HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-07/07/2011 Hearing1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York
July 7, 2011
9:43 a.m.
Board Members Present:
LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
JAMES DINIZIO, JR. - Member
GEORGE HORNING - Member
KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member
MEMBER GOEHRINGER - Member
JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney
VICKI TOTH - Secretary
Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
P.O. Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
(631)-338-1409
1
JUL 2 6 ZOll
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
INDEX OF HEARINGS
Hearing:
Andrew Greene #6387
Rose M. Milazzo Revocable Trust
Michael Schaefer #6480
Scott and Julia Osler #6478
Michael and Ellen Carbone #6483
Edwin J. Pisani #6482
James and Janet D'Addario #6481
Benali, LLC #6422
Mary Beth Henson #6461
Brostar, LLC #6463
#6471
Page:
3-16
16-39
39-70
71-79
79-89
89-93
93-99
99-128
128-134
134-151
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
HEARING %6387 - ANDREW GREENE
MR. FISCHETTI: I handled some of the
site work designs for Mr. Greene. Currently, the
edge of the proposed pool is 80 feet from the top
of the bluff. Mr Greene, he had the original
design proposed with the pool at 22 feet, which
was really not standard and I tried to tighten
that up a little bit. I told him he could go to
20 feet on the width of the pool, which that is 2
feet distance separation to the bluff at 82 feet.
So you can make that a change to the site plan.
The pool is presently located on a wall that
slopes away from the property. I know this Board
has gone out there and understands this but it is
not well short of the bluff area, which is
vegetated very nicely and contains lot of green
area. The location is really the only suitable
location for this pool. There was discussion
about proposing the pool in the front yard, but
there is wetlands in that area of the front yard,
natural wetlands to the east. It would be a
problem locating it there. There are also
utilities in that front yard. And also just
aesthetic conditions of having a pool in the
front yard. So this really is the only location
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
for the pool. We think it's placement is
currently in a lawn area, so it doesn't disturb
that. Last year, Nicole Spinelli, of the Suffolk
County Soil and Water Conservation made a
statement that there was no natural resource
limitations with regard to the construction of
the in-ground pool. She wrote that it was
recommended that the bluff be re-vegetated
collapsing by planting beach grass. The Greene's
contacted Ms. Spinelli and she came up with a
plan for that re-vegetated. That replanting was
done in the Spring on the bluff with beach grass
and spartina were planted. If the Board has any
questions, I would be happen to answer them.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How much filling,
stabilization of this
Joe, has to go into the
pool? Is it done with a
railroad ties?
MR. FISCHETTI:
cement barrier or
Actually fill is not the
problem because you are kind of sitting in that
slope. So what we will do is -- we have to put a
retaining wall in there. So basically just a
relocation of the soil from where the pool is
into the retaining wall. So I would think that it
July 7, 2011 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is just relocation. I
calculation but there
movement of dirt just because
didn't do a complete
is not a lot of fill and
it slopes down and
that retaining wall there and it was basically
relocating soil that is coming out of the pool.
Any amount of excess fill or fill that is
required is really minimal at this point.
pool?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is this a Gunite
MR. FISCHETTI:
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
depth of 8 feet? It's not
MR. FISCHETTI: No,
Yes.
So it has a maximum
a lap pool?
it's 8 feet. It has a
deep and a shallow end.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
get the regular amounts
so forth?
MR. FISCHETTI:
And that is
of 53 feet
why you
and so on and
think.
pool.
reason.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
Yeah, that was 93, I
MR. FISCHETTI: But that is what he wanted
and that is what we designed. I tried to tighten
it up a little bit but he did want a longer
He wanted a longer pool and that was the
Yeah. He wanted a lap
July 7, 2011 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
pool.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Now, is this
right, the grade of the house --
MR. FISCHETTI: Well. The house that is
down probably five steps, five risers, and we
will have one more riser down from there. I don't
have that on this site plan because it is much
too small. But it does -- if we go from the
finish floor of the house, one step down to the
exterior patio and then there is three or four
steps from there. So the basically, the existing
grass area, has been there.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Now, I can
understand why there is no additional needed.
Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Joe, what is the
height of the proposed retaining wall and is it
brick?
MR. FISCHETTI: No, it would be concrete
and I think the section, just --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I have it but I
don't see it on there.
MR. FISCHETTI: It's probably about
4 feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
calculated some time ago at 5 feet. I just wanted
to know if you had adjustments to that. It's a
substantially high wall.
MR. FISCHETTI: It's a substantial slope.
Again, we are trying to put this pool without
disturbing what is there. We are trying to fit
it. This is a really interesting (in audible),
it does go down. So it's a nice site and we are
trying to fit it within the site as minimally as
possible. So I think it works.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Last question, if you
don't mind, Leslie? If that's the case from an
environmental standpoint, are you pumping the
cement?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Oh, yeah, you would
have to do that.
MR. FISCHETTI: You can't get a truck back
there.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: Sure. I was on the site
and I spoke to Mr. Greene, I don't know, probably
within a month of all
just hired you and he
revising the plan.
that plantings and he had
had mentioned that he was
July 7, 2011 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
point in time.
22 foot to 20.
MR. FISCHETTI: We are not revising. We
are going to make those minor revisions at this
Just what I said, down from the
There are other options,
tell the Board that, and that, we -- I
Mr. Greene other alternatives, which are much
smaller then this pool and those may happen. At
this point,
those other options but
have submitted in front
MEMBER HORNING:
I will
have given
of the pool by two feet?
MR. FISCHETTI: Correct.
MEMBER HORNING: And he mentioned
something about needing less of a retaining wall
on this --
MR. FISCHETTI: That is not for this.
The two feet just brings us back further and the
retaining wall will still be the same.
MEMBER HORNING: So all of the revisions
that he talked about with me or whatever, really
were -- they didn't happen.
MR. FISCHETTI: Just discussions.
MEMBER HORNING: Right, just discussions.
Okay. What other really changes on the site
this is what he wanted and we may do
we -- this is what we
of this Board right now.
So you bury the width
July 7, 2011 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
survey?
MR.
FISCHETTI: There aren't any.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
have shows an 80 foot
MR. FISCHETTI:
other revisions.
MEMBER HORNING:
The survey that we
setback.
Right. He asked me any
Is it 82, or 80?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our survey shows 80.
MR. FISCHETTI: If we reduce the size of
the pool from 22 feet width to 20 feet width,
then it goes to 82 feet distance separation. That
we originally --
MEMBER DINIZIO: You agreed with?
MR. FISCHETTI: We agreed with and
disagreed with and that is what we were
submitting to the Board at this time. So there
are no other additional.
MEMBER HORNING:
of the retaining wall?
MR. FISCHETTI:
Works fine.
MEMBER HORNING:
No changing of the height
No, that is just there.
He made me believe that
there would actually going to be a new site
plan.
MR. FISCHETTI: We did talk about it
but
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
Mr. Greene decided, no.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: I was just looking
through the file and I didn't get any updated
LWRP? I was wondering, if there was an updated?
There is a dispute between the LWRP and the
lawyer, Pat Moore and I was wondering --
MR. FISCHETTI: From the Trustees,
from what I understand was in compliance with the
LWRP and approved unanimously. So I am not sure
what the question is.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't think it is a
question for you, I think it is more
housekeeping.
MR. FISCHETTI: I'm sorry.
MEMBER DINIZIO: We have part of the
record, an LWRP report that says you know, one
thing and we have Pat Moore saying that it is
totally wrong and that it is based on photograph
of a different piece of property or whatever. I
just wanted to clear that up before we try and
grant a variance contrary to this conflict.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim, maybe what
l0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
we could do, since there is a Trustees permit
now, perhaps we can close the hearing subject to
receipt of additional comments from the LWRP
coordinator with the option of your having a copy
and commenting on it, as well. We can set a time
frame for that.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I mean, do we need to
go that far?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If you want to.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I think you got
some contradictories stories here. He is saying
one thing. And the lawyer is disputing his
property and I think,
MR. FISCHETTI:
MEMBER DINIZIO:
it's important --
Ms. Moore is not here.
Well, her testimony is
in writing and it's her comments and
believe,
the LWRP
I don't
should we ever get an answer back from
coordinator on one way or the other,
assuming that we have not.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
original.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
clarify that, as to be
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
is the document right here
No, we only have the
I think we need to
one way or the other.
Yeah, I mean this
dated June 24, 2010,
11
July 7, 2011 12
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
just about the time of the Trustees permit was
obtained and then from the Board (in audible
clerk prepared by the County of Suffolk Soil and
Water with regard to their inspection of the
property. And he says the face of the bluff is
highly unstable and ruined due to the open
exposure. Then there is a history of the
replanting and the stabilization. Well, the Board
can do what they so chose and sort it out amongst
their selves if they want as to what data is more
pertinent. Does the Board feel that its okay with
what we have on the record despite the
contractions or do you want the LWRP coordinator
to do something else?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, they could look
at it based upon the plantings and see if there
was any enhancement or de-enhancement to the
statement that he made.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So
additional testimony, I don't,
if we don't need
and if nobody else
does, we can close subject to request of the LWRP
coordinator to make a site inspection.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And then put in
writing his observations and submit it by a
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
certain date and your opportunity to review it
and respond.
MR. FISCHETTI: Great.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is that
acceptable?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Do whatever the Board
decides.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think it is a
good thing to do.
MR. FISCHETTI: If anything should happen,
they would need to be redone. Mr. Greene, has
always been proactive here and promoting it. He
has done some beautiful plantings up there. So it
is not that nothing would happen. Gerry is right,
anything can happen between now and any time.
But we did -- he did plant the 200 plants and
plus.
MEMBER HORNING: It can be a chance that
the LWRP coordinator can come up with a more
favorable writing --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is why I said it
was good.
MEMBER DINIZIO: We have to put in our
13
July 7, 2011 14
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
decision, you know, in that paragraph about LWRP,
that what the LWRP reported and according to
Pat Moore, the LWRP coordinator's report is not
correct. So I think, you know,
in there? I don't know.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
was done and based on site
how do you do that
The Soil and Water
inspection and the
LWRP not giving us field notes. If we request
field notes then we should have a more favorable
way of comparing apples to apples with Soil and
Water. I think that is a reasonable thing to do.
I don't think there is additional information
requested.
Is there anyone else in the audience that would
like to address this application?
MEMBER HORNING: I think we were sort
of confused, I think we thought the applicant was
going to request an updated LWRP.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, they don't,
we do. They're advising to the Board. Not the
applicant.
MEMBER HORNING:
last, last June --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER HORNING:
We didn't do that at the
Yes.
I guess we should of.
July 7, 2011 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, no, we --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It was adjourned.
Okay. So I am going to make a motion to close
the hearing subject to receipt upon the Board's
request of a field inspection and updated
comments from the LWRP coordinator, with the copy
going to Mr. Fischetti and Mr. Greene for their
comments, if they so chose. And I would request
that you do that within a two week time frame.
Actually, we can do it sooner than that, we can
potentially deliberate at our special meeting,
which is in two weeks. I know Mr. Greene is
very eager to get this in place. And we have had
a couple of adjournments and I see no reason to
hold him up. So lets try and do that, get Mark's
comments within a weeks time. I am sure you can
respond very quickly.
MR. FISCHETTI: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our special
give you an
meeting is July 21st.
idea.
MR. FISCHETTI:
So just to
Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You're welcome.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So moved.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
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 the Board is for Rose L. Milazzo, #6471.
This was adjourned from June 2nd of this year. We
have already read the legal notice. Please
proceed.
MR. HERRMANN: Good morning, Board
members, Jennifer. Rob Herrmann of
En-Consultants. I am here this morning on behalf
of the applicants. Ms. Milazzo is also here in
the audience and the project architect is here,
if the Board would be interested in hearing some
information from him. This is a site that has
some history with the Board. The Board had
previously seen this years ago with a larger
renovation scheme, and I believe at some point it
was the Board's advice given the proximity of the
16
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
project to the wetlands, the applicants go back
and visit with the New York State DEC and the
Southold Trustees with respect to wetlands. What
the applicants have done is that. They have
obtained permits from both of those agencies for
the project that is in front of you today. This
is a smaller project then what the Board has seen
in the past. Essentially this is a preexisting
nonconforming undersized lot, with a preexisting
nonconforming dwelling on it, which is indicated
on the survey. It is about 511 square feet in
area. And essentially what we are proposing to do
is to renovate and potentially with
reconstruction. And I am going to get back to
that in a few minutes. But basically to recreate
the existing cottage in its current location
minus an 87 square foot section of dwelling that
is located closest to the water, raised to FEMA
compliant regulations. And then expand the house
entirely on it's landward side with a two-story
addition. So the application is interesting.
Based on its design, the actual expansion of the
existing structure is really in keeping with the
spirit of the bulkhead setback exception, where
if the division is entirely on the landward side
17
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
maximum amount of work that would have to be done
with the hope that we can do less. In which case,
we would be within the parameters of any approval
that we have received already and have hope to
receive from this Board as opposed to doing it
the other way around. So we say we are going to
do less and end up having to do more and going
back to everybody including yourselves. With
respect to the impact of the project on the
adjacent properties and the character of the
neighborhood, the existing cottage within this
entire neighborhood is probably the smallest in
the neighborhood from what we have been able to
figure out. And the proposed dwelling would be
on par with the footprint of the other dwellings
in the neighborhood. The onset conditions in our
application for relief, is probably most similar
to the Swine (phenetic) property for which
variances were granted in 2008 and 2009, at 4295
Bay Shore Road, which is basically up the road
and around the corner from the Milazzo property.
We are proposing a 1,492 square foot finished
dwelling that will not require
variance. We are at 19.6% with
we have designed to
any lot coverage
that number. And
stay within that covered
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
of the structure, it would not have to meet a 75
foot setback. Unfortunately here because of the
preexisting location of the cottage, even the
addition located on the landward side will be
about 60 feet back. And because of the
significant renovations to the existing structure
there is just no way here to escape here the
75 foot setback requirement from the bulkhead. So
we are here before you today for that. We are
before you today for a minimum side yard setback
relief because through the renovation of the
existing cottage, we are seeking to maintain
the preexisting nonconforming minimum side yard
setback of 5 1/2 feet, which also creates a total
side yard setback as indicated on the Notice of
Disapproval. We are not getting any closer from
the 5 1/2 feet and we are not increasing any bulk
or even any vertical mass within that small
nonconforming area relative to the northerly side
yard. But I believe the demo is going back to
the (in audible end of the day we are going to
have an overall larger structure of preexisting
-- of that same preexisting nonconforming setback
from the side yard. The degree is nonconformity
is being increased. It is important to recognize
July 7, 2011 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
however that all of the actual expansion of the
proposed dwelling conforms to all setbacks in
every other way other then the fact to the
bulkhead. Again, that is less that 75 feet
on the
look at
we do not
expansion and then there is the reconstruction of
the existing cottage that would be tied together.
We have
has had
plan and intentions with these
had experience in the past. This Board
experience in the past where the best way
renovations,
cottage and if you concede that the project was
having two parts. There is this two-story
landward side of the house. But if you
the site plan prepared by John Ahlers,
follow that 5 1/2 setback of the northerly
property line. That entire two-story addition is
setback the minimum required 10 feet from the
northerly lot line. So we have been careful to
make sure that there is no newly placed
construction that would set along that same line.
But again, we are really seeking the relief to
maintain that nonconforming corner, if you will.
Of the existing house. It is important to discuss
and again, we can discuss this with the project
architect if the Board feels necessary. In an
issue of the reconstruction of the existing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
especially with rasing FEMA elevations. There is
an intention to preserve the structure to
retrofit it to maintain walls and etcetera,
w-a-l-l-s, not laws. To go through that process
and then long and behold during construction, it
is determined that it is not fit for that or that
it can't hold that and then suddenly, you are
making a second application with the taking the
house down to the ground. Looking for more relief
then what was originally requested. We had set
out to do the exact opposite of that. Although it
is the belief of the architect that it can be
done in such a way but the existing cottage does
not need to be demolished. No matter what, the
foundation would stay. There is a portion of it
being removed. But we have gone to all of the
wetland regulatory agencies with the belief that
we would have to work in the worst case scenario,
demolish this structure. So we have gotten all of
our approvals, based not only on the ideal plan
that is maintaining the structure and
retrofitting it and renovating it, that we can
knock it down, shall it come to that. I am coming
to this Board with the same plan. So that way we
are covered with our request in terms of the
2o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
restriction. We would seek to maintain the 5 1/2
foot minimum side yard setback and our bulkhead
setback through the existing wood bulkhead on the
south side of the property would increase to
about 4 feet as a result of removing nearly the
90 square feet of house closer to the water. That
would increase from the existing 27 feet to the
31 feet that is shown. The Swine dwelling which
included a second floor at approximately the same
distance was approved with that same 31 feet from
the bulkhead, which is what we were asking for on
this application. There I believe the side yard
setback was increased to 7 feet. So we are
roughly on par, 2/10~s of a foot greater than our
application. That that application provided a
total side yard of 11 1/2 and we would maintain
20 1/2. Just under the requirement. For the same
sorts of reasons Swine requested the relief that
they requested and that the Board granted the
relief, is imply a consequence of the preexisting
nonconforming nature of this lot. The Milazzo's
have been trying for many years to renovate this
property and accommodate their family. And one
of the most significant, probably the most
significant upgrade to the property that the
22
July 7, 2011 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Milazzo's are offering is the upgraded sanitary
system, that will be up by the road in the front
yard. And so because of the location of the
sanitary system and because of the small size and
particular narrowness and narrowing nature of the
lot as you get farther from the water, then can
either make an attempt to maintain what usable
floor area they can in the existing cottage and
try to translate that area to the front. And once
you try to translate that area to the front,
-- as you can tell from the site plan,
to run out of room. As it is, the area is
sufficient for their needs and it comes in
you
you start
very,
also
very tightly to the front of the house. We
figured from the location of the Baldwin dwelling
to the north, actually the farther the expansion
is moved towards the road, the more obstructive
it becomes to the Baldwin view of the adjacent
waterway. So for those combination of reasons,
what the Milazzo's ultimately settled upon doing
is really again, just recreating with some
downsizing the existing cottage without going up.
There is no second story addition over the
existing cottage. Only the two-story expansion is
behind it. And how they most (in audible) of the
July 7, 2011 24
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
house being removed was a result of
meeting back
the New York
an onset
in many months of discussion with
DEC and the Southold Trustees, had
two or three people from DEC and the entire Board
of Trustees on the site, actually it was a joint
meeting together to review the entire application
because it also includes the installation of a
iow sill bulkhead with wetlands plantings behind
it in that northerly section of the property,
where right now there is a gap between the
recently reconstructed Baldwin bulkhead and what
we are proposing to be the reconstructed section
of the bulkhead on the Milazzo property to the
south. That is an area -- this is not a high
wave energy of area. The house is going to be
FEMA compliant. This is not really a risk of that
area of suddenly falling away but over years, it
has chronically continued to erode and so we are
proposing, again, that iow sill bulkhead, which
doesn't really have anything to do with this
Board, but what it does, it will stem that toe
and allow them to create the wetlands behind it
and allow that area to continue to function and
entitled wetlands but at the same time, parting
the toe of the bog underneath so that area does
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
or does not continue to erode. And I mentioned
that because I think that was a concern, at one
point, mentioned by this Board during a past
application, is what they were going to do about
that section between the two bulkheads. And
again, we have approvals from both the DEC and
the Trustees for that aspect of
well. Just to go over -- just a
again, outside of the side yard
the project as
little bit,
setback issue,
the
bulkhead is to a certain
for environmental relief.
relief that we are here for related to the
extent, a request
So again, I will
quickly go through what is
application. Just for the record,
granting of the relief would not
Item 4 in the
that the Board
have an adverse
impact on the physical environmental conditions
of the site or the surrounding properties. The
property has been reviewed extensively by both
the DEC and the Trustees, who again, met us at
the property to discuss the changes to the
project design as he manifested in the site plan
before you. The design as it has been finalized,
will increase the wetlands setback to the
dwelling from what is existing. It will improve
the character and recharge roof line after
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
installation of a drainage system with liters,
gutters and drywalls, as would be required by the
Town's drainage code now. It will decrease the
volume and improve the quality of surface water
runoff and drain adjacent waterway through the
establishment of what would be a 10 foot wide,
approximately 850 square foot non-turf buffer,
which is shown adjacent to the wetlands boundary.
And again, most notably the improvement and
treatment of the domestic (in audible) up the
upgraded sanitary system that is relocated up
toward the road. As I mentioned, the low sill
bulkhead that will establish approximately 189
square feet of high marsh and 137 square feet of
enter-title marsh. And of course the entire
project now would be raised to a FEMA compliant
elevation and otherwise meet all the
standards.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is that
elevation?
MR. HERRMANN: That is -- elevation -- I
know we are a couple of feet above it. I think
it's 8 and 2 feet of -- board. It would put us at
10. I am looking for John's line on the map,
John Ahlers'. I'm sorry, Gerry. We had the zone
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
t0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
change and then the topo change, I've got 3
different numbers in my head on it. I know we
will actually exceed what
after we add the two feet
elevation requirements.
board. It's actually 6.
the most recent changed.
the requirement is
of pre-board to the
It's encrypted in the
It had been AE-8 before
And that dropped to 6.
It's an AE zone. It's first floor elevation. So
it would be 6 plus 2 with the pre-board. And
that was actually one of the reasons that New
York State did that. And then of course the topo
changed, and the map that is before you now is in
the 88. We took the time to go back to the DEC
and the Trustees and get their additional
approvals amended to reflect the amount of data.
So we had that changed. So that we had the same
plans before everybody.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Mr. Herrmann,
anything else you would like to say to the Board?
MR. HERRMANN: That is all I have for the
Board.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Lets see what the
Board has for you. Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't have nothing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: Sure. I have a few.
The adjacent property that you referred to, the
Baldwin's?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, to the north.
MEMBER HORNING: Right now, they have Town
water as it is shown --
MR. HERRMANN: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: Do you have proposed
water mains on here, is that for Town water
hook-up?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: Which doesn't exist
right now? What is the water source right now?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you just state
your name?
MR. MILAZZO: John Milazzo. It's public
water.
MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
MR. HERRMANN: George, I am sorry, the
water main that is proposed is a relocation so
that it complies -- the Health Department
requires that minimum separation from the new
septic. I'm sorry.
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
MEMBER HORNING: Okay. Would that involve
a complete new water line run? You know, where is
exactly the water main? Would you say out on the
road?
MR. MILAZZO: The water main is on the
street. It extends all the way down to the end.
We have it serviced. The meter is on the
property. So all that would change. The service
connection between the main and the street and
where it would be located just to the north of
it.
MEMBER HORNING: You would be running a
new water line from the main --
MR. MILAZZO: -- between the house. The
water main and the street.
MEMBER HORNING: Understood. Is it
copper?
MR. MILAZZO: It would be one inch
copper.
MEMBER HORNING: I think we were unclear
the last time as -- you calling this a
reconstruction and we are a little sketchy on
reconstruction versus
MR. HERRMANN:
will do now is have
total demolition.
Right. Again, what I
Peter Caradonna, the
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
tl
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
architect speak to that briefly. Now, just again,
I don't want to repeat everything that I just
said. Ideologically we wanted to approach this
with the worst case scenario to present to the
Board -- I shouldn't really call it worst case
scenario, but the most extreme case scenario to
the extent of the renovation that would be done,
if they find that the existing cottage would have
to be taken down to the foundation. I will ask
Peter just to go through with you briefly tell
you his position with the plans to have actually
done, but I think we would be keeping from the
Board to have the reconstruction, in the event
that it is necessary.
some light?
MR. CARADONNA:
members.
name?
Peter, do you want to shed
Good morning, Board
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Please state your
MR. CARADONNA:
process by which in the
through to preserve the
the things that we are trying to do,
architecturally (in audible) existing to what
new. So the preservation of the older part of
Peter Caradonna. The
design process we went
existing cottage, one of
the
3o
July 7, 2011 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
building became a really important key to the
architecture. What we are seeking to do there is
first is to obviously, as stated, is trying to
give you a FEMA compliant foundation building.
Currently that does not exist. So the way that I
have done this and the way that I have done it in
the past, the house will be stabilized and braced
and we will run needle beams, essentially steel
beams, running along the underside of the
building and depending on what the contractor
decides, he can use either a crane,
buckles and actually life the house
the needle beams on privens. Once we
to a certain height where he feels he
lift or turn
up and place
lift it up
can get
underneath there and work, he will then remove
the existing foundation. We will put in a brand
new foundation, FEMA compliant with flood venting
and then lower the house back down and re-fasting
using current code and current fasteners.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are you referring to
pilings?
MR. CARADONNA: No,
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
enclosed foundation?
not at all.
So it will be an
MR. CARADONNA: That is correct.
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: To what
MR. CARADONNA: Correct. We
exist now?
can put in
standard footings
this house. We don't need to drive
there will be no need for that. We
and wall foundation underneath
piles. So
can simply
just
set,
on the premises, as it exist now?
it have structural integrity?
be able to pour the concrete and once it is
set the existing house back on it.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is your opinion
I mean, does
MR. CARADONNA:
Most of the problems that
foundation. The fact that
The superstructure does.
I see are in the
you have a block
foundation. I have seen a lot of cracking in the
foundation walls. But in terms of stabilizing it,
the way that we see ultimately finishing it is to
be able to brace it off would be very easy to do.
This is not something that is impossible.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any
particular reason, and I have asked permission
from my fellow Board member here. Is there a
particular reason why you have kept the wing of
the northern portion of the house and basically
not cut that off and made relative to the new
portion of the house?
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
MR. CARADONNA: As an architectural
feature really. When we were designing the house
and trying to create this contract between old
and new so we can have this type of architecture
language between the two, we thought that one,
keeping the corner would essentially give us the
definition of that corner and of the two separate
structures kind of coming together in a formal
conversation. But also the fact of the matter is,
if we were to cut that off and have essentially a
50 some odd foot wall, along that side. Without
any definition. So I would prefer if we can keep
it. I realize it is 6 or 7 some odd feet that we
are talking about.
side yard setback. It
you are talking to me
That overhands the existing
is certainly something --
as the architect artist, it
is something that I would like to keep.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It is my particular
opinion after reviewing these specific sections
of Al.1 to A2.2, that the second floor (in
audible) over this roof, of the existing
structure; is that correct?
MR. CARADONNA: The roof comes out over
it but the floor area does not. There is an
overhang that does come out of the windows that
33
July 7, 2011 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
are on the eastern side.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
it look out of?
MR. CARADONNA:
roof deck in this case.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
the square footage of it?
MR. CARADONNA:
believe.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
the living room --
MR. CARADONNA: It
what's
So how much area will
The roof cottage becomes a
Do you have any idea
I think it is about 300, I
Which is essentially
is the existing house,
left of it, less the 87 square feet that
it's roughly 300 square feet.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And what is the total
elevation of the structure from the grade
restructure when we started with the sloping
roof, what is the highest portion of that
structure?
of
MR. CARADONNA: I believe it's in upwards
25 feet. 27 feet, somewhere in there.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the impact to the
neighbors is a 25 foot structure to the north and
probably a little less to the south.
MR. CARADONNA: That is correct. The idea
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
was to slope the roof to the south so that in the
future the Milazzo's could put solar panels and
solar hot water on the building. The goal here,
ultimately, especially in a house like this, for
us, that reaching (in audible) like this, is
definitely possible.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only last thing
that I have, with most of the houses that are
down there and the renovations that exist, we ask
that there be no flat roofs in the past now and
that doesn't mean that is the situation now. That
is the reason why I have that line of questioning
and asked you that question. Thank you.
MR. CARADONNA:
MEMBER HORNING:
height, please?
MR. CARADONNA:
Thank you.
Can you clarify the
When we designed, we did
the initial model back in '05, '06. We have
obviously gone through some elevation changes. I
am going to say 27 feet for the record. I have
tried to keep it as minimal as possible, so that
when we
area, that you have
compliance.
MEMBER HORNING:
achieved the walkway from the bedroom
a full ceiling height
And I have a question
35
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
about that foundation,
space or a basement?
MR. HERRM3~NN:
strictly as a
be a basement
July 7, 2011
is it going to be a crawl
We are looking at this
crawl space. There is not going to
underneath any this house.
MEMBER HORNING:
furnace --
MR. HERRMANN:
MEMBER HORNING:
And you can't put a
That is correct.
Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken,
questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
do you have any
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: While you are there,
can you or Rob talk a little bit about the
proposed septic? Specifically, it is a raised
septic?
MR. HERRMANN: I am just getting to the
plans. Just give me one second. The sanitary
system was approved by the Suffolk County Health
Department, January 6th. This is not a raised
system. It is an alternative system. It is a
shallow system but it is not a raised system. I
assume you are asking in the context of whether
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
there would be concrete retaining walls or above
grade with port filled, the answer to that is no.
The elevation is that the property picks up quite
nicely and is closer to the road and actually
gives us enough room just with incidental
re-grading around the front. Putting the sanitary
system in without the use of concrete retaining
walls.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MR. HERRMANN: Also, a condition of that
permit is the abandonment of the existing
system.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Is there
anyone else here that would like to address this
application? Please come forward.
MR. BONTJE: Good morning, Board members.
My name is Mike Bontje, and I am here --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Spell it please?
MR. BONTJE: Sure. B-O-N-T-J-E. I am here
as a neighbor of the Milazzo's. My wife and I own
the property that is about two property's away.
We are literally across the creek. So we sort of
face them. And I wanted to
application. We think this
granted.
speak in favor of the
variance should be
From what we have seen from the plans,
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
the variance relates to the old structure and
virtually all of those old structures are from
the 1950's. And would predate the ordinance. I
understand the bulkhead setback is one of the
issues here but again, very consistent with this
neighborhood. It's an old cottage neighborhood
and these houses have been renovated full-ime
over the years. The setbacks to the bulkhead, in
many cases are very small. And in this case, it
will actually improve it somewhat. But I also
like what they are proposing the porto (sic) of
the nonconforming being relieved, in other words,
they are cutting back a portion of the old house.
And I believe that is going to help the
neighbors by pushing it back a little bit from
the road. So to repeat, my wife and I own the
property and all the neighbors nearby are here to
speak -- I am here to speak in favor of this
application.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
MR. BONTJE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any one in the
audience?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Board?
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
(No Response. )
CHAIRPERSON WEI SMAN: Okay.
further comment --
MR. HERRMANN: I also,
Hearing no
John Milazzo
handed me a letter that he had gotten that
generally in support, that are signed by
of the neighbors at Island View Lane. So
just
are
I should hand that up to
don't --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MR. HERRMANN: Here
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
you for the record.
Please do.
you go.
I will make
several
I guess
I
sure that the Board members all get copies. Now,
hearing no further comment, I will make a motion
to close the hearing and reserve decision.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Motion to recess
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
for 5 minutes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Ail in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
Second.
Seconded by Gerry.
(Whereupon, a recess was taken at this time.)
HEARING #6480 - MICHAEL SCHAEFER
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our next application
is for Michael Schaefer #6480. Request for
variance from Code Section 280-13 based on an
application for building permit to build a sports
court on a vacant lot, and the Building
Inspector's March 2, 2011, amended April 18, 2011
Notice of Disapproval stating that the use of a
sports court is not permitted on a vacant lot
(without a principal dwelling), at: 760 Hill
Crest Drive North, Orient. Is there someone here
to address this application?
MR. SCHAEFER: How are you? I am Michael
Schaefer.
4O
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have a copy
from Suffolk County indicating that this matter
is for a local determination.
MR. SCHAEFER: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If you would like a
copy you can have it. It simply states that we
can do what we have to do. Why don't you begin
with what you would like to do and I am sure we
will probably have some questions for you.
MR. SCHAEFER: It's very simple. I have a
vacant lot which I had purchased, which is right
behind my property that has a home and a pool.
Everything is all to code, and I just wanted to
clear a portion of it so that we could put a
sports court in, which is similar to a basketball
court. It would be 30 X 50. This material vinyl
type sports material, is different tile that
basically go down. They are not biodegradable.
They don't cause mold or anything. It's similar
to the {in audible) hotel across the road. It is
similar to that. It is just my family and I have
a daughter that is 16. A son that is 14. Just so
we can play ball or modified tennis or you can
even roller skate on it. That's basically it. We
are part-timers out here. So it's not like it's
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
something that is going to happen every day. So
just want to enjoy the land, even more than we
are already.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. I can
certainly understand that, but the code does not
allow structure on something that doesn't have a
principal dwelling.
MR. SCHAEFER:
to.
Yeah, and it's unfortunate
I called and before I purchased the property,
I made all my due
and asked all the
this required a permit.
diligence and called the Town
questions and they said that
Then that is when -- I
said, what is this, we have to have a primary
dwelling on there. That is not what was told to
me. So here
land that I
and I may not
disheartening.
I am, I spent over $300,000.00 on
wanted to enjoy a little bit further
be able to. So it's a little
But I will do what I have to do.
I felt that, you know, we purchased the land as a
separate entity so that maybe down the road, we
might even build on that property and sell our
existing,
So I just
area that
so that maybe we have some water view.
felt that if I placed a court in an
if we do have a dwelling, it wouldn't
affect that.
42
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I
you live
Yes, Vicki
requested a survey
on.
said that you
we
of your property that
MR. SCHAEFER:
got that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The reason for being
needed to have a look to see if you couldn't
meet your need by placing sort of a recreational
area on your existing property where it would be
code conforming.
MR. SCHAEFER:
Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you talk to us
about that?
MR. SCHAEFER: Yeah. The -- Jim, can
probably say. He has been to my home. The
property basically starts here in the back and
just goes all the way down. I would really have
to cut into the land quite a bit and remove some
trees, that I rather not. And we just like the
greenery also of the land. It's really the only
back yard area that is currently existing because
the previous owners had put in a very large patio
on the side of the back of the house and there
are steps leading up to the very large pool. It's
20x40 pool. So that other area, it's our only
green area.
43
July 7, 201! 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
14
15
16
17
19
20
22
23
24
25
this
answer.
lots?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am going to ask
question but I think I probably know the
You could voluntarily merge those two
MR. SCHAEFER:
concerned and -- I was
know how accurate that
I just think, again, I was
told and again, I don't
is, it is easier to merge
the land then to buy the land. So say that
scenario comes into play where on that new
property I want to build a new house and I want
to sell that other property, I was told it would
am
be pretty difficult. So that is why I
resisting and hoping not to do that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me ask one other
question. I did see a site inspection. You have
a cycled fence that is really quite adjacent to
the area where the woods start.
MR. SCHAEFER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
There is your pool
and then the lawn area. Where is that fence
located? Is that the boundary of the adjacent
property or --
MR. SCHAEFER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
That's -- yes.
So it's with a
gate --
July 7, 2011 45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. SCHAEFER: Yes,
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
it looks like it's about 80
swimming pool is.
MR. SCHAEFER: Okay.
self closing gate.
According to this,
feet from where your
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: To that boundary?
MR. SCHAEFER: That could be. I really
don't know the particulars.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am just reading
from the survey.
MR. SCHAEFER: Oh, okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So you are
proposing a 30x50 foot and I understand your
interest in wanting to preserve the beautiful
landscaping and your greenery, but you certainly
do have room --
MR. SCHAEFER:
go from -- the court
But then it would have to
is rectangular. So the 50
feet would have to go from the back of the pool
area towards that fence. So that -- otherwise, I
would have to disturb those nice big trees that I
have in my back yard.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The question is, can
you have everything?
MR. SCHAEFER: True. True.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: How do propose --
this survey is where you want to put the pool --
actually the --
MR. SCHAEFER: Court.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The court, it
doesn't show how you go from your pools property
there.
MR. SCHAEFER: Just through that gate and
whatever trees are removed, I figured that we
could grind them up and create like, wood chips
and just have a path that leads it right there.
Just keep it all natural.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
put a fence around it?
MR. SCHAEFER: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You are going to
have tennis --
MR. SCHAEFER: It's modified tennis. It
doesn't go as far. And honestly, we have never
played tennis before. So we don't know what to
expect. I am 47-years-old. So I don't think I am
going to take it up now, at least not
competitively. So it is really just for my
basketball, volleyball, badminton, roller
skating. You can roller skate on this material.
Are you proposing to
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Ken,
questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Do you know the area of
the vacant lot?
MR. SCHAEFER: The area?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes.
MR. SCHAEFER: It's less than an acre.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Less than, okay. And
the area of your own lot?
MR. SCHAEFER: It is 0.92.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Those are both
conforming lots.
MR. SCHAEFER: Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Can you explain to us
in more detail, exactly what you are proposing?
The court, it's basically a concrete slab with
tiles on it?
MR. SCHAEFER: Yeah, exactly. The sports
guy told me that they go 2 to 4 inches of (in
audible) aggravate and then they 4 inch slab of
concrete, and then these tiles are basically laid
down. They're interlocking. On the long side of
the
the
multi-sports pole. And that is used to
court, they put a fixed basketball hoop and
other they put a pole. It's called a
stretch a
47
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
net to the multi-sports to the base of the
basketball. And you can either use it for
tennis. You can raise it up so that it's for
volleyball height, or badminton height.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: In your application,
I assumed that you filled the application out?
MR. SCHAEFER: That's correct.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: On No. 1, the
proposed structure is consistent with similar
structures in the overall character of the
neighborhood. There are similar existing
structures?
MR. SCHAEFER: Well, I haven't seen a
sports, but I have some enclosed areas that have
basketballs and basketball hoop in one of
the yards. We haven't been there. Again, we are
part-time, so we don't know everyone in the
neighborhood. But we just in walking, we have
seen a few. We have met across the street and
Rachel. Honestly, we haven't even met the
neighbors that are there. Just from the backyard.
I can just see the roof. So I am really not sure.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I agree with the
chairperson, if you had looked at the idea for
possible merging. So we looked at that. You have
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
stated you would prefer not to put it in your
backyard because you prefer not to cut down some
trees.
MR. SCHAEFER: Well, that is part of it.
When people come to the house, they look at the
area and say it's beautiful. And if I was to put
that in there, I just feel that it would look
like a sports complex. You know, here you have
your 20x40 pool and here you have 30x50 sports
court and that is not really what I want to look
at. I want to see it beautiful and as much
natural as possible. To see a court on the other
lot, it's still going to be surrounded by other
trees. No neighbor would be able to
of all the trees that I am going to
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Okay.
see because
leave up.
I have no more
George?
MEMBER HORNING: Did you buy the two
properties at the same time?
MR. SCHAEFER: No.
MEMBER HORNING: At different times?
MR. SCHAEFER: Yes, I bought the -- we
closed in December, I believe, of the new lot.
MEMBER HORNING: The driveway of your
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
residence comes up Hill Crest Drive?
MR. SCHAEFER: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: And the vacant property
has no access to Hill Crest Drive?
MR. SCHAEFER: Correct.
MEMBER HORNING: So if you were to sell,
as you have mentioned, possibly in the future,
you might construct a single-family structure on
that parcel and access would be from Hill Crest
North?
MR. SCHAEFER: That's correct. It's a dead
end.
MEMBER HORNING: Lets go through the
technique of how you would achieve building this
court on this property without a driveway from
Hill Crest Drive North?
MR. SCHAEFER:
people come with the
We did have a land removal
sports court guy. And first
off, up on there on Hill Crest North. The
property is just so overgrown. The whole strip,
you can't see anything. So I asked them, what I
had them do is clear ten feet back, and put down
some wood chips and mulch.
a post and rail low fence,
can put my "no trespass"
My thought is to put
just across it, so I
signs and whatever else
50
July 7, 2011 51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is required. Prior to that, he was going to go
along, let me think of my direction. The west
part of the property and he would just take
whatever equipment is necessary. Just to go along
that borderline of the property and just then hit
my flagpole fence and just
back the same way.
MEMBER HORNING:
truck?
MR. SCHAEFER: Yeah.
could use though, you know,
come in. And then go
And the concrete
They said that they
where they take the
pipe and bring it all the way down there.
MEMBER HORNING: So the concrete truck
would pump it down from Hill Crest North?
MR. SCHAEFER: Yeah.
MEMBER HORNING: What kinds of trees
are you going to have to cut in your proposed
court?
MR. SCHAEFER:
what they are. I
or something.
unbelievable.
MEMBER HORNING: Wind blown trees --
MR. SCHAEFER: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: Inside there?
I really don't know
assuming they are Oak or Maple
It is so overgrown in there. It is
There is a lot of trees down too.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
MR. SCHAEFER: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Will
bring something in there
MR. SCHAEFER: As
you have to
to level the area?
a matter of fact, the
sports court guy was there over the winter and he
walked it, and of course, it was a lot different
then it is now. It was in the winter. And he
selected that location because it was the
flattest spot and what I also liked about it, it
was closer to the back of our existing property.
You can just go through there. From Hill Crest
Drive North, it has to go down like that. So that
is the flattest spot. So we probably would have
to clear and maybe do some retaining of some sort
but again, we wouldn't know until we do a little
bit of the clearing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: In my mind, this
is a challenge. We have in the past, covenants
and restrictions, granted the homeowner, to put
in a tennis court but not with the covenants and
restrictions that a principal dwelling has to be
built. I can understand certainly ascetically and
attractive and why you want to do what you are
proposing. The Board has to look at whether or
52
July 7, 2011 53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
not
appear,
option.
this is the only option for you. And it would
not the only option. Not your desired
Not something that you would prefer, but
you have made choices of putting in a swimming
pool and a lot of other choices in your backyard.
And now you are kind of stuck --
MR. SCHAEFER: That was there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The pool was
already there?
MR. SCHAEFER: Yes. I bought the pool
when it was there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's very beautiful.
So I just want you to be aware of what the Board
reviews in making its decision. We don~t just --
we have certain criteria. How substantial the
variance would be, whether there are any
environmental impacts. Would it be a detrimental
effect to the character of the neighborhood, so
on and so forth. Let me see what my other
colleague from the Board has
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
circumvent zoning but, I
to say.
I am not here to
don't think you actually
did -- this is not a sarcastic statement. You are
a very nice person, your due diligence and you
really should investigate the possibility. These
July 7, 2011 54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
are subdivided pieces of property at the request
of a developer at the time. At the time they had
minimum square footage requirements. And I think
that is probably, my great friend, Kenny,
mentioned or asked you the size of your parcel
and possibly a lot line change could occur, and
maybe you can sever a tail end of the piece of
property, and then add it to your piece. But that
is up to the Planning Board to figure that
aspect. So that is the due diligence issue that I
am referring to at this point.
MR. SCHAEFER: Right.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the chairperson
is absolutely correct. We've had a tennis court
request and put significant restrictions on it.
There was a time that the person was required to
put a
court.
speak.
dwelling on the property or remove the
That sort is being constructed as we
So those are the issues that you may want
hearing. And
to investigate prior to closing the
it is up to you.
SCHAEFER: If I may ask you, what is
of pouring a concrete slab on
a vacant piece of property?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
you know,
MR.
the negative impact
A total violation of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
zoning based upon the request.
MR. SCHAEFER: Understood. That is
are
here.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
why we
That is the whole
thing.
That is my take on it,
MR. SCHAEFER: Okay.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
okay.
Secondly, you need a
building permit for a primary structure to
destroy trees.
MR. SCHAEFER:
Okay.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So you need a permit
from the Building Department to destroy those
trees to go into the property. Okay. And where
if you added it to your house, your piece of
property, be the mere fact that the house is
already there, you probably would not need a
building permit -- excuse me, a clear cut permit
for the destruction of the trees for that
particular piece of process.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me see if I can
clarify what Member Goehringer is trying to
explain as an option. If you feel you don't want
to locate
for us to
yet, we
it on the existing property. An option
do and we don't know what this means
would want to annex a certain number of
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
square feet from the adjoining lot onto my lot.
So I can put on my lot as of right. In other
words, I can get a building permit to do that
because it is another accessory structure.
MR. SCHAEFER: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: To do that, you
may be creating a nonconforming lot size with
your on unimproved parcel. You know, if that was
the case, you would need to come to us to say I
want to create -- to do this. To annex this off
and I will need a variance to create this
nonconforming lot size. Should that be granted,
then you would have to go to the Planning Board
and obtain your -- they are the one that actually
approves the lot line change, approve or
disapprove the nonconforming size.
MR. SCHAEFER: I understand.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: In that sense,
you will have a right and you will have room to
put in the court. That is what Mr. Goehringer was
trying to explain.
MR. SCHAEFER: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
has questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No,
Let me see if Jim
I would like to
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
recuse myself.
mine.
July 7, 2011
Mr. Schaefer is a customer of
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. The property
is well protected.
MR. SCHAEFER:
Can I ask you though the
accuracy of what I had been told, as far as, you
know, if you do merge the property, as far as
trying to separate them? Is that difficult to
do?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It could be. I can't
presuppose an outcome. The fact that they are
existing lots and you know, conforming lot, it is
your advantage. Because you are
nonconforming lot. But I really couldn't
what the future may hold. You would have
not creating a
speak to
to
apply and explain why you merge them. The other
option would be to build a structure on it and
then it becomes a conforming -- if you merge it,
you can't put another house on it. You would have
to un merge it.
MR. SCHAEFER: Right exactly.
MEMBER HORNING: Are they both in the
R80 zone?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think they are
R40. Let me look -- no, they are not. They are
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
not
July 7,
conforming lots.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
2011
They are nonconforming
already. This is
I think.
MEMBER HORNING:
says R80.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
a subdivision back in the 70's,
In the application it
Is there anyone
Are you to the north
else in the audience who would like to speak on
this application? Please come forward and state
your name?
MS. CASEY: Good morning, Board
members.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good morning.
MS. CASEY: I am Cathleen Casey and I am
the immediate neighbor to the Schaefer's. Nice
to meet you. I am the one that he doesn't
know.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
or the south?
MS. CASEY: To the south. And I have
been living there for 18 years. I am a part-time,
what do you call it, half and half. My other
residence is in the city and I am -- I have seen
this neighborhood grow up around me. I was the
first house built but I am the second owner
58
July 7, 2011 59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there. Four years
I have seen a lot
it has --
positive.
after that house was built. So
in the neighborhood and most of
actually all of it has been very
One of the reasons why I bought in this
neighborhood was because of the By-Laws of the
one of the parcels ad the rural quality of the
neighborhood around me. Being that I live the
other half of my life in concrete, it is really
very, very important to me that I have this
maintained beauty, which for me, is just a
sanctuary. And I am fully committed and I will
be there to the day that I
it's a good long time, but
here, I don't want to hear
am dead. Hopefully
not to be a buzz kill
a basketball
constantly in my background. This is immediately
adjacent to my property. And I know I can't
do anything if the Schaefer's decide to put that
in their existing back yard but I would just,
you
the say of the neighbor who will
somebody that is concerned about
even -- I mean, I
with my neighbors.
good neighbor myself. In fact,
many years ago when my son was
know, appeal to every one involved and have
have to be
because it's not
have never had any problems
I have always tried to be a
there was a time
young. My
July 7, 2011 60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
neighbor, to the south of me, and I am sure some
of you know, we wanted to put a little playground
on one of the easements and the first thing we
did was go speak to the neighbor. They made it to
Town Hall. They voiced their objection and we
stood back and we understood. It is one of those
things. We are here because we want to maintain
the peace and quiet that we love about this area.
My other major concern is because of the Notice
of Disapproval, the property around me, I have
seen a lot of turnovers and I have great
neighbors now. Should I be concerned of turning
over and who comes in the future. You know, do I
want to look at a lighted court behind me -- you
know, I don't mind listening to kids that are
having fun. Love it in fact. But I just don't
want to hear the basketball at all hours. I work
there. I do my yoga on my back deck. I am a quiet
neighbor and I would like to maintain that quiet.
I would like to keep the integrity of what this
property means to me. And a sports court to me,
just really doesn't fit with what it is there. I
have a son that is 16-years-old also. He's going
to be going to college in 2 years. Your kids are
not that far from that too. You know, this will
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
become something that is might not be some useful
in the relative years also. You know, with the
turnaround properties, this concern may be of
somebody else and having that grandfathered in,
my adjacent property makes me very nervous. It
doesn't feel good to me.
MEMBER HORNING: Ma'am, how far is your
property from your house?
MS. CASEY: From the court?
MEMBER HORNING: From the property line?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Maybe you can come
forward and show us where your lot is?
MEMBER HORNING: You're on lot 23.
MS. CASEY: My house is set back
further. Our homes are (in audible) towards the
road. I am set back quite far. My house is much
closer in the property.
MEMBER HORNING:
MS. CASEY: Exactly.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
the pool?
MS. CASEY: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING:
the pool.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
This is a triangle.
Your house is by
Right there.
Your house is
right by
I have to be honest
6]
July 7, 2011 62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
with you,
the Board,
contingent
this Board, and I am not speaking for
as past chairperson, we are very
of noise. Most of the noise does not
come
from basketball. Most of the noise comes
from tennis. Okay. So we always kidded about my
phrase the "boing" factor.
MS. CASEY: Right.
the time that I got to a location, I don't
this is a good move and I turned around, I
know, I think this neighbor here, this gentleman
that is making this application, will take the
possible precautions to make and justify the way
that you want it. And of course, the property,
you can put a house on it.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And of course you
can shoot much in the way of tennis balls then
you can of basketball. Certainly trees take away
deadening sound. I can understand
and it is duly noted in my book. But
position of where this
doubt very seriously that
you will hear much of anything because of the
dense nature of those woods. I attempted to walk
those woods just very briefly, but I have an
intense case of poison ivy. I didn't see any.
By
think
-- you
some of that
your concern
I have to tell you the
court will be built, I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7,
MS. CASEY: Right.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
2011
I understand that.
And I would voice
my opinion if I were you also. And like I said,
it's duly noted. I live on 1.25 acres and you
know, I spent a great deal of time, privatizing
the rear of my property and it has been a great
deal of planting and you know, we certainly enjoy
everybody's privacy and we respect the immediate
neighbor and I can understand your concern.
MS. CASEY: My concern is what my future
will be.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, that will
always be the case. That is something that we
just don't know.
situation.
MS. CASEY:
That is a hypothetical
(In audible.)
(Stepped away from the microphone.)
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: On a residential
street, I have not seen something granted
recently. You know dawn to dusk.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me just
mention one thing and then I think we can move
forward. In the one instance where we did grant a
tennis court on the property owned by a
homeowner, it was across the street from where
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
there home is developed. We set so many
restrictions on that, in terms of hours and every
(in audible) that would have to be removed. I am
not suggesting in any way what the Board is going
to do. I am saying that the Board will
deny this, we don't know until we have
facts before us. Until we have
grant or
all the
the transcript
of this hearing in front of us and carefully
review everything. Just to give you some inside
and some reassurance, in the rare instances
because this is a very large issue with zoning.
It is very unusual to grant an accessory
structure on undeveloped property.
instances that this happens, there
lot of covenants and restrictions
all the way around.
MEMBER DINIZIO: (In audible)
about a lot of restrictions and it
acceptable to both parties.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I will tell you
what. I was just
decision. But if the
wish to do that, our
written decision
covenants and restrictions on
In the rare
is always a
and protection
you talk
just might be
going to close and reserve
Board is so inclined and
office can provide you a
on our part that shows the
instances that we
64
July 7, 2011 65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
set. Maybe it was last year. Maybe you can
see -- they had a lawyer representing them. So
perhaps both of you might want to have a look at
that. So I don't know
another date. And --
MR. SCHAEFER:
audible.)
mic.
if you want to adjourn to
I wouldn't want (in
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You need to use a
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, please come
forward.
MR.
SCHAEFER: The reason, it is funny.
When we were looking for a second home, we
considered Upstate, Pennsylvania, Montauk, you
know out east. My insurance agent, who I -- he
has known me my whole life basically. He said I
have to come to the northfork. When came to the
northfork looking for homes, we bought that day.
The very first day we bought it. The original
owners had relocated already. We did everything
by phone and that was it. I just loved the rural
and the quiet and everything else. So I can
understand what you are looking for when you come
here. And I live in Merrick. It's similar to the
city but I don't have that much concrete. So I am
July 7, 2011 66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
looking for the same thing. I would just like a
little bit more options. Without a life, you
know, if it's not the bugs from keeping us from
playing at night. It's going to be the darkness.
And as you might know, we don't bring groups of
kids. Not like a class or anything. It is my son
and maybe a friend and my daughter and maybe a
friend. It's just us. Also, this area can flood
out, so in the winter we will skate on it. That
is it. It is just for us to have a little bit
more fun. Things to do out here and enjoy
everything.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If I can just say
something. You have now seen some of the
concerns of the neighbor has. They are a nice as
you are. So these are the concerns that if you
chose to come back, after you read this decision,
this is a concern that I have. This is concern
that I have and I am sure several other Board
members have, that this very nice lady has
brought up. It's a concern that you have to take
into consideration that you would take into
consideration as your own anyway.
MR. SCHAEFER: Yes, and I am the type of
person -- it is interesting that we meet the
July 7, 2011 67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
first time here. She is a part-timer. I am a
part-timer. We don't always mesh and meet at the
same time. I am always one, my door is open. Just
ring the doorbell if you have a concern or
something. I have always been there. Very funny
story when we just moved in, Jim had put in some
outdoor speakers and we weren't familiar with the
operation of them. And we are inside and had the
music very low, so we thought. And it was the
middle of winter and the neighbor all the way
down the block came and rang the doorbell and
said, "Did you know that you have the music
blasting?" I had no idea whatsoever. But he came
and rang the doorbell. We apologized and turned
it off. That was the first time that we met. It's
the same approach. I don't want to be isolated
out there and say I don't like to deal with
anyone or you know, the hell with you. Excuse me
french. I am not like that. I want everyone to
have a good time. I want everyone to like me. I
don't want people to say oh, I hate that
neighbor. I don't want her to think that she
regrets to come out her all the time because she
probably has a stressful life also. You come here
to unwind.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me ask you a
question. I think we heard about all the kinds of
issues, you know. If we provide you with this
information, it is really advisory, an example.
It will not predetermine what the Board would or
would not take a certain course of action. It
will just inform you that if the Board makes the
decision that we permit, there will be a number
of restrictions on it. And I would like to ask
you know, to the extent that you are comfortable
with understanding in order to go forward, that
there will possible might be the removal of the
court or upon transfer
if you sell your house,
court out.
MR. SCHAEFER:
to another owner. Meaning
you have to take that
Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
that other piece of property.
around.
MR.
with that.
You may still own
Or the other way
SCHAEFER: Honestly,
That is the beauty of this court. It
is removable. You just lift up the tiles and all
you have to do is have the concrete removed. I
can take everything with me. It is really like
a portable court and that is what I love about
I have no problem
68
July 7, 2011 69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Are there any other
comments from the audience?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
from the Board?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
children you said?
MR. SCHAEFER:
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
Any other questions
Yes.
And what are their
MR. SCHAEFER: My daughter will be 16 and
then my son will be 14 in January.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Just for the record,
what are the proposed uses of the court? One
would be ice skating you said?
MR. SCHAEFER: You can ice skate in the
winter. You can roller skate on it. You can play
basketball. We can play modified tennis, which is
apparently a different ball game. We can play
volleyball and we can play badminton.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And is there a
particular brand name for this or specific
design?
MR. SCHAEFER: It's Rhino.
ages?
Yeah. You have two
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Spelled?
MR. SCHAEFER: R-H-I-N-O. The person I
have spoken to is Great Shot Courts.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Are there any courts in
the neighborhood,
Rhino courts that
out and look at?
MR. SCHAEFER:
Soundview --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
street.
MR. SCHAEFER: That
what is funny,
out recently,
on the northfork that have any
if the Board desires, may go
Well, if you wanted to
Right across the
is not Rhino, but
when the sports court rep came
he noticed it and on the way back
was going to be doing a little bit of parading
around to find out, who did you go with and how
much did you pay for that, but it's similar.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
other locations?
MR. SCHAEFER:
know --
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Can you
perhaps he can send the Board the
if we decide to go take a look at
might be helpful?
It's similar. Any
I can probably ask him. You
ask him and
addresses and
one of them, it
7o
July 7, 2011 71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. SCHAEFER: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No,
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Anything else?
that's it for me.
Okay. Hearing no
further comments, I will make a motion to close
the hearing and reserve decision.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
****************************************************
HEARING #6478
CHAIRPERSON WEIS~LAN:
is for Scott and Julia Osler,
SCOTT AND JULIA OSLER
Our next application
%6478. Request for
variance from Article XXIII Code Section 280-124
and the Building Inspector's March 28, 2011
Notice of Disapproval based on an application for
building permit to construct a screen porch
addition to a single family dwelling at 1) side
yard setback of less than the code required 15
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
at; 215 Haywater~s Road, Cutchogue.
feet,
Is there someone here to address this
application?
MR. OSLER: Hi, I am Scott Osler.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Mr. Osler, would you
please bring those green cards up. That is
exactly what we are looking for. Okay. Very good.
Tell us what you would like to do?
MR. OSLER: Okay. We bought this house
back in 1998, I believe. And in 2004, we had
received a variance to redo the existing
breezeway and garage that was attached to the
house. And at the time we had did that, we had
also included a deck on the back of the house,
that was part of the variance. The house was
preexisting nonconforming and we had never built
the deck. We basically just ran out of money and
we lived with the renovation as it was and now
we are in the position, we can go ahead and do
this. And basically what we decided is, the deck
is nice, and you are in the sun and we don't
have any trees in the backyard. We got bugs
coming out in the middle of the night. We thought
it would be nice to have a screened in portion
deck. And based on the way the house was built
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
and where the great room is, we couldn't put it
right off the side of the great room because of
the kitchen on the other side. So there is no
way to really access it from there. So we are
putting it in the same footprint, in terms of how
close we are getting to the setback as we
previously received a variance before. The only
difference now is, it's going to be a screened in
deck on this portion of the house and instead of
going out 14 feet, it's going to go out 18 feet
so we have plenty of room. To have a little bit
of an eating area, a couch. You know just have
room to move around out there. So that is what it
is all about.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me ask you a
question, sir. Your survey does not show a hot
tub but your architect drawing does show a hot
tub. Is that down from the deck? Are you
proposing that or not?
MR. OSLER: That is something that we
would like to have the option. My wife and I
don't meet eye to eye on that yet. I figured it
would be better to have it in the plan then not
do it and not have it in the plan, that later
down the road we will be coming back.
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that we have
see what the
MR. OSLER:
of you?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
July 7, 2011
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am just asking
because you don't need a variance for that. It's
not a lot coverage issue. You just need a permit.
When we pick up inconsistencies with the stuff
in front of us, we have to ask to
intention is.
Do you have the plans in front
MR. OSLER:
front of you as well?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
is the
plans
Uh-huh, right here.
Do you have the survey in
Yes.
I approach?
You sure
MR. OSLER: Can
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: can. There
survey.
MR. OSLER: If I can just show you, on the
it shows this dimension here. (In audible).
(Stepped away from the microphone.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This is the
proposed --
MR. OSLER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
That is fine.
That is consistent with your architectural
drawings?
MR. OSLER: Yes.
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7,
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
the hot tub.
MR. OSLER:
2011
Just the presence of
When we arrived here, I didn't
have our copy. So I was a
what she presented.
first.
little concerned in
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Gerry, you go
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
be open to the sky; is
MR. OSLER: The
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
screened porch that will
MR. OSLER: Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
windows, just screens?
MR. OSLER: Correct.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
The proposed deck will
that correct?
deck, yes.
It is only the
be closed?
Not with permanent
And these are not a
permanent foundation under either one?
MR. OSLER: Right, we might put like a
mud slab underneath the deck just so we can put
things underneath and not put it on the dirt --
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yeah, but it will be
raised above the ground?
MR. OSLER: Yes. The back of the yard is
sloped.
75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And it indicates on
your survey by John Ahlers that the screened
perch is about 352 square feet and the deck is
about 379 square feet because it extends a little
bit farther from the house, 6.5 at the other tail
end.
MR. OSLER: Right.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
of the back of that house?
MR. OSLER: Correct.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
right to you?
MR. OSLER: Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
shy of the bitco door?
MR. OSLER: Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
To fill in a portion
that you would like to
MR. OSLER: No.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
And that sounds about
And you stopped just
Is there anything else
tell me?
Okay. Thanks.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I would like to ask
a question, I know we are going down the line
here. The Board is obligated to grant the least
amount of variance as possible. I know you had a
previous variance for this side yard setback. I
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
am going to ask you to answer why it is that
are not -- or do
conforming at 15
you
not wish to make this side yard
feet by cutting down the size
of the screened porch or
deck?
MR. OSLER: When we
last time and we got the
provisions in our siding
house for this to go right
about putting.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
the size of the
did the renovation
acceptance, we had made
and the back of the
where we are talking
Okay. So your
current request is based on previous variance
that you have now done some preparation
construction work, is that --
MR. OSLER: Well, correct. If you were
to look at the back of the house, you would see
that the siding was placed such, you would
know where the deck was supposed to start and
kind of finish. And we just never got around
to, you know, putting it up.
MEMBER DINIZIO: That determines where
that wall is going to go on that side?
MR. OSLER: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim, questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I just wanted to be
77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
clear. His biggest hardship with respect to
moving -- it would be something that he would
have to move that door and that would be more
work.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right. That is
what I wanted for the record. Ken, questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: And the original hardship
goes back to the size of the lot; correct? Where
the original house was built with a 4.5 side yard
setback as shown on the survey and your proposed
screen porch (in audible) including the steps,
where are we at 127
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 12.
MEMBER HORNING: 12, where 15 is required.
That's it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right. Is there
anyone in the audience that would like to
address this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right. Hearing
no further comments, I will make a motion to
close this hearing ans reserve decision.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in faver?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolutien.)
HEARING #6483 - MICHAEL AND ELLEN CARBONE
CHAIRPERSON ~EISMAN: Our next applicatien
is for Michael and Ellen Carbone, #6438. Request
for variance from Article III Code Sectien 280-15
and the Building Inspector's May 20, 2011 Notice
of Disapproval based on an application for
building permit to construct an accessory garage
at 1) front yard setback of less than the code
required 40 feet, location: 1580 North Bayview
Road. (Adjacent to Goose Creek)
Just state your name
MR. UELLENDAHL:
Southold.
My name is Frank
Uellendahl. I am here to represent the
Carbone's and they are requesting to build a
two-car garage. They do have a garage. It is
attached.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
new
Frank, just hold
79
July 7, 2011 80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
up one second, before you go into the whole
spheel. We need a green card, do you have it?
MR. UELLENDAHL: No, I only got one back
and I am still waiting for the green card,
which should be the neighbor across. And the
other side, the Carbone's actually own this
property as well.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And do you have a
copy of the LWRP consistency letter? We have
a copy of this. This is from Mark Terry showing
consistency and a letter for local determination.
Okay, so the garage.
MR. UELLENDAHL: The current garage is
really not the new garage because they are using
it as a play area for the kids in the summer. The
cars are basically outside all the time. They
would like to turn the attached garage into a
residential floor space, so they could use it all
year round, as a play room for the kids. Now,
of course, they would like to have a garage. A
separate detached structure. In looking at the
property, the shape of the property -- it gives
me a triangular buildable area with the main
house is sitting on and we only have one side
yard. And the garage has to go into the front
July 7, 2011 81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
yard, which (in audible) required distance. So
one corner is relatively closer to the property
line. It's about 8 feet. The other corner is
around 17 feet. And this is what I am here for.
To request a variance, this is the smallest
accessory structure that I told them. I told them
don't want it to be any bigger because we don't
have the setback requirements.
with not exceeding the 18 feet
that they would like to reuse
So they are fine,
in height. And
the existing garage
doors for the structure. It's basically the same
as the current garage that is there now.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's a one-story
garage?
MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 22.5x 22.25?
MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken, do you want to
ask some questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes. The two small
parcels to the west, are they owned by the
applicant?
MR. UELLENDAHL: I think there is only
This is down to almost a minimum dimension.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It's a small piece?
one.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes. It is really to a
minimal. I don't even know if it is buildable.
It's really protected over there. The trees. The
garage is really not going to be visible from the
street, unless you drive way up, you are going to
see a sliver of it. To answer a question, they do
own this property as well.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The adjoining property
to the west?
MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The trees along north
Bayview Road, adjacent to the owners home, how
high are they?
MR. UELLENDAHL: They are high trees.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Approximately?
MR. UELLENDAHL: More than two and a half
stories. You see when you come down on North
Bayview you actually see the roof somewhat. Just
part of it. Just be like 15, 16 feet tall.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And I noticed there is
a guide rail along the -- guard rail.
MR. UELLENDAHL: Correct.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That would extend the
whole area where the garage is proposed?
MR. UELLENDAHL: Well, I think where it
82
July 7, 2011 83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
t0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ends is close to where the driveway is. Nothing
would change on that front. They would be using
the driveway. There is already a parking area.
That is exactly where the
being proposed.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
garage
area of the garage is
The area where the
is presently being used where their
vehicles are parked?
MR. UELLENDAHL:
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
this time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER HORNING:
Notice of Disapproval,
Yes.
No other questions at
George?
I am looking at the
and I guess this is a
question for the Board first. What would be the
side yard setback requirement for --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 5 feet. Depends on
the size of the structure. 40 for the front yard.
15 for the side yard. And they are proposing --
MR. UELLENDAHL: 13.
MEMBER HORNING: I am wondering why
are not proposing as an attached garage to
existing structure?
MR. UELLENDAHL: I see what you are
saying --
you
the
July 7, 2011 84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
front
that I can see is the
the existing garage doors
possibility.
MEMBER HORNING: I
MEMBER HORNING:
yard. I am asking why?
MR. UELLENDAHL: I mean,
front of
applicant has
MR. UELLENDAHL:
like the garage doors
Then you eliminate your
are.
the only location
the garage where
It is a
and allow some air and ventilation for the den,
which is a nice size room. Architecturally, I
think separate garage would actually work better.
It ends up being less bulky. Because
sort of a nice breezeway between the
garage
like a
2 1/2
can move the
the existing
to -- I am not directing you. You are the
architect. Just arbor type fixture --
MR. UELLENDAHL: There is something --
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Something maybe
feet to what the width of them are. On
there is
existing
and the proposed one and it's almost
gateway into the garden and the lawn.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Frank, I think you
garage back to within 3 feet of
house. Okay. Just put what I refer
considered that?
Obviously they would
and put it some windows
am asking if the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
Carol Road, we had a significant amount of
applications over the years and we require people
to put in confined space area, two garage doors.
One on the front and one on the back in order for
firefighting purposes. Here I would propose the
possibility of the original garage door where you
want it and then just a wider door inside the
structure leading out to the backyard. So that
if someone has to really bring something big in,
they can just go through the garage and make a
left turn and go right into the structure.
MR. UELLENDAHL: We do have -- if you
look at the floor plan, I do have one door going
out. I mean, this could be a double door. You
are concerned about accessibility to the
property.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, I am concerned
about accessibility of that getting off the road.
For whatever you can do to get it off the road.
If you can make it tl,
MR. UELLENDAHL:
dimension between the
draw this up and discuss it with the Carbone's.
think they will be happy, I hope.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Frank, you have done
you can make it 12.
I can put a 2 or 3 foot
structures. I can certainly
I
85
July 7, 2011 86
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
some wonderful
brought before
who is sitting
things, you know, that you have
this Board, as of Mr. Schwartz
to our right. So you know, I don't
think that this is a problem.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER DINIZIO:
didn't merge those two
little bit more of a
can't build anything
MR. UELLENDAHL:
this to them.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
really on it.
MR. UELLENDAHL:
feet for one.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
and getting the same name.
that in a lawyers office.
Jim, any questions?
I just don't know why you
lots.
setback.
on it.
I haven't
You would gain a
Not a lot, you
asked any of
You can't build anything
I would get rid of the 13
It's just merging them
You know, you can do
MR. UELLENDAHL: I will ask them if they
are consider doing this, but it is not going
to change, as far as, the location of the
garage.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I assume that it will
change the amount of variance required.
MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes.
July 7, 2011 87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I actually have one
kind of comment. It is such a odd shape lot and
to keep it away from the bulkhead, I see exactly
why, I think, you propose to put it where it is,
and yeah,
farther from the
site inspection,
it a little
when I did a
were two cars in the
choice but to back out
a nightmare. It is right
I think you can scoot
road; however,
there
parking area. I had no
onto that road, which is
on that bend.
MR. UELLENDAHL:
with my Smart Car.
I didn't have a problem
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Your Smart Car,
because you are a smart guy. I have a big Lexus.
Ail I am suggesting is, it even isn't the size of
the car, it's really a term and maybe you and
your clients may want to consider, since
going to be removing the back space, the
garage, you can drive out of the driveway in
front of the house and maybe have a little
gravel, you can turn, you can come out of the
garage and turn around instead of backing out
onto that road?
MR. UELLENDAHL: If we get to the 3 foot
dimension, I would like to actually push back
you are
existing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
some more because I am closer to the
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure.
MR. UELLENDAHL: This is a
Thank you.
structure.
Okay.
good idea.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So what does the
Board want to do? Do you want to adjourn to
another hearing to see what you want to do or --
the merger, do you want to give him a chance to
look into that? I mean,
him a decision, but it
look into?
MR. UELLENDAHL:
move the garage closer
I am prepared to give
is still a good thing to
Why don't we -- I will
to the house, 36 inches
and I
MR. UELLENDAHL:
or tomorrow morning.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
will submit the revised --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Survey.
Site plan this afternoon
Is that acceptable?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right. I am
going to make a motion to close upon receipt of
an amended site plan showing a closer notation to
the dwelling. Is there a
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
second?
Second.
Ail in favor?
88
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
****************************************************
HEARING #6482 - EDWIN J. PISANI
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. The next
application before us is for Edwin J. Pisani,
#6482. Request for variance from Code Article
XXII Section 280-116B and the Building
Inspector's May 31, 2011 Notice of Disapproval
based on an application for building permit for
additions and alterations to an existing dwelling
at; 1)less than the code required setback of 75
feet from a bulkhead, located at: 7180 Peconic
Bay Boulevard (Adjacent to Great Peconic Bay)
Laurel.
Mark?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Suffolk County local
you have LWRP?
MR. SCHWARTZ:
Hold on. We have
determination and LWRP. Do
No, I do not.
89
July 7, 2011 90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They are consistent.
Let me give you a copy for your records. Okay.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay. We are here today
because the existing house and decks are within
75 feet of the bulkhead. We are planning to for a
slight
design.
expansion, the second floor and a new roof
And a portion like I said, that was
within the 75 foot setback. The existing roof
line, to the ridge, is 21.7 inches. The proposed
is 27.4 inches. And the biggest expansion on the
second floor is an expansion of a sitting room in
the center. And again, part of it is within the
75 foot setback and they would like to expand
that. It's a sitting room and TV room for the
children and grandchildren to use. It gets a lot
of use and they just need a little more space.
There is also existing flat roof to that
expansion. And they would like to change those
flat roofs into two deck areas. That is shown on
the floor plans.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mark, can I ask you
a question? That outside wall that exist now, you
are just changing the interior walls with the
exception of the second floor extension; is that
correct?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
within
July 7, 2011
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. We are completely
the existing footprint of the house.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Including the second
floor extension?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. That is extended over
a second floor deck area.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. And what is the
bump out, which is not part of the setback --
well it really
west side?
MR.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
floor?
floor.
is. It's 93 feet. What is that on
SCHWARTZ: The master bedroom.
That is on the second
MR. SCHWARTZ: No, that is on the first
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
to the front of the house?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: I have no questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don't have any
questions either. It's very specific to the
existing foot print and the bulkhead that exist.
I am wondering why you are here? What additional
nonconformity's. The only thing that is coded
And everything else is
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7,
here is the bulkhead.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
right-of-way.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER HORNING: No,
anything.
2011
They own the
George?
I don't have
no
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right. Hearing
further comments, I will make a motion to
close the hearing and reserve decision.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING %6481 - JAMES AND JANET D'ADDARIO
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application
before the Board
D'Addario, #6481.
Section 280-123 and the Building Inspector's
is for Janet and James
Request for variance from Code
May
92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
19, 2011 Notice of Disapproval base on an
application for building permit for
additions/alterations to a nonconforming building
at; 1) a nonconforming building containing a
nonconforming use shall not be enlarged unless
the use of such building is changed to a
conforming use, Location: 18905 Peconic Bay
Boulevard, Laurel.
Okay, Mark?
MR. SCHWARTZ: This property has several
structures on it, as you can see from the site
plan. A main house, three cottages. We are
looking to expand the cottage to the northwest by
300 square feet just to create a larger bedroom
and the den area for the
owns the property. I had
questions as to how they
son of the family who
asked Mr. D'Addario some
are using the property,
and the main house. He has 3 children, 7
grandchildren. And his daughter uses the
large house on this property. Her and her
husband are screen writers from New York City and
they spend two months there in the larger house.
The expansion that we are talking about is a
cottage that is used by the son. He is having a
second baby in September. They just want to
93
July ?, 2011 94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
create a little more space to have a larger
bedroom. Still only two bedrooms in that cottage
and a den area. And that's what we are hoping to
do here.
more?
MR. SCHWARTZ: I am just telling you what
the plan is. This is not a property that they
ever decide to rent. I know its not necessarily a
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There are a whole
lot of CO's on this package. My eyes got dizzy.
The point is, the record should reflect the
C of O and the existing cottages have pre-C of O.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Over time, I guess
there were some conversions to other structures
for other uses. Okay. Jim, do you have any
questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Nothing other then the
fact that our law states that it is nonconforming
and not called a structure. Can you just kind of
give a little more reason why you need -- I mean,
I see what you did. You just added another
bedroom, a den. Like a walkthrough.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Can you discuss a little
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
hardship. He would just like to gain a larger
bedroom. I think now, the other bedroom is
going to be used for two kids instead of one.
MEMBER DINIZIO: And what is the other
structure used for? The other cottage?
MR. SCHWARTZ: I think the C of O says
workshop. So it's just a sitting room. There is
the main house. And the one to the north --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is a house.
MR. SCHWARTZ: The other cottage is used
by visitors.
MEMBER DINIZIO: It is?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: So it has running water,
toilet --
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I think that is all I
have.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The only question
that I have, this is a family compound, with I
guess, one guest cottage?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
stated relief can not be achieved be feasible
method other then an area variance "because of
And the application
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
use
little bit more clearly,
means?
July 7, 2011
of occupancy." Can you just explain a
what use and occupancy
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, probably just what I
stated. This is used by one family. It's a
growing family and they need some more space.
MEMBER DINIZIO: That's the question that
getting at and the answer that he gave,
the house more functional to have this
I was
makes
bedroom, is that acceptable?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
So it's a growing
family and need another bedroom to make it more
feasible occupied for that family --
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I think there is another
bathroom too?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. There is one by the
master bedroom.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So what you are
really saying is that without a variance, you
can't expand the house?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is basically
what you are saying and you want to expand it for
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
the family growth?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just for the future of
this situation, again, I grew up around the
corner from this. This was an extreme family
compound. Where you see that lower area dwelling
that was closest to the water, that actually was
a pool house which was converted sometime in the
late 70's and early 80's to a house. This has
nothing to do with the D'Addario besides they own
the property. It was a family compound. When it
went though those additional stages, I was
absolutely amazed, hadn't been over there in
years, when I was there. The reason for the lot
coverage, Mark,
application on
is that we recently had an
(in audible) point and when we
have these types of situations, it's important
for the Board to track -- I am not speaking for
the Board, I am speaking for myself, the lot
coverage because all you need to do is put one
tennis court or swi~mning pool in and your lot
coverage seems to really
purpose of it, all right.
in general. So I have no
count. And that was the
This is the situation
objection to it.
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: I just have a question of
curiousness actually. One map it says that the
adjacent lot 30, labeled vacant is also owned by
the applicant. And they have the (in audible)
fenced in, canopy garden. That is their's too?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, it is. That is just
a garden for fresh vegetables.
MEMBER HORNING: Okay. And there is
another way of accessing that?
MR. SCHWARTZ: I think to the northwest --
actually the southwest side, there is a driveway
that goes around the Lot 14, I believe.
MEMBER HORNING: What a nice garden. Is
that to keep deer out?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anyone else have any
questions or comments? Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Hearing no
further comments and since there is no one
else in the audience except Mark, I make a motion
to close this hearing and reserve decision.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
****************************************************
HEARING #6422 BENALI, LLC
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This is for Benali,
for an adjournment. So we don't
legal notice. Is there anyone
to address that
LLC, and that is
need to read the
here that would like
application?
MR. KRAM: I do.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
name for the record, please?
MR. KRAM: The name is
managing member of Benali,
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
sir.
Okay. State your
Steve Kram,
LLC.
Okay. Thank you,
We have a request for an adjournment and we
have to open this hearing because it is legally
advertised and someone may appear. Is there
anyone here in the audience that wishes to
address this application? Would you come
forward, please.1
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
MR.
(in audible) Court, Southold.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
last name, please?
MR. PALMENTERI:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
sir.
July 7, 2011
PALMENTERI: Joe Palmenteri from 65
Could you spell your
P-A-L-M-E-N-T-E-R-I.
Okay. Thank you,
MR. PALMENTERI: I
I understand that this was
was it?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The DEC denied the
request by the applicant for wetland permits
have a few questions.
turned down by DEC,
based on adverse environmental
MR. PALMENTERI: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I
impact.
can bring you up
to date and the Board up to date, and I am sure
you are aware of what happened. The applicants
attorney has an appeal of that denial before a
judge, and a hearing was held, two weeks ago
approximately.
disputing the
environmental
The applicant is not in any way
substance of the denial,
grounds or impact. Rather they are
requesting the reversal of a legal technicality
that they allege that the DEC did not file their
decision within the 5 day time limit.
10o
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
MS. ANDALORO: 5 day demand letter.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right. They did not
respond in that amount of time. According to the
law, if that is true, then they have failed to
meet their time frame and on a technicality, that
would mean an approval. That actually has --
whether they get that reversal or not, they have
no bearing on the ZBA variance decision. The fact
of environmental impact remain the same and we
actually are simply waiting to receive the full
pieces of information from the applicant that we
had requested in March.
MR. PALMENTERI: Which was?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They are aware of it
but I will state it for the record. There is a
letter that we wrote to them on March 7th -- this
is when we adjourned to July. There had been four
adjournments. Two public hearings and four
adjournments in this application. We requested
that the applicant add the wetland line depicted
by R. Fox dated 2/19/06 wetland boundary and
stamped arrival by the Board of Trustees Town of
Southold on 3/21/08 on the applicant's survey. In
other words, there was discussion about where the
actual wetland line is. So after a lot of back
I01
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
and forth with Trustees and Department of
Environmental Conservation, and our own LWRP
coordinator and the Board's own environmental
consultant, it was determined that the -- the
correct location of the wetlands was on the
survey just cited. So we ask that their survey be
corrected to show that. We asked them to
recalculate both the square footage of the
buildable lot area using the Fox wetland line and
proposed lot coverage to show those figures on
the survey. They may have a different building
envelope being proposed and they may have a
different lot coverage depending on what the
building envelope is based on where the wetland
line is. Thirdly, show the proposed setbacks from
Fox wetland line side yards and front yard on
the
the survey. Finally, where the footprint is
proposed, and four, provide scaled architectural
drawings of all
dwelling as it will appear
required pilings, with the
four elevations of the proposed
when built on the
existing grade to the
roof ridge and proposed elevated septic system.
That was requested as of March and to this
date, we have received none of them. We received
a letter requesting another adjournment based
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
upon this pending decision by the judge
to the DEC denial.
MR. PALMENTERI: So basically DEC gave
them two extra days, they made a mistake.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We don't know yet.
They are claiming they did. The DEC is
responding.
that is.
MR.
We don't know what the outcome of
PALMENTERI: You don't
in regard
know what the
DEC is responding?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, I do not.
MR. PALMENTERI: Okay. Well, I am a
member of the community. Not to far away from
this proposed very small home that is going to
stand on those 35 feet high and be what I
consider, and what other people consider, in
neighborhood a monstrosity, all right. And
whatever this corporation says about everybody
being for it and the neighbors are not against
it, these are all neighbors that this
corporation has had close ties with for years.
Ail right, and other then that, I
to say. I am going to follow this
that the Board doesn't let this go through.
Because this is going to be a monster in our
have nothing
and hopefully
the
103
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1t
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
community, all right. And the land next to it,
those people did not say a word. Did not write
letter in and one of the relatives there, is
nearly blocked out from seeing the water from his
house. Not a word has been said because he is a
part owner of the corporation next door. This is
a windfall for anybody who has a little piece of
property there. Probably using this as catalyst
for them to do what they would like to do
eventually, all right. Okay. I will just follow
through. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you very much.
MR. KRAM: If I could just clarify
something. It is not that we don't object to the
DEC findings -- can you hear me -- the DEC
findings. We object to all the findings but the
threshold question is, did they even respond in a
timely manner at all? And so that is the
threshold question and we are going to answer
that and we will see what happens. You know,
I take great exception to a call house being
called a monstrosity that has not even been
designed. You know, you have no drawings. You
know, you are talking about 800 square feet.
Most people have a living room and fining room
July 7, 2011 105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1t
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that is 25x40. It is sort of hard to imagine,
that being said, I can't answer why the documents
-- the material that we were supposed to be
presenting by now, are not here. As I think the
counsel had written a letter, they had a
conflict. They are on trial now and they asked
for an adjournment. Someone -- one of the
counsel, I think had a conversation with the
Zoning Office. I am not sure who it was, and were
told that you may decide to close the hearing but
I would respectfully request that you not do
that until we gather the additional information,
we are trying to gather. I would like to
make --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I would like to ask
you a question.
MR. KRAM:
Sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What additional
information are you talking about?
MR. KRAM: I can only tell you what David
Rosenberg said. I don't know.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you have a copy
of the letter that he sent to the Board?
MR. KRAM: Unfortunately I don't have
anything here because I was just told yesterday
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
to show up.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, let me read
this into the record, so you are aware of this
letter because it doesn't say anything about
additional information.
MR. KRAM: That is what he told me.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. I am just
going to read since we are all together. "The
application is scheduled to be heard next week by
the ZBA on July 7th. In as much as the Benali's
is also waiting for the determination of the New
York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, on Benali's application for titled
wetlands permit. It is respectfully requested
that the appearance be adjourned to September 1st
the regular meeting of the ZBA or soon there
after it may be heard" there is no reference to
other information.
MR. KRAM: Correct. I did ask him that
and he said that he had thought that it wasn't
going to be an issue. It wasn't to Monday or
Tuesday that he thought you might close the
hearing or there might be a motion to close the
hearing made by somebody and that I should show
up to say, that is not fair. But if I could, I
106
July 7, 2011 107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
will be very short --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MR. KRAM:
position is. It's
Sure.
I will tell you what my
very easy. Three times,
we
to the
conservancy. Give
this is like a national park. I mean, it is
really an incredible thing. I tried to give
the Town.
sort of like a
-- I recognize
I mean, come on, you can have it.
crazy situation. I certainly agree
that this thing is sort of close
to the water. And I have been out here for close
to 50 years, which may be why Mr. Palmenteri
refers to the fact that I have a lot of friends
in the community who
really not the issue.
frustration.
square feet,
square foot
don't object, but that is
I understand his
We are not trying to build 2500
3,000 square feet. It's an 800
footprint. The thing is tiny. And I
it to
It is
tried to donate this property. To give it
Town. To give it to the nature
it to the Peconic Land Trust. Everybody said the
same thing. Not worth it. Not worth preserving.
Don't bother. We don't want it. Everybody said
the exact same thing. It is sort of an incredible
thing that now you get Mark Terry from the LWRP
and the Trustees and the Zoning Board saying that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7,
recognize it that it is
we are deing it. He can
2011
for our son. That is why
live near by us. It's
affordable. It works. That is
to do here. And we are still willing
smaller, if you guys want it smaller.
what we are trying
to make it
We will
reduce the size, scale,
want. As long as one person
think that is fair. We have
structure, whatever you
can live there. And
spent thousands on
surveys. We have done that just in these hearings
that we have done about three times, it turns
out we were right except for one bush. A $50.00
plant. The line we drew before was the right
line. And I think Bruce Anderson talked about it
as being absorbant bush. I mean, you can find
these bushes 100 feet upland. It happened. I
would point out that the house next door, not the
one that is vacant, who he was speaking about. I
think they are with conservation. They can never
build. But the house on the other side of us,
when they were rebuilding the house, you guys
approved them to move 10 feet from the water.
They were 20 feet from the water when the
started.
10 feet
like this works
Now they built a big house and they are
from the water. It just doesn't seem
consistent manner. This is the
108
July 7, 2011 109
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
same guy who wants to buy my property and he is
going to object because of sour grapes, because
he should'ye really owned it. The other point I
would make, at our first hearing, and I think I
was at the first hearing. Chairman Weisman read
into the record documents that were forged
pretending it's from the DEC. We went through a
lot of checking. We spent a lot of money. We went
to the Trustees --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I believe it was
unsigned.
MR. KRAM: It was what?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Unsigned.
MR. KRAM: No, no, there was additional
language that you read that was not in any one
else's copy. It was in no one else's copy, but
the only people that have that written on it are
the people from the ZBA. It appears that it was
done within the ZBA. The Trustees don't have it.
The DEC doesn't have it. Nobody has a copy --
well, now we do, you gave it to us. That was it.
And it was supposed to be from the DEC.
MS. ANDALORO: I know what you are talking
about. It was a handwritten notation from the
DEC --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
MR. KRAM: It wasn't noted as a
handwritten notation.
MS. ANDALORO: It --
MR. KRAM: It was read into the record as
part of the letter from the DEC.
MS. ANDALORO: It's a public record.
MR. KRAM: Nobody else has it but the ZBA.
MS. ANDALORO: It was a handwritten
notation. We don't know who wrote it, as it was
unsigned; however, sir, it is duly noted in the
record and you know, the ZBA,
consider that. The importance
the content portion --
MR. KRA/~: -- now,
can or can not
of the letter was
that that portion that
was read into the record as being from the DEC
was not from the DEC and that was forged. I think
afterwards everybody realized this is a forged
document and you know, it was kind of a crazy
situation to have that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Not once in any of
the other hearings, do you see this that any
one made any reference to it that it was a
forgery. Today you are brining it up.
MR. KRAJM: Nobody has it but you guys. You
said it on the record, go back and read the
110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
record,
any of
only
July 7, 2011
we said it then, this does not appear in
our documents. This is added language that
the ZBA has from the DEC.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Where did we get
MR. KRAM: Okay. Fine.
MS. ANDALORO: It is just speculation. It
is duly noted.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Why don't you just
continue.
MR. KRA~M: The other part is, having been
out here for a while and been at the meetings, I
don't understand -- and maybe this happens all
the time, but the ZBA actually called the West
Lake Association, the Homeowners Association, who
the president called me. Said that you guys were
looking for them to object to our application.
Not once but twice, to ask them don't you want
to object to the application. Both times
they said no, but how does
out --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
correct
Board's
for
the ZBA reach
I am just going to
from my perspective and I believe the
perspective, it is not uncommon at all
interested parties to be contacted by this
111
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
Board for comments.
contacted --
MR. KRAM: You know,
agencies.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
contacted. The Board never
July 7, 2011
The Planning Board has been
I understand the
The homeowners are
said please give us
critical comments. If they were contacted by
this Board, it was to obtain comments --
MR. KPJ~M: Well, what I was told by the
Homeowners Association that you were looking for
support to deny the application.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No one from this
Board or our office ever stated --
MR. KRAM: Okay. I can't argue with you. I
wasn't there.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You are
we had an application with Mr.
and it was confrontational?
aware that
Moyer at the time
MR. KR/LM: That was over by the time that
mine started, but yes. I understand that there
was a big fight and they got involved and they
objected to that application but they didn't
object to mine. You know, I find it awful -- not
awful but difficult to understand why the ZBA
would lobby another agency. The use of Jim King
112
July 7, 2011 113
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
to go to the DEC. Before Jim King went to the
DEC, we were getting every indication that our
application with the DEC is going to get
approved. Now Jim King goes and all of a sudden
they change their tune and it's denied.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Wait a minute. I
really going to object to the use of the term
lobbying, you are making it sound -- let me
correct what I am hearing.
hearing your suggestion is,
am
I believe that I am
that this Board has
proactively and with prejudice, approached
Trustees and the Homeowners Association with an
effect of conciliatory (sic) support evidence?
MR. KRAM: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is
absolutely --
MR. KRA/~: The DEC --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Categorically
incorrect. Jim King went to -- as an advisor of
the Trustees at the time, went and identified the
wetland line and a previous survey that the Town
Trustees had approved as the survey that they
supported. That the DEC produced and they
reiterated that after further research. This is
not a lobbying effort. This is not an effort
July 7, 2011 114
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to prejudice.
MR.
be easy to
It's fact finding, period.
KRAM: Chairman Weisman, it would
clear up. You provide a copy of the
e-mails between the ZBA and the
matter --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MR. KRAM: You will
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
DEC about this
We have.
provide them?
We will provide
absolutely everything and anything in our
records --
MR. KRAM: Because we were denied it under
FOIL. So I just want you to understand. They
said they will only provide what's in the file.
They won't provide any of the correspondences. If
you are happy to provide it, that would be great.
I would really appreciate it.
MEMBER DINIZIO: May I ask a question?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure.
MEMBER DINIZIO: What is in the file
there?
KRA/~: We were told by the DEC there
in there about denials about the
MR.
are e-mails
application.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Not from us.
MR. KRAM: Well, I don't know. There is a
July 7, 2011 115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
lot of interagency stuff.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So I just want to make
a statement. I have been on this Board for a
long time. There are two instances that you have
brought up today that I take great exception
to.
MR. KRAM: We are just trying to get
through the hearing.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But you can not say
things like this. This Board doesn't do these
things, okay? And I would really appreciate if
you would really continue so that we can finish
this portion of it. Just, I am telling you this,
I take great exception to this.
MR. KRAM: With all do respect, this is
concerned with counsel that we hired to engage to
request for information. To request for
correspondence --
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We have the same
situation if we call the DEC. They won't give it
to us either. So what's the difference?
MR. KRAM: But you -- we can get it from
you.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We don't have it.
MR. KRAM: Okay.
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anything in our
records is public and is available certainly to
you, and anybody else who wanted it.
MR. KRAM: Okay. Which brings me my last
point, and I completely -- I am not going to
fight about it. I was going to let counsel do
this. I didn't even want to be here. So all we
were trying to get is an adjournment so he can
give you the information. But I certainly don't
want the appearance of any prejudice against us.
We understand the appearances are important, and
if you are telling us the facts are otherwise,
we believe you. There is nothing else said. If
we would be willing to discuss with counsel,
offering this property to the Town again, so that
the
out
development next door, Angel (in audible)
want it. But we don't want to do that. We
Town's people could use it. We will figure
how. We will figure out a method. Maybe the
would
think it is fair
don't think this
So for all that,
to build a house here. We
is so ownness and so terrible.
I would ask you to engage
dialogue to find a solution. If there is a
that works. If there is a design that works.
there an architectural design that works,
in a
size
Is
116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
whatever. We are willing to compromise. That's it
and that's what we are doing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me talk to
the Board for a moment. Is there anyone in the
audience that would like to address this
application?
MR. PALMENTERI:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
I do.
Ail right. Just
please state your name for the record, again?
MR. PALMENTERI: This is a corporation
that is asking for this, all right. It's not a
homeowner. This corporation owns other properties
in the area, all right, which
It's my own feeling that
rental house. The Benali
is commercial.
this is going to be a
Corporation wrote me a
letter stating it was going to be a house for
their son when he eventually decides to come and
live here.
MR.
MR.
almost 12
KRAM: He is graduating this year.
PALMENTERI: I have been here for
years. I ran across the man about a
dozen times. Maybe a few more then a dozen. They
don't live here. They live
interest is in California.
in Southold. Mine is. I
in California. Their
Their interest is not
think its a beautiful
117
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
place and I would like to have it preserved
without having things stuck up on poles. This
isn't a very very small house, 850 square feet of
-- of the footprint. Now, you have a second
floor. So this probably comes out to 12 or 1400
square feet house. It's not a tiny, tiny house
that the corporation says it is. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
MR. KRAM: Mr. Palmenteri raises an
interesting question. We would be very happy to
stipulate that we couldn't rent the house. You
know, my son lives in New York. He lives in
Manhattan. Yes, we do live in Los Angeles. We
have been coming out here close to 50 years. We
would be very happy to stipulate that we are not
renting the house to anyone. Yes, and, yes we do
own another piece of commercial property and I
think I have owned that for over ten years. You
know, that's it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right. We have
a request for an adjournment. They have a
request from us for more information. I just want
to put into the record and then we can
reschedule. By the way, your attorney, Mr. Kram
has been informed that this is standard Board
118
July 7, 2011 119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
policy. The reason was for the hearing, even
though you requested an adjournment, we have
legal noticed it. We have to do that. Then we
take testimony if anyone shows up and then we
consider your request for
first hearing on this was
we adjourned for a second hearing on
January 6, 2011. Then it was adjourned to
March 3, 2011. The Board received a letter
an adjournment. The
on October 2, 2010 but
request for an adjournment to September of
whenever we want --
MR. KRAM: (In audible.)
(Far away from the microphone.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
if the Board -- we have two
close this hearing subject to
information or we can adjourn
for -- I would propose a very
Yes. Ail right. So
choices. We can
receipt of the
to September
limited discussion
and you know, kind of short hearing, in which the
Board would question the applicant on anything
they had regarding the information submitted by
the applicant that we requested. We have taken
lots and lots of testimony -- it's okay. I am
requesting another adjournment. Granted to
July 7th, which would be today. And now the
July 7, 2011 120
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
talking. We have
already. This is
hearing. We have,
taken lots and lots of testimony
now, I would call it a third
you know, everything that we
need other then what we requested in order to
evaluate the State statutes that we will produce
according to Town law. Balancing testimony that
will allow us to examine everything before us.
And so, if the Board is inclined to do one more
adjournment. I would suggest that it would be the
last adjournment and the last hearing. It would
be for the sole purpose of taking fact finding
information that has been submitted to us. How
does the Board feel about --
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
base that time period in
We should probably
relation to when that
information is submitted to us. So we don't get
it in a short time frame before we can review it
before that hearing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: In other words,
lets put a time limit on when we need to receive
this information prior to the next final hearing,
is that what you were saying?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You know, I was
thinking of something a little different, Kenny,
if you don't mind?
July 7, 2011 121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No not at all.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: My situation is, first
of all, we don't know when we are going to get
the information. That is No. 1. We have asked for
it several times. That is No. 1. No. 2, we don't
know how long its going to take us to basically
look at the application and to look at the
determinations on what they are going to give us.
So I mean really, in reality, assuming the
chairperson is correct, in which she is in
reference to a short hearing. Maybe we should
adjourn it without a date so that we eventually
get the information that we are looking for and
then we can recalendar it after that. Maybe it
will be Deceraber. I don't know.
MS. ANDALORO: I just want to make
sure
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I tend to agree with
counsel.
MS. ANDALORO: Is the applicant aware
that we have a six month policy. To receive the
information within six months, we will write you
a letter saying we have asked you for this
information. We have adjourned a hearing pending
this information, and if we don't receive the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
tl
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
information within 30
deem your
MR.
MS.
days, then we are
application as withdrawn.
KRAM: (In audible.)
ANDALORO: Right. So if you adjourn
going to
it
without a date, we are looking
hearing this again in 7 months.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I
this. We have taken
Board has been more
at the latest,
just want to say
so much time. I believe this
than gracious in honoring
the request of the applicant and their attorney
on several occasions. I believe what we have
requested is extremely reasonable and it is very
rare to have this amount of time go by and not to
receive information requested by this Board from
the applicant. I would like to put a time limit
that is significantly less than six months on the
date of receipt of this information. This could
go on forever, and they have an open ended
application. Don't you want to get another
date?
MR. KPJ~M: -- yes, we should schedule
another hearing until we have all the information
you request and if you request -- I would be
happy to answer them but I don't know what
forum to do this house in. If you want it
122
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
smaller,
smaller?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
July 7, 2011
how do we find out you want
It is not
it
decision to do that. We requested that
your application based upon the survey.
gone over this. It's not rocket science.
MR. KRAM: I will write this down.
our
you update
We have
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Show us where you
are putting your footprints. Give us the lot
coverage. Give
which is going
grade and then
us the elevations we requested,
to show 8-foot high pilings above
your house sitting on top, the
deck and the
MR. KRAM:
Jennifer told me
railings.
I was -- see, for some reason,
you just wanted envelope
information. You wanted actual architectural
drawings?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have a copy of
this letter. It says exactly what I just said.
Architectural drawings on pilings. We will
provide you with another copy.
MR. KRAM: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: In fact, the attorney
just received another copy attached to our
response stating our procedure for adjournment
123
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
when it has been legally advertised. I don't know
how to make it any clearer.
MR. KRAM: I apologize, Chairman. I didn't
(in audible) represented by counsel.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Does the Board want
to adjourn without a date?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, lets adjourn
with a date. Lets adjourn to the November
meeting.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: To November?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yeah, and then they
should have all of the information that we have
and then, if we get it before that, then we
always make a change.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: He said that
surveys are done within a week or two, I mean,
it's not --
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Then lets go to the
October meeting --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have room on
September.
that?
be
Mr. Kram,
MR. KRAJM:
available. (In
(Far
how do you feel about
Well, unfortunately,
audible.)
away from the microphone.)
I will not
124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Board has the
attorneys letter for September or soon
thereafter Benali made be heard. It makes me feel
that they are prepared.
MEMBER GOEBRINGER: The question is
though, if we don't get the information, we
should not have the hearing because we need that
information.
MR. KRAM:
Can we notice you by August to
put the September on and then you will notice it
and then we will all be fine.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It is more
aggravation for you to adjourn it without a date
because then when it gets recalendared, you have
to send out green cards again. It has to be
renoticed and so on and so forth.
fine.
MR. KRAM: So set it for September. I am
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
Let me ask one more
question. If we were to close the hearing to
verbatim testimony and handle everything by
mail -- no.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
have another hearing. If we have any questions
and for them to respond.
I think we should
125
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7,
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
make a motion to hearing it
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
2011
Okay, are we going to
in September?
Pending receipt
Two weeks before.
Now, what is the
date of the Special Meeting because that way we
can discuss it and see if it meets whatever we
are looking for.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In August.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have two meetings
a month. The first one is the public hearing and
Meeting to
is also a
anyone could come
No testimony is
listen.
I will make a motion
two weeks later we have a Special
deliberate and make decisions. It
noticed public meeting and that
to. It's in the other building.
taken but you can sit and
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
September meeting
we receive it no
p.m., which is the
I am going to
that we recalendar this for the
and predicated on the fact that
longer than August 17th, 3:00
date of our Special Meeting.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
say August 16th. George needs to get a copy.
So we need to receive the requested information
by August 16th, the latest, definitely before.
126
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
And we will adjourn to September 1st,
1:00 o'clock. That is subject to receipt by
August 16th of the requested information as per
the letter dated March 7, 2011.
MR. KRAM: I understand. Is there a forum
further the information about donating the
to
land?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MR. KR/LM: Should we
nobody has any interest?
MS. ANDALORO: They don't
authority to entertain that
MR. KRAM: Okay.
Not to the Board.
just take it as
have the
request.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Town takes on
these properties based upon maps that they have,
not arbitrary. And when they acquire property,
even if its donated, it has to fall within the
parameters of th Comprehensive Plan. So that
the Town assumes liability and maintenance
on that property. So I would suggest to you,
sir, that is probably part
you approach the Town.
MR. KRAM: Yeah. They didn't
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
of the thinking when
want it.
Okay. So Gerry
it.
made a motion and I am seconded
127
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
Ail in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
MARY BETH HENSON - #6461
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application
before the Board is for Mary Beth Henson, %6461.
This was adjourned from 5/5/11. So we don't need
to read the legal notice. Rob?
MR. HERRMANN: Good afternoon. Rob
Herrmann of En-Consultants for Mary Beth Henson,
the applicant. Each of you should have a letter
and a revised site plan. When we adjourned the
hearing from May, we have been discussing
potentially making some drawing modifications
that were responsive to issues relating to the
side yard setback relief that was being requested
on the westerly property line and also the bluff
setback. What the letter summarized and is
depicted on the site plan is that the plan has
been changed with respect to both of those
128
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
23
24
25
July 7,
elements in response
those two items. The
2011
to the Boards concerns on
first being the width of the
proposed porch that is
west side house in replace of
attached garage. The existing
being constructed on
the existing
setback is a
the
preexisting nonconforming 14 feet and we were
proposing to encroach part of that to an 11 foot
setback that would have required then 4 feet of
side yard relief. The width of the porch has now
been reduced by 4 feet, such that the 1 foot of
preexisting nonconforming setback on the side
yard is a limited in favor of a conforming
15 foot side yard setback, which would thus
eliminate the need of our previously requested
side yard relief to that proposed porch. The
other issue related to the fact that we were
proposing to remove the existing deck on the
waterside of the house and construct a larger
deck in its place and one of the suggestion
was to eliminate the deck in favor of a mason
patio on grade, which we have done. I should
mention that in doing that, as an oversight we
would have to show a set of access there coming
from the house to that patio but I dont believe
the stairs would typically calculate it with
129
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
respect to the bluff setback. So I don't think
that would affect this Board's determinations but
the result of that modification would be rather
then maintain the existing 39 foot setback, which
would have been our proposed minimum setback as
well, that now increase the bluff setback to 55
feet, as you would no longer draw that setback to
the easterly corner of what was (in audible)
because that would now be masonry on grade, but
you would have that greater setback closer to the
west side of the property and as we discussed at
the last hearing, that is where the bluff tends
to sort of angle away from the house and the
house angles away from the bluff. So we would
also there be improving upon the preexisting
nonconforming setback by 16 feet and that would
also of course, reduce the magnitude of the
setback of relief that we are requesting from
the bluff. Just as a matter of record keeping,
Leslie had asked at the last hearing, if I
could produce the Board's decision for granting a
swimming pool in a side yard up on Sound Drive.
I had referenced it in the application and we had
mentioned it at the hearing. I submitted a copy
with a letter. That was a Manos decision, it was
130
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
#5523, in 2004 and the Board granted relief for
a 16x32 in ground swimming pool, 5 feet from the
property line in a nonconforming side yard.
Ms. Henson continues to propose a smaller pool
than that. It's llx19 and that would be 12 1/2
feet from the property line, again in a
nonconforming side yard. As we already stated a
prior hearing for Ms. Henson's request for relief
was essentially for the basis of the porch (in
audible) granting relief in the Manos case, which
is the fact that due to the configuration of the
lot and the proximity of the house to the bluff,
placing the swimming pool in the conforming rear
yard is not practical. Nor is it as wise of an
idea placing the pool where it is proposed.
Quoted in that decision was the benefit sought
by the applicant can not be achieved by some
method feasible for the applicant pursue an area
variance because it is located in the required
rear yard. There was insufficient area to locate
the pool without a variance from the codes
100 foot setback from the top of the bluff. And
without the variance the proposed pool would not
be possible and the side yard location is more
environmentally sound in placing the pool in the
131
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
rear yard area, we are
the bluff. Again, this
cover at the last hearing. This
just closer to the top of
is the same information we
is some of the
more specifics of that decision, as you had
requested in relation to what we are proposing.
A by product of the changing of design is also a
proposed lot coverage decreases. We haven't any
issue with lot coverage but the lot coverage
does not actually decrease from the existing lot
coverage of 16.57%. That is now down to 14.05%.
We've gone from a total lot coverage of 2,375
square feet to 2,015 square feet. So in summary,
we are eliminating the preexisting nonconforming
side yard setback. We are eliminating our request
for additional side yard relief. We are reducing
our request the scope of our request for bluff
setback relief. We are improving upon the
existing bluff setback. We are actually reducing
lot coverage as a net result of the project
design. We believe the changes are consistent of
what we discussed with the Board at the last
hearing. We hope that the Board would receive
them well and draw a positive determination for
Ms. Henson's variance request. Do you have any
questions? Ms. Henson is here again and
132
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Mark Schwartz,
here.
July 7, 2011
the project architect is also
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
thorough and clear. Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No,
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Thank you, Rob, very
questions.
Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING:
survey?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
the copies that we got
Ken?
Do we have an updated
Yes. These are all
this morning. It's here.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER HORNING: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
I have no questions.
George?
Okay. Anyone else
in the audience like to address this
application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no further
comment, I will make a motion to close the
hearing and reserve decision.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
133
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING ~6463 - BROSTAR, LLC
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our next application
is for Brostar, LLC, %6463 and this was adjourned
no need to read the
from 5/5/11. So there is
legal notice.
MS. SOLOMON: Good afternoon, Members of
the Board, Madam Chairperson. The last time we
were here --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you state your
name, please.
MS. SOLOMON: Michael Solomon. The last
time we were here, the record was left open
and the Board had requested certain information
that we went to whatever steps we could to obtain
and we delivered a package, I think everyone
should have in front of them, with a cover letter
dated June 21, 2011. The letter basically
speaks for itself. The only items that I
134
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
personally want to bring to the Boards attention,
is in the findings and determinations that were
issued by the Board in 1993, upon which the
ultimate Certificate of Occupancy was issued for
the installation of the tanks, which was just as
of this year. On the first page of that
determination from this Board, under #2, it
talked about zoning. It talks about the subject
premises located at R40, iow density residential
zoned district effective January 9, 1989, and is
improved with 3 buildings, concrete blocked
service station with office and sales. So I want
you to be aware of the fact back in 1993, it was
recognized by the Board that there was a sales
area at the location. The only thing that we have
been bantering about is this concept was about
that we sold items, which is our position, most
respectfully, that as times have changed since
the sales areas has been in place. So was the
product that was sold. In the minutes that
you have, which was also submitted from 1993.
You will see references in there all talking
about the sales that you basically needed for the
car. It is presented by Mr. Cuddy, who presented
the case and it is also represented by, I think
135
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
3 or 4 witnesses that came in and testified at
that point. So that coupled with the fact, and I
know it was delivered to you the last time that
we were here of the minutes of that Town Board
meeting, in which Supervisor Russell effectively
told my client, I mean, he actually did. The
exact words from Supervisor Russell that date to
Mr. Spanos who is sitting here today, "Let me
just assure you on the convenience store
legislation, there is a specific reference, if
you just read that excludes existing convenience
stores that have been recognized by the Town.
Now, I know yours is already recognized by the
Building Department as preexisting. So that new
law won't pertain to you. It would be for new
applications and they are generally dealing with
issues of size and scale. So in other words, you
want a convenience store that doesn't eclipse
the principle uses as a gas station, but you can
read that. You will at the end, specific
reference in the back that excludes
stores. So in 2009 as this new code
into effect with convenience stores,
the owner of the store speaking to the
supervisor, our highest elected official,
recognized
was coming
you have
being
136
July 7, 2011 137
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
assured that he is in compliance. And he has said
at the last meeting, he is the only one being
excluded in the whole town right now. I am the
only station that ended up having to come before
the Board. But I don't want to belabor the point.
I know everyone here
review and look into
reemphasize the fact
Has had an opportunity to
it. But I just have to
that we are just selling
products now that are deemed convenience.
know,
2009.
a convenience store was.
definition in '57 or '75,
As you
our code wasn't amended, I think until
We had no definition in our code as to what
So there was no
'93, as we move forward
with all these applications being made. So to ask
for this strict interpretation, listen we are
just a store that recognizes there was a sales
area in 1993. Recognizing that we sold products.
The sign of the time changed. Which I don't
really know of any gas station that exist --
that can financially exist today just on pumping
gasoline. So not to grant the interpretation, it
would be an extreme, extreme hardship and to
force the applicant to now come back on some
other application. Like we are looking for a
variance of some sort, to me, it would be costly
July 7, 2011 138
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and basically only punishment
for something basically that he
words of our elected officials.
to the individual
relied upon prior
So I mean, that
really concludes what I would like to say. If you
have any questions on what we have submitted, I
would be more than happy to try and respond. I
can tell you however, we did try and send the
package, the records from the Department of
Health that were required as to how far back we
were able to find items relating to the
convenience store. You've got the response. They
indicated they searched their records, it doesn't
mean that they don't have it. They can't find it.
But I do know the most recent Department of
Health permit clearly recognizes that (in
audible) gas station, they are operating under
whatever proper permit they require from the
Department of Health or the County.
MEMBER HORNING: Did you submit a copy
of that to the Board?
MS. SOLOMON: I can submit it. There is
also a wine and beer license. Just one other
thing if I may, the request was made to look into
the parking and complaint with the 1993 decision
issued by this Board, and you will notice that
July 7, 2011 139
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the Certificate of Occupancy that was issued
October 8, 2010. So I guess that it was 17 years
and this Board granted the variance, actually
indicated in the certificate, that it was an
upgrade existing gas station, supplied as per
ZBA ~4143 paved it in 1993. So whoever issued
this certificate at this time, from my
perspective, would have been duty bound to check
the 1993 record of your Board and to issue the
certificate. So I believe we were fully in
compliance in that '93 ZBA decision.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions at this
time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: I was interested in
County of Health Department permits. How they
got them and what they covered, and at least he
has a copy of the current permit; correct?
MS. SOLOMON: Yes, you do.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I would only hope
that if this Board is so inclined to grant this
interpretation, that total adherence to the past
decisions and present interpretation, that things
July 7, 2011 140
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
go back to order, as they have just recently
through this whole process. I am not saying that
they are not out of order. I am saying the
complaints from neighbors and so on and so forth,
were being taken care of.
MS. SOLOMON: I would agree with you. In
the spirit of what was said here and potentially
being done, that that would be something that I
would expect my clients to comply with. As I
said the last time, I live in the Village of
Greenport. I don't want to have an eyesore. You
know, I will indicate that my view of this
property over the last couple of months is
extremely well maintained and it is being well
taken care of. If there is some violation, it
doesn't stop someone from coming in and making
violation that we are doing something
But I mean, the nice thing about this
this is almost a property that can be
designated for a historic designation. This
situation goes back a long long time. I will
say, it's one of the beauties in a sense of
architecture that still exists. And it has to
stay vibrant in order it to stay in business.
So I would respectfully request a positive
wrong.
location,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
decision and thanking everybody on the Board
their time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I would hope to
that -- well, I am in the area and I walk by
for
this place everyday and they do adhere to the
parking. They stopped parking on the side. They
stopped working on cars in the street. And you
know, I know you guys can't keep everything under
control, but there are certain reasons why the
Town did rezone that back to R40. I would say
that you were probably always in the right spirit
of the law and continuing what was there. No
doubt about that. You are a victim of your own
success. Everybody likes to go get their car
fixed. I go there and get my milk. Certainly, by
the same token, I would have to walk in the
street sometimes because the people park on the
sidewalk. And you know, I am just hoping that can
somehow be stopped.
MS. SOLOMON: All I an do is assure you to
the level that we can assure you that our
intention to make sure that the station is
operating, I call it a First Class (in audible)
to the extent that we can. As this Board well
141
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
knows, the seasons change in this Town. And when
the seasons change to the summer months, some
craziness tends to come with it. Whether it is
Southold or Greenport, traffic problems.
Whether I try and walk down the side walk in
Greenport, you can't. That is basically the
history of this lovely part of the island that we
live on in Long Island. I can assure you that my
two clients know that this Board would be in
compliant and I hoped that we have provided
enough evidence that we will support that. They
will do everything that they can humanly do to
support that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just I am glad to
receive this information from you today and your
cover letter. In reviewing every piece of
documentation that is in this application, I
still see no -- we certainly have affidavits from
people including one Board member, who
essentially recalls the sale of food stops for
people. I don't care how you call the store.
The legal documentation indicates
automotive relief products, okay,
document that we have.
been sold on the site
sales for
in every
Clearly more than that has
for some time. I don't
142
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
believe that those sales items were
recognized and I guess that is why we
come to grips with now. The option to
legally
are here to
approach
this from a use variance perspective was not the
one that you chose. I believe the Town has
recognized through its code change, the fact that
it is very difficult for gas stations to exist
now financially, without economic hardship.
Without the sales of those kinds of items.
Therefore the code has been adjusted to permit
very small -- you know, in certain zones,
convenience stores. I think you probably had a
strong case for a use variance. One of the few I
can recall, because you can really prove an
economic hardship. Even written into the Town
law. We have to evaluate our decision based upon
everything that you have submitted and the
documentation and evidence. That is a different
set of standards. The code interpretation is a
different set of standards then a use variance.
And I can understand that is a little more
tricky. It costs more money and requires Planning
Board recognition as well. So we will proceed.
I just wanted it to be clear that we have a lot
of documentation, I don't see any that in a
143
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
formal way recognizes a "convenience store."
MS. SOLOMON: But just as a point, not
until 2009, there was no legal definition of
convenience store within the Town Code. So there
would never be anything on any public record
within the township that would even address the
issue of convenience store. Even when they came
in here in 1993 when they wanted to replace
tanks, they even ran into a problem. There was an
issue that it had been closed too long and they
came in and they proved that they had sold you,
which we are saying to you was convenience store
items. We've had testimony through witnesses that
had even testified what they came in and
purchased in the store. Whether it be soda or gum
or whatever was sold. So there is a record of
those items being sold. Our argument is whatever
we sold was a convenience store --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I understand, but
the records do reflect. I just want to be
unbiased about this. I am coming to no
conclusion. I am just simply trying to reiterate
facts before us and that is, there is -- in the
records descriptions of the items that are being
sold. In 1993 you were still -- your clients
144
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
were still
purchasing
correct?
MS.
point that
July 7, 2011
selling items that
for themselves for
people were
their cars;
is that
SOLOMON: I understand exactly the
you are making and I could have
anticipated the point -- or I did ancipitate the
point possible being raised. We have to
understand when the application was made in 1993,
and I wasn't here, it was presented by a very
competent counsel. The issue was continuing to
use of the gasoline station and the testimony was
with regard to the gasoline station because there
would have been no need -- it would have been
nice quite honestly if someone would have said
candy, soda and ice cream. It would have been
more helpful to us. The fact that it wasn't
there, the fact that when they were in 1993,
nobody inquired as to convenience store. If we
really think about it, why was it not until
2010 that this issue even came up. This has been
a convenience store and I know people on the
Board have even shopped this convenience store.
They can prove how long it has been selling.
Whether 10, 15 or even 20 years, it has been a
long time.
145
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
MEMBER HORNING: My question all along,
does the Suffolk County Department of Health have
to have an inspection and issue a permit to have
to run a convenience store.
MS. SOLOMON: Absolutely.
MEMBER HORNING: Check refrigerators to
see if they are cold enough?
MS. SOLOMON: Absolutely.
MEMBER HORNING: To sell eggs and stuff.
And I think what the Chairperson is saying, there
is nothing like that. I wish we did. If you could
have a Suffolk County Department of Health permit
for a convenience store that you are doing
inspections. That they are saying that the milk
refrigeration is okay.
there. That is what I
MS. SOLOMON:
have in the package,
Whatever you are selling
have been asking for.
Yes, part of what you
we made the request. We
are showing you we made the request to the
County. We indicate in our letter, they are
not saying that it doesn't exist. They just
can't locate it. We had asked them to go back
in time to show that these records exist on 1989.
So they are --
MEMBER HORNING: To interrupt you sir,
146
5
6
7
8
9
t0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 7, 2011
the permit says to operate a toxic or hazardous
materials store facility. The fact that you call
it a convenience store in a facility name doesn't
mean that you are permitted by the Suffolk County
Department of Health on this permit here to sell
anything related to a convenience store. You
might name it that but it doesn't mean that by
permitting. And I would like to help you so that
you can produce the Suffolk County Health
Department that shows they are inspecting for a
convenience store.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anything that you
have, we want it. Well, the Liquor Authority is
recognizing that it is listing it as the grocery
store selling beer and wine products. So now you
have graduate from a convenience store to --
MS. SOLOMON: A liquor store.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So now we need
Department of Health to say grocery store/
convenience store.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You know, Leslie, in
going to your point in not having in the record
that they sell loafs of bread there. I was on
the Board. My name is on that decision in '93. I
can tell you that probably, that it never crossed
147
July 7, 2011 148
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
our minds in what
because, you know,
consideration. So
they sell inside that place
it wasn't a topic of
all of those things. I can tell
you that stuff has always had, not just oil. It
has always had soda. I remember soda machines
being out front. You know, I don't ever recall
going there for bread up until recently. You
know, lottery tickets. Those types of things are
sold in supermarkets. They are sold everywhere.
That is the whole thing about being a convenience
store. You know we have to think, that in '93
they were required to replace the tanks in the
ground. You know,
the money at the
finally saved up
poor Mr. Spanos did not have
time to do what he did. He
the money and that's what it
came down to. He brought them in. I don't recall
it being open at the time but certainly, there
were extenuating circumstances. The State was
requiring him to do something that he just simply
couldn't afford. It was a big question back then.
As far as thinking about calling it a convenience
store back then. It was a store. Whatever they
could sell, they could sell. Lifesavers or
whatever it was. You could buy enough quantity to
make a buck on.
July 7, 2011 149
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. SOLOMON: Every time I walk into the
7/11 there is a new product. First they are
selling hot dogs. Now they are selling sausages,
eggs and pizza, and pretzels.
times.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
Its a question of the
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What I am going to
do, Member Horning has to catch the ferry back to
Fishers Island. Is there anyone else who wishes
to address this application? Please come to the
mic and state your name for the record?
MR. SPANOS: My name is James Spanos. I
live in Greenport. Mr. Dinizio, you had asked me
for a couple of things last time. One of them was
a picture and on the article and it says when my
dad put in the tanks, he offered everyone
watching and putting in the tanks, coffee,
biscuits and brown eggs. Something else, I didn't
have it but I drew it up by memory. This is
not from the Town but I drew it up by memory,
like you asked for. And you can submit it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What is that?
MR. SPANOS: It is a survey that you asked
for from what I remember.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Of what was on the
July 7, 2011 150
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
property?
MR. SPANOS: Yeah. We looked from the
survey from '92. Whatever I remember I drew it. I
remember drawing it back then and we submitted it
for the Zoning Board. So whatever I remember it
back then, I put it down now. I mean, it's not
official. It's not stamped by the ZBA, but it
is just by memory. That is it. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any other questions
from the Board?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Counsel?
MS. SOLOMON: I guess we are done.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I will make a motion
to close the hearing and reserve decision.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Ail in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
Second.
Seconded by Gerry.
Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
****************************************************
July 7, 2011 151
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(Whereupon,
for July 7,
the public hearings
2011 concluded.
July 7, 2011 152
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CERTIFICATION
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.
Jessica DiLallo
Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York
11741
Date: July 26, 2011