HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-05/05/2011 Hearing 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York
May 5, 2011
10:06 a.m.
Board Members Present:
LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER - Member
JAMES DINIZIO, JR. - Member
GEORGE HORNING - Member
KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member
JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney
LUCILLE CAPPABIANCA - Legal Secretary
Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
P.O. Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
(631)-338-1409
RECE~/ED
JUL 0 5 011
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
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
INDEX OF HEARINGS
Hearing:
Brostar, LLC #6463
Douglas and Ellen Ciampa #6467
David J. Verity #6470
Thomas Frenz #6466
Barry and Carol Sweeney #6462
Christine Conte-Boutis %6465
Paul and Linda Wolfrom #6468
George and Ruby Gaffga #6438
Mary Beth Henson #6461
Frank and Rosemary Monteleone #6464
Page:
3-58
58-74
74-82
82-87
87-95
95-103
103-114
114-115
115-151
151-164
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
HEARING #6463 - BROSTAR, LLC.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The first public
hearing before us is for Brostar, LLC, and I will
read the legal notice. This is a request under
the Section 280-146D for an Interpretation of the
Town Code, Article XXIII, Section 280-121,
"Non-conforming uses", appealing the Building
Inspector's February 1, 2011 Notice of
Disapproval for a permit for operation of a
convenience store/service center/gas station in
pre-existing gas station/service station. Main
Street and Champlin Place, Greenport, New York.
Is there someone hear to represent this
applicant?
MR. SOLOMON: Good morning,
Madam Chairperson and Members of the Board. My
name is Michael Solomon. I am the attorney for
Brostar, LLC and the Spanos Family.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you please
just spell your name --
MR. SOLOMON: Yes, S-O-L-O-M-O-N.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you, sir.
MR. SOLOMON: Also a full-time resident of
Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have some green
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
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
slips that are missing. Do you have them?
MR. SOLOMON: We have them.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We are just getting
some paperwork out of the way before we start.
Do you have a copy of April 18th Memorandum from
the Planning Board?
MR. SOLOMON: I don't believe so.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just want to make
sure that you have copies of everything that is
in our file.
MR. SOLOMON: I understand that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All right. Let me
give you a copy.
MR. SOLOMON: Please.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And then the other
one is simply Suffolk County with local
determination.
MR. SOLOMON: Outset of my presentation
and before I get into what was my prepared
presentation, I want to advise the Board that
this morning for the first time, I was provided
with minutes for the Southold Town Board Meeting
back on September 22, 2009, which would have been
the meeting in conjunction with the adoption of
the amendment of the code, to which this
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
application is requesting interpretation. Now,
for the first time I was made aware of the fact
that James Bause, one of the operators of Roast
Off was present at the Board meeting and actually
inquired about the Town Board as to the effect of
this new code as it's related to the operation
that we're to speak to this morning. And I will
hand this up, if I can at this point. I have
multiple copies. Supervisor Russell on Page 70,
I believe it is marked in response to a question
from (in audible) basically responded, let me
just assure you under the convenience store
legislation the specific reference, if you read,
that excludes existing convenience stores have
been recognized by the Town. Now, I know yours
is already recognized by the Building Department
as preexisting. Now, I only found out this
morning and I am being very open with the Board
that I found out about this morning. If I had
known about this at an earlier date, I may have
pursued this in a different manner. I want the
Board to understand that when Mr. Spanos came
here and attended a Town Board meeting in
September of 2009, he was assured by the highest
level elected official in the Town, our Town
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
Supervisor, that his store was preexisting. So
that I want the Board to be aware of because that
has potential meaning as it relates to this
particular location. It was an assurance given
by our leading official. That being said, we are
here today with respect to the interpretation of
the Town Code Article XXIII, Section 280-121.
The subject gas station is located at 330 Main
Street in Greenport. It is also known as 1100
Main Street, Greenport and has
Map designation #1000-34-3-22.
that everybody sitting on this
with this station. I don't think that
very many people in this township that
Suffolk County Tax
I am confident
Board is familiar
there are
aren't
familiar with the station. A lot by virtue of
the fact that the station has been existing for
many years since all of us have been alive. The
station has been there for a very long period of
time. It has existed in the same construction
basically as it was originally built. This
application has nothing to do with any structural
changes, additions or I will say "physical
alterations" made. The alteration to which the
Building Inspector made reference to when he
denied our application, was the section we are
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
looking for the interpretation on, Section
280-121, in which he said, the existing
convenience store use resulted in an alteration
of the property. So that is the extent of the
alteration. It's basically -- in his opinion, it
was a use alteration. It was not a physical
alteration. From our position and what we are
presenting to you today, it wasn't even a use
alteration. We will offer some testimony this
morning to establish that in one manner or
another, and definitely before 1957, the
controlling date for the non-conforming code.
That this gasoline station always had an adjunct
store use. There will be testimony as to that.
As to when it was sold back prior to 1957. And
the analogy that I want to make -- and we didn't
use the word by the way in the 1950's. We didn't
know what a convenience store was. That was not
in our definition. There was no 7-11's around.
We have no stores of this nature that were
existing. What did we have in those days, we had
candy stores. To what a lot of us refer to it in
certain locations. We didn't have a convenience
store. So in looking at what is convenient, you
really just go back into the dictionary.
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 8
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Convenient,
into a persons
point in time.
just talks about basically what fits
needs and suitable to a certain
So you will hear testimony.
There is no question -- I don't think anybody is
in dispute that any store adjunct or adjacent to
a service station in the 50's is going to be
selling spark plugs, oil, transmission fluid,
windshield wipers, fusers. God knows how many
off components relate to the repair of
automobiles because in those days, we repaired
our automobiles. Which is something that has
been antiquated. As time changed, so did the
items that became convenient changed. And even
in the 50's, there is going to be testimony that
there was soda being sold and candy being sold.
There was bubble gum being sold, amongst others.
And most of us, if we took back in our own lives
with these convenience stores, we know that to be
true. You used to go in and buy those little
gums that are wrapped up with a paper for a
penny. You would reach into the old coolers and
pull out the soda out -- out of the soda ice
machine that they had at these type of
facilities. So when you look at convenience
store, to me, you look at the concept of a store.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
That we accept the fact that there was a store
in this location in 1957 and before. The fact
that the products that they now sell are
different from what was sold then, does not make
-- does not make it a convenience store then and
then a convenience store now. And what makes
this application more troubling to the Spanos
Family and to the owners of this company,
effectively every service station in this
township was either permitted by the amendment.
We're in a Hamlet Residential Zone. In a Hamlet
Business District, if you were (in audible) when
this ordinance was adopted, you were given the
right as a nonconforming, to put in a convenience
store based upon the filings of certain
applications with the Town. It was a matter of
right. You didn't have to come in and say I was
a nonconforming use. Even if you were not a
nonconforming use,
station to survive
than gas. Every
they recognized for a gas
today, it's got to sell more
one of us knows that buys gas
within our District and if I
there is maybe one gas
that exist in our Town,
of,
go into my mind,
station that I know of
maybe one that I am aware
that doesn't have a convenience store
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
attached to it. So why all of a sudden are we
being attacked or are we being isolated, that
wait a second, you know have to get special
permission to do this when in fact we, were
indeed a store operating. More so than the
in the Hamlet District that were not stores
got the right to do it.
we are in the General Business District, we can
open up a store right now, as a matter of right
we can have it, a convenience store. So without
an interpretation permitting us to look at this
ones
that
As a right right now, if
code and say you know something, there is merit
to this. There was a store here and there is no
question that there was a store here. In 1957
that very easily we can interpret that store to
fit within the confines definition of a
convenience store. And by the way when you
really look at this, a Town definition that they
only put in place in 2009. So there was no
definition with any of our Town Codes. From '57
to 2009 as to what even was a convenience store.
So now I am being force to convince you, Members
of this Board, that a store that was convenient
for people to purchase items in 1957, whatever
those items are, is no different to the store in
10
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2011,
items.
gas
not
one
that sells a whole different litany of
People don't walk into the traditional
station today and buy a battery. They are
going to go there. They are going to go to
of the box stores and get a battery. So
service stations don't sell batteries any more.
They sell potato chips. We used to go buy oils
and fuses and spark plugs but it has all changed.
Whether it's the Auto Zones of the world, that is
no longer sold within the confines of these rules
because no one is going to buy them anymore.
Everybody is looking to run some place else to
buy all these particular items cheaper and also
in the 1950's when this country had no Chevy's
and Ford's and Chrysler's or whatever, it is not
feasible for a service station to sell the same
products. So to me it's a transition. No
different then if I would walk with you back in
time. You know, Back to the Future, and we would
walk into Sears in 1950, it was a department
Sear. And you walk into Sears in 2011, it's not
the same Sears. They are not selling the same
product. Well, you were only a department store
because you were selling the same products in
1957. They wouldn't be able to operate under
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1t
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
"department store." But our definitions, our
societies, our community is all changing. And
can almost guarantee you in 15 years from now
what they sell in a convenience store today will
be different in what they are going to sell in a
convenience store in 2026. It's just the basic
nature of the beast. Also, even the way that
this location is set up (in audible) and I
believe surveys were submitted in the packages to
all the individual members of the Board and
should have received, and I think you would all
have to look, if you don't know this property,
the gasoline pumps are literally, you can almost
reach the front door. What purpose where there
be to
people were not going into
You understand, there is
the repair of vehicles.
used to sell and I don't
erect pumps directly adjacent to a store if
a store to purchase.
a separate bay here for
This place was always
think that really can be
disputed and that sort of almost ties into the
supervisor's comments when he already says that
you are nonconforming. I really believe that the
Town Board felt that we were nonconforming as a
convenience store when we were here in 2009. But
for that, why were we left out of the code for
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
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
this one station {in audible) that I can think of
that is even affected by having to come before
the Board. I think at this point, with the
Board's permission, I would like to call Gary
Lillis who could offer some testimony with
respect to this location.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good morning, would
you please state your name for the record.
MR. LILLIS: My name is Gary Lillis.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Mr. Lillis, in order
to provide testimony before this Board I am going
to swear you in, so that your testimony is
credible. Would you please raise your right hand
and repeat after me. Do you swear to tell the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you God?
MR. LILLIS: I swear to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so
help me God.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
under oath.
MR. SOLOMON: May I proceed?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes.
MR. SOLOMON: Mr. Lillis,
reside?
You are now
where do you
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. LILLIS:
MR. SOLOMON:
been
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
MR. LILLIS: I reside at, right now,
203 South Street, Greenport.
MR. SOLOMON: For how long have you
resided at that location?
4 years.
And for how long have you
a resident of the Town of Southold and
member of Greenport?
MR. LILLIS: I would say 60 years.
MR. SOLOMON: What year were you born?
MR. LILLIS: 1957.
MR. SOLOMON: Which makes you how old?
MR. LILLIS: 64.
MR. SOLOMON: As a child, did you reside
any where near the gas station that we are here
giving testimony about today?
MR. LILLIS: Yes.
MR. SOLOMON: How far away did you
reside?
MR. LILLIS: We lived on Belly Avenue,
which is exactly two blocks from the gas
station.
MR. SOLOMON: As a child, did you have an
opportunity to be a customer at this particular
location?
14
15
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. LILLIS: We did.
MR. SOLOMON: And after visiting
child -- '57 would make you --
MR. LILLIS: 10.
MR. SOLOMON:
years-old?
MR.
MR.
So you were about 10
MR. LILLIS: Yes.
MR. SOLOMON: What was the nature of your
relationship with this location?
MR. LILLIS:
station.
MR. SOLOMON:
employed?
MR. LILLIS:
MR. SOLOMON:
I was employed at that
And for how long were you
Full-time?
Full-time or part-time?
MR. LILLIS: As a young child, when I say
"young," probably 10-12 years old, we used to go
there and a man by the name of Gus Strausner was
the proprietor. So he would ask us -- he would
have to run down Town and he would ask us to
watch the place for him. And then I got in high
as a
LILLIS: Correct.
SOLOMON: Later on you were a
teenager, did you have a different
relationship with this location?
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
school, I was employed there on a regular basis
and in my first year, which would have been 1965,
I worked there full-time for a year before I
went off to college.
MR. SOLOMON: Prior to 1957, I guess you
were still
MR.
MR.
of product
9 or 10 years-old --
LILLIS: Yep.
SOLOMON: Can you tell me what type
you either purchased or have a
recollection of being
location?
MR.
sold at this
LILLIS: I remember vividly the candy
counter. There was a large glass counter that
had all types of candy, bubble gum. I can
recall cigars being there, I can recall soft
drinks. There was a company in Greenport
called Kist, K-I-S-T. I don't know if they were a
distributor or if they actually made the
beverages there, but I can recall the Kist Soda
being sold there because we would go in there and
they used to call it the rainbow because they
made all different flavors. There was orange and
black cherry and Mr.
make up our own case.
Rainbow case.
Strausner would allow us to
We used to call it the
I used to put two oranges in it,
May 5, 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
two black cherry's and
those things being
MR. SOLOMON:
MR. LILLIS:
insecticide.
so forth.
sold.
Ant
Well,
Insecticide
I can remember
other product?
I can remember
spray cans, flashlight
batteries, cigarettes. Those were the things
that were sold at the counter. Oil, oil
filters, spark plugs, head lamps. Things like
that.
MR.
there --
MR.
SOLOMON: And you said you worked
LILLIS: I worked there full-time,
from August of 1965 to '66. Prior to that, I
was unofficially working there.
so forth.
MR. SOLOMON: And the products that you
listed were prior to 19577
Pumping gas and
MR. LILLIS:
recollection.
MR. SOLOMON:
the location since?
MR. LILLIS:
MR. SOLOMON:
To the best of my
And are you familiar with
I have.
Through the years, has the
location sold those products and additional
products since?
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. LILLIS:
MR. SOLOMON:
this witness.
Yes.
I have nothing
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
further of
I should just remind
you counsel that this is really not a court of
law. This is the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mostly people address us. Just so that you are
aware, this is not our typical procedure.
MR. SOLOMON: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Does the Board have
gentleman?
I don't have any
any questions of this
MEMBER DINIZIO:
questions.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
I don't think so at
this time.
MR. SOLOMON: To continue my presentation,
I would like to present James Spanos. He is a
representative of Brostar.
MR. J. SPANOS: Good morning.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Morning.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Are you going to be
testifying also?
MR. J. SPANOS:
Yes, I am.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. We will swear
you in too then. Please state your name for the
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
record?
MR.
J. SPANOS:
James Spanos.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you swear to tell
the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
truth, so help you God?
MR. J. SPANOS: I do.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
MR. SOLOMON: So should I ignore my
courtroom technology?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think that is
If you wish to, you can carry on any way
fine.
you like.
Mr.
MR. SOLOMON: Thank you very much.
Spanos, what is your relationship with
Brostar?
MR. N. SPANOS: I am 1/3 owner of Brostar,
which owns the gas station at 1100 Main Street.
MR. SOLOMON:
owned company?
MR. J. SPANOS:
MR. SOLOMON:
the other families
LLC?
MR. J. SPANOS:
And is Brostar a family
Yes, it is.
Besides yourself, who are
that are members of the
My sister (in audible)
Spanos and my brother Nicholas Spanos.
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
MR. SOLOMON: And to what period of time
has Brostar LLC, or either the Spanos Family been
owners of the subject
MR. J. SPANOS:
MR. SOLOMON:
purchased the
to the Board,
the location?
MR. J.
location?
Since 1975.
And at the time that you
location in 1975, can you describe
in general terms, the nature of
How it operated?
SPANOS: The nature of
was repair shop, gas station and
which sells potato chips, bubble gum,
amounts of cigarettes, cigars, candy,
products, maps, hooks, baits.
the location
country store,
numerous
oil
A small variety of
fishing hooks and tackle that I like being in
charge of. And numerous other things, fuses,
spark plugs.
MR. SOLOMON: And the store, I will refer
to it as the "convenience store," consisted in
the location and within the same confines from when
you purchased it?
MR. J. SPANOS: Yes, it has.
MR. SOLOMON: And from your understanding
and the people that you spoke to, it consisted
in the same location without alterations back
before 19577
20
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5,
MR. J. S?ANOS:
definitely historical.
historical structure.
MR.
2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
Absolutely. It is
This structure is
SOLOMON: And you appeared before the
Town Board in September of 2009?
MR. J. SPANOS: Yes, I did.
MR. SOLOMON: And you raised an issue with
nonconforming use (in audible).
MR. J. SPANOS: Yes, I did.
MR. SOLOMON: There was a transcript,
of
which I think you heard me present to the Board
of that meeting?
J. SPANOS: Yes.
SOLOMON: And that would represent a
of what you had spoken with the
MR.
MR.
true exchange
Town Board --
MR.
MR.
J. SPANOS: Correct.
SOLOMON: And when you left
Board meeting in September of 2009, you were
assured that you were a nonconforming
convenience store?
MR. J. SPANOS: Absolutely. I thought
that the store was safe from any harm.
MR. SOLOMON: I have nothing further.
MEMBER HORNING: I have a question. You
that Town
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
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
did give us a copy of that meeting. What was the
general context, what are they talking about? I
see in the middle of the first page, I see
Supervisor Russel, "first the Champlain
initiative was actually brought when we
previously had a Town Board." What is
that?
MR. J. SPANOS: The reason why it came
into the meeting was because there was a parking
issue brought up. I was unaware of the other
issue that I recognized when I came to the
meeting. But the reason why it came in, the Town
wanted to take away parking on Champlain Place,
on both sides of the street, and I wanted to
argue that so that we could keep the parking to
have the business. Like most stores have parking
in front of their stores.
could walk into the store.
MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
from me, very quick.
You know, so people
One other question
The Planning Board mentions
Would you happen
zoning it was and
to when you
a changing of the zones to R40.
to have any information on what
what was changed? Was it prior
purchased or after?
MR. J. SPANOS: My brother could answer
22
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
that question better. My brother Nick came
before the Board to make a commercial zoning and
for some reason, this was denied. This was in
the late '80's. We were very upset that the
application for rezoning was denied and very
surprised. We took it personally.
MEMBER HORNING: If you could find out
what it was zoned before R40 and when it was
changed to R407 I would like to know that.
MR. J. SPANOS: I would think that it
wasn't zoned. The zoning wasn't sophisticated
back then. So --
MEMBER HORNING: I throw that out as a
question. So if we could get the answer for
that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I have a question.
With regard to the testimony that is being
submitted, when you came before the Town Board in
relationship to parking, I believe it was in
regards to a violation
parked cars in service
that public street; is
MR. J. SPANOS:
that you were having
at your gas station along
that correct?
That I am aware of but I
do know that Mr. Harris, which I think is part of
the Safety Commission felt that it would be hard
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
to get a fire truck up the block, because we are
both in the Greenport Fire Department. That
it would be difficult to get a fire truck, if
customers were parked on both sides of the
street. So the decision was to take away one
side of the street parking and leave one vacant
for the customers.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: When Supervisor
Russell made comments, that your attorney has
provided to us, do you know on what basis he was
to determine that your store was preexisting
nonconforming?
MR. J. SPANOS:
from his recollection.
I would think that it is
He has been out here
almost as long as we have. We went to high
school together. Supervisor Russell, I would
think because he was aware of it being a store
the whole time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Another
question. In 1993, the Zoning Board made a
determination to continue the preexisting
nonconforming gas station,
incidental office with gas
you recall that decision?
MR. J. SPANOS: I did see that there was
service station with
and oil products. Do
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
a decision like that but my attorney at the
time, Mr. Cuddy, I wasn't around at the time that
this happened. I had a -- personal issues and I
was in the city. My father spoke broken English
and was a gentleman and very shy. So he didn't
-- I don't think he communicated everything to
the attorney when -- as far as all the products
because of the language barrier.
MR. N. SPANOS: (In audible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You can if you come
to the microphone. State your name?
MR. J. SPANOS: Nick Spanos.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Mr. Spanos, will you
repeat after me, I swear to tell the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help
me God.
MR. N. SPANOS: I swear to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help me God.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Perhaps you can
answer this question.
MR. N. SPANOS: The reason why it came in
front of this Board or why I hired the lawyer
back then was because he was getting the tanks,
there were new tanks being put in because there
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
was some augmentation of the law and State,
that you had to have double walled tanks and that
was his main motivation. I don't -- you guys
wrote that stuff down. He didn't write that
stuff down. He wanted to get the tanks and the
only thing on his mind was, if he didn't get the
tanks, he couldn't sell any gas.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I understand. The
reasons that I ask, of course, at that time the
the Zoning Board was not able to recognize that
there was a preexisting convenience store that
sold more than gas and oil products.
MR. N. SPANOS: We were just going before
the Zoning Board for tanks. As far as anything
else, that is left -- we were also going before
the Board about the zoning that we spoke about
for commercial.
MR. J. SPANOS: I don't want to say that
we were mistreated unjust all along. If you look
at the series of events throughout properties (in
audible).
MR. N. SPANOS:
MR. SOLOMON:
(In audible).
If I might make a point,
because I am familiar with these 1993 proceedings
and reviewed some of the transcripts. The
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
problem was when they started taking out some
of the tanks, that whole process, there appeared
to be an issue was the station closed too long in
which, the "nonconforming use," we will call it a
service station, may have been jeopardized and
that is the issue. The testimony from his
father, in which he has indicated to me is weak.
They were talking about a gas station.
Nobody was raising the issue of a convenience
store. The father testified and it is in that
record that even when the pumps were not
operated, that the store was open and it was
selling, in which Madam Chairperson, you had just
made reference too. Ail the fuses, anything
related to the car. Why the father wasn't asked
about anything else, probably because
an issue. Nobody was challenging it.
it wasn't
You know,
when we really think about this, we are before a
Town Board in 1993 and the Town was out there
inspecting the property. The Town knew what we
were using the facility for. If there was an
issue that we couldn't have a store, it would
have been raised by the Town in 1993. But be
there as it may, I still think that we are
offering some legitimate evidence and testimony
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
to you especially from Mr. Lillis, who lives
within the Village of Greenport since a young kid
and knew what transpired there. And I really
don't believe within our hearts that
(in audible) that, that was a store back in the
50's. So we are spending a lot of time and energy
and I understand that sometimes things become
necessary, but there is all irony in this because
not that I want to come back here on another day,
God forbid you say that we are interpreting (in
audible) not for us -- variance and (in audible)
we come back to the same thing all over again.
This is how we have been operating and (in
audible) and been put into a different zone and
then we have our own supervisor say it's
nonconforming.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I think that it is
relevant to find out when it was actually changed
back to residential.
MR. J. SPANOS: (In audible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We need to get that
information.
MR. SOLOMON: The way that I am
understanding this procedure right now and
correct me if I am wrong, a lot of people love
28
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
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
when I say that. They jump in on the
opportunity. 1957 is really the controlling year
for the discussion today but I will be happy to
provide any additional information that is being
requested but I don't know if that is really
going to answer our question if my burden
MEMBER DINIZIO: I can tell you this much
because I actually seconded the motion back in
1993. Mr. Lillis, I have known the man all my
life and I know the Spanos' were only a block
away. I know all that stuff. I walked by this
station almost every day about a
particular gas
quarter to six,
and I have done so for about 20
years. I have bought gas there. I bought milk
there this morning. I am fairly familiar with
the application but I can say that during the '93
hearing, we were concerned about whether or not
they had loss their nonconformity with respect to
the gas station because that is what was going on
then with many gas stations. They had to close.
Mr. Spanos as I recall, gave testimony on how
they were going to raise the money to get this
thing. They had to close down because certainly
the law said so. He eventually got enough money
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
together to put the tanks in and I think that we
reacted accordingly. Whether or not there was a
convenience store, they're exactly right. I can
tell you this, there is a gas station in East
Marion right across from Skippers, my
brother-in-laws restaurant who used to sell
Breyers's ice cream. And that is when I was a
kid. I am talking about the 60's. So I know that
they did exist back then. They sold more than
just something. I remen%ber my uncles greasy old
hands scooping out blueberry ice cream onto a
cone. And so I guess the recent years that
traffic there has been a problem and certainly
most recent hearing that you are cited about,
Mr. Russell saying what he said, that was a
problem.
MR. J. SPANOS: I remember something and
if I could just interject. The lease (in
audible) having been totaled and that police
dropped in there on the side. That is when that
initiated. That car had nothing to do with. And
then all of a sudden, we were just taking
advantage of the street.
MEMBER DINIZIO: We shouldn't really go
down that road because that is really not
30
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
relevant.
MR. J. SPANOS: Mr. Dinizio, you brought
up the place across from your brothers
restaurant, what does that place look like now?
MEMBER DINIZIO: It's closed down.
MR. J. SPANOS: It looks horrible. I am
just stating that there are gas stations
throughout the Town that are closed that are eye
soars.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Again,
relevant. I think that I was
that is not
trying to address
the '93 decision and I can't recall that there
was milk sold out of there. I can't recall if
there was.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me ask
something. Can you tell us what you are now
selling in your convenience store, the products
that you sell? We have all been there by the
way. I want the record to reflect that. We
heard testimony --
MR. N.
potato chips,
SPANOS: Soda,
coffee.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MR. N. SPANOS: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
cigarettes, candy,
Do you sell milk?
Eggs?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5,
MR. N. SPANOS:
cheese. Whatever --
MR. J. SPANOS:
stores sell throughout the
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MR. J. SPANOS: Yeah,
2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
I don't know. Yeah,
What all the convenience
township.
Canned goods?
just like
convenience stores sell. We have an ATM in
there. We have Lotto. So throughout time we
evolved as all the convenience stores did. With
technology we evolved into what we are today.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. With regard
to the intensity of use --
MR. J. SPANOS: (In audible) and also we
are standing here. I would like to say that, I
don't want to offend anybody and it has nothing
to do with any of you all here, but there are
some personalities that actually work for the
Town and the only reason why we are standing here
is because of this wonderful and incredible
lawyer and (in audible)
are some personalities
been there working and
years.
money is because there
involved. The place has
(in audible) for over 100
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: While I respect your
right to be heard for the public, I am not sure
32
May 5, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
those are issues that
any decision.
MR. SOLOMON:
will help this Board make
If I may, from my position,
I am not interested in the past history, people's
personalities. I am interested in the factual
details that we have presented to the Board. I
will before the close of business today is get
whatever additional information you need on it on
that change of zone, if that is acceptable?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes.
MR. SOLOMON: Do we want to leave the
record open just a little --
MEMBER DINIZIO: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And what was it
zoned prior to '89?
MEMBER DINIZIO: That is what we need to
know?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We need to know --
MR. SOLOMON: We will provide that. Yes,
if we could leave the record open till the end of
the day, we will submit it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I would also
like a copy of that 1993 transcript.
MEMBER HORNING: Along those lines, there
statement in the '93 decision, and it says
is a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
statement #2 in fact, zoning, the subject
premises is located in the R40 density
residential zoned District effective
January 9, 1989. So that corresponds to what you
are saying. And was that part of the Town's
master plan rezoning --
MR. J. SPANOS:
MEMBER HORNING:
the document,
%5, in part,
Right.
In the same decision in
there is a statement in statement
"the record shows that there is a
permit issued by the County Department of Health
Services on March 17, 1992." Do you need a
Department of Health permit to run a convenience
store? That is my question and do you have such
a thing, if you needed it?
MR. J. SPANOS: Yeah, we have such a
thing.
MEMBER HORNING: Do you need one to run a
convenience store?
MR. J. SPANOS: Yeah, we have all permits
for the convenience store, correct. We have had
it for years.
MEMBER HORNING:
are talking about, the one with the Department
Health Services, would that be for the
This one permit that they
of
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
i1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR.
the permit
years.
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
convenience store?
MR. J. SPANOS: Yeah, I submitted
that.
MEMBER HORNING: That would be for making
coffee and things like that?
MR. J. SPANOS: Yes. I submitted a copy
of the Health Department's permit. I submitted
all of that showing and they approved it. The
County had approved it because they knew that it
had been there.
MEMBER HORNING: So to the best of your
knowledge, the convenience stores need the County
of Health Services permit to operate and you
folks have always been in compliant with that, is
that what you are saying?
J. SPANOS: I am saying that we have
and we have had the permit for
date
permit --
MR. J. SPANOS:
in front of you, right?
MEMBER HORNING:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you recall the
from who you retained the Health Department
I think you have it there
One was from
March 17, 1992.
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
copy
May 5,
MR. J. SPANOS:
MEMBER HORNING:
MR. SOLOMON: Is
2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
1992.
But we don't have a
it a request that you
would like copies of all the permits to the
extent, we will be happy to provide them.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This is the other
thing, I would like to know at what point a
permit was required? It may have been possibly
operating before a permit was required. Right
now, what we have in the way of evidence of
preexisting is all the testimony based on
experience by local people. Is
that any formal legal documents
to this Board to indicate
state --
MR.
yes.
there any way
can be provided
the preexisting
SOLOMON: As much as I would like to
say, With the controlling year being
1957, even if those documents existed, (in
audible) seven to eight years they don't exist
anymore, there is no way we would even be able to
get a record back at that point in time. And I
don't believe that the Department of Health was
even involved back in 1957. So I wouldn't see
any outside agency other then what would
36
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
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
happen within our township issue any permit
operating or any other nature. In 1957, it was
a store that was convenient for everyone and in
2011 it is a store that is convenient for
everyone. I personally believe that it is an
easy decision. I can't substitute my judgement
for your learning.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The judgement has
to be based upon the facts and the records.
MR. SOLOMON: I understand. The
testimony is a fact. The personal knowledge is
a fact. The personal knowledge of those sitting
on the Board. You can take notice of your
personal knowledge of what existed here. Just
as a court takes judicial notice of a fact that
the judge knows. If the judge knows that a gas
station was there and had a store in 1992, he
could take judicial notice. He doesn't have to
wait for someone else to prove it.
MR. J. SPANOS: And there has also been
something that hasn't been brought up, is
hardship. That my family has been going through
financially and besides our personal issues
because of another property -- I am going to say
it anyway. Another property that the Town closed
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
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
down that I feel unjustly and I have proof
that it was unjustly and by Supervisor Russell by
giving orders that were abrupt and would surprise
you, created a lot of hardship financially and a
lot of problems within -- personally, I hope when
you make your decision that please take into
consideration, we don't have the money to fight
this. We have been pursued by a certain person
and he has bankrupted us. So before you make a
decision on this, please look at us as well.
MEMBER HORNING: I think it is relevant to
your situation, if you were getting County of
Health Services permits around the time of the
zoning change, which isn't terribly far back,
1989 or so, if it is documented in 1992 that
you had a valid permit. If you could show us
of these permits, it would be
some proof
relevant.
MR. SOLOMON: That is why if you could
leave the record open, we definitely will.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, that is not a
problem. Have you ever undergone Site Plan
Review by the Planning Board?
MR. N. SPANOS: No.
MR. J. SPANOS: I drew up a plan with
38
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Mr.
if you have the plan.
has it.
MR. N. SPANOS:
MR. SOLOMON:
interpretation -- it
but I don't think it
the process.
May 5,
Cuddy that we did on the plan.
The Building
2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
I am not sure
Department
We drew it up.
As it relates to the
is something nice to have
is something that is part of
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me
asked this. In the comments that I
you with
about --
explain why I
have provided
from the Planning Board they talked
I want you to have an opportunity to
address those comments in the public record, and
they are talking about the fact that the zoned
changed took place and now residential and they
are talking about, should a Use Variance come
from us, which is not what is before us today.
And Use Variances, as you are
different standards from --
MR. J. SPANOS: Well,
that.
that
aware have very
we can't do
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They are indicating
should a Use Variance be granted by this
Board, should it wind up that way, Site Plan
Review would be required. In other words, you
39
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would have to go before the Planning Board. So
I wanted to bring that up in the record, so
that you would have an opportunity to review if
you are operating both a convenience store and
service station, gas station, how you would
respond to the site plan and Planning Board.
MR. SOLOMON: Under our interpretation, we
wouldn't require it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You would not
require it under an interpretation but the
interpretation can also be conditioned. We can
also apply conditions to the interpretation. I
am bringing that up so that you can respond to
it, on the record.
MR. SOLOMON:
audible) before 1957.
Our requests as they (in
Nothing has changed or
exempted from any requirement
Whether it is Site Plan Review or
regarding for conditions. We are
at this point.
anything
asking this
Board to
convenience store?
store?
client
apply a simple interpretation. Are we a
Have we been a convenience
If we are, as Supervisor Russell told my
at a Town Board meeting, "don't worry
about it." So if all of a sudden we are here
dealing with conditions, then that's a different
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
approach then what we are here today
addressing. Just so the Board also knows, we
started this process, one of the tings that we
had tried to do is to piggy back an
interpretation for potential variance. Whatever
the Board's procedures are, which is different
then other Town's and municipalities. The rules
here within the confines (in audible) we can't do
that. They are not going to permit us to do
double-up, that we come here for an
interpretation and we also present a case on a
variance. We are not permitted to do it. So we
are here with the expressed understanding that we
are only here for that interpretation. Not
subject to any conditions. To be quite,
honestly, it would be inappropriate. For the
Board to present a condition, well, you are a
convenience store but -- it's either we are or we
aren't. I am using the word "convenience store"
because I am (in audible) in 1957, we didn't use
the word convenience store in our verbiage. It
wasn't a term that was used.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you agree or
acknowledge that the convenience of cigarettes
and bubble gum is at one scale and convenience
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
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
and what is essentially a Mini-Mart, a small
little grocery store, which is what most of the
convenience stores are today and that you can
buy food products. Some cases, hot dogs. But in
many cases, would you recognize that there is
intense (in audible) of use on that property
because there are more things available for
people to buy.
MR. N. SPANOS: The margin of price that
you charge is minimal on the profit -- on the
profit for the gasoline is minimal. The market
place is where you are going to make up your
money.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I understand
and --
MR. N. SPANOS: We still sell things
there. We try to stay in business. You can
put us out of business, if you would like. You
can do that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is not the
intent here.
MR. N. SPANOS: I don't have
nothing --
MR. SOLOMON: Nick. While, the Board
is entitled to ask any questions that they
42
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
want.
proceed a
appropriate
THE
MR.
I also believe that we are entitled to
is
response that we believe
SPEAKER: -- appropriate, respectful.
SOLOMON: And I would respectfully
submit that the intensity has nothing to do with
it. In reality, you can say whatever you want.
I am selling Lottery tickets, so that means more
people there. I am selling milk, that means that
it brings more people there. But that is not
what this is all about. There is no requirement
in an interpretation application. We are not
talking about -- we are not here for a variance.
I agree with you with that. That is a different
type of a proceeding. Ail the requests now being
made by you, would be totally appropriate and
subject to appropriate documentation and
response. But to now raise an issue, they are
selling too much stuff there and I don't like
it because too many people are coming in. That's
out -- if I talked to people in Greenport, they
don't like people coming in on the weekends. And
That
the village is a
is the way it is.
east end.
totally different village.
That is what happened to the
Is there more traffic? Yes, I agree.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
There would be more traffic anyway. Not just
because of the product being sold. It's
because of the location is more desirable now
for outsiders then we were 50 years. So this is
with all do respect.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don't see it as
disrespectful. I am asking the question so that
you could address them and enter it into the
public record, as you are doing. This is not
based upon an opinion of mine.
MR. SOLOMON: Oh, I understand that. But
for me, the intensification is caused by the time
and not by what we are (in audible).
MR. J. SPANOS: There is also a code that
is effect right now that allows 300 square feet
as an accessory use but nonconforming. Now, I
believe that because you put Hamlet Business
District in it, you were singling out one gas
station out and that code went into effect in --
just two years. So that Hamlet District put into
that code that allows gas stations, even
nonconforming gas stations to have a convenience
store up to 300 square feet is singling us out.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you know the size
of your convenience store?
44
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
MR. J. SPANOS: It's around that.
Maybe --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry, do you want
to go first?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Solomon, you
bring up some very interesting situations. In
particular, the definition of the word,
"convenience." I
education on what happened here.
approximately the same age as Mr.
am going to give you a little
I am
Lillis. I was
a high school teacher as well. During those
periods of time, we had some cars that didn't
really run too well, okay. '55 Chevy, '57
Plymouth's, and we just about made it out here
and where we had to go down and frequent this
station probably worked at a time and buy our
$.25 cents of quart oil. We had to get back to
Mattituck if we didn't carry back the oil,
right? This has no reflection on the Spanos
Family. I did frequent the station in the 60's.
I don't have specific recollection of any real
intense use of the convenience store at that
time. Ail right, other than for gas products and
the products that you were mentioning at that
time. But a very interesting thing happened in
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
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
to all of Suffolk County and that was the
1972
Blue Laws were tested. This is a retail sales
of (in audible). And from '73 to '74, a lot of
things occurred at that particular time. Major
places were opened on Sunday, which were never
opened before. In the back of the stations,
there was "mom and pop" operations of small
deli's and what we refer to as "convenience
stores" in Greenport. Most of which are closed
now and when that situation occurred, all of
these stores that were closed at this time, IGA,
which could have been A&P at that time, opened.
So in order to compete with those places, this
wonderful garage started bringing in these
things, and again, I am not questioning any of
these things that Mr. Lillis did at the store.
But the real gravitation occurred in the mid 70's
because they -- the first store that came in and
tested the Blue Laws was in Centerreach, New York
and was Harrows and after that, everything came
in. And everything was opened on Sunday's, and
everything needed to compete to the fact that the
food stores were opened. And that is what
occurred here. So at the same time that
situation may have occurred and then regenerated
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
~9
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
itself again in the 70's when gas stations were
not just gas stations. But the word "convenience"
and how far you spread that word "convenience."
MR. SOLOMON: But to me convenient is
convenient. I think -- I don't want to keep
repeating but if I am selling items in the store,
I think that we can all agree that prior to '57,
this service station was selling merchandise.
That this service station had a separate facility
where the pumps were and people would be able to
walk in and buy. I really believe that none of
us are going to object to the fact that they
probably sold exactly what was testified too.
But our argument is you can't say that you were a
store in 1957, which was convenient to people. I
don't think we can argue that. To me convenient
is convenient for people. That people can come
in. And to this day, I am not sure if
Mr. Dinizio will support me on this or not, but a
lot of people walk to that store. There is a lot
of people that live within walking distance. A
lot of people would go in --
MEMBER DINIZIO: I --
MR. SOLOMON: The township permitted
within the Hamlet District people to even ask
47
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
convenience store. For us to basically isolate
it out for the only one to be placed in this
position. When you know that we did sell -- this
would be a whole different store if I was sitting
before you and I didn't produce anything and
people sitting on this Board did not have any
knowledge of it. I am looking at -- and they are
getting upset, because they are feeling that they
are isolated and treated differently. There is a
lot of emotion. This is their family and their
lives and their money. I can understand the
emotion. I understand why it is there. This is
an easy application. There was evidence of the
products that were sold. I really have to add in
as someone who wants to argue with me that
Supervisor Russell shouldn't have said what he
said. He did say it and he was the lead person
on the Board at the time these changes were
taking place. It's the old
don't worry, who do I trust.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
story (in audible)
I think you have
made your point very (in audible) and clearly.
MR. SOLOMON: Thank you. And we have been
at this for over an hour. So what I would like
to do is acknowledge the record that you have
49
May 5, 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
made and we will take it into consideration all
the evidence that has been put before us and the
Town Board minutes and of this proceeding. We
will review it and we will make a decision. I
would like to see if the Board has any additional
questions and I would like to see if there is
anyone in the audieDce that would like to address
this application and move forward. We have many,
many more hearings before us and I want to give a
chance for everyone to be heard. I just really
think we need to look at things that just really
haven't been already said. Jim, I think you had
a question?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Only to the '93 decision.
That had some conditions and I wanted to know if
you could address those two conditions and if
they had been met?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you read into
the record what they are?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Parking shall be provided
for six cars and {in audible and one for each of
two employees.
if you need the
that conditions?
MR. SOLOMON:
Six parking spaces. I don't know
line, I am not sure how you met
In September of 2010 the
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 50
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Certificate of Occupancy was issued. So we had
to satisfy.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Is there a site plan that
designates those six parking spaces?
MR. J. SPANOS: Yeah. I drew it up.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Could you get that for
us?
MR. J. SPANOS: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Any CO's that you have
for this property, we would need to see them.
It's important that we know that all the
structures that we are looking at are legally
there. And then it says before any activity are
commenced to conduct gasoline sales, the
dismantled vehicles (in audible) whether licensed
or unlicensed should be removed or stored in such
a manner required under the zoning ordinance.
Such as enclosed area or building. Certainly,
you have complied with that but you can see that
over the course of time, that might have been
then the case.
here is narrow
and that you are asking us to determine
convenience store existed before zoning.
particular
I think that our reason for being
in that its a convenience store
what a
This
document, which is the '93 decision,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it gives
today.
says
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
you the reason for being here
MR. N. SPANOS: Our compliance, it
recently that the cars were put away. The
parking for compliance is the reason why we are
here. Because someone thinks we are not supposed
-- he told me don't even cut the grass. We went
to the Town. They said don't touch anything. I
have tape recorders of telephone conversations.
MEMBER DINIZIO: (In audible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Wait, wait, wait.
MEMBER DINIZIO: The only thing we are
addressing is whether or not you can sell milk
there. That is --
MR. N. SPANOS: The only reason why you
are addressing it is because someone said that we
were working it out of whatever.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There is only one
reason why we are addressing it and it's because
we have a Notice of Disapproval in front of us.
How it happened to me is not relevant to this
Board ad I would ask you with all do
respect --
MR.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
N. SPANOS: (In audible).
It is relevant to
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
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
your personal life circumstances. I understand
that. You have made it clear on how you feel.
You must stick to what is relevant before us --
MR. N. SPANOS: (In audible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We need to stick
to the facts so that the record is clear and the
Notice of Disapproval before us, which is what
your attorney has been addressing before us. I
want to see if Gerry has any questions or Ken
have any questions?
MR. J. SPANOS: This statement that I
have to make is very important and it pertains
to Supervisor Russell's statement that we have
there. The only reason why I did not come in to
fight the code and say, "listen we are a gas
station. There was a code decision and the only
people that you excluded was us by putting us
into a Hamlet District." The reason why I didn't
come in to fight it with my attorney was because
Supervisor Russell's word. You don't need to
have sympathy for us. His word by saying to us
-- he ensures us that he will -- that we will be
grandfathered in and that the Town recognizes it.
By him ensuring us that the Town recognizes our
convenience store prevented me from coming in
52
53
May 5, 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
and fighting those two little words, "Hamlet
District." We had to put a quarter of million
dollars into the property. Nobody tells us it's
not a convenience store. We had to put the
quarter of a million dollars into it. The Hamlet
District thing is singling out one gas station on
the North Fork and it's us. And by him saying
that, he is liable from preventing us from coming
in here and fighting that code, the Hamlet
District.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. We have heard
about this and discussed this five times already.
George, do you have anything?
MEMBER HORNING: No question. Just a
comment, I have spoken on this '93 decision,
which pertains to the establishment or the
preexisting use (in audible) it says very little
about a convenience store or a retail store.
There is an interesting sentence here, the
records show that a permit was issued by the
County Department of Health Services. If you
could give us more information. I am going to
request that the ZBA track down and see if we
have anything in our files from any decisions and
have a copy of that. We are going to look for
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
that also. I think it is very relevant to take
a look at the decision with regard to what is
said for the parking area and see, you know, what
we can do with that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What are the business
operations that are performed?
MR. J. SPANOS: Convenience store, gas
station and a repair shop.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. Would this gas
station, service station still be a viable
station if it did not have a convenience
store?
MR. J. SPANOS: Absolutely not. That is
why the Town put in the code for a 300 square
foot convenience store for a necessity use for
gas stations because the Town recognizes that gas
can not function without a convenience
stations
store.
yOU o
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Ail right. Thank
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just have a
question. When you were changing your tanks, how
long did you have to shut down?
MR. N. SPANOS: I don't remember. (In
54
55
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
audible.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
that period of time you were
gas station but you were
sell --
MR. J. SPANOS: Yes.
fact, we have a picture of my dad
out of there at the time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
what I want the record to reflect.
using it or operating it as a
store?
However, during
not operating as a
still continuing to
As a matter of
selling eggs
So that is
So you were
convenience
MR. J. SPANOS: Yep.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There is an issue
about moving preexisting nonconformity during a
particular period of time and I want the record
to reflect that that was not the case with your
convenience store.
MR. J. SPANOS: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone in
the audience that would like to address this
application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no further
comments, I make a motion to close --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
If you wish to make a comment, you will have
to come to the podium and state your name. Okay.
We are not. I am going to leave the record open.
Unless this Board feels that --
MEMBER DINIZIO: (In audible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right.
MR. SOLOMON: (In audible).
(Stepped away from the microphone.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I was going to
suggest that we close the hearing and leave the
record open for two weeks and close that at the
special meeting. However, if the Board still
feels that they have questions, we can leave the
entire record open for the Special Meeting. We
can actually adjourn this to the Special Meeting.
Close the whole thing at the Special Meeting,
which then allows us to communicate with you for
any questions. We can't hold a hearing but we
can close it or we can allow it to stay open.
That way, if we have questions we can come --
Let's do this, let's adjourn this to July 7th at
1:00 o'clock but let me reiterate just so that we
are all on the same page, that the Board would
like to see any Certificate of Occupancy's. The
onsite parking, whatever kind of information.
56
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 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
Survey or drawings. We want to find out what
the previous zoning was on that subject
property prior to the zone change to R40. We
want to see
permit that
(in audible)
the County of Health Department
you have available. And in general,
'92 decision that would help. Okay.
There is a motion before the Board.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I seconded it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
*************************************************
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am going to make a
motion to recess for five minutes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 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
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
HEARING #6467 - DOUGLAS AND ELLEN CIAMPA
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next public
hearing is for Douglas and Ellen Ciampa. Let me
read the legal notice. "Request for variance from
Article XXII, Code Section 280-116 and the
Building Inspector's March 1, 2011 Notice of
Disapproval based on an application for building
permit to demolish existing dwelling and
construction of a single family dwelling at; 1)
less than the code required setback of 75 feet
from a bulkhead, at 4380 Paradise Point Road,
adjacent to Shelter Island Sound, Southold."
Pat, do you want to state your name for the
record?
MS. MOORE:
the Ciampa Family.
Patricia Moore on behalf of
I have Ms. Ciampa here. I
also have Tom Samuels here who
Professional Architect.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
green card? She said she as
it?
is the Design
We are missing one
going to track
me.
MS. MOORE: She didn't mention anything to
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just want to make
58
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sure
in our file. One
Suffolk County.
MS. MOORE:
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
that you have copies of all correspondences
is local determination from
I didn't have that one.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
This morning we
analysis.
MS. MOORE:
on the bay side.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
I have copies.
just got Soil and Water of their
I don't think that they did it
Well, this is Soil
and Water and they have been asked to do it and
this is what we got.
MS. MOORE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have it. Do you
NO.
have a copy?
MS. MOORE:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So here is a
copy. And I am sure that you have all the
Trustee's correspondences.
MS. MOORE: (In audible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Memorandum from LWRP.
MS. MOORE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
January 14,
April 25, 2011
This is the LWRP,
2010 as related to the deck. That
is
59
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the latest one. Does this look familiar to the
Board?
MS. MOORE: The original application had a
different pool design and when we were
discussing,
little bit.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MS.
know that
we actually pushed it to the back a
And the dwelling?
MOORE: The dwelling is the same. We
ultimately whatever the Board decides,
we will have to go back to
final footprint.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
the Trustees on the
Ail right.
MS. MOORE: Thank you. Just to begin with
in making a decision on whether to demolish the
house and build new versus making alterations to
the existing, there was certainly the
consideration of the fact that the existing house
is 42 feet from the bulkhead and it is somewhat
-- it would need significant amount of work to
make it ascetically pleasing, I would say. It is
a cement mason restructure and the Ciampa Family
can definitely talk about it and I being (in
audible) to modifications to the existing house.
So they designed a house here that pushes the
house back to 64 feet. It provides for
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
additional outdoor living space, which is
extremely important to a summer home. The
existing house, there is really no outdoor living
space. And to make a modifications to the
existing house to make that feasible, there
would be a significant encroachment towards the
bulkhead. The project that is being proposed is
more conforming to the existing conditions.
Also, the area -- the new house, the area
disturbance is -- most of the area disturbance is
being reapplied to the existing house. I also --
when we went to the Board of Trustees, the
Trustees looked at the setbacks surrounding the
adjacent properties with respect to the house and
you can see from the plans, the line that they
used between the two -- the Barnard house and the
Scalia house, the proposed house is placed at or
behind that line. The -- in doing research with
respect to variances along this area, I did note
that Barnard property does have a variance from
-- it's an older variance #4014 from '91. It was
for a garage. So however, in that variance, it
does provide the setbacks for the existing house
and the existing Barnard house according to that
decision, 24 feet from that bulkhead. With
61
62
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
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
respect to the Scalia-Horvath, we had to sort of
guesstimate and it appears to be very close in
line with the our proposed area of about 60-64
feet from the bulkhead that is proposed at this
point. So it is more in line with that. Again,
with respect to -- and it's interesting, Soil and
Water made a notation because it was actually
going to be part of my presentation and also a
consideration that was done by the Ciampa Family.
The existence of the mature large caliber trees
that are in the front yard, prior to the
completion of the design, they had the surveyor
identify, Nate Corwin, cited the trees. And if
you noticed down on Robinson Road and Paradise
Point in this area, you notice that it is unique
in the sense, many of the homes are very close to
the bulkhead and the water but in particular they
have less natural trees and natural vegetation in
the front yard. So
atmosphere and that
to preserve. So I have
will give to the Board.
it creates a very natural
is something that they wanted
here a survey, which I
It's the location of the
matured trees in the front yard. This area --
obviously, this will require new Health
Department approval and new sanitary system.
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The sanitary is in the general vicinity of the
existing garage, which is going to be demolished.
And then the proposed new gravel driveway goes
around the sanitary area. That is also being
with some sensitivity to the matured trees. So
the house is positioned in a place where
certainly there has to be some kind of back but
for the most part, the matured trees are
preserved in the front. We also have a lovely
model that you can see. So you can see that the
survey shows the matured trees on the street
level and in addition you can also see on this
survey it does show the topography in -- of the
property and the placement of the house is in
such a way that the house is within the
topography. At that point, I am going to have
Tom -- do you want to describe it? Why don't
you point over there at the model. We will do it
together. The design of the house is, as it was
described to me, Tom has the land area around the
house, the topography is actually to scale. You
can see that the way that the house is situated
the higher grade on the one side, which is the
east side, it allows the house to be tucked into
the grade and then the garage level, which is
64
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the lower flat side, also makes use of the
grades. So you can see there is a great deal of
study in the placement of the house and in
attempt to maintain the character of the
community and the character of the property. I
want to give you enough time to ask me questions
or ask Tom questions. Again, the variances is
needed because we have the area that has already
been disturbed in the posting of the existing
house. It is a less -- it is reducing the degree
of nonconformity with the new placing of the
house. At this point, it would be best if you
ask me questions. And you can have my written
presentation so that you can go over that as
well.
MEMBER HORNING: Pat, is there a copy of
the survey with the --
MS. MOORE: -- application?
MEMBER HORNING: Yes.
MS. MOORE: Actually the larger plan that
you have, this is -- do you want a survey-survey?
MEMBER HORNING: Whatever.
MS. MOORE: (In audible).
(Stepped away from the microphone.)
MS. MOORE: February 15, 2011.
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 65
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER HORNING: Okay. Got it. Pat is
the reason then that the applicant needs a
variance in the request of the bulkhead and
the building be put in a conforming location?
MS. MOORE: Well, you can see the one that
we have the sanitary system and the house that is
in the building envelope and that is encroaching
and disturbing a great deal of land area. As I
pointed out in the grade of the property, when
you move the house back, you cut into the grade
more. On the existing house, to a certain
extent, disturbs the grade. You have an area
that is already flattened out in a sense. They
are reusing the area (in audible) and the porch
begins in the area where the foundation and the
house is. So you can see that is kind of a
beginning point. I don't know if you have gotten
a chance to see the properties. You can see, on
the property how the spacing
there is always a balancing of
maintaining the character that
is to the area. So
interest and
has already been
established in the property. And certainly when
you are dealing with the placement of homes to
the adjacent homes, you try to keep in mind the
existing homes. So you have more uniformed
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
development. The point is a very mature
developed area. The homes are very well
established. You start changing them towards the
road, I think that would be a significant change
to the area. As I pointed out earlier in the
trees. Paradise Point, you don't generally see
the homes and Paradise Point is buffered by the
trees and buffered in a sense that they have
maintained larger front yards. So that has been
something that Tom and my clients have tried very
hard to maintain.
MEMBER HORNING:
viable alternative
not?
So do you consider a
to meet the 75 foot setback or
MS. MOORE: Well, this is a viable
alternative. Certainly they could have come here
and pushed the envelope very hard and maintaining
the existing footprints of the house. They
certainly did consider that, keeping the existing
house or making any parts of the existing house
to try and make this Board to try and maintain
what is a very close setback. So that (in
audible) I think they came to this Board, what is
a very reasonable spec. The bulkheading on the
base side is not protecting a lot of wave action,
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
as it does on the sound. And you have the
bluff on the sound, which is much more
sensitive. On the bay side, this is a very
stable piece of property. As with Soil and
Waters comments, there is going to be 100%
capturing of storm water, which is significant
factor or impact on the bay and on the bulkhead.
So to the extent that new construction takes
place and it captures the water, it eliminates a
great deal of the issues that originally the
setback's were in place for and to keep the
impact of water off of the sensitive areas. We
have addressed it really directly as a community
by requiring proper drainage, which is a
significant step for this community.
MEMBER HORNING: Were you utilizing the
dry wells that are shown on this plan --
MS. MOORE: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: Or are you incorporating
Soil and Water's recommendation?
MS. MOORE: It's funny you ask about that.
Maybe but the Trustees,
approve such a system.
if you guys think that it is wise.
typically require --
I have not seen them
They may be interested,
They
67
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
MR. SAMUELS: It's a very good suggestion
and we can certainly communicate with the Town
Engineer. (In audible) I don't want to say
positively only because the code is specific as
to how we are to propose water runoff. And if
the Town Engineer thinks that this is a viable
alternative, maybe for some of the dry wells, we
can incorporate them. It's a less expensive way
it, if it is acceptable with the Town
I would have to speak to him further
issue. The Trustees did impose a
which is showing here as a
of doing
Engineer.
about that
vegetative buffer,
buffer area.
MEMBER HORNING: And one
With regard to the Trustees, in
January 19, 2011, the statement
other question.
their report of
second from the
bottom on the front page, whereas the LWRP stated
-- recommended that the proposed application to
have 30 feet square foot addition to the existing
grade, he found inconsistent. I think you had
gone over that a little bit.
MR. SAMUELS: We have eliminated that and
is no longer part of the plan.
MEMBER HORNING: Thank you.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask you a
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
question, Tom? What was the reasoning for
abandoning the present house? Other then the
can move walls around a heck of a
fact that you
lot easier.
MR. SAMUELS:
that is not their need.
they have six children.
It is simply not the house
They need a house --
They need house that has
sufficient bedrooms. It just simply doesn't meet
the requirements for that house. If they kept
that house, it would have had to have the
theories of all small other things. Landward
obviously of the exiting house. The living room
itself is too small. To go in there and try and
take it apart and try to save a wall or two, like
you said before, I have attempted it before, but
it simply was not appropriate for this house. We
wanted to maybe, if possible, preserve some of
the amenity of the old house, which is proximity
wise, but to actively have the house that they
need and want.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there anything
un-structurally sound about the house?
MR.
engineers
there
SAMUELS: I have not seen an
report on the house. I am sure
are some things because it has been there
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
for a long time. It's simply is not the house
that they need or want. If we have added on,
we would have been here anyway, because we were
adding on to a preexisting nonconforming but it
would have been a gerrymander of shapes and forms
and it just didn't seem appropriate. It seems
like a substantial house and you say why couldn't
we save it, if it was suitable for our purposes
or even changeable in a way that was feasible, we
would have pursued it. It doesn't meet what we
need. We recognize that we are giving up
proximity but it just doesn't meet -- it doesn't
give what we wanted.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Tom, if you were to
move the last design 10 feet closer to the road,
what hardship, if any, would result? I am trying
to see if there is any way we can reduce the
proposed nonconformity.
MR. SAMUELS: There may be some
flexibility there. In terms of the moving, its
an impact on the existing vegetation and sanitary
system.
that is.
plan,
It's just really a question on how much
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Based upon this
and the fact that it is a gravel driveway,
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
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
it appears that (in audible) private road
there, I am just trying to see whether or not
this is a viable situation. I was just seeing if
maybe you can move it closer to the road a
little by ten feet.
MR. SAMUELS: 5 to 10 feet is probably --
MS. MOORE: 10 is hard. It's kind of
shoving everything in and particular with the
bank that is on the east side, we did talk to
my client about the potential about putting it
back 5 feet, which was a compromise. That is
doable without compromising the overall
architectural design.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
grading plan?
MR. SAMUELS:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
buffer established.
pool?
Do you have a
We have a topol.
Okay. You have a
MR. SAMUELS: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MS. MOORE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
more questions.
questions?
Dry wells for the
I don't have any
Ken, do you have any
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
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: NO questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim, do you
questions?
MEMBER HORNING: How would we know if
you could or would move it back another 10
feet?
MS. MOORE: Well,
issue of moving it back 5 feet.
difficult. If you can -- when
deliberations, certainly 5 foot does not impact.
10 feet you start impacting more. So I would --
I would certainly push for an 5 foot. We have
gotten the 10 foot buffer on the back yard. So
all the regulations have been posed for
protective measures. And I guess that 5 feet
would be a simple approach. They thought that
they were trying to be reasonable with the
existing setbacks and we tried to get them into
a more compromising position when they come
forward. In that, we hope that the Board
recognizes that Tom and I, we advise the
clients not to ask for what we think pushing
the envelope is a little hard. Certainly
this requires a variance and that's why we say,
5 feet.
have any
I think that we have no
10, becomes more
you are in
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
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. You know
what we have to do is grant the least amount of
variance --
MS. MOORE: Oh, absolutely. And I
appreciate you asking. We don't want to be
imposed with a setback that really doesn't work
for my client. And I think that the 10 would be
pushing the envelope a little hard. As I
pointed out, we are really trying to cut into the
grade as minimally as possible. At this point,
certainly even pushing it closer to the water
would have cut less. Again, the compromise. I
am not asking more then what is that I think the
Board feels comfortable with.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anything else from
the Board?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anyone in the
audience like to address this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Hearing no
further comments. I will make a motion to close
this hearing and reserve decision for a another
date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING# 6470 DAVID J. VERITY
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Next hearing is
David J.Verity. I would like to read the legal
notice. Request for variance under Article IV
Section 280-18 and the Building Inspector's
March 23, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based on
an application for building permit for a
subdivision, at: Proposed Lot 1; 1) less than
the code required minimum lot size of 40,000
square feet, 2) less than the code required
width of 150 linear feet, 3) side yard setback at
less than the code required 15 feet, proposed Lot
2; 1) at less than the code required minimum lot
size of 40,000 square feet, 2) less than the code
required width of 150 linear feet, at; 865
Nokomis Road, (Hiawatha's Path) Southold. Welcome
back.
74
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
MS. MOORE: Thank you. Patricia Moore
on behalf of the Verity Family. I know you
are familiar with this because I know you had a
chance to look at this originally as a waiver of
lot recognition. But I am just going to very
briefly categorize for the record, because we
do have it in written format as well. We have
two properties that have been in existence since
the late 30's early 40's. And when you piece it
all together, somehow in another, we had the
Verity family that they had first bought the
southerly lot, that is on the corner of
Hiawatha's Path and Nokomis Road. And this
southerly property was purchased by the Verity's
in 1941. November 12th of 1941 and from the
original developers, Cedric and Claretta Wickham,
who developed Lasting Waters, the subdivision.
That was a later developed of Lasting Waters
presumably Section 1 of Lasting Waters, which (in
audible) filed maps in the County Clerks office,
are the only things that had been filed at the
time in the 50's was -- actually July 24th of
1941, were the roads of the area, which the
Wickham's filed and the roads were dedicated
ultimately to the Town of Southold. So we
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
have the (in audible) map and the entire road
system from the corner of Nokomis and Hiawatha
that the lots themselves would be considered as
lots created by deed. The southerly lot was
purchased by the Verity Family and we (in
audible) at the time it was the practice that
when the Verity's bought the property, particular
it was the Wickham's, it was a real practice of
that family, that if they held a mortgage. There
really wasn't a mortgage recorded in the 40's. It
was a very small community handshake and what
would happen is rather then record a mortgage,
there was an agreement that pay the seller a
$100.00 a month or at the time of the a value of
the properties could be done. And upon your
completion of your payment, you would get the
deed. Somehow or another, that original '41 deed
was sent to Mr. Verity and they didn't realize
that he had to record it. He has passed away
since then. So in conclusion, it was found that
in 1941 that deed was ultimately recorded in 1983
through the
purchased 4
741.
right
estate. The northerly lot was
years after the southerly parcel in
It was purchased in 1944. That was granted
away and recorded in the County Clerk's
76
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
~2
13
14
15
16
17
~8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
office in 1946, however long it took for
recording. To the original house on the south
side, I call it the "larger house." Both houses
are in vintage 40's. The larger house on the
south, which is the one that the
mysteriously missing. That house
and four years later, when the
purchased the house was built,
deed is
was built first
other house was
which was a
smaller house and it provided income and was
rented by the Verity Family. {In audible) the
cost of living in Southold in the 40's. That
house has been maintained and has been occupied
all these years. What happened is that, the
southerly property -- I guess because we checked
with real property in the county. I had my title
guy go to the county and say how is it that you
didn't identify that the deed of the Wickham deed
wasn't in place, because that was the southerly
property. Since the deed had not been recorded,
it would'ye shown as the Wickham being still the
owner but it was the Verity's home. They said,
well, we just took the information from the Town
and the Town just kind of took the information.
Somewhat hearsay. They knew that the Verity's
had lived there since the 40's. If they had did
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
the title search they would have discovered that
there was a deed that had not been recorded. The
Town would have recognized at that time that the
Wickham was entitled on the southerly and the
Verity's were entitled on the northerly piece and
we would be here on a waiver of merger, rather
then a lot recognition -- excuse me, an area
variances for creations of lots that have been in
place since the 40's. Anyway, here we are. We
are here because the code speaks in very specific
terms and in the specific terms that we have to
follow, there is certainly injustice in this
instance. Nevertheless, we are here for the
area variances. Under the area variance
criteria, it is very obvious that Lasting Waters
as a developed community with lots that are
significantly smaller then the Verity property.
The two lots in and of itself are conforming to
the area and the size of the lots in the
community. The northerly area, where the
Verity's have purchased from, they were larger
lots at the time. The southerly area, Lasting
Waters was a very small lots that were in place
at the time and I know we have had several waiver
of merger applications to the south through
78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
just the common ownership situation. We have
again, circumstances as they are from dealing
with the 40's and the 50's and when houses were
built, nobody thought to get surveys. When low
and behold we got a survey from the first time
that the Verity ever had a survey, we found that
the second home on the Verity was encroaching.
So given the fact that we are here for area
variances, it made sense to clean up the property
line and create a property line that allows the
home on the north to remain where it is. It's a
home and the person that has been in there for a
very long time. We don't want to disturb the
tenants and the Verity Family is -- that's their
homestead. David and his wife now live here in
this home, which was his parents home since the
40's and he grew up there. So what you have
before you is a proposed area of the two lots,
where the lots lines and again, conforms to the
area and the lot size -- size of the lots in the
community. Also corrects what are two dwellings
now on one piece of property, which is an
interesting dilemma, you actually have a
nonconforming stance by one having it as one lot
and two homes on one property and we're proposing
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
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
to create an area variance to allow the two lots
to remain and create conformity. So in a sense,
this area variance is eliminating what is
ultimately a significant nonconforming.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We do know this
property.
MS. MOORE: We had a trial run.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You are talking
about a subdivision of 57,397 square foot lot in
the R40 Zone. (In audible) two nonconforming lots
-- with a lot that has -- with a lot that we call
a cottage. The small one being 31,057 and with a
principal dwelling 26,340 square feet to be
conforming 150 linear feet (in audible). The
proposed side yard setback's of the existing
cottages are 7.9 (in audible) I believe we
understand why that needs to be that way. I
think you have made your point about your
character of the neighborhood and the size of the
other lots. I just wanted to clarify for the
record what the specific variances were that have
been requested. Does anyone else on the Board
have any questions?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I want to ask one
question. In reviewing the facts on the
80
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
southerly, which I refer to as Lot B, you said
it was purchased on November 12, 19417
MS. MOORE: Uh-huh.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And what was the
July 24, 19417
MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, the what?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The July 24, 19417
that's when the road --
MS. MOORE: This is the map, I think we
Oh,
have a shrunken version of this in your file.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the actual
southerly lot was not just a lot
based upon (in audible); is that
MS. MOORE: Correct.
recognition
correct?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any other Board
members have any questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there any one 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 for a later
81
82
May 5, 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
date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING %6466 - THOMAS FRENZ
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our next hearing is
Thomas Frenz. I will read the legal notice.
"Request for variance from Article III Code
Section 280-15B and the Building Inspector's
February 4, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based on a
building permit application for construction of
an accessory two car garage at; less than the
code required side yard setback of 15 feet; 1260
Broadwaters Road,
Cutchogue."
MS. MOORE:
Thomas Frenz.
here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
adjacent to Broadwaters Cove,
Patricia Moore on behalf of
Thomas Frenz -- Mr. Frenz is
Do you have the LWRP
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 83
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
letter?
MS. MOORE: That one
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
I didn't get.
Let me give that one
to
you. It's for local determination.
MS. MOORE: I also have Tom Samuels who
the architect here as well. This is a very
straightforward application, you would say. It's
for a one-story proposed garage, which is at a
nonconforming side yard setback. The -- really
is
what is most telling here, is the photograph. If
you saw the photographs in your file or you went
out to the site and you drove into the driveway,
you probably parked in what will be the garage.
I know I did. And I was like, "oh, here I am."
To place this proposed garage in a conforming
location, would be obvious that it would really
change the character of the community as well as
the adversely affect the character of this
property. Because you would put the garage
squarely, almost on the property. (In audible) is
only 60.85. It is very narrow. Somewhat off
shaped towards the water. The house is on the
water side. So the only logic place for this
garage is in the front yard, which is
permissible but a setback, which is closer then
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
what the code requires. Again, this is kind
of -- I hope that someday our code is corrected
because our setback's are based on size of the
lot, which is the total size of the lot rather
then the buildable size of the lot. If we just
related the setback's to the buildable area, we
would probably reduce my work, which I can't
complain but it would probably reduce a number of
variances by half only because many of these
variances are numerically pushed into this
Board and in fact common sense, it would show you
that it wouldntt make sense anywhere else. We
are here really to answer questions. Because you
also -- what is shown on the site plan as well as
my photographs, that the area is completely
screened with evergreens. The house to the east,
which is the closest to is at 2.6 feet from the
property line. Their garage and their expansion
of the house. So it is relatively a minor
variance.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think we all
remember the variances on the property.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In fact, I went to
that property.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry, has
84
1
2
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
questions.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is
only includes only utility
garage, which
electricity?
MS. MOORE:
Okay.
outside.
Okay.
an unheated
know, Tom? Yes.
I don't
MR. SAMUELS: (In audible).
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Spicket
So it may go in the garage?
MR. SAMUELS: No, it may be a spicket
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is what
CHAIRPERSON WEIS~LAN:
questions?
MEMBER HORNING:
the road?
MS. MOORE:
MEMBER HORNING:
60?
MS. MOORE:
variance.
MEMBER HORNING:
yard --
MS. MOORE:
50 and we are at
George, any
outside.
I meant.
What is the distance from
It's 57.
And what is
required,
It's just for a side yard
So it's meeting the front
Yes. The setback required is
57. So we are conforming.
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's a 10.1 side
yard as opposed to a code required --
MS. MOORE: 15.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Your taking advantage
of the existing driveway?
MS. MOORE: Yeah, that is only area that
would make sense.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No more questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anyone else 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 further
date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
Second.
Ail in favor?
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
tl
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6462 - BARRY and CAROL SWEENEY
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next hearing is
for Barry and Carol Sweeney. This is a request
for variance from Article XXIII Code Section
280-124 and the Building Inspector's
February 22, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based on
an application for a building permit to construct
additions and alterations, including raising the
dwelling for FEMA compliance, to a single family
dwelling at 1) rear yard setback of less than the
code required 35 feet, 2) lot coverage of more
than the code required 20%, at; 2395 Jackson
Street and Second Street and New Suffolk.
Garrett, do you just want to
for the record, please?
MR. STRANG: Certainly,
architect for Barry and Carol
of the
yOU.
state your name
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
LWRP?
MR. STRANG: I do not.
Garrett Strang,
Sweeney.
Do you have a copy
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I will give it to
It shows that they are exempt and you
87
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
should have a copy for your records. Do you
have one green card, Gary?
MR. STRANG: We have one green card that
has not come back, nor has the mailing. Not sure
if that person is out of Town or hasn't
collected their mail yet. Whichever, comes back
first, I will be certain to get it to your
office?
THE SPEAKER: Can you go online to track
it and see if it was delivered?
MR. STRANG: I can do that.
THE SPEAKER: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. What would
you like to tell us?
THE SPEAKER: Okay. Essentially, this
home was purchased by my clients back in 2006.
It is an existing two-story, two bedroom home
with a large detached garage, which is only about
3 1/2 feet off of the property line as it exist
presently. The intention is for my clients, is
for this to become a full-time residence. Having
lived in the home for the last several years, it
is apparent to them that it is much too small for
their family. It is much less as for their
family grows in the future. So what we are
88
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
May 5,
proposing is
bedroom home.
2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
still a two-story home but a three
The garage now being attached.
The challenges that we have
a relatively small corner lot.
unlike many lots in New Suffolk.
here is that we have
That is not
The existing
house and it's placement design dictates where
the additions are going to be located. The house
is partially in the flood zone requiring that
we elevate it. Whereas the existing utilities
where they are presently located, be moved up to
the first floor, out of the flood pane and that
the basement be filled in. This now necessitates
the creation of a additions on the first floor to
accommodate the laundry room, boiler room,
storage. Considerations that I would like the
Board to deliberate on would be the fact that we
are taking the existing detached garage and that
is only 3 1/2 feet off the property line and
including it into the house. They are moving it
much further from the neighboring and rear yard,
which I think and hoping that the neighbors will
think that is an asset and also give us a little
open space and a rear yard, which it doesn't
give us now. The garage pretty much takes up a
good portion of it anyway. We attempted as
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
much as we could to keep the additions to a
minimum, to still be able to meet the
requirements and that this particular design is
in the keeping of the neighborhood, basically the
size and appearance and that there are number
other homes in that section of New Suffolk, that
are similar in size and lots. I really -- that
is pretty much an overview. I am sure that the
Board has questions and I
address them.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER HORNING:
elevating the house out
would be happy to
George?
How high are you
of the flood zone?
MR. STRANG: We are bringing the house up
about 2 feet above where it presently is.
in?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
MR. STRANG: It's
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
And what zone is it
in an AE-6.
Square footage of the
existing house and square footage of the
proposed? It's right here.
MR. STRANG: You have
site plans, is that what you
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
square feet bigger.
I apologize.
lot coverage on the
are looking for?
It's virtually a 1,000
9o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
MR. STRANG: Essentially, yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And existing lot
coverage is 16.8 and you are proposing 26.0.
Where is most of that 26.0, on the new addition?
I really it's only ground floor.
MR. STRANG: Ground floor is the 20 foot
setback. We set the house back at the second
level to try and open it up a little more. So
it's 26 feet at the second level.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In height?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No.
MR. STRANG: I'm misunderstanding.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, it's okay. Very
good. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there any way
you can consider reducing that 26% lot
coverage?
MR. STRANG: Again, as I mentioned, how
should I say, it's a most compact addition on the
house as possible. Not only to mitigate the side
yard and rear yard relief but would also the lot
coverage. We have taken a part the garage and
put it over in front of the house as much as
possible. The outdoor porch is, part of it is
the primary entry into the house. Some of it
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
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
is going to be used for outdoor seating and
dining, which is important and critical for
them. Which is one of the reasons why they
bought the site, because they use the present
porch now for that purpose. It is much too small
and so we have made it a little bit -- we have
made it somewhat larger. So that it could
accommodate a reasonable entry into the house as
well as some seating and dining area in the front
there. Because they don't have much side yard,
as you can see. It's only 10 feet now. And that
porch does take advantage of the view of the
water from that side of the house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It is pretty big.
MR. STRANG: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There is a little
cutout, I presume that is circulation going
around the house --
MR. STRANG: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It looks like you
are trying to square off the existing wall,
rather then cut off -- it's quite wide for
circulation. I have a feeling --
MR. STRANG: We have a wrap around
roof element, which is in that particular
92
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
situation, yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I was wondering if
there was someway you can sort of tidy up and
get a little less on the lot coverage?
MR. STRANG: On the lot coverage, I can
discuss it with my client and see what they are
willing to give up there a little bit.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, it's a
question that you know, we need to ask.
MR. STRANG: Uh-huh.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have the duty to
grant the least amount of variance possible.
MR. STRANG: I understand. There are
other homes in the community, which I am sure,
have similar are excessive lot coverage's.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It might be helpful
to the Board for you to do a little research and
provide to the information to us and address the
character of the neighborhood?
MR. STRANG: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George, any
questions?
MEMBER HORNING: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
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
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone in
the audience that would like to address this
application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MR. STRANG: So I will get that to you as
quickly as possible. I will make every effort
to get it to you before you deliberate on
this.
close
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
the hearing subject to
What we will do is
receipt of that
information and I think the Board would also be
interested in (in audible) with whatever you can
discuss with your client regarding lot
coverage. If you can give
writing?
MR. STRANG: Sure,
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
to address that.
MR. STRANG: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
to the Board?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yeah.
that communication in
I can do that.
I would like for you
Is that acceptable
94
May 5, 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
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: SO I am going to
make a motion to close this hearing subject to
receipt of information on the lot coverage of
the neighborhood and potential reduction of lot
coverage.
MEMBER HORNING:
Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Ail in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
Seconded by George.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING # 6465 - CHRISTINE CONTE-BOUTIS.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
for Christine Conte-Boutis.
for variance from Code Section
Building Inspectors February 4,
Our next hearing is
This is a request
280-124 and the
2011 Notice of
Disapproval based on an application for building
permit existing deck addition at; less than the
code required minimum side yard setback of 10
feet at; 1020 Ruch Lane, adjacent to Arshamomaque
Pond, Southold.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Rob. DO you have a
MR. LEHNERT:
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
MR. LEHNERT: Rob Lehnert for Ms. Conte.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hold on one second,
copy of the LWRP?
No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
It's indicating
that it is exempt. Let me give you a copy and
also a copy of the neighbors in support. Rob,
before we get started, maybe you can answer
this question. According to our office records,
there was supposed to be six mailings and it
appears that you did four?
MR. LEHNERT: Because two of the
homeowners owned adjacent lots. So there are
only four homeowners out of six mailings.
one
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
green card missing?
MR. LEHNERT: Yeah,
Okay. So we have
I spoke to Vicki
about that. She called that lady.
out. It didn't come back to me and
speak to Vicki.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Vicki?
MR. LEHNERT:
Yes.
It was sent
she did
She did speak to
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Ail right.
Please proceed.
96
97
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR.
to legalize a deck on this house.
got this house from the product of
LEHNERT: Basically here today just
My client
a divorce.
She
clean
is an
is now residing in California and wants us to
everything up to sell the house. So it
existing deck. We have been approved by
the DEC. We have been approved by the Trustees
and we are just here before you for a side yard
setback.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. I see the
necessity for the variance is because you have a
door on the side.
MR. LEHNERT:
Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: And you need to get out
on the deck. Is there any reason why you can't
put a door on the deck in order to get --
MR. LEHNERT: At this point, she really
doesn't want to do any work to the house.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. How long has it
been there?
MR. LEHNERT: It's been a while. It's not
a new deck.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. You could probably
use some new decking.
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
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
MR. LEHNERT: And also it needs to be done
to match code.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. Okay. I
really don't have much more. I'm looking at your
reasons and the reasons being that it exist. (In
putting a door in there and taking it
audible)
off.
doing work
MR. LEHNERT: We are just trying to avoid
to the house itself.
had.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. That is all I
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
section indicated that the side
open. Your client (in audible)
Just note that the
yard are very
it's flat. It's
grassy. It's been there for a while and the
neighbor has no objection. I think what Jim is
indicating is the hardship and if you can move
the door to get rid of that intrusion and your
answer is?
MR. LEHNERT:
house. We still have
MEMBER DINIZIO:
the deck or the door went in?
MR. LEHNERT: No, I have no
door and the deck went in.
We would be working on the
to access the house.
Do you have any idea when
idea when the
98
99
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER DINIZIO:
wouldn't know that?
MR. LEHNERT:
only permit shows
garage.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
be something.
MR. LEHNERT: There was
set of stairs at one point.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Does
anything?
MR. LEHNERT: I
MEMBER DINIZIO:
us?
MR. LEHNERT: I
MEMBER DINIZIO:
out.
And your client
She probably would. The
on the property is for the
My question,
there had to
probably just a
that doorway lead to
don't know.
Can you find out for
can call her and find
Just to be a little more
Any questions?
fuel for the fire.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: So for example the
Sale" sign that exist in the neighborhood
seemingly on the property, is for the
property?
"For
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 100
1
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. LEHNERT:
MEMBER HORNING:
questionnaire, undated,
For the property.
And therefore then,
but questionnaire
the
filling with the ZBA application subject property
listed on the real estate market for sale,
Answer, "no." The answer is, "yes?"
MR. LEHNERT: It was not at the time.
MEMBER HORNING: Okay. That's it for me.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MR. LEHNERT: You mentioned that there was
a letter from the neighbor?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
copy. They are not objecting.
states how long it's been there.
any objections to deck.
MR. LEHNERT: I will
homeowner and get a letter to
the one that did that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
lives in California and wants
market.
MR. LEHNERT: That's it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Yes and you got a
I don't think it
They don't have
speak to the
you. If they were
This applicant
to put it on the
Are there other side
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
yard setback's in the neighborhood that are
also nonconforming?
MR. LEHNERT:
about two years
for the garage.
out of character in this neighborhood.
MEMBER HORNING: There was also some
reference that you had an application with the
trustee's.
MR. LEHNERT:
Yeah, I was in here probably
ago for another one down the road
The lots are small. It's not
It was approved.
MEMBER HORNING: It got approved. And I
was also looking at this Site Plan No. ST1, there
is a (in audible) top of the bluff 7.25 feet and
on the other survey, it has what appears to be
different markings. The survey for the top of
the bluff is not marked on here.
MR. LEHNERT: The survey markings are
from the high water mark. Not the top of the
distance from the
wondering was
bluff. So my plan, I put the
top of the bluff.
MEMBER HORNING: I was
there enough for the DEC and the Trustees, did
they --
MR. LEHNERT: Trustees approved that.
MEMBER HORNING: And was it "as built."
101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
Nobody took note of the distance from the top
of the bluff?
MR. LEHNERT: The Trustees and the DEC
both got that same drawing.
MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
MR. LEHNERT: That is why it was there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have a different
compliance.
MEMBER HORNING: I appreciate you having
it on here. I am just mentioning that the Town
Code calls for (in audible) distance from the top
of the bluff and yet it is not addressed in the
Building Department's Notice of Disapproval.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's not
addressed. That's why it's not addressed because
it is potentially a rear yard.
MEMBER HORNING:
MEMBER DINIZIO:
would put that in there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Okay.
I don't know why anybody
Anyone else 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
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
hearing
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
and reserve decision.
Second.
Ail in favor?
Aye.
MEMBER HORNtNG: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
I am going to amend my motion and request
that we are going to close this hearing subject
to receipt of the information from the applicant
regarding the patio door and the side yard
setback.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6468 - PAUL and LINDA WOLFROM
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next hearing is
Paul and Linda Wolfrom. "Request for variance
103
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 104
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
from Article XXIII, Code Section 280-124 and
the Building Inspector's March 1, 2011 Notice
of Disapproval based on an application for
building permit for reconstruction of existing
single family dwelling at; 1) less than the code
required front yard setback of 35 feet at;
1650 Fleetwood Road, (Betts Street) Cutchogue."
Please Amy, go ahead and state your
presentatfon?
MS. MARTIN: Hi, I am P~my Martin of
Fairweather Design Associates, 205 Bay Avenue,
Greenport, New York. I
Linda and Paul Wolfrom.
given, there was a site
am here representing
This disapproval was
review by the Building
Department and I am assume they made the
disapproval the way that it is because they feel
that the construction of this house was in the
40's was like a fishing cottage. It was very
simple construction. They weren't sure that in
the reconstruction process that we might have
difficulty maintaining the front porch without
building some of it. So they disapproved the
whole
why.
story and really actually a little over
thing as nonconforming. I assume that is
What we applied for was to put a second
44O
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
square feet and the existing structure is only
22 square feet 6 inches from the front yard
setback and where 35 is required. Now, we have
setbacks at the proposed story additions and (in
audible) 6 inches to keep the proportions proper
and so that the cottage doesn't look strange as
the second story starts behind the chimney. It
gives them the ability, what is now going to be
added space later, and have space for additional
bedrooms. The neighborhood as you know is a
very charming where almost every property has
some sort of a nonconforming's. There are
garages right on the road. There are houses
right on the property line. And it was a very
nice little bungalow area that has morphed into
more of a year round seasonal residential area.
The house is on a little bit of a rye and has
frontage of both streets by adding the
second story. We are not
street. Anyones area.
forward application.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
demolition?
MS.
impeding any ones
It's a fairly straight
Ken?
Is this a planned
MARTIN: There may be demolition
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
needed for the front porch and that was part
of a conditional of what they find. They are
currently allowed to work on a base -- there is
building going on there now. They were allowed
to get a head start on some of the work. That
doesn't have anything to do with the front porch
and doesn't have anything to do with the second
story. And they are finding some conditions in
the back of the house that will need
reconstruction.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: When you say "front
porch," do you mean bare area or --
MS. MARTIN: No, the first little
section. The whole house with the exception of
the steps is supported by the existing
foundation. And the foundation is okay. The
wall structures -- it wasn't quite fish grade
construction, but it was the their findings and
there may need to be some reconstruction of the
front porch.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What percentage of
reconstruction or demolition are you proposed
that might be, of the existing?
MS. MARTIN: Maybe 10%.
about a (in audible).
We are talking
106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: SO the second story
is proposed from the 30 feet property line?
MS. MARTIN: Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And when was the parcel
purchased?
MS. MARTIN: It was recently purchased by
a young family that would like to summit here.
The husband was just deployed to Afghanistan. He
is in the Reserves.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Recently purchased,
this year?
MS. MARTIN: Last year.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. No further
questions by me.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: The building has been
there since approximately when?
MS. MARTIN: Since the 40's.
MEMBER HORNING: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: None.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We are talking about
a proposed five foot distance from the code and
the front yard setback and (in audible).
MS. MARTIN: (In audible).
107
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 108
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
questions. Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
I have no further
questions.
Is there anyone
else in the audience that would like to address
this application? Please come to the microphone
to speak.
MR. FINNERTY: Thank you for the
opportunity. My name is Donald Finnerty. As I
said, I was little bit earlier and then I was a
little bit late as they sent me over to the other
building.
CNAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Could you spell your
name please, sir, for the record?
MR. FINNERTY: F-I-N-E-R-T-Y. First name
is Donald. My wife Geraldine is deceased. She
was (in audible). I really had a question, if it
is a nonconforming building and you add to a
nonconforming building space -- the actions of
the couple that own the house seem very good.
They seem to be cleaning up the yards, the house.
So I don't have any things (in audible) to do
that.
I just want to
very attractive house
audible)
know, if they would get a
-- either way they do, (in
because the elevation then would give
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
and the bay.
They can
children.
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
them the wonderful water view of the creeks
So that's an (in audible) house.
fix it and move on. And we have 8
So I know everybody sort of works
their own yard. But I wanted to get a field
for, if you are going to have
kind of a structure replacing
construction, is that -- it's
a nonconforming
a nonconforming
unfinished d space
so that could be a
in the service too.
and I sympathize with
couple but I was -- I
(in audible) property. I was
I was wounded in Korea twice
them and relate to that
just want to see if this is
a proper thing to do to add to another
nonconforming building to one that is presently
nonconforming.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Board will
deliberate on this at a later date. The law
does permit because the house is nonconforming
the way it is, the law permits property owners to
come before this Board and then to reason as to
why this Board should consider additional
nonconformity. So the answer is that they are
within their legal rights to come before this
Board and make an application and provide
sufficient argument as to why it is
109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
reasonable --
MR. FINNERTY:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
consider those reasons.
I understand.
Then this Board will
MR. FINNERTY: These people are very hard
working people but I just have a caution of why
you would block out the upper extension (in
audible) with something else that is
nonconforming. The house is over 50 feet wide
Bett's Street.
So if they are
a little more
So there
rebuilding,
and 100 feet back to
is plenty of space.
why don't they make it
conforming?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Maybe your partner
would like to answer that?
MS. MARTIN: Basically, we are not
rebuilding. The only fear from the Building
Department as they did a site supervision their
self, trying to build a second story that they
might find that the front porch may need to be
rebuilt exactly as it is and exactly in the same
location. Not changing the footprint and not
changing the dimension. It is really still going
to be a small cottage but with a second story.
(In audible) also the other reason why we
110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
haven't gone back further is because there is
a another chimney there. It created a
non-useable space a head of the chimney of where
it is.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You are a neighbor?
MR. FINNERTY: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And where do you
live relative to this application?
MR. FINNERTY: A little bit northeast, one
house. The adjourned property. I have
to tell you that it took a lot of pain and a lot
that house fixed up and cleaned
of work to get
out. You know,
concern was, you
people will flip
and what have you. My
in this day and age,
shrubs
know,
the house and leave you with
audible). I want to thank you for your time
and sorry to take up so much of your time. I
(in
just wanted to clarify,
audible).
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
concerned that the second
is that a straight (in
So you are
floor is going to have
the same setback as the first
MR. FINNERTY: Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: But
MR.
floor?
now --
FINNERTY: They can still get their
111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
That would be a prestigious
water views.
property.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Do you understand
that the setback on the second floor will be
·
back more?
MR. FINNERTY: That is my understanding
now, yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And you are satisfied
with that?
MR. FINNERTY: Seems okay, yeah.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Is there any
one else --
MR. FINNERTY: I am not here to block
them. They have done some good work. You know,
the extent of the -- they call it
in the paper that I have here.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That is
reconstruction
your right and
we want to make sure
on.
MR. FINNERTY:
here?
that you know what is going
That is part of the minutes
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes.
MR. FINNERTY: Thank you. I really
appreciate your time and courtesy to listen to
112
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
me.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
else that would like to address the Board?
Please come to the podium.
MR. WOLFROM: Hi, I am Paul Wolfrom.
the father of Paul who is in Afghanistan.
the way, he is in the Marine Corp.
MS. MOORE: I am sorry.
MR. WOLFROM: This is his third trip.
want to make it abundantly
his wife, and three children
for a house out here for the
years. They have gone
found this place, they
I am
And by
clear. Paul, Linda,
have been looking
last three or four
to countless homes. They
love it. They intend to
on
and
be there for the rest of their lives. The kids
can enjoy it and have a good time. This is not
a house they are looking to make improvements
and I can assure you from being in that house
helping them clean it up, anything that they do
to that
to what
abundantly clear and the concerns that
Mr. Finnerty has, that this is a quick turn
around operation. Clearly it is not. Thank
place is going to make a huge improvement
it was. So I just want to make it
you.
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 114
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. There's
nobody left in the audience. Hearing no
further comments, I will make a motion to close
the hearing and reserve decision.
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 %6438 - GEORGE and RUBY GAFFGA
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am going to open
the hearing on George and Ruby Gaffga, it was
advertised. Clearly there is no one here.
Request from variance Code Section 280-13 (A) (1)
-- you know what, this is a carryover. So I
don't even have to read it. There is no one
here. We have a letter from the applicant
requesting an adjournment -- actually from the
architect, Robert Taft, requesting an adjournment
till June 2011. So I will make a motion that we
adjourn this hearing to June 2011 to --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
date?
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
MEMBER HORNING: What is the June
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Regular meeting at
1:30 p.m. on June 2nd.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISM3~N:
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
Second.
Ail in favor?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I make a motion to
recess for lunch.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
HEARING ff6461 - MARY BETH HENSON
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This is for Mary
115
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
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
Beth Henson #6461 and this is a notice to
construct alterations and additions, accessory
in-ground swimming pool and decks that is less
than 100 foot setback from top of the bluff.
Less than the minimum code required side yard
setback of 15 feet. Less than the code required
combined side yards of 35 feet and, accessory
structures proposed location other than the code
required front yard on water from property at
3300 Sound Drive, adjacent to Long Island Sound,
Greenport, New York.
MR. HERRMANN: Good afternoon everybody.
Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
Mary Beth Henson, who is here and Mark Schwartz,
the architect as well. We have been --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hold on one second,
Rob. We just got this morning a letter
Soil and Water,
one?
from
I presume that you don't have
MR. HERRMANN: I don't.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me give you one.
We also have Suffolk County local determination.
You probably have copies of the Trustees and
LWRP --
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, I have that.
116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Soil and Water you
want to have a copy of. Okay.
MR. HERRMANN: So we are before you today,
as you described for three different forms of
relief, all really stemming from the same
problem, which is lot configuration and size and
the location of the existing house relative to
the bluff. When Mary Beth came to Mark and
myself, originally the original plan was to
construct a water side porch to the back side of
the house facing the bluff and a swimming pool in
a conforming rear yard between the house and
bluff. Unfortunately once we inundated with all
the variance information and setbacks and so
forth and so on, we had to take a different route
with what is being proposed. Currently, the
structure that is nearest to the bluff is a hot
tub sitting on a concrete pad located 34 feet
from the bluff, which is proposed to be
permanently removed. As far as the principal
structure is concerned, there is currently a
waterside deck that is attached to the existing
dwelling and is located 39 feet from the top of
the bluff. There is a proposal to replace the
deck with a new that will larger and withstand
117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
from one corner of the house to the other.
It will not encroach on any further of the
existing setback of 39 feet. The porch we have
moved to the side of the house that is largely in
place of the existing attached garage. So that
garage would be demolished. That garage
currently sits about 14 feet from the property
line, 1 foot shy of the required setback. The
reason that we are proposing additional relief to
encroach on the property line really comes from a
design prospective from the grudging compromise
(in audible) a porch that faces the water. So
the width of the porch actually extends to a
point of 11 from the westerly of
line where 15 feet is required.
for
The
the porch blocking the ability to put it
suitable location because at that point,
be less than 40 feet from the top of the
the property
So we are asking
4 feet of relief for that proposed porch.
swimming pool then has to go really behind
in a
we would
bluff
and would expect that
very far up on the flag pole at that point.
we are proposing a relatively small pool.
going to be 11 X 18 to the roadside of the
proposed porch.
that would not make it
So
It's
And essentially the relief that
118
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 119
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
we need there is for a pool -- relief
re-required for the setback from the pool.
not part of the principal structure here.
Somebody can correct me if I misspeak. But
merely the fact that the
nonconforming side yard.
that is the (in audible)
for the extension of the house,
subject relief in front of you
nonetheless
now and not
It is
Road ward of the principal part of the house as
far as the neighbor to the west would be
concerned. If we were not proposing that
extension on the road side, it would be a
conforming structure. So again, unless I am
misspeaking, I want to make sure that the pool
-- we are not here because we are too close to
the westerly properly. We are here because the
pool is in a side yard. Again, typically Town
Code wants to keep the pools out of the side
yards because we don't want to have that
complete (in audible) of space from one side of
the property to the other and have the situation
where the pool is locked in between the house
swimming pool is being a
The main reason for
that is being proposed
which is not a
all today. But
creates a situation where the pool is
complete road ward of the house.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
and the property line. Here is not really the
case. What we had suggested with respect to
the general character of the community and the
neighborhood, there are many other properties
along Sound Drive here that had existing
dwellings that are located similar distances from
the bluff. There are a handful of properties
that also have swimming pools in the side yard
all for the same reason. That there is just not
enough of room between the house and the bluff
to work. In our application, we cited one case
for a property that is a number of properties to
the east Case #5523, where for the same reasons
that we are presenting to you today were approved
in a nonconforming side yard because of the
inability to place it in the rear yard closer to
the bluff. So again, all of the relief that we
are requesting is either necessitated directly or
indirectly by the proximity (in audible) to the
bluff. With respect to the bluff and
environmental conditions of the property and
surrounding neighborhood, we are going to
maintain the existing setback of the principal
structure to the bluff. There is nothing -- I
probably should mention that where the proposed
120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
t0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
porch is to the house, that would maintain the
same setbacks to the existing structure
maintains now. So that will stay at the same
existing 50 feet. We are proposing to
permanently eliminate the concrete pad that is
closest to the bluff and the overall increase in
lot coverage was a substantial overlap between
what is proposed and what is existing of only 335
feet. The existing (in audible) that is proposed
to be removed in favor of a 10 foot (in audible)
adjacent is a little bit more than twice that
area. So we are going to increase the property's
ability to increase (in audible) adjacent to the
bluff. That will be further enhanced with the
introduction of a drainage system, leaders,
gutters and dry wells to capture and recharge the
roof. This project was issued a wetlands permit
by the Town of Southold Trustees. Just for the
record, there was an issue with the -- there is
an existing roof deck that is on the attached
garage that is to be demolished. There is a also
a roof deck proposed on the deck. That roof deck
was not called out on the original plan that
was approved by the Board of Trustees. Just to
make sure that we didn't have one of these
121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
aspirates down the line at the Building
Department stage and the Trustees saying they
are missing some vertical conformant, we have
that deck noted on the site plan that is before
you today. We resubmitted back to the Trustees
and they amended their approval to include the
roof deck. The portion of the property landward
to the bluff is out of the jurisdiction of the
New York State DEC and you also should have a
copy of our non-jurisdiction letter from the DEC
as well. It is my understanding from the
correspondence that I have, that the project
was deemed approved by the Trustees to be
consistent with Town Water From Revitalization
Program that was of course -- that was a
determination that was also made by the Trustees
but it was also recommended by the Town's
Planning Board staff and the LWRP coordinator,
that it be deemed to be consistent and you
received a similar document updated to this
application from Mark Terry. I am looking
quickly at the letter that I just got from
Leslie. It doesn't really have any effect
County Department.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
on the
Is the water in the
122
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 123
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
swimming pool going to be chlorinated?
MR. HERRMANN: We haven't thought about
it yet but if it was something that the Board --
MS. GURLEY: (In audible).
(Stepped away from the microphone.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You can stand up
here if you want?
MS. GURLEY:
(In audible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What I asked was
whether or not the water in the swimming pool was
going to be chlorinated and they are not sure
what the answer is. They are recommending that
you dechlorinate the water before you put it into
the dry well.
MR. HERRMANN: So what I was --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think that is the
only recommendation.
it up.
MR. HERRMANN:
That is why I am bringing
Certainly, Ms. Henson
would welcome the Boards recommendation, if that
was something they are looking to. I know that
this is something that is becoming more of a
common concern with swimming pools adjacent to
natural resource areas. Non-chlorinated filter
systems are becoming more available and more
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
popular. That is certainly something that we
can consider.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim,
any questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, yeah.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
you start.
MEMBER DINIZIO: It does
side of the house does need a variance.
is 15 feet. So the pool is 12.5 --
MR. HERRMANN: See that is
here.
do you have
Why don't
look like that
The side
the question
Is the Building Department considering the
pool as part of the principal structure because
it's masonry work that basically goes down to the
pool. If I understand the code correctly, if
it's considered connected to be part of the
principal structure, then it would have to be the
same 15 foot setback with the principal dwelling.
However, that is considered to be a detached
accessory, you would have to establish what the
required setbacks of the accessory pool would
be and would that be 10 feet based on lot size?
MEMBER DINIZIO: That's possible. We
have made decisions in the past concerning this.
It becomes part of the house. Not for nothing,
124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
half of your lot is bluff and beach. We had a
hearing today just this morning, you are kind
of restrictable in the amount that you have to
build already reduced further by the fact that
we require that you include your entire lot.
That I understand. I would assume that it would
just be part of the principal structure. In the
Notice of Disapproval, it mentions and states
that no accessory's can be in the side yard.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, if there is an
addition to being in a nonconforming side yard,
it would be needed for the setback itself for the
Board to consider that.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
that, we will look -- I
I don't know what it is.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Jennifer has a code book.
MR. HERRMANN: The side
Okay. So with respect to
am not sure (in audible)
Wait a minute,
yard setback --
MEMBER DINIZIO: It would be a side yard.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Article XXIII
Section 280-124 and Article III Section 280-15F.
MEMBER DINIZIO: We need the accessory --
they didn't really cite that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: However, it really
125
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
is just an attached structure.
MR. HERRMANN: There seems to be a
differentiation within the Building Department --
I mean obviously, if the pool is just
freestanding in the middle of the lawn, it's
obviously detached. And if it's connected with a
raised elevated deck to the house, it is
obviously attached. But it seems like we get
into a gray area when there is masonry or raised
masonry that is provided a conduit between the
house and the pool.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
structure, it's not masonry.
all. I personally couldn't
If it's a hard
It's not counted at
give you a
determination based on those three variables.
It's in a side yard.
MR. HERRMANN: Right. It's in a side
yard, that we know.
MEMBER HORNING: While we are researching
that, can I --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure.
MEMBER HORNING: Looking at the (in
audible) survey, the existing setback from the
bluff towards the principal dwelling is 50 foot;
is that correct?
126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR.
it's 39 feet from the deck but
livable area is 50.
MEMBER HORNING:
proposing here is that,
deck with something --
setback?
deck
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
HERRMANN: TO be on the same ideology,
to the roof
And what your
replacing the framed
with the same 39 foot
MR. HERRMANN: Correct. Right now, the
is not running from corner to corner.
MEMBER HORNING: So the sides of the
existing garage, it's a little bit hard to see
that. What is the setback --
MR. HERRMANN: To that?
MEMBER HORNING: Yeah. To the existing
garage.
MR. HERRMANN: I just have to get the
right scale. It's 62.
MEMBER HORNING: 62 from the top of the
bluff?
MR. HERRMANN: And that's about right
because the deck comes out almost 12 feet and the
porch is in line with the deck.
MEMBER HORNING: And the side yard
setback?
MR. HERRMANN: The existing is 14. So we
127
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 128
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
are proposing another 3
MEMBER HORNING:
garage is a minimum of
MR. HERRMANN: That
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
feet.
Because the attached
14 feet --
is correct.
It's a 11 feet to
the proposed addition but the existing setback of
the garage is 14 feet?
MR. HERRMANN: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
width of the porch is 17.17
MR. HERRMANN: 17.1 feet.
of the existing garage
that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
can't maintain that?
And the proposed
And the width
is 3 feet less than
Any reason why you
MR. HERRMANN: Well, the practical answer
we can maintain anything. The reason that
they
are just
the lot,
are proposing what they are proposing, they
trying because of the configuration of
they are trying to maximize the frontage
or the width -- let me say that again. They are
trying to maximize the frontage of the porch on
the sound because this would be a covered area
where they would sit out. So they are trying to
maximize to some not unreasonable extent of
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 129
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
coverage to their exposure to the bluff. Their
ability to do that rests with you guys. It's
our understanding that if we maintain the same
setback from the existing principal structure, we
would still be asking you for basically 12 inches
of relief.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Right. So that
would be at the very minimal variance.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Could you tell me a
little bit about the property next door, the
wooded property? I don't know who owns that.
It's undeveloped.
MR. HERRMANN: The property to the west is
a vacant lot and this lady owns it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right. I
would imagine that you would like to tell us
something in a little while.
MS. GURLEY: (In audible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anything else?
MEMBER DINIZIO: I was wondering what
would be (in audible)
(in audible).
MR. HERRMANN:
Mary Beth.
drop that down, to make it
It really comes down to
That has been a popular
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
recommendation of mine.
projects and the whole addition, which is
something that we address from the environmental
prospective and Trustees. So there was some
concern. So they can limit the height to a
certain extent, but most (in audible)
are not going to
ground. So that
audible)
I had dealt with similar
plantings
have the same height to the
was one just (in audible) to
and you are not looking through the
(in
you are using that deck to maintain the
distance. The building is so close to the bluff
that you are using that deck. Basically your
answer to me is that you want to save the view.
I understand that and I
(in audible).
MR. HERRMANN:
don't object to that but
I would disagree with your
characterization a little bit we are not using a
39 setback for the deck to justify a 50 foot
there was an existing deck there.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I have to tell you that
natural plantings that we put around the top of
the bluff. So it's a little bit of a balancing
act with trying to satisfy the Zoning Code while
trying to satisfy the wetlands code as much as
possible. And I think we were (in audible) since
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
setback to the -- we are using the 50 foot
setback to the house to justify the porch. We
are using the 39 foot setback to the deck to
justify the 39 foot setback to the deck. We are
not trying to bring the house closer to the
bluff that is closer to the deck that is
basically a portion. Just to be clear, we are
trying to use the amount of structures that we
would like structured. Ail of Sound Drive is all
very close.
MEMBER DINIZIO: A setback is a setback.
MR. HERRMANN: No, I understand. I am
only saying that because you were differentiating
using a deck versus --
MEMBER DINIZIO: You are proposing to
also cover that deck. So to me that is a porch.
That is basically the same line. There is no
difference in my mind between a deck and a house
when it comes to setback.
MR. HERRMANN: I thought that is what you
were just saying that we were using the deck and
somehow not a valid --
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
MR. HERRMANN: I am not understanding.
You say you want to differentiate the house
131
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
from the deck --
MEMBER DINIZIO: Absolutely not. Ail
I want to do is a view with one setback of 39
feet. You are proposing to increase the degree
of the 39 feet of the setback.
MR. HERRMANN:
unchanged.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
The setback is remaining
No, it's not.
MR. HERRMANN: The existing is 39 and the
proposed is 39. How is that?
MEMBER DINIZIO:
present that subject?
says you can not increase
nonconformity.
MR. HERRMANN:
Anyone else want to
There is a code law that
the degree of
Right.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
nonconformity here is
MR. HERRMANN:
The degree of
39 feet.
Right.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
distance, I
You propose
Rounding a certain
don't know what the original deck is.
to increase that distance?
MR. HERRMANN: Yeah, but if that deck
goes to the west of that, she is further away
from the deck.
MEMBER DINIZIO: It's still a
132
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5,
nonconforming area.
foot setback --
MR. HERRMANN:
2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
You are talking a 100 square
Yeah, but the angle
structure to the bluff. It gets further away.
In other words, I hear what you are saying. If
you had a 6 foot deck that it 10 feet from the
property line and (in audible).
(Stepped away from microphone)
MR. HERRMANN: Is actually moving farther
away from the bluff. That is why we maintain
that angle. I am trying to tell you that we are
not at that same distance but we are making
considerable alterations, so that we are not
increasing that degree of nonconformity.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I think honestly, that
you look into the laws, you are going to see
that it discusses both. Not just a line. If you
go up. If you go over. It discusses all of
that. And whether your original setback is 39
feet and you build to 40, you are still in a
nonconforming area. You are still increasing
the degree of nonconformity.
MR. HERRMANN: No argument there.
MEMBER DINIZIO: So what this I am
hoping that you would do is at least acknowledge
133
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 134
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that particular setback is pretty large that
you are asking for and I was thinking maybe
what would be the problem of moving the pool and
cover that deck at that point and just
eliminate the deck on the side and move the pool
somewhere. Go along the house and not go towards
the side yard. Take out the covered porch and
the pool and follow that line.
a variance on that
covered porch, put
So you don't need
side yard. If you want a
a roof over the deck along
the back of the house where the existing deck
is right now. From there to there and you would
eliminate that side yard setback.
MR. HERRMANN: So if I am understanding
your suggestive alternative, you are suggesting
that we be able to roof over the -- we would have
to rebuild the deck in the back regardless. So
the existing area that is there that we would
turn that deck into a roofed porch and then
follow the line to the west
the 15 feet of the property,
as if the pool becomes detached,
have an issue with that setback?
MEMBER DINIZIO:
without encroaching
and if you come back
then we don't
You still have it on the
side.
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 135
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HERRMANN: But there is nothing
really unavoidable. The pool almost has to go
where
if you move it -- it
sort of the property
it is proposed that it would not go because
is already taking away
in part. It doesn't
physically fit to the east. So other then
putting it at the front door step, that is the
only place that we can put it.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I am just trying to limit
the variances here.
MR. HERRMANN: Right, I understand.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Again, you have the
screened porch on the side. That is coming close
to the next neighbor. It can be 15 feet away.
So you are 30 feet away from a screened porch
and a pool. Seems like a lot when you have a
screened porch on the side of the house. You
added probably another 10 feet to that existing
deck, okay. Really that is
doing. You want to sit out
covered.
what you are
and have it
I am just truing to minimize.
MR. HERRMANN: I understand.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Certainly by moving that
stuff to the side yard would be helpful.
MR. HERRMANN: If the applicant was
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 136
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
willing to do that,
to maintaining the
MEMBER DINIZIO:
variance.
MR. HERRMANN:
75%.
would the Board proceed
side yard setback --
You would need a
We reduced the relief by
MEMBER DINIZIO:
remove the garage,
big.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
If you are going to
that would just be that much
Right now, we have
a notice
So I think we have enough information in the
record to make a determination against that.
guess what we are talking about in general, is
how we can create somewhat less
nonconformity.
MEMBER DINIZIO: If you eliminate the
garage, you may get 20 feet on that side.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
a combined 35 feet. The lot
MEMBER DINIZIO:
that side yard.
MR. HERRMANN:
requesting the pool and the side yard.
I
As long as they have
is really narrow.
ability to get some coverage side on the side
of the house, it substantially reduces the
If they have some
I am just concerned about
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
pressure to keep that larger intrusion on the
side of the house because it is following, what
I have already presented to you. So that
seems to be certainly to be a reasonable
alternative for the applicant.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There is a main
problem with that side yard roof deck. It looks
right over the neighbors property. That is a
problem. And this young lady hasn't even spoken
yet. I figured if the parking playground area
was next to it, they wouldnTt care but there is a
very nice (in audible) and in my mind, that is
particular problem.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And the other aspect
and I asked about it, is that there is a
considerable slope there and as the grade --
MR. HERRMANN: On the side?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: On the side, yes.
And the property is considerably lower. So
anything that you build in that side yard from
that grade is going to look larger then what it
really is on your lot. So those are -- that is
why we take a look at the character of the
neighborhood and we go and look at the
topography. So we are trying to avoid
137
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
these variances of the land, even if these
neighbors sold their vacant lot. Any further
purchaser is going to look at what is next
door. First we were trying to get rid of the
deck that is proposed and open and now we are
trying to get rid of the porch.
MR. HERRMANN: We are trying to eliminate
one variance.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Ail I am trying to
eliminate is standing and looking at the
neighbors. They are going to be about 15 feet
higher. So there is only one (in audible).
And this is going to be the biggest part of their
lot.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right.
see if the Board has any other questions
comments at the moment,
anyone in the audience.
forward.
MS. GURLEY: As
Let me
or
see if
and then we will
Would you like to step
I said --
You have to state
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
your name?
MS. GURLEY: My name is Caroll Gurley,
G-U-R-L-E-Y. (In audible) my mailing address is
P.O. Box 45, Greenport, New York. My physical
138
139
May 5, 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
address is 3500 Sound Drive,
property that we are discussing is
that is 3400. Okay. And again, I
Greenport. The
the property
have also
some questions. I have no
Number one, the gentleman mentioned the
pools. There is not one side yard pool
preconceived notions.
side yard
in the
entire neighborhood that is on the sound.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If I can interrupt
you for a second.
applicants agent
may have. Go ahead.
MS. GURLEY:
I am going to ask the
to answer the questions that you
(In audible) I am not trying
to dump on it. (In audible) the survey shows the
garage and I don't know if it is showing the
existing garage or the proposed garage because
the way that it is projecting is 3 feet to the
back of the house more. The existing garage is
set back more (in audible) from the back wall of
the house. So that is incorrect. (In audible) it
is my opinion that it is not a deck. It is a
patio because it's not raised above the
ground.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me just make
They are proposing to take down the
one comment.
existing 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
MS.
replaced.
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
GURLEY: Yes, I know. But it says
a
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They are not putting
garage in.
MS. GURLEY: (In audible) okay. The
dormers and I don't know what dormers they are
talking about because it is already done. What
dormers are they talking about? The house has
been worked on for, I don't know how many weeks
or months. There is no permits and I don't know
what you are talking about, a covered porch and
step in the front? I don't know what that means.
There is also a portico that was also put on
without permits. And what about a one-story
addition, I mean what percentage of structure of
the property are they allowed to take up? That
I don't know.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
to code with regard to --
MS. GURLEY: I am just
I am not an attorney, okay.
shows the vegetation buffer.
is it supposed to be in?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MS. GURLEY: Because
They are conforming
asking a question.
Also the survey
That is going on or
Going in.
the survey doesn't
140
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
show if its in or if it's going in. Ail
right. Now, it talks about setbacks from the
bluff to the house. If the garage is into a
garage any longer, 20 feet more from the bluff is
not going to have 50 feet.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It is just 50 feet.
MS. GURLEY: So what are we talking
about --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hold on one
second. I want the Board to be available to hear
this.
MS. GURLEY: If you are talking about
the deck being nonconforming, therefore, it is
because it was there forever. Here is a house a
few years ago. It looks nothing like this. And
the whole back of the house (in audible).
MEMBER DINIZIO: The deck that is --
MS. GURLEY: It's not --
MEMBER DINIZIO: Ma'am, the Town doesn't
consider that a patio when it is made out of
wood.
MS. GURLEY: So what do you consider
it?
MEMBER DINIZIO: It's a structure.
MS. GURLEY: Okay. I will take your word
141
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
for it. I was told that (in audible) raised
(in audible).
(Stepped away from the microphone.)
MS. GURLEY: I also have a question, if
this is done, we are talking
talking about the Great Wall
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
exploring is the potential
property.
MS. GURLEY: That is why
about walls. Are we
of China?
No. What we are
impact to your
I am here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And I want you to
realize whether you were here or not, we were
asking those questions.
MS. GURLEY: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We too are
concerned about the impact of the
neighborhood.
MS. GURLEY:
garage
(in audible) detached to the house? You would
have the pool in the back yard.
no objection to people having a
business. It's their yard.
I don't understand that the
can go out (in audible) why can't a
that
I would have
pool. It's their
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don't think
if they didn't have no patio or a deck
142
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 143
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
back there --
MS. GURLEY: You just
and their is a pool.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
go out your door
They are going to
need a variance for it anyway because it is
close to the bluff.
MS. GURLEY: What I am saying is that
will satisfy both neighbors on both sides and
give them what they wanted in the first place.
CHAIRPERSON WEISNL~N: The idea is that
they come here and they hear our concerns as we
hear their concerns. And then they have
options. They gave every right to propose what
they want --
MS. GURLEY: It's not my place to tell
them where to put their pool.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They have to
basically provide us with information and
arguments as to why they are proposing and
necessary and we should consider --
MS. GURLEY: And I am concerned that
this is an open neighborhood. I have
grandchildren that like coming over.
(In audible) what I am seeing (in audible) of
the North Fork.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, they wouldn't
have to put a fence up.
MS. GURLEY: (In audible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well that is all
important for everyone here. Perhaps you
would like to have an opportunity to answer those
questions?
MR. HERRMANN: I feel like I am getting
closer to walking out of here with a pool and
a covered porch. Okay. Let me just respond to
a couple of things for the record because they
are not right.
of the Board. I
work out of here
an alternative.
And I will bounce something back
know necessarily your need to
today with a permit decision on
We would like to basically feel
out the Boar don basically what was said. Well,
just with respect to the pools and side yard
because I feel that is important. Just using
aerial topography. There are at least 4 {in
audible) bluff properties on Sound Drive that
have pools between the house and a side yard.
One of those was constructed with relief of the
benefit of the Board. I don't have the address
or the particulars for the Board. So that is
just for the record. With respect to the, I
144
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
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
understand there would be some conclusion on
how we can build a 20 foot porch further
seaward (in audible) and somehow not be closer
to the bluff. The seaward extent, forgetting
the angles and all that, the line of the existing
house and including the garage door
It's not 20 feet.
(in audible) Mr.
are moving
is 11.9 feet.
It's 12 feet. And the reason
Dinizio was explaining, you
farther away from the bluff. So you
can actually build a structure closer
bluff increasing your setback.
say very clearly about a 10 (in
to the
The survey does
audible) buffer
and there is green lines around the whole buffer
and it is a contract that what is presently
vegetative. So that should be very clear on the
site plan. With respect to 1 ot coverage and the
Board had mentioned it earlier, the overall area
of the property are defined buildable land 14,330
square feet. Currently 16.57% of that is covered
by defined structure. We are proposing, despite
everything that was said, a minimal increase to
that. The overall jumps it from 16.57% to 18.1%
still underneath the 20% that is allowed by
code. With respect to some of the
alternatives that were discussed, if we cut
145
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 146
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1t
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the proposed rough ward extension of the deck
in the back back from 12 feet to 8 feet, land
that across to the west and stopped at a point
of 15 feet from the westerly property line, you
don't have a longer but shallower deck.
(Stepped away from microphone.)
MR. HERRMANN: Be a one foot improvement
over what is there. The total side will still be
nonconforming and there is nothing that we can do
that can really be a project and get to that
point. We would have a total side of 28 versus
the 27 that is existing. Going back to my
conversation with Jim, the bluff setback would be
roughly probably 44 feet. So that would be --
again not differentiating between house and
deck or whatever. That would be 44 instead of
39 and that one I have to scale a little more in
detail. Even if it was 43, you are still
getting a 4 foot --maybe abut a 5 foot
improvement. And we would like to keep the roof
deck,
made
not that you won't care but I don't
you would have any concern over it.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, we have concern
but if that was -- I guess if we actually
it to 15 feet, we wouldn't particularly,
think 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
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
over it because it is a nonconforming
area.
MR. HERRMANN: So then I will say what I
am going to say, if that concept taken in whole
and the suggestions of the Board, then Ms. Henson
would get rid of the roof deck and it would
eliminate that concern.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: My concern with
the roof deck is primarily the impact with
activity of someone in the side yard next to the
neighbor property, which likely will have
something on it eventually. I don't object to
people objecting to their water view. You know,
in my frame of reference, if there is a
structure there underneath it and the setback's
issued are not covering the second story, then
accessing it to sit on a flat roof is not a very
argeous proposal, but it is
down on your neighbors head.
MR. HERRMANN: If we
if you are appearing
are encroaching on
the side yard, it becomes an issue.
MEMBER DINIZIO: (In audible).
MR.
setbacks.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
HERRMANN: We would meet the side yard
You are not going to have
147
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 148
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
what this is --
MR. HERRMANN: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Depending on what
that was and I think you may need a grading plan,
really, you know to walk around to the other side
of the house, it all depends.
MR. HERRMANN: Yeah. I think Mary Beth's
concern and again, there is nothing that the
Board is saying to me that is particularly
shocking to me. It is something that you know,
we all have (in audible) this is not a case of
someone just coming in and saying I don't care
about this and I don't care about the lady to the
west. Let's just go with this. Now, we have to
try and compromise that idea and just for the
record, so the Board knows this was not a really
(in audible) and see what comes back.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I thought you were
just being agreeable.
MR. HERRMANN: One of her concerns was
the flow of the pool and again this is not
something that the Board says I want you to have
flow and we are going to issue these substantial
variances. From her perspective, it is part
of the concern to come around and have some
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 149
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
continuity of the pool. So we have to work
with that element to it. If we could get this
sort of version tighten up that is in front of
you -- in others words, you can create a
situation and we have eliminated one variance
entirely. So if the Board wants, we can go
down the path and redesign again and
resubmit.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That makes sense to
me.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You are eliminating a
side yard variance that is a good thing. The
pool, we have to see where you are going to place
that thing.
MR.
this issue
HERRMANN: Do you all want to tackle
of whether this pool is connected or
not connected? Should Mike have this
conversation with --
MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't think so. I
think we can treat it as an accessory
structure.
MR. HERRMANN: A detached.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I think we
have kind of gone through a bunch of things on
this one. I have one other question for you to
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
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
think about because we are probably going
to adjourn this to July. We don't have time in
June. We are totally booked up. Have an
opportunity for you to think about these things
and go to Plan B and what you want to propose to
the Board. The neighbor has some concerns about
a fence for the pool. And if you could do two
things, if you can produce approval of variances
or whatever information to this Board about
other pools in side yards in this neighborhood
and I know there is a diagonal water view across
your neighbors property and pretty pleasant and
in order to potentially get rid of looking at a
fence, that would be required by code, I would
like you to think about and let us know about
some type of vegetative screening there.
MR. HERRMANN: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Because you will
have the view straight ahead. So I thought I
would throw that out, so that you can have some
things to think about. Are there any other
questions from the Board or you --
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Just on the last
topic. Mark has just told me that they
determined the pool to be treated as an
150
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
accessory
we needed
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
and that it is not written up as
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MR. HERRMANN:
correct. A side yard,
if
Side yard variance.
Side yard variance,
just not a side setback.
will do that
that?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Any other
comments? Hearing none, I will make a motion
to adjourn this hearing to July 7th and we
1:30. Is there a second to
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 %6464 - FRANK and ROSEMARY MONTELEONE
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right. Our
next hearing is for Frank and Rosemary
Monteleone. It's a request for variance from
Code Article XXII Section 280-116B and the
Building Inspector's July 13, 2010 updated
151
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
February 25, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based
on an application for building permit for as
built additions and alterations at; 1)two decks
at less than the code required setback of 75 feet
from a bulkhead, located at: 850 Blue Marlin
Drive (adjacent to Shelter Island Sound),
Southold.
Is there anyone hear to address this
applicant? Please come forward to the podium.
State your name for the record, please.
MR. HEIDTMANN: My name is Glen Heidtmann.
I am employed by G.F. Heidtmann's
concrete and construction firm.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Will
Inc. We are a
you please
spell your name?
MR. HEIDTMANN:
H-E- I-D-T-M-A-N-N.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Before
we get started, sir, I want to make sure that
you have copies of all correspondences in our
file that we have. So one is a notice from
Suffolk County, that this is a matter for local
determination. There is a letter of support by
Decklin P. Weebert, a neighbor. Also an e-mail
from her basically saying the same thing. And we
have a letter from the LWRP coordinator
152
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
indicating inconsistency with the LWRP. And
that's is, we are missing the green cards?
The
Okay.
here?
receipts from sending out,
Please proceed and tell
MR. HEIDTMANN:
that we need.
us why you are
I wanted to give you a
little bit of history on this, that you probably
do know. This project was approved by the Town
Trustees in '96. The contractor from Greenport,
a well respected contractor, did the work. Had a
Certificate of Completion and as far as I am
concerned, the workmanship was complete to none.
What he failed to do was get a building permit
and failed to do was get any inspection from the
Building Department. And what he failed to do
was get a C of O. And in the nowhere land for 15
years or 14 years, we came a long and we were
hired
the
got
(in audible). We got the permits. We got
approvals. Was issued a building permit. We
all the appropriate inspections and
received a verbal C of O, at which point we were
told the C of 0 will not be issued until this
matter came back. I saw no problem with it. I
had read it. At my age, I am the first person
to admit, that I am capable of error. That
153
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
what I read seemed to me was done by the
previous contractor. On the original Trustee
approval, the measurement of 75 feet, and I
don't know if you have a copy or not. I should
have brought a copy with me. The measurement was
taken on the north, the southeast corner of the
bulkhead at a diagonal to the center of the deck.
It was 75 feet and that was approved. On the
plan, it called for the deck to be 43 x 16. The
actual measurement, unless I made a mistake, was
42.11 X 16.1. My only response to this, this was
all approved by the Trustees. The mistake was
made by not going to the Building Department.
How else can I put it.
MEMBER HORNING:
Trustees --
MR. HEIDTMLANN: I didn't bring it with
me.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: But you have a copy
of the Trustee's previous approval?
MR. HEIDTMANN: Yes, we have a copy and
there was a survey that was produced by the
contractor. Lets say lot plan of what it was
going to be.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
I didn't see the Board of
The Building
154
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
two decks.
the
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
Department's Notice of Disapproval refers to
One is the one attached to
the
one
one
MR. HEIDTMANN: I
one on the bulkhead.
am not referring to
I am referring to the
strictly on the house.
MEMBER HORNING: I want to ask about the
on the bulkhead and the decking leading down
to it
and that has a
MR. HEIDTMANN:
MEMBER HORNING:
zero setback.
That is correct.
Was that a part of the
Board of Trustees approval?
MR. HEIDTMANN: I believe so.
that it was.
MEMBER HORNING:
MR. HEIDTMANN:
reduced in size.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
some documentation.
for a
I believe
And we will verify that.
By all means.
We are going
It was also
to need
MR. HEIDTMANN: That is fine.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It is most unusual
structure to be permitted to be built right
on a bulkhead.
MR. HEIDTMANN: There was a natural beach
there at one time. There is none there now.
155
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
right
little gate that was
why would you have a
MR. HEIDTMANN:
2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
There is water
said,
May 5,
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
up to the bulkhead.
MEMBER HORNING: I noticed there was
attached to it. And I
gate --
It is no longer active.
We are certainly
documentation for the history
When you say
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
going to need some
on this.
MR. HEIDTMANN:
"documentation?"
the site plan
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well,
that you were referring to and the approval by
the Trustees.
MR. HEIDTMANN:
by the Trustees.
The site and the approval
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So there is some
discrepancy on what may have been approved as
conforming actually.
MR. HEIDTMANN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
that is right on
been conforming.
Trustees included that
see and ask a question,
Of course, the one
the bulkhead would have never
We need to see whether the
or not. I would like to
if the Board feels that
156
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
-- what is it probably about 12 inches above
grade, it's practically --
MR. HEIDTMANN: I don't think it's even
that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
inspected. Just so you know,
that we know what we are looking at. I would
like to find out whether or not the applicant
would find it an extreme hardship to remove
that structure because you have all kinds of
opportunities to sit right on the grass. You
know, it is going to give you the same view.
You can put down
some pavers for a little
that you can sit on.
on the grass, that's
MR.
pavers are
HEIDTMANN:
set
We all went out and
we all do that so
area
So if you don't want to sit
conforming.
Okay. As long as those
in a porous space?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's correct. You
know, blue stone filings in it.
MR. HEIDTMANN: That is good to know. I
was not aware of that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
that out from your applicant.
helpful for the Board to know.
MR. HEIDTMANN: Would their be a size
So if you can find
That would be
157
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
limitation on that?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No.
pavers on your whole back yard.
to keep it somewhat, drainage.
You can put
You would have
MR. HEIDTMANN: Right.
MEMBER DINIZIO: It is not just something
though that you can throw pavers down on. I am
just letting you know. Once you thought laying
down pavers and (in audible) that up, believe me,
(in audible).
MR. HEIDTMANN: We want to do what the
Board wants but we want to stay in '96.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don't think
that the larger issue is, is that walkway and
that deck on the bulkhead. The deck that is on
the house, even if we have to grant you a
variance for it, it's not a substantial variance.
is required and you already have by this
So that is a relatively small
think that is primarily
It's the deck on the
75 feet
survey, 70.3 feet.
variance. So I don't
going to be an issue.
bulkhead and --
MR. HEIDTMANN:
If I was to remove that
walkway and replace it with this material that
is not wood and replace the existing area on the
158
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
bulkhead and not to make
porous material by the
right direction?
MEMBER DINIZIO:
we can give you that answer, Mr.
think you are going to open up
when you take a board off that
MR. HEIDTMANN: I agree
what I don't want to do.
direction.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
necessary is to
ones to do that.
probably could.
it any bigger with this
Board, I am going in the
No, I don't think that
Heidtmann. I
a can of worms
deck.
and that is
So I need your
What would be
determine and we are not the
The Building Department
If you would suppose to pursue
that, would you need to go before the Trustees.
That would be the issue. If you don't have to go
before the Trustees then I believe what we are
talking about is perfectly permissible. If the
Building Department says "no" and in order to do
that, you may have to have their approval, even
though it is pavers. They would have to tell
you that. This Board can not advise you and
that is something that you would have to look
into.
MR. HEIDTMANN: Okay.
159
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
are talking about is
Trustees?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes.
that survey that they looked at.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
copy of that too?
MR. HEIDTMANN: Yes.
the Building Department that
take care of this.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
are here.
The documentation you
from the Board of
And also
We will get a
And I did promise
I would diligently
That is why you
Any questions, George?
I want to pursue
Was there a permit
story deck that was
yes .
MEMBER HORNING: Sure.
the history as the as built.
to build the deck, the two
attached to the house?
MR. HEIDTMANN: I believe,
MEMBER HORNING: I am looking at the
property card and there is a building permit in
1989 to renovate the kitchen.
MR. HEIDTMANN:
MEMBER HORNING:
sold in 1990. Were
at that time?
That I don't know.
Then the property was
those two-story decks there
160
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5,
2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
MR. HEIDTMANN: NO.
MEMBER HORNING: So as the Building
Department says, "they were built without a
permit."
MR. HEIDTMANN: I said that. The trustees
granted a permit but that contractor failed to
get a permit.
MEMBER HORNING: You are saying that the
structure is in zero feet of the bulkhead?
MR. HEIDTMANN: Right.
MEMBER HORNING: It has been in existence
for 7 years, which would take it back to 2011,
subtract 7 in 2005 or so.
were not built in the same time,
am saying?
MR.
incorrect.
Ail of these things
I guess what I
HEIDTMANN: I believe that to be
I believe that it was all built at
that time by the contractor in Greenport.
MEMBER DINIZIO: At what time?
MR. HEIDTMANN: Within that 12 month
period.
MEMBER DINIZIO: 1996.
MR. HEIDTMANN: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Not 2005?
MR. HEIDTMANN: No.
161
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
MEMBER HORNING: SO there is a mistake
then in your reasons that it has been in
existence for 7 years?
MR. HEIDTMANN:
MEMBER HORNING:
reference for it being
something.
MR. HEIDTMANN:
MEMBER HORNING:
I guess so.
And there was another
around 6 years or
That is incorrect.
1996, is the date you are
giving for the construction of these --
MR. HEIDTMANN: No, 1996 was the approval
and then after that within a 12 month period.
And I don't have a date to give.
MEMBER HORNING: Over 10 years for
everything.
MR. HEIDTMANN:
15 years.
MEMBER HORNING:
MR. HEIDTMANN:
I believe the permit to be
Ail right.
Or it will be in October.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So the question
that I want to ask my colleagues here is, can
close subject to receipt, we could adjourn to
July and when we receive this information, we can
see if we have any further questions. That way
we can ask you those questions. Depends on
162
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
May 5,
what the Board wants to do.
we have enough information,
this.
MR. HEIDTMANN:
2011 Zoning Board of Appeals
If you feel that
then we can close
That would be great.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
it and do it that way? Do
preference?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
MR. HEIDTMANN: I
care of that?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
right. There is nothing
to say something?
I have no objection.
We can adjourn
you have a
I am fine with that.
have two weeks to take
Yes, you can. Ail
else, or else you want
MS. MONTELEONE: (In audible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no further
comments, I will make a motion to close this
hearing subject to receipt of information of the
Trustees permit dated around 1996.
is a second
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There
from Gerry.
Ail in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
163
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 164
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
(Whereupon, the public hearings
for May 5, 2011 concluded.)
May 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 165
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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.
J~ssica DiLalto
Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
Date: June 1, 2011