HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/06/2011 Hearing 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK
RECEDED
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
F~B ~ 2
BOARD OF APPEALS
Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York
January 6, 2011
9:34 a.m.
Board Members Present:
LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER - Member
JAMES DINIZIO, JR. - Member
GEORGE HORNING - Member
KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member
JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney
VICKI TOTH - Secretary
Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
P.O. Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
(631)-338-1409
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
INDEX OF HEARINGS
Hearing:
4170 Indian Neck Lane Holdings #6443
David S. And Elizabeth Branch #6439
Jeff Andrade #6435
Lois Abramchik and Barbara Cavallo #6436
Barbara Scura-Coyne #6441
Joel B. And Jami Friedman #6440
West Creek Avenue Trust #6442
TK Alpha, LLC #6437
Benali, LLC #6422
Donald B. And Janis G. Rose #6430
Louis and Elizabeth Mastro #6417
Page:
3-25
25-31
32-36
36-54
54-59
60-73
73-80
80-108
108-161
162-168
168-183
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
HEARING #6443 Indian Neck Lane Holdings
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our first hearing is
for Indian Neck Lane Holdings. And that's George
Horning. Would you please read the legal,
George?
MEMBER HORNING: This application "No. 6443,
Indian Neck Lane Holdings. Applicant requests a
Special Exception under Article III, Section
280-13B(9). To construct second floor apartment
as groom/farm labor quarters in existing barn,
location: 4170 Indian Neck Lane, adjacent to
Little Creek, in Peconic, New York. Suffolk
County Tax Map #1000-98-1-27.1."
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
somebody here to represent that?
to the podium,
and would please
Is there
Please come
state your name
and spell it for us,
recorded?
MR. EMILITO:
because it's being
Good morning, Ladies and
Gentleman, Members of the Southold Zoning Board.
My name is David Emilito. I am a registered
certified professional planner. I am
representing Indian Neck Farm here today and that
is before you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Before you continue,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
sir, the Board has implemented a procedure late
last year, whereby, we ensure that the applicants
have received copies of all or reviewed their
file prior to the hearing or if not, we will
provide you with the copies of any
correspondences in our file, so that you may
address that correspondence before the Board in a
public record in whatever way you wish to. Have
you received a copy of the letter that we
received from the Planning Director, Heather
Lanza?
MR. EMILITO: Yes, I have.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You have that?
MR. EMILITO: Yes, I have. I intend to
address that during my comments.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's fine. I just
wanted to make sure --
MR. EMILITO: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We're trying to make
sure that we don't miss anything during the
hearing. So that we have full advantage and are
able to discuss all aspects of whatever is in our
file with the applicant.
MR. EMILITO: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Please
5
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
proceed.
MR. EMILITO: Thank you very much. The
application is for a -- an apartment intended
for the grooms quarters to maintain the horse
farm on the premises. It is classified as a farm
labor camp. The particular section of the zoning
code, which may not seem like the term, but
that's the provision for which we are applying.
It was a Special Exception before your Board and
in the course of events in discussions with the
Planning Director in reference to that memorandum
and with the Building Inspector, we're filing
simultaneously two other applications. The barns
were originally constructed as residential
accessory structures to the main residences on
the property, because we're now intending to
install an apartment for a groom, there has to be
a Change of Use for the barns from residential
accessory to an agricultural use. That
application is in process and we are working with
the Building Inspector to complete it. Due to
that change and the application for the Special
Exception, the necessity for a site plan approval
from the Planning Board, also a condition and is
also in the process with the Town Planner and the
6
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Town Planning Department, to perfect that
application. So in fact all three applications
will proceed simultaneously.
with that procedure and it's
button it all up at one time.
We're comfortable
appropriate to
That being said,
for the purposes of your consideration for the
Special Exception, this is -- in effect a 138
acre parcel, with all the parcels taken together.
This particular tax parcel is 77 acres. It is
comprised of the principle residence, the
accessory structures with the residences. The
newly completed horse barns with approximately
60 horses, and 60 horses require a bit of
maintenance. And the remainder of the property
is basically open fenced horse (inaudible). It
is to be served entirely of public water brought
in from Indian Neck Lane. The Health Department
is in the final stages of approving those
connections -- (inaudible) connections. We will
also have to have the apartment itself inspected
by the Suffolk County Department of Health Room
Housing. Because it is a pro-farm labor
situation, there will be one additional layer of
review for these quarters. The onsite sanitary
system has been sized to accommodate the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
apartment. There is sufficient parking,
obviously, on the premises, where the -- for the
proposed resident. The apartment itself, as I
stated, is necessary for the maintenance of the
horse farm. As I said, 60 horses do require a
bit of maintenance. It will have no undue
adverse affect on the neighborhood. And the only
-- there will be no increase in the footprint of
the simple barn. The only exterior evidence of
the apartment will be an outside door leading to
the stairway, which would go right up to the
apartment. It will be constructed on the north
side of the barn. There will be 3 or 4
additional skylights to allow sufficient light
into the upstairs. And there maybe associated
bench stacks to accommodate the plumbing riser
systems. Other then that, there will be no
visible evidence of the barn -- of the apartment
itself. I don't think I have anything else to
add to the testimony at this point. I would be
happy to feel any questions that you might
have.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask one
question?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: First, see if George
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
has any questions.
MEMBER HORNING:
going to
MR.
I wanted to ask who is
live there?
EMILITO: Who is going to live in the
apartment? It
farm. In other words, it will be
will be working there to maintain
is going to be an employee of the
someone who
the paddocks.
To clean out the barns. To exercise the horses
and so forth.
MEMBER HORNING: Just one occupant or more
than one?
MR. EMILITO: The floor plans indicate that
there are two bedrooms. So we might assume that
there will be two people.
MEMBER HORNING: Two employees?
MR. EMILITO: Yeah, I think so. I can't say
for sure. We would anticipate there being two,
because there are two bedrooms and there would be
two people.
MEMBER HORNING: I mean, it is important to
distinguish whether they are employees or
otherwise.
MR. EMILITO: Well, there would be certain
occupancy limits set by the County, but with
two bedrooms, I would assume at least two
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
people.
MEMBER HORNING: Right. I would just like
to know whether it would be two employees or one
employee and --
MR. EMILITO: I can find out the owners
intentions if you would wish? But I would assume
that there are two bedrooms, there would be two.
MEMBER HORNING: Two employees?
MR. EMILITO: Yes.
I mean, let's make that
MEMBER HORNING:
clear.
MR. EMILITO:
will
Okay.
allow me to make a note.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr.
I can do that. If you
Okay.
Emilito,
at Al01-1 and it indicates that the total square
in looking
MR. EMILITO: That sounds --
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sounds about right?
MR. EMILITO: Sounds about right. Did you
have a question Mr. Goehringer about --
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is my question and
you know, it is somewhat rhetorical. The past
labor camps that we had looked at over the many
years, some of those years I was not on this
footage area of this -- I will refer to it as the
"labor camp apartment" is 1243 square feet.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
Board, were usually housed in one particular
area. What you are giving to us as your
presentation is one particular area; however,
there are three barns. Is there a possibility of
a future application to do this in the other two
barns, to retrofit
the other or three
of situation?
the upstairs of either one of
of these barns with this type
MR. EMILITO: There
know of, no.
is no intention that I
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay.
MR. EMILITO:
quite as big.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
The other two barns are not
I mean, I am sure there
could be something but there is no intention --
MR. EMILITO: There is no intention at this
time. I would have encouraged the owner to come
forward and if there were to be others, do it now
and be done with it.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The reason why I said it
-- this Board has looked at it, I have been on
this Board since 1980. You know, the majority of
where the camp issues came prior to that;
however, there were some issues about labor camps
on certain area in Cutchogue at one point, that
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
we did look at, they were all housed within one
structure. I am saying to you, if there was a
future situation that would (inaudible) that
issue into three separate structures or elongated
this one and then putting one in another
structure. At this particular point, you're only
looking at this particular structure --
MR. EMILITO: That's correct.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The larger structure
that we --
MR. EMILITO: That's right. Is that a
question that you would wish me to obtain an
answer to?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sure.
MR. EMILITO: All right.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sir, the floor plans
indicate a 21.2 x 21.2 foot waiting room.
MR. EMILITO: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And there is no
kitchen shown?
MR. EMILITO: That's correct. An earlier
version of the plan had that room designated as a
kitchen. I don't know why now it has been
designated a waiting room. I would assume that
tl
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SO forth,
facility.
yet.
the actual plans that are filed for the building
permit, which would include plumbing, wiring and
would then place a kitchen in that
I just think it hasn't been designed
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
a drawing that it would be
Otherwise, if you come back to us from the
Building Department saying that these are not the
plans that you approved. So if in fact, you're
planning to include a kitchen and a living room
MR. EMILITO: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I would request that
you submit a plan before a determination is
rendered so that we can actually approve, should
this Board so --
MR. EMILITO: Okay. That is on -- that is
not bad news because I know trying to have the
premises occupied by the summer, so if we could
all (inaudible) do that, we would all appreciate
that. And we will get on that.
What we want do is see
"as built."
it -- it is certainly feasible to suggest that
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And I think for
clarification on who will be living there before
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you might have a family with kids. The second
bedroom could be appropriately occupied by the
family of the employee; however,
know if this is more of a group
than one employee and so on, to
we do need to
residence or more
show the full
extent of the plans. I am assuming the room is
obviously the peek of the gable portion on the
second story apartment. The wings would continue
to be hay storage?
MR. EMILITO: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Jim, question?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yeah, I have some
questions. How many acres is the farm?
MR. EMILITO: The whole entire farm?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yeah.
MR. EMILITO: 133.0063. It's huge.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
have they been --
MR. EMILITO:
property.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
The development rights,
They have been retained on the
They are?
MR. EMILITO: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: We did this for other
application many, many years ago. It was a very
long time ago. What we wound up doing is telling
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
them to (inaudible) for that barn. And you know,
he has two residences and he has four acres set
aside for his residential.
eliminates a lot of things
restrictions there. We're
And that kind of
for you, a lot of
talking about what
type of family is living here or if a family will
live here. To me, the groom does bring up labor
camps and you know, maybe that's the reason why
you don't have a kitchen in there. I mean, I can
only assume. Because we did get a letter today
concerning that, that farm. It's not in our --
it's not even addressed in our accessory
apartment law that I know of. The law that
you're here for. It doesn't address farm workers
in a working farm.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
general. We have materials
attorney.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Right.
So you know --
That code is very
supplied by our
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: From the Ag & Market,
talking about more specificity, which we should
make sure that you have a copy of also. These
are guidelines for us because our code is not
very specific.
MEMBER DINIZIO: So I just wondered if you
14
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
might want to consider, you know, just setting
aside those two acres and building yourself an
apartment there in the barn, I --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: He can't Jim, because
the only way -- that's probably part of the
problem. The only way an accessory apartment in
an accessory structure can be applied for --
MEMBER DINIZIO: I am not saying that. I am
saying, make it a house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER DINIZIO:
They can have a house
You mean --
No, set a few acres aside.
there if they want. That's
one thing. Maybe you should pursue that. The
second thing is, I have some safety concerns
about building an
probably the most
world, hay. And I am just wondering
apartment upstairs above
flammable material in the
safety wise,
if that
MR.
questions --
MEMBER DINIZIO:
asked.
MR. EMILITO:
question,
structure --
is -- if you have thought about that.
EMILITO:
You've asked several
Yes, three questions I
If I understood your first
to set aside acres for a separate
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Right. You know, you can
is. That particular place is on the corner on
Oregon Road and Bridge Lane. It's a very nice
house. There is a barn in front of it.
barn actually has a residence upstairs.
was built to a certain specification.
as far as sheet rock and fire rated.
residence upstairs. But the way that we came to
that setting aside two acres and saying and
saying, he wanted an apartment in the barn. We
said, "no, you can't have an apartment in a
barn." It was going to be for his worker, which
happened to be his brother-in-law at the time.
He was (inaudible) situation. And you know, it
was something that was very simple, because I see
a couple of things that are maybe very troubling
to me. One is, I don't know if I want to be
standing outside a barn that burnt down that had
an apartment in it. I don't know how I would
feel having approved that. I mean, if I just
think there are all sorts of problems with that.
That
And it
You know,
There is a
MEMBER DINIZIO:
go to the Planning Board and add another
residence and subdivide out the residential part
for a farm, so that you have that set aside -- I
am assuming it's two acres, I don't know what it
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6,
MR. EMILITO: Okay.
back to the owner but it
subdivision and keep
approved --
MEMBER DINIZIO:
2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
I will take (inaudible)
would require a
in mind (inaudible) had been
I just want it to be in the
record that there are some concerns here. Those
are concerns to me -- if you have already pursued
subdivision and it's not feasible for you, then
just tell me. And then it's on the way. It's my
suggestion. I thought it would be a lot easier
for you to get it. Certainly, it would have more
flexibility, then who you could put in that
apartment.
MR. EMILITO: We will put those opinions
(inaudible).
(Stepped away from the microphone.)
MEMBER DINIZIO: And I think safety wise, I
would like to have you address egress out of
there and how it meets the fire code.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yeah, that is a good
idea. Let the architect address that.
burns
MEMBER DINIZIO:
MR. EMILITO:
I honestly, hay, when it
Understood. Horse barn fires
are mean and nasty and no one likes to see
17
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
another one. This barn will be fully
sprinklered and it would have to be minimum fire
standards by --
MEMBER DINIZIO: That is --
MR. EMILITO: The County Department of
Housing deals specifically with farm labor
housing. We will have to pass through hurdles
here. And also apartments in barns, as you
stated, are not uncommon, it's good to have
someone right on premises, right there. If
something happens, they're right there. Not in
the main house where maybe the commotion can not
be seen or some where offsite, but I think that
is the intent here. However, I will take all of
your concerns back to the owner for sure.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: While you're doing
that, bear in mind, when we grant things like
that, we grant the Special Exception, we require
a second form of emergency egress. A thrown down
ladder or something like that for that second
floor. In the barn, the actual windows that may
or may not be there, are very different. If you
could please address on how you would conform
with safety code, New York State Code and
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Building Code on a second form of second story
egress, that would also be very helpful.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I think anything that we
approve should show that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's right. So you
need to tell us how you're going to handle that.
MR. EMILITO: All right.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Emilito, I am glad
Jim brought up that issue. I was going to
discuss that issue, combustibility of hay. I
would like to know if the ceiling in the barn,
the two satellite areas adjacent to this are
going to be insulated and possibly air
conditioned, as opposed -- and sprinklered. The
problem with sprinkling in a combustible
situation, you never know where the
combustibility of hay is going to be. Where the
source is going to occur. The reason why I am
saying that, if you're going to utilize those two
for hay, we have to really discuss, you know, the
lowering of those temperatures in those barns,
okay? And the only way that can be done is
through air conditioning. Because although it is
nice to sprinkle it, you don't know where the
combustible source would be, all right? And the
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sprinkler may not ever get to that combustible
source as it intensifies. So that is the issue.
What other sort of protection you're going to
be giving to the fire rating, as Jim mentioned,
to the apartment on both sides to allow these
people to get out in case that was to happen,
is a great concern to me, as well as, the Board.
MR. EMILITO: So what are you asking?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is the hay loft area
going to be air conditioned in the spring? To
lower that temperature, okay, it could be 120
degrees in there in the summer time and 90 degree
temperature outside. That creates a combustible
source. But you don't know where that
combustibility sets itself. If it was to start
at the floor rating or the ceiling rating -- you
just don't know where it's going to start. And
there is nothing worse, in my particular opinion,
hay and cardboard. Those are the two worst. And
in fact cardboard could be worse. Because it has
little pockets for oxygen to get into them and in
my particular opinion, you can never really put
out a cardboard fire. The hay fire is going to
burn through the roof and potentially burn itself
out. Hopefully never taking someone's life.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
That's a concern.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's what you get
when you're dealing with a firefighter over here.
MR. EMILITO: That
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
is good.
Thank you.
Ken, do you have any
Yes, I do. Was there
ever any consideration of making a ground floor
apartment in one of these barns, instead of a
second floor?
MR. EMILITO: It was never discussed with
me. Not to my knowledge, no.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Could you describe for
the record, what is the function of a groomer?
MR. EMILITO: The function of a groom?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yeah, of the groomer.
MR. EMILITO: To maintain intact, to
exercise the horses. Clean out stalls. Turn out
and bring in. Those kinds of matters.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And for the record, why
would that be essential to having an apartment in
this barn?
MR. EMILITO: In my opinion, does that make
it essential to have the barn, is that your
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
question?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Why is it essential that
the apartment be in the barn and not in a
separate location?
MR. EMILITO: As I stated, to have someone
directly on premises. In case anything happens,
they are right there.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any other Board
members have questions at this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone in the
audience that would like to address this
application? Please come forward.
MR. PONTINO: Joe Pontino, Little Indian
Neck, p-O-N-T-I-N-O. The County definition of
labor camp, what's the potential occupation for
that apartment for that size?
MEMBER DINIZIO: You would have to ask the
County.
MR. PONTINO: And would they come
(inaudible) to the site?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Maybe that's a legal
question. Can you answer that?
MS. ANDALORO: I believe they would
22
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
circumvent the Town. That being said, we have
jurisdiction as well, for health and safety. So
if you would like to put a restriction on the
occupants, that there is two, that could fly or
that could not fly. You know.
MR. PONTINO: I can see a laboring family
but you know, labor camp, has the potential of
having two dozen people in it for that size.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's why I asked the
question.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They will get back to
us on what they're specifically proposing. We
have a history of granting Special Exceptions and
conditions placed upon the Special Exception that
stipulate who may reside. How many people may
reside and so on. And if they want
in any way, they would need to come
Board for approval.
MR.
to expand it
back to the
PONTINO: How do you sprinkle the system
around hay? You can have composting.
about that as you mentioned it today.
on the ground would be preferable, I
is all I have to say. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
I thought
Something
think. That
Thank you. Is there
25 anyone else?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anything else
from the Board?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Hearing no
further questions, I would like to make a motion
to adjourn this hearing to 1:30 on February 3rd
at 1:30, so that we may continue addressing the
issues that were raised here and be prepared to
come back with some additional answers before us.
Then we will continue.
MR. EMILITO: Thank you. And may I ask, or
should I coordinate with Vicki, when you would
like our responses back, so that you may consider
them?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Certainly before the
hearing. So we will have a good chance to review
anything in writing and prepare our questions. I
would say at lease
hearing.
MR. EMILITO:
a week, minimum, before the
Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
before the hearing.
MR. EMILITO:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Preferable 10 days
Thank you very much.
Is there a second to
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
my motion.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
Second.
Ail in favor?
Motion carries unanimously.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6439 - David S. And Elizabeth
Branch
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our next application
is for David and Elizabeth Branch. That is also,
George. Would you please read the legal?
MEMBER HORNING: "No. 6439, David S. And
Elizabeth Branch. They have a request for a
variance from Code Section 280-18 and Building
Inspector's October 13, 2010 Notice of
Disapproval based on an application for building
permit to construct an addition at; 1) less than
the code required minimum side yard setback of
feet, 2) less than the code required combined
side yards of 35 feet, at: 5160 Indian Neck
15
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Lane,
York.
adjacent to Hog Neck Bay, Peconic, New
Suffolk County Tax Map #1000-98-4-23."
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Would you like
to state your name for the record, please?
MS. DOTY: First, good morning.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good morning.
MS. DOTY: And Happy New Year.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Happy New Year.
MS. DOTY: I am Deborah Doty. I am the
attorney for David and Elizabeth Branch.
Ms. Branch is here in the audience with me,
although she says she doesn't want to say
anything.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Before we proceed, the
only correspondence that we have is Suffolk
County (inaudible) indicating local jurisdiction
and the other is LWRP --
MS. DOTY: I received that this morning.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And a posting
affidavit. I am saying it louder for the
recorder to get it.
MS. DOTY: My clients are requesting two
side yard setbacks variances. One is a single
side yard setback on the westerly side and the
other is a combined side yard setback. In simple
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
terms, more than a 100 years ago, Mr. Smith built
a house on this property and it's location,
although a portion of that house does not meet
current zoning requirements. That's where we
are. The lot itself is huge. It's 4 acres.
Over 4 acres. It's long and it's narrow. Most
of it is wooded. The residence is located down
by the water. In 1904, I understand that
Mr. Smith built a series of houses. Five of
them, along the water.
the left was built,
by Mr. Smith. It's
the same vintage. The western
The house immediately to
I think prior to this house,
similar in structure. It's
footprint of this
house, which is the problem, the western corner,
has been there in it's current location since
1904, approximately. I don't actually have a
precise date on it. I did give you a photograph,
which appears to be around 1904, and the house
structure itself. Many years ago the roof became
dilapidated and my client pulled it off for
safety reasons. The deck or the porch remain
there until the construction commenced, it is now
removed. Essentially we're asking for permission
to reconstruct 100 square feet of deck and put a
roof over it, maintaining the prior roof line and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
the roof line that is coordinated with the rest
of the house. On the westerly side, we're asking
for a variance to allow the existing side yard
setback of 10.9 feet to the house and a combined
side yard setback of 26.8 feet. These are really
minimal variances given the size and shape of the
property and the preexisting
house. You have all been down there.
extraordinary private. It's all woods.
are deer running across the driveway.
location of the
It's
There
Or at
least every time I went there several deer
leaping across the driveway. When you look at
the parcel there are two adjoining neighbors,
effectors of this, because the
way down by the water.
problem is on the west
it's the Werber House.
house is all the
And in this instance, the
side of our house. So
The one on the left.
It's most closely affected by allowing us to keep
the house where it has always been. There is
really no change in the character in the
neighborhood as a result of this variance. In
fact, there wouldn't be a change if you said, no.
You have to comply with the current code, because
we would have to rip down a side of the house and
remove a deck that had been there for over a 100
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
years. Again, the problem is the size, shape
and the parcel and the location of the house.
You know, the house was built around 1904 and the
current zoning code went into affect 85 years
later. The variances requested are really not
substantial. The lot coverage is minimally
increased and that's increased by the expansion
to the east, which will allow the Branches to
retire to the house. So there will be a master
suite there. And there is really no adverse
affect on anything. Not to beat a dead horse, I
would ask that you grant the variances. Is there
any question?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George, is there any
questions?
MEMBER HORNING: Sure. The only application
that mentions that the applicant was applying to
the Trustees and the New York DEC, what is the
status of that?
MS. DOTY: Those have already been approved.
That was in connection with the construction of
the expansion that is going on. We have a
building permit for
approved. And that
porch and the variance problem.
that. So those were
included this deck, this
When we went in
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
for that building permit, the building permit
reviewer said, "Oops, there is a problem here.
So he granted the permit for the rest of the
house and said go ahead, and go for the variance
to the ZBA and the 10.9 setback. So those were
approved.
MEMBER HORNING: All right. Thank you.
There is also a photo that you submitted, this
one in particular, I was wondering if you had a
date on this --
MS. DOTY: I took those last Fall. That was
during construction.
MEMBER HORNING: So the approximate month
was October?
MS. DOTY: I could check the calendar, but
it was either September, October.
MEMBER HORNING: Of 20107
MS. DOTY: 2010, yes.
MEMBER HORNING: The Fall of 2010.
MS. DOTY: Yes, sir.
MEMBER HORNING: Okay. That's what I have
at the moment.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Thank
Jim?
Mr.
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I have no questions.
MEMBER
MS. DOTY:
Dinizio?
MEMBER DINIZIO:
DINIZIO: No comment.
Is that good or bad,
James --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
would like to address this
That's all I could say.
in the
audience that
application?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no further
comment or questions from the audience or the
Board,
hearing subject
date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
you very much.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
I would like to make a motion to close the
to future decisions at a later
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
HEARING #6435 - Jeff Andrade
for
it.
it.
because
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Jeff Andrade.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
it was advertised.
The next hearing is
That's adjourned.
No, we have to open
Yeah, we have to open
We have to open it
So I am going to make
a motion that we open this hearing. I don't have
to, we did that. We have a letter, George will
read it.
MEMBER HORNING: Right now?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yeah.
"No. 6435,
from Code
MEMBER HORNING: We have an application,
Jeff Andrade, request for variance
Section 280-13 and 280-15 and the
Building Inspector's September 29, 2010 Notice of
Disapproval based on an application for building
permit to construct an accessory structure 1)
proposed building is not accessory to existing
structure, 2) accessory structure exceeding the
maximum 750 square foot allowed per code; at:
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
43850 Main Road, Suffolk County Road 25 in
Peconic, New York. Suffolk County Tax Map
#1000-75-6-4."
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you, George. Is
there anyone here who wishes to address this
application?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. We have a
letter received January 4th, to the Zoning Board
of Appeals Office and dated January 4th, from the
applicant's agent, Robert Rutter (phenetic)
requesting an adjournment to the next available
date.
So hearing no comment from anyone, I am
going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to
February 3rd, 10:30 a.m.
MEMBER HORNING: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
George seconded the
motion.
Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
Motion carries unanimously.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
before the Board --
MR. ANDRADE: Can I (inaudible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: When I
or not there was anyone here --
MR. ANDRADE: I didn't know that I
anything.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, you can.
am going to make a motion to reopen this
hearing --
MR. ANDRADE:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
receiving testimony.
MEMBER HORNING:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
application
asked whether
I'm sorry.
For the purpose of
Second.
Seconded by George.
could say
Then I
Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
We're still going to take more testimony in
February.
MR. ANDRADE: All right.
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to
do?
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
say anything --
MR. ANDRADE:
Do I just come back on that date?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You come back that
date.
However, if you wish
How does it work? What do I
MR. ANDRADE: So it's
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
morning.
MR. ANDRADE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
your name for the record?
February 3rd.
At 10:30 in the
Could you just state
MR. ANDRADE: Sure. My name is Jeff
Andrade. I am the property owner.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Fine. So your
representative Rob Rutter will be here on that
date.
MR. ANDRADE: I hope so.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, he requested the
adjournment on your behalf, I assume.
MR. ANDRADE: He never called me.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Oh, really.
MR. ANDRADE: That's why I am upset because
I have been calling him for days and he hasn't
called me back. So I don't know what's going on.
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Apparently, he was not
prepared, I would assume, because he would have
been here. So I guess you two better talk.
MR. ANDRADE: Very good.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So I am now making a
motion to close -- to adjourn this hearing, not
close, adjourning it to February 3rd.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. All in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6436
Cavallo
Lois Abramchik and Barbara
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right. The next
application before us is Lois Abramchik and
Barbara Cavallo. And that was Ken. Ken, would
you please read the legal notice?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Sure. Appeal "No. 6436,
request for variance from Code Section 280-15 and
the Building Inspector's August 16, 2010 Notice
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
of Disapproval based on an application for
building permit to construct an accessory
in-ground swimming pool at; a location other than
the code required rear yard, at: Main Road (SR
25) and Brown's Hill Road, Private Road, Orient,
New York. Suffolk County Tax Map
#1000-18-6-24.1."
MS. DWYER: Nancy Dwyer, on behalf of the
homeowners Lois Abramchik and Barbara Cavallo.
The homeowners are looking to install a built
in-swimming pool in the side yard, which is
actually a front yard to Brown's Hill Road. Then
-- the house was built in 1890's. Then a
subdivision came about in the late 70's. It
created a side yard -- excuse me, it created a
front yard. So, they are looking for a variance
to put the pool in this location, putting it in
the back of the house. We have already found
that it's located in the back of the house. So
that's it's location. The natural vegetation
that separates the house from Brown's Hill Road
is to remain. Anything that is there that is
natural will remain. The pool will be
constructed close enough to the house that is
already existing.
37
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have a survey
showing the proposed 96 setback from Brown's Hill
Road. 68 feet from one side yard and 112 feet
from what I guess technically to be the rear yard
and 48 feet from the house. Okay. This is
Ken's, do you want to start with any questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yeah, I do. You said the
house was built and then the Brown's Hill
subdivision?
MS. DWYER:
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
was cut?
Yeah.
That's where this road
MS. DWYER:
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
was done?
MS. DWYER:
(No verbal response.)
And do you know when that
I couldn't get a clarification
from the Planning Department. I got
approximately '78, in that area.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And the house was
built --
MS. DWYER: The house was built -- was 1890
and then there was an addition that was made part
of the house.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Do you know when that was
done?
39
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. DWYER: That I don't know.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And the right of way
that you used to enter the property, I couldn't
find it on the tax map --
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Because it's probably a
right of way over the neighbors property and not
a flag lot situation.
MS. DWYER: This house was actually -- is
older then the property in front and on the Main
Road. That was also another subdivision. And
that part of the property was sold off. And then
a house was built there.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
original survey dated July 8th,
That I don't know.
You can see on the
the most recent
date, Kenny --
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
right?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
(inaudible) at the time.
about other situations.
Yeah, I am looking at it.
Five foot right of way.
Yeah, I see that.
Do you see it go to the
Yeah.
That was the typical
We had had discussions
The purpose of that was
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to -- fire and emergency equipment. To at least
get the equipment to the site, on the site. That
was one of the old ways that they dealt with
that. So it's a right of way over the neighbor's
property. It's not a flag.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken, the additions
were done when?
MS. DWYER: Everything on that property is
CO'd.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have no more.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George, any questions?
MEMBER HORNING: The right of way
consideration would bring to question whether or
not the applicant, in your mind, put a driveway
in through Brown's Hill Road. Right now it is
all vegetated as is, with the possibility that
they would cut a road through there.
MS. DWYER: That is not something that has
ever been discussed with me. I don't know. I
don't think it is something that they would ever
do. Just because it is -- it has been used that
way from when they purchased it, but I don't
know.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am not sure
a right of way over that right of way.
they have
They
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
probably don't.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: They may not be legally
able to do that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry, question?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only question I have
is that the swimming pool, is it going to be open
to the sky?
MS. DWYER: Yeah.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As you know, you have
sat through many of these hearings and we're
looking -- I am still looking for sound deafening
equipment, the filter.
MS. DWYER: I don't know where that's going.
I don't know the answer.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Maybe you can ask them?
MS. DWYER: I will.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have one more question.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Can you legal access to
Brown's Hill Road. Can you find out if the
applicant does have legal access to Brown's Hill
Road, all right?
MS. DWYER: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim?
41
42
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone in the
audience that would like to address this
applicant?
MS. PIGNATO: Good morning.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good morning.
MS. PIGNATO: My name is Jayanne Pignato. I
am the adjoining property. P, like Peter.
I-G-N-A-T-O. I didn't want to interrupt, but in
reference to the right of way, that is deeded to
our property and we actually moved that right of
way over -- I believe it was 5 years ago and all
done appropriately. We moved that over and we
have been maintaining that right of way at our
expense for the entire 8 years that we were in
that house. The proposal that is before you
leaves us with some concern regarding a number
of issues. I represent both my partner and
myself --
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask you a
question?
MS. PIGNATO: Sure.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do
that fronts on Main (inaudible) Road?
MS. PIGNATO: Yes. The old Bob (inaudible)
you live in the house
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
home. Our first concern is the pool, is that the
pool be sides from the back yard. I can't really
(inaudible) the footage across indicating by the
young lady here that there is a septic tank here;
however, the (inaudible) footage and I am not
used to reading these kinds of maps, seem
adequate to have both septic tanks and a proposed
pool. That would be my interpretation just by
looking at the sizing here. So that a pool being
placed in the rear yard seems to be the
appropriate position for this from our opinion.
Moreover, if that is somehow not possible, we
would request that the proposed pool be moved
back a minimal of 50 feet, which would in turn
give Ms. Cavallo and Mr. Abramchik approximately
the same amount of distance they're proposing
from our property line. It would give them
approximately 62 feet from their rear boundary.
MEMBER HORNING: Can you mark it on there?
MS. PIGNATO: I have a copy of my comments
that I would be very happy to submit to you upon
finishing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure.
MS. PIGNATO: We would also request that the
rapid growing six foot evergreens be planted on
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
the south side of the pool for screening and
sound proofing, as we believe the noise elements
would be quite severe. We also request that the
mechanical equipment be hidden on the north side
of the pool in a sound proof structure. In
addition, because it has been a tremendous
expense to us to maintain the right of way, which
we have planted shrubs and all kinds of
perennials and has made quite an impact in our
budget, we would be very concerned about cement
trucks and excavation materials and construction
items that would be coming down that road. We
would very much want Ms. Cavallo and
Mr. Abramchik to be responsible for the damage
that would be incurred, as we have experienced in
the past and we have to no avail, have had any
responses been made and again, it costs us out of
our pocket to maintain that easement. Moreover,
living in an environment surrounded by farms, we
have in the past 8 years have learned that
rodents can be a problem in farmland. We our
very diligent about maintaining exterminating and
not having any of that difficulty. However;
through excavation, we believe that that will
become a major concern and if that, on our
44
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
property, if we were to experience or incur any
damages regarding rodent activity and costs, we
would ask for the Cavallo-Abramchik Family to
also incur the costs. Lastly, we would also ask
Ms. Cavallo and Mr. Abramchik, to please, ask
them to sign a statement asking them to be
responsible for these expenses, which we believe
we will incur, if the pool is in fact built in
the position that they are proposing. And once
again, I appeal to you strongly as I possibly can
for this pool, to be moved to the rear yard where
we believe more than ample space to accoramodate
it. It would allow for privacy for the
Abramchik-Cavallo Family and a minimal of noise
and privacy to our family, which very often
creates a bit of happening when people's property
are being compromised. In this case, we see no
reason why privacy should be compromised. I
thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
address the issue of what's
zoning?
MS. DWYER: I
are a civil issue.
Thank you.
Can I ask counsel to
civil and what's
believe that those (inaudible)
But I believe that the Board
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
has before given an applicant,
willing to maintain or pay for damages
construction. I know I have seen that
if they would be
to road by
before.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have done that.
MS. PIGNATO: I think that's the condition
that you have jurisdiction to impose.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have to say for the 31
years that I have sat, I have never seen an issue
of rodents. I have to tell you, if there is
anybody that has been more cognizant,
infestation, it has been my particular position
for the County of Suffolk -- in reference to this
particular situation, I have never seen this
aspect. This is not a criticism. I am only
asking counsel. Your basis statement is taken in
truth. I understand what you are saying, but as
for the rodent issue, I have never seen that.
Again, this is not a sarcastic statement. I am
not trying to be curt or smart --
MS. ?IGNATO: It's not taken that way. I
would be happy to copy some bills for you.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. I understand
that, but by excavating -- I am understanding the
rodent issue is coming from across the street.
MS. PIGNATO: The rodent issue is an issue
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
for all of us. It's an issue for all of us who
live in that particular area. So our concern,
because we do spend a great deal of time, money
and energy, but we do not have to deal with that
because it's depressing to deal with. We have
the North Fork Exterminating agency come to our
home monthly and there are bills that have to go
along with that. So in lieu of this concern,
with the excavation of this magnitude, it would
be a reasonable conclusion that this particular
activity may increase and that would be -- you
know, to all of the houses. Not just to our
house. It is a concern to us,
is. We have had cement trucks
road after spending $13,000.00
just as the road
come down that
to move that road
in it's position. We've had had cement trucks
come down that road and make severe damage, which
we out of pocket, have had to pay for. So we
don't want to repeat that. We're trying to
maintain a civil and to be good neighbors. To
perhaps look at problems before they rise and
make sure we all understand the best way for all
of us to live comfortably and reasonably. I
mean, I don't want them not to have a swimming
pool. It's a wonderful thing to have.
47
48
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
MS. PIGNATO: Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
driveway as --
MS. PIGNATO: We do.
Just one last question?
Do you utilize the same
Along with another
family. There are three families that utilize
that. And again, we pay solely, repairs and
maintenance. Chris Moore comes periodically and
keeps that driveway in good form.
MEMBER HORNING:
The question that I have in
was
that regard and Gerry asked a question that I
going to ask. The other persons that use the
right of way are directly to the east of the
applicant, is that right?
MS. ?IGNATO: Correct. They are to the east
of the applicant, correct.
MEMBER HORNING: So it would appear that the
jag that Gerry referred to a while back, making
that turn at the beginning of the applicants
property, is accessing their property; correct?
MS. PIGNATO: When you say the "jag," I am
not sure what that means?
MEMBER HORNING: The right angle --
MS. PIGNATO: Correct. That goes to one
property and then to the left, westwood, goes to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
the Abramchik-Cavallo property. And of
we use it as well.
MEMBER HORNING:
referring to,
that you are
come from?
course,
And these cement trucks
what property did it
MS.
built to
MEMBER HORNING:
then?
MS. PIGNATO:
PIGNATO: Well, when the house was being
that right turn.
Not the applicants property
NO.
MEMBER HORNING: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Nancy, can
you provide
the Board details of where exactly the septic
tanks are located. So we can really determine
how much room is back there and also speak to
your client --
MS. DWYER: I will have those -- I will have
Jon Mesiter (phenetic) write down the size of the
septic system and the location. As far as the
pool being in the location that it is, and in
addition to the septic being in the back, it is
closer towards the south of the property because
that is living areas of the house. It is the
deck that is right there. So that is primarily
where they do a lot of their living. It is a
49
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
family. The children can always be seen from
the public areas of the house. So that is the
reason why it is where it is and not set back any
further from the north.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, you have heard
your neighbors concerns and I --
MS. DWYER: Absolutely.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And I think this Board
would like to and certainly by the way, there is
plenty of past conditions that have been placed
with locations of swimming pools, screening and
the kinds of things that you are concerned about.
This is not particularly unusual for the Board to
consider, having said that, let's find out if
there is some flexibility and where there is
structurally not flexibility. Would the Board
like to adjourn this and have the applicant come
back with the amended -- additional information
and possibly an amended location. The Board has
the option of granting alternative relief, which
can certainly say that we will grant you the
location for --instead of 68 feet, it will be a
100 feet. You know, whatever that may be. We
would have to figure it out. That would be
another option. We can do two things. We can
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
leave it open, so
concerns, we want
we have
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
either close this hearing subject to receipt
of that information. Give the Board an
opportunity to review it and then once received,
the clock starts there for the 62-day period of a
determination that has to be reached. Or we can
if there is other comments and
to take additional testimony,
that option. I would like to see what
the Board's preference might be? Do you have a
preference?
MS. DWYER: I don't have a preference. What
I would like is, I said, the septic located and I
can discuss with the homeowners and see if they
are amendable to different options and different
locations for the pools, and see if we can come
up with a site layout and see if it works for
them. I can bring that to you and let you review
it as well. Whichever, direction works, so we
can do that, works with me.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Maybe also in the survey,
you can indicate, I guess so called tree line is,
specifically to the rear yard and perhaps along
Brown's Hill Road also.
MS. DWYER: The natural vegetation.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes.
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6,
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
I think in light of that,
hearing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
Excuse me, I apologize.
we should adjourn the
Well, we may have
additional questions.
additional hearing,
the other hand, we
We don't want to have an
if we don't have to but on
don't want to be premature in
closing this in the event there is some
additional consideration. What's the Board's
preference?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Adjourn it.
MEMBER HORNING: I think it should be
adjourned.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yeah, until we get the
other information.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Are there any other
comments --
MS. PIGNATO: I have a comment. We would be
certainly happy to see if there is driveway that
can be created from Brown's Hill. That would
take a lot of pressure off our concerns and would
probably make it easier, and how feasible that
is, but it seems so reasonable. It's such a
short distance from their property to access
their property. As opposed to the 150 foot right
52
53
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of way that they currently use.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We are going to
investigate and see if that is an option. If
that is the case, then the Board has the
condition and consideration of granting any pool
on the basis of the applicant repairing any
damage and/or the surface
during construction.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
of that right of way
In reference to that,
maybe we need to know the legal status of where
that right of way is. I know you changed it. We
would need to get that application and see what
was said and who agreed to what and what was in
the titles. So that we know we're not suddenly
making someone responsible for something that
they are not.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good point.
MS. PIGNATO: Pat Moore took care of that.
That was an agreement made several years in the
We did take on the responsibility. We did
past.
feel
that it was easier, not realizing how
expensive it would be. Easier, rather then back
and forth. You pay this half and that half.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Please come forward
and she will make sure that we all get copies.
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
So the record reflects all the additional
information that the Board has requested. I am
going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to
February 3rd at 2:00 p.m., and by which time we
will have both information submitted by the
applicant and the neighbor and we will continue
discussion at that time.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You can supply the
information to each other or the Board can supply
and get copies from us. Whatever is easier.
Okay. Is there a second on the motion?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I did give you a second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry seconded.
All in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
Motion carries unanimously.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6441 Barbara Scura-Coyne
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. The next
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6,
application is
application is Jim. Jim,
the legal notice, Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: This
2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
for Barbara Scura-Coyne. And this
would you please read
is application "No.
6441. Request for variance from Article XXIII
Code Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's
September 28, 2010 Notice of Disapproval based on
a building permit application for "as built" deck
addition to existing dwelling at; 1) at less than
code required rear yard setback of 50 feet, at:
1145 Oakwood Drive, Southold, New York. Suffolk
County Tax Map #1000-70-13-10."
MR. FITZGERALD: Jim Fitzgerald for
Ms. Scura-Coyne. And I may, in my presentation
refer Ms. Scura-Coyne as Ms. Scura or Barbara.
They all are the same person.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The same person.
Okay.
MR. FITZGERALD: The bad news is, this deck
is 5 feet or so in the required rear yard
setback. The good news is, it doesn't create an
undesirable change or affect in the neighborhood
or detriment to the nearby properties. The
benefit the owner receives can not be achieved
by some feasible method other then a variance.
55
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The requested area variance is not substantial.
The proposed variance will not have an adverse
affect on the conditions of the neighborhood.
And the alleged difficult was literally not self
created. More about that real quick. To give an
explanation about the last statement of it not
being self created, the
from an ad in the paper.
deck. He said, "fine."
owner got the contractor
She said she wanted a
He asked, how big. She
said, "I don't know, make it from here to there."
So he did. She was not aware that the project
required a building permit and that the
contractor had not gotten one. It never came up.
She assumed that when he said he would take care
of everything, that she meant it. He knew what
everything was. So here we are. A little more
about the items and good news. The answers are
based upon that the deck exist and we would like
to keep it that way and it's present state. The
interesting thought, if the property were 2501
feet smaller, the deck under the code would be
okay. What would be a nonconforming 19,999
square feet. The code says that at that size,
the lot needs only 35 foot rear yard. Just in
passing, it is unfortunate that the code doesn't
57
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
make the contractor, in a situation like this,
the bad guy. He walks away and leaves the owner
to deal with the consequences. And it appears
that the owners only recourse is a legal battle
over who did what and who said what. Yes, I know
that we say that ignorance of the law is no
excuse, but for instance, do we expect or require
that a property owner know that if the same area
as the deck in the same location of the patio, it
would not have required a building permit? As
you consider this, please keep in mind that the
concept of reasonable and necessary exist in
detail in the mind of the beholder.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree with all your
reasons though. It sounds good to me. I have no
questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We all were out at the
site and the deck itself is actually screened
very well. Fence with a gate around it. And
mature vegetation around it. I don't see any
adverse affect. The setback is not a huge
difference, 44.3 and the code requires 50 feet.
That is a good thing. It is not a huge variance.
Having said that, I will see if anyone else has
58
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
any questions.
MEMBER HORNING:
was the deck built?
MR. FITZGERALD:
-- 2010.
MEMBER HORNING:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
George?
A couple of details.
When
In May, April of this year
2010.
Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
remain open to the sky?
tub?
Is the deck going to
MR. FITZGERALD: Absolutely.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No enclosures? No hot
MR. FITZGERALD: Nothing.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Nothing of that nature?
MR. FITZGERALD: No.
MEMBER HORNING: I would like to add
something.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sure.
MEMBER HORNING: How is it that the client
now -- how was it cited -- how did the Building
Department get involved?
MR. FITZGERALD: They showed up at her door
one day and said that they had had a call in the
neighborhood. Not while the construction was
going on but -- it was in the last week or
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
something like that. (Inaudible) having noticed
it.
MEMBER HORNING: And then one of the
neighbors said something?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have to
This is a very unique technique.
MR. FITZGERALD: I couldn't
else to do it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
applaud you.
figure out how
Any other questions
from anyone in the audience that would like to
address this application?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Hearing none. I would
to close the hearing and reserve decision.
MEMBER HORNING: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
like
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
Motion carries unanimously.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
Seconded by George.
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I would like to make a
motion to recess for five minutes. Is there a
second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
We will be right back.
(Whereupon, a recess was taken.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: -- all in favor.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
HEARING #6440 - Joel
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
before us is Joel and Jami
B. And Jami Friedman
The next application
Friedman. Is there
someone here to represent that application?
MR. YAKABOSKI: Good morning.
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's the afternoon.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good afternoon.
MR. YAKABOSKI: -- (inaudible) affidavit
down there. Essentially as you --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you please spell
your name for the record?
MR. YAKABOSKI: Sure. Y-A-K-A-B-O-S-K-I.
First name, Francis, 456 Griffing Avenue,
Riverhead, New York.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, we're going to
have the notice read. Would you please read the
legal notice, Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Certainly. "Appeal No.
6440. Request for variance from Code Section
280-15 and 15D and the Building Inspector's
September 20, 2010 Notice of Disapproval based on
an application for building permit to construct
an accessory garage at; 1) less than the code
required front yard setback of 50 feet, 2)
dormers at more than the code permitted 40% of
the roof width, at: 830 Clearview Road, adjacent
to Cedar Beach Harbor, Southold, New York.
Suffolk County Tax Map #1000-89-3-11.5."
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Mr. Yakaboski, before
you proceed, I just want the record to reflect
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
that we have just been informed that the LWRP
letter, which has not been issued yet, is in the
coordinators computer,
you will get a letter.
proposed garage are considered consistent
setbacks are considered exempt from LWRP.
and just so you are aware,
The dormers on the
and the
MR. YAKABOSKI: So essentially this is moot?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's not a problem
with LWR?. It is still obviously a setback
issue --
MR. YAKABOSKI: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And the dormer issues.
MR. YAKABOSKI: Right. Obviously, the side
yard issue with respect to the garage is similar
to any application when dealing with an accessory
structure. So I am not going to address that in
a great degree. I also point out to the Board
and I am sure you are all aware, that in 2006 a
variance was granted by this Board for the
construction of a garage on this site with a
setback of 13.2 feet, I think it was. This
application is for a garage with a setback of 12
feet, less than the side yard of what you had
previously granted in 2006. As you can see the
parcel is situated at the end of 50 foot right of
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
way. Obviously, the character of the
neighborhood is certainly not as you can see
affected. There is no traffic that would be
adversely affected by the structure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken, this is yours.
So let's see if you want to start with questions.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Sure. Why are you
setting it back 12 feet instead of the 13.2 feet
that was previously granted --
MR. YAKABOSKI: We're a different applicant.
You know this is not the same owner. And just in
terms of design, that is how we laid it out.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. Why do
extra 6% in this dormer?
MR. YAKABOSKI: Well, it makes for an
interesting story, which I will just take 30
seconds. Upstairs is going to be a storage for
Ms. Friedman's brothers, world class wrestlers.
One brother is number 3 or 4 in the world in
freestyle wrestling, nationwide wrestling
champion. What the upstairs is going to be used
for, is the training. They spend the summers
here and they are going to spend the upstairs
training for training. The brother that is
nu~er 3 or 4 in the world, missed the Olympics
you need an
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
last year -- the summer Olympics, by the loss of
one match. So he is hoping to qualify and make
the Olympics this time around. And that's the
space that is needed upstairs. With the
increased size of the dormer, 14x18.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: He wouldn't be able to
train and practice with the conforming dormer
practice?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: State your name,
please.
MR. BUTLER:
Offices at
York. The
equipment that they wanted up there,
a lot of equipment. Some treadmill
weight machines, things like that.
Jeffrey T. Butler, engineer.
206 Lincoln Street, Riverhead, New
size of the dormer was based on the
which is not
and some
That is what
made us go beyond the 40%, given the equipment
that they wanted to use up there. The design
came from that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
There was no other
to
alternative way to arrange the equipment,
remove that particular variance?
MR. BUTLER: We have spent a great deal of
time with this specific equipment to get the
layout and estimate. And that is where we ended
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
up,
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
with that number.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So it's a preference
or a requirement?
MR. YAKABOSKI:
requirement. It's
in terms of the 40.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
Well, essentially a
a request in terms of the 6%
I have a couple of
questions. I have looked at the house. The
house has a gable line roofs similar to --
MR. YAKABOSKI: Correct.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So a gable line roof
would not be (inaudible).
MR. BUTLER: I looked at that but that was
one solution that did not fit with -- it doesn't
attach to the house very well with the
aesthetics.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand.
MR. BUTLER: But yeah, the gable roof would
have solved the problem but that is not one -- we
don't want to look at two different pieces of
architecture on the same structure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: The
way, you said it dead ends
MR. YAKABOSKI: It
Clearview Road right of
right --
dead ends right at
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
westerly side of the property.
MEMBER HORNING: But on the map it
continues --
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But it stops at that
particular point?
MR. YAKABOSKI: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: No one else is using it --
MR. YAKABOSKI: Beyond the point of this
structure, correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You show on the plan a
sink?
MR. YAKABOSKI: And a lavatory.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is that the lavatory
on the ground floor?
MR. YAKABOSKI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's just sitting
there, it's just behind the wall?
MR. BUTLER: It may end up being enclosed.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The code does permit
that you can have a bathroom. I would just like
the plans that are going to be approved are the
ones that are going to be built. We really try
to avoid having the Building Department, when you
go apply for a permit make a decision and come
back to our office that was stamped, what do you
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
want to do about it? So you know, we try and
get that taken care of at front.
MR. YAKABOSKI: Is it a problem that you
have a sink --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, I
that because it is fairly unusual
and toilet with no walls. And so
sure if we approve these drawings and you come
for a building permit and you enclose it, they
am only asking
to have a sink
I want to make
in
are going to send it back to us. What happens
is, once a decision is rendered, we stamp the
drawings and it's final and we send a copy with
that decision to the Building Department and that
is what is in their records and they wait for you
to come in and apply for a permit. When you
bring in different drawings, it's a whole bunch
of different procedures.
MR. YAKABOSKI: Then may I request that if
the Board was supposed to grant the application
that we just made as part of this determination,
that the Board indicate at the discretion of the
owner that the lavatory area could be enclosed?
Well, let's see how
Are you heating or
as it's finished?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
the Board feels about that.
air conditioning this,
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6,
MR. BUTLER: There is no heat.
about the air conditioning.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
heat
2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
I don't know
So there is no central
that you're proposing here?
MR. YAKABOSKI: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Now, when you say
might
you're not sure about the air conditioning,
it be a window unit?
MR. YAKABOSKI: Possibly.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's acceptable.
am just talking about a mechanical system.
MR. BUTLER: No mechanical system. The
walls will be finished.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sheet rocked and
insulated?
MR. BUTLER:
Probably insulated.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: You're grieving for the 6%
addition. It's because you have some certain
requirement by a member of the family or is it
actually the owner?
MR. YAKABOSKI: Well, in designing the
upstairs use and the equipment that is designed
to be placed there, that is what dictated the
request for an extra 6% dormer area.
68
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER DINIZIO: I understand that. But
you're saying that this equipment must be there
and you need a 6% variance. And I understand
that, what I am trying to understand is the
reasoning for it. You have a hobby or you
have --
MR. YAKABOSKI:
MEMBER DINIZIO:
the owners
MR.
Friedman is a retired wrestler.
brother-in-laws --
This is not quite a hobby.
Yeah, but are those people
of the house?
BUTLER: The owners of the house, Joel
The two
MR. YAKABOSKI: His wife's brothers.
MR. BUTLER: His wife's brothers, one is a
national champ from Harvard. The other is a
national champion from Harvard.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
MR. BUTLER: No,
the summer with them.
Do they live with them?
they spend time there in
And they train hard all
year round. They come out to this house to relax
but as an athlete, relaxation involves
exercising. So this equipment is a scaled down
equipment that they normally train with to keep
them from not getting out of shape.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I just wanted to get that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6,
on the record.
MR. BUTLER:
2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Any other questions?
Is there anyone in the
audience that would like to address
application?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
this
Just a quick question.
So wrestling usually occurs on a mat. On a
wooded floor -- assume that is on a floor that
you would play basketball with, I would assume
you would have some type of wooden floor in
there?
MR. BUTLER: Just weight training.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
no wrestling?
MR. BUTLER: Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
Just weight training and
Okay. Thank you.
Because if it was something special, we might
have had to deal with that issue. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Would you accept
alternate relief with respect to the dormer
percentage and the setback?
MR. YAKABOSKI: Well, as we explained to you
70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
about the dormer, you know, the upstairs area has
been designed to accommodate the area that we
want. To have that equipment there, we need this
percentage. With respect to the setback,
obviously the client is not here. Picking up
from your earlier comment, if you will, regarding
the prior 13 foot setback as opposed to the 12
that we are requesting, we would venture to say
that if that is the Board's mind, that we would
speak to the Friedman's and make them aware of
that.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So you are not flexible
with the dormer?
MR. YAKABOSKI: Not really. Having spent
really months, putting it mildly, designing
what's going to be up there and trying to
accommodate as indicated to Mr. Goehringer. This
is somewhat of a necessity to try and accomplish
what we want to accomplish.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: With that in mind, I
don't really see any back-up for your design.
Where is any of your equipment going to be, the
location? Why it's needed and how much space is
needed for the equipment. I personally have a
hard time granting this, I don't see the need.
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
But that's just me.
MEMBER HORNING: I think we want to ask
you for a layout scheme on the plan so that we
can understand the relationship for the increased
area and the need for that. And where the
equipment is and why the normal dormer size is
not appropriate.
MR. YAKABOSKI: May I respectfully suggest
that we close the hearing and we upon the issue
of your determination, supply the upstairs layout
with the equipment and where it will be placed
and etcetera. Our need for the additional space.
So that is the only --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Is there anything else
that this Board would like submitted?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just that if there is
any thought of enclosing that bathroom, that
there be a change in the plans. You can sketch
it in and probably initial
run into a problem.
MR. YAKABOSKI: If we're
what Mr. Horning requested, we
it. So that we don't
going to be doing
certainly will
adjust the plans that we send to you, not only
the equipment layout but the bathroom as well.
So we are all on the same page.
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: With regard to that half
bath, there was no room for it upstairs, that's
why it's downstairs?
MR. YAKABOSKI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Any other
comments or suggestions from the audience?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing none, I will
make a motion to close this hearing, reserve
decision, subject to receipt of information
regarding the layout on the second floor and
closure of the bathroom.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Second.
Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
MR. YAKABOSKI: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6442 - West Creek Avenue Trust
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our next application
73
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is for West Creek Avenue Trust,
Goehringer's application.
the legal notice on it?
and that is Gerry
Would you please read
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: "#6442, request for
variance from Article III Code Section 280-15 and
the Building Inspector's October 14, 2010 Notice
of Disapproval based on a building permit
application for "as built" accessory in-ground
swimming pool at; 1) location other than the code
required rear yard, location: 1295 West Creek
Avenue, (Holden Avenue,) Cutchogue, New York.
Suffolk County Tax Map #1000-103-13-30."
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. We have -- is
there someone here to -- please state your name.
MR. LARK: Richard Lark, Cutchogue, New
York, for the applicant.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Before we proceed sir,
I will make sure that you have a copy of -- two
letters of support for this application. One
from Ray Huntington and the other from Sue
Miller. We also have a Suffolk County letter of
local jurisdiction. Do you have copies of these?
Would you like copies
MR. LARK: Okay.
posting and the
of these?
We have the affidavit of
letters required for the
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
neighbors. As you know from Mr. Goehringer, the
area variance is being applied for because the
Building Department determined that the pool was
in the front yard. When looking at this
property, this appears a logical conclusion that
that is the way the Town of Southold Zoning
reads. And so that is why we are here for a
variance. Under the current ordinance, the
applicants property has two front yards and two
side yards. There are no rear yards. Kind of an
oxymoron but that is it. Interestingly enough, I
was surprised after I talked to Building
Inspector Doherty about this that the zoning code
and it is something you should be considered, the
code committee, the building inspector has no
authority under the zoning code to make this
determination in this type of instance. He was
fair with me and even though he went through the
definitions with me, he has no authority. So the
only place that we could come is to the Board of
Appeals to get relief. He was very apologetic
about it but he said that is the way it is. I
have seen zoning in the east-end where the
building inspector does have such power,
especially with the water front. We have
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
addressed that so much in the zoning code. I was
surprised to see that there was no relief that
way. So that's why. The property as you know
from the application is an R40 District and under
the R40 section, it refers you back for accessory
structures in the R80. Says that they have to be
in the rear yard. But that always wasn't the
case here. There was a genuine yard when this
property was purchased in 1951
Avenue, which is now our other
Avenue is not. So the point was,
ended up with two yards under the
because Holden
(inaudible) Holden
is that we
zoning code and
Peter Tederbush (phenetic) who is the trustee now
for the trust, he basically inherited that
because his brother who was the trustee passed on
and getting all the papers ready, it was
discovered, as I pointed out in the application
that there was no permit for this pool. It was
built in 2001-2002. We searched high and low.
We said how could this be. It was a responsible
pool contractor. There is nothing on file here
in Town. When Peter went around to talk to all
his neighbors, they said, Yeah, we approved that.
Okay. So there is no -- so when I applied to the
Building Department for an "as is" I had to come
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
and say we were in the front yard. That is why
we're here. I went through all of the things in
the application and the requirements for an area
variance and I can not -- it does comply with it
and I won't bore you with it, but it doesn't
provide any undesirable change in the
neighborhood. Since basically the neighbors are
all in favor of it. The pools are a residential
use, etcetera. It's there. Fortunately, it
meets all the setback requirements. When I first
started, I didn't know that it did. I don't
think it is a substantial thing because even this
pool has a setback of about 120 feet from Holden
Avenue. The house, believe it or not, conforms
to all of the restrictions in an R40 zone, which
is another blessing. The side yard survey shows
all of that. So we're okay there. And
obviously, due to the landscaping and you have
pictures of the pool, it won't have any
environmental adverse affect on any of the
community. And as I pointed out in the
application, I will say and I have known Peter
for some time. He was just shocked that there
was no building permit or CO for the whole.
When I took Mike Ferrety down there, he said
77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
there has to be something on record. This is so
obvious. It's out in the open. I am here to ask
you for a variance, so we can apply for a
building permit and get a CO. It does meet all
the requirements as far as the electrician is
concerned. Ail that other kind of stuff. So
that was a plus. So any questions?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And you're not planning
on closing it?
MR. LARK: No, absolutely not.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's actually an estate
with a small estate.
MR. LARK: The community got developed
around it.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I have none. It's a
big double lot.
the pool to go.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
MEMBER HORNING:
There is no feasible place
I have no questions. Jim?
I have no questions.
I have one. Was the
for
request to get a CO precipitated discovery --
MR. LARK: Yeah, when he was going through
the records, he was doing some site planing and
trying to get all the records squared away. We
were trying to get a CO for everything and they
78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
said there was nothing for the pool.
MEMBER HORNING:
Department?
MR. LARK: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING:
He went to the Building
Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone else
in the audience that would like to address this
application? Please come forward.
MR. KOBER: My name is Harold Kober and I am
in favor of the --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you please spell
your name?
MR. KOBER: K-O-B-E-R.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
MR. KOBER: I live directly across the
street on Holden Avenue. I have been a neighbor
of them for 40 years. I certainly have no
objection. The place is very nice. They have a
very nice screen between me and my side. That is
all I have to say.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you, sir.
Anything else from the audience?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anything from the
Board?
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no further
comment. I would like to make a motion to close
the hearing and reserve decision for a further
date.
much.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Second.
Seconded by Gerry.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Thank you very
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6437 - TK Alpha, LLC
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
is Jim, T.K. Alpha, LLC.
the legal?
MEMBER DINIZIO:
The next application
Would you please read
"#6437,
Request for
variance from Code Section 280-46 (bulk schedule)
and the Building Inspector's October 13, 2010
Notice of Disapproval based on an application for
building permit to construct commercial building
80
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
at; 1)
square
code
less
less than the required lot size of 40,000
feet for two buildings, 2) less than the
required front yard setback of 15 feet, 3)
than the code required minimum side yard
setback of 10 feet, 4) less than the code
required total side yards of 25 feet, at: 535
Pike Street, aka Railroad Avenue, Mattituck, New
York. Suffolk County Tax Map #1000-140-2-20."
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Please state your name
for the record.
MR. BROIDY: Good afternoon, ladies and
gentlemen. My name is Edward Broidy and I'm --
what we're proposing here --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Spell your name, sir.
MR. BROIDY: What?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you please spell
your name for the record.
MR. BROIDY: B-R-O-I-D-Y. Edward Broidy.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just before you get
started, I want to make sure that you are aware
that we have some correspondences in our file. A
letter from Suffolk County indicating local
jurisdiction. That's just standard. That means
that we can decide on it. We also have a letter
from Martin Sider, who is from the Planning
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
Board. Do you have a copy of that letter?
MR. BROIDY: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
so you can look it
MR. BROIDY:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Let me give
over --
Did you want to read it to me?
It's very long. We
would be happy to give
yourself.
MR. BROIDY: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
you time to read it
you a copy
it is. In the
questions that
lot,
it.
Is it judgmental?
Yes, I would say that
sense that there are a number of
they raise about the size of your
relative to what you're looking to put on
As you probably know, the code requires
40,000 square feet for each commercial building.
20,000 per commercial building. You are
proposing a new one and you have an existing one
on the property. There would be considered 5
uses here. This existing lot, which is 11,561
feet. Where the code requires 40,000
to do in addition
which we will talk
square
square feet for what you want
to a number of setback issues,
about.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
wanting the variances --
What are your reasoning for
82
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me make sure Vicki
gives you the letter and you have copy, so you
can review it.
MEMBER DINIZIO: As you can see sir, that is
quite a lengthy memorandum from the Planning
Board and none of those are addressed in your
application to any extent. Are you the owner of
the property, sir?
MR. BROIDY: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: And you're not represented
by counsel?
MR. BROIDY: No, sir.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I mean, I have to write
this decision. And my thought process is, I go
by the reasons that you give me for your
application. I think that is the essence of your
application and the reasons why you want it.
And --
MR. BROIDY: I can elaborate when you're
ready.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. I would like it in
writing, quite honestly. I mean, just for one
example, the number one reason, the undesirable
change in the character of the neighborhood.
What you have right now is a building and that
84
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
certainly wouldn't be a change, but now you're
putting this thing up with another building.
Both nonconforming, and you're asking us for a
lot -- a pretty large substantial variance from
what was there. And so I am going to ask you for
a little more then there is not going to be a
change in the character.
MR. BROIDY: There is no change in what,
sir?
MEMBER DINIZIO: There is no change in the
character,
You know, there is going
character of that street.
that is what you're saying. Not mine.
to be a change in the
What you want to do
and the Town had a vision for that lot when it
zoned it and you're asking to change that vision.
So in my opinion, you're asking to change the
character. So you know, I think you need to do a
little more homework on this variance to give me
something that I can work with, if we chose to
grant it or not grant it. You know, I am not
inclined,
question,
give us a more thorough reason on why you think
we should grant you the variances that you're
you haven't answered the first
as far as I am concerned. You need to
25 requesting.
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. BROIDY: I appreciate your
misunderstanding with the information that I put
down. Basically, you are familiar with Love Lane
and that lane is right on top of each other. So
we are in the character, but we are trying to
enhance the area. We intended to put apartments
there because after spending many months and
consideration when I bought this property, I
wanted to see what was necessary and it seems
everyone is looking for apartments in the
downtown area. The character of the area, there
is a little carriage house in the back of 1600
square feet. It would be ashamed to rip that
down. It has a CO on it presently. So I
decided, to leave it up and make an artist studio
or a retail store out of it. So it would conform
to the rest of the character of the area. We
utilize as much as area as possible. So we have
two little stores in there. The idea is to have
a downtown area where people can come and walk
around the block and not centered in one area.
What I think I am doing is, I am creating an
extension for Love Lane. So by putting these two
little stores there, it gives people the
opportunity to walk around the corner. Everybody
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
I spoke to in the area, it is necessary to have
life in that area. The is one apartment in that
whole area of Love Lane. We're going to give
them two more right now. To utilize the property
to the maximum use. We followed the existing
buildings in the area. You can see that we're
enhancing the area. For people to walk around
and spend a little more time.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I speak frankly?
MR. BROIDY: Yes, sir.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I hear what you're saying.
Your opinion of enhancement of the downtown area,
I agree with you, you think your project is going
to be the enhancement for that piece of land and
I will let you have that opinion. My concerns
are more that you're asking us for variances.
The Town has a plan. The plan is a zoning code
and this is zoned for business. And that has
certain setbacks. Certain restrictions to it.
And so you're asking us to give you relief to
that and make your project come to life. I am
saying that I need something more concrete then
this is going to be a great thing for Mattituck.
It's not that. It's the Town Code that we're
concerned with. You're asking us to put a lot
86
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
more than what was planned on that one little
piece of land. If you can let me be frank,
honestly, I think you need to get a lawyer. You
need to have somebody who is efficient in our
code. Efficient in applications that area
similar to this that can put down cogent and very
brief explanations
you're requesting.
MR. BROIDY: I
what is your name?
MEMBER DINIZIO:
Dinizio.
MR. BROIDY: What is it?
for the five variances that
am prepared to do that now --
My name is Jim. James
MEMBER DINIZIO: Dinizio, D-I-N-I-Z-I-O.
MR. BROIDY: Mr. Dinizio, the character of
the property is in the same contrast as Love
Lane. With these setbacks it would be out of
character. The zoning is not something that I am
familiar with -- (inaudible). I have to tell a
lawyer the same thing that I am going to tell
you. So I will tell it myself, the way it is.
The benefits, it continues. The setback, would
set the building back.
and the opportunity 150
See the parking
I would get the parking
feet on the west side.
is not the problem. I made it
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
this way so it would fit in. The benefit is, you
are really continuing this beautiful look. I
know I am not a developer but I am a creative
man. And some developers are not creative. If
you look at what I have done here without -- to
make sure that this is an attractive addition. I
did it because I am proud of what I do in life.
Maybe in a different town you won't have to worry
but we live in a different fork. We live in the
east-end here. So I know what should be
acceptable. It is something that everyone on
this Board has to look at and say, "yes," there
is a benefit. The building is one set off the
property. You need a variance there. We put the
driveway to one side so we can benefit the
building. So we can have continuos look of
colonial type of building. You know, I could put
a building up there and it could look a lot
different and it could save me, I don't know, it
would definitely save me lots of money.
looking to do this and be proud of it.
looking to help the community.
I am
I am
I am looking to
do something to help improve the area.
really tell you much more. You have to
this and
I can't
look at
see what I am doing. We kept the
88
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
character --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If I may make a
comment that might be helpful. You haven't had a
chance to read this letter. I think perhaps what
you have done is not necessarily have a full
understanding of what the code permits. And
that's what this letter will describe. With
regard to the Love Lane that you are trying to
talk about. Love Lane is a unique property.
There are almost no setbacks. It's a continuos
row of stores. If you go over to the street that
your property is on, right next to your property
is a house and on the other side is a two little
shops. A hairdresser and a dance
a substantial setback. It's very
Then you have parking in the rear.
studio. It has
irregular.
Parking in
the front. Most stores have street parking or
parking in a municipal lot. I don't think that
Pike Street has the same character as Love Lane.
Because none of them has a house next door. Now,
I believe the Planning Board will probably -- the
residents certainly support the idea of
residences above commercial property. I don't
think that is a problem. And I think the
letter reflects that. That it is a useful in the
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
hamlet area. (Inaudible) someone very skilled and
understanding could be a great help to you in
being able to help understand what this letter
means. For example, the fact that you are
proposing a building 1 foot from the side yard on
one side where there is a house and the code
requires 10 feet, a 90% variance from what the
code requires. The front yard setback is a 30%
variance. These are not small things that we are
talking about. And it's 143 relaxation with both
buildings.
MR. BROIDY: As to the house on the right.
I am involved with that with another group of
people. And we have the same idea to continue
the stores across and in front of that building
and eventually convert that building -- it was
previously a two-family house and 7 rental rooms
on the top. So we intend to make the two
families originally there and eventually come
right across five more stores. We are in
character. We're building the character of the
area.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You can't just do it
because you think it's okay. There is no
question that commercial retail is part of that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
area and welcome part of that area. But in order
for you to do what you want to do, you have to do
it in a way that conforms to the code. Not just
to what you want it to look like.
MR. BROIDY: I understand that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you have an
application before the Planning Board?
MR. BROIDY: Yes, I do. At the meeting, I
went over this with them. And they said, well
listen, you are going to have to go in front of
the Zoning Board of Appeals to see what they say
and then we can proceed with our planning.
That's what brought me over here. Honestly not
to have -- to go back to the 15 feet , it's going
to absolutely destroy that area. That area is
retail zoned. The whole next side is the same
zone there. We're asking for an approval of an
area which is -- not that I want it to be
detrimental to the fact (inaudible) this is what
I am entitled to if I ask for it. If I am going
to be denied --
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask one
question? I have lived in Mattituck since the
50's. I assure you, sir, that every one of those
buildings are preexisting zoning, okay. You can
91
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
not create what you have across the street.
There have only been 5 major changes on those
buildings over the years. All the buildings that
are over there. One of them is the bank. The
hardware store across the street. The present
Love Lane kitchen had an addition done to the
rear of it, and as you know, the market place is
now under renovation, without any variance
application. The (inaudible) has been moved
since the late 40's, early 50's, 4 times. All
those particular renovations were done after
zoning. We're telling you and I am not speaking
for the Board, I am speaking from my own personal
knowledge of what has gone on, you need to
address zoning aspect. When you have things that
are 142% of the violation code, okay --
MR. BROIDY: That is why I am here.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, you are here to
understand what the zoning code is and teach it
to you. That is the point. That is the reason
Mr. Dinizio is here, and I actually jumped on
him. It's his application, but you need somebody
to look at this and say how I
violation of the zoning code.
this all day.
am not 142% in
We can discuss
And you're a very nice man and we
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
appreciate doing that,
anywhere. We need to
to alter these plans to the point and we
somewhere. And we can not get somewhere
but we're not getting
get somewhere. We need you
can get
ay 142%.
MR. BROIDY: What is your suggestion?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: My suggestion is the
same suggestion. Find somebody in town who knows
zoning and alter this to the point that we can
come down on the percentages and work on.
MR. BROIDY: I'm sorry, what is your name?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Goehringer.
MR. BROIDY: Goehringer.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: G-O-E-H-R-I-N-G-E-R.
MR. BROIDY: Mr. Goehringer, this is a
little more than getting someone to understand
the code. I am very familiar with buildings and
I am very familiar with coming before a Board,
occasionally. You're buying a piece of property,
you have a dollar value, which you want to gain.
You don't have to make money, but we don't want
to lose money here. We would like to break out
even on this particular situation. To get a
return on an investment. And I hate to talk
about investment because this is a labor of love.
(Inaudible) and make money on it. This is
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
something that I am taking pride it in. In order
to do it right, we have to put all into it. In
order to do this, you have to have credits, which
is another thing that
project.
developer.
it. I have two groups
financial obligation.
is anticipated to do this
So I only 125,000.00 because I am a
Sometimes we lose. Sometimes we make
(inaudible). So we have a
We're all retired here. I
am the youngest.
We don't want to
either. Let's
that is really,
the Board, I
on the bank.
know, get it in shape.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
I am 75. This is what we do.
throw any money out the window
have the pride of doing something
really (inaudible). If I was on
would have objections to the facade
That bank looks terrible. You
There was no
architectural review at that point.
MR. BROIDY: Oh, okay. I'm sorry.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me explain this
to
you one more time. We can't grant the variances
that you are looking for. It can not be done
under state law. That is my opinion, and not of
the Board.
addressed a
MR. BROIDY:
It can not be done. We have
142% variance --
I don't see 142%.
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I didn't do it. It's up
to the Building Inspector. He is the one that
did the Notice of Disapproval.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is what I think
we're trying to point out to you, sir. The fact
that you don't know where the 142% came from,
suggests to us, that you're understanding, not
surprisingly, because the individual may not have
any reason to understand the reasoning of our
building code or our zoning code, unless
confronted with the project that requires them to
learn about it. In a commercial property of this
magnitude, would probably have counsel advising
them how to proceed. The problem is, you have an
existing building and you're proposing a new
building. For every hamlet in that zone, you're
required to have 20,000 square feet. Now, you
don't. You have half of that. You have
11,000.00. Okay. Now,
here, the law requires
square foot property.
to put a new building on
that you have 40,000 of
You have 11,000 of
property. So when you do the math,
requires 40,000 and you have 11,000.
142% beyond what the code permits.
the code
So you have
That is how
25 we --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
MR. BROIDY: Fair enough.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: When you come before
the Zoning Board, we have the jurisdiction to
grant relief from the code when justified, based
on the series of all statutes and those were the
questions that we asked you to answer, basically.
MR. BROIDY: Fair enough.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The answers were
We were --
BROIDY: I am not looking to argue
minimal.
MR.
but --
whether or not,
That is a good
over to Jim.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MR. BROIDY: First of all, (inaudible) two
buildings. We can simplify this by the
demolition of the rear building and go on from
there. I have done this before. I haven't done
it with two building, but I have done it for
single buildings and have gotten variances.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am going to ask you
you would consider doing that.
start. I want to turn this back
MR. BROIDY: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I
will do away with the back building. Ail I was
trying to do is to preserve it. I had to
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
disassemble the existing cesspool that
(inaudible) I don't even want to go into that.
We will demo the rear building so we can conform
to the 20,000 feet like you suggested. If you
can make a decision on those basis today, I
can --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
first of all, we don't decide at
anyway. But --
MEMBER DINIZIO:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
We won't decide --
the hearing
Can I speak now?
Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I have made the decision on
what you need to do. And the reason for that is,
is what I base my decision on. What you are
When
change the character and that is your opinion,
this
asking me, this should be self explanatory.
I write my decision, this is what I look at.
This is what we are here for. Your reasons
should give me a reason for approving your
application or not approving your application.
You can't make stuff up and put it in here. You
have to tell me the reason why I should grant you
this variance. I am going to write them. It is
going to be subjective and it is all going to be
part of the record. If you said it is not going
to
97
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
if you can prove it to me that it is not going to
change the character, then I want to know. I
want to know how you feel about that. Now, I
agree with you. You can apply for variances.
That is why we are here. Simply because you
apply for a variance,
going to get it.
MR. BROIDY: I
MEMBER DINIZIO:
doesn't mean that you're
know that.
Even now, I don't want to
be part of Gerry saying that you are asking for
too much because I haven't made my decision yet.
And my question, and my urging to you, I need for
you to convince me that your project is going to
be helpful to the Town. Just simply saying it's
going to look nice, honestly, it's not going to
cut it. And if you knew my history sir, I am the
person who is least likely to turn you down. All
right, and I am saying what I am saying. I think
you need to do a lot more thought. Look at the
Planning Board letter and make some decisions on
what this Board has said and really hire someone
that is familiar with it. It doesn't have to be
a lawyer. You know, somebody who is more
familiar with it then you are. I understand,
sir, that you have done developments. This is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
where I grew up. I think what you have given us
in your application is not enough to write a
decision.
MR. BROIDY: Now,
issue. You would grant
you really raised an
142% variance --
MEMBER DINIZIO: No, sir. Ail I am saying
is trying to give him the opportunity to convince
me that it might be so. I have made no decision
on this variance. Ail I can say from the written
paperwork that you have here and your testimony,
it's not enough. I am just trying to give you an
opportunity to give your project the best chance
for some positive results.
MR. BROIDY: Let me ask you a question.
Jim, right?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes.
MR. BROIDY: (Inaudible) which is a
desperate need in this Town. Like I said to this
Board earlier, we are not looking to make a
million. We're looking to break even on this
project. That is an incentive right there. We
can do everything. The question, is does this
satisfy some of the needs of this Board? To have
affordable housing --
MEMBER DINIZIO: No, we don't look at that.
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
you're asking us to grant variances outside
Sir,
the code. And --
MR. BROIDY: And I understand that. I got
that loud and clear.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You're asking us to expand
the code but -- yeah, affordable housing is nice,
but you're asking us to expand the code and
honestly, I don't see it.
MR. BROIDY: Loud and clear. I understand
-- (inaudible) I got it. I think if I redo this
plan, in my opinion, I would like to come down
again -- what are your names?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Goehringer, Horning --
the names are right here. Let's do this, let's
see what George has to say, if that's okay with
you Jim?
MEMBER HORNING: I just want to say what
happened on Love Lane and what has happened
earlier in the past, is what happened there. It
doesn't pertain to your application on Pike
Avenue. It has nothing to do with Love Lane. I
wouldn't want you to go with the idea that taring
down the building in the back is going to solve
your problems, or the idea that making one
building out of the proposed two buildings, is
100
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
going to answer your problems either.
Board is encouraging you to do is
You do need expert counsel, which
What the
simple things.
obviously you
don't have the expertise. You need expert
counsel. You need to work with the Planning
Board. And you need to come up with something
that is going to work because the chances are,
working out for you is very dicey or whatever.
It's a very slender chance it will work out for
you the way you have it. It doesn't seem to be
workable site plan.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken, do you have
anything?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Just a comment. I just
have a problem with the variances that you are
requiring for this proposal and that is all I
a
have to say.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I would like to see if
there is anyone in the audience that would like
to address this application and then what I think
we're going to propose doing is adjourning to
March, so you can have an opportunity to have a
copy of this public transcript, the Planning
Board letter and you can take that information to
your colleague or your professional advisor that
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you may chose to find or not, and come back
before us with an amended plan. And we will take
But let me see if there is anyone
come to the podium and state your
it from there.
else. Please
name?
MR. HUBERT:
Thank you. My name is Michael
Hubert. I actively live on Pike Street. I have
been a resident since 1985. And I don't have any
restrictions for my neighbor, but when I heard of
this, my main concern was public safety, was the
fire hydrant in front of the property. To access
an (inaudible) utilized of. I feel that the
development of the residence (inaudible). I
would say that 60% of the Love Lane traffic
really pertains to Love Lane Kitchen and the
market place. I find that the municipal lots are
filled up 70% of the way. So I feel that any
project that goes up on this street, should
provide onsite parking. No matter what. It's a
narrow street. There is a firehouse on that
street. Another problem I wanted to mention, we
have a noise problem with the dumpsters that are
provided for the stores. And one of these
concerns is the picking up of the early hours.
So I feel that for any place, dumpsters should be
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 103
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
placed where they have full access to it. And
not being impeded with cars. I feel that there
should be onsite parking and not relied on the
municipal parking across the street. That in
itself is limited. And I know that once the
village market is opened under the new name, it's
going to get worse. You can see now how
dangerous it is. Traveling through Love Lane has
become a nightmare. So I think having onsite
parking for any development, is critical. That
is my main concern as far as public safety.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I think the parking that
Mr. Hubert is talking about is part of the Town
Code. He is asking for variances. I just want
to clear one thing before. I am not opposed to
your project. I am not for your project. I am
saying to you, in the record that you have
created so far, it's not enough for me to make a
decision one way or the other. My comment based
to you, is for me to give you an opportunity to
convince me other way.
MR. BROIDY: I think I will have it
reevaluated by March.
of spaces of parking.
everyone has
We are short of a couple
We are still in America,
the opportunity to use the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
facilities.
and I will
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
But what you brought out makes sense
reevaluate it. I appreciate the time
and I will come back in March.
March is it?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
to adjourn to March
afternoon.
MR. BROIDY:
can do to help me.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What
is this, just to make it clear.
Disapproval cites
requesting. Okay.
how to read those,
What date in
I am going to propose
3rd at 1:00 o'clock in the
I would appreciate anything you
I am going to do
Your Notice of
4 variance that you are
And anyone who understands
will be able to help you. But
I am going to explain what those
is to make the application
goal is to try and make it
you can, all right. The
buildings with 5 uses on
are. The goal
(inaudible) so the
conforming to code as
first variance is for 2
an existing lot of 11 --
feet. The code requires 40,000 square feet.
The second is a setback for less than the front
yard setback of 15 feet. The third is a side
yard setback of 1 foot and the code requires 10
feet on a single side yard.
MR. BROIDY: I think it's 5 feet.
104
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MR. BROIDY: 5 feet
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
correct. The code requires
No.
on each side. 10 total.
No, that is not
a single side yard
setback of 10 feet and a combined side yard of 25
feet, where you are proposing 22 feet. In
addition to those 4 variances, anything that you
do will be subject to Site Plan approval. That
is an additional process that you are aware of
that --
MR. BROIDY: Doesn't
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
this come first, Ma'am?
You know what, every
application is a little different. Sometimes
it's simultaneous -- that is why we got comments
from the Planning Board.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Sometime we meet together.
MR. BROIDY: They said before I further
continue, that I come here first.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have comments from
them and you can be here and we're going to
continue this. I am just wanting to make sure
you will have access to a couple of weeks time to
a transcript because we record this. You can
request it and our office will supply it, a
transcript, which will be a public record of this
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
proceedings of this hearing. So you can reread
them and take time of what was said --
MR. BROIDY: You gave me two so far.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I gave you the four
variances. It's right in your Notice of
Disapproval.
MR. BROIDY: Oh, from the Planning Board.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, this is from the
Building Department. It is called a Notice of
Disapproval. And that is what brings this
application to the Board.
MR. BROIDY: And I want to say one --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And rather then taking
more time to go over them again, they're in the
notice and they will be in the transcript. So
having said that --
MR. BROIDY: I
MEMBER DINIZIO:
have to say one more thing?
Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If you think that I
opposed to your project, I merely wanted to point
out the extraordinary variances that were before
us. That's all I am saying. And as the
chairperson said, I am not speaking for her. Any
reduction in those variances, would be
appreciated.
106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
MR. BROIDY: I am going to look at. If I
can just help you out a little bit. Some of the
State Law that I have been involved with over the
few years, I can understand what you are saying,
in some instances (inaudible) what really throws
the whole thing into limbo is the second
building. Anything else really complies with the
State code.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, sir. I --
MR. BROIDY: I'm sorry. I am not going to
say no more.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think we need to
address this at another hearing. We have ample
testimony. The purpose of this --
MR. BROIDY: Thank you very much. And I
wish you a very happy and healthy new year.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. I am going
to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to March
3rd at 1:00 p.m.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
Seconded by Jim.
107
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. Motion carries
unanimously. If we could be of any help, please
don't hesitate to contact our office.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There is a motion made
by Gerry to take a 15 minute lunch. Jim seconded
it.
All in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(Whereupon, a recess was taken at this time.)
HEARING #6422 - Benali, LLC
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: -- agents for the
applicant. The Board recently implemented a
procedure whereby in order to ensure that the
applicants have every opportunity to address
correspondences within our record, we are keeping
a list. Although we have instructions
specifically on the form, it's the applicants
108
109
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
responsibility to review the file before the
hearing but as a courtesy and make sure the
record reflects a full discussion of all
information available in our record, we have
initiated a procedure whereby the staff gives us
a list of any correspondences that came in to our
file, whether they are letters from neighbors or
LWRP or whatever it might be. And so any time
that happens, we begin each hearing by asking
applicants and if they have seen such and such,
do they have copies. If they don't have copies,
we will provide copies. That is what I in the
past here and previous hearings with the Benali
application, certain correspondences were given
to the attorney and the environmental consultant
and that is going to be the case again today.
And with all the other applications. And the
other two that are still here. It's just a
courtesy to make sure that you address everything
and anything you wish. Whether it is to refute
it, support it or whatever. Having said that, I
am going to ask counsel if you have received
copies -- Vicki tells me she just gave you one.
We have a copy here from Glen Just, who is the
ZBA's environmental consultant, we have the
110
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
survey, which you submitted to us. Which you
gave the (inaudible) which is new. And we have a
letter from the Trustees, with an attached survey
that was approved by the Trustees previously and
the DEC on the property. And you all have been
given copies of that'
MR. ROSENBERG:
this morning.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
correct?
Yes, Ms.
Toth gave us those
We have a request from
the LWR? coordinator, I am not sure, if you are
aware of the fact that he has had very recently a
personal tragedy, the loss of a family member,
and he is in the process of writing his
recommendation.
MR. ROSENBERG: That's (inaudible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yeah. And he has
requested that he be given an opportunity to hold
the hearing open, that if we chose to close the
hearing, that close it subject to receipt of his
report.
MR. ROSENBERG: Madam Chairperson, if I may
address that?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You can.
MR. ROSENBERG: As much as I was hoping --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just please state your
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
name
for the record.
MR. ROSENBERG: For the applicant, David
Rosenberg. Rosenberg, Furtuno and Latham, 666
Old Country Road, Garden City, New York. Madam
Chairman, if I can just address that, although we
were hoping to at least close the hearing today,
if the -- if it was closed subject to receipt of
the LWRP from Mr. Terry, I guess the applicant
would not have an opportunity to respond to that
or the applicant still be able to --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, we can structure
it that way. The first thing, let's examine any
additional documents and discuss them. And then
we will be in a better position on how we want to
proceed. Certainly, any time something is
closed, we have the jurisdiction, as you know, to
make sure that if something is received, any
party has an opportunity to respond to it.
MR. ROSENBERG: If we are in a position to
close the hearing then subject to receipt from
them and just allowing for us to respond, I could
and would prefer and find that as these things go
on and on, things come out the woodwork and
things seem to be a never ending process. So if
we could at least limit to that and hopefully at
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 112
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the end,
proceedings.
is clear, Ms.
see where we go for the rest of todays
I just want to make sure the record
Toth also gave us two letters that
I was going to offer but it appears
received them. These are from neighbors
immediate facility and neighboring area,
that you have
in the
Justin
Drago and John and Patricia Foster.
not submit my copies of those,
record.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
So I will
if they are in the
I am sorry, I should
have mentioned that earlier.
pointing that out. Gerry,
application, did you want
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
ahead.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
this
to --
No, I will
Thank you for
is your
let you. Go
Well, based upon the
documents that we have gotten, there is some
confusion about the flagging of the wetlands.
The Trustees have given us a letter that you have
received, indicating that they are going to use
for any comment, a previous survey that you have
a copy of, that was originally done by Fox of the
DEC. They have just reiterated in their letter,
that that is what they believe based upon their
current site inspection, that that is where the
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
flagging of the wetlands should be located. In
addition to that, we have a letter from our
consultant, both Mr. Goehringer and I were there
recently after our consultants had flagged
wetlands, of course it is a different type of
year. We got a -- we went out in the field with
each of us individually.
another with this sketch
where the flag shall be.
We didn't go with one
from our consultant, of
And certainly, I
noticed that some were missing from the property
and some were missing from numerical order and
some were located in a way that didn't resemble
this sketch. Did you also find that to be the
case?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Now, as a result, our
consultants went back out to look and as of
yesterday, indicates that he to finds that there
is some inconsistency where he finds the flagged
wetlands. And he believe 3 and 8 should be
relocated (inaudible). So the first thing that
we have to obviously do is get squared away.
Your survey, the one that you submitted --
SPEAKER: Sorry to interrupt, did any of you
25 get (inaudible).
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 114
1
2
B
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(Whereupon,
dicussions
hearing.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay,
resume this hearing? All right.
a alarm was pressed and
were held not pertaining to the public
can we please
So this
suggests that when he went to look at them they
were not where they were located them. And we
have a survey that I believe
have the applicant explain.
don't we let them talk about it since
survey.
MR.
that I would like to
It's a new one. Why
it's their
ROSENBERG: Madam Chairman, in response
to your inquires, to be a two-part and then I am
going to have Mr. Anderson, who has already been
introduced to the Board will speak. The first
thing is obviously, JML letter was handed to us
about an hour ago. I read the letter now about
four times. If you could perhaps, what the
meaning of this letter is. It doesn't appear to
say that the flags were moved, which is what my
first reaction was when I read it. It seems to
me it says on the reflection of going back to the
site, he is changing what was his original
delineation and is now suggesting that it should
be different. I will tell you the first thing is
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that, is he saying that someone moved the flags,
and Bruce and I would just will tell flat out to
the Board, and the applicant who is now at his
other residence, in his family home out here,
absolutely did not, if there was a suggestion
that somebody moved the flags. I read it after
reading it more carefully, it does seem to say at
that upon that time at a second look of the site,
it says that he believes that several of the
flags should be relocated. I just want to make
sure that there is no suggestion insistently that
either the applicant or maybe some third-party
might had moved the flags. I think the Board
would agree with me, that he is now saying that
he reconsiders his original determination.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am not sure that
that is what his intent was. I think primarily,
by no means is anyone on this Board or in our
office, nor should anyone perceive any
accusations that anybody moved them, other then
the fact that where they're presently located is
not in conformance with the drawings that he
submitted. As to where he flagged them. There
is no accusations whatsoever on any one's part
that -- we have no idea. All I know is that they
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-- when I went to do a site inspection with his
sketch in hand, I believe Mr. Goehringer did the
same thing, it's pretty clear that they were not
coordinated properly. It's not in the same
position and the same number.
MR. ROSENBERG: So my first response is, I
guess that, the sketch that was used was
obviously not to scale and not done or located.
I know that Mr. Anderson is going to confirm a
discussion that we had just this morning, with
Mr. Just and he was going to indicate to the
Board that he went out and looked at the flags
and acknowledged that the flags were where it was
originally located by him. I wanted to make sure
there is no suggestion. I don't know if he has
communicated that orally or in writing. But
Mr. Anderson, will certainly be able to say that
directly. The next point, is as far as the
survey we did, which I believe (inaudible)
yesterday, which we did. We then had our
surveyor to locate on the survey using the proper
surveying techniques exactly where those flags
were. And although that survey was submitted at
the request of the Board and the communicated by
Ms. Scaff, I want the Board to be very clear on
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that, that is not the survey that we are relying
upon in our application and Mr. Anderson will
explain why. That one -- I will call it the
Averment Flag, which now suddenly is more
further landward then the wetlands, well all the
other ones are more consistent. I don't know
what flag number that is. It's somewhere in the
middle. I can identify that in a second. It's
somewhat to the east of the dock, the existing
dock, Flag #3. I am going to refer to that as
the Averment Flag at this point. The other 8 or
the 9 flags, are pretty much consistent with what
the DEC has done and what the fire survey shows
and what Mr. Anderson testified to. So I will
let Mr. Anderson explain why Flag #3, is what we
call an Averment flag and is not what we believe
accurate and therefore, I just want this Board to
know, this survey that we did submit at your
request to locate those flags, is not in fact the
survey that we are going to rely upon for the
presentation. Having said that, with response to
the Chairpersons question, let's ask Mr. Anderson
to come back up and I will certainly have a tag
team here and we will go in order for your
questions.
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk
Environmental Consultant. I want to say and
first that I had a conversation with Glen Just
earlier today here in Town Hall. He came
apparently to drop off that memo. I asked him
whether or not the flags that he had placed had
been moved. He confirmed that they had not. The
reason why I had asked that question is I
received a call from his secretary indicating
that there was a concern that the flags were
moved. I explained to the secretary that we did
not move any flags. So no flags were moved. The
flags that are there are the flags that your
consultant placed in the field -- the location
where your consultant placed them in the field.
I want to also make clear that the sketch that
you apparently relied upon in the determination
that you thought that the flags were moved is
stamped December 30, 2010, Board of Review.
There is a hand drawn sketch. It's not a survey
feature. It is simply a mere approximation.
Finally, the letter that you received -- the most
recent letter from Mr. Just suggesting that he is
disagreeing with his own lines. Now, I don't
know what would have prompted his disagreement
119
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
with his own line.
suggest is there is
THE SPEAKER:
again.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
arrest me now. Go ahead.
interruption.
MR. ANDERSON: So
been some discussions,
The only thing that I can
some --
Sorry for the interruption
Are you coming to
Sorry for the
Bruce, continue?
apparently there must have
some communication between
this Board and your consultant, as to why there
is now supposed to be a another line 2 to 3,
again at an approximation, landward from the line
that your consultant already flagged. Now, I
will tell you that several well accepted
technical methods in evaluating wetland
boundaries. The (inaudible) species that occur
in wetlands, which is a technical report drafted
by the Wildlife Service in 1988. And there is a
second one that deals with the Corp of Engineers,
Wetland delineation manual. That is prepared by
the US Army Corp of Engineers and that is dated
1987. The two are companion cases and they are
the standards of what wetland is delineated. In
this case, what we have is a shore line comprised
of fragmities and we have the upper end of that
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
shore line, we have some graffel bush. We have a
whole lot of Poison Ivy. We have upland species.
We have a whole lot of American Bittersweet,
which is invasive and like the fragmities. We
have a property that slopes up from the water.
The high marsh, which were flagged, can occur
both in wetlands and uplands. He also found that
this was (inaudible) with Poison Ivy, which is an
upland species that favors upland habitat. And
those sources will confirm that. But the basis
method of which we flag wetland was based on
hydrophilic vegetation, which is wetland
vegetation. And wetland hydrology, which is soil
or persistent soil saccharation as to develop
hydric soils. If you go to the survey that we
had done
will see
at our expense for your consultants, you
Flag #3, which jets up towards the
house. A total of 7 flags run parallel to the
shore lines and to the deck and where the house
is located. And then all of a sudden there is
one flag that goes up the hill to almost the
topographic line for that now places the house
within 13
point. I
that wetland
feet of the wetland at its closest
am now going to pass up a photograph of
(inaudible). For your review, you
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
will see is a close-up of a (inaudible) tree
branch that is engulfed by Poison Ivy. You will
see on the upper right hand corner that berry is
the Poison Ivy that occurs every year. Poison
Ivy is an upland plant. So you will -- you can
not rely on Poison Ivy for the delineation of
wetlands. And this is an area that is flagged --
MR. ROSENBERG: Mr. Anderson, let me just
interrupt you. When you say we can't use Poison
Ivy for delineation, is it more proper to say
that if there is Poison Ivy there, it indicates
that it is not wetlands?
MR. ANDERSON:
MR. ROSENBERG:
for the wetlands?
MR. ANDERSON:
That would be more correct.
You can use that as a marker
Yes. I then want to bring
your attention to a correspondence in your file
when this application was filed, you requested
correspondences to review from the Suffolk County
Soil and Water Conversation District,
specifically a Nicole Cirelli, from a letter
dated December 28th as part of your file. That
is an interesting letter for several reasons.
First, it states that the soil type found on this
property is Riverhead Sandy inaudible) slope and
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 122
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that these soils are well drained and highly
permeable soils. In other words, they are not
hydro-soils. And the hydric-soils are needed to
support the wetlands. Those soils can only be
located where they are inundated by the shore
line, which is where we flagged the wetlands.
Where the State of New York DEC set the wetlands
were and we're all but one flag, from where your
consultant said the wetlands were.
MR. ROSENBERG: And that would be before the
consultant changed his mind in the January 5th
letter?
MR. ANDERSON: That is
also another portion
Spinelli letter that
correct. There is
in here, let's call it the
tells us that the hard
(inaudible) extend above the two foot contour.
That is precisely where the DEC has marked the
boundary that is approximate to where I marked
the wetland boundary. It's approximate to where
your consultant marked the wetland boundary with
the exception of Averment Flag #3.
MR. ROSENBERG: So I take it that you do not
believe that that Flag #3 is in fact on a
wetland --
MR. ANDERSON: That is correct. I hope that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
since the -- I say all this with the backdrop as
to why we are here. We are here not for a
wetland permit. Wetland permits are issued by
the Trustees and they are issued by the DEC. We
are here for a front yard variance, so as to
locate our house on this building away from the
wetlands. So we're hopeful that that really is
the primary focus of this Board because the
matter regarding wetlands are still to be decided
by the DEC and the Trustees. We are here for one
variance and one variance only. And that it's
set back from the road based upon our proposal to
maximize our distance from wetlands.
MR. ROSENBERG: Thank you, Mr. Anderson.
Members of the Board, I also was going to again
that I want to remind the Board, rather point out
to the Board, that your jurisdiction is to grant
the variance, that had a building permit issued
almost years ago indicating it was a legal lot at
the time. For a variance from the front yard
setback, that could be as far as from the wetland
as we could and still have a front yard setback.
We're similar to the one next door to us, which I
believe is 16 feet. The backyard is going to be
consistent with their distance from what's there.
123
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
So I think between the Town's Board of Trustee's
jurisdiction of wetlands, the DEC's jurisdiction
of wetlands, or whether or not we call Averment
Flag #3, is in fact an area which could delineate
a wetland. Is certainly not within the scope of
what your determination has to be. I would
respectfully remind the Board that we're talking
about a front yard setback, not the wetlands at
the rear of the house. And the only other thing,
just so I understand, the Fox drawing which has
been referred, and I guess we can review the
minutes to be sure, the Fox drawing was not done
by DEC. It was attached to -- I think you are
referring to the drawing that was attached to the
Trustees memo and addressed by you, Madam
Chairperson, on December 28th. That was not done
by the DEC. That was done by a private
consultant. The DEC -- the only thing we have on
this record from the DEC is the letter that says
that the wetland doesn't go (inaudible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I believe Mr. Fox
works for the DEC. Let me --
MR. ANDERSON: May I clarify? Mr. Fox does
not work for the DEC. I also want to --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: He did at the time.
125
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ANDERSON: No, he did not.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It says the survey --
MR. ANDERSON:
BOARD MEMBER:
MR. ANDERSON:
No, he did not. I also --
(Inaudible).
He's a titled consultant with
(inaudible). He represented and assisted on a
dock application on behalf of the property owner.
Now, I want to make one other observation because
I believe I heard you three times refer to the
Fox drawing as a survey. It is not.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Anything else?
MR. ROSENBERG: We have much more to talk to
the Board, but if you have any questions on
something else, I would be happy to answer your
questions or if you want me to proceed, I will
proceed. Whatever is the pleasure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: First I would just
like to respond to comments that you made
counsel, that our jurisdiction is simply front
and rear yard setbacks. Yes, that is a variance
before us, but one of our state (inaudible) looks
at potential
neighborhood,
we have every
and
adverse impact and character of the
as well as the environment. And so
right and responsibility to look
feel reasonable potential environmental
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
impact. Secondly, we have a -- we have a request
from both the LWRP and based on a letter of
October 20, 2010 and a recent letter from the
Trustees, which states that the Trustees did a
site inspection and their decision was to utilize
this deck, however you want to scale it, as their
determination of where the wetland setbacks are.
The only reason and --and also the LWRP
coordinator, we still want to wait for updated
interpretation but his recommendation was to have
the application amended to reflect the wetland
land previously recognized by the (inaudible)
issue and surveys attached for your approval on
the survey. It's attached to this letter.
MR. ANDERSON: I note that there is no stamp
attached to it on that survey --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And that's fine, I
will accept --
MR. ANDERSON: I also want to note that the
Trustees is not a surveyor and I want to note
that LWR? coordinator is not a surveyor.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
like to do is ask counsel,
this, the jurisdiction of the Board relative
variety of materials in terms of how we can
Correct. What I would
in a situation like
to a
126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
proceed
on.
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
in terms of what we made a decision based
MS. ANDALORO: (Inaudible) 75 feet. You can
look at it with respect to the notation of the
house and the potential environmental impact
under the criteria. And again, the location of
the wetland (inaudible) impact perhaps your
decision on the environmental impact. So you
know, there is again, it seems like there is
different opinions as to where that line may be.
There is a wetland and it's a certain distance
from this house and with the front yard setback
where it is. It will have some type of
environmental impact,
if that helps you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
perhaps. So I don't know
Not really.
MS. ANDALORO: You can decide where the
wetland is based upon your opinion. There is
different evidence that is before you on where it
can be, based on what they have submitted and
based upon what your own consultant has submitted
and what the Board of Trustees has submitted.
You're only looking at that with relationship
(inaudible) criteria --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Setbacks?
127
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 128
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. ANDALORO: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
resolve what boundary that
What I want to do is
is going to be because
when you
Board of
December 28,
from the --
I would like to offer the applicant the
opportunity to, either no, our position stands
where it is or yes, we will accept this
determination and possibly amend the footprint
based upon this particular -- it makes no sense
to me in some respects for the Trustees to tell
us that this is what they're going to use when
they go and apply for that permit. And then for
us to use something else.
MR. ROSENBERG: Madam Chairperson, can I
just address that and I believed what you said
received recent communication from the
Trustees, you're referring to the
2010 cover memo addressed to you
is that correct?
me by Ms. Toth? December 28,
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
one. This is the letter,
That was handed to
20107
No, this is an old
December 28th,
indicating that this is their determination.
MR. ROSENBERG: May I suggest to the Board
in looking at that memo, and that's why I was --
I want you to confirm that, that this Board may
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 129
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
be well aware of the fact that back in April when
I was literally driving out here for the hearing
before the Board of Trustees, we got a phone call
maybe an hour or two before the meeting, saying
that they were going to defer to this Board
before the Board of Trustees met. And I was
concerned, that maybe somehow they made a finding
which in the last month or so that I had no idea.
Looking at this, may I suggest to the Board that
what Ms. Doherty is suggesting, is that the Board
of Trustees may have found a wetland and although
this is dated December 28, 2010, she's not
talking about a recent finding. She is talking
Board.
never
that would -- (inaudible) due process which
doubt. What I am suggesting to you is that,
about the finding that may have been made back in
2008. When the applicant, same applicant,
submitted a request to build a dock was issued a
permit. This does not refer that we made recent
finding in the last month or two. This merely
says -- it doesn't say when this finding was
made, by influences, they deferred the
determination that they have to make to this
I have never had a hearing and I have
gotten this involved in any determination
I
that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
the Board of Trustees found to be the highlighted
area shown on the plan of 2008, means back in
2008 they made a finding of where the wetland was
based upon that dock application. And Madam
Chairperson, if I could just continue with the
questions of counsel, I am an advocate for my
client and not for the Board.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: May I comment on what
you just said?
MR. ROSENBERG: Yes, please.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: As it happened, I was
in our office when Jane Doherty came in with this
file and indicated they had gone out, the whole
Trustee group, had done and made a site
inspection in December. So while I completely
understand your response to this letter because
it is not clear that they made a recent site
inspection. This letter is intent, as I
understand it, based upon your discussions with
me, was to confirm with their recent site
inspection confirmed there wetland location that
they originally designated when they granted the
permit for the dock --
MR. ROSENBERG: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: (Inaudible) drawing.
130
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 131
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ANDERSON: If I may. Upon any recent
site inspection the wetlands boundary that you
referred to on another sketch was not delineated
in the field. So they could not have had known
where that line was well were they were standing.
The wetlands flags that would have delineated
those lines, enabling a confirmation at any time
and clearly that line is (inaudible) in all
respects with the wetlands lines that I flagged.
With the wetland lines flags by the DEC and the
wetland lines flagged by your own consultant --
MS. ANDALORO: Chairman Weisman, what I
would prefer that the Board do as opposed to
going back and forth with the applicant and the
representative about what this man and that man
-- I mean, there has been some questions made
about the intent of two documents that are in the
record. The letter from our consultant and the
second one being from the Board of Trustees that
was sent in late of December. Go to the source.
Let's get it clear on the record. And let's not
go back in what they think they may have meant
this and they think they may have meant that.
That's the best way to handle it.
MR. ROSENBERG: I would also just in terms
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 132
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to due process
went
this
is a
to my client, if in fact the Board
-- the Board of Trustees made a finding and
is now a finding of the Board, meaning this
finding of fact by the Board, and we have
had no notice of it and it was -- (inaudible)
application pending because they froze off in
deference to you, I would suggest that it is a
gross violation of due process to my client.
And --
MEMBER DINIZIO:
Can I say a comment?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yeah.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Couldn't we just get
someone here from the Board of Trustees to
testify today? So we can at least clear up the
matter where they think it is or -- we have more
than one line here that we're discussing. Really
this is a Trustee thing. I think we are only
here to basically figure out how or why or how it
could be. It's 20 feet now. I think the focus
of our discussion should be more on that. You
know what size house can -- 20 feet agreeable
with the Board. Can we live with 10 feet on the
front yard? And the rest of it, I don't feel
qualified -- okay. I didn't realize that is how
you did it. With respect to that, I don't intend
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 133
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to go out and look for plants that grow in water.
I think we need to focus on (inaudible) size of
that building. That is my --
MR. ROSENBERG: Member Chairperson. Again,
I appreciate Member Dinizio's comments, which
is what I suggested. If I may answer the
question that you put to your own counsel. I am
an advocate for my client. I think that whatever
right you give to this discussion, the variance
to the front and the setback is what we're
talking about, I would say that if we have maybe
what can be called an ambiguous letter from the
Board. He's not a surveyor or a technical
person, from JML Environmental Consultants seems
to be a question of his own credibility as to
where he should put the flags. We certainly
should give strong deference to the DEC, which
has to get a wetlands permit here. And which has
in the record, that the wetlands
so and it's
boundary is
saying what
the 2 foot contour. So if you're
should the Board do, quite frankly
you should give deference to the most expert.
The ones with the most expertise. The ones that
are independent and don't have any agenda. The
ones who are not biases. The ones who are not
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 134
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
impartial. We have the DEC here stating what
they have in the record. That the wetlands
boundary is at the 2 foot mark.
withstanding my point
into your discussion,
be as Member Dinizio is
Again, not
and although it may factor
I think the focus should
on the variance on what
is a single and separate ownership of a prior
legal lot, which is now nonconforming.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me just enter into
the record you know, at the (inaudible)
conversation. That our environmental consultant
second paragraph talks about his flags 1 through
8 should be relocated. That is a number of
flags. He says in comparing the various wetlands
delineation's done on this property, he believes
the one that was performed on 1/9/06 by Fox is
the most accurate. That would be the one that we
looked at. That the Trustees just confirming.
So we have a lot -- I agree, we have a lot of
different --
MR. ROSENBERG:
now telling his line
But your own consultant is
flags are inaccurate. His 2
to 3 feet back is inaccurate. And that the Fox
line is accurate, even though he doesn't know
where that is in the field.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am not sure based
upon this letter, which I think is rather
ambiguous. What he is saying is that I made a
second inspection and if I discovered and
Mr. Goehringer discovered when we did a site
inspection, the flags were not all there. And
again, no accusation towards anyone. It's a
simple field inspection reveals that some of the
flags were missing. And some of them were
numerically out of order in relationship to the
sketch. I agree, that was not survey. That was
a sketch. It certainly shows the nu~er of flags
that were placed on the property and the ordering
of those flags, okay. So I am not fully
convinced that we have a full and clear situation
here. I believe what he may have well been
saying, is that he went back a second time and
found flags in a position that were from nuraber 3
to 8 that should be relocated based upon what he
observed on the second inspection, 2 to 3 foot
landward from where Mr. Goehringer and I observed
currently located on Tuesday of this week.
MR. ROSENBERG: Madam Chairperson, I would
just again and refer -- and make clear what I am
referring to. We have a letter from DEC dated
135
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
September 30th of '09 which, we believe should
have said September 30, 2010. I don't know why
it was typed as '09 because quite frankly, from
our application was put in on April of '10.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: (Inaudible) it may
have the wrong date, things happen.
MR. ROSENBERG: The DEC on our application
are trainined technical staff, the people who are
trained to do this, have determined that the
title wetland boundary at this site is currently
located on a 2 foot elevation contour. I don't
know why this Board feels that it must second
guess the expert who is retained by the State,
who has no agenda. No reason to equivocate or
anything else. And I would again -- if we could
move on. I sort have exhausted this --
MR. ANDERSON: Regardless of whether you
accept my line. The DEC's line, your consultant
first line, the second line that is now going to
be 2 to 3 feet less from where your own
consultant says the line is or even the Fox line,
which is
lines --
State and that
shows a large
going to be the 4th line on the map, our
all wetlands will be preserved in the
is because the survey before you
(inaudible) fence. A substantial
136
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
buffer of what would be basically 20 feet from
the wetland boundaries defined by the DEC. And
all lines -- this is a no-touch area. And all
lines fall within that area. So if there is a
suggestion that somehow any vegetation defined in
wetland, in any of the four lines would be
touched in a result of this application, I am
here to assure that it won't because it would
fall within the buffer in any event.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just need to go back.
You made a statement that we're not obligated nor
should we or it would have an effect on your
client, if we couldn't utilize resources within
our own Town. In particular, the chairperson or
the Town Trustees --
MR. ROSENBERG: No, Mr. Goehringer. I
certainly did not mean that if I did say that. I
certainly -- it was misunderstood --
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
MR. ANDERSON: Mr.
saying is that you have
(Inaudible).
Goehringer, what I am
3 or 4 ambiguous
documents and you have a State determination by a
technical staff, written by an environmental
analysis, who has been trained and this is their
job and there is no possible political agenda or
137
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
anybody else with an interest in this
application, then certainly, if you're going to
consider a wetlands boundary, again, which I
think is more for the Trustees to determine and
the DEC to determine, with respect to wetland
applications. And certainly you should look at
the definitive unequivocal unqualified
(inaudible) from the DEC and where their
technical staff found that wetland boundary. And
again, just what Mr. Anderson did, no matter
which of the four lines that you look at, the
house is not going to be within any of those. So
I am (inaudible) going to suggest you should use
every resource you have and provided that it's
done with notice to the applicant, so we can
comment on it or respond to it or have no problem
with that. So me even doing that on this
application or on the mooring application. So I
never meant you shouldn't draw up on those
resources. I'm saying when the information comes
back and it's somewhat equivocal and somewhat
ambiguous and you have an unequivocal and
unambiguous source
technical staff at
should give weight
and a recognized expert and a
DEC, it seems to me what you
to and what you should find
138
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 139
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
persuasive, is the DEC letter and not the other
stuff.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me just make one
comment here, sir, if I might. There is no
indication from the letter from the DEC about the
basis for which they made their determination.
There is nothing that says in this letter that
this was based upon a site inspection, okay. We
don't know. They could've Googled Earth, for all
I know, which is frequently the case. We don't
have in that letter an unambiguous basis from
which a determination was made.
MR. ANDERSON: I don't know of any case,
with DEC or anyone else, to determine a wetland
boundary on a site specifically on the basis of
Google.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I can tell you this
much, Mr. King and the Trustees, at the request
of the Town Board, called the DEC three times
during the month of December to see if they could
arrange a coordinated site inspection with the
Trustees and not one time was that call returned.
MR. ROSENBERG: Was that on this application
or another application?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: On this application.
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 140
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
So we're still in limbo as to whether or not
evidence -- I agree with you, site inspection
would be critical to making a determination --
MR. ANDERSON: Your suggestion that it was
done by Google is erroneous. We don't delineate
wetland boundaries with Google.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It was offering the
possibility that it
sometimes --
MR. ANDERSON:
is one way sites are examined
(Inaudible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: But there is nothing
on the that letter that suggests that DEC went
out there and made a site inspection. I don't
know the basis upon which that 2 foot interval
was determined.
MR. ROSENBERG: I would rely upon a finding
of an environmental analysis of the DEC, that
says that technical staff has determined wetland
boundaries far more credible then what we have
seen from the other locations. In any event,
with the permission of the Board, I would like to
move onto the next point.
MS. ANDALORO: (Inaudible) several times and
even the Board has acknowledged there is certain
information requested from our own consultant and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
people within the Town has been acknowledged
being ambiguous and not doing what we asked. We
need to clear this stuff up on the record.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I agree. Yes, I
agree. And Mr. Dinizio made some suggestions
that we get some Trustees, someone from LWRP, own
consultant to come in and where we can all be
present in the same room and have that discussion
publicly. So that we can reach a much more
informed basis of determining exactly what
potential consequences proposed location or an
amended location might have relative to the
setback of the road --
MR. ROSENBERG: Madam Chairperson --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Very close to open
water.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I just say something?
And you just said it, how can we amend the
application before us when the house is 20 feet
wide now. We should be saying to ourselves,
okay, can we make it 18. Do we want to pull it
away from the wetland? I am assuming that is
what your concern is. It's not my concern. The
50 feet away from the road, is that something
that we can not live with and based on the
141
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
decision of those criteria's. I mean, this line
-- this wetland, just my opinion, it's not that
it's irrelevant but it exists, but it's going to
exist whether there is a house there or not. And
whether it is a foot or two foot the other, I
don't know that that makes any difference with
your concern for the environment. I mean, the
cesspools, are they going to take care of that?
Is the Health Department, do they go into -- and
are we willing to agree with that? And somehow,
reconfigure this, this rectangle that we have on
here, this 34x20 rectangle, to make it more
conforming to our code. That should be the meat
of our discussion and wetlands -- and this is
only seeing from this application, that is a very
difficult thing. Evidently, I am going to be
very subjective if I am looking at a picture of
an invasive species which is whatever that is.
By one consultant it's a wetland and by another
it's not. Honestly, I think we should direct
ourselves to that rectangle and how we can make
it better.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think you are
forgetting another issue that we have before us
and that was Mattituck Estates several years ago
142
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
and that was the issue of a dye study that was
where they ran dye into the ground to see and
then seeing -- we had to hire a
evaluate that study. We didn't
particular point yet. And if
one was the Mattituck Estates
consultant to
even get to that
you remember that
and that wasn't
even on an open water situation. So we haven't
even gotten to that particular point. This
appears to be rather a length process here and
you know, I don't know where we are specifically
at this time but I would like to have a
guesstimate of where this wetlands line is and
how far these grasses go up and the significance
of these. Because if you think this is the last
application that is before us, you're whistling
Dixie, because there is going to be a lot more.
MR. ROSENBERG: Mr. Goehringer, if we're
talking about Westlake, this is the only property
left that can be built on Westlake.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Sometimes the Board thinks
-- I just think that the environmental stuff is
not something I am expert in. We're not expected
to be. We're expected to try to make what's best
out of a really bad situation. I would prefer
the discussion to go that way. I would like to
143
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
see us -- I am not sure if another Board has to
make a decision or if the Trustees still do.
Deal with that wetlands. It doesn't make that
much of a difference to us, whether we place the
building 12 feet or 15 feet or whatever from the
front yard. They will have to live with whatever
it is. In my opinion, grant them a house that
they can build.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, in fairness to
the applicant, and in consideration of the time
and expense involved in this application, if we
go ahead and grant something they -- a front yard
setback and then based upon your proposal and the
Trustees have already told us they are going to
use this, then the Trustees are now saying it's 3
feet now from the wetlands, and you know, then
they are not going to give you your permit. I
mean --
MEMBER DINIZIO: I --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hold on a second,
please, and just let me finish. Coordinating
reviews among Town agencies in a productive way
is a benefit to all Boards, a good government and
the applicant. Because we have often seen one
agency undue what another one wants to do and so
144
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
on. And if we can get it right, and get it
coordinated, we're all on the same page and we're
all using the application to make the decision.
So that is my goal here. It's not to obstruct
what is before us. To make sure that all
reviewing parties are on the same page when it
comes to --
MEMBER DINIZIO:
hearing, I don't believe we are an agency now.
happen to believe that the Zoning Board of
Appeals is a special -- it's created by the State
to grant relief and when the applicant can prove
so. And no other agency in this town has to
exist. We must exist in order for the Town to
exist. So coordinating between agencies is not
something that we, as the ZBA, should be doing,
with the exception of bringing those people in
here to testify to their word. That's where we
should be. Now, if you want to bring them in,
fine, I would hope that we wouldn't have to go
that way. And I don't buy the reasoning that if
we make a decision, we force somebody else to do
something else. That is ridiculous.
beginning and the end of any baron.
our decision based on what we
Because we have to have our
I
We're the
And we make
-- the information
145
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
that we receive. Now, if you think the wetlands
are most important,
brought in here. I
here. Certainly Mr.
Trustee can come in.
those people have to be
don't know how you can see in
WLRP (sic) come in and this
And they can make their
statement and we can make our decision based on
that. I don't buy that Leslie, and I'm sorry if
I sound a little upset, but I don't buy our
decisions being coordinated with anybody. Our
decision --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER DINIZIO:
law.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
am not sure this is
that discussion.
I understand --
Our decision is
based on
Well, first of all, I
an appropriate place to have
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, you brought it up.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I brought it up
because a matter of fact what we're attempting to
do here is to the best of our ability incorporate
coraments so that we, as of appropriate protocol
(inaudible) from all possible concern. We have
one from Trustee. We have our pending new one
from LWRP. And all of that information, we all
get commented, as we did from the planning
146
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 147
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Department. Ail of that information is part of
our public record. It is part of the process
that we use to reach our decision. And that
sense, I am talking about coordinating the
information. And the ZBA may not be an agency.
It is a part of Town government. Ail right. I
will correct that statement to reflect that it is
Town government. Nevertheless, let's see how we
want to proceed on this --
MR. ROSENBERG: Madam Chairperson --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: One second. At this
point, Ken, do you have any questions or do you
want to proceed? Gerry, do you have any other --
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I just have a comment.
We see that the wetlands do exist and that's a
fact. And I think we should look at next, what,
if any, the proposed septic system, what
detriment it may have of the wetlands and we
should move forward.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
Ail right. Gerry?
I think we have to
establish a line and regardless of where this
particular line is, I completely agree with
Mr. Anderson, that the line is going to be
protected; however, we don't know if the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
establishment of this house is going to have an
effect on these wetlands. And that is all we
want to do. So if we can take an average of
everybody's interpretation or everyone's
evaluation, then we know exactly where the line
is. I appreciate all the information we have
gathered from you two gentleman but you know,
let's find out what Mr. Just is actually saying
and what the Trustees is actually saying and come
in and testify.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
to clear that up.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And we will go from
there. Why in Mattituck did they require a dye
study in something that is not even open water.
I have seen nothing from the Health Department
that requires the study or from the Trustees --
excuse me, the DEC that
Health Department a dye
I can't understand it.
I think that's the best way
requires along with the
study on a sewer system.
I realize there is some
timingness
is the same type of
Town --
MR. ROSENBERG: This is not a subdivision
though. The current application is not a
between the two applications. There
subdivision granted by the
148
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6,
subdivision.
perhaps --
Mattituck,
2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
You just referred to a subdivision,
I thought you were talking about the
which I am completely --
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The Mattituck was a 63
subdivision.
MR. ROSENBERG: Okay. Mr. Goehringer, the
only document I have and I am prepared to move on
to Mr. Dinizio's comments, because that is where
we left off last time. I appreciate the concern
but it sounds like this Board is leaning towards
what you expressingly (sic) said and Ms. Weisman
sort of danced around the issue, is if this Board
is going to make a finding of where the wetland
boundary is, I am curious and I am not going to
answer the question and be rhetorical. Is that
binding upon the Board of Trustees when I go
before them and they make the actual application
for the permit? Is it binding upon the DEC? Is
it binding upon anybody? It seems that your
supposed to decide a variance that is in front of
a house and back of a house. You can certainly
consider it. You can consider it that the
Trustees are the one to make that finding. The
DEC should make that finding and I will leave it
at that. Member Dinizio suggested that we
149
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 150
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
perhaps look at the house. I have some plans
that you had asked at the last hearing and
perhaps we can modify some plans because there
was some what of a concern of the size of a house
that would actually be that close to the road and
I would like to hand these up to the Board for
the changes that we have made to modify or
address that sensitivity. You may remember at
the last hearing, there was a question of whether
or not if the Board were to grant the variance,
there would be a large facade if the house was
very close to the road of 10 feet. You had asked
us to possibly soften that. If I could just walk
through what you have in front of you, if you
look at the first page, that is sort of -- the
front of the house is what you see on the left,
but if you notice, instead of making the ridge
roof symmetrical, we have pushed back the ridge
of the roof so that it is more gentle sloping
line and not as high up. So when you're looking
at it from the front. You can not see the full
height of the roof. If you look at Page 2,
instead of having two full stories, we have
further tried to soften the look by having the
two story portion in a relative small part, less
151
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
than a third of the width of the entire house.
And we have done that by moving some of the
bedrooms that were upstairs and instead of
making the house wider and putting them
downstairs. This does not require us to come in
for a side yard variance. We are not asking for
a side yard variance. We're not seeking any
further relief from the Board. We're trying to
accommodate the sensitivity of the Board. So
what we have done by making the house wider and
by softening that roof line, which you can quite
tell from Page 2, but if you go to
Page 1, you
We have soften
is delineated
The last
will know what I am referring to.
the appearance substantially. And if you look at
Page 3, that actually will show you where we have
added the bedroom downstairs, which
bedroom #2 and made the house wider.
page of course shows the small dimension of the
two story view of the house. So I would like to
compliment Bruce for actually working with the
architect and coming to this scheme. But it
significantly softens the appearance to the
extent that the Board was concerned about. I
would like to have this entered into the record.
If the Board has any questions about design,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
doing something that one of the Board members was
focusing on, I would be more than happy to answer
those or perhaps have Bruce answer those.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, I will just get
some updated comments on this proposal. It
appears we are still looking at four bathrooms.
MR. ANDERSON: What I simply did was take
one upstairs bathroom and 1 upstairs bedroom and
attach it to the first floor. That to lower the
house so when you're on the street, it wouldn't
be so high when you looked up. I shifted it over
so that it lined up with the existing stairwell.
When I applied the same roof pitch based upon the
plans that are already with this Board, it did
have result of lowering the height of the overall
structure by approximately 2 feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The proposal is still
on pilings, of course?
MR. ANDERSON: It is on pilings.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And from the grade to
the first floor is how many feet?
MR. ANDERSON: It's 7 feet. And you have
those structural$ in your file done by
MR. ROSENBERG: The first floor,
already several
Jim --
which is
feet up from the water.
152
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
MR. ANDERSON: So this house complies with
FEMA and it also complies with your height
regulations. One other thing, it would also
comply with your coverage regulations.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
BOARD MEMBER: What is the purpose of all
the bathrooms?
MR. ANDERSON: They're just affording a
bathroom for every bedroom. It has no effect on
the septic system. No environmental effect. So
it's convenient.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
comments?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
Ken, do you have any
NO.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And would you consider
reducing the number of bathrooms and bedrooms?
MR. ANDERSON: I would have to check with
the client on that. I will remind you that we
started with an 850 square foot footprint.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Footprint not house.
What is the total square footage proposed?
MR. ANDERSON: Approximately twice that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 850 square foot
footprint and -- 1700 square foot approximately?
MR. ANDERSON: Approximately.
153
154
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Board? 1,160 square foot.
Any questions from the
You just said 850
square feet -- sounds right to me. So the
footprint is not 850
square feet?
MR. ANDERSON:
square feet, it's 1,160
The revised plan, we're going
to talk about (inaudible) has a foot print of
1,160 square feet --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is what we just
said.
MR. ROSENBERG: And that's still within the
lot coverage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: But you said 850?
MR. ANDERSON: What I said is the
application before you, which is a footprint of
850 square --
MR. ROSENBERG: I think I misunderstood you.
The original application had two floors of
approximately 850 each, for a total of roughly
16-1700 square feet. 850 per floor because it
revised suggestion -- because it is now wider and
the depth is the same, it wouldn't necessarily
mean the footprint -- the second is smaller. The
total square footage remains the same. Yes,
it's --
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 155
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ANDERSON:
measures 58x20.
MR. ROSENBERG:
1,160 square feet. It
The second floor is now
reduced to -- I saw that on the third page.
MR. ANDERSON: The bedroom measures 13x16
and includes a bath and a closet.
MR. ROSENBERG: The third bedroom would be
on the fourth page and measures 16x --
MR. ANDERSON:
MR. ROSENBERG:
bathroom. 13.8 plus 5,
That's 304 square feet.
13 is on the second floor.
It doesn't quite go to the
it's about 19x16. 19x16.
The gross footage
remains the same. Again, this is to accommodate
the Board's sensitivity to the appearance of the
house from the road. If there is no questions on
this, I just have a few more things to clarify
that were made to us from the
There was a question as to --
there was some surprise since
last hearing.
or an inquiry that
the Westlake
Association is still active in connection with
the mooring application. That we had not heard
from them on this application. I think Ms. Toth,
if you have a copy of the e-mail sent by Mr. Kram
with a copy to Mr. Gunn, of November 5, 2010
confirming a conversation that he had with you
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
that was related to Mr. Kram, deliberately copied
him on that. So he would object if he thought
anything that Mr. Kram said was inaccurate and I
just want to make sure that this was part of the
record. I have copies, if it not.
MS. TOTH: Just in case, because this is
getting thicker by the minute.
MR. ROSENBERG: And again, I think you have
to remember when Mr. Kram was here on the earlier
application, him and his family owned the house
on Aspernad for, I think in excess of 45 years.
His mother, Shirley Kram had lived there and he
knows a lot of people. So he is speaking to
Mr. Gunn about this all the time. And he had
always indicated he would not oppose the
application. And as a result of the call from
Ms. Toth, as a result of a conversation with
Mr. Kram, he is specifically again at least
indicated, that the Westlake Homeowners
Association has no opposition on this house at
all. You have the other letters. I now see it
came in. It seems to have all been in the
And the other
enigma to me.
letter from,
thing is and this is part of
You had talked about an unsigned
I think it was the DEC, the letter
file.
an
156
157
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that impact had and it was on a prior
application. Just so the record is clear, we
filed a request under th Freedom of Information
Law with DEC at your request shortly after the
last hearing. On November
acknowledged by Ruth Earl,
DEC. It was also acknowledged on
November 19, 2010 by a Nancy Pinomonti,
26th it was
the records officer at
Region 1
File Coordinator. And then we received a letter
on December 3rd denying our requests, alleging
that these documents were privilege because they
are interagency materials and were not disclosed.
I know we had spoken that the Board may want to
see that prior application to see if it all was
relevant to see what we are doing now and I did
make the attempt, and I would be very happy to
offer a copy of that letter from the DEC denying
our request, and to also confirm that we made two
letters acknowledging receipt of the application.
I myself,
MS.
MR.
ANDALORO:
ROSENBERG:
flabbergasted.
(Inaudible).
Jen, I am absolutely quite
of
MS. ANDALORO: Can you just send us a copy
the FOIL request that you --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
MR. ROSENBERG: It was filed electronically
and Bruce doesn't have a copy of it. And that's
why I gave you the two letters --
MS. ANDALORO: Okay. I just want to see how
it was phrased -- (inaudible) if the Board is
inclined to look at it, I will get --
MR. ROSENBERG: We have already considered
whether we should appeal it or not, quite
frankly, we think it is somewhat irrelevant to
the current application. It was somewhat several
years ago. There was a limited budget here. I
just didn't want the Board to think that we did
not take any action on that. I don't have
anything else to submit that was either not
requested by the Board or wanted to address. If
the Board has any questions, I will be happy to
respond to them. Mr. Anderson, if there is
something that you would like to add, please feel
free to do so.
MR. ANDERSON:
appropriate to place
I think it's probably
into the record the prior
review on the part of the soil conversation
district with regard to the mooring application
and that survey. And I am going to make the
following reservations to you. These are two
158
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
lots that are similarly sized. The mooring
application involved an application for three
individual variances. A rear yard, a bulkhead
setback and two bulkhead setback variances. The
elevation of the Moy land was 5 feet above sea
level. The elevation of the Benali property is 5
to 8 feet above sea level. The ground water on
the Moy application was 1.4 feet above sea level.
The groundwater Benali application 1.1 feet above
sea level. The distance between the septic
system and wetlands to the wetlands is 25 feet
for Moy and approximately 27 feet here. And the
distance between wetlands and the septic system
was 43.1 feet for the Moy application and 34 feet
for this application as defined by DEC. The
wetlands that is the unbulkhead in Moy was just
as it is here. Finally the coverage that was
permitted in the Moy application was 18.9%
inclusive of depths and the coverage requested
here is 13.1%. So we have similar size lots. We
have less coverage. We have the same amount of
ground water. We have the same undersized
condition and I hope you take that into
consideration and I note that the three variances
requested on the Moy application were all
159
160
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
approved. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: When can we next hear
this? Okay. Relative to the discussion that we
previously had, thank you very much for the
amended plans. I am going to give you an
opportunity once we have the submission from
LWRP, give you an opportunity to respond to the
letter. And we will bring in someone from the
Trustee's office and an environmental consultant
in. We will ask them to tell us where they
determined the wetlands line is. And then we
will be able to make a more informed decision.
Let them make a determination. That is not our
area of expertise. That is what the Board wanted
to do and I believe the next possible earliest
time that we can do it is putting it on for
March 3rd at 1:30.
MR. ROSENBERG: Thank you, Merabers of the
Board. I would like to wish you all a happy and
health New Year.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. So I will
make a motion to adjourn this hearing to
March 3rd at 1:30.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
******************************************************
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
minute break. So moved.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
All in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
(Whereupon, a recess was
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
All in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
We need to have a 2
Second.
Gerry Seconded.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
taken.)
--reconvene?
Second.
Seconded by Gerry.
Aye.
Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
161
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
HEARING #6430 Donald B. And Janis G. Rose
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application
before us is for Donald and Janis Rose. And we
don't need to -- if you would like to come
forward. We don't need to read the legal notice
again, because it is a continuation. Just to
acknowledge that we have two letters that we
received. We know you have copies. One from the
architect and one from the homeowner. But we are
entering the into the record for receipt of
communication. If you would like to state your
name for the record and proceed?
MS. STEELMAN: Yes.
architect.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
Nancy Steelman,
Nancy, thank you so much
for the letter. I appreciate it tremendously.
It's probably one of the most (inaudible) that I
have ever seen. It's fine. As the Board
deliberates, if the Board is not happy and I
don't know how they feel. I have not spoken to
them. We don't speak to each other regarding
this until we actually get to the deliberation
process. For the five feet issues that we were
discussing, the Rose's wanted to take alternate
relief, if that is an important factor. Based
162
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
upon the -- I did not scale, which I have to do,
the distance between the house and the historic
building, but it is relatively close. It's
closer when you get up to the hot water heater.
You know --
MS. STEELMAN: Actually, that dimension is
-- I checked it on my drawings. I have 7 foot
2 inches.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. Was that -- is
there a flare on the back of the house --
MS. STEELMAN: There is an overhang -- yes,
there is a slight flare.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay.
So I actually
probably took it from the house -- this is not a
sarcastic --
MS. STEELMAN: We kind of took it from the
foundation where the survey was done from.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So that is the story as
I through out to you and we go from there. I
have no idea how they feel.
MS. STEELMAN:
question for them.
like to respond.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
them or do you want me
I think that would be a
They're here. If they would
Could you explain to
to explain to them
163
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
alternate relief?
MS. STEELMAN: I think he should.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can you --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hold it.
state his name.
MR. ROSE: Don Rose.
He needs to
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Rose, I don't know
if we discussed alternate relief when we were
dealing with this.
MR. ROSE: No.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But if the Board is so
inclined in their deliberation process to carry a
resolution -- three positive votes to carry a
resolution. And if the individuals who are
voting on it at that time consider it to be
(inaudible) chose that the house should be moved
forward, will you accept alternate
slightly
relief?
MR. ROSE: I don't think so.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's an up and down
situation. In other words, we do not approve it
if you will not allow us to move the house.
MR. ROSE: See what confuses me is that we
applied to closing the back porch. And now we're
talking about moving the house. I mean, this is
164
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 165
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a real (inaudible) act for me. We just want to
close the back porch. This is a preexisting
nonconforming location. We don't want to move it
because of the enumerated financial reasons but
on top of that, it is where it is. If we move
it, we are going to block out the view to our
neighbor to the east. We are going to be closer
to the road. And we love being where we are.
The front porch is where we live. So I would
have to say, no. We can't afford to move it and
because of the septic stuff and on top of that,
this is where the house was built in 1909.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have to tell you in
all fairness, I would not have voted that
application in the back based upon that distance
(inaudible) two buildings, meaning the existing
house and the accessory --
MR. ROSE: But it was there. By the way,
that little plastic shed in the back is a
temporary water pressure tank.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right.
that.
MR. ROSE: That does get
We looked at
in the way.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I will talk from a fire
standpoint. I still think a little more footage
166
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would make it a lot more plowable between the two
houses. Between the house and the storage
building. And that is just my opinion. And you
know, we go from there.
MR. ROSE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I will simply say that
I think it was perfectly responsible to explore
the possibility since you are raising the house
and putting in a new foundation. And on that
basis alone, I think it was worth inquiring
about. I belive based upon the submission of
argument, relative to keeping it where it is,
that since there is the second story is stepped
back from that distance, that small distance in
the backyard and the footprint is not being
enlarged in any way, and you have provided quite
thorough explanation and the involvement of the
septic system and so on and so forth, that I
believe the process has been very fully explored.
I am satisfied with the reply you have submitted.
I don't have any questions. I think it is the
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 167
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
same application we
honestly.
MS. STEELMAN:
couple of points.
saw last time, quite
I just would like to make a
I can understand where
Mr. Goehringer is coming from. If the
application to fulfill that porch was directly
adjacent to (inaudible), I can understand a
little more of your concern. The porch that we
are filling in is near and is part of the rear
yard, and it's open space at that point. The
area that we are concerned about primarily is the
corner away from that accessory structure. I
just wanted to make that point.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone in the
audience that would like to speak relative to
this application?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anything else from the
Board?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Hearing no
further comments, I will make a motion to close
the hearing and reserve decision.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
Thank you.
(See Minutes
for Resolution.)
******************************************************
HEARING #6417 - Louis and Elizabeth Mastro
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. The next
application is a continuation also. Louis and
Elizabeth Mastro. That is Jim. No need to read
the legal because it is a continuation. If you
would like to come forward. We have in the
record plans submitted Mr. Mastro and
(inaudible).
please.
MS. MASTRO:
MR. MASTRO:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
you want to --
MEMBER DINIZIO: I
plans.
MR. MASTRO:
State your names for the record,
Elizabeth Mastro.
Louis Mastro. Happy New Year.
Same to you. Jim, do
see you got some new
Do you like them?
MEMBER DINIZIO: It's not a question whether
like them. So to the porch -- you have a
169
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
covered porch there?
MS. MASTRO: We have a covered porch.
(Inaudible) to the house. Not to the porch.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
MS. MASTRO: No,
you say, to the house.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
from that point to the bulkhead,
that is?
MS. MASTRO: The measurement
MEMBER DINIZIO:
to tell me what that
what it is. I want it
MR. MASTRO: 34.
MEMBER DINIZIO: 34 feet.
is what we're going to grant.
To the building.
that's what I understood
What is the measurement
do you know what
from the house?
Yeah, you're going to have
is. I want them to tell me
on the record.
If we grant, that
34 feet. It's not
a question of granting you a porch and an
additional 16. You moved it back about 8 feet.
MS. MASTRO:
10 feet.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
just want to clear
asking for 34 feet;
MR. MASTRO: To the porch,
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Yeah -- we moved it back about
Don't worry about it. I
it up. Right now you're
correct.
yes.
It's attached. It's
170
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
really part of the house.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Sir, we don't need to get
into the minute details. What is and what isn't.
We're going to make the determination of where
the setback is going to be. Okay. And you're
saying to us now it's going to be 34 feet.
That's fine. We're going to work with that.
What does it have to be 34 feet? I see a septic
system in the front. Can you just give us some
idea on how that septic system got there? It can
not be moved?
MS. MASTRO:
moved. (Inaudible)
That is correct, it can not be
resubmitted to the Board of
Health and finally they worked it out for the
septic system because the level of the water.
(Inaudible) you have in your record (Inaudible).
The level of the water in the front is really
high. (Inaudible) waterline to the house -- part
of the property (Inaudible).
MEMBER DINIZIO: (Inaudible).
MR. MASTRO: Right.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Your house is not an
extraordinarily large house. I guess about the
same size as it was before?
MR. MASTRO: Now it is.
171
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER DINIZIO: So it's a normal size
house. I guess you got a stairway on the side.
MS. MASTRO: It's 6 feet to the property
line.
MEMBER DINIZIO: And what is it 12 on the
other side.
MR. MASTRO: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
I am just getting this on
the record. I am recording it for my decision.
I want to get these numbers correct and to have
you confirm it.
MS. MASTRO:
MEMBER DINIZIO:
the old --
MS. MASTRO:
Okay, that is correct.
You had a framed garage on
MEMBER DINIZIO: Does that still exist
because I don't see it on your plan here?
MS. MASTRO: No, it is not on the plan
because we don't know if we are going to move.
Because of the septic system being there
(inaudible) possible.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Let me tell you this. If
it's not on this plan, it means that you will
have to come back before us to get a variance.
Pretty much any place you put it on the property,
Yes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
you're going to have to need a variance. So
we're not granting you the existing frame
garage --
MS. MASTRO: Okay.
MEMBER DINIZIO: The plan that you submitted
to us will be the plan that we give to the
Building Inspector.
MS. MASTRO: Okay.
MR. MASTRO: So we need another permit --
MEMBER DINIZIO: You are going to need
another permit for the garage. You're going to
have to.
I mean,
MS.
We would
It's likely you will be back before us.
you're pretty limited --
MASTRO: So (inaudible) for that reason.
like to keep it. We just want to get a
place to put it (inaudible).
MEMBER DINIZIO: When you get the house up
you will know. And when you put it in your front
yard something is going to need to go with it.
That is basically all I have. You did a great
job.
MS. MASTRO: Thanks. I am a little nervous.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Anybody else?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. I understand
that -- the Board suggested a 45 feet setback
172
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 173
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
from the bulkhead, you're now proposing 34 feet.
You can't move it any further. What you could do
is eliminate the porch, which is 6 feet in depth.
They don't count. Then you can move it 6 feet
forward without changing your septic design and
you could have a 40 foot setback.
the (inaudible) side.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
removing the porch?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER DINIZIO: Of,
thought you were talking about
The porch on
You are just talking about
The front porch --
the front porch. I
the back porch.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am assuming they
want the back porch badly because of the view.
That is probably where you are going to be
sitting all the time. What I am saying is that
if you remove the front porch,
decorative then anything --
MS. MASTRO: Can I ask you
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yeah.
MS. MASTRO:
porch (inaudible)
which is more
something?
The reason we did that front
we did not have that but one of
the gentlemen mentioned on the Board that they
wanted to soften the front of the house. So we
did the front porch. It's going to cost us even
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 174
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
more money to do the front porch,
going to be "x" amount of steps going up.
are going to have some kind of overhead.
because it's
So we
We're
just doing it because it covers when someone is
coming in the house and to soften it up.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You can accomplish the
same covering by creating a landing covered. It
can be left open if it's 4x6.
MS. MASTRO: We want to kind of fit into the
neighborhood instead of having it stick right up
like a pencil.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: My concern is the 40
foot setback from the bulkhead and if you want to
-- if you want to have a seaward and a balcony
type porch. In order to get the 40 feet, what
you are going to need is to get rid of that 6
feet in the front, put in a landing that is
covered with columns, just the way you want.
That doesn't count. You can move your house
forward without disturbing the
You can therefore achieve a 40
the bulkhead.
septic system.
feet setback from
MEMBER DINIZIO: Or move the project.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Or move the entire
project back six feet too. You can still move
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
the project even with that front porch, and get
the 40 feet.
MEMBER DINIZIO: We can just grant the 40
feet and they can do whatever they want. I
just want to make clear what we are actually
looking it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What's the total
square footage of your house?
MEMBER DINIZIO: It's 28x40.
MS. MASTRO: 2,000 and something.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MS. MASTRO: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
2,317 square feet.
500 square feet of
deck. I just wanted the record to reflect that
there is another option here. Without messing up
the septic, you can comply with what the original
Board's request was. Sorry, you misunderstood
it. It's an attached structure, therefore it is
part of the house.
MS. MASTRO: So leave the house --
MEMBER DINIZIO: Leave the house and no
porch. Put a patio there.
MS. MASTRO: We can't move the house closer
to the road. When you make (inaudible) that
doesn't touch the ground. Is that something --
175
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
MEMBER DINIZIO: 18 inches, you can use that
for an overhang on a roof lot. I think it is
only 12 inches.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If you preferred to
eliminate the second story porch and the attached
deck and have a step down to and -- a gray patio,
that is not counted at lot coverage and that is
not counted as part of the house.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You can have your front
porch. Put an awning back there.
MS. MASTRO: Can I ask you something? If we
-- you know what people have -- the first floor
we are just asking for 40 feet and then just go
up and then down to the ground level with the
patio and then reset the house (inaudible) and
have a porch on top of that, that will not
interfere --
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's correct. If
that's 40 feet back from the bulkhead.
MEMBER DINIZIO: No, you can't -- they're
talking about canceling the second story --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, that's not what
they were saying --
MS. MASTRO: (Inaudible).
176
177
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You're correct.
That's fine. If that is the wall of your house
and it's 40 feet from that bulkhead, the deck is
recessed into your
MS. MASTRO:
MEMBER DINIZIO:
be the same. Okay.
MS. MASTRO:
so I can speak to the
MEMBER DINIZIO:
the second story --
MR.
roof. That's fine.
That's what I am asking.
Okay. The roof line will
then.
That is what I am asking. Just
architect.
What's the measurement for
MASTRO: It would be an enclosed porch
MS. MASTRO:
MEMBER DINIZIO:
MS. MASTRO: It
story would be reset right here.
(inaudible).
MEMBER DINIZIO: So 40 feet?
MS. MASTRO: 40 feet.
MEMBER DINIZIO: The
40 feet. You can do whatever you want --
MS. That is what I am asking.
She just wants to keep the
sliders and
I don't know.
You better draw it then.
is right here. The second
The house is
roof line would go to
MASTRO:
BOARD MEMBER:
front looking the same with her
178
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
everything.
MS. MASTRO: That is what I am asking.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: As long as you
understand that what the Board requested of you
and apparently (inaudible) favorable light, we
will still have to deliberate, is a setback from
your structure, I don't care what structure. If
it's raised or attached, whether you call it a
porch or not. The wall, whether it's 18 inches
off the ground or 35 feet off the ground, that
has to be 40 feet from that bulkhead.
MS. MASTRO: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You can do whatever
you want, if you're saying you want to leave it
because of the way it looks like and you don't
want to mess with the septic system, that is fine
with us. My reason for suggesting of taking the
front porch off was so that you could have the
option of having the rear deck and the rear
second story deck. And so as far as I am
concerned -- you proposed 34 feet from the
bulkhead, as you just submitted it, the Board can
grant 40 feet and then you can make a decision to
redesign after --
MEMBER DINIZIO: You grant alternate relief?
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 179
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, when you grant
alternate relief, the Board requires the
submission of your final design showing that
alternative relief in whatever way you decide,
you are going to give us the plans. We're going
to stamp that it's finally approved and attach
our decision to it. Send it to the Building
Department and then that is what they will give
you a building permit for. Now, if you gave us a
(inaudible) plans and we granted you alternative
relief they said this
granted you.
MS. MASTRO: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
that, the process that the
just described.
MS. MASTRO:
is not what the Board
So in order to avoid
Board follows as I
Just so I understand because I
to be the one. Once you have the 40
that does not
You have to have a
don't want
feet and the steps coming out,
count as the structure --
MEMBER DINIZIO: Right.
certain amount of steps to go down.
MS. MASTRO: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is not
going to
25 count.
180
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MEMBER DINIZIO: It won't be the full
length, I can tell you that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The steps are not
going to expand the whole length of your house.
MS. MASTRO: (Inaudible).
(Stepped away from microphone.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If you have a whole
series of doors, obviously what you proposed is
the best solution, which would be to walk out to
a deck. You don't
of steps.
MS. MASTRO:
want to have three little sets
That's right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So the problem is,
you're going to have to decide what's important
and how to do it. And that is why I was
suggesting if it was my house, I want to be on
the water and my back yard, the water side,
looking at the view and enjoying it.
MS. MASTRO: That is (inaudible) on the
south side, I am completely covered. We have no
view on that side. Our neighbor to the south
side, if we go any more, I am totally covered by
him. (Inaudible). This is where we have it.
MEMBER DINIZIO: That's what you're entitled
25 to.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Given the size of the
other setback and the new construction
(inaudible) environmental impact and the options
that you have. It's a reasonable compromise.
We're willing to work with you and you're willing
to work with us. And what I am saying, it is not
up to us on how you want to decide your house.
We're offering some options for you to think
about, as long as you are conforming to the 40
foot egress out to the water or a conforming
egress to the front yard. So I mean, we can
close this hearing and make a determination of
alternative relief and then you can have time to
think about these things, work it out. Get your
plans and you can submit them to us, as long as
it is 40 feet and conforming with the steps and
all of that. We stamp that it's final and then
you're good to go.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What about the side
yards?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, we had talked
about the stairs and the side yards potentially
being moved to another location, possibly a bilco
door and stairs (inaudible) putting in a just a
storm door type. It's wider and deeper than what
181
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 182
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
the stairs are. I can live with what you're
proposing, I think. We do have at least 12 foot
clearances on the sides. I mean, I can live with
that because you have a bigger side yard. I
think what we actually talked about is centering
it a little more on the lot. We talked about
that. I think it has improved. It was worth it
for the record, that we did talk about the
location of the stairs and the side yards. So
anybody have any questions or comments? Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: As long as the applicant
understands that 40 feet --
MS. MASTRO: I misunderstood last time when
I was here and then since talking with the
architect, I am a little nervous. I'm sorry.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It's okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Are we clear now?
MS. MASTRO: Yes, I understand.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any other comments or
questions? Certainly there is no one in the
audience, or wait there is somebody there? Did
you want to speak on --
SPEAKER: (Inaudible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Is there anything else
25 from the Board?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing none, I will
make a motion to close this hearing and reserve
decision to a later date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by Gerry.
All in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
(Whereupon, the public hearings
for January 6, 2011 concluded.)
183
January 6, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 184
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I, Jessica DiLallo, certify that the foregoing
transcript of tape recorded Public Hearings was
prepared using required electronic transcription
equipment and is a true and accurate record of
the Hearings.
' ~s ~1 ca ~iLa~ --
Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
Date: February 13, 2011