HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-02/03/2011 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
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York
February 3, 2011
9:47 a.m.
Board Members Present:
LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
JAMES DINIZIO, JR. - Member
GEORGE HORNING - Member
KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member
JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney
VICKI TOTH - Secretary
Absent was - Gerard Goehringer - Member
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:
Mary Ann Price #6447
William C. Goggins and Donna M.
Irene Rutkoski #6445
Jeff Andrade #6435
Nancy D. Arnzen Irrevocable
Goggins
Trust #6446
#6444
John and Daniella Venetis 96313
John and Daniella Venetis #6396
Regina's Garden LLC. #6388
Indian Neck Lane Holdings #6443
Lois Abramchik and Barbara Cavallo
#6436
Page:
3-41
42-47
47-58
59-67
67-97
98-105
105-107
107-132
132-136
137-153
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 3
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
HEARING #6447 Mary Ann Price
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The first hearing
today is for Mary Ann
please read the legal
MEMBER HORNING:
application No. 6447,
Price. George, could you
notice into the record.
I would. This is
Request for Special
Exception under Chapter 280-45B(8). The owner
requests authorization to operate a flea market
at: 730 Love Lane Mattituck, New York.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you, George. Is
there someone here to represent this application?
Would you please come to the podium and state
your name for the record, and spell it, please.
We're recording these proceedings, so we need to
have the spelling.
MS. PRICE: Mary Ann Price, M-A-R-Y A-N-N
P-R-I-C-E.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you, Ma'am. We
have received -- and I want sure you and all
other applicants are aware of any correspondences
in our record. You can have a copy so that you
can address any of the contents. The Board just
received, literally this morning, a set of
comments from Martin Schneider, who is the Chair
of the Planning Board regarding your application.
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 4
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
And frankly, I know you haven't had a chance to
look at it and neither have we. So I want to
make sure we all have an opportunity to explore
those comments. Let me give you a copy so that
you may have that information.
SPEAKER: (In audible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All right. What you
can do is come forward and submit this letter to
our Board secretary and she will make copies of
that letter available. By the way, if there are
others here that are interested in this
application, the application is a public record
and any of you have the opportunity of coming to
our office and requesting FOIL and receiving
information. You may review the content and any
correspondences from neighbors or anything. Just
so the public is aware of it. We also have a
copy from the County of Suffolk, a letter
indicating that your application is for a local
determination. In other words, they have no
interest in this proceeding and for this Board to
determine.
letters.
forward?
that has a
Let me give you a copy of both
Would you like to bring that letter
There is an individual in the audience
letter from a neighbor. You also have
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
the option of reading it into the public record
when the time comes. It's up to you.
SPEAKER: (In audible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Why don't you just
submit it then. We will make sure that copies
are available to you. George, do you want to
begin by asking some questions on this
application here?
MEMBER HORNING:
is the business that
MS. PRICE: A weekend operated small
restaurant with seating for 12 to 14 people. We
serve approximately 10 to 12 people on a Friday
night and a Saturday night. We sometimes take
reservations on Sunday night.
MEMBER HORNING: Strictly run on the
weekends?
MS. PRICE: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING:
restaurant?
MS. PRICE:
MEMBER HORNING:
to do on the site?
Okay. Ma'am, what exactly
occurs on this site?
And what is the name of the
Fire Skillet.
And what are
know,
you proposing
MS. PRICE: On the front lawn which is, you
a 3/4 acre piece of property, to set up on
5
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
Sunday, have antique vendors or just collectors,
set up tables on the front lawn and sell their
merchandise. And that would be, you know, not
garage sale type merchandise. You know, more
antiques and collectibles, memorabilia.
MEMBER HORNING: You in 2001 applied to the
ZBA --
MS. PRICE: Yeah.
MEMBER HORNING: And got a variance.
MS. PRICE: Temporary for review. It never
got off the ground. It took years. It took
probably 4 or 5 years before I have more than one
or two people showing up. There was a whole
entire season where nothing happened, to maybe
there was 3 people on a Sunday, or 4 people on a
Sunday. It's only in the last year or so, you
know, it became more popular.
MEMBER HORNING: So based on the 2001
variance, what precipitated you applying for a
new variance?
MS. PRICE: This time?
MEMBER HORNING: Yes.
MS. PRICE: Because somebody complained that
we were doing this and that we were not allowed
to do it.
6
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
MEMBER HORNING: That's it for the moment.
Can you tell us, do you want to elaborate on the
vendors and where they are going to park? That
sort of thing.
MS. PRICE: When I originally applied, I was
told not to have the shoppers park in my rear
parking lot. But that never really worked
because they just ignored the signs where it said
parking and parked on the street. And it also
would have been hazardous for cars to be coming
in and out of the driveway when people are
walking across the lawns. So I had been told at
the time that the vendors needed to park over by
the train station and that they were not allowed
on the property. Now, my feeling now would be
why not let the vendors park in the back lot
because once they are back there, the cars are
not going to be moved all day, and the shoppers,
they are only there for like 10 or 15 minutes.
There has never been an accident. There has
never been an altercation.
MEMBER HORNING: Do you feel that because it
is run on a weekend there is adequate parking
over by the train station, that there wouldn't
be, if someone was commuting during the week?
7
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
February 3,
2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
MS. PRICE: Well, just because the vendors
don't want to set up on a weekday. Most of these
vendors have other things that they do. And the
shoppers, they look forward to going to the flea
market for entertainment on a Sunday. I just
don't think there would be a market for people to
set up during the week.
MEMBER HORNING: I was curious where are the
closet restroom facilities in relation to the
public parking, do you know of any?
MS. PRICE: I don't, but I have a restroom
in the house that they use. That we use for the
food portion and that is available to -- that has
not been a problem.
MEMBER HORNING: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Does other Board
members want to go or do they want me to go?
MEMBER DINIZIO: I have a couple of
questions mostly to the 2001 decision. It says
that a condition that they operate only 1 day per
week and there shall be no merchandise displayed
on other dates. So what is that actually
referring to? Is that the house that you run out
of the house or --
MS. PRICE: That's for the business on the
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 9
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
lawn.
MEMBER DINIZIO: So you operate one day a
week, either Saturday or Sunday?
MS. PRICE: Yes. That would be nice, but my
concern would be for parking.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I see 28 vendors, that has
to be addressed. You have to stand before the
microphone. Please state your name?
MR. HARTZ: My name is Bob Hartz. I am Mary
Ann's partner. 28 vendors you see on that site
plan, that is a maximum number. It will never be
reached. It was just for the sake of doing a
site plan to demonstrate what possible space
there is. The most number of vendors who have
ever come on a given day and it was a complete
anomaly, was 19.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I understand that. But
you're asking for 28.
MS. PRICE: I am not expecting to get 28.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
grant 28?
MS. PRICE:
But you are asking us to
Right.
MEMBER DINIZIO: That is 28 people. Where
are you going to put those people? Where are
they going to park?
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
MR. HARTZ: One of the reasons we are here,
is because we are unable to determine what the
complaint about what we did was.
MEMBER DINIZIO: We are not addressing the
complaint?
MR. HARTZ: I understand that. Just let me
make my point so you can understand where we are
coming from. If the complaint was about some
detail of what we do we have no problem with this
Board setting a limitation on us, in terms of
number of vendors. Where people can park and not
park. We're asking for that but this is not
written in stone. If you want to limit us to
vendors, we will comply with whatever you chose
to do. The problem is, we have a successful
thing that has been going on for 9 years now and
no problem, and we would like to continue to do
that. We will be happy to redo the site plan.
If you want to limit
MEMBER DINIZIO:
you successful?
MS. PRICE:
us to 15 vendors, so be it.
So 15 vendors would make
Some of these vendors come with
a few items that have people -- I actually had
people who came with a shopping cart. So that is
almost -- I would have to eliminate people like
10
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 11
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 and say -- you know. I am okay with that.
Some people take a lot of space and come with
furniture. Some people come with a little car.
Some people come with another vendor. You know,
but if I could get more 18 plus, I would -- I
think that would be plenty to go forward. Mostly
we only have about 8 or 10 vendors. It's only on
Strawberry Festival or
MR. HARTZ: Lets
vendors to a --
-- you know.
say we limit the amount of
MS. PRICE: I don't want people parking on
my front lawn. It's my lawn.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I know we're trying to
somehow litigate the problem that may occur --
MS. PRICE: Parking. There would also be
parking with a driveway that come in along the
side. That was gravel.
to be done.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
up your ideas and see
If that is what needed
Perhaps you can just draw
what you can get out of
that.
you can get out of that.
for you?
MR. HARTZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
So you're saying probably 15 or 18 is what
That would be workable
I understand that 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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
have to continue this hearing because we haven't
had an opportunity to, and neither have you to
address the comments of the Planning Board though
I will be entering into the record some of those
comments
MEMBER DINIZIO: As far as
does that operate now?
MR. HARTZ: The house is less
square --
for our discussions today.
the building, how
than 800
MS. PRICE: It's a 2500 square foot house
which about 800 square feet is being used for the
store and an apartment.
apartment.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
MS. PRICE: That
MEMBER DINIZIO:
MR.
Like a one room studio
of 16 --
MS.
there.
MR.
What is in the store?
is the restaurant.
How many seats?
HARTZ: We're allowed to sit a maximum
PRICE: But we only have 3 tables in
HARTZ: 14 seats ready to go right now.
We cook just the two of us. It's a very limited
space. We like to do reservation only.
MS. PRICE: We're open from 4:30 to 8:30.
We don't do breakfast. We don't do lunch.
12
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 13
t
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: Where is the parking for
that?
MR. HARTZ: There is actually a big asphalt
parking. That can accommodate about 10 vehicles.
MEMBER DINIZIO: That is where you proposed
to put the vendors?
MS. PRICE: Yes, but we're not open --
MEMBER DINIZIO: That is what I am trying to
get at. And how many days is the restaurant
open?
MR. HARTZ: Friday, Saturday, Sunday. And
other times by special arrangements. It would
never affect the flea market.
MEMBER DINIZIO: If you can just do those
things for me and work out an average size with
the vendors. That would be good for me to
understand. I understand the shopping cart thing
and the furniture, that would probably take up
more space. And the tents, like the Maritime
tents --
MS. PRICE: Right. I only have one or two
people that actually set up those kinds of
things. Most of them, because I was originally
told no tents and I actually went out and bought
these nice green market umbrellas and never
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
figured out how to set them into the ground.
They were just blowing all over no matter how I
try to stake them. Yeah, the vendors in August
-- it gets really hot and they might bring an
umbrella. There is never of a few of them set
up. They are not all over the lawn.
MEMBER DINIZIO: If you can work that out, A
or B. See if you can get some more parking. That
would be helpful. Not to say they won't use it.
MR. HARTZ: The flea market is a destination
and absolutely really has no bearing on what goes
on in the Town. The Town operates whether we
have it on or not. They find their parking and
it never ascends down to our street. The only
time there is parking on Love Lane immediately
outside our property is on Sunday and no more
than 10 or 15 minutes a car, and the absolute zoo
that occurs after the week of the 4th of July and
creates a circus at the northern of the street.
That I addressed with the police department and
they have been very good about it. The parking
has never been an issue for the vendors. If
anything, the people come to the flea market as a
destination and wonder into Town and come back
with a cup of coffee. It just generates business
14
February 3, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
for down the block but it's not interfering with
any of the parking for the vendors. And I think
any of the vendors who might be here would attest
to it.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Vendors,
MS. PRICE: On Love Lane.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay.
you're talking --
Thank you very much.
In 1985 this Board
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
granted a Special Exception #3407, for 470 square
foot space on the first floor to be used -- this
was the previous owners, before you bought the
property, as a country store selling take-out
food and catering. Not particularly a sit-down
restaurant and it was not to be enlarged. The
dwelling was reduced to two units from three.
You currently have --
MS. PRICE: It was a three family house at
the time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, it was. To
accommodate this other use, to two. So right now
you have two legal uses on the property. The
dwelling and a retail restaurant/catering
business. The reason why there was some
complaint, was the granting of a variance, #4980,
in 2001, for a flea market was for one year in
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
duration.
outdoors.
There were
to be parking onsite.
the municipal lot.
MR. HARTZ: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
operating, taking this long
essentially without benefit
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
One day a week to sell antiques
September 30, 2002 it was expired.
to be no tents and the customers were
The vendors were to be in
So you have been
to gain -- operating
or a Special
Exception permit, which is why you are before us
now. The operation of -- would appear from your
survey and I have to go by the survey. Your hand
drawn sketch is not to scale and it's not really
adequate to access impact. That you have a
substandard lot that is consisting of 34,578
square feet. That is a small lot. So we really
need to look at how we might mitigate impact on
that lot in a responsible way so that it is not
overcrowded and unsafe for the public and
potentially causing any adverse traffic. You
want to have vendors on site. It would appear
you have 12 parking spaces on site. If that is
the case and the vendors are to park on site, you
have room for 12 vendors. How do you react to
that?
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
MS. PRICE: Well, I would have parking along
the side driveway on the south side for a few
more vendors. In the area to the south of the
property.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What you would need is
a redrawn more to scale amended proposal and then
look to accommodating the vendors that you can
responsibly have onsite parking for. Not on your
lawn. At the asphalt parking area. That is one
concern that the Planning Board and myself had.
MS. PRICE: Could I say something?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Certainly.
MS. PRICE: Because you're talking about the
small size of the property; however, the small
stores on the other side of the track have no
size in property and they have businesses that
are open 7 days a week,
customers then we do.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
that have many more
They do not have a
residence. They do not have
don't have residential use.
residential property. Those
continuos retail operations.
would question the fact that
three uses. They
You have a
other stores are
I don't believe we
an antique flea
market is an appropriated use in a hamlet
17
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
business zone. I don't think that is really
inappropriate for that zone. We're trying to
look at allowing reasonable hours of operation
and be sure that we don't have congestion. To be
sure that we don't have noise from moving things
that would impact residential property. So if we
could discuss -- I would like to request that you
submit more specific details on the vendors can
park onsite and hours of operation. You're
proposing, I think, weekends. That would be
Saturday's and Sunday's?
MS. PRICE: Saturday was an afterthought
because two of the vendors said they would rather
set-up on Saturday but, you know, that is not --
Sunday, I am fine to limit myself to Sunday.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So you would limit it
to one day per week?
MS. PRICE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just Sunday's?
MS. PRICE: Maybe -- I am not even sure they
would want to set-up on a holiday but -- I am
happy with Sunday.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All right. That is
all I have for the moment. Ken, do you have some
questions at this time?
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
February 3,
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
NO, I don't have any
Then I am going --
MEMBER HORNING:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
go through some things. I have,
I have some things.
George wants to
so the public is
aware, the Board makes determinations for Special
Exceptions based upon series of criteria. It
isn't just whether or not we like the idea.
There are very specific standards that we need to
provide answers to. That
on the community, harmony. George,
wants to review a couple of things
have to do with impact
I think,
with you.
MEMBER HORNING:
standards,
them. As
If you haven't seen the
you should definitely take a look at
it says here under 280-45B, matters to
considered, this is what we have to consider.
Therefore, you should be aware of it and have a
copy of it, probably.
MS. PRICE: Do I
MEMBER HORNING:
I am suggesting --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
website.
MEMBER HORNING:
So it's 280-45B.
have that here?
I don't know that
you have.
It's on the Town's
And it's in alphabetical
19
February 3, 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
order, a through z. So there is a number of
issues to consider. I don't want to read them
all off but it does involve parking, adequate
parking. People walking on the road, sewerage,
restroom facilities. Onsite or whatever.
Whether or not you generate, if people were
barbecuing and trying to sell
types of things. Like I said,
necessarily read them all off.
food onsite, these
I can't
Here is letter J,
whether use of the
therefore cause an overcrowding of
concentration of population. That
structures would be used and
land or undue
is one of the
matters to be considered, whether the prime area
is sufficient, appropriate and adequate for the
use and reasonable anticipated operation, which
is what people were asking, 28 vendors. And
whether the site for the proposed uses is
particular suitable for the use. But I am going
to suggest that you get a hold of this and that
will help us and we want some feedback from you
regarding those things, because again, these are
the matters that we have to consider and I wanted
you to be aware of that because not to get you
off guard or something. So you can have the time
to address those issues. To help us consider
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 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
them by your input.
MS. PRICE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What I am going to do
at this time is, if there are men,hers of this
audience that would like to publicly address this
applicant. Please come forward to the podium and
state your name for the record and please spell
it.
MS. ASHTON:
A-S-H-T-O-N. The
My name is Margaret Ashton,
rezoning of Love Lane, Mattituck
-- (In audible) to accommodate yard sales and
markets, is contrary to the plans made
(In audible) of Love Lane in the Fall of 1999.
The Supervisor, Gene (In audible) residential --
(In audible) my property where I resided in June
1969 at 795 Love Lane was solely zoned. The
purpose of this rezoning was to supposedly retain
a residential feeling in the Town of Southold. I
went along with this rezoning because Love Lane
was a historical location. A flea market or an
eternal yard sale, is not residential in nature
nor can it be considered at all. Nor does it
conjure up the romantic settings of Lover's Lane.
The intention of the yard sale is the old
Mattituck Hotel. At least half of it. (In
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 22
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
audible) the north side of Love Lane is in no
way (In audible). It was the Town's intention
for a residential. Not a business atmosphere (In
audible) of the train tracks. The south side is
business but should not be allowed to control in
any direction destroying all over the
non-commercial feeling of the Town and I might
ad, the northport. Love Lane has become a
heavily crowded road congesting the double
highway, Main Road. Traffic from the north road
often comes through Love Lane exceeding the
posted speed limit. During the summer weekends,
the traffic is constant both ways. Added to this
on a Sunday, any yard, vehicles are parked on
both sides of Route 48 to the train tracks.
Often bringing traffic down to one lane. Getting
out of our driveway has been impossible on at
least five occasions. At other times, we have to
aim carefully to not hit other cars that are
partially blocking our driveway. And then there
is the constant problem of people using our
driveway to turn around. It's a clamshell
driveway. (In audible) on Love Lane have been
destroyed with yard sales. Because windows are
open during the summertime and people are
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
arriving before 6:00 a.m. parking. Vendors
calling to one another and a sudden interaction
of noise setting up. It's impossible. The noise
continues all day. The noisy folks walk into our
yard. One family had a picnic while the
residents weren't home. On Sunday evening, we
have the task of cleaning up after the yard sale.
The litter of the cans. Beer cars, coffee cups,
soda cans and yes, dog poop. Love Lane is also
the walkway from the docks to the Town from
boating visitors. It is inevitable that a
collision of a pedestrian will be injured, if all
this continues. We complain directly to the
vendors. Obviously they did not bring it to your
attention. I would suggest that our neighbors be
allowed one yard sale a year, like every one else
in Town. A very bad precedent is being set here
and it is not the place for a weekly yard sale or
a flea market. Shopping mall parking lots are
the usual for such a vendored thing. This has
been a nightmare.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just to note for the
record, we have it read for the record and it's
included in the file.
MEMBER HORNING: Ms. Ashton.
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
25
Horning,
you.
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: MS. Ashton, Member
had a question that
he would like to ask
MEMBER HORNING: By your estimation, how
many vendors on an average flea market day, have
you seen there, approximately?
MS. ASHTON: Of the 8 or 9 years that we are
talking about?
MEMBER HORNING: In the last year or two.
MS. ASHTON: In the last year or two, in
upwards, I would say 10 or 11. I don't think
they are from our area. In other words, they're
coming from another section.
MEMBER HORNING: And the 10 or 12 vendors,
that amount of presence of the vendors is
creating the problem that you just stated in the
letter that you submitted; is that correct?
MS. ASHTON: Partially. We have seen
vendors park on Love Lane but we have mainly seen
people coming in their cars and going over.
MEMBER HORNING: Thank you.
MS. ASHTON: It's a pure nightmare.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Please
state your name?
MS. ZAK: My name is Rain Zak. R-A-I-N
24
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
Z-A-K. And I am one of the shoppers and I have to
say that this flea market is a destination. I
actually look forward to it. I work pretty much
7 days a week and when Sunday comes and I know
that the flea market is open, I welcome the break
to walk around and enjoy the day and then my
husband and I will go and shop the local shops.
Go get a cup of coffee and have breakfast out.
So we're spending our hard earned money with the
businesses in Southold. We will walk around. If
it were not for the flea market, I would not go
out and walk around and spend the money. So I am
-- have never ever encountered any negative
coraments. Local vendors, local shop owners.
People who go to the flea markets. Everybody is
very amendable. I have never seen any driveways
blocked. I have never seen people setting up,
camping type. And I think this is a wonderful
thing for Southold. It is a thing that people
look forward to going to on Sunday. A lot of
things are closed. As a matter of fact, I always
said why is it that a lot of shops are closed on
Sundays, especially when we are in the tourist
season. People are walking around and looking to
spend their money. To bring money to our Town
25
February 3, 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
and these are economic times, we should welcome
the fact that people want to bring money to the
Town. So I say, please consider this and grant
the application within your
you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
guidelines. Thank
Thank you.
MS. STRAUB: Margaret Straub,
M-A-R-G-A-R-E-T S-T-R-A-U-B. I reside on Love
Lave, 795. In just quick response to Ms. Zak, I
could understand why the vendors would not
complain about the community and be allowed an
opportunity to sell their rare's. I think one of
the criteria of standards that you had mentioned
is the impact on the community and harmony of the
community. It has been an interesting situation
watching the yard sale develop. Having known the
property owners develop, Ms. Price. We were well
aware of what the property is for. Having
watched a yard sale pop up occasionally, we
realized it was becoming more than one a year.
And I know it has been referenced to 9 years ago
when they started. In my recollection, I don't
recall seeing yard sales constantly on this
property 9 years ago on this property. In the
past 2 years, I would say, it has increased, not
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
t0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
only in frequency but
When they first had yard sales,
wasn't their own yard sale. I
in a number of vendors.
I noticed it
know when we had
to get our permit and we had to make sure it
displayed properly for all to see that we were
having a Town approved yard sale. I never saw a
permit out. So I said, okay, I wonder what they
are doing. We wondered though the years why it
was becoming more frequent, whether there was a
temporary variance given to them as stated that
expired September 2002. We frankly, were waiting
to see what the Town was going to do and why it
was being allowed to continue, and with the
excessive traffic. That is our big concern. My
one example of speaking to a vendor in the dark
of a night, I believe it was 5:20 in the morning.
I actually went out in my pajamas because I was
so annoyed. Constant la-la-la- blah-blah-blah.
I was wondering what is this? And it was a
vendor who had their car doors open station
wagon, and the hatch open and a radio going, I
guess to keep her company. And I walked down and
I said, "excuse me, people are trying to sleep.
Could you please not make this noise?" And there
has been other instances where the early set-up
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 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
has destroyed Sunday morning sleep. I am all for
everyone trying to make a living and I am all for
the opportunity to -- for people who have chose
to and want to do with their property. My
concern is the traffic. There were references to
concern of their own property if they had to use
their onsite parking as originally requested,
that might be hazardous to people walking on this
property with others. That hazard also continues
out onto the street. Me trying to get out of my
driveway.
telling me
"Could you please move."
to access our driveway.
I have been yelled at by people
that they are trying to park there.
And we're just trying
I did witness a family
try to setup a picnic on -- what I believe to be
Ms. Hawkins lawn. Then I know the Ayanno's were
living there. It's on the corner of 48 and Love
Lane. And they just setup right there on the
lawn because they saw no one home. There has
been litter. There have been dogs in my lawn.
Cars, that is the other issue. I know they are
speaking of it that it' s no big deal. It's
transient working. That transient activity is
one of the concerns to us. It is in and out.
Here and there. Vendors -- I am now
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 29
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
understanding they are told to use the train lot
back in 2001 for that one year. They will set up
and leave their vans all along Love Lane,
therefore, I don't know where else these
customers could park. They end up blocking our
driveway. I am concerned that basically it had
been illegally setup all these years and now I
would request that they not be worded and just be
like, well, they can make it this size instead.
The size that you are proposing to downsize from
28 to a dozen vendors is what we have been
impacted by so far.
thing. Vendors love
love going
A flea market is a wonderful
it. Customers love it. I
to find something to do on a Sunday.
A lot of Town's that have
Sunday activities. We're
It is a nice thing to do.
Blue Laws don't allow
a tourist destination.
I think the property
itself should be questioned as to whether it's
the appropriate site for a flea market. Thank
you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
MR. ZAK: Good morning. My name
R-I-C-H-A-R-D Z-A-K. I am Rain's husband.
have been east-end resident for 52-years.
life,
is Richard,
I
Ail my
okay. I have seen the changes in 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
traffic flow is
the flea market.
legality of the
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
northfork and the east end since I was born here.
And it has become busier, busier and busier. On
the (In audible) I also work for the Town of
Riverhead for 20 years for law enforcement. So I
consider myself an expert in traffic flow, more
than anyone else here. I have never observed a
problem with traffic flow on Love Lane unless of
course, it's through the business section. South
of the tracks. Trying to find parking there is
horrendous. You can not park in front of
anywhere, without parking in front of the
railroad station. So I do not believe the
a problem on Love Lane because of
I don't intend to
flea market. There
misunderstanding between the owners
address the
is a
in having a
temporary variance and whether they thought that
the Town was going to contact them as opposed to
them contacting the Town. As I said, I can't
venture an opinion on that. I will say being
there usually almost every Sunday, I have never
seen a vendor, with maybe one exception have a
dog, for the issue of litter and dog poop. I
don't believe that is germane to the issue as the
vendors bringing their dog. As I said, I think I
30
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
February 3,
have seen one vendor bring her dog.
I have been there many times. There
selling of coffee of Styrofoam cups.
2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
That was
is no
So the
it.
litter is the function of every day function and
increased traffic and population of the east-end.
I understand their concerns with the traffic flow
and what have you, but at the same concern, I
believe there is no restriction on Love Lane for
parking. Parking signs limited to this, that or
the other. So therefore, the parking issue
should be as a first come, first serve basis and
park legally facing the right side of the road,
facing the right way and not double parked or
blocking the driveways. And then if that, the
residents have a recourse, if someone is parked
in front of their driveway, they can call the
police department and run the plate and either
issue a summons or ask those people to move. As
I said, I shop at the flea market. It's a
wonderful thing. I don't think that it causes an
impact at all. Certainly not to the effect that
the south of the tracks with all those
businesses. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anyone else?
MR. AVELLA: Hi, Folks. My name is Michael
31
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 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
Avella, A-V-E-L-L-A. I am a business owner on
Love Lane. I own two businesses, Love Lane
Kitchen and Love Lane Market, which hopefully
will open soon. I familiar with about the flea
market on Love Lane. In my opinion, it fits the
character of our neighborhood. I am at my place
7 days a week now for the past 5 years. I am on
Love Lane. I have never seen the traffic out of
control on Love Lane in front of the flea market.
I go up and down on Love Lane everyday. Several
times. I think that the flea market is a nice
addition to Love Lane. It fits the character of
the neighborhood. As far as I am concern, I have
never seen a traffic problem down there. There
is adequate parking on Love Lane, whether its the
lot behind the bank or the firehouse or the train
I like the flea market there on Love
station.
Lane.
I am just the
Chamber. Bob
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MR. MCSHANE: Hi, my name
former president
several years,
market seems like it has
problems. When there is
Thank you.
is Terry McShane,
of the Mattituck
and Anne have been there for
but I will say that the flea
never caused any
a problem with a
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 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
business in Mattituck, my phone rings, my e-mail
goes. And nothing has been about the skillet or
the flea market. My understanding is it is more
of an asset to Love Lane. So thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Any more
shoppers out there? If you would like to address
the Board, you need to come to the podium.
MS. SUTTMEIER: Good morning, my name is
Gloria Suttmeier. I have been a shopper and a
shower at Love Lane market. I am -- all I can
say is that there is never a paper on that piece
of property left at the end of the day.
one of the dealers that has been there for 7
years, he police's and makes sure that every
single paper is off that property. And if
someone is making dog poops on the property, it's
because they are bad mannered people and you
can't control those people. But most of those
people, when they come in the morning, if they
come at 7:00 in the morning, they are too tired
to be shouting and yelling at each other. And
the person that was playing the radio is an ill
mannered person. That is
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MR. ZAK: I'm sorry.
There is
about all I can say.
Thank you.
I just wanted to make
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
February 3,
one more comment.
with regard to the
2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
Once again, Richard Zak, and
young lady and with respect to
her, the letter that was submitted and once
again, I am in law enforcement, if you were in a
court of law, you would not be allowed to submit
a letter for or against, you have no opportunity
to cross examine that letter. In other words,
you are allowed to face your accuser. Simply
issuing a letter makes a negative comment without
being able to address that letter at a public
forum. I don't know if it's policy of the Board,
but I object to that policy. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me clarify that,
sir. For one thing, it is all not uncommon to
have written submissions. It is perfectly legal
to do so. As I stated, anybody interested or
affected by this application has the right to
come to the office and examine our records.
Secondly, because this is clearly going to be an
ongoing discussion. We have some issues that we
have already addressed and we're going to
revisit. This hearing -- I am going to make a
motion to adjourn this hearing for a month, so
that we will have time to reflect upon any
written or testimony and to see what either
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
options are available and relative to this
application, for the 28 vendors that have
currently been applied for. So I just wanted to
make it clear, that this is a quasi judicial
body. It's mostly a court of law but it's a lay
court. And no one is being tried here.
Nevertheless, we will consider both written and
oral testimony and they will have an opportunity
to respond to it. The applicant has the right to
respond to those letters in favor or in
opposition, as well as comments from the Planning
Board. Both in favor and in opposition.
MS. STRAUB: I just wanted to address his
comment --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Please state your
name?
MS. STRAUB: Margaret Straub. I spoke to
Vicki Toth and I was told that a letter could be
faxed or e-mailed and I was contacted by a
neighbor who received a certified letter because
the way her property is across from Ms. Price and
she was unable because of business this morning,
she dropped off the letter and asked that to be
submitted. It is not my letter -- I just wanted
to clarify that.
35
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 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
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This is procedurally
common, but what we will do is make sure a copy
of this letter goes to you, you meaning the
applicant and so you may address any comments
therein. I don't want to take the time right now
because we are running really away from schedule
and getting into other applicants. Otherwise, I
would read it into the record right now but we
will have time to review that because we're going
to adjourn to another date.
MR. HARTZ: Once again, Bob Hartz,
H-A-R-T-Z. As
read from the
error about
business.
a comment on the letter that was
first letter, I believe she is
the zoning. We're zoned as a hamlet
So that should be noted.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
questions from the Board?
MEMBER HORNING:
for the applicant. In
Thank you. Any
I have one final question
your hours of operation
on Sunday's only.
MR. HARTZ:
going to be selling parkers and snow
and we heard from you that you were proposing
originally from weekends and holidays from dawn
to dusk, then you talked about willing to do it
Is this like a seasonal?
Oh, absolutely. Unless we're
shoes. It
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 37
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
starts as early as April, weather permitting and
two years ago, the Fall was so temperament, what
really was limited was the length of days. Now
again, we are not looking -- if I could really
just make a short anecdote. In dealing with the
Health Department, whenever you asked a question
and give an answer, you're always given an
assumption to take things to the extreme. They
come back and say you can't possibly do all this.
The short of it is, we would like to operate on
Sunday's. Whether or not we had been doing it
under the Town's blessing, it went without a
hitch for nine years. Sunday is the day for us.
We asked for Saturday's and holidays because, if
we asked for more, we would be limited to less.
Strike the Saturday's and holidays,
with us. Sunday is the (In audible)
is really what we're interested in.
are any specific things that had been complained
about, we would do our utmost to address them.
We're not looking to create any problems. We're
looking to bring something to the community that
adds traffic to Love Lane. I think we have done
that. We want to continue to do it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: May I ask you, where
it's fine
day. That
And if there
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
do the vendors come from?
MR. HARTZ: It's tough for me to answer
because we never really know exactly who is going
to come. Our core of vendors,
Greenport, Wading River --
MS. PRICE: Rocky Point.
MR. HARTZ: Southampton.
who actively seek estate sales.
outs. They do business with
really quite a thing to see.
that specifically because on a
don't know who will be there.
who are serious,
These are people
House clean
each other. It's
But we can't answer
given Sunday, we
This is a thing
that has evolved. We don't take reservations for
it. It's --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, if there were a
maximum allowed on the site, how would --
MR. HARTZ: We would have to take
reservations. We would have to change our M.O.
and we would be happy to do so.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If I understand it,
your flea market is more of an antique flea
market, you're not selling T-shirts --
MR. HARTZ: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Primarily selling
memorabilia.
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
MR. HARTZ: We have turned vendors away.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hours of operation.
What hours are feasible for setting up? You're
proposing dawn to dusk. Your testimony that has
a potential difficult impact on residential
impacts. What impact would that be on your
business, if you were to begin later in the
morning, close at a reasonable hour or late
afternoon?
MS. PRICE: They're usually gone by 5:00 or
6:00 o'clock. Because some people at 2:00
o'clock. They are very rarely there at 6:00
o'clock. In the morning, they could set up
later. Some come early to
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
organize hours of operation?
MR. HARTZ: Absolutely.
MEMBER HORNING: And how quickly -- what
time is involved for a vendor to set up right
now?
MR. HARTZ:
The majority of
get a better location.
You would be able to
It really depends on the vendor.
vendors that come are generally
in small vehicles. We have one or two that come
in larger vehicles and we would be willing either
make it more a expensive proposition for those
39
February 3, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
vehicles and persuade those larger vehicles to
limit the size of the vehicles. There are many
ways that we can adapt this. These vendors, we
have come to know them. They're very reasonable
people.
MEMBER HORNING: For example, if your hours
of operation were from 9:00 to 5:00 a Sunday,
when would the vendor have to arrive to be able
to set up by 9:00?
MR. HARTZ: I
would be like 8:00
think a more reasonable time
to 5:00. A vendor might need
20 minutes to a 1/2 hour to set up. And frankly,
we sleep 25 feet above, and I can say, I sleep
with no noise complaints.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
that, we have taken a great
So I have --
I am going to suggest
deal of time and
testimony today. We have offered some
alternative ideas from your points of view and we
have explored things about what impact there
might be to your proposal. I would like to
suggest that we consider all of these things and
look at the correspondences from the Planning
Board and come back to us with a bit of a more
evolved proposal.
MR. HARTZ: Fine.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
t0
tl
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is that acceptable
with the Board?
(No verbal response. )
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no further
comments from the Board -- I guess, I am hearing
a comment. State your name please.
MS. SUTTMEIER: Gloria Suttmeier. Coming in
as a dealer, people go home at 4:00 o'clock.
They don't really come at
An hour earlier is better.
8:00. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
6:00 o'clock at night.
Not 9:00. 7:00 or
Thank you. Hearing no
further corament,
that we adjourn this
in this meeting hall.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Motion carries.
I would like to make a motion
hearing to March 3rd at 2:30
Second.
Ail in favor?
Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
41
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 42
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
HEARING %6444 - William C. Goggins and Donna
M. Goggins
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application
before the Board is William C. Goggins and Donna
M. Goggins. Ken, would you please read the legal
notice?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Sure. Application #6444,
Applicant requests a Special Exception under
Article III, Section 280-13B(13). The Applicant
is the owner requesting authorization to
establish an Accessory Apartment in an accessory
structure at; 8755 New Suffolk Road (Fifth
Street), New Suffolk, New York. Suffolk County
Tax Map#1000-117-10-14.1.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Is there
anyone here to represent this application?
MR. GOGGINS: William C. Goggins, of the law
firm Goggins & Palumbo, on behalf of the
applicant. Good morning.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good morning. We have
a letter in our records from Suffolk County,
local determination. Do you have a copy?
MR. GOGGINS: No, I don't.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
If you would like a copy,
It lists your name.
we can give you a copy.
February 3, 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
Lets review, this is a request for a Special
Exception permit to establish an accessory
apartment in an accessory structure. This is
accordance with the new Town law that permits
such things under certain circumstances. How
about going over some of that criteria with us,
if you would?
MR. GOGGINS: The garage
when the CO, was issued for
complies with the new law.
was built in 2004
the garage, which
So it does comply
with the criteria as set forth in the Town Code
for accessory apartments in accessory structures.
And that is exactly what we have. We have a
garage that is detached
have an apartment there,
is less than 750 square
approximately 744 feet,
criteria for square footage
The use of the apartment is
from the house and we
one bedroom there, that
feet. I think
which also meets the
for an apartment.
also within the law
for the use. My mother and father-in-law, they
have a small place in Florida and they can't
afford to live in Florida and have a place up
here in the summer.
grandchildren, our
grandparents.
We wanted their
children to see their
So we set up the apartment for
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
them to come up in the summer, from May and they
leave in September. They will reside in the
sur~mer. It allows us and our children to spend
time with them during their later years. They're
in their mid-70's and both retired.
the reason why we did it. That is
we want the apartment and it all fits in the
criteria that is set forth in the new law.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Mr. Goggins, this
drawing that you submitted indicates 744 square
feet for livable floor area. I presume it is
livable floor area. It's professionally drawn
but it doesn't say who did the drawing.
MR. GOGGINS: (In audible) the engineer and
I was hoping to get a statement from him before
the hearing certifying that, that is an accurate
calculation of livable floor area but I did not
receive it. But I will hopefully get it by the
end of the week and submit it to the Board.
Mr. Schneider has requested it and I really had
asked the engineer to do it.
busy to get it done by today.
have that by tomorrow afternoon.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This drawing
part of the second floor --
And that is
the reason why
I guess he was too
I will make sure I
shows
44
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
MR. GOGGINS: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It doesn't show
exactly what's going on in the rest of that
space. It says "storage, artist workshop." Can
you just talk about that?
MR. GOGGINS: Well, we use it for storage.
My daughter is an artist and she is in college
now. And her drawings and crayons, colored
pencils and everything that she uses to draw, you
know, you know the stuff that she buys, we don't
want it in the house so she can make a mess. The
way she has it is kind of a mess but that is how
she does it. She's in college right now. She
will be back in May.
was the reason.
CHAIRPERSON WEISM3~N:
Primarily storage. So that
There appears to have
been a kitchen in there that has now been the
stove and the refrigerator removed, an island and
the dishwasher.
MR. GOGGINS: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
not used for sleeping?
MR. GOGGINS: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Are you saying that is
So that is simply
workspace?
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
MR. GOGGINS: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there a bathroom
there.
MR. GOGGINS: Not on the other side.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: One full bathroom in
the apartment.
MR. GOGGINS: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All
further questions. We have an
the occupancy, that your
is.
MR. GOGGINS: Yes.
right. I have no
affidavit stating
in-laws, I believe it
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO:
meet the criteria.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I am assuming you are
going to sign a lease with your mom and dad?
states here that you are --
MR. GOGGINS: Well, I am not going to
The application seems to
You can charge a
them.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
$1.00.00.
MR.
lease. So once we get the approval,
prepare a lease and submit that
It
GOGGINS: Well, the Town requires
I will
charge
a
to you as well.
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It goes to the
Building Department. George?
MEMBER HORNING: I have no
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
audience wish to address this
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
questions.
Anyone in the
application?
Hearing no further
comments, I would like to make a motion to close
this hearing subject to a receipt of a letter
from the applicant's engineer, testifying to the
calculate the livable floor area as applied for.
Is there a second?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6445 - Irene Rutkoski Estate
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application
before us is for Irene Rutkoski Estate. Jim,
would you please the legal notice?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Application #6445, this is
47
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 48
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 request for a Waiver under Code Article II,
Section 280-10A, to unmerge land identified as
Suffolk County Tax Map #1000-115-2-13, based on
the Building Inspector's November 16, 2010 Notice
of Disapproval citing Zoning Code Section
280-10A, which states that the nonconforming lots
merged until a total lot size conforms to the
current bulk schedule (minimum 40,000 square feet
in this R-40 Residential Zone District) this lot
is merged with lot 12 to the west; at: 18525 and
18375 Route 25 Mattituck, New York. Suffolk
County Tax Map ~1000-115-2-13 and 12.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you, Jim.
MS. MOORE: Good morning.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: State your name,
please.
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore, M-O-O-R-E, for
the applicant on behalf of the Estate and Judy
Barker who is --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just want to say
that we have local determination letter.
MS. MOORE: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Go ahead.
MS. MOORE: This application is relatively
straight forward. I think if you went by the
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 49
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, the (In audible) occurred, back in the
20's all this land and the main road was part of
In 1953 or so, the Rutkoski's was
from their farm in the back. What
from
the farmland.
parceled out
you can see today, from Mill Road actually,
the main road, most of it has been full
development rights. This
seller development right.
property is part of the
This -- the parcel
that has the house for the children as they got
married and started their families, would be
parceled off from the farm. The house
those parcels. Similarly, the parcels
east is
out
(In audible)
Raynine then
is one of
to the
many years ago, back in the 60's.
sold the piece to Mr. And Mrs.
Rutkoski's who were the current owners next door,
as a separate piece of property, from a separate
owner, but again, because the property were put
in the same name at the time in the 60's, and
remained in the family since then, those two
parcels merged. My clients is the beneficiary of
those properties, Ms. Barker, is resolving right
now the administration of the estate and we
realized that the two parcels had been merged and
similar sized and that piece was parceled
in -- again from the farm by -- and sold at
February 3, 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
we want to make sure that they are kept
separately as of the intention of the family
always. It continued to receive separate tax
bills. It had separate deeds. Nevertheless, the
zoning combined it. The parcels to the east has
what is a storage building, I would say. It's
pretty nondescript. It's set back to the south
of the property line. That was a storage
building for Ms. Rutkoski's husband in addition
to farming and everything else, landscaping. So
he stored his equipment in there. Mr. Barker
over the years has continued to use it for his
own personal lawn and tractors and man stuff. So
he used that building. And ultimately it is very
possible that the house may have to be sold
separately or the house may have to be sold by
Ms. Barker and she wants to retain the storage
building. They look very independent from each
other. You wouldn't know that they are owned by
the same individual, at least from driving from
the main road. If you were to go by, I think, I
personally passed that place a thousand times and
never noticed the house and never noticed the
structure. That property and the storage
building is very similar to all the other lots
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 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
that have been sold away since the 50's from the
farm parcels in the back. Over the years the
farms have been sold off separately or
development rights sold off, so all of that
remains as the main road house for in this case,
the house and the storage building. I set forth
all of that in my application, so you have any
particular questions,
the Board.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
allow Jim.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I
-- I am trying to
put there.
MS. MOORE:
actually there is
look and see. 13,
MEMBER DINIZIO:
property line, that's
MS. MOORE: Okay.
it. That is my memory.
I would be happy to address
I have some but I will
have a couple. I guess
figure out when the barn was
I thought I gave you -- it's
a CO for that building. Let me
that's the barn.
I am looking at the
why.
I thought I had a CO for
I could be wrong. I
apologize, I will look and see if I have one.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I didn't see it on here.
MS. MOORE: Then if it's not, then it was
built prior 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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
MEMBER DINIZIO: It says there was a house
removed.
MS. MOORE: That is possible. I didn't find
any demolition permits.
MEMBER DINIZIO: That is pretty much all I
have right now.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Should the Board
entertain a merge (In audible) residential setoff
and farm land, as you well know, part of the
criteria (In audible) is the lots were kept
undeveloped and vacant. It's clearly has an
accessory structure on it.
we will have
it, which is
If they unmerge then
lot with an accessory structure on
not permitted to be there without a
house. A principle structure.
MS. MOORE: Unless its
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
the file.
MS. MOORE: I will
preexisting.
You don't have a CO in
have to look and see if
we have to get a preexisting CO from the
surveyor. I will have to look and see.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMB/q: The greater equity in
value of the lot is clearly in the lot.
MS. MOORE: Absolutely.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Not in the structure.
52
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
February 3,
MS. MOORE: I
to continue to use
practically,
residence, I
2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
know, but my client would like
that structure. I think
if you convert that structure to a
think (In audible) take down that
structure and build a house. The value of that
property is to keep it either for the family or
continue to use it as a storage building. Or
down the line in the future, if they were to sell
it to a third-party in the future, that person
would want to continue to use it for their own
storage or take it down in order to build a
house. If they wanted to come and build a house,
I think they would need to come before you and
apply for a variance because of the setbacks.
MEMBER DINIZIO: If you look at the
setbacks, it is an accessory structure.
MS. MOORE: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: The backyard is small
compared to the house.
MS. MOORE: Oh, yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: It's also on the side yard
of the house. What I need is, I need to see when
that building was built. Try and compare that.
MS. MOORE: Okay. I apologize, I thought
that I had it. Being that I am dealing with an
53
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
estate, I could be mistaken.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Because -- I mean,
that is one avenue the Board may consider, effect
the gain and loss and the gain of a separate lot
verus the loss of a structure. So we will have
to consider whether or not that has a CO and so
on and so forth.
MS. MOORE: I will check with my client.
She couldn't be here today.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. George?
MEMBER HORNING: Both of these parcels are
in the Ag District Zone?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: To your knowledge, if you
were going to create a new 18-parcel, what is the
minimum requirement.
MS. MOORE: 2 acres. So this is -- as I
said, it's a preexisting nonconforming parcel
that we have created by deed. So just like all
the other lots that are on the main road.
Keeping in mind that many of these parcels, have
the sale of development rights for the sale of
the farmland. So -- again, the impact if future
development and so on, these parcels are going to
be staying the way that they are.
54
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 55
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:
MS. MOORE: Isn't
MEMBER DINIZIO:
notice says.
MS. MOORE:
doesn't say.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
R-40.
MS. MOORE: Okay.
application and see if I
remember looking it up.
(In audible).
it R-407
That's what
Okay. My Notice of
the legal
Disapproval
Neither of those says it's
Let me look at my
looked it up because I
I had it on my map
showing AC, so I will have to check.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It is possible that
We will have to
the legal notice is not correct.
check that out.
MS. MOORE: This whole
map -- because I
out your application,
notice, common sense,
area of the zoning
spent time when I was filling
I looked at the legal
I would have thought it was
R-40 because of the
Ail of the houses are one acre.
audible) farmland to the north,
development along the road.
Because it's (In
I think it is all
zoned AC because it's continuous to the farmland.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken, do you have any
25 questions?
February 3, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
audience that would like
application?
(No response.)
this
No questions.
Is there anyone
to address this
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MS. MOORE:
in the
Did you want to close
Did you want to confirm the
zoning in the past --
We will do that in our
I checked it and I saw AC. I
zoning only because the
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
office.
MS. MOORE:
I will check my records.
I don't know if you want to
will look for a CO.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
close it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
later on in the day --
MS. MOORE: Well, I don't
to get a hold of my client
to search the records.
We can adjourn this to
know if I am going
in time. We may have
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So we will adjourn --
MS. MOORE: I mean, if she tells me that it
was built prior to zoning, I can ask the Building
Department for a CO. It hasn't changed since the
time it was built. I just don't have 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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
information.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We will adjourn it for
next month.
MS. MOORE: That's fine.
MEMBER HORNING: We do have to clarify what
zoning.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We will do that.
Let's do it for 10:00 o'clock.
MS. MOORE: That is fine, I will mark my
calendar. I will let you know if I have to
adjourn it --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Unless you just want
to put it on for April?
MS. MOORE: That's fine. I rather not rush
it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Lets do that.
MS. MOORE: Do you want 10:00 o'clock as
well?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is fine. April
7th at 1:00 o'clock.
MS. MOORE: Very good.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I make a motion to
adjourn this hearing to April 7th at
1:00 o'clock.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
57
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Ail in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
Seconded by Ken.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
Motion carries.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Motion to recess for
five minutes. Is there a second?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(Whereupon, a recess was taken at this
time.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay, motion to resume
public hearing. Is there a second?
MEMBER HORNING: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
58
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
HEARING %6435 - Jeff Andrade
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application
before us is Jeff Andrade. George, will you read
the legal notice, please?
MEMBER HORNING: Okay. We have Jeff
Andrade, Application %6435. This is adjourned
from the public hearing on January 6, 2011.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Then we don't have to
read it. We already read it into the public
recording. We can just proceed.
MR. LEHNERT:
for Mr. Andrade.
proposed garage.
Rob Lehnert, L-E-H-N-E-R-T,
This is for Mr. Andrade's
He is a car collector and he
has owned this property since 1991. I know it's
an accessory building. We are here because it's
larger than what is allowed under the accessory
code, and the existing building is unoccupied
right now. Part of what we are looking to do,
the shed that is in front, we're proposing to
take that down. And in the future, Mr. Andrade,
would like to renovate the house. The proposed
59
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 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
building we have, it's behind the main
residential area, behind that strip of land.
really can't see it from the street. The lot
coverage we are looking for is still only 8% of
the property. This is the
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
any questions?
application.
George, do you have
MEMBER HORNING: You mentioned the idea of
renovating the semi-dilapidated --
MR. LEHNERT: Yes, renovate the existing
house.
MEMBER HORNING: And right now that is the
principle dwelling?
MR. LEHNERT: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: So therefore, that would
make the additional building an accessory
building?
MR. LEHNERT: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: There is no plan to tare
down the existing?
MR. LEHNERT: The plan down for the future
is to either tare down, renovate -- plans for
doing something with the property. Right now,
it's not finalized.
MEMBER HORNING: It's hard for us to call
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
what's there a principle dwelling.
MR. LEHNERT:
are here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
That is part of the reason we
Part of that, it
doesn't
dwelling.
MR.
qualify under the Town Code as a
It's too small.
LEHNERT: That's one of the variances
that we're looking for.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
legalize an accessory structure when in fact,
you're,
horse.
It's very difficult to
you know, putting the cart before the
Secondly, the proposed building on this
residential lot is 2,000 square feet. 750 is
permitted by code. As I am sure you are aware,
that is an extraordinary large variance.
Particularly it being accessory to anything. So
it seems to me unless you can convince us, in
your presentation, as to how we can proceed what
you're requesting us
point.
MR. LEHNERT:
to do, I am stuck at that
I understand. The only way
that I can do that is to renovate the house.
Turn it into a code required residence.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Then we can decide as
an accessory structure but I am not sure if that
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
is the case.
existing --
MR.
renovate,
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
Right now we have two illegally
LEHNERT:
would that be enough to
variance going for the additional
MEMBER DINIZIO:
If the proposed plans were to
keep the
structure?
(In audible) make a
decision on the whole part. (In audible). The
2000 square feet, can you justify that for the
Board? What is the necessity for that?
MR. LEHNERT: Mr. Andrade is a car collector
and he does restorations. So he needs the space
to get his vehicles inside.
MEMBER DINIZIO: How many cars does he have?
MR. ANDRADE: (In audible).
MEMBER DINIZIO:
microphone.
MR. ANDRADE:
You have to come to the
Hi, my name is Jeff Andrade,
A-N-D-R-A-D-E. I probably have at least 8 or 9.
So I actually -- 20 years now. And it is
something that I have been trying to do for quite
a few years now. My mom died, so we had to
postpone it. So things kind of never happened.
So I am trying to build my garage, so I can get
out of paying rent and then start remodeling the
house in the front. I probably will never use it
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
February 3,
as a rental. I want
parents lived there.
2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
to make it look like when my
And I don't plan to get rid
of it.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Will you be able to (In
audible) cars in there?
MR. ANDRADE: The property that I rent
across the street right now is about 40x42. If
you were to physically pack it with cars, I could
probably get six. But I don't want to pack it.
I would like to work on one or two at a time. I
have my dads old cars and I have my old cars,
that I will never get rid of. So I want to make
one garage because I got two of them right now.
It's just for me to play it in basically for,
that's all it's for. It's a toy thing. Put it
on my own property and have my own garage. I
want to save on rent so I can use the money
towards the remodeling of the house.
MEMBER HORNING: In your initial
application, there is a short form, environmental
assessment and in it question No. 10, "does the
action involve any other permitting?" You
mentioned the Southold Trustees. I assume it's
the wetlands --
MR. LEHNERT: Well, we were filing, there
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
was a question of the trustees of the wetlands
behind the property. It is far enough away.
MEMBER HORNING: You do not require a
Trustees permit?
MR. LEHNERT: No.
MR. ANDRADE: No.
MEMBER HORNING: Also,
reasons for wanting to grant
have an addendum October 26th and
through 4 on the character of the
I am curious on your
the variance. You
you have 1
neighborhood.
As the property sits adjacent to the Agricultural
District, this building will not be out of the
character for the neighborhood. Now tell us why
the 2000 square foot would not be out character
just because it sits adjacent to the Agricultural
District?
MR. LEHNERT: There is buildings like this
in the Agricultural District along those
properties.
MEMBER HORNING: You mentioned something
about futuristic plans, not demolish, have you
considered a project something there and an
attached garage? You might be able to accomplish
what you want to do with an attached garage to a
principle dwelling. Have you thought about that?
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
MR. LEHNERT: We have thought about that.
The building that we are looking to put up is a
metal building. I mean, anything cab be done.
MEMBER HORNING: You have an awkward
situation. I mean, you really don't have the
principle dwelling.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You know, I don't see
how I can proceed in examining a proposed
extremely principle structure without a dwelling.
MEMBER DINIZIO: (In audible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Other then the fact
that we would like to proceed, I see no
compelling presentation on why this should be
granted with this size when the code says 750
square feet. Secondly, there is this issue of
substandard dwelling, which is not adequate to
allow it. The proposed accessory structure is
not an accessory structure to anything. So we
have in the past granted, very rarely, an
accessory on a residential lot without a
resident. I do recall that the property owner
owned a large house across the street. However,
it was conforming in size. This is not
conforming at all. And I understand that the
individual needs a certain size in order for him
65
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 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
to do the hobby that he is interested in doing.
The question is whether this is a legally
permitted hobby on the property under the current
circumstances.
Ken, did you have any questions or
comments?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions or comments
at the time?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMltN: Is there anyone in the
audience that would like to address this
application?
(No response.)
MR. LEHNERT: Should we adjourn it?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is going to
happen.
MR. LEHNERT: Come back with a different
proposal?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And an amended
application. I make a motion to adjourn this
hearing to April 7th at 1:30 p.m. Is there a
second?
MEMBER HORNING:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
Second.
Ail 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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. Okay.
Motion carries.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING %6446 - Nancy D. Arnzen Irrevocable
Trust
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application
Arnzen Irrevocable Trust. I am going
is Nancy D.
to read the request into the record. "The
applicant requests a Special Exception under
Article III, Section 280-13B(13). The applicant
is the owner requesting authorization to
establish an Accessory Apartment in an accessory
structure at: 145 Wavecrest Lane,
York." Is there somebody here to
applicant?
MS. MOORE:
of the applicant,
Mattituck, New
represent the
Yes, Patricia Moore,
Nancy Arnzen. I have --
on behalf
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hold on one second,
Pat. Just procedure. Just to make sure that you
have available a packet of all the
correspondences filed for this, so that you can
address this information. We're going to give
you the whole packet. Also, that we have local
67
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 68
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
determination.
MS. MOORE: Okay, fine. Ail right. Thank
you. As I said, Ms. Arnzen is here and Jeffrey
Brothers,
questions
all here.
application, we conform with all of the
requirements of the accessory apartment in an
her son is also here. Is there any
that you need to address, I have them
With respect to the accessory
It is located in the
The owner Nancy Arnzen has
provided you affidavits
occupant
dwelling
from -- she is the
of the accessory apartment. The other
is going to be occupied by her son who
is taking on the responsibility of having her
help pay for the property and keeping the
property. See quite frankly, it is a situation
that the Town had anticipated earlier on when it
was part of the principle residence. As part of
an accessory structure, which is a senior
community as they get older and their
circumstances change, they can apply for family
to help subsidize their continued ownership and
occupancy of the property. That is what we have
here. Ms. Arnzen, will tell you herself, she
doesn't look it, but she is 70-years-old. She is
accessory building.
accessory building.
February 3, 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
a senior.
her
Her
The
She does need to have family assist
and maintaining and paying for this property.
son will be the occupancy with the lease.
accessory apartment more than 450 square feet
of livable floor area and does not exceed 750
square feet of livable floor area. If the Board
would like the plans certified by an architect,
at the time, I personally try not to incur
additional costs to a client, if we can use
documents that are already in the Town's file.
So that is how we started, but if you would like
certification, that can be provided. There are
certainly three parking spaces. What I -- I had
thought the main house has one bay, actually a
double size bays. So there is two bays in the
main house and the apartment on the first floor
has one bay. So in fact, there are 3 garage
spaces as well as plenty of space in the driveway
area for the cars. The number in this house is
not changing. It's just placement of where they
live. So there is -- we meet the requirement for
that parking onsite. There is only one accessory
apartment on this site. There is no bed and
breakfast operated or being proposed. We meet
the code definition of the accessory apartment
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 70
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
15
16
1'7
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and we have CO's for the main house. The main
house was built in the 70's and the garage was
built in '03, I believe. We have CO's for all
those structures. We are prepared to comply with
all the codes. I had provided to you a letter to
you in response to the first -- I believe -- the
same issue which is covenants and restrictions.
To begin with, I know the Board is aware of,
covenants and restrictions, are not enforced by
the Town. That is a private action by the
community. That is established (In audible) and
I pulled out some very basis documents and
private covenants that I will give to the Town
Attorney for her and her file, but it's well
established. The Zoning Board does not enforce
private covenants, nor does it consider it, when
it's considering an application. If we meet the
requirements of the code, that is your
obligation. The other issue that I wanted to
clean up, the copy attached to that letter, that
my client gave me, that she had through her
closing papers, version may have been a version
that was being discussed. So I asked the title
company to pull out the covenants and
restrictions that -- they say that is pretty much
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
the same thing. The draft that she had were
actually -- it provided some additional language,
but the bottom line is, the accessory structure
does not violate the covenants and we -- you
know, again, as a private action, the coramunity
would have to seek to enforce it. I don't know
-- my legal opinion is, we do not violate it.
But that would be a fight in a different forum.
In the meantime, I will provide this to the
Board. (In audible). I am prepared to address
the criteria of the special permit that I can --
as long as we comply with the conditions that it
is the conclusion that this is special permit
criteria.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Based upon the fact
that we have a number of letters addressing the
covenants and restrictions, and I must say (In
audible) role of this Board relative to the
covenants and restrictions is accurate, we can
certainly consider them but it is not within our
purview to enforce the covenants and
restrictions. (In audible) the issue of a garage
in your correspondence, lack of concern. I think
it is important for the public to understand that
almost - thus far, all of the accessory
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
structures, there has been about five since the
law has changed, are individual property owners
attempt to legalize specific town law, existing
illegal accessory apartments. The intent of the
law was to permit the legalization, town wide
now, certain criteria were met, of accessory
apartments in accessory structures for two
purposes. One for the ability of relatives
participating in sharing the costs of the
property, providing assistance. The law allows
for individuals and owners to live in the
accessory apartment or the primary dwelling. As
long as a family member occupies the other one.
Secondly, if an individual wanted to receive some
rental income, (In audible) the law also permits
lease arrangements with the special project
coordinator, who oversees affordable housing
registry. That is an option as well. It is for
those two purposes. It is for those specific
purposes. As long as an applicant comes before
this Board and meets those criteria, we must give
serious weight to the legalization of what was
previously illegal. That is now the Town law.
And it is also Town wide. So I want to address
that because I know that was a grave concern to a
72
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 73
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
number of people regarding this application.
There is also concern when we heard earlier this
morning, this is now the law and our job is to
determine whether or not the applicant meets the
criteria that we described. That is all I am
going to say at the moment. I am going to see
if there is anyone else on the Board that would
like to talk to counsel, and then we will take
public comments. Any questions, Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken and I did an
interior inspection, as we did on the earlier one
today. We do that to confirm that nothing is
hidden. There is only one bathroom in the
structure. It is only on one floor. Pat, I am
going to take up with the Board on how we want to
handle calculation on livable floor area. We
haven't really come to a feeling with it. So
that is something that the Board will have to
come to grips with. Earlier, we did say that a
letter from an engineer would suffice.
MS. MOORE: I can get that.
does
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
not include hallways,
MS. MOORE: That
Livable floor area
bathrooms --
is where I was confused
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
because the code says that bathrooms are included
but the State Building Code doesn't include. So
I wasn't sure. That is why we had given you the
square footage, not sure what you would use. I
think the typically the certification is that it
is less than 750 square feet rather then the
exact square footage. As long as you are less
than that number you qualify. We did in this
case. The bathroom generally does not provide
too much square footage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, maybe that is
something that the Board needs to clarify. I
just wanted the record to reflect that (In
audible) updating the procedures for applicants.
MS. MOORE: If you could just let me know
which way you want me to do it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I will do that. No
comments from the Board at this time, Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
in the audience that would like to address this
application?
MR. CHIARO:
Good morning.
Is there anyone
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good morning.
MR. CHIARO: My name is David Chiaro,
74
February 3, 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
C-H-I-A-R-O. I am the president of Mattituck
Saltaire Estates, which in your exhibits, would
be under No. 1. Those names represent the home
ownership and I represent the majority thereof.
We're also known as MSI. My intention today is
to express the disapproval of the current
application. Most of the of the Board -- in
addition to disapproving this application, we
will consider the impact this law has on the
residence of Southold. And (In audible) I just
said, I understand your viewpoint. However, I
believe that it is intricate that you understand
the other residences that are in the immediate
area of this application that is now being
presented to the Board. Referring to your
folder, you will note under 2, a letter by the
Arnzen's and their intent to build a "garage"
with some office space. The building permit,
Exhibit 4 and the subsequent CO, Exhibit 5,
reflect their intent. However, once approved,
"garage" which is used for other then the stated
intent, was utilized as a residence in violation
of the CO. The applicant now request an approval
for an accessory apartment to legalize, which she
has previously done without proper documentation
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
from the Town of Southold.
objections of MSI are more
itself, to the application
area itself. The (In audible) violation
statute, as well as the old (In audible)
infrastructure. Referring to Exhibit 3,
That being said, the
against the statute
to our area and the
of this
of the
the
building is a two-story structure. The first
floor occupies a 936 square feet and the second,
which is the proposed accessory apartment
occupies 740 square feet. Clearly within the
parameters of the law, statute. However, MSI
stance, regardless of the statute, (In audible)
effectively whether it says dwelling or accessory
apartment, realizes the reality is that there is
two dwellings on that one lot. And I would point
to the statute Section 280 13.1 wherein the
statute as stated interposes either accessory
apartment, dwelling, either or. So it would
leave one to believe that it is really not
important that one know the nomenclature of
dwelling or accessory apartment, when in the fact
it is two dwellings. We have two residences on
the lot itself. The accessory apartment,
approved, would become a selling point.
could leave to wide spread abuse.
if
This
I am sure that
76
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 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
the Board has considered this. So depending on
the enforcement or the lack thereof, we would
confer that what they have set out to do, with
good intentions, is abuse. Our question,
rhetorical in nature, is who is to investigate
the (In audible) matter? I realize
definition, general member, however,
under the
who is
family
Pandora's box could leave to catastrophic
consequences. One just needs to look up island
to see the ramifications of multiple dwellings.
We believe it is counterproductive for the Town
of Southold to allow two dwellings on one lot.
Realizing that the Town law supercedes homeowners
restrictions located in your folder, along with
the amended covenants and restrictions, the
associations will now have to be allowed to allow
the various restrictions that we wanted to avoid.
What the associations have tried to very hard to
preserve will now face destruction by this law.
Regarding the infrastructure issue, there will be
an increase demand on water, whether it be
Suffolk County or the water table supply.
Sewage, sewage runoff or leaching, electric,
authentication that the person is a
member, the Board. Once opened, we believe this
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 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
traffic etcetera. The (In audible) if you look
at the location of MSI and the homeowners,
currently (In audible) roadway surfacing to 30
existing homes. 130 homes service that one road.
Our concern now, has always been access and
egress for emergency situations. What happens
with a greater population? Theoretically, the
motor vehicle traffic will double, triple, with
the approval of the
Board, at a minimum,
to contemplate the impact this
Southold and it's residents.
accessory apartments. The
should consider a moratorium
has on the Town of
Madam Chairperson, when I sat down here and
listened to the first application today, you
mentioned impact and harmony. That is what you
have to consider when presented with these
objections to this application. This application
will definitely impact and cause disharmony. I
am sure there are some residents sitting here but
I will state that the majority of the 44
homeowners in MSI strongly disapprove.
letters in the file. There is also an
that came later on.
that the Board consider disapproving this
application. Thank you for your time.
-- 43
There are
addendum
And I would appreciate 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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I ask you a question?
MR. CHIARO: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: On what grounds?
MR. CHIARO: Disapproving?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes.
MR. CHIARO: As Madam Chairperson has
stated, it is the impact and harmony to the
residence that have been there longer than I. I
am merely a spokes person for the MSI. Yes, I am
a resident. But mere important, I am expressing
the majority of the homeowners.
MEMBER DINIZIO: We're not granting any
variances, you are aware of that; right? It's
for a special exception. As a set criteria that
we're bound by, by the Town Board. By our law.
MR. CHIARO: So as long as the applicant
goes ahead and fulfills each of the statutes,
objection
there is no objection or reasonable
considered by the Board?
MEMBER DINIZIO: I would say that.
Certainly in my mind.
MR. CHIARO: So then the residence of
Southold have no way. They have to accept this
statute and that's the way we have to live?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I would say the
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
residents of Southold who are elected officials
have decided on a compromise.
like to encourage this type of
residential neighborhoods,
MR. CHIARO: That is
That they would
development in
yes.
a case by case basis,
each case and consideration be given before the
applicant is given approval.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well only to a degree that
they not meet the criteria.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
comment. You asked the Board to consider a
moratorium. Let me make it clear to the public
that this Board doesn't have the jurisdiction.
You need to talk to the Town Board. That is
where I believe, three different public hearings
that were held on this law. The time for
expressing concern over the law is then. Any
applicant has the right to go to the Town Board,
at any time however to address that. And to ask
the Town Board to do whatever it is to ask them
what they want to do. Consider to examine it.
We're not, as I said, talking about an open
market. The criteria by the way that is spelled
out for a special exception for an accessory
apartment in an accessory building. It is not
I would like to make a
8O
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
exactly the same criteria. This is what we can
do is provide you what the copies are. Those are
the kinds of issues that we have to consider.
Now, when we were talking about the flea market,
we talked about the character and the harmony of
the neighborhood, that special exception is a
different kind of special exception then an
accessory apartment in an accessory structure.
It's complicated. Nobody really knows zoning law
unless you have to. It's not a thing you go to
bed reading at night. Counsel is pointing out
and it's important that the record reflect it,
that there are 280-13B of the code provides us
with additional matters for us to be considered
and certainly character of the existing probable
development, conservation property values (In
audible) and so on. There are other criteria.
You can get a copy of this as well. I think part
of what is going to have to happen is an
evaluation as time goes
is important for you to
Zoning Board does not write code.
on by the Town Board.
understand that the
It can not
change the law.
can uphold it.
appreciate
It
We can grant relief from it. We
So in a way while I'm very much
your very well organized inciteful
81
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 82
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
commentary to this Board, this could turn into
the Town Board. We really don't have the
jurisdiction to do anything about it. This
application is specific. Bear in mind when this
code was passed, a number of people that went by
that property is exactly the same as a family
growing up in that house.
MR. CHIARO: I would disagree. If that
property is being sold now with a legalized
apartment --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, it doesn't. First
of all, this is inspected annually. There is a
lease that goes to the Building Department. It
is an annual inspection. A special exception
permit, if they are not meeting the criteria can
be revoked by this Board. They have to be doing
what they say that they are going to be doing.
And that includes someone living there that is
not a relative. There are safeguards in place.
The traffic is not going to increase because the
law says you have to have onsite parking. B, you
can not have more people living there then what
is permitted. This is not a (In audible).
MR. CHIARO: What I am trying to get at,
absent to this, a violation of the statute as
83
February 3, 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
written, as long as the statute conforms whether
it be by square footage or bedrooms, only allowed
to have one or setbacks, effective the
neighborhood covenants and restrictions at large
hold no weight. It can be considered by the Town
to keep the integrity because those are there
that they're attempting to hold together as a
home ownership. Things -- and I will say this
and I will relinquish the podium, the thing that
upsets the residence was, going back to your
exhibit in front of you, the building permit and
the CO, not habitable, non-heated structure.
Some people were very skeptical and said it's not
going to be used for an office. It's going to be
used for housing a person. And I will have
somebody come up here and testify that it was
utilized for a residence.
it's stated purpose. So
(In audible)
point.
there
It wasn't utilized for
it was illegal at that
would want us to. And if
are no other questions, then I will
relinquish now. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You're welcome. Is
there anyone else that would like to address the
Board?
MS. OLSEN: Good morning.
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good morning. It's
afternoon now.
MS. OLSEN: You're right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ma'am, can you state
your name?
MS. OLSEN: Janice Olsen, O-L-S-E-N. I was
serving as secretary on the Board of Directors of
MSI Inc. The homeowners association (In audible)
for which the applicant's property is located.
When the Board received the letter as described
by Mr. Chiaro (In audible) two car garage to some
office space, to the north, upon seeking a
two-story structure with one car garage being
erected, it was immediate and apparent to me that
this building (In audible) as the applicants
family had universal (In audible) building can
be used in connection with a dog grooming
business but sometime prior to this the
applicant had vacated her primary residence and
was living elsewhere. And her son and his family
moved into her home. Did her circumstances
change? She could not very well displace her
family and so the solution was to build an
accessory structure in the pretense. It was to
be used only in connection with this. The Town
84
February 3, 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
Building Inspector overseeing the project made
his decision that the garage would be (In
audible When inspected rough plumbing, he
remarked that it appeared power was being
installed although it was for the dog grooming
business -- would be used. Ms. Arnzen had lived
in that structure for abut 7 years. Not
withstanding the fact that the Suffolk County
stamps the survey for the propose garage as
non-habitable. As to the CO issued by the
Building Inspector on a Friday before Labor Day
2003. It is true as Ms. Moore states in her
January 5, 2011 letter, that the homeowners
association holds it's member in 2003 to the
covenants and restrictions and that the majority
did not oppose the erection of one garage per
lot; however, last month members were again told
this time, they were specifically asked if they
oppose this application. 27 out of 44 indicated
they opposed it. Apparently the majority did not
find the second garage objectionable but living
it was something all together different. The
basis on which she is seeking this variance is
financial hardship. One of her own making. She
did not have to build a second home on her 1/2
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 86
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
acre. She already had a home. She chose not to
live in it for a period of time. She wanted to
return to it and could not do so without evicting
her own family, as created her predicament. And
if, a claimed in her application, another son
would be living in the main house. Should we be
concerned of this becoming a trend in Southold?
Others convert accessory structures for their
ageing parents. When they're gone, what will
prevent homeowners from renting these structures.
The Town's laws? If you open these doors, you
will open the path to other municipalities in
Suffolk County, paving the vigilantly enforcing
local laws on adjoining homeowners and further
burdening Town employees. Not surprising, most
of the public tries to avoid and compel local
government to enforce it's own laws. (In audible)
and illegal rentals are abated and we will hear
that (In audible) the Town does not have the
budget to hire additional employees to enforce
it's own laws. That is our concern. Here we
have a structure which was supposed to be used as
a non-habitable garage. It has now become a
resident. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how it
begins. The zoning for this subdivision is R40.
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
Only one single family residence can be built.
By this, changing the zoning and permitting two
single family residence on the applicants 1/2
acre lot. This will encourage others to follow
suite. And in closing, I would just like to read
a short abstract from a decision issued by the
Appellate Division Department just a few months
ago and this is a case in which I am sure you're
all familiar. The Town of Southold versus the
Estate of Edson, et al the defendants contention
that the plaintiffs, the Town, alleged
acquiescence for use of the premises for a period
of several years should stop it from now
enforcing the code provisions is unavailing. The
(In audible) and title is zoning laws (In
audible) to prevent a municipality from
discharging its statutory duties, moreover, a
building permit issued to a misrepresentation by
the applicant or in error by the municipal agency
can not confer rights to contravention of the
zoning laws and the subject to correct its
Thank you very much. May I submit
action.
this?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
to address the Board?
Yes. Anyone else like
87
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 88
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.
am retired
a couple of
SANOK: Good Afternoon. Bill Sanok, I
(In audible) but I am still a role in
advisory committees. I am an advisor
to the Suffolk County Farmland Protection Board
and also I served for a number of years, as a
secretary to the Agricultural Prevention
District.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Maybe you can spell
your name for the record?
MR. SANOK: Bill Sanok, S-A-N-O-K. My
concern here and I am here before this Board,
every time that you make a decision you set a
precedent and any variation you have, you set up
situations where other things can happen in the
near future. Example, I am here is because the
original application was for non-heated,
non-habitable garage, accessory building. It was
not built that way, therefore a violation of
that. Come back eight years later and they ask
for an exception for a violation of a couple of
years. I think the Board needs to take this into
consideration because you're opening the door to
a lot of facilities, where people will come in,
get a building permit for something and build a
little something different and come in and ask
February 3, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
for an exception. I think it is a poor
precedent. So I think you need to take that into
consideration. What did the person ask for?
There is an expression, be careful what you ask
for. You may get it this and want to make it
something different. People will build something
and then ask for an exception. Get the approval
ahead of time. Isn't that what the application
is for? Thank you.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
It seems to be under the
Any questions?
I would like to comment.
impression that this is
for a variance. It is not. The Town Board has
decided that if you live there (In audible). I
am not going to tell you whether I agree or
disagree. Both of your arguments are (In
audible) as far as this application being before
the Board. Mostly following the laws that were
set down by the Town Board. There is not a lot
that we can consider. I believe in covenants and
restrictions very strongly. So I just think it
would be a mistake on my part to leave here on my
part that we can close the door in any way. The
door is wide open now for like six months. Ask
for the minutes concerning this law and read it
and you will probably be very surprised of 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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
conversation that went on.
MR. SANOK: I appreciate that. What is the
definition of variance?
MEMBER DINIZIO: This is not a variance,
sir. A variance has to do with area. A variance
is almost the main and sole surface of a Zoning
Board. A Special Exception can be given by any
Board Member for whatever reason, the Town Board
decided to give us these applications. Again, I
disagree with that but we have them now. To my
mind it gives people a false impression that
somehow we can change law or a piece of a law or
ask us not to grant something, it doesn't work
that way. It just doesn't work that way. Ail
they worked out, I am sure they went through the
traffic problems. All the evidence was
presented. It won't have any adverse impact.
All the people in Town, it won't have an adverse
impact. We're keeping these things to a minimum,
750 square feet, which is not a principal
dwelling. It's an accessory apartment. That was
part of the consideration given for the reason
why this law exist today. This is not the first
one. This is probably the fourth. In fact, I
got a little upset when the Board member raised
90
91
February 3, 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
the question the legality or not. A mistake on
my part because I just didn't realize that not
everyone had followed the course of this law.
And I just don't think -- there is nothing in
this law that says whether we can consider
legal or not. There is nothing
whether this is
in there.
MR. SANOK:
I appreciate that for that
reason. You have to make a judgement on law.
MEMBER DINIZIO: There is a place in the
Town for that. It is just not the Zoning Board.
MR. SANOK: Then how do we take care of that
if it's occurring here and will occur more often,
when people ask for something and do something
different and then ask for forgiveness?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Again --
MR. SANOK:
cracks here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Something fell through the
We're all frustrated
by that. We're all homeowners and neighbor,
historically we know that there has not been
enough enforcement out there for all of us.
is really a whole other issue. It is very
frustrating to have something appear to be
rewarding to somebody to being having --
That
The Town
February 3, 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
decided it would be more important that life
safety be protected in that we make sure that
is legal apartment and that they are in fact
habitable in the
department knows
it
exists
words,
Department and get it.
safety code. That the fire
that they're inside a structure.
Those things were all part of the public record.
MR. SANOK: I appreciate that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: By the way, a permit
can be revoked. Our job is to look at the
standards and if the standards for that permit
that is why we're reviewing it. In other
you can't just got to the Building
It's a permitted use. We
need to review it
standards.
MR. SANOK:
to make sure that it meets the
Then I would ask, what
was the
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MR. SANOK: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
The garage?
A garage. That is old
history and we can't revisit it. It was legally
established. And we have said all we can. I
have tried to essentially explain to the public
permitted use based on the application?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Accessory apartment.
MR. SANOK: The original application.
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
what the boundaries and jurisdiction of this
Board is. Our role is very described.
MR. SANOK: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You have to come to
podium.
MS. OLSEN: And the conmsideration for
zoning?
MEMBER DINIZIO: That has been addressed
when the Town Board to consider (In audible).
MS. OLSEN: So the law supercedes the
zoning?
MEMBER DINIZIO: The law is zoning. In
other words, every residential property if they
had the right circumstances for an accessory
apartment.
MS. OLSEN: Regardless the size of the
property?
MEMBER DINIZIO: There is criteria in the
law. I can tell you one thing, every lot on
there could have this. Every lot that is in a
subdivision, with a few exceptions could qualify
for this. The limitation in the Building Permit.
That building has to have been in existence for a
certain amount of time. And I can tell you,
before then, in '96, that exist before that
93
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
February 3,
people could qualify
within the principal
2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
for accessory apartments for
structure. In any case,
It's an evolving
this is not a brand new thing.
thing. I can tell you in my personal opinion, it
could evolve to your concern here.
MS. OLSEN: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Who else would like to
address the Board?
MR. EURING: Good afternoon. My name is Ken
Euring. I live south of the property abut 100
feet. I have been listening to what you have
been saying. I strongly object to the variance
going through. I know you have to do what the
law says but this situation has impact your value
in all our houses. Everyone that lives there
likes the big spaces. It's cutting down people's
view. Just let me know clearly,
goes through and the house goes
the
if the variance
up for sale and
next person automatically come in with a
relative or do they have to
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MR. EURING: Okay.
reapply?
They have to reapply.
So I guess you heard a
strong objection from everyone in the
neighborhood. I hope you take it into
consideration. Thank you.
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anyone else? Any
Board members have any comments or questions?
MS. MOORE: Just very briefly. I appreciate
everyone's comments to try and relieve what is
the aggravations and the frustration by the
community and you very eloquently went over the
special permit criteria and what the conditions
are and rather then go through 280-13B, all of
that already, I think you placed on the record
for adoption of this law and the issues that the
Town Board considers and the issues of traffic
and use and so on. That it falls within the
criteria of the special permit. So I do
appreciates the comments that have been made
without me having to go through the litany and
identifying what is essentially the Board has
already stated on the record. I do want to point
out to the community that there are C&R's and the
issue of dwelling versus and accessory apartment.
A dwelling is over 850 square feet. The main
house is the dwelling. The accessory structure
is under 750 square feet. So it is clear it is
not a single family dwelling.
Mr. Chiaro, I believe it was,
which are the
In the code, and
pointed to 280-13,
covenants and what the prohibition
95
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
is and one dwelling and one family. Again, I
think you point out that the homes that are there
right now and there are some homes in the
neighborhood accessory apartments are part of
their principle dwelling. The law has not
changed that allows it now as a right. So they
could be -- so they could create their own little
living space what is today a use. But at the
times that some of these were create, they were
done illegally because they did require a special
permit. So the law has changed in some
instances. You may agree with it but in other
instances there are people in the community that
have had the need to need tenants to help provide
for their housing. So that was another issue I
wanted to raise. So that is the issues that I
thought required some comment. Thank you.
MR. CHIARO: I appreciate counsels attempt
to address some of the concerns; however, I don't
believe that is going to be the case. Whether it
be the nomenclature or the -- (In audible) it is
to us, two dwellings. Two individuals (In
audible) one dwelling one garage, we now have the
available to go have mom and daughter sitting on
the same property. We're not naive here. We
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
understand the Town operates under laws here.
only object to this application. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Anything else?
Hearing no further
comment.
public hearing for decision.
MEMBER HORNING: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
I will make a motion to close the
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
Ail in favor?
We
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Motion to recess for
three minutes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(Whereupon, a recess was taken at this
time.)
97
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
HEARING #6313 - John and Daniella Venetis
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Now, what sits before
the Board is a reopening of a closed hearing.
And lets provide the record a little background
here. We received a letter on December 8, 2010,
we, meaning the members of the Zoning Board of
Appeals with copy to Patricia Moore, who is the
agent for the attorney for the applicant. These
are both for John and Daniella Venetis, and I
wanted to read into the record, this memorandum
from Martin DiFinnegan, Town Attorney. "This
office has been informed that on
December 3, 2009, the ZBA rendered a decision on
a variance application for John and Daniella
Venetis, #6313, that was based upon incorrect
information contained in the record.
Additionally the ZBA had heard and closed a
hearing on an additional application made by John
and Daniella Venetis, which is #6396. According
to the transcripts of this hearing, the issue of
the Town's purported obligation, the right of way
discussed in a letter issued by this letter, by
the Town's submission on the homeowners (In
audible) was referred to but not entered into the
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1t
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
record. It was referred to in the public
hearing. This office request that the ZBA reopen
both the proceedings resulting in the
December 3, 2009 decision so that the record and
decision can be corrected to reflect the Town's
position on the maintenance and Takaposha Road
and that the record from the proceedings most
recently before the Board and to accept the
October 4, 2010 from this office. Now, after
discussion on a Special Meeting held on
December 14, 2010, the Board voted to reopen both
of those hearings to clarify. With regard to
this I am not going to officially open the
hearing #6313 and hearing %6396 at the same time.
With regard to the first hearing #6313, the
applicant was denied variances for the house
construction but was granted a variance for 280-a
access. And the language -- the basis for that
was a letter from Jim McMahon, which is in the
decision, from the Department of Public Works
acknowledges that it
for emergency vehicle access to the home.
based upon that missed information, this
granted a 280-a access subject to a condition,
and it is the condition that we are here to talk
is a responsibility to allow
Now
Board
99
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
about. That the Town fulfill it's obligation to
provide for the access to the home. The Town
maintains that that does not correct information.
It is under no such obligation that they maintain
that Takaposha Road up to up to 280-a standards.
That is not to say that it will not continue to
maintain it on the same basis that it has been
maintained. And so we're here to open this
record to remove the condition but not to recind
the 280-a variance that we granted to the
homeowner. Is that clear to everyone? Does
anyone have any comments?
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore. I have
Mr. Venetis here. This is somewhat
unprecedented. So we're kind of all -- at least
I am operating by the seat of my pants in the
sense that I am not accustomed to having Boards
reopen at the request of the Town Attorney and
the way that I described -- no offenses, to
un-ringing the bell of responsibility for
maintenance of the road. I think the concern
that my client has and (In audible) have, they
have over the years their right of way to a
certain level. For their access. However, the
open space has caused the right of way to be more
100
February 3, 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
heavily used by the public.
the owner, it had been a private road.
purpose to go down the road was for the
While Blocker was
The only
five
homeowners. Mr. Blocker had not
property. The public at large did not go
there. Only homeowners and their guests.
developed the
down
At
this point, because it was acquired by the Town,
my client has observed personally, the public go
down, the fisherman go down. People who want --
who know of this open space want to enjoy this
open space. Go down there and my client has no
The condition of the road needs
control over it.
maintenance and it needs the maintenance by the
Town. To what extent they are going to maintain
it or not maintain it, I am actually -- there is
some record somewhere of promises made. My
client can put on the record, from negotiations
when the Blocker property was being acquired. To
a certain extent, this whole process is a little
awkward with the Board, other then the condition
of being asked to remove. I think there should
be a record of it somewhere. And your transcript
will provide that record. So that down the line
when somebody comes down there with an oversized
truck or something, and breaks their axle or gets
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
hurt,
Town,
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
that there is a record that somebody of the
because it is their open space,
responsibility with respect to sharing in the
maintenance of the road. So I will defer to
Mr. Venetis. It is a little unusual but we have
to put this record somewhere.
MS. ANDALORO: Can you talk about -- I'm
sorry, Jennifer Andaloro. If you recall, you
spoke about this at the last public hearing. I
can understand that you want to reiterate and
But I believe he has already talked
it's fine.
about it.
MS. MOORE:
I don't know to what extent he
did. Given that not everyone will realize to go
back to that record, I thought it was relevant to
him dealing with just the right of way at this
point.
MS. ANDALORO:
I am not going to
public hearing.
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
the record, please.
MR. VENETIS: John Venetis.
that I had is, you can't control
I question the relevance but
stop anybody from speaking at a
State your name for
The concern
the actions.
102
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
People have been using and abusing and in the
sense that we have a sort of a bridge that goes
over water on either side that has been that way
for the past 25 or 30 years, we feel that, you
know, if it not safely passed by any one of the
public that comes across it, then it can easily
turn into a problem for us. So we feel that, you
know,
to take care of the space, we
do it to keep the people safe.
don't know -- we can bear the
keeping the public safe for a
if there is no maintenance record or ways
don't know how to
So therefore, I
responsibility of
road that was meant
just meant for the residents of Takaposha Road.
That is the only concern that I have.
SPEAKER: (In audible).
MR. VENETIS: And yes, I will present to
Patricia all of the documentation represented by
the Land Preservation Committee that I was -- so
that she can hand it over to you. Okay.
MS. MOORE: He has asked his real estate
attorney to handle the negotiations of their file
and with respect to this road, so he has to
and pull from it whatever documents he has.
I would just ask that the Board keep
open so I can submit --
go in
And
the record
103
104
February 3, 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: (In audible).
MS. MOORE: Because I know my client has
been waiting for a -- we're hoping at the next
meeting. So we don't want
has been along wait.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
that either. All right.
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
to prolong because it
We don't want to do
Anything else?
Hearing no further
comments. I will make a motion to close Hearing
#6313. Is there a second?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
I would like to make a motion to remove the
condition in decision in 6313, the portion that
reads --
MS. ANDALORO: Actually, Leslie, you should
hold off on doing this motion since the hearing
is going to be open subject
additional --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
to receipt of
That is subject 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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
receipt.
MS. ANDALORO: So you're okay with doing
now? I thought that you
materials in the record.
you would do that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
it
should have all the
I would feel better if
We can certainly do
that. We will schedule it then for the Special
Meeting then that will happen in two weeks so we
can have a review of the materials that have been
submitted. We just closed it subject to receipt
and we will do something about this condition
it.
to closing on
attorney?
receipt of the
when we receive
So second,
letter from the
Second.
Ail in favor?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
and Daniella
HEARING %6313 John
Venetis
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Okay. Let's go onto
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
the next one. We will see if it's the same
thing. The hearing that is currently an open
application because we haven't written a decision
yet, involves essentially -- opening this up so
we could enter physically into the record, a
letter that I know you have received. From the
Town Attorney, dated October 4, 2010. This
letter was referred to in the public transcript.
It was not; however, physically entered in and
taken written testimony. We're opening basically
to accept this letter, which clarifies the Town's
position regarding responsibility to maintain
Takaposha Road. Is it necessary for me to
actually read this letter?
MS. MOORE: No, we're aware of that. We
have it, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
sure.
I just wanted to make
MS. MOORE: I do want to put on the record
with you, a new address because he didn't get the
certified mail. Fortunately, he was aware of
6-04
this through our office. Are you ready?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yep.
MS. MOORE: It is Mr. And Mrs. Venetis.
158th Street, Beechhurst,
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
B-E-E-C-H-H-U-R-S-T, New York, 11357.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. All right. So
I am going to make a motion to close Hearing
#6396.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6388 - Regina's Garden LLC
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application
before the Board is Regina's Garden LLC. This
was an adjournment.
legal notice again. Mr.
come before the Board?
So we don't need to read the
Cuddy, would you like to
MR. CUDDY: Good afternoon. For the record,
Charles Cuddy. I represent the Harbes. They're
both here, Mr. And Mrs. Harbes, who are the
principles of Regina's Garden. (In audible).
(Stepped far away from the microphone.)
MR. CUDDY: Also, if I may, I have a list
exhibits for what I have done.
of
107
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 108
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: Great, thank you.
MR. CUDDY: What I have done is listed
another exhibits and I think I can go through
them with you. Not to go through each one
because some of them are a little lengthy. I
initially indicated that the property in
question, which is a 1.1 acre site was required
by the Jens people, Mr. And Mrs. Jens in 1967.
So I attached a deed. The significance of the
deed is, on the south side of the property it is
by the Harbes. The same family has been farming
it for more than 40 years. And I think
historically, I just want to go through some of
these things so I can really pinpoint on what our
application is all about. I attached the next
item, which is B, Exhibit B, which is the
greenhouse property card for what were
greenhouses initially. When this site was
purchased in '67, they followed a year in '68 and
'69, according to the property code, when the
greenhouses were placed on the site. There are
small buildings in the front, which is the
subject of
been there
people who
this hearing, was erected. It has
for almost 40 years. I think most
are familiar with Jens operations,
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
knows that the Jens were there for almost 40
years. My wife and I purchased things at the
Jens site in 1970. I think I have let set forth
a court decision, which I
read all
aware of.
don't think you need to
of, but I think that you need to be
It list the history of this site. The
court decision of Justice Price, of the Town
Justice here, there was a claim made that the
Jens site was improperly operated because it had
a gift shop. The determination in that decision
is that it was a permitted use based on the
history if that site. In other words, at that
time in 1984, they were saying you couldn't have
a gift shop there and he determined that you
could and that it was proper. And again, I think
historically, this is important for today.
I have listed an affidavit
think the point
has continued.
the property.
of Mr. Harbes.
of that is, the use of this site
The Jens family eventually sold
Mr. Harbes bought the property in
Next,
I
2006. He initially used it continuously as a
gift shop, just as it had been used. He then
economically found out it was no longer viable
and he then turned it into his office. So he
used it for his marketing people. I point out to
109
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 110
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 and I think this becomes very significant,
Exhibit E. Exhibit E, is a letter from the New
York State Agricultural District that was sent to
Whitmore Nursery's in East Hampton. The
significance of that letter is that a sales
office in an agricultural site, Agricultural
District, is a permitted use. Today we're
talking about whether a farm office is both a
permitted use, which I think now we can conclude
that it is a permitted use and what the
requirements are in connection with the
Agricultural District. I ask you just to
momentarily look at that Exhibit, Exhibit E,
because I think there are parts of it which
really become somewhat significant. I think if
you look at the second and third pages, the
second page, that the author, who is the director
of that department, is saying that pursuant to
the Agricultural Market's Law, 305a, local
governments are prohibited from enacting
adminstrative laws (In audible) restrict farm
operations located within an Agricultural
District unless it can be shown there is a public
health or safety and they go on to say that farm
operation includes among other things, activities
February 3, 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
that contribute to the use for the production,
operation and marketing of such livestock and
livestock products. And then they go further to
say that the definition of farm operation
includes, land, unfarmed buildings and equiptment
needed to prepare to produce and market crops.
And unfarmed building is utilized that nursery.
There administrative special staff as well as
their production laborers are also part of the
farm operations. I go through all of that to say
to you that I think that definition, the farm
office is a farm use. And I know from here, is
that there question has arisen that (In audible)
on one site and the reason that I go through part
of this history is to relate to you at all times
there were two buildings on this property and way
back in the 1960's and '70's and they were used
in tandem. The house was where the Jens family
was. They had greenhouses that they erected.
And by the way, you will note that this is in the
Agricultural District and that is what Exhibit F
shows you. A letter from the Accessor and the
Town of Southold. They use this continuously
together. The Harbes essentially have farms that
surrounds this site. They're trying to use 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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
(In audible) in connection with both pieces, both
buildings -- both structures. The home is used
in connection with the farm because that is where
the farm worker lives. The site is particularly
good and I will get to a Planning Board letter in
a second. The site is particularly good because
it's a 1200 square foot site. That is right in
the middle of their farm area. It is on one side
of the road. The farm is on both sides of the
roads. All the times that the Jens uses this
property, they used it together. All the time
that Harbes is using this property, they're using
it together. It seems to me that these two uses,
when perhaps being the principle and the other
being an accessory, are appropriate at the site.
It is a farm. They need to have as indicated in
the decision, bookkeeping, they have more than 20
employees. They have managerial people. They
have farms not only in the Town of Southold.
They have them also in Riverhead. And they
constantly need them in place to put their files
and computers and to do the things they need to
do administratively. They need an office. They
don't have an office. They essentially meet in
the back of a farm stand at this point. And so
112
113
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
they need some place to go and this is an
appropriate place. It's a markedly small use.
There is going to be three or four people at this
site. I think that the problem that perhaps the
Building Inspector had, was that he thought there
were two uses on this site and it's only an acre.
That there should be some concern expressed and
that's why we're basically here. If you take 150
acres of land and you take this site and you meld
this into it, the density problem doesn't exist
as far as I can see. So I don't see that this
presents a problem. This Board in March 2006
made a decision in Shinn Vineyards. Shinn
Vineyards is 1.2 acres. 1.2 acres was granted a
Special Permit for bed and breakfast and there
was a winery existing on the site. So they had
two related uses and I think
And that is what I am saying
appropriate to have a farm
you house a farm worker and at the
same time an office. I don't think there is a
density problem because of the tremendous size of
the farm. I think it is a needed use. I think
we try to encourage that type of use. And I
would hope that the Board could find that this
uses. Again,
appropriate uses.
to you. It is
building where
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 114
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
type of use is not only appropriate but the use
of the site is very much appropriate. The Harbes
are here. I am sure they will answer any
questions that you have.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Actually I have a
question, that I would like to have you clarify,
please. The original application proposed to the
Board, one was a use variance and an area
variance. Can you now, please, after you have
had this time to consider all options, tell us
what you are proposing to this Board?
MR. CUDDY: I am simply saying this is an
Area Variance and I think the Building Inspector
indicated that is true. That it is not a Use
Variance. That we're not here to make a Use
Variance application. The Area Variance
application that we're making, I believe complies
with all the standards set for Area Variances.
There is certainly no adverse affect on the
community to have what the Planning Board
recognizes as a lesser use of the site. The
environmental impact doesn't exist because I
don't think we're doing anything new. We're
using the site just as it is. I don't believe in
the context of the total site that it is
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
substantial. It is on one acre. There is a 150
acres of play. Certainly the density is not
going to be a problem. Is there an alternative?
I don't believe there is an alternative, or I
guess quite frankly, you can use the building as
a garage or storage area, but I think that would
be more intense of two or three coming to this
building on occasion. I don't know that any one
of the standards would be met. It's certainly
not self creating. It's been there for over 40
years. We're not asking for a Use Variance and
the reason why we're not, we believe that it's
inappropriate -- excuse me, we believe that this
is an appropriate use. It's a permitted use.
It's not a nonconforming use. And that's why I
gave you some of the decisions, as I did, and an
opinion letter from the State of New York. So
we're not asking that this be a changed use or
nonconforming use. We're saying that it is a
permitted use and its usage should be recognized.
I believe at this point that the Building
Inspector accepts that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This is a rather
unique property, historically. We're all quite
familiar with it. How does this property in your
115
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 116
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
mind, differ from other farm properties that may
have accessory structures on them that would then
similarly be coming to this Board for a similar
proposal? Is there something unique about this
property that makes it distinctly different from
other applications --
MR. CUDDY: I think to start with, a stand
alone farm office is an appropriate use and I
think that is what the State determined in the
Whitmore letter. Saying in that case, they
actually had an office that was in a commercial
letter. They needed a second office for
marketing, and what I was reading to you was from
that part of the decision. States that you have
-- that you certainly can have a separate office
for the marketing purposes and administrative
staff that you would have at a site. Is it
different from other farms? No, I think it is
larger then other farms. I think the Harbes
Family farms a whole much greater deal than other
farms do. As far as the size of their acreage
goes. Don't forget this site backs right on to
part of the farm. So I don't think that it is
significantly different. Although I think some
of their needs are different maybe from other
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 117
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
farmers.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Are there lease
agreements that your client has with their
relatives
property?
MR.
that they do the
CUDDY: There
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
this subject parcel.
farming with their
They are the owners of
MR. CUDDY: Some of the -- for instance,
brother and sister, we're talking about. His
brother owns
his brother.
his
some of the farm land. I represent
I represented Edward Harbes, who is
here. I represented Peter Harbes. Peter Harbes
said to me, his brother leased the land from him.
To answer your question and hopefully they have
formal leases. It is something in the family and
it is something they have done year after year.
And they lease it from each other.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes. You're requesting
an area variance for what in particular?
MR. CUDD¥: I am requesting that we be
permitted to have two uses on this lot.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You mean, one residential
and --
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
February 3,
MR. CUDDY:
with the farm.
2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
One is residential in connection
And the other being the farm
office use. They're both relating to farm uses.
That is why I went through the history with Jens,
because Jens had the history there. And he had
the greenhouses. And by the way, those
greenhouses are still in operation. And we're
saying that we have two farm uses. They
essentially had a use that was connected to their
home.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I am a little unclear on
the two farm uses. Are you saying it is all
agriculture?
MR. CUDDY: I am saying that the home that
is there is used by one of the farm people. I am
saying that both of them are used for
agricultural uses. One of them being used to
farm the worker, house. The second being used
for a farm office.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And would this structure
in question, would that be considered an
accessory structure?
MR. CUDDY: I think it
an accessory structure, yes.
operation.
could be considered
To the farm
118
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The farm operation of
bookkeeping, managerial operations --
MR. CUDDY: Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That support --
MR. CUDDY: Yes, that is correct. It is
needed. It is recognized and even the State
recognizes their opinion in it. I can also tell
you that the Long Island Farm Bureau had said
this earlier to someone, Mr. Gregella is very
much in accordance with the presentation that I
am making. He is ill so he is not able to write
letters, but he and I talked over the phone. And
he thought that a separate farm building is more
than appropriate. And I
separate farm buildings.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
operations?
MR. CUDDY: Yeah,
have clients that have
To conduct office
and I want to be clear,
this is solely to conduct farm operations. It is
solely for their farms and nothing else.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Those office operations
would solely be in support of the permitted use?
MR. CUDDY: That's correct, yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have no further
questions.
119
February 3, 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
MEMBER HORNING: I have some questions.
Mr. Cuddy, based on your testimony here, the
Notice of Disapproval that was issued is
incorrect because it's saying that the proposed
use is not permitted, can you get this thing
amended so we can have one that reflects your
situation as you present it?
MR. CUDDY: I am only smiling because, I
attempted to do that and Mr. Verdi said, "no."
We didn't really understand what he meant. What
he indicated was, he wasn't saying the use was
improper. He was saying that only the site had
two uses on it and that was his concern. So I
did ask him to amend it and he said, "no, it was
unnecessary to amend it" because he didn't mean
it was a use question. It meant that the uses
were the thing that he was talking about at that
site. It was not use variance question.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: (In audible).
MR. CUDDY: Right. We met with him and he
was very strong about him saying that. I asked
him to do what you just indicated because I
thought it was a little confusing and somewhat
ambigious. He didn't think so.
MEMBER HORNING: Well, I think it is and he
February 3, 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
can strike the statement out of there.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, we can compel him to
come in here and make a statement.
MS. ANDALORO: I can verify the statement
because I was present at the meeting also. If
you don't want to call Mike
is exactly what he said.
MEMBER HORNING: If it
then the
in, I can verify that
is a permitted use
statement should not be in there.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
is wrong.
MEMBER HORNING:
George, we can say that he
I am just thinking of the
person who develops the rational for our
decision, be a lot easier and not have to deal
with that. It would not be part of the issue
anymore.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
decision and that is
MEMBER HORNING:
But again, he made the
the application before us.
If he can amend it then we
don't have to decide on the issue.
be relevant.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I
It wouldn't
understand
what Mike's suggestive interpretation was and
what Pat did in a very ambiguous way. It should
have read after No. 1, it's not permitted because
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
there is two uses. You know that is what he was
essentially -- but he said, "also." So it would
appear that there are two things that were being
questioned. My question to you is, our file has
two applications in it, a Use Variance and an
Area Variance. Based upon what you just have
described, I am asking you are you withdrawing
the application for a Use Variance?
MR. CUDDY: Based on Mr. Verdi's
determination made in my presence, yes. He's
saying it was unnecessary to have a Use Variance.
And I think that Ms. Andaloro is saying is true.
She was at that meeting. That was the (In
audible) of it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim, do you have any
questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: (In audible) we take
Mr. Cuddy's word that what he saying to us is
correct. These are both uses. They may be two
different uses but they are both farm uses. I
think that is what (In audible). Just because
you're doing paperwork for -- you have a bunk
house for someone to sleep in for the overall
agricultural aspect of this huge piece of land.
And whether they have the computers in their own
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
personal home or the greenhouses or the winery or
wherever they do their office work, to my mind it
is in support of the farm itself. It's just a --
this operation is certainly is unusual for the
south of the Town. It's not just the guy going
out and picking cauliflower. It has a lot of
farm uses. And some uses that didn't use to be
thought of as a farm, and they all are now. So I
just want to be clear on what you're saying to
me, this is two different uses. There is
probably more than that. There is stuff growing
in the greenhouse too.
They are all farm use.
MR. CUDDY:
That use is a farm use.
That's correct. It's in an
Agricultural District.
and that's what they do
to support.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
It's in the AC District
and yes, they need those
Our decision with respect
to the Use Variance is, I don't think a Use
Variance is necessary because here is the reason
why. They're all farm uses.
end of that application.
MR. CUDDY: I think the
permitted type of use.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
That would be the
farm office is a
Well, bear in mind, in
123
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
the original hearing, the Board was not aware of
the fact whether there were Ag properties farmed
by the Harbes. So what we're to clarify the Area
Variance before us now, saying that you need in
this zone, you need to have 80,000 square feet
per use. These are permitted uses. That would
be 160,000 square feet for the residential use
for the farm office, "accessory" to the Ag
operation. Now, what we have here is 45,000
square feet. So that is the percentage of square
feet that we're looking at. It has to do with a
nonconforming size, but you're argument is, if
you annex that subject parcel to the farm land
surrounding it, then it is mitigated
substantially by that --
MR. CUDDY: Yes, said much better than I
did.
MEMBER DINIZIO: We can condition the use of
that piece of property (In audible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you be willing
to consider C&R's on this?
MR. CUDDY: I think so. I think we should
discuss them a little bit but I don't think that
is a problem.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What are the kinds of
124
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 125
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
C&R's --
MR. CUDDY: Well,
they are farming using
I think that as long as
those two buildings in
conjunction with the farm, I understand that is
important. My math would be a little bit
different than yours, if I could say so. I
believe that you need for the second use, the
80,000 square feet. I think for the first use,
if you're using that for the farm house, I think
that by itself it's there, and that on one acre.
And so I don't know if you would need 160,000.00
I would say 120,000.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: One other secondary
question, the occupant of the house. Can you
please tell us a little more about the occupant
of the house?
MR. CUDDY: This is Mr. Harbes.
MR. HARBES: Hello everyone. My name is
Ed Harbes. This is my wife, Monica. The
occupant of the house is a woman named April
Rochetta. She has been working on our farm for
several years. She heads up our
growing and animal program. And
with
greenhouse
she is involved
retailing at the Mattituck farm stand across
the street.
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 126
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
like to do is make
the public record.
an employee of the
There is however a
Because what I would
sure that we address this in
Certainly an appropriate that
farm live on the premises.
law, since it's not the owner
of the property that is living there. There is
something that I would like to have the record
reflect a discussion of the issue of farm worker
housing. Whether or not that is necessary, in
order to have an employee live there as part of
the Ag operation. Maybe Mr. Cuddy would like to
-- I would just like to make sure that we explore
every aspect of this very unique property. We
have an application before us for housing an
employee of an Ag operation in an Ag structure.
Not even an residential structure.
MR. HARBES: This is a person that lives in
the residence. And we have no problem
covenanting that the person who lives there has
to be a farm employee. Has to be connected to
that farm, and at all times. Because otherwise
you're going to have a situation where you will
have a separate use --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MR. CUDDY:
Correct.
And you have the two uses 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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
everyone is concerned about. We would covenant
it. Those two would have to be dependent upon
each other.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Are you calling a farm
office a use?
MR. CUDDY: I think the farm office is an
accessory use.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
permitted use, which is
case, farming of crops.
the case may be. And all the structures that
exist on this parcel support the permitted use of
agricultural.
MR. CUDDY:
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
And it's accessory to the
agricultural, in this
And livestock, whatever
Correct.
So in essence we have one
have a continuing farm use
-- yes.
use on this parcel?
MR. CUDDY: We
but accessory to the
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: There is one permitted
use, which is agricultural dwelling. It's not a
winery.
MR. CUDDY: It's just AC.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So these are then
accessory to the Ag operation.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: We have a parcel with one
127
February 3, 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
use. And the accessory structures happen to
perform different functions to support that one
permitted use. One of them be, housing for a
farm worker. One being the operations of an
office to perform the permitted use. And the
others actually being the growing of crops and
and farming within the greenhouses.
CUDDY: That's correct.
materials
MR.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
accurate.
I think that sounds
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Then we move forward with
this. Is there a problem with that?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Once you stop saying it's a
farm --
MR. CUDDY: It's not intended to be a farm
laborer house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's a residence that
is occupied by an employee of the Ag operation.
A family mentber and/or --
MR. CUDDY: Correct.
MEMBER DINIZIO: It's a farm building that
happens to be a house but not --
MR. CUDDY: But not a farm laborer building.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We were exploring this
February 3, 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
so the record could reflect the potential issues
on this application. So we bring it up so the
record shows that we have considered that. Are
there any comments from anyone in the audience
about this application?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I was going to ask you
to please describe who will be coming to farm
office? Who will be using it? How many people?
What the impacts on the site is going to be? Any
sales coming out of that office?
MR. CUDDY: There would be a marketing
director that essentially does work inside the
office with computer and telephone. The sales
don't emminate right from there. The sales come
from other sites. There would undoubtedly be an
area of the office where they could have
managerial people. They have several managers
for different sites. Occasionally they have
meetings. Right now they have meetings in the
field. So they're trying to have a table and
chairs so they can sit down once in a while. But
for the most part to answer your question, there
would probably be no more than three or four
people on the site. They have a bookkeeper. 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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
a regular basis probably no more than two or
three people. A marketing person, bookkeeper
person. Two or three cars at the site.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Not open to the
general public?
MR. CUDDY: No, I can't go in and neither
can you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What general hours
operation are you talking about?
MR. CUDDY: 9:00 to 5:00 operation. It's
not an evening operation or an early morning
operation.
MR. HARBES: 7:00 to 6:00.
MR. CUDDY: It's daylight hours.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am not saying it's
restricted. I just want to understand how this
property is being proposed.
MR. CUDDY: In a very limited fashion is
answer your question.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Many farm operations have
that is usually associated with the farm. Was
it about this situation that precludes it from
happening? There is a resident there?
MR. CUDDY: That is right. I think what
of
the
One other question.
offices in the resident
is
130
February 3, 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
precludes it is, is the size of the use that we
are talking about. You need space. You need
file cabinets. You need a desk, two desks. You
need to have an area where you can sit down and
have a conference with people. It really is no
longer a mom and pop type of operation where you
say you have a small place you keep your books.
The farmers that I know that have separate
offices have file cabinets, have desks. Have
computers. Have people that come in and do the
bookkeeping for them at the desk. In this case,
they have the marketing person also because of
the nature of their business. So it is not
something that you can just do out of your house.
That
out.
is one of the problems and they found that
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don't have any
Does the Board have any
further questions.
questions?
(No verbal response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Lets do this.
Presuming there is no one in the audience that
would like to speak, we would -- I would like to
have submitted, proposed C&R's from you, as per
this discussion. And if the Board has no further
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
questions, I would be prepared to make a motion
to close the hearing subject to receipt of those
C&R's --
MEMBER DINIZIO: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I believe the Board
can address the Notice of Disapproval as we just
described. We have a second.
Ail in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6443 - Indian Neck Lane Holdings
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So we're going to go
to Indian Neck Holdings and that is a carryover,
so we don't need to
afternoon.
MR. EMILITA:
read the legal. Hi, good
Thank you, Madam Chairman, and
Members of the Board. I am going to hand up one
final receipt with respect to the package that
was (In audible) so we re mailed the notification
(In audible) that was stamped on the envelope.
We have submitted to the Board revised
132
February 3, 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
architectural plans in accordance with your
questions and comments at the January 6th
hearing. And I think what I would like to do for
my opening comments is to go through what I
believe your questions and comments were, at the
January 6th hearing, and then take any questions
that you might have. All right. The first major
question was with respect to the proposed number
of occupants of the apartment. The plans stated
we have intentions of no more than three
occupants in the two bedroom apartment as shown
on the plans; however, in your decision it is
respectfully suggested that the occupancy of the
premises be limited to no more than one family,
as defined in Section 280-4 of the Town Code.
Question #2, are there plans for any other
apartments in the other barns? And the answer to
that is, no. There is no plans for any
additional dwellings, apartments in any of the
other barns. Question #3, was a request for a
more detailed floor plan. And we have supplied
that indicating the kitchen layout in question
and that the formally labeled waiting room would
be a TV room for the occupants and other details
have been shown in what architects call, "clouds"
February 3, 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
20
21
22
23
24
25
on the revised plans. Thirdly or fourthly
rather, can a room be subdivided in an
independent dwelling be built on a new lot rather
than put an apartment in a barn, in theory, the
farm could be subdivide. As the development
rights renew on the property. However, there is
no desire to subdivide the farm because we have
abandoned the previous subdivision that existed
on the property in favor of the present use,
which is of course agricultural,
entire -- the entire property. The next
was concerning a second method of egress
which uses the
question
from the
apartment and as the plans show, the plans have
been revised to show two emergency exits in the
form of metal balconies at the north and south
stables, which have pull-up ladders to the ground
level, and in addition, at the east and west ends
of the apartment, there are 90-minute rated fire
doors installed. So coupled with the existing
stairway, there are five potential exits from the
apartment in the event that an emergency exit
would be needed. The next question, the
compatibility of hay storage in a dwelling on the
same floor. The dwelling will be protected as
the plans show. For a two-hour rated fire wall
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 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
separation in the flooring and from the hay
storage areas. Any and all requirements of the
applicable State, County and Town Fire
Regulations will be reviewed and met in the
building permit process. And then lastly, was an
apartment on the ground considered instead of the
second floor? And in actuality the barns have
been built with the required number of stalls and
storage rooms and to now reconstruct the ground
floor with an apartment, would be a practically
difficulty. Finally, attached to the letter
dated January 25th, is the required Notice of
Disapproval from the Town Building Department
indicating that a Site Plan approval from the
Town Planning Board is required as would be a
special exception from your Board, but that the
proposed use on this parcel in th AC zone is a
permitted use pursuant to Article III Section
280-13A, which we are now applying. So I hope
this -- these are satisfactory responses to
questions at your last hearing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
any questions or comments?
MEMBER HORNING: No,
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
George, do you have
I don't.
Jim?
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
MEMBER DINIZIO: I still have some concerns
about an apartment in a barn, but I was hoping
that the State Fire Codes would take care of that
end. That is all I have.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Neither have I,
hallelujah. I think that your letter was quite
comprehensive. I looked at your transcript and
you addressed all of your concerns that the Board
raised. I have no
anyone in audience
application?
(No response.)
further questions. Does
wish to address this
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Hearing no
further comment, I will make a motion to close
the hearing and reserve decision.
MEMBER HORNING: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
136
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 137
t
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
HEARING %6436
Cavallo
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
is Cavallo
carryover.
notice.
MS. DWYER:
the homeowners,
Lois Abramchik and Barbara
Our next application
and Abramchik, and that is a
So there is no need to read the legal
Is there someone here that would --
Hello. I am here on behalf of
who are also here with me today.
name
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you state your
for the record?
MS. DWYER: Nancy Dwyer.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you, Nancy.
MS. DWYER: Can I hand out what I just
picked up this morning?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MS. DWYER: This is a revised survey. This
is the revised survey that John Meester prepared
locating the septic system. There is two pools
off to the right side of the house and there is
one in the backyard. The natural vegetation is
approximated but it is shown on the survey as
well. And that is the original location for the
proposed pool. Now what is not shown on the
survey but you can see in one of the photographs,
it's the photograph that also shows the jungle
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
gym. There is an underground propane tank, that
is exactly center in the backyard. The architect
couldn't locate it because of the snow that has
been on the ground. And you can also see it from
one of the aerial photographs that I have
submitted. The aerial photographs show that
there is limited clearing as of right now. That
is one of the reasons why they're choosing to put
the pool in this location, it's proposed
location. Now, what I have also just given you
is a proposed site plan, where as requested by
the neighbors, they requested that we move the
pool an additional 50 feet to the north. What
the homeowners have agreed upon is moving it an
additional 20 feet to the north, making it 88
feet off the neighbors property line. And you
can see that it shows as close to the natural
wooded area without having to clear the area.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Nancy, did you find
out about access to Brown's Hill Road?
MS. DWYER: They don't have access to
Brown's Hill Road. They're deeded as the right
of way and access to their property. They don't
have access to Brown's Hill.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Because that changes
138
February 3, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
the circumstances we as a Board actually reviewed
the code, with the town attorney to determine
consistency in the definition of front yard. And
in one place it's cited strictly as frontage
along the right of way and in another part of the
code, it is required to have legal and physical
access to a road or right of way for it to
constitute (In audible). So that is one of the
things and applicants need to be a little more
conversive with that, because of the Notice of
Disapproval cites that in the front yard when in
fact it's probably a side yard. So we want the
record to reflect that it is not in a front yard.
It is being proposed in a side yard. Actual
fact, from this new site, it would appear that it
may even be a tiny bit of the rear yard. Can't
tell exactly. It looks a little, little bit
passed the house, or parallel to it.
MEMBER DINIZIO: There
rear yard.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Jim. I see, Jim. Ken,
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
north a little,
is nothing in the
Right. You're right,
questions?
You say the pool to the
20 feet?
MS. DWYER: 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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And I see on the updated
survey a better indiction on how the right of way
adjoins the property?
MS. DWYER: Yes, it hooks to the left. Now,
what was also brought to my attention by John
Meester's Office, is the original survey showed
that the proposed pool was 93 feet off of Brown's
Hill Road and that was an incorrect dimension
on their part. And he has since changed it and
it is over 100 feet off of Brown's Hill Road.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 125 feet, plus or
minus?
MS. DWYER: Yes, correct. But then --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The site plan --
MS. DWYER: The site plan reflects moving an
shows the
The site plan
additional 20 feet. The survey
original location.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
shows --
off the
MS. DWYER: The proposed dimensions
property line.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And what are your reasons
for not putting it in a conforming rear yard?
MS. DWYER: One being the septic and the
other being the propane -- the underground
140
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 141
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
propane tank. Both would have to be relocated,
and also the pool can be visible from the kitchen
and existing covered porch.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And you are aware that
we had discussions at the previous hearing about
conditioning this based upon responsibilities and
repairs --
MS. DWYER:
Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Damaged to landscaping
and/or repair to the right of way because even
though you're the best homeowner in the world,
you wind up with a contractor klutz.
MS. DWYER: Yes, the homeowners are aware
also.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
talk about or bring up the
Does the Board want to
issue -- no that is
the utility shed. You don't have on here the
proposed location of the pump equipment -- oh,
it's in the shed.
MS. DWYER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So that is on the far
side of the wooded property?
MEMBER HORNING: And the heating equipment
would also be in 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
February 3,
MS. DWYER: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING:
MEMBER DINIZIO:
propane.
MEMBER HORNING:
main --
2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
Would it be propane heated
More than likely it is
It's not coming from the
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Wait a minute, we have
to -- if the property owners are going to answer
questions they have to come to the podium. These
proceedings are tape recorded. So we can't hear
just enter your name into the
I'm Barbara Cavallo.
And I'm Lois Abramchik.
The pool people said
right inside the pool
by
you. Please
record?
MS. CAVALLO:
MS. ABRkMCHIK:
We're having it heated.
heating device would be
tub and I got
thing burns more
the mechanics. There wouldn't be any other
external equipment. And if we didn't -- he
didn't tell us if it would be propane but the
propane tank is in there.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I have a hot
to tell you, that small little
electric than you can think.
MS. ABPJ%MCHIK:
To answer your question in
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
as to why it wasn't being put in the back and in
addition to what Nancy said. The direct back is
actually closer to our other neighbors. So we
were trying to -- we were trying to do it in a
place where it is not near any of our neighbors.
And this location that is proposed is totally not
near any of the neighbors.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So you're centering the
pool on your parcel?
MS. ABRAMCHIK: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Anyone in the
audience want to address this application?
Please come forward?
MS. PIGNATO: I just want to thank the Board
for their time and energy in helping us resolve
this situation.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Jayann, would you just
please state your name for the record?
MS. PIGNATO: Jayann Pignato.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
the Board.
MS. PIGNATO: Okay.
wanted to thank them both,
wanting to move it
You have to talk to
I will repeat. I just
Lois and Barbara, for
20 feet north. I think that
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
is a generous compromise. We appreciate that.
We do have concerns. 20 feet certainly helps the
situation but we would still like to see it go
back further. What may have not been stated the
last time that I was here, on the piece of
property that Ms. Abramchik and Ms. Cavallo own,
there are two other families that live there.
Our concern is numbers. Ms. Abramchik and
Ms. Cavallo have a child. That is three people.
There are the parents of Ms. Cavallo that live on
the same property. That is an additional two
people. So there is five people. There is a
cottage that is rented out each summer. Has
another husband and wife and occasion, daughter.
That is another three people. This is our
concern. The nu~oers are large by virtue of the
fact, Ms. Marchanelo (phenetic) here with four
additional children. It is wonderful that these
folks
grant
there
house
all have a comfortable relationship, and we
them that and wish them well, but I believe
are four more children who live in that
next door. So the numbers just get larger
and larger. So with that our concern for our
quite and peacefulness is somehow threatened,
without questioning, as far as we are concern.
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
MEMBER DINIZIO: Can you just elaborate on
that?
MS. PIGNATO: Well, just the sheer number of
people we anticipate will be using that pool.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Are you saying that the
pool is going to draw more people?
MS. PIGNATO: Yes, that is exactly my
contention. It is not that there will draw more
people, there is a large number of people
occupying the particular parcel of property.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Illegally?
MS. PIGNATO: Oh, absolutely illegally. I
am almost certain of that. I am just talking
about sheer numbers and trying to emphasize and
why we are in a position to request that the pool
be moved farther north.
MS. DWYER: I'm sorry.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just let her finish
and you will have all the time to respond.
MS. PIGNATO: Pretty much that is it. I
made my concerns the last time in a statement
that I gave to you, requesting that the rapid
growing 6 foot evergreens be planted to the south
side of the pool. That the equipment be located
on the north side soundproofing and so forth. So
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
all of that is here. I did update this
particular statement with my last concern that I
just made mention of. And I would like to, if I
might, give the Board a copy of this.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
MS. PIGNATO: And that is basically all I
have to say.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Ail right. Thank you.
Did you want to make
MS. ABR~_MCHIK:
to some things.
some comments.
I would just like to respond
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure. Just state your
name for the recorder again.
MS. ABRAMCHIK: Lois Abramchik. Just for
the record, we don't rent out the cottage. We
have a cottage that friends of ours who stay in
it in the suramer. And our parents do live there.
So there is like seven of us
property. We're very quiet.
point out, the Pignato's
that do live on the
I just want to
and Regina's are selling
their home. So they plan to be
property. And just so you know,
in-ground pool that is ten feet
leaving the
they have an
from our property
line, and it's really none of my business how
many family members they have. She brought it
146
February 3, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
up. They have children and grandchildren who use
their pool as well. That is part of life. We do
have a daughter. We do have neighbors that have
children and we welcome them and their children.
That is true. And we do plan to allow them to
swim, of course. Our daughter is a swimmer for
CYO and she will be using the pool. But they
also have a pool that is 10 feet from our
property line -- let me finish. They built a two
car, two story garage 10 feet from our property
line a few years ago without concerns of how far
it was from our property line. Ten feet it is,
and we have photos of that. And we have photos
of their pool which is -- this is our property
line and that is their pool, 10 feet. And I just
wanted to also show you, we took a photo of a
child standing on where our pool would be
compared to their property line. And I would be
happy to show you. The child looks this tiny
because that is how far it is. We really don't
think it would interfere, quiet, peaceful. We're
also peaceful.
MS. CAVALLO: I just would like to say
something. This is Barbara Cavallo. And I just
want to say that my parents -- my father is 82
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 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
and my mother is 78. And they don't really
party. So my dad -- the pool will be used to
help my dad in his recovery. My mother has two
knee replacements and I know it is irrelevant.
So I just wanted you to know, I am 52 and we
don't have -- the police were never called on us
for having large parties. I am just -- and our
other neighbors we're close to. In fact, all of
our children are the same age. In total there
are
five children with our abutting neighbors.
MS. PIGNATO: May I respond again?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: State your name?
MS. PIGNATO: Jayann Pignato. I in no way
want to deny my neighbors of a pool. It is a
wonderful luxury. I wish them well and I trust
that you will enjoy it and I trust that all the
children will enjoy it. We certainly invite
children as well. Our intention is not to deny
you. Our intention
as possible to keep
all.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
need to address the
MS. PIGNATO:
want to deny anyone
is to try and ensure as much
it as peaceful and easy for
Excuse me. You really
Board.
Yes. Again, we really don't
the luxury of a pool. I just
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
want to ensure, both Maria and I want to ensure
the amount of peacefulness in our home and we
were concerned and maybe a little bit
freightened, when something like this comes up.
A proposal comes up whereby we don't know the
anticipated end story is going to be. So it
would be foolish of us to not come here and ask
for the things to protect us well. And I hope
that it was taken in the
meant. Thank you.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
spirit that it was
You built a garage and
you needed a variance of that?
MS. PIGNATO: Yes.
according --
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
for?
MS. PIGNATO: It was
It was considered for our
Everything was built
What was the variance
for the same problem.
side yard. So we had
to get a variance and Pat Moore took care of all
of that for us. We came before the Board --
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So you got a variance to
place your garage in a side yard?
MS. PIGNATO: Correct.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That was because of the
right of way?
149
February 3, 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
MS. PIGNATO: It was because that position
of the property was considered the side yard.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The pool that you have
also exists in a side yard?
MS. PIGNATO: No, in our rear yard.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No, the right of way that
runs through your property right that this
applicant has asked us to, makes that property
line on your property a second front yard. And
which in effect, the pool that you have on your
property may be considered a side yard and you
never got a variance for that pool --
MS. PIGNATO: No, I don't think so. That
was built by Bob Keel back in '89.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: But you're here trying to
deny your neighbor the relief when you in fact
have the same relief.
MS. ?IGNATO: Sir, I believe you're
incorrect. I am not denying or attempting to
deny my neighbor a swimming pool. That is
clearly not the case.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You have a pool 10 feet
from their property line and you're making them
push it like 88 feet from their property line.
MS. PIGNATO: Well, I don't think that I am
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 151
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
making them do anything.
here --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
I am just coming
You're volunteering it
as neighbors who are attempting to respond --
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I'm sorry.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: -- as other neighbors.
MS. PIGNATO: I accept your apology.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think we have heard
an amended application which answers my questions
about the potential rear yard, which is not
mechanically reasonable. The front yard that it
is a side yard because there is no legal access
to Brown's Hill Road. The (In audible) in terms
of the distance from all neighbors. And pump
equipment will be housed to the north. It is in
a sound deafening shed. The only question that I
have is the potential landscaping along the
property line. That was brought up but I don't
think that we concluded on anything here. The
natural vegetated buffer that is already there.
There is also a fence that already exists. I
think it is a fence on your property line. So,
would like to simply state that I am not
necessarily certain that it is unreasonable
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 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
condition to place upon the applicant given the
number of feet away from that property line,
given the fence and the vegetated buffer. I just
wanted the record to be heard that we discussed
this particular issue. If you --
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The testimony that we
have that digging causes problems?
MS. PIGNATO: May I ask a question.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes.
MS. PIGNATO:
going to be put in,
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
every option if they want
So the evergreens are not
is that what you're saying?
I am saying, they have
to. They can do
whatever they want.
their property,
MS. DWYER:
If they want to enhance
they can do whatever they like.
They are not sure how they plan
to landscape after the construction is done.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And the rest will be
up to the homeowners. My concern is and we have
already discussed this, any damage to the right
of way is jointly used by a number of homeowners,
should be the responsibility of property owner,
with that seems to be no problem with that any
way around. Anybody else have anything else to
add?
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
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no further
comments. I would like to make a motion to close
the hearing and reserve decision at a later date.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
(Whereupon, the public hearings
for February 3, 2011 concluded.)
153
February 3, 2011 - Zoning Board of Appeals 154
1
2
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.
Signature: ~
~ssica DiLallo
Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York
11741
Date: March 2, 2011