HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/05/2012 Hearing 1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York
January 5, 2012
10:06 A.M.
RECEIVED
Board Members
LESLIE KANES WEISMAN
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
GEORGE HORNING - Member
KENNETH SCHNEIDER
MEMBER GOEHRINGER
Present:
- Chairperson/Member
Member
(Left at 2:20 P.M.)
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
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 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:
Joseph and Elizabeth Brittman
David Moore #6515
Patrick and Diane Kelly #6519
Bruce and Elizabeth and Donna
#6527
Dorothy and Stefan Kotylak #6529
Threshold Blue, LLC (Sparkling Pointe)
%6526
Hernan Michael Otano #6525
Louis and Elizabeth Mastro #6530
Melanie M, Marianne, Michael Selwyn
#6528
Nelson Family #6532
%6522
Collura
Page:
3-3
4-5
5-12
12-27
27-43
43-57
59-119
119-134
134-144
144-155
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
HEARING #6522 JOSEPH and ELIZABETH BRITTMAN
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: -- for the amended
Notice of Disapproval that we received, that
requires two additional variances and it was
not properly advertised. They were only
advertised from the carryover prospective. So
I am going to ask if there is anyone in the
audience who wants to address this particular
application?
(No Response.)
one in
then I
hearing
Gerry.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If there is no
the audience who wants to address it,
am going to make a motion to adjourn the
to February 2nd at 10:00 A.M.
Is there a second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by
Ail in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 4
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
HEARING %6515 - DAVID MOORE
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next hearing
This is a carry-over from
is for David Moore.
a public hearing and there is no need to read
the legal notice. We have received a letter
dated January 4th, from the agents, requesting
an adjournment, so that all the information
required by the Town Engineer on the Drainage
Control Plan (In Audible) could be completed
and so that all that information is here before
us. It has been advertised, so I am going to
ask if there is anyone in the audience that
would like to address this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
comment, I am going to make a motion to adjourn
David Moore #6515, to February 2nd, at
10:15 A.M. So moved.
Gerry.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
Second.
Seconded
Aye .
by
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6519 - PATRICK AND DIANE KELLY
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: -- carry-over.
Is there anyone here in the audience that would
like to address this application?
MR. WEBER: Yes, Fred Weber. I am the
architect representing Patrick and Diane Kelly.
I guess at last months hearing, we submitted a
plan, which I guess had some second floor
encroachments on setbacks, as well as a
proposed floor. And that third floor had
basically three rooms, and one was a bedroom.
One was a sitting room and one was a bathroom.
And the Board was objecting to the fact that
they didn't think it was appropriate for
bedroom space to be on the third floor. I
revised the plans to show a third floor, which
consist of one room, which as a -- which views
out to the bay. And has a deck in front of it.
That was submitted early this week. My client
is actually not really happy with the -- sort
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 6
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
of the half -- large half round window that
occurred on that elevation. I am not sure if
you had a chance to look at that. And I did a
revision that they are happy with and I was
wondering if I can show that to you --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We actually got
plans this morning, your revised plans.
MR. WEBER: Basically, it's still a
room. The main difference is that we're
to create a different look on the
which providing two small (In
these
single
trying
exterior,
Audible).
(Far away from the microphone.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We're all getting
copies of this.
MR. WEBER: I will give you a minute to
absorb it. The concept is really the same to
have a one room up there that is really a
family room, gathering room. A room where they
can view out to the bay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Instead of making
it a chamfering of quarters on the deck as the
larger plan are proposing, you want to do a
rectangular deck?
MR. WEBER: Right, but the main change
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 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
is really the elevation. That is the reason it
was changed, not for the chamfering of the deck
or whatever. It was changed because the client
did not like the half round treatment of the
windows, in that main gable. They wanted it
less of an element. Much less of a large
element on the roof and I guess more of a
quieter element. Less of a pronounced element
on the roof.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Is it covered porch?
MR. WEBER: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Open deck.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That deck does not
extend pass the roof line of that second story,
so therefore there is no setback issue; right?
MR. WEBER: Correct.
MEMBER GOEBRINGER: The setbacks that
are there are the same setbacks --
MR. WEBER: Correct.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I wanted to make sure
that the roof wasn't coming out because it
looks like the other proposal was covered.
MR. WEBER: The other proposal was
slightly covered.
that it was
They didn't like the fact
covered and they thought that that
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 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
kind of restricted the view and whatever.
Unfortunately, they're in Florida right now and
communications
we've had a little problem with
over the holiday's here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well,
changed the roof line a little bit,
itself, is getting -- yeah -- in this
family room --
MR. WEBER: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
wings on either side with
so on; right?
MR. WEBER: Right.
that was really not done to
space. It was done
of --
because you
the room
proposed
issues
describe
that.
room
There are like
windows and seats and
That is really --
create any extra
really to create the look
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MR. WEBER: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
with it. We didn't
The symmetry?
I don't have
particularly
anything like
storage or a sitting
to you what size or
In the event --
WEISMAN: I don't have
Just that it be
with a deck.
MEMBER HORNING:
CHAIRPERSON
any
any
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 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
questions about it. Maybe some of the other
Board members do.
MEMBER HORNING: Just for
clarification.
MR. WEBER: Sure.
MEMBER HORNING: In the event of a fire
and someone was on that third floor, I know
you're going to have a sprinkler system
throughout the building; correct?
MR. WEBER: Correct.
MEMBER HORNING: Let's say that someone
is on the third floor and there is a fire, and
they have to step out onto a window on the
third floor, let's say they're able to step out
on the one with the little bit of deck there,
what would they do next? Can they step from
that deck onto the second floor roof or what
would happen?
MR. WEBER: Well, they would step off
that deck. That deck doesn't quite go to the
edge of the roof.
MEMBER HORNING: Right.
MR. WEBER: And below is where the --
there is a second floor deck. You know, it
would be -- you know, basically -- you know, an
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8 foot drop to the deck and then maybe a 6 foot
drop to the deck rail.
MEMBER HORNING: So in a life
threatening event --
MR. WEBER: Yeah, in a life threatening
event --
MEMBER HORNING: They would go from one
deck to the lower deck?
MR. WEBER: I would.
MEMBER HORNING: Now, how about from
the window seats? Are the window seats going
to make an impediment to getting out that
window?
MR. WEBER: Well, it's really all one
room. And I think you would go out the door.
I don't think you would attempt to go out --
there are two doors there that go out to the
deck.
MEMBER HORNING: Onto the deck?
MR. WEBER: Yeah, onto the deck. You
would go out onto that proposed deck and I
don't think you would deal with the windows.
Because those windows are going to be higher up
then the -- then the other windows in the
center and obviously the door.
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER HORNING: In the event you did
have to crawl out one of those windows, what
would happen?
MR. WEBER: Well, you would be on the
roof of the -- the roof that is over the second
floor bay there. Again, it would be about an 8
foot drop to the roof below. You know, there
you don't have a rail to come down. You just
have a roof surface. I would go out onto the
deck and drop to a flat surface deck rather
then go out a smaller window and drop to a --
MEMBER HORNING: I know, but in a panic
situation, you do different things.
MR. WEBER: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, also
George, just as a reminder. The whole thing is
going to have to be sprinklered.
MR. WEBER: The whole house. Not just
the third floor.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Okay. Jim, do
you have any questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No. No,
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken,
any questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
questions.
do you have
No questions.
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Nope.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
Is there anyone else in the audience
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.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
Second.
Ail in
favor?
BRUCE AND ELIZABETH AND
WEISMAN: Our next
for Bruce and Elizabeth and
#6527. Request for variance
XXIII Section 280-124 and the
HEARING %6527
DONNA COLLURA
CHAIRPERSON
application is
Donna Collura,
from Article
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 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
Building Inspector's November 4, 2011 Notice of
Disapproval based on an application for
building permit for a deck addition to a single
family dwelling: 1) less than the code
required rear yard setback of 35 feet, located
at: 170 Manor Road, corner Gillette Drive and
East Gillette Drive in East Marion.
Is there someone here to represent this
application? Can you please come forward to
the mic?
MS. D.
CHAIRPERSON
Can you please just
for the record?
MS. D. COLLURA:
C-O-L-L-U-R-A.
CHAIRPERSON
MS. E.
C-O-L-L-U-R-A.
CHAIRPERSON
What would you
application?
MS. D.
COLLURA: Good morning.
WEISMAN: Good morning.
state and spell your name
Donna Collura,
WEISMAN: Thank you.
COLLURA: And Elizabeth Collura,
like
unusual
three
WEISMAN: Thank you. Okay.
to tell us about your
COLLURA: Well, we have an
situation because we found out we have
front yards, and situations where we have
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 14
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a four bedroom house and sleeps 8 to 10 people.
And the living area is not large. So our first
instinct was to expand the blueprint of the
house but
that would have required, obviously a
variance also and we didn't want to be an
optimtacious (phenetic) building and in an area
where there are not a lot of big houses. We
wanted to conform to what is there. So then we
thought, well, okay, we will just put a deck on
the outside of the house and that will increase
our living space.
MS. E. COLLURA: It's right off the
kitchen. You would step right off the kitchen
onto it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. This deck
is before us because the code requires a 35
foot setback from your rear property line.
It's your only property line that isn't a front
yard. And you're proposing an 18 foot deep
deck, which gives you the 17 and according to
your plan, 0.3, whereas, the Notice of
Disapproval
says 17.1 foot setback from the
property line. Okay.
Jim, do you have any questions on this?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No. No, questions.
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 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: George?
MEMBER HORNING: I do not.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Nope.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Nope.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Nope.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The only thing
that I am going to ask you is would there be a
difficulty if you increase the setback a little
bit by just making it 16 feet, instead of 18
feet?
MS. E. COLLURA: That would be doable.
That would be fine.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I mean, because
the Board is obligated by law to grant the
smallest variance possibly reasonably can,
should a variance be warranted. So the Board
generally explores options like that. If you
have no objection to that, that would reduce
the variance and thereby increase the setback
to 19 feet.
Ail right, is there anyone else in the
audience that would like to address this
application? Please come forward.
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HOHN: Donald Hohn. I live at
945 Gillette Drive. My side yard abuts their
rear yard. I guess I am the only piece of
property that would be effected because of the
odd shape of the property. I have talked with
the applicant. They have assured me that
they're going to be doing some buffering around
the deck to sort of screen it. With that in
mind, I have no objections whatsoever to your
application.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. In
observing the neighborhood and I think this
Board is very familiar with that area because
there have been a number of variances because
of, you know, so many of the lots have rear
yards and front yards that are really
technically front yards. And almost all the
properties up and down East Gillette are
screened with some sort of a Evergreen
screening just to create privacy for the
property owners, as well as from the street.
The deck would be highly visible from many
perspectives without appropriate Evergreen
screening, but -- why don't you come back up
for one moment. Just make sure your answer is
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 17
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
on the record here. Your intent is to do some
Evergreen screening along the line between your
neighbor and your proposed deck; is that
correct?
MS. D. COLLURA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And what about
any screening from the two streets? Are you
planning to --
MS. E. COLLURA: Yeah, over time, we
were looking to do something like that.
MS. D. COLLURA: For our own privacy as
well. I mean, you kind of feel like you're in
a fishbowl back there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Generally when
people are barbecuing they like a little more
privacy --
MS. D. COLLURA: Right.
MEMBER HORNING: Leslie, while they're
here and if they're agreeing to a 16 foot deck,
are we going to amend the application or are we
going to require another survey showing --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, I think we
can just grant alternative relief. Yes, we
will just grant alternative relief of 16 feet
and then they won't have to bother to go
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 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
through any more or changes.
MEMBER HORNING: you have an
understanding of what we be doing
MS. D. COLLURA:
MS. E. COLLURA:
submissions
So
would
Yes.
Yes.
then?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: In other words,
you have applied for the 17.1 and we would
grant you 19.1 feet or 0.3.
MEMBER HORNING: Would we necessarily
have a condition about the screening or we
would take it in good faith that they would do
it?
Board.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's up to the
The Board does have the jurisdiction if
the impact on the character of the neighborhood
would be in some way compromised by your deck
not being screened to some extent. We do have
the option to grant it with the condition that
you do provide Evergreens or privacy screening
of some sort of another.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And we also have a
request from the neighbor.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, the
neighbor approved it based upon the assumption
that it's going to have it. So how would you
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 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
feel if the decision reflected the -- let's say
at the very least for now, some privacy
screening between your house and your neighbor,
to start with? Evergreens, your choice?
MS. D. COLLURA: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Arborvitae's,
Leyland Cypress, Pine Trees of some sort of
another. Just something that would create over
time an additional barrier between the two
properties.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Continuously
maintained.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: In other words,
if something died, you would put in a new one.
That's all that that means.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Usually we require how
high they're going to be or how long they're
going to be, you know, along the particular
piece of property. We would have to come up
with those measurements.
MS. E. COLLURA: Is there a timeframe
in which they would have to be installed?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, before you get a
CO.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: In other words, a
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 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
condition in getting a Certificate of Occupancy
on the deck, which legalizes the deck, you
would have to include that landscaping.
MS. E. COLLURA: If it's on the
property line, would it be a shared expense
between the other property owner or would it
solely our responsibility?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
your property and it would be
responsibility.
MS. D. COLLURA:
just the back and --
CHAIRPERSON
only person who has
concern.
It would be
your
be
on
MS. D. COLLURA: I just want to make
sure that we're on the same page. That we're
agreeing to something that we understand to be
-- we need to put something along the back of
the deck, so that there is privacy between
CHAIRPERSON
WEISMAN: Right.
MS. D. COLLURA: And our neighbor?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes.
MS. D. COLLURA: And the sides we can
WEISMAN: Well, that is the
come here to address his
So we're talking about
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
do at a later date?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MS. D. COLLURA: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
we're talking about.
Do other Board members
questions or thoughts about it?
MEMBER HORNING: Would you
such a thing right adjacent to the
deck or along the property line?
MS. E. COLLURA: Well, we
Yes .
Well,
that's what
along the property line. We
more aesthetically pleasing.
MEMBER HORNING: And
your house are
MS. D.
spelled
MS. D. COLLURA:
with the garage.
MEMBER HORNING:
condition for screening,
54 foot distance?
have any
want to do
back of the
were thinking
would probably be
the dimensions of
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, 30-35 feet.
Okay. If we had a
are we talking about a
what right now?
COLLURA: Is it on the survey?
MEMBER HORNING: The deck is 30 feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The setback is
out but not the house.
24X54 -- yeah, that is
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 22
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: Along the boundary or
something like that?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: So it's not a large
length, really.
MS. D. COLLURA: 30 feet, right.
MS. E. COLLURA: And that would be on
the property line.
MS. D. COLLURA: Unfortunately, my
brother and her husband, he's sick. So he's
not here to discuss this with us, but we're
going to want to assume that he would want to
put it on the property line.
MS. E. COLLURA: Right in front of the
line with privacy.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You would have to
plant it at a sufficient depth inward, so that
when it grows it's not overhanging on your
neighbor.
MS. D. COLLURA: Right. We understand
that. So we would need something, 30 feet for
the back property line inside, so that it would
not grow and encroach on his property?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Correct.
MS. D. COLLURA: Okay.
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Perhaps we can have
the applicant show us what they proposed on a
copy of their survey? Show where they propose
to do such screening, so we can have it for the
file?
MS. D. COLLURA: Well, we're going to
have to determine what it is -- what type of
arborvitae --
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: They can think about
it.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
arborvitae?
MS.
D. COLLURA:
CHAIRPERSON
that we have to. I
Evergreen --
MEMBER DINIZIO:
CHAIRPERSON
Are you happy with
I don't know.
WEISMAN: I don't think
think we can say
Four feet high?
WEISMAN: Yes. Screening,
minimum four feet high so they can grow. Just
to give you examples, such as -- and let you go
to a landscaper and find a good deal or
whatever and put in. We can say plant it three
foot on center -- you know, that is relative to
the type of plant material. You can't really
know for sure --
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 24
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
MS. D. COLLURA: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: -- how far apart
they should be, being we don't know how many --
MS. D. COLLURA: Right --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: -- you're
planting or how big they're going to get.
MS. D. COLLURA: That's why I made the
comment that I made, we don't know yet.
MEMBER HORNING: But you can estimate
and do it three foot on center and 30-35
feet --
MS. D. COLLURA: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think it's fine
if we put down Evergreen screening such as, to
be planted and provide a continuous visual
enclosure or barrier and you will have to
consult with a landscaper as to what your
preference is.
MS. D. COLLURA: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It will
accomplish the goal. That's the intent. I
mean, we're not going to sit here and design
your landscape for you. I don't think that is
the intent here. We want to make sure that it
does what the intention is and just to make
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 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
sure that it's continuous and not just a boom,
boom and everybody can look through. You might
as well plant Pear Trees then, you know?
MEMBER HORNING: And namely, if it is
as a condition in our decision, we want you to
be aware of it, as it's potential effect and
that it's going to be there.
MS. D. COLLURA: Well, initially,
they're not going to be -- I am assuming, there
is going to have to be space in between
some
them because --
CHAIRPERSON
MS. D. COLLURA:
MEMBER HORNING:
quickly.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
sun there.
WEISMAN: Yes, of course.
Okay.
They will grow
You have a lot of
to get
that
them with
MS. D. COLLURA:
MEMBER HORNING:
a plan.
CHAIRPERSON
we need a plan,
You have to
MR. HOHN:
an option.
Yeah.
I don't think we need
I don't think
WEISMAN:
no.
come back up to the mic.
I am just trying to leave
Does it have to be at the
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
property line or can it be at the deck? Just
to give them an option of where to put it?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Ail we're asking is
that they screen that deck.
MR. HOHN: So it doesn't matter if
on the property line or the deck?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
to say inside the property line
deck from the adjacent neighbor.
MR. NOHN: Great.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
We're just going
to conceal the
Anyone else in
the audience want to address this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any
from the Board members?
comments
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
further comments, I will
this hearing and reserve
date.
it's
other
Nothing.
Hearing no
make a motion to close
decision to a later
Gerry.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
All in favor?
Second.
Seconded by
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING ~6529 DOROTHY AND STEFAN KOTYLAK
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Next application
is for Dorothy and Stefan Kotylak, and that is
#6529. Request for variance from Article III,
Code Section 280-15, and the Building
Inspector's November 16, 2011 Notice of
Disapproval, based on an application to
construct an addition to an accessory garage,
at: 1) more than the code required maximum
square footage of 660 square feet on lots up to
20,000 square feet; located at: 280 Pine Wood
Road in Cutchogue.
Is there someone here that would like
to address this application?
MR. KOTYLAK: Hello.
Kotylak.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
My name is Steve
MR. KOTYLAK:
Okay,
Basically, I
thank you.
am looking
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 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
to expand the garage, so I have room for my
lawn mower, power equipment. Also, right now,
it's like a garage and a half. You can imagine
the things that you can accumulate as I -- I
have been renovating the house. So I had to
take everything out. I am trying to keep
everything indoors, my lawn equipment, my moms
car, possibly my truck, myself. So I know the
maximum is 660 square feet. Ail I am asking
for is 188 square feet. I spoke with my
neighbors, nobody has a problem with it. I
also counted the -- in my immediate
neighborhood around the block, out of 46
residences, 26 of them have two-car garages
that were detached garages.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Did you want to
submit this to the Board?
MR. KOTYLAK: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: For the record,
this is a plat, copy of the neighborhood with
little green dots showing what residences have
two-car garages.
MR. KOTYLAK: The green and yellow are
detached.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Okay. Thank you,
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 29
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sir.
the
footage
with a
Jim, any questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Can you just go
square footages? What is the square
there now for the garage?
MR. KOTYLAK: Right now it's 450.
over
MEMBER DINIZIO: 450?
MR. KOTYLAK: Yeah. It's like a garage
little wooden shed right off the back.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I see that.
MR. KOTYLAK: But it's a dirt floor and
basically useless.
MEMBER DINIZIO: But that shed is
included in this --
MR. KOTYLAK: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: And you want to go to
how big?
MR. KOTYLAK: I want to add an
additional 398 square feet.
MEMBER DINIZIO: What's the total?
MR. KOTYLAK: The total would be 848.
MEMBER DINIZIO: 848.
MR. KOTYLAK: So minus your
am asking for.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. And
what I
660, 188 is
you're here
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 30
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for two variances. One is for square footage
and the other one is because you're in a side
yard.
deck
Are you adding that deck or does that
currently exist?
MR. KOTYLAK: The deck is on the house.
MEMBER DINIZIO: It is?
MR. KOTYLAK: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: So if you took a foot
off of that deck, you wouldn't be here for that
second variance. That is how -- that's how
they come to the point that you're in the side
yard.
only
side
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Wait a minute, we
have one. It doesn't say that it's in a
yard.
MEMBER DINIZIO: It says it should be
rear yard.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And it is.
MEMBER DINIZIO: No, it's not. The
deck makes that a side yard probably about six
in a
inches.
MR. KOTYLAK:
existing house.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
speaks to that. And I
The deck is on the
The first requirement
am not saying --
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. KOTYLAK: I wasn't aware of that.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I am assuming that's
the reason why the Building Inspector gave you
that -- refuse to give you a permit on that
too. Had you not had the deck on the back of
the house, you would be here for one --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim, you have to
explain this to me because I don't see -- I see
Look at the Notice of
only the side variance.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
Disapproval.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER DINIZIO: Ail
statement says --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
I am reading it.
right. First
Should require a
rear yard subject to -- subject to
It doesn't say it's located in the
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, why
even mention
fact.
because
that?
MEMBER HORNING:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER DINIZIO: We
of that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
It's
the side.
side yard.
would they
a statement of
They usually do.
grant variances
Right.
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 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
MEMBER DINIZIO: They want to build a
deck and to me it looks like it's about six
inches on the survey overlap.
MR. KOTYLAK: It's not overlapping
deck at all. If you look straight from the
house --
MEMBER DINIZIO: -- rear yard.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Vicki is
clarifying. It is in the rear yard. It's
the side.
MEMBER DINIZIO: It's not clear.
MEMBER HORNING: It's not clear, Jim,
but I don't think they were cited for it.
the
just
at your
MR. KOTYLAK: It's all right.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You know just looking
variance reasons and basically other
confusion.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They weren't.
And site inspection shows that they don't have
that deck in the backyard. So I see what Jim
is referring to. I think we're only looking at
a side yard.
MR. KOTYLAK: Yeah, I was only aware of
the square footage issue.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Sorry for the
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 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
people in the area have two-car garages,
detached. I would say similar
MR. KOTYLAK: Most of the older homes
in the area have detached garages because
that's the way they built them.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You have
that microphone.
had
to speak into
MR. KOTYLAK: The older homes usually
the detached garages and then as they built
there were more ranches and they
that area up,
have the garages attached.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You could do this
without a variance by just attaching it to the
house.
MR. KOTYLAK: Yes.
have.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I think that is all I
MR. KOTYLAK: Okay.
MEMBER HORNING: I wanted to explore
that a little bit. The idea of attaching the
garage and not requiring a variance, didn't you
testify that this current garage has a dirt
floor or --
MR. KOTYLAK: No, there is a little
shed existing off the back. That has kind of
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 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
dirt
floor.
MEMBER HORNING:
Just the shed?
The garage
is all
MR. KOTYLAK: Yeah.
a cement floor.
MEMBER HORNING: And how feasible is it
for you to build an attached garage or relocate
what you have and attach it and make it bigger?
Is that feasible?
MR. KOTYLAK: To attach it to the house
at this point wouldn't be feasible. That's
part of the problem. When I worked with the
architect, to be able to drive a pick-up truck
in between the house, the deck and -- you know,
the addition of the garage -- you know, that's
why it's kind of stepped back a little bit. So
you would have nine and a half feet more or
less to have access to the backyard.
MEMBER HORNING: But if the whole thing
was moved over to where the deck was in that
area then you would not need to drive a pick-up
truck in between because you would have plenty
of room on the driveway side.
MR. KOTYLAK: On the far side -- the
driveway side, the land kind of slopes there
and it has -- actually right now, it has 2X6's
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 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
and it's kind of stepped out and landscaped.
So we would have to do some major excavating
there. And my neighbor next door, back before
they had too many rules, built
grade and they basically just dug
foundation out and heaped it up.
their house on a
the
So they have
a flat property and it slopes down six to seven
feet towards property. So I had to do some
landscaping and navigating with 2X6's to get
the water to drain so it wouldn't get flooded.
That is kind of the reason why I
I am doing.
MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
am doing what
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
Mr. Kotylak, this is one of
this is going to be a very
older frame --
MR. KOTYLAK: Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
of the older houses
is one
mind,
No questions.
Would you say
the older houses --
nice house, and an
Would you say this
in that area?
Absolutely. Yes.
So bearing that in
you to deal with this
MR. KOTYLAK:
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
the easiest way for
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
situation is to add onto the garage?
MR. KOTYLAK: Yep.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay.
MEMBER DINIZIO: The existing garage
and not that shed, can you fit a ear in there?
MR. KOTYLAK: You can fit a car in
there but like I said with lawn mowers. I have
a log splitter. I burn firewood. It's very
tight. If I am doing it, I might as well do it
the right way. To make enough room to make it
useful.
MEMBER DINIZIO: But you are going to
tare this garage down and make a new one?
MR. KOTYLAK: Some of it.
MR. MCGANN: No --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You have to state
your name, please.
MR. MCGANN: My name is Doug McGann. I
am doing the work for Stefan at his house. For
him and his mother. The existing garage is
going to remain. We're going to demolish the
right side wall where the extension is going
and the back wall, but the front and left side
wall are going to remain.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: New roof?
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
MR. KOTYLAK: New roof, yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I have to ask a
question, I think, because again, as I stated
before, the law requires us to grant the
smallest variance reasonable and possible,
should a variance be granted. And you have --
you made this 28 foot deep, this garage,
allowing it an approximate 8 feet of deck for
lawn mower, storage and what you're calling a
workshop area.
MR. KOTYLAK: Yeah, I want to put like
a small overhead door, so you can run the
mowers out the back without having to shift
cars around.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right. You do
not have a lot coverage issue. There is
nothing to prevent you from creating somewhat
of a smaller garage area and building a storage
shed for all of your other -- you know, lawn
equipment and things like that. What hardship
would result if you reduce the size of the
depth of that garage somewhat?
MR. KOTYLAK: Well, the whole idea was
not to have a property with all kinds of sheds
and -- you know, make it one unit and look
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 38
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
nice. You know -- I don't know, too many sheds
on a house, it looks kind of -- you know, funky
to me. I would rather keep it clean. Ail in
one and have it look nice.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And could you
manage to get your equipment into a -- let's
say a five foot rather then an eight?
MR. KOTYLAK: I suppose it's possible
but I wanted at least -- you know, like I said,
an overhead door where I could drive the
equipment out easily. The log splitter is -- I
don't know, four feet across, five feet across.
You're proposing
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
a six foot door?
MR. KOTYLAK: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
your carpenter here. What is
that you could manage to --
MR. MCGANN: You mean
door?
Well, you got
the smallest area
the smallest size
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I don't
want -- we're not arguing in any way with your
desire to use this garage -- let's say, other
then for cars. We just are seeing what the
smallest size that is reasonable --
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MCGANN: I understand your
question. He would also like to have a work
bench along the back side of the wall. So he
can work on his tools and equipment and such.
So to put a 2- 2 1/2 foot workbench, you still
want
to be able to move his mower from where
the front of the car would be. So that is why
him and the architect came up with that
dimension.
MR. KOTYLAK: Basically, that
shed --
site,
MR. KOTYLAK: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
by the way.
We went to the
dimension, that area back is where the existing
shed is. I am not looking to go further then
that. That is really where that small shed in
the back that was really of no use. So I
figured make the garage that way and not
imposing any more on my neighbors side. You
know, I am coming actually into my property.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You're proposing
to expand upon what is a partial footprint now?
MR. KOTYLAK: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Demo the back
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 40
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
it.
with
MR. KOTYLAK: Okay. So you have seen
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
the dirt floor.
MR. KOTYLAK: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
coming off and you're just going to
dimension and run it all along --
MR. KOTYLAK: Exactly. And
into it this way and I didn't feel I
encroaching on anyone.
That is the one
And that is
take that
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. I
think it's important for the record to
the reasons why you're requesting this
particular size and are there other
alternatives for you.
MR. KOTYLAK: Sure.
MEMBER DINIZIO: It
variance.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER DINIZIO: 30%
20 feet for a car, I assuming.
going to partition that off --
MR.
open.
I am coming
would be
just
reflect
feasible
is a considerable
KOTYLAK: No, it's going to be all
Yes.
almost. You need
You are not
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 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
MEMBER DINIZIO: You just want to put
that garage door on the back or the side?
MR. KOTYLAK: On the side facing in
towards my property.
is kind
MEMBER DINIZIO:
of a hill?
MR. KOTYLAK:
Because the other side
is tough.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Ail right. Thank you.
MR. KOTYLAK: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just so you are
aware, the maximum that code permits on a
property that is a bit larger than yours is, is
Yeah, the grade
750 square feet.
MR. KOTYLAK: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
proposing more than that.
trying to explore with you
of a variance.
And you're
So that is why I am
what might be less
You said the yellow and green --
MR. KOTYLAK: The yellow and green are
detached garages in my area. The green alone
are two-car detached garages.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right, there is
like four --
MR. KOTYLAK: Right. I didn't count
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 42
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
people with basement garages that go into the
house. Some people have no garages.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Those garages
don't have any restrictions on size. It's
considered an accessory structure.
MR. KOTYLAK: Unfortunately, that
doesn't work with my situation.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No. Yours should
be compared to other similar detached garages.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is a one-story
structure, similar to what you have now?
MR. KOTYLAK: Yeah. There is a little
-- I believe the elevation of the roof line is
up a little bit. There is going to be a little
extra storage area up there, but that's it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I don't
have any further questions.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't either.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Oh, yes, I do.
This is going to be unheated?
MR. KOTYLAK: Yes, unheated. No
plumbing. Just electricity.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Unfinished?
MR. KOTYLAK: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right.
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that
further
this
date.
Is there anyone else in the audience
would like to address this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
comment, I will make a motion to close
hearing and reserve decision to a later
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6526 - THRESHOLD BLUE, LLC
SPARKLING POINTE)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Next application
zs for Threshold Blue, LLC, (Sparkling Pointe),
#6526. Request for variances from Article XV
Code Section 280-63 (Bulk Schedule) and the
Building Inspector's October 21, 2011 Notice of
Disapproval based on an application for
building permit to construct new commercial
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
warehouse at; 1) less than the code required
minimum side yard setback of 20 feet, 2) less
than the code required minimum combined side
yard setback of 40 feet. Located at:
1270 County Road 48 (aka North Road) in
Southold, New York.
Is there someone here to address this
application?
Nancy, do you have any green cards?
MS. STEELMAN: I don't. Let me see,
there were two. We did a search on those and
they were delivered. They both happen to be
Steve Mudd and David Mudd. Steve is here now
and they were actually hand delivered to him
yesterday. I can give you the tracking, if you
would like?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you just
please, for the record, state your name?
MS. STEELMAN: Nancy Steelman,
S-T-E-E-L-M-A-N, Samuels & Steelman Architects.
Let's see, as you can see on the site plan, I
am sure you have been able to study this a
little bit. We have a very unusual site. This
was subdivided, I am thinking around 1942 and
was probably at another later point, actually
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 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
zoned Light Industrial. So
configurations of the
minimum requirement
meets the one acre
but the minimum width
Light Industrial
dimension, which
the current
site, doesn't meet the
for Light Industrial. It
requirement. It's just over
for the current zoning
is 100 feet. The larger
is 78 feet along North Road
and bringing -- and that's on diagonal to the
road, bringing that down further to where we're
proposing our door main, 76 feet. So it's a
very unusual site but approximately 550 to 600
feet long and it backs up to the railroad
tracks. So it's very long, long and narrow.
My clients just recently purchased the property
and proposed a cape storage building for their
winery on site. It's very close to their
current facility. There is Light Industrial to
the west, which is currently a farm and
residential. And it is cultural conservation
to the east, that is now being occupied by the
Suffolk County Water Authority. Sparkling
Pointe is just to the east of that property.
So as doing our layout here, we realized that
we tried to maintain the 40 foot required total
side yard setback, 20 and 20, which is
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 46
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
approximate 36 feet long. The square foot area
that was required sort of created a building
that was required. This would have created a
building that was 172 feet long. And it would
be a very inefficient building for their use.
They have large pallets for cases and large
bins for some of their wine storage. And they
need a forklift to be able to access some of
that wine. And they need certain circulation
area between two pallets. You know, we tried
to design a building that is working for them,
in terms of its functioning. And also in terms
of trying to do something where we institute,
somewhat, on our site conditions. After doing
some little bit of exploration on the
proportion of the total area of the 40 foot
total side yard, that would be approximately
40% of the width of the property, that would be
required for this variance. If we take our 30
feet that we're requesting, that is
approximately 40% of that 78 feet. So it's in
range, in terms of what the code is. The other
point that I would just like to make is, the
reason why we located 10 foot side yards on the
Light
Industrial is because that is Light
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 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
Industrial. Yet it is currently being used for
residential use but it is Light Industrial. So
any other future development there would have
less impact. The 20 feet that we have along
the eastern property line, is for access drive,
that goes to the rear of the property. And
that is for additional storage area that we
have rear of the building, so we can access
that. And we have an unheated storage area for
miscellaneous items. Not wine in that space.
So there would be vehicles going towards the
rear of the property. We're also acknowledging
from the Planning Board that we also need
emergency vehicles access to the rear of the
property also. So instead of putting the
larger dimension on that side yard on the
western property line, adjacent to the
residences, where there would be a lot more
activity, we put the -- we utilize the relief
on the side yards to (In Audible) western edge.
This actually, we're working with Green Logic
on this project to do a thermal system and
solar panels, which is not shown on our
architectural drawings. We're trying to keep
this 100% off the grid. We're kind of excited
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
about that. So I think I have generalized
what we're proposing. Do you have any
questions?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can you address the
Planning Board's recommendations in shrinking
the building?
MS. STEELMAN: Yes. Yes. And I was
actually at the meeting when we discussed this.
We presented it to them and we acknowledged
their requirements. They would like to have it
22 feet along the eastern property line for
primarily emergency vehicles. I think -- I
talked to my client. That is fine. We can do
that and not a problem.
pallet
with
property line setback is going
MS. STEELMAN: Correct.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So you would be
shrinking the building by 2 feet?
MS. STEELMAN: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: (In Audible)
location or anything like that?
MS. STEELMAN: No, I think we can
that without a problem.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the easterly
to be 22 feet?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the westerly
work
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would
remain as a 107
MS. STEELMAN:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
width would be 44 feet?
MS. STEELMAN: Correct.
Board
Correct.
So the
memorandum. They
getting emergency
of the site and along the
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 46 now.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Why 22?
MS. STEELMAN: I think the Planning
-- I don't know if you read through their
were mostly concerned about
vehicles back into the rear
20.
it's a
MS. STEELMAN: The zoning is 20. So
little bit of a --
MEMBER DINIZIO: My preference would
that you make it 12 foot on the other side.
You reduce that variance.
MS. STEELMAN: Right.
MEMBER DINIZIO: They asked you for
more than what the code asked. That is why I
asked the question. Is it the tractor's that
think the
zoning is
be
side of the building.
of their standard
proposed
And I think the 22 is sort
for vehicle access.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
are
wide?
MS. STEELMAN: Gerry, I think it's the
fire vehicles. It's emergency vehicles. That
is what there concern is.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This would
require site Plan approval by the Planning
Board. I think it probably makes sense for
applicant to have consistent determination.
you're offering it, perhaps you want to
an amended site plan?
MS. STEELMAN: We could do that.
the 22 feet
that we can
particular
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
and 44 width and the
base our decision based on
amended application.
the
If
give us
yard is 10
And it's a
over 40.
You know, showing
10 feet, so
that
MS. STEELMAN: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The single side
feet, when the code requires 20.
combined side yard of 30, and it's
MS. STEELMAN: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So it's not
substantially changing --
MS. STEELMAN: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
The Planning
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board is going to require Site Plan approval
anyway.
MS. STEELMAN: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Nancy, how fast
can you get us an amended --
MS. STEELMAN: This afternoon if you
would like? I can get it to you very quickly.
MEMBER HORNING: Leslie, can I ask a
little more about that?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure.
MEMBER HORNING: The character of the
neighborhood, where the winery is now and the
Suffolk County Water Authority and the old
potato farm or whatever it was, were they all
one parcel and then that got subdivided?
MS. STEELMAN: You know, we did a
Single and Separate search on this. It's a
good 40 pages. It appears that the earliest
deed on the property was 1946 and assuming that
-- actually Steve might know, is that this was
a farm at one point. I think it must have been
Doroski Farm all the way over to Sparkling
Pointe.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sir, you're going
to have to come to the mic. We have to record
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 52
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this.
Doroski,
now, is
MEMBER HORNING: Nancy testified that
even though there is a residence there
Light Industrial Zoned?
MS. STEELMAN: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: Is that what you said?
MS. STEELMAN: That is right.
MEMBER HORNING: And how about the
Suffolk County Water Authority 5 acre parcel,
what is that zoned and I was wondering where
that was divided from? What parcel?
MR. MUDD: Good morning. I am Steve
Mudd. I am a neighbor across the street. I
have been a neighbor of the Doroski's for
years. So I can probably answer whatever
58
questions you have about that. I am a little
confused about the question, sir. Can you
define it a little better for me, please?
You're asking if the Doroski owned the Light
Industrial piece that borders this to the
east --
MEMBER HORNING: Yes.
MR. MUDD:
direction and the
Pointe --
And continues to the eastern
Doroski's owned Sparkling
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER HORNING:
Suffolk County Water
MR. MUDD: I
owned by Greenport Water Authority
No. If they owned the
Authority parcel?
want to say, no. That was
and as long
as I can remember that well, has always been
part of the Greenport Water Authority. The
Greenport Water Authority had that well and
another well on Gordon's Lane. They had
numerous locations in Southold Town. There was
no well of Greenport Water Authority owned that
was pumping out of Greenport that was
to my
owned by
Incorporated Village of Greenport,
knowledge. So that was previously
Greenport Water Authority.
MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Thank you.
eastern
Thank you.
MS. STEELMAN: One other point, the
property is zoned Agricultural
Conservation. So that is the AC
MEMBER HORNING: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER DINIZIO: How
Zone.
Ken, any
questions.
Jim, any more?
does the lot come
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to be?
MS. STEELMAN: You
single (In Audible) it was 1946.
when they subdivided or why or
subdivision of a larger parcel.
Board looked at it and it was
lot, they asked us to provide
them.
MEMBER
that.
that
MS.
I can give
MEMBER
know, based on the
I don't know
if there was a
The Planning
such an unusual
a search for
DINIZIO: I would like to see
I have a portion of it
you could --
STEELMAN:
you.
DINIZIO: If
MS. STEELMAN: Sure.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
MS. STEELMAN: Sure.
Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
else in the audience that would like to address
this application?
MEMBER DINIZIO: I have another
question. You have a winery that a (In
Audible) removed (In Audible).
MS. STEELMAN: Everything is in tact.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Is this building going
to replace anything that you have in the winery
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
that you have there? In other words, are you
going to increase the size of the tasting room
as a result of this?
am
MS. STEELMAN: NO. NO, not at all. I
not sure if you have been in the building.
Currently, there is a very large basement in
the building. There is a ramp that goes down
to a (In Audible) and then a substantial
basement, which primarily two-thirds of the
existing footprint of
Ail the cases are
bought additional
expanding and in need
storage. So it's not
tasting room will stay
staying
the existing building.
now in that area. They have
property and they are just
of additional case
going to be -- the
the same. Everything
a
two level
MS.
Actually, if
is
where they're doing all
also where the station
pack. So some of that
going down into that basement
loading and unloading.
the bottling and all
room is, it's jammed
area is going to be
level. Just for
the same.
MEMBER DINIZIO: We're not going to see
tasting room there?
STEELMAN: No. No, not at all.
you are there in the current area
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER DINIZIO: Will they be there
full-time?
MS. STEELMAN: No, we will not be there
full-time. We're putting a toilet room in
there basically to meet New York State Building
Code. So the only reason that is there is to
revise
would
we're
meet Building Code issues.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Right.
MS. STEELMAN: Would
that drawing?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
be great. So we can stamp
basing the decision on --
MS. STEELMAN: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: As
waiting for it to come. It
MS. STEELMAN: Okay.
closing the hearing today?
closed
plans
Thank you.
you like me to
Yes, I think it
the drawing
opposed to
just saves time.
Great. Are we
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes.
MS. STEELMAN: Okay. Great.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It would be
subject to receipt of an amended set of
and a single and separate search.
MS. STEELMAN: Okay.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have a quick
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
question, if you don't mind?
MS. STEELMAN: Okay.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Is this going to be
a bonded warehouse?
MS. STEELMAN: Yes. Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anything else
from anybody?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
else in the audience that would like to address
this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Hearing no
further comments, I will make a motion to close
this hearing and reserve decision subject to
receipt of a Single and Separate Search
document and amended plan.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 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
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
***********************************************
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
the hearings for lunch.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Motion to recess
Second.
Ail in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(Whereupon, a recess for lunch
was taken at this time.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Motion to
reconvene the public hearings of the Regular
Meeting
Gerry.
of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
All in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
Seconded by
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 59
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
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
HEARING #6525 - HERNAN MICHAEL OTANO
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before us is for Hernan Michael
Otano, %6525. This was adjourned from the
public hearing on December 1, 2011, so we will
not reread the legal notice.
MS. MOORE: Happy New Year. I just
wanted to begin --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: State your name
for the record?
MS. MOORE: Oh, I'm sorry. Patricia
Moore on behalf of Mr. Otano. I did submit
last week, a memorandum of law, which should be
had
to
part of your records. I am not sure if you
time to read it or not, but please do refer
it. I have -- Mr. Cohen is here on behalf of
Breezy Shores Community and he will actually
speak first. So I will sit down and have
Mr. Cohen introduce himself and continue.
MR. COHEN: Madam Chairperson and
Members of the Board. My name is Michael
Cohen. I am the attorney for Breezy Shores
Community Incorporated.
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
your
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you spell
last name for the record?
MR. COHEN: C-O-H-E-N. Breezy Shores is
a cooperative apartment housing corporation,
within which Mr. Otano's cottage is situated.
With us today is the president of the
cooperative Board of Directors and several
other cooperative shareholders, who took time
off from their schedules and their work today
to demonstrate to this body (sic), how
important this issue is. I came to address two
issues, the first is since it is a cooperative
cooperation that is the owner of the Otano
cottage, I wanted to briefly give the Board
some information about the relationship between
the cooperative and Mr. Otano, and also address
what Mr. Otano and the co-op believe to be
threshold issues, with respect to the
consideration of this matter.
I think all the members of this Board
have a sense of the history of the Breezy
property, so I won't go into that unless there
are specific questions, but just go back to the
year 2000. Immediately prior to that time, the
same group of people had rented cottages at
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 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
Breezy Shores for several years and they
decided that it would be in their best interest
to get together and form a cooperation and buy
the property, which they did in 2000. Once
they bought the property, they realized they
needed a system of governs to operate the way
that they wanted to and they decided to form a
cooperative education. They came to me for
assistance in that regard and in 2001, this
regular C-Corporation was transferred into a
cooperative housing corporation. The regular
plain vanilla leases that shareholders had were
converted
By-Law's
become a
into proprietary leases. The Board's
were amended by the shareholders to
good set of cooperative By-Law's and
the
property has been operated as a cooperative
housing corporation continuously since 2001 and
will be so operated in (In Audible). The
scheme of the cooperative and the proprietary
lease, is that like all cooperatives, the
cooperative corporation owns all the property
including all 31 residences, including
Mr. Otano's cottage, but the proprietary leases
make it the responsibility of each shareholder
to maintain, repair and replace his own cottage
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 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
at his sole expense. Since the cottages are
owned by the cooperative, the proprietary
leases contain some language, giving the co-op
certain rights, in the event the cottages are
not being maintained but is the sole
responsibility and financial responsibility of
each shareholder for his own cottage. That is
why this application is made by Mr. Otano, with
the approval and knowledge of the cooperative
Board of Directors, which has written a letter
to this Board in support of Mr. Otano's
application. So although Breezy Shores is not
an applicant, as the owner of the property, it
has a very significant and a very strong
interest in this issue. As a threshold issue,
both the cooperative and Mr. Otano ask this
Board to determine that the cottages at Breezy
Shores and the property, is not a nonconforming
use but rather a permitted use. The property
is located in an R-80 Zone. The R-80 Zone
according to the Town Code, permits one-family,
detached dwelling not to exceed one dwelling on
each lot. Not that there is any issues but the
cottages are used for residential purposes.
Not any kind of commercial purposes. The
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
cottages are unattached. They have the
single-family home use, as far as that goes.
The key determinant and I believe the reason
they have been found to nonconforming uses, is
because there is more than one cottage on the
lot. And the courts in New York has held that
in cases such as this, where there is a zoning
requirement for only one dwelling unit on a
lot, the presence of more than one dwelling
use, does not change the character of the use
from one family. It makes the structures,
nonconforming structures themselves, but it
doesn't make the use nonconforming. In fact,
one of the leading cases in this area comes out
of the Town, the Town of Southold. In 2004,
the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court,
the case of Dawson verus the Zoning Board of
Appeals, the Town of Southold, was asked to
consider whether the Zoning Board at that time
correctly withheld the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy from a cottage, which
was located on the same lot as a one-family
structure. And what the Appellate Division
found is that the use of that cottage was for
one-family occupancy purposes, the fact that
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there was more than one dwelling on that lot,
should not have precluded the issue of a
Certificate of Occupancy. What the court said
in one sentence, is the cottage, which is a
residential use situated on the same lot as a
primary residential dwelling, constituted a
nonconforming building, rather than a
nonconforming use. And I urge respectfully,
that that same line of reasoning should be
followed with respect to Breezy Shores. That
there is more than one dwelling on this
property and certainly there is no question
about that. But these are all unattached
single-family units.
consistent with the
suggest is that the
structures that are
So that there use is
R-80 Zone. So what I
use is permitted. It's the
nonconforming. And to that
extent, the Notice of Disapproval from the
Building Department cited the Section 280-123
of the Town Code, which governs nonconforming
buildings with nonconforming
would suggest
handled under
nonconforming buildings with
That difference
uses. What I
is that this should have been
280-122, which addresses
conforming uses.
is significant in that that
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
difference is critical. Not only is this a
technical argument under the definition of a
Section 280, which defines the R-80 Zone. It's
also according to recognize what the cottage
Breezy Shores are not. The cottages at Breezy
Shores are not multiple dwellings under the
code, under Section 280-4, definitional
section, because to be a multiple dwelling,
-- there would have to be three or more
dwelling units in one building. These
the
a lot of money to
different amounts
circumstance of their cottage. I
everybody, both at Breezy Shores,
purchase their cottages. Ail
depending upon the particular
think that
on this Board
cottages
are all separate. They're unattached. The
Town Code has a definition of cooperative but
the fact that Breezy Shores is operated as a
cooperative doesn't put it into any one
particular zoning classifications. And they
still as, cooperatives, can and can I suggest,
should be considered to be one-family detached
homes. There are practical classifications by
suggestion, finding that these cottages are
permitted uses rather then a nonconforming
uses. The shareholders at Breezy Shores spent
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 66
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 and the Town, would like to see these cottages
2 well maintained and improved as time goes on.
3 I submit that it would be peytonly (sic) unfair
4 and duly prejudicial, if for example, a cottage
5 burned down. There by the water, if there was
a hurricane and knocked down a cottage. To the
extent that they're determined to be
nonconforming uses, they would be unable to be
replaced.
determined to
nonconforming
But to the extent that they're
be conforming uses in
buildings, it would be a
different outcome. Also
they're determined to be
time goes by and all the
make improvements
to the extent that
nonconforming uses, as
shareholders want to
to their cottages and
maintain those cottages, they will all be back
before this Board in order to -- if their
building permit application got denied. It
would be less difficult for the Board. It
would streamline the process for the
shareholders. Ail in the idea that it's
everyone's interest for the shareholders
able to properly and best maintain their
cottages. So I would ask
considering this
to be
this Board prior to
specific details of the work
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that Mr. Otano did to
as a threshold matter,
these cottages should
be nonconforming uses
found to be permitted
nonconforming structures.
that the Board determines
his individual cottage,
to consider whether
indeed be considered to
or whether they should be
in conforming uses, just
And to the extent
that the latter is
correct and they're permitted and conforming
uses, that this should be governed by
Section 280-122 of the Town Code and either
Mr. Otano's building permit should be issued or
that the matter should be sent back to the
Building Department to determine whether the
work that is requested by Mr. Otano followed
the standard in 280-122, which is to either not
to create a new nonconformance or not increase
the degree of nonconformance. The fact that
these cottages are primarily seasonal use, also
by itself does not change the nature of their
single family use and should not preclude a
finding that they're permitted uses in a R-80
Zone. And I would ask that this Board make
that determination and then take that into
account for the rest of Mr. Otano's
application.
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 68
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
particular point that we take a
recess in Executive Session and
particular issue that was
at this particular point.
resolution.
MEMBER DIHIZIO: I'll
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER GOEHRIHGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
I think at this
five minutes
discuss one
stated by Mr. Cohen
I ask for that
second it.
Ail in favor?
(Whereupon, a recess was taken
the Board members went into
Executive Session. )
and
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right. Would
you like to continue?
MR. COHEN: No, I really have said what
I came here to say. So subject to any
questions, I will yield the microphone to
Ms. Moore and I think that the president of the
Breezy Shores Board of Directors, Ms. Mooreshin
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(phenetic) would like to address this Board.
Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
MS. MOORE: Thank you. I am going to
continue with respect to the work that was done
with the cottage and if you follow along with
the memorandum, the next issue that we address
is the reconstruction of the unit, which was
in-kindly and in-placed, with respect to the
elements that were from this cottage. The code
specifically allows and provides that the
reconstruction does not create any new
nonconformance, increase the degree of
nonconformance with regards to the regulations
pertaining to the building. I know that has
been an issue over the years as to when we come
in for a zoning variance and when we don't. In
this instance, the original permit for a
building foundation, the Building Department
issued a permit to replace the foundation.
Again, in-kind and in-place, except for the
deteriorated brick, it was now a poured
foundation but in the exact same location. At
that point, the owner began to remove some of
the interior elements and the exterior cover of
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sheathing of the house and found the
deterioration of the walls. It was obvious
that there was going to be a need for
additional work. The house was, as you recall,
was lifted. Dawn House Movers picked up the
house. The porch was still hanging on but very
quickly, as soon as the house was put on the
foundation, the porch was clear that it was
going to need to be replaced in total. At that
point, Mr. Otano, Amy Martin, and the help of
Fairweather-Brown Architects, they went to the
Trustees and to the DEC and got some approvals
to reconstruct the rear porch. Ail of this is
going exactly right in the position of the
original house. And in fact, what led to some
of the confusion early on when my client was
planned on a small addition, which would make
the cottage -- if you're facing the water to
the left, and the Breezy Shores Community
rejected that plan. So he was limited to just
repair and replace what he had. That is where
this -- this is where we are today, with the
condition of the cottage. The foundation is
new. The structural elements, what we did for
you at the inspection, was I had an outline
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 71
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that we prepared with the help of the
architects and attached to the memo, right
before Exhibit A, document. I put it at the
end of the memo, which describes the remains
the not reconstructed portions of the house
verus what was reconstructed. That was done
really to assist in the inspection process.
that when we came to this Board and I had
outline, I knew that you at least had an
So
this
Again, when we have an in-time and in-place
construction, there really should be no need
for variances, since we're not increasing the
degree of nonconformity. There is also the
provision that I cite in the memorandum of
280-125, which says even with respect to a
nonconforming use, that's not withstanding any
of the foregoing regulations and therefore all
the regulations that it cites prior to, nothing
in this article shall be deemed to present
normal maintenance and repair then building or
taring out upon the issuance of building permit
of major structural alterations or demolitions
opportunity to see what we're describing on
that outline. I know that you were all there
and you were able to see for yourselves.
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
necessary in the interest of public safety.
that language specifically gives the Building
Department the authority to give a building
not
So
permit when you're making -- again,
changing the footprint. Not changing even the
volumes of the structure. You're replacing the
existing structure, which in many cases would
not meet the State Building Code and the
obligation is to meet the State Building Code.
Again, in the memorandum, we talk about he 50%
rule, the State Building Code dictates that if
you make repairs exceeding a certain percentage
of the structure, you have to make the house
more conforming or those elements that you're
replacing need to be more conforming. For
example,
if you have a window and even though
you pop a window in and out, there may be a
need to upgrade the quality of the window so
that they're more energy efficient then what
was there before. Again, subjectively, it may
not be the hurricane standards (In Audible)
because there is a recognition. You are
popping in and popping out windows but
nonetheless, you have to make everything more
conforming. If we get to the issue of the area
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
variances, I did provide at the heart of the
memorandum, the standards of the area variance
and just from your own observations, I don't
want to reiterate or recite what I have already
written in the memorandum, but I do want to
point out, when you go to the property and you
look up and down from Mr. Otano's unit, up and
down the waterfront, there is a certain
character of the area. Certain style of
structures that is very apparent and for the
most part, uniformly 50 feet from the bulkhead.
That is the way that this community was
developed. From the water, it has a very
unique look to it. So that in a sense, we have
the uniqueness of this property is not only
from the land side, which in a sense is
difficult to see, since it's a 82 acre piece of
property but more so from the water side. And
from the water side, is why the community is so
adamant about maintaining the look and the
consistency of the
these cottages can
modern -- you know,
to be the
cottage.
glass enclosure. They
look of the original historic
So it's -- I cited the different
previous cottage. None of
be taken and replaced with a
have
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 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
cottages by number. You also have in your
file, a survey and you can see the setbacks of
the cottages. So with respect to the character
of the neighborhood, the neighborhood here is
so self contained Breezy Shores Community. 82
acres with the few -- with the number of units,
30 something units that consist of this
community. So it creates it's own character.
The benefits sought by the applicant can not be
achieved by some method feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other then the area
variances. Again, if we get to the area
variance issue, because again, it was in-kind
and in-place and the foundation has been
poured. It was replaced with a building permit
and that was properly. No problem. That -- my
clients ownership interest with a proprietary
lease. His real estate interest here is what
is the safe of the unit itself. And we can't
go more or less than what was there before.
Certainly without the permission or the overall
agreement of the community. And so far the
community has been pretty aggressive in
maintaining what has been historically in place
at the time of the 2000 co-op conversion. With
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 75
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
tl
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
respect to whether this is a substantial
request? Is it a substantial variance? Again
I would say -- I think the answer is logically
no, and even if we're at 50 feet from the
bulkhead. The bulkhead as you know from your
observations, was recently placed so that it is
brand new and in the perfect condition. There
is also stone jetties going there that protect
the edges of the bulkhead towards the north
side. And this is the community that has been
built up since the 1920's. For the most part,
has stayed the same. Will it have an adverse
impact on the physical and environmental
conditions of the neighborhood or District?
Again, the answer is obviously, no. We're at
our reasonable distance from the bulkhead, 50
feet from the bulkhead. The work has been done
to the foundation and to the house. We're in
line with the FEMA requirements. And all
activity that we have done on this cottage was
intended to restore the property to its safe
condition. Was the difficulty self-creating?
Well, the answer is, no. It has been in the
same location, again, since the 20's and it is
work that we have done in-kind and in-place.
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I do want to point out, last time I
was here, you very -- I think you gave me the
LWRP and I did have an opportunity to pull out
the LWRP. And it's interesting because, the
LWRP as you know, has the first -- the written
dissertation with the summary and the
conclusions and the planning study that is
makes up the LWRP. And it addresses the
different reaches of the Town. This particular
reach is Reach 6. This actually is a specific
description, discussion of this property. And
the interesting thing is, when this was
adopted, I believe in '94, shortly after some
applications that were submitted. There was an
recognized, had
respect to this
original submission while, the Sage owners were
trying to sell the property before the co-op,
there was an application to do a condominium.
That was denied. There was an application to
do a subdivision. That was denied. Ultimately
the development of this property was
development pressures, with
property. And what the LWRP
reported, Valerie Scope has wrote at the time
was, she said and I quote page -- well, we had
it numbered as Page 503. It's actually Reach
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 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
6, Paragraph 28. And I can give that to you.
This is from the row of pages. It says, the
property faces significant obstacles to
development because of its clay soils and
improved -- lack of improved access. It says,
presently the site is improved with 30 plus
summer cottages and one year-round residence,
of which the (In Audible) are considered, based
on her mind, a nonconforming use. I think we
have discussed what the law has addressed as a
nonconforming use. She goes on to say 1996,
the property owners were granted permission by
the Building Department to repair the cottages.
Sufficiently to allow them to be rented
seasonally, thereby ensuring the continuance of
this nonconforming use for (In Audible) year
term. There was -- back in '95-'96, the
recognition that there was an interest in
preserving these cottages. Certainly, the Sage
Family at the time was faced with circumstances
that in fairness entitled the repair of the
cottages but since then, the policies of the
Town have really been changed. In the sense of
preserving this property the way that it is.
And the fact that it is a co-op has ensured
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 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
that success in continuation. With respect to
the LWRP, Mr. Terry cites that it is an
inconsistent -- it's inconsistent with the LWRP
but I think because he looks at it solely as a
setback from the bulkhead and any time you
don't meet the setback of 75 feet, it would be
deemed inconsistent. But I think he fails to
recognize that the document itself emphasize
the preservation and the continued protection
of the properties. So I would ask that that be
considered with respect to the LWRP. I would
like to have enough time to address any
questions the Board has. We did -- I
apologize, the next issue that I almost forgot,
is the issue of the amount of work that was
constructed and we did provide at the end of
the memorandum as an exhibit, Rob Brown's
certification. It was based not only on his
own observations but the outline that was
prepared about the work that was done. And he
concludes that there was -- there was less than
50% of the existing structure, having been (In
Audible) abolished because that is the term
that has been used by the Building Department.
In fact, this is standard reconstruction for a
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 79
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1920's version, 1950's repairs and overall kind
of slapping together overall repairs to
cottages. So I think realistically, anytime,
you're doing any work to cottages of this
vintage, even later then the 1980's, you're
going to be faced with structural issues that
are going to need to be restored and
reconstructed. That is all I have. I guess at
this point, I will step back and answer
questions that you may have and go on. Thank
you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you want to
someone to speak from the association?
MS. MOORE: Sure.
MS. MACHI: Hi, good afternoon. My
name is Ms. Machi and I am on the Board for
Breezy Shores Community Inc., and I am
remarkably nervous.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's okay. You
can start with spelling your name for us.
MS. MACHI: Sure. M-A-C-H-I, Machi.
Thank you for taking this time to hear our case
and thank you esteemed counsel.
So I have clearly nothing prepared
here. I want to thank you and in advance for
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 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
considering our case. As I said, I am here to
give you from my heart and from my brain as
well, a small timeline, I guess you can call
it, and how this co-op is remarkably in the
past. As you know, started in the 20's and
from the Sage Family and the legacy of the
brick and extraordinary solidity of a brick
factory. Creating a foundation for a
community. Built from a solid to a very -- I
don't know how you call it, a logical home for
several families. From the past and from the
present and going forward and the future.
Where we hope to be working in a community with
the Town and with our neighbors, maintain and
sustain a living community that gives home to
grandfathers, grandmothers, children, brothers,
sisters, etcetera, etcetera. I am getting
really nervous and I don't know why. Anyway.
So again, this is a -- from the heart and from
the brain, a hello and introduction and I hope
that you consider what we have placed in front
of you today and a look forward to Hernan, who
has made a great commitment to maintain and to
-- keep this cottage solid and for the past of
creating a new foundation and also to the
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1t
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
future. And in hopes that we will continue
have a sustainable, healthy, positive
relationship with the Town, ZBA and the
to
We really stressed to maintain that look and
since I have probably been there longer then
anyone else, on a regular basis. I just wanted
to say that it's my second home. Now my
Trustees. That is all I have to say. I would
like to ask any of the other gracious people if
they would like to say something, then not,
okay. Don Wilson is also in the court and is
going to say something.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right.
MR. WILSON: Good afternoon. My name
is Don Wilson. I just wanted to express my
overall interest in this. I first went out to
Breezy in 1967 and rented a cottage from Sage.
My three children grew up there. And then as
it closed, I disappeared and I came back 30
years later and bought the exact cottage that I
had rented before. And I was on the first
floor, and one of the things that we tried to
maintain at that time was the essence, the
beauty, the historic value. We even had a list
of paint colors that you could use on the trim.
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 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
use. I have
progress there.
came up with
I think that
grandchildren come out. And we're into our
third generation of Breezy Shores
a lot of interest in Hernan's
Some of the difficulties that
weather and everything else.
we're all in place that we want to see -- you
know, everything completed and looking nice.
And our community can move on and step forward.
I truly have nothing else to say but just show
my support for the community and what we're
trying to do.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you just hold
on for one second, Mr. Wilson?
MR. WILSON: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I mentioned this
at the last hearing. We did receive a letter
and counsel made reference to some Breezy Shore
Board of Directors. As I mentioned at that
time, there is no signature. It's just a
letterhead. This is the letter that we got.
And if in fact, the Board wishes to submit
something in writing, it would certainly be
much more useful to us. For the fact that it
was signed by someone who had the authority to
represent the co-op Board. Okay. So I mention
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 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
that to you and perhaps you can mention that to
the Board. Secondly, you mentioned now, some
sort of standards in which you want to maintain
the historic character of the neighborhood. On
the C & R's that the co-op has imposed upon on
all the --
MR. WILSON: Excuse me?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
restrictions section.
MR. WILSON: Oh, I really don't
The covenants and
know
about things like that.
MR. COHEN: There are not specific
C & R's that address certain rules as you might
find recorded in the Office of the County
Clerk. But the proprietary lease does say
shareholders can not make alterations to their
cottages without first getting approval in
writing from the Board of Directors. And there
is a process in place to solicit that approval
including a submission of plans. If
applicable, a submission of an Engineer's
Report, information as to color, style. To
that extent, something very similar to a C & R
exist. And in response to your first question,
I would like to -- permission to have the
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 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
opportunity to submit something on behalf of
Breezy Shores to this Board following the
conclusion of the hearing. I think two weeks
would certainly be fine. Thank you.
MS. SZRAKA: Good afternoon. My name
is Helen Szraka. That's S-Z-R-A-K-A. My family
as well as Don Wilson's, has been coming to
Breezy Shores since the 1980's and we're in
fact the same situation as Don's children and
it's now our grandchildren that come out and
spend time with us. I think my concern mostly,
is the fact that there
about Otano having to
has been some discussion
move his house back 25
would be a really such a
Breezy Shores,
feet and I think that
negative thing to happen to
considering the historic place in this
community. As Mr. Cohen has mentioned, that
all the cottages are lined up in a row and to
have this happen to us would be such an awful
thing that I can't even envision it. So I ask
you to take that into consideration. I am not
exactly sure where the violations have happened
or if any have. There seems to be a lot of
confusion, at least in my own head about what
rules we're supposed to be looking at. Taking
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 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
into consideration the situation at Breezy
Shores. And so I am just asking you to take
that into consideration. This is really a
historic property. We're trying to maintain
it. The houses or cottages, as you know, have
been in absolutely terrible condition. We're
trying to do our best for ourselves and the
Town of Southold. I think it's a very precious
property, and so my only question to you, is to
really consider what you're doing to us. We're
trying to do our best. We have been here
before and the Town of Trustees to have jetties
put in to maintain the properties. We've had
(In Audible) with the Town and I think we just
want to maintain that. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. We
will continue in a moment but we just have some
people from the Building Department that would
like to have --
MR. OTANO: Just one? I am Hernan
Otano. I thank my neighbors for coming out.
As you can see, we're a very tight community.
It's been a very difficult time for me going
through all of this because my head has been
swirling since Day 1, of just processing it.
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Just to put it in perspective, when I got the
Trustee's permit, everyone is talking about
permits, permits, permits. I got the Trustees
permit for the foundation. I thought that was
it. I didn't know you needed a building
permit. I didn't know how to process in doing
We have come this far. I just want
anything.
to say t was one of the renters in the 90's and
I was lucky enough to buy it. I was married
out there. The place has a lot of memories. I
just -- I made some mistakes in trying to fix
things and make them better. As you know, I am
very interested in the same things as my
neighbors and in the aesthetics. I love that
place with all heart. It's all I have. I have
a little hole in the wall in the City and I
probably spend as much time, when weather
permitting, out there. The community is very,
very special to all of us. And I have seen
neighbors children grow and now Facebooking me
and it's just -- I can't tell you how important
that is. All the other things, structural
things, I think they speak for themselves. So
that is sort of why I have this legal team here
because I don't really get it. But as you can
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
see, we're really compassionate and trying to
keep a community as it is and was for the
future. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. We
Inspector, Michael
have with us, Chief Building
Verity and also Patricia Conklin from the
Building Department. And our purpose today is
to gather as much of information from the all
the different parties, from all those that
contribute and our complete understanding of
this process. So I would like to ask either
one of them to come forward and answer a few
questions from the Board.
MS. CONKLIN: Pat Conklin, Permit
Examiner with the Town.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let's start off
with the Notice of Disapproval.
MS. CONKLIN: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The notice was
written for a demolition and a construction of
a cottage, a seasonal cottage. There is a area
variance for a bulkhead setback, which we all
know is the case with all
just this one. And it is
nonconforming building
the cottages, not
also described as
with a nonconforming
a
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 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
use. So I would like to ask you why the Notice
of Disapproval was written as a demolition and
why was it written as a nonconforming structure
and a nonconforming use from the Building
Department's point of view?
MS. CONKLIN: Well, my business is to
look at conformity. And when it was brought to
my attention, first that the project had gone
beyond the scope of work that was issued. It
was to repair the foundation. Get more
compliance and FEMA compliance. I looked at
the paperwork. Saw pictures from the Trustees
and determined with the site review, determined
that it was a nonconforming building. No. 1
because it's a seasonal cottage and it's less
than 850 square feet. Therefore it fits the
category of a nonconforming building. The
second part of that nonconforming use is, it's
the second structure as a principle building
which is on that property. For formality in a
sense, but that's how we review for
nonconformity or conformity. We do it with
many other properties in the Town. This is
just one of them.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Are you saying
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 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
this is the way the Building Department has
historically issued --
MS. CONKLIN: That's correct. We have
a second structure after the principle one and
have one lot. And then there are subsequent
structures, they're not permitted as of right.
So that is why it would be sent to you as a
nonconforming use. And then in addition, this
is a nonconforming building because it's a
seasonal cottage as such on the CO and it's
less than 850 square feet, as defined in the
Southold Building Code -- Town Code.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let's address the
issue of demolition and the Stop Work Order.
Why was that issued and why --
MS. CONKLIN: It came to my attention
from the Trustees from some photos, that the
building had really been redone to quite an
extent and I paid a site visit in early
December to confirm that this was the case.
And from my observation, it had gone beyond the
scope of a foundation. You know, just to raise
the house on different piers, so to speak. It
had gone beyond that and it had been more of a
reconstruction because of what I had observed
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 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
on the site.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Did you make a
subsequent site inspection of the interior of
the building?
MS. CONKLIN: I went out to the
interior in mid December to see what in fact
the inside had looked like and it had undergone
quite a bit of reconstruction on the inside.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you tell me
how the Building Department defines a
reconstruction in-kind and in-place, can you
make that interpretation?
MS. CONKLIN: The only permits that I
am permitted to make are based on a decision,
interpretation of that of a ZBA, which in-place
and in-kind, only for repair and generally
minor repair. Like a porch is falling apart
and they want to -- someone wants to sure it up
and improve it or just a minor repair in-kind.
I have never ever issued a whole house or
dwelling, you know, entire structure without
sending it to the Zoning Board of Appeals. To
you guys.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Are you or
Mr. Verity familiar with the Dawson case, that
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 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
can not
counsel raised relative to --
MS. CONKLIN: There are so many
decisions over a ten year career that I
say that it is fresh in my mind, no.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
Do any of the Board members have any
questions for Pat Conklin?
MEMBER HORNING: I have a couple of
questions. Just in reviewing the Notice's of
Disapproval and then the amended, I just wanted
to clarify what each one was all about. There
is a Notice of Disapproval dated
October 14, 2011, which was amended on
October 18, 2011, and that amended is footnoted
by saying, it was amended to as-built changes
discovered in the field. Can you specify
exactly what those were?
MS. CONKLIN: It was not -- no longer
exactly what was permitted in our paperwork
initially. Initially, it was to be a
foundation and I saw the site plan come in or I
was aware and I went and visited and saw that
it -- it has a further scope of work now.
MEMBER HORNING: So you mentioned you
had gone there for a site inspection in
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
December. You had also been there previously
or someone from the Building Department had
been there previously?
MS. CONKLIN: I am not sure if anyone
had been there but I had saw pictures from the
Trustees and initially had been brought to my
attention that work had been done beyond the
scope of the permit.
MEMBER HORNING: Okay. And then on
December 8, 2011, Notice of Disapproval was
amended again to reflect the current Notice
of
Disapproval and that has a footnote on it, it
was amended to certify the description of the
structure. And the only detectable difference
that I have seen in that, is instead of talking
about a seasonal cottage in the beginning for a
partial reconstruction and addition to a
seasonal cottage, and it got changed to a
demolition, was the first page that you talked
about. First a partial reconstruction and then
changed to a demolition, and then it got
changed from seasonal cottage to cottage. Is
there any significance to that?
MS. CONKLIN: I think I initially
errored by saying leaving out the word
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 93
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
"seasonal" up top and I had to clarify it to
that fact.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It was amended on
October 18th. It was written as demolition of
construction of a new dwelling.
MS. CONKLIN: Right, and I needed to
clarify --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: -- to say
demolition of construction of a new cottage.
MS. CONKLIN: Right. I had to specify
that.
any
it.
Jim,
MEMBER HORNING: Got
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: I would just like to
get into the seasonal thing, whether or not
it's a seasonal cottage or a dwelling.
do you have
MS. CONKLIN: Under the definition of
our code, it's not. It's not a single-family
dwelling. Even dwelling is defined as more
than 850 square feet in the Town Code.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Can you tell us what
makes
it seasonal?
MS. CONKLIN:
construction.
Basically it's
It's unheated for year round
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
use.
MEMBER DINIZIO: So it's not heated, no
insulation? That kind of thing?
MS. CONKLIN: Correct.
MEMBER DINIZIO: It has water in it?
MS. CONKLIN: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: The building, these
are seasonal single-family residences. Is
there any such thing in the Town?
MS. CONKLIN: Brand new today, we don't
like them, but in existence, there are
"seasonal cottages" as we call them. If
they're under 850 -- 850 seems to be the bench
mark or the pivotal point for calling it a
"dwelling" in our Town.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Because I was just
looking in the application to you.
MS. CONKLIN: Right.
MEMBER DINIZIO: So they're saying that
it's a single-family -- seasonal single-family
residence. I can't imagine --
MS. CONKLIN: We don't issues those
today. No, not as right. We don't get the
ability to put them on without going to the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER DINIZIO: You know what, I did
the inspection. I was there with you. I don't
know if you got the pictures. And it's not
something that I usually do. I don't go and
pick something off but I wanted to see it. And
I was amazed by all the new lumbar that is
there. I don't think I have seen one 2X3,
which is what the walls are made -- the
exterior walls are made out of, that was not
honey in color. Okay. I was just wondering if
that was your impression also?
MS. CONKLIN: That was my impression
also.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I got pictures of --
the wood has a nice 2x6's over the top of it.
It's all studded out real nice. Not something
that I would have seen there in that cottage.
And it seemed to me that the siding was a
little painted -- brand new --
MS. CONKLIN: There was sheathing, I
know that was painted, which seemed to be all
new. None of which was in our permit to start
with in October.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I was
they
if
just wondering,
took down those walls and put it back
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 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
up, is that a demolition?
MS. CONKLIN: To my mind it is.
is why I wrote the notice that way.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Based on that?
That
MS. CONKLIN: Yeah, observations.
MEMBER DINIZIO: More than 50%?
MS. CONKLIN: I believe.
MEMBER DINIZIO: 50% -- if you could
explain that, does that relate to the actual
amount of material or is it the value of the
building?
MS. CONKLIN: In this context, it's the
amount of change to the building materials.
Not money value. FEMA is money value. This is
just now change to the structure.
MEMBER DINIZIO: And would you consider
interior walls not to be holding anything up,
to be part of a structure?
MS. CONKLIN: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You would?
MS. CONKLIN: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. New windows,
wouldn't really make an effect on that?
MS. CONKLIN: As long as the framing of
it -- the framing of the space is the same.
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 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
MEMBER DINIZIO: I read Mr. Brown's
evaluation and seems to me -- I know there was
a floor left under there and the joists might
be all original. I could be wrong, and I did
look at the ceiling and the ceiling to me,
seems to be original.
MS. CONKLIN: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Th shingles --
MS. CONKLIN: With respect to the
windows, if you change out all your windows,
you're required to get a permit with us and it
should have been included in the scope of work,
which it was not.
MEMBER DINIZIO: That is all I have for
now.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken, do you have
any questions for Pat?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
we all
George,
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: At the moment --
did an interior inspection, by the way.
I don't think you were able to see --
MEMBER HORNING: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Because he lives
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 98
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
on Fishers Island. The existing roof, there is
no ceiling -- the roof that is there now, there
is a Stop Work Order that was placed on the
work that was being conducted. So right now
there is a tarp that is over that roof that we
observed. In your opinion, is that structure
enough to be maintained or is it likely that it
will need to be rebuild?
MS. CONKLIN: I would rather defer to
the architects on that. It was not in great
shape. I will say that. It was not in great
shape. You can see the sky in some portions of
it. That I do recall but I would defer to the
architects on the jobs.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I know you're not
an electrician, but what would you have to say
about electric that is currently in the
building?
MS. CONKLIN: Again, it didn't look in
good shape. It was a lot of loose wiring
around. I really didn't have an opinion as to
how you would complete the renovations in that
end either. I would defer to an electricians
opinion as well.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And I did notice
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 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
that there
is no plumbing currently in the
structure because that has been removed, for
potential harm of the environmental.
Nevertheless, there is going to have
plumbing system installed; correct?
it up
don't
like to
comments
heard --
to be a
MS. CONKLIN: I would assume so to get
working again.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. I
think I have any questions for Pat.
Mike, is there anything that you would
add from your observations?
(No Verbal Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Are there other
that you would like to make, having
MS. CONKLIN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Maybe have the
architect --
MS. MOORE: I would, but I would
probably like to put some things in context. I
don't think that there is any question that the
work that was done was beyond the foundation,
shouldn't have gotten a building permit. That
is not the issue. My client actually called
the Building Department for a foundation
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals t00
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
inspection and it was Gary Fish who pointed out
that there was work done to the structure
itself. And should have gone through a
building permit process. So he wasn't trying
to avert getting a building permit. It wasn't
his attention to squeeze anything by. It was
just lack of knowledge. And he called and he
-- Gary Fish said, okay, we have to get you a
building permit so everything is done
correctly. So my concern with the line of
questioning is we're kind of going, in a sense,
off topic. Going back to the memorandum, there
is no doubt the Building Department has to
follow the 50% rule with respect to the
structure and whether or not to make -- whether
or not we need a building permit and whether or
not make the material choices and so on and so
forth. To be more to code and conforming to
code. That is really not an issue. We keep
getting distracted as a Board, Zoning Board, is
we're going to say, well it's in-kind and
in-place, you know, you're taking it down and
reconstructed, we now consider you a
demolition. So you need to start over and move
the building. Change this and change that. We
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 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
don't have that situation here. Not only that
there is no 50% rule that the Zoning Board is
following with the code and please read the
memorandum. It explains it all in there. But
more so, because of it's co-op ownership, my
client has to restore this one unit out of the
31 units to comply with the co-op ownership and
his legal obligations to the co-op. So again,
in the memorandum, I did give you an analysis
that was used with the motel and the motel --
the yellow one there up on the Sound, Sunset.
And Sunset, it was treated -- because it was a
fire, the 50% rule did apply in this case and
Sunset -- the Board looked at the case law and
it was consideration of the overall whole. And
that is the same situation that we have here
with the co-op. So I don't want to get
distracted with the line of questioning that
you are -- have been so customarily coming up
on the individual, single-family dwelling. You
know, have you taken down too much or not taken
down too much, and so on. No doubt there
should have been a building permit but the
Building Department should have -- should get
some direction from the Board and can issue it
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 102
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
without coming before the Board and that is the
issue of an in-kind and in-place, because
they're trying to follow Wall's decision. With
every case that comes in front of you, which is
reconstruction, and many cases there is some
alterations that increases the nonconformity,
but that is not the case here. And you're
going to find that there are other cases where
there is some degree of nonconformity. Just
the fact that you need a building permit. So
this case is important because I want you to
look at it for the co-op and help us but the
Town Board hasn't made a decision on what
replacement or reconstruction. As to zoning,
zoning regulations, you or the Building
Department
Department
Code, fine.
Department
is going to enforce. The Building
has its own set under the Building
But this Board and the Building
sending all of these applications of
reconstruction, back to this Board, that
becomes the difficulty. And you can see from
the comments that have been displayed, "I don't
know what to do. I don't know what I am
allowed to do." It leads to incredible
confusion and that is where, when I think, we
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 103
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
go by way of Wall's
that the one example leads
a little different first.
years, all of a sudden,
different scenario then
originally contemplated.
the amount of work, did
with the -- with Amy or
MEMBER DINIZIO:
MS. MOORE: --
MEMBER DINIZIO:
decision by code revisions,
to another, which is
And then overall ten
you're in a really
the Wall's decision
So with respect to
you want to go over it
Ian --
Can I just --
yeah.
My line of questioning
with respect to that, had more to do with
coming out historically. How this is a
historic site. And what makes it that, is the
location of those cottages. To the water, you
know, 50 feet. How there is 30 of them --
MS. MOORE: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: And the cottages
themselves. So in my mind, that is what I am
looking for now, if a cottage is historic and
you replace the entire thing with the same
thing you had? In other words, if everything
is new there, is that historic? You just told
me, new windows, new electricity, new siding.
MS. MOORE: That's considered
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
reconstruction restoration. If you do a
historic structure the renovations, alterations
we were going to do -- let's say to a building
like mine, I had a foundation problem that was
historic. I had to replace a portion of the
foundation. I didn't have a choice.
Structurally it was unsound. You had to
replace. Again, it was in-kind and in-place.
It was a bunch of rocks. It had to be poured.
So I have most of my foundation being rocks and
a portion of it to be poured because you can't
replace with the materials that were in place
at that time.
MEMBER DINIZIO: That is what I am
saying. That is what I am talking about
historic.
MS. MOORE: Historic here, you have the
character of the community and a co-op as a
whole. If my client or any one of these --
let's assume that no one touched a unit and
they came to you and said I want to put a glass
tower and the community agreed with that, you
would be looking at this glass tower and it
would be increasing the degree of nonconformity
with respect to the bulkhead. Now you're
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
t8
t9
20
21
22
23
24
25
putting this big glass tower on top. You would
look at it and say wait a second, the historic
nature of this community. And again, I think
that's why the LWRP, there was a discussion of
this -- this property and the preservations of
the property. And the property can't take a
unit away from the overall 31 units. They all
act in a community in and of itself. So to say
that well, this one -- God forbid that there
was a hurricane and three units were destroyed
with the hurricane, would they be entitled to
go and be put back? Exactly where they were,
because everyone's proprietary interest would
be only as to the portion that they owned. You
would be looking at it and saying, not only
because of the motel case, it's part of an
overall whole. There is no difference here.
This unit is part of the overall whole. And I
did check with our historian to see if this
place ever declared a historic -- you know on
the national registry. It never has been but
that doesn't mean that it's not culturally
significant to the community. And I think
again, the LWRP sets forth its importance to
the community and it's importance to preserve
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 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
it. The co-op has done that. Nobody could
have anticipated in 1995, when it was
originally -- when the LWRP was prepared.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I am still wrestling
with a new building, new siding all the way
around this thing, does that constitute what
was there before?
MS. MOORE: But the code does address
that. Remember, the reconstruction is
specifically allowed in the 122, I think it was
that I cited. Let me pull it. When you read
the memo, maybe it will answer your question.
Again, 122 says nothing in this article shall
be deemed
to prevent the remodeling
I mean, this is a
or enlargement. It goes beyond
enlargement of a nonconforming
reconstruction.
reconstruction
that. It says
building.
CHAIRPERSON
The memorandum of
jives
Notice of Disapproval written by the Building
Inspector.
MS. MOORE: I understand --
law that you and counsel have presented
with the language that this Board will
interpret, agree with or disagree with
WEISMAN:
the
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's a little
more complicated then your typical situation
MS. MOORE: This is unique.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We know that it
is unique and you're absolutely right to the
historic nature and character. It is different
then a historic building that has been
registered --
MS. MOORE: I am --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You're
suggesting --
MS. MOORE: No. No, not at all --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: -- certainly it
does speak to the character of this
neighborhood and this Board is fully aware of.
MS. MOORE: But you have situations in
Orient for example, where some of the houses
are almost completely constructions. Some of
them have been reconstructions that were
architecturally the same house but essentially
-- you know, the materials are all new. And
that is in a historic district. So here we
have a culturally significant location and I
don't see the distinction. I see that the code
does allow for the in-kind and in-place
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 108
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
restoring -- repainting. Remember, his efforts
here were initially, pick-up the structure and
put it on the foundation. He didn't plan or
budget for the amount of work that has been
done here. That happens when you all of a
sudden in placing the exterior with a new --
something that wasn't planned. That is why
there is new sheathing there. You take that
material off and you see, oh my goodness. The
way that this was constructed was essentially
with a toothpick. So that is when again, the
code, the State building code directed and make
sure that when you're building, you do it right
and properly. But that is in conflict I see
with the Zoning Code but not in the overall
context of 1 out of 31 units on a 82 acre piece
of property. The roads, the infrastructures,
everything was related here. It is all
integrated. You can't just take this one unit
and say, well, you have reconstructed, it's
gone. One of the issue -- this issue actually
interestingly came up in the 90's and Gerry you
may remember this. In the 90's, it looked like
En-Consultant's for the Sage Family was doing
the building -- needed building permits for
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
restoration repair and the Building Department
and the Zoning Board, because that is the
application that never went anywhere, the
Zoning Board asked them to provide an
engineer's report to determine the extent of
the renovations, modifications, maintenance
and/or reconstruction. Including new
foundation or description of new pier
construction. So in the 90's you were looking
at this, not in the use that was not permitted.
It was citing the section that is the
reconstruction provision. And at that time,
Joe Fischetti prepared an Engineer's Report
for
all the cottages to distinguish between those
cottages that needed cosmetic verus building
permit. And at that time, he gave a report
that said this unit has "X" amount -- he says,
as per the entire unit, 60% is the foundation
-- or 30% is the foundation. This part. This
part. 60% of that percentage needs work. So
overall it was identified 10 years ago that
there was going to be a need for building
permit issued work and non-building permit
issued work. And it was with an Engineer's
Inspection that identified unit by unit. So
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 110
that is as far back as '95. It's no different
today. Except for the fact that now the
community, the unit owners, come up with that
engineer/architect, to determine what extent of
work is going to be required. In this case, it
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
was absolutely clear the foundation needed to
be replaced. There was no doubt about that.
Beyond that, it should have just gone through
the process of getting a building permit. When
the time comes up, you look at it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me ask you a
question.
MS. MOORE: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You presented a
different interpretation then what is the
Notice of Disapproval, one thing that we're
concerned when looking at area variances is
because then it's (In Audible) --
really
MS. MOORE: I understand.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is just
one small part of this circumstance.
We're looking at the definition of use,
nonconforming use, and how we interpret that,
okay? I am sure, counsel, lawyers in the area,
are familiar with the use variance standards.
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
They examine assets like economic hardship.
They examine aspects that deal with the unique
ability to realize any kind of reasonable
return on any use on that property, which
clearly --
MS. MOORE: I think I have established
already by prior applications.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You have put
forth your considerations for your client. The
possibility of examining our standards as to
whether or not a use variance may not be
something that we might consider and obtain --
MS. MOORE: Well, just momentarily, if
I can explain that analysis, that
think that the case law has given you
that -- I
guidance
on a residential use. And the courts have
said, it's either residential or commercial.
We're not asking for a pig farm on this
property.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We
about the options available here.
have to think
MS. MOORE: Okay.
MR. COHEN: If I may?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Please.
MR. COHEN: We have given some
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 112
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
consideration to asking this Board to entertain
the possibility of a use variance under 267 of
the Town Law. In order to get there, the --
this Board has to determine that these cottages
are not permitted uses. If you agree with our
argument that they are, then we don't have to
get variance issue. So first, the Board would
have to disagree with us. So to that extent,
it could be a fall back argument for us. If I
understand, Ms. Conklin correctly, there were
three primary factors that the Building
Department relied on to determine that these
cottages are nonconforming uses. The seasonal
nature of the cottages. The fact that they are
less than 850 square feet. The fact that it's
the second structure on a lot. You had
mentioned the Dawson case, which comes out of
this very Town. The Dawson case says very
clearly and very plainly, the fact that the
structure is the second structure, doesn't make
it a nonconforming use. You don't look to the
technical word in the statute to look at the
use of which it is put. It's put to a
residential use, the fact that the second one
doesn't make any difference. There is also
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
similar case law with respect to the seasonal
nature of the cottage and I will be brief.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am sorry, I
don't mean to interrupt. I just got a note
that there will be an arraignment at three
o'clock. Yippie, and so we're are already
behind. So a couple --
MR. COHEN: I will take five more
minutes of the Boards time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure.
MR. COHEN: There is case law coming
out of the Town of Southampton. I will cite
my memo, that says essentially the same thing.
The fact that a structure has a seasonal use,
does not change it's residential character.
That unless there is something specific in the
code exempts a seasonal use from a residential
seasonal use district, then that is not a
relevant factor to be considered. And my
understanding is that this Town Code does not
use seasonal usage of whether it's proper for
the R-80 Zone. So the fact that these are
seasonal cottages, doesn't change the fact that
they are residential uses. And with respect to
the third and final factor of this particular
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 114
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
cottage is less than 850 square feet. I
haven't at least as of yet, I expect that I
will, find any case law. I didn't know that
there would be questions on this issue. The
same line of reasoning's apply. The courts
never look to the specific technical statutory
language in issues such as this. They look to
the use of the property. This is used as a
residence whether it's 850 square feet or 750
square feet. That doesn't change its use,
which would make it a dimensional area issue,
rather then a use issue. So the fact that it
is less than 850 square feet, should not
prohibit this cottage from being determined to
be
permitted use in this area. It would be a
nonconforming structure, but it would still be
a permitted use. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
either of you have any reaction
you would like to state for the
Mike or Pat, do
to that, that
record?
MS. CONKLIN: The only thing that I
would like to add is that in late 2010,
Mr. Otano came in to us and presented plans to
renovate and expand on the building. At that
point in time, I told him what would be
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
required and in terms of the enormous amount of
paperwork and approval from multiple places.
Specifically, I addressed it with him. The
paperwork he was talking about filing, he
decided against and went to an alternative of
just raising the house at that time and that's
how we came to the issue that one permit just
for the foundation. It was explained up front
in late 2010 what would be involved and how we
interpreted, as the Town. For many, many
years, how we interpreted these properties.
Whether it be Breezy Shores or not, it was our
case history of how our case law and how we
dealt with these properties and how they were
building, which is not to never issue a permit
but go through the process and get the papers.
That is all I wanted to go on the record and
say.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
MR. OTANO: May I, because I do
remember the conversation? Yes, the expansion
was denied. Those plans were submitted. The
expansion was denied by the community. I made
an error by not following the communities rules
in asking our community for the expansion
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 116
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
first. I was trying to be pragmatic and get
the foundation permit, which was for safety
because it was failing. Once the expansion was
denied, we had a conversation and that is when
the whole repair came in. Obviously, that was
going to have to go to a ZBA. Once the
expansion was off the hook and we were just
going to keep the house as it is and spend all
the money to lift the house and put the house
back down, I did not anticipate as much
repairing as what you witnessed. When the
builder called me and he took the siding off, I
was in the city working, he said, there were no
studs here. I said to Mike and I talked to him
afterwards and I said, what do you do? He said
it's going to cost you more in material but we
will put framing to code where there isn't any
framing because it's not going to support what
you want to do. So I said, okay. Ail right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. WeTre
certainly going to continue to take testimony.
I am not going to close this hearing. There is
a lot to think about. And we're going to need
to read the transcript of today and perhaps ask
more questions and may have some more thoughts.
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Also, we appreciate everyone taking the time
today and coming in today and offering their
explanations. Thank you.
Because we have other applications and
an arraignment, I don't want to short circuit
anybody here or cut anyone too short, I am
going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing
to I think the next available date is in March,
the March Public Hearing. We can't get you in
next month but we can certainly get you in for
the following month. Do you want to do it
first thing in the morning? That way we will
be able to read --
MS. MOORE: No, I want you to.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I understand the
special nature of this community. We
understand that there is consequences for other
property owners and we want to be very careful
and thoughtful and give everyone an opportunity
to be heard. So I don't want to rush this.
Is this okay?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes.
MS. MOORE: While you're looking it up.
I know Hernan's concern he has raised to me, he
has already replaced the tarp on the roof
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
twice. It is just every day that it continues
to be exposed, damages and what has been done
with the material, would -- could he, I want to
say at his own risk, could he seal up the roof
so that it's no longer exposed to the elements?
in December and
just said, tarp
going to be at his
we will get
It's very difficult. I did ask
I think the Building Department
it off and if we agree, it's
own risk. I am hopeful that
through this
process,
reasonably based on
that we have given you. I
will do the right thing.
protect the structure.
all
am
I
MS. MOORE: Okay. I will speak to Mike
Verity. I think ultimately they would always
consult with the Board as well.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think not in
this case. That is really not our
the information
confident that you
am just wanting to
CHAIRPERSON
we had explained to
saw and told you on
determination that
needs to make with
really don't have
continue --
the Building Department
you and your client. We
the jurisdiction to
WEISMAN: Pat, what I think
you previously and when we
site, that is a
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 119
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
determination and our decision to make.
MS. MOORE: Okay. I will talk to them
and explain the circumstances.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So there is a
motion to adjourn to March 1st at 10:00 A.M.,
is there a second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING %6530 - LOUIS AND ELIZABETH MASTRO
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
application is for Louis and
#6530. Request for variance
and XXIII Code Section 280-116(B) and 280-124,
based on an application for building permit and
the Building Inspector's November 23, 2011
The next
Elizabeth Mastro,
from Articles XXII
Notice of Disapproval concerning proposed
demolition and construction of a new
single-family dwelling at; 1) less than the
code required bulkhead setback of 75 feet,
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2)less than the code required minimum side yard
setback of 10 feet, 3) less than the code
required total combined side yards of 25 feet,
4) less than the code required rear yard
setback of 35 feet, at: 1595 Bayview Avenue,
adjacent to Arshamomque Harbor, Southold.
Hello again.
MS. MASTRO: Hello, Happy New Year and
thank you for the first approval.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You just have to
state your name for our --
MS. MASTRO: Elizabeth Mastro,
M-A-S-T-R-O.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There are some
correspondences in our file that I want to make
sure you have a copy of. We have a copy that
we just got, the Local Waterfront
Revitalization Program Coordinator's Review,
which I will give you a copy of and also a
notice from Suffolk County Planning, indicated
a matter for local determination, in which it
doesn't mean a whole lot. Let me give you
that. So all the paperwork is good. So in the
interest that we know we have this arraignment
coming up, I would just like to review, what I
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1t
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
believe
to make
the relief
sure that we
MS. MASTRO: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And we
that is being requested is,
understand it correctly.
it from there. This is written as a
and construction of single-family dwelling.
One, the bulkhead setback is proposed at 32
feet, when the code required is 75. Two,
single side yard setback
requires a minimum of 10.
side yard setback
requires 25. And
yard setback of 34 feet
requires 35 feet.
MS. MASTRO: Yes.
is 7.9 feet.
to
existing cottage.
landward addition
retain the existing
And
can take
demolition
the
The code
here,
before
Three, the total
is 18.5 feet. The code
the fourth variance is a
and where the code
Making structural
existing structure.
MS. MASTRO: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We
the Board members remember
us for a demolition and a
rear
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You are proposing
setback from the
there is a small
to repair/replace as needed.
repairs as needed to the
all remember
you were here
new house and
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 122
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
at that time, we determined that it really
wasn't salvageable. There was an awful a lot
of mold and so on.
MS. MASTRO:
CHAIRPERSON
circumstance of
that.
it a
going
Right.
WEISMAN: I understand your
change and trying to salvage
MS. MASTRO: That's
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
one-story dwelling.
MS. MASTRO: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
the points.
correct.
And try and make
I think that
Let's take some
summarizes most of
testimony.
MS. MASTRO: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Tell us what's
on? Why is this not a demolition permit?
Why did the Building Department write it as a
demolition? Again, you're telling us it's not?
MR. MASTRO: The renovation. We're
going to add to the existing house with a new
roof as same footprint. So it's not a
demolition. We're going to save a lot of it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You're going to
save what?
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 123
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MASTRO:
of the home.
MS. MASTRO:
to do a new home is
When we purchased the house we
of dollars to do a lot of
house and in the meantime,
We're going to save a lot
The reason we decided not
because of economics, okay.
had "X" amount
renovations to the
the time passed.
By
the time we got the permits and stuff
that, income got reduced and it's not
like
economically to us to spend that kind of money
in a house that will actually surpass what the
value of the nature of the home is. If we
knock the house down and rebuild a new home,
we're going to be in a million dollar
investment.
MR. MASTRO: And also to consider, the
purchase price of this property, you all know
it and you have been there and we paid close to
$600,000.00 for this house.
MS. MASTRO: Without doing anything.
MR. MASTRO: To put another
$400,000.00, it's not going to make any sense
at all. So we just want to fix what is there.
We're -- almost four years we have had this
house. We're anxious to get this project
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 124
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
tl
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
going.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me ask you
something, the exterior walls, they're boarded
up and you really can't see what's going on.
Has the architect even looked at the extensive
rot in those studs?
MS. MASTRO:
place, we would like
to make the mistake.
to this meeting,
Just like
coming
permission.
there is a main beam underneath and rotted out,
we would be asking for permission at this time
to remove it and replace it. To make it more
sounder.
MASTRO: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If you cut that
back by one foot, you're going to get rid of
your rear yard nonconformity.
MS. MASTRO: One foot meaning?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: One foot, 12
There is one
we can ax right off the bat, the
going to have to rebuild
porch. You're
entirely.
MS.
thing that
Actually, any rot of any
to replace. We don't want
We're learning as we are
we have to ask for
you saying, if we find
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 125
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
inches. You get rid of one of those variances.
In other words, the code requires a 35 foot
rear yard setback and where you have it now, is
34 feet. If you cut that porch back, which you
have to rebuild anyway by one foot --
MS. MASTRO: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Towards the land.
MS. MASTRO: Okay.
MR. MASTRO: New foundation, of course?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, you need to
tell us what the scope of work on the repair
part is going to be. We know you're putting in
a new (In Audible) with a cellar
There is going to be stairs down
underneath from your side yard.
underneath.
to that cellar
MASTRO:
make a side
the water.
MS. You're absolutely right.
I have been talking to the architect. I want
him to configure the whole thing and how he can
actually sink it into the house. Like when you
have some type of lending and it goes right
into -- instead of being on the side or sticks
MS. MASTRO: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You are going to
yard even smaller when it comes to
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
out to the neighbors yard. Somehow we can come
in and -- it's actually for the heating for the
houses. You have seen the house.
pulling house from
the equipment underground.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes.
MS. MASTRO: We have thought
the the
to become more L-shape. We
square and small and not an
people. That can be a possibly.
the staircase and have it on the
know.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
question?
MS. MASTRO: Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
quick
about
front and putting
Again, it's going
want to make it
eyesore for those
We can redo
side. I don't
Can I just ask one
Has your architect
clearly stated that
foundation there is usable
the structure that you are
the major portion of the
enough to support
anticipating?
MR. MASTRO: Yes.
MS. MASTRO: He said, yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am absolutely no
architect. I am absolutely no engineer, but
have to tell you that, I think you are going to
run into problems with that foundation.
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 127
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
know,
MS.
foundation.
have
water
years
MS. MASTRO: You think so?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I really do. You
it's not pointed. It's
MASTRO: There is no cracks in that
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It really doesn't
to do with that. It is the fact that the
has been laying against it all these
and it has been against that foundation
and you just don't know how good that block is.
That is my opinion. I have been there three
times now, since you filing this application
and looking at it. If he gives you the
certification and it goes to the Building
Department, then that is fine. That is just my
opinion. I am not trying to get you to put a
new foundation. In my opinion, it's putting
good money into bad.
MR. MASTRO: I understand.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You know what I am
saying? You're proposing something very nice
and you know, you're fixing -- you're repairing
a portion of it. Putting a new cellar under a
portion. I mean, even if you went with a crawl
space underneath that. A brand new crawl
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 128
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1t
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
space.
know --
youTre
then
of --
already,
space.
space.
You're probably better off than, you
MS. MASTRO: This is what the law is.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I see the way
doing it. That is just my opinion.
MS. MASTRO: If we did the crawl space,
the rooms would be like this and then kind
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's a crawl space
right?
MS. MASTRO: No, it was not a crawl
It's not --
MEMBER GOEBRINGER: It is a crawl
MS. MASTRO: I see what you are saying.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am seeing blocks
that are not pointed any more. There is
constant add-on's to that location.
MR. MASTRO: We were concerned with
that too, Gerry, and we dug down and around it
and he was very confident that the
is sound and secure.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I mean,
see you come here a third time.
MS. MASTRO: I don't care.
foundation
I hate to
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 129
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
thing. The stairs in the
proposing are 3 1/2 wide,
But if you take 3 1/2 feet
Here is the
side yard that you're
which is reasonable.
off 8.8 feet, you
have almost no side yard. No emergency access
at all to -- you can access on the 10-foot
side. On the other side.
MS. MASTRO: Could we do it in the
front? Would there be no objections to the
front, from the street? Would you have
objections to that? If you move it to the
north side?
up to
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
you and your architect.
That is entirely
We're just
commenting on the variances. We mentioned that
it would be better to eliminate one variance
that is only 12 inches. It's better to keep
your side yards more conforming, if you can
move the stairs to some other place, you're
going to increase the combined side yard.
Well, they might not be counting the stairs
the side yard but the side yard has been
reduced to a three foot width --
MS. MASTRO: You're absolutely right.
MR. MASTRO: That is fine.
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What I would
really like to see and I don't believe that our
file reflects any written documentation from
either an engineer or your architect, really
analyzing what can be salvaged. What is going
to be questionable and what is going to be
brand new? get into
situations Work
Order --
MS.
thing
I mean, we don't want to
where again, there is Stop
MASTRO: NO, I don't
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
that anybody wants.
MS. MASTRO: Right.
understanding of
Outside does not
want that.
It's the last
alteration
apply to alteration.
I mean, my
is all inside.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If you're going
to reframe the whole wall, then that's new
construction.
MS. MASTRO: The bottom is going to
have enough
the definition. But you have to
framing to put a new window in.
MS. MASTRO: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is not true.
If you replace window. Even if you were
replacing and in-kind, it would go again with
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 131
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
stay. The majority is going to be the front.
And like you said, you want that one foot off
the front porch, we go with you. What's fair,
is fair.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What I am really
saying is that we have Notice for Demolition,
and you know demolition --
MS. MASTRO: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We would like
some clarification from your expert as to why
this is not a demolition.
MS. MASTRO: I spoke to the Building
Department and I asked them, why did you put
down as a demolition on the permit, and she
said it goes to the amount of work and what we
want to do. It goes under the "demolition." I
said, we don't want to do demolition
construction. We want to do an addition to the
house.
of
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's more than 50%.
That's why.
MS. MASTRO: It's not demolition. The
only demolition is going to be of the roof.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Wouldn't it behoove
you to have your architect here with you?
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 132
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
to make
MS. MASTRO:
MEMBER
it?
MS. MASTRO:
MEMBER
until
GOEHRINGER:
this he comes
proper documentation
we are going?
MS. MASTRO:
CHAIRPERSON
talked about the rear
I asked him to come today.
And he wasn't able
NO.
GOEHRINGER: Can we postpone
so that we can get the
from him, so we know where
about the side yard.
that we really need to have
Okay.
WEISMAN: So look, we
yard setback. We talked
We talked about the fact
some more
definitive information on the scope of work and
naturally a structural analysis.
MS. MASTRO: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If he has to go
in there and tare into the walls and look at it
and all that kind of thing, then so be it. We
need to understand so that there is no
surprises. We would like to move this as
quickly as we can --
have
MR. MASTRO: We appreciate that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I know you guys
been waiting a long time to get something
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 133
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
going.
MR. MASTRO:
the house, Gerry?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Board if they were interested in
interior inspection, and at this
Did you want to come in
may do it after we hear
We're going to schedule
11:00 A.M. That way, if you can
information to us prior to that,
time to review it. It gives him
I did ask the
doing an
point, no.
from the architect.
this for March 1st
get that
that gives us
time to do the
rot?
structural analysis. What percent is
What percent needs to be removed? The
condition of the foundation. Ail that
stuff. If he doesn't want to do it, I
you can get recommendations. This way,
have a chance to look at it.
MS. MASTRO: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Motion to
this hearing to March 1st at 11:00 A.M.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by
Gerry.
Ail in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
We
at
sort
am sure
we will
adjourn
Aye .
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 134
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: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
the public hearings.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
Motion to recess
So moved.
Ail in favor?
Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(Whereupon, a recess was taken.)
MICHAEL
GOLDEN
HEARING #6528 - MELANIE M, MARIANNE,
SELWYN, as tenants in common and JANE
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
application is for Melanie M,
Selwyn, as tenants in common
%6528. Request for variance
The next
Marianne, Michael
and Jane Golden,
under Article IV
Section 280-18 and the Building Inspector's
May 24, 2011, updated November 22, 2011 Notice
of Disapproval, based on an application for
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 135
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
building permit for a subdivision, at:
Proposed Lot 1; 1) less than the code required
minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet, 2) less
than the code required minimum lot width of 150
linear feet, 3) less than the code required lot
depth of 175 linear feet; Proposed Lot 2; 1) at
less than the code required minimum lot size of
40,000 square feet. 2) less than the code
required lot width of 150 linear feet, 3) less
than the code required lot depth of 175 linear
feet; located at 200 and 150 Three Waters Road,
Orient. This is an R-40 District, proposal for
subdivision. Just for the sake of making this
quick. There is two nonconforming lot sizes.
One is at 12,802 square feet. Lot 2, at 12,924
square feet. Two nonconforming lots. The code
requires 150 linear feet. Lot 1 is 100 and Lot
2 is 100. The two nonconforming lot depths,
the proposal is for 175 linear feet. Lot 1 is
at 128.64 and 2, at 129.85 linear feet. Those
are the two variances that we're looking at.
It's a re-subdivided merged lot, that are now
owned by two separate families.
MS. MOORE: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Take it away.
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 136
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. MOORE: Thank you. Patricia Moore
on behalf of the Selwyn's. Also in the
audience is Gail Wickham who represents Jane
Golden, who is owner of the house at this
McLaughlin is also here in the
because he represents the
MD for the vacant lot.
point. Kevin
audience also
contract, They don't
intend to speak. They are here to make sure
that I do my job.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MS. MOORE: And I do welcome any input
that they have, if they have anything. To
begin with, we may have a very interesting
situation. This is the first time that I have
ever seen this and I am sure the Board as well.
This is oriented by the Sea Section 1, which is
filed map. Filed at the Suffolk County Clerk's
Office. It is property that has been developed
for a very long time.
two vacant lots in the
applicant being one of
15-6-13, which is owned
Molfesdish (phenetic) .
Lane and Uhl Lane.
Section 1 has been
In fact, there are only
entire subdivision. The
them. Her lot is Lot
by Mr. And Mrs.
Corner of Three Waters
Other then those two,
completely developed. What
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 137
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-- in looking for history of Orient by the Sea
Section 1, I have found and I have submitted to
the Board and you have in your file, a letter
dated December 23, 2011, that I sent it to
Mr. Sidor of the Planning Board as well as to
Madam Chairman, and the Board, that this Orient
by the Sea Section 1, was approved by both the
Planning Board and the Town Board. It was an
open development area under 280-A back in 1958.
The importance of that is that the Town Code
still refers to in 240-26 with respect to open
development areas, it's still listed in the
subdivision regulations. And in particular,
let me give you the section of the code, it may
either one, not require this application at
all, but two, that even if this application is
required, sets forth the setback criteria that
were applicable at the time the open area were
approved. So I am going to give you --
So you can see in Section 240-26, it
says the Town Board may grant the applicants
the right to future approval of the creation of
lots and the issuance of permits for the
erection of structures, to which access is
given by right-of-way or easement. Such
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 138
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
rights, shall be in accordance with the
designated zoning district, density and minimum
lot size for the property in effect at the time
of establishment of the open development area.
That seems to be pretty straightforward and
pretty clear that setbacks are -- all of the
variances of having to obtain for today, are
all grandfathered by this provision of the open
development area. So I give that to you.
gave it to the Planning Board originally.
I
The
open
on
Planning Board was kind of baffled by the
development area and some of the old-timers
the Planning Board said, gee, I didn't know
that anybody knew about open development areas
in that time, but there are actually a handful
of open development approvals from the 50's and
they are set forth in these records. So I
think that establishes, a determination by this
Board that we don't have merger and we have a
grandfathering of the area variances.
Nonetheless, I do want to proceed with
our application, in the case or event that you
are advised that no area variance approval. I
have the -- a Google map that provides the
development of this area. I didn't make
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 139
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
multiple copies of this because I assumed that
you had this in your file. The one that Vicki
always provides as back-up. I do have an
aerial photograph that shows the entire
development area of Orient Point East One. If
you recall from my presentation, Orient Point
East Two, was one of the exempt lots. I don't
understand the history. I wasn't around for
the exemption provisions of the merger or why
Orient Two was included but Orient One wasn't.
Could it be that it was an open development
area and believed to be grandfathered? The
fact is the entire neighborhood has received
building permits. The situation today is as a
result of the timeframe between '83 and '93 and
the reason is that Costa's, the owner of these
two properties, originally bought from the
Withold's Development. The original
subdividers. They bought the property in '61.
The house was then sold in '93 to
Mr. Eberhardt. Mr. Eberhardt kept the house
parcel that is now owned by Ms. Golden. In
1993, Mr. Eberhardt -- actually back-up,
Costa's had originally gotten a building
permit. His permit had expired. I think he
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 140
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
t0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
chose not to build at that time. He sold the
home with the permit. Mr. Eberhardt renewed
the permit or got a new permit. I am not
clear, but in '93 got a permit. The house was
built to code. It was built with the proper
setbacks according to the Orient Point East One
setback that were established for the
subdivision. Thereafter in '93, Marianne
Selwyn and Michael Selwyn purchased the house.
They purchased, I believe in 2000 the house and
similarly, they -- I don't remember off the top
of my head. But nonetheless, or around the
same time, Costa's decided to sell the lot.
The lot was sold to the Selwyn Family in 2000
but they were careful to preserve the integrity
(In Audible) which they believe was in place.
Separate tax bills. The property was expected
to be developed. Selwyn's then sold the house
and said, they went and bought another house,
actually in this community. And decided to put
the lot on the market and market the last lot
subdivision and Susan DeBorbe went in and
believed that a building permit could be
issued. Went to the Health Department. Got
approval and later on, I guess Kevin
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 141
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
McLaughlin, and he can speak for himself, but
(In Audible) question because between '83 and
'93, there was common ownership with the
Costa's. Unique circumstances, but
unfortunately our Waiver of Merger Law was
changed and there wasn't -- we couldn't for (In
Audible) the tag of a Waiver of Merger
application in the code today. So at this
point, we have the application for the area
variances. Again, I go back to the open
development area. In the code it says that we
are entitled to the density and minimum lot
size for the property in effect at the time of
the establishment of the development area. In
1958 it was approved. The setbacks were
established. Actually every house in the
subdivision has been in accordance with the
setbacks in 1958. So again, institutional
memory changes over the years and the -- it was
treated as a merged lot, without the
recognition of the open development area. I
would be happy to elaborate at any point that
you want. I am trying to go smoothly and
quickly since this is pretty straightforward.
There was no intention -- there was overt
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 142
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
intention on keeping the property separate and
only because it was technicalities of the
Waiver of Merger law and we have to go through
this process. To have a piece of property, the
Selwyn's now own. Ms. Golden has a house. At
the time they were offered the lot, just if
they wanted to have the lot. As far as a sale
of a separate lot for the investment potential.
And at the time, she was said no, and she was
interested in the house. So that is when
Mr. McLaughlin's client went into contract. So
she is in contract and as I said, all the
Health Department, everything is approved and
you know, we are asking for this relief. I am
hopeful that when counsel looks at the language
and the Board looks at this, I think 240-26 may
be a unique provision for open development area
and grandfathered these lots. So if you have
any questions?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I'm fine, no.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 143
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
pretty
of it.
original
the developer.
lot until
Selwyn's.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think this is
straightforward in terms of the clarity
It was merged under whose originally?
MS. MOORE: Only during Costa's. The
owner of the property that bought from
The Costa's family retained the
2000, when the sold the lot to the
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They were not
aware that it had merged?
MS. MOORE: No. No, not at all. They
had separate lots. Separate variances.
Mr. Costa got a building permit for the piece
developed with appropriate setbacks.
There was no raising of the issue at the time
Costa got a building permit, that the property
had merged. That building permit was in '83.
Pardon me, '93. So in that point, there was
zoning, so it would have been an issue at the
time, but Eberhardt, who ultimately bought from
Costa and built the house, was never told that
there was an issue with the adjacent property.
At that point, Eberhardt owned one piece and
Costa's owned the vacancies. So it continued
to proceed under the belief that these were two
that got
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 144
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
lots and independently buildable.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
Is there anyone else in the audience
that would like to speak on this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Board members?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I will make a
motion to close this hearing and reserve
decision to a later date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING %6532 NELSON FAMILY
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our next
application is for Nelson Family, #6532.
Request for variances from Articles XXIII
XXII Code Section
on an application
Building
280-124 and 280-116(B),
for building permit and
Inspector's November
and
based
the
20, 2011 Notice
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 145
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of Disapproval concerning proposed deck
addition to existing single family dwelling,
at; 1) less than the code required minimum side
yard setback of 10 feet, 2) more than the
maximum code required lot coverage of 20%,
3) less than the code required bulkhead setback
of 75 feet, located at: 2955 Bay Shore Road,
adjacent to Peconic Bay.
Let's go over this. We have a 327
square foot proposed deck addition for a
single-family dwelling, 12 foot deep by 21
wide, with a side yard setback of 7.3 feet,
feet
The house is setback 38.9 feet from the high
water mark. The lot coverage is 23.8%. The
code permits a maximum of 20%. The existing
lot coverage is 18.5%. That summarizes that.
Just to address some of the issues.
MS. MARTIN: Good afternoon. I am Amy
Martin of Fairweather & Brown, 205 Bay Avenue,
Greenport. I represent the Nelson Family in
hopes of obtaining a side deck for their home
at 2955 Bay Shore Drive in Greenport. Robert
while the code requires 10 foot minimum. This
is to accommodate that depth. A 30 foot
bulkhead setback. The code requires 75 feet.
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 146
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
should you
a
and Bonnie Nelson are also here,
need any further input. This is small piece
of land nestled between two larger homes, on
the Bay, near Pipe's Cove. The cottage has
been in the
variance in
family since 1979, and granted a
1963 for a front yard setback of
36
feet. The interesting issue about that, is
that the house was actually built at 37 feet
from the road and now only 35 feet is required.
The property is unique in regards to the
configuration of its bulkhead. In that the
bulkhead is recessed from those of
properties and lessen the distance
to the bulkhead. As you must have
your site visit and from photographs
line of the
neighboring
obtainable
noticed on
submitted, the
and (In Audible)
these homeowners
houses on either side are larger
of this cottage and both of
have submitted letters, which
but they have no
request for this
I don't think we
you have hopefully received
objections to the Nelson's
addition.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
got those letters?
MS. MARTIN: I submitted them with the
application.
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 147
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Go ahead.
MS. MARTIN:
the same distance to
steps and landing to
extension will allow passage
the house. This design will
The side yard variance is
the south property line,
the side door. This
from the deck to
aid senior members
of the family without trip hazards. There is
no current outside area to dine or sit on the
property. The Nelson's are not requesting a
covered porch. The size of the deck requested
is what they feel be enough room for a table
and chairs and access with a walker or
wheelchair. We feel the request is unique to
the neighborhood and shall not set a precedent.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I found the letter.
MS. MARTIN: I knew I had them. I am
not feeling well today, so I don't need any
more shots today. But both neighbors are in
favor of this.
On the Fasbach side which is side most
effected by the side yard setback, there is a
large area of (In Audible). So they have
definitely no problem and it really doesn't
affect the neighbor on the other side, other
then the distance to the water and closer to
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 148
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the water. They have a different
configuration.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: However their
bulkhead is probably setback a lot farther from
their bulkhead because they are more seaward --
property has
MS. MARTIN: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And the
an inset bulkhead --
Nelson
idea
MS. MARTIN: I don't know the history.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you have any
how that happened?
MR. NELSON: I can probably tell you a
little bit.
CHAIRPERSON
forward.
MR. NELSON:
actually the trustee
which is my parent's
actually been in the
believe you misspoke
WEISMAN: Okay, then come
I am Bob Nelson. I am
of the property owner,
trust. The house has
family since 1959, I
there and it was bought
by
my father from Tom Jesinia who was also the
owner of the Silver Sands Motel. And I think
it was a tug boat captain and he helped to
develop the whole entire Peconic Bay area and
had a very good respectful to see and, so when
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 149
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
he had this house constructed, he decided that
the bulkhead should be further back from where
some of the neighbors wanted to put it, because
it thought it would be safer and less likely to
have storm damage. And that is why our house
is cut back a little further. The house to the
north, which is now owned by the Fasbach's,
actually
is probably closer to the bulkhead,
her bulkhead then ours is to our bulkhead. And
the Vava's House, which is to the south is
probably very similar in distance to their
house and their bulkhead. Did I answer the
question?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think the
to the north have the raised deck
that virtually is on the bulkhead,
neighbor's
and patio,
but Member
to inquire
property had the
way in providing any
bulkhead setbacks of
side of you?
Homing who had to leave, asked me
what the history was and why your
setbacks and if you had any
information what the
the neighbors to either
MR. NELSON: Personally, I don't know
the numbers. If you want, I can ask them? Is
that appropriate?
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 150
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. MARTIN: We can scale it off from
the aerial and provide that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That would be
good. Just so we have something to show what
the bulkhead's are on either side.
MS. MARTIN: There may be reference to
the Trustees on what either side of the
bulkhead is.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MS. MARTIN: I will gladly provide
that.
CHAIRPERSON
WEISMAN:
foundation
to put the deck over some
some sort of shrubs.
Jim, questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The plans
nonturf buffer on the site plan.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What's the
proposed--
MS. MARTIN: I believe I proposed 9
feet. I figured the Trustees would tell me
that had to be different.
You are proposing
plantings,
show a
if
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 151
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
until
because
Okay.
wouldn't
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
MS. MARTIN: But they
we proceeded after you.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
MS. MARTIN: And I only used mine
of previous applications.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What's the (In
hear us
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You requested or
proposed rather?
MS. MARTIN: Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That is to a
proposed landing at the top of the stairs?
MS. MARTIN: That is to -- over
Audible) of your bulkhead compared to your
neighboring bulkhead?
MS. MARTIN: I think that is something
that we -- it looks to be at least 20 feet. If
you look at the proposed deck portion and turn
that sideways, it looks about 20 feet.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
MS. MARTIN: And it needs to be even on
both sides.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The side yard
setback of 7 feet 4 inches?
MS. MARTIN: Yes.
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 152
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
occupants can come out --
door to this residence.
there is only one
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Right.
MS. MARTIN: So they can come --
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: There is only one
door to this residence?
MS. MARTIN: Yes. And come out and for
a walker or wheelchair to come around that area
to get to the seating area on the deck.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I am looking at
site plan survey.
MS. MARTIN: Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
concrete --
MS. MARTIN: That
Where it says
is the existing, to
that landing.
into that little
vestibule off to
that the door is
landing.
That would -- the landing goes
out cove, which is a like
the side of the house. So
right there on that concrete
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
out there. Then the area
proposes deck, that
MS. MARTIN:
pad.
the
Okay. So they come
that depicts the
proposed deck will --
Will adjoin the concrete
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 153
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
So my question is,
stair?
MS. MARTIN: Yes. Basically, if you
would have gone forward with the existing
setback along the property line. Straight out
with a landing in between.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
MS. MARTIN: The actual addition of
such is really in line with the vestibule that
is now
on the side of the house.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Which presently has
a 11.1 side yard setback?
MS. MARTIN: Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have no more
questions at this time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, only to the
effect when I went over and looked at it,
has absolutely nothing to do with this
variance. There was a Rescue Squad issue a
which
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
that is all portioned that -- joins the
concrete pad and at the top deck is more like a
little landing to that --
MS. MARTIN: Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That is part if a
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 154
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
couple of houses down. So I had to stay for
about ten more minutes before I could get out
of the driveway. It was absolutely horrible
because it was a magnificent day and I had -- I
looked back at the water and said, "My God,
what a beautiful piece of property." It truly
is.
MS. MARTIN: And
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
it certainly is.
It's perfect.
Jim, any
questions or comments?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
to address this application
there is nobody else in the
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
a motion to close this
make
Does anyone want
any further because
audience?
I am going to
hearing, subject
receipt of the information regarding
bulkhead setback of the neighbors on
side
and reserve decision
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON
to a later
Second.
WEISMAN: Seconded
Ail in favor?
the
either
date.
by
Gerry.
to
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 155
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.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
***********************************************
(Whereupon, the public hearings for
January 5, 2012 concluded.)
January 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 156
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
I, Jessica DiLallo, certify that the
foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public
Hearings was prepared using required electronic
transcription equipment and is a true and
accurate record of the Hearings.
Signature ' . _ __
~ Jessica DiLallo
Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York
11741
Date: January 22, 2012