HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-08/04/2011 Hearing 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
t9
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
August 4, 2011
10:06 a.m.
RECEWED
BOARD OF APPEALS
Board Members Present:
LESLIE KANES WEISMAN -
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
GEORGE HORNING
KENNETH SCHNEIDER
MEMBER GOEHRINGER
Chairperson/Member
- Member
Member
- Member
- Member
JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney
VICKI TOTH Secretary
Jessica DiLalto
Court Reporter
P.O. Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
(631)-338-1409
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 2
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
INDEX OF HEARINGS
Hearing:
Deborah Penney #6484
Shamgar Capital, LLC
#6487
Lisa and David Cifarelli
Edna Beirne #6486
(Daniel
#6488
Buttafuoco)
Peter and Cheryl Castiglione #6490
Maureen Radigan (Peconic Land Trust, Inc.)
#6485
Michael J. Macco #6489
T-Mobile Northeast, LLC #6433
Kathleen Blackley #6458
George and Constantine Zachariadis
TK Alpha, LLC #6437
#6491
Page:
3-48
48-84
84-99
99-113
113-117
117-127
128-134
134-136
136-138
138-142
142-163
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
HEARING %6484 - DEBORAH PENNEY
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: The first public
hearing is for Deborah Penney #6484, request
for variance from Code Article XXII Section
280-116 and 280-124 and the Building
Inspector's June 3, 2011 Notice of
Disapproval based on an application for
building permit for demo and new construction
of a single family dwelling at: 1) less than
the code required setback of 75 feet from a
bulkhead, 2) less than the code required
front yard setback of 35 feet, located at:
160 Sailors Needle Road, (adjacent to Jones
Creek) Mattituck.
Is there anyone here for the applicant?
Please come up to the podium and state your
name for the record and please, spell it,
this is being recorded and transcribed.
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: My name is Steve
Christiansen. That is S-T-E-V-E
C-H-R-I-S-T-I-A-N-S-E-N. I work for (In
Audible)
Avenue,
behalf
160
Architect, located at 206 Richmond
Massapequa, New York and I am here on
Deborah Penney. Property located at
Sailors Needle Road, Mattituck.
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 4
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
yOU,
bring
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: And may I ask
do you have some green cards with you?
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Can you please,
them up to us?
MR. CHRISTIANSEN:
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN:
some paperwork, we just
Yes.
While we are doing
received some files
that I would like you to have
you probably don't have copies
review by the LWRP coordinator,
property consistent and the
notice from
this is for
proceed.
have
I am
copies of and
yet. One is a
finding this
other one is a
Suffolk County, indicating that
local determination. Please
CHRISTIANSEN: Real quick in
If you are going to testify, you
to state your name.
MS. PENNEY: I don't know if I am,
Deborah Penney.
MR.
but
regards to the project, we were looking to do
an addition to the home and after going out
and inspecting it, it goes back to the
1940's, it was an older home. We were looking
to do, you know, change it a little bit. And
after finding out what it was, dealing with
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 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
the cost
and where the
economy was, and taking the house down and
building a new home, we realized in addition
to the size, the existing home is not
efficient. The foundation is bad. The
of construction
energy
His truck is basically at the curb.
Remember, in most developments at the front
of the yard, there is going to be a 10 foot
setback from the property line to the street.
On this particular development, the actual
property line to the curb is only about a
foot. So when he parks his truck in the
front of his house, it's basically against
-- the existing home -- the current driveway
right now is very close to the main street.
When Steve parks his truck in the driveway,
the current driveway, it's only about 20
feet. He only has about 3 feet to walk by.
electric is very old and it is really fire
hazard. Basically, it is just really
non-usable. So we decided a procedure that
would be cost effective, would be to take the
house down and build new. So what you see
before you is the proposed home. As you
notice, the proposed home is -- we actually
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
~9
20
21
22
23
24
25
the curb. In reality, it's almost a little
bit of a distraction when you are coming
around the block. And so that was our main
intent to actually push the house back a
little bit. So that when he parks his truck,
it doesn't become a danger. That was our main
thing for not blocking the street here.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Can I just ask you
something?
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Sure.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: The current front
yard setback is 21.3 feet?
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: The current is --
yes, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: And you are
proposing that setback at --
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: 29.15. And the
minimum that they want is 35 feet. Usually,
that is fine in most developments because you
have that 10 foot from your property line.
In this development, they don't have that.
It's only about a foot.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Can you tell me what
the current bulkhead setback is? I don't
think that I see that?
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: The current right
now -- is, the existing is 47.13. And we're
actually proposing -- we are proposing
pushing it back to and we are pushing it back
to the 43.79.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Ail right.
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: And then as far as
the sides go, being that we are trying to
help on the front of the home and the back of
the home, by pushing those both in, we made
it so that it is not as deep, we made it a
little bit wider. But we made sure when we
made it a little bit wider, we met with all
local regulations for the side yard setback,
which they comply and they are not an issue.
And once again, being the shape of the
property, we were really limited as far as
what we were able to do. When we went through
everything with the Health Department, we met
with them. We put the septic to the absolute
minimum that we were allowed from the street
in every direction, so that also is what
justified us in pushing the house back a
little bit. Our main concern was the car,
sticking a hazard into the street. Being that
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 8
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
how we designed
the home, we thought lets
help out the neighbors and actually push back
the house further from what was on the
original home. And everything else pretty
much complies. Lets see, the existing home
was a two-bedroom home and the proposed is
also a two-bedroom home. However, we still
need the new septic system, which we put on
there. And the main thing is just on the
front. And that is pretty much how we came
about.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Before we turn this
over for discussion from the Board, the site
plan that you are providing in your
architectural drawings, A2, very, very small.
Can you possibly submit a larger scale?
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Absolutely not a
problem.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: So we can read all
the
want,
want,
copy?
dimensions a little better.
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Absolutely. If you
I do have a copy in my car. If you do
I can just go out after and get you a
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Afterwards is fine.
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 9
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Not a problem.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Okay. Do you have
any idea of what the typical bulkhead
setbacks are in the area?
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Yes. I have a photo
if you would like to see. When we went down
to get the letter (in audible) we found also
that they had a map of everybody. (In
audible).
(Stepped away from the microphone.)
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: And we know that is
a very old and sensitive subject. The number
one thing, we try and push it back as far as
we can. And also, just so you know, what we
did as well, just so that the -- you see all
these big homes that go up and these big
monsters. That is not something that we
wanted or wanted to do. So we tried to show
that on all the elevations, if you notice,
it's all hip roof. We attached everything on
the outside and hip roofed it in and the
second-story is more towards the center of
the home. So that from this way, there is not
a big massive house sticking out. Because we
were concerned with all the neighbors, side
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
neighbors, people across the canal. We want
to make sure that we had hip roofs and keep
everything low, this way it wasn't an issue
for
with
yard
anybody. And that is why we made sure
the neighbors, we complied with the side
setbacks. That was very important to us.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: The side yard
setbacks that are existing, currently
conforming also?
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Yes,
Correct.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Ail
turn this over to the Board.
they are.
right. Let me
Actually, we
just discovered, we have a copy of your
larger one. So she will make copies for us.
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: I think we can read
them.
for
MR. CHRISTIANSEN:
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN:
you George. Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
opinion in reference to
bulkhead based upon the
this project?
Okay.
She will make copies
Okay. What is your
the impact on the
size and scope of
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: There really won't
be any impact. I am sure all the roof runoff
will go to the drain. It's a code issue. So
we made sure that issue was taken care of.
The existing bulkhead, there are two
currently. We went down to the -- to get the
letter of non-jurisdiction, we went through
all those issues with them and there was no
issues with the existing bulkhead. So I
would have to say that there is no impact at
all.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there a basement
in the house presently?
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: No.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So when I am
looking at the A4 and I see a second-story, I
am
assuming that the bedrooms are upstairs?
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: On the second
floor?
in
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: That is correct.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So that opened area
the living room is a vaulted area?
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: That is correct.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Vaulted to the
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 12
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
second floor
first floor?
it's
-- well, looking down to the
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: That is correct.
It's a -- you know, for that property, it has
a great view. So that was the reason, was to
just get the view.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So when I looked at
-- I am not sure which one it is, 4 foot
slab. I suspect that is the crawl space of
the house?
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Yeah -- that is
actually the garage. The garage has a four
foot slab.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There is a crawl
space underneath there?
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: There is a crawl
space.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's not a slab?
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: It's not -- well,
a slab in a crawl space.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right. That is the
to get to the piping and so on and
ability
stuff?
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Right. That is
correct.
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: So in the site plan,
present lot coverage is 17.687
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: That is correct.
MEMBER
pushing the
allowed --
MR. CHRISTIANSEN:
the Town actually said
25%.
HORNING: And you are actually
lot coverage up to the code
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
MEMBER HORNING:
Actually on here,
it's approximately
It wasn't denied.
Right, it wasn't
denied for that.
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: So it's 17.68 and
then the open area, where the porch is, is
2.71.
MEMBER HORNING: I am just going
through this. So in the proposal, the most
significant thing is, you are actually
reducing the degree of nonconformity in the
front yard setback and the rear yard setback,
would you agree with that? You are reducing
the degree of nonconformity of having greater
setbacks?
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: Is that
MR. CHRISTIANSEN:
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN:
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN:
correct?
Yes.
Ken?
No questions.
Jim?
the
MEMBER DINIZIO:
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN:
audience --
MR. CHRISTIANSEN:
No questions.
Is there any
Can I just
didn't even ask.
mailbox. Like
CHAIRMAN
copies of all
They had labels put
this particular one.
WEISMAN: Sure. We will get
of those. So the record will
reflect, there were letters submitted in
support of this --
MR. CHRISTIANSEN:
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN:
and make them part of the record.
That's correct.
We will read them
one in
-- they
in their
Is there anyone in the audience that
would like to address this application?
Please, come forward.
MR. MCDERMOTT: Chairlady (sic) and
Members of the Board, I would like to
introduce myself. My name is Thomas
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 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
McDermott. I reside at 315 Old Saws Road,
which is the adjoining piece of property to
the subject property. And I would first like
to, if I may, Chairlady, hand up some photos
and some diagrams that might be hate --
helpful rather, to the Board as I go through
my presentation. If you find that helpful,
fine, otherwise, I will submit at the end of
the presentation.
it's
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Whatever you prefer,
fine. If you would like to hand them up
now.
MR. MCDERMOTT: It might be easier
go through them. If I may approach?
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Sure.
MR. MCDERMOTT: That was an aerial
that was taken in March of 2000
photo
surrounding neighborhood (in audible)
photocopies of that made.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Thank you.
MR. MCDERMOTT: I will represent
they are one of the same in regard to
audible).
(Stepped away from the microphone.)
MR. MCDERMOTT: In that particular
to
of the
that
the (in
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 16
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
exhibit, it's my house and the subject
property.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Okay.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. McDermott,
I just mention something to you?
can
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So anything that
you may say that I am not going to correct
you but maybe, maybe not. Having been a
boating enthusiast and utilizing James Street
for probably since about 1985 --
MR. MCDERMOTT: Terrific. And I
appreciate your disclosure and in no way
would I object to your continued
participation in this particular review. I
would also like to hand up to the Board a
copy of the prepared statement with exhibits
MR. MCDERMOTT: Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am a resident of
Mattituck and have spent my entire life on
the Bay side. I presently live on Sound side.
And I am completely aware of this subdivision
and have a great feelings towards the
Village.
MR. MCDERMOTT: Terrific. I think that
will be very helpful.
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
attached thereto. May I proceed?
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Please.
MR. MCDERMOTT: Thank you. First off, I
would like to address the Board in summary
fashion with respect to the objection from
myself and my wife. And the most serious
concern that I have to the application being
approved by this Board,
of transparency
Appeals review,
is based on the lack
and consideration for the
as follows. (In audible)
intentional conduct, the applicant has failed
to deal with this Board in a candid manner.
The materials omission about the existence of
covenants and restrictions concerning this
land, is in my opinion, a serious manner. And
with that, I refer to a page of the
application signed by a Mr. Boyd. The
caption of the top of the page, which was
received in your office on June the 15th
2011. The caption reads, reasons for appeal.
And the very last question on the bottom of
that page or three quarters the way down, the
questionnaire request, "Are there covenants
and restrictions concerning this land?" And
that box is checked off "no." And I know the
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board has the original application, so I need
not refer to that particular page any
further. Now, the reason for that question,
in my judgement, that has been I am told, on
questionnaires previously are reviewed by the
Board, is that all the facts and
circumstances pertaining to the subject
property in which the area variance is being
required, put out before the Board. The
Board's questionnaire requires a truthful
response because it's such a critical matter
relating to a variance. And thus to the
Board's ability to properly discharge is
public trust. What is truly at issue here and
now, is to the impact on this Board and as I
proceed further, the prepared statement that
I handed up to the Board. There are a number
of exhibits, which are all of the deeds that
go back to the original grant up to the
present deed and that the applicant,
Ms. Penney is the noted owner on that
particular deed. As I said, what is truly now
at issue is what impact on the Board the
failure to disclose these restrictive
covenants, which I will get to in a minute.
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
tl
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
How does the Board assure the public that it
will continue to provide a full, fair and
independent accounting of all the facts in
this case and future cases, if there is a
blaring failure to honestly and truthfully
answer a critical question in the
application? The second objection that I
have to the approval of the approved -- or
rather the proposed area variance, deals with
a significant loss of real estate value to my
property. And it would be a substantial loss
to only my property of the existing 18, that
is in Salt Lake Village neighborhood. It can
not be debated that a two-story building
within 11 feet of my property line will
effect not only the property value but our
quality of life and retirement and to that, I
refer to myself and my wife. A two-story
structure results in loss of sunlight in the
morning hours, as well as, loss of privacy in
a significant portion of our home. That is
the second-story would have a vantage point
into every room in -- every outside area of
our home, including except our bedroom area.
The irrevocable damage to our peace of mind
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and to our pocketbook could be avoiding by
amending the site plan as presently proposed
and by the Board denying the construction of
a second floor. The request for the second
floor is simply an unreasonable improvement
to this piece of property, which (in audible)
creation back in 1942, was subject to --
waterfront was substantially smaller than the
other 17 lots in the original plan. The third
objection that we have is loss of solar
access and overshadowing. In the past
several years, my wife and I have been taking
long serious looks at this alternate size of
power. As with any new technology; however,
there are potential problems. For example,
the suns rays must reach the solar collectors
in order to produce energy for either active
or passive sissage (sic). If the sun were
always directly overhead, it would clearly be
no problem. It is clearly not, of course. And
this brings up the question of solar access
and the availability of sunlight to reaching
buildings solar collectors. Resolution of
this problem will often involve the neighbors
air space. For example, if a neighbors tree
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 21
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
are allowed to grow high enough and cut off
the sun early in the morning or afternoon, a
solar system may not perform up to the
desired specifications. The same thing I
respectfully suggest goes to the structural
height. That is the summary of the three main
objections.
With respect to, in my judgement, the
most serious, is a failure to disclose. The
representative for the applicant stated that
all of the existing plans comply with local
regulations and to that, I confirm his
correctness to local regulations. What I
to point out to the Board by virtue of
reading of the various deeds going back to,
as I say, 1942, a restrictive covenant was
placed on this property and has been
continuos throughout all of the owners of
that property, thereby running with the
Each and every deed contains the same
want
land.
restrictions. And that restriction existed at
the time this applicant purchased the home,
which she did in 1980. Since 1942, Lot 9, the
which is the subject lot, has been birded
(sic) with a deed restriction set by the
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
predecessor in title, the Baldwin
Construction Incorporated. The property was
conveyed under a deed dated April 30, 1942.
Deed reported with the registry of deeds and
contained in the following provision. And I
will read fairly rapidly through these
provisions. Do you want me to Madam Chairlady
to -- I think there are 5 provisions here
that have to get into the record. I know the
document and all of the deeds will speak to
that but I think I should pronounce the
particular provisions that I would request
that the Board review? This is the
restrictive covenants that is in each and
every deed. It is hereby stated by and agreed
between the parties hereto that is and shall
continue to be
parties hereto,
map of Salt Lake Village
used and occupied for
only and so developed
benefit and pleasure
that end and purpose,
and agreed 1)
such lot none
the plan and intention of the
that the property shall under
aforesaid shall be
residential purposes
as to enhance the
from that use. And to
it is hereby covenanted
that there shall be erected on
other then building a
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 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
residential site use, which shall be more
than 1 and 1 top stories -- that should be
no more than 1 and 1 1/2 stories ans one
story garages and other buildings to be used
in connection with such residences. 2) that
no house, garage or other out building shall
be erected on any such lots within 25 feet of
the street front, the bay front or sidelines
of an adjoining lot on said map, (in audible)
except as to existing garages on parts 7 and
9 and the house on (in audible). 3) that no
fences shall be erected and maintained next
to the (in audible) on this map except a
fence 5 feet back from and parallel with the
front line of any lot. 4) that no business or
commerce of any kind shall be conducted upon
such lots, nor any of them or any adjoining
beach or waterways. And lastly 5) that each
lot owner by the acceptance of a deed of
conveyance covenants and agreed to share and
(in audible) number of lots by (in audible)
total number of the lots on said map in the
proper upkeep and repairs (in audible) such
contribution not to exceed the sum of $20.00
month, per lot during the period of such
per
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ownership. And lastly, that these covenants
and agreements shall run with the land and be
binding upon each and all present and future
owners of numbered lots shown on said map,
empathized as.
That Members of the Board, is a
contract. That is a contract that is binding
unless a court of law were to rule otherwise
and I respectfully request that the Board
take -- although the Board does not, in my
judgement, have jurisdiction over a contract
matter as opposed to a regulatory matter, I
would ask the Board to take into its
consideration whether the existence of such
legally binding contract would in any way
effect the Board's resolution of this issue.
Because frankly, if the Board were to grant
the variance and reach a contract, then
certainly litigation is going to ensue that
that contract is enforceable by a court of
law. And it's enforceable until a court of
law says otherwise. So I have made
suggestions and conclusions that the Board
may consider staying its review of this
process until a resolution or until
a
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 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
settlement of the issue regarding
contactually binding restrictive covenants is
arrived at. That concludes my statement
entirely.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Thank you. The way
that we can approach the C & R's as you have
just stated correctly is a matter of a civil
action. This Board does not -- we consider
C & R's, but we don't enforce them, as you
are aware. According to our code, the side
yard setback as proposed and the height of
the dwelling according to the Southold Town
Code is conforming. According to the C & R's
the one and half story are the limitations.
We can consider that in contest to the
character of the neighborhood. That is one of
the area variance standards that we actually
do consider in our balancing and granting
variances. Are there other dwellings and you
may want to answer this or both of you may
want to answer this. Are there other
dwellings in that subdivision that are
considered two-story? You can come to the mic
and answer that.
MS. PENNEY: Yes, there are.
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 26
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
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Please note
this is Ms. Penney.
MS. PENNEY: Can I?
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Yes.
that
to put two-story's up. So Salt Lake Village
restrictions were changed at the time and the
code of Salt Lake Village went with whatever
the Town Code was. And there is, from two
houses down from me, a house that is
two-story's. And I am not sure from the point
of whether that is one and a half or two. But
I do know that, the one that is two houses is
and that our proposal is in no way blocking
any ones view. My husband and I live in Salt
Lake Village, so we have been very
considerate of neighbors and that is actually
one of the reasons we are considering not
going forward (in audible) because most of
our neighbors are summer neighbors who come
out here to enjoy their home in the summer.
And we didn't want to be doing construction
MS. PENNEY: I just want to note that
many years ago the Salt Lake Village Code was
changed to reflect the Southold Code, because
other people were doing homes and they wanted
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
when
they were here.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Would you like to
address any other comments that were made?
MR. MCDERMOTT: No.
MS. PENNEY: To my knowledge --
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: One of our Board
members would like to know if you can give
copy of the change and --
MS. PENNEY: I have actually provided
this copy. My architect has a copy. If not,
can provide you with that.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: I don't recall
seeing it.
MS. PENNEY: I would be happy to get
that to you. The other response that I have,
at this time, Mr. And Mrs. McDermott do not
have any solar panels at their house. My
husband and I are actually putting solar
panels on our new construction. And that I
don't feel and my husband and I both, don't
a
feel that it would have any impact at all, if
you chose to do that because the way that the
sun comes across, you would have plenty of
sunlight.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Ail right.
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 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
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Once again, my
name is Steve Christiansen. He was the
neighbors concerned about in being in close
proximity of their home. Just so you know, if
you look on the photo, that is why I
presented it to you, you can see there is a
big way of shrubs (in audible) so, as far as
the solar. The Go Green is a big thing. If
that was an issue, if you wanted to do, there
are a lot of alternatives out there. There
are all different things that you can do. If
that was an issue, we can even, if he wanted
to, we can help him with suggestions if he
wanted something. And as far as anything in
regards to a second floor overlooking him, I
told you that we made sure and they were
concerned, we made sure that the hip roof was
coming out and that the second-story came
across the middle. So the roof is not an
issue -
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: What is the proposed
height?
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: -- 29 feet. And the
allowable is 35. So we complied with all the
code, you know. And we were very concerned
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 29
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
with
all of
the neighbors and that is why we
made sure with the side yard setback were not
an issue. That was our number one concern.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Just so both of you
are aware, every Board
an inspection of the site.
have been home at the time.
do on every application. In
member here has done
You may or may not
That is what we
order for us to
understand what the neighborhood looks like,
what is going on, the landscaping on the
properties and the area.
Did you have a comment?
MR. MCDERMOTT: Yes, if I may. With
respect to the solar panels, I clearly stated
that we have been discussing with the solar
representatives of that type of project. My
concern is whether the Board is going to
consider this review based on a failure to
comply with a critical, with respect to its
own questionnaire. I don't want to suggest
that the Board take any type of particular
action, if this is not a defining moment for
this Board, this application and any future
applications, what does the Board rely on for
a full factual record? I would be very
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 30
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
interested in
application clearly requires
yes or no, are
That has to be
respectfully.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN:
knowing that. If the
the statement,
there restrictive covenants?
answered by this Board,
There are many times
have.
MR.
clearly had
property in
MCDERMOTT: Well, the applicant
it since she purchased the
1980, Madam Chairlady.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: That's noted.
MR. MCDERMOTT: I beg your pardon?
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: That's noted.
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Once again, that
why we abided by the Building Code.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Any questions from,
is
in which various kinds of information is
exposed through the public hearing process
that are not readily apparent in the
application. That is a reason why we have
public hearings. So that there is a record
and can reflect everyone's thinking and in
which all the parties can be heard and
sometimes we get additional information
through his process, which we don't initially
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 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
Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
applicant should address
and restrictions box was
incorrectly.
MR. CHRISTIANSEN:
had done that. I would
with him. We knew that
with that specific code.
compliant with the local
Southold Code.
Well, that the
why the covenants
checked
At that time, Rich
have to double check
we would be complying
So that it was
code and the Town of
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Lets clarify.
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: So I would have
talk to the gentleman and inquire why he
filled that out.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: We would like to
an answer on that.
CHRISTIANSEN: That is not a
know
MR.
problem.
MEMBER
information
to
GOEHRINGER: I don't see any
in my packet regarding the change
of the covenants and restrictions.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: He will submit it.
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Yes, I will submit
it today. I will either fax it over --
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 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
you?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Do you have it with
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: If you have it with
we can make copies right now.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You can always go
outside and bring it in and we can make
copies of it.
MS. PENNEY:
When the application
the code of Salt Lake
because of
and it was checked off, there are
because of the change in the
was
made,
Village
restrictions
code of Salt
application
knowledge and
there were no
restrictions
Lake Village. So when the
was filled out, it was to my
to my architects knowledge,
restrictions because our
are the same as Southold Town.
copy
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Okay.
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: (In audible).
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: So what we need
of that.
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Sure.
no
are
may
a
MR. MCDERMOTT: Most respectfully,
I comment on that? The By-Laws of the
Homeowners Association is what I believe you
referring to. That in no way supercedes
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 33
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
5
the requirement of what a contract
requirement in a deed that is a restriction
ina deed. So apples and oranges and the
Board's member question was why was that
question marked wrong? Restrictive covenants
have nothing to do with By-Laws of an
association. How a site must be painted or
the height of a porch. This is contract law
that we are talking about and this
questionnaire demanded an answer to that and
I believe either the Board -- I would
respectfully request that the Board stay this
matter until a satisfactory answer.
Satisfactory or not, is up to the Board, but
at least an answer. I mean, otherwise, this
is not Robin Hood and the Sheriff of
Noddingham. If I catch you, it's good for me.
If I don't, it's bad for me. This is serious
business here and I think the gentleman on
the Board had a very, very -- asked a
question, why was it checked no?
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: I think --
MR. MCDERMOTT: We will --
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Whenever you come
down, it doesn't matter who fills it out, you
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 201~ 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
have to go to the Board of Trustees. Right
to the window, you ask the women, is there
anything on the property? They actually pull
the information, they go right to the
firm
computer and they go through the entire
with you right at the window. You can go
there right now. That is exactly how they go
through it. So when you go there and fill out
an application, they will go to the computer.
It's not a mystery. They will go straight to
the computer and see what restrictions, if
there are any. If she was to see if there
were any in the area, she would print them
out and she would come over to you and here
are your restrictions. So when you are there,
if there are no restrictions, then they are
not on the computer. And that would be the
answer. At that time, there was nothing in
the computer stating there were. We just
don't answer something just for some reason.
We answer it what it is when we find the
information out.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: the instance of
time, I am going to see any other Board
members have and to see if
any questions,
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there is anyone else in the audience that
would like to address this application.
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: We do have an
arraignment coming on top of this, which we
will have to clear --
MEMBER HORNING: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: Do we have any input
in the concept --
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Just what is in our
application.
MEMBER HORNING: I didn't see any.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: The question is,
what information and I don't recall seeing
any information from the Trustees in this
application. You have applied, I presume
for a setback from the bulkhead to the
Trustees?
that
There
MS. PENNEY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN:
application?
And in what state is
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Right now it's not.
is no status of it. As of right now.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: It's not calendared
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 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
yet but you --
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: No, it's not
calendared yet. We wanted to hear what the
decision was first. The way that they like
to work it is, get
then go to them.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN:
the decision from you and
Sometimes
it's that
way and some times it's the other way. Jim,
questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: With this gentleman
here, I mean, I can understand with the lake.
But if you have something, you know, based on
your property and the direction of the sun
and how inefficient it would make it, you
know, because of their house and being built
and how high it is, I would like to see that.
MR. MCDERMOTT: I would certainly
present it to the Board at an appropriate
time. I do not currently have them. My focus
is on the presentation of a false document to
a public Board. That is what my focus is. The
obligation is on the applicant to provide the
correct and necessary documentation, whether
the aid or the staff member at the Zoning
Board or Building Department goes on a
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
computer or not, it is not their obligation.
They are there to assist and fill in the
blanks, if there are any. If this Board does
not take it under advisement as to the
seriousness of this particular document being
filing, then it may be another agency or
another appropriate body.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
there. It's probably
I agree with you
someone else's
jurisdiction and not ours.
MR. MCDERMOTT: That is for sure.
MEMBER DINIZIO: As to the six that
were previously mentioned, only one would be
in question, which is the height.
MR. MCDERMOTT: If you look at it
closer,
sir, this particular property was
incumbered with a 25 minimum side yard
setback, front, back, and east side, 25
This particular project was proposed to
within 11 feet
of an adjoining property
is not the minimum. 11
substantial.
Certainly 14 feet
versus 25 is quite
MEMBER DINIZIO:
for the garage.
MR. MCDERMOTT:
feet.
come
line.
The 25 foot setback is
No, if you look at the
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 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
restrictions, it's the structure, the house,
25 feet from --
MEMBER DINIZIO: I am not even reading
it. I am just listening to what you said.
MR. MCDERMOTT: What I read, if I --
MEMBER DINIZIO: I just want to
clarify.
MR. MCDERMOTT: Yes. Absolutely, that
is why we are here. This is a very serious
matter and it's not he said, she said.
who submitted this documentation to an
It's
official body based on what knowledge, not on
what some aid behind a counter told that
individual has certain standards and certain
ethics. That is why public Boards are able to
rely on information that were submitted by
professionals who were licensed by the State
of New York. Lets not throw it off on some
young clerk or some middle-aged clerk in not
providing information and then I check it
out.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Again, I think that is
for another place. You know read off these
six things and I am just trying to clarify
them. You know, as I heard them and that is
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 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
why I am asking. If I didn't care, I
wouldn't ask. Number one, the story and a
half versus a two-story up, that I understand
is a covenant. The next thing you are saying
is that the buildings can not be within 25
feet of any property line?
MR. MCDERMOTT: Yes, sir and if I may
read. I will read very slowly. Provision 2,
sir, that no house, garage or other out
building shall be erected on any said lot
within 25 feet of the street front, the bay
front or the side lines of an adjoining lot
on said map.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I heard that.
MR. MCDERMOTT: You asked that. I will
clarify anything.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I guess all I need now
is whether or not what you have, is a {in
audible) you got together with an
association and said, look, we are not going
to abide by these covenants any more or is
that something (in audible) or whatever from
now on. We need to say that. I need to say
that.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Well, the whole
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board.
needs
MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. Her lawyer
to see.
MEMBER HORNING: May I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: You may.
MEMBER HORNING: When was this house
built?
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: 1940's.
MEMBER HORNING: And it has 120.7 side
yard setback?
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: (No verbal
response.)
MEMBER HORNING: My question then
becomes if in fact these covenants and
restrictions enforced at that time, how
does
it end up with a nonconforming to the
covenants and restrictions with the side yard
setback? If it needed to be 25, how is it
20? Can anybody explain that?
MR. MCDERMOTT: I agree. If I may, I
think I understand your question and if I may
make an analogy. If you speed and you are not
caught, no harm, no foul. But if you speed
and a cop pulls you over and he gives you a
ticket for the State speed limit. That is an
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 41
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
issue for a judicial hearing, on whether
has to be enforced. That is an entirely
different issue. Whether a restrictive
it
covenant issue runs with the land binds each
successor purchaser, inherits in there (in
audible) an issue arises. Where the
enforcement and the validity is then
attested.
MEMBER HORNING: Sir, how long have you
owned your house?
MR. MCDERMOTT: We bought in 2004 and
before buying, I looked up the deeds of the
adjoining property owners and was confident
that there wouldn't be any building within 25
feet
of the property line.
MEMBER HORNING: Except there was.
MR. MCDERMOTT: No, sir, there was not.
The existing house is 20.79. They are saying
it has to be 25 and the existing other side
has to be 25 and the other side is 24. So
both side yards do not comply. (In audible).
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: I just want to point
out that you need to address the Board.
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Yes, I am sorry.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: It's not a
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
confrontation. It's a presentation to the
Board.
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: In as far as stating
that we have falsified documents. We did not
falsify any documents. We went -- we went
through the process. We went to the Town. We
got all the information. Some of that they
had to look up on the computer. I just want
to make that clear. We did not falsify any
documents. We complied with exactly what had
to be done. They looked it up on the
computer and from our assessment of what was
stated to us, that is how we determined that
question.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Would there
been in the computer a record of the
in your Homeowner's Association or C of
restrictions? They usually are.
private records. I have a copy
original C & R's and lets see
date --
have
change
& R's
Those are
of the
what is the
MS. TOTH: 1942.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: In the instance of
time, we have been at this for a very long
time. We have a good grasp of all the
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
documents that we need. Is there anybody
else in the audience who would like to
address this application?
(No Response.)
MR. MCDERMOTT: I have a very short
comment and response to the Board members
comment. It was clearly known to the Board a
violation (in audible) two foot to take that
into enforcement action, would be laughed at.
When you are talking about 15 foot violation
with a two-story structure, that is an
entirely different course. A foot, we would
be laughed at. 15 foot is a serious matter.
Thank you so much for your time.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: You are correct in
mathematics but I do need the record to
reflect that this Board grants relief from
the Southold Town Code. It does not enforce
covenants and restrictions. That is out of
our jurisdiction to do so. It is important to
consider them in context, which is why I
asked if there were other two-story homes in
the area. I think we can conclude -- we have
one last question.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This Board has
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 44
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
taken expert
properties based upon new
adjoining properties.
incumbent upon you to
testimony and
testimony regarding the
construction of
So it would be
give us expert
if you thought, you were losing
value from your house from the house, you
made that statement in your presentation. And
I can't tell you how you would do that but I
can tell you that this Board over the past
many years, that if someone had thought they
were losing property value, they would
have to bring in expert testimony.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: I am going to ask
you once more, do you have a copy --
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: No, I do not.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Then I am going to
make a motion to close this public hearing
subject to receipt of information within 5
business days. Is that acceptable to you? (In
audible) I would like all parties to be
heard. We now know what the issues are. So in
fairness to both parties, I would like to
make a motion to adjourn this hearing subject
to receipt of this information. And you can
certainly obtain a copy of it, if you don't
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 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
already have it through our office. Lets
adjourn it for September for the limited
purpose of asking questions to the C & R's
and it's relationship that now makes it more
code compliant. We would also like to talk
about character of the neighborhood. So
whatever you would like to prepare. You have
a right to be heard. Again, I am making it
very clear, we do not want to repeat
testimony that we have already heard. We are
doing this as a benefit to all parties to
conclude this matter as quickly as possible,
because our calendar is full. So we are going
to limit the testimony to new information of
the C & R's regarding change in the C & R's
and character of the neighborhood. Okay.
MS. PENNEY: I just wanted to state one
more thing and some concerns. We purposely
put this off and not to upset our neighbors.
We were hoping to start in September with our
project. So that we can get the house ready
for the winter because we wanted to have the
place ready by next June. We were hoping that
most of this would be done by next June so
that this would not impact our neighbors. So
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 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
have some concerns of putting it off
because then we would have to put the whole
project off for another year.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Okay, the best that
we can do is next month. It's September 1st
by the way. So it's very much at the
beginning of the month. So it's really being
able to accommodate and conclude this matter
as quickly as possible. So we
put in on at 2:00 o'clock.
MEMBER HORNING: Then we have
limit on time in making a decision.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: We have 62
are going to
a legal
days from
the date of the closing of the hearing, in
which time, a decision must be rendered. We
don't truly take that much time, but it
depends on what comes up. The earliest a
decision would be rendered would be two weeks
from that date, which is when we deliberate
in our open meeting at night, in the Annex.
We examine the decisions and we vote on them.
That would be the earliest, assuming a
conclusion would be held at the next hearing.
So just to give you a time line.
MR. MCDERMOTT: I didn't understand
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 47
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
that Madam Chairlady, you said two weeks.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: We have 62 days
once the hearing is closed to make a
decision. We debate -- the quickest that we
can debate is two weeks at a Special Meeting.
Once a month, we have a public hearing --
MR. MCDERMOTT: Okay, now I understand.
Okay.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN:
MR. CHRISTIANSEN:
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN:
motion to adjourn to
2:00 o'clock for the
taking testimony and
Is that it?
Thank you very much.
I am going to make a
September 1st at
limited purpose of
questions regarding
covenants and restrictions changes and impact
on the character of the neighborhood and
adjoining properties.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN:
GOEHRINGER:
DINIZIO:
HORNING:
SCHNEIDER:
MEMBER
MEMBER
MEMBER
MEMBER
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN:
So moved.
Second.
Ail in favor?
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 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
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: I am going to
literally ask for a one minute recess.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Aye.
(Whereupon, a recess was taken.)
HEARING ~6487 SHAMGAR CAPITAL (DANIEL
BUTTAFUOCO)
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: The next application
before the Board is for Shamgar Capital,
Daniel Buttafuoco. Request for variances from
Article XXII Code Section 280-116 and Article
III Section 280-14 and the Building
Inspector's February 25, 2011 updated
June 9, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based on
an application for building permit for
reconstruction of an existing dwelling with
third story addition at 1) less than the
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 49
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
code required setback of 75 feet from a
bulkhead, 2) more than the code required
number of stories of 2/12, located at: 1165
Kimberly Lane, adjacent to Southold Bay,
Southold.
Good morning. State your name for the
record.
MR. MEYER: Good morning, Madam
Chairperson and Members of the Board. My
name is Gerard Meyer, architect. G-E-R-A-R-D.
Last name, Meyer, M-E-Y-E-R. I practice and
reside at 14 (In Audible) Avenue, Steward
Manor, New York. I am here on behalf of
Shamgar Capital, LLC, Manager Daniel
Buttafuoco, who is here with me today.
Basically we are here today over a property
that has Suffolk County Tax Map
No. 1000-70-13-20.7, also known as 1165
Kimberly Lane, Southold, New York. The
property lies on the east side of Kimberly
Lane, 1,045.04 feet south of Pine Neck Cove,
within the development known as Paradise By
The Bay and ordered on the easterly side by
Southold Bay.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Before you continue,
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 50
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
let me give you copies of the local
determination for Suffolk County. And we
have just received so, and I am sure you
don't have it yet, the LWRP insufficient with
the setback from the bulkhead. We are
giving you copies so you can look at it as
well.
MR. MEYER: Madam Chairperson, without
reading
folks had a previous copy --
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: No,
this. We haven't looked at it either.
pertinent part is at the bottom of the
the whole letter, I am assuming you
we just got
The
first
page. The sanitary systems, storm water
control, dry wells are not shown on the
submitting the material. So they can not
a recommendation.
MR. MEYER: In speed reading this, I
make
would think these are all items that we can
address to their likelihood and a little bit
further in my presentation. What I had
originally put together all the paperwork and
the application, I was led to believe that
the formal filing with the LWRP really
happened after this Board's decision. I was
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 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
advised that I should
for drainage and such.
going to go before them.
those drawings today and
submit them.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN:
Reviews are both made by
prepare those drawings
That is eventually
I have copies of
I would like to
That would be fine.
the LWRP Coordinator
for both the Trustees when an application
before them and a different one for Zoning.
They are automatically triggered by our
department. But you did fill out a LWRP
assessment --
MR. MEYER: I do have one assessment. I
have yours and I also have a single page form
that I originally tried to file as a part of
this application. Again, maybe I
misunderstood, but I was led to believe that
it would be filed after. Again, in quickly
reading through the items that they commented
on, I believe that we can address all of
those having (in audible) separate proximity
to the bulkhead.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN:
MR. MEYER: Again,
have just submitted
Okay.
the drawings
to the Board, are
that I
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
basically an updated site plan. Basically
showing a relocation of where we will be
providing the new septic system on the
landward side of the house. So it would be
closer to Kimberly Lane and we will be
eliminating the existing septic system that
is currently on the water side of the house
or the easterly side of the house. We have
also added the drainage calculations showing
the accumulation of the storm water for a
two-inch rainfall that would be gathered by
both the building and the proposed renovation
of the home and the impervious circumstances
which are going to be modified on the site.
We show the locations of the dry wells. How
that water will be collected. Where it will
be distributed and the locations of those dry
wells.
CHAIRMAN
I didn't mean
important for
WEISMAN: Thank you very much.
to interrupt you but it's
you to have copies of
MR. MEYER:
you very much.
I
CHAIRMAN
have in our records.
appreciate that. Thank
WEISMAN: Go ahead.
everything that we
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 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
MR. MEYER: To continue with the
background and how we came to this site. This
particular property was part of a subdivision
that occurred back 1977. The house that is
currently exist, received a building permit
in 1991 and received a C of O on
September 16, 1993. The current home is
basically a two-story, four bedroom, three
and one-half bath, single family residence
with an attached two-car garage. A real wood
deck and a partial basement. Mr. Buttafuoco
is looking to expand the house to exsuit
(sic} his expanding family. Mr. Buttafuoco
has three daughters and just recently blessed
with triplets. So three brand new
granddaughters and the announcement of an
engagement of his other daughter and
hopefully some other sibling on the way. He
has now realized the need for more space and
family with more bedrooms.
to accommodate his
We are proposing to
alterations to this home,
basically a six bedroom,
family residence with an
garage with some
add additions and
to turn it into
six bath, single
attached two-car
balconies and decks. They
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 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 proposing to expand the existing
dwelling, the debatable portion of the house
by a two-story addition at the northeast
corner of the current structure, which will
basically be 19.4 feet by 20.8 feet, to
approximately 465 square feet in lot coverage
area. This portion of the addition will be
constructed within 70 feet of the bulkhead or
75 feet of general acquired, which is only a
6.7% encroachment into that requirement. We
are also proposing to expand the garage by
approximately 5 foot by 31. To allow cars to
be more comfortably parked in there. The
two-car garage in the way that it was
constructed was a little tight. You can
barely get two vehicles in there side by
side. That addition would be about 121
square feet and will be constructed within
over 100 feet away from the bulkhead on the
landward side of the home. We are also
proposing a one-story open porch with front
entry, with approximately 370 square feet,
which will also be more than 100 feet from
the bulkhead on the landward side of the
home. And also a two-story balcony across the
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 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
water side of the house, which creates the
most encroachment at about 253 square feet
of open deck area. That will be constructed
to within 270 feet of the bulkhead area, with
the closest part and the (in audible) of that
case. That will actually be 3.5 feet further
away then the existing wood deck that is
currently there. That is currently there,
which is approximately 20X18 foot. That deck
to the closest point of the bulkhead, which
is actually a return from a little walkway
and ramp, a foot path that goes down to the
water area. That deck is currently 53.5 feet
away. Our proposed 57 foot distance or the
closest point, would also have 24%
encroachment on the required 75 feet versus
encroachment that currently exist.
and replace the current
with a new second story,
the 28.66%
We propose to remove
partial second floor
which most of the new bedrooms will occur.
And also that will develop an attic area,
which was deemed to be large enough by the
Chief Building Inspector, Mr. Michael Verity,
be deemed as a third-story. Originally that
designed due to the nature of the
attic was
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 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
aesthetics of the home. Being that the house
is now squared off, with our proposed
addition to the northeast corner by doing a
reasonable roof pitch, we end up with such a
volume and variable up there by Mr. Verity's
standard and also the State Code, that it
creates a volume to be deemed as a third
floor. So that is the other portion of our
case before the Board. There is currently a
small partial basement area. The lower part
of the existing structure, comprises about
55% of the footprint of the home. Not
including the new foundation for the proposed
addition, will be only a crawl space. There
will be no additional area proposed. The
exterior of the house will be revamped. So it
will have new siding of a Cedar Shingle look,
with white trim and corner boards. That
will include decorative columns at the front
porches and an architectural and dimensional
roofing material. The wood decks would be a
natural wood or synthetic composite. And
basically be done to allow water to penetrate
through them. We would be providing new
windows and doors, that will allow more views
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 57
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and an opportunity in looking out towards
Southold Bay. Something in which the current
home does not do. It is usual in the way they
sited this house and the way they made the
orientation, it takes very little advantage
of the beautiful view out towards the water.
The house will not be expanded towards either
of the neighbors, outwards the north or
towards the south. That will not propose a
problem for privacy or setback problems, for
the adjoining neighbors. As I
before, the updated site plan.
you can see the dotted outline
handed out
Again shows,
of the
existing deck that is going to be removed,
which is currently 53.5 feet away from the
bulkhead. And it also shows about the
relocation of the septic system providing the
storm water drainage and also revamping up
some of the driveway areas.
MEMBER HORNING: You have mentioned the
existing 53.5 foot setback a couple of times,
why is that not shown on this -- you have the
57 proposed, but I don't see the line on here
showing --
MR. MEYER: I apologize for that. That
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 58
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is a little error on my part. That originally
-- when I had first submitted the drawings,
the nature of the line of the bulkhead, the
Building Department and the Board has
subsequently asked me to show the return of
the bulkhead and at that time, when I had
submitted those drawings, I had not measured
the distance to the bulkhead from the
existing deck. I apologize for that not being
on the set of drawings.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Shall the Board
proceed with some questions or do you have
anything else that you would like to say?
MR. MEYER: I am not usually short
winded. I have one more handout that I would
like to give to the Board before I proceed
with my presentation, and I will explain what
this is.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Okay.
MR. MEYER: Basically what I have
submitted to the Board and what is being
handed out, I have submitted some photos of
the subject property and the adjacent
properties. The first picture basically shows
you the easterly side of the subject property
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 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
and the existing house.
Basically the view
two
pictures basically show looking out toward
the water and the existing bulkhead.
Specifically the return of the bulkhead as it
goes into the property and creates that short
walkway to the beach. The fourth and fifth
pictures are of the adjacent homes to the
south of the subject property. And then the
next series of three pictures of the adjacent
homes of the subject properties are to the
north of the subject property. This is going
from the immediate north, second property
north and third property north, towards the
public beach. And the last four pictures are
of the houses of the westerly Kimberly Lane,
diagonally across the subject property.
These pictures are basically here to help you
see the character of the neighborhood and the
improvements that have been made on the other
parcels in the neighborhood. Basically
Mr. Buttafuoco had gone to several of his
neighbors. Had spoken with three of the four
neighbors that were actually notified as part
from the waters edge looking back west
towards the subject property. The next
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 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
of the requirements of the Board, certified
return receipt of notices of this hearing.
Specifically, the neighbors that he was able
to speak to were the Davidoff's, Henche and
Heffner. Was not able to reach to Poster.
Again, with different schedules and times,
they were not home or around to discuss this.
So they all seemed to act favorably to the
discussion to what we are proposing for this
property. We feel that the granting of these
variances will cause no undesirable change to
the character of the neighborhood or will be
a detriment to nearby properties due to the
fact that these improvements and conditions
are relatively small in nature and produce a
change of less than 20% in increase in the
overall area. The majority of the proposed
addition area is actually an open porches,
decks and balconies, which will help reduce
the mass in scale in the overall house. We
feel that the proposed modifications to this
structure are typical in other properties
throughout the Town and in the immediate
area. Again, specifically noted in the
pictures of the homes. We feel that the
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
benefit sought by these variances can not be
achieved by some other method due to the
current location of the existing home. The
house and the deck were originally
constructed within 75 feet of the existing
bulkhead and any reasonable modification or
expansion of this structure would require
some more variances. To actually propose to
build a new construction, a little bit
further away from the existing bulkhead --
I'm sorry, then the existing current deck,
thereby decrease in the level of
encroachment. We feel that the amount of
relief is not substantial. That the propose
addition will cause less than a 20% increase
in the overall building area and the minor
expansions of the house combine with the
proposed open porches and balconies, will
only increase the overall lot coverage by
2.23%. We feel that the granting of these
variances will not have an adverse effect on
the impact of the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or the
district because these improvements or
conditions are relatively small in nature.
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 62
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
And the actual construction will take place
in a limited period of time. Ail practical
measures will be taken during the
construction period to ensure protection of
the environment
long term effects of
produce a negligible
and ecological areas. The
this project will again
change to less than the
20% increase in the building area and only a
2.23% increase
conclusion, we feel
the normal statutes
in lot coverage. In
that we have met all of
required for reasonable
variance and we seek your
to answer any
consideration for a
approval. I would be happy
questions.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN:
over to my colleagues.
Let me turn this
Jim?
Just off, on the top
26 feet in height, is
Yes. Basically the
MEMBER DINIZIO:
of this map, you have
that correct?
MR. MEYER:
Town overall reviews the building
average height of the roof, which
way the
height, the
is half the
distance from the gutter line to the ridge.
The actual overall height of the house from
grade to the top ridge is 33 feet proposed,
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 63
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
which
feet.
is still less than the allowable 35
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: That's it, Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: I would like to
inquire what the proposed use of the
third-story, third floor attic space as you
are calling it.
MR. MEYER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Tell me a little
more about that. What is going on up there?
MR. MEYER: Again, a little bit
earlier, the original attic area was supposed
to be just that. Just the area that was
really created by the roof slope, which was
at a pitch and which we felt gave great
aesthetics to the home. After further
discussions with Mr. Verity about the fact
when it got to that scale, it was going to be
deemed a third-story anyway, we entertained
that it would be used strictly as a possible
family entertainment area. Basically, with
the little doghouse dormers and a little bit
of a window area created on that level, it
would provide them a little view out towards
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the water at a higher advantage point.
MEMBER HORNING: Is it one room, sir?
MR. MEYER: Yes, one area, correct.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Are you considering
finishing the --
MR. MEYER: If it is deemed to be a
third-story, we will finish it up. So that if
by the Town of Southold statues and State
Code, it be deemed a third-floor, we would
like to finish it and have it as habitable
and occupied space.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
square footage of
MR. MEYER:
Can I have the
that, if you don't mind?
foot
square
the New York
we get into a
code requires
area of the third
feet. As I am stating about
State Code, basically when
third-floor situation, the
The proposed square
floor would be 770
a safety standpoint, that the building be
sprinklered and we propose to do that
throughout the house to meet that code
also for the safety of that space.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Now, I know why
and
there is a balcony. I wondered why storage
space needed a balcony. Let me ask you, is
from
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 65
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
there any reason you can not make this less
than a third-floor?
MR. MEYER: Again, basically we were
trying to design the house with a -- trying
not the original intent but if it was going
to be deemed a third-story, then we would
like to use it for occupied spaces. I think
if we diminish the pitch of the roof so that
it gets to a point, where we are not deemed a
third-story, the house would look very flat.
It would not have any aesthetics appeal and
look incorrect.
MEMBER HORNING: Have you come up with
any architectural drawings to show that meet
that's standard to show that it is not a
third-story?
MR. MEYER: I have not. In the
to keep the roof as low profile as possible.
Come up with a hip roof design, so that it is
a less effect of the neighbors. But in order
to develop a scale of the home and look
aesthetically correct, we had to put a pitch
on it for the depth of the house to create an
attic area that again, by code, specially
calls out to be deemed a third-story. It was
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 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
beginning when we were first doing mass
studies of the house, we were playing with
roof pitches and they were done. I have a
program that will 3D generate the home. We
looked at some lower roof pitches. But when
you are standing on the ground and looking up
at the house, it just looks flat. From
certain vantage points, you can't see the
roof. So we brought it to a pitch height,
where we thought it looked aesthetically
pleasing. And I don't happen to have any of
those drawings with me.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Are there other
dwellings in the subject neighborhood of
similar height, if 32 feet high?
MR. MEYER: Well, one of the reasons
why I showed two pictures of the house
immediately to the south of the subject
property is -- it is of the scale and range
of what we are proposing. I have not been in
the home. So I don't know if their attic area
is deemed to be a third floor but it
certainly is consistent in scale and size to
what we are proposing. And my guess would be
they have kind of reached that same volume
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 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
stating that we be considered a third-story.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: What hardship, if
any, would be incurred if this attic space
were to remain unfinished and uninhabitable?
You are proposing that this be done based on
an aesthetic consideration,
you into a third-story.
MR. MEYER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN:
which
then kicks
pitch, where it would be deemed as
third-story but unfinished and for storage
only, what hardship would be incurred?
MR. MEYER: Basically, the hardship
would be the aesthetics also the usable area
of the home. If it is going to be a
third-story, there is currently only a small
partial basement area, which really doesn't
allow much recreational space. This
third-floor would now create a playroom area.
you answer, if you were to complete that
I understand the
logic, especially with a large family but I
am exploring least amount of variances this
Board can grant. The law requires us to grant
the minimum amount of variance, as you well
know, as possible. So I would like to have
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Again, with the
anticipation even greater,
playroom area and a place
family growing larger and the
it would give a
for people to
gather, in addition to the outdoor balcony
and view of the water.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Meyer, as I
mentioned to you, we really appreciate you
showing us the house, both you and
Mr. Buttafuo¢o, that I would have a garden
variety of questions. The code says that we
are only allowed to go two and a half
stories. I have to tell you that this is my
particular and not the opinion -- I am not
talking on behalf of the Board but the
maximum that we have ever granted on a
third-story, is a study or a room that you
would look out over any water, to be the
width, so to speak, all right. I am not
saying that I am totally against anything on
this project. I think the project is
wonderful. It is magnificent.
MR. MEYER: Thank you.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But I concede no
validity granting a third floor that is code
compliant, in this particular project. That
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 69
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
does not mean that that total walk out area
that you are showing, and when I say
"walk-out," walk out to a distance for the
view, could not be made a non-habitable
playroom area. But the rest of it, the
ceiling should be below 7 feet, 6"7, 6"8, and
to be used for storage. And that would be the
maximum that I would consider, okay, in a
project of this nature. Only because our code
reads that. I would hope that the Building
Inspector mention that to you, okay, because
I have not seen a project this ambitious on a
third-story ever before.
MR.
MEYER: It was Mr. Verity's
suggestion that as long as I had to go before
the Board -- may I just have one second to
confer with my client before I address that
question?
I purposely looked up and wrote down
the definition of the Southold Town Code as
to what a half-story is, or as it appeared
under the definitions, story, half. It used
to be deemed in general terms a half area of
one floor, then half of the floor below that
it was deemed a half story, as being under
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 70
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
the roof structure. The code words it a
little bit differently. Just from a
mathematical standpoint, as the 770 square
feet it is 35% of the floor area immediately
below. Basically the floor below is 2200
square feet. So again, it would be a 35%. As
discussing with Mr. Buttafuoco, we would be
willing to reduce that area, so that there is
a minimal, perhaps down to 20% of the floor
area below and the balance of that area would
be diminishing by moving in knee walls and
creating lower ceiling areas, as you have
suggested to bring that down to a more
reasonable size. And that the play area and
then the water look-out, would then be more
in conforming.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have to tell you
that I understand the way that the code
reads, it is still the balancing test that we
have to deal with and as I said to you, we
have only dealt with one single room that is
totally non habitable. The room has not
exceeded,
somewhere
general.
probably a maximum of 10x20,
in that nature and that is in
And they have been observation
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 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
rooms. Almost a library type of fashion. I
am not saying that you have to use it in that
way. I am just saying. With the exception of
the attic area, it was used for storage. I am
just telling you what my perception is.
MR. MEYER: We would agree, if the
Board sought fit to approve this, we would
agree to a much diminished space up on that
level. Just as again, a reading room or a
sitting room, with access to that outdoor
balcony, so that we could enjoy the room.
And we would diminish the rest of the space
to knee walls and ceiling height, to reduce
it to strictly to attic storage.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Any other questions?
Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: I have a few. What is
the existing lot coverage? I haven't seen
that yet.
MR. MEYER: I calculated the increase
at 2.23, which showing the overall at 7.95.
So without doing the math, I would basically
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 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
say that we were at 5.72 currently.
MEMBER HORNING: You gave us the
proposed lot coverage but you didn't give us
the existing anywhere that I saw. And the
existing building square foot? Is that the
existing first floor area, is that basically
the existing building square foot?
MR. MEYER: Actually, the existing in
that floor area was for habitable space and
it did not include the garage.
MEMBER HORNING: So do you have the
existing building square foot?
MR. MEYER: One second, if I may. I
apologize for that. The existing footprint of
the house is basically 2,992.58 square feet.
MEMBER HORNING: Could you say that
again, please?
MR. MEYER: 2,992.58.
MEMBER HORNING: Okay. And on your site
plan here, you have building height at 26
feet. Now, I heard another figure, so are
they based on two different calculations?
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: 33 is to the ridge
and the other is to the soffits and the
ridge.
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 73
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 MEMBER HORNING: Okay. On your
2 application, statement No. 5, reasons for the
3 appeal, had the alleged difficulty been self
4 created, yes or no, and you have answered,
5 no. It seems like it is a self created
difficulty in that, you don't need a third
floor, and you're creating the difficulty.
MR. MEYER: I guess I looked at it from
a different stand point. The difficulty is in
making an aesthetically looking building and
therefore with the roof pitch area that we
have created. But again, from the previous
discussion we are willing to aluminate that
area and basically just make it a small area.
It could be truly deemed as a half
then fall within the
two and a half story
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN:
footage.
MR. MEYER: Again,
code, and
structure.
Based on
story and
it only be a
the square
that discussion, if we decrease the volume
and the size of the area on that floor and
get it down to something that the Board feels
comfortable approving and be considered as a
two and a half story structure and we can
just to paraphrase
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 74
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
conform and no longer have to get a
third-story variance.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: You will need to go
with your alternative floor plan section,
possibly, back to the Building Department to
get an amended Notice of Disapproval, which
can be done very quickly. If that were the
case, we would then be eliminating that
variance.
MR.
be
MEYER: Right.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Then we would just
considering the bulkhead setback.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, we certainly
hope
SO.
MR. MEYER: Well,
have agreed to do that.
be amending the case
floor variance.
I think in theory we
So in theory we would
to remove the third
best.
space.
MR.
the
MEYER: Correct.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Or we could just deny
third-story variance.
MR. MEYER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: That is probably the
Then you will be in a conforming attic
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 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
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Where are we here?
MEMBER HORNING: I have one other
question. The reconstruction, you are going
to rip out the currently existing deck; is
that right, and build porches and new decks;
is that right?
MR. MEYER: That is correct. That
terminology was again, determined by the
Chief Building Inspector, who wrote the
denial of the reconstruction. Basically, he
is correct in saying so, more than 50% of the
portion is being altered or modified. So
therefore, it is considered reconstruction as
opposed to alterations or modifications.
MEMBER HORNING: Are you making new
foundations?
MR. MEYER: Only in the new areas, we
are adding, as I mentioned earlier, the house
is a little bit of an L and we are filling in
that one corner, roughly 20 foot square and
then new foundation underneath the open porch
areas. We are going to propose those as
single location type foundations. In other
words, we will probably have a sonotube, 15
or 18 inches in diameter with posts and the
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 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
support members of a deck.
MEMBER HORNING: And you
to remove the entire wood?
MR. MEYER: That is correct and also
the current partial second floor.
MEMBER HORNING: And so therefore,
going through the reasons for appeal again,
No. 1, you have an answer for that.
Undesirable change will not be produced in
the character of the neighborhood, although
you haven't showed us any three-story
are proposing
buildings in that neighborhood. And then
Statement No. 3, the amount of relief that is
requested is not a standstill because and you
say you are only increasing the building size
and having the third floor is a substantial
increase. We would see it from a different
prospective than the applicant. I just want
to point that out.
MR. MEYER: I appreciate that.
MEMBER HORNING: We see a self created
hardship, etcetera.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Is there any other
questions from the Board?
(No Response.)
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 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
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Is there anyone in
the audience that would like to address this
application? Please come to the podium and
state your name into the mic and spell it,
please.
MS. KLEIN: Felice Klein, F-E-L-I-C-E
K-L-E-I-N, and I am representing Lisa
Davidoff, which is the adjacent house. And
you would have to excuse me from east, west,
north, whatever it is. Lisa just recently
received this in the mail. She was out of
town unfortunately unable to be here today
but the objection to a third-floor from the
blueprint, which now seems to be different
from what was sent to her. The primarily
three-story building, which would be
overlooking the yard area, where as right
now, it's down to the ground. There is an
area right now where there is no structure
there right now. So therefore looking from
her property out is blank. Suddenly now you
would have -- even a two and a half story,
that would be permissible, if you so desired,
but to even go out to the third floor and
square it off, you are now sitting in your
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 78
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
property, right here, you have a solid wall,
which is something certainly in this area
being on the water with a view would be a
very important factor quality of the
appearance of the neighborhood.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Ma'am,
neighbor that you are representing
street?
MS. KLEIN: No, next door.
the side yard. In other words,
her property right here. It would
her property and this side wall.
is the
across
This would be
just beyond
building would be one thing, but it's not in
line with building. Whereas, now she is
looking straight at a -- now, she would have
this three-story wall right there.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: So if you are
standing by the bulkhead and looking at the
applicants house --
MS. KLEIN: Her property is to the
right.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Ail right. I am just
trying to figure out.
MS. KLEIN: In other words, this new
structure, if it was in line with her
the
be between
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: So she is set back
farthest from the bulkhead then the
applicant?
MS. KLEIN: This -- yes, to square off
this property, yes, she is. They could
explain it all better.
MEMBER HORNING: And Ma'am, that
property is not at the end of the cul-de-sac?
MS. KLEIN: It's adjacent to the
property. It's not at the end of the
cul-de-sac.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ma'am, can you just
mark it right here.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Jim, did you have a
question?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
MR. MEYER: May I have an opportunity
to address that comment, Madam Chairperson?
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Yes.
MR. MEYER: Again, we have indicated
that there is a picture of the subject house
that has the water view. It is the adjacent
neighbor immediately to the north of the
subject property, known as Suffolk County Tax
Map No. 1000-70-t3-20.6 and the town records
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 80
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
when I looked up notification of the
neighbors, this was deeded to Howard
Davidoff, with a mailing address in Port
Washington. Basically, the sixth picture
the pack of photographs that I have given
you, it the house, which I believe it is
actually closer to the water than the subject
property's house and if you go back and refer
back to the first picture of the packet,
which is a photograph of the subject home,
the water side, you will see on the right
side of the drawing, actually my vehicle in
the drawing, and a white fence, which I
believe is to the neighbor and also the
landscaping is so dense, you can not even see
the neighbor to the north. And the proposed
squaring up a corner
itself is not being
water then the
of the subject
squaring off that
the density of the
is very difficult from
where it would
additions are actually
of the home. The house
brought any closer to the
existing easterly wall
structure. We are just
little "L". Because of
trees to the north, it
a site perspective to see
aline with the neighboring home, but if you
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 81
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
would turn and flip around and look to the
south, of the proposed deck area, it is going
to be similarly in line with the existing
deck and the property to the south, which is
shown in pictures four and five of the
package.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Okay.
MR. MEYER: I understand the neighbors
concern but I don't believe that we are
building in a place that will effect their
view or be closer to the water and certainly
not closer to them.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: You are however
going up?
MR. MEYER: Yes.
MS. KLEIN: We understand that they
have the right to square it off, we would be
objecting to the height. The foliage does
exist but we never know what the following
year is going to bring with the foliage.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Any other comments
from anyone in the audience?
(No Response.)
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Any other comments
from any one on the Board?
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 82
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
MEMBER HORNING:
applicant if
on the local
program from
I would ask the
they can give us some feedback
waterfront revitalization
the coordinators remarks that
the project is inconsistent and one of those
aspects deals with a septic system that we
have talked about. And then the landscaped
buffer that he mentioned. So if we could get
some input on his recommendations about the
landscaped buffer, okay?
MR. MEYER: Again, I apologize for not
having submitting that sooner. I was led from
the beginning of this thing that that was
something that was done after we went to the
Board of Appeals. I would say the majority of
the concerns that we have discussed, we can
meet and we discussed them, including the
vegetation buffer that we had talked about. I
would be more than happy to meet with them
and find out what their concerns are and work
with them to accomplish what they are looking
for. We have engaged an environmental
consultant to work with the DEC. So that we
can satisfy all the needs and make sure they
are met.
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 83
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER HORNING:
pending?
MR. MEYER:
particular
And the Trustees is
Yes. When they heard of the
variances that we were requesting,
they had asked that we not file with the
Board of Trustees until we had a
determination from this Board. So that
application is not even filed. We will file
it as soon as we hear from this Board.
I thank you all.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Ail right. So based
upon the understanding, we will close this
hearing and reserve decision. And so the
applicant is aware, we will likely be denying
the third-story, of course we have not made
that determination yet and we will then go
back to the Building Department and make that
application to make it conforming to two and
a half story, by code definition. Is that
understood?
MR. MEYER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: I want to make sure.
That way we won't have to rehear it or have
to get it amended and we won't have to go
through all of this.
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 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
MR. MEYER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: So I will make a
motion to close this hearing and reserve
decision.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.
HEARING #6488 - LISA AND DAVID CIFARELLI
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: The next application
before the Board is for Lisa and David
Cifarelli. Request for variance under Article
XXIII Code Section 280-122 and the Building
Inspector's May 10, 2011 Notice of
Disapproval based on a building permit
application for additions and alterations to
a nonconforming building at: 1) less than the
code required front yard setback of 100 feet,
2) less than the code required side yard
setback of 20 feet, 3)less than the code
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
required rear yard setback of 75 feet,
located at; 1335 New Suffolk Road, Cutchogue.
Pat, we just have local
determination.
We just wanted to let you know our request
for comments from the Planning Board and I
know you have an application before this, has
not been received. Comments have not yet been
received and should be received very, very
soon. So that should have some baring on how
this unfolds. I just wanted to let you know
that we have requested and we should be
getting that very, very shortly. You will get
a copy, of course. So lets go ahead and
proceed.
MS. MOORE: Thank you. Good afternoon,
now, we started in the morning.
Mr. And Mrs. Cifarelli are here with me. I
can defer to them for any questions that are
more appropriate for them to answer. You have
my written submission. I have provided you
with a survey of the existing conditions.
Also our draft proposal that has been
submitted to the Planning Board and we have
the elevations of the buildings with the
proposed changes. The property, as you have
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 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
pointed out is LD zoning, which has some
significant setbacks from the property and
the structure is nonconforming, and the
application before you is to put a full
second-story over the office area that is
described. That is the masonry office, that
has the garage. And DB Builders have used it
as an office space prior to -- I guess his
death and closing his business. Again,
because this is a second-story, we are
working within the scope of the existing
building and the existing setbacks are
identified. My clients are the owners,
operators. They are well known business in
the Town of Southold. The business consist of
my clients as well as two other office staff
people. They will be the people occupying the
space. The rest of the employees are the --
they run their business -- they operate the
cleaning business. They run their cars out to
the site who the people are hiring them to
clean their house. Clean your office. It is
all done by phone. I even used them when I
had done some construction. So I can tell you
personally. I called them up. I never had
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 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
met them before. I said I have an office and
I need window cleaning and they say, okay.
They come and give you a quote. You do it
over the phone and you never actually see
them in person. So this location is for the
office staff. Very few, if ever people come
to the office. No one comes to the office
unless they want to personally deliver the
check and that is rarely done. When they
purchased this property the mason building
was advertised as a commercial building space
and we do have, just for the record, the
advertisement as it was listed on the real
estate market and the emphasis was on this
building as far as the commercial uses on
this building. The other structure is a
single-family dwelling. There is no plans to
do anything other than provide housing for
probably somebody in their own business. One
of their employees. I will submit this for
the record. Ultimately, you will have the
price listed.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Was the listing in
compliance with the code? In other words,
what was advertised --
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 88
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
MS. MOORE: It was advertised as a LD.
That's it. Again, the structure is there.
They have when they purchased it, they didn't
realize they were going to have to go through
all of these contortions of Zoning Board and
Site Plan. They did speak to the powers of be
and it was just not pointed out that in order
to expand this building, they would have to
come to the Zoning Board and just to make any
changes to the building, that would need to
be for Site Plan review. This is a learning
experience that they had and here we are. It
is what it is. It's pretty straight forward.
Right now, it's not a very attractive
building. Part of the overall plan is to
enhance the look of the building. So again,
the Site Plan review process will also
emphasis some review improvements to the site
as well. So we will defer to them that they
suggest.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
MS. MOORE: I did provide you with
whole history of CO's for this building.
There has been lots of changes to the
building. It's pretty straight forward
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
application. Since I have given this to you
all in writing, I would rather address any
questions you might have, rather than take up
time and go through my written dissertation
over again, if that is all right with you.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: And none of the
preexisting nonconforming setbacks have been
proposed to be changed --
MS. MOORE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: It's a matter of
going up --
MS. MOORE: Right. Jim, questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No, with the exception
of the nonconformity.
MS. MOORE: That is why we are here.
MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I don't have any
questions.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: The bathroom
facilities and such are in the existing
right
now, that is what called a garage?
MS. MOORE: Yes. That is combined use
there. DB Builders, they actually had a CO
for an office. Office building and one car
garage and accessory structure, because they
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 90
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
ran their office there. Is there a bathroom
there? Why don't you stand up.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Just state your name
for the record, please.
MS. CIFARELLI: Lisa Cifarelli. There
is currently a full bathroom or a half
bathroom in the office. That wouldn't be
altered. We would be updating fixtures and
putting in new toilets and sinks. So we are
not changing anything or adding anything.
It's just a full bathroom.
been told, it's large
of requirements.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN:
there is a shower --
MS. CIFARELLI: No,
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN:
an accessory
From what we have
enough to meet any type
When you say full,
MEMBER HORNING: And there is nothing
proposed to be on the second floor, plumbing?
MS. CIFARELLI: No, on the second floor
will be -- there is currently a second floor
there now. Its just the height of the roof is
really not adequate to do too much height up
there. It will be my private office, David's
a half bathroom.
Which is permitted
structure.
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 91
6
7
8
9
10
tl
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
private office and a space for our children
to come off the school bus and have a
hang-out area, while we are at work still --
MEMBER HORNING: I was there yesterday
and there was somebody inside their. I walked
a little bit --
MS. CIFARELLI: -- in the office space?
MEMBER HORNING: Yes. And there were
people in the house, maybe babysitters or
some.
MS. CIFARELLI: One of the families of
our employees live in the house.
MEMBER HORNING: Okay. There is no
intention of having someone living --
MS. CIFARELLI: In the garage,no. That
is our office space only. There is no one
living in the garage now.
MEMBER HORNING: I couldn't tell who
was in there and I didn't know whether they
are living there or not.
MS. CIFARELLI: No, there is nobody
living there. It is just all empty concrete
garage space.
MS. MOORE: (In Audible). So presently
they are renting in Mattituck, 1300 Main
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Road.
MEMBER HORNING:
Is there a lot of
Main Road neighboring
traffic going into that
property?
MS. CIFARELLI: Our driveway just goes
specifically to us.
MS. MOORE: (In Audible).
MS. CIFARELLI: I don't think so. I
believe it is just his personal residence
back there and as far as I know, it's just a
trailer. From what
elderly gentlemen.
much traffic going
I have been told, he's an
So I don't think there is
back to his house.
MEMBER HORNING: I took a walk back
there, it's pretty dilapidated.
MS. CIFARELLI: Yeah. That is what I
have been told. I haven't ventured over
there. The roosters keep me away. I think my
them away,
Gerry?
I noticed the
English Bulldog will keep
hopefully.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN:
spaces.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
plan, there is 8 parking
MS. CIFARELLI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Is
this the same
site
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 93
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
plan
before the Planning Board also?
MS. MOORE: Yes, same plan.
MEMBER HORNING: So based upon
your
presentation, it's business as
office area with a downstairs.
rented to an employee.
usual. It's
The house is
MS. CIFARELLI: Our private offices
will be on the second floor.
MEMBER HORNING: So what would your
an
best gut opinion be or an opinion regarding
activity at the site itself?
MS. CIFARELLI: As far as customers
coming?
MEMBER HORNING: No, any activity.
MS. CIFARELLI: We have an average of
about six company vehicles that will stay
overnight. They normally leave about,
between 6:00 and 7:00 o'clock in the morning.
Depending on the time that they need to be
there. We can go to about 4:00 or 7:00
o'clock at night depending upon the time of
year. And then during the day time, it would
be myself and my two office people. The
majority of our (In Audible) run out of our
office in Southampton. We have an office in
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Southampton.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: So your site plan
shows two parking spaces for the house and
five spaces for vehicles?
MS. CIFARELLI: Right.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: I presume that will
be your vehicles coming and going? Your staff
vehicles --
MS. CIFARELLI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Commercial
vehicles?
time.
MS. CIFARELLI: Not during the day
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN:
So they leave --
MS. CIFARELLI: They leave and we come
in at 9:00 and leave at 5:00. They are
already gone by the time that we get there.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Okay. Any other
questions from the Board?
(No Response.)
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Is there anyone in
the audience that would like to address this
application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: We have requested
comments from the Planning Board. They are
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 95
1
2
3
4
$
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
proceeding with Site Plan Review anyway --
MS. MOORE: We were given permission --
I'm sorry. We did have -- I met with the
Planning staff prior to submission, so we did
have a preliminary discussion at that level
and then submitted the application. The Board
itself, has not given me any input.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Board members, Vicki
had a conversation with the Planning
Director, Heather Lanza, and I am going to
the
ask her to enter that conversation into
record. Is that okay with everybody?
MS. TOTH: Okay. I did have a
conversation with Heather yesterday at around
quarter to four, and the reason we have no
comments from the Planning Board on this
application was because when it was submitted
upstairs from their staff, somehow it was
misfiled. They apologize to the Board. She
said in short form, was the Board is
supporting the application. They do have
comments and concerns regarding landscaping
and occupancy of the dwelling. So what she
would like to do is that, our Board would
support their recommendations and either keep
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 96
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
this
their comments
comments.
CHAIRMAN
application open for their open for
or close it, subject to their
WEISMAN: That is why I am
bringing this up. I would like to not have
another hearing on this. So what I would like
to do is find an agreeable way that we can
avoid that. If we close, subject to receipt
of comments from the Planning Board, it would
gibe you an opportunity to respond to us in
writing.
MS. MOORE: I can do that.
then we can
a determination.
is that okay
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: And
start the clock into making
Is everyone agreeable to that?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Sure.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Pat,
with you?
MS. MOORE: Sure. That makes sense. I
am somewhat confused as to what they might
have with the dwelling. It's going to stay
MS. TOTH: In other words, the number
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 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
of families living in it.
MS. MOORE: Okay.
MS. CIFARELLI: There is just one
family.
MS. TOTH: That is something that
will have to address with them.
you
address any concerns or issues.
MS. MOORE: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Then we can let
go ahead and proceed with them and we
make our determination.
MS. MOORE: Yeah. I mean, I can't
really move to far with the Site Plan, until
I have a decision from your Board. So we are
kind of in a Catch 22. So I am agreeable to
that. Maybe the comments will be pretty
straight forward in that we only have a
you
can
single family dwelling use. To change it, we
would either have to come back to site plan
process and it would become a multi family.
There are three different procedures to do
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: The point is, if you
feel confident that we can close this subject
to receipt of comments from the Planning
Board Review and give you a proper chance to
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 98
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Pat, if we say once
we have received comments from Planning and
call you immediately, and we can fax them
over, can you get us within two weeks, is
that reasonable?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Your reaction to it?
If there is a problem,
MS. MOORE: Yes.
I can let you know.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: You can ask for an
extension, that is fine. Okay. Hearing no
further comments or questions from the Board,
I am going to make a motion to close this
hearing subject to receipt of written
comments from the Planning Board and to be
forwarded to the applicants attorney for any
comments within a two week period or a
request for an extension. Is there a second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Aye.
Motion carries unanimously. Thank you.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
*********************************************
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Pat, while you are
getting your papers together, we are going to
take a one minute recess. So moved. Is there
a second?
MEMBER
GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN:
MEMBER
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Aye.
GOEHRINGER:
Second.
Ail in favor?
Aye.
(Whereupon, a recess was taken at this
time.)
should
HEARING #6486 EDNA BEIRNE
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: The
before the Board is for Michael
Beirne. Request for --
MS. MOORE: I apologize, it
just be
next application
and Edna
really
for Edna. Michael passed away.
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 t00
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Okay, thank you.
This is a request for variance from Article
XXIII Code Section 280-124 and Article III
280-15 and the Building Inspector's
June 1, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based on
an application for building permit to
construct a deck and shower addition and
accessory garage addition/alteration at:
front and rear yard setback of less than
code required 35 feet, 2) side yard setback
of more than the code required 10 feet, 3)
1)
the
I think we have some green cards
missing, Pat?
MS. MOORE: I was given only whatever I
got.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN:
determination letter,
right.
MS. MOORE: The
We have a local
if you want it. Ail
house that is presently
lot coverage of more than the code required
20% for the deck/shower addition and 4) rear
and side yard setbacks for accessory
buildings at more than the code required 3
feet, located at: 55 Fay Court, adjacent to
Right of Way, Mattituck.
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 101
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
on the property is --
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Just for the
transcript, you have to state your name.
MS. MOORE: Oh, I am sorry. Patricia
Moore on behalf of Ms. Beirne. I am the
attorney. 51020 Main Road, Southold. The
existing house, there is a Pre-CO for the
existing house and the property predates
stoning. This is the area of Camp Mineola,
very well documented area for variances.
Every -- I have done personally, done many
a
application variances on this block and the
Board has heard many applications because
this whole area, area house is nonconforming
and every lot is nonconforming. The existing
house and -- as I said, it's preexisting. The
existing garage has been improved over the
years with -- has a new foundation that was
added in 1986 --1998, I'm sorry. In 1998,
the building permit and CO, the house as well
as the garage, had new foundations put in.
The house foundation was made to comply with
FEMA restrictions. And the garage has a good
poured foundation. The deck has been there,
again, since the beginning. The existing deck
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 102
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
has been there
They have been repaired and replaced over the
years. Most recently in '98, the decking was
replaced but at the time, the interpretation
of the code was, you did not need a variance
if you do not exceed the setback of the
existing structure. And since the deck
stayed at the same setback as the house, the
deck could be improved. At this point, I had
explained in my written presentation that the
garage needs to be renovated at a minimum.
The proposed
with the house for many years.
renovations for the garage, will
actually mimic the garage that is directly
next door. If you were on that property, you
would see that there are two garages within
feet of each other. You can see the height
differential between the two and when it is
improved, it will actually match the one next
to it. The proposed decking is intended to
(In Audible) to the entry way to the garage
and it allows for easier access between the
house and the garage. My client is getting on
in years and she has had some knee problems
and needs to go up and down stairs a little
less in which she is now facing. It is time
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 103
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
to renovate
gone and
replaced.
when the
proposal is
decking, so
the decking anyway. If you had
saw, it does need to be repaired or
This is the right time to do it and
garage gets done as well. The
also to cut back the preexisting
that we are reducing the overall
lot coverage of the property. And by taking
away and it is showing on the survey, a
significant portion will just be grade, a
patio. The Building Department cite the
outdoor showers. Typically outdoor showers
don't need permits because it is considered
(In Audible). It is there, you can see it.
It has been there. It has been there for 39
years. The shower head is attached to part of
the wall of the house and the enclosure are
just two pieces of fencing. That is for
privacy screening. So that will be just be
replaced as is over the patio.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a
question, Pat?
MS. MOORE: Yeah, go ahead.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You said there was
a Pre-CO on the house?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 104
1
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 GOEHRINGER: What date would
that be?
MS. MOORE: The Pre-Co was issued in
1972 but refers back that the house was prior
to zoning. It was a housing section. Hardy
was the owner at the time. And the way the
Pre-CO's were done, the Building Department
would take a look at the house at the time,
they wanted to make sure that if there were
any safety issues that needed to be
addressed, even though it was a Pre-CO, they
would try and encourage owners to upgrade
whatever was a safety issue. And there were
some housing code violations that were
addressed many, many, years ago.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there a Pre-CO
on the garage?
MS. KLEIN: It must -- I have the
neighbors here, who are all here in support
and they can give you some history. What has
been stated, the garage was built in 1928. So
I presume the Pre-CO would have also included
the garage as well. It is shown on all the
surveys that I have seen.
Did you have any other questions?
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 105
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER HORNING: What is the purpose of
renovation of the garage?
MS. MOORE: Right now, the garage does
not fit her car. There is also no storage in
any of the homes in this area. They don't
have basements because of the flood zone. So
the garage will not only provide space for
the car and it will also provide extra dry
storage. So it is just standard garage
purposes for maintaining storage.
CHAIRMAN WBISMAN: It's unheated?
MS. MOORE: Yes, it's an unheated
garage. Finished in that she -- come on up
here because it needs to be on the record.
MS. BEIRNE: I am Edna Beirne, I am the
homeowner. I do want a floor because if I am
going to use it for storage, I do want
something that I am going to be able to walk
on. So I do want a floor and code says
sheetrock. I don't want sheet rock. I want
plywood, and I want to nail in hooks and hang
in beach chairs. I don't want to use
sheetrock. Downstairs section of the garage
has to be sheetrock because of fire code.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, whatever the
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 106
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
fire code.
MS. MOORE: So we will comply with
whatever the building code says. It's just
electric. There is no bathroom there. Do
you have a hose spick?
MS. BEIRNE: No.
any water up there. I
watering the plants.
MS. MOORE: It's
So I won't be putting
just want to be
not going to be
be just used for
Yes.
So it's going to be
use.
a
there is no
There is an
that I wanted to talk
Notice of Disapproval,
coverage is 38%.
heated. It's going to
seasonal use?
MS. BEIRNE:
MS. MOORE:
standard garage
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: And
proposement of an expanding?
MS. MOORE: No.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN:
inconsistency
about. In the
of the proposed lot
survey shows at 37.1%. I just want to
what is what here. It is a reduction,
I see you are taking some decking out
making a patio.
to you
the site
The
clarify
because
and
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 107
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
The proposed -- well, it is really the
existing shower that you are building around,
is not shown on the survey. There is some
squares here but nobody knows what that is.
So I guess that is the discrepancy. Okay.
the actual lot coverage is probably about
37.1%.
MS. MOORE: Lets do the 38.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: We have to assume
that the Notice of Disapproval is accurate.
You mentioned when we were out there that
garage next door is higher --
MS. MOORE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN:
So
Since there is no
drive around. The other ones that we have
seen seem to be like a one-story.
MS. MOORE: I don't know that this is
considered two-story. It is 18 feet of
maximum height. The storage is just storage.
So it is just typical storage on any garage.
So I don't know that it would be considered
second story garage.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: That is not what
the notice said. There is nothing on the
height.
the
a
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 108
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. MOORE: One of the concerns that I
did have, if you should approve this
variance, Ms. Beirne has given this proposal
to a hand full of contractors. One of them
suggested that it would be best that the
garage structure, the wood structure be built
rather than using the existing frame of the
garage. We have it as a renovation, when you
look at the back and how it was
constructed --
MS. BEIRNE: The 2x4's, which from what
I understand are not to code now. The siding
is on (In Audible) strips. So when you take
the siding off, you are only going to have
2X4's. They are going to be cut down to 7
top
feet. So there will be a 6
of that and then the roof.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN:
the 2X4's?
foot wall on
MS. BEIRNE: I don't know. What happens
in the demolition takes place and the walls
come tumbling down, I would like to say, put
new wood up. (In Audible) anyway.
MS. MOORE: It depends on how you write
the decision. That is why I ask that you
So are you leaving
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
could provide for the possibility that if
the structure -- the foundation is a
relatively current foundation. It was done in
'98. So there is no need to make any
modification to the floor. That if the walls
are not good, that we be able and permitted
to put new framing. If we can't, we can't.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is the purpose
of the Dutch doors facing the house.
MS. BEIRNE: So that if I want to (In
Audible) patio tables are very big. So we
have a five foot stairway to give us room.
Just anything big because if I get my way and
I get the storage that I need for the
upstairs and put my car in, there is nothing
downstairs. Maybe just put a lawnmower.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Jim, questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: No.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Is there anyone in
the audience that would like to address this
application?
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 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
MS. MOORE: Well, we do have a few
neighbors that are in support. Mr. Wambach
who is the owner of the garage that is
directly next door, very kindly wrote a note
because he was not sure that he was going to
be able to be here. So I will read the note
on the record and he says that, his name is
Norman Wambach. My house is the property
immediately to the west of Ms. Beirne. I have
-- thank you. Have no objections to
Ms. Beirne's proposed deck and garage to make
enjoyment of the property for her and her
family more comfortable. Southold Town has
very small (In Audible) where properties are
small. They were all set up in the 1920's.
Clustering zs not an
is why I read that in,
enemy. And I will put
enemy. I like that. That
clustering is not an
that on the record.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The reason why I
asked you that question regarding the lot
coverage was because there is always a
maximum that we go in particular areas, that
we talk about. 37%, 38%, you know, it's
really getting up there.
MS. MOORE: I have done applications
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 111
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
for the houses that have been rebuilt on
10 Mineola Road and these are for new homes,
they run up to 40, is my memory, that you
have approved. We are here just talking about
decking and the garage. So it is not
enclosure. It is the decking that is just
three foot height. Open decking.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I remember 28.5,
that is what I remember. Maybe you can do
some research and let us know, because I was
unaware that we went any where near that
particularly on the bay.
MS. MOORE: No, we are not on the
water. There are no environmental factors
here.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I know. (In
Audible).
MS. BEIRNE: (In Audible).
(Stepped away from the microphone.)
MS. MOORE: Off the top of my head, I
know 3 or 4, that I have represented.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Well, you are
proposing to reduce the nonconforming.
MS. MOORE: Exactly, this shouldn't
even be a variance because we are reducing
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 112
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
the nonconformity, not
nonconformity. I would
in mind.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN:
come forward.
MR. FEDYNAK:
is Ray Fedynak. I
Beirne.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN:
please spell your name,
increasing the
ask you to keep that
Thank you.
Anyone else?
Please
Good afternoon, my name
live adjacent to Edna
Would you
sir?
just
MR. FEDYNAK: F-E-D-Y-N-A-K.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Thank you.
MR. FEDYNAK: And I have no objection to
her project. I think it would make life
easier for her. And she will have more
enjoyment with her family during the summer
months.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Okay. Thank you.
MR. FEDYNAK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Any other comments?
MS. BEIRNE: This is funny.
Mr. Fedynak, he can't
because he is the one
and make life easier.
have any objections
that suggested to do
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Nice to have nice
neighbors.
MS. MOORE: I have to say that this
neighborhood has always been very supportive
of the application process. As I said, most
of them have needed variances for their own
projects. It's a very small close nit
neighborhood.
see and have
you very much.
CHAIRMAN
further
And it's always a pleasure to
a neighborhood like that. Thank
WEISMAN: Okay.
questions or comments,
motion to close this
decision.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN:
MEMBER
MEMBER
MEMBER
MEMBER
GOEHRINGER:
HORNING:
DINIZIO:
SCHNEIDER:
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN:
Motion carries.
(See Minutes for
hearing
Seeing no
I will make a
and reserve
Second.
Ail in
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Resolution.)
favor?
HEARING #6490 - PETER AND CHERYL CASTIGLIONE.
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 114
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: The next application
before the Board is for Peter and Cheryl
Castiglione. Applicant request a Special
exception under Section 280-13B(14) . The
applicant is the owner requesting
authorization to establish an Accessory Bed
and Breakfast, accessory and incidental to
the residential occupancy in this
single-family dwelling with four bedrooms for
lodging and servicing of breakfast to the B&B
casual, transient roomers. Location of
property:
Hi. State
MS.
2500 Peconic Lane, Peconic.
your name, please, for the record.
CASTIGLIONE:
C-A-S-T- I-G-L- I-O-N-E.
members that were able
We are very proud of it. And
running Bed and Breakfast on
We are hoping that it would
the four bedrooms.
or would you
Phil Bell?
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN:
like
Cheryl Castigtione,
I want to thank the
to come see the home.
it's the longest
the northfork.
be approved for
DO you have a copy
MS. CASTIGLIONE: No, he e-mailed me
that. He is the only neighbor that is close
a copy from your neighbor,
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 115
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to the property. And he offered to write that
on our behalf.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Okay. And we also
have a letter from Suffolk County, that this
is for a local determination.
MS. CASTIGLIONE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: If you would like a
copy. George, do you want to ask some
questions?
MEMBER HORNING: There are three
bedrooms there now?
MS. CASTIGLIONE: There are four guest
bedrooms and each of them have their own
bathroom.
MEMBER HORNING: I was curious. Have
you applied for a B&B before?
MS. CASTIGLIONE: This was already a
Bed and Breakfast.
MEMBER HORNING: What is the
circumstances --
MS. CASTIGLIONE: When we purchased the
home, the previous owners had been running it
as a four bedroom B&B. They had provided us
with the Fire Marshal's certificate and he
said that we were approved for four rooms and
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
we just continued with it. And I know
ignorance is no exception, but we purchased
it without real estate. So we weren't made
aware that we had to go through a process. So
when Mr. Fisher came this year and gave me
the paperwork and we were made aware of it,
we acted immediately.
MEMBER HORNING: Change of ownership is
what precipitated --
MS. CASTIGLIONE: Right. And we were
not aware that we had to reapply.
MEMBER HORNING: Right. Because when I
drove there yesterday, it looked all set-up.
MS. CASTIGLIONE: The Holmes Family had
it running as a two-bedroom originally. And
it was made a Bed and Breakfast over 35 years
ago. And then the Cardinale's purchased it
and made it bigger. And now we have purchase
it from them. We were
not zoned.
MEMBER HORNING:
significance of the
lot? One of them is
have
not aware that we were
is the
the parking
What
marking on
gold?
MS. CASTIGLIONE: Because the rooms
names and this way it allocates a
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 117
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
parking for each car. We have two next to our
back door that accommodate my car and my
husbands car.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Jim, do you have any
questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: I have no questions.
Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Thank you very much.
I am going to make a motion to close the
hearing and reserve decision.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6485 - MAUREEN RADIGAN (PECONIC LAND
TRUST INC.}
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
MS. RADIGAN: Good afternoon, Members of
the Board.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: One second. I have
to read this into the public record.
This is a request for Special Exception
per Code Section 280-13B(14), the applicant
is requesting permission to convert existing
office space to operate a nursery school at:
44600 County Road 48, Southold.
Now, would you just state your name for
the record?
MS. RADIGAN: My name is Maureen
Radigan, spelled M-A-U-R-E-E-N R-A-D-I-G-A-N.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Thank you. What
would you like to tell us?
MS. RADIGAN: Well, I am attempting to
convert an existing business office into a
nursery school at 44600 North Road.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: What is the
relationship between you and Peconic Land
Trust?
MS. RADIGAN: They are my landlords.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: So they purchased
this property?
MS. RADIGAN: That is correct. In
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 119
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
April,
the building.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN:
proposing the ground
your nursery?
MS. RADIGAN: That
I believe Peconic Land Trust acquired
And you are
floor will be used for
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN:
MS. RADIGAN: I live there.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Tell us
is correct.
And upstairs?
a little
about your background and daycare?
MS. RADIGAN: I was married to a
service member and I ran a (In Audible)
daycare at my home and raised my kids by this
daycare in our home. So I have a lot of
experience with that. I currently am a
certified teacher. I am a Art Teacher. So I
have an educational background. I previously
had been working in the Bronx teaching high
school. Recently left that position, so I
have been studying for a few years. It is
very difficult to find that teaching position
on Long Island right now. So last year, I
answered an ad, a home schooling cooperative
in Southold all looking for a teacher because
the moms were getting a little bit run down.
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
And I took over the teaching.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: And what is your
relationship, some mention to a relationship
of Peconic Land Trust (In Audible)?
MS. RADIGAN: Yes. I found out about
this space for rent through the Peconic Land
Trust. They hired me to teach as an
educational consultant. Basically, when the
students from the fourth and fifth grade go
to the Charnis Community Farm, the farming
block, in September and again in June, I do
the English arts and some of the hands-on
activities with them. It's between eight to
ten sessions a year. So I have worked with
them for three days and the program is brand
new. I think last year was the first year. So
the program has potential to grow, but it's a
good compatibilti7y that I do for them.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: You are currently
operating a child care but not on the
property?
MS. RADIGAN: No, I am not currently
operating. I was working with a home school
cooperative. They had a case and I would just
come there. Drive into Southold from where I
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 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
was in Eastport, I would provide materials.
had pictures of what I would do with the
kids, if you are interested in seeing those.
I have letters from parents. If you would
like to see those?
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Sure. And you are
licensed to do this work?
MS. RADIGAN: Yes, I am. And I am also
going to extend a day. So I am in the
process of applying for a family childcare
license because currently I would be able to
offer a 2 hour and 59 minute and then again,
I
in the after afternoon. So I am applying for
a family childcare license to extend the
day.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: And are
need to do any renovations down
interior? Licensing requirements?
MS. RADIGAN: I am not
might come up but it doesn't
Mostly cosmetic changes. Maybe
will have to be replaced.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Okay.
MS. RADIGAN: I will bring these
letters up.
you going to
there? The
really sure. It
look likely.
the carpeting
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 122
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: If you could just
explain how the parking on the site is going
to take place? The dropping off and picking
up of the children and so on?
MS. RADIGAN: So far I have 8 students
that are currently signed up with the
potential of a maximum of 12 students. So the
parking is really not going to change that
much. It's going to be a drop off situation.
What I will do, it's a mixed age, 3 to
6-years-old that come, one or two days a
week. I am going to have them come later,
maybe 9:30 for drop off. And the older ones
to come in at 9:00. So we won't have all the
families come in at once.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Okay. The parking is
set back from the street pretty much. Jim,
questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: What is the extended
daycare? What is that?
MS. RADIGAN: Well, there is laws that
you have to comply with when you work with
the children under school age. Kindergarten
is not mandated in New York State. So if you
are going to offer more hours than 2 hours
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 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
and 59 minutes, you also have to comply with
the State standards as far caring for
children. They need meals after certain
times. You have to really accommodate that
after a curriculum. So I have to comply with
those rules that if young students are going
to be physically on the property for more
than
2 hours and 59 minutes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Does that make you a
nursery school or --
MS. RADIGAN: No, it makes me a nursery
school. It is the same thing that Maritime
does. They don't have a license.
MEMBER DINIZIO: They don't have a
license?
MS. RADIGAN: No. And they are not
going to do it because they are bigger than
us and they don't want to become a center. I
just want to stay very small with a maximum
of 12 students.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I am concerned about
-- is a nursery school less than three hours?
Or something else?
MS. RADIGAN: No, not typically. I
think when you have children on your site for
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 124
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
more than three hours, as I said, you have
to comply with State regulations. Now, we --
I lost my train of thought, I am sorry. When
I say, extended day, I don't mean that they
are going to be there for 10 hours. Most
parents work or they have younger children in
other programs or at other schools. So some
of them not asking, not a great deal, but
some want to know if they can extend the day
a little bit to 3:30 and then working parents
till 5:00. So it would be more -- for like a
5-year-old in my program, it would be like a
regular school day. I still have to comply
with the State codes because they are
mandated under a certain age.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. Thank
MS. RADIGAN: Did I
question?
MEMBER DINIZIO: I can
research on my own.
MS. RADIGAN: I intend
Maritime, offer a morning
afternoon session. I have
answer
yOU.
your
to, just like
session and an
parents that have
already expressed for an extended day. I will
not be able to accommodate them until the
do a little
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 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
licensing is in place and everything is in
order. I have to get insurance and all the
right things. And I have already made a
connection with Joanne Facetta. She is a
Suffolk Community Child Care Council. She she
is going to come over and help me plan and
help me do the application.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: Couple of questions.
Are you going to have assistance?
MS. RADIGAN: At this time, there is
one parent that might become an assistant.
The 3-year-olds are not going to come
everyday. Just twice a week. So we are going
to try and have the 3-year-olds there at the
same time. And I have a parent volunteer from
one of the moms who wants to be there, as a
helper but I don't think I have enough
members that would need an assistant yet.
MEMBER HORNING: In the case that you
have to have an evacuation of the building,
have you considered that?
MS. RADIGAN: Absolutely. I will have
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to comply with all the fire codes. I think
the license is very explicit, you have to
post a map by the door. And you actually have
to spend part of the curriculum about
educating children about fire safety. So you
know, we practice fire drills. They would
practice where to go. We would have different
choices. We can go to the north side, which
is six short steps to my front door. And then
every single window could be an escape
window. The just crank open, the screens pop
out.
MEMBER HORNING: But a kid couldn't do
that?
MS. RADIGAN: Yes, they could.
MEMBER HORNING: They could?
MS. RADIGAN: They could. If they were
trained to use one of the windows, they
could. I could have a step stool nearby,
which would just be for fire evacuation and
that is what they would do. It is a foot
level ranch. Part of it is ground level. They
would be out and over to maybe then a foot to
the ground. There is no drop from the window.
I would go out that way myself. Depending on
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 127
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
what counsel we had from the fire person,
that was not on the north side and use that
as a egress.
MEMBER HORNING: So you would not have
to build another doorway?
MS. RADIGAN: No, I don't think so.
MEMBER HORNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Is there any in the
audience that would like to address this
application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRMAN
comments from
MEMBER HORNING:
WEISMAN:
the Board?
Is there any further
Nope.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Hearing no
comments, I will make a motion to
hearing and reserve decision.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Ail in
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Aye.
further
close the
favor?
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 128
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING %6489 - MICHAEL J. MACCO
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Okay. Our next
application is for Michael Macco. And that
a request for variances from Article III Code
Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's
May 27, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based on
an application for building permit to
reconstruct an accessory garage at: 1)less
than the code required front yard setback of
35 feet, 2) less than the code required side
yard setback of 20 feet, and 3) more than the
code required maximum height of 22 feet,
located at: 950 Oak Street, adjacent to
Creek, aka, Eugene's Creek in Cutchogue.
am
East
MR. NOTARO: My name is Frank Notaro. I
the agent and architect for Michael Macco.
am going to give you a little background on
we do to change the
first thing you see
He said, I use this
I
how we came to where we are today. The
existing nonconforming garage has always
bothered my client. He came to me, what can
aesthetics. This is the
when you go by his house.
building -- basically, if
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 129
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you have ever gone inside, it's used for
storage. He is a big fisherman and has tons
of stuff in there. He also has a background
in carpentry. If you take a look at the way
this house was constructed with a flat roof
structure. It is built very, very strongly.
It has 2X12Ts roof joist on it. Is there
really a way that we can change the
aesthetics without taring it apart? So what
we propose doing is to put a hip roof on it,
which would have the least exposure to the
road. And we went with a 6 and 12 pitch,
which is from the height on the ground, it
actually goes down to about a 3 and 12 when
you look at it. So we are here today
proposing what you see on the right hand
side. We are not adding any square footage to
the structure or volume either. In other
words, the first and second floor basically
remain the same. We are really just trying to
change the aesthetics. If I can answer
questions from the Board?
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: We will start with,
Jim.
MEMBER
DINIZIO: Okay. In my opinion,
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we are only looking at the height of the
building. What is it, 22 feet, because
there is a peek on the roof; is that
correct?
roof
than that?
NOTARO: You mean
that?
the average
That is not the
MR. MACCO: Well, yeah. 22 is the flat
presently. It's 21.7.
MEMBER DINIZIO: So the height is going
to be 25.4. If you took the average, would it
be lower
MR.
height of
MEMBER DINIZIO:
average. 25 --
MR. NOTARO: Is to the ridge.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Right.
MR. NOTARO: If you went halfway down,
you are probably at or a little bit below the
flat roof of the other house. We are not
taking the structure apart. We are going to
cut our rafters as low as we can. You know,
we can go with a lower pitch on the roof but
what happens is, when you are standing at
ground level, the lower pitch when you are
going up, it ends up looking like a flat
roof. You know, we worked with an 8 and 12.
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 131
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A 7 and 12 pitch, so that from the road it
appears that it's not such a -- you know.
MEMBER DINIZIO: What is the reason for
leaving the box?
MR. NOTARO: Because it is very well
made. It serves its purpose right now. It's
literally a storage bin. It's structurally
very sound.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Is there any use of
that box, as far as crawl space?
MR. NOTARO: It's totally loaded with
all of his fishing gear.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I understand that. I
guess what I am saying is, that overhang is
not just a facade, it is part of the
building?
MR. NOTARO: Part of the existing
structure? No, that is just literally
attached to the box.
MEMBER DINIZIO: It is. It hangs out
about 18 inches.
MR. NOTARO: Yes, and that can come
right up.
MEMBER DINIZIO: But you are not
willing to take that off?
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 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
MR. NOTARO: NO, we are taking that
off. That will be an aesthetic that he
doesn't care for. And his neighbors don't
care for. I just really wished he had gotten
letters.
MEMBER DINIZIO: The house is the same?
going to do it to the house at some
Are you
point?
MR. MACCO:
hip roof
MR. NOTARO:
Yeah, we are planning to do
We would like
to do.
MEMBER DINIZIO: That is what I thought.
It's going to look like mushrooms then.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: That is Part II.
MR. NOTARO: He is a fisherman. They
look like mushrooms. It's kind of dated.
MEMBER DINIZIO: That is all I have.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: The only thing that
I was going to ask is if you could bring that
height down a little bit, but I think you
have addressed the reasons why it is the way
that it is. You have to come and state your
name.
MR. MACCO: Michael Macco. It is
already studded. Ail of the walls are already
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 133
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
studded and the ceiling is 2X12 with 12
inches on the center. If I would knock it
down, besides the amount of lumber that I
would have to put up, I can not construct
anything that is any better than what I
already have. I tried to get that roof as iow
as possible because I know we have the height
restrictions here. I tried to go as iow as
possible. There is not even plumbing in here.
Ail I have is my fishing packs and my boat
equipment, my crab track and my Christmas
tree because I want to have use for a
basement in my house. So I use that area for
storage -- for the house storage. You are
right, when I looked at my house, I just
walked all the way to the end of the creek
and it had enough (In Audible) from my Boston
Whaler, and that is really what I was
interested in, more than the house. But my
wife can't look at this any longer and I have
to do something. There is no walls in there,
just studs.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Is there any
electricity in there?
MR. MACCO: Just a light bulb in
the
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 134
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
center.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: I have
Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: Ail set.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Is there
no questions.
the audience that would like
application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN:
comments, I will make a
hearing and reserve decision.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN:
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Aye.
anyone in
to address this
Hearing no further
motion to close this
Second.
Ail in favor?
Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6433 - T-MOBILE NORTHEAST, LLC.
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 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
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Okay. We have a
request for an adjournment from T-Mobile,
which is our next application, because it was
advertised, I am going to read the legal
notice and see if there is anyone here
wanting to address this application.
This is a request for variances from
Code Section 280-70J and the Building
Inspector's September 30, 2010, amended
October 12, 2010, updated June 10, 2011
Notice of Disapproval based on an application
for building permit to upgrade and maintain a
wireless telecommunication facility with
equipment; 1) tower exceeding the code
required minimum height of 45 feet, 2)
antenna nit mounted on the interior per code
requirement, 3) less than the code required
minimum distance to adjacent residential
property line of 500 feet; located at: 69685
Route 25, Main Road, and Chapel Lane,
Greenport.
Is there anyone here to address this
application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Seeing that no one
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 136
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is here to address it, I am going to make a
motion to the Board to adjourn this hearing
as per letter dated July 2nd from
John J. Coughlin, who is an agent for the
applicant to October 6th at 2:00 p.m. Is
there a second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Aye.
Motion carries.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6458 - JAMES AND KATHLEEN BLACKLEY
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: The next application
is for James and Kathleen Blackley. This is a
carryover, so no need to read the legal
notice. State your name for the record?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk
County Environmental Consultants.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: So you would like us
to question?
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 137
1
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. ANDERSON: No, we were here on
April 7th, I believe and at that time, the
Board had asked us to move the pool further
from the bulkhead, which we did. We also had
some discussion with our adjacent neighbor
who was interested in the setback from the
bulkhead and we have complied. So we have
accommodated all concerns. We have relocated
the pool, so it's 56.7 feet from the bulkhead
and we have also relocated off the side lot
line from the previous 14 feet to now 18
feet. You have in your file two new items.
One is a revised survey prepared by
Nathan Taft Corwin, last dated June 29, 2011.
That shows the revised pool location that I
just described. We also have a letter
obtained from the neighbors, who know support
the application as revised. My feeling is
that all sides are all satisfied and we can
move forward.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: I have no questions.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: No more questions.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Ken?
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 138
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
hear?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Nope.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
MR. ANDERSON: So when should we
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Two weeks we have a
Special Meeting. So this is very likely to
be ready by then. We have the 62 days but I
am pretty confident we will have it in two
weeks.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
Hearing no further
motion to close this
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN:
comments, I will make a
hearing and reserve
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN:
MEMBER
MEMBER
MEMBER
MEMBER
GOEHRINGER:
HORNING:
DINIZIO:
SCHNEIDER:
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN:
(See Minutes for
decision.
Second.
Ail in favor?
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Resolution.)
HEARING #6491 - GEORGE AND CONSTANTINE
ZACHARIADIS
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 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
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Our next application
is for George and Constantine Zachariadis. I
am going to read the legal notice. This
request for variance from Article XXIII
Code Section 280-124 and the Building
Inspector's May 16, 2011 Notice of
Disapproval based on an application for
is a
building permit to construct additions
single family dwelling at 1) side yard
setback of less than the code required
to a
15 feet, located at: 2195 Ruth Road,
Mattituck.
MR. STRANG: Good afternoon. Gary
Strang, architect on behalf of the
Zachariadis Family. The application is, I
believe, relatively straight forward. In
taking a look of the situation and going back
and taking a look at when the house was
built, it appears the builders who originally
built the house put it right in the middle of
the site. There is no future thought of
someone wanting to put an additional. My
client has a need for a second garage bay and
it is proposed that the minimum width it
could be to make it functional garage bay.
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 140
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The required side yard is noted at 15 feet.
We are proposing a 12 foot side yard. The
use of this for the additional garage is for
additional storage. Not only in the garage
but up in the ceiling area, if you will, over
the vehicle. Bicycles and things of that
nature that can be hung from the ceiling. So
consequently, we have elevated the roof above
what it is presently. Our original design was
to have it as a gable, but we did some
consideration and made it a hip. To make the
element compatible portionally to the
existing structure. The only other thing that
I can put forth for the Board to consider is
that this lot area is 20,000 square feet and
that is how it was determined that there is a
15 foot side yard requirement. If this lot
was one square foot less in area, the
required side yard would only be 10 feet. So
that is all I really need to say. Everything
else speaks for itself. But certainly if the
Board has any questions, I would be happy to
address them.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How high is that
ceiling going to be?
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 141
1
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. STRANG: Inside that garage?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If you do a hip?
You are going to go with a hip, do you
think?
MR. STRANG: We are going to go with a
hip as presented in the second round of
elevation drawings we gave you. We are going
with a hip, which is 21 feet, I believe, to
the ridge. So it's -- I am looking at the
wrong plan here. It's about 21 feet to the
ridge. If we did it as a gable, we obviously
have the whole triangle face there on the
property line. 10 feet from the property
line.
the
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: It looks better on
house that way anyway.
MR. STRANG: Yes, it does.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Does anyone have
questions? Jim, Gerry, George, Ken?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Nope.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Is there anyone in
the audience that would like to address this
application?
(No Response.)
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 142
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
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN:
comments, I will make a motion
hearing and reserve decision.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Ail in
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Aye.
Motion carries.
Hearing no further
to close this
favor?
HEARING #6437 - TK ALPHA, LLC.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAM: This is a carryover.
So there is no need to read the legal notice.
Would you please just go to mic, we are
recording this.
MR. PALUMBO: Yes, I am Bill Goggins
partner. I know Mr. Goggins has been handling
this but he had to get out of town on some
little emergency. So I have been brought up
to speed by my client, and please correct me
if I am wrong, the last issue regarding
parking in the rear building? Is that where
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 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
we
stand from here?
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN:
MR. PALUMBO: Sure.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN:
Just one second.
I want to
you have the updated comments from
Planning Board. This is now in our
was dated April 26, 2011 from Martin
make sure
the
file that
this should not come as a surprise. And
there is also a letter from Abigail Wickham,
who is a neighbor.
MR. PALUMBO: I don't think I have
seen
that referenced letter, but I do have the
memorandum letter dated April 26th.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: And then do you have
this?
MR. PALUMBO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: So the only thing
Schneider and members of the Planning Board.
Basically has to do with parking.
MR. PALUMBO: I do believe I have
that.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: There is an analysis
of parking attached that was received by our
office by April 26th. You have been with the
Planning Board for quite some time now, so
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 144
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
that you are missing is a copy of this
letter to the Board that is dated
March 28, 2011. She has office property near
there. I will give you a copy.
MR. PALUMBO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Basically, I urge
you to consider the parking aspects very
carefully before approving an intensive use
on a property that does not provide its own
parking to any extent. So it's a concern
having adequate onsite parking because it is
so hard to find parking in that area. That is
why we did a parking analysis from the
Planning Board, indicates it's pretty much a
parking build out in the general area. So
onsite parking becomes critical in this
application. Would you like a copy?
MR. PALUMBO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: You can look it
over in case you want to address anything.
You can have it.
MR. PALUMBO: Thank you very much. If I
may address that. I would like to
respectfully suggest that this is -- my
partner and I are two doors down from the
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 145
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Wickham property as well. And for those of
us that are there on a regular basis, we also
have Love Lane, which becomes somewhat
congested. But it is very transient traffic
and as far as the parking lot is concerned, I
have personally have not had any issue
parking back there. That is exactly why we
zone this area Hamlet Business, specifically
for a commercial populated area. So as far as
that is concerned because it is all retail.
The other side, TK Alpha and its members are
going to fuse a lot of its monies and walking
traffic, I think would be a big issue. A
positive impact on the community there. From
a practical standpoint, the Board has already
given out one of those buildings there, as a
rental property. So I think from a financial
analysis, the money that they are going to
put into this is going to beautify the area
but certainly, he would really need that
accessory structure suggested by the Board to
be an accessory structure. He would need to
actually generate some sort of rental income.
From a financial standpoint, it really makes
the project not much feasible from his
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 146
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
position, where he would be willing to put
an additional amount of money and certainly
beautify it and make it compliant. He would
really need at least those three properties,
as far as, ultimately a commercial income in
the area. And again, my partner in my
building, we bought that old Jim's Diner and
we get compliments still. And it's been about
three years, that we have beautified
Mattituck. Ail the other communities,
Southold and Greenport, and many of these
other communities see these beautiful little
hamlets and Mattituck is still a little bit
beaten up. From a legal standpoint, how much
of an argument that really is, because I am
there everyday, it is just something that in
the business that we are as attorneys, we
have a lot on contact with a lot of
residences in the community. A lot of these
areas are being renovated, in Mattituck and
being upgraded, as a result of people wanting
to put some money into it.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Certainly you are
familiar with it, let me give you an
opportunity to address this. Essentially,
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 147
1
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 Planning Board is supporting these 5
foot and 10 foot side yard setbacks. We had
discussed in the beginning of the taring
down the preexisting nonconforming structure
in the back. That was probably before one of
the retail uses was removed in this building.
The new building as proposed. The neighbors,
the letters that we have received as well as
the Planning Director, estimates that public
parking in the Love Lane Business District, I
am reading from this letter so that you can
respond for the record, it is likely adequate
for the existing businesses (In Audible)
train station parking lot, which may acquire
parking for an extending periods by people
using the train and making those spaces
unavailable. The above estimate also
demonstrates that (In Audible) building
located in this vicinity to be required to
provide most, if not all parking onsite
rather than relying on municipal parking to
satisfy the parking requirements. It is
pretty clear that the recommendation and that
is why we sent you to Planning, so that we
can coordinate this and make a decision. The
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 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
Planning Board does not support the area
variance to allow the existing building in
the back to be used as a second principle
building. The site is too small to support
two principle buildings. Moreover, that is
clearly going to have a direct impact on the
ability to have onsite parking that is
adequate for these two apartment and the two
retail uses that are being proposed.
MR. PALUMBO: I understand those two
concerns and I would just again, reiterate
the fact that it's a density populated hamlet
business that is certainly for these
purposes. It's intended use is to have
significant commercial traffic. Possibly the
Board would consider some sort of reduction
in size, and I believe it is 30X20, if I
remember. To allow some use, maybe even an
office space of some kind. Again, I can
imagine that based upon the density of each
of the properties in the area and the square
footage and so forth, from almost an imperial
standpoint, do a planning analysis in the
area and sure, you have all these buildings
in the area and you have all these square
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 149
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
footages (In Audible) appropriate uses there
create a lot of traffic. So being there
almost every day, you have bank traffic. The
bulk of it is bank traffic and post office
traffic. They are there and they are gone.
You can see 35 cars there parked and leave in
five minutes and that is ultimately the same.
My point essentially is, there may be a
volume of impact but once the volume of cars
that are there for hours upon hours and I do
have some photos that my client took on a
weekend. Over the past few weeks, and I will
bring it up a little closer for you all to
see, but it has the municipal lot at
3:00 p.m. on Saturday, July 16th and on
Sunday, July 31st and you can see, they are
really not (In Audible).
(Stepped away from the microphone.)
MEMBER HORNING: How about during the
weekday?
MR. PALUMBO:
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN:
you come to the mic?
name?
MR.
(In
Audible).
Mr. Broidy, would
Just state your
BROIDY: Edward Broidy. Chairman,
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 150
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we are -- this picture was taken with the
internet machine and it shows the parking.
It also shows -- you know, it's not just
the parking across the street. Within 150
feet to the west is a gigantic parking lot,
which (In Audible) railway, which we are all
familiar with. So it's not one specific area
there. The scores that I have that are
interested in renting the business, is a
business in the morning. It's not an all day
business for them. It's a morning business.
They open around 6:00 in the morning and at
3:00 o'clock they are closed. It's a quick
business. It's like the post office. You go
in and you go out. It's not like you are
going to have dinner there, like the market
or -- these people are not there for hours.
They are basically in and out. In the small
store, we hope to have a men's store in
there. Obviously, it's a small store -- I
hope we can get some business. I think
they overlooked the fact and right across the
street, and here is a picture of it. The
parking lot by the railroad and that is not
full. People are coming there but it's going
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 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
to be a destination. That is the whole idea.
We have businesses that are now opening up
over there that have now expanded and
obviously they are going to create more
traffic. A group of planners told me, they
want to develop this area exactly the way
that I am doing it. And that is why I went
there. We need to get consideration, and not
only this lot. How about the -- Oh, I am
sorry.
MR. PALUMBO: (In Audible).
(Stepped away from the microphone.)
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Well, you do realize
that the bulk schedule as such, you need
40,000 for two buildings, for two uses. And
what you got here is a lot with 11,561 square
feet, okay. And that is according to the
Notice of Disapproval. Now, you have a pretty
small lot. Now, I don't know of any other
lots in that area that have two other
buildings on it.
MR. BROIDY: The preexisting building
in the rear dates back to the early 1900's.
And it would be a shame to rip down a
perfectly solid brick building. If you take a
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 152
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
look at (In Audible) he has small buildings
with no parking. So it's a designation to
create, for people to come into that area. It
can't be a monopoly just to the existing
people there, who expand their business to
capitalize on it. And then to have people
say, there is no parking. There is plenty of
parking because no one is coming to watch a
movie for three and a half hours. They are
not going to be there all the time. And I
would like to support and consider the
creation, the general planners that I have
spoke to in the area, they feel that this is
the way that they want to go. You can have
Pro's and Con's on everything but this Board
has the authority and that is why we are
here. It is the strongest Board in the state,
the Zoning Board of Appeals, to do this. So
in other words, help me out for what I am
asking for. I will let him finish it up.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: You're welcome.
MEMBER HORNING: What is the compelling
reason to keep the building that is presently
on site?
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 153
1
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. PALUMBO: The issue is generally,
rental income.
MEMBER HORNING: There
rented now, right?
MR. PALUMBO: No, that's
my clients mind, in order for
break even project, he needs to
rental income. I understand the
is nothing
the point.
this to be a
have some
In
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Perhaps you should
consider that in how you might do that in one
building.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I?
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Sure.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I think that is the
concern about
the two main buildings but just to address
that very quickly -- it's all about square
footage, I would suggest and possibly
occupancy of each. He is looking to just
based on the money that he is putting into
this, when all said and done, it just becomes
a losing project. Just to the point, he is
going to be putting money into it, until the
end of time. Until it is sold. Unless he can
develop it in such a way that he can break
even with the rental income and so forth.
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 154
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
way that I would want to go with that, if I
can. You know, I understand your thing
about the parking not there but Planners
plan the future, not so much of what is
happening right now and it is also based on
that. So you are saying two buildings and we
got to say 80,000 square feet. I mean, that
is the law. You only have about a quarter of
the size of the minimum requirement in that
zone. And you know, I am pretty sure, the
Planners thought about how the property in
that Business District and what a build out
would be, you know and how to possibly go
with that. You are asking us for a variance
to give you more, much more than what the
code requires. You could say 75% more but you
could also say, you know, 80,000 square feet.
You can 175. Just trying to illustrate that
you are asking for a lot when in trying to
square feet.
handle a variance that is 40,000
Whatever the plan is, we don't really handle
that other than to say, why should we give
such a variance
area with, you
the next guy
and scrap the people in that
know, do we have to do that to
and the next guy. You know,
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 155
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
maybe you could give me a blank sheet of
paper with a building that would be no
variances at all and how many square feet
that would be and how many parking you would
get out of that and maybe then we would have
some way of judging exactly what impact has
on that second piece of property. Is that a
possibility? Basically, you are saying that
you don't want to destroy it, I will buy that
if you are not increasing the degree of that
piece of property, to be used for a second
building, that would be over and above --
MR. BROIDY: I hear you and I
understand you quite well. Sometimes I don't
understand people, but I do. I hear you
though. First of all, the building in the
rear has a CO. It has been CO'd since 1980.
So there is no need to take down sort of a
historical building. We played with this
thing for a couple of years now, with the
Planning and back here. And the bottom line
is, the only reduction and you are concerned
Planning
about the parking, am I correct?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I think the
Board is concerned about the density
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 156
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
wouldn't zone it the way
in that area. They
that it is.
MR. PALUMBO: Lets assume that it is
going against the grain of the Planning
Board. This Board has the authority to make
the decision. The alternative is, I will do
away with the two apartments and we will make
it. In other words, I want to do this, I have
been back and forth and redesigning it. You
probably have no idea what -- well, you do,
but I am paying for it. So the easiest way
that we can do, I will eliminate the two
apartments and go with what we have. That is
a shot in the arm. You know, I don't really
want it but sometimes a half (In Audible) is
better than nothing. So as a suggestion at
this point, and the Board can make a decision
at this point --
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: We don't make a
decision today.
MR. BROIDY: Or whenever you do.
MEMBER DINIZIO: We want to close this
hearing and get on with it.
MR. BROIDY: So my suggestion is, I
will do away with the two apartments upstairs
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 157
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to eliminate that extra parking that we have
been talking about and we don't want to
forget about that extra parking lot that is
by the railroad station that isn't used all
the time.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Mr. Broidy, I have to
tell you, I don't think that is the thrust of
our argument here. It is the actual physical
two buildings on that piece of property. It
is in my opinion and with what the Building
Inspector is telling us, you need a
variance.
MR. BROIDY: That is why I am here
because this Board has the authority to make
that change. In other words, what is written
in the book, this Board has the ultimate
authority to make the change. That is why you
are called the Zoning Board of Appeals. They
can do this and that is why we are here. So
we can eliminate that and I will eliminate
the two apartments, which will reduce the
parking.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: The
thing and also the Planning
support affordable housing
parking is one
Board would also
in the hamlet
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 158
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
business zone. It is more the lot coverage.
It is the footprint and the existence of
two separate structures on one piece of
property. It is not what you have above the
two retail uses. I mean, you can have an
office up there.
MR. BROIDY: Like you mentioned before,
about the additional parking, we are taking
away the two apartments. We don't need the
affordable apartments. So we don't need that.
The secondary building, which is preexisting
nonconforming and we have a CO, and you have
the authority to do it.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: We have the
authority to do it but we have to do based on
substantial argument. That is a really,
really big variance to be granted. Really
big.
MR. BROIDY: What we are relating to
the fact is, we have an existing building and
I didn't want to bring it but I did a little
homework and I must have come up with 20
cases in the State of New York. I am not a
lawyer, I just like to do what I have been
doing that. That is why I am here, for you to
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 159
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
give it to me. So we will take away the two
apartments and have the additional parking.
We are trying to make Mattituck a desirable
area. I am not looking to destroy it. You
have to realize that you babe other
businesses in this town that are expanding
their businesses and doing well. They are
doing it so they can become better at life.
Right now, we have no life. We don't know
where anything goes. That is why I take the
time and I do this research. I didn't want to
to bring it because I have a very well
qualified man that can handle this. If I have
to explain it, I am doing the best that I
can. You can have two buildings on there or
three. That is why it is called the Zoning
Board of Appeals.
to consider that.
apartments
right off.
Village --
So I am asking you please
I will eliminate the two
which cuts out four parking spots
To make it desirable for the
are there any other questions that
you think I should answer?
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Well, one thing and
for the record, the building does have a
Pre-CO, but part of the consideration of this
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 160
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board is to reduce nonconformity as much as
possible. Part of this Board is to grant the
least amount of variance as possible and the
building that is in the back is very
nonconforming. It is practically a zero
setback to the property. When you are talking
about 80,000 square feet for two buildings
and you only have 11,000 square feet that is
not the least car possible. We have legal
standards that we have to follow.
MR. BROIDY: Ms. Chairman, we have
standards and that is why we are here. You
wanted 15 feet in front, and we gave it. You
wanted a larger side and we did it. I am
trying to comply with this Board.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Where are you with
the Planning Board process?
MR. BROIDY: I have to go
after you approve this, I hope.
back to them
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: A couple of them.
MR. BROIDY: A few of them. And the
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: I mean, how far are
you with them? Have you had a work session
with them?
MR. BROIDY: A few of them.
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 161
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
last one was based on the related changes. We
had 10 foot in the front and we went back to
15 because that is what they requested. On
the side there, we had 2 foot. We went to 5.
They approved that. So the only concern is
that you have to make a decision, which you
are allowed to and let me have those two
buildings there. Thank you.
MR. PALUMBO: I think what he is trying
to say is that each one of these applications
is completely different from the next, and
that is why we have the Zoning Board. So I
think that is what he is trying to convey to
you folks. The nature of this lot is so
awkward and that might be a reason why
Mattituck is not so developed. You folks may
recall, to the use of our building. It was
such a mess is trying to angle our parking
spaces. So to now when we try to comply with
the current code, it becomes a little more
difficult because of these awkward lots. No
matter what, we will still have the same
amount of retail space. Same amount of
parking. It's just in two separate buildings.
My argument is regardless of what the code
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 162
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
says, practically speaking, it is what it
So he is even reducing the main building,
just so he can have the commercial
application. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Ken, do you have
questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Jim, questions?
is.
MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I am done.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: No.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Is there anyone
in the audience that would like to address
this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: I have no further
questions.
Hearing nothing else, I am going to
make a motion to close this hearing and
reserve decision. Is there a second.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
else
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 163
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN WEISMAN: Aye.
{See Minutes for Resolution.)
(Whereupon, the public hearings
for August 4, 2011 concluded.)
Zoning Board of Appeals, August 4, 2011 164
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22.
23
24
25
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
I, Jessica DiLallo, certify that the
foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public
Hearings was prepared using required
electronic transcription equipment and is a
true and accurate record of the Hearings.
Signature:
Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York
11741
Date: August 25, 2011