HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-04/07/2011 Hearing 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
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
April 7, 2011
9:40 a.m.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Board Members Present:
LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER - Member
JAMES DINIZIO, JR. - Member
GEORGE HORNING - Member
KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member
JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney
VICKI TOTH Secretary
Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
P.O. Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
(631)-338-1409
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
INDEX OF HEARINGS
Hearing:
Anne R. Bunting ~6455
Frank Orito #6459
North Fork Beach Condominiums
James and Karen Mowdy #6457
#6456
Daisy M. Folk #6450
James Connolly #6454
James and Kathleen Blackley #6458
North Fork Community Theater #6460
Irene Rutkoski Estate #6445
Jeff Andrade #6435
Page:
3-22
22-34
35-40
40-49
49-63
63-71
71-83
83-94
94-98
98
3
April 7, 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: The first
application before the Board this morning
Anne R.
notice.
is
Bunting. I am going to read the legal
"Request for variance from Article XXII
Code Section 280-116A(1), Article XXIII
Section 280-14 and Article III Section 280-15F
and the Building Inspector's January 24, 2011
Notice of Disapproval based on a building permit
application for additions and alterations to
existing dwelling and construction of an
accessory structure at:
required setback of 100
bluff, 2)
1) At less than the code
feet from the top of
Accessory structure at less than the
setback of 60
2427 Isabella
Island Sound)
code required setback of 100 feet from the top of
bluff, 3) less than the code required front yard
feet on water front property at
Beach Road, (adjacent to Block
Fishers Island, New York."
Before
and spell
Is someone here to address that?
we address that, will you please state
your name for the record?
MR. FITZGERALD: My name is Sam
Fitzgerald. Last name, F-I-T-Z-G-E-R-A-L-D.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Mr. Fitzgerald very
late yesterday, we actually received
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
correspondence from Suffolk County Soil and
Water.
MR. FITZGERALD: I did receive that as
well, yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And you have a
copy, good. I just wanted to make sure that you
had it. You will need a copy of the LWRP. If
you would like, I can give you a copy from our
local waterfront revitalization program, that
that the proposal is consistent with
indicates
the LWRP.
Okay.
Please proceed.
MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. Thank you. My
name is Sam Fitzgerald. I am the architect for
the project at 2427 Isabella Beach Road on
Fishers Island. I am appearing on behalf of the
owner, Anne Bunting. The reason for the appeal
today is that we are proposing to construct an
activity within 100 feet of the top of the bluff
and 60 feet of the front property line. This
proposal with will (In audible) several
variances. First, a little background on the
house. It was built in 1920's on the edge of a
bluff overlooking Block Island Sound. It has
been altered considerably over the years. It is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
currently a 7 bedroom house. Liveable floor
area is 4,768 currently. In the early 80's there
was a considerable amount of work done. There is
a pool complex here, which includes a pool, spa,
pump equipment and pool house or storage shed.
Also added a solarium here to the main house, and
all of that was created by multi-level decks.
Ail of that totals a building area of 8,124
square feet. The owner Anne Bunting, of course,
loves the property, but she thinks the house is
overbearing and overwhelming. And she thinks
that the alternations made to the house over the
years really dilute the architecture of the house
or of the original house. And she also feels
very strongly about the environment and wants to
reduce her footprint as much as possible. So
given all of that, she gave us free (In audible}.
One of which, we reduce the square footage as the
build structures as much as possible on the
property and still keep the house functional. So
she wants basically the minimum size house.
Second, she wants to restore the architectural
integrity of the house and she also wants to find
to make better connections of the house and the
land. (In audible) over 1600 square feet from 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
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
house. And it also removes almost 3900 square
feet from the building area. It will be reduced
from 7 bedrooms to 3 bedrooms. We are planning
to remove almost all of the additions that aren't
original to the house and that includes the
solarium. There is (In audible) here, master
bedroom here and complex here. The natural grade
will be restored and the (In audible). I would
like to very, very quickly go through the
variances. (In audible)
(Stepped away from microphone.)
-- Blue stone terrace. Currently there is
an existing wood deck here. We want to replace
that with a blue stone terrace. They are pretty
much the same size. The setbacks from existing
wood deck to the top of the bluff is 40 feet. We
would maintain that. There would be no change
there. The second variance would be (In
audible). We would be removing the 3,000 square
foot pool structure. Ail that would be gone and
in place, we would like to install a small
structure. That is 121 square feet. The
setbacks from the proposed (In audible) to the
top of the bluff is 26 feet. The existing
setback from the edge of the pool complex to the
6
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 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
top of the bluff is (In audible). The third
variance is (In audible). We are proposing to
remove this portion of the house. After that is
done, we would like to extend the deck. And
setback from the existing deck to the front buff
line (In audible). It would now be 25-26 foot
extension. Still very much back from the
existing house. (In audible)
(Stepped away from microphone.)
-- two car attached garage within the
house here. We would like to remove the
structures here and separate the garage into it's
own detached accessory structure. There would be
no change to the footprint (In audible). We
believe that no undesirable change will be made
to the character of the neighborhood or nearby
properties. The blue stone terrace is (In
audible) shaped. It will feel more settled and
it is very much in keeping with the character of
the neighborhood. We are replacing the 3,000
square foot pool complex with a structure that
would actually have a positive impact on the
neighborhood. It will have no undesirable change
to the character of the neighborhood. And the --
there will no material change from the garage
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
from the street. It will be only on the back
side. You will never see that from the street.
I think this would be appropriate for the
character of the neighborhood. We can not
achieve the benefit by some feasible method other
then a variance. The terrace here will be
considered part of the principal structure. And
any principal structure (In audible) process.
The 100 setback line from the top of the bluff
actually (In audible) the front of the house.
Actually, if you were to locate the front
structure in a legally buildable area on the
property, it would be part of the house on the
(In audible). It would possibly have no water
view. So we are taking away a 3,000 square foot
pool complex and if you just take 2900 square
feet of that away, and leave 100 feet of that
built area, I don't think that is a reasonable
way to look at it. Also, (In audible) backyard
with a view of the water. (In audible) is
existing nonconforming. So any work to that side
deck would require a variance. The garage, it is
our intention to separate the garage from the
main house not only to enjoy more square footage
but it is to gain more square footage on 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
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
front yard and the rear yard. Currently right
now the house acts as a barricade with the front
and back yard. You can't see the ocean from the
front yard. By removing the square footage that
is over here, we are creating more of a
connection from the front yard and the back yard.
We are better connecting the house and the land.
The amount of relief that we are requesting is
not substantial. The closest setback from the
existing wood deck to the top of the bluff, which
is exactly the same from the view of the terrace.
There is no change there. With the (In audible)
the setback from the top of the bluff is 26 feet.
Currently, we want to go back 3 feet. So we are
actually decreasing that extension here. We are
building 26 feet back from the existing
encroachment into the front yard. And with the
garage, there will be more increase (In audible)
setbacks at all. The variances will not have an
adverse effect on the local environmental
conditions and the District. The blue stone
terrace will not be visible from any neighbor's
property. We believe that it is also an
improvement over the wood deck. The coastal
weather really raves havoc on the deck. 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
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
pressure treated wood would be gone from the
property. And the terrace will be way better
and I think will be considerable improvement.
The cupola here will not be visibly from any
neighbors property. And it will be modest in
size. I think any structure of 125 feet will be
considerable improvement over a 3,000 square
foot pool complex. What we are doing also, is
making this as natural as possible. (In audible)
it is really meant to just be a comfortable place
to go. The existing deck over here, we are going
to maintain but we are going to take the deck
boards off and once we extend the deck, we are
going to put on (In audible) hardwood and that is
an environmental responsible material. The
separate from the garage from the house will not
have -- will not be visible from the street. And
I think the moratorium requirements will be the
same. I think I covered all of my points. Thank
you so much for your consideration.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just want to ask
you a couple of questions.
MR. FITZGERALD: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You are proposing to
remove habitable space above in the proposal, an
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
accessory garage currently that is habitable with
the some bedrooms.
MR. FITZGERALD: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You are proposing
to remove the walls and leave that open storage;
is that correct?
MR. FITZGERALD: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Secondly, you had a
chance to look at the Local Waterfront and
Waters, they are recommending that -- your
opinion on this is increasing the existing buffer
along the edge of the bluff. The top of the
bluff to about 3 foot
mowing it at lawn.
MR. FITZGERALD: Can
page?
I'm sorry,
in width instead of just
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Page 3, second to
you refer to the
Yes, it's on Page 2,
last paragraph.
There
be a 3 foot wide buffer on
plantings be established.
opinion on that?
MR. FITZGERALD:
is a suggestion that to obtain bluff, there
-- from (In audible)
And I would like your
Yeah, we would certainly
be willing and eager to protect the bluff. The
clients are very interested in trying to restore
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
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
as many native planting on the property as much
as possible. So anything that we can -- any
measure that we can take,
that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
you intend to have full gutters,
and --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
avoid runoff and such?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes,
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
we would be eager to do
Am I correct that
leaders
MR. FITZGERALD: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: On the premises?
MR. FITZGERALD: That's correct.
On the structure to
that's right.
There are a number
of possibilities of certain land disturbances and
especially in removing of the swimming pool
complex.
MR. FITZGERALD:
Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Your proposal here
is to develop and erosion and settlement control
plan, could that be drafted by a competent
individual and that it would be implemented on
site, and it would appear that placement of straw
bails at the moment is not actually the proper
way to do it but it's a better way to do it. Can
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
yOU have someone produce that document?
MR. FITZGERALD: Absolutely, I was
thinking about talking with the engineer who
produced the survey and I was speaking with them
the afternoon that I received this document, and
he said that he could turn it around very
quickly. And we did talk about some things that
he think he could call the person -- the answer
is yes, we could produce that very quickly. And
to produce this plan will (In audible)
everything.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good. I would like
to turn this over to George, and see if he has
questions?
MEMBER HORNING: By detaching the garage,
you are creating the need for a variance.
Can you tell us why the client wants to do that?
What is the compelling reason to detach the
garage?
MR. FITZGERALD: Well, it was sort of a
happy surprise to hear that from the Bunting's
that they wanted to remove as much as the house
as they could. The main thing was, as you
approach the house, you are hit with this wall of
a house. It's a very big house. You are hit
13
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
with this wall of a house and to them it seems
really disruptive to the property. You know,
they are really about the property and there is
such a disconnect with the front of there
property and the back. The back just opens up
into a beautiful view. It is just gorgeous. In
the front,
Ms. Bunting is thinking about it as
encroachment on the land. It's not
you don't get any of that. And
this
a nice
thing
that just sort of wanders on the -- she wants the
house broken up so you can kind of catch the
beautiful of the backyard, from the front of the
house. And she didn't need that square footage.
So how can we actually make this house better fit
the landscape, if we know
take square footage area?
the rational there.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
that we can actually
That was just sort of
Well, it really isn't
detached because you have the roof on?
MR. FITZGERALD:
breezeway.
MEMBER HORNING:
considers it detached.
MR. FITZGERALD:
MEMBER HORNING:
Right, there would be a
The Building Department
Right.
My other question is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
regarding the (In audible), why are you folks
proposing to put it 30-40 feet
bluff?
back from the
MR. FITZGERALD: We could. Again, we are
probably looking at it differently then you guys
are. We were thinking about closer but we didn't
want to get within 35 feet of the bluff. We
wanted to stay behind that line. But --
MEMBER HORNING: It is an uphill grade.
MR. FITZGERALD: It is. But we also
wanted to tuck it in too. We didn't want it to
be this really strong element. We wanted to sort
of tuck it in, and be a minimal as possible. So
there was that. Tuck it into the contour of the
land. Again, that is my perspective. That is
why it is here. It's actually tucked in more.
MEMBER HORNING: Our job is to grant as
least amount of variance as possible.
MR. FITZGERALD: Right.
MEMBER HORNING: It does seem to be a
little close.
MR. FITZGERALD: An in going through this
process, time consuming process, I can't tell you
how the important it is to the Bunting's to have
this removed or replaced with this structure.
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
April 7,
It's a beautiful spot.
back.
MEMBER HORNING:
Board to decide yes or no to
or would you like to propose
2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
But yes, it could go
And would you like the
leave it where it is
that it be setback
further?
MR. FITZGERALD:
to decide where it is,
to --
If I asked the Board
do I have the option
MEMBER HORNING: That would be up to
the chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The question is
whether to grant the setback and anything in
between of what you are proposing or something in
the middle. It just depends on how the Board --
and we review all the testimony. I think what
Member Horning was asking is can you set this
back, so that the variance is less substantial
and if so, you could, there is no reason why you
can't. Where would that be in your opinion
relative to accomplishing your goal for the
project, which is to have a nice view --
MR. FITZGERALD: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: In a quiet
place.
solitaire
16
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 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
MR. FITZGERALD: TO really help the
clients goals is to -- yes, they want a place to
sit and contemplate and meditate and they want
something that is sort of small and natural and
organic. That kind of thing. They also want it
to be tucked away into landscape. They wanted to
be as much as they can integrate into the natural
contours. So as you go up higher here, the
ground gets higher and you lose that tucked in
feeling. We also understand that there is --
that this is a different kind of issue then the
rest of the things on there. So I would think
that we could move it a little bit ten feet or
so. We would still be tucked in a little bit, I
think. We would not want to have it so far back,
it would be turched (sic).
MEMBER HORNING: Can you explain the
rendering of the decisions, it could be denied?
It could be accepted or we could grant what we
call alternative relief?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's not alternative
relief.
area.
We are just exploring a different
MEMBER HORNING: What if they don't move
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
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: He just said that he
would anticipate it, so why don't we just wait
until he does it. And if the Board is not happy
with it, then we are either going to deny it or
come up with a different number. It may not fill
the goals of your client, I don't know.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have a suggestion
of 36 feet, might be as amended.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And we can leave it
as that. If you can confirm that with your
client, or create a greater setback than 36 feet.
Looking very carefully at all of these that have
been submitted, the -- I am very interested in
the way you will come up with a sediment and soil
plan. Perhaps that might be included in
addressing a land disturbance issues and how to
would work relative to those practices?
MR. FITZGERALD: Is it an issue of not
being able to have it, the owners would rather
have it then not. I don't want to get into a
position where I say a setback and the
possibility deny it. I rather not even say it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, lets look at
it this way. If you (In audible) conforming
18
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
location,
conforming location?
MR. FITZGERALD:
of the house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
or is it open?
MR. FITZGERALD:
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
what happens if you did put it in a
It would be in the front
Okay.
Does this have a roof
It has a roof that will
be created by either thatch or vine.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How does that compound
the water runoff with the sediment issue? I
mean, is there something that is around the (In
audible) that you are anticipating or the
engineer participating so as not to create a
greater water problem, based on this? (In
audible) it is one of the activities that they
require (In audible) agency and all of these
situations are basically runoff water issues and
that is why I am saying -- I am asking the
question. I am not doing it in any other way.
MR. FITZGERALD: Right.
So
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
investigating the aspects
the same time, as the Chairperson has fully
stated, we have an issue of erosion control.
So the Board is
of that issue but at
19
April 7, 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
give us a good reason of whatever footage you
want to give it and that it is not going to
create further erosion problems and be used
through that process. The engineer is going to
and then we will understand it
develop it
better.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me see if any
other Board members have questions? Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone is
the audience that would like to address this
application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anything
else that you would like to say?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, with the -- in terms
of the Board's approval or your judgements, if
(In audible) was an issue would it be that you
would grant the other three variances and then
sort of table this one?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Oh, yeah, certainly.
They are evaluated separately. Every one of
those variances would be examined relative to
April 7, 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
Erosion
When do
done?
their impact.
MR. FITZGERALD: I see. Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. So hearing
no furthe~ comments, I am going to make a motion
to close the hearing subject to receipt of an
Sediment Control Plan from the applicant.
you think that you are going to have that
MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I know that the
Bunting's are very eager to keep things moving,
and the engineer is being very accommodating and
actually said next week he can have it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So by the end of
next week?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just add a
caveat to that, which may or may not include the
provula (phenetic)?
MR. FITZGERALD: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There is a motion.
Is there a second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6459 - FRANK ORITO.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our next application
is for Frank Orito. And that is a "request for
variance from Article III Code Section 280-15 and
the Building Inspector's February 16, 2011 Notice
of Disapproval based on an application for
building permit to construct accessory in-ground
swimming pool at; location other than the code
required rear yard; at 3420
Marion."
MS. LASPISA:
Stars Road, East
Good morning.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you please
state your name and spell it for the record?
MS. LASPISA: Diana LaSpisa with
Morano Expediting, L-A-S-P-I-S-A. And the address
is 4 Hamilton Court, Coram, New York 11727.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Before we
get started. We are missing a couple of things
here. Do you have some green cards and --
perfect. Thank you. Would you like to
22
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 23
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
proceed?
MS. LASPISA:
today,
owner,
Yes. Good morning.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Good morning.
MS. LASPISA: We are here before you
I have here with me today, the property
Frank Orito. And we are requesting
permission to install an in-ground swimming pool
in the side yard. As you can see by the survey
and some of you have been out to the site, this
is the only location where a pool is feasible on
this property. The depth of the lot. The
location of the house, it would be impossible to
put it in the required rear yard. In addition to
that, there is a lot of vegetation along the
south property line and the west property line,
which would be the front property line. So we
don't feel it would be visible from the road or
from the neighbor to the south.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken, do you want
to start? That is, that's basically what you
wanted to say?
MS. LASPISA: Yes. If the Board has any
questions.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I think it is pretty
straightforward. You proposed a pool at
1
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~il 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
conforming setbacks; however, you propose it in
the side yard?
MS. LAS?ISA: Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And the reason being
you don't have adequate room in the rear yard
where the code requires it?
MS. LASPISA: That's correct.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I don't have any
further questions.
MEMBER HORNING: I don't have any
questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As stated in the last
application, very, very nice job of showing where
the pool is located and particularly in the
winter months when it's a little more difficulty.
Nice job. Completely understating of what the
nature of the property is and you have a really
beautiful house.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I didn't see any of your
neighbors in the five yards, so I am assuming
they are okay with it?
MS. LASPISA: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: And is there any way that
you can move that back to be more towards the
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
back yard? Turn it around and out it in the
corner?
MS. LASPISA: Well, to turn it around,
then it would be more in -- more closer to the
neighbor to the south, which I think is the
purpose of why the code requires it in the rear
yard, so it's not -- I mean, it wouldn't be right
on top of the neighbors property but it would
bring the pool closer.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
I don't know if the code
one have an idea?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
I think it's about 10 feet.
Setting it back further?
is 25 on this lot -- any
It's pretty minor.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
can just push it back.
rear yard?
MS.
wanted --
want.
LASPISA:
MEMBER DINIZIO:
So there is no way you
So it's conforming more
You know, essentially they
I understand what they
MS. LASPISA: I mean, I don't think it
would -- I think this is the most ideal location
for the neighboring properties and if we turn it
around, it would bring it closer to the neighbor.
25
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 26
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
'25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
was asking
possible.
yard.
I mean, I don't see an issue with this
location. You know, I can understand if you
needed to push it back and do more screening but
it's pretty screened the way that the property
is now. It's actually in the winter time as
well. The pictures were actually taken in the
late, late Fall, early Winter.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You do have some
planted beds that don't show up on this survey.
That is the Evergreen screening is. The beds
that are along the back property line and the
side property line.
MS. LASPISA: Oh, yes. Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Moving it is going
to take it closer to the planted beds and give
you less room around the pool. Member Dinizio
to get it as much conformed as
It's still going to be in the side
MEMBER DINIZIO: This property already
has two variances. So we are variancing this
property to death here. So I want to try and
minimize that as much as possible. We granted a
variance on that side already with the sun room
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
MS. LASPISA: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Now, you are coming back
a few years later and wanting to put in a pool
and extend that side yard. So I would like to
try and minimize. I would like to see any
cesspool on that side. I understand that a
garden can be moved. A garden would be better on
he side yard. It's allowed on the side yard. It
can be there. So maybe you can turn that thing
around and push that more towards the side yard
to be a more conforming setback. Then anything
(In audible) we will grant a variance for.
MS. LASPISA: The pool equipment itself
and the proposed dry well, is proposed at 10 feet
right now. I mean, again, to turn it around, it
would bring the pool closer to the neighbor to
the south. So I don't think that would be the
best interest for the neighbors either.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Ma'am, I am not
asking -- I am not saying that we would grant a
variance for you to do that. I am asking you to
do what you are allowed to do to the greatest
extent possible. And you are allowed to go -- if
it's 20 feet, or 15 feet, you are allowed to do
that. The neighbor knows that. The law is the
27
April 7, 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
law. So I am just trying to reduce the variance
on a piece property that already has two
variances that were granted previously.
MS. LASPISA: No, I understand what you
are saying. Regardless of the footage off the
back property line, it's still -- no matter which
way you are going to cut it, it's still going to
be the side yard.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I am just looking for the
minimum variance possible.
MR. ORITO: We wanted it to be by the sun
room so we can keep an eye on our grandchildren.
It's a little easier to keep an eye on my
grandchildren and my son -- my disabled son. We
just thought it would be better if it was right
by the sun room.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, you would still be
by the sun room.
MR. ORITO: Why would you want it further
back?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Because that is what you
are allowed to do. One of our criteria is
setting minimum variances.
MR. ORITO: So how much further back would
we have to move 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
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
MEMBER DINIZIO: As far back as you can go
legally.
MR. ORITO: And how far back is it?
MEMBER DINIZIO: I tell you what, we can
adjourn the hearing to the next meeting and we
can have the building inspector do that for us or
we can see if anyone has a code book here and
find out.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
the Building Department and
back in 15 or 20 minutes?
MEMBER DINIZIO:
to that. I think that we should grant the
Or you can just go to
find out and come
Yeah, I have no objection
minimum amount of variances possible. So I am
looking to minimize as much as possible.
MR. ORITO: I was told that we needed 30
feet from the property line of our neighbor. So
we have it 33 feet.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't believe that is
correct. This is not a principle structure.
It's an accessory structure. I know people get
confused with that because they rewrote the law.
I believe the maximum setback that that
particular law and correct me if I am wrong, is
20 feet.
29
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ORITO: The
wouldn't be able to see
if we were further back.
other problem is, we
the pool from our porch,
So that would prevent
us from watching our children.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, your not supposed
to have a pool in your front yard, so your pool
doesn't come in to play.
MR. ORITO: No, we actually have it on the
side and you can see the pool from the porch.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I think that is poor
excuse. I think we need to minimize this. That
is my opinion. I am only one of five people. So
I think we need to minimize
the fact that two variances
this piece of property.
the variance given
have been granted on
MR. ORITO: Why is that a problem, I don't
understand?
MEMBER DINIZIO: I am not going to say
anything further on it.
MS. LASPISA: I would assume that the
Board would have realized at the time that
anything that this house would have done would
have required a variance. You can't
in his back yard without a variance.
Board approved the variance
do anything
Once the
for a house to be
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
built, pretty much everything else that they do
is going to require a variance. So it's hard to
eliminate. So that should have been taken into
consideration when the home was built. I mean, I
understand what you are saying.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Let me answer that
question for you. If you read the first
variance, the Board granted alternate relief by
saying that this variance, that the variance that
you were asking for in the first place was too
large for the Board to consider. And the members
reduced that to a level. Okay. That was based
off of this particular property and this
particular house. And you agreed to that. And
then you came back and said that you needed a
front porch, okay. Even though that we granted a
variance because the house was to (In audible)
side yard. So now you are asking for us
again.
to do it
So where does it stop?
MR. ORITO: I didn't know getting a
variances became a problem. I didn't know that.
We have beautiful flowers in the back here and if
we push the pool back, we are not going to have
any room for the patio here. We just wanted to
try and keep it in the middle of the property.
3t
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
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
AS you can see, we are going to put pavers
there. And if we move it more back,
going to have any room there. It's
logical.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. Well, I have said
what I wanted to say.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. He has
made his point. And you have responded to it.
And the Board has heard your
any other questions from the
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
the audience that would like
application?
MEMBER HORNING:
applicant a question.
we are not
just not
testimony. Is there
Board?
Is there anyone in
to address this
I want to ask the
Is your request for the
variance "as is" or are you contemplating moving
the position of the proposed pool at all?
MR. ORITO: No.
MS. LASPISA: I understand the Board
members concern. But regardless, there - the way
I understand it, you are supposed to try and
determine if you have any other alternative
before applying for a variance. I mean, clearly
when the house was built, anything that he is
32
April 7, 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
going to want to do is going to require a
variance. I mean, you can't hold it against him
because he has prior variances. He still has the
right to come before the Board and apply for a
variance, if needed. Regardless, there is no
where we can put the pool without getting a
variance. And regardless, if you push it up, or
turn it around or move it here, it's still going
to require that same wording for the variance.
It's in the required side --
MEMBER HORNING: Some of it would be in
the rear yard and some of it would be in the side
yard. So therefore, you would be reducing the
type of variance. You would still be needing a
variance but you would be reducing the scope of
the variance, which is what Mr. Dinizio was
getting at, I believe.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Minimizing the
variance.
MR. ORITO: I just don't understand all
the concepts of what you are saying. We just
thought that it would be an ideal place to put in
the pool. It just doesn't make sense. Not to
me. It doesn't give us any room in the back at
all. By the time you put the pool in and 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
April 7,
patio, you are going to have
So if we go any further back,
have nothing back there.
MS. LASPISA: Just
2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
like 15 feet back.
we are going to
so you know, it is
not confirmed on paper just yet. He is going to
have the brick patio that you see on the survey,
but there is also going to be added on to that, a
patio for chairs and a table for seating and
stuff like that. That is also going to be next
to the pool equipment as well.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All right. I think
we have heard all the commentary from all
concerned parties, so I am going to make a motion
to close the hearing and reserve decision to a
later date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by Gerry.
Thank you very much.
All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
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
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Motion to recess.
Seconded by Gerry.
Ail in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
HEARING #6456 - NORTH FORK BEACH CONDOMINIUMS.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
application before the Board
Condominiums. And that is a
Okay. The next
is North Fork
"request from
Article III Section 280-15 and the Building
Inspector's December 30, 2010 Notice of
Disapproval based on a building permit
application for accessory gazebo at; 1) a
location other than the code required rear yard,
at:
in Southold."
it, please?
MR.
52325 County Road
Can you
48 and Sound View Avenue
state your name and spell
O-H-M-A-N.
OHMAN: Yes. My name is Eric Ohman,
4 Gibbs Lane in Islip, New York.
35
April 7, 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:
proceed.
MR. OHMAN: Okay.
an auxiliary structure.
Okay. Please
What we got here is
It's a gazebo for
shelter. Really just to keep out of
weather. It's replacing, as you see
photos, a pipe and canvas structure.
for barbecuing and such.
improvement of what you
the
in the
It was used
I think it's a huge
see aesthetically as far
as the pipe and canvas structure.
essentially in the same location.
wider. The dimensions I believe
It's
It's somewhat
are the same.
what
structure?
MR. OHMAN:
Maybe 8 or 9 feet.
vehicle.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Out of curiosity,
is the height of the current frame
That is a good question.
Usually they are made for
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
couple of feet higher.
MR. OHMAN: Yes.
to be
to be
to be
be natural wood.
Okay. So this is a
It's essentially going
less intrusive in my eyes. This is going
a wood structure as you see, that is going
roofed with a color that I am hoping will
We haven't discussed a color
April 7, 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
but
area.
area.
large,
is.
something that
As you have seen,
The pool is gone,
large area.
I going to blend into the open
it's a pretty much open
as you know. It's a
It fits pretty well, where it
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Jim, any
questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO:
another location?
MR. OHMAN: What
they have a large amount
Do you want to put it in
happens is, (In audible)
of children there. And
they were more effected by the open space for
kids to
can put
the
play then me thinking aesthetically, I
this here where the pool was and be a
better view from the building and a view to the
building. Logically they are saying to leave the
open space for the kids to play.
and baseball games that they play,
would be in the way. So as the
told what the owners have asked.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
With the soccer
logically, it
agent, I am being
tent would be an improvement. Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I have no questions.
Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
I have no questions.
I guess anything but 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
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: I will ask about the
application. In your application, you have it
marked off as "no" that the alleged difficulty
has not been self created and how would you
explain that?
MR. OHMAN:
you explain -- oh,
Not being self created? Can
we need the gazebo. I see
that. I have to check that off the other way.
Yes, we did want the gazebo.
MEMBER HORNING: So it is self created?
MR. OHMAN: Yes. I was looking it as the
difficulty was that you guys were not going to be
letting us do it without a variance.
MEMBER HORNING: Okay. I am also curious,
on the LWRP form, a lot of people answer on the
policy questions, you doubled answer "no" and
"not applicable," can you make any co~mment on
those?
MR. OHMAN: Not unless I have to.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There was no LWRP
requirement on this application.
leave
MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
it at that. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Well, then lets
Ken?
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
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yeah. I have a few
questions. Are there plans for the proposed
gazebo to be enclosed?
MR. OHMAN: No.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And what will the
proposed gazebo be used for?
MR. OHMAN: Identically to what it has
now. A picnic table on a concrete slab. And
just really to get out of the weather. They are
all very good friends. Meaning, they don't camp
out and have all different barbecues. They all
camp out together. What I have learned. It's a
place for people to get out of the weather and
barbecue on the weekends.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: How many apartments
are there?
replace
MR.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
the piped canvas
MR. OHMAN: Yes.
OHMAN: I am thinking there is 42.
And it's there to
structure there --
More of a permanent
structure. It looks temporary. It has a gypsy
type look and it is not very aesthetically
pleasing.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. Thank you. No
further questions for me.
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone in
the audience that would like to address this
application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no further
comments. I will make a motion to close the
hearing and reserve decision to a later date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6457 - JAMES AND KAREN MOWDY.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application
before us is for James and Karen Mowdy. And that
is a "request for variance from Article XXIII
Code Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's
December 16, 2010 Notice of Disapproval based on
an application for building permit to construct
accessory in-ground swimming pool and pool house
at; lot coverage of more than the code required
4o
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20% at:
2855 Laurel Trail in Laurel, New York.
MS. HOEG: Good morning. Karen Hoeg
from Twomey, Latham, Shea, on behalf of the
applicant.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
your name, please?
MS. HOEG: Sure,
Can you please spell
H-O-E-G. That is the
lot
(In
20%.
brings it over to the 23.4% lot
pool design (In audible) with 4
spelling of the last name. The applicant resides
in a ranch style home in Laurel Link Community
and seeks to construct an accessory 18X18 open
sided pool house with a (In audible) swimming
pool. The nonconforming lot is 28,325 square
feet and the required lot coverage is 20%. The
plan indicates a proposal lot coverage of 23.4%
which is 3.4% more of the allowable amount. The
coverage of the structures, being the house
audible) the pool house was actually under
Having the in-ground swimming pool there
coverage. The
feet of Roman
ends on each side and the pool house is not
actually a typical pool house. It's a covered
patio with open sides.
area is 18 X 13.4 feet.
for storage
And the covered patio
And there is a provision
room and changing room, as you can
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
see on the plan. There are some restriction
with this property that we filed with the
application, which is by the Laurel Link
Homeowners Association that they must approve of
any swimming pool and accessory building. In
regard to the accessory building, the C&R's also
provide design and material must match the main
house and have to be of the same design, color
and material of the residence, which will be
done. The approval of the Homeowners Association
can not be obtained until the final plans are
actually submitted. So at this time,
verbal that they are in favor of it.
we got a
They do
that there
recommend that pursuant to the C&R's
be landscaping and screening in the rear of the
house as well as both sides. So that there is
maximum screening of the property.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I read the
covenants and I do see that you do have to have
all of that before then. I also noticed that
these homes, you have to build them with minimum
square footage and there is a maximum. Now, the
Town measures minimum and maximum differently.
The Homeowners Association does in that, 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
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
Homeowners Association adds in any heated space
and doesn't include decks and I believe even
garages. So I see with the decks and -- I think
you had Peconic --
MS. HOEG: Right, the survey.
MEMBER DINIZIO: It came out to 5,305
feet. I am just saying this to reiterate it.
That doesn't bring it to the 20%. It's just
under by 361 feet. In other words, you can add
another 361 square feet. So that is pretty close
to the 20%. You built out the house and I can
see how you can get to that 20% fast.
MS. HOEG: Right.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I can
was a little confused abut the pool house.
understand that. I
When
you are saying it is more like a gazebo.
MS. HOEG: The architect is here and can
tell you a little bit more. If you take a look
at it, it's actually a covered patio. There is
two postings in the front
is an area for a changing
on three sides. It's not
and in the rear, there
room. It's open sided
your typical enclosed
sheet rock pool house. It's open. The goal was
seating to be provided for the grandparents and
guests and anyone who is using the member. I
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
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
know we have received no opposition from any
of the neighbors in regards to the proposal.
And I know there are other in-ground and indoor
swimming pools in the area.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I saw the neighborhood.
The amount of variance that you are asking for is
not substantial but enough. You know, it is more
than what the -- I believe the Homeowners
Association had envisioned. Certainly, maybe 20
houses in that area on 300 or some odd acres,
that may help.
MS. HOEG: Right.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I can see no way of
reducing this. I do understand you would want to
have a place and you are sitting in the back yard
and you may want to be protected. So I can see
that. That building is not going to have a
bathroom; right?
MS. HOEG: No.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
anything like that?
MS. HOEG: No.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
equipment going to go?
MS. HOEG:
No running water or
Where is the pool
The pump?
I believe that is the intention
44
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of the homeowner to have it
and not by the pool house.
I don't believe it is the
chemicals in the pool house.
closer to the pool
That type of thing.
contention to put
MR. SCHWARTZ: No, as far as I know.
wasn't shown on the plans.
they would put it behind.
MEMBER DINIZIO: In the past, the Board
It
I assume maybe that
has asked to put it in a sound proof enclosure.
So which would be another little structure and
square footage, I would assume. I was wondering
if you have considered that?
MR. SCHWARTZ: No, I have not.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I am aware that the
Board requiring that it be enclosed. So it would
have to at least look like a dog house.
MS. HOEG: Right.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Is it possible (In audible)
not so much a roof on top?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Can you put it in the
pool house? I am trying to help you avoid you
going for a building permit and then you show
up --
MR. SCHWARTZ: I understand.
MEMBER DINIZIO: The Homeowners
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
Association's has to approve it because it's
another structure.
it on there --
MR. SCHWARTZ: (In audible)
intention of adding anything in.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just
aware, it was never intended to mean
structure. This is a structure that
would be portable. The roof would
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
of the way that was done in
Just maybe if you could draw
we had no
so you are
a stand up
the roof
come off.
I am just telling you
the past. Based upon
the nature that you have no particular neighbors
in the rear but you do have a very ongoing golf
course, they would probably want it also. When
that wind is not blowing down there, and I have
lived very close to this for over ten years.
It's really beautiful spot that is down there,
that sound can run for a long time. You know it
was and I hate to say it, a past potato field.
So deafening equipment, I would say, if a very
valuable --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
a question. On what
to grant a 3.24% lot
I would like to ask
grounds do you ask the Board
coverage variance when this
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
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
pool is extremely large? It's 20 X 48 and could
easily be made conforming?
MS. HOEG: The pool -- the 20 X 48
includes the Roman ends. They are on the east
and west side of the pool. The actual typical
swimming distance in the pool is 20 X 40 swimming
pool with a diving board. That is what their
intention is. They do have children and I know
they have one son who has had two ACL replacement
recently and I know it was their intention, as
avid swimmers, that this could also be used as
part of his physical therapy. It's the Roman
ends that provide the additional distance,
which provide the ingress and egress from the
pool.
MR. SCHWARTZ: (In audible)
(Stepped away from the microphone.)
It's not a mass or somewhat in
characteristic with the neighborhood.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
audience that would like
Anyone else?
Any one in the
to address this
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
April 7,
application?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I
statement about Roman ends.
2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
just want to make a
It is definitely
true that it limits the amount of overall
capacity of the pool, and I could be wrong, but
would say that a 20 X 40 pool is 27,000 gallons.
And so when you have Roman ends
be 28,000 gallons because there
contour down into the pool, but
lot coverage. That is one of the issues
are always dealing with.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
for you to indicate somewhere
where the pump equipment
whether or not that will
coverage or part of it.
on it, it might
is steps that
it still does add
that we
We have a request
on this survey
is going to go and
result in additional
In any case, I think
lot
that Board would like to have that information
prior to making a decision.
MS. HOEG: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And a dry well too.
And where that is going to go.
Hearing no further comments, I will make
a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt
of a survey locating the pump equipment and dry
well. How long do you need on that?
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
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
MR. SCHWARTZ: Next week.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Fine.
Is there a second on that motion?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6450 - DAISY M. FOLK.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application
before us is for Daisy M. Folk. This is a
request for a Waiver of Merger under Article II
Section 280-10A, to unmerge land identified as
Suffolk County Tax Map %1000-59-6-10, based on
the Building Inspector's December 16, 2010 Notice
of Disapproval, which states adjoining
nonconforming lots held in common ownership shall
merge until the 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 11. Property located at; 7599
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
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
7475 Soundview Avenue.
would you please state your
&
Good morning,
name and spell it?
MR. BARRETT: My name is Robert Barrett
and I am a professional engineer. I am here
today to represent Daisy Folk, the owner of
Lot 10 in this development. And in fact, she
also owns Lot 6 and 7, where there house is
located. She can't be here to speak for herself.
She lives in California,
they are these days, she
here for her. Now,
and expenses being what
can't and asked me to be
I have given you a fairly
good issue of what we are looking for and I have
provided the supplemental information, like
surveys and other things that you have asked for
and I am really here today to say that Daisy and
her family, they are from Brooklyn. They have
paid their real estate taxes here since 1953.
They own four lots. Their major (In audible) is
development. So -- and for years they held onto
these vacant lots because development was
relative and there was no public water. Now that
there is public water available
waterfront home needs some work,
to raise some money in the future,
and their
they would like
to help pay
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
for that
is have the ability to sell off Lot 11.
is the lot near Soundview Avenue. The
Lot
The
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
development. And what they want to do
Lot 11
other lot,
10 is across the road from their other house.
last thing in the world that they want to do
in these uncertain times is do anything that
would lower the real estate value of their home
or Ellen's home, whose next door or the
Perillo's, who is a couple of lots away. So the
lot immediately opposite to them, Lot 10, the
plan that they have disclosed to me (In audible)
Mark Allman, who is Lot 14, is that they are
looking for a waiver of this Lot 10 and 11. So
that they would be free in the future to develop
Lot 11 independently. And I would say in some
respects for this waiver legislation. I
recognize why it was done.
have a development of most
four lots left. They are all about 0.23 acres
each, and if -- well since, Lot's 10 and 11 have
been merged, the merged lot becomes 0.9 of an
acre. It is the largest lot in the development.
If in the future they are forced to sell the
merged lot 10 and 11, it would be 0.9 of an acre
and without any further zoning or variances, the
But here we already
of the lots. There is
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
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
new owner would be able to build a very
substantial house on that lot. And I say to
you, I think it would be of the character with
this small water front community where typically
the lots are 1/2 acre and the homes are typically
2,000 square feet. So (In audible) 5,000 square
foot two-story house and a large septic system
and potentially a lot of children. It is
something in which I don't think is the best
interest of the development. That is why I was
so pleased when the -- well Daisy and her husband
indicated they were very concerned about their
own home and have some development in the next
few years. They would like to have the ability
to sell Lot 11 and use that money for
development. So that's really all I have to say,
and of course, I am ready to answer any questions
that you wish you present.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you want to
start?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I appreciate the
footprint of the house, Mr. Barrett and Lot 10, I
have to tell you, I don't normally see
applications like this. We normally have the
house on one parcel merged. The question that I
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
have,
somewhat shown on the
particular variances?
MR. BARRETT:
guidelines, you have
50 foot rear setback.
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
yOU feel that you can construct a house
footprint without
to
Yes. The typical
to have a 50 foot setback,
The house must not be 20%
more of the lot coverage. And you have size
setback's, which are easily accommodated. So
yes, from a setback pint there is no problem. (In
audible) and public water connected from the
house. There is plenty of room on Lot 11 for the
septic system. If you might perhaps recall two
years ago, I was confronted with the same
problem, the Perillo's lot, which -- I can't
remember the number but it's on the left hand
side when you go in, the owners had a cesspool
that was common in the 50's. And I had that
removed and I had a modern septic system
installed in the front yard, and the water table
across the street, Lot 11, would be exactly the
same as it was on Frank's lot. So the number
of leaching pool is 99.9% certain to be the same
and adequate.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am reviewing the
basic parameters of a Waiver of Merger
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
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
application, Number 1, would be the waiver
would recognize a lot that is comparable in size
to the majority of improved lots in the
neighborhood. Can you answer that
question?
MR. BARRETT: How does merged lot or the
demerged lot --
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
recognize a lot comparable in
majority of the improved lots
because?
MR. BARRETT: Well, the merge lot is .8 of
an acre. The unmerged lots that are around it
are typically .4 of an acre or less. When it is
demerged, they will still be around about the
maximum size of a lot in the development.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only thing that
I don't agree with you with is that we are
talking 19,000 square feet. We are saying it's
approximately a .50 or under a .50. So that when
you gave me the discourse before that you said we
may merge, that it would be a .90 of an acre and
40,000, that was incorrect,
lots unmerged would be .50
correct?
A waiver would
size to the
in the neighborhood
but the individual
or just under; is 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
the (In audible)
the other lot. But in
there is actually a 30
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
MR. BARRETT: Yes, sir. When you look
at the plan, it's a logical conclusion that
curve to it is smaller than
fact they are not because
foot added to the one with
the curb. The curb comes around to the straight
piece and that's why -- one is 19,600 and the
is 19,700. They are almost exactly the
other one
same.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Number 2,
requires that you would recognize the
vacant and has been historically treated and
maintained as a separate residential since the
date of it's original creation.
MR. BARRETT: Yes,
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
determine that?
MR. BARRETT: Well,
sir.
And how do you
on the law
lot as
you have a report in
the file showing the deeds and the way it worked
was, Edith Bernstein was the first homeowners
other lots in
Edith died and
and then her son Rudolph, bought
the same area. Close nit family.
Daisy, because she was a young lady at the time,
she came into the picture and the lots were
either owned by Daisy or Rudolph or jointly. And
55
April 7, 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
then four years ago, Rudolph passed away and
that left Daisy as the
lots.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
telling me that
bills?
there were
sole owner of all four
Okay. And you are
all individual tax
yellow one. That is only a two bedroom house.
The other lots will follow the same rules, unless
they come to you and ask for some type of
really thought to much either. But the remainder
are slightly smaller and Judith (In audible) the
MR. BARRETT: Yes, sir.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Number 3, the
proposed (In audible) will not create an adverse
effect on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or District
because?
MR. BARRETT: Well, if a house is built
on Number 11 by virtue of the planning
guidelines, it will be a very small house, which
is typical. The other houses in the District are
either two, three or -- generally two or three
bedrooms. The one on the corner is owned by
Zignu, I don't know how to pronounce his name.
That might be a four bedroom house. I have 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
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
variance. I can imagine with the grounds that
they would have to do so. It's a rectangular
lot.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You said when you
started your dissertation that Ms. Farcome's lot
was 5 and what?
MR. BARRETT: No, she owns 6 and 7. And
they bought 6 and 7 and 10 and 11. They
voluntarily merged 6 and 7 because they wanted
their house setup, so it had a (In audible) size
setbacks. So they bid it off and (In audible).
Long before virtue.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And you are with the
understanding that this is a described -- I
can't use the word "subdivision," it is a
described development as
subdivision.
MR. BARRETT: Yes,
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
opposed to a
sir.
Thank you.
MR. BARRETT:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER HORNING: Sure.
Thank you very much.
George?
One document says
that the property is not currently for sale, that
is correct?
MR. BARRETT: Well, it is a tricky moment.
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
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
(In audible) enthusiastic real estate sales
people would sympathize with me. I was
horrified to go to the site to post your notice
and I see a sign on the site for sale. I called
Mr. Folk immediately, Daisy's husband. And the
sign was removed. He had some informal talks
with the realtor and I told them that they had no
right to do that. They are breaking the law.
And immediately the sign was removed within an
hour. I was really upset.
MEMBER HORNING: You have mentioned in
your testimony that one of the owners passed away
a few years ago.
MR. BARRETT: Yes, sir, Rudolph
Bernstein.
MEMBER HORNING: How did the applicant
become aware that the properties were merged?
MR. BARRETT: Well, actually I was
probably the one to tell them. I am very
familiar with that development through the work.
The Perillo site, I took that site on five years
ago when a Chinese family in New York City owned
it, jointly with 150 people. I explained it was
all kinds of problems and we fixed the problems
up partially. We sold the home to Perillo and
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
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
then he turned around and said, "lets get this
thing done." It took about two and half years
to get that done. It successfully got it's
Certificate of Occupancy about a year ago now,
but during that time I acquired some intimate
knowledge of pertinet -- and I approached Daisy
and her husband Roy, and one thing led to another
and said (In audible).
(Stepped away from the microphone.)
-- and get their and he brought up to
stuff etc, and of course, public water (In
audible) and I investigated and (In audible)
standard procedure according to the Building
Department and pursuing building permit
applications was the only way that we can get in
through the Zoning Board. So I think I was
probably -- Daisy is a very careful lady. She
probably got confirmation -- got somebody else in
the real estate to confirm it.
MEMBER HORNING: That would have occurred
after the other owner passed away?
MR. BARRETT: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: And can you give a
tentative date of when the applicant realized
that the properties were merged? You went to the
59
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
Building Department in last December?
MR. BARRETT: I would probably say six
months before that.
MEMBER HORNING: What did they do to find
out that it was officially merged, I guess that
is a better question?
MR. BARRETT: Well, I told them that I
thought it was merged and the only way was to
test it out and go to the Building Department and
get a building permit to build on one lot and of
course an inspector signed off on a Notice of
Disapproval, and that this was currently
merged.
MEMBER HORNING:
Disapproval is how the
out that they were merged;
saying?
MR. BARRETT: Yes, sir.
MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
was drawn this way?
MR. BARRETT: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Notice of Disapproval?
MR.
So through the Notice of
applicant actually found
is that what you are
Is that this survey
In order to get a
BARRETT: The Building Department
60
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
wanted proper (In audible) and I volunteered
it and supplemented it with a simple drawing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You indicated that
the applicant was interested in selling off
potential development, the piece
to Soundview Avenue?
MR. BARRETT: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
building on the other
MR. BARRETT:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
for that?
MR. BARRETT: None whatsoever.
saw that drawing, they said to me,
It's the other lot." If anything,
that is adjacent
And yet you show a
lot?
That is true.
Is there any reason
Once they
"no way.
it would be
the other lot.
other application is in?
leave it," and so I did.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
And I said, what do I do? The
And they said "just
It would be kind of
interesting to know what a conforming building
would look like on that lot because you have
three front yards on that lot and that is pretty
difficult to achieve in building. I mean, it
could be done, I would just be curious to know
what it looks like.
61
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 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
Ken, do you have questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim,
questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
further questions.
Is there anyone in the
like to address this application? Please
forward and state your name and spell it?
do you have
I have no
audience that would
come
MS. BELLOMO: Yes, my name is
Ellen Bellomo, and I live right next
Folk's house --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
your name, please?
MS. BELLOMO: Sure,
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
proceed.
MS.
facing Lot
to Daisy
Would you just spell
sorry. B-E-L-L-O-M-O.
Thank you, please
BELLOMO: Okay. My house would be
10. Now the Folk's claim that they
they wanted to build a house there. And I would
be looking directly at a house. And if I had to
look at one large house, I would rather do that
have no intention in doing anything with that
lot, but if this was all waived, they could, if
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
then two smaller ones. And I think that
these laws were enacted by the Town for a good
reason. To keep everything looking nice and
spacious for everyone, and I think if the house
were built facing mine, it would decrease the
value of my property. And that's all. Thank
yOU.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
audience?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Any one else in
NO.
Okay. Hearing
no further comments, I will make a motion to
close this hearing and reserve decision.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6454 - JAMES CONNOLLY
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our next
is
application
for James Connolly. This is a "request for
63
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
variance from Article XXIII Code Section
280-124 and the Building Inspector's
February 4, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based on a
building permit application for porch addition to
existing dwelling at; at less than the code
required front yard setback of 50 feet, at:
5575 Sound Avenue, Mattituck.
All we have in our file is Suffolk County
Planning and local determination letter.
MS. MESIANO: Okay. My name is Catherine
Mesiano on behalf of Mr. Connolly. And
Mr. Connolly is proposing to construct a porch,
five feet in depth in the front of the house. We
are asking for a variance of approximately 135
square feet. The subject site is 44,294 square
feet. The existing dwelling is 1,860 square
feet. The square footage of the entirety
proposed addition is 164 square feet, but if you
apply the permitted exception under the code, the
area of the variance is only 135 square feet.
There was a variance granted on the property
immediately to the west that was tax map
121-1-3.4 under ZBA 2003 in 1975, granting a
variance for new construction with an
insufficient front setback and I have a copy of
64
5
6
7
8
9
l0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
that for you, if you would like that. Does
the Board have any questions?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
would like to start.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
addition is 7 X 23 feet 4
MS. MESIANO: Yes,
said 5 feet, it's 7 feet.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
Yeah, I do. I
Well, then go ahead.
The actual size of the
inches?
I stand corrected. I
So I want to change
that to 7. Is there a particular reason or a gut
feeling on your part why the house has a
nonconforming setback?
MS. MESIANO: I don't believe it had a
nonconforming setback when it was built. I think
it was somewhat (In audible). And the lot was
created by settle --
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The reason why I ask
that question is because I think that the
topograph in the area may have been one of the
reasons why it was set closer to the road then it
would have to be.
MS. MESIANO: That would be my second
reasoning for the house, the topography. I do
believe that it was conforming at the time it
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
was constructed.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Are
there any other variances that we might see in
the future or do you think most of everything
will be conforming?
MS. MESIANO: I think everything else will
be conforming because the coverage is existing at
4.2 with a proposed of 4.5. It's an acre lot and
the house is very small and it's pushed to the
front because of the property. Mr. Connolly
didn't make any indication to me that he was (In
audible). He just wanted to add the porch, first
for functionality and second, leaning towards the
aesthetics. It doesn't have a particular
personality.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
for it to be enclosed to
MS. MESIANO: No.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
Nice to see you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER DINIZIO: No,
questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER HORNING: What
So there is no time
your knowledge?
Thank you very much.
Jim?
I don't have any
George?
is the purpose of
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
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
getting the updated Notice of Disapproval?
MS. MESIANO: The updated Notice of
Disapproval was -- the first Notice of
Disapproval had expired before I got all my
paperwork together.
MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You indicated 135
square feet is proposed in a nonconforming
setback. I think the issue here is a front yard
setback and not the square footage. You are
asking for a --
MS. MESIANO: My point being the house is
setback from the road.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Right.
MS. MESIANO: And the code allows for, I
think, 5.56 for a porch.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: However you get it,
it's supposed to be 100 square feet.
MS. MESIANO: Projection into the
front yard allows for a front porch.
that by the 135 square feet.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So the variance request
is for that or the distance of the front yard
setback?
required
To achieve
67
April 7, 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
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. MESIANO:
front yard setback.
be that distance for
spacial --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I
saying is that the
extension into the
It's the distance of the
But technically, it would
-- just let me get my
think what you are
code permits a 4x6 foot
conforming front yard setback,
and for the size they are proposing which 7 X
23.4 feet, exceeds that 10 X 4 foot space by 135
square feet. Is that what --
MS. MESIANO: Yes. You always say it so
much better than I do.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You are attempting
to show us that it is a less substantial variance
then what it is?
MS. MESIANO: Absolutely.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So what is the variance
request?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: A front yard
setback.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: At what distance?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: At 43.78.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Thank you.
MS. MESIANO: Sorry for the confusion.
MEMBER DINIZIO: The front yard setback
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
is 50 feet?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Correct.
MS. MESIANO: And if I might add, if you
take the specific conditions to the site into
account, you are not at a point where the curb in
the road would contribute to an accident that
would -- we don't have situations where I think
the traffic would pose a threat to -- on the
front porch, is what I am trying to say.
MEMBER HORNING: I will make a comment on
that. I was pulling out of that property and
making a left-hand turn and there was a lot of
oncoming traffic, appearing west and there was
an Evergreen shrub that was obstructing my view.
Well, then I noticed that maybe I should make a
right-hand turn and then turn around and then I
noticed, even looking west, there was another
Evergreen shrub obstructing my view of oncoming
traffic that way. In my estimation, there was
somewhat of a safety issue leaving that
driveway.
MS. MESIANO:
MEMBER HORNING:
Evergreens.
MS. MESIANO:
I agree.
They should trim those
I agree, I will pass that
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
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
recommendation down. I don't think that they
use it for full-time residence and not that that
matters.
MEMBER HORNING:
coming down pretty fast.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
the audience that would
application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
the Board?
MEMBER HORNING: No.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
MS. MESIANO:
other variance?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
I will make a motion to close
render a decision for a later
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
And there was traffic
Is there anyone in
like to address this
Anything else from
Would you like a copy of the
Sure.
Hearing no comments,
this hearing and
date.
Second.
Ail in favor?
7O
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry made a motion
to recess. I'll second it.
All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(Whereupon a recess was taken at this time.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Motion to
reconvene.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
HEARING #6458 JAMES AND KATHLEEN BLACKLEY
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application
before us is for James and Kathleen Blackley.
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
Request
Section
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
for variance from Article XXII Code
280-116 and Section 280-15 and the
Building Inspector's January 19, 2011 Notice of
Disapproval based on an application for building
permit to construct an accessory in-ground
swiraming pool and existing shed at; 1) bulkhead
setback of less than the code required 75 feet
for the pool, 2) location other than the code
required rear yard for the shed at: 415 Harbor
Lights Drive, adjacent to creek or canal,
Southold.
How are you?
MR. IVANS: Good morning. I am
Matt Ivans, Suffolk Environmental for the
applicant. Bruce Anderson couldn't make it
today, so I am in his place.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you spell your
last name?
MR. IVANS: Sure, I-V-A-N-S. I just
wanted to run through the criteria here and then
I will answer any questions that you have about
this. The application before you will not have
any type of detrimental effect to the
neighborhood or property. As said in our
application, this pool is proposed in the rear
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
yard. It is going to be substantially
screened by vegetation on each side and the house
itself. We anticipate this having no detriment
to the neighborhood properties in terms of
visual. As you can see from the aerial, there is
-- well numerous properties in the area that
enjoy swimming pools. A similar size that is
proposed in this application. Additionally, our
pool will be proposed and constructed by further
reducing any kind of visual impact of the pool.
Additionally, as I said in this application, we
kind of geared this to the property two doors
to the left, which was previously before the
Board under the name of Virginia Campbell. That
was a pool that had similar setbacks from the
bulkhead. We are a couple of feet actually
further from the bulkhead. We wanted to mimic
that application based on the criteria that this
Board approved. In terms of environmental
impact, we don't anticipate any in this
application. We did receive Trustee approval
for this as well as DEC. Additionally, with the
Trustee approval, we will be establishing a
non-turf buffer along the bulkhead. And we
again, we don't see any environmental impact by
73
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
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
implementation of this project. I am here
you may have.
Okay. Let's
I don't have any
Gerry?
Did you receive a
the
to answer questions that
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
with Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO:
questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
letter from a neighbor?
MR. IVANS: Yeah, there
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Was
person that
MR.
was an e-mail.
this the same
begin
you were referring to?
IVANS: No, I believe they are right
to the west. The property adjacent is two doors
down to the west.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. I see it.
MR. IVANS: I apologize that our client
didn't contact the neighbor.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What did
setback was
MR.
That was originally --
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm sorry, I
apologize.
MR.
you say the
the one that you did two --
IVANS: Actually, we didn't do it.
IVANS: It's okay. It's two doors
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
April 7,
down. I believe that was 50
bulkhead.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
number?
MR. IVANS: That was
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
number?
MR. IVANS:
the Board -- does
2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
feet from the
What was that variance
May 10, 1999.
Do you have a variance
Yes, 4683. And I could supply
the Board want a copy?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think we have it.
One of the unique parts about Harbor Lights is, a
lot of the lots are very (In audible) as well as
the bullheaded areas. Are there any (In audible)
determination that you would see that there would
be a great difference between this particular
property and that '99 variance?
MR. IVANS: In terms of, it's pretty
similar.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any feeling
regarding the letter that I had asked you to
refer to?
MR. IVANS: From the neighbor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
MR. IVANS: I mean,
what they are saying, that
Yes.
I understand exactly
they had conformed to
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
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
the setbacks, but this application, the owner
was looking for more of a free form pool. They
did not believe that they could push
everything up against the existing decking or the
house.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any
particular reason why the kidney shaped pool is
placed in this location as opposed to moving it
closer to the house?
MR. IVANS: Again, they didn't want to
have the pool so close to the existing deck.
They didn't want to turn it into a patio.
They want a little outdoor space for the
swimming.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If it were rotated.
MR. IVANS: I see what you are saying.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Cranked a little bit
towards the left, parallel to the house, it would
slightly reconfigure --
MR. IVANS: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You are going to set
that back a little more.
MR. IVANS: So counter clockwise?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. Do you see
what I am saying?
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
MR. IVANS: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They could have a
further set back by rotating it to this location.
I would rather them propose an amended setback as
opposed to what it would look like and so on.
And then come back with that amended proposal.
What the Board has to do is grant the lease
possible variance.
MR. IVANS: Sure, I understand.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The more you can
conform. The patio, bring it back a little bit
from the bulkhead --
MR. IVANS: I can definitely turn it
counterclockwise and I understand (In audible)
kidney shaped pool on the southern size. I will
try and maximize. I mean, can the Board give me
a little guidance in what they want to
see? Are
we looking at, if I could get a couple of more
feet? (In audible) that will increase the
setback,
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
probably have to pull it back
together.
MR. IVANS: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
but the larger is going to turn.
You will
a little bit all
Pull it back towards
77
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 78
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the house.
MR. IVANS: Okay. A similar instance with
the Campbell, I think they approached the Board
with a setback of 50 feet. And I think the Board
told them to kick it back about two more feet.
So if I could kick it back similar to that and
turn it?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I would
suggest to see it as much conforming as
possible.
MR. IVANS: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The maximum you can
increase that setback, and feasible, is what we
are looking for.
MR. IVANS: Yeah, I will discuss it with
the client. Does the Board have issues with the
shed too?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, we are going to
mention that. George,
questions?
MEMBER HORNING:
do you have any
Yeah, since you mentioned
the shed. How did it get to be there? Was it as
built without a permit?
MR. IVANS: Yes. It was built without
permits five years ago.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
MEMBER HORNING: Around five years
ago?
MR. IVANS: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: In your documentation
here, the short environmental form, Question 10
asked, does the action involve a permit or
approval, etc for an agency and you said, "yes."
As stated which one, you said the DEC and the
Trustees. And I am a little confused in
Number 11, does the action have a current permit
or approval and you said "no," and yet you have
submitted the Trustees permit.
MR. IVANS: That was probably was a typo
and I could clarify.
MEMBER HORNING: So the answer for 11 is
"yes?"
MR. IVANS: Yes. I can remedy that.
MEMBER HORNING: Yes, if you will.
MR. IVANS: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What we are talking
about, the size of the shed didn't actually
require a permit, but the placement of it in the
side yard is the real issue.
MR. IVANS: Sure.
MEMBER HORNING: Leslie, he said that he
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
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
is amended is answer to Number 11 on the short
form to "yes."
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is on the
environmental --
MEMBER HORNING: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Ken,
questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Why don't
we do this. Let's adjourn the hearing. We
can't get you on in May. We are just absolutely
booked, but we can put you back on for June to
come back on before us. I will give you my
feedback on the shed right now. Since you have
dry space on the one side, you still have
clearance and access and since it is pretty well
screened from the neighbors and it is quite small
in size, I will only speak for myself, and that
is all I am permitted to do. I don't have an
objection for the shed staying where it is.
Rather to have it picked up and move it. It is
almost in the rear yard.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Pardon me for
80
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
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
interrupting. I don't want to prohibit you
to the swimming pool also.
MR. IVANS: Plus another issue that Bruce
pointed out, if we relocated it further towards
the water, it becomes more in view to
neighbors of the west anyway.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. I
to ask if there
the
am going
is any comments from the audience
for this application?
MR. FITZGERALD:
I have a letter from the
Please.
I am Jim Fitzgerald, and
(In audible) address you
in that situation. We have no objection to the
swimming pool. Everybody should have a swimming
pool, if they wanted. We do have concerns about
the application itself. And the effects of those
concerns might (In audible) of the structures
involved and we would like to share those
concerns with you. The project, as submitted --
MEMBER HORNING: Could you identify the
property and the owner for the Board?
MR. FITZGERALD: Oh, yes. It's Lesley
Graham who is the adjacent property owners to the
west.
MEMBER HORNING:
MR. FITZGERALD:
Thank you.
The project as submitted
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
appears to be designed without any regard
restrictions of the town (In audible). And (In
audible) because like also the simple fix to the
existing application. And along those lines, the
LWRP in his review, he says that he finds the
project consistent to the greatest extent
applicable. The required amount of relief could
be reduced. Could have been reduced. And the
applicant in the ZBA application form says that
the requested of 27% is not substantial. What
would be substantial? Also the application for
the applicant, it says the alleged difficulty has
not been self created of among other things (In
audible) including the additions proposed. The
75 foot thing goes into effect when the house was
built. I think it is at least kind of self
created. With regard to the shed, I will read
for you the Town Code, (In audible) to it's
location in the side yard was setback to the
property line is inadequate (In audible). These
deficiencies are easily corrected and not by a
variance. For the first time the project has
been designed without any regard to
Code. The fact that merely turning
of the access
pool so that the
the Town
the footprint
to the (In
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
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
audible) would substantially reduce the
required relief. That is all I have. Thank
you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Is
there anyone else in the audience that would
like to address this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anything
else from the Board?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no further
comments, I will make a motion to adjourn this
hearing to June 2nd at 1:00 o'clock p.m. to
review an amended setback application. Is there
a second on that motion?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6460 - NORTH FORK COMMUNITY THEATER
83
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 84
1
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: The next application
before us is for North Fork Community Theater.
Request for variance from Article III Code
Section 280-46 and the Building Inspector's
December 1, 2010 Notice of Disapproval based on
an application for building permit for lot line
change at; 1) lot size less than the code
required 20,000 square feet per Bulk Schedule in
HB District, 2) less than the code required rear
yard setback of 25 feet, 3) less than the code
required side yard setback of 10 feet, at: 12700
Sound Avenue and 12605 Main Road, Mattituck.
MS. HOEG: Good afternoon, Karen Hoeg,
H-O-E-G, for the applicant, from Twomey and Shea.
I actually have the additional mailings and a
letter.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good. Do you have
comments from the Planning Board?
MS. HOEG: Yes, I do, and they are
actually attached to the Memorandum of Law.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And from Tom
McCarthy?
MS. HOEG: Yes.
letter as well from one
There is an additional
of the adjacent property
85
April 7, 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
owners stating that they have no objection to the
project.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MS. MESIANO: I understand a little of the
factual information the North Fork Community
Theater is in contract with the Mattituck
Presbyterian Church. That is handled by
Mr. Ehlers and he is here. We hope to obtain the
necessary lot line modification re-subdivision.
So that the property as described in the contract
can be separated by the remaining (In audible) by
the church and can face the theater. The
property that we (In audible) and purchase the
nonconforming theater building which is currently
being used by North Fork Community Theater.
Prior to 1970, a portion of that property sought
to be subdivided on which the building was
currently owned by the theater. The property is
designated on the current tax map, which is
attached to the memo of law, so you can see where
the lines are. On the property immediately
adjacent to the west of -- west of the property,
is the gravel parking area utilized by the
theater in conjunction with the theater and it is
proposed that a new lot line be created that
86
April 7, 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
includes the lot that
and originally owned by the theater.
as the property to the west of that,
the theater is currently on
As well
which is
the gravel parking area. The original theater
line was conveyed to the church through deed
dated June 9, 1970 and since that time it has
been leased to the theater from the church. The
(In audible) fire have -- rather than have the
theater leave the current site, we have entered
into an agreement. You can see from the
Southold Planning Board memo, they have
recommended approval of the variance, noting that
they will allow the theater to use the lot to
be increased in sodding and also note that the
use of the two parcels will be (In audible) with
the Town's comprehensive plan. As you can see
the setback variances that we have requested
which are set forth in the application, as well
as explained in the memorandum of law, from the
building will stand "as is." There will be no
construction. No increase in traffic or noise.
If the variances are granted for the setbacks,
try to keep the tax maps as close as they are
doing the lot line changing.
east side of
we
The setback on the
the property, there are graves that
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
come right up to the building that you can see
in photographs that were sent to your office.
We can see where the headstones are placed right
next to the building, which is why the setback
variance at that particular location is 1.1
feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Actually,
site inspections.
MS. HOEG: Ail right. So basically
because of the existing use of the property line
at 26 (In audible) the eastern line is proposed
to move slightly to the west, changing the side
setback of the proposed 1.1 and that if it was
moved closer, a variance would still be needed
based on the HB Zone in that area. This
applicant can't readily obtain the existing
we all do
graves without the variance request. So that is
the reason why we are seeking these variances.
As I said, the theater wants to stay in its
location that's its in. It's vital to the area.
The addition in the lot size will provide for
additional parking for the theater as well as
the parking across the street. We
objection from any of the
for
received no
adjoining property
owners.
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
unique one.
MS. HOEG:
Yes.
Certainly, a very
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The proposed lot line
would permit the existing graves to be entirely
in the proposed Lot 2?
MS. HOEG: They would remain where they
are, yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So that would have the
proposed entirety of the graves for within the
proposed Lot 2 of the cemetery?
MS. HOEG: Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And no remainder of the
grave would be in the proposed Lot 17
MS. HOEG: Right.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So that would settle
the circumstance --
MR. EHLERS: I would like to address
that.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Sure.
MR. EHLERS: Richard Ehlers, counsel to
the church. We agonized with some of the graves
with the surveyor, the issue of where the graves
are to the headstones. Headstones are placed at
88
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the head of the body but not necessarily
facing down at the body. In the older times,
they were reversed and facing the headstones, you
were not standing on the grave. As near as we
can tell, that is the situation of this case.
The headstones run about 5 to 6 feet off the side
of the building, with the writing out from the
building. So standing looking at the grave, the
bodies are to (In audible). However, we were
concerned that we were wrong, so we asked the
surveyor to move the line and so we were
confident without any doubt that we would be
within that area.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Well, there is really
no way of knowing that, and I don't suggest -- I
believe what you say. And so, what you are
proposing will permit all the existing graves to
be in the cemetery and not in the theater parking
area?
MS. HOEG: Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So rear yard and the
side yard.
MS. HOEG: That's correct.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That is all I had to
ask.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: Sure. You mentioned the
lot was owned by the theater at one point; is
that correct?
MS. HOEG: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: And it was sold in
19707
MS. HOEG: I can get the exact date for
you. It's a portion of it 1970 was owned by the
theater.
MEMBER HORNING: I am curious why it was
sold to the church? Financial hardship?
MS. HOEG: I am not aware of any.
MR. EHLERS: We had some trouble
researching, that the oil (In audible) of the
mechanics used it as a lodge. We are thinking
the 40's and 50's. And we believe it was a church
prior to that. So it was a church that became a
mechanics hall that became a community theater,
that we now seek to finalize back to the theater.
A church should never own a theater. The
interest of people who act and people who worship
can be different, and so it would be helpful to
the church and the theater (In audible) without
oversight or with regard to the other entity.
90
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
But the use, that public use, a church, a
mechanic and a theater. That is what it has
always been and we are actually making it
larger because we are going to the west with the
Town property. It is not on the tax map. As I
recall the tax map, when you go down the other
side of the property where we are greatly
expanding or diminishing the nonconforming.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
your name for the record?
MR. EHLERS: E-H-L-E-R-S.
Avenue,
Can you just spell
456 Griffing
Riverhead, New York.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
MEMBER HORNING: I have other details. Do
you propose it was the church that those graves
are associated with or not?
MR. EHLERS: I am also the President of
the Board of the Bethany Cemetery. What looks
like as one cemetery, it's actually two
cemeteries. The lands behind the church going to
this structure are the old burial grounds of the
Mattituck Presbyterian Church. And that is
church property dedicated burial
you go to the left of the church,
picket fence was along,
ground. If
where the
to the west on the main
April 7, 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
road. Then you pickup the old Bethany
Cemetery, which is a separate cemetery
organization. But those graves do not come
near to that structure. There is a cesspool in
the rear of the building and you saw perhaps that
cover, which we put in such a way on the survey
that those would be property to be convey as an
easement but at some point, if they don't need
that, then it will just convert to cemetery
property. That is an existing structure.
MEMBER HORNING: Have you considered the
building maintenance and access in case they
would have to set up scaffolding or
something?
MS.
easement.
HOEG: Yes. There would have to be a
We would allow to go onto the property
to fix whatever they needed to do, and the
setbacks that are nonconforming.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is one of the
most unique situations that I have seen in the
31 years. I have to tell you. Mr. Ehlers, the
way that I would get that information for you is
have the undisputed pleasure of sitting with my
fellow firefighters on a Monday evening and
talking with the history of Mattituck. The only
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
way I can relate this to the Board is to tell
-- is to ask them and to us eldest persons, who
are great friends of mine. One of which is a
prior sergeant from this wonderful Town by the
name of Barney Harris and the other one is also a
very good friend of mine by the name of, Allen
Dickerson. So I will ask them that question and
I will relate that question and I will tell the
Board when I see them on the third Wednesday of
this month and I
like me to?
MR. EHLERS:
will also call you, if you would
I would greatly appreciate
it.
get an answer there.
will be helpful.
I ask the guys at the club, and I didn't
So anything that you have
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We should point out to
you that we are going to have an arraignment here
very shortly. I would assume that is going to
happen when we see the police car show up and the
person handcuffed come
start of it right now.
just wanted to mention that
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
audience
in. And this could be the
So we are not sure. I
to you.
Okay.
Anyone in
like to address this application?
(No Response.)
the
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
further
the hearing
date.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
comments, I will make a motion to close
and reserve decision to a later
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6445 IRENE RUTKOSKI ESTATE.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. The next
application before us is Irene Rutkoski, which is
So there is no need to read the
would you just state your name for
a carryover.
legal. Pat,
the record?
MS.
MOORE: Patricia Moore on behalf of
Estate of Irene Rutkoski and Judy Barker, who is
the executrix. I would like to start off with
just a cleanup because in the time since the last
hearing, we did verify that your information was
better than mine. The zoning designation of
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the two properties is R-40. When I looked at
my map, my eyes must have shown my aging. So
that is the zoning. Also in the interim, we
did apply for a pre CO, for the barn and the
house. The barn is on the easterly parcel. The
house is the westerly parcel. We -- the
application was made. Ail fees were paid. They
did the inspection but the Building Department, I
am not sure if there is a computer problem or
there computers were done, the CO's were
supposed to be issued by now, and they couldn't
print them. So they said it was no problem, they
issued it but they just couldn't physically
produce them. So as soon as I get them, I will
supply them to you. That is all I can say. I
know they are
typing.
want me
time?
clear, it's just a question of
I don't know to what extent, do you
to recap what we talked about last
Do you have any particular questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: I believe it was because
we wanted to find the clear
MS. MOORE: Yes.
The AC versus th R-40.
clarified.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
zoning?
It made a difference.
So that has been
So when can expect those
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 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
pre CO's?
MS.
yesterday.
MOORE: I actually expected those
Then I called this morning and we
were going to pick them up and they didn't know
what the problem was.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
sure.
program software.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
out?
It's not weeks?
MS. MOORE: I hope not. I am not 100%
I think they just installed a new computer
They can't hand write one
MS. MOORE: I don't want to --
MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. Never mind.
MS. MOORE: I mean, they are very
courteous all the time. So they know we are
looking for them because we have been calling
regularly. You do have the history from the last
properties and these
larger farm tracts.
parcel, that was
different owners.
were created by deed and
The land to the north
bought at different times from
And they were owned -- they
were both put
that was never changed, so.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
questions.
in the husband and wife's name and
I don't have any
I think we went over everything and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
yOU have just done what we asked you to do.
Does any Board member have any questions?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
MEMBER HORNING: No, I don't.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What we can do
close this subject to receipt of the CO's.
MS. MOORE: Yes. That is fine.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And then have
audible) days to make a decision? Does that
sound okay?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Vicki, do you (In
audible) they know you guys are looking for it?
MS. TOTH: Okay.
MS. MOORE: (In audible)
(Stepped away from the microphone.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So I am going to
make a motion to close the hearing subject to
reserve decision at a later
the pre CO's and
date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
Second.
Ail in favor?
is
(In
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
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING %6435 - JEFF ANDRADE.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
is for Jeff Andrade. That is
am going
The next application
a carryover and I
to move to open up that hearing. That
application #6435. The applicant was to be
before us at 1:30. The time is now lets say, 10
minutes of 2:00 there about and let the record
reflect there is no appearance by the applicant
or any representative. So I am going to make a
motion to adjourn the hearing without a date.
Is there a second?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by Jim.
Ail in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
****************************************************
{Whereupon, the hearings concluded.)
98
April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 99
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
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.
Jessi~ DiLallo
Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
Date: April 29, 2011