Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-06/02/2011 Hearing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 L3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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 June 2, 2011 9:35 a.m. Board Members Present: LESLIE WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member GERARD P. GOEHRINGER - Member J~24ES DINIZIO, JR. - Member GEORGE HORNING - Member KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney VICKI TOTH - Secretary Jessica DiLallo Court Reporter P.O. Box 984 Holbrook, New York 11741 (631)-338-1409 REC~.ZVED jUL 1 ?.0!1 ~3OARD OF APPEALS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing: Andrew Greene #6387 George and Mary Vail %6475 Rose L. Milazzo #6471 Lieb Vines, LLC #6469 Alan and Patricia Norden #6474 George and Judith Flaig #6477 Bee-Hive Development Corp %6476 George D. And Maria Kofinas #6473 Jane Weiland, #6472 James and Kathleen Blackley #6458 George and Ruby Gaffga %6438 Page: 3-4 4-17 17-18 18-54 54-58 58-64 64-85 85-115 115-121 121-122 122-135 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~5 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals HEARING #6437 - ANDREW GREENE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: SO the hearing is now open. We have a letter in our packet requesting an adjournment from the applicant. Let's look at the request. MEMBER HORNING: They want a one month postponement. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Does it say why? MEMBER HORNING: I saw him yesterday and he redesigned the whole thing. request much less variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: MEMBER HORNING: everything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: proposal. He is going to Good. And redesigning This is a complex MEMBER HORNING: Yeah, he is going to narrow the pool so the setback will be increased and the retaining wall will be less. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is all good. MEMBER HORNING: And the planting was all put in. I saw that on the bluff. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: He seems to hard. be trying MEMBER HORNING: He is trying to sell the June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 place too. So he is trying to get everything situated and possibly put a pool in. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. a motion to adjourn the hearing to 9:30. I will make July 7th at MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by Gerry. Ail in favor? MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. Okay. (See minutes for resolution.) HEARING %6475 - GEORGE AND MARY VAIL CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application is George and Mary Vail. Request for variances from Code Article XXIII, Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's April 6, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to construct additions to an existing dwelling at: 1) less than the code required front yard setback of 35 feet. 2) less than the code required rear yard setback of 35 feet, 3) lot June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~5 coverage of more than the code required 20%, 4)accessory structure in a location other than the rear yard; location of property: Pine Avenue and unnamed street, code required 50 Oak Avenue, Southold. State please? MR. STRANG: your name for the record, Good morning, Garrett Strang, architect representing the Vail's. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Garrett, let me just double check. Have you we gotten all the green cards? MR. STRANG: They haven't come back yet. I gave you the tracking information. It did get to it's destination but I guess picked up yet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: it has not been I just want sure you have copies, if you want them, local determination from Suffolk County, standard and the LWRP, MR. STRANG: No, CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: you these. MR. have you got we do not. Okay. to make of the which is a copy? Let me give STRANG: That would be great, thanks. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 this. June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: SO you can look over MR. STRANG: before. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: would you like to tell us? Never had a private hearing Ail right. So what MR. STRANG: Okay. Give you a quick idea and an overview of what is going on here. My client purchased the house in or around 2000, okay. The existing 1 1/2 story, 4 bedroom home, two up, two down, with an attached garage. It's only 4 1/2 feet off the rear side, depending how you want to look at it, lot line. They have lived in the home for a full-time basis. It has become apparent to them that it is much too small at this point in time for their needs. They have a (in audible) master bedroom and a shoe box kitchen, which really doesn't function for them given the, fact that my client is an accomplished cook man. Our proposal, as presented is to give up the garage use and build a small one story addition to that area and convert it into a master suite. We are also going to abandon the first floor two existing bedrooms on the south side of the house and build a small one-story addition to the east 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals and the south sides, reconfiguring the interior space. So we can create an entry, which presently doesn't exist and a small office/den area, as well as a enlarging and making the kitchen usable. For the record -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am sorry, Garrett, were you referring to the addition that is going towards Oak on the south side? MR. STRANG: Yes, as well as, wrapping around. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I see that. And you are going to use that for a new entry? MR. STRANG: We are going to create a new entry, a den area -- a small den/office area, as well as use some of that space to help make the kitchen more useable. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay, because we don't have floor plans. MR. STRANG: Yeah, that is true. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is why I was asking what you what you wanted to use it for. MR. STRANG: Right. The two (in audible) that go out the kitchen, Because to the east, a portion of it is to make it a little bit bigger. it is really, really tight now. It for June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 doesn't even meet the definition of a galley kitchen. And, as well as, giving them space so that we can create a den/office and part of that would be an entry foyer area, which again, we don't have right now. Just so that the Board is aware and for the record, we have received a DEC permit for what is proposed and shown in front of you. As well as, the Southold Town Trustees permit for this as well. Our challenges are, obviously we have relative small quarter acre corner lot. It has three front yards, unfortunately, which is somewhat unique to this property. There may be very few, if any, in the neighborhood that have a similar situation. The existing design and layout of the house, really dictates where we can really place additions and basically use the house and not tare the house apart. The small shed that has been proposed is required, since we have giving up the We need some storage in this location, that we can consider it the proximity of the garage. in such, neighbor, as well as not block their view of the creek. I am trying to do it in such a way that it is usable and not in the face of the neighbor. There really isn't any other location. The 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals application (in audible) prohibit the additions that we are proposing but also render the lot un-buildable. For example, if the house were not there and we would have to deal with new construction. There is really no (in audible) on a strict application to code. I would like the Board to consider the following, Pine Avenue, which is adjacent to the property, is basically terminal end of a dead-end street. There is no through traffic. So they could almost consider it a side yard. That thought being giving consideration, the setback on the proposed 2'8 one-story addition on that side of the home is not at all overbearing. The proposed additions to the existing garage area maintain the line of the majority of that footprint and actually they are further back at 7.74 feet of the north and southwest corners. We tried to work within as much as the existing footprint as possible. So as to keep the extent of the additions to a minimum. In closing, what we have proposed is the minimum necessary to have a residence that would meet my clients needs without having to put on expansive additions. We got rid of the garage. We reduced the overall use of the house from four bedrooms to June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 three. ares, but add rather a one-story addition. appearance of the house remains iow And unlike some neighboring in the nearby we have opted not to add a full second floor The overall key and in scale with the community. I hope the Board finds these lessening of the situations in keeping with what they can live with and if there is any questions, I would be happy to answer them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I guess to comment, it would be very helpful, if I can see a floor plan of it. So even if it's just a sketch just showing dimensions. Something along with what you submitted with the site plan here. Your proposed shed, 10xl0? MR. STRANG: Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Have you investigated into putting that on the other side of the existing deck, in other words, west of it? MR. STRANG: That is the area that we are trying to not have something like that because that is next to the neighbors house and it would not only be in their face, if you will, but also block their view of the creek. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~25 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. I would think putting it next to the existing deck. Ail right. So you are saying that it would block the view? MR. STRANG: Yeah, it would block the view and -- MEMBER SCHNEIDER: How big is the shed, the height? MR. STRANG: It's a normal fabricated shed. Like 8 feet for the height. A relative low profile. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. No more questions at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George? MEMBER HORNING: Sure. If the deck was -- of the shed was on the other side of the deck, would that still be considered in the front yard? MR. STRANG: We don't have a rear yard, any way that you look at it. It's not code compliant as far as placement goes. MEMBER HORNING: You are saying that the Pine Avenue dead-end down there at the creek basically, intersects that unnamed the status of that street, to your street. What is knowledge? 11 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~25 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals MR. STRANG: The unnamed street is just a paper street. It is not a traveled street at all. It's a demarkation between my clients property and Goose Creek. And the subdivision was set up that way, I guess at one point in time. I am know what the reasoning for that was. But that unnamed street continues all the way across to the west. It's on paper. MEMBER HORNING: Is any portion of it drivable? MR. STRANG: No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Oh, no. MEMBER HORNING: And never will be? MR. STRANG: Never will be. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There is a same street in Nassau Point, (in audible) it has existed for years. I think the ability of it originally was to be able to remove the debris, and I think that is exactly what was Nassau Point. MR. STRANG: That is good possibility. Whatever washed up on the creek, they would have access to remove at the mercy of the particular property owner. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: In the way the Notice of Disapproval is written, they made a 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals determination through the left side with the 4.5 foot setback as your rear yard. MR. STRANG: Exactly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The functional rear yard is where the existing deck is? MR. STRANG: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And certainly we have made site inspection and are aware of the conditions of where this building is placed and how the actual functioning of the unnamed street work or don't work. So Ken had requested floor plans and I would also appreciate seeing also. MR. STRANG: I can submit those. That is not a problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think what you are proposing is pretty modest and general here. MR. STRANG: We tried to be. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don't think I have no more questions, just to have a better understanding of the overall building. MR. the second floor plan. The second floor STRANG: We are not doing anything on floor, so I would only have a first So I hope that would suit your needs. is two rooms and a bath and that is remaining unaltered. 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 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right. Then that is fine. MEMBER HORNING: Are you knocking down interior walls to get to -- MR. STRANG: Again, we have to in order to -- MEMBER HORNING: I think that is what Ken was getting to. If you can actually get a floor plan of the actual room. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: He can just do a sketch with the as-built's. MR. STRANG: I probably have in my file the existing plan. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That would help. Okay. Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If you could just give us some example on how you would like to screen that storage building from the road in, okay, some way, and I am referring to Pine Avenue. Arborvitae's, I know there is a lot of Oak trees up there now. Any other way, you know, that it could be there, I would appreciate it. MR. STRANG: My client is here. I can pose that question to them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If you can just come 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~5 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals to the microphone. We are required by law to record this. MS. VAIL: Mary Vail. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Would you address the question? MS. VAIL: Sure. We would be happy to bring some plantings that would obscure it from the street. That would be no problem. We have to work with what we have right now. There is a Korean Dog Wood or whatever that tree is, and an Oak and we can fill it in. We can fill it in, no problem. Given the parameters that we have to work with, that the Town put on us to have a dry well. We can plant over the dry well. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We don't specifically, I am not speaking for the Board, I don't specifically ask for a particular color of a shed, but it will an earth tone color would -- MS. VAIL: We will work with whatever we are doing with the house. We don't want to make that a focal point at all. Not a problem. But I am really am trying to make it so that not something that my neighbors are really want to emphasize that, if I it anywhere, it is really aware of and I have to move either towards the water or towards 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals the west, these are really small houses. next door neighbor is an original since My 1937. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So the proposed location is in consideration of maintaining the existing views from the neighbors -- MS. VAIL: charm. (In audible). That is the one CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What is the height of the proposed shed? MR. STRANG: I would say 8 feet again. It's a iow, iow shed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Jim? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Is there any one in the audience that would like to address this application? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision subject to receipt of floor plans from the architect. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? Second. Seconded by Gerry. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) HEARING #6471 - ROSE L. MILAZZO REVOCABLE TRUST. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next hearing before us is for Rose L. Milazzo Revocable Trust. We are here to consider a request for an adjournment but let me put into record, the Notice of Disapproval, which is a request for variances under Sections 280-122, 280-124 and 280-116B, based on the Building Inspector's February 9, 2011 Notice of Disapproval concerning an application for additions and alterations to an existing seasonal cottage, which proposed construction will be: 1) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet; 2) less than the code required combined side yard setbacks of 25 feet; 3) less than the code required setback of 75 feet from the bulkhead; location: 1165 Island View Lane (adjacent to underwater lands) Greenport. Is there any one here to address that application? 17 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 our (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail file a letter with a request right. We have in to adjourn this hearing to July, and address this application. to the Board? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. so that the applicant can attend Is that acceptable I will make the motion. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right. Gerry is making the motion and Jim is seconding it the motion to adjourn to July 7th at 9:50 a.m. Okay. So that is that. (See Minutes for Resolution.) HEARING #6469 - LIEB VINES, LLC. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application is for Lieb Vines, LLC. Request for variance from Article III, Code Section 280-13(4) (c) based on Building Inspector's March 18, 2011, Notice of Disapproval and an application for building permit concerning conversion of existing storage building into an office and winery tasting room at: Less than the code required 100 foot setback from 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 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals major road a; 13050 Oregon Road, Cutchogue. Is there someone here to represent the application? MS. WICKHAM: Yes, good morning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good morning. MS. WICKH~/~: Gall Wickham for Lieb Vineyards. I also have Mark Lieb, who is the owner of the operations and can answer any questions that I may not be able to, and Bill Kelly who actually made the application, and who will be the contractor on the job. three of us, I hope we can answer that you might have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We are good on the green cards. I want to make sure you have copies of -- do you have a copy of the Suffolk County Planning local determination letter -- MS. WICKHA/~: No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: from the Planning Board? MS. WICKHA~M: I have that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: neighbor, we can give you a MS. WICKHA-M: So between the any questions Do you have comments And a letter from the copy. So jurisdiction is complete. 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Go ahead. MS. WICKHAM: Hi, I would like to address the Board on this variance in four different respects. The first I would like to do is describe the proposal that Mr. Lieb is making for this operation. The second thing I would like to do is address the Notice of Disapproval and the language of the code section that is applicable. I am then going to go through the traditional variance criteria that you have to consider in the setback variance. And then I would like to address the Planning Board's comments and the neighbors letter as well. The proposal that is made here is to convert a front portion of what has been for 10 years -- essentially a winery storage facility into a small tasting room in the front. Maintaining the bulk of the building as warehouse wine storage in the rear. The was put up about 10 years ago shortly after Mr. Lieb sold development rights to 12 of the 13 acres of the property. Intentionally retained this one acre building site so that he would have the ability to do things that would otherwise be precluded by the development rights. The way he the bonded building 2o June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 21 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 has been using the building up till now is essentially agricultural. He has small tasting events every year. Each year he does have some small events here but he wants to expand that by putting in an actual tasting room and having mostly seasonal type small events. He basically gears his business towards growing vines, grapes. Creating good wine and selling it. He is not into a big (in audible). You don't hear about Lieb in terms of the big productions going on in Town. He is about a vineyard and a winery. Selling good products. His business is very much geared towards the trade, restaurants and what not. And that is the type of function that this facility will primarily have. To have small groups of people that come in so that he can give them private tasting's. So that he can try and sell wine to high level clients. He also has found over the years, that a number of people are driving into his residence driveway, which is just to the east and instead of having to send them all the way to the Mattituck, he can just send them down the road to this started room in Mattituck at the front end of the facility. He has maintained since he has for a number of years, a small tasting (in 22 June 2, 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 audible) a big facility. facility. It is wine group building. That is also not It is not an event based a wine tasting orientated sales facility, this will be. ever had any complaints about his facility. He has, to our knowledge, at the Mattituck facility operations. And he lives very near the It's a residence about a few hundred yards to the east. If you have been by there you know that it has been well kept. He is not about to have any intrusion nature in his neighborhood. Further, he just doesn't operate in that manner. So that is a general overview of the type of facility. It's going to be a small tasting room with a dining type -- not a dining type but just a small tasting room. He is also going to have a small patio out front with a screen patio. So that will be there. There is not going to be a commercial kitchen. It is not that type of operation. It's not going to hold large events. What I would like to do next is address the Notice of Disapproval. It specifically says that in coding Section 280-13, a winery structure shall be setback a minimum of 100 feet from a major road. What's a major road? I am not sure. It's not defined in the code. I think we could all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~25 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals agree that major roads in this Town are "Main Road" and "Route 48." I don't know that there is anything saying that any other road that is a major road. The Town nor the Town Board has not defined it and I think they are the only people that can, code wise. So I would like to take the position that the outset, that the decision of the Building Inspector could be reversed, that this is not a setback criteria. That it does not apply to this particular winery because it's not on a major road. And I don't even think that the ZBA is in a position that they can interpret what "major road" means because that would be a legislative decision. It is lot of traffic. up the setback. a private road. It doesn't have a I think that a Town Board brought They were envisioning a lot of these bigger facilities being on the major Main Road and Route 48 facilities, and they wanted them setback, so that they would have room for parking and all those types of things. I don't know that it makes sense to apply that section, nor do I think under the code, that you can apply that section to a small winery on a side street. So I would like that to be incorporated into our presentation that the Building Inspector did not 23 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 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 ~5 have the authority to reject this application on the basis of a setback from a major road. That being said, I would then like to proceed to the alternative relief of the variance requested, should it be for some reason you decide not to go on that basis. The traditional variance criteria that pertains to an area variance in this situation would indicate that there is every reason that this application should be granted. There will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood or a detrimental affect, which is your first criteria. The reason for that is the operation will be in an existing building. It does have its full development rights and therefore it's authorized of the use. The parking is contained fully on site. There is ample parking spaces. Going back to Mr. Lieb's winery operation in Mattituck, that has a parking area, and I have been there many, many times on busy weekends and the parking is more than adequate. So I can't see this parking would be any way shape or form, be inadequate for the types of uses he is going to envision. So there is no extension of the building to code further towards Oregon Road. There will only be a small patio, which will be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals contained with screening, in order to keep people from wandering out all over the yard and perhaps disrupting the neighborhood. The other thing that is important in terms of not affecting the character of the neighborhood, is that the size of the tasting room is very small. And as I said, it's not going to be a high traffic where people are just pulling in. The property further is mostly surrounded by non-residential property. There are 12 acres of vineyard on the east and the north -- the south of this property. There are a considerable amount of open space from development layouts on the north side. There is one house right on the corner of (in audible) that is the closest to this property. If the building were in fact 100 feet back, it would be more disadvantageous to the house then the current locations. And further in that area, you have a tremendous amount of industrial -- Light Industrial. So I think that this is something that is not going to be a detriment. The second variance criteria that you have to decide is whether the benefit can be achieved by some other methods, basically another avenue to pursue. It can not. This building has been there. 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals It has not moved. It's not practical to be moved back. If it had to be located further back, a couple of numbers vines would have to be removed and that would be diminishing the agricultural production. And it would have also resulted in a smaller development rights area. The amount of relief that is requested is not substantial because the building meets building setbacks for buildings in this zone. It's merely the winery aspect of it that's (in audible) the setback criteria. The exterior of the building will not change significantly and the interior that is being changed is fairly small. In terms of the exterior of the building, because I know that you would be interested in that. Currently facing Oregon Road are two large barn doors that slide shut in the middle. Those are going to remain. When they are open, there will be behind them and a french door that will open out. So that when the building is closed, those doors will slide shut and won't even know that there is a tasting room there, for security and other reasons that is how that will be there. The lighting on the outside of the building on that road side will be what is there now, which is merely -- it's 26 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a one no lighting where these existing light on the existing light on the down lit existing wall pack. There is along the west side of the building, residences are and there is only one parking side and one back and those will remain. The variance will not have an adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood for the same reasons I have stated before. And the difficulty has not been self creating. So that is kind of a long rendition of going through your checklist that I have and that I wanted to do that so that you had that in the record. The next thing that I would like to address is the Planning Board's comments and the first thing that I want to say about the Planning Board's comments is, that the first thing that they have in their first paragraph, to the effect that the proposal was reasonable. They had no objection and felt that it does help the agricultural viability of the Town, which is what these winery's and vineyard's have done. However, they did not in any way, shape or form show any objection to the setback issue and that is the only issue that is before the Board 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 L3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals today. They pose absolutely no suggestions with respect to denying the variance or making any comment on the variance with respect to the setback itself. The Planning Board did and I do feel that we need to address this, that there be limitations on the number and size of vehicles and the types of events that are held at the site. In terms of the number and size of the vehicles and parking, that is definitely something that we will address because we do need site plan approval and we will be addressing that with the Planning Board, and that is their function and we would like to have them talk to us about that and suggest what types of mechanisms to have us agree to in terms of parking. I don't think that is something that this Board needs to bring out and I don't thing Again, me to you, back? think that you should do it. The other that they mentioned was the types of events. I don't think that this -- would you like wait while you talk to her? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, I would. Thank Gail. I'm sorry. Okay. MS. WICKHAM: Where would you like me to go CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You were addressing 28 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 address address think it is ZBA. Ail I the limitations of the parking. It wasn't that I wasn't hearing you. I have two ears. MS. WICKHAM: Okay. The parking we will with the Planning Board and we must it with the Planning Board and I don't fair to do that and bare that on the can say is that we have a lot of parking, a considerable amount of parking onsite and we think that is more than ample for the type of usage that is involved. As far as the type of events, that is something that maybe the Town needs to address in I don't think it is winery, which truly terms of all winery's because fair to this particular is a (in audible) style winery. To have them be -- to have imposed upon on them all kinds of conditions, on what types of events and when you can have them, and how they can have them. That is something that I think the Town has to address on a Town wide level because it is certainly true that several winery's have pushed the envelope. And have created problems where they shouldn't be is not one of those winery's. Most of have done that and it is an issue I think we can come to this Board and say that there has to and this the winery's in the Town. June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 be certain limits on the types of timing and events and what not, that would apply to us as opposed to any other winery's because of setback issue. This is a setback question. Having said that, I will say that I have talked to Mr. Lieb about this at length and if you look at the floor plan of the building, the bulk of the building will remain as what is called bonded storage. That is actually the bonded warehouse with the SLA approval. He is required to have that as a bonded warehouse. He will agree to maintain that as non-public area for either bonded warehouse or some other type of agricultural or winery function that will not involve public usage or holding of special events. That is the plan that we are presenting to you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gail, relative to that, besides -- the tasting room that is proposed, how many square feet is that? I just want to have that entered into the record. MS. WICKHAM: I know the whole building is 5,569 square feet and the dry storage is 3300 square feet. THE SPEAKER: 1187. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We need to have your June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .~5 name for the record, please? MS. WICKH~: I'll tell you. 1,187 square feet, that is the tasting room. I think -- then there is an office. We will have that answer for you in a minute. The only other thing that might change on this map is the sanitary system. They may have to make some accommodations when they figure out some things when we get some further information on the well and pool situation of one of the properties adjoining. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So the bar and tasting room is 1,187 square feet, does that include the bathrooms? MS. WICKHAM: It includes the restrooms. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. So when you were referring to the area that is bonding storage, that's finished floor. So the existing storage area, is that what the bonded storage area? MS. WICKHAM: Yeah, you are referring to as where it says existing storage area. And it's not quite a rectangle. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right. The office is cutting into it a little bit. But my question is, what about any plans of expansion for the currently proposed size of the tasting room in the 32 June 2, 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 back storage area? MS. WICKHAM: That is what we are willing to agree not to do without a further request of the Board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So you are limiting this application. I just want to make it very clear -- if you are going to be answering questions, you need to come to the mic. MS. WICKHAM: No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If Gail is going to do it for you, that's fine too. So to be clear, your proposal is for 1,187 square foot tasting room, which includes restrooms. The rest of the building is to be used as is -- MS. WICKHAM: The tasting room, private tasting room, new office, existing office and restrooms consist of 2,020 square feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is the tasting room, private tasting room, existing office -- MS. WICKHAM: Office and restrooms. And the existing storage area shown at the rear of the building with the -- 3549 square feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And that will remain as a bonded storage area? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MS. WICKHAM: It will remain as area. He can put a winery in there. He agricultural equipment in there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just agricultural use. Okay. MS. WICKHA/M: So I would -- that would answer some of your concerns, Planning Board concerns with respect to if they wanted to have a big event in there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The size would be limited by the applicant. MS. WICKHAM: It is. It's not very big. It's less than 2,000 square feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So you have had a chance to address the Planning Boards You have gotten a copy of this letter Harold N. McCullough. His request was to have this read at the public hearing for the record. And I need to do that. So that -- MS. WICKHAM: That will give me an opportunity to address that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Harold M. McCullough, 8200 Cox Lane, Cutchogue. Addressed to the Zoning Board of Appeals. "I am writing this letter with regard to the June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals a nonpublic can put comments. addressed by This is a letter from 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals application before you, #6469, regarding the conversion for the Lieb Vineyards barn into an office and tasting room. Please read this letter into the record of the public hearing. I wished to attend the hearing, but have a scheduling conflict. In principle, I am not opposed to the conversion of use from barn to office and tasting room provided that all applicable codes are strictly adhered to. This would include restrictions imposed by the open space easement on the majority of the parcel. That said, I have reservations as to the desirability of establishing a tasting room at this location. The primary concern is noise from outdoor music. It is well established that farm wineries are allowed to host entertainment and to sell wine for on site consumption. This effectively allows a farm winery to operate as a bar, and several in this town do. Some wineries are considerate of their neighbors and some are not. I, and my neighbors, do not want Vineyard 48 or Peconic Bay Winery type operation, with blasting music and crowds of drunks, taking over the area and weekend. It will most likely be argued that the owner of Lieb Vineyards owns a home in the neighborhood, so he 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals would never allow that disruption to the peace and tranquility of the area. Mark Lieb conducts business from his Oregon Road address but lives in Greenwich, Connecticut and Bridgehampton. If it is within the power of the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant variance with enforceable conditions, I respectfully request the following: Grant the variance with the condition that there be no outdoor music or any sort, at any time. Make any changes to the application that you feel are needed and in so doing, consider all additional comments you may receive. If the Board is not able to grant a variance with conditions, then deny the variance altogether and allow the conversion only in strict compliance with all Southold Town codes as they exist now. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Yours Truly, Harold N. McCullough." Would you like to make some comments on -- MS. WICKHAM: Yes, I think I have already addressed most of those types of issues already. I won't take up your time repeating them. Peconic Bay Vineyard is exactly one of the places I was considering as they push the envelope. I don't know about Vineyard 48. Both of them, are 35 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NO. 1, on major roads. Being mainly 48, and No. 2, they are big facilities for agrotourism type issues. I don't even know how that works. Those are definitely attracting a type of operation that is different type then a winery that Mr. Lieb is trying to -- is and intends to operate. And again, we facility. We have a very limited size. have a lot of land -- which is actually going to be paved parking, to put events on because that would be prohibited to the agricultural development rights. We can't have a big wedding in the middle of a vineyard because it is not farm operating have a small We don't that is an issue that is not a setback issue. That is an issue that is a Town Board issue, and in how they're going to handle that type of activity in a farm winery setting. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I would say that the Board and the Zoning Board understands all too well, the special events that take place at wineries. We are responsible for signing off on those proposed events. None the less, I would argue that character of the neighborhood is agricultural production. There is no room on this property to do that type of thing. But again, June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 37 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 part of an area variance criteria that certainly this neighborhood has a rather different quality then many other sites that hold wineries, considerably different. So when you address an area variance and this criteria, we need to consider noise impact, traffic impact and so on. Not to suggest for a moment that this is not a permitted use or an appropriate use for a winery but we need to balance they potential impacts. I am sure you understand that? MS. WICKHAM: with setback. types about. It's And yes, it I do. That has nothing to do CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: MS. WICKHA/~: of fears that NO, but -- Setback is not creating the these people are worried the usage and the usage is allowed. is a residential agricultural quiet neighborhood, and the Lieb's can be sensitive to that, and if not, the owners have recourse. And Mr. Lieb does maintain a residence in that facility and he is there every single week. a residence in -- I forget where it is, but Ne has he does maintain a residence there and he is there most weekends, and therefore, that is when you would expect to have the issues and he is not June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 t0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 going you -- go MS. to submit to that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: ahead. Well, I want to ask WICKHAM: What I will do, and again, we had talked about this at length. His idea on how he is going to operate this thing is not big special events, as a courtesy to his neighbors of common courtesy, which we think they should all abide by. He would agree to a noise restriction in the latering hours. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The -- MS. WICKHAM: He -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: (In audible) essential of this small tasting room, wine tasting sales, are there plans for any type of musical entertainment? MS. WICKHAM: Historically, he has had an annual event for his most frequent patrons. I think they have a small little jazz band that comes. It is a very occasional thing. So there are some very little private events that he has. Again, when you are in the winery business, you are in the entertainment business. You have a flood of audience and his audience is to small private approach in order to sell wine. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 L3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would the music be indoors or outdoors? MS. WICKH~/M: It could be either. It would not extend beyond 8:00 or 9:00 o'clock at night ever, when it happens. I say that, historically, he has had on occasion, that type of event there for a limited group of people and I don't think he should be precluded from doing that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Lets look at that setback issue because that is what -- MS. WICKHA24: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If argument that the Board should of the Building Inspector's determination, then you would need to amend your application? MS. WICKHAM: Yes, I would like to do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You would need to present minutes of the passage of Town Law 280-13(4) (c). We will probably need to take testimony at various future hearings and we will need to look at other winery applications, where one has a setback requirement of a road similar to this road. Do you follow what I am getting you submit the consider a reversal at? 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 L3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals MS. WICKHAM: Well, on the ladder, I don't think that is relevant because we would not have been involved in those hearings. I would certainly understand if you would want to see if there were any minutes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yeah, when you make you are going to want to look at To look and see if there were other an argument, precedence. applications that require -- MS. WICKHAM: I can't tell you -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You can't tell us now, of course not. I am saying, if you wish to pursue that. I mean, the Board can just go forward with what it has before us. If you wish to pursue that argument, then we are going to need to do that on a different basis. Lets see if other Board members have questions at this point. Jim? MEMBER DINIZIO: Just between, the Planning Board's comments, I would assume any event would be held by size to the amount of parking area? MS. WICKHAM: Well, the parking and even the size of the building that we are containing. It's 7,000 square feet. But yes, both are limited. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: Both are limited to size -- MS. WICKHA/M: That's correct. MEMBER DINIZIO: That would certainly limit the amount of people. MS. WICKHAM: Correct. MEMBER DINIZIO: I think there is 20 -- MS. WICKHAM: 28 spaces. MEMBER DINIZIO: So maybe 50 people. Something like that. You have to have some for the people that are working there too. The Planning Board is really going to address all of those things -- MS. to address WICKHAM: The Planning Board is going offsite parking. The Planning Board is going to address on-road parking. The Planning Board is going to address a whole lot of those issues. So I think that is where we need to go, and you know, discuss it with them and decide where they need to go. MEMBER DINIZIO: one other thing. Hold on, find it. Like the parties, that stuff, in my opinion, the (In audible) there was let me see if I can weddings and all of the person who wrote letter about not having music, could have 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 L3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals that same music on their property. A graduation or something like that, and we do have coming up in July, a law about loud music on properties. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Noise ordinance. MS. WICKHAM: The Town has been addressing that and they need to. MEMBER DINIZIO: The major road thing? MS. WICKHAM: To me that is reversible error, because I don't see anywhere in the code where it defines what a major road is. How can you say that this winery -- that this applies to this winery application? MEMBER DINIZIO: That is all I have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not at this time. Gail, I just wanted you to explain to the, Members of the Board, if they are not aware what you meant by, the certification of the existing storage area, which you referred to as everybody understands. MS. WICKHAM: That is a "bonded." So that State Liquor Authority general -- what do you call it now, (in audible) permit restrictions, when you sell wholesale wine, you have to keep it in an area 42 43 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 that is shown to and permitted by those regulatory agencies. Because it has to do with the great A~nerican concept of tax revenue and you can't just leave your wine that has not been sold hanging around in your warehouse. It has to be in what's called a "bonded warehouse." Which means that the liquor authority has specifically approved the demarcation of that area. You can't have the public in there because people can take it. Their goal and their theory is, to keep it from having liquor leave that room without it being accounted for, so that tax is paid on it. So it is a very highly regulated area that wineries have to go through, and you don't full around with that. So -- and so the Lieb's need storage space. That is where they have kept it for many years. So when that wine is sold out of that room, it has to be accounted for and tax paid on it. Some people call it a "Tax Paid Room." MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So when the young lady showed us the tasting room, They were not bottled yet. That was not the portion of the facility? MS. WICKHAM: I am not sure where you room that is going to be the I only saw in there open bottles. bonded June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 were. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We looked at that area. She was a very nice young lady. MS. WICKHAM: You want to answer that. Okay. Mr. Lieb is going to answer that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: For the record, please state your name? MR. LIEB: Mark Lieb. When you went into that front area, basically -- because we had cleared this out for construction, that was the staging area. Those bottles were on there way to premium wine to be bottled. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. LIEB: In the back (in audible) you happened to be there when they were on their way to the winery and there was also cardboard boxes that were folded. The bottles come in the pallets and the boxes come on different pallets. They go to the premium wine group in two separate pallets. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That was an example of a staging area and not a bonded warehouse. The bonded warehouse, you would probably be able to look at it but not go into it, so to speak? MR. LIEB: Right. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is what MR. LIEB: There was no MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, in there. MR. LIEB: They're wrapped wine in there. there was no wine in plastic as they are shipped overseas. You saw it off the container sitting there as boxes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: testimony, Mark, because the -- with the cardboard So in reference to your I haven't actually seen you since we originally dealt with that whole aspect -- MR. LIEB: I know. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There was no possibility that anyone could ever go into the bonded area, as Gall has just briefly told us? MR. LIEB: No, there is a locked door on that one side and there is a locked door on the back where we ship it out. When that wine leaves that bonded warehouse, somebody owes a tax on it. Whether we sell it to a restaurant, I have to collect the tax. If we sell it and they go to the tasting room, we collect the tax. And you have to file forms with the government. It's serious stuff. We have to -- we do an inventory every 45 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 month. It's locked. I don't want the public going in there. Not that I don't trust the public but things can disappear. If you have 6,000 cases of wine in that bonded warehouse. The government is going to expect tax on 6,000 cases. Whether (in audible) cases. They are going to be looking at me for the tax. So that is the whole idea of the bonded warehouse. The only people allowed in there are the employees of Lieb. How it really works for the government is when the wine is bottled at premium, there is a form that is filled out. When the wine leaves premium, it's leaving that premises as a premium. It is not received as -- there is another form received. What the government is really doing, they want to follow what is going on because the premium says there is 6,000 bottles here and there is a different amount over here. And there is another amount over there. And then they say what happened to 200? The government wants the tax. That is the whole concept of the bonded. I know he is shaking his head, yes, because he understands it very, very well. Ail the government wants to see, if there is 6,000 cases at premium. Then they want to see 6,000 cases at Oregon Road. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRPERSON WEISNLAN: Okay. Lets get back to something -- MR. LIEB: I just wanted to answer your -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I appreciate your answer. The proposed setback from Oregon Road and with the existing building is, it's 60.2 feet; is that correct? MS. WICKHAM: 60.2 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right. The proposed patio 1,440 square feet. MS. WICKHAM: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And it is also proposed to be screened by a privacy hedge, landscaped schedule see Schedule Sheet 2, which we don't -- MS. WICKHAM: What we would do there is, we would put in Old English BacWood or similar planting and keep together with some flower boards. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And at what height? MS. WICKHAM: Not above 5 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: MS. WICKH~M: Up to. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. About 5 feet. And what is the proposed patio area to be used for? 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals MS. WICKHAM: For sitting. Drinking. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Drinking. Possible music? MS. WICKHAM: Only occasional. If it's a nice day, people would want to be outside. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Which is true. the setback of that patio from Oregon What is Road? setback. Road? MS. WICKHAM: It is 30.2 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 30.2 foot patio And what about parking on Oregon MS. WICKHAM: None is proposed. Ail the parking is shown here unless the Planning Board wants us to do something different. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right. MEMBER DINIZIO: I see those gates there, what are they going to be? MS. WICKHAM: What gates? Oh, the patio. That is so you can get in and out The front gate. of there. MEMBER DINIZIO: What is the structure? MS. WICKHAM: Okay. Now we have Mr. Kelly. am sorry, it is taking so long. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Please state your 48 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 49 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 name for the record? MR. Building. trying to it's a nice KELLY: Bill Kelly and I am with Forton The patio area, that is -- that is just create like a little cafe. Like if day, people can come in and sit by the patio. And the screening, which would be totally BacWood, which grows -- it's maximum height is 5 feet. So it wouldn't grow any taller than that. And as far as the fence and everything that surrounds that, that would probably be wrought iron fence, and it would probably be in the neighborhood of 3 to 4 feet tall. The gate, the entry to the casing room is in the front of the building. So the gate is for access into the patio to the tasting area so that you can have access room. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I was going to ask you, where is the primary entry into this? MR. KELLY: The primary entry to the tasting room is on the north end of the building. MEMBER DINIZIO: Then there is 3 gates on that patio? There is one on the east side -- MR. KELLY: Correct. The east side would be the primary gate. Comes in off of the parking. June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: very small -- MR. KELLY: That is The dark entry with the handicap entry, and office area. It is required by ADA, and the access to the patio area would also be handicap accessible also. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right. George, do you have any questions? MEMBER HORNING: I believe you guys have covered it all pretty well. I know on the one form, let me find that. On your questionnaire, Question A: "Is the subject premises listed on the real estate market for sale?" And someone said, "yes." That is not true -- MS. WICKHAM: No, that is no -- MEMBER HORNING: Do you see that? MS. WICKHB/~: I will not listed for the record. amend that then. MEMBER HORNING: questionnaire from the ZBA. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: "no." That is all we care more? find that. And it is I would like to That is the standard So the answer is, about. George, anything MEMBER HORNING: When the building was June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 originally built, setback? MR. KELLY: MS. WICKHAM: setback. MEMBER HORNING: it had a conforming Yes. It still has a conforming Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEIS~N: MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No, CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken? I am fine. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address this application? Please come to the podium and state your name for the record, and spell it? MS. CORSO-PJ~YNOR: Good morning. My name is Monica Corso-Raynor and my family and I own the property directly across the proposed tasting room. First that we are small business Southold Town (in audible). street from the I would like to say owners ourselves in the Mr. Lieb (in audible) however, the area that he is proposing, we object to, because it is a highly zoned residential area. I am there every day with my daughter. I walk her up and down Oregon Road. Along with 20 or 30 other moms. I see people run and jog up that road. It's a recommended bicycle path, as recommended on the Town of Southold website. We also know that June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 52 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Oregon Road is a unique and prestigious (in audible) with open space and farmland and unfortunately the new entrance to the town waste facility has caused much of the traffic to come onto Oregon Road as well. You can see a big impact there. This proposed tasting room concerned us because of the unnecessary traffic that it will bring to Oregon Road, as well as the possible noise. Also, we understand that the Lieb's already have a tasting room. So we don't see the need for another one there. So unfortunately, as the property owners there, we are going to have to object to the tasting rooms location. Thank yOU. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to comment on this application? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there any other comments from the Board? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you want us to close this hearing and proceed on what is before us? MS. WICKHAM: Yes and no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Why did I know you were going to say that. MS. WICKHA~M: First of all, what I would like to do is remind the Board that there are many small wineries on small roads that are not nuisances to their neighbors. And we certainly hope that Ms. Corso and her family will not see that this one is such a nuisance. And the second thing I would like to do, if the Board is prepared otherwise to make a decision on this application, we would ask that we be allowed to withdraw our request for a reversal on the major road issue without prejudice. So that we've allowed to bring that up at a future time and won't be precluded from doing that. MS. ANDALORO: You haven't even applied for it. MS. WICKH~/~: Well, I think when you were out of the room, I asked that the application be deemed amended but I would like to withdraw that request without prejudice. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think that is probably the smartest way to proceed if you want to expedite this application, otherwise, we would have to adjourn to another date and have 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals to issue another Notice of Disapproval and so On. MS. WICKHAM: Okay. Mr. Lieb would like me to do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Hearing no further questions or comments, I will make a motion to close the public hearing and reserve decision to a later date. 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 #6474 - ALAN AND PATRICIA NORDEN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application before us is for Alan and Patricia Norden, #6474. Request for variance from Article XXIII Code Section 280-122 and the Building Inspector's March 24, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to construct a 3'x12' second floor addition to a single family; 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 1) pursuant to Walz (#5039) such addition will constitute an increase in nonconformance, 2) front yard setback of less than the code required 35 feet; at 2395 King Street, Orient. MR. UELLENDAHL: Good afternoon. My name is Frank Uellendahl. I am here on behalf of the Norden's. And I am here to answer any questions. Obviously this is a small project for them, but it's a very big deal. We would like to create a window seat in the small bedroom on the second floor, which would be hovering on the part of the front porch, and would allow them also to open the view to the bay facing south. The reason why I am here, is obviously, the existing structure is partially located in the an old farm building. I modest addition. We may have porch ceiling to support window seat, or addition. 35 foot front yard. It's think it's a relative to reinforce the the front, you know, the And by the way, it's not going to be 3x12 feet. When I continued to work on the plans, it has to be smaller. It has to be 8 1/2 feet. Other words -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So it's 3x87 MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes. If you look at the plan that I attached, it's 3.4 x 8.6. 55 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: window? MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: principle setback of 24 MR. UELLENDAHL: Basically a bay It's not changing the feet? That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just want sure you have a copy of this. This is a to make letter of local determination and a letter from the neighbor indicating no objection. MR. UELLENDAHL: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If you would like to have it for your clients records. Also, we are missing two green cards? MR. UELLENDAHL: (In audible) from a couple -- and she lives in California. (Stepped away from microphone.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim? Okay. Any questions, MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are there any other windows configurations that you are anticipating? MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes, my clients would like 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals to replace the casements and they are going to replace them with Shutter Home Windows as well. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is that going to be that going to wrap around? That is going to wrap facing the road or is MR. UELLENDAHL: around. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Could you just tell us where they are going to be? MR. UELLENDAHL: So these would be -- if you look at the elevations, five windows on this side. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And there would be no change in size of the window? MR. UELLENDAHL: No. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You are just replacing them? MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George? MEMBER HORNING: Can you point out the distance from the bulkhead -- MR. UELLENDAHL: MEMBER HORNING: CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There is no bulkhead. Wrong one. Ken, any 57 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals questions? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience, that would like to address this application? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George, any questions? MEMBER HORNING: No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no further questions or comments, I will make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by Gerry. All in favor? MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) HEARING #6477 - GEORGE AND JUDITH FLAIG CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application 58 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals is for George and Judith Flaig, No. 6477. Applicant requests a special exception under Article III, Section 280-13B(13). The applicant is the owner requesting authorization to establish an accessory apartment in an accessory structure at; 2740 Mill Road, Mattituck. Good morning. State your name for the record? MR. FLAIG: George Flaig, 2740 Mill Road, Mattituck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. We are getting the green cards sorting out. MR. FLAIG: This is my first time before the Board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Don't worry about it. It's not that painful. I just want you to be aware that the Board needs to know, we have a letter from your neighbors that they are not objecting. MS. FLAIG: Hi, how are you? My name is Judith Flaig. It's Mary DeMeco and she was away on vacation. We spoke to her on two occasions. She never received the application, so she signed that paper saying that she has no objections. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Very good. 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 L3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals Lets just start out with this. You have a Certificate of Occupancy? MS. FLAIG: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: A number of us visited the site and made an inspection of the interior. The square footages are confirmed, that 685 square feet. MR. FLAIG: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Building Department has to review all these -- not just yours, any of them, and then they confirm the square footage. You gave us a drawing calculating it. And for the record, we do have a form from the Building Inspector. He is essentially confirming the livable floor area. Plus or minus, 741 square feet, which is still conforming to the code. So you are okay with that. What else would you like to tell us? MR. FLAIG: I am only here because -- I think you have the thing from Mattituck School District, we have two grand children living with us. It's an ongoing thing with the divorce. The divorce is finally in progress now. She has been abused for 14 years. We want to keep the children in the school district. The apartment has been up 6o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals there vacant for on and off years. It has never been rented. It is strictly a family thing. It started a thing of raising African parrots and horses down below. My daughter was staying over there with cameras to watch the horses. The (in audible) for the mascot. The (in audible) got crushed in the (in audible) I can stand here all day and tell you about situations that went on in that building with animals. My daughter was an animal lover. It was used for storage after she moved out and got married. That was probably used for storage for six or seven years. I don't know what else to say. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We will ask you some questions. You have the CO. The Building Department has confirmed the square footages. You have three available spaces to park? MR. FLAIG: Yes, there are two at the site. Two at the barn and two at the main house. You can probably fit 30 cars. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim, do you have any questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: I was going to go through the 12 steps but I think he has done it. I want to make sure, the building we are looking at is 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals either 22614 or 22615. a barn, Can you tell me which one the other one is a storage, it is? One is CO? MR. FLAIG: I want to say that -- let me look. There is a CO for the shed also. I can point it out on the survey, if you want. MEMBER DINIZIO: So that was issued in '93? MR. FLAIG: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: Square footage we covered with the Building Inspector. I have no further questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to say this, of all the inspections that I have ever done over the last 31 years, this is probably (in audible) impression to show every possible element in the building and I appreciate that. MR. FLAIG: Thank you. It was more than George? I found the same For the record, the the MEMBER GOEHRINGER: gracious. Beyond. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: MEMBER HORNING: hospitality yesterday. apartment is on the second floor of building? 62 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. FLAIG: Yes, it is. MEMBER HORNING: And on the first floor, is used for storage and the horses and -- MR. FLAIG: There are three tractors. an antique tractor collector. There is one antique and there are two that we use on the itself. MEMBER HORNING: is on the second floor MR. FLAIG: Yes. So the accessory apartment only -- application? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no further comments, I will make a motion to close the public hearing and reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? it I am field MEMBER HORNING: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There is only one bathroom? MR. FLAIG: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address 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 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 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 recess for about two or three motion for a minutes. Is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (Whereupon, a short recess was taken.) HEARING #6476 - BEE-HIVE DEVELOPMENT CORP. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application is for Bee-Hive Development Corporation, #6476. Which is a request for variances under Sections 280-124 and 280-116, based on the Building 64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals Inspector's March 21, 2011 Notice of Disapproval concerning an application for construction of a new single family dwelling at; 1) less than the code required front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) less than the code required minimum of 75 feet from the bulkhead, at; 400 Old Cove Boulevard also Beverly Road. Adjacent to Arshamomaque Pond, aka Mill Creek in Southold. Would you like to please state your name for the record? MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of Bee-Hive Development Corp. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Do you have a copy of the LWRP? MS. MESIANO: Yes, I received that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And local determination. Okay. Go ahead. MS. MESIANO: We are proposing to construct a single family dwelling on this vacant lot. The setbacks we have been able to propose are 14 feet to the pavement and 15 feet to the edge of the described right-of-way, known as Beverly Road and 35 feet to the adjoining property line. be easterly side of that right-of-way. wetlands setback is proposed of a minimum That would Our 45 feet. 65 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 The site plan that we developed evolved by applying the required setbacks by all agencies. Placing the septic system in a location that would be conforming with the Health Department regulations and what was left, was the small area where the house was shown. We were able to maintain the side yard setbacks and setback to the water front is equal to or greater than all of the water front lots in the neighborhood. I have provided the Board with a map by our surveyor that demonstrates the front yard setbacks and the setbacks to the seawall or bulkheading on all of the properties in the area. And with respect to the setback to the bulkhead or seawall, R458XC, all of the others, which range from 20 to 30 feet are some setback is consistent with the neighboring property. And I would like to mention also that I got a variance on the neighboring property a year or so ago. And I would like to give the Board copies that pertain to that property. The first variance was granted in 1973. That was No. 1872, and that variance granted 15 feet from Beverly Road. 10 feet from the northerly line, 10 feet from the northeast property line and no closer than 20 feet to the westerly and no 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals closer than 25 to the southerly. That variance established the existing setbacks on the neighborly property. as-built conditions as requested. So I Then last year we had two and that variance was granted would like to give you these decisions, which I think are pertinent to this application because all of the reasons -- the area variance reasons are addressed in the decisions and the application is really no different then the applications submitted earlier. Does the Board have any questions? MEMBER HORNING: I have one. These are two different properties? MS. MESIANO: Two different properties. MEMBER HORNING: And can you identify those on your map that you have provided. MS. MESIANO: is behind. MEMBER HORNING: two variances -- MS. MESIANO: parcel. MEMBER HORNING: same property, okay. MS. This was my earlier, and this And remember you just said Two variances for this for the Oh, two variances Got it. MESIANO: Essentially I am not asking 67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [3 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals for anything that the Board has not granted in the immediate area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I would like you to address some comments from the LWRP. MS. MESIANO: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Particular interest to the request to show storm water (in audible) mitigate surface flow to Arshamomaque Pond and propose buffers to further mitigate it and improving the parcel. location of hay bales, to Typically there would be construction. There would be establishment of a landscaped buffer. What LWRP coordinator was suggesting was that that buffer be established because you are basically -- we are in flood zone. MS. MESIANO: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: To achieve 95% ground covering of trees and installation. And we require a storm water prevention plan pursuant to Chapter 236 -- MS. MESIANO: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And finally, a (in audible) shown on the survey is 3 three years and there is a recommendation by the Board that we verify the accuracy of the depth to the 68 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 groundwater (in audible). MS. MESIANO: Okay. I will address those. I will try and do that in order. I would like to delegate if you will, the Trustees, the oversight of the buffers and the storm water management issues because those are all setback issues that the Board of Trustees will look at very carefully. I have not gone to them yet, because you come here or you go there. It's like where do you start? Things are going to have to be amended. My intention is to submit an application to that Board, as soon as I am done with this Board. So I would like to acknowledge and understand that these things need to be addressed and they will be addressed. And I would like to take it up more specifically with the Trustees. I believe they get more involved with that then this Board has historically. And the gutters, leaders, drainage, etcetera, same comments. With respect to the (in audible), again, we will be dealing with the Health Department. I have not yet submitted to them either. I will be submitting an application to the Health Department, and as you know, they have jurisdiction over those matters and we would be fully compliant with their reservations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Jim, do you have any questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just don't know how we can make a determination without all these answers made. The LWRP always used by both agencies. I can not understand why you didn't make an application with the Trustees concurrently. That is my understanding. MS. MESIANO: The reason why I didn't, it is within my experience for the last 20 years or so that often there would be a conflict between agencies. And in my practice, anyway, I try to deal with one agency because what we are doing with you is, the general concept of these two setbacks. And just -- just from the perspective of the setbacks. So I come to this agency, you, asking for permission to exceed the required setbacks, which I feel is a more isolated issue then a larger issue because then we get the vegetation will this Board goes out years that the Trustees deal with into species and then how long live, and I don't think that an inspects vegetation in two to see if it is viable, but the Trustees 70 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 71 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 are more aware and -- I wouldn't use the word diligent but more aware -- I will just stick with the word aware, of those factors. I find it difficult to go to the Trustees and have a permit and have a permit expiring, while we are trying to work through this process. This Board generally doesn't have an expiration date. The Trustees have an expiration date. I've run into problems with that. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This Board has had to Department approval? MS. MESIANO: I don't. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I can't understand why we would even proceed without Health Department approval, with this application. MS. MESIANO: Well, I can't get Health Department approval because Health Department approval; requires that I submit my wetlands permit to them for their issuance of a permit. And I can not get the wetlands permit and I wouldn't go to that extreme because in the first instance, hire consultants to do dive studies. MS. MESIANO: I understand. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The question that I have, you elude to that you don't have Health 72 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 I don't know if the Board is going to agree what I am asking for, or if I have to modify the plans based on this Board's decision. Then I have to go back and modify the DEC, the Trustees and then the Health Department again. And then it gets to be a cumulative route with no way out. So I start with this Board because once I have established my setback, I have found that I have a better chance of holding those setbacks through the rest of the process. It's just been a process that has evolved over the course of my experience. And since I can't get a Health Department approval without those other permits and I can't get those other permits without knowing for sure where I may put the house, because your jurisdictions help me where I may put the house, in the first instance. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: First of all we are with the concept, we assume, that this is a legal lot. MS. MESIANO: I have demonstrated that in the past. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, you have made that determination. MS. MESIANO: Right. June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The question is, what is this Board willing to grant in reference to setbacks? That is the answer that you are asking for. MS. MESIANO: Correct. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: this Board would have with and I am speaking for myself, and not necessarily So the only avenue that this particular case, It would be subject to Health Department approval. Subject to Trustees approval. Subject to DEC approval and any other approval that would be required for building of this premises; is that correct? MS. MESIANO: I don't have a problem with that concept. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Because if we do that -- MS. MESIANO: If you grant an approval for what I am asking for and another Board does not, I am still in the same position. I don't have a building permit because the building permit is predicated on my obtaining all of the applications for the Board, that it would be subject to this decision, if you so wanted us to do so, and if this Board was so interested in granting, okay. June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 that went before. So your approval would essentially be moot because all of the pieces falling into place don't have an avenue to get into the Building Department. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am sure you are aware, includes conditions in these decisions -- MS. MESIANO: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: in their decision. MS. MESIANO: Right. To address the LWRP I fully expected that you would make that a condition of your decision because the LWRP brought it up but it has been my experience in the past that they are more finite definitive portions, of that formulation, of that plans generally comes through a more scientific Board. Not more important or anything else, just that deem an environmental Board should be more in tuned to the scientific aspects of the application. Whereas, your Board should be more in tuned to the legal and code matters that we are giving you. t fully expect their to be conditions. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I rarely ever bring this up, Ms. Mesiano, I am looking at the word, E, June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [3 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 5 where you have the entire septic system. I am looking at a round structure and 10 feet from that structure. I don't know what that is but I have never seen a septic tank expressed in that manner. So I mean, in general, if we are talking about a 900,000 gallon septic tank, you can't fit it in there. MS. MESIANO: It's 1,250. You said, 900,000. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I meant 9,000. Whatever it is, if it's 12, 14. MS. MESIANO: Let me clarify then. I am sure you have looked at more surveys then I have in your experience and your career, and I know I have looked at a lot. The design of the septic system is a typical design and the way it is represented is typical for the industry, being the surveyors. Where LP, is known to be a leaching pool and E represents and expansion pool, which is a proposed pool in the event that some point in the future a great capacity is needed, for whatever reason, they demonstrate -- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand that, but where is the septic tank? MS. MESIANO: The septic tank is the circle 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 L3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals with two smaller circles in it. That is south westerly from the -- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So that is more than 10 feet from the structure? MS. MESIANO: Yes, that is more than 10 feet from the structure. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the septic can be moved more west -- MS. MESIANO: No. The expansion tank is what prevents us from moving in any direction. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Cathy, what I am saying to you is, if you don't have Health Department approval, it is very, very difficult to determine where this structure can be placed. In my opinion, my decision, in a quandary. Because if they said you don't need an expansion pool -- MS. MESIANO: They won't say that. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How do you know that? MS. MESIANO: Because the Health Department regulations require that an expansion be mounted, 50% I believe it is, and be accounted for in the initial design work. So we have leaching pools, we have 6. We have 3 leaching pools proposed. We have tried all of the setbacks that the Health Department would require in establishing, what I 76 77 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 am informally referring to the septic field. Once we -- once we determine what that field is -- now the overriding measurement that is a greatest issue, then is the distance And we are holding that 100 nearest leaching pool. So that is the most -- looking at a public health perspective, the distance from the septic system to the surface from the bulkhead. foot setback from the from waters. We have drawn a 100 foot and then we have applied our And then we have applied our setback first, lot line setbacks. required setback to the structure. So often for clients, I will color my survey, and say this is our required setback from the water. This is a 100 feet. We have to hold this much from this lot line. This much from the next lot line. This is the other area that we can't use. Now we have to be 10 feet off of the house. We draw the next line. That ends up showing you an area within which the septic system can legally be placed. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand that. You have water based on this drawing. Water and mixed sand. MS. MESIANO: Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The last one that we 78 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 ~3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 5 had with water and mixed sand and 5 feet was required to take the entire front yard, okay, into a bag system. Okay. Which may again, with the elimination of that e-pool, a better setback. So my point in question is, I don't know how we can proceed without Health Department approval first? MS. MESIANO: Well, my question to you is, why are you concerned with that setback from the (in audible) property because that is a conforming setback? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am only concerned about whatever type of building that can be built. The actual setback may be increased in some areas and decreased in some areas. Okay, because we want to grant the minimum amount of variance. That is all I am saying. Okay. If we had Health Department approval and we had the green stamp, we would be able to know exactly what we could do in reference to any changes on this house. We are bound, this is my opinion, into a bound example of a home which (in audible) in this footprint. You got no approvals for anybody. MS. MESIANO: I MEMBER GOEHRINGER: have to start somewhere. Why not start with the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1t 12 [3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Health MEMBER HORNING: setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: what you are saying, MS. MESIANO: in that position where June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals Department first? I have a question on a I understand exactly Gerry. I do too, because I have been I have taken it as far as I can with other agencies and then come to this Board and then it is back to the drawing board, because everything is off. So it is of my experience to find out what I then take what I can do and appeal for that, the other agencies. time and your time, amendments. just a matter can do and from I don't like to waste my in coming back with CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me just ask for record, have you in the past or is it possible the in your opinion, to get Health Department approval when a variance is required? MS. MESIANO: No, if you answer a question, is a variance required? They are going to want to see -- if you answer the questionl, "Are wetland permits required?" And you answer that "yes," they want to see it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So it is reasonable 79 8O June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 for you to be here in order to go there? MS. MESIANO: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: I understand Gerry's argument, but there is nothing to say that you have to have a house with have to say that you have have to grant that -- four bedrooms. You don't a 45 foot setback and we MS. MEStANO: I have never -- MEMBER DINIZIO: I understand. We are talking about a lot of variables here and I have never heard you once say that you can make the house smaller. MS. MESIANO: We haven't even gotten there yet. MEMBER DINIZIO: What I am saying is that we can't make the house smaller by granting it. We have the power to do whatever we feel will be helpful for the Town. MS. MESIANO: Right. MEMBER DINIZIO: And conducive, which is what we have done before. I believe the variance is first. I don't know how you can make a decision on anything, if you don't know where you can place the house first. I am assuming that the Health Department is going to look at this first. June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You know what we are just realizing, this survey, here -- MS. MESIANO: What CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: survey is showing a 45 foot bulkhead at the nearest point. MS. MESIANO: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Disapproval says 35. MEMBER HORNING: is the date on it? April 23rd. This setback with the Well the Notice of That was my question. MS. MESIANO: I had that question too. I posed it to the Building Department and never got an answer. MS. ANDALORO: Your upper deck has I can give you an answer. that corner. The closest point from there, survey. MS. MESIANO: Okay there that I submitted to you. that bulkhead, we need to show on a are two surveys MS. ANDALORO: We have the incorrect one. MS. MESIANO: The Building Department said 35 feet and I asked them where they got 35 feet from? I never got a response. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So the one that we have that shows 45 -- 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~3 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 house. June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals MS. MESIANO: That is to the corners of the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right. MS. MESIANO: And I relied on those numbers, because that is typically how the surveyor measures setbacks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's not the closest point. They looked at it and said the closest point was 35. MS. MESIANO: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It doesn't make the survey incorrect. MS. MESIANO: I didn't get any response, and I didn't want to make any assumptions. I didn't make a site plan based on my assumptions. I based it on the verbiage of the disapproval, but I gave you what I gave the building permit. Further amended in April because we had not given you lot coverage. So I had them add that to it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: On the survey? MS. MESIANO: Yes. There is a survey dated February 24th and then there is a survey dated April something that I also submitted to the Board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have one dated 82 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals February 24th and one dated April -- MS. MESIANO: Yes. Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken, do you have any questions? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes, I do. What is the significance of a 15 foot setback as opposed to a 20 foot setback? MS. WICKHAM: Basically Beverly Road is a right-of-way. It is paved to some extent but not fully. And then setback from Beverly Road, we set it up to be equal to the setback of the house to the south. We pushed it closest to the road, to greatest setback from the bulkhead. get the Because it was one of those situations, which way do you push it? Since there is no traffic, it's a big driveway that goes to the 85 property. We have of Old Cove Road, Beverly Road driveway. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: to Beverly Road to show our driveway coming off so it is to eliminate the the proposed house? MS. MESIANO: is 10. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: some (in audible). Your finished elevation The finished floor elevation So you would require 83 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals MS. MESIANO: Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No further questions this point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Does have any other questions? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone the audience that would like to address this application? (No Response.) (In audible.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no further comments, I will make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: at the Board in Second. Seconded by Gerry. Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. I am going to make hearing. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. a motion to reopen this 84 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. Okay. We are going to now close this hearing now subject to receipt of the survey showing the 35 foot setback. MS. MESIANO: I will get that right now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of the corrected MEMBER GOEHRINGER: CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: survey. Second. Seconded by Gerry. Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) HEARING %6473 - GEORGE D. AND MARIA KOFINAS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our next application 85 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 before the Board is for George D., and Maria Kofinas Case #6473. "Request for variance under Section 280-116, based on the Building Inspector's February 17, 2011 Notice of Disapproval concerning an application to rebuild a preexisting accessory bath house with deck, which proposed construction will be: 1) less than the code required setback of 75 feet from the bulkhead; location: 552 East Road (adjacent to Cutchogue Harbor (Great Peconic Bay)) Cutchogue. MS. WICKHAM: Good afternoon, Abigail Wickham. I am representing the Kofinas, Mr. And Mrs., in this matter. Mrs. Kofinas is here with me just in case you have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Before you proceed, do you have a copy of the LWRP? MS. WICKHAM: No, can I have that, please? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. Okay. MS. WICKHAM: We are here today because the Kofinas were the victims unfortunately, an act of vandalism several years ago, house that many years, believe were done by a were hanging out there, where their bath had been part of the property for many, was destroyed by arson, by which they couple of local kids that that shouldn't have been 87 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 and managed to unfortunately burn the place down. And this application is basically addressing that they be allowed to rebuild that structure in exactly the same place, exactly the same configuration but because of where it is located, we would run a foul of the 75 foot setback restrictions from the bulkhead, where there is not a preexisting facility and the -- the difficulty in addition to everything that I have said in the application, I don't need to repeat myself is, at their property, it does have a very large bluff and a long set of stairs and the bath house has been historically has been used for -- and they would like to be able to continue to use it for, not only changing on the beach, but for storing beach chairs and kayaks and small water toys. So that they don't have to hall them up and down the beach. So that they don't have to leave them exposed behind the bulkhead where they can be blown away, knocked around or stolen. So it would be somewhat unsitely then it being in a small structure. The structure is not unlike a number of structures in the area. I have given the Board some of them. There are also several others as you go to the south towards New Suffolk. There is June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 88 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 some along that shore. One of which belongs to my parents. It is just full of stuff that is very easy to have your things down there then have it running all over the beach and having it subject to weather and people going by. One thing that I find, there is puzzling about the code is that Section 280-122, (in audible) states in Section A, and it's entitled, "Nonconforming building with conforming uses," which is what we have here. It says very simply, nothing in this -- and I am excerpting the ones that don't apply. "Nothing in this article prevents the reconstruction of a nonconforming building containing conforming use. Provided there is no increase in the conformity or in the intensity of it to increase the degree of nonconformity." What the Kofinas' are proposing is to put the exact same usage, difference same in the exact I can see, bit of architectural prone to do sometime, structure down, exact same location. The only is that there was a little licenses, as architects are they did change the design of the roof area to make it a different type of roof then the original structure. Again, if that is something that the Board doesn't like for whatever reason, they could go back. I believe June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 89 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 5 originally it was a flat roof. One reason that I think they prefer not to do that is, they don't want water back to the toe of the bluff and it might not be as safe as maintaining the integrity of the bluff and more even pitched roof that would disburse the water to the ground. And I suppose beyond that, they could put in a catch basin, that would contain water run-off. The only other changes they would like to add is electricity, so that they can have a security system. So that, if there is further tampering with the building, there would be some manner of alerting it. It's not something that they have to have. It is something that they would like to have. There will absolutely be no plumbing in the building. There will be no window. There weren't windows before. There will be a door. Not unlike what it was before and they would probably maintain the three partition like in which that was there previously, but it would allow them to store their beach related things inside. I think that when you read 280-122, I think that that should not have to do anything more reconstruct it exactly as it was, should be allowed. I don't think says they than and that they that it gets 90 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 into Section B, anything of that nature. get into 75 feet. That with the 50% or the 1 year or And I don't think you is something that the Board can consider and however you want to address this variance. If you want to give us a variance for it from the 75 feet, we would ask that you do that simply because there is no more room down there to be any further back, and we would also ask that you consider exempting this structure from the reading under 280-122A. And I do want to say and I eluded to this in my application, this is kind of a character building -- character type of building for Peconic Bay. When people have their homes, they often put a bath house right there down on the beach, so that it would be there and it would be accessible. the days of swimming pools, bathed. You know back before people actually You know they went down and they spent the day at the beach. A lot of people still do and when you do that, you want to have the ability to have things contained in small building in order to prevent the problems that I mentioned before. I don't know if the Board has any particular questions that they would like to address, in terms of other approvals that would be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals necessary, the DEC permit is in place, and you have a copy of that. The Town Trustees entertained this application and it's kind of like the back and forth that we had at the previous hearing to this. They were not in a position to grant the permit because they felt that the Zoning Board of Appeals had to act first in order to ascertain the applicants (in audible) under the first place. We will have to go back to the Trustees and seek their approval because of the wetlands. There will be no Health Department because there is no plumbing. Once we get through this Board and the Trustees, we will go back to the Building Department. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you address the circumstances whereby historically when a conforming use is a nonconforming building, once that building is destroyed it loses it's preexisting nonconforming status. (In audible) whether it's on the beach or any other place, it's gone, it's gone. It's unfortunate that it was an act of vandalism and arson but the fact is, it's gone, and it has been for a number of years. When was it actually burnt down? Do you know what year? 91 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 MS. WICKHAM: It was in the mid 2000's, 2007. 2006 or 2007. And it took a while to get the DEC permit. They have been actively working on it. To answer your question, nothing in this article prevents this reconstruction. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Reconstruction is -- the definitions in the code now, as to what is a reconstruction? What is a demolition? Reconstruction usually is (in audible) in the same existing building. there. Not one that has -- is not MS. WICKHAM: I don't -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This building is proposed at 12'6 high and 31.2 feet in length on a bulkhead, which needs to be rebuilt. It's charred. How high is the bulkhead from the beach, 1 to 2 feet? So what we are looking here is the reconstruction of a building that is virtually on the beach. MS. WICKHAM: where they are. That is correct. That is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: A nonconforming building. Most of us walked up and down that beach because it was a lot easier to see what you were proposing there. It's a very beautiful piece 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 L3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals of property. It's quite high up and having looked at it from both directions, I was kindly shown into the property by the caretaker and the only possible way to go part way down that bluff because there is a gate that was locked. Moreover, the stairs that are there now that go down to the beach are really covered over with vegetation. So that needs to be cleared. It's pretty heavily vegetated. Just to get down from the beach, you would have to clear that off and that is a Trustees matter. MS. WICKHAM: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We need to really explore what the hardening of the shore line is, you know walking up and down that beach, there are a nunlber of bulkheads that exist at various heights. Most of them are not as nearly low to the ground as the applicants. MS. WICKHAM: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They are a little bit higher. I also observed a number of -- I didn't see any structures other then deck structures. I didn't see any buildings. I did see some step downs, I did see some decking. Some bulkheading. And I saw a couple of canoes that were just 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 _3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals thrown to the side and the vegetation and so And you know, people sitting on the beach. on. were just essentially So I would like to hear why, since there is no building there to rebuild and I do understand the lost to the property owner and it was not their fault. I need to understand why, as well as the Board, is why you are building a structure on the beach on (in audible). MS. WICKHA/~: top of a Because, first of all, just addressing the bulkhead. The top piece of it is charred but it is structurally in tact and again, if there is any issue there, it would have to be addressed with the Trustees, as well if there is to be any repairs, we would be happy to do that but in answer to your specific question, why would you allow it to be built? Because it is a historical part of the property. Historical part of Peconic Bay and because there are several other structures in the immediate vicinity of property that are like it. pictures of them. To your this And I just saw -- in the application, there is one actually on the beginning part (in audible), which is just about as low as this one. There is one slightly to the north. (In audible) 94 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals (Stepped away from microphone.) MS. WICKHAiM: Proceeding to the west of the property, there appears to be what looks like a fairly new constructed bulkhead. That structure has been there for many, many years. MEMBER HORNING: Are these the photos? MS. WICKHAM: Yes. (Stepped away from microphone.) MS. WICKHAM: It's practically a small house and I think there was another one further down. In this little horseshoe area, there is like 8 of them. There is really no reason why this should not be allowed to be reconstructed. MEMBER HORNING: Would you say it's one of the largest one in the neighborhoods by judging what looks like on the pictures? MS. WICKHAM: I don't think so. I am not sure if that is relevant but it does seem to be -- it's bigger than the two over on Fisher's Beach, but I don't think that it is bigger than that one down the beach. longer. It might be a little bit MEMBER HORNING: Can I ask you a question about the Board of Trustees? MS. WICKHAM: Yes, go ahead. 95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals MEMBER HORNING: Unless you have more pictures that you would like to provide? MS. WICKHAM: Well, I do have these. (Stepped away from the microphone.) MS. WICKHAM: These pictures belong to a Ms. Ali, and she is a lovely lady and she lives next door. And I called her yesterday just to make sure that she knew about the hearing and she said she certainly hopes that your Board would approve this building, because it is a part of their life and their background. And she thinks that it adds value to her property and she has absolutely no problem with it. I haven't heard from any other neighbors. We had discussed, if the Board is concerned with the length of the structure, reducing the size of it. The depth is pretty small to begin with. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: (In audible) you are not building any retainers? MS. WICKHAM: Right. From where the bulkhead starts to where the bottom of the bluff is, this structure is 8.1 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: MS. WICKHAM: It is well vegetated and stable, It's quite shallow? quite shallow. It is fortunately. And it 96 97 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 has been like that for many, many years. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gail, can you provide the pictures that you have just shown, could you provide the tax lot numbers so that we can pinpoint a little more where exactly the structures are located? MS. WICKHAM: I am sorry, I thought I had done that. I will definitely then apply that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If you are addressing character of the neighborhood and it is part of your variance application, then I want to see examples of what neighborhoods are in -- MEMBER HORNING: I agree with you. I was there yesterday and I didn't see structures there, walking up and down on that? MEMBER DINIZIO: May I comment on that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Please. MEMBER DINIZIO: Character of the neighborhood is residential. If you are -- her argument is character of the neighborhood is of nonconforming structures, it's not (in audible) that no longer exists, to my mind, it's less that argument. And I think that is where we are now. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are you referring to the nonconforming in reference to location? June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 98 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MEMBER DINIZIO: They are nonconforming, yeah, the setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right. I just want to know where those are from? MS. WICKHAM: I will submit those in writing. For now, the property that we are dealing with is right here and this is the shore line. (In audible). (Stepped away from microphone.) MS. WICKHAM: The structures are -- three of them are right here. There is one right over here and one right here. And there are others that I have not shown you that are right here. MEMBER DINIZIO: You are just going to give us a map -- MS. WICKHAM: Sure. I just wanted you to know that most of them are right here. There are two that maybe you might have not noticed, but are right here. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: question about size? MS. spoken to slightly, generated a I just want to ask a WICKHAM: My comment was that we have the Kofinas' where they would reduce it the size of the bath house and that little discussion but in short of it, June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 they would. If you wanted to shorten the length of it. The depth of it, 8 feet, I don't know if you want to make it much smaller than that. It's pretty tiny. To contain it slightly, maybe down to 25 feet, that willing to do. MEMBER HORNING: is something that they would be I have a couple of questions. In relation to the wooden steps leading down to the shore line, which are kind of covered over, if they were in need of being replaced, would you need a permit for that? MS. WICKHAM: I would think -- I am a little confused by that comment there, I didn't notice that. we had everything go crazy, because when I was In the string when and I will certainly talk to Mr. Lake, because that certainly would be his job to keep them clear. But when I looked at it and I was down there several times since last Fall and last Winter, it appeared to be in good shape and definitely passable, except for the gate. They have a gate there so that kids don't run up and down and hurt themselves. MEMBER HORNING: And there is no intent to rebuild them or anything like that? MS. WICKHAM: No, they are fine. I am June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 sorry, I have a bad cough. The steps are to remain as they are, subject to normal repair. MEMBER HORNING: I wanted to ask about your statement regarding the Board of Trustees. In your attachment signed by you, you have -- you say these two sentences. "The project has a DEC permit. See copy attached. The Trustees denied the application without prejudice not for environmental reasons because they felt the Town Code would not allow the structure without a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals." Yet I read the Town of Trustees memorandum, with their denial and I don't see any reference at all considering that they are denying because of the fact that you need a variance. Now, I am curious as to why you interpret the Trustees denial in such a fashion? MS. WICKHAM: Because I did not conduct the Trustees hearing. I had not been retained at that point. I have been advised that that was discussion at the Trustees hearing and that was their concern. That it wasn't going to be allowed to be rebuilt because 75 foot rule. So they didn't see any point in (in audible) it. That is what I was given based on the discussion at the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 _3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals hearing. That is correct that the Trustees decision doesn't go that much into detail. MEMBER HORNING: Well they do say this, for example, "whereas the Board has determined that the structures as applied for will have a detrimental affect upon the health, safety and general welfare of people of the Town." say -- MS. WICKHAM: say, whereas the Zoning Board of Appeals hasn't granted you a variance -- MS. WICKHAM: That is such general language. I don't even know what that means. can say it has a detrimental affect because doesn't have 75 feet from the bulkhead line, Then they I am not sure why -- MEMBER HORNING: Then they say that is why that is what they have in writing. They don't You it which someone in the Town has decided, it is necessary to avoid a detrimental affect to the Town. I don't think that they address anything specifically environmentally and I am told at hearing, they did not. MEMBER HORNING: And you haven't produced any transcripts to substantiate any of that -- the lol June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 102 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MS. WICKHAM: the Trustees. that No, we have to go back to MEMBER HORNING: I just found it curious you would make a statement -- MS. WICKHAM: That statement was based on what I was advised on what occurred. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We can figure this out very easily because we have transcripts of should all probably that public hearing, and we get a copy of that. MEMBER DINIZlO: Can I just comment on what you said about the 75 foot rule? That rule was based on what is not to be detrimental -- MS. WICKHAM: I understand. MEMBER DINIZIO: That is the reason why this building is nonconforming -- MS. WICKHA/~: I understand. MEMBER DINIZIO: And if you tie all the steps together, nonconforming structures are not allowed in the Town. MS. WICKHAM: If we had 75 feet, we could build a whole house. MEMBER DINIZIO: You do have 75 feet. You have to go above the bluff. You wouldn't be on the beach anymore. June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 103 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 L3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MS. correct. And that is why very difficult in getting that WICKHA/~: Right. That is exactly I made the point, it is stuff up and down and is why people have bath houses. MEMBER DINIZIO: Again, if you are building brand new, bath house. MS. WICKHAM: You can't I don't think that you couldn't have a anymore, no. But historically, that is why they did it. MEMBER DINIZIO: It seems like a time. You can throw stuff in there and have to carry it down. But unfortunately, everybody has to live by the part of it. and that is not think -- MS. WICKHAM: nice you don't codes that are today It is kind of sad, I see or what he wanted. to pursue a structure It wasn't like you couldn't This is -- if you are going and reconfigure -- I think it's unfair and I think it's uncalled for. MEMBER DINIZIO: But we are making decisions based on that. I can tell you, we just went through a hearing that had a deck, and he had to go through the same things that you are growing through but his existed. This was still there. 104 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [3 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 MS. WICKHAM: Reconstruction. MEMBER DINIZIO: If you are going to pursue that paragraph, which we see all the time as reasons for denial, I would love for you to explain that to me and I believe it goes as to what exactly a CO is. If the CO is for a building that exist and when that building no loner exists, then that CO no longer exists, because that is what I believe we have always had the discussion on -- says. MS. WICKHA/~: I don't see where that MEMBER DINIZIO: showing me that. I see it in our code. I don't see that building has been altered in any way, that you hold in your hand a year ago I would appreciate you would love to see it. I don't once the that the CO is any good. here, MS. WICKHAM: first of all. MEMBER DINIZIO: We are not talking about CO's Yes, you are -- MS. WICKHAM: First of all, I don't think there is anything in the code that says other then you can reconstruct it, if it's not going to be significantly increased. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 L3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, MEMBER DINIZIO: reconstruct. MS. WICKHA/M: negative. MEMBER DINIZIO: 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals YOU don't have anything to You are asking me to prove a No, I am asking you to explain to me how you have a CO because that is what it comes down to. Because everything that that paragraph says MS. WICKHAM: preexisting. MEMBER DINIZIO: is having a CO. I can't have a CO because of Preexisting CO, 1983. MS. WICKHAM: It's not pre -- MEMBER DINIZIO: That is what it says on top. It says one-family dwelling with bath house. But not if you look at the property you have one-family. MS. WICKHAM: The building that was destroyed and that I think the Board has the authority or the Town has the authority to say that you can rebuild on it, Section 280-122A. MEMBER DINIZIO: If there were a building there, I would agree with you. MS. WICKHAM: That is not what it says. MEMBER DINIZIO: Then would you kindly explain that to me so that I could make a 105 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 106 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 L3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 decision? MS. WICKHAM: If there was never a building there, obviously I couldn't Reconstruction implies that there at one time that is MEMBER DINIZIO: I written down and explained to me because not how we have been acting -- MS. WICKHAM: I know that. reconstruct something. there was something going to be rebuilt. would love to see it that is I know that. MEMBER DINIZIO: I am not willing to vote based on all the decisions that we have made based on that. MS. WICKHAM: Well, I think that is the way that the code is writing though. MEMBER DINIZIO: whole entire -- MS. WICKHAM: Jim. It says I think if you read the prevent that very specific thing, which recreating what was there without going It says you don't have to nothing in this article that would is any further. MEMBER DINIZIO: fine, okay. You know, I would say that that is there are certain decisions had been made to the contrary that we have based on. And again, I know what happened and I am 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals sorry, but it all has to come into play again. You are talking about nonconformity, increasing the degree of nonconformity. It all goes back to that -- MS. WICKHAM: I understand your point. MEMBER DINIZIO: So if you could explain that to me and say that is not what it says, I am all for that. But I don't see it. I don't see part of the code that says that. I would like to give you the opportunity to submit something to us that explains that and using our code. I would love to base a decision on that. MS. WICKHAM: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am sure you have seen Gail, numbers of applications before this Board, certainly all of us on this Board have had many applications, we have had to make the assumption that once a structure is gone, it's gone. And all bets are off. from scratch. The argument the case of a CO that is no You are starting loses it substance in longer valid because What we are setback from a there is no longer a structure. really looking at is a zero bulkhead. MS. WICKHAM: That is the second part of 107 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 108 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 _3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 the application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The second thing, other thing that we don't kind of concrete material the have is of absolute any evidence of exactly what was there. You have already described the change in the roof pitch and you don't have any as-built's prior, we have no pictures of what used to be there that you are proposing to be built. MS. WICKH~M: Ms. Ali's affidavit that was submitted with the application, recounted the fact that the structure was there prior to zoning and she went into a little detail about it. I can ask her to give me a little more detail affidavit. I didn't want to ask her to come today. She would have been happy to come today but she is an elderly lady and I didn't want to -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I understand -- MS. WICKHAM: There are years that have gone by here but she does remember it. She does put in her affidavit that it exist -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don't doubt -- MS. WICKHA~M: I think we have enough evidence in the record. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There was evidence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 L3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals that there was a bath house there. MS. WICKHAM: And that the draftsman was able to identify from what was left of the remains what the shape of it was. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The height was about (in audible) I don't know what was there and I don't see any evidence particularly other then the fact that something was there. MS. WICKH~24: As I said, if you want us to vary the roof line, we are happy to lower the roof to a flat roof to look like what is in the picture that I have showed you with all the people sitting there. We can do that. We thought that it might not be as attractive for the neighborhood, and not be as smart for the bottom of the bluff. I am not asking that you have to accept that -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There are many beach properties with bulkheads here and the argument can be made and I just want to put this before you and the rest of the Board, a very compelling argument can be made in granting the building, a bath house, that has zero setback from the bulkhead, which is literally on a beach. It's not like it is on top of the bulkhead. It's on the 109 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 beach. That that represents not only a hardening of the shore line but sets a precedent for any other property homeowner. So as far as this Board is concerned, it's not there. Pre-CO, but it is not there Pre-CO is no longer valid. MS. with that. It may have a any more and that WICKHAM: I would have to disagree If we hadn't had a structure there, there is no way we can legitimately be here before you asking for that. There is no way. And having granted our application would be based solely -- not solely but that there was So if some guy down the beach brand new bulkhead and I want allowed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: structure anywhere and tare to rebuild it. a structure there. came in with a one too, it's not Anybody can have a it down and say I want MS. WICKHAM: That is different. MEMBER DINIZIO: That is fine. think that is a very fine point. addressed it that way. We have once the building is gone, it's the Town and the practices that you made things nonconforming so that when they do go, they are no Again, I We have not always said that gone. Based on 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals longer allowed. That is what sets everything nonconforming for. Okay. In any case, everybody has to live by those rules. It's not there any more. It no longer exists. And you are saying that they want to have rules of the Town, it's a preexisting or if it was there before, it again, then the nonconforming you can just throw them out the window. There is no reason to have it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me see if any of the Board members have any other questions? MEMBER HORNING: I have one other question on the Trustees statements. One final time and I haven't asked about this. Conservation advisory counsel, which briefly said that they don't support the application under any circumstances -- MS. WICKHAM: I think that's -- MEMBER HORNING: You might give it some feedback. The Trustees disapproval without prejudice. Now. Suppose in theory that the Zoning Board of Appeals grants you the variance for a zero setback, where does that that put the Trustees? Don't they have any jurisdiction on the bulkheads or not? MS. WICKHAM: They will have jurisdiction. 111 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 They will have to tell us if they want down spouts or what. MEMBER HORNING: But they disapproved of the project? MS. WICKHAM: Without prejudice and that is why it was without prejudice. So that this matter could be addressed by the Zoning Board of Appeals and we could go back to them. MEMBER HORNING: So you are saying that if that they would be also? in fact we gave approval, willing to grant approval MS. WICKHAM: Oh, I am not saying that. am saying then we would have the ability to discuss with them the merits and whatever their criteria would be. had to reach that. MEMBER HORNING: statement. MS. WICKHAM: They didn't think that they I didn't see that in the That is what I was told that was at the hearing or after the hearing, occurred. MEMBER HORNING: that that Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address this application? June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 113 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 (No Response.) MEMBER SCHNEIDER: something. You said that 2006? I would like to say it was burnt down in MS. WICKH~LM: 2006-2007. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: For or five years ago, I for this -- then when that was denied, some changes made because that been. plan at that point I it wasn't clear to me the structures were exactly the way it had So we had made some changes to the floor to bring it back to where it was and then at that point, we went to the Building Department and got the Notice of Disapproval. And then it took me a while to get this application. And now we are here. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: As far as you know, (in audible) nonconforming structure that have burnt down and what has been process or how has the Zoning Board treated that situation -- say this bath house existed last Sunday and it burned and had guess it has been a long process MS. WICKHA/~: It has. They first had to get plans and then they had to get the DEC permit, which they have. And I guess there was a period in time in which they went to the Trustees 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals down Monday, and you are now here on Thursday, would we be thinking about it differently? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You are asking a rhetorical question? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: I wouldn't be thinking about it differently. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, I wouldn't either. So as far as I am concerned, it is a bulkhead setback. It's a nonconforming structure. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: that rhetorical question, determination, if it's a dwelling or a structure. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Just to put some more questions out there. At the time it was burnt down, it was 75 foot setback in effect? I think in reference to you would have to make a CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Oh, sure. Absolutely it was. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anything else? MS. WICKHAM: And I might note that there are no objections from neighbors. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no further questions, I am going to make a motion to close 114 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals the hearing subject to receipt of the information regarding property tax numbers from the applicant. 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 #6472 JANE WEILAND CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application before us is for Jane Weiland, #6472. That is a request for variance under Section 280-116, based on the Building Inspector's April 5, 2011, amended April 12, 2011 Notice of Disapproval concerning an application to construct an accessory deck and shed, which proposed construction will be: 1)less than the code required setback of 75 feet from the bulkhead; location: 6485 Nassau Road, adjacent to Little Peconic Bay in Cutchogue. MS. WEILAND: Hi. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Please just state 115 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals your name? MS. WEILAND: Jane Weiland and this is my architect Hideaki Ariizwmi. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. I just want to make sure, we just got a copy, so you may not have a copy. A local determination from Suffolk County, which is (in audible). We have a letter from the LWRP coordinator and that showing inconsistency. And we Board of Town Trustees letter of approval. One is a disapproval and then an approval for wetlands permit. You probably have copies of this but I will just give it to you. For our records, we want to make sure you have everything in our records. I think there were two green cards that are missing? You know, the ones that you have to send out to your neighbors, those green cards? You have MR. ARIIZWMI: MS. WEILAND: MR. ARIIZWMI: then that. to send them back? I think we missing one -- It was returned in the mail. I don't know anything other CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: MR. ARIIZWMI: Four. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: How many were sent? So we have two returned. 116 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 with June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals MR. ARIIZWMI: And the one came back to me the package. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So it was undeliverable. We will need to have that. MR. ARIIZWMI: I think I gave that to you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We will check it. We have to check that information. What would you like to tell us? MS. WEILAND: We had met with the Trustees originally and they had disapproved a plan, and we had resubmitted it and it has been approved, hoping you would do the same. Originally we wanted to build a storage shed and a deck, planking to put chairs on. Our shed was denied, having sat through the Kofinas hearing, your philosophy about that. They asked us to reduce the length of the planking from 326 feet -- square feet to 200 square feet. We made it 199 square feet and we are hoping you will approve that. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No shed? MS. WEILAND: No shed. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Does that include the bench area? MS. WEILAND: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Lets start with Ken. 117 June 2, 2011 Zoning Beard of Appeals 118 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes. The purpose of the deck, besides a little seating area? MS. WEILAND: That's the purpose. If you put your chairs in the sand, it sinks in. So just a small planking area to support the chairs. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. Are you aware that if you put down stone pavers or slate or something, that you would not need a permit to do something like this? MS. WEILAND: That I would or would not? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Would not. In other words, if you put stone pavers on the ground, I believe you don't need a permit and wouldn't be before us. That wouldn't allow the chairs to sink in. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Except for the bench. So I MEMBER SCHNEIDER: guess you were not MS. WEILAND: No. Except for the bench. aware of that? In the entire peninsula, every person has a place to sit. You know, that is comfortable. And to my neighbors to my right and to my neighbors to the left. Everybody has it. I am not asking for anything that no one else has. I have already made the accommodations not to have 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals the shed and to make it much smaller that is really comfortable. I would really like to have something. I am one of the real oldy people on the bay and I have not done anything. I really love the integrity of the house. I am trying to make it a little bit more comfortable to sit down there on it. I respect the environment and the way it was. I am one of the people that have it remain a bungalow. A true bungalow. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: the not Just so you aware, Board makes site inspections. So we have only seen your house, but we have seen the top of the bulkhead where you are proposing to put this deck and bench. And also have observed, I did and I am sure of my colleagues did, that when you look down at either direction on top of the bulkhead, it is very typical that some people have some sort of deck/planking. Some have much larger areas and sheds and so on. And so it is -- your proposal is not only keeping what is there but considerably modest that some of the other structures are along that well vegetated cliff. of MS. WEILAND: the vegetation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don't intend to touch any It all remains in tact. Jim? 119 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: NO. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George? MEMBER HORNING: I will mention on the 1967 survey, that you submitted the step leading down to your proposed walkway were existing at that time; correct? MS. WEILAND: Yes, they were. MEMBER HORNING: Are they the same steps or were they rebuilt? MS. WEILAND: If they were rebuilt -- I bought the house in 2000. Not since I have owned the house. I don't know when they were originally built or rebuilt. Not since I have owned the house. They have been in good shape and not required anything. MEMBER HORNING: And to your testimony, they are in good shape now? MS. WEILAND: Oh, they are in great shape. MEMBER HORNING: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any other questions from the Board? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. 120 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address this application? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no further comments, I will make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by Gerry. Ail in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) HEARING %6458 - JAMES AND KATHLEEN BLACKLEY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We adjourned Blackley to 1:00 p.m. and I don't see anyone for Blackley in the audience. This was adjourned. This was a carryover, so I am not going to read the Notice of Disapproval again. I am just going to open the hearing on James and Kathleen Blackley, No. 6458. Is there anyone here to address that 121 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals application? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no comment, I am going to make a motion to adjourn August 4th at 1:00 p.m. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by Gerry. Ail in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) HEARING #6438 - GEORGE AND RUBY GAFFGA CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our final hearing is for George and Ruby Gaffga, No. 6438. This is a carryover. So there is no need to read the legal notice again. Welcome back. MR. GAFFGA: My name is George Gaffga and would like to defer to my architect -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure. MR. GAFFGA: At this time to address the concerns. 122 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 123 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. TAST: Hi, I am Bob Tast. As you know, our last presentation was adjourned to allow us to consider an alteration or addition to the existing cottage, rather then completely demolish and rebuild. Just to examine other options for this house. As you know, we are trying to build a house for Pastor Gaffga. We have two existing homes, that one is being lived in by his mother right now. We did meet with the Building Inspector and talked about the various ways, in saving parts of the existing building, and we have submitted drawings showing that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Hold on one second. MR. TAST: One of the buildings was over 850 square feet and we would have a right, I think without having to go through the variance process, to alter or even remove and rebuild that building but the other building was an accessory. However, both buildings are less than 850 square feet. The (in audible) that the building that we are talking about, the north westerly building has a footprint of over 850 square feet except the laundry room is not heated. If the laundry room was heated, we would probably not have to be here at all. June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 124 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 you have in front of you now a plan the existing building. There of selective demolition. Just However, to alter and add to is also quite a bit to review that plan with you -- I have larger plans if you would like to see? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yeah. MR. TAST: If you look at this drawing, you will see the yellow diagonal (in audible) footprints of the existing building and there several other see on the north side, along the east side. and the foundation walls will be the walls would be able to stay; studs are only 7 feet high. So we would have to increase the studs and add them to the other studs, to accomplish the height. Not just for State Code requirement but to require height and have an ability. They would like more than a 7 foot ceiling. There are also some walls on the west side, that is a green wall that wouldn't be are colors as well. Purple as you can and there are purple walls Those will be able to stay able to stay and however, the able to stay, foundation only. Basically some of the floor joists would be able to remain. There is some damages that would have to be repaired. That would be a case by case in looking at that. This June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 125 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 tl 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 is what we submitted to the Building Department and this is the denial that you have in front of you. Pretty much similar to the last denial, just the word new, is not indicated. The first denial, the denial was for a new building. This is for new and removed. Still two dwellings on one piece of property. Also, as I said before, the laundry room, if that room was heating, it would be over 850 square feet and would be the dominant building. And the other building could be accessory to this, however, that is not the case because it is not heated. This is a retirement home for George and Giggi Gaffga and it would be -- we need the size. It is really a modest home. There are two bedrooms on the second floor. So they have three boys that they don't live locally. So they would be coming home, now and then. So that space would be for them. Pastor Gaffga would need a study as well for his occupation. So basically, as you can see, it is really a relative modest home. In keeping with the neighborhood, if you go down Laurel Avenue, you would see much bigger homes on much smaller properties. So I can answer any questions, if you would like? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is the actual 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals square footage now, Bob? MR. TAST: The first floor is 1582 square feet and we also have 184 square foot covered porch. But the habitable area is 1582. The second floor is 637 square feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sir, I understand the Notice of Disapproval for the Board to allow you to have a second dwelling on one piece of property. We went though this whole rigmarole, what is gone, is gone. Which you have certainly heard us repeat. There was another application about this bathhouse. How would you determine what could remain? It looks to me as though if noticed as an alterations and so on, the amount of the structure that is capable of structurally being sound enough to remain, appears to be pretty small. Can you tell us how you determined that and what percentage dwelling, as it exist today, will remain? Or can remain? MR. TAST: The area in blue is an enclosed porch, however, it does not have any foundations at all. Just 4x4 posts, direct buried into the ground. So that can not stay. What we are looking at where the foundations have been rebuilt or reworked in the last few years, you know, to make 126 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals the building safe. That is basically the northern side of the structure, a basement. The remaining southern side of the structure is a crawl space. The northern side, there was work done on the foundations. There was some work done on the floor joists. So that is the most secure and most up to date on the structure. The area under the crawl space, a lot of it is very difficult to get to. And of course the foundations, they are block foundations, may not be the proper depth in nature along the southern side. So that is what is drawing the project. And that was really to hold that northern side as best as we could obtain that structure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, in your application and in the floor plans, you are indicating and I just want to be sure I am reading it correctly, please help me make sure that is the case. Some of the foundation walls can remain. Ail the interior partition walls and roof are to be removed. The floor joist will have selective replacement. MR. TAST: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: As you go along, in my mind, if they are not rotted out or if they 127 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 128 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 are structurally sound, they can remain or otherwise they have to be removed. You may be reinforcing some of the studs on the exterior but most of to go. And you indicate building elements, will wall the exterior walls are going to have that some of the existing remain. Do you know about what percent you anticipate will remain? MR. TAST: The purple walls and the green walls represent 27% wall structure. Even on that 27%, the stud walls are not the right height. So they would -- we would prefer to replace but in order to meet the spirit of an alteration and an addition, we would add new studs adjoining adjacent to them and basically they become redundant at that point. So the walls are 27%, and in knowing the house the way I do, I would the floors are probably the same. So imagine, 25-27%, something like that? CHAIRPERSON WEISNLAN: MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I to do this but I had done an Questions, Gerry? really wasn't going analysis of the area in reference to square footage and I can read this into the record. In size of the property in reference to the applicants property, in reference to the amount of property that is here. And I June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 129 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 guess the best thing for me to do is just read it into the record. The Gaffga's property is on Page 56 and it is Block 2. In Block 2, the one lot that I failed to come up with is the relative of Mr. Gaffga's, Mrs. Gaffga's, however, I will come up with the first one, which is 5625 and that is .39 of an acre. 5629, which is .44 of an acre. 5612, which is the largest one of all the ones that I am going to be reading, which is .63 of an acre. 5633, which is .38 of an acre. 5624, which is point .20 of an acre. These are adjacent properties across the street, which is in Block 3. 56.35, which is .25 of an acre. 5636, which is .37 of an acre. 56.37.1, 56381, which is .38 lot which is over half an acre, which is .612. remaining parcels are all smaller than half an which is .28 of an acre and of an acre. There is only one The acre and the subject property is, we are showing it as an acre. So my point to my knowledge, .91 but it is actually over in question to the Board, which would be stated in the decision, which would be regardless of the fact that we have two houses on this particular piece of property, with two C of O's the actuals of some adjacent parcels are less than size and therefore the doubling of an 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 tl 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals average, even if you took .44 and you doubled it to .88, okay, the property still complies with a majority of the surrounding area. And that is just my opinion in reference to the granting of this variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George? MEMBER HORNING: The fact is, there are two habitable dwellings right now. They are proposing to keep two. Not by demoing as previously proposed -- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Excuse me. George. We are showing a lot area at proposed 43.734 of 1.004 acres? MR. TAST: Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I didn't have it in front of me. MR. TAST: It is a little over one acre. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: MEMBER DINIZIO: No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken? questions. Jim? questions. The Board of course, will consider what is before us. I do think it is important to note for the record that one, I appreciate your honesty about this structure, as 130 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 131 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 an architect. If you look at your very careful and accurate assessment of the building, I don't know that the code defines very clearly, what is a definition and what vast majority of this If you look at the footprint -- MR. TAST: And all of the roof. is not is a alteration, but the structure is going to go. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: so salvageable. That I think basically, it is realty what you are like to note that the proposed rear yard setback has also changed. Originally, you were proposing it at 42.7 -- no that is the existing. I think you are proposing to increase that nonconforming recognizing. And the Board will have to decide whether this is so substantial. We know have a new Notice of Disapproval. So we can act on what that says as opposed to demolition. But the -- you heard, how important it was for the Board to adhere to the principle of something is nonconforming and it is no longer there, the code requires us to make things more conforming. That is the whole idea. So I just want that reflected in the record and we will certainly consider that and look at this as an alteration as opposed to an demolition. I would just also 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals just a tad more, and not 41.3 rear yard setback? MR. TAST: Yes, that is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any other comments or questions from the Board? MEMBER HORNING: I have one exploratory question. In looking at the -- this lot, and the overall condition of all the buildings on the lot, have you ever considered making one large building there, a conforming building of any kind and not two separate buildings? Just out of curiosity. MR. GAFFGA: is not really much there. So to have another house to live in, would have to be a separate building. My mother lives in one and it she and maybe a guest can stay it MEMBER HORNING: building? MR. GAFFGA: Rather than one larger No, I guess I have never thought about -- you mean, taring both houses down and putting up one building? MEMBER HORNING: Or expanding one? I just wondered if you ever considered having one large building there instead of two buildings? Two principle dwellings? 132 June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 133 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 was, comes that my mom is source of income for us to be and pay taxes and such things. MEMBER HORNING: That is MR. GAFFGA: No one of the other thoughts to be quite honest, when and -- when the day not here, that house may be a able to stay here basically the issue. You have two issues on the property. That is what the Building Department states again in their Notice of Disapproval. MR. GAFFGA: When my family -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: In my mind, and we will go with what the Notice of Disapproval says, this is so substantial because of the nature -- it would be easier to tare it down and more cost effective, but that is not feasibly possible. So I know you have done your best to preserve as much as possible, you will not now what joist by joist and what stud by stud is going to remain and what is not, because you don't know until you really tare into that stuff. And as a result, I suspect, we are going to have a virtual demo, even though it is cited as alterations and demolitions. Other questions or comments? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: A conunent. Ail I can say is, what I have seen in the past to June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 134 t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 nonconforming setbacks and restorations, have been that successfully, people have sistered walls. There is no question about it. Yes, percentages of dollars are greater. There question about it. But they have been successfully done. We live in a climate where almost virtually work year round on these In the winter, in the old days once projects. December 15th came, all bets were ladder part of March. But because renovations of all kinds lamps to TJI's and so on off to the the new of things from micro and so forth, and the the is no ability to pour cement 24/7 all year, has allowed persons like you, Mr. Tast, to do architectural drawings and help people to do these things. And I am sure, if anything can be done, you will do this one too. So I have personally hope and wish you all the best of luck. MR. TAST: Thank you. MR. GAFFGA: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any other questions or comments from the Board? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Apparently there is no one in the audience. June 2, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 135 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. GAFFGA: Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Based on that, I am going to make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Second. Ail in favor? MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. June 2, 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 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. Signatur~'CO ~~O J/eL/ssica DiLallo Jessica DiLallo Court Reporter PO Box 984 Holbrook, New York 11741 Date: July 4, 2011