HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/01/2012 Hearing 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
tl
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
X
Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York
March 1, 3012
10:11 A.M.
Board Members Present:
LESLIE KANES WEISMAN
GERARD GOEHRINGER
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
KENNETH SCHNEIDER
GEORGE HORNING
RECEIVED
/~ ::i (~ d i~.,~
BOARD OF APPEALS
Chairperson/Member
- Member
- Member
- Member
Member (Left
at 2:20 P.M.)
JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney
VICKI TOTH - Secretary
Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
P.O. Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
(631)-338-1409
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
INDEX OF HEARINGS
Hearing:
Hernan Michael Otano #6525
Robert V. Longo #6539
Louis and Elizabeth Mastro #6530
David Steele #6547
Dougall Fraser #6545
9105 Skunk Lane, LLC #6538
David M. Hall #6535
Patricia Mele and Cheryl Christiano #6542
William C. Goggins #6540
Roma Baran, #6544
Page:
3-45
46-70
71-89
89-94
94-100
100-113
113-120
120-154
154-165
165-170
March 1, 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 #6525 - HERNAN MICHAEL OTANO
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our first
hearing this morning is for Hernan Michael
Otano. This was adjourned from
January 5th, so there is no reason to read
the legal notice. Just go ahead and
proceed. Good morning.
MS. MOORE: Good morning, how are you?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good morning.
MS. MOORE: This morning, as you said,
we're going to proceed --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You have to just
state your name for the record.
MS. MOORE: Oh, I am sorry. Patricia
Moore on behalf of Hernan Otano. We are
here with regard to Unit #5 in Breezy
Shores Community, and fortunately today, I
do have Rob Brown here, and I would like to
continue his testimony with respect to the
work that was done at that property.
Mr. Brown had previously given you a letter
because he was unavailable last time. I am
going to ask him to come to the microphone
and we will continue with that, unless you
have something in particular you want to
March 1, 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
ask us before
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
we proceed with that?
No.
MS. MOORE: No, okay. Great. We will
resume with that.
MR. BROWN: Good morning. My name is
Robert Brown. I am an architect. I have
an office in Greenport. I am licensed and
registered as an architect in New York
State since 1984, and I have been
in New
practicing architecture York -- on
the Northfork, since 1984. Having been out
here for quite a while, I am well aware
that one of the things that all of the
Board's in the area, such as yourself,
struggle with, is determining the amount
relative -- the demolition that is taking
place on a particular project. And I
wanted to explain why I believe that this
is less than a 50% demolition. I
calculated the square
material, the garage,
the ceiling structure.
footage of structural
the floor structure,
The roof structure.
I do not include the cement surfaces
because generally speaking, can be and are
repaired and/or replaced, without getting
March 1, 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
permits at varying degrees of frequency.
In this case, there were a number of
reasons to -- safety reasons to remove some
of the finishing materials in this
structure. There was lead paint. There
was masonite, which has formaldehyde in it.
In any case, I have always felt in
determining the percentage of demolition,
is that the real issue is, the amount of
structure that is being taken down. The
calculations that I did, I can go through
the various components, but the bottom line
was, the amount of wall, roof structure and
poured structure that was removed, was
1,664 square feet and the amount of
structure, poured structure, wall
roof
structure, and ceiling structure that
remained was 2,438 square feet. So in
estimation and my professional judgement,
me that this was clearly
demolition.
GOEHRINGER: What was the first
it was clear to
less than a 50%
MEMBER
figure, Rob?
MR. BROWN:
MEMBER
1,664 square feet.
HORNING: The calculations,
my
do
March 1, 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
20
21
22
23
24
25
you have that on paper that you can
submit?
MR. BROWN: I don't have them on
paper, but I can certainly get that to you.
MEMBER HORNING: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This is the plan
that was submitted to us, with the
application, that was drawn by your firm?
MR. BROWN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
And in it, you
have a legend that indicates the existing
walls and this indicates new walls on
here?
MR. BROWN: May I?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. Please
come up here and take a look. Okay. Let
me point out something, according to your
legend, I have color coded it, what's in
yellow indicates rebuilt existing walls.
What's in green, indicates new walls. This
is what was given to us.
MR. BROWN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What's left?
It's all new. According to your own plan.
Each of us, did a personal inspection. And
March 1, 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
you know that, because you were there. The
Building Department did an inspection. And
certainly it's important that, you know,
people understand that the members on this
Board have many, many years of experience.
They have examined, probably hundreds of
demolitions over years. I guess,
collectively, over 20-30 years -- we
probably have over 70 years of collective
experience in evaluating demolition.
Myself, I have 38 years as a professional
architect. We know you had a new
foundation with a permit. That's fine.
You have new exterior walls. You have
studs. You have steel plates. I know we
have a list, but the list is very vague.
Right here, what's retained? Retained
sills -- only rotted sills replaced. Well,
there is no percentage of only rotted.
What is, "As Needed," mean? We can ask you
how you're going to proceed with the
construction of that roof? You have
already indicated, that you're going to
need a new roof, basically. The rafters
may remain. You got all this. You have
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 8
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
new window frames. Ail new windows. Ail
new doors. No plumbing left. That's going
to be all new plumbing. It's going to be
new electric, and you're going to have new
steps and landing, you know, front and
back. And I don't know how you calculated
the percentage of remains of what was taken
down. Based on the visual inspection, in
constitutes as a
The house is being rebuilt.
about replacement in time;
we also have testimony from the
Department that they have never
replacing the entire
my opinion, this
demolition.
We can argue
however,
Building
interpreted
building --
MR.
intentions.
CHAIRPERSON
I will give you a
BROWN: That was not our
WEISMAN: Okay. In fact,
copy of this, Pat. We
all got a memo dated April 15, 2002 from
Gerry Goehringer, who was our Chair, and
represented the Zoning Board, a memo to
Mr. Verity, Building Department, talking
about -- confirming the types of activities
authorized in a principal building, okay.
March 1, 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
safety
MEMBER DINIZIO: Which a
nonconforming structure, by standard.
of the entire structure.
is
any
MR. BROWN: I don't know.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
to a microphone and state
MR. OTANO: I am sorry
name is Hernan Otano. I am
I see what's going on here
You have to
your name.
go
the homeowner. I went about this thing,
you know, very -- trying to do -- basically
go over and talk to these guys at the
Building Department and stuff. When I got
the call about when the builder pulled all
the cedar siding off. He called me in a
panic. He said, "you ain't got no studs.
There is nothing here. You are going to
put HardiPlank on this. What do you want
me to do?" I said, "I don't understand
what you're saying. What are you talking
about?" He said, you have rotted window
sills, and we're going to replace those and
you barely have any studs. I think he
said, I had four studs and it's a 25-foot
wall, and half of them were rotted. He put
about that. My
the homeowner.
and I am just
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 9
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
Not a cottage. Either eligible to receive
a CO or -- this doesn't apply to this
particular situation because of the history
and property.
things that the Building
been asking upon, saying
replace this in-time.
painting and caulking,
It describes the kind of
Department has
that you can
And exploring,
interior doors.
appliances.
which meets
Repair or replace in-kind and in-place.
Existing water heater. Existing
Replace electrical wiring,
State code. Repair or replace
existing windows and/or existing door
frames of similar size. It goes on.
quite small things. Smoke detectors.
It is
Ceiling height. Existing deck. I can show
you this, if you would like? I would like
to perhaps, you can respond to this --
MR. BROWN: If I may --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: With all do
respect.
MR. BROWN: With all do respect, if I
may, you have pointed out the wall and
certainly the -- the wall will replace then
(In Audible) but when I weigh that against
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 10
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the two doors, sometimes even less than 24
inches from the center, against a poured
structure, roof structure 2x6's or 8's, I
am not sure. Ail of which will remain. To
me the preponderance of the structure is
remaining. And that is what I base my
argument on.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Does
anyone on the Board have anything?
MEMBER DINIZIO: It says in the
middle, "repair" and then went further to
replace parts of the exterior wall that had
been seriously under built. What do you
mean by, "under built?"
MR. BROWN: That is essentially more
than (In Audible) it was -- structurally
unsound.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Does that mean that
you increased the amount of studs that are
on that wall? Am I right?
MR. BROWN: Yes. Yes. Certainly.
MEMBER DINIZIO: This appears to me
that that was done on most of the walls,
outside.
MR. BROWN: As I said, I agree, there
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 11
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
is more walls rebuilt then saved.
MEMBER DINIZIO: What would
that percentage is?
MR. BROWN: Maybe 25%.
you say
MEMBER DINIZIO: Let's say if you had
to remove those walls, would the roof have
been able to stay up?
MR. BROWN: Not without support. From
my point of view is, that we did not have
to rebuild the whole structure.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I am just trying to
figure out what exactly is demolition and
what is saved. Because you say seriously
under built. To my mind, that all four
walls were under built.
MR. BROWN: The exterior walls, yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: So if you didn't have
the exterior walls, granted it's a
nonconforming structure, how would the roof
stay up?
MR. BROWN: Well, we were concerned
that it wouldn't stay up. We provided
temporary support.
MEMBER DINIZIO: And what was the
that wasn't -- the 25%, was that the
part
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 12
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
northeast corner?
HR. BROWN: Some interior wall.
MEHBER DINIZIO: Well, interior, I am
not concerned about. I am more concerned
about this structure. That it could have
existed the way that it is today, had you
not done what you did.
MR. BROWN: Well,
arguing logistics, whereas
I think you're
I am arguing
I think, it's apples
percentages. Where
and oranges.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
seriously under built?
MR. BROWN: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
built. I mean,
MR. BROWN:
You said it was
And you made
you made it better?
Yeah.
it
wall?
that
it?
MR.
at all.
MEMBER DINIZIO: By replacing the
MR. BROWN: Yeah. Absolutely.
MEMBER DINIZIO: And how do you say
is not demolishing it and rebuilding
BROWN: I am not arguing that part
We replaced the walls for the
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
studs where there weren't any studs of the
HardiPlank that he put on the outside.
Again, I might have done it wrong, but made
it better, safely. I said, "do whatever.
Do it to code." So he did it. You know,
and this was after a conversation I had
with Pat. This is -- I was kind of caught
in the middle between my community in
getting this --
MEMBER DINIZIO:
question?
MR. OTANO: Yes,
MEMBER DINIZIO:
Pat, did you apply for
MR. OTANO: This
gotten my foundation
MEMBER DINIZIO:
replacing the walls?
MR. OTANO: No,
That is the
the middle.
Can I ask you a
sir.
In conversation with
a building permit?
was after I had
permit.
I am talking about
but that is the thing.
thing where I find myself in
My community forcing --
telling me to get my house put into shape,
and getting all the permits necessary and
following all the rules of law and I put
the foundation in, I had that done. My
March 1, 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
mistake in my community, is that I also
applied for an extension to cover the
porch, which my community didn't allow and
we were supposed to go through this
process, which we would have learned a lot,
in what I had to do and what not to do. So
my community asked me to rescind that
permit for the extension and then the
construction -- the house was lifted 10 to
15 feet in the air, and then had to be
lowered on the new foundation. When the
builder of the house said, these are not
good. I am not putting this house on this
thing. You know, I can't leave this up
here. I went to Pat Conklin. I tried to
talk to Mr. Verity in the office --
MEMBER DINIZIO: Hold on. What was
the result of that conversation?
MR. OTANO: If you're not expanding,
you can replace things that are rotting.
That is what I walked out of the
conversation with. And so, I mean -- the
way that you're phrasing putting in new
walls, you know, we put studs there because
there weren't studs. The structure wasn't
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
tl
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
safely sound.
see~ you know,
one who called
come down,
came here
you have a
we are. In
crazy. It's
MEMBER
explanation
We did not expand. I didn't
where I errored. I am the
the Building Inspector to
and he is the one who said, I
to inspect the foundation, and
(In Audible) building. So here
earnest, it's
a cottage.
just kind of
DINIZIO: Let me just make an
to you. This Board deals with
nonconformity, and everyone of those
cottages is nonconformity.
MR. OTANO: Sure.
MEMBER DINIZIO: The
conform to any of today's standards.
MR. OTANO: Understood.
MEMBER DINIZIO: And the Town, in its
infinite wisdom, has decided that things
that are nonconforming should not carry on.
In other words, go away. And I understand
the dilemma that you're in, but we grapple
with all the time, where is that line?
MR. OTANO: Okay.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I have a memo from
2002, because in 2001, we made a decision
setback doesn't
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 17
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that drastically changed on how we look at
nonconformity. Okay. The memo clears that
up, and you will have to read it. It
doesn't say that you can replace an entire
wall. It does say you can replace a window
sill. You know, certainly, in the course
of that, the Building Inspector would say,
of course if something doesn't have a
header on it, put a header on it. Okay,
but if you're saying four studs, per 25
feet, okay. You're rebuilding that wall.
We have to make the decision and the
distinction as to where that cut off point
is. And if I base it on this memo, this
2002 memo, you started exceeding the cut
off. Now, I don't know about any
conversations you may have had with Pat,
because she hasn't testified to that, and
neither has Mr. Verity, but it seems to me
that your impression was, that it was okay
to take those walls down and rebuild them,
as long as you did them in-place and
in-kind.
MR. OTANO: Correct. I mean, I was
there on the day that the inspector came
March 1, 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
and wow, I really did not know.
MEMBER DINIZIO: And what about your
builder?
MR. OTANO: I mean, he was just trying
to make it sound. That is really it.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Is he local?
MR. OTANO: Uh-huh.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Would he have not
known, that you know --
MR. OTANO: Yeah. It's been sort of
learning as we go. I never did something
like this.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think maybe it
would be constructive to ask at this point,
to have Mr. Verity and Ms. Conklin, to come
forward and make some comments relative to
what they just heard. Either one of you or
both of you.
MS. CONKLIN: Good morning.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: State your name,
please?
MS. CONKLIN: Pat Conklin, Permit
Examiner.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you talk up
a little bit? Sometimes it doesn't record
March 1, 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
that well.
MS. CONKLIN: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Thank you.
Okay. Pat, you made a personal inspection
of this property, and your office issued a
Notice of Disapproval of the demolition.
Can you talk to us about your observations,
and your comments about Mr. Otano?
MS. CONKLIN: Basically, when I went
there I had observed that the cottage was
rebuilt, and I had -- as a result, I had to
change my Notice of Disapproval and I did
so. And I never would have said to
Mr. Otano that he could replace the walls
in-place and in-kind. I have always gone
out of my way to tell everybody that is
doing renovations,
in the field, you
for reevaluation with amended plans
changes
to us
and a
that if you find
have to come back
whole new look. Especially, when I know
the project is nonconforming. In a
if things
That's just
conforming situation, I say,
change, come back to us.
standard procedure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Any questions?
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 20
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: In your mind, was
this a rebuilt --
MS. CONKLIN: Rebuilt. There were
extra pieces added, just as it has been
testified to. The building looks as
though, from the inside out, that it was
redone and things were added.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Bid you base it on
the 2002 memo? I mean, is that how you
other
guys are looking at demolition? In
words, with respect to nonconforming?
MS. CONKLIN: One thing changed
you pretty much are demolishing and
rebuilding. To me, that's the bottom
The verbiage is always changing. The
out,
line.
semantics are always in changing. What I
saw in the field, to me indicated a
demolition and rebuilt of that cottage.
That is what my observation was.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Let me just go over
this. This is kind of new discovery to me.
There is a memo from the chairman at the
time, Gerry Goehringer. And it says repair
in place, existing boiler, heating,
exterior -- existing interior doors and
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 21
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
trams. Flooring, you can modify it. That
kind of thing. Painting, caulking, repair
and replace existing fixtures. Electrical
wiring, you know could be more to State
code. You wouldn't have a building permit
for that. Smoke detectors. The ceiling
height -- was the ceiling height raised in
this? I don't think that it was. Again,
replace existing deck. As long as their is
no extensions or modifications, which
increase the degree of nonconformity. Now,
the degree of nonconformity, has to do with
the setback. Not necessarily, that the
building is made of 2x3's, with 25 inch
centers. Four studs per 25 feet. Is that
correct?
MS.
correct.
Board
CONKLIN: Technically that's
MEMBER DINIZIO: The consensus
is that, that is not that.
MS. CONKLIN: Correct.
MEMBER DINIZIO: So increasing the
degree of nonconformity, which is again,
what brought this whole thing to life.
That probably didn't come into play here,
of this
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
if you don't count raising the height of
the building, by putting a foundation --
how do you say it, that was required by
FEMA.
MS.
raise
MS.
wrote.
CONKLIN: It would be requested to
it to have it made better.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, yeah.
CONKLIN: And that is what we
MEMBER DINIZIO: And we're going to
get to that point to. The point is there,
we had a building that was raised and it is
50 feet, and nonconforming should be made
better. Why weren't we moving that
building back to meet the code? It was
already raised. There is no reason why you
couldn't do it. I am just looking, if you
can explain to me, and I am pretty sure you
can, you walked in, as I did, as all of us
did, and the first thing that I said was,
you know, this building has been rebuilt to
the point of all new wood on the side.
MS. CONKLIN: Correct.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Regardless if some of
the studs were assisted. To my point, the
March 1, 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
only part that was really the old stuff,
was the northeast part of the building. It
seemed to be the older studs. I could be
wrong with my memory. I have pictures. To
me, that building was demolished. And you
know, that is why I was trying to get from
Mr. Brown, how do you hold the roof up?
Would I be correct in making that
assumption?
MS. CONKLIN: That was my impression.
I was there the same day that you were.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Regardless of the
porch, you want to add, it's not --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: He didn't
it.
much on this
MEMBER DINIZIO: So we can rely
memo when writing the
decision, that you would concur
memo and rely on this --
MS. CONKLIN: We do.
MEMBER
demolition?
MS.
mind is,
review
on this
DINIZIO: You consider it a
add
CONKLIN: The phrase that comes
when it's gone, it's gone. My
pretty
to
of something, if it's gone, it's no
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
longer there. Then you're putting -- if
you're going to redo it, you're putting
back a nonconformity. And that is where
adjusting those limits of that application,
the ZBA has permitted to do that.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Thank you.
MS. CONKLIN: You're welcome.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think Member
Horning had a question. Did you want to
ask Pat Conklin or Mr. Verity?
MEMBER HORNING: I will ask the
Building Department. Do you work on a
formula or a percentage, or how do you base
a demolition and a reconstruction, versus
repair? I know there is a lot of talk
about the line between the two and how you
approach it. Roughly speaking, how do you
consider a demolition versus a repair? Is
there a percentage?
MR. VERITY: Mike Verity,
Building
Department, Chief Building Inspector.
Basically, the memo that Jimmy has.
Everything on there is a repair. Outside
of that, it's basically a demo. If you
have four walls and you take four down,
March 1, 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
it's a demolition. You have to use the
definition from Webster's. You have to use
common construction knowledge and
understand that is the way that it is.
don't have to demo the entire building.
You
walls were removed or replaced. To me,
that's a demolition. I was only able to
see the exterior of the building. So I
can't really comment on the interior
building. No one is mentioning but,
of the
there
is also approximately a third of that water
side portion of the floor system that has
been rebuilt. So viewing it from the
outside, it's definitely a demolition in my
eyes. And based on percentage, we really
don't have a definition of that. There is
definitions in the State Code, which can
define repair, alterations and renovations,
but we don't have it in a Town Code. So we
You can demo a certain portion of the
building and still consider that a
demolition. You take an entire roof system
off, that's a demolition of a roof system.
That is no arguing to that. I don't think
that anyone is arguing the fact that the
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 26
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
do use it, you know, what
the best of our ability.
Code?
is given to us to
MEMBER HORNING: Do you use the State
MR. VERITY: Yeah,
State Code. We use the
building portion of it.
Code, when we're writing
or when we're reviewing
Zoning. We have to use
definitions to do that.
the two.
MEMBER HORNING:
former chairperson,
replacing the roof,
variance, and you're
roof --
MR. VERITY: It
talking about roof.
we have to use the
State Code for the
We use the Town
our Disapproval's
other sections of
the Town
We can't comingle
This memo from the
says something about
would not need a
saying replacing a
depends on what you're
You're talking about
roofing. I don't know -- anything
structural that would require a permit,
would be reviewed by us, not only for
Zoning but for State Code compliance. If
that is what
you're reroofing, and I guess
the memo was about, reroofing.
March 1, 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
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's correct.
MR. VERITY: If you look at all the
other items on there, they're pretty much
nonconforming items. And I think that was
the intent. You mentioned electrical.
Anything you do electrical wise, even if
it's an outlet in the wall, you need a
permit. So there is a little bit of a mix,
but most of it does not require a permit.
MEMBER DINIZIO: What about plumbing?
MR. VERITY: Requires a permit.
MEMBER HORNING: Would you be able to
determine if they added a roof rafter or
something?
MR. VERITY: Easily. If I was able to
get in. There was a nice hole in the
bottom, looked like a raccoon but I wasn't
going to find out if a raccoon got in, so.
I can easily, with a -- tell you --
MEMBER HORNING: But based upon all
the information that you have right now and
not getting inside, you're standing by the
Building Department's determination --
MR. VERITY: That's correct.
MEMBER HORNING: That this is a
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 28
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~3
14
15
16
17
18
~9
20
21
22
23
24
25
demolition?
MR. VERITY: That's correct. And I am
basing that, No. 1, on plans. No. 2 on the
site visit that I did. I don't even have
to get inside to see what was done. You
know, with over 25 years of experience it's
easy to see. And just to answer Jimmy's
question, I think the owner, if he had a
permit, he did not have a permit. He was
told that he needed a permit to move
forward with that. He only had a
foundation permit. I can only stress that
another hundred times, as we stressed to
him. So any conversation outside of that,
shouldn't really be had.
MEMBER DINIZIO: That is why I asked
about the plumbing.
MR. VERITY: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: There is no new
electric?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Not yet.
MR. VERITY: Any re-have of
electricity, would require a permit as
well.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let's --
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 29
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
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just have one
question. Mike, you're referring to a
permit in the Building Department to
replace something, but not necessarily
affecting the nonconforming structure or
the conforming structure? You're referring
to a building permit to replace a new
electrical system? To upgrade the
electrical system as opposed to using a
certified or a licensed electrican to do
that or a licensed plumber to do that in
the building; is that correct?
MR. VERITY: I am not understanding
the question.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, we have a
difference here between what we're
referring to as a nonconforming structure
or a conforming structure, and so on and so
forth. I issued a memo based upon the
fact, I never said to replace without
having the proper
it --
MR. VERITY:
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
nonstructural changes --
licensed people doing
That's correct.
And they were
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. VERITY: That's correct.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And I just wanted
everyone to be aware of that fact, that
memo was issued in that way.
MR. VERITY: Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The people who
were doing it, you have to use a person who
is New York State licensed.
MR. VERITY: And the memo is not the
sole reason why we make our decision. It's
not even -- to be honest with you, it's
probably in the back corner, and say, hey,
you remember that memo? Let's bring it
out. Like one of the many pieces of the
puzzle that we may use to figure it out.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's also
important to recognize, to say from the
Zoning Board's point of view, "this list is
for specific activity that would not
activate the need for a variance." So in
other words, these can be done as of right,
with a permit from your office, from the
Building Department Office, without
requiring a variance. No dimensional
changes with regards to setbacks and so on.
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 31
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
are no new nonconformities. This is
MR. VERITY: Ail bets are off.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just to be clear
about it.
MEMBER DINIZIO: If you have a wall
and it only has four studs, and you make it
more to State Code, do you need a permit
for that?
MR. VERITY: To reestablish that wall
with additional studs, yeah, you do.
MEMBER
studs?
MR.
DINIZIO: Even if you add a few
VERITY: Yes, you
hesitation. No question on
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
come up.
MEMBER
doesn't have
is whether
DINIZIO: The variance really
anything to my mind. My mind
or not this building is
do. Not even a
that.
Pat, you need to
There
primary for repair?
MR. VERITY: That's correct. And you
could --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Repairs are
in-kind and in-place. If you put in a big
bay window, instead of a double hung --
March 1, 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
demolished or not. The setback is not an
-- they denied it and that's fine. I am
more concerned now, on how when I walked
into that building how I saw so much new
lumbar, and whether my assumption was
correct in saying that this building is a
demolition.
MS. MOORE: I understand. The
question, in looking at this memo and
Mike's testimony --
are --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
please talk into the mic.
past testimony, there
Pat, can you
MS. MOORE: Sure. I am just getting
kind of a clarification because we have
different standards. So according to this
memo. You repair or replace existing
windows, okay, and the existing door frame
of similar size. So let's say you have the
walls -- for example, the wall that was
there, you're replacing the window there
with new window, but you don't have the
support structure to hold that window up.
There is -- nobody here is disputing that
he should have come in -- according to the
March 1, 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
Building Department and State Code, come
and get a building permit to get
permission, or at least have a building
the code interpreted by architects and the
State Code interpreted by the Building
Department. We will leave that issue
aside. So you have a wall and you decide
to put the window back in. Now, that same
wall -- and Mike the question that you
asked was, can you go in
permit for that even for
structure --
MEMBER DINIZIO:
What I am asking is,
and get a building
a nonconforming
at
that moment {In Audible).
(Far away from the microphone.)
MS. MOORE: No.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Here is where I am
permit in place, to put the extra studs in.
That is a structural improvement, and
whether or not you need a permit, I think
Rob Brown will tell you -- I think also the
State Building Code talks in terms of
amount of value. It's not just because you
put studs in, you need a building permit.
I think that there may be a discrepancy in
March 1, 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
going with that. If the applicant had come
in and said, I have to do all this. And
all these new studs that are going to be --
that I saw -- what determination would have
been made at that time? You have to ask
that question.
MS. MOORE: He didn't ask that
question.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
I guess Jim is
asking it now.
MR. VERITY: He was told, because the
question was asked. He was told that he
needs to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
That he backed way off of the original plan
and went back to a foundation only.
MS. MOORE: No, no. The original plan
was the extension in the front.
MR. VERITY: Besides the extension,
but it was almost a total rebuilt that
originally came in to us.
MEMBER DINIZIO: That was never wrote
down. There is no denial to it. It was
just done.
MR. VERITY: What was done, Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: The studs were put in
Harch 1, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
place
MR. VERITY: Oh, yeah, that was done.
There was multiple conversations what you
could do and could not do. And it turned
out at the end of the day, he chose to do a
foundation. According to our permit and in
our eyes, in turned into something more
than that, which we told him that he
couldn't do without going through the
variance process. He did not want to go
through the variance process, but here
we're today going through the variance
process.
MS. MOORE: Why would
he have gone
of the amount
to a
nonconforming
tare down.
through the variance process?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Because
of alterations and renovations
nonconforming building with a
use. And what would that be?
MR. VERITY: Basically a
MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: In the essence
of time, we have many, many applicants out
there. I would like to see in addition to
discussion about the demo, where we might
March 1, 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
go
with this.
MS. MOORE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
thoughts about that, Pat?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
Do you have some
of the Board? What are we looking for and
hopefully, I can give you a magical answer
that might make all happy. So just we can
end the week after week, month after month,
hour after hour of whatever.
MS. MOORE: Well, it seems if you
determine that the structure was
demolished, which I think is what I am
hearing, okay. Then the issue is, could
you reconstruct because it's been
demolished, and if the Board takes the
position that nonconforming use, with a --
a nonconforming setback and a nonconforming
use, we have already addressed ad nauseum
at the last hearing, the variances needed
to keep the building where it was at a
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MR. VERITY: That is my question to
you. What are we looking for? I am asking
that of the applicant and I am asking that
March 1, 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
20
21
22
23
24
25
distance of 50 feet from the bulkhead.
That was that area variance application. I
think you have heard enough about that.
What we discussed and I discussed with the
Breezy Shore attorney is that,
alternatively would be to make an
application in addition to the area
variance for the setback. We would also
make an application for a use variance. In
order to rebuild, in-kind, in-place, the
picture that is there today. And I
prepared -- I heard initially -- we talked
about it two months ago with the Breezy
Shore Board and at the time, they were not
giving us approval to make that application
because as you know, we are just 1
shareholder among 31 shareholders, and we
would not have the authority to make that
out or argue. We don't want to be in
litigation over there, while we have the
permission of the Board to make that
application. As of yesterday, I heard
that, okay, they will let us make the
application as a alternative relief, so
that we can let Mr. Otano to continue the
March 1, 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
20
21
22
23
24
25
process and not be -- not incur extreme
financial hardship, of having everything
phased out as well. That is unoccupied and
allowed to deteriorate. It's not sured up.
I prepared a use variance application. I
assume -- I planned on submitting it to the
Board today, with the standards. I also
have sales comparable -- I gave you the
price of the property, that we purchased
the property for and I also have attached
from Mr. Cohen's office because I got it as
an e-mail just about five minutes before I
arrived here, it's attached, and it's the
comparable sales -- last sales in 2010 of
the units in this community. So we have
the financial data to Mr. Otano's damages.
He is not permitted to reconstruct. His
permission is only to reconstruct only
within the four walls we had before,
because the co-op ownership, that is all he
has authority to do. So when you were
asking, well, why didn't we move it back,
legally, he would not have the authority to
move the foundation back. The foundation
was issued with a building permit. The
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 39
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
Building Department, Mr. Verity has
testified in the past, and you can ask him
to testify as to that issue, that when you
are replacing
considered an
nonconformity.
compliance
replacement
and that
was done.
a foundation, it is not
increase in the degree of
It is a State Code
foundation. The foundation
is the State Code compliance
is what has been done here. That
The building was raised and set
back down here. So the building permit for
the foundation was issued. It was issued
properly. It is now the triggering of the
other remaining part of the structure that
is causing you to jump to the issue of,
well, you need a use variance to construct
here, and I am prepared to make that
application. I have it here. I want to
give you the alternative relief scenario.
The legal standard should you decide to
grant the use variance, it makes this unit
a permitted use on this property. So it
gives it that legality from now and in the
future. So Mr. Otano's issues will be
resolved. And Breezy Shore will deal with
March 1, 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
20
21
22
23
24
25
Breezy Shore's however they
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
variance application
separate application
wish.
Okay. The use
is an independent
from this hearing.
And I would suggest that is you wish to
preclude that, you need to go to the office
with your application, and we would process
your application and schedule a hearing and
take it from there. In regards to the area
variance that is in front of us now, how
would you like to proceed on that? We have
a couple of choices. We can close the
hearing and make a determination. We can
adjourn without a date, and then come back
when you're ready, if you would like to do
that?
MS. MOORE: Well, honestly, I think
makes more sense to carry them together,
because they do --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
that can be done.
I don't believe
UNKNOWN SPEAKER: (In Audible).
MS. MOORE: No, no. Misunderstood.
am saying the area variance, carry it
simultaneously with the use variance
it
March 1, 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
application. That whether we close it
today and get a decision, I am happy to
an approval, but it doesn't give me any
further progress with getting a building
permit.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is why I
suggesting that we just adjourn it.
MS. MOORE: Exactly. Carry it --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Leave it open.
MS. MOORE: Leave it open, and then
get
close both hearings at the same time, in
case an issue or a question comes up, then
raises a question with the area variance.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don't know if
we could close those hearings at the same
time, but I don't think that is a
am
difficulty -- technically not a difficult
-- if we adjourn to another date, in timely
we will recalendar.
MS. MOORE: Actually, I want to avoid
the publication notices of the area
variances because it's -- last time on the
area variance there was -- we had to serve
notice on some 50 people because you're
asking -- you're serving everybody around.
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Not just this property. Just tell me the
date. I have already prepared this
document. Whether or not, you want
accompany forms, the forms you want, it
would just be a repeat of the other
file --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is
something that you need to talk to Vicki
about in the office.
MS. MOORE: I was saying, that if you
want to give me a date, then t will have
the notice -- you give me the dat~ for the
area variance and the same date for the use
variance.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What we need is
for you to do what you always do.
MS. MOORE: What I am assuring you is
that it will be done in the next week, it
will be in, because I have spent all my
time doing it. So it's done. I just have
to walk it in.
MEMBER HORNING: Pat, that includes
official notification that is necessary
MS. MOORE: No, no, but I only do
after you give me a date and it's ten
that
March 1, 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
days --
CHAIRPERSON
procedurally
adjourn this
we have
hearing, as
application
the calendar as
accommodate
WEISMAN: Pat,
what we have to do here is
without a date, and as soon as
as we can.
a completed application -- for this
soon as we have a completed
in office, we will put it on
soon as we could possibly
it. We will do it as quickly
We realize the structure is
deteriorating. We don't want to hold up
the process any more then we need to. So
we will do everything we can to make this
quick procedure, and then once we have a
date for that hearing, the use variance,
you can then decide if you want us to
schedule a rehearing on this application,
or wait until we see what happens with the
use variance application. Do you see what
I am saying? I know you want to avoid
re-noticing, but I don't see how we can do
that. Legally, we have to do that.
MS. MOORE: No. No. I am talking
about the use variance I will notice
because it hasn't had a re-notice. What I
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 44
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
am trying to do is avoid a third re-notice
on the area variance.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right. I
will tell you what we can do. Let's pick a
date --
MS. MOORE: Pick a date and we will
accomplish everything.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If we need to
change the date, we will change the date.
That is fine. We can schedule --
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, no, I want to
say something. Vicki has to file all the
received information and tell us when that
application --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We are not
talking about the use variance application.
That is a total separate thing.
MEMBER DINIZIO: The other one --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We can adjourn
without a date, which means we can
recalendar it. They have to re-notice. If
we pick a date, they don't have to
re-notice.
MS. MOORE: Exactly. That is the only
thing --
March 1, 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
to
CHAIRPERSON
send out 50 more registered letters.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. Okay.
MS. TOTH: June 7th.
MS. MOORE: June 7th, okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let us do this.
We can always change the date. So let's
just -- I am going to make a motion
adjourn this hearing to June 7th at
10:00 A.M.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by
Gerry.
Ail in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
WEISMAN: They don't have
to
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We are going to
make a motion to recess for five minutes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 46
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(Whereupon, a recess was taken at
this time.)
HEARING #6539 - ROBERT V. LONGO
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next hearing
before the Board is for Robert Longo. This
is a request for variances from
Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the
Building Inspector's December 29, 2011
Notice of Disapproval based on an
application for building permit for "as
built" demolition and re-construction of a
new single family dwelling at: 1) less
than the code required minimum side yard
setback of 15 feet; 2) less than the code
required combined side yard setbacks of
35 feet; 13) more than the code required
maximum lot overage of 20%, located at:
220 Sound Avenue, adjacent to Long Island
Sound in Peconic.
March 1, 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
need one green card, it would
We
appear.
MS. MOORE: I must not have gotten
We brought over what we got.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You got the
LWRP?
it.
MS. MOORE: I just got it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right.
Please state your name.
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore, on behalf
of Mr. & Mrs. Longo. With me today, I have
Mr. & Mrs. Longo, the property owners. I
have Nancy Dwyer, who is the design
professional on this project, and
Mr. Spidido (phenetic) who is the builder
on this project. Very simply, this project
has been a long process because originally
there was a building permit for the
foundation, and it was anticipated less
material would be required to be removed
from the house and therefore we could get a
normal building permit without triggering
the variance that is going to be before you
today. However, to avoid problems that
generally occur with surprises during
March 1, 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
construction,
builder,
Building
the -- Nancy Dwyer, the
wisely came in and asked the
Department or the Building
Department re-looked at this and called it
a demolition, and that way we can avoid the
interpretation of whether or not we have a
demolition. We will just say, fine, we
will call it a demolition even though we're
actually preserving a great deal of the
structure, in order to avoid complications
down the line. The variances are related
to the size of the property. It is only 50
feet in width, but it is over 400 feet in
length. The buildable area -- the landward
area from the coastal erosion hazard lines,
while the property is quite large by title
and by taxes and everything else, the
buildable area, the property has
historically -- the existing structure,
all the improvements that are being made
the structure now, are all consolidated
that it was in the buildable area, and it
triggers the lot coverage variance request.
And the setbacks, as a preexisting
nonconforming structure. I think -- I do
and
to
March 1, 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
have in written form, my area variance and
the criteria, and I think that rather then
repeat myself during the testimony of the
hearing, I rather hear from Nancy Dwyer to
walk you through the project. So that you
understand what it is that we're doing, and
address any concerns you might have or
questions you might have. So I will sit
down and ask Nancy to walk you through the
project.
MS. DWYER: Hello, Nancy Dwyer, from
Nancy Dwyer Design Consultants. The
original project, we weren't anticipating
as much reconstruction as need be, until we
got the demo and everything was exposed,
and you could see the damages of the
existing structure. The most recent
portion is the most -- the current landward
side. That is the most recent and has
permit and a CO from 1968. That structure
is of decent structure integrity. We're
actually going to work with that. So
that's going to remain. The footage, there
are some (In Audible) missing, the backside
of the house, which is the original
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 50
1
2
$
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
structure. We're going to work with as
many as those as we can, and reframe all
the floor. Ail of the walls, and the
entire roof of the whole structure. And
of
that is what our original permit was for.
It was for reconstruction and reconfiguring
of some walls and the roof over the entire
building.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Nancy,
what is the existing lot coverage?
MS. DWYER: The existing lot
is 53%.
coverage
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So you're not
proposing to increase the lot coverage from
what is currently here?
MS. DWYER: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Are you changing
any of the setbacks, front yard, side yard,
combined yard?
MS. DWYER: Everything is staying as
existing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And I believe
you said in your application, you're
proposing to leave the seaward and landward
deck currently?
March 1, 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
have
MS. DWYER: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George, do you
some questions?
MEMBER HORNING: Yes. I just would
like to clarify for the record. I would
like to walk through just the number of
variances. One is for a front yard
setback; correct? One variance?
MS. MOORE: Yes. The code requires
40 feet. The existing structure is 25.3.
MEMBER HORNING: Each side yard,
you're requesting a variance for each side
yard?
MS. DWYER: Neither one is conforming.
MS. MOORE: I can remind the Board
unfortunately, and I have said this before
at other hearings, where we have similarly
constrained properties, the Town Code
changed the code to buildabte -- to allow
within the area of buildable area,
construction in that area, we didn't change
the code to have the setbacks apply to the
buildable area in square footage. So on a
property like this, you're applying the
setbacks that the code states is required
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 52
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
for a half acre property, where we really
only have a buildable area that is, at
most, 75x50. So you can see that if the
code were modified to make that
correlation, you probably have a lot fewer
variance applications because -- or at
least variance applications would be much
smaller because the setbacks, the side yard
setbacks would be 10 and 15 on a
nonconforming yard, and the front yard
would be a parcel that is less than 10,000
square feet, which is the minimum that the
code --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I understand
that, let's do this in the interest of
time. A single side yard setback of
6.7 feet, when the code requires 15 feet.
A combined side yard setback of 15.7 feet,
where the code requires 35 feet. Lot
coverage at 53%, where the code will permit
a maximum of 20% lot coverage.
MS. MOORE: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And the front
yard setback is 25.3 feet, the code
requires 40 feet. So those are the four
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 53
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
i1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
variances that are before the Board.
MEMBER HORNING: Are there four or
five? Two side yards --
MS. MOORE: Well, it's combined.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Combined side
yard, a front yard and lot coverage.
MEMBER HORNING: So it will count as
two side yard's, as one combined and one
single?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's the way
it's written in the notice.
MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry had a
question.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How are we
replacing piers without replacing roof?
Are we doing it from the interior of the
building?
MS. MOORE: The roof is being
replaced.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The rafters are
being replaced. Everything is being
replaced.
MS. DWYER: Everything is being
replaced.
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 54
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: So everything
other then that little cube that you showed
us, encompasses the majority of the utility
area of the house --
MS. DWYER: The utility area of the
house and everything to the left of that as
well.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the entire
house, which is probably three-quarters of
it, is being demolished?
MS. MOORE: No, if
of the plans, do you see
you look at Page 3
that? Look at
Page 3, the drawing has the existing -- the
poured foundation, which was the latest
revision to the garage in -- it has a CO.
Then you have to the left of that, are
piers, and the structure that to, that is
So
relatively new vintage
that is remaining.
construction.
a
MS. DWYER: Correct.
MS. MOORE: You start to need to add
piers to the back of that, which you see
the piers being identified. Those are
piers that need to be replaced, or they are
there but some of them are inadequate.
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 55
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. DWYER: Exactly.
MS. MOORE: Because I remember seeing
them there.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can you color code
those for us, so we can understand it?
MS. MOORE: I have a yellow
highlighter. She may have something. It
is still considered a demo.
MEMBER HORNING: Pat, in the meantime,
there any kind of setback requirement
from the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line or can
you build right up to it?
MS. MOORE: No, you can build right up
to it. Are setbacks from the Trustees are
-- I am sorry, we were discussing it. I am
pretty sure you can go right up to the
Coastal Erosion Line. The Coastal Erosion
Line is a map line that is 25 foot width of
a marker because that is how it was
interpreted. But in this case, we have the
unchanged. That is
existing structure
remaining.
MEMBER HORNING:
if there was
the setbacks
I was just wondering
a code that was concerned with
-- can you build to the side
March 1, 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
20
21
22
23
24
25
of the Coastal Erosion?
MS. MOORE: No. The seaward side of
the Coastal Erosion, you can't. On the
landward side, you can. And remember, here
is a beach. So our measurements are taken
from the -- I guess technically from the
end of the beach.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Pat, let me do
this. I think this will be more clearly.
Almost a 53% lot coverage is enormous and
we understand why it is defined that way,
based upon the buildable area. Can you
please speak about the character of the
neighborhood?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Soundview Avenue, I
am sure you have seen from your own
inspection, is predominantly seasonal
community of very small structures, like
this one. In fact, if you just look to the
right and to the left of this one, you
and
almost see identical architectural
vintage -- same vintage construction.
is the character of the area of this
particular -- the sea side
Avenue. As you go further
That
of Soundview
east and west,
March 1, 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
you may get some larger homes and the
parcel sizes may differ a little bit, but
they tend to narrow and be very long
properties that go out towards the Sound.
So this property is very -- it's within the
character of that beach community, and you
see that the house to the right in
particular, looks like it was renovated
more recently, and the materials look
newer. I did not do the history of that
particular property. I don't know if it
had variances or not, because the
improvement may have been such that when
they were done, we had different
interpretations or whatever.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you know if it
had a CO?
MS. MOORE: Who?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The one to the
right?
MS. MOORE: I don't know. I can find
that out. You know, I didn't research the
development. I can give you the
development history on either side, if you
would like?
March 1, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It could also
useful to have a sense of a look from
Google Earth of the typical -- the Sound
side of that road, what kind of lot
coverage and setbacks are we typically
be
looking at, so that the Board has that
comparison information.
MS. MOORE: Yeah, I did actually -- we
didn't look to see if the adjacent homes,
if we could come up with somewhat of an
average setback to give us the closer
setback as we have here. But many of the
homes are actually either at the same
setback or closer to the water, and
obviously we can't -- we're as moved
closest to the street for environmental
reasons, would be hard for us to persuade
you to build closer to the water in order
to maximize the front yard setback. So it
wasn't applicable in this instance.
MEMBER HORNING: In that character of
the neighborhood, were you going to look at
the setbacks of the adjacent buildings on
adjacent parcels, can you somehow show the
Coastal Erosion Hazard Line on those
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
properties too?
MS. MOORE: I do have the Google map
here. The Coastal Erosion Hazard Line, I
can guess, pretty much runs consistent with
this line because that is how the line is
typically drawn. I would have to go to --
maybe the Building Department flood maps
and see if it is shown there. Maybe the
FEMA maps would give it to me.
MEMBER HORNING: I am asking the
relative lot coverage.
MS. MOORE: Well, I do -- yeah. The
Google map is pretty obvious that the lot
coverage -- our properties actually is
smaller then the parcel -- the lot coverage
-- the house itself is smaller than the two
facing the house to the left, I am assuming
west, based on the way that this map is
situated. Our house -- Mr. & Mrs. Longo's
house is close to the size to the lots to
the east, but I would only be able to
calculate as to their survey at the
Building Department. Many of these homes
are older property developments, they may
not have surveys in the Building Department
March 1, 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
files that can give me that information. I
can try and gather it but all I can tell
you is, it may not be there, because this
is an older community.
MEMBER HORNING: But if you could
supply --
MS. MOORE: I will give you what
could find. I can provide as much
information as I could gather. I don't
want to charge my client --
MEMBER HORNING: In the interest of
here, there any changes in the
time is
height here?
MS. DWYER:
Nancy Dwyer. Our existing
roof height is approximately 13.3 to the
highest grid. There are five different
roof structures on there now. Now, based
on the different additions, we're proposing
one consistent roof over the entire
structure, at approximately 20 foot 6
inches at grade.
MEMBER HORNING: What is the highest
height right now?
first
MS. DWYER: 13.3. You do have the
pages of the plans, that show roof
March 1, 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
heights and roof pitches, existing south
elevation. If you look to the left of
that, that has the existing 13.3, which --
MEMBER HORNING: Ail right.
MS. DWYER: And then versus the new
roof pitch, which is the height of 20.6
being the final roof pitch.
MEMBER HORNING: Thank you.
MS. DWYER: And obviously the roof
pitch improves the drainage and the
aesthetics.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Ken, did
you have any questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes. The roof
pitch, you brought that up in topic, when
in looking at the character of the
neighborhood, you indicated the new pitch
is 12 on 7. It should really be 7 on 12.
That ratio would probably be a higher roof.
Then again, in Town Law 2, 12 on 4, should
be 4 on 12. In the same paperwork, in Town
Law 5, the house maintains its historic
location, are you implying that that house
has some historic value to it?
MS. MOORE: No. No, historic being
March l, 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
it's been there for a very long time. It's
not another location. It's limited
location is right there.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Thank you. No
further questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I see the
Building Inspector is here. I was
wondering if you had any comments that you
would like to make in regards to this
application? I see that they have a
building permit for additions and
alterations, and -- Mike come forward and
bring us up to date.
MR. VERITY: Michael Verity, Chief
Building Inspector, Town of Southold.
Basically, there has been constant
conversation with this. That is why they
came in today. They had inconsistent plate
heights. They wanted to add to volume,
which is going to trigger -- I don't want
to say, walls. Walls. W-A-L-L-S. So there
was an intensification. That is why they
are here today. The only other thing, they
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 63
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
are very modest homes down there. And the
reason why we wrote the original (In
Audible) because they were changing and
rearranging. Actually, believe it or not,
the lot that they are originally on is
becoming more conforming, but because of
the height of the walls, that's the reason
why they are here today. And it's
obviously going to be FEMA compliant and
whatever else.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Does anyone have
any questions for Mr. Verity?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What do they have
to do to become more FEMA compliant?
MR. VERITY: Not much at all, if any.
What I mean by that, they are going -- the
elevation of the building itself is at the
proper height. So lucky for them, they
don't have to go much higher than they're
asking now. They're asking to clean-up the
roof pitches like they said. That is
something that we can't grant at the
Building Department. Again, you're
increasing the intensification of the wall
height.
March 1, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: One of my main
concerns with situations like this is, is
wood decking on both sides of the house.
As you know, you being involved in the fire
department, much more than I have, being
Chief several times, raising hoses over
wood decks, when the fire -- either the
house next door or this house, or whatever
the case might be, you need to be able to
get to the house from the water side. I
just think one side has to be a Nicolock
deck or a brick deck or walkway or whatever
the case might be.
MR. VERITY: I don't have plans in
front of me.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And standing in
front of the house, the one to the west has
the greater difference. I think that one
should be the one of choice.
MS. MOORE: Are we talking about
possibly replacing decking with -- that is
what I was just talking with my clients
about actually. So it's funny, we were
thinking the same thing.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In Mattituck, we
March 1, 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
cut down on the Sound. There are some
openings between the houses. So some of
the decking can allow that, and I am not
speaking for the Board. I am speaking --
this is very, very tight, in this area. I
am just throwing it out to Mike.
MR. VERITY: From what I remember, I
think there was a deck on the east side.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: West side. There
is nothing on the east side.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think Gerry
what you are getting at, is that that
boardwalk has to be replaced, because it is
at grade. You can't have planking really
at grade.
MS. MOORE: Actually, I was talking to
my clients about possibly replacing that
wooden effect and being able to get out of
the house -- when some of the foundation
was repaired, they raised the elevation
slightly. He will have to replace decking
with stairs. So that doesn't make a lot of
sense. But walkways, we can certainly
remove, and therefore reduce the lot
coverage and replace it with some brick
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
pavers.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is where
was getting at.
MS. MOORE: And that is fine with
clients.
MEMBER HORNING: On the Netice of
Disapproval, how is it that it was not
cited
my
for increasing the degree of
nonconformity? Is it because it's a
demolition?
MS. MOORE: Let me go to the
foundation.
MR. VERITY: Basically, it's the same
animal. It's the same thing. You are
reviewing the side yard setback. That is
why we are here. It doesn't make a
difference hew tall a wall is. I mean, yeu
can add that in.
MEMBER HORNING: But the bulk of the
decision determined that you increased the
degree of nonconformity by building up --
MR. VERITY: Yeah, I probably -- can
we take that back. I hate to even mention
that. This is basically doing the same
thing. You are still addressing the side
March 1, 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
yard setbacks. We don't put walls in
decisions any more, for good reasons. And
we are only addressing the side yard
setbacks. That is basically why we are
here. It's pretty much a demolition. Like
Pat said, it's a demolition and a
reconstruction. If it was alterations and
they were putting a second floor on, we
would probably say they are increasing the
degree of nonconformity. You know, but
again, we can attack it by saying, the
setback, you can do it that way but it
would be a little unorthodox. So that
what we are talking about. We're only
talking about the setbacks.
your decision here,
applicant wants to
nonconformity.
MR. VERITY:
brand new.
new. It's
brand new and there
that discussion.
CHAIRPERSON
is
MEMBER HORNING: I did see in some of
you're citing that the
increase the degree of
That's correct. This is
Just wipe it out. It's brand
a demo. So we are starting
is no need to even have
WEISMAN: Thank you, Mike.
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 68
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: You brought it up.
MR. VERITY: I did and I didn't mean
MEMBER DINIZIO: I just want to ask
you a couple of questions. The site plan
shows a front yard setback of 25.3 feet,
there an increase? That is on the Notice
of Disapproval.
MR. VERITY: Yeah, I am just looking
at the plan too. We are asking for that
MS. MOORE: Why are you putting him
the spot, since we are asking for front
yard variance anyway?
MEMBER DINIZIO:
I am asking because
you are beyond that. You are so far
above --
MR. VERITY: Well, I don't think you
really have to because you are already
saying we agree -- not we, I am not part
the application. You are referring to the
front yard setbacks. You're covering
everything.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
setback hasn't changed.
MR. VERITY: Well,
The front yard
that is why they
of
March 1, 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
are here, because it is going to change.
Otherwise, they wouldn't be here for it.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I rest my case.
Never mind. Let's move on.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have already
verified on the record and based on the
Notice of Disapproval that there are four
area variances before us. They're to
remain, "as built," the same. The only
thing that we have discussed, which was not
in the application, is what we mentioned
about the roof. That the height would be
increased. So technically, yes, that is an
increase in the nonconformance because it's
higher. However, because it's a demo,
they're rebuilding where the as built is at
the moment. As long as the record is clear
on what's going on, the Board can just go
on.
In the interest of time, I want to ask
if there is anyone else in the audience
that would like to address this
application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there any
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 70
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
other
thank
so.
it's
questions from the Board?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just wanted to
Mike and Pat.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, very much
We appreciate
MR. VERITY: Hopefully
pretty -- never mind.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If
questions or comments,
a motion to close this
you being here.
no confusion,
there are no
I am going
hearing
further
to make
subject to receipt of additional
information from the attorney, with regard
to character of the neighborhood, in terms
of other nonconforming setbacks and lot
coverage.
Is there a second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
{See Minutes for Resolution.)
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
HEARING %6530 LOUIS AND ELIZABETH MASTRO
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before us is for Louis and
Elizabeth Mastro, %6530, and this was
adjourned from January 5th. So there is no
need to read the legal notice. Who is here
to represent the applicant?
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: That would be me.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hi.
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: My name is Steve
Christiansen, and Richard Boyd Architects,
located in Massapequa, New York 11758.
Obviously, I am here for clients, the
Mastro's. Location 1595 Bayview Ave, in
Southotd. Section 52, Block 9, Lot 5, and
it's Zoned R40. I won't pain you with a --
with the whole history of this project. So
just real quick, previously we did a
two-story home. Unfortunately, due to the
economy, not able to get the funding, we
restricted the extent of what was going to
be built. Stating that, we got away from a
two-story, that no longer exist. We're
just going to add on to the existing
structure. Now, the existing structure is
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 72
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 nonconforming structure. We're here
today due to the side yard setbacks. The
-- previously when they were here, it was
back on January 5th. There was a stair
that was going down into the basement,
which they had mentioned some concern about
it and encroaching further into the side
yard. They actually took that off. They
said, you know, let's not -- that's not an
issue. So they took that off. The
addition is in the front of the house.
Again, I know you went through this last
time. So I won't go through it in depth.
But the addition is in the front of the
house. It is in lining with the existing
structure. The roof on the existing
structure is being removed. They're making
it a new structure so that in ties into the
new addition, with the front porch. Also
going back to the hearing in January, the
ZBA had requested moving the back of the
home back from the water, one foot, which
we did. So we pulled that back. And
that is pretty much the extent of the
addition.
March 1, 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
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am looking at
the November 23, 2011 Notice of
Disapproval, do you have that?
to be
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: The
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This
anything but productive,
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Sure.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We're
homeowner does.
is not meant
okay?
trying to
understand between your site plan on your
documents and so forth, and what's existing
on that December 5, 2011. There are some
minor modifications on what we have today
on this Notice of Disapproval.
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Okay.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Reading that
Notice of Disapproval, we're showing --
don't have it yet?
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: No, she is still
looking for it.
you
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What I would
like to do is go through the variances that
are requested because there have been some
minor changes.
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Sure, go ahead.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: For example, the
March 1, 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
side yard has
increased. I believe one
side yard is 10.6 3/4 feet.
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: That's correct.
That's to the existing house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right. So
is a conforming side yard because the
requires a minimum of 10 feet. I guess
other one is to the east. The westerly
side yard is 8.8?
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: It's 8.8.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I think it's 17.11.
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: No, it's 8 foot 8
is existing.
that
code
the
It is actually at the grade or location.
Further towards the water. The side yard
on the existing would be less than the 8
foot 8. If you notice the house is skewed
going towards the house. So the -- so on
the proposed addition where the front of
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It was 7.9 on
the Notice of Disapproval. That must
have --
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: That was with the
bilco door. The existing 8 foot 8, if you
noticed the house is skewed a little bit.
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the existing house is, it's 8 foot 8.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right.
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: At the furthest
point of the house, it's 9 foot 5 1/2 on
the proposed addition.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right.
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: It wasn't a bilco
door. It was a concrete stair. That is
completely
CHAIRPERSON
is one completely
setback of
MR.
removed.
WEISMAN: So what we
removed single side
nonconformity; correct?
CHRISTIANSEN: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
combined side yard setback
the code requires 25 feet?
MR. CHRISTIANSEN:
10.6 and 3/4's is on the
And the total
is 18.5, where
That is correct.
south side.
No. The
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
No.
survey here indicates a clear side
the clearest point is 7.11.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's
northerly, closest to the water?
just
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right.
getting sloppy paperwork --
have
yard
yard and
This
the
is
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 76
6
7
8
9
10
tl
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: It's 7.9, I just
looked at the actual survey. That is at
the worse case scenario.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 10.6 and 3/4 and
7.11, for a total of -- add those two
together and see what the total side yard
is, that would be the combined, 18.5. The
bulkhead setback, the existing is 36 1/2.
The code requires 75.
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Actually, the
36 1/2 was the proposed. Previously, we
moved it back the one foot. On the plan
that says existing, it should have been
changed to proposed.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: See what I mean
about confusion?
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What are you
proposing for the bulkhead?
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: From the bulkhead
to the concrete block wall, it's 32 foot
and 11 1/2. On the plan that you are
looking at, it actually says "existing."
It should say "proposed." So what happened
was, when we took the one foot off, it was
March 1, 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
just not changed. The existing stayed on
there. It should have been changed to
proposed. From the new proposed wall that
is getting moved back more, one foot, to
the concrete block wall, it will be 32 foot
11 1/2.
MEMBER DINIZIO: That is proposed?
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: That is what the
proposed is. It should not existing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Why do we have
-- so it should not say, "existing?"
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: It should not say
existing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Finally, it
looks like the 35 foot required rear yard
in the original Notice of Disapproval cited
it at 34 feet, and you're not proposed
36 1/2 feet, which is now conforming;
correct?
line.
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: To the high water
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Well,
that is the way that it is written. I
think we have more or less all sorted out.
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: I apologize for
March 1, 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.
good
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It would be very
if you could summarize it for us.
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Absolutely, not a
problem.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So we need a new
amended (In Audible).
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Basically the
survey that we currently have, it is
correct. The only thing that is not on
here, is the number that you stated 7.11,
which is on the north side of the house,
and that's on the rear of
adjacent to the water.
indicated on here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
to make sure that when we
have really accurate
think --
MR. CHRISTIANSEN:
I can actually take this
off where it says
locations and put
add the additional side yard,
7.11 that you are referencing.
the house,
That is not
I just wanted
deliberated, we
information. And I
If you would like,
survey and take
"existing" on the three
"proposed." Then I can
which is the
That does
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 79
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
not show on this, because I only put the
proposed side yard setbacks. That is why I
have the 8 foot 8.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: If
that and hand you the one
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
What I want to do is where
nonconformity's are and where
reducing or eliminating those
nonconformities. You can do it
lines. You can have it
survey would be fine.
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: I
That will be fine.
be
Ail right.
I can just add
sheet --
That's fine.
your original
you are
with dotted
on one document. A
can do that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The second would
that we requested from the architect an
analysis of the soundment of the structure.
What we got was a letter that upon visual
inspection, "the existing foundation is
adequate for the construction proposed.
The existing crawl space will remain and
the existing house will go to a two-bedroom
home, to a one-bedroom home." There is no
reference whatsoever to what the structural
March 1, 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
soundment of the existing walls. We don't
know if this is a tare down of a foundation
or not.
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: The existing
foundation is staying right where it is.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The foundation?
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: That is not being
touched.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am not
questioning that. I am asking -- I simply
asked the architect to provide us with the
structural soundness of the exterior and
interior walls. We do have a familiarity
with this project. We know it has been
there for a very long time, and under other
circumstances, we have had amped testimony
to the fact that it was not salvageable.
It was first going to be a demo because
this house was so full of mold, and that it
was not salvageable. We do not have that
current updated information. It's very
hard for me to believe that it would be an
improved condition then a --
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: I understand.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I want to avoid
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 81
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that
just
the
that
before
to put
crawl
that
when we're coming down the pipe.
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Understood. Now,
so you know from going back and forth,
reason why I believe that they stated
it was not sound, because going back
they made it a new home, they wanted
a foundational, below the existing
space. Once they wanted to
far, the existing foundation
wasn't that sufficient. The cost
everything else, it just became not
it. So the structural instability,
go down
really
and
worth
that is
most likely what they were referring to.
As far as the mold is concerned, which they
also had mentioned to me, when we were
there at the house, the mold on the
sheetrock. A lot of the mildew grew out,
and it was just on the sheetrock. So I
don't know what extent the mold was, but
you know, you see some mildew and mold, and
they, I guess, became concerned. The back
porch roof was actually -- when the
shingles were off and there was actually a
leak, and as far as the structure itself
goes, the floors are fine. The walls are
March 1, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
Ail the perimeter walls are going
stay. Obviously, except the rear wall
because that has to be moved in.
to
have the Building Inspector here any more,
but the bottom line is very important,
which is why we ask for this information
from someone with a professional license.
This is going to be taken down to the
foundation --
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: It's not --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You have already
acknowledged that you are going to be
putting on a new roof. I want to know why
this Notice of Disapproval says demolition
and your not responding to the questions of
this Board -- if you want to speak, it's
fine. You need to come to the microphone
and state your name.
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Just real quick and
from my end, the existing house, the
foundation, first floor and walls are
remaining. The roof is getting torn off.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
of Disapproval
triggered this
Well, the Notice
was for a demolition, which
application. And we don't
March 1, 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
and the back wall
will be new.
So it's a
If there is anything --
is being moved in. So that
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
partial demolition?
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: That is correct.
Now, we were told from the last meeting to
move that wall in and obviously that has to
come in. And the whole roof is coming off.
The floor and walls are staying.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It has nothing to
personally do with this hearing, but we're
just trying to alleviate all of this stuff,
so we don't --
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Absolutely. I
GOEHRINGER: What I am saying
understand.
MEMBER
to you as a member of this Board, I don't
know how the Building Department is going
to relate that foundation. That is the
reason why from an engineering standpoint,
we're just alerting you to say, you -- I am
alerting you to say, that you need an
engineering report to say this will be able
to withstand the new second story --
unfinished second story roof, because if
March 1, 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
not, you're coming back to us again, for
the fourth time.
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Let's say when the
new ridge goes on and (In Audible)
obviously, that's a new load and have to
address it. So the foundation itself is
fine, with whatever additional we can add.
It would actually add
carry that load.
perimeter of the home.
the pier to
MEMBER
should just
that.
an additional pier to
It wouldn't go past the
We would just add
carry it.
GOEHRINGER: Well, I think
give us a letter indicating
MR. CHRISTIANSEN:
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
am making a statement myself, but --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Have you
examined the studs on the perimeter wall?
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Yes, I have.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And they're not
rotted?
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: They are not.
Okay.
I think that may
situation in your respect. No
we hope this takes care of it.
I
you
help the
offense,
March 1, 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
CHAIRPERSON
windows and doors?
MR. CHRISTIANSEN:
WEISMAN: Okay. Hew
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
existing siding?
MR. CHRISTIANSEN:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
summarize exactly what is
exactly what is going to
Yes.
How about
the
replaced or done from scratch in a letter?
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Yeah. Sure. Not
problem. I just want you to be aware as
far as the foundation goes, it's not really
the foundation, it's the whole structure,
any additional loads that we're putting on
that structure can actually pick those up.
We actually picked those loads up and add
additional supports.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You testified in
the last hearing, when I see unpointed
blocks. When I know water can get into
unpointed blocks, and that is one of the
concerns that I have on the south side of
the house, okay. The integrity of the
foundation may be fine, but when I see
Tongue and groove.
Can you please
staying and
have to be
March 1, 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
those types of situations -- I am not a
building insoector. I have just been here
for a long time and I know how these things
occur, and that is one of the reasons why I
am looking at it from that standpoint.
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: As far as blocks
go, blocks can stay under water. Block is
fine to be wet at all times. So it's not
an issue. The only time that it becomes an
issue, is if we had to (In Audible) the
foundation, but obviously Long Island is a
big flood zone. So my foundation is
continuously on the water. I am on the
South Shore. As far as water penetrating,
that is fine. It's not a concern from our
end.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have actually
dug down and looked at the foundation at
the pump --
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Yes, we have. We
have dug done and it was fine. That is
correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do any of the
other Board members have questions? Jim?
George? Ken?
March 1, 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
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you like
to say something?
MS. MASTRO: Liz Mastro. I would just
like to say something about the demolition.
That was from the Building Department.
Mike wrote that. They were determining
what it was. I actually asked Pat why it
was written like that, and she said it was
determined by how much work is going to be
done. That is what she said.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MS. MASTRO: She said if the Zoning
Board does not like that, then she will
change it. That is what they told me.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Is there
anyone in the audience that would like to
address this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON
further comments,
motion to
WEISMAN: Hearing no
I am going to make a
close this hearing subject to
receipt of a letter, a revised survey
showing existing and proposed setbacks.
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Not a problem.
March 1, 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
Once again, I apologize for that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Lot coverage and
front yard setback has never been an issue.
And some sort of analysis --
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: That's fine.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Addressing the
parts of the building that will remain.
Parts that will be removed and the
structural integrity.
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: That's fine, yep.
And how long should I have that to you? I
mean, I will get that right out to you
right away. I will send that out on
Monday, is that fine?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is fine.
As soon as we receive it, we will start
deliberating.
MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there a
second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
March 1, 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
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
*******************************************
HEARING #6547 - DAVID STEELE
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for David
Steele, #
Article III
Inspector's
Disapproval
6547. Request for variance from
Section 280-15 and the Building
February 1, 2012 Notice of
based on an application for
building permit for accessory solar panels
at: 1) location other than the code
required rear yard, located at: 12500
CR 48, corner of Elijah's Lane, Mattituck.
Is someone here to address the
application?
I am David Steele, the
Good morning.
MR. STEELE:
owner of the property.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MR. STEELE: Good afternoon.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Time does fly.
Okay. Ail right. So what would you like
to tell us?
MR. STEELE:
I am just trying to put
March 1, 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
some solar panels up on my side yard, and
it's not working out too good.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This Board -- so
it's in the side yard. I think the Notice
of Disapproval says the front yard. The
Board members -- just so you are aware of
it, did make personal inspection of this
of where you are
And how
property. The house
proposing to put the panels.
is that from the line?
MR. STEELE: Seven or
feet.
CHAIRPERSON
very well tree'd.
MR. STEELE:
From Elijah's,
never see it.
CHAIRPERSON
1/2 concrete pad;
MR. STEELE:
CHAIRPERSON
questions. Let's
Jim?
far
from the railroad, you will
MEMBER DINIZIO: Nope.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
WEISMAN: And it's also
It's an Ag property.
You will never see it.
WEISMAN: It's a 38 x 15
is that correct?
Correct.
WEISMAN: I don't have any
see if the Board has any.
eight hundred
March 1, 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
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You are
make a shed out of it?
MR. STEELE: No.
not going to
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: Yeah, I have a few.
We're accepting the site plan survey dated
September 2, 1996 as the site plan that we
are using?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It has been
drawn in by hand. It's not to scale, but
it shows you the location.
MEMBER HORNING: More or less, yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I comment on it?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You can.
MEMBER DINIZIO: This is really not
microphone.)
Nothing
is
your
In Audible).
(Not near a
MR. STEELE:
MEMBER HORNING: The
that right?
MR. STEELE: Yes.
has changed.
lots were merged,
MEMBER HORNING: What made you put
concrete pad right where it is?
MR. STEELE: Because it's the closest
March 1, 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
that I could get to my LIPA panel.
MEMBER HORNING: Okay. And that has
some critical bearing?
MR. STEELE: Yeah, it's the side of
house that has the meter on it. That
really raises a cost on how many feet you
my
have to be from the -- where your panel is.
If I had it way in the back where the barn
is, it would be a couple of hundred feet.
MEMBER HORNING: Because you're
going to be generated electricity and not
water --
MR. STEELE: Yep, just electricity.
MEMBER HORNING: How much electricity
do you think you're going to be generating
from the size of the panels?
MR. STEELE: It's a 10K system coming
right off the grid.
MEMBER HORNING: And the overall
height of the finished install from the
ground?
MR.
that
should
It's
STEELE: I don't think that I have
paper with me. I think you guys
have it. I think it's 6 or 8 feet.
no more than 8 feet.
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 93
1 MEMBER HORNING: The purpose of the
2 panels are to create electricity?
3 MR. STEELE: Right.
4 MEMBER HORNING: And attach itself to
5 the electric grid?
6 MR. STEELE: Yep.
7 MEMBER HORNING: And the reason why
8 you are putting it where you want to have
9 it is because that is the closest
l0 attachment to your incoming power supply
11 right now.
12 MR. STEELE: Correct.
13 MEMBER HORNING: Thank you.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any other
15 questions?
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
18 in the audience that would like to address
19 this application?
20 (No Response.)
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
22 further comments, I am going to make a
23 motion to close this hearing and reserve
24 decision to a later date.
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 94
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
{See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6545 DOUGALL FRASER
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Dougall Fraser,
#6545, request for variance from Articles
XXIII Code Section 280-124, based on an
application for building permit and the
Building Inspector's November 10, 2011,
updated February 2, 2012 Notice of
Disapproval concerning proposed deck
addition to existing single family
dwelling, at: 1) less than the code
required minimum front yard setback of 40
feet located at: 7555 Nassau Point, corner
of Tuthill Road, adjacent to Little Peconic
Bay, in Cutchogue.
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Hi, Dave
Cichanowicz, acting as agent to Dougall
Fraser. I got some affidavits and such.
March 1, 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
CHAIRPERSON
WEISMAN: Very good. Okay
used by the community, or that portion of
the community. It is not really
technically Town -- regular street. It
doesn't meet any of the criteria of the
street, thus should be treated in the same
fashion as a front road setback.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We all went to
the site, and saw basically what you just
as far as
Tuthill Road, which shows on the tax map,
you have taken a visit to the site, the
actual road is a right-of-way to the beach,
described. There is a grassy area, that
goes to the beach?
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Who uses that?
Anybody?
MR. CICHANOWICZ: It's not vehicle.
It's just for the private owners, but it
does give legal right-of-way to that little
portion of the community. It's a selective
group that has it deeded to their
particular property. I think it does
what would you like to tell us?
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Well,
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 96
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
affect the actual people that we sent
notices to but I don't know to what extent.
I don't think it's a big extent.
MEMBER HORNING: So you're saying it's
a private right-of-way?
MR. CICHANOWICZ:
Private
right-of-way, yes. It would not be open to
us for us to go down and take a walk. It's
deeded in each individual's deed. Saying
that I have this particular right-of-way,
which is located where Tuthill Road is.
And it also serves as a driveway or access
for Dougall Fraser, as well as Mr. Stack.
The neighbor to the north. It feeds both
of those houses.
MEMBER HORNING: When the house was
built, can you give us a date on that?
MR. CICHANOWICZ: 1920-ish. That is
the old survey that I had done. I have
updated the information, but some of the
stuff shows that it was dated well back,
1920.
MEMBER HORNING: 19207
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Right.
MEMBER HORNING: Because we have some
March 1, 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
paperwork on it for an addition in 1964.
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Right.
MEMBER HORNING: And there has never
been any variances granted on it?
MR. CICHANOWICZ: No.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is an old
name?
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Very old. I guess
Dougall and his sister now own the
property. It was given to them from their
parents.
MEMBER DINIZIO: When you look at the
property card, it's interesting.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Very.
the record to reflect that the deck is
proposed about 8 feet by 34.3.
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Correct.
Just for
CHAIRPERSON
side of the house.
WEISMAN:
Run along the
MR. CICHANOWICZ: It will actually be
along the road side of the house. One of
the reasons for the construction of this,
is to make it easier for Mr. Fraser to
access his first floor house. I mean, he
has now an old garage that goes underneath
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the house and he has to go upstairs to
get to that first floor. Unless you come
in from the water side, there is access
there. This deck is going to eliminate
that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MR. CICHANOWICZ: We are just looking
to rebuild the steps, and have the deck.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Does anyone have
any further questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: I do. I just looked
at your reasons you wrote down, and maybe
you can clarify them for me?
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Sure.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Under the undesirable
change, you say the proposed deck is going
to be built within the
that's really not so.
MR. CICHANOWICZ:
existing house,
I meant was, not further out passed
of the house on the right-of-way.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. Do you
can you get a copy of the deed from
Town?
MR. CICHANOWICZ: I would imagine I
You are right. What
the end
have --
the
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 99
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
can.
of
MEMBER DINIZIO: I just want to kind
establish that road.
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Right.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You are saying that
it is restricted to certain types of people
on a deed. It would be nice for that to be
in the record.
MR. CICHANOWICZ:
MEMBER DINIZIO:
copy of it.
CHAIRPERSON
can get it.
MEMBER
Okay.
So if we can
get a
to make a determination about that
right-of-way?
MR. CICHANOWICZ: No.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. And this is
all going to be within the building
envelope? You say it's not going to go any
further?
MR.
CICHANOWICZ:
MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER HORNING:
Correct.
Thank you.
George?
No more.
WEISMAN: Vicki said she
Vicki will look into that.
DINIZIO: You are not asking us
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
else
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There is no one
in the audience. Then I am going to
make a motion to close this hearing subject
to receipt from our office, research
examining the right-of-way, and the deed.
Is there a second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6538 9105 SKUNK LANE, LLC.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for 9105
Skunk Lane, LLC, %6538. This was adjourned
from a public hearing in February. So
there is no need to read the legal notice.
March 1, 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
MS. TOTH: It's a new notice.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's right.
It's a new Notice of Disapproval, so we
will. They're requesting different
variances. So request for variances from
Article III Code Section 280-13(C)4(b),
Section 20-15(F) and Article XXII 280-105A,
and the Building Inspector's
December 20, 2011, amended January 19,
Notice of Disapproval based on an
2012
application for building permit to build a
tennis court with fence surround on a
vacant lot, at: 1) use of a tennis court
is not permitted on a vacant lot without a
principal dwelling, 2) accessory structures
at less than the code required principal
setback of 50 feet, 3) tennis court fence
at more than the code required maximum
height of 4 feet in a front yard, located
at: 9105 Skunk Lane, adjacent to Little
Creek, dredge canal, in Cutchogue.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Mark Schwartz,
architect for the project.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay, go ahead,
Mark.
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. SCHWARTZ: The applicant owns the
relative property to the east and west.
There was not enough space for the tennis
court. We're now placing it on the water
side of the property, which would have a
negative impact on the shoreline. The
applicant obtained the lot to use it for
recreational purposes. The applicant is
willing to put covenants and restrictions
on the property, similar to the Zoning
Board of Appeals decision #6359, which was
approved recently. And the front yard
variance is also requested, because they
would like to finish their driveway.
Wrapping around the property, and that kind
of obstructs the tennis court. The
proposed tennis court is 195 feet from the
wetlands. 30 feet off of the road. The
fence would be a black chainlink fence at
approximately 6.5 feet. No lighting is
proposed on the tennis court. The tennis
court will be used seasonally and enjoy
daylight hours. And what I just gave you,
describes some of the views across from the
creek. A view looking at the property,
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 103
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
which is currently vegetated along the
street line, with some pretty heavy (In
Audible), rock. And the last three photos
are the Zoning Board of Appeals decision
%6539, a tennis court on a vacant lot. You
can't really see it from the road. It
really doesn't have any effect on the
neighborhood.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Mark, can you
explain to us, you recently just provided
us with a colored landscaped plan, of --
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Upon site
inspection, there was a brand new house, is
that the house that is on here?
MR. SCHWARTZ: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is being
called a guest house?
MR. SCHWARTZ: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: In other words,
there is another house in front of the
principal dwelling that is on the water?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, separate lots.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The way this
drawn, I am not sure of the boundary of
March 1, 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
these lots. You
of the principal
owns the two other
MR. SCHWARTZ:
lot where the tennis
Separate lots that
family.
are saying that the owner
dwelling, let's call it,
lots?
Yeah, there is a vacant
court is proposed.
are owned by the same
each?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
applicant merge lots, with
those residential lots, and
have an accessory structure
A dwelling on
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. Well, I think the
family, estate planning, they really don't
want to merge the lots. They would like
to, you know, down the road, they are not
planning on doing any building there, I
think they would like to have
option down the road.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, in he case
that you cited where we had covenants and
restrictions on the tennis court, that lot
is across the street. There was no way
that as an
Why can't the
either one of
then you can
on it?
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
they could merge the lots. Here you have
an obvious answer if you want to do. This
lot is for recreational purposes, it is a
lot for a principal dwelling. And I don't
know if the argument, to ensure equity and
so on, estate planning, you can put a
tennis court on a separate structure,
vacant lot. So I would like
arguments, if you have them?
MR. SCHWARTZ: I don't
other
understand why
a tennis court on a vacant lot is such --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's not allowed
by code, that's why.
MR. SCHWARTZ: What's the negative
impact concernable for someone to see?
It's just a flat surface with a net?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I could
see a six foot fence from 20 feet away.
MR. SCHWARTZ: We are going to plan it
out properly, as you can see from some of
these photos, you can barely see it.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You know, we have
approved tennis courts over the years. We
have had some lots joined. Some not
joined, but still held in the same name.
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 106
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
i1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Some of them get turned down. We just
turned down a guy who wanted a basketball
court.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Right.
MEMBER DINIZIO: It had a removable
backboard, and no fence. It was adjoining
his property. You know, he had the other
option. And another problem with having
them on vacant lots, is generally going
back and forth, and some people find it
annoying. It's a less impediment on the
lot line. Those are the reasons we have
turned them down. It's not allowed. Just
the code, it's not allowed. We can't do
it.
MR. SCHWARTZ: But if you wanted to
build a house and a tennis court, that
would be allowed?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Of course.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: Sir, what is the
needs to have
do you need it
compelling argument why it
front yard variance? Why
foot from the road.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well,
yeah, when I got
a
March 1, 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
the proposed landscape plan, the driveway
was a different shape that we had in our
plan.
MEMBER HORNING: How much of it is
proposed other then the construction on the
other lot of the guest house is there, the
other building is being built, how much of
a landscaped park area -- how much is
proposed and how much is going to be there?
It's not finished is it?
MR. SCHWARTZ: No, it's not finished.
MEMBER HORNING: It could be
relocated? The area for the vegetable
garden, couldn't that be swapped and put
near the road, where it wouldn't need a
variance, and the tennis court is down on
that lot pushed back? So you wouldn't need
a variance either? You don't need a
variance for a garden in your front yard.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Correct.
MEMBER HORNING: The pond, does that
actually exist right now, or is that a
proposed pond, that they could put
something else? That they can put the
proposed tennis court for example?
March 1, 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
MR. SCHWARTZ: The pond is existing.
MEMBER HORNING: Is it going to be --
MR. SCHWARTZ: There is no plans to
change it. We're trying to work around
it.
MEMBER HORNING: And in back of the
guest house, there is no room for a tennis
court?
MR. SCHWARTZ: There might be room
there, but it's going to take away from the
shoreline. There is a beautiful view from
the neighbor's property, across the creek.
I don't think that would be positive in
anyone's mind.
MEMBER HORNING: Even though you say
it's iow profile?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah, well --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You are aware
that our job is to grant the minimal amount
of variance possible? You can decrease the
amount of variance by moving forward, more
towards the trees. Second, this Board (In
Audible) and we have in past seen tennis
courts where it's at two feet and the fence
is only four feet above grade. You know,
March 1, 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
it seems to me that the applicant's want to
create a very beautiful compound with lots
of recreational activities, but a tennis
court is very large. Six foot high fence
is an obstructional visual. When there is
an option to merge a piece of property to
legalize it, you still have to get a
variance for the front yard, in regards to
the front yard that's even if you
setback,
merge the lots.
MR.
if we worked the
more towards the
recess the tennis
not an issue with
it be a possibility to
merging these lots?
SCHWARTZ: If we were able to --
driveway and push this
front yard, and if we
court, so that there is
the fence height, would
approve without
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I can't -- I
think some of the other Board members can
address that. We would have to consider
it. We would have to close the hearing and
then deliberate. I can't guarantee what
anyone will do. We have to really go back
and see if there is substantial arguments,
as to why the alternative of merging these
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
lots is not viable. I am sure the Board
will consider your arguments.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You know, you are
asking to put a use on a piece of property
that is not -- doesn't qualify for that
use. That is almost a use variance in my
mind. You are asking to use a piece of
property that the Town doesn't give anyone
permission to do. It's okay if you have a
house on it and you want to put a tennis
court on it. They can be screened, but to
actually put a use on an empty lot, seems
to be pretty important. You know, from
past practices and how we handled it in the
past, with the exception of that one
notice, I can't think of one that we have
granted that was a separate lot. There was
a basketball court that was back to back,
even though they weren't side to side, and
the lot was probably only 300 foot and
adjoined by 100 feet. There was no proof
that there as any hardship to him. You do
have other pieces on this property that you
can do it. When we start granting use
variances on empty lots, then that's a
March 1, 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
problem too.
MR. SCHWARTZ: So if we come back
an application and we just go to the
Building Department with a proposed house
and tennis court, 50 feet and a 4 foot
with
fence, then we can get approved for the
tennis court without a variance?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well --
MR. SCHWARTZ: That is not a good
argument to allow a tennis court then?
MEMBER DINIZIO: You don't have a
principal structure on it.
MEMBER HORNING: What is the
possibility of shifting the tennis court
with the guest house -- doesn't it seem
like it can go to the left of the proposed
volleyball court? You might not need a
variance.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You wouldn't.
MEMBER HORNING: So I mean, if you
just flip those around.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, it would still be
a side yard variance.
MEMBER DINIZIO: It wouldn't fit in
the front. Couldn't fit in the front.
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 112
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's a pretty
narrow lot.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I think we
heard a range of comments. I am going to
ask if there is anyone else in the audience
that would like to address this
application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Are there
comments or questions from any other Board
member?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Just a comment,
both of these parcels are zoned R-407
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, I believe so.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The subject lot has
a buildable area over 40,000?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Buildable area?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Buildable area is
40,472. That is what it says here.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. If you were
to preserve that lot and merge, and then
un-merge it?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Not likely.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
apply.
They could
March 1, 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
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: They could apply.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's a pretty
arduous process. Okay. If there are no
other comments or questions from anyone
to make a motion to close
reserve decision to a
else, I am going
this hearing and
later date.
Is there a
second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
favor?
HEARING #6535 DAVID M. HALL
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay, the next
application is for David M. Hall. This was
adjourned from a public hearing on
January 5th. So we will continue the
hearing now.
MR. NOTARO: I am Frank Notaro,
representing the Hall's on this matter.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
*******************************************
March 1, 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
Just a quick recap, we had a drainage issue
on the project, which I hope to have
addressed. And we removed the concrete
patio, which acts as a shoot for any water,
and we put a drain right there and a dry
well. That should alleviate the problem.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We got your plan
on what you
this --
It's right
dry well.
here. I just want to confirm
had submitted. In the notation of
where is it? It's not here.
here.
There is a drain and a
MR. NOTARO: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The
roof runoff
for the proposed accessory garage --
MR. NOTARO: Yes. It's a drain right
there that is going to the dry well.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right. I
see it. I had circled that.
MR. NOTARO: And we also added the
well's for the proposed garage.
MEMBER HORNING: Mr. Notaro, in your
dry
estimation, would the proposed dry well's
resolve the drainage problem of the water
running from the property to the neighbor's
property down hill? Not the common
March 1, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
driveway, but just from the property
itself?
MR. NOTARO: Right. Honestly,
looked at the photographs again,
that the concrete sidewalk is not
the situation, because it goes
property and they have quite a
when I
it appears
helping
onto their
bit of
packed gravel. So there is not a lot of
absorption area, number one. I believe it
is alleviated.
MEMBER HORNING: Let's say if the
ground was frozen and you have rain --
MR. NOTARO: That is a lot of gravel
right up to their house. There is a
circular driveway. It would be better if
they would take that out --
MEMBER HORNING: But they're not going
to take that out, are they?
MR. NOTARO: What? The concrete
walkway, yes. The one that connects to the
edge of their driveway to the property,
we're going to take that concrete out of
there. There is no kind of a path of water
to run from that. They're going to plant
grass on that. We're actually going to
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 116
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have a drain right at the cusp.
MEMBER HORNING: Right. And again, do
you think that will satisfactory address
drainage runoff
neighbor's property?
from the property
MR. NOTARO: Yes,
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
the Board have additional
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
in the audience that would
this application? Please,
MS. HART: My name is
H-A-R-T, and I live at
just wanted to ask you
to the
on
I believe so.
Does anyone
questions?
NO.
Is there anyone
like to address
come up.
Catherine Hart,
I really didn't understand. Is that going
to be used as a catch basin?
MR. NOTARO: I don't know why it says
catch basin. It's really just a grill that
runs into a dry well.
MS. HART: How deep will the dry well
be? Can I ask that question?
MR. NOTARO: It would be a four foot
diameter. You have to put sand there, so
we should not get that much water
1900 Westphalia. I
a question, because
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 117
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
collecting there. We're getting rid of the
concrete sidewalk, because that is the
first conduit for the surface from the
driveway to your packed gravel driveway.
MS. HART: We don't have a packed
gravel driveway.
MR. NOTARO: Well, I am just going --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am just going
to remind you both, that I am permitting
you to talk to each other but the fact is,
the questions need to be asked to the
Board. Ms. Hart, I believe there had been
some conversation with you and your
neighbor, and your neighbor indicated that
you were satisfied with the proposed --
MS. HART: Yeah, it appears it will
take care of the problem. We removed part
of the sidewalk that was on our property,
which was the flow -- how fast the water
was flowing down. We obviously couldn't
remove a sidewalk that was not on our
property. So this dry well, should handle
the water that comes off the driveway.
Mr. Hall is going to redirect his leaders
from our house to the dry well, and
away
March 1, 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
20
21
22
23
24
25
that
should help also.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good.
HART: And then the leaders that
the new garage, will go to the dry
well, I guess that is the west side of the
garage. One other question, because I
always need to have a back-up plan, what if
it doesn't work? What do I do?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Town
MS.
come off
Engine&r essentially has jurisdiction.
It's an impact, and as an adjacent
neighbor, your comments are very relative.
We really are not the authority on it. The
Town Engineer is the one. I do know that
we have a State mandate (In Audible) for
all properties. So I would think it would
have to be essentially the Town Engineer
not
who would have to get involved.
MS. HART: Okay. I am sure that is
going to happen, and this will work.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I hope it will
work well, but that would be the
appropriate --
MS. HART:
MEMBER
Okay. Thank you.
HORNING: I have one
other
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 119
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
question, and I might have missed it at the
last hearing. Why is not the proposed
garage, being proposed of being attached to
the house, and therefore not needing a
variance?
MR. NOTARO: Because we had tried
that, and it comes into two bedrooms.
There is -- you know, there is an economic
value to what we're doing.
MEMBER HORNING: Right.
MR. NOTARO: It would be a lot of work
for them to put any kind of access.
MEMBER HORNING: Ail right. So we did
cover that ground at the last hearing but I
just wanted to ask that.
MR. NOTARO: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any other
comments or questions from the Board?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anything from
the audience?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
further comments, I will make a motion to
close this hearing and reserve decision to
March 1, 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
a
later date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
- PATRICIA MELE AND CHERYL
Our next
HEARING #6542
CHRISTIANO.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
application is for
Christiano, %6542.
from Article XXIII
Article XXII Section
Building Inspector's
of Disapproval based
Patricia Mele and Cheryl
Request for variance
Section 280-124 and
280-116 and the
January 6, 2012 Notice
on an application for
building permit for demolition and
reconstruction, including first floor
additions and new second story at: 1) less
than the code required minimum side yard
setback of 10 feet; 2) less than the code
required combined side yard setbacks of
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25 feet; 3) less than
minimum bulkhead setback
located at: 1200, a.k.a.
Drive, adjacent
Mattituck.
Is someone here?
the code required
of 75 feet,
1140, Hole
Deep
to Deep Hole Creek,
MR. FOX: Yeah, hi. I am Rob Fox.
am actually helping the clients, if you
will, with the paperwork procedure, and I
am also
manager on
additional
you need them?
going to be acting as the project
this project. I do have some
signatures on the mailing, if
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, we were
looking for those. And I would also like
to give you the LWRP recommendation, and
the Suffolk County notices, that this is
for local determination. This is for you
file.
I am
spell
I
So please, proceed.
My name is Kirk
on the project.
Niemann.
WEISMAN: Would you please
Okay.
MR. NIEMANN:
the architect
CHAIRPERSON
your name?
MR. NIEMANN: N-I-E-M-A-N-N, last
March 1, 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
name. And the property -- the house that
is existing currently, does not meet the
combined setback. And with that, the
family was looking to put an addition on
because they need the space. There is four
children that are also going to be moving
into the house as well, and with that, we
encroach on four of five setbacks. In any
case, we encroach within the 10 foot
minimum. On the other side, there would be
more than a 15 foot. In any case -- also
in the front, there is an existing septic
tank that we want to stay as far away as
possible. And that case, because it will
encroach on one of the setbacks.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let's just
noticed
review the details. I
the combined side yard setback is
correct? And the code requires 25
MR. NIEMANN: Yes.
that some --
19.5;
feet?
Your application
feet, was that
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
says 11.8, 7.8 and 9.7
corrected?
MR. NIEMANN: I
corrected. It's 9.8
believe that was
on one side and 9.7
on
March 1, 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
at
the other.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
the Notice of Disapproval is
the application is not, all
side yard setback is 9.7 feet,
code requires 10 feet?
MR. NIEMANN: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Bulkhead
68.7 feet, where the Notice of
Ail right. So
accurate but
right. Single
where the
setback
house is not getting closer to the water.
It's going up.
MR. FOX: There is a preexisting deck
there that the current setback is based on,
and the new proposed house will be within
that same footprint.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The bulkhead
setback that exist now is 68.7 feet and
will remain 68.7 feet?
MR. FOX: That's correct.
that
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
there is no wetlands permit
MR. FOX: Right.
DEC says
required.
Disapproval 63.3 existing and proposed --
what is your proposed bulkhead setback?
MR. NIEMANN: It's the same. The
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry, how about
some questions?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have been to the
site. It appears that the house is -- the
present house is well positioned on the
property. Almost in the center.
MR. FOX: It is, right.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What's the reason
for bringing the driveway over 9.7 on the
southeast side?
MR. FOX: The distance, we wanted to
stay away from the septic. The septic is
brand new. Brand new being about
3-years-old.
MR. NIEMANN: They have five rings on
the north side. I don't remember off hand,
what the distance is required to be off the
property, but based on the individual who
installed them, his documentation of where
those rings are, the driveway edge is
almost against to those rings at that
point. So with a two-car garage and being
able for cars to pass through the driveway
there, that is basically ss tight as we can
get that point. But it would be an
March 1, 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
impervious driveway.
the driveway.
It would be gravel
have a
a side
garage
was the
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
So that
purpose of the little step in there?
MR. NIEMANN: Right.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just to get
distance.
MR. NIEMANN: Yes, just to pull
away a little further.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you
is the cost to replace or renovate
septic system?
MR. FOX: Minimum of $6,000.00.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me just go
back to the site plan for a second. It
gave me the impression in looking at the
entire building, that it's very big. It's
only because it includes the garage. It
encompasses the whole house. It's very
hard to visualize from this house how it's
going to mask, when you look at it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's unusual to
long house with a front entrance in
yard. The good news is, that the
-- the attached garage, which is on
that
it
know what
that
on
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 126
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the landward side is one-story.
MR. FOX: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That
some respect, maintain the scale
there now. The second-story was
little bit from the water.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I will
in Mattituck, and certainly
area.
That there are
would, in
of what is
set back a
say, I live
aware of this
several houses that
are not quite
MR. FOX:
the site plan
appears that the house is
perhaps larger then it is.
additional work, will be
as broad as this.
Again, if you take a look
of the double garage, it
footprint. And then you
if you will, a wash room
going to be
Most of the
area, between the garage
preexisting footprint of
MR. NIEMANN: The
now,
all.
doesn't even have
MR. FOX: Right.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
set back.
of
at
above the existing
have that little,
area or laundry
and the
the house.
house that is there
a garage there at
Again, it's kind
March ~, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 127
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. FOX: Yeah, we had no problem as
far as the setback from the road.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's very
unusual by the way. Of course, when you
look at the depth. There are several lots
in the area that are even deeper than that.
The old areas of these -- probably they are
all nonconforming. The owner of this
entire area, lives in that very modern
house across the street, and I have known
Frank for a very long time. The waterfront
was developed first, and then everything
else was developed later.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So let's just
review, the existing dwelling has
nonconforming setbacks?
MR. FOX: Yes. The existing dwelling
has one side as well as nonconforming, the
side yard setback.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's the same --
MR. FOX: It's the same right. It's
replacing the existing back deck of what
will be a porch. A deck above that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And the existing
single side yard setback is?
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 128
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. NIEMANN: The existing on one side
is 10.9 and the other side is 11.6 -- 11.8.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 11.8 and 10.97
MR. FOX: That's correct.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have 11.9 and
12.
MR. FOX: It's so tiny. That is why I
am asking you to tell me.
MR. NIEMANN: The closest on the south
side is 10.9 and the north side is 11.8.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is not what
they are proposing. I am asking them what
they're doing.
actually creating
nonconformance.
MR. FOX: That
minimal difference
width of the house.
18 inches in total.
And what you are doing,
slightly more
is correct. It's a
as far as the overall
is
It's probably, I think
Again, the purpose of
living space up top because when you're
working with a structure that is 25 feet,
it is difficult to squeeze bedrooms and
hallways, just to make it in compliance
with the building code.
that was just to try and get some available
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 129
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there any
way you can get 9.7 feet to 10 feet, or is
that where you were telling us the septic
range?
MR. NIEMANN: Yeah, that would be the
septic range. Are you talking about
the --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The single side
yard -- the bump out? The single side yard
setback, seems to me at some point, you can
probably create a conforming 10 foot side
yard setback, you know?
MR. NIEMANN: Oh, on the south side of
the property?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We're trying to
obviously create the most conformance with
less variances --
be
MR. FOX: Right. It would be probably
out four inches. One of the issues that
you will also have is because of the high
wind zone and the sheer walls, especially
on the corner here of the garage, I think
the minimal distance between the corner and
the garage has to be at least 14 or 15
inches, just for the anchoring
March 1, 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
requirements.
MR. NIEMANN: We would have done it,
if we were structurally able to do it.
MR. FOX: It is minimal, but if may be
an issue.
MR. NIEMANN: That is the minimal
amount that we could. It's very narrow.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just briefly
explain the word, sheer or sheer walls for
us?
MR. NIEMANN: It's a prefabricated
panel that has metal in it. It is supposed
to address high wind loads. It is for
large openings where there is not a lot of
wall (In Audible) say that people who have
houses on the water, people have glass
windows and doors, and the only way to
sheer up that section is not have some wall
surface is to put a sheer wall in, so that
allows you to have more window space and
less wall. But on the garage side, it's
not a matter of having window space. It's
a matter of having an opening just to put a
car there.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is that composite?
March 1, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
MR. FOX: It's not composite. It's
Simpson. The people who make the joist
hangers. It's just a specific type of
anchoring system, if you will. Again, it
is used almost always with garages now.
Again, there is not that much anchoring
ability with a traditional piece of plywood
and some 2x4 and 2x6 construction.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So it's anchored
down into the foundation?
MR. FOX: It's bolted into the
foundation. It's also bolted into the
double plate above it and tied into the
roof.
MR. NIEMANN: So it's like a thin wood
rectangle and with a corrugated piece of
steel in between.
MR. FOX: Right. It's the same thing
but it's steel.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And what did you
say it was made out of?
MR. FOX: It's a piece of steel.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, I mean the
actual covering?
MR. NIEMANN: It's the side casings
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 132
6
7
8
9
10
tl
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that
they?
2x4.
would --
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
And what size are
MR. NIEMANN: This is going to be a
MEMBER HORNING: The propose garage,
you are having a bathroom there?
MR. NIEMANN: No, that was the old
plan. That doesn't exist.
MEMBER HORNING: Ail right. I am
confused by that. It looked like the
proposed second floor went over the garage.
MR. NIEMANN: It used to.
MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
MR. NIEMANN: That is not how it is
now .
MEMBER HORNING: Ail right. My plan
is dated January 23rd.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We can't get
your information on our transcripts, unless
you are by a microphone; however, there
seems to be a little bit of confusion, the
plans are very, very (In Audible) details.
So for the average lay person, it's a
little difficult to read. But having said
March 1, 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
that, particularly the site plan, it is so
small, we're getting confused as to whether
or not this is a conforming side yard and
whether that has to go with this bump out
in there --
MR. NIEMANN: It does.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: But you were
talking about this part of the garage.
Which part of the garage are you talking
about?
MR. NIEMANN: Right here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think the
Board can certainly benefit from a larger
plot plan, which given is not too hard to
provide.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I am looking on the
survey too, received January 19th, and
referred to the existing side yard on the
south of 11.9 feet. Do you see that?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I do.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And the lot plan
drawings look to show 10.9 in that same
location.
MR. FOX: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: So there is a
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 134
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
discrepancy
MEMBER
that on
valid?
MR.
that has
MEMBER
garage.
MR. FOX:
a mistake.
to you.
MEMBER
the actual
MEMBER
That
MR.
That
MEMBER
there.
SCHNEIDER: The architect said
January 23rd, it is no longer
FOX: It's the same. That plan
the second floor on it.
SCHNEIDER: The one over the
That is not there. That was
That should not have been given
SCHNEIDER: So
it.
same.
first
we don't have
and second floor?
HORNING: I thought this was
is why I was asking.
NIEMANN: The footprint is the
hasn't changed.
SCHNEIDER: We would have to
(In Audible.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, it sounds
to me that I think we need some updated
plans, that you have. You have them
available. We just don't seem to have them
at this time. And secondly, the floor
plan --
March 1, 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
MR. FOX: Your version of the site
plan that you requested, I have that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
While you are looking for that,
let me
ask you to talk about the demolition, and
you know, the structure of a new dwelling.
The second-story addition.
MR. NIEMANN: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's a total
demo?
MR. NIEMANN: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Partial demo?
MR. NIEMANN: Partial. Just the roof
is coming off and some interior walls.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Some interior
walls?
MR. NIEMANN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MR. NIEMANN:
Are all
walls
exception of the wall that
glass and everything else
sides virtually staying.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
walls are going to remain.
So the existing
staying with the
is going to be
there. So three
So the three
Is the seaward
March 1, 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
wall being removed?
MR. NIEMANN: Yes, that is going to be
glass and sheer wall.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. So the
foundation is --
MR. NIEMANN: No effect on the
foundation on the existing house. With the
exception of where we're going to be adding
a little bit of concrete for the piers up
against the foundation, where the piers --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: For the
second-story?
MR. NIEMANN: Yeah, to take on weight.
MEMBER HORNING: Sir, do you know what
the minimum required distance is from the
edge of a building to a septic system?
MR. NIEMANN: I was told it was 5 feet
but, which is the code, but when I was at
the Building Department, he said make it as
far away as possible. He preferred 10. So
I tried my best to keep as forward away as
I could, without encroaching too much on
that side.
MEMBER HORNING: I think we are having
little bit of a hard time understanding
a
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 137
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
what needs to have nonconforming setback
when you could have a conforming setback,
and show us the distances from the leaching
containers, and also the corner of the
garage.
MR. NIEMANN: Do you want to see --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The 10 foot
setback is generally the minimum required
by Health Department, I believe. I thought
it was from a property line.
MEMBER HORNING: It looks like there
is plenty of space.
MEMBER DINIZIO: The septic tank is
6 feet away.
MR. NIEMANN: Yeah, but he had wanted
10. He said, give me as much as you an
give me.
MEMBER DINIZIO: If you give us a
foot, it still might not make a distance.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, it's
important to establish what is remaining,
because if you are taking it down to the
foundation, that is a different story, then
if you are going to try and salvage some of
the existing structure and build onto it.
March 1, 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
MR. NIEMANN: Yes, that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What does the
Board want to do? Do you want to get
some --
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let's get some
bigger plans.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Bigger plans
with the updated second floor. You have
all the stuff, but we have not had the
benefit of really seeing it, I would like
to see what the existing setbacks are.
What the proposed setback -- I know it's on
there, but it's just hard to see. Now,
this survey is obviously a size that is
readable. If you can provide a plot plan
of the existing and of the proposed, then
we could see -- even though it is not much,
you are proposing to increase the
nonconformity. And we need a kind of
explanation provided to us here, as to why
you must do that, relative to specific
conditions on the site. It will help us
understand exactly where we are going with
this. I am piecing it together now, with
testimony, but there looks like there was a
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 139
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of conflicting, you know, redundant and
confusing pieces of information. Have I
addressed this properly in the Board's
mind?
MR. FOX: How do I get this
information back to you at this point.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: On the survey,
that bump-out on here is not on the survey.
The one that is on your house plan -- floor
plan.
lot
MR. FOX: Right. That's correct. The
surveyor just did those changes to the plan
yesterday. I actually have them on me. I
could provide those to you, if it would be
of help. If you want us to bring in a full
size set of plans so you can clearly see
what we're doing, I can just give that to
you at that point as well.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, we're
going to need six copies. Every Board
members needs to get one.
MR. FOX: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And the office,
of course.
MR. FOX: I have ten copies with -- on
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 140
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
me.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
look. Why don't you hand
MR. FOX: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
needs to leave now.
to Fishers Island.
commute, and he has no
ferry schedule.
MR.
footprint
bump-out on the north side
Let's take a
them out.
yet.
If that is overhanging --
MR. FOX: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
them you want your money
to do it correctly.
MR. FOX:
Well, we haven't paid them
CHAIRPERSON
You should tell
back. Tell them
WEISMAN: Okay. Let me
FOX: Okay. This is a revised
dated 2/29/12. It shows the
of the --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, that's not
the bump-out. It's not here. Shouldn't it
be on the house right over here some place?
It's not on here. Because they're going to
measure the setback from the second floor.
Member Horning
He has to take a ferry
He has a very long
control over the
March 1, 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
se, is there anyone in the audience who
would like to address this application?
MS. CHRISTIANSON: Hi, I am the close
neighbor to the south --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: State your name,
please?
MS. CHRISTIANSON: Oh, I'm sorry.
Barbara Christianson, spelled like son of a
Christian. I am sorry, I am not going to a
Halloween party but I am teaching boating
safety for the kids at the Peconic Rec
Center in a few minutes. I just want to
say that we're thrilled with their plans.
We have owned a property. Our family has
owned the property to the south of where
they live since the late 40's. I noticed
that Barbara, that you talk about across
the street, and watch that grow from a
potato farm to what it is today. We're
thrilled with the way they're treating
their home and the way it's going to be
updated and look great. I honestly think
it's not going to make any difference from
the road at all. Being the closest
neighbor, we have no problems with their
March 1, 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
plans.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: As you are
facing it from the street, are you to the
right or the left?
MS. CHRISTIANSON: I am to the left.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MR. NIEMANN: So you wanted an updated
all the plans still?
MEMBER DINIZIO: We're looking at what
you just gave us, you need to put the
distance between the tank and the building.
And the bump-out --
of
MR. FOX: On the north side, right.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You have to put that
in there and what that is. And I guess
that is all. The patio is not covered;
right?
MR. NIEMANN: No.
MEMBER DINIZIO: The existing deck --
MR. FOX: You are talking about the
current or the proposed?
MEMBER DINIZIO: You are going to make
it a porch?
MR. FOX: We're going to make it a
porch, right.
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 143
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 DINIZIO: It's going to be cut?
MR. FOX: The lower level, is going to
be cut. That's correct.
giving us
need. Do
MR.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We should have
existing and proposed --
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The survey is
information but not the stuff
you understand?
NIEMANN: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We're just
trying to make sure we understand the
proposal accurately, completely and we
the documentation. When we make a
decision,
as
we
have
not
if we approve a decision, we
drawings as approved, and
goes to the Building
stamp those
that's what
Department. And that is what it will allow
you to do. So if it's not correct, then
you're going to build what you intend
to build. So it's real important --
MR. FOX: So what would you recommend
far as --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If
the layout, like
you change
the garage has no
March 1, 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
habitable space above it. We just need the
updated stuff.
MR. FOX: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
else who wants to speak?
MR. FOX: Can I give this information
to you within the next couple of days?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Absolutely.
What I think we should probably do, just to
make sure we are all on the same page, is
request this information from you. Does
the Board want to adjourn to the next
month, and see when we get the stuff, if
there
that?
is any questions?
MR. FOX: Is there any way not to do
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, yeah, if
the Board wants to make a decision to close
the hearing today subject to this
information. It doesn't give us an
opportunity to ask you questions, if we
have them. Once the hearing is closed,
that's it. Whichever it is that we
requested of you.
MR. FOX: Right.
March ~, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 145
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON
WEISMAN: I don't
feel? Would that
know.
to
FOX: Make it a little bit
MR.
smaller?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Make it 10 feet. In
other words, how would you --
MR. NIEMANN: We don't want it to look
boxy. It's nice to have a little
misdirection in the side walls
have a little space like that.
really don't
when you
How does the Board
suffice?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We
know and that's the problem.
MR. FOX: Let me approach the --
Cheryl and Patricia, they're renting a
space as we speak right now. So it's
incumbent upon us to hopefully get this
done as quickly as possible. So we can get
them back into the house. So if we could
all avoid coming back, you know, whatever
the scheduled meeting is for April, you
know, that would be great. We would
appreciate it.
MEMBER DINIZIO: What about
eliminating the bump-out?
March 1, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER DINIZIO: (In Audible).
{Not near a microphone.)
MR. NIEMANN: We can probably make
that kind of a change.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Then we can probably
close the hearing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry, just made
a suggestion. Let's do this. Let's get the
information. We will hold this hearing open
until our special meeting in two weeks. By
that time, we will have information from
you. We will have a chance to look at it.
If we have no questions, we will just close
it at that date.
we will be in a
have not closed
is probably a good
can't even get you
totally loaded.
MR. FOX:
CHAIRPERSON
accommodate you.
MR. FOX: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
close down and not get an
If we have questions, then
position to ask, because we
the record. So I think that
compromise, because we
on for April. We're
We would have to go to May.
That would be great.
WEISMAN: We will try and
We don't want
opportunity to
to
March 1, 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
make it right either. How does that sound,
Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken, does that
work for you?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That's fine with
me.
MEMBER DINIZIO: (In Audible.)
(Whereupon, the tape jumped.)
MEMBER DINIZIO: That is why you give
us all the measurements, the most extreme,
then we can make a decision.
MR. FOX: So you want us to, not
eliminate necessarily the bump-out on the
north side, just to make it a little bit
smaller, a few feet, if you will. And also
the other side, we can pull the garage,
again, towards that north side lot line?
MEMBER DINIZIO: You know --
MR. FOX: We can do it within a foot
but anything beyond that, we're going to
run into problems with the Board of Health.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You know, instead of
9.7, another 5 inches --
MR. FOX: I guess all we can say is
March 1, 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
that we will get it as close as possible
without then getting involved with issues
with the Health Department.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What would also
help in addition to the actual plans to,
and so, as we just discussed, is a letter
from you, summarizing any -- we didn't see
it in the application, coming out of the
hearing, fine, but it would be good if you,
as a professional, describe to us the
structural reasons, the Health Department
reasons, as to why nonconformity is
required, if indeed it is. If may be
conforming, then that is even better. If
it can't, then we need to understand why.
MR. FOX: Okay. If we make the
it conforming, you
that letter?
can't make it
right?
You still
remaining.
adjustments to make
don't need us to do
MEMBER DINIZIO: You
conforming.
MR. FOX: You can't,
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
bulkhead setback, that is
They're not mathematically
have a
substantial, you
March 1, 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
know, really big but --
MR. NIEMANN: The setback that you are
requesting from the corner of the porch to
the property line, can that also be on the
proposed plot plan or does that have to be
done by the surveyor? Because obviously,
there is mistakes being made?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You know, you
are the one that has been here. You are
the one who has heard what we need, and see
where the information is a little mirky and
confusing. You have a license. You can
provide all these required information on a
plot plan or site plan, whatever you want
to call it. In scale and large enough so
we can read it. We want to see what is
existing, and we want to see what is
proposed. And where it is not conforming,
we want to have reasons why it can not be
made to conform.
MR. NIEMANN: Okay.
MR. FOX: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Does that make
sense?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And we ensure you
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 150
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that you will not have a problem in the
construction of this property, or almost
assure, assuming that is the situation and
this comes with the plans.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And we're going
to get updated floor plans too?
MR. NIEMANN: Sure everything.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
else that has any additional questions or
comments that they would like to make?
MR. FOX: Sure. You had mentioned
about the special meeting between now and
the next scheduled meeting in April, two
weeks from tonight?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We will be
meeting in the Town Hall Annex, conference
room, where we deliberate our decisions,
and we deliberate in public. We will at
that time, assuming -- the sooner we get
them the better, it gives us more time to
study them.
MR. FOX: Certainly.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We won't have a
draft decision that night. What we would
be looking at, is to close the hearing on
March 1, 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
that date, because we don't have additional
questions. If we have additional questions,
we can get answers from you, because the
hearing is open, and then we can close -- I
would imagine the worse case scenario, to
close at the April 5th. That would be the
latest, I would imagine that we could close
it. We could also have a decision on
April 5th. That would be the earliest we
could have a decision. To close it two
weeks from today, then we have two weeks to
write out a draft decision, and then we
will be deliberating in this room on
April 5th.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just be
we do not normally take testimony at
special meeting, okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We never
testimony at that special meeting.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You eluded
fact that if we had any questions.
aware that
that
take
to the
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, we can
write them or have Vicki ask.
MR. FOX: We will just get you the
updated plans for the structure, as well
as
March 1, 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
just a larger version of the setbacks, that
are more easily read.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The reason why I
am asking for something in writing from you
is simple, we have a transcript but that
transcript goes out -- I am sorry, we have
a tape, which is required -- it takes a
long time for them to get them back.
MR. FOX: Ail right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We don't want to
delay this in order to check back the
record today waiting for the transcript.
If you provide them to us in a summary of
what was heard today, then we're just going
to be able to do it faster.
MR. FOX: I just wanted to clarify one
thing. So Kirk can give you the
information on Sheer Walls, as to the
support and large opening, too much support
on either side of it, and the Health
Department, you just want us to get
something from -- some sort of document
that shows the recommendation is 10 feet
and would allow a minimum of 5? Is that
satisfactory?
March 1, 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
see
to see
code?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We just need to
the setbacks.
MR. FOX: Okay. I thought you wanted
something that that is actually
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, it would be
good for you to explain that it is there,
and it is too expensive to be remove --
MR. FOX: And Patricia just told me
it's a little less than two years old.
Essentially brand new.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The point is, we
need to have reasons in our decision. And
the more substance, you can give us, the
better it would be to write the decision.
MR. FOX: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is what all
public hearings are for, to gather
information. So if you can provide us with
some additional facts, we can provide them
in the public record.
MR. FOX: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Anything else?
I am going to
March 1, 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
make a motion to adjourn this hearing to
the special meeting, which is March 15th,
at which time, we will -- prior to that
have received information to -- that we
have discussed several times.
MR. FOX: So what time is that on
March 15th.
o'clock.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We begin at 5:00
We may have Executive Session
prior to the beginning of deliberations,
meaning, we will have an agenda and you
will certainly be able to get it. It's
also posted on our website.
Is there a second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: in favor?
MEMBER
MEMBER
MEMBER
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
Ail
GOEHRINGER: Aye.
DINIZIO: Aye.
SCHNEIDER: Aye.
HEARING #6540 - WILLIAM C. GOGGINS
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for William
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 155
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C. Goggins, #6540. Request for variance
from Article X Section 280-45 and the
Building Inspector's December 22, 2011,
amended January 9, 2012 Notice of
Disapproval based on an application for
building permit to convert a dwelling to
multiple dwelling units (3) at: 1) one unit
at less than the code required minimum of
850 square feet, located at: 13200 Main
Road in Mattituck.
Mr. Goggins, we need green cards. We
need the pink slips.
MR. GOGGINS: Good afternoon, Members
of the Board. I just submitted the
affidavit of posting and mailing. The
affidavit of mailing has all the slips. Ail
the green cards came back, except for two.
I called Mr. Hamilton and he came in and
signed the card. The only person who didn't
get his was Mr. Orielis (phenetic) across
the street. I have not spoken to him about
the application but I am meeting with him
next week on a separate matter.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you just for
the record, state your name for the
March 1, 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
transcription, please?
MR. GOGGINS: William C. Goggins,
13235 Main Road, Mattituck, New York, for
the petitioner, applicant.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We sent a
request to the Planning Board for comments.
Do you have a copy of that letter?
MR. GOGGINS: No, I do not.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me give it
to you. It's a letter to the Board,
essentially. That it is zoned Hamlet
Business, Hamlet Center, where the proposed
use of multiple dwellings is consistent
with Town Code and Town Comprehensive Plan
and so on and so forth.
MR. GOGGINS: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken, do you want
to ask some questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You have to go
through site plan approval. You have one
apartment at 686.3 square feet, and do you
want to talk a little bit about that?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, I think it's
486.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: 486. What did I
March ~, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 157
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
say?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 686.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Wishful thinking.
Can you talk a little bit about that?
MR. GOGGINS: Sure. Just to give a
little bit of background. This building --
when I first looked at the code, the
apartments are usually a minimum of 450,
maximum 750 square feet. So when I
initially went to the Building Department
it was going to be owner/occupied, and you
can have two accessory apartments there.
It would have been conforming. I wouldn't
have had to do anything, but I am not going
to live there, and owner/occupied, that
would mean that I would have to
specifically live there, not someone from
my family or so forth. That wasn't the way
to go. So I had to figure out a different
way and then I researched the code, and I
have to do it under a local dwelling. In
order to make at least two of three
apartments conforming, we would have to
close the porch that is on the structure
So the application is for two
now .
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 158
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
conforming apartments at 450 square feet,
and one nonconforming, which is 486.3
square feet. And that is the application
that we have today for a variance. It's
It's an
it was built
It's in a Hamlet
for a sanitary flow credit.
existing structure. I think
some time before 1920's.
Business Zone. So it's all permitted, but
because of the size of the structure, we
don't have enough gallons per
requires 600 galloons per day
acreage is .23 acres or .31 acres.
don't have that. So we applied to
Board for a sanitary flow credit,
them, which will give us what we
the Health Department. We
made an application to the
Department with the same
the key to
in this
day. It
because the
We
the
two of
need for
have already
Health
information. So
having multiple dwellings here,
variance application. With the
substandard apartment. And also, at the
same time we made an application to the
Planning Board. I met with them, and thank
you for that letter. They're for it. I
also made an application to the Town Board
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 159
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sanitary flow credit, with the Planning
Board being for this application, it really
comes down to this variance. I make this --
this is my third building that I am doing
on the main road. Actually, my fourth, but
the first one is very minor. When I do
I have a two-step analysis.
is, can I make money over
which is renovate, rent and
years, it can turn into
do it in such a
these projects,
The first step
the long term,
hope within 15
profit? Can I
is good for
Mattituck. I
like seeing
way that it
the Town, as well? I am from
like coming into Mattituck.
good things happen. With 7-11,
what they did with the Dickinson's Marine,
a few buildings -- what Cardinelli has
done, Mattituck has changed drastically
over the last 20 years and it's nicer and
nicer. And I am going to do the same
thing with this building, if I get the
approval.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I want
just ask a couple of questions. Are these
units market rate?
MR.
GOGGINS: Yes, actually
they're.
to
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 160
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
Other then what the sanitary flow credit,
the Town Board indicated to me that they
were going to
approve them,
two out of the
subject to the
CHAIRPERSON
asking.
MR. GOGGINS:
bedrooms, will be
Basically, it
approve them. If they do
it's my understanding that
three apartments will be
affordable housing standard.
WEISMAN: That is why I am
have
rent for. It's a monthly
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
answered that question.
So with the two
at that standard.
is a level at which you can
rental.
Okay. So you
It's funny,
they are
dwelling,
dwelling,
a minimum,
apartment.
MR. GOGGINS:
CHAIRPERSON
are apartments.
and you may have
I am going to ask
repeat yourself.
kind of calling it a multi-family
which by virtue of the word
it's requires 850 square foot
whereas 450 is a minimum for
as
an
Correct.
WEISMAN: And these
I guess my question
really
is,
answered this already, but
it, so that you can
You could have made two
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 161
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
larger conforming
MR. GOGGINS:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
considered a dwelling?
MR. GOGGINS: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON
proposing to make
MR. GOGGINS:
CHAIRPERSON
again explain the
apartments?
Correct.
Which
would be
substandard size is being proposed when you
could just done two conforming apartments?
MR. GOGGINS: No. Whenever you do a
project, some projects take quicker then
others. If myself or anybody else is going
to go forward to make this building nice
and make it presentable to the Town, I am
asking in such a way that the project can
be made. As I said before, with the
estimate of how much work has to be done,
you know, with mortgage payments and so
forth, it would take about 15 years to
start earning a profit, with three
apartments. At two apartments, it would
not be feasible for this building to be
WEISMAN: Instead you're
three units?
Yes.
WEISMAN: Can you once
reason why this
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 162
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
developed. Even, if you would make it as
an office live-in apartment, it still
wouldn't be able to do it, because you
wouldn't have the parking because of the
size of the lot. So that is my reasons why
we couldn't put an office there. That
would require so many parking spaces per
square feet. And it just isn't there. So
it really limits what can be done.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right.
MR. GOGGINS: So that is why
we are
here asking for the variance. It's not
self creating, it's just what was there
prior. Back in the 1920's most people
resided on the main road.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right.
MR. GOGGINS: Now, things have changed
and the Town Board has said that the hamlet
can be used for offices, businesses and
multiple dwellings, and that is what this
is.
Ken?
make
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any
questions,
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: There is no way to
that other side apartment side any
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 163
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
larger?
MR. GOGGINS: No, we can't. Not with
the size of the building as it exist. We
would have to go outside the footprint. If
we go outside the footprint, there would be
a problem with the east side, and make it
possibly nonconforming, if it was expanded
on that side. On the west side, you
couldn't do it because that was the
driveway. And the driveway would be
15 feet, and a buffer of 4 feet. And you
couldn't go backwards, because that would
interfere with the parking. So it's a
tough building to develop, and that's why
we wouldn't have been able to do it.
MR.
credits,
only
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: You have to comply --
GOGGINS: With the sanitary flow
you have to comply. That is the
way to develop this building.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You can still have a
smaller apartment, that would make it less
costly too?
MR. GOGGINS: Yes.
looking for one bedroom,
Most people are
in relatively.
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 164
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 Town
There is
It's really the single parents that have a
child. And they're looking for the
two-bedroom. There aren't that many
like that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well,
very much supports rental
a real need.
certainly
granite counter tops. We do high end
appliances. In the building that we are in
now, we did the same thing. Carpeting and
tile, we try and make it nice. We try and
always make the apartments below market.
And basically what's the HUD standard is
what we charge for the two bedrooms because
it's a reasonable rate.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anything else?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anyone in the
audience that wishes to address this
application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Hearing
further comments, I will make a motion
no
MR. GOGGINS: Right. And we don't
make apartments. We make them nice,
just
people
units.
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 165
1
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
close this hearing and reserve
a later date.
MR. GOGGINS: Thank you.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by
Gerry.
All
in favor?
decision
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6544 - ROMA BARAN
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Request for
variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124
and the Building Inspector's
January 17, 2012 Notice of Disapproval
based on application for building permit to
construct a deck addition
to existing
single family dwelling: 1) less than the
code required minimum rear yard setback of
50 feet; located at: 395 Tuthill Road in
Southold.
Good afternoon.
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 166
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
MS.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
your name for the record?
ROMANELLI: Good afternoon.
Please state
MS. ROMANELLI: LeeAnn Romanelli.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. This
deck addition is a 25 foot rear yard
setback, when the code requires 50 feet.
MS. ROMANELLI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And our research
shows the application was built back in
1994 with a CO.
MS. ROMANELLI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So it's a
legally existing 32x14 rear deck. You want
to replace it in-kind with a 32x12 foot
rear deck?
MS. ROMANELLI: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What else would
you like to tell us?
MS. ROMANELLI: I mean, it was a
permitted, like you said, legal deck. It
has CO's. Roma Baran purchased the
property in 2003. You know, everything was
legal and it was all existing. And she
came to replace it, it's falling apart in
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 167
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
disrepair. So she is reducing the deck by
two feet. And I mean, I don't think she
has really adverse reaction from any of the
neighbors. It's in the rear of the yard.
It is not visible from the front, the
street. That's really it. I know it's
quite a variance but, like I said, it's an
existing approved, and she is actually
reducing the size of the deck.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We all went out
there and inspected the site and seen it.
There is no change that is being proposed
that way
to
correct?
MS. ROMANELLI: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Also,
pretty clear that the lot line is
irregular?
MS. ROMANELLI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That
from the survey.
MS. ROMANELLI: Yes.
WEISMAN: Ken,
the existing nonconforming setback;
CHAIRPERSON
any questions?
do you have
it is
pretty
appears
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The proposed
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
nonconforming
what is there
same?
MS.
two feet. The
is reducing it
feet.
CO,
MS.
nothing.
setback will be reduced from
already or is it just the
ROMANELLI: It is being reduced by
deck comes out 14 feet. She
to 12 feet, making it now 25
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And it's a previous
and the variance was for 25 feet also?
ROMANELLI: There was no variance,
back
with
the
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: They didn't need it
then.
MS. ROMANELLI: It was built in '94
a permit, and no variance required at
time the original deck was built.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I know you are
cutting the deck back by two feet but, that
is not going to change the current
nonconforming 25 foot rear yard setback; is
that correct?
MS. ROMANELLI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you
understand that, Ken? The setback is
remaining the same, but the deck is being
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 169
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
cut back by two feet.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And the
configuration is varying slightly. And
it's a reduction in square footage?
MS. ROMANELLI: Yes. Well, under
lot coverage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's a big lot.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Speaking of the lot
coverage and in looking at the application,
the applicant project description, building
the
area
.09%, I believe it should be 9%.
MS. ROMANELLI: Okay.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It's just a
technicality.
MS. ROMANELLI: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry, any
questions?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim, any
questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Nope.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There is no
else in the audience. So I am going to
make a motion to close this hearing and
reserve decision to a later date.
one
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 170
1
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 there a second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
(Whereupon, the public hearings for
March 1, 2012 concluded.)
March 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 171
1
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 DiLalto, certify that the
foregoing transcript of tape recorded
Public Hearings was prepared using required
electronic transcription equipment and is a
trUesignatu~~and accurate r~i of the Hearings.
Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York
11741
Date: March 23, 2012