The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA-12/01/2011 Hearing1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK X TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Southold Town Hall Southold, New York RECEIVED aOARD OF APPEALS December 1, 2011 10:13 a.m. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN JAMES DINIZIO, GEORGE HORNING KENNETH SCHNEIDER - MEMBER GOEHRINGER - Chairperson/Member JR. - Member Member Member Member JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney VICKI TOTH Secretary Jessica DiLallo Court Reporter P.O. Box 984 Holbrook, New York 11741 (631)-338-1409 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing: #6518 David Moore #6515 Patrick and Diane Kelly #6519 Barbara J. Davy and Elizabeth %6523 Matthew J. Burger Eve Winston #6520 Joseph and Elizabeth Brittman #6522 Richard G. And Norma M. Moeller %6524 TK Alpha, LLC #6521 Hernan Michael Otano %6525 J. Farrell Page: 3-15 15-29 29-42 43-53 53-67 68-76 76-90 91-98 98-107 December 1, 2011 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 HEARING #6515 - DAVID MOORE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our first public hearing this morning is for David Moore. This is a carryover, so we don't need to read the legal notice. Is there someone here to represent them? MS. MARTIN: Amy Martin of Faireweather and Brown, 5 Bay Avenue, in Greenport. Representing David Moore for the proposed changes to "as-built" designs that we have previously discussed last month. As per your request, we have resubmitted a site plan for your consideration. We have proposed to further cutback to the waterside deck to creat a ll-foot deep deck along the base of the house where it's closest to the bluff. Although, this deck is larger in size, it's less close then the original footprint of the home before any renovations or additions. This allows a to code, a 3-foot wide stair area to the ground on the base of the house directing the foot traffic. We have not indicated the path service -- surface but I believe the Trustees December 1, 2011 4 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 will allow the use of paver stones set in gravel or sand for permeability. I have a distance of 37-foot and 10-inches, the deck increases to 15-foot deep. This would allow the homeowner entertaining use in a much less spacious manner then it has right now and it will still have the deck behind the coastal hazard line, having a 4-foot wide egress stairs versus the ll-foot deck and a permeable path along the base of -- towards the bluff stairs. The planting bluff-ward of this deck shall be below natural non-turf buffer, probably a Rosa-Rugosa or plant material as agreed upon with the Trustees. And we can establish this with minimal need of irrigation. I will recommend to the homeowner, the use of two-inline deck runoff rain barrels and drip irrigations for these plants. This allows a minimum of 12-foot increasing to 15-foot of non-turf buffer between the house and the deck. Further proposed is a reduction of 20 square feet of removed decking to further reduce the lot coverage on the -- that would be the south -- sorry. South-west corner, and just so that they are degress from December 1, 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 deck down to the pool. The lot coverage is now proposed at 23.7, where 29% exists and 20 is allowed. The roof runoff drainage is proposed to be directed to two 8x8 precast ratings to be installed in the southeast corner of the existing driveway basin with all pipe meeting to it. The calculations and dimensions of this, have been performed by others and I am to provide what is needed to contain all house run-off water. We ask that you seriously consider our new proposal. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Amy, before we get into questions about your amended plan, where are you with the Trustees and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention and Erosion Control? MS. MARTIN: The Trustees wouldn't accept our application until we were through with you. So I have it all ready to go. I just have to change the documents, you know, according to what -- here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. And what about the Storm Water Runoff, that the Town Engineer will require? MS. MARTIN: Actually, I think I failed December 1, 2011 6 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 to address that. I spoke to the person who has engineered the plan but I don't think that has been presented. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Because we do have a request and you have the paperwork, from Jamie Ritcher requiring that a plan be in place. MS. MARTIN: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So that we can review that and the Trustees can review that as part of mitigating environmental impact that are adverse and obviously, I think at some point in last time, there has to be an updated CO on the entire structure. MS. MARTIN: Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Planning Department will address that. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just make a suggestion? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That we just carry this over to the first meeting in January and we can address that issue. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, that is a possibility. Let's look at the amended plan December 1, 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 before us. Let's start with Jim. Do you have any comments or questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. I was kind of expecting more of a porch then a deck on the back of the house. And I was thinking that 8-foot would be enough. You have 15, can you address that for me? MS. MARTIN: Well, I mean, the 8-foot suggestion was kind of a shoot from the hip kind of request by you at that meeting and it was -- it's sort of -- the house is not something conducive to having a covered porch. It was just that he would really prefer to have an open deck and to have some space to entertain where the view is. And we were just hoping because we pulled everything back away from th Coastal Hazard Line, you might consider what we have submitted. MEMBER DINIZIO: I got to be honest with you. I think you have plenty of plenty of places for view. You have a patio that is around the pool. You would deck and nice have something on the side there that would allow you to sit and look at the water. And I just think that, you were to come much closer still December 1, 2011 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to the lot coverage if you had that 8-feet. I would MS. MARTIN: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What hardship be in -- MEMBER DINIZIO: I am trying to get her to tell me why -- I guess -- the answer is, I guess you pulled away from the CDH Line and that's good enough. MS. MARTIN: I believe we felt that we had pulled it back from -- considerably further from what we had originally proposed and it still gave him some deck on that end, that gave him a better view and it was behind the CDHL. We were, you know, trying to get as close as we can for him, basically. There may be other places on the property that we might be able to reduce the lot coverage but this was what we were trying to get as a deck for the space of the house. It is, you know, it thought that would be covered. I mean, it may be a little more convenient for you to sit out there but we're playing with a huge variance and on a (In Audible) on the slope. You are not that far away from the top of the slope. That's just my opinion. December 1, 2011 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 does give a pretty good size non-turf buffer and there will be minimal difference in that between -- if we pull it back another 4-feet or SO. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Honestly, at the farthest site, it's still 16-feet away from the top of the bluff. Do I have to tell you what a percentage of variance that is? Probably not. MS. MARTIN: But the 16% from the top of the bluff CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I that, but not legally. proposing ll-foot. The know, you're adding additional for the stairs. MS. MARTIN: I guess, house did exist originally. understand Put it that way. You're house is 8-feet, you 3-feet width the one thought runoff. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: On what basis would you argue that it is not reasonable to say that ll-feet across and include the second set of steps with a cut-out from the Il-foot that their spacing -- staying with the footprint and going this way, were better than stairs facing down towards the bluff as far as December 1, 2011 10 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 dimension? It doesn't need to be 4-feet wide. It can be 3-feet wide. You can have plenty of room and still walk across that part of the deck to get to the other side of the deck. I mean, having at least a 16-foot consistent setback and instead of 8-feet, it's ll-feet. MS. MARTIN: I am sure I can take that back to the homeowner and see, you know, it's a -- you know, and see if he would agree -- I mean, we were just trying to do what was good for him, I assume. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I understand and I don't think that that is a bad design at all. It certainly a general size deck. Let me pass this on to other Board members and see what they have to say and what questions they might have. George, do you have any questions? MEMBER HORNING: I could continue with the questioning. A little bit ago you mentioned that a new plan and you submitted it to us. And I have two things here that I believe we received on the 21st of November, or at least they are both stamped that. Somewhat slightly different. So which one are you referring to? December 1, 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 MS. MARTIN: One is just a blow-up showing the dimensions. It's the same plan but it's just showing the same plan of the dimensions, as I requested to -- MEMBER HORNING: Ail right, then one of my questions is, the bigger one let's say, you have a statement here, "existing deck to be removed, 1,512 square feet." On the other blown up document, you have existing deck to be removed, 1,162 square feet. So I am asking you to clarify which one is it? Which figure are you talking about? MS. MARTIN: I believe both documents I have submitted have the same number, 1,500 -- MEMBER HORNING: This is the document I have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I see. MEMBER HORNING: And they are both dated November 21st. So I am asking about clarification on that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: She has submitted. This is the one that she was going off on. Vicki will make copies. 1,512. MEMBER HORNING: So now we're saying both of these are the same except for the that December 1, 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 bigger one. What is the proposed setback from the top of the bluff? I didn't see that on here. MS. MARTIN: Well, I believe the old deck goes to the top of the bluff. So it would now be 16-feet, where it was ll-feet of deck and 12-feet where the 15-feet of the deck are. MEMBER HORNING: Well, we have the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line. top of MS. MARTIN: It comes way inside the the bluff at that point. MEMBER HORNING: But we don't have the top of the bluff line on here. MS. MARTIN: Okay. That I do not believe was on the survey. So I will have that added. MEMBER HORNING: But they are two different lines. MS. MARTIN: Yes, they are. They're two different lines. MEMBER HORNING: So I would like to the bluff setback of the house and the deck and the proposed deck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry, any have to see December 1, 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 comments or questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only comment is, the smallest portion of the porch deck as it exist now is ll-feet; is that correct? MS. MARTIN: That is proposed. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The largest is 15-feet? MS. MARTIN: Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What the chairperson is asking or requesting ll-feet to the house? MS. MARTIN: To the full length, yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So I guess we will see whatever you come up with. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Amy, you're saying that the plan as currently proposed is 22.7% lot coverage? MS. MARTIN: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just want to make sure -- MS. MARTIN: That is removing 1569 square feet of the existing deck and there were other patios and deck -- and all the extra pieces that went to the top of the bluff. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken, do you have December 1, 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 any questions or comments? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have a suggestion that we adjourn this to January, you can go back to your client and also further investigate the completion of a -- MS. MARTIN: The drainage plan -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. MS. MARTIN: Right. I will have the contractor get that information. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If you can try and get it to us -- MS. MARTIN: Yes, I will today. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: in the audience that would like to this application? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Before motion, can I just ask one CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: MEMBER GOEHRINGER: asking Amy to submit that to not just us? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: MS. MARTIN: I will work on that Is there anyone address you make a more thing? Yes. And we're also Jamie Ritcher, Yes. do that. SO December 1, 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 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So the next meeting is in January, January 5th. So hearing no further comments, I am going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to January 5th at 10:30 a.m. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) HEARING #6519 - PATRICK AND DIANE KELLY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our next application is for Patrick and Diane Kelly. Request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and Article III Section 280-14 and the Building Inspector's October 17, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing dwelling at: 1) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet; 2) less than the code December 1, 2011 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 required combined side yard setbacks of 35 feet; 3) more than the code required number of stories of two and a half, located at: 215 Harbor Lights Drive (adjacent to a canal), in Southold, New York. Is there someone here to represent this application? MR. WEBER: Yes. My name is Fred Weber. I am the architect for the project. My address is 41 East Maple Road, Greenlawn, New York 11740. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Before you get going, we just received copies of the LWRP recommendations. I am sure you don't have it. MR. WEBER: No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So I will give you copies. MR. WEBER: Great. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And a letter of support from the Bucci Family, I guess. Theodore J. Bucci. MR. WEBER: Yes. I have that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You have that. I just want the record to reflect those we received those two pieces. And that the LWRP December 1, 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 evaluation indicates are exempt as minor that the proposed actions. Please proceed. MR. WEBER: Just as background, waterfront lot located at Harbor Light actions minimum side yard is 15 and for both it's 35. If it was 1 square foot smaller, the whole setback would be conforming. So it's sort of right on the edge in that regard. We're not proposing any changes to the building footprint. Everything is being built on top of what is there. In fact, we're even surrendering some first floor space for a porch just because the building is built -- really, the whole building envelope is built, you know, in over setbacks. So we're actually carving this much more space in the footprint so we can create the porches. The purpose of the renovation/addition is to add bedroom space to the house. Right now, there is one it's a Drive in Southotd. It's preexisting bulkhead. The lot size is 20,000 square feet in an R-40 Zoning District. So it's a nonconforming lot. Actually 20,000 square feet happens to be the zoning cutoff. At 20,000 square feet the December 1, 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 bedroom on the first floor, which is located right here. So this is going to become a family room. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is the square footage on the footprint, Mr. Weber? MR. WEBER: 3,700, somewhere's around there, I think. (In Audible). MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So excluding that about 2500 on each? MR. WEBER: Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The purpose of asking that discussion would be why you need the third floor. Why don't you tell us what the square footage on the second floor is, if you so please? MEMBER HORNING: Can we get the actual for the first floor, second floor and third floor? the can't plan. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. MR. WEBER: I didn't actually map off lot coverage. I can get that for you. I get that for you right now. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's fine. MR. WEBER: This is the second floor (In Audible). You can turn it over and December 1, 2011 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 see the third floor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Fred, would you go back to the microphone so we can pick you up on the -- for the transcript? MR. WEBER: The third floor for the most part, is built into the roof and is a bedroom with a sitting room and a bathroom there, which I can show you the elevations of that. That is the roof and that is the third floor, which is built into the -- we attempted to make it a sort of shingled style house with -- you know, wood shingled roof. It would be a traditional grey color with white trim. Right now, the house, particularly the side facing the street is the large sort of flat roof structure. It's sort of a blank look to it and they're trying to enhance that look. They did, I think get letters of support from the neighbor that is across the street and I also have a letter of support, which is the neighbor on the one side. That would be, I guess, on the south side. In addressing the third floor, the impact of it, isn't really significant on the elevations. You see some houses that they build a third floor and it is December 1, 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 very distinct from the second floor. The concept was to build it into the roof more than have it sort of sitting out there by itself. They would also be installing a fire sprinkler system, which is required. You know, they would meet all the code requirements of the Building Department and the State of -- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Weber, the chairman is asking -- MR. WEBER: Okay. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It appears most of the time, first of all, let me say for the record, Harbor Light is a half acre subdivision. It was developed as a half acre subdivision. This house just happens to be on the water. It's a really magnificent beautiful area. There is no question about it. And I use the same phrase that I have used on every one. This is an extremely ambitious plan. This is the same statement that I made on the Buttafuoco application over on Rachel's Lane a couple of months ago. And a same application we had last month, here in Orient. The code does not allow for utilization or habitability for a third-story; however, I am December 1, 2011 21 1 2 $ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 not speaking for the Board, I am speaking for myself. You could talk about the nature of a sprinkler system. We have in both of those situations, we informed both architects and builders that we're -- that I am somewhat sensitive to the utilization of a sitting area on the third-story for the purposes of a water view. There is no question about it, okay. I would suggest proposing a sitting area on the third-story, that has to be totally sprinklered down to the first floor, as well as possibly the entire house. And that is the story, okay. MR. WEBER: The code does require that the house be totally sprinklered. You can't just sprinkler the third floor. It's not allowed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If in fact habitable space exists? MR. WEBER: Correct. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The habitable space that I am suggesting to you is that of a sitting area. Some people call it a library. Some people call it other things. The application we just had before us, in December 1, 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 Soundview is for a total reconstruction also. A substantial reconstruction. Similar to this proposal. We ask them to take it out and the bedroom area, so that we're considering it as daytime habitable. That is what we're proposing. I am not speaking for the Board. am just making a generalization. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If the priority to have it, in fact a five bedroom house, made the choice to try and put it on the I is you third floor, which is very problematic. And you have one now on the first floor, which you chose to remove in order to try and make that entire first floor more public, rather then bedroom. MR. WEBER: Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think you choices to make and options to make (In Audible) Board, your first choice and we to hear what you have to say about that. let me ask George to make some comments. have want But WEBER: Correct. wondering mentioned house. MR. MEMBER HORNING: Or questions. I was about the sprinkler system that you and it would be put in the entire December 1, 2011 23 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MEMBER HORNING: And that would be -- MR. WEBER: Required. MEMBER HORNING: And even though you're retaining your original footprint from the foundation, nonconformity of Disapproval you're increasing the as you stated here in the Notice by building upwards and within that nonconformity footprint, you're increasing the dimensions of a nonconformity upwards. MR. WEBER: True. We're trying to -- if you look at, where this second floor piece is being put, it's setback from the front yard and from the side yard so it doesn't extend in the required zoning. And you know, we did that also in the back and on the side. So we're trying not to do that. I guess the only place we really get in trouble is -- you know, on the end where the roof gets projected out all the way towards the end, but it's that kind of v-shape there. MEMBER HORNING: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So the massing is designed, in part to mitigate the potential -- MR. WEBER: Correct. December 1, 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 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: into the side yard? And intrusion MR. WEBER: Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions. MEMBER HORNING: Pardon me. Can you give us a square foot of what the increase nonconformity would be in terms of the setback? only piece that comes Now, there is no living space in that. The only reason that roof is brought in that pitch is to -- you know, the main roof that slips over the entire structure. So if I were to give you square footage of that space of nonconformity, there is no footage there. That wedge of space there, that is the roof space. I don't know how to define it. MEMBER HORNING: Can you fix the setback of that third floor or whatever, can you put that on there so we can see what the MR. WEBER: I can attempt that. It's just a little complicated because if you look on the side, this is the new gable roof that is on the south end. That gable roof is the out into the setback. December 1, 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 conforming setbacks are and what the building setback is? MR. WEBER: In other words, make the roof conform to the setback? MEMBER HORNING: No, just show it. MR. WEBER: Show it. MEMBER HORNING: What's the area, the general area of the nonconforming setback? The second and third floor. MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I just -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Please. MEMBER DINIZIO: You know, so anything underneath that ceiling height, that would be livable space? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right. MEMBER DINIZIO: Maybe you can just give us a measurement that way? MR. WEBER: Okay. I am not trying to -- if the space currently exists there and has a roof over it, which this does on the south side -- no, not the south side. The east side, if that space already exists and has a roof over it and we're making a roof steeper, how do -- what is the calculation there? I mean, the space already exists there. It just has a December 1, 2011 26 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 or the steeper roof on it. MEMBER DINIZIO: I think it's more before us of square footage use. MR. WEBER: Ail right. I will MEMBER DINIZIO: It had to be a minimum. Even livable space. MR. WEBER: Right. Are you talking about the second floor third floor? MEMBER DINIZIO: The third floor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The third floor. MR. WEBER: I can do that. That's not an issue. The only issue that I was kind of raising, if the second floor space already exists in a certain location and we're raising the roof on it, does that count -- I mean, the square footage already exists. It doesn't yield any more square footage. So what do I try. certain put down for square footage? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: looking at it in terms nonconformity? MEMBER HORNING: MR. WEBER: Okay. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: leave you with the thought I think you were of increasing Massing. I don't want to that we were hoping December 1, 2011 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2~ 22 23 24 25 that you would come back with a new third floor plan. Eliminating the area of the third floor that is disposable, meaning storage area, okay, with possibly a library a sitting area, and then it would be the only area that we would call it mildly habitable. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: A number of people do that. Clearly the intent is to another bedroom. It's very problematic for or Board want to do? have this Board. We're required by law to grant the least amount of variance possible. To grant living space and a bathroom on a third story. MEMBER DINIZIO: Let me put it this way, if this lot were one square foot smaller, he would be before us for only one thing. And that would be for the third story. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's correct. I agree. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address this application? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What does the Do you want to close this December 1, 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 hearing subject to receipt of an amended plan? Do you want to do a carryover? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think we should carry it over for another hearing. MEMBER DINIZIO: I would close it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Fred, are you comfortable or clear with the direction of this Board? MR. WEBER: Basically, you do not want a bathroom up there, is that what you are saying? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Or a bedroom. MR. WEBER: Okay. You want one space that could be sort of a viewing or open area? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Family room or gathering room. Whatever you want to call it. As long as you're not going to have plumbing and places where people can sleep in. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We don't know what it's going to look like. So that's why I want to see it. I mean, we're looking at a five minute hearing. MEMBER HORNING: I think that is good too. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken? December 1, 2011 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no further questions or comments, I will make a motion to adjourn this hearing to January 5th at 10:45. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. Motion carries unanimously. (See Minutes for Resolution.) HEARING %6523 - BARBARA J. DAVY AND ELIZABETH J. FARRELL. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our next h'earing before the Board is for Barbara J. Davy and Elizabeth J. Farrell, #6523. Request for variance from Article XXII Code Section 280-105 and the Building Inspector's October 21, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for an "as built" fence, at: 1) more than the code required maximum December 1, 2011 30 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 height of four (4) feet when located in the front yard, located at" 620 (a.k.a. 200) West Street, (Corner Madison Avenue), Greenport. Good morning. State your name for the record, please. MS. DAVY: Barbara J. Davy. I also need to say that I can hardly hear anything that is going on in here. So if everyone could speak up. I didn't hear anything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you hear me? MS. DAVY: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. We have a correspondence from the Suffolk County Department of Planning indicating that your application is a matter for local determination. That they have no interests in this. I would be happy to give you a copy for your records, if you wish. It's just -- MS. DAVY: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Everything goes out to the Suffolk County Planning Department to see if they have any interests in it. Do you have an affidavit of posting? MS. DAVY: Yeah. That didn't come in the mail? December 1, 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 the CHAIRPERSON office? MS. DAVY: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We didn't get it. And any green cards, that you would have for notifying your neighbors? Okay. So we're all okay. So Ms. Davy, the best that I could see here, you constructed an in-ground pool that WEISMAN: You sent it to was conforming with a permit. You have some discussion back and forth with and you have the Trustees and DEC MS. DAVY: I am sorry, what Greenport? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You have DEC and the Trustees' determination that no permit was required and you have in the process, I guess, of putting in your pool, the Building Department determined with your two front yards, you have a fence put in now, 6-feet high along the east side where the code is why issue, had Greenport about requires a 4-foot high maximum -- MS. DAVY: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And I guess that you are here. And there is another in a sense also the northern part of December 1, 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 the property line, you're encroaching on the Village of Greenport undeveloped land or (In Audible) where I guess, where you're dealing with your fence? MS. DAVY: Yes. The fence was moved. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: we're really looking at, is and the area -- MS. DAVY: Yes. Okay. So what your corner lot CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Lets see who has some questions here. Is there anything that you would like to tell us first? MS. DAVY: Just that it's a unique property, corner lot. It's not a usual lot a block full of houses. And also that the fence was 6-foot high when we bought the property ten years ago. And we had no idea then that it hadn't gotten a C of O or that wasn't correct for them to have done that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just everyone has inspected the there to look at it. MS. DAVY: Uh-huh. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So your property is and the site. where it so you know, Has been out we have seen houses around December 1, 2011 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it. guess Greenport property. MS. DAVY: Okay, good. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And so on. I your neighbors are mostly Greenport and High School and undeveloped And you are part of on the curb, the property in question. of the questions. George, start? MEMBER HORNING: Sure. a nonconforming fence on the bought the property, that is said? a Let's see with do you want to some got into some on Greenport unexpected. that. MEMBER HORNING: You difficulty with encroaching property? MS. DAVY: Yes, very MS. DAVY: Yes. The stockade. MEMBER HORNING: But then you rebuilt all of the fencing; correct? MS. DAVY: Yes. MEMBER HORNING: And then you got into little bit of trouble with encroachment -- MS. DAVY: I'm sorry, I didn't hear So -- there was property when you what you just December 1, 2011 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MEMBER HORNING: And so the fence you built is relatively new; correct? MS. DAVY: Yes. that MEMBER HORNING: It struck me that were talking about a grandfathered 6-foot fence, twice in a letter you and that was MS. DAVY: you mentioned that submitted. Uh-huh. MEMBER HORNING: Why do you say that it was grandfathered? MS. DAVY: Because I thought that was the term that you used if it was -- if it looked before. MEMBER HORNING: You just said it's a brand new fence. MS. DAVY: I'm sorry, I can't hear you. MEMBER HORNING: You mentioned that it was a brand new fence. MS. DAVY: I used that term improperly, I guess. MEMBER HORNING: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What you did was replace the fence that was there with the same exact fence that was there, is what you're saying? December 1, 2011 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. DAVY: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You assumed that was okay to do because it was there; is that correct? MS. DAVY: Yes. MEMBER HORNING: One other question, you mentioned the issue of privacy and students on their way to school are sort of looking over the fence and maybe jumping over the fence to take a leak in something. I wanted to ask, summer session at that school? MS. DAVY: Do they MEMBER HORNING: A MS. DAVY: I don't CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: MEMBER HORNING: So around there year round; you say? MEMBER DINIZIO: Oh, back parking lot of the MEMBER HORNING: session year round. Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: MEMBER DINIZIO: The the pool or do they have have what? summer session? know. They do. students walk correct, Jim, would yeah. It's the school. Okay. So school is Thank you. Jim? question for me. December 1, 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 My brother-in-law CHAIRPERSON put up the fence. MEMBER used to own this house. WEISMAN: He is the one who DINIZIO: Is it the white picket fence that we're talking about? What part of the fence is nonconforming? Is it the swamp there? MS. DAVY: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: So if that would cut back 50 feet or so, you would then not be bothered. MS. DAVY: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: I was just wondering if you cut back from the front yard and make it 4-feet. MS. DAVY: I am not following you. MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. You put up a stockade fence; correct? MS. DAVY: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: are before us is because high in a front yard? MS. DAVY: Yes. you MEMBER DINIZIO: Now, want to keep it because And the reason why you you put it 6-feet the reason why you want to keep December 1, 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 the kids out for MS. DAVY: MEMBER DINIZIO: from the application. MS. DAVY: Part MEMBER DINIZIO: the 4-foot fence. So problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: property, what would be the yard -- MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: the pool? Part of it, yes. That is what I got of it. They can still go over that is really not a Actually the functional rear I agree. The only part for us, is the part that is along Madison Street. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, it just kind of heads into it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. And that part is okay. Because that was designated a rear yard by the Building Department. Your burden is with two front yards, as many people are. And the part that we are looking at is the one that is on the curb. You put up a 4-foot high fence, as a decorative fence, I guess on the other street. MS. DAVY: Yes. December 1, 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 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The reason for this code is to essentially that there is no obstructions for viability of cars, that's part of it. Do you have any idea of when it was built? I know you put in the survey, shows that it was there at the time that purchased it. Do you have any idea of when was actually built? MS. DAVY: No. MEMBER DINIZIO: I can tell you -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim knows. MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't know when. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The fact that it has apparently existed for a good set of time. actual rear yard; is that It is enclosing your correct? MS. DAVY: CHAIRPERSON object? MS. DAVY: No. MEMBER DINIZIO: Leslie, is why she just 4-feet and not need a reason. CHAIRPERSON Yes. WEISMAN: Do My questioning, doesn't cut it down to a variance. If I could get it you it any neighbors WEISMAN: Okay. December 1, 2011 39 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 MEMBER DINIZIO: It wasn't a question of whether it existed or it stays there. I realize that she didn't know that or understand that. That's fine. You still have that opportunity to cut it back and perhaps there is a reason why you don't want to -- MS. DAVY: Privacy. That would be my one word answer. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a question? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any particular reason -- this is not a sarcastic comment. This is just a pragmatic statement. Why you didn't put any screening outside of the fence to lessen the impact of the fence on Madison Avenue? MS. DAVY: I think it looks nice. Is that what you mean? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. You don't feel that because of the fence that is 6-foot in height -- again, this is not a sarcastic statement. Totally a pragmatic statement. MS. DAVY: Yeah. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Looks okay the way December 1, 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 it is? MS. DAVY: I think it does. MEMBER HORNING: And nobody has ever complained that they didn't like the fence -- MS. DAVY: No. Somebody ran into one of the trees at one time with their car. MEMBER DINIZIO: I see a lot of kids go by it. Ail kids by Bird Street, they all walk by it to go to school. It's a pretty busy road. MS. DAVY: Respectfully, I can't hear anything that you're saying. MEMBER DINIZIO: What I am trying to say is that I understand that this is a very busy lot. That road in front of you is very busy, especially when school is over. MS. DAVY: Okay. MEMBER DINIZIO: My wife takes that way to school sometimes. Takes that way to the back parking lot. The kids head out during lunch time. I understand what you are saying about the privacy. You do have a lot of kids walking in front of the lot. You do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If you would like December 1, 2011 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to, you can come here, better and use one of so you can hear these microphones. MS. DAVY: That would be great. This is very stressful. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That way we can hear you better and we can still get you on the recorder. MS. DAVY: So I think I heard everything you said except the last -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim, would you just repeat what you just said? MEMBER DINIZIO: I am just saying my experience with your lot. My experience that the street in front of your house, two streets, Madison and West are very busy. With kids going back and forth and cars going back and forth during understand your what that fence MS. DAVY: CHAIRPERSON questions? MEMBER reason for would give Okay. WEISMAN: school session. I can wanting privacy you. Ken, any further SCHNEIDER: No, I think they have all been addressed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: and Is there anyone December 1, 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 else in the audience that would like to address this application? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no further questions or comments, I will make a motion to close this hearing and reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) ********************************************** CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Motion to recess for two minutes. Is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. December 1, 2011 43 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.} HEARING #6518 - MATTHEW J. BURGER. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: next application before us is Matthew J. Burger, #6518. variance from Article XXIII The for Request for on an application for a bp addition to existing single at; 1) front yard setback of code required 35 feet, located at: Tree Road, (corner Pine Tree Road), Cutchogue. MR. BURGER: Good afternoon. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: to a garage family dwelling less than the 1600 Pine State your name for the record? MR. BURGER: CHAIRPERSON Mr. Burger. MR. WEBER: CHAIRPERSON Matthew Burger. WEISMAN: Good morning, And I am Fred Weber again. WEISMAN: Hi Fred. Is there 280-124 and the Building Inspector's August 19, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based Code Section December 1, 2011 44 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 County Planning and any correspondences? MS. TOTH: Suffolk letters from neighbors. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just want the record to know that we have received those documents. Is there more than one letter? MR. WEBER: There is two letters and this is actually a third. One from Pat Conklin and Martin Kraznyca. MS. TOTH: I will make a CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: copy of that. Okay. Would you like to proceed, please? MR. WEBER: The lot is a corner lot and has a 90 degree bend on Pine Tree Road. It's little over 20,000 square feet in an R-40 Zone. Because it's deemed to be on a corner, it has two front yards of 40 feet, which takes a a pretty significant chunk out of the buildable area. The purpose of the construction is to create garage space both for car and storage. They have a small basement in the house and there is no attic space. It's sort of a modular building that was put up years ago. It would also allow a water proof entry from the garage into the December 1, 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 house. The an ll-foot line. But beyond there is another setback ends up getting proposed is setback from the north property that, the actual street line, 19. So there is an appearance of a 30 setback from the road. Even though it's not his property but at the same time unlikely that anyone would ever widen Pine Tree Road. You know, as far as other locations for it, you would have to put it directly behind the house, where all the sliding glass doors is to the back yard. So it seemed like that was going to be the best place MR. BURGER: I would also add that I am trying to make use for it. existing driveway that is already the proposed structure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I don't questions. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I question? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I ask a Mr. Weber, this is the first time saw anyone depict an overhang. It you I have ever is very just like to of the there and have any You may. have to tell December 1, 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 refreshing in the plan. I suspect the house has what they call a California overhang? MR. WEBER: Right. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How deep is that overhang run? MR. WEBER: I think 2.4. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And you're proposing that same overhang? MR. WEBER: Correct. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am extremely elated to know that there is 19-feet there. I didn't know that but I still think you're relatively close to the property line. And I would ask you, lessening the width of the garage, therefore lessening the square footage of the garage or extending the square footage of the garage a little bit further but by lessening the width of the garage. I will give it to you for two reasons, No. 1, one really never knows what's going to happen on Pine Tree Road. It's an extremely narrow road and No. 2, I take my life in my hands when I make that left because you really never know who is coming on Pine Tree Road in the opposite way. It is for the record, an December 1, 2011 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 extremely beautiful road and this house needs to be redone. There is no question about it. Particularly the house across the street that we granted some variances on and the construction of that house. And that is the only way I am speaking for the Board. I also have a 20-foot garage and I see absolutely nothing wrong with a 20-foot garage and that is basically it. If you need to put the two doors on, 7 and 7 is 14. You can put a 16-foot door, leaving 2 and 2 on both sides. That is just my - -- MR. WEBER: No, I take that. One of the reasons, if you look at the plan -- I mean, it can be modified. You know putting this way. We're trying to keep the roof pitches the same. I mean, we can try and increase the roof pitch a little. I would have to defer to Matt, the owner, what his desire and his request is at the end. MR. BURGER: You know, I am open to 20-feet as well. That's fine. MEMBER HORNING: What would be your perceived hardship if you shifted the position of the garage towards the driveway itself and December 1, 2011 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 some setback footage that way? MR. WEBER: In other words, you're suggesting moving the garage to the east? HORNING: Yes, towards the MEMBER driveway. MR. MEMBER do that? MR. abandon be able a great the WEBER: Right. HORNING: Is that a WEBER: I the existing to turn in. idea. MEMBER HORNING: hardship to guess you would have to driveway. You wouldn't I am not sure if that I am also asking what hardship would be? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It would also the location of the ridges have an impact on and so on. MR. WEBER: Yes. MR. BURGER: I am trying to stay the confines of the current ridges and structure. That is why added on and it within proposed that way. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim, are you December 1, 2011 49 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 still okay? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I'm good. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And it would appear that you have that back from the depth of the MR. WEBER: ll-feet to garage to Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: else in the audience that address this application? to either one of these mics name for the record. no argument with setting 15-feet by reducing 20 rather 24? Is there anyone would like to Please come forward and state your please MR. COTTRELL: My name is Dr. Thomas Cottrell. My wife and I own the property immediately to the south of the property in question. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And would you spell your name for the record? MR. COTTRELL: C-O-T-T-R-E-L-L. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Please tell us what you would like. MR. COTTRELL: The proposal puts the front of the house within 10-feet of the property line, which I think is not consistent with the neighborhood. I don't know of any December 1, 2011 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 other houses that are laid out that way on the existing property and I think that is a serious problem; however, I think there is another more serious problem that I think Mr. Goehringer can relate to. That funny corner on Pine Tree Road is more than a 90 degree change in direction. People will drive in either direction and tend to drift in the middle of that road, rather then using a right or left lane. There is no middle line there. It's a very dangerous situation. I remember the death of the Mattituck High School student in an accident with a motorcycle and an automobile right at the corner. These days, cars on Pine Tree Road share the road with dog walkers, joggers, skaters, inline skaters and one resident who uses an Irish male for exercise. So it's a fairly cluttered road and I think that the proposal puts a serious obstruction to the visibility of that corner. Particularly not only the building itself but particular if a car is parked on the north or south section of the driveway, it would really interfere with people coming or going on that corner. And I think that is not a very good -- December 1, 2011 51 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it's a dangerous situation that would be created by that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Thank you. Would you like to comment about that? MR. BURGER: I would. In response I have a couple of things. First off, the driveway is already there. So it's already being used as an active driveway and granted, you do come around the corner and there is a driveway right there but that is not going to change at all based on this proposed structure. Also I have cleared some of the trees on that corner. The road actually crosses onto the property line when you make that 90 degree turn. I have since cleared a lot of the trees blocking visibility around that corner. Several of my neighbors have already commented because they appreciate and can now see around the corner clearly. And third, the distance from the property line to the road is 19-feet. So in addition to the 15-feet setback that we're discussing, there is a substantial amount of room. That the structure does not block visibility of oncoming traffic on Pine Tree Road. December 1, 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 there else in address close it Plan? adjust CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: any more questions MEMBER GOEHRINGER: CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: the audience that this application? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: subject to receipt Okay. Is from the Board? -- no. Is there anyone would like to How about we of an amended Site MEMBER GOEHRINGER: CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: your elevations as MR. WEBER: Yes. WEISMAN: Sure. You might well. have to Is that all right CHAIRPERSON with everybody? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So I am going to make a motion that we close this hearing and reserve decision subject to receipt of an amended survey drawings. Is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: and Site Plan or architectural Second. Ail in favor? December 1, 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 MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. Motion carries unanimously. (See Minutes for Resolution.) ********************************************** HEARING %6520 - EVE WINSTON CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our next application is for Eve Winston, %6520. Request for variance from Article III Code Section 280-14 and the Building Inspector's October 19, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for a minor subdivision at; 1) lot size less than the code required 80,000 square feet per bulk schedule in AC District, located at: 3450 Private Road %13 (adjacent to Long Island Sound) in Mattituck. Just please state your name for the record and then I have something to say? MR. STAY: Scott Stay on behalf of Eve Winston. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And would you December 1, 2011 54 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 spell your last name? MR. STAY: S-T-A-Y. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Mr. we have received some correspondences, would like to make you aware of some correspondences of. We memorandum, indicating action is inconsistent. from the Southold Town dated November 30th. these? MR. STAY: Yes, that the We have Planning Would you please. Stay, which I and give you have an LWRP proposed a letter Board that is like copies of CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Then why don't you come forward. We do not have copies of affidavit of posting in our records and we have one green card. We will check. Okay. What would you like to tell us about your application? MR. STAY: The application to the Planning Board for the minor subdivision originally proposed over 18 months to the Planning Board. And the first time that it the surveyor top of the bluffs and the the was submitted, they agreed to use marks at the requirement for the easement for the road that December 1, 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 connected the bluffs lot, which is the north lot, be 15-foot wide and 15-foot easement for fire requirements. So that is what was originally put in the plan and originally submitted. Subsequently there was (In Audible) and said that requirement need to be a 20-foot easement, instead of 15-foot wide. It was still an irregular lot. We sort of had two lots with a minimum of 80,000 square feet to make that work. And we actually ended up getting a conditional approval -- not a conditional approval, a preliminary approval, a Site Plan approval, which the Planning Board then rescinded because they went back and saw that the survey line at the top of the bluff was used, which is also where the existing structure ends, did not match the Coastal Erosion Line, which actually goes through a large portion of the existing structure that's on the home on the north lot. By moving that line back, it then put us in an area where we were not able to get two conforming lots with 80,000 square feet. So what we did in direction of the Planning Board, is we created that secondary lot, which is the south lot and December 1, 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 made it as squared and rectangular as possible and using the 25 foot easement and came to approximately 73,000 square feet and then when you account for that easement space when required for that length driveway, it would be a conforming lot. It would go over 80,000 square feet but because you have a 25 foot wide easement, that is what required us to come here and ask a variance for. So here I am. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would it be conforming at 15-feet? MR. STAY: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have now received comments, which you have not had a chance to look at, we got them this morning ourselves, indicating that the Planning Board does not support this application. While the variance request is relatively small, this comprehensive plan does not support the subdivision standard lot. That is basically it in a nutshell and the parcel does not contain sufficient yielded lot, which you just addressed that, I guess. MR. STAY: Yeah, because when we had it December 1, 2011 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 rescinded, they just told us, at least the Planning Director, at the time gave us verbal support and said the only way that we would be able to move forward is that we would have to send it to the Building Department and get a Notice of Disapproval, which we did. Took a couple of months. And when we got that Notice of Disapproval, then we could submit the full application to the ZBA. And this is the first time that I am seeing this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me understand -- you're saying that they are prepared your to entertain this minor after the ZBA makes -- MR. STAY: That's what now I am reading in writing, different me. It lot, Lot #2, tennis court, feet? you subdivision proposal he told me. which is But in what the Planning Director told is contradictory to what I just said. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The remaining I guess with the house and the is proposed at 89,117 square MR. STAY: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You also say that are going to move storage barn to a more December 1, 2011 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 conforming location to potentially move the tennis court to a conforming location or get rid of it all together. MR. STAY: Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: With a total of 161,138 square feet that would be combining proposed lot #1 and #2, why can't you just move the proposed lot line to make two 80,000 square foot lots? MR. STAY: It's not an 89,000 square feet buildable lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Well, let's see. Ail I did was add up 89,117 and the -- MR. STAY: If that were the case then I wouldn't be here. We would have put it together a regular lot %2, as they call it and we would have taken it to the Planning Board and it would have been conforming, but it's not a buildable -- it's just over 89,000 to explain for the get two conforming MR. square feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: public lots. STAY: Yeah, we I just wanted you record why you can't are able to with a December 1, 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 15-foot wide easement and then with a combination of a 25-foot easement and then taking the top of the bluff survey and then being forced to utilize the Coastal Erosion Line, those two took it out of conforming. It's obviously -- with the survey line, it's difference of almost -- I think 7 or 8-feet. There is actually structure there. So it's buildable area because there is a building there but according to the Coastal Erosion Line that is almost 10 years old, that is not buildable. The home has been there since, I a believe 40's and 50's. So with a loss of that buildable area and a loss of square footage due to the easement of the road, we would be improving right now the access into the lot. With this, there is a drainage issue on the south eastern corner and we would be connecting this lot to Stanley Road with a new road and putting drainage at the two key areas, which has already been seen by the Town Engineer and approved. So we would be improving and removing traffic from Private Road #13 because the main driveway would be coming into Stanley Road and a 50-foot wide December 1, 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 road and that is part of the work that would be done as part of the subdivision. It would be requirements. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask what estate purposes? MR. STAY: We purchased the lot and we have always looked to it as being a smaller bluff home and that the lower location was ideal to have a second home that would remain in the family or be developed and sold. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Do we have anything in the file addressing this new proposed paved drive to Stanley Road from Jamie Ritcher? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No. MR. STAY: The Planning Board does. It has gone through many revisions. It's in the plans that you have and you can see that it's there. But just at the top where Stanley Road is, you can see that it connects to Private Road #13, is where the drainage issue lies. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So Mr. Ritcher -- the purpose of the subdivision? I know it's to subdivide the property but is this for December 1, 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 times. you submit MR. STAY: He has reviewed this many CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I would imagine, would have some correspondence from him? MR. STAY: Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Which you could to this Board? MR. STAY: Yes. MEMBER HORNING: On the survey that you have before the Board, on Parcel %2, where it says 89,117 square foot buildable area. You're saying that is not noted to be is correct? MR. STAY: No, provide you why it was Planning Board and the I don't have that in front of definitely submit the numbers constraints that were put on. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: just over 80,000 square MR. STAY: Correct. that is not. I can rejected from the Notice of Disapproval. me but I can based on the to And you said that feet? We had an irregular lot and when we were forced to move to the Coastal Erosion Line, then it just made sense square off what the new subdivided lot December 1, 2011 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 would be and you know, it didn't change the numbers. Instead just making one with a kind of a long shape that came through and it also continued the road to move up further. We just tried to make it as much conforming as possible. The only thing is, due to the easement, we weren't able to hit 80,000 square feet. MEMBER HORNING: Does the easement have to be 25 feet or -- MR. STAY: It was a bone of a contention with the Planning Board because it's not clear within the coding. In one area it says it needs to be 15 and another area it says it needed to be 25. And originally, the Planning Department said it needed to be 15 and then the person running the file left and then the new person said no, it needs to be 25. So that was the first change that was made. And then the second when it was approved, the Coastal Erosion Line. Per the fire department, they need a 15-foot wide and a 15-foot high. And they have reviewed this plan already and they were okay with 15 and 15. The 25 was one where we actually spoke December 1, 2011 63 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 with the Town Attorney and they said that it's ambiguous and that the Planning Department was standing behind 25 and that what we were to adhere to. MEMBER HORNING: Can you give us the figures of the Parcel #1 square footage, if you narrowed it to 157 MR. STAY: Absolutely. over 80,000. It does MEMBER DINIZIO: have that too. CHAIRPERSON here. MEMBER new depiction Line, along with is It would be make it conforming. Yeah, I would like to WEISMAN: I am making notes you do not have MR. STAY: SCHNEIDER: So because of the of the Coastal Erosion Zone the required easement width, 160,000 square feet? Correct. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: For two lots. MR. STAY: And on top of this, there an additional two acres of land but that is bluff land. So it's a total of 6 acres but buildable is 4 because of the erosion and easement. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I would be is December 1, 2011 64 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 interested in reading the correspondences between the Planning Department about the purposed paved driveway from Stanley Road. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Town Engineer. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The Town Engineer, I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: To sum this up and to make sure we're all on the same page, we're looking for a letter of approval for this particular proposed survey from the Town Engineer for a 25-foot easement. Something from the Planning Board requiring a 25-foot easement. The square footage of the buildable area of Lot #2 and the square footage of the parcel of Lot #1 with a 15-foot wide easement rather than a 25-foot easement. Does that sum it up accurately? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yep. MR. STAY: I can provide you with the original Site Plan approval. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That would be it good. MR. STAY: Prior to when they adjusted with the Coastal Erosion Line. We can December 1, 2011 65 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 provide that as well as their rescinding letter. We have a length file. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Mr. Stay, how does the proposed lot size compare to other lots in the neighborhood? MR. STAY: Right now, it would be approximately 1.74 acres, is where I believe it to be. And just to the south, is the Field of Mattituck subdivision, which has 26 subdivided lots and only one would be larger than this lot would be. The rest of them would actually be smaller. So this lot would be {In Audible) with that subdivision. So it would remain at or above the lot size average. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Jim, questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: built yet, MR. are built. MEMBER are in there? MR. small is, smallest right? STAY: There That development isn't are three homes that DINIZIO: Well, what size lots STAY: The average is an acre. The I believe, 30,000 square feet is the and the largest is 2.3 acres and December 1, 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 there is only one. MEMBER DINIZIO: It's right across street? MR. STAY: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: And what street is that, Stanley? MR. STAY: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. That is all I have. MEMBER HORNING: Can you give us anything on paper showing the lot sizes? MR. STAY: I can give you a survey the entire development. MEMBER HORNING: That would be wonderful. That would be helpful. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That way look when was the of we can at the character of the neighborhood. MEMBER HORNING: And is there a way you can find out when that subdivision approved in 2007. Can you have that provide the final approved? MR. STAY: It was MEMBER HORNING: there also? MR. STAY: I can resolution. on December 1, 2011 67 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: Fair CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: gentlemen? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: else in the audience that address this application? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: further comments, enough. Anything else, Nope. Is there anyone would like to Okay. Hearing no I will make a motion to close this hearing subject to receipt of a long list of correspondences and information related to the proposed easement, lot sizes, buildable area and the adjacent subdivision. Is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. Motion carries unanimously. (See Minutes for Resolution.) December 1, 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 HEARING #6522 - JOSEPH AND ELIZABETH BRITTMAN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our next application is for Joseph and Elizabeth Brittman, %6522. Request for variance from Article III, Code Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's October 3, 2011, Notice of Disapproval based on a building permit application to construct an accessory garage, at; 1) more than the code required maximum square footage of 750 square feet on lots 20,000-60,000 square feet, located at: Glenn Road (Main Bayview Road), Southold. We have a memorandum from the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Administrator indicating that this is inconsistent with the proposing LWRP and a letter of local determination from Suffolk 80 County Planning and saying that they have no interest in this application. I will give you a copy so you can have it for your file. Please go to mic. Please state your name. MR. BRITTMAN: Joseph Brittman. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Mr. Brittman, it looks like you want to build an 864 square foot accessory garage, 24X22 high and a front December 1, 2011 69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 and side yard and the code permits a maximum of 750 square feet and it's supposed to be in a rear yard. What would you like to tell us about this application? MR. BRITTMAN: Well, the reason for the from the wetlands. square footage difference is that it's a pre-engineered building and they constructed in 12-foot increments. So 24 wide by 36, would be the smallest increment that would work for what we want to use it for. The 24x24 would be too small for the property. I just received a letter yesterday from the DEC and they were concerned -- I was trying to maintain the 40-foot front yard setback in my Site Plan and they were concerned that that brought the back of the garage too close to the wetlands and wanted to know if we could move it forward. I just received this letter yesterday and that's why I didn't go for another variance. So I wasn't sure how to approach that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They're asking you to move the garage -- MR. BRITTMAN: Closer to Main Bayview the house, I The rest of December 1, 2011 70 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have several plans on the house that are 50-feet from the titled wetlands. This happens to work out to maintain the 40-foot frontage, 45-feet from the wetlands. So I wasn't going to ask the Board what I had to do to move it up maybe 50-feet to give a 60-feet to the wetland. I put a call to the DEC this morning, but they only have hours on certain days and I was unable to reach. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So they're asking you to move it. What would the setback be from your front yard be? MR. BRITTMAN: Well, right now the front yard setback on the Site Plan is 40-feet, which is conforming. I was hoping that if we would move it 15-feet more to give us a 25-foot front yard setback, if that would satisfy the DEC as well and the ZBA. I have the letter from the DEC. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: a copy of that. additional feet? MR. BRITTMAN: What do they Yes, I would like want, 15 (Stepped away from the microphone.) (In Audible.) December 1, 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 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I guess it's pretty clear that if you go ahead and do that it's greater conformance from the DEC's prospective, then you're going to need variance from this Board. And you're a 25-foot front yard setback 60-foot set? a suggesting give you a MR. BRITTMAN: I am trying to compromise. (In Audible). MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But we don't know if that's the actual case until you contact them. MEMBER HORNING: From the setback for a bulkhead, from a principle dwelling, isn't it 75-feet -- MR. BRITTMAN: 75-feet standard but my whole house, because it's a waterfront and a corner lot, there have been two points of my house come within 50-feet of high tide map. to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, it's a setback 75-feet. now. There is a principal dwelling from a bulkhead of a requirement of I am asking how that fits in? MEMBER HORNING: I am not talking about the DEC. I am talking about the Town Code December 1, 2011 72 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 little unusual. On our Notice of Disapproval, I suspect that it's a dirt berm along the creek. It's really not a harden shoreline. There is no -- MR. BRITTMAN: There is a iow sill bulkhead. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, but it's not wood. It's not rift-raft. It's just sort of a dirt. But for some reason, it's not before US. MEMBER HORNING: But I am asking about that, what leads to my main question. Have you considered attaching the garage somehow to your structure? MR. BRITTMAN: It would push to the wetland. MEMBER HORNING: Depending you put it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: quick look at those letters see if we have any questions about it. They're proposing that you make it more landward, which you of -- MR. BRITTMAN: Let's have a from the DEC and Which would put the it closer upon where mentioned or place December 1, 2011 73 1 2 3 4 garage right in front of the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We're trying to explore what the hardship might be and the various proposals. Why is it that you're 5 convinced that what you need is a modular and 6 pretty inflexible in terms of square footage? 7 MR. BRITTMAN: First of all the expense 8 of it. It's a beautifully made unit for about 9 a third of a cost of a (In Audible) structure. 10 That's A. And just the style of it without 11 getting into an over architectured garage is 12 really in kind with the house. 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. I had a 14 question. What is the purpose of the rolling 15 door in the proposed modular? 16 MR. BRITTMAN: We would be able to put 17 a small boat in there and the garage door has 18 a height limitations. 19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I thought that is 20 what it was for when I saw the boat on the 21 property. I said, that is where the boats 22 going. I kind of got that picture but I 23 wasn't sure if that is what you were doing. 24 Let's see what other questions the 25 Board members have. Gerry, do you have any? December 1, 2011 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, I think the first thing we have to find out is what I eluded to and you agreed to, Mr. Brittman, and that is if so, how far the DEC wants you to go back, okay. So this is just a -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They would also have to pay a fee for a front yard variance if that is in fact what is happening. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You know, why don't -- you have explained to us why you wanted to build this particular building and I think we need to know where you're going first. So think we need to reset this hearing. We taken a substantial amount of testimony. could take more testimony. So we can set it it without a date. chairperson, I am I have We in. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you want to set a date in January? MR. BRITTMAN: That should be good. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We don't have with a date or we can set I am not speaking for the just saying. MR. BRITTMAN: I should be able to speak to the examiner on Monday. She will be December 1, 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 that many on for January. So the carryover should be okay. What about the Trustees' relationship? MR. BRITTMAN: I went to go see them this morning and I had a hearing with the Trustees on the 14th of December and she said, if we didn't have some kind of resolution by then, which seems we won't, to let them know and give me a postponement date. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Since you have an application with them already, they may want to adjourn it for our determination. But you can request some comments from the Trustees so that we have it before us when we talk to -- MR. BRITTMAN: I spoke to Lauren this morning and she said if we did have to move it up, I asked how would that impact it? She said, I would just have to do another Site Plan and it would be a beneficial thing in their eyes. MEMBER DINIZIO: You know in 2002, we granted nearly the identical size addition. MR. BRITTMAN: Right. MEMBER DINIZIO: And getting back to why you can't attach to the house. That's a December 1, 2011 76 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 question that I advance warning reason. MR. BRITTMAN: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: else in the audience that address this application? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: further comments, I will have and maybe give you to maybe come up with a good Is there anyone would like to adjourn this hearing to January 5th 10:00 a.m. Is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. Motion carries unanimously. (See Minutes for Resolution.) Hearing no make a motion to at favor? HEARING #6524 - RICHARD G. AND NORMA M. MOELLER. December 1, 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 Request Section Section November 1, 2011 Notice CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next hearing for Richard G. And Norma M. Moeller. for variance from Article XXII 280-116A(1) and Article XXIII 280-124 and the Building Inspector's of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for as built deck addition; 1) less than the code required 100 foot setback from top of bluff, 2) less than the code required side yard setback of 10 feet, located at: 1155 Aquaview Avenue (adjacent to Long Island Sound) East Marion. Is there someone here to represent this application? Would you just go to the mic and state your name for us, please? MR. JESPERSEN: Sure. My name is Peter Jespersen. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And would you spell your last name, please? MR. JESPERSEN: J-E-S-P-E-R-S-E-N. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Mr. Jespersen we have some correspondences that we just received and we wanted to give to you. One is a letter from our LWRP Coordinator December 1, 2011 78 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 indicating that this is inconsistent with LWRP policy and Suffolk County local determination and a letter from Suffolk County Soil and Water. I am going to give you those documents right now, assuming that you don't have them. MR. JESPERSEN: No, I don't. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me do that. And we have so~e green cards that are missing. Do you have those? MR. JESPERSEN: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If you can bring those up to the secretary, I would appreciate that. So we have an as-built deck in the rear yard at 27-feet from the top of the bluff, where the code requires 100-feet at least. And we have a 6-foot plus or minus side yard setback, where 10-feet is required. What would you like to tell us? MR. JESPERSEN: Well, there was an existing deck identical in size to one that was reconstructed. What happened was, actually I fell through one of the deck boards and I suggested to my grandfather, the property owner, that we address this. As we were looking into replacing some of the deck December 1, 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 boards, the deck was really not in very good condition. So my grandfather decided to rebuild the whole deck. Identical in size and location. And that's it. The setback's are the same as it was to the existing deck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just so you are aware, our own Board members have gone to this property and inspected it. MR. JESPERSEN: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And it's location. So we're familiar it looks like. with exactly what MR. JESPERSEN: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Not everyone knows that the Board does do that. Ken, do you want to start on this? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Sure. So you say you replaced the deck. You said your grandfather replaced the deck? MR. JESPERSEN: Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: When was the first deck built, do you know? MR. JESPERSEN: We don't know. They purchased the deck in 1993 and the deck was there. December 1, 2011 80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: In '93, there was some construction to the dwelling. Alterations to the one-family single dwelling. Was that done by you? MR. JESPERSEN: My grandparents. those MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Do you know what alterations consisted of? MR. JESPERSEN: It was square footage? I know it was roof line and I know some square footage was added to it, the house. This is my father. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Please, you have to come to mic and state your name because we're recording this and we're required to by law. ask me could that but we do not name, please? MR. A. MR. A. JESPERSEN: My mother-in-law did if we were going to be on TV. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No TV. MR. A. JESPERSEN: She thought she watch us live. So I had to tell her we were not going to be live. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We tape record do broadcast. Just state your JESPERSEN: Albert Jespersen. I December 1, 2011 81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1t 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 am the "designated agent." So the renovations that I believe they performed in 1993 were existing part of the house that they covered with the roof and they changed the roof line of the house. I think it used to be pitched flat roof and they put a peak on it, I believe. We even have the old drawings of whatever they did in 1993. That when I went to all the C of O's, there was an already existing deck, which we knew and what we did was, had done, replaced the footprint of the deck that existed. We took it down and put the same thing again, only it was new. If that answers your question, I am not sure. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The alterations in '93, was that done to the landward side or Sound side of the home? MR. JESPERSEN: Yes, landward side. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So there were no alterations to the Sound side of the house? up MR. A. JESPERSEN: No. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. you were looking at some of the you said that there MR. A. JESPERSEN: So you said old CO's and was an old CO for a deck? When they purchased December 1, 2011 82 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the house, this has been -- I am a virgin to this. If I misspeak -- in going through all of this paperwork, I believe it mentions, the deck, which is what we replaced. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I would like to see a copy of it. MR. A. JESPERSEN: I know I have it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Great. Our secretary will make notes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Jespersen, is this the September 11, 1985 Certificate of Occupancy that you are referring to? JESPERSEN: I am actually looking MR. for it right. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So this may be what you are referring to. MR. A. JESPERSEN: I know when they about paperwork in our deck. Jim, would you MEMBER DINIZIO: explain -- There was a deck on here at some point in time (In Audible) and then added a deck onto that. MR. A. JESPERSEN: We didn't do that. files about an existing purchased the home, the deck was there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You are talking December 1, 2011 83 1 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 beforehand. CHAIRPERSON it. DINIZIO: It was done WEISMAN: I have a copy MEMBER DINIZIO: '93 is you. That's of when you did the remodeling. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am trying see if there is a date on it. This card a deck with the house. So the Assessor's Office evaluated this and we know that it was there in '89. They show this property records. I would like to point out that we just got from Suffolk County Soil and Water, they go out to and inspect the bluff and inspect the to shows property and the others are going off on the grass, near the deck and because of the slope of the property, they're rolling down the bluff. They're pointing out that the bluff is stable and heavily vegetated and so on, but property. And they're kind of experts on environmental impact. It's reiterated by the LWRP Coordinator. The deck does not have a significant impact on the stability of the bluff; however, there are a bunch of leaders coming down. One is going off on the adjacent December 1, 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 they're requesting that you install as per onsite drainage code, dry well, so that the leaders can discharge the roof runoff into the dry well and not potentially on the bluff or the neighbors property. And the other recommendation by the LWRP is establishing some kind of -- from the bluff, going towards your house, of a non-turf landscaped buffer. In other words, some native grass, things like that. Not grass that you put chemicals on or things like that. Just to create a buffer. Are you following? MR. JESPERSEN: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I would like you to address both of those recommendations? MR. JESPERSEN: So you want a dry well. I am just a little unclear -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If you would like to approach, we can show you what we're talking about a non-turf buffer? Just come on up. They're not telling us how high the buffer should be. MR. grass JESPERSEN: You can see where the stops at the fence line. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: They want the grass December 1, 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 taken out of this area over here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We're obligated to grant the least amount of variance. That why we're discussing with you these alteratives and see how you feel about them. MR. JESPERSEN: Okay. MR. A. JESPERSEN: How do we validate that we have installed these dry wells? Do leave them uncovered so that they could be seen? MEMBER DINIZIO: They would be inspected. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Building Department would make an inspection after our decision. If this is approved and conditioned to install the dry well for the leaders and gutters. MR. JESPERSEN: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They would go out to inspect and see that you did that and give you your CO. zone MR. JESPERSEN: Okay. MR. A. JESPERSEN: have to be elevated? Does that buffer we CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No. What happens December 1, 2011 86 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 is it captures the runoff and filters it before it hits the base of the bluff. MR. A. JESPERSEN: Specific plantings? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think the LWRP -- let's just check. They will often tell you in here what they're talking about. It just says landscaped buffer. That means -- that's very easy to obtain. There is a list of plantings that you can obtain. Very affordable and native and easy to maintain. Rosa-Rugosa, kind of like a beach rose. MR. A. JESPERSEN: We planted some fox woods that hopefully the deer won't eat. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We would be happily to obtain a list from the LWRP of the plantings that you can put -- MR. JESPERSEN: Okay. That would be great. what it? MEMBER HORNING: The as built deck, is the date that they actually built it? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: When they rebuilt MEMBER HORNING: Rebuilt. ago . MR. A. JESPERSEN: Two and a half years My father-in-law had a stroke and my December 1, 2011 87 ! 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 mother-in-law got pushed to 2009. has Parkinson's and things just here the side. MEMBER HORNING: 2008? MR. A. JESPERSEN: No, 2009. May of aerial have. And I would say all certainly nonconforming inspection showed them. MEMBER HORNING: photo. can determine character where that top of the other houses. If you My question would be to your benefit, probably, take an aerial type photo and put the top of the bluff line throughout the neighborhood so we of the neighborhood and bluff is in relation to can provide that. MR. JESPERSEN: from here. MEMBER HORNING: From MR. JESPERSEN: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: site inspection, at least houses showed much larger We actually got them our office? When we did the for me, adjacent decks then what you of them are setbacks. My site So you got this from MEMBER HORNING: Since you folks are right now. The LWRP is providing an December 1, 2011 88 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 our office? MR. JESPERSEN: Yes. MS. TOTH: Do you want copies of that? MEMBER HORNING: Yes. So 70's and adjacent parcels were that time also? MR. A. JESPERSEN: Yes. MEMBER HORNING: So you established neighborhood with me to make back in the built around Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Are they conforming to that? Is it nonconforming? MR. JESPERSEN: Right. It's not a very large deck. deck. CHAIRPERSON Quite modest. Typically in that area. I WEISMAN: It's a small CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is why we go to inspect it. We want to see what the surrounding properties are like. Are they similar to them? MR. JESPERSEN: have a well adjacent parcels and nonconforming in terms to the relationship to the top of the bluff. It's to your benefit to show us as much as you can to that. MR. JESPERSEN: Okay. December 1, 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 don't really have anything else. I just have one question, how did you come to the ZBA? MR. JESPERSEN: What happened is, my grandparents received a letter from the Building Inspector. Somebody must have reported that there was construction going So the process is we needed to file to get denial because we didn't conform. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So it was back in 2009 that somebody called the Building Department? MR. JESPERSEN: I guess MR. A. JESPERSEN: stroke 7 months after that and -- MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I'm sorry o~. a to hear that. If you wouldn't mind is a photo on the property that is the Sound side MR. JESPERSEN: CHAIRPERSON Board member have applicant? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: MEMBER HORNING: No. approaching, there card, would you say of the house? Peek side of the house. WEISMAN: Does any other any questions of this No. so. And then there was a December 1, 2011 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken? Jim? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No. MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We're very lucky have Vicki in our office. Well, I don't see anyone else in the audience. So I don't think anyone else is going to make any more comments. So hearing no further comments, I am going to make a motion to close this hearing and reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Motion to recess. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by Ken. Ail in favor? MEMBER HORNING: Aye. December 1, 2011 91 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (Whereupon, a recess was taken at this time.) ********************************************** HEARING %6521 - TK ALPHA, LLC. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. The next application before us is for TK Alpha %6521. Request for variance from Article X Code Section 280-46 (Bulk Schedule) and the Building Inspector's October 31, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to construct new commercial building at 1) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10-feet, located at: 535 Pike Street, a.k.a Railroad Avenue in Mattituck. Would you please just state your name for the record. Not that we don't know who you are . MR. BROIDY: Good afternoon, Edward Broidy, 45 Broidy Lane, Southampton, New York. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Mr. Broidy, December 1, 2011 92 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 we just got comments from the -- dated November 29th, from the Planning Board. A letter from them, which you probably don't have a copy of or maybe you do. MR. BROIDY: I do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You do? Okay. This starts out by saying the Planning Board has reviewed the requested side yard setback variance and generally have no objection. Is that the copy that you have? I don't think you have a copy of this one. You know what, let me just give it to you. MR. BROIDY: Another one? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don't know. Let me just give you what we got. And another one, this is for local determination. That doesn't have any impact. MR. BROIDY: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So tell us what you're requesting at this point? MR. BROIDY: Well, I was before this Board a couple of times earlier and what we have done, we have scaled down the project to construct one building to consist of two stores, with elevation of the back building, December 1, 2011 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 once it's approved and whatever variances I need, I am asking for it at this point. I understand that we need 10-feet on the east side and the variance basically is to ask for 5-feet. I have over 20-feet on the left side. We have increased the parking onsite parking to a maximum amount we could. And prior to coming here, I had gone to the Planning Board and the Planning Board -- well, more or less said, get the variance so that you could come back to us and get the approval for building. I think they were very -- I think they were -- I think they were in sync with what I was doing at this present time. So I am here for you for whatever I need for variances. Get the okay and go. I sent you a revised Site Plan. I sent you a plan of what the building would look like. Do you have that? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. MR. BROIDY: Also an elevation along with a Site Plan. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. The comments from the Planning Board, just for the record, indicate that a proposed use of a retail store or dry store and a restaurant, or December 1, 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 wet and the store, is consistent with the Town Code Town Comprehensive Plan and zoned where subject property is located. I think you have summarized it well. Ail you need for us is for consideration of a 5-foot side yard variance when the code requires a 10-foot minimum side yard. This Board has seen previous applications and discussed them at great length. I think we're pretty familiar with how you have scaled back this proposal now. Jim, do you have any questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. Are you putting apartment upstairs? MR. BROIDY: No. It's not feasible to put additional facilities on top at this point. When I construct the stores, they will be sufficient enough, if the economy changes Planning Board would approve and we have -- right now, I to get a building up so we can get and maybe the going up there just want an some income. So we're not But the structure will be can eventually add to it, economy does. putting it up there. sufficient that we depending on how the December 1, 2011 95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MEMBER DINIZIO: How many parking spaces are you going to provide? MR. BROIDY: Two one-family -- MEMBER DINIZIO: No. How many parking spaces are you going to provide? MR. BROIDY: We don't need any. We're MEMBER DINIZIO: So you're going to provide 10 parking spaces? MR. BROIDY: Yes. And the apartments, which -- MEMBER DINIZIO: They're not subject to this variance. MR. BROIDY: But you want to know about them. not building it. MEMBER DINIZIO: I want to know the total amount of parking spaces you will have on the property? MR. BROIDY: I think it's right on the plan, sir. MEMBER DINIZIO: I know. I would like you to testify to that. MR. BROIDY: Okay. I believe it's 10 but I will just verify it. It's 10 right now, sir. December 1, 2011 96 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MEMBER DINIZIO: No, not necessary. I want minimal amount of testimony based on the application that you have presented to us. We will learn about the apartments later on. MR. BROIDY: The septic system is extra large so we can accommodate. The septic system can accommodate the apartments. So basically we're going the extra expense to put in the extra work to be prepared. MEMBER DINIZIO: Thank you. One more question. Why do you need that 5-foot variance? Why can't you the same side over 5-feet and use that? MR. BROIDY: It's a good question and being -- I guess many people come in front of you over the years. You need a sufficient width in front of a store to make it work. And these stores are really -- you know, it should be really bigger. We need the room to accommodate the tenant. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is the Planning Board width requiring a minimum 20-foot on the westerly property? MR. BROIDY: Yes, ma'am. MEMBER HORNING: Sir, the curb to purpose curb of December 1, 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 that would be for vehicles to get in and out -- MR. BROIDY: Yes. We had it at 15 and I had to put 20 in there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So it's the Planning Board that said you needed the 20-foot minimum? MR. BROIDY: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: That's all I have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I have no questions. George? MEMBER HORNING: Nothing. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone else in this audience who would like to address this application? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no further comments. I will make a motion to close this hearing and reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. December 1, 2011 98 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. in favor? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) HEARING %6525 - HERNAN MICHAEL OTANO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The application is for #6525. I will read was advertised. This is a request for variance from Article XXIII Code Section 280-123, final Hernan Michael Otono, the legal because it Breezy October 18, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for demolition and construction of a new dwelling at; 1) a nonconforming use shall be enlarged, reconstructed, structurally altered or moved, unless such building is changed to a conforming use, 2) less than the code required bulkhead setback of 75 feet, located at 5 Shore Community Inc., Sage Boulevard, Article XXII Section 280-116 and the Building Inspector's October 14, 2011, amended December 1, 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 (adjacent Greenport. requesting to Shelter Island Sound), We also have before us a letter an adjournment from the applicant that was dated November 29th, advertised, I will see the audience who would application application audience? MS. before the for adjournment. but since it was if there is anyone in like to address this Board votes on this Anyone in the MOORE: Patricia Moore on behalf of the applicant. I do have an authorization letter from October 18th. I actually will be working with Amy Martin and I will also be working with the architects. Don Wilson who is on the Board of Breezy Shore will be here to see what is going on but Breezy Shore is also on and wants to actively participate because it is a very important application in relation to the ownership interest that they have. For all those reasons, it seemed better to adjourn it. If the Board wants to give it, we would be happy to come back. I do want to offer, if there is anything in particular that you would like us to have -- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: An interior December 1, 2011 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 inspection? MS. MOORE: You want inspection? That is always CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: boarded up at the moment. It's plywood. MS. MOORE: We will an interior available, sure. It's kind of There is no steps. put some plywood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am not sure this is possible but certainly, I know architect or engineer's report regarding the (In Audible) of the subject property at some point is going to be part of this hearing. MS. MOORE: I anticipate that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: can be in the works. MS. MOORE: Sure. Amy to talk after the meeting. and So certainly that and I are going MS. MARTIN: Amy Martin, Fairweather Brown. The initial letter from Robert Brown, that the whole building could be moved and put back on the foundation. If at other then that, whatever is needed, we would be glad to supply. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We do have some correspondences, which you may or may not December 1, 2011 101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have. You probably have the one from the applicant requesting the adjournment. We have Suffolk County local determination. We have a copy of the decision by the Justice Court, in which case the applicant was before the Court for a violation of exceeding the scope of the permit by demolishing and rebuilding the house and the plea of guilty with a $1,000.00 check. We also have a letter from the LWRP Coordinator We just got. MS. MOORE: Okay. that. it dated November 29th. I will take all CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Indicating that is inconsistent. So why don't I just give So is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address this or the Board at this time? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You realize the very sad nature of Mr. Brown's (In Audible) but after the interior inspection are we going you this packet. to be able to ask him to testify here? MS. MARTIN: Rob is back to work full-time. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. December 1, 2011 102 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. MARTIN: I am sure you can have a letter. I am not sure, there was a chain of events, the homeowner wanted to save money and do some of the work itself. So I don't know what was witnessed or not. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is why it would probably be important and I am not telling you your job, the important to see the interior also prior to another public hearing so we could determine if we have any questions regarding the interior inspection. If there amy be questions, there may not be. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just want to clarify one thing for this Board, originally there was a set of plans that included a mud room and larger bedroom. What we have before us eliminates that and looking at the -- MS. MARTIN: That was denied by the local Board. They didn't want any changes to the footprint made. So what is before you is exactly the same footprint as was before. There is no extension on the landward side. The only additional is the approved steps down to get from the higher elevation to the beach side. December 1, 2011 103 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The other thing is that we have in our previous application a letter that says it from the association, the community. There was no letterhead. There was no signature. There was no way to identify the usefulness of that letter. We don't know how authentic it is or isn't. So that is going to have to -- MS. MOORE: Well, we will have the association here or the attorneys for the association here and the association is well aware of the application and all the activity. So we will have them present at the next meeting or I hope. Just for the record -- MS. MARTIN: It was an e-mail and Hernan was on the road and he only had what had gone back and forth in his PDF. So he sent that -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: But you can understand why -- MS. MOORE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: -- useful information for us. MS. MOORE: We will confirm. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right. December 1, 2011 104 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Anything else from the Board? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Within the next couple of weeks, we will hear from you from interior inspection? MS. MOORE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Vicki can organize that for us. We will send out the code one more time for the gate. MS. MARTIN: You know it? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We had to. How in the world would we get in there? MS. MOORE: I think I have only been there one time in the summer. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It was very informal. He happened to be there at the time and provided me with access to inspect the property. I was able to take a look at the new foundation and ascertain that that is all new construction. The foundation was done with benefit from the permit but there was not enough to determine what else was going on with the structure other then to understand that a Stop Work Order was placed on it by the Building Department and they inspected it and said that it went beyond the scope of their December 1, 2011 105 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a Leslie, then specific of utilities that are and that is all permit. MEMBER HORNING: questions such as type going to be in the building for the next hearing? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They can prepare proper presentation. And all interested parties will have the opportunity to come together with one another and make determinations what you want to present and how you want to present it and what the compelling issues are and so on. MS. MOORE: I just want to put one thing on the record with respect to the code violations. That was -- he went and met with Lori without my presence and you know, and sometime pleas are taken to expedite things whether things are truly -- whether they did in fact exceed the scope of the permit. When I looked at the permit that the Trustee's issued, it matches what was actually done. Whether it not it should have come to you for a variance, that was really a Building Department question but as far as the extent December 1, 2011 106 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of their work, I donTt want it to prejudice his application because he signed some finite, I exceeded the scope of the work and I paid a fine. Often times it's like a speeding ticket, you can try it and prove your case that the officer miscalculated or you plead and move on. Given the circumstances, a trial would have delayed the ultimate resolution before this Board and the Trustee's. It was his business decision to plead guilty. I don't want it to be biases against his application today. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Oh, no. Anything else? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no further comments, I am going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to January 5th at 1:00 p.m. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. December 1, 2011 107 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) (Whereupon, the public hearings for December 1, 2011 concluded.) December 1, 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 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I, Jessica DiLallo, certify that foregoing transcript of tape recorded Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment and is true and accurate record of the Hearings. S i gna t u r e .~~_~_.~~ Uessica DiLallo Jessica DiLallo Court Reporter PO Box 984 Holbrook, New York 11741 Date: December 27, 2011 the Public a