. Call to Order'by Chairman.
I. S-[.ATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY fSEQRA) RE~IEWS/RESOLU'['ION:
(none; aw~Kinspecfions andother'B0a~d reviews).
il. POSSIIBLE DELIBERATIONS/DECISiONS {HeaHn~s con=luded):
/~:~li Appl. No. 4964 -T. and L. ,Mc~/ILLIAMS,-¢4~ ~),/~C3-t~- --/
"T;5~ Appl; No. 4000 - LEONARDO+I'IR~DO. ~ ~'~,'~ %)i/~g'X?
Co;5~ Appl. No. 4967 - THOMAS JEROME. - ~'~
~'~ &ppi. Hrs. ~{1070 JOEL REt.TMA~I. -
(~ ;5%~ Appl. No. 4971 - DOUGLAS BRADFORD.-~/)t~-~ '- ~
~1 :eoAppl. No~ 4972- LISTA CANNON. ~ ~ ,~ _-~. ' ~/~
~/il Appl~ No. 4973-DONALD {~n{I LOUISE MOYL~'~E. -,~K~_
~:~ Appl; No. 4968 - EDGEWATER II, EEC. ~ &= ~' ~'~?~ ~ ~<~ ~.~
~?~.ppli No. 4944 ,KEY~SPAN,GAS CORP. {H. SMITH, Owner)-
'7 ~-~,Appk No. 4969 - N.Y.S. FEDERATION OF PROCESSORS AND GROWERS.
(N. Aliano, Owner) ~7~'~7~ ~ ~
II1. PUBLIC HEARING carryover from last calendar:
_~,~ ~ ~ p.m. Appl. No. 4976 - MICHAEL McALLISTER. (Public Hearing continued)
~, ~_:~,~~'~ ~r~Variances requested: (1) under Article XXII[, Section 100-239.4A. 1, based on the
~^,~{~/'~,, .'~'BU Iding Inspector's May 31, 2001 Notice of Disapproval for new dWelling at
W~ .~J- than 100 feet from {he top of the bluff at L.I. Sound, (2) under Article XXIII, Section
~[~'.~ ,/ 100-239.4A. 1 based on the Building Inspector's May 31, 2001 Notice of
q~'~c (J~Disapproval for an in-ground swimming Pool at less than 100 feet from the top of
~' ~,~\[~-~the bl~ff, and (3) und&r Article III, Section 100-33B.4 to Ioca~e a proposed garage
~ ~nc~~' at less than 20 feet from the side 10t line. 17665 Soundview Avenue, Southold;
IV. RESOLUTIONS/UPDATES/OTHER:
A. NEW APPLICATION REVIEWS; BOARD RESOLUTION: Advertise new applications
which are complete, and confirm applications for August 16, 2001 and September 20, 2001
hearing calendars as noted on Tentative List (separate attachment for Members).
B. RESOLUTION to authorize application to be tabled, as requested by the applicant,
NORMA~ MILLER regarding habitable area in accessory garage. Tentative hearing date:
November 15~ 2001.
Page 2- Agenda (u@d. 7/19/01)
July 19. 2001 Special,Meeting
Southold Town Board, of Appeals
C. Update Re: Local Waterfront Revitalization Program: Set of three volumes was
furnished for ZBA reviews~ Comments to V. Scopaz by August 3, 2001 were requested.
D. Update: Re: Environmental Assessment Form Agency Reviews; Comments from
Board prior to August 13, 2001 were requested by Lead Agency. g~.~;
~'Y E. Resolution: Minutes of June 7, 2001 Regular Meeting (for Filing with Town Clerk on
· ~ .... 7126).
V. POSS ELIBERA S/DECISION {Hearing from tonight,, if concluded, and at
discretion of Board)."~,.Appl. No. 49~6 - M. McAIlister.
¥irP~ BOARD MEMBERS ('-~
~t:~~ Southold .wn Hall
$3095 Main Road
Gerard P: Goehringer, Chakman
Jmes Dinizio, Jr. P.O. Box 1179
,~ Lydia A. Tortora v./ .}'~,~l ~ ~ !![/,~,~ Southold, New York 11971-0959
LoraS. Collins .4.~.,,~,..~/e~A~'~#~,~f~ ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064
Telephone (631) 765:1809
George Homing,.. O:g.'<F-'/~ / ~- ~'
BOARD OF APPEALS
" TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
7/1~6; upd. 7116; 7119 AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING
· - THURSDAY, JULY 15, 2001
,~:3~p.m. Call to Orderby Chairman.
L STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (SEQRA) REVtEWS/EESOLUTION:
(hone; await inspections and otfie~ Board reviews).
II. POSSIBLE DELIBEEATIONSIDECISIONS {Hearin~ls _c°ncluded):~ c~,~a:,~ ~-~/~~,~/
G;q I Appl. No, 4964 - T. an.d,, L. McWlLLIAMS~. ~' ~--~-
'-~,5{~ Appl. No. 4966 - LEONARDO TIRADO. ~/~ ~,,
Co;St0 ~Appl. No.,4967 - THOMAS LIEROME. - ~A~b
6, :5,~ Appl. No. 4971 - DOLIGLAS BRADFORD.-~ * ~,-z,~z~7'
~ .t}DAppl. NO. 4972- LISTA CANNON. ~g'~. ~ ?~./~aZ~
-7 [ 1 / Appl. NO. 4973 - DOrNALD and LOUISE MOYE'E. - '=t~c3(~_ ~ .
TA~Appl. No. 4968-EQGEWATER Ih LLC, ~&~ &~/-4'//~.o.~e~
-~.~32~APpi. No. 4944--KEhVSPAN GAS CORP {H. SMITH. Owner)-
_./:3~,Appl. No. 4969 - N.Y.S. FEDERATION OF PROCESSORS AND GROWERS.
(N. Aliano, Owner) ~7~z~7~ ~
IlL PUBLIC HEARING carrvover from last calendar:
~ } Appl. No. 4976 - MICHAEL McALLISTER. (Public Hearing continued)
~ ~ (1) under Article X×III, Section 100-239.4A. 1, based on the
ig Inspector's May 31, 2001 Notice of Disapproval for new dwelling at less
than 100 feet from the top of the bluff at El. Sound, (2) under Article XXIII, Section
I based on the Building Inspector's May 31, 2001 Notice of
Disapproval for an in-ground swimming pool at less than 100 feet from the top of
bluff, and (3) under Article I!1, Section 100-33B.4 to locate a proposed garage
at less than 20 feet from the side lot line. 17665 Soundview Avenue, Southold;
IV. RESOLUTIONSIUPDATESIOTHER:
A. NEW APPUCATION REVIEWS; BOARD RESOLUTION: Advertise new applications
which are complete, and- confirm applications for August 16, 2001 and September 20, 20'01
hearing calendars as noted on Tentative List (separate attachment for Members).
B. RESOLUTION to authorize application to be tabled, as requested by the applicant,
NORMA MILLER regarding habitable area in accessory garage. Tentative hearing date:
November 15, 2001.
'Page 2 - Agenda (upd. 7/19/01 )
July 19, 2001 Special Meeting
Southold Town Board of Appeals
C. Update Re.' Local Waterfront Revitalization Program~ Set of three volumes was
furnished for ZBA reviews. Comments to V. Scopaz by August 3, 2001 were requested.
D. Update: Re: Environmental Assessment Form Agency Reviews: Comments from
Board prior to August t3, 2001 were requested by Lead Agency. ~_~,. ~ ~ ~'-r~f~
,~.~ V/ E. Resolution: Minutes of June 7, 2001 Regular Meeting (for Filing with Town Clerk on
7/261.
V. POSSIBLE~q:)ELIBERATIONS/DECISION (Headng from tonight, if concluded, and at
discretion of Board).~Appl. No. 4'9~6 - M. McAIlister.